None of this is verified BTW, it's second hand info from B&C forum but I personally believe it all. The FLG guys have said that the Iron Hands supplement is one of the strongest.
- The Iron Father gives units within 6 inches of him a 5+ invulnerable save.
- He automatically repairs 3 wounds on any vehicles once per turn
- A stratagem allows you to perform the repair action twice; another psychic power allows you to heal up to D3 wounds on any vehicles, meaning you can heal up to a maximum of 9 wounds on a vehicle of your choice.
-There is a way to turn a dreadnought into a character
The implications of some of these are pretty significant. Vehicles will be extremely durable, Dreadnoughts will be very effective as they can be made into characters (imagine this on a ranged Venerable Dread)
Ishagu wrote: None of this is verified BTW, it's second hand info from B&C forum but I personally believe it all. The FLG guys have said that the Iron Hands supplement is one of the strongest.
- The Iron Father gives units within 6 inches of him a 5+ invulnerable save.
- He automatically repairs 3 wounds on any vehicles once per turn
- A stratagem allows you to perform the repair action twice; another psychic power allows you to heal up to D3 wounds on any vehicles, meaning you can heal up to a maximum of 9 wounds on a vehicle of your choice.
-There is a way to turn a dreadnought into a character
The implications of some of these are pretty significant. Vehicles will be extremely durable, Dreadnoughts will be very effective as they can be made into characters (imagine this on a ranged Venerable Dread)
Or on an Ironclad that can now walk to melee range in relative safety.
It was originally posted in the Iron Hands FB group. The poster said he was "too excited" to remember any other details, but that we'll have the book "in a few weeks". Most people called BS.
Guys, I have news from the he guy who told me the right profil and price for the repulsor executioner: apparently the Black Templars would be in the first Psychic Awakening book and will be pretty strong. In addition, Imperial Fists rule would be +1D for heavy weapons against vehicles and buildings while in devastators doctrine.
godardc wrote: Guys, I have news from the he guy who told me the right profil and price for the repulsor executioner: apparently the Black Templars would be in the first Psychic Awakening book and will be pretty strong. In addition, Imperial Fists rule would be +1D for heavy weapons against vehicles and buildings while in devastators doctrine.
thats good but unless fists have some fantastic relics (and their relics have sucked since they got IF relics) and strats I'll proably prefer the ultramarines, but it'll be good for Imp Fists. I bet hellblasters with the heavy plasma option would be REAALLY popular after that
godardc wrote: Guys, I have news from the he guy who told me the right profil and price for the repulsor executioner: apparently the Black Templars would be in the first Psychic Awakening book and will be pretty strong. In addition, Imperial Fists rule would be +1D for heavy weapons against vehicles and buildings while in devastators doctrine.
+1 D against buildings is a joke. +1 D against vehicles is cool beans. Redemptor with 18 S5 AP -2 D2 during Devastator Doctrine? Ssssweeeeeet
godardc wrote: Guys, I have news from the he guy who told me the right profil and price for the repulsor executioner: apparently the Black Templars would be in the first Psychic Awakening book and will be pretty strong. In addition, Imperial Fists rule would be +1D for heavy weapons against vehicles and buildings while in devastators doctrine.
thats good but unless fists have some fantastic relics (and their relics have sucked since they got IF relics) and strats I'll proably prefer the ultramarines, but it'll be good for Imp Fists. I bet hellblasters with the heavy plasma option would be REAALLY popular after that
Good that has the potential to be downright broken if you build your list to abuse that buff.
My understanding of the playtesting roumer mill in terms of maximum OP to least.
Iron Hands
Imperial Fists
Ultramarines
Salamanders
Whitescars
Ravenguard?(Ithink they were just not being talked about but it's not a good sign for their power IMHO)
With latest roumers being it's now
Imperial Fists
Iron Hands
Ultramarines
Salamanders
Whitescars
And Ravenguard as sort of an unknown but again if no-one is talking about them its not a good sign for them being the meta way to play.
Ishagu wrote: None of this is verified BTW, it's second hand info from B&C forum but I personally believe it all. The FLG guys have said that the Iron Hands supplement is one of the strongest.
- The Iron Father gives units within 6 inches of him a 5+ invulnerable save.
- He automatically repairs 3 wounds on any vehicles once per turn
- A stratagem allows you to perform the repair action twice; another psychic power allows you to heal up to D3 wounds on any vehicles, meaning you can heal up to a maximum of 9 wounds on a vehicle of your choice.
-There is a way to turn a dreadnought into a character
The implications of some of these are pretty significant. Vehicles will be extremely durable, Dreadnoughts will be very effective as they can be made into characters (imagine this on a ranged Venerable Dread)
ASSUMING these are legit my thoughts:
A 6 inch aura of 5+ invuln for primaris is extremely good. A nice bubble like that will go a long way in protecting valuable aggressors, hellblasters and vehicles.
Auto repair 3 wounds and stratagems to repair twice pairs very well with vehicles and adds even further on top of the idea that you HAVE to 100% kill an Iron Hand vehicle to take it out of action. Not only is it going to double it's wound for the chart, effectively have 20% more wounds, it will also have a homeboy ready to crank out 6 wounds back onto it nice and shiny. A psychic power to repair could also be interesting, but depending on what the other powers are I'm not so sold.
A dreadnought character would be interesting, but I'm not convinced it will actually be all that great. Iron hands will likely be running vehicle heavy so it's not like you shut down anti vehicle fire by making one dreadnought a character. It's also only really going to matter on classic dreads due to targeting purposes which the best of (venerable) already ignores wounds on a 6 (wasting part of the tactic), and doesn't have a degrade table (wasting another part of the tactic). Now if we apply it to the Leviathan (which it really should not be able to be done on) then ok yeah now we are talking cash money. Now if we look further into FW options then yeah I can see the use of say a 1cp strat to buy an insurance policy for a valuable quad las dread or something, but that's about it. It's going to be stupid good if it works on leviathans and cool, but not amazing on other stuff. Furthermore even if you give it to a redemptor or something to give it a warlord trait or relic it's just a big "Shoot me in the face first" sign.
I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
Ishagu wrote: None of this is verified BTW, it's second hand info from B&C forum but I personally believe it all. The FLG guys have said that the Iron Hands supplement is one of the strongest.
- The Iron Father gives units within 6 inches of him a 5+ invulnerable save.
- He automatically repairs 3 wounds on any vehicles once per turn
- A stratagem allows you to perform the repair action twice; another psychic power allows you to heal up to D3 wounds on any vehicles, meaning you can heal up to a maximum of 9 wounds on a vehicle of your choice.
-There is a way to turn a dreadnought into a character
The implications of some of these are pretty significant. Vehicles will be extremely durable, Dreadnoughts will be very effective as they can be made into characters (imagine this on a ranged Venerable Dread)
ASSUMING these are legit my thoughts:
A 6 inch aura of 5+ invuln for primaris is extremely good. A nice bubble like that will go a long way in protecting valuable aggressors, hellblasters and vehicles.
Auto repair 3 wounds and stratagems to repair twice pairs very well with vehicles and adds even further on top of the idea that you HAVE to 100% kill an Iron Hand vehicle to take it out of action. Not only is it going to double it's wound for the chart, effectively have 20% more wounds, it will also have a homeboy ready to crank out 6 wounds back onto it nice and shiny. A psychic power to repair could also be interesting, but depending on what the other powers are I'm not so sold.
A dreadnought character would be interesting, but I'm not convinced it will actually be all that great. Iron hands will likely be running vehicle heavy so it's not like you shut down anti vehicle fire by making one dreadnought a character. It's also only really going to matter on classic dreads due to targeting purposes which the best of (venerable) already ignores wounds on a 6 (wasting part of the tactic), and doesn't have a degrade table (wasting another part of the tactic). Now if we apply it to the Leviathan (which it really should not be able to be done on) then ok yeah now we are talking cash money. Now if we look further into FW options then yeah I can see the use of say a 1cp strat to buy an insurance policy for a valuable quad las dread or something, but that's about it. It's going to be stupid good if it works on leviathans and cool, but not amazing on other stuff. Furthermore even if you give it to a redemptor or something to give it a warlord trait or relic it's just a big "Shoot me in the face first" sign.
Leviathan have 10 or more wounds and are therefore targetable even if they gain the character keyword. All it does is allow them to become your warlord, and gain a warlord trait. They should be smart enough to disallow relics, as they've already managed that for existing character dreadnoughts
godardc wrote: Guys, I have news from the he guy who told me the right profil and price for the repulsor executioner: apparently the Black Templars would be in the first Psychic Awakening book and will be pretty strong. In addition, Imperial Fists rule would be +1D for heavy weapons against vehicles and buildings while in devastators doctrine.
thats good but unless fists have some fantastic relics (and their relics have sucked since they got IF relics) and strats I'll proably prefer the ultramarines, but it'll be good for Imp Fists. I bet hellblasters with the heavy plasma option would be REAALLY popular after that
Good that has the potential to be downright broken if you build your list to abuse that buff.
.
yeah the annoying thing is it's yetr another rule that will cement the dominant of multishot heavy weapons while leaving single shot hig damage in the dust.
Marines have a problem with lots of single-shot high-damage weapons and lots of multi-shot low-damage weapons and not much in the middle. Suppressor Cannons, Centurion Missile Launchers, and Vindicator Cannons are about it. D+1 on heavies takes them to an embarrasment of riches there. Dakka mode Redemptors particularly.
Being able to just make a Dreadnaught (or two, depending on the strat) immune to most counter-AT fire is frankly a little silly.
...all the Sniper rifles are Heavy. That's slightly bonkers too.
Marines have a problem with lots of single-shot high-damage weapons and lots of multi-shot low-damage weapons and not much in the middle. Suppressor Cannons, Centurion Missile Launchers, and Vindicator Cannons are about it. D+1 on heavies takes them to an embarrasment of riches there. Dakka mode Redemptors particularly.
Being able to just make a Dreadnaught (or two, depending on the strat) immune to most counter-AT fire is frankly a little silly.
...all the Sniper rifles are Heavy. That's slightly bonkers too.
you'd be looking at Marine captains able to put out 4 damage shots. it is a little nuts yeah.
nekooni wrote: Leviathan have 10 or more wounds and are therefore targetable even if they gain the character keyword. All it does is allow them to become your warlord, and gain a warlord trait. They should be smart enough to disallow relics, as they've already managed that for existing character dreadnoughts
ahhh yes thank you for the correction. I somehow completely blew right past that.
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
I don't fault anyone their good stuff, but yeah, this. I read that and had to shake my head. I mean it makes sense, they are marines why wouldn't they be better techs than the ad mech. I mean it isn't like they learned their craft on Mars or anything...right ?
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
I don't fault anyone their good stuff, but yeah, this. I read that and had to shake my head. I mean it makes sense, they are marines why wouldn't they be better techs than the ad mech. I mean it isn't like they learned their craft on Mars or anything...right ?
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
I don't fault anyone their good stuff, but yeah, this. I read that and had to shake my head. I mean it makes sense, they are marines why wouldn't they be better techs than the ad mech. I mean it isn't like they learned their craft on Mars or anything...right ?
They had a similar bonus in 6th-7th but you didn't complain.
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
I don't fault anyone their good stuff, but yeah, this. I read that and had to shake my head. I mean it makes sense, they are marines why wouldn't they be better techs than the ad mech. I mean it isn't like they learned their craft on Mars or anything...right ?
isn't the Onager a lot SMALLER?
I'm not talking about the executioner, and if i was going to be mad about that I'd be mad it's like a leman russ shooting a neutron laster with longer range. I'm talking about the super heals, at the least I'd believe the ad mech should be better fixing machines than a tech marine, at the worst they would be on par, not worse than one.
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
I don't fault anyone their good stuff, but yeah, this. I read that and had to shake my head. I mean it makes sense, they are marines why wouldn't they be better techs than the ad mech. I mean it isn't like they learned their craft on Mars or anything...right ?
They had a similar bonus in 6th-7th but you didn't complain.
I was unaware they had this exact same codex, with all of these abilities at the exact same time the ad mech 8th codex was out back in 6th- 7th. Could it be I'm actually comparing the game state to now when both of them had very different books back then ?
Could it be perhaps I was playing Skittari at the time, which had 0 tech priests in it as even an option so why would I care of an ability someone else had I had 0 access to as the Skittari and the Cult mechanicus was split between two different books ? No, couldn't be that, it has to be me taking exception now in some weird way to be upset currently and not then, just so you could comment on it.
Over looking that, looking at the now, it's a little silly they are better techs than the tech faction. I'd assume a techmarine will be more robust in CC, not better in the fixing department. I'd even give the iron hands more robust vehicles as it seems like the ad mech like flimsy vehicles based on the ones they bring around.
Apparently a 6 to hit would be auto wound while in assault doctrine for BT according to the same guy. I guess we'll soon know if it's true.
Only in assault ofc
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
Price per model. The new rules are really good, but Marines still wind up outnumbered by a lot against the average army and they're still really fragile per point. They feel like they have the 'hammer' part of 'glass hammer' now, but the 'glass' part is still there too.
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
I don't fault anyone their good stuff, but yeah, this. I read that and had to shake my head. I mean it makes sense, they are marines why wouldn't they be better techs than the ad mech. I mean it isn't like they learned their craft on Mars or anything...right ?
isn't the Onager a lot SMALLER?
I'm not talking about the executioner, and if i was going to be mad about that I'd be mad it's like a leman russ shooting a neutron laster with longer range. I'm talking about the super heals, at the least I'd believe the ad mech should be better fixing machines than a tech marine, at the worst they would be on par, not worse than one.
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
I don't fault anyone their good stuff, but yeah, this. I read that and had to shake my head. I mean it makes sense, they are marines why wouldn't they be better techs than the ad mech. I mean it isn't like they learned their craft on Mars or anything...right ?
They had a similar bonus in 6th-7th but you didn't complain.
I was unaware they had this exact same codex, with all of these abilities at the exact same time the ad mech 8th codex was out back in 6th- 7th. Could it be I'm actually comparing the game state to now when both of them had very different books back then ?
Could it be perhaps I was playing Skittari at the time, which had 0 tech priests in it as even an option so why would I care of an ability someone else had I had 0 access to as the Skittari and the Cult mechanicus was split between two different books ? No, couldn't be that, it has to be me taking exception now in some weird way to be upset currently and not then, just so you could comment on it.
Over looking that, looking at the now, it's a little silly they are better techs than the tech faction. I'd assume a techmarine will be more robust in CC, not better in the fixing department. I'd even give the iron hands more robust vehicles as it seems like the ad mech like flimsy vehicles based on the ones they bring around.
I don't care. I played Skitarii too.
Did you bother to think of the repairs per price of model? Seems to make sense the Master of the Forge would do an okay job for the price?
Kanluwen wrote: And with silliness at its finest, the literal two items to round out the generic book's release got left out.
they'll come out with imperial fists and salamanders in a month.
Yeah, cause Imperial Fists and Salamanders are totally known for utilizing stealthier units...
Never mind that Raven Guard literally got mentioned as fielding all Phobos Companies.
it's all aprt of the generic space marines release. understand characters aside we are NOT going to get new models with the supplements aside from what GW's already previewed
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now? They have all codices combined at this point.
Price per model. The new rules are really good, but Marines still wind up outnumbered by a lot against the average army and they're still really fragile per point. They feel like they have the 'hammer' part of 'glass hammer' now, but the 'glass' part is still there too.
Marines are meant to be outnumbered, there are only 1 million across the galaxy. I would be weird if they played like guardsmen with an extra protein bar, and they seemed pretty close to reaching that point at times (12 point marines, scouts replacing tacticals). That being said, I do agree that marines have more than enough killing power while they lack durability and movement. I wonder if a 7" movement stat, a minimum advance of 2-3", or even new transports would help their movement in a balanced way (but I haven't played with implusors or the new drop pod rule). And I'm not sure what can be done for their durability. +1 wounds would be excessive even with the appropriate points hike. Other statline modifications wouldn't work and rerolling armor saves or adding a FNP would require too much die rolling. But I play DW, so my marines are meant to be glass cannons and maybe that disqualifies my thoughts.
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
I don't fault anyone their good stuff, but yeah, this. I read that and had to shake my head. I mean it makes sense, they are marines why wouldn't they be better techs than the ad mech. I mean it isn't like they learned their craft on Mars or anything...right ?
isn't the Onager a lot SMALLER?
I'm not talking about the executioner, and if i was going to be mad about that I'd be mad it's like a leman russ shooting a neutron laster with longer range. I'm talking about the super heals, at the least I'd believe the ad mech should be better fixing machines than a tech marine, at the worst they would be on par, not worse than one.
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
I don't fault anyone their good stuff, but yeah, this. I read that and had to shake my head. I mean it makes sense, they are marines why wouldn't they be better techs than the ad mech. I mean it isn't like they learned their craft on Mars or anything...right ?
They had a similar bonus in 6th-7th but you didn't complain.
I was unaware they had this exact same codex, with all of these abilities at the exact same time the ad mech 8th codex was out back in 6th- 7th. Could it be I'm actually comparing the game state to now when both of them had very different books back then ?
Could it be perhaps I was playing Skittari at the time, which had 0 tech priests in it as even an option so why would I care of an ability someone else had I had 0 access to as the Skittari and the Cult mechanicus was split between two different books ? No, couldn't be that, it has to be me taking exception now in some weird way to be upset currently and not then, just so you could comment on it.
Over looking that, looking at the now, it's a little silly they are better techs than the tech faction. I'd assume a techmarine will be more robust in CC, not better in the fixing department. I'd even give the iron hands more robust vehicles as it seems like the ad mech like flimsy vehicles based on the ones they bring around.
I don't care. I played Skitarii too.
Did you bother to think of the repairs per price of model? Seems to make sense the Master of the Forge would do an okay job for the price?
I'm not exactly sure what you want to bicker about. I'll take a stab you just don't like I take issue with a forge father being a better mechanic than all the ad mechs mechanics. That's just too bad if that is the case, as I do take issue with it anyways. Him being better at that, bugs me. Having lesser, cheaper mechanics would only make me feel ok with it, if those self same lesser heals could be applied to the same vehicle, but they can't. I don't care if you feel like a forge father should be better because he's a mighty space man or not. Even if the mighty space man was better than a tech priest, why more so than a dominus who isn't exactly cheap, or even Cawl who made all the space mans new things, including new bodies of primaris dudes. That to me, sucks. If he was just " ok " that would be fine and exactly like I'd imagine, like maybe as good as a tech marine, with better options, like his shoulder gun for instance and better stats which I'm sure he has for his price.
Now I'll say again, I fault no one their new cool things. I just don't like super mans being better mechanics than the mechanics when I expect him to be more robust and better at CC, as he should be.
But aren't forge father not just mechancis, they are super mechanics. Plus specialisation helps with what you can do. my step brother is good at fixing cars, but mostly hondas,hyundais and toyotas. If you brought him a tank to fix, he wouldn't know what to do at first. A tech priest knows how to fix and operate everything imperial, a space marine techmarine is very good at fixing space marine stuff and that is it. bring him a toaster to fix, and he won't know what to do.
Karol wrote: But aren't forge father not just mechancis, they are super mechanics. Plus specialisation helps with what you can do. my step brother is good at fixing cars, but mostly hondas,hyundais and toyotas. If you brought him a tank to fix, he wouldn't know what to do at first. A tech priest knows how to fix and operate everything imperial, a space marine techmarine is very good at fixing space marine stuff and that is it. bring him a toaster to fix, and he won't know what to do.
A tech priest is also able to build a space marine vehicle and likely has access to nearly all the knowledge on it, assuming it's not a relic.
Karol wrote: But aren't forge father not just mechancis, they are super mechanics. Plus specialisation helps with what you can do. my step brother is good at fixing cars, but mostly hondas,hyundais and toyotas. If you brought him a tank to fix, he wouldn't know what to do at first. A tech priest knows how to fix and operate everything imperial, a space marine techmarine is very good at fixing space marine stuff and that is it. bring him a toaster to fix, and he won't know what to do.
They'd be specialized but then who do you think makes all the vehicles ? The mechanicus, so while I'd believe some tech priests may not do as well. A dominus probably has much of his mind repalced with computers so shouldn't be worse than a forge father having extensive tech knowledge for all the designs they produce and then some, and considering Cawl invented their new techno toys you'd imagine he'd be much better at it.
They make their own vehicles. It is in their lore, Iron Hands and salamanders, if they weren't space marines or had a bigger population to rule over, would have forge world status.
Karol wrote: But aren't forge father not just mechancis, they are super mechanics. Plus specialisation helps with what you can do. my step brother is good at fixing cars, but mostly hondas,hyundais and toyotas. If you brought him a tank to fix, he wouldn't know what to do at first. A tech priest knows how to fix and operate everything imperial, a space marine techmarine is very good at fixing space marine stuff and that is it. bring him a toaster to fix, and he won't know what to do.
A tech priest is also able to build a space marine vehicle and likely has access to nearly all the knowledge on it, assuming it's not a relic.
But it is impossible to represent in the rules. a FF has to be super good at fixing marine stuff, and that is what he is in the game rules. A tech priest is a NPC faction, with an old book, so he gets not as efficient rules.
Karol wrote: They make their own vehicles. It is in their lore, Iron Hands and salamanders, if they weren't space marines or had a bigger population to rule over, would have forge world status.
Not really seeing as they just need to create and maintain the vehicles, fleet and weapons of their own chapter. That assumes they're doing it by themselves with no outside help. I don't have my codex on hand at the moment but I believe agripinaa was supplying Cadia almost by itself for periods of time and then managed to take the forces spilling out of the eye of terror after Cadia's fall.
Karol wrote: But aren't forge father not just mechancis, they are super mechanics. Plus specialisation helps with what you can do. my step brother is good at fixing cars, but mostly hondas,hyundais and toyotas. If you brought him a tank to fix, he wouldn't know what to do at first. A tech priest knows how to fix and operate everything imperial, a space marine techmarine is very good at fixing space marine stuff and that is it. bring him a toaster to fix, and he won't know what to do.
A tech priest is also able to build a space marine vehicle and likely has access to nearly all the knowledge on it, assuming it's not a relic.
But it is impossible to represent in the rules. a FF has to be super good at fixing marine stuff, and that is what he is in the game rules. A tech priest is a NPC faction, with an old book, so he gets not as efficient rules.
And GK are an NPC faction that only actually do stuff in the extremely rare occurrence that a daemon invasion is about to go critical. They also have an old book. This is fun.
Wait, why does a FF have to be super good fixing marine stuff ? A FF has to fix marine stuff, but super good at it ? More good than the inventor of said marine stuff ? More good than the also very old tech priests who run forge worlds and pump out those same machines by the thousands for feeding all the space mans their toys ?
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
Probably not, space marines are getting overbuffed. They are doing everything better than everyone else.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Wait, why does a FF have to be super good fixing marine stuff ? A FF has to fix marine stuff, but super good at it ? More good than the inventor of said marine stuff ? More good than the also very old tech priests who run forge worlds and pump out those same machines by the thousands for feeding all the space mans their toys ?
What kind of strange logic is this ?
Inventor? They use STC's! They're giant factories pre-programmed to build things! A standard Tech Priest is lubing parts, not inventing things. And even the ones that hit the battlefield we have are the generalists and not Artisans given they're meant to represent battle congregation leaders.
Though I'm hoping we'll eventually get all the aspects of Mechanicus in so that the various aspects of it can be represented.. You'd think we'd get some difference between the Artisans and Biologis, but they've been really slow on expanding out 40k Mechanicus.. Mostly just want the Constructor/Artisans so we can have huge buffs to Servitors and Vehicles on the battlefield.
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
Probably not, space marines are getting overbuffed. They are doing everything better than everyone else.
*Agitated bitter grumblings in iron warrior, followed by a shovel snapped in half and angry metal fist tentacle shaking.
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now ? They have all codices combined at this point.
Probably not, space marines are getting overbuffed. They are doing everything better than everyone else.
*Agitated bitter grumblings in iron warrior, followed by a shovel snapped in half and angry metal fist tentacle shaking.
Sorry, but that reaction does seem extremely fluff appropriate
And GK are an NPC faction that only actually do stuff in the extremely rare occurrence that a daemon invasion is about to go critical. They also have an old book.
This is fun.
GK are a space marine faction, that automaticaly makes them a not NPC faction.
Not really seeing as they just need to create and maintain the vehicles, fleet and weapons of their own chapter. That assumes they're doing it by themselves with no outside help. I don't have my codex on hand at the moment but I believe agripinaa was supplying Cadia almost by itself for periods of time and then managed to take the forces spilling out of the eye of terror after Cadia's fall.
Am not sure I am following you, space marines specially those fleet based create and fix their stuff on their own. Or they are like Grey Knights that have a small forge hive as their slave, to produce stuff like space ships . The more arcane stuff, like GK specific armour, weapons, tanks are done by chapter techmarines. Now realisticaly, the job is huge and to do it GK would have to have litteral legions of techmarines, but I think this is the case of that magic being at work, where a squad of marines can take a planet, and a company of space marine can take over a whole system, and a chapter of 1000 man can rule a whole sector.
And GK are an NPC faction that only actually do stuff in the extremely rare occurrence that a daemon invasion is about to go critical. They also have an old book.
This is fun.
GK are a space marine faction, that automaticaly makes them a not NPC faction.
Not really seeing as they just need to create and maintain the vehicles, fleet and weapons of their own chapter. That assumes they're doing it by themselves with no outside help. I don't have my codex on hand at the moment but I believe agripinaa was supplying Cadia almost by itself for periods of time and then managed to take the forces spilling out of the eye of terror after Cadia's fall.
Am not sure I am following you, space marines specially those fleet based create and fix their stuff on their own. Or they are like Grey Knights that have a small forge hive as their slave, to produce stuff like space ships . The more arcane stuff, like GK specific armour, weapons, tanks are done by chapter techmarines. Now realisticaly, the job is huge and to do it GK would have to have litteral legions of techmarines, but I think this is the case of that magic being at work, where a squad of marines can take a planet, and a company of space marine can take over a whole system, and a chapter of 1000 man can rule a whole sector.
Actually there's a forge world exclusively for GK. And how would there be legions of GK techmarines if they also all had to be psykers?
Kanluwen wrote: And with silliness at its finest, the literal two items to round out the generic book's release got left out.
they'll come out with imperial fists and salamanders in a month.
Yeah, cause Imperial Fists and Salamanders are totally known for utilizing stealthier units...
Never mind that Raven Guard literally got mentioned as fielding all Phobos Companies.
it's all aprt of the generic space marines release. understand characters aside we are NOT going to get new models with the supplements aside from what GW's already previewed
I think either you're misunderstanding my comment or you just typed a thing to type a thing.
The first Supplement we saw released? You'd be right--it was Tigurius, Khan, dice for both Ultramarines and White Scars, datacards, supplements, and the main codex. There was no generic models.
This release, however, has seen two of the remaining four generic releases: the Reiver Lieutenant and Eliminators set.
So we literally have to wait for another release slot just to get the Infiltrator/Incursor kit and the Impulsor.
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now? They have all codices combined at this point.
Price per model. The new rules are really good, but Marines still wind up outnumbered by a lot against the average army and they're still really fragile per point. They feel like they have the 'hammer' part of 'glass hammer' now, but the 'glass' part is still there too.
Marines are meant to be outnumbered, there are only 1 million across the galaxy. I would be weird if they played like guardsmen with an extra protein bar, and they seemed pretty close to reaching that point at times (12 point marines, scouts replacing tacticals). That being said, I do agree that marines have more than enough killing power while they lack durability and movement.
I wonder if a 7" movement stat, a minimum advance of 2-3", or even new transports would help their movement in a balanced way (but I haven't played with implusors or the new drop pod rule). And I'm not sure what can be done for their durability. +1 wounds would be excessive even with the appropriate points hike. Other statline modifications wouldn't work and rerolling armor saves or adding a FNP would require too much die rolling.
But I play DW, so my marines are meant to be glass cannons and maybe that disqualifies my thoughts.
"Marines are meant to be outnumbered." - True. That's part of why they have such powerful leaf-blower units (and saying that feels weird). Mini-marines struggle there but the Primaris stuff does a lot to pick up the slack.
"Marines lack movement and durability." - Durability yes, movement not so much. I've got turn-one drop-pods, a ton of Advanced Deploy options in Phobos, Phobos can redeploy once they know what the enemy deployment looks like, Ultramarines can do that with normal units, UMs can move anything and fire without penalties, White Scars can do the Assault Vehicle thing out of anything besides a Stormraven, there's good troop options with Assault X weapons and WS can charge after advancing so they're a lot faster than you might be expecting them to be, it doesn't feel like Marines are suffering as much as they used to be there.
I really love how they traded Gman reliance for Ironfather reliance.
DA have had that for a while and they're not exactly tearing up the tournament scene.
Yea, it's quite a tight bubble. If this guy gives 5++ to Repulsors and the like I can see it becoming a pseudo-requirement.
Absolutely a requirement. I play with basically my entire force in a 6" reroll bubble. Not difficult at all to protect a few executioners that you will be standing next to trying to repair anyways.
It is really disappointing this bubble is an iron hands special character. It's actually dumb. It makes already mandatory iron hands more mandatory.
Yea, it's quite a tight bubble. If this guy gives 5++ to Repulsors and the like I can see it becoming a pseudo-requirement.
Absolutely a requirement. I play with basically my entire force in a 6" reroll bubble. Not difficult at all to protect a few executioners that you will be standing next to trying to repair anyways.
It is really disappointing this bubble is an iron hands special character. It's actually dumb. It makes already mandatory iron hands more mandatory.
It's possible it won't affect vehicles like DA - we'll know soon enough.
The whole bubble gak makes me wish the era of template blasts back.
The fact that it's a special character and not a "Khan on a Bike" generic is very much a disappointment, but that has everything to do with local meta for me. We pretty much all agree to not play the special characters since so many of them break game balance over their knee like so much Batman.
The Newman wrote: The fact that it's a special character and not a "Khan on a Bike" generic is very much a disappointment, but that has everything to do with local meta for me. We pretty much all agree to not play the special characters since so many of them break game balance over their knee like so much Batman.
you don't need special charachters though to break balance.
Infact most of them are fine in most cases.
Just like most units don't break game balance.
The Newman wrote: The fact that it's a special character and not a "Khan on a Bike" generic is very much a disappointment, but that has everything to do with local meta for me. We pretty much all agree to not play the special characters since so many of them break game balance over their knee like so much Batman.
No special characters is a really bad rule to adopt. Many armies require special characters to function.
The Newman wrote: The fact that it's a special character and not a "Khan on a Bike" generic is very much a disappointment, but that has everything to do with local meta for me. We pretty much all agree to not play the special characters since so many of them break game balance over their knee like so much Batman.
No special characters is a really bad rule to adopt. Many armies require special characters to function.
Agreed that smacks of trying to screw over factions in favour of those with vast numbers of options.........
The Newman wrote: The fact that it's a special character and not a "Khan on a Bike" generic is very much a disappointment, but that has everything to do with local meta for me. We pretty much all agree to not play the special characters since so many of them break game balance over their knee like so much Batman.
No special characters is a really bad rule to adopt. Many armies require special characters to function.
Name three.
(That's a legitimate question, nobody around here seems to care.)
The Newman wrote: The fact that it's a special character and not a "Khan on a Bike" generic is very much a disappointment, but that has everything to do with local meta for me. We pretty much all agree to not play the special characters since so many of them break game balance over their knee like so much Batman.
The Newman wrote: The fact that it's a special character and not a "Khan on a Bike" generic is very much a disappointment, but that has everything to do with local meta for me. We pretty much all agree to not play the special characters since so many of them break game balance over their knee like so much Batman.
No special characters is a really bad rule to adopt. Many armies require special characters to function.
Name three.
(That's a legitimate question, nobody around here seems to care.)
Well for example you literally can't play Ynnari without a special character.
Armies like Ultramarines are particularly bad options without their special characters. (you basically play without a chapter tactic for the ability to use good special characters).
Mono Custodes - no Trajen? Why?
Do you allow units like the Solitaire?
Heck in many cases special characters are a lot worse than the generic HQ's like with Orks and dark eldar.
The Newman wrote: The fact that it's a special character and not a "Khan on a Bike" generic is very much a disappointment, but that has everything to do with local meta for me. We pretty much all agree to not play the special characters since so many of them break game balance over their knee like so much Batman.
No special characters is a really bad rule to adopt. Many armies require special characters to function.
Name three.
(That's a legitimate question, nobody around here seems to care.)
The Newman wrote: The fact that it's a special character and not a "Khan on a Bike" generic is very much a disappointment, but that has everything to do with local meta for me. We pretty much all agree to not play the special characters since so many of them break game balance over their knee like so much Batman.
But a castellan or knight spam is ok?
Yes, and perfectly healthy for the game.
Just like the removal of templates.
The Newman wrote: The fact that it's a special character and not a "Khan on a Bike" generic is very much a disappointment, but that has everything to do with local meta for me. We pretty much all agree to not play the special characters since so many of them break game balance over their knee like so much Batman.
But a castellan or knight spam is ok?
We have only one player locally who even owns Knights and he doesn't bring them unless someone asks because "I want to play a game, not club seals."
Can we take a moment to appreicate that strategem is the most Iron Hands thing ever?
SUCCESS! NOW DO IT AGAIN EXACTLY THE SAME AS BEFORE!
But we already took that hill, my lord...
DO IT AGAIN!
OMG...Ignore penalties for heavies...on turn 1...in the best doctrine...and if that isn't enough - you also get to reroll 1's to hit for free....Can I just slap these rule writers now? Iron Hands bias is just silly.
This is so much better than sions of guilliman it's hilarious.
Can we take a moment to appreicate that strategem is the most Iron Hands thing ever?
SUCCESS! NOW DO IT AGAIN EXACTLY THE SAME AS BEFORE!
But we already took that hill, my lord...
DO IT AGAIN!
OMG...Ignore penalties for heavies...on turn 1...in the best doctrine...and if that isn't enough - you also get to reroll 1's to hit for free....Can I just slap these rule writers now? Iron Hands bias is just silly.
This is so much better than sions of guilliman it's hilarious.
Are we really going to do this all over again every codex? (pls no)
Can we take a moment to appreicate that strategem is the most Iron Hands thing ever?
SUCCESS! NOW DO IT AGAIN EXACTLY THE SAME AS BEFORE!
But we already took that hill, my lord...
DO IT AGAIN!
OMG...Ignore penalties for heavies...on turn 1...in the best doctrine...and if that isn't enough - you also get to reroll 1's to hit for free....Can I just slap these rule writers now? Iron Hands bias is just silly.
This is so much better than sions of guilliman it's hilarious.
Are we really going to do this all over again every codex? (pls no)
Well I know this isn't what you mean but literally every codex is going to be better than the last so yes. We will be doing this every codex. This is codex 8.5 - a spitting image of 7.5 releases. All the way to 9th eddition.
Wow these look good. If you don't have LOS blocking terrain on the table and IH go first, you might as well just pick up your army. And IH drop pod Dev squads on turn one will be super deadly. I agree with some of the posters above that many times the community over reacts to power levels with "the sky is falling" comments before anyone has played a game, but I think you are going to see a TON of IH armies now, even competitively.
Kanluwen wrote: And with silliness at its finest, the literal two items to round out the generic book's release got left out.
they'll come out with imperial fists and salamanders in a month.
Yeah, cause Imperial Fists and Salamanders are totally known for utilizing stealthier units...
Never mind that Raven Guard literally got mentioned as fielding all Phobos Companies.
it's all aprt of the generic space marines release. understand characters aside we are NOT going to get new models with the supplements aside from what GW's already previewed
I think either you're misunderstanding my comment or you just typed a thing to type a thing.
The first Supplement we saw released? You'd be right--it was Tigurius, Khan, dice for both Ultramarines and White Scars, datacards, supplements, and the main codex. There was no generic models.
This release, however, has seen two of the remaining four generic releases: the Reiver Lieutenant and Eliminators set.
So we literally have to wait for another release slot just to get the Infiltrator/Incursor kit and the Impulsor.
Nope. First supplements released the invictor war suit, phobos captain, and Phobos Librarian.
Xenomancers wrote: Absolutely a requirement. I play with basically my entire force in a 6" reroll bubble. Not difficult at all to protect a few executioners that you will be standing next to trying to repair anyways.
It is really disappointing this bubble is an iron hands special character. It's actually dumb. It makes already mandatory iron hands more mandatory.
Oh the irony!
It is utterly hilarious that a person would lack self awareness to this degree.
People were saying the exact same thing about Guilliman, and you were defending that idiotic chapter specific, special character based bubble build to the death!
Xenomancers wrote: OMG...Ignore penalties for heavies...on turn 1...in the best doctrine...and if that isn't enough - you also get to reroll 1's to hit for free....Can I just slap these rule writers now? Iron Hands bias is just silly.
This is so much better than sions of guilliman it's hilarious.
I actually think I disagree. Handing out "effectively didn't move" to two critical things turn one and everything turn two is arguably better than "no move-and-shoot penalties for heavies" turn one, because the one impacts Aggressors and Executioners and all the Rapid Fire weapons while the other doesn't and also because +1 Ap is a lot more valuable on all the Ap - basic weapons than it is on most of the Heavy weapons.
They both kick "D+1 on melee attacks on the third turn" into a roadside ditch and then throw gasoline on the wreckage though.
Xenomancers wrote: OMG...Ignore penalties for heavies...on turn 1...in the best doctrine...and if that isn't enough - you also get to reroll 1's to hit for free....Can I just slap these rule writers now? Iron Hands bias is just silly.
This is so much better than sions of guilliman it's hilarious.
I actually think I disagree. Handing out "effectively didn't move" to two critical things turn one and everything turn two is arguably better than "no move-and-shoot penalties for heavies" turn one, because the one impacts Aggressors and Executioners and all the Rapid Fire weapons while the other doesn't and also because +1 Ap is a lot more valuable on all the Ap - basic weapons than it is on most of the Heavy weapons.
They both kick "D+1 on melee attacks on the third turn" into a roadside ditch and then throw gasoline on the wreckage though.
What do you mean turn 1 only it's every turn that devistator doctrine is active they get that bonus, that's slightly more bang for buck than just counting as stationary while your buffing your rapid fire weapons. Iron Hands will be the premier shooting marine's untill imperial fists or they are the best shooting marine's which is goinf to put them as probably the best way to play marine's given how the assualt vrs shooting debate always goes.
Wow that is an extremely good bonus for Iron Hands. Free re-roll 1s to all heavies and IGNORING -1 to hit for moving is incredible. I already liked eliminators and suppressors, and this just made them even better. The Ironstone is extremely good for vehicles as well. 3x redemptors might be a staple unit for Iron Hand lists.
Don't worry. I like this crazy train. By the time they get around to GK it will be something truly jaw dropping like:
All Psykic tests succeed on a 1 if there is a Palladin withing 6". All Strike squads now get an extra 12 attacks with their thunder hammers if the models are painted. When your warlord is Kaldor Draigo, all GK within 72" become GMDKs.
Seriously. This is getting silly. The first things were kinda wow, then they released stuff that was borderline meta breaking, now we have this. And still a couple more codexes after this!
Honestly i think that ultramarines are stronger than IH, at least until now.
The devastator doctrine is nice, but the strongest doctrine for marines is the tactical one. Who cares if a lascannon gets an extra -1 AP, it's the additional -1 on bolter weapons which is truly scary.
I think either you're misunderstanding my comment or you just typed a thing to type a thing.
The first Supplement we saw released? You'd be right--it was Tigurius, Khan, dice for both Ultramarines and White Scars, datacards, supplements, and the main codex. There was no generic models.
This release, however, has seen two of the remaining four generic releases: the Reiver Lieutenant and Eliminators set.
So we literally have to wait for another release slot just to get the Infiltrator/Incursor kit and the Impulsor.
Nope. First supplements released the invictor war suit, phobos captain, and Phobos Librarian.
August 10th was the Codex, Tigurius, Khan, and their respective supplements.
August 17th was the Phobos Captain, Librarian, invictor, and the pseudo-Ultramarines Lieutenant..
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Don't worry. I like this crazy train. By the time they get around to GK it will be something truly jaw dropping like:
All Psykic tests succeed on a 1 if there is a Palladin withing 6". All Strike squads now get an extra 12 attacks with their thunder hammers if the models are painted. When your warlord is Kaldor Draigo, all GK within 72" become GMDKs.
Seriously. This is getting silly. The first things were kinda wow, then they released stuff that was borderline meta breaking, now we have this. And still a couple more codexes after this!
Yea, baby! Rock the hyperbole! Ain't nothing stopping you now!
I wonder how stalker bolter intercessors will compare now as Iron Hands. They just might make the cut to replace auto bolter rifles. Yeah they're two less shots, but always re-rolling 1s, and ap-3 2dmg could him them find a place assuming you have proper volume of fire from say 3 redemptor dreadnoughts. Also 3x suppressors I think will be in all my Iron Hand lists. All their problems just got fixed.
Spoletta wrote: Honestly i think that ultramarines are stronger than IH, at least until now.
The devastator doctrine is nice, but the strongest doctrine for marines is the tactical one. Who cares if a lascannon gets an extra -1 AP, it's the additional -1 on bolter weapons which is truly scary.
Really
I'll take a dakka redemptor as ultramarines it's throwing 18 S5 Ap-2 1d shots hitting on 4's or 18 S5 Ap-1 Hitting on 3's
Iron Hands 18 S5 Ap-2 1d shots hitting on 3's rerolling 1's
Repulsor
Ultramarines at best gains the Ap-1 of devistator doctrine for turn 1 but turn 2 onwards gains 0
Iron hands Ap-1 Re-roll 1's
That's qithout taking into account the 6+++ FNP or the double wounds for damage table abilities.
I think the Scions and Calculated fury are about equal.
The different is that Tactical Doctrine seems to help with more shots. Getting an extra -1AP on 10 heavy weapons shots, versus getting a -1AP for 30 Rapid fire and assault weapons in a turn.
A built Iron Hands force is going to be a tough game though. Maybe some of the ultramarine band wagoners can head for Iron hands.
Xenomancers wrote: OMG...Ignore penalties for heavies...on turn 1...in the best doctrine...and if that isn't enough - you also get to reroll 1's to hit for free....Can I just slap these rule writers now? Iron Hands bias is just silly.
This is so much better than sions of guilliman it's hilarious.
I actually think I disagree. Handing out "effectively didn't move" to two critical things turn one and everything turn two is arguably better than "no move-and-shoot penalties for heavies" turn one, because the one impacts Aggressors and Executioners and all the Rapid Fire weapons while the other doesn't and also because +1 Ap is a lot more valuable on all the Ap - basic weapons than it is on most of the Heavy weapons.
They both kick "D+1 on melee attacks on the third turn" into a roadside ditch and then throw gasoline on the wreckage though.
What do you mean turn 1 only it's every turn that devistator doctrine is active they get that bonus, that's slightly more bang for buck than just counting as stationary while your buffing your rapid fire weapons. Iron Hands will be the premier shooting marine's untill imperial fists or they are the best shooting marine's which is goinf to put them as probably the best way to play marine's given how the assualt vrs shooting debate always goes.
I generally assume that people reading about Space Marine Doctrines on a 40k forum are going to know how Doctrines work and not need "starting on" explicitly spelled out when talking about faction-specific Doctrine bonuses. A mistake, perhaps.
Xenomancers wrote: OMG...Ignore penalties for heavies...on turn 1...in the best doctrine...and if that isn't enough - you also get to reroll 1's to hit for free....Can I just slap these rule writers now? Iron Hands bias is just silly.
This is so much better than sions of guilliman it's hilarious.
I actually think I disagree. Handing out "effectively didn't move" to two critical things turn one and everything turn two is arguably better than "no move-and-shoot penalties for heavies" turn one, because the one impacts Aggressors and Executioners and all the Rapid Fire weapons while the other doesn't and also because +1 Ap is a lot more valuable on all the Ap - basic weapons than it is on most of the Heavy weapons.
They both kick "D+1 on melee attacks on the third turn" into a roadside ditch and then throw gasoline on the wreckage though.
What do you mean turn 1 only it's every turn that devistator doctrine is active they get that bonus, that's slightly more bang for buck than just counting as stationary while your buffing your rapid fire weapons. Iron Hands will be the premier shooting marine's untill imperial fists or they are the best shooting marine's which is goinf to put them as probably the best way to play marine's given how the assualt vrs shooting debate always goes.
I generally assume that people reading about Space Marine Doctrines on a 40k forum are going to know how Doctrines work and not need "starting on" explicitly spelled out when talking about faction-specific Doctrine bonuses. A mistake, perhaps.
Your massively underselling it and forgetting the reroll 1's part of the same ability.
It's not your bolters that are taking down Knights, Russes, Repulsors, dreadnaughts etc it's your heavies.
If your in a meta of horde spam maybe the tactical doctrine helps but against anything else the devistator doctrine is going to be king.
Spoletta wrote: Honestly i think that ultramarines are stronger than IH, at least until now.
The devastator doctrine is nice, but the strongest doctrine for marines is the tactical one. Who cares if a lascannon gets an extra -1 AP, it's the additional -1 on bolter weapons which is truly scary.
Just have to build your list for it. Iron Hands are going to be all about those dreads and assault cannon razorbacks. And now suppressors having fly and deep strike doesn't seem so incongruous with that trait.
Reemule wrote: I think the Scions and Calculated fury are about equal.
The different is that Tactical Doctrine seems to help with more shots. Getting an extra -1AP on 10 heavy weapons shots, versus getting a -1AP for 30 Rapid fire and assault weapons in a turn.
A built Iron Hands force is going to be a tough game though. Maybe some of the ultramarine band wagoners can head for Iron hands.
Again it also allows re-roll 1's for heavies aswell, basically all your heavies get a free captain in devistator doctrine.
Xenomancers wrote: OMG...Ignore penalties for heavies...on turn 1...in the best doctrine...and if that isn't enough - you also get to reroll 1's to hit for free....Can I just slap these rule writers now? Iron Hands bias is just silly.
This is so much better than sions of guilliman it's hilarious.
I actually think I disagree. Handing out "effectively didn't move" to two critical things turn one and everything turn two is arguably better than "no move-and-shoot penalties for heavies" turn one, because the one impacts Aggressors and Executioners and all the Rapid Fire weapons while the other doesn't and also because +1 Ap is a lot more valuable on all the Ap - basic weapons than it is on most of the Heavy weapons.
They both kick "D+1 on melee attacks on the third turn" into a roadside ditch and then throw gasoline on the wreckage though.
What do you mean turn 1 only it's every turn that devistator doctrine is active they get that bonus, that's slightly more bang for buck than just counting as stationary while your buffing your rapid fire weapons. Iron Hands will be the premier shooting marine's untill imperial fists or they are the best shooting marine's which is goinf to put them as probably the best way to play marine's given how the assualt vrs shooting debate always goes.
I generally assume that people reading about Space Marine Doctrines on a 40k forum are going to know how Doctrines work and not need "starting on" explicitly spelled out when talking about faction-specific Doctrine bonuses. A mistake, perhaps.
Your massively underselling it and forgetting the reroll 1's part of the same ability.
It's not your bolters that are taking down Knights, Russes, Repulsors, dreadnaughts etc it's your heavies.
If your in a meta of horde spam maybe the tactical doctrine helps but against anything else the devistator doctrine is going to be king.
Perhaps, but my bolters are what takes down all the screening units protecting those Knights, Russes, Repulsors, etc. and they're really lousy at that job without the Ap bonus. My heavies don't need the help quite as much.
I'm also consistently taking a Master of the Chapter because rerolling 1s isn't nearly good enough for Space Marines. I need reroll misses instead with all the to-hit penalties I have to deal with, and I don't have the numbers to be able to afford to miss very often. I'd have to stack that "reroll 1s for heavies" with the successor subtraits to reroll 1s for Bolt weapons and possibly Artificers to feel like it added up to enough to get by without the MotC upgrade.
I think the fact that there is such a debate between whether heavy or tactical is better means that there are interesting choices available now and it gives players the ability to pick a phase to prioritize and not get penalized by not picking the "best".
Reemule wrote: I think the Scions and Calculated fury are about equal.
The different is that Tactical Doctrine seems to help with more shots. Getting an extra -1AP on 10 heavy weapons shots, versus getting a -1AP for 30 Rapid fire and assault weapons in a turn.
A built Iron Hands force is going to be a tough game though. Maybe some of the ultramarine band wagoners can head for Iron hands.
Again it also allows re-roll 1's for heavies aswell, basically all your heavies get a free captain in devistator doctrine.
Yes, but Aggressors get to count as stationary.
Its good, its just about equal I feel. But the Ironhand Chapter Tactic is better. And the I'm sure they will have other tricks that are as good or better.
Reemule wrote: I think the Scions and Calculated fury are about equal.
The different is that Tactical Doctrine seems to help with more shots. Getting an extra -1AP on 10 heavy weapons shots, versus getting a -1AP for 30 Rapid fire and assault weapons in a turn.
A built Iron Hands force is going to be a tough game though. Maybe some of the ultramarine band wagoners can head for Iron hands.
Again it also allows re-roll 1's for heavies aswell, basically all your heavies get a free captain in devistator doctrine.
Yes, but Aggressors get to count as stationary.
Its good, its just about equal I feel. But the Ironhand Chapter Tactic is better. And the I'm sure they will have other tricks that are as good or better.
Just kill the agressors from more than 23 inches away aka still not a turn 1 threat.
Spoletta wrote: Honestly i think that ultramarines are stronger than IH, at least until now.
The devastator doctrine is nice, but the strongest doctrine for marines is the tactical one. Who cares if a lascannon gets an extra -1 AP, it's the additional -1 on bolter weapons which is truly scary.
Really
I'll take a dakka redemptor as ultramarines it's throwing 18 S5 Ap-2 1d shots hitting on 4's or 18 S5 Ap-1 Hitting on 3's
Iron Hands 18 S5 Ap-2 1d shots hitting on 3's rerolling 1's
Repulsor
Ultramarines at best gains the Ap-1 of devistator doctrine for turn 1 but turn 2 onwards gains 0
Iron hands Ap-1 Re-roll 1's
That's qithout taking into account the 6+++ FNP or the double wounds for damage table abilities.
Not even in the same ballpark dude. Even If chapters could start in their desired doctrine Iron Hands would still be preferable. It's an absolute joke of balance. The internal balance with the codex with gman in it before was probably better. Fantastic work GW. FANTASTIC. Real great rules writing. Lets take the ultras special trait they have to wait to turn 2 to get and give it to Ironhands on turn 1 buffing weapons that are buffed on turn 1 and not 2. To the army with the best army trait in the entirety of the game. Lets also give them additional defensive buffs that ALL marines have been crying for since forever. Blue Ironhands...here I come.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Don't worry. I like this crazy train. By the time they get around to GK it will be something truly jaw dropping like:
All Psykic tests succeed on a 1 if there is a Palladin withing 6". All Strike squads now get an extra 12 attacks with their thunder hammers if the models are painted. When your warlord is Kaldor Draigo, all GK within 72" become GMDKs.
Seriously. This is getting silly. The first things were kinda wow, then they released stuff that was borderline meta breaking, now we have this. And still a couple more codexes after this!
Yea, baby! Rock the hyperbole! Ain't nothing stopping you now!
Yeah, nothing in these rules has really screamed 'op' just 'really good' better pricing, better design, hoops to jump through if you want specific bonuses.
It's not at all meta breaking, it's just gonna shift things around a bit.
Slaul wrote: I think the fact that there is such a debate between whether heavy or tactical is better means that there are interesting choices available now and it gives players the ability to pick a phase to prioritize and not get penalized by not picking the "best".
There is no debate. The best weapons are heavy weapons because they have range and they start getting buffed on turn 1.
My iron hands will be black. With iron hands transfers. And iron hands forge world doors. I already own every type of dread except the vanilla (which I will be buying shortly ). Can't wait for this supplement!
Target prioritization is important. But aggressors don't have to not assault. THey can still choose to. And if I know your going to be putting the firepower into them, it does give options.
Spoletta wrote: Honestly i think that ultramarines are stronger than IH, at least until now.
The devastator doctrine is nice, but the strongest doctrine for marines is the tactical one. Who cares if a lascannon gets an extra -1 AP, it's the additional -1 on bolter weapons which is truly scary.
Really
I'll take a dakka redemptor as ultramarines it's throwing 18 S5 Ap-2 1d shots hitting on 4's or 18 S5 Ap-1 Hitting on 3's
Iron Hands 18 S5 Ap-2 1d shots hitting on 3's rerolling 1's
Repulsor
Ultramarines at best gains the Ap-1 of devistator doctrine for turn 1 but turn 2 onwards gains 0
Iron hands Ap-1 Re-roll 1's
That's qithout taking into account the 6+++ FNP or the double wounds for damage table abilities.
Not even in the same ballpark dude. Even If chapters could start in their desired doctrine Iron Hands would still be preferable. It's an absolute joke of balance. The internal balance with the codex with gman in it before was probably better. Fantastic work GW. FANTASTIC. Real great rules writing. Lets take the ultras special trait they have to wait to turn 2 to get and give it to Ironhands on turn 1 buffing weapons that are buffed on turn 1 and not 2. To the army with the best army trait in the entirety of the game. Lets also give them additional defensive buffs that ALL marines have been crying for since forever. Blue Ironhands...here I come.
I just hope GW actually realise that it's the traits not the units that are meta breaking before they nerf all my dreadnaughts into unplayable overcosted trash as I don't play Iron hands.
Like they did with codex 1.0
Spoletta wrote: Honestly i think that ultramarines are stronger than IH, at least until now.
The devastator doctrine is nice, but the strongest doctrine for marines is the tactical one. Who cares if a lascannon gets an extra -1 AP, it's the additional -1 on bolter weapons which is truly scary.
Really
I'll take a dakka redemptor as ultramarines it's throwing 18 S5 Ap-2 1d shots hitting on 4's or 18 S5 Ap-1 Hitting on 3's
Iron Hands 18 S5 Ap-2 1d shots hitting on 3's rerolling 1's
Repulsor
Ultramarines at best gains the Ap-1 of devistator doctrine for turn 1 but turn 2 onwards gains 0
Iron hands Ap-1 Re-roll 1's
That's qithout taking into account the 6+++ FNP or the double wounds for damage table abilities.
Not even in the same ballpark dude. Even If chapters could start in their desired doctrine Iron Hands would still be preferable. It's an absolute joke of balance. The internal balance with the codex with gman in it before was probably better. Fantastic work GW. FANTASTIC. Real great rules writing. Lets take the ultras special trait they have to wait to turn 2 to get and give it to Ironhands on turn 1 buffing weapons that are buffed on turn 1 and not 2. To the army with the best army trait in the entirety of the game. Lets also give them additional defensive buffs that ALL marines have been crying for since forever. Blue Ironhands...here I come.
Ironhands get literally no benefit from bringing any rapid fire or assault weapons and (without stratagem help) will never have even the option to use the assault doctrine.
They also don't get the ridiculous bevy of powerful named characters ultras do.
Ironhands are great and I would agree that as of now they're the best Chapter overall, but it's not a huge margin and your histrionics are frankly embarrassing.
I dunno, the Invuln saves to vehicles, the regenerating wounds, and the vehicle friendly psyker abilities, IH with executioners and Repulsors are going to be UGLY. That essentially makes the Repulsor variants extremely hard to remove, and even harder to withstand.
Vaktathi wrote: Man they're really going all in on the bloat now.
Queue the "It'S nOt BlOaT iT's FlAvOr" crowd defending the Angels having different codices.
I'm not a fan of the new Space Marine special rules enhancements [and not just because my marines doesn't get them.]
When it comes to infantry, I would much rather have kept the regular statline without bolterdrill or shock assault or doctrines or whatever and just taken a points cost reduction on the infantry.
First off, I don't like the addition of AP. AP on troop-level weapons just really makes them more effective against other 3+ targets and vehicle targets but doesn't really offer a proportional benefit against light infantry units, which is where I think the problem actually lies; and MEQ units didn't need a greater proliferation of AP on the field [and widespread AP-2 is probably the last thing MEQ wants to find on the field].
Second, and more significantly: I don't really care about Grey Hunters or Intercessors with bolters,they really just exist to eat bullets and take objectives. A points savings on the units would go towards bringing more upgrades, more answers, and more units to have a more comprehensive force than a super troops squad that can heavily damage tanks with their assault rifles.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Don't worry. I like this crazy train. By the time they get around to GK it will be something truly jaw dropping like:
All Psykic tests succeed on a 1 if there is a Palladin withing 6". All Strike squads now get an extra 12 attacks with their thunder hammers if the models are painted. When your warlord is Kaldor Draigo, all GK within 72" become GMDKs.
Seriously. This is getting silly. The first things were kinda wow, then they released stuff that was borderline meta breaking, now we have this. And still a couple more codexes after this!
Yea, baby! Rock the hyperbole! Ain't nothing stopping you now!
Yeah, nothing in these rules has really screamed 'op' just 'really good' better pricing, better design, hoops to jump through if you want specific bonuses.
It's not at all meta breaking, it's just gonna shift things around a bit.
I don't consider surrounding an Iron Stone chapter master with dreads and repulsors to collect serpent shields to be "jumping through hoops"
The potential to break the meta is absolutely there, the new book buffed marine damage output across the board to an absurd degree, leaving their durability their only weakness, which the iron hands solved. With the new chapter master granting full rerolls, not even stacking -1 to hit will do much against them.
The Newman wrote: The fact that it's a special character and not a "Khan on a Bike" generic is very much a disappointment, but that has everything to do with local meta for me. We pretty much all agree to not play the special characters since so many of them break game balance over their knee like so much Batman.
No special characters is a really bad rule to adopt. Many armies require special characters to function.
Name three.
(That's a legitimate question, nobody around here seems to care.)
Saint Celestine, Guillaman pre-codex, Shrike precodex, Cawl
The Newman wrote: The fact that it's a special character and not a "Khan on a Bike" generic is very much a disappointment, but that has everything to do with local meta for me. We pretty much all agree to not play the special characters since so many of them break game balance over their knee like so much Batman.
No special characters is a really bad rule to adopt. Many armies require special characters to function.
Name three.
(That's a legitimate question, nobody around here seems to care.)
Saint Celestine, Guillaman pre-codex, Shrike precodex, Cawl
IIRC you also have to have one of the Ynnari characters to make the detachment Ynnari, whether you want them or not. Also, I'd say Trajan Valoris is almost a must-have for Custodes if you're playing more than 3xDawneagle Captain Supreme Command since he brings like the only wound support in the book.
Ice_can wrote: I just hope GW actually realise that it's the traits not the units that are meta breaking before they nerf all my dreadnaughts into unplayable overcosted trash as I don't play Iron hands.
Like they did with codex 1.0
You know that this is exactly what's going to happen.
Whilst it is nice that marines get new rules, I really dislike the trend of the subfaction choices becoming even more important. I already thought that they had too much impact before, and now they have doubled down on it. It literally makes balancing the units properly impossible. If an unit gets massive buffs in one subfaction but negligible buffs in another, while reverse is true for some other unit, assigning proper point costs for those units simply isn't possible.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Don't worry. I like this crazy train. By the time they get around to GK it will be something truly jaw dropping like:
All Psykic tests succeed on a 1 if there is a Palladin withing 6". All Strike squads now get an extra 12 attacks with their thunder hammers if the models are painted. When your warlord is Kaldor Draigo, all GK within 72" become GMDKs.
Seriously. This is getting silly. The first things were kinda wow, then they released stuff that was borderline meta breaking, now we have this. And still a couple more codexes after this!
Yea, baby! Rock the hyperbole! Ain't nothing stopping you now!
Yeah, nothing in these rules has really screamed 'op' just 'really good' better pricing, better design, hoops to jump through if you want specific bonuses.
It's not at all meta breaking, it's just gonna shift things around a bit.
I don't consider surrounding an Iron Stone chapter master with dreads and repulsors to collect serpent shields to be "jumping through hoops"
The potential to break the meta is absolutely there, the new book buffed marine damage output across the board to an absurd degree, leaving their durability their only weakness, which the iron hands solved. With the new chapter master granting full rerolls, not even stacking -1 to hit will do much against them.
The hoops are 'no allies no other CTs/characters.
And oooh you can waste 2CP on the useless CM strat (the good dreads hit on 2s) and 70+ points on a captain you don't need for the ability to put half to 3/4ths of your army in a 3" bubble. Even in a KP game, that's not ideal. Also, heavy weapons tend to be bouncing off of invuls already, adding -1AP isn't honestly as strong as people think it is.
Stacking -1 to hit NEVER did anything to space marines, they've ALWAYS been able to bring full rerolls. The damage output only increased by the extra AP unless their units MOVE. And if they're MOVING they likely don't get the ironstone damage mitigation.
They traded slightly better durability for a massively reduced mobility.
Spoletta wrote: Honestly i think that ultramarines are stronger than IH, at least until now.
The devastator doctrine is nice, but the strongest doctrine for marines is the tactical one. Who cares if a lascannon gets an extra -1 AP, it's the additional -1 on bolter weapons which is truly scary.
Really
I'll take a dakka redemptor as ultramarines it's throwing 18 S5 Ap-2 1d shots hitting on 4's or 18 S5 Ap-1 Hitting on 3's
Iron Hands 18 S5 Ap-2 1d shots hitting on 3's rerolling 1's
Repulsor
Ultramarines at best gains the Ap-1 of devistator doctrine for turn 1 but turn 2 onwards gains 0
Iron hands Ap-1 Re-roll 1's
That's qithout taking into account the 6+++ FNP or the double wounds for damage table abilities.
Not even in the same ballpark dude. Even If chapters could start in their desired doctrine Iron Hands would still be preferable. It's an absolute joke of balance. The internal balance with the codex with gman in it before was probably better. Fantastic work GW. FANTASTIC. Real great rules writing. Lets take the ultras special trait they have to wait to turn 2 to get and give it to Ironhands on turn 1 buffing weapons that are buffed on turn 1 and not 2. To the army with the best army trait in the entirety of the game. Lets also give them additional defensive buffs that ALL marines have been crying for since forever. Blue Ironhands...here I come.
Ironhands get literally no benefit from bringing any rapid fire or assault weapons and (without stratagem help) will never have even the option to use the assault doctrine.
They also don't get the ridiculous bevy of powerful named characters ultras do.
Ironhands are great and I would agree that as of now they're the best Chapter overall, but it's not a huge margin and your histrionics are frankly embarrassing.
PFFF - my initial reaction to the codex was being naive to how effective the doctrines were actually going to be and the overall increase in effectiveness of all marine units due to a bevy of free rules being given to them. Much more effective than I thought they would be. It's not hard however to apply my experience to this situation. All the improvements marines unit got as ultra marines are going to be MUCH better as Ironhands.
As they take effect IMMEDIATELY in the dev doctrine. The benefits are quite literally the same but better (free reroll 1's) and the special rule takes away the penalties for moving and shooting heavies while buffing them. Also with knowledge of all the units profiles - I can assure you - heavy weapons are the predominant source of damage on most units. Including the best options - Like Ven dreads/Contemptor dreads/Levithan dreads/Redemptor dreads/executioners/eliminators/suppressors/vindicators/Invictor dreads/ Plus now even stalker bolt rifles are great. You can easily build an entire army with nothing but heavy weapons except for some storm bolters and fraglaunchers which account for basically no points expenditure. All to go along with having a chapter tactic which is literally 3 separate armies individual trait. I'd gladly trade in calgar to have a 5++ bubble to. I'd do it instantly. In fact I am going to do it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Don't worry. I like this crazy train. By the time they get around to GK it will be something truly jaw dropping like:
All Psykic tests succeed on a 1 if there is a Palladin withing 6". All Strike squads now get an extra 12 attacks with their thunder hammers if the models are painted. When your warlord is Kaldor Draigo, all GK within 72" become GMDKs.
Seriously. This is getting silly. The first things were kinda wow, then they released stuff that was borderline meta breaking, now we have this. And still a couple more codexes after this!
Yea, baby! Rock the hyperbole! Ain't nothing stopping you now!
Yeah, nothing in these rules has really screamed 'op' just 'really good' better pricing, better design, hoops to jump through if you want specific bonuses.
It's not at all meta breaking, it's just gonna shift things around a bit.
I don't consider surrounding an Iron Stone chapter master with dreads and repulsors to collect serpent shields to be "jumping through hoops"
The potential to break the meta is absolutely there, the new book buffed marine damage output across the board to an absurd degree, leaving their durability their only weakness, which the iron hands solved. With the new chapter master granting full rerolls, not even stacking -1 to hit will do much against them.
The hoops are 'no allies no other CTs/characters.
And oooh you can waste 2CP on the useless CM strat (the good dreads hit on 2s) and 70+ points on a captain you don't need for the ability to put half to 3/4ths of your army in a 3" bubble. Even in a KP game, that's not ideal. Also, heavy weapons tend to be bouncing off of invuls already, adding -1AP isn't honestly as strong as people think it is.
Stacking -1 to hit NEVER did anything to space marines, they've ALWAYS been able to bring full rerolls.
- The preferred weapons of most dreads are high volume low AP heavy weapons, having the additional AP is helpful
- Yes needing to squeeze a bunch of vehicles around a character (with a larger than 32mm base mind you) sucks, good thing you can move and fire heavy weapons with no penalties right? And if you don't need the full reroll, just don't spend the CP to get it.
- It was rerolling failed hit before instead of all hits, massive difference against -2 to hit units like plaguebearers and eldar flyers
regarding whats better this or Scions I think it'll depend how you want to play. Iron Hands is an extremely good choice if you want to play a "less the mobile gunline" but Ultramarines are MUCH MUCH more mobile and synergizes better across the army. the ultramarines "counts as stationary" applies to all unit and weapon types and can have some powerful results, exterminators able to move. agressors being suddenly much better. etc. In my opinion what army is better is going to depend on how your army is built.
BrianDavion wrote: regarding whats better this or Scions I think it'll depend how you want to play. Iron Hands is an extremely good choice if you want to play a "less the mobile gunline" but Ultramarines are MUCH MUCH more mobile and synergizes better across the army. the ultramarines "counts as stationary" applies to all unit and weapon types and can have some powerful results, exterminators able to move. agressors being suddenly much better. etc. In my opinion what army is better is going to depend on how your army is built.
Fail to see how the army that gets to move with no penalty turn 1 is less mobile than the army that gets it turn 2? Heck - even Ironhands landspeeders are better because of this (In fact they seem quite nice) Plus actually get something out of their chapter tactic rather than ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - suppressors Infinitely better as iron hands. There is a trend...actual mobile units are better as Iron Hands and particularly worse as Ultramarines...why? Because fly keyword gives you the full version of the crap Ultras tactic. Plus they get all their bonus turn 1 and they apply to the weapons you want them to.
BrianDavion wrote: regarding whats better this or Scions I think it'll depend how you want to play. Iron Hands is an extremely good choice if you want to play a "less the mobile gunline" but Ultramarines are MUCH MUCH more mobile and synergizes better across the army. the ultramarines "counts as stationary" applies to all unit and weapon types and can have some powerful results, exterminators able to move. agressors being suddenly much better. etc. In my opinion what army is better is going to depend on how your army is built.
Fail to see how the army that gets to move with no penalty turn 1 is less mobile than the army that gets it turn 2? Heck - even Ironhands landspeeders are better because of this (In fact they seem quite nice) Plus actually get something out of their chapter tactic rather than ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - suppressors Infinitely better as iron hands. There is a trend...actual mobile units are better as Iron Hands and particularly worse as Ultramarines...why? Because fly keyword gives you the full version of the crap Ultras tactic. Plus they get all their bonus turn 1 and they apply to the weapons you want them to.
While I hate to interrupt the histrionics, didn't the combination of units with FLY and the Ultramarines CT get addressed in the Codex: Space Marines errata the other week?
BrianDavion wrote: regarding whats better this or Scions I think it'll depend how you want to play. Iron Hands is an extremely good choice if you want to play a "less the mobile gunline" but Ultramarines are MUCH MUCH more mobile and synergizes better across the army. the ultramarines "counts as stationary" applies to all unit and weapon types and can have some powerful results, exterminators able to move. agressors being suddenly much better. etc. In my opinion what army is better is going to depend on how your army is built.
Fail to see how the army that gets to move with no penalty turn 1 is less mobile than the army that gets it turn 2? Heck - even Ironhands landspeeders are better because of this (In fact they seem quite nice) Plus actually get something out of their chapter tactic rather than ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - suppressors Infinitely better as iron hands. There is a trend...actual mobile units are better as Iron Hands and particularly worse as Ultramarines...why? Because fly keyword gives you the full version of the crap Ultras tactic. Plus they get all their bonus turn 1 and they apply to the weapons you want them to.
While I hate to interrupt the histrionics, didn't the combination of units with FLY and the Ultramarines CT get addressed in the Codex: Space Marines errata the other week?
Yes. So the Ultramarines fly unit isn't actively nerfed by it's own chapter tactic. Trust me - I would have mentioned that little giblet there in my tirade. Still It receives NOTHING but +1 LD which if you can even consider that a bonus in a unit that maxes at 1-3. Essentially it is nothing.
The Ironhand Landspeeder can take 2 missiles and a HB/AC move and shoot them at -1 AP all game with not pentalty. It gets a 6+ FNP overwatches on 5+. Fly keyword is even better than Ultramarines tactic to fall back and shoot anways.
The ultramarines landspeeder can switch to tactical doctrine to ignore to hit penalties but loses the AP bonus to do so - it doesn't get a 6+ FNP it doesn't overwatch on 5's.
I wonder which is better. I do hope Ultras get an actual chapter tactic once they realize how weak Ultras are compared to other marine forces. I guess white scars are pretty weak in comparison too they also will need help. It's pretty damn sad that White scars speeders are infinitely worse than Iron Hands ones...
Vaktathi wrote: Man they're really going all in on the bloat now.
Queue the "It'S nOt BlOaT iT's FlAvOr" crowd defending the Angels having different codices.
I'm not a fan of the new Space Marine special rules enhancements [and not just because my marines doesn't get them.]
When it comes to infantry, I would much rather have kept the regular statline without bolterdrill or shock assault or doctrines or whatever and just taken a points cost reduction on the infantry.
First off, I don't like the addition of AP. AP on troop-level weapons just really makes them more effective against other 3+ targets and vehicle targets but doesn't really offer a proportional benefit against light infantry units, which is where I think the problem actually lies; and MEQ units didn't need a greater proliferation of AP on the field [and widespread AP-2 is probably the last thing MEQ wants to find on the field].
Second, and more significantly: I don't really care about Grey Hunters or Intercessors with bolters,they really just exist to eat bullets and take objectives. A points savings on the units would go towards bringing more upgrades, more answers, and more units to have a more comprehensive force than a super troops squad that can heavily damage tanks with their assault rifles.
Do we really care about Marines being more effective against other Marines? Mirror matches don't count much for balance (outside of discussing vs CSM, which as you all know I have a whole host of complaints on how they're handled). Otherwise the extra AP is welcome to fight against cheaper hordes.
Vaktathi wrote: Man they're really going all in on the bloat now.
Queue the "It'S nOt BlOaT iT's FlAvOr" crowd defending the Angels having different codices.
Well, it is flavor. Which I'm all for, Iron Hands are supposed to fight very differently than, say, the Blood Angels. For as far as I'm concerned GW should do this to every subfaction in every codex to make them feel unique. Problem is that it's extremely powerful flavor. I think I'd personally have cut some power from the IH special doctrine by writing it as "Heavy weapons do not suffer the penalty for moving and shooting while in the Devastator doctrine. If all models in a unit have the Power of the Machine Spirit rule then those models will reroll hit rolls of 1 instead while in the Devastator doctrine."
But let's not forget that the complete inability to soup is a rather big counterweight to all the power that SM have gotten, so let's not cry havoc before we actually get some results in.
BrianDavion wrote: regarding whats better this or Scions I think it'll depend how you want to play. Iron Hands is an extremely good choice if you want to play a "less the mobile gunline" but Ultramarines are MUCH MUCH more mobile and synergizes better across the army. the ultramarines "counts as stationary" applies to all unit and weapon types and can have some powerful results, exterminators able to move. agressors being suddenly much better. etc. In my opinion what army is better is going to depend on how your army is built.
Fail to see how the army that gets to move with no penalty turn 1 is less mobile than the army that gets it turn 2? Heck - even Ironhands landspeeders are better because of this (In fact they seem quite nice) Plus actually get something out of their chapter tactic rather than ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - suppressors Infinitely better as iron hands. There is a trend...actual mobile units are better as Iron Hands and particularly worse as Ultramarines...why? Because fly keyword gives you the full version of the crap Ultras tactic. Plus they get all their bonus turn 1 and they apply to the weapons you want them to.
While I hate to interrupt the histrionics, didn't the combination of units with FLY and the Ultramarines CT get addressed in the Codex: Space Marines errata the other week?
Yes. So the Ultramarines fly unit isn't actively nerfed by it's own chapter tactic. Trust me - I would have mentioned that little giblet there in my tirade. Still It receives NOTHING but +1 LD which if you can even consider that a bonus in a unit that maxes at 1-3. Essentially it is nothing.
The Ironhand Landspeeder can take 2 missiles and a HB/AC move and shoot them at -1 AP all game with not pentalty. It gets a 6+ FNP overwatches on 5+. Fly keyword is even better than Ultramarines tactic to fall back and shoot anways.
The ultramarines landspeeder can switch to tactical doctrine to ignore to hit penalties but loses the AP bonus to do so - it doesn't get a 6+ FNP it doesn't overwatch on 5's.
I wonder which is better. I do hope Ultras get an actual chapter tactic once they realize how weak Ultras are compared to other marine forces. I guess white scars are pretty weak in comparison too they also will need help. It's pretty damn sad that White scars speeders are infinitely worse than Iron Hands ones...
meanwhile a repulsor executioner can move it's full speed and fire twice if it's an ultramarines or sucessor chapter. thats pretty juicy. And the UM ability works for EVERY unit with every type of gun while in the doctrine that your average marine unit will live in. Iron Hands do one thing (tanks) very very well. Ultramarines meanwhile have an immensly flexable toolkit allowing them to perform well in a wide array of situations.
Which is exactly what the lore says should be the case. If you want to play an army that consists of 3 bare bones tactical squads and nothing but vehicles otheriwse, then for god's sake iron hands are GREAT. but if you wanted to run a infantry heavy list advancing quickly and seizing objects etc? Ultramarines is better.
BrianDavion wrote: regarding whats better this or Scions I think it'll depend how you want to play. Iron Hands is an extremely good choice if you want to play a "less the mobile gunline" but Ultramarines are MUCH MUCH more mobile and synergizes better across the army. the ultramarines "counts as stationary" applies to all unit and weapon types and can have some powerful results, exterminators able to move. agressors being suddenly much better. etc. In my opinion what army is better is going to depend on how your army is built.
Fail to see how the army that gets to move with no penalty turn 1 is less mobile than the army that gets it turn 2? Heck - even Ironhands landspeeders are better because of this (In fact they seem quite nice) Plus actually get something out of their chapter tactic rather than ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - suppressors Infinitely better as iron hands. There is a trend...actual mobile units are better as Iron Hands and particularly worse as Ultramarines...why? Because fly keyword gives you the full version of the crap Ultras tactic. Plus they get all their bonus turn 1 and they apply to the weapons you want them to.
While I hate to interrupt the histrionics, didn't the combination of units with FLY and the Ultramarines CT get addressed in the Codex: Space Marines errata the other week?
Yes. So the Ultramarines fly unit isn't actively nerfed by it's own chapter tactic. Trust me - I would have mentioned that little giblet there in my tirade. Still It receives NOTHING but +1 LD which if you can even consider that a bonus in a unit that maxes at 1-3. Essentially it is nothing.
The Ironhand Landspeeder can take 2 missiles and a HB/AC move and shoot them at -1 AP all game with not pentalty. It gets a 6+ FNP overwatches on 5+. Fly keyword is even better than Ultramarines tactic to fall back and shoot anways.
The ultramarines landspeeder can switch to tactical doctrine to ignore to hit penalties but loses the AP bonus to do so - it doesn't get a 6+ FNP it doesn't overwatch on 5's.
I wonder which is better. I do hope Ultras get an actual chapter tactic once they realize how weak Ultras are compared to other marine forces. I guess white scars are pretty weak in comparison too they also will need help. It's pretty damn sad that White scars speeders are infinitely worse than Iron Hands ones...
meanwhile a repulsor executioner can move it's full speed and fire twice if it's an ultramarines or sucessor chapter. thats pretty juicy. And the UM ability works for EVERY unit with every type of gun while in the doctrine that your average marine unit will live in. Iron Hands do one thing (tanks) very very well. Ultramarines meanwhile have an immensly flexable toolkit allowing them to perform well in a wide array of situations.
Which is exactly what the lore says should be the case. If you want to play an army that consists of 3 bare bones tactical squads and nothing but vehicles otheriwse, then for god's sake iron hands are GREAT. but if you wanted to run a infantry heavy list advancing quickly and seizing objects etc? Ultramarines is better.
You can do that turn 3+ as iron hands after you've effectively tabled your opponent in thanks to having bordeline unkillable vehicals half damage strat, -1 damage, counts as double wounds and the ability to double repair and even psychic powers to add wounds to your vehicals, which are primarily armed with heavy weapons.
3 5 man intercessors squads will be more than enough obsec on an empty table.
Vaktathi wrote: Man they're really going all in on the bloat now.
Queue the "It'S nOt BlOaT iT's FlAvOr" crowd defending the Angels having different codices.
I'm not a fan of the new Space Marine special rules enhancements [and not just because my marines doesn't get them.]
When it comes to infantry, I would much rather have kept the regular statline without bolterdrill or shock assault or doctrines or whatever and just taken a points cost reduction on the infantry.
First off, I don't like the addition of AP. AP on troop-level weapons just really makes them more effective against other 3+ targets and vehicle targets but doesn't really offer a proportional benefit against light infantry units, which is where I think the problem actually lies; and MEQ units didn't need a greater proliferation of AP on the field [and widespread AP-2 is probably the last thing MEQ wants to find on the field].
Second, and more significantly: I don't really care about Grey Hunters or Intercessors with bolters,they really just exist to eat bullets and take objectives. A points savings on the units would go towards bringing more upgrades, more answers, and more units to have a more comprehensive force than a super troops squad that can heavily damage tanks with their assault rifles.
Do we really care about Marines being more effective against other Marines? Mirror matches don't count much for balance (outside of discussing vs CSM, which as you all know I have a whole host of complaints on how they're handled). Otherwise the extra AP is welcome to fight against cheaper hordes.
Yes?
There's CSM, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Sisters of Battle, vehicle units as a broad category, some Eldar units, etc. And even then, the mirror match matters a lot.
The proliferation of AP2 is, in my opinion, terrible for the balance of toughness, armor, and wounds as metrics of resilience. A fundamental principle of AP is that the more armor you have, the more you're affected by a point of AP. Guardsmen or Orks have paper for armor, and their resilience comes from wound count in the unit, they don't really feel the additional AP. Marine units, however, feel the AP a lot more. Armor is already the weakest defense mode, and wounds is already the strongest; proliferating AP, especially AP2, further encourages massed light infantry and units that have a high wound density over units with armor.
The relative difference between the way a Space Marine and a Guardsmen felt against a Boltgun wound between this edition and last edition was a matter of a Guardsman taking 200% more wounds. Now, Guardsmen take only 100% more wounds by default, and when you start introducing AP it drop to 66% more and then 50% more.
This is also further affecting vehicle unit's relative immunity to light arms. Vehicle's armor saves are already a formality against AT systems and only really existed to neutralize the effect of infantry against them; and AP-2 infantry is also dismantling that.
I think the solution should have been a measure that improve Marine's troops' offensive and defensive capabilities against light troops without seriously affecting heavy infantry units. This is hard to actually find a special-rules based solution, because wounds and shots are the "base value" and effectively the most important factors and will almost always be less affected than systems relying on quality. Quality effects improve the value of each shot or wound, but they don't substitute for more wounds or shots.
I think the solution should have been a measure that improve Marine's troops' offensive and defensive capabilities against light troops without seriously affecting heavy infantry units. This is hard to actually find a special-rules based solution, because wounds and shots are the "base value" and effectively the most important factors and will almost always be less affected than systems relying on quality. Quality effects improve the value of each shot or wound, but they don't substitute for more wounds or shots.
They went for big units and repeated kits for the same unit because you gotta sell hose kits. You Da Jump the boyz, you don't run them in trukks. The genie is out of the bottle.
The Newman wrote: The fact that it's a special character and not a "Khan on a Bike" generic is very much a disappointment, but that has everything to do with local meta for me. We pretty much all agree to not play the special characters since so many of them break game balance over their knee like so much Batman.
No special characters is a really bad rule to adopt. Many armies require special characters to function.
Name three.
(That's a legitimate question, nobody around here seems to care.)
Well for example you literally can't play Ynnari without a special character.
Armies like Ultramarines are particularly bad options without their special characters. (you basically play without a chapter tactic for the ability to use good special characters).
Mono Custodes - no Trajen? Why?
Do you allow units like the Solitaire?
Heck in many cases special characters are a lot worse than the generic HQ's like with Orks and dark eldar.
ERJAK wrote: Saint Celestine, Guillaman pre-codex, Shrike precodex, Cawl
So I'm going to indulge in a little nit-picking here:
Solitaire: Harlequins are a special case since they're so weird.
Cawl: Cawl is not a faction. If you mean AdMech, I play against them regularly and they function perfectly well without him. They're giving mono-guard a run for their money locally and if AdMech is substantially better with him then that's proving my point.
Shrike: Also not a faction, and he didn't bring anything to the table that I'm aware of that a generic Ravenguard Captain didn't do almost as well for cheaper.
Celestine: Seriously, not a faction. Although see Sisters below.
Custodes: Trajen is pretty good, but he's also almost as expensive as a Shield Captain and a Vexilla Magnifica put together. 1/3 more attacks is more valuable than rerolling to wound 1/6 of the time when you're hiting 35/36 attacks, and you could obviously take both but now you're talking 500+ points in an army that's already going to have a very low model count. At the very least I'd call that one debatable.
Ultramarines: I could call bs because they're one sub-faction out of nine in that book, but at least on the tournament scene Gulliman appeared to be pretty much single-handedly carrying Marines, so you have me there I suppose.
Sisters: Can't speak for them, nobody locally is playing them. That's not because of the local special character hate though, the two people who are interested are waiting for the codex to officially drop before they spend any money.
Ynari: Ok, that's a faction that doesn't function at all without special characters.
And nobody mentioned GK, either because nobody wants to think about them anymore or because even with the special characters that GK players were complaining the army was dependent on whenever this came up they're still F-ranked.
Vaktathi wrote: Man they're really going all in on the bloat now.
Queue the "It'S nOt BlOaT iT's FlAvOr" crowd defending the Angels having different codices.
I'm not a fan of the new Space Marine special rules enhancements [and not just because my marines doesn't get them.]
When it comes to infantry, I would much rather have kept the regular statline without bolterdrill or shock assault or doctrines or whatever and just taken a points cost reduction on the infantry.
First off, I don't like the addition of AP. AP on troop-level weapons just really makes them more effective against other 3+ targets and vehicle targets but doesn't really offer a proportional benefit against light infantry units, which is where I think the problem actually lies; and MEQ units didn't need a greater proliferation of AP on the field [and widespread AP-2 is probably the last thing MEQ wants to find on the field].
Second, and more significantly: I don't really care about Grey Hunters or Intercessors with bolters,they really just exist to eat bullets and take objectives. A points savings on the units would go towards bringing more upgrades, more answers, and more units to have a more comprehensive force than a super troops squad that can heavily damage tanks with their assault rifles.
Do we really care about Marines being more effective against other Marines? Mirror matches don't count much for balance (outside of discussing vs CSM, which as you all know I have a whole host of complaints on how they're handled). Otherwise the extra AP is welcome to fight against cheaper hordes.
Yes?
There's CSM, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Sisters of Battle, vehicle units as a broad category, some Eldar units, etc. And even then, the mirror match matters a lot.
The proliferation of AP2 is, in my opinion, terrible for the balance of toughness, armor, and wounds as metrics of resilience. A fundamental principle of AP is that the more armor you have, the more you're affected by a point of AP. Guardsmen or Orks have paper for armor, and their resilience comes from wound count in the unit, they don't really feel the additional AP. Marine units, however, feel the AP a lot more. Armor is already the weakest defense mode, and wounds is already the strongest; proliferating AP, especially AP2, further encourages massed light infantry and units that have a high wound density over units with armor.
The relative difference between the way a Space Marine and a Guardsmen felt against a Boltgun wound between this edition and last edition was a matter of a Guardsman taking 200% more wounds. Now, Guardsmen take only 100% more wounds by default, and when you start introducing AP it drop to 66% more and then 50% more.
This is also further affecting vehicle unit's relative immunity to light arms. Vehicle's armor saves are already a formality against AT systems and only really existed to neutralize the effect of infantry against them; and AP-2 infantry is also dismantling that.
I think the solution should have been a measure that improve Marine's troops' offensive and defensive capabilities against light troops without seriously affecting heavy infantry units. This is hard to actually find a special-rules based solution, because wounds and shots are the "base value" and effectively the most important factors and will almost always be less affected than systems relying on quality. Quality effects improve the value of each shot or wound, but they don't substitute for more wounds or shots.
You bring up the Angels and Wolves like they shouldn't be consolidated because they're really just Marines and you should get over the fear of consolidation.
Grey Knights and Deathwatch and CSM already need a massive rework anyway.
And then you listed no other MEQ armies. So your point remains pointless.
Oh man, my dreadnought hoard will be able to move and shoot at full ballistic skill again.
I wounder if the Gorgon's chain will come back, you know everyone's favorite smash captain.
Also I know there wasn't anything in the preview, but I'm still holding out hope that the rumor about making a dreadnought a character is still true. If I had to guess it would most likely be a stratagem that could turn a venerable dreadnought into a captain in much the same way that you would turn a captain into a chaptermaster.
I have no problem with GW rewarding armies for forgoing soup. It's a bit like when they introduced basic faction abilities that wouldn't work if you had mixed detachments, (back before mixed detachments were banned altogether,) except that it's genuinely effective at punishing soup - You can get your Loyal 64 and then run your main army to get extra flexibility and Command Points, *or* you can run a pure army and get significant buffs for it.
My semi-optimistic but measured expectation is that we'll see some imbalance in the short term, but eventually it will get balanced out as every army gets similar expansions. Goodness knows GW will love an excuse to sell a half dozen expansion books per faction, so it's not like they don't have a monetary reason to do so. There will definitely be growing pains as we get to that point, (Just like the start of 8th when Space Marines were briefly dominating the meta by having the advantage of being the only army with a codex,) but with luck it will even out in the next six to twelve months.
My more pessimistic assumption is that Space Marines will dominate the competition for a few months, get nerfed into the ground because GW doesn't know how to use restraint when eliminating problems, and then Sisters of Battle will turn out to be an april fool's joke that got out of hand.
(Edit: I do agree with above points that AP is maybe not the best way to buff Marines since it throws balance of vehicles and heavy infantry out of whack.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Venerable Ironclad wrote: Oh man, my dreadnought hoard will be able to move and shoot at full ballistic skill again.
I wounder if the Gorgon's chain will come back, you know everyone's favorite smash captain.
Also I know there wasn't anything in the preview, but I'm still holding out hope that the rumor about making a dreadnought a character is still true. If I had to guess it would most likely be a stratagem that could turn a venerable dreadnought into a captain in much the same way that you would turn a captain into a chaptermaster.
That upgrade would be a bit sad since Iron Hands don't really need captains anymore...
That upgrade would be a bit sad since Iron Hands don't really need captains anymore...
They don't need captains for their heavy weapons any more. I'd bet FF will have no rerolls to offer, either. Their armies will likely be wholly centered around heavy weapons to be functional.
They'll need infiltrators to spread, because once a smash captain gets into that bubble you're at a huge risk of losing control Model counts will likely also be abysmally low as people max out on eliminators, suppressors, and redemptors. They'll also be low on CP unless they also want to drop points on more troops and HQs - and they'll spring for lower shot count heavy weapons meaning the redemptors have to do all the lifting against hordes. The psykers won't be power houses for casting and can be shut down by others fairly well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hell...it's probably going to be assbacks and scouts all the way down until they get rule of 3'd somehow.
I wonder if the optimal Intercessor Build for Iron Hands is going to be Stalker Bolt Rifles now. Spamming Heavy weapons (most vehicle weapons are Heavy) could lead to a very strong Turn 1 alpha strike.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I wonder if the optimal Intercessor Build for Iron Hands is going to be Stalker Bolt Rifles now. Spamming Heavy weapons (most vehicle weapons are Heavy) could lead to a very strong Turn 1 alpha strike.
That's what I'm wondering as well. Really interested in what people think is the way to play IH Intercessors now.
Vaktathi wrote: Man they're really going all in on the bloat now.
Queue the "It'S nOt BlOaT iT's FlAvOr" crowd defending the Angels having different codices.
I'm not a fan of the new Space Marine special rules enhancements [and not just because my marines doesn't get them.]
When it comes to infantry, I would much rather have kept the regular statline without bolterdrill or shock assault or doctrines or whatever and just taken a points cost reduction on the infantry.
First off, I don't like the addition of AP. AP on troop-level weapons just really makes them more effective against other 3+ targets and vehicle targets but doesn't really offer a proportional benefit against light infantry units, which is where I think the problem actually lies; and MEQ units didn't need a greater proliferation of AP on the field [and widespread AP-2 is probably the last thing MEQ wants to find on the field].
Second, and more significantly: I don't really care about Grey Hunters or Intercessors with bolters,they really just exist to eat bullets and take objectives. A points savings on the units would go towards bringing more upgrades, more answers, and more units to have a more comprehensive force than a super troops squad that can heavily damage tanks with their assault rifles.
Do we really care about Marines being more effective against other Marines? Mirror matches don't count much for balance (outside of discussing vs CSM, which as you all know I have a whole host of complaints on how they're handled). Otherwise the extra AP is welcome to fight against cheaper hordes.
Yes?
There's CSM, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Sisters of Battle, vehicle units as a broad category, some Eldar units, etc. And even then, the mirror match matters a lot.
The proliferation of AP2 is, in my opinion, terrible for the balance of toughness, armor, and wounds as metrics of resilience. A fundamental principle of AP is that the more armor you have, the more you're affected by a point of AP. Guardsmen or Orks have paper for armor, and their resilience comes from wound count in the unit, they don't really feel the additional AP. Marine units, however, feel the AP a lot more. Armor is already the weakest defense mode, and wounds is already the strongest; proliferating AP, especially AP2, further encourages massed light infantry and units that have a high wound density over units with armor.
The relative difference between the way a Space Marine and a Guardsmen felt against a Boltgun wound between this edition and last edition was a matter of a Guardsman taking 200% more wounds. Now, Guardsmen take only 100% more wounds by default, and when you start introducing AP it drop to 66% more and then 50% more.
This is also further affecting vehicle unit's relative immunity to light arms. Vehicle's armor saves are already a formality against AT systems and only really existed to neutralize the effect of infantry against them; and AP-2 infantry is also dismantling that.
I think the solution should have been a measure that improve Marine's troops' offensive and defensive capabilities against light troops without seriously affecting heavy infantry units. This is hard to actually find a special-rules based solution, because wounds and shots are the "base value" and effectively the most important factors and will almost always be less affected than systems relying on quality. Quality effects improve the value of each shot or wound, but they don't substitute for more wounds or shots.
So really all these new AP rules will only make marine armies even more fragile against each other, rip GKDABASWCSM. I have SS as a DW player, but they can only do so much. I can't think of a good rule to fix durability either. A FNP for marines is the best solution I can come up with, and that's a pretty bad solution. It only increases the quantity of wounds in a statistical manner, and that doesn't address the real problem. Unless the real problem is that marines have too few wounds to manage given the current game rules. Custodes have a baseline of 3 wounds, and that is before a good invuln and a FNP during the psychic phase.
Points cuts for marines is probably the worst solution, marines at an all-time low price (tacs used to be 15 points each) and it turns them into guardsmen who've eaten an extra protein bar. If you don't want angles of death style rules, then marines need basic statline changes.
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now? They have all codices combined at this point.
Price per model. The new rules are really good, but Marines still wind up outnumbered by a lot against the average army and they're still really fragile per point. They feel like they have the 'hammer' part of 'glass hammer' now, but the 'glass' part is still there too.
Marines are meant to be outnumbered, there are only 1 million across the galaxy. I would be weird if they played like guardsmen with an extra protein bar, and they seemed pretty close to reaching that point at times (12 point marines, scouts replacing tacticals). That being said, I do agree that marines have more than enough killing power while they lack durability and movement.
I wonder if a 7" movement stat, a minimum advance of 2-3", or even new transports would help their movement in a balanced way (but I haven't played with implusors or the new drop pod rule). And I'm not sure what can be done for their durability. +1 wounds would be excessive even with the appropriate points hike. Other statline modifications wouldn't work and rerolling armor saves or adding a FNP would require too much die rolling.
But I play DW, so my marines are meant to be glass cannons and maybe that disqualifies my thoughts.
"Marines are meant to be outnumbered." - True. That's part of why they have such powerful leaf-blower units (and saying that feels weird). Mini-marines struggle there but the Primaris stuff does a lot to pick up the slack.
"Marines lack movement and durability." - Durability yes, movement not so much. I've got turn-one drop-pods, a ton of Advanced Deploy options in Phobos, Phobos can redeploy once they know what the enemy deployment looks like, Ultramarines can do that with normal units, UMs can move anything and fire without penalties, White Scars can do the Assault Vehicle thing out of anything besides a Stormraven, there's good troop options with Assault X weapons and WS can charge after advancing so they're a lot faster than you might be expecting them to be, it doesn't feel like Marines are suffering as much as they used to be there.
I guess I haven't played enough games with the new SM codex to understand their new movement options. But still, what is a possible solution to marine durability problems? Would +1 wound across the board help (for non-characters and vehicles)? I thought of giving marines +1S and + 1T a while back, but that would mean Custodes would need to be a S6 T6 and then Gman would need to be at S7 T7, might as well make him an imperial knight at that point. Obiously these changes would require a big shift in points values, and that has a different set of problems attached to it.
That upgrade would be a bit sad since Iron Hands don't really need captains anymore...
They don't need captains for their heavy weapons any more. I'd bet FF will have no rerolls to offer, either. Their armies will likely be wholly centered around heavy weapons to be functional.
They'll need infiltrators to spread, because once a smash captain gets into that bubble you're at a huge risk of losing control Model counts will likely also be abysmally low as people max out on eliminators, suppressors, and redemptors. They'll also be low on CP unless they also want to drop points on more troops and HQs - and they'll spring for lower shot count heavy weapons meaning the redemptors have to do all the lifting against hordes. The psykers won't be power houses for casting and can be shut down by others fairly well.
I agree with you, but it's kind of aside the point. A dreadnought who just gives the Captain buff reroll isn't going to be all that useful.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Grey Knights and Deathwatch and CSM already need a massive rework anyway.
Already? CSM got new books only a few months ago.
CSM didn't get nearly as many yummy treats as codex marines did so some think CSMs need revamps to get everything codex marines do.
CSM, as well as all other marines, need to be brought up to the same standard for regular marine units as the new Codex Marines. But CSM ought to be the highest priority for it because they are bigger, have more players, and just got a bunch of new kits for units that are now very weak compared to their loyalist counterparts. They don't need a new book, but they do need new Legion traits and something like doctrines.
CSM, as well as all other marines, need to be brought up to the same standard for regular marine units as the new Codex Marines.
Disagree. CSM are heretics. They don't do doctrines.
But CSM ought to be the highest priority for it because they are bigger, have more players
Citation needed.
units that are now very weak compared to their loyalist counterparts
Citation needed.
- Centurions just got the same number of wounds as obliterators. They pay 70 to the oblit's 115, have worse guns (for that loadout), no invulnerable, no melee weapon, and no deepstrike. Alternatively they pay 110 for grav & 2 lc, which is certainly still not as solid as assault 6 battle cannon shots.
- There is no equivalent to the disco lord.
- Apostles are way more reliable.
- CSM still have largely better spells available though White Scars challenges that a bit so far.
- MoE is a dirt cheap beatstick with no minus to hit.
- Havocs got T5. IH stole their move and shoot, but I don't really care that much as they also need to be monodex.
They don't need a new book, but they do need new Legion traits and something like doctrines.
Traits, sure, but really just some bits that can also apply to vehicles and mono-dex bonuses and we're good.
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now? They have all codices combined at this point.
Price per model. The new rules are really good, but Marines still wind up outnumbered by a lot against the average army and they're still really fragile per point. They feel like they have the 'hammer' part of 'glass hammer' now, but the 'glass' part is still there too.
Marines are meant to be outnumbered, there are only 1 million across the galaxy. I would be weird if they played like guardsmen with an extra protein bar, and they seemed pretty close to reaching that point at times (12 point marines, scouts replacing tacticals). That being said, I do agree that marines have more than enough killing power while they lack durability and movement.
I wonder if a 7" movement stat, a minimum advance of 2-3", or even new transports would help their movement in a balanced way (but I haven't played with implusors or the new drop pod rule). And I'm not sure what can be done for their durability. +1 wounds would be excessive even with the appropriate points hike. Other statline modifications wouldn't work and rerolling armor saves or adding a FNP would require too much die rolling.
But I play DW, so my marines are meant to be glass cannons and maybe that disqualifies my thoughts.
Guard get 10 T3 wounds, and 20 shots for 10 hits, and ~5/3 wounding hits (vs T3/T4) for 40 points of troop infantry. They also get (some) ObSec Tanks.
For 40 points, Marines get... 3 T4 wounds, and 6 shots, 3 hits, 2/1.5 wounding hits or 4 wounds, 4 shots, 2.5 hits, a little less than 2/1.5 wounding troop models. Start making the Tactical Maine a 2-3 wound model, a Primaris a 3-4 wound model, and Bolters Rapid Fire 2, Storm Bolters Rapid Fire 4 and then it starts getting into an interesting model count vs potency per model trade-off. The same weapons that are useful vs a horde should be as useful vs an elite troop squad. You take a Tactical Marine squad, and stick them up against an equivalent points Guard squadS, and the tactical squad loses long before you start hiding ablative-wound-protected plasma guns. Point for point Marines are both less cannon and less durable than guardsmen. Vs 0 AP, 40 points, 10 guard wounds is 13.333 wounds with saving a third i.e. 3.333 will have to be wounded twice.. plus 10, 13.3333. 3/4 3+ save wounds are 5/6 and some change. the difference between T3 vs T4 in a world of bolters, shootas, pulse, Gauss/Tesla, and their equivalents is pretty meaningless.
CSM, as well as all other marines, need to be brought up to the same standard for regular marine units as the new Codex Marines.
Disagree. CSM are heretics. They don't do doctrines.
But CSM ought to be the highest priority for it because they are bigger, have more players
Citation needed.
units that are now very weak compared to their loyalist counterparts
Citation needed.
- Centurions just got the same number of wounds as obliterators. They pay 70 to the oblit's 115, have worse guns (for that loadout), no invulnerable, no melee weapon, and no deepstrike. Alternatively they pay 110 for grav & 2 lc, which is certainly still not as solid as assault 6 battle cannon shots.
- There is no equivalent to the disco lord.
- Apostles are way more reliable.
- CSM still have largely better spells available though White Scars challenges that a bit so far.
- MoE is a dirt cheap beatstick with no minus to hit.
- Havocs got T5. IH stole their move and shoot, but I don't really care that much as they also need to be monodex.
They don't need a new book, but they do need new Legion traits and something like doctrines.
Traits, sure, but really just some bits that can also apply to vehicles and mono-dex bonuses and we're good.
I do not believe that you do not know that I'm talking about Chaos Marine squads and Terminators. And duh they don't do doctrines, which is why I said 'something like'. CSM and Tacs are supposed to be similar and equivalent units. Basic marines have been garbage all of 8th. Now they've fixed some of them, and they need to fix the rest.
And I'm not responding to the rest of this because we do this in every thread and I think you're just baiting at this point.
- Centurions just got the same number of wounds as obliterators. They pay 70 to the oblit's 115, have worse guns (for that loadout), no invulnerable, no melee weapon, and no deepstrike. Alternatively they pay 110 for grav & 2 lc, which is certainly still not as solid as assault 6 battle cannon shots.
So you find it good that you pay more for less reliability?
- There is no equivalent to the disco lord.
Lazy excuse is lazy, or are we forgetting that Daemon engines are something distinctly CHaos, whilest SM got other distinct unit types?
- Apostles are way more reliable.
And cost more and have no access to bikes or jumppacks, ergo making them rather poor choice. Also reliability costs additinoal points and CP, you were saying?
- CSM still have largely better spells available though White Scars challenges that a bit so far.
I heavily doubt that due to the nature of what is seen.
- MoE is a dirt cheap beatstick with no minus to hit.
It's also a beatstick no one uses, because it's yet ANOTHER beatstick in an army that has NO shortcomings in having better Beatsticks allready. It's a waste of a model, should've been an aspiring champion kit.
- Havocs got T5. IH stole their move and shoot, but I don't really care that much as they also need to be monodex.
Havocs also lost their ablative wounds, which made them propperly playable and not just a unit dependant on an ALpha strike and then instantly dying afterwards.
It's also still a w1 marine body so make of that what you want.
Additionally now the basic CSM costs more then a Tac marine?
And there is nothing to fill the Troop gap somewhat decently now thanks to the tripple nerf cultists took.
So basically all CSM are is soup component for cheap termites, the occaisonal sorcerer and obliterators with slaanesh double shooting or purge rerolls and the occaisonal Discolord pack because one Discolord doesn't even work thanks to T6 and no charachter protection.
There's CSM, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Sisters of Battle, vehicle units as a broad category, some Eldar units, etc. And even then, the mirror match matters a lot.
The proliferation of AP2 is, in my opinion, terrible for the balance of toughness, armor, and wounds as metrics of resilience. A fundamental principle of AP is that the more armor you have, the more you're affected by a point of AP. Guardsmen or Orks have paper for armor, and their resilience comes from wound count in the unit, they don't really feel the additional AP. Marine units, however, feel the AP a lot more. Armor is already the weakest defense mode, and wounds is already the strongest; proliferating AP, especially AP2, further encourages massed light infantry and units that have a high wound density over units with armor.
The relative difference between the way a Space Marine and a Guardsmen felt against a Boltgun wound between this edition and last edition was a matter of a Guardsman taking 200% more wounds. Now, Guardsmen take only 100% more wounds by default, and when you start introducing AP it drop to 66% more and then 50% more.
This is also further affecting vehicle unit's relative immunity to light arms. Vehicle's armor saves are already a formality against AT systems and only really existed to neutralize the effect of infantry against them; and AP-2 infantry is also dismantling that.
I think the solution should have been a measure that improve Marine's troops' offensive and defensive capabilities against light troops without seriously affecting heavy infantry units. This is hard to actually find a special-rules based solution, because wounds and shots are the "base value" and effectively the most important factors and will almost always be less affected than systems relying on quality. Quality effects improve the value of each shot or wound, but they don't substitute for more wounds or shots.
So really all these new AP rules will only make marine armies even more fragile against each other, rip GKDABASWCSM. I have SS as a DW player, but they can only do so much. I can't think of a good rule to fix durability either. A FNP for marines is the best solution I can come up with, and that's a pretty bad solution. It only increases the quantity of wounds in a statistical manner, and that doesn't address the real problem. Unless the real problem is that marines have too few wounds to manage given the current game rules. Custodes have a baseline of 3 wounds, and that is before a good invuln and a FNP during the psychic phase.
Points cuts for marines is probably the worst solution, marines at an all-time low price (tacs used to be 15 points each) and it turns them into guardsmen who've eaten an extra protein bar. If you don't want angles of death style rules, then marines need basic statline changes.
I don't see why there's a problem with points cost reductions. Reducing the cost both improves the viability of bringing large numbers of Marine infantry [saturation] or leaves more space for toys like tanks or plasma guns or thunder hammer WGPL's. Fundamentally, if the unit is cheap, I can buy capability if it needs it in the form of sergeant power swords, plasmaguns, or WGPL's with hammers; and if I don't need the capability they can be cheap and no drag on my army when they're sitting in the back on an objective or getting blasted off the board while trying to take a forward objective. If the unit is expensive, I can't make them less capable if my plan for them doesn't require that capability, and I also can't afford the capability I really want [wolf guard pack leaders with hammers, or multiple plasmaguns], because instead a bunch of points went towards trying to enforce a 3 guardsmen to 1 marine equivalency rate when the profile's been devalued to about 2 to 2.5 guardsmen per marine.
The thing is, whenever I prep a new Space Wolves list, I wind up at 2k points and half the stuff I wanted to/was planning to have, because everything is so damn expensive. I would like less heroism, more efficiency, because I'm not expecting heroism out of cannon-fodder grade units and HQ's who won't be getting near the fight because they're buffing mostly immobile heavy weapons bearers and cheap tanks and would like to instead be able to buy and extra Long Fang squad or something so I don't have to worry about the one I have being zonked, or more cheap IFV's.
Appreciably, all of these random rules went towards making Marines killier, which IMO wasn't the problem, so much as their resilience was really poor for a troop choice and their support units were really glass cannony. All the tanks are T7 and can be fairly easily harassed or inconvenienced by infantry arms. I think fixing it would have been properly re-assessing a marine's actual worth, as opposed to trying to make him worth the cost they're charging.
problerm is that Marines aren't supposed to be a hoard army. shaving them down too many points risk them just being a hoard army. I do think that giving marines extra abilities that allow them to synergize together better is a good idea.
BrianDavion wrote: problerm is that Marines aren't supposed to be a hoard army. shaving them down too many points risk them just being a hoard army. I do think that giving marines extra abilities that allow them to synergize together better is a good idea.
All of this is only necessary because GW got their stats wrong from the start of 8th. They needed to change marine stats in line with other system mechanic changes. If they had a slightly better statline and their weapons had slightly better stats, then it wouldn't be necessary to stack so many special rules up.
The advantage of stacking so many special rules is that it means you can have more variety between different types of marines, which is good. I'm not complaining about how this has turned out. I hope the new marine codex will be the new norm, and that other armies will be brought up to that standard too.
Aaranis wrote: I'm glad to see that after the Repulsor Executioner being better than a Neutron Onager, it's their Techmarines being better at repairing than actual Techpriests.
What's the point in playing anything other than Marines now? They have all codices combined at this point.
Price per model. The new rules are really good, but Marines still wind up outnumbered by a lot against the average army and they're still really fragile per point. They feel like they have the 'hammer' part of 'glass hammer' now, but the 'glass' part is still there too.
Marines are meant to be outnumbered, there are only 1 million across the galaxy. I would be weird if they played like guardsmen with an extra protein bar, and they seemed pretty close to reaching that point at times (12 point marines, scouts replacing tacticals). That being said, I do agree that marines have more than enough killing power while they lack durability and movement.
I wonder if a 7" movement stat, a minimum advance of 2-3", or even new transports would help their movement in a balanced way (but I haven't played with implusors or the new drop pod rule). And I'm not sure what can be done for their durability. +1 wounds would be excessive even with the appropriate points hike. Other statline modifications wouldn't work and rerolling armor saves or adding a FNP would require too much die rolling.
But I play DW, so my marines are meant to be glass cannons and maybe that disqualifies my thoughts.
Guard get 10 T3 wounds, and 20 shots for 10 hits, and ~5/3 wounding hits (vs T3/T4) for 40 points of troop infantry. They also get (some) ObSec Tanks.
For 40 points, Marines get... 3 T4 wounds, and 6 shots, 3 hits, 2/1.5 wounding hits or 4 wounds, 4 shots, 2.5 hits, a little less than 2/1.5 wounding troop models. Start making the Tactical Maine a 2-3 wound model, a Primaris a 3-4 wound model, and Bolters Rapid Fire 2, Storm Bolters Rapid Fire 4 and then it starts getting into an interesting model count vs potency per model trade-off. The same weapons that are useful vs a horde should be as useful vs an elite troop squad. You take a Tactical Marine squad, and stick them up against an equivalent points Guard squadS, and the tactical squad loses long before you start hiding ablative-wound-protected plasma guns. Point for point Marines are both less cannon and less durable than guardsmen. Vs 0 AP, 40 points, 10 guard wounds is 13.333 wounds with saving a third i.e. 3.333 will have to be wounded twice.. plus 10, 13.3333. 3/4 3+ save wounds are 5/6 and some change. the difference between T3 vs T4 in a world of bolters, shootas, pulse, Gauss/Tesla, and their equivalents is pretty meaningless.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. I said Marines still have an issue with durability and you seem to be countering with an argument about how Marines aren't very durable.
Breton wrote: Guard get 10 T3 wounds, and 20 shots for 10 hits, and ~5/3 wounding hits (vs T3/T4) for 40 points of troop infantry. They also get (some) ObSec Tanks.
For 40 points, Marines get... 3 T4 wounds, and 6 shots, 3 hits, 2/1.5 wounding hits or 4 wounds, 4 shots, 2.5 hits, a little less than 2/1.5 wounding troop models.
Guard have been borked ever since the start of 8th edition when GW didn't update stats and costs to match their new weapon rules. At 4 points they should have had an armour save of 7+ (6+ at a push).
10 guard vs marines are 1.1 wounds after saves, 3 marines vs guard are 2.67 wounds before saves, or 1.78 after - the save really changes things. Though it is also notable that the removal of templates and blast markers in 8th directly benefits armies with higher model counts as they can compress their units to maximize fire - there is no consequence to bunching stuff up to get a whole squad into rapid fire range.
Given the cost/price hike to cultists, conscripts, and all the 'not guard' i'm guessing GW knows where they went wrong and have chosen not to fix it.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering that cp Generation is better done by csm now, even though they still are 13 pts for whatever reason, i still find that hillarious.
Thus demonstrating that it's the guard who are out of shape more than the marines, even without the layer upon layer upon layer of extra rules they are currently getting.
I feel bad for new/returning players facing the litany of bonus special abilities being used to fix the symptom of the problems created day 1 with GW sticking to unsuitable past edition statlines.
Not Online!!! wrote: Oh noes the bolter doesn't negate the armor of guard automatically anymore. Schock and horror.
Imagine for one edition basic guard infantry be good.
Altough i still wonder why cultists got the hike and removal of traits.
either one or the other would've been fairer.
Yes, why should an Assault rifle that fires RPGs be able to shoot through a basic flak vest? Why indeed...
Because a flak vest will save you in case of indirect fire.
Sure, if you are hit straight on you are fine red mist, but the shrapnel of something being hit by that near you will be stopped by the vest, so a 5+ is a correct representation.
Also, the fact that guards outshoot marines point by point is old math now heavily wrong.
Nowadays a tac marine costs 12 ponts and has shock attack and bolter drill. It will shred guards point per point, and let's not talk about intercessors.
Sure, if you just put them standing still at 12" you will lose (with tacs, not with intercessors) but why would you ever do that???
It's like saying that a kabalite with a blaster pistol outshoots a leman russ command tank point per point, so the tank is underpowered. Range matters.
If you pit 10 tacs against 3 infantry squads (equal points), the math easilly shows that the 10 tacs kill 24 points of guards (plus morale), while the guards kill 18 points of marines. If you factor in cover, this becomes hugely skewed in favor of the marines. This is balanced by the fact that marines are more susceptible to bigger weapons, so after all this buffs, marines are absolutely on the same level of guards when it comes to shoot outs between basic troops (which is a useless analysis, but since it was thrown in here i wanted to rectify the mistakes).
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering that cp Generation is better done by csm now, even though they still are 13 pts for whatever reason, i still find that hillarious.
Thus demonstrating that it's the guard who are out of shape more than the marines, even without the layer upon layer upon layer of extra rules they are currently getting.
I feel bad for new/returning players facing the litany of bonus special abilities being used to fix the symptom of the problems created day 1 with GW sticking to unsuitable past edition statlines.
No it's just basic marines should generate one cp per squad taken like RC do, on top of detachments.
That solved the issue for Chaos.
Not Online!!! wrote: Oh noes the bolter doesn't negate the armor of guard automatically anymore. Schock and horror.
Imagine for one edition basic guard infantry be good.
Altough i still wonder why cultists got the hike and removal of traits.
either one or the other would've been fairer.
Yes, why should an Assault rifle that fires RPGs be able to shoot through a basic flak vest? Why indeed...
Because a flak vest will save you in case of indirect fire.
Sure, if you are hit straight on you are fine red mist, but the shrapnel of something being hit by that near you will be stopped by the vest, so a 5+ is a correct representation.
Also, the fact that guards outshoot marines point by point is old math now heavily wrong.
Nowadays a tac marine costs 12 ponts and has shock attack and bolter drill. It will shred guards point per point, and let's not talk about intercessors.
Sure, if you just put them standing still at 12" you will lose (with tacs, not with intercessors) but why would you ever do that???
It's like saying that a kabalite with a blaster pistol outshoots a leman russ command tank point per point, so the tank is underpowered. Range matters.
If you pit 10 tacs against 3 infantry squads (equal points), the math easilly shows that the 10 tacs kill 24 points of guards (plus morale), while the guards kill 18 points of marines. If you factor in cover, this becomes hugely skewed in favor of the marines. This is balanced by the fact that marines are more susceptible to bigger weapons, so after all this buffs, marines are absolutely on the same level of guards when it comes to shoot outs between basic troops (which is a useless analysis, but since it was thrown in here i wanted to rectify the mistakes).
Breton wrote: Guard get 10 T3 wounds, and 20 shots for 10 hits, and ~5/3 wounding hits (vs T3/T4) for 40 points of troop infantry. They also get (some) ObSec Tanks.
For 40 points, Marines get... 3 T4 wounds, and 6 shots, 3 hits, 2/1.5 wounding hits or 4 wounds, 4 shots, 2.5 hits, a little less than 2/1.5 wounding troop models.
Guard have been borked ever since the start of 8th edition when GW didn't update stats and costs to match their new weapon rules. At 4 points they should have had an armour save of 7+ (6+ at a push).
10 guard vs marines are 1.1 wounds after saves, 3 marines vs guard are 2.67 wounds before saves, or 1.78 after - the save really changes things. Though it is also notable that the removal of templates and blast markers in 8th directly benefits armies with higher model counts as they can compress their units to maximize fire - there is no consequence to bunching stuff up to get a whole squad into rapid fire range.
Given the cost/price hike to cultists, conscripts, and all the 'not guard' i'm guessing GW knows where they went wrong and have chosen not to fix it.
Using your math, after 3 turns the marines are dead, and only half the guard are. - I never said the Armor save didn't matter - in fact I included it. Guard save 1/3 of their wounds before AP - thus 10 guard with 10 wounds costing 40 points actually have roughly 13.333 wounds. 3 Marines with a 3+ save 67% so 3 marines with 3 wounds also costing roughly 40 points have roughly 5 wounds.
Oh noes the bolter doesn't negate the armor of guard automatically anymore. Schock and horror.
Imagine for one edition basic guard infantry be good.
My Terminators would be laughing if they hadn't been crying since second. And if Guard infantry wasn't already good. Most of this game is balanced on points. A couple key things are not. Horde armies win Objective Secured and CP Generation. The Loyal 32 costs about the same as just ONE marine troop choice. CP Generation should be points spent/game size and not vary between horde/elite armies.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering that cp Generation is better done by csm now, even though they still are 13 pts for whatever reason, i still find that hillarious.
Thus demonstrating that it's the guard who are out of shape more than the marines, even without the layer upon layer upon layer of extra rules they are currently getting.
I feel bad for new/returning players facing the litany of bonus special abilities being used to fix the symptom of the problems created day 1 with GW sticking to unsuitable past edition statlines.
No it's just basic marines should generate one cp per squad taken like RC do, on top of detachments.
That solved the issue for Chaos.
Not Online!!! wrote: Oh noes the bolter doesn't negate the armor of guard automatically anymore. Schock and horror.
Imagine for one edition basic guard infantry be good.
Altough i still wonder why cultists got the hike and removal of traits.
either one or the other would've been fairer.
Yes, why should an Assault rifle that fires RPGs be able to shoot through a basic flak vest? Why indeed...
Because a flak vest will save you in case of indirect fire.
Sure, if you are hit straight on you are fine red mist, but the shrapnel of something being hit by that near you will be stopped by the vest, so a 5+ is a correct representation.
Also, the fact that guards outshoot marines point by point is old math now heavily wrong.
Nowadays a tac marine costs 12 ponts and has shock attack and bolter drill. It will shred guards point per point, and let's not talk about intercessors.
Sure, if you just put them standing still at 12" you will lose (with tacs, not with intercessors) but why would you ever do that???
It's like saying that a kabalite with a blaster pistol outshoots a leman russ command tank point per point, so the tank is underpowered. Range matters.
If you pit 10 tacs against 3 infantry squads (equal points), the math easilly shows that the 10 tacs kill 24 points of guards (plus morale), while the guards kill 18 points of marines. If you factor in cover, this becomes hugely skewed in favor of the marines. This is balanced by the fact that marines are more susceptible to bigger weapons, so after all this buffs, marines are absolutely on the same level of guards when it comes to shoot outs between basic troops (which is a useless analysis, but since it was thrown in here i wanted to rectify the mistakes).
Also this.
No it didn't solve the problem for Chaos Marines. It just means you're taking Red Corsairs for CP.
Chaos Marines are still useless and that's partly due to them being written like Spiky Marines. Overhaul is needed ASAP.
It just occured to me that a Marine thread went five whole pages before someone complained about Guard outshooting Marines. That's got to be a new record for 8th ed.
No it didn't solve the problem for Chaos Marines. It just means you're taking Red Corsairs for CP.
Chaos Marines are still useless and that's partly due to them being written like Spiky Marines. Overhaul is needed ASAP.
But my fellow player, as an iron warrior i am atm at the blissfull state of bitter, no need all things are in order and we are allready updated.
/bitter sarcasm and irony off.
Look at it from this way, you get a CP battery that is actually effective and rewards you for picking 3 x 5 CSM. That is more reason that ever existed in Chaos for a long time.
AND THAT IS GOOD.
The issue comes down that CSM, even though mostly legionaires, don't reward big squads.
Or not appropriately.
Add to that stratagems that make all other versions and legions that can't use them overpriced by virtue of existing and you get the bloody BS that we have now.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Grey Knights and Deathwatch and CSM already need a massive rework anyway.
Already? CSM got new books only a few months ago.
CSM didn't get nearly as many yummy treats as codex marines did so some think CSMs need revamps to get everything codex marines do.
They need a revamp as they're just being written as mirrors to the Loyalist codex except worse. They need to be written as Legions again compared to the garbage that 4th-most of 7th brought. The Legion Supplement at the end of 7th was a good start.
No it didn't solve the problem for Chaos Marines. It just means you're taking Red Corsairs for CP.
Chaos Marines are still useless and that's partly due to them being written like Spiky Marines. Overhaul is needed ASAP.
But my fellow player, as an iron warrior i am atm at the blissfull state of bitter, no need all things are in order and we are allready updated.
/bitter sarcasm and irony off.
Look at it from this way, you get a CP battery that is actually effective and rewards you for picking 3 x 5 CSM. That is more reason that ever existed in Chaos for a long time.
AND THAT IS GOOD.
The issue comes down that CSM, even though mostly legionaires, don't reward big squads.
Or not appropriately.
Add to that stratagems that make all other versions and legions that can't use them overpriced by virtue of existing and you get the bloody BS that we have now.
It really isn't that effective. You're effectively paying 105 points more compared to the Cultists because you're forced into the Chaincannon (from a new kit, look at that!)
Otherwise even when using Red Corsairs I still have no good reason to use the Chaos Marine entry. Don't even get me started on the whole "Legionnaire" thing and them not being Vets at all.
It really isn't that effective. You're effectively paying 105 points more compared to the Cultists because you're forced into the Chaincannon (from a new kit, look at that!)
Otherwise even when using Red Corsairs I still have no good reason to use the Chaos Marine entry. Don't even get me started on the whole "Legionnaire" thing and them not being Vets at all.
The chaincannon imo is a trap choice.
Especially since the bodies don't support it good enough.
And yes it is an effective choice, nearly reaching guard levels pts/CP wise. (and mone CSM are about as CP hungry as it gets.)
It really isn't that effective. You're effectively paying 105 points more compared to the Cultists because you're forced into the Chaincannon (from a new kit, look at that!)
Otherwise even when using Red Corsairs I still have no good reason to use the Chaos Marine entry. Don't even get me started on the whole "Legionnaire" thing and them not being Vets at all.
The chaincannon imo is a trap choice.
Especially since the bodies don't support it good enough.
And yes it is an effective choice, nearly reaching guard levels pts/CP wise. (and mone CSM are about as CP hungry as it gets.)
Altough a legion book would be appreciated.
Honestly based on the fact we can get more effective objective holders from Cultists and still get fine enough CP, I don't think it's an effective defense for the Chaos Marine entry. Even having tried it out, I'm still out of CP early and they don't help outside me maybe getting 1 or 2 more Strats out of it.
No it didn't solve the problem for Chaos Marines. It just means you're taking Red Corsairs for CP.
Chaos Marines are still useless and that's partly due to them being written like Spiky Marines. Overhaul is needed ASAP.
But my fellow player, as an iron warrior i am atm at the blissfull state of bitter, no need all things are in order and we are allready updated.
/bitter sarcasm and irony off.
Look at it from this way, you get a CP battery that is actually effective and rewards you for picking 3 x 5 CSM. That is more reason that ever existed in Chaos for a long time.
AND THAT IS GOOD.
The issue comes down that CSM, even though mostly legionaires, don't reward big squads.
Or not appropriately.
Add to that stratagems that make all other versions and legions that can't use them overpriced by virtue of existing and you get the bloody BS that we have now.
Hasn't someone in the "studio" said that they don't see choas as a marine centric list it should be a leader, his warriors and hangers on?
GW has their vision of choas which is a massive mixed force, the issue is mix and match, min maxing leads to not patchwork armies being underpowered. While buffing all the parts makes the patchwork quilt OP
I doubt you'll see what your asking for as GW doesn't see choas marine's as being that poor because they still do appear in top lists, maybe not what you would call choas marine's but GW won't be delving into each unit in each list.
They will probably finish marines then move onto GK if they have finally figured out a way to fix them.
The Newman wrote: It just occured to me that a Marine thread went five whole pages before someone complained about Guard outshooting Marines. That's got to be a new record for 8th ed.
It just occured to me, we almost went a whole page without a guard player misconstruing the point into whining about Guard, not the generic horde vs elite balance issues. PS, I'm a guard player too. Its one of the reasons I use them for an example. I know them better than Orks. I play a little bit of everything. I want everything to be relatively equally good.
No it didn't solve the problem for Chaos Marines. It just means you're taking Red Corsairs for CP.
Chaos Marines are still useless and that's partly due to them being written like Spiky Marines. Overhaul is needed ASAP.
But my fellow player, as an iron warrior i am atm at the blissfull state of bitter, no need all things are in order and we are allready updated.
/bitter sarcasm and irony off.
Look at it from this way, you get a CP battery that is actually effective and rewards you for picking 3 x 5 CSM. That is more reason that ever existed in Chaos for a long time.
AND THAT IS GOOD.
The issue comes down that CSM, even though mostly legionaires, don't reward big squads.
Or not appropriately.
Add to that stratagems that make all other versions and legions that can't use them overpriced by virtue of existing and you get the bloody BS that we have now.
Hasn't someone in the "studio" said that they don't see choas as a marine centric list it should be a leader, his warriors and hangers on?
GW has their vision of choas which is a massive mixed force, the issue is mix and match, min maxing leads to not patchwork armies being underpowered. While buffing all the parts makes the patchwork quilt OP
I doubt you'll see what your asking for as GW doesn't see choas marine's as being that poor because they still do appear in top lists, maybe not what you would call choas marine's but GW won't be delving into each unit in each list.
They will probably finish marines then move onto GK if they have finally figured out a way to fix them.
I agree with whoever that guy in the studio is. Chaos Marines are these hard asses from the Heresy, and therefore should be more dangerous individuals.
However they didn't execute it. Chosen should've been the troop choice from the getgo and the basic Chaos Marine entry deleted for good. Everyone should've had Vet stats at minimum.
Wanna represent Renegades? It should've been done with the basic Marine book with a page on how to switch keywords. Huron and his Red Corsairs are counted as White Scars successors for their rules.
Not Online!!! wrote: And I don't because that only represents warbands of former legion members, not the legions themselves.
You're gonna have to expand on the post because I don't get the point you're making.
WB, IW, bl and al fight not as individuals f.e
Ergo they are not warriors + hangers on?
Ah okay.
I more meant the spirit of the statement of course rather than the literal interpretation. Those Legions might be more unified in purpose, but the truth of the statement is still there. They're very much about individuals and the powerful henchmen they got.
The Newman wrote: It just occured to me that a Marine thread went five whole pages before someone complained about Guard outshooting Marines. That's got to be a new record for 8th ed.
It just occured to me, we almost went a whole page without a guard player misconstruing the point into whining about Guard, not the generic horde vs elite balance issues. PS, I'm a guard player too. Its one of the reasons I use them for an example. I know them better than Orks. I play a little bit of everything. I want everything to be relatively equally good.
And someone also popped up pretty quickly to point out that the math doesn't work out in the Guard's favor anymore base-squad to base-squad. And someone also pointed out (just now) that a single 37 point Aggressor will fairly reliably wipe a Guard squad off the table by itself if you can deliver it.
I do not believe that you do not know that I'm talking about Chaos Marine squads and Terminators. And duh they don't do doctrines, which is why I said 'something like'. CSM and Tacs are supposed to be similar and equivalent units. Basic marines have been garbage all of 8th. Now they've fixed some of them, and they need to fix the rest.
And I'm not responding to the rest of this because we do this in every thread and I think you're just baiting at this point.
CSM terminators are absurdly more flexible than loyalists. Come on.
Not Online!!! wrote: And I don't because that only represents warbands of former legion members, not the legions themselves.
You're gonna have to expand on the post because I don't get the point you're making.
WB, IW, bl and al fight not as individuals f.e
Ergo they are not warriors + hangers on?
Ah okay.
I more meant the spirit of the statement of course rather than the literal interpretation. Those Legions might be more unified in purpose, but the truth of the statement is still there. They're very much about individuals and the powerful henchmen they got.
WB, more about erecting massive pyres for their gods.
IW, Wiping out Iron hands since 30000 +. (so yes individualism plays a role there)
BL. Abbadaons crusaders, more loyal to him then to outsiders.
Al. We simply don't know, thanks for your great writing GW:
I do not believe that you do not know that I'm talking about Chaos Marine squads and Terminators. And duh they don't do doctrines, which is why I said 'something like'. CSM and Tacs are supposed to be similar and equivalent units. Basic marines have been garbage all of 8th. Now they've fixed some of them, and they need to fix the rest.
And I'm not responding to the rest of this because we do this in every thread and I think you're just baiting at this point.
CSM terminators are absurdly more flexible than loyalists. Come on.
until you realise that excactly one loadouts is played?
Involving combiplas, slaanesh and chainaxes?
I do not believe that you do not know that I'm talking about Chaos Marine squads and Terminators. And duh they don't do doctrines, which is why I said 'something like'. CSM and Tacs are supposed to be similar and equivalent units. Basic marines have been garbage all of 8th. Now they've fixed some of them, and they need to fix the rest.
And I'm not responding to the rest of this because we do this in every thread and I think you're just baiting at this point.
CSM terminators are absurdly more flexible than loyalists. Come on.
Tons of options =/= flexible. The moment you want to add Power Fists you're paying much more than Loyalists until you go into Chainaxes to make up for that absurd cost. They also only get played as a Combi-Plasma suicide squad because of the Chainaxe taking away from the total cost. No "power weapon" tax, basically.
Oh but Space Wolves can do that better so who cares? Throw Storm Shields on everyone!
Not Online!!! wrote: And I don't because that only represents warbands of former legion members, not the legions themselves.
You're gonna have to expand on the post because I don't get the point you're making.
WB, IW, bl and al fight not as individuals f.e
Ergo they are not warriors + hangers on?
Ah okay.
I more meant the spirit of the statement of course rather than the literal interpretation. Those Legions might be more unified in purpose, but the truth of the statement is still there. They're very much about individuals and the powerful henchmen they got.
WB, more about erecting massive pyres for their gods.
IW, Wiping out Iron hands since 30000 +. (so yes individualism plays a role there)
BL. Abbadaons crusaders, more loyal to him then to outsiders.
Al. We simply don't know, thanks for your great writing GW
There's still a TON of infighting in their purpose though. Iron Warriors especially, but the infighting for Black Legion to be more in power and close to Abigail? Alpha Legion you don't actually know who's in charge?
I'd grant you Word Bearers but that's it. The whole thing with Chaos Marines is they should be more about the power HQ units and their powerful lackeys. That's why in my mind everyone should be laid out as:
Tactical Marine stats stay the same as is, and consolidate the Angels and ways to use Renegades with it
Grey Hunters keep the Chainsword, and their Scouts naturally have two attacks, and Long Fangs are at Vet stats
Grey Knights get two attacks at minimum starting
Deathwatch make sense as is for the starting point of stats
Then we have Chosen as the base Troop choice for the CSM codex, with everyone having Vet stats at minimum.
until you realise that excactly one loadouts is played?
Involving combiplas, slaanesh and chainaxes?
Right, a balance cheapest and most effective for all scenarios. Loyalists can't do that and that's the point - CSM lamenting they have nothing. Could they use more? Sure, but there isn't this giant chasm where nothing works in CSM's favor.
Combi-plas terminators that can deepstrike and offload are precisely the thing primaris are going to worry about.
Honestly I just want my Noise Marines to become as useful as the Intercessors with autorifles which are both more durable, and still output the same shots as one with a Sonic Blaster.. Yeah sure they don't get cover, but with Doctrines you ignore the basic cover save anyways!
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Honestly I just want my Noise Marines to become as useful as the Intercessors with autorifles which are both more durable, and still output the same shots as one with a Sonic Blaster.. Yeah sure they don't get cover, but with Doctrines you ignore the basic cover save anyways!
until you realise that excactly one loadouts is played?
Involving combiplas, slaanesh and chainaxes?
Right, a balance cheapest and most effective for all scenarios. Loyalists can't do that and that's the point - CSM lamenting they have nothing. Could they use more? Sure, but there isn't this giant chasm where nothing works in CSM's favor.
Combi-plas terminators that can deepstrike and offload are precisely the thing primaris are going to worry about.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I wonder if the optimal Intercessor Build for Iron Hands is going to be Stalker Bolt Rifles now. Spamming Heavy weapons (most vehicle weapons are Heavy) could lead to a very strong Turn 1 alpha strike.
In my personal opinion it's the best option overall. Though it might average overall the least damage - it is good against the most amount of targets. It's even a big threat to 2+saves in cover. Been playing against tau a lot recently. Broadsides in cover really don't like taking these shots. Not really worth tanking with a drone but if 3 get through that is a dead broadside. It's the most versatile and also the longest range. I've been running 25 as Ultramarines. Working really well.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I wonder if the optimal Intercessor Build for Iron Hands is going to be Stalker Bolt Rifles now. Spamming Heavy weapons (most vehicle weapons are Heavy) could lead to a very strong Turn 1 alpha strike.
In my personal opinion it's the best option overall. Though it might average overall the least damage - it is good against the most amount of targets. It's even a big threat to 2+saves in cover. Been playing against tau a lot recently. Broadsides in cover really don't like taking these shots. Not really worth tanking with a drone but if 3 get through that is a dead broadside. It's the most versatile and also the longest range. I've been running 25 as Ultramarines. Working really well.
Pretty much all of this is wrong. It is the worst option overall. It should be pretty damn obvious that Damage 2 is wasted against a huge selection of targets, and that in a tactical doctrine two shot from a regular bolt rifle are just as good versus multiwound target than one shot from the stalker. (And three auto shots are even better in most cases.)
Now, IH want stay in devastator and gain additional benefits in it, so for them stalkers are worth considering. For others, not so much.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Honestly I just want my Noise Marines to become as useful as the Intercessors with autorifles which are both more durable, and still output the same shots as one with a Sonic Blaster.. Yeah sure they don't get cover, but with Doctrines you ignore the basic cover save anyways!
Sonic Blasters should only be two points max.
Given the Intercessor benefits, it should just be either free or one point. Currently they cost more then said Intercessor.. Either that or buff the Sonics.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I wonder if the optimal Intercessor Build for Iron Hands is going to be Stalker Bolt Rifles now. Spamming Heavy weapons (most vehicle weapons are Heavy) could lead to a very strong Turn 1 alpha strike.
In my personal opinion it's the best option overall. Though it might average overall the least damage - it is good against the most amount of targets. It's even a big threat to 2+saves in cover. Been playing against tau a lot recently. Broadsides in cover really don't like taking these shots. Not really worth tanking with a drone but if 3 get through that is a dead broadside. It's the most versatile and also the longest range. I've been running 25 as Ultramarines. Working really well.
Pretty much all of this is wrong. It is the worst option overall. It should be pretty damn obvious that Damage 2 is wasted against a huge selection of targets, and that in a tactical doctrine two shot from a regular bolt rifle are just as good versus multiwound target than one shot from the stalker. (And three auto shots are even better in most cases.)
Now, IH want stay in devastator and gain additional benefits in it, so for them stalkers are worth considering. For others, not so much.
What game are you playing where 2 damage is wasted on most targets? LOL. You don't really play this game do you?
Lets just ignore the fact it starts the game in range and at AP-3 compared to barely in range and AP-1.
What game are you playing where 2 damage is wasted on most targets? LOL. You don't really play this game do you?
Lets just ignore the fact it starts the game in range and at AP-3 compared to barely in range and AP-1.
Less also ignore the "In my personal opinion"
Probably the same one I'm playing. There aren't a lot of multiwound infantry out there, and most of the multiwound infantry are 3W custodes which D2 is inefficient again. There are a healthy amount of Primaris and Wulfen in the like 5 different Space Wolf players, but mostly there's W1 models like Guardsmen, Boyz, Death Company, Genestealers, etc.
That said, AP-3 D2 infantry-carried weapons are what I didn't want to see and why I dislike all these changes. AP-3 against basic infantry isn't super useful, since you were at the point of effectively eliminating armor saves already at AP-2. An AP-3 D2 infantry-carried sniper rifle is quickly approaching the realm where infantry can fight tanks without having squad light antitank weapons, which is one of the things I just don't think should be an option.
Like, I don't really want basic infantry buffed to the point of tank hunting with assault rifles. Doctrines should have given +1BS to the weapon category or something
Fundamentally, if you have 2 shots for 1 damage, or 1 shot with 2 damage, and their profiles are otherwise identical, then you essentially always want the 2 for 1.
This. Barring edge cases with auto-wounding rules (looking at you Deathwatch), volume of fire wins out due to the highly fickle nature of the wounding system.
CSM terminators are absurdly more flexible than loyalists. Come on.
Aren't they all plastic? I mean, I can't imagine anyone making recasts of any termintors that aren't FW, and all non FW resin end up not very flexible. FW stuff can sometimes feel like rubber.
Fundamentally, if you have 2 shots for 1 damage, or 1 shot with 2 damage, and their profiles are otherwise identical, then you essentially always want the 2 for 1.
extra damage has to be 3 or more, to really matter, because at 3D per weapon and with 5-10 weapons per unit, you can start to plink vehicles or monsters.
Can we take a step back from discussing CSM and Guard in the IH thread to ask for a show of hands as to who is becoming concerned that it's been a couple of days and there still isn't a preview for Ravenguard on the community page yet?
The Newman wrote: Can we take a step back from discussing CSM and Guard in the IH thread to ask for a show of hands as to who is becoming concerned that it's been a couple of days and there still isn't a preview for Ravenguard on the community page yet?
It hasn't been a couple of days. The Iron Hands were posted yesterday.
...oh yeah, the first set of spoilers was third-hand "hey I heard this from a guy who's usually reliable" stuff on the 7th. The actual official spoilers did drop yesterday.
What game are you playing where 2 damage is wasted on most targets? LOL. You don't really play this game do you?
Lets just ignore the fact it starts the game in range and at AP-3 compared to barely in range and AP-1.
Less also ignore the "In my personal opinion"
Probably the same one I'm playing. There aren't a lot of multiwound infantry out there, and most of the multiwound infantry are 3W custodes which D2 is inefficient again. There are a healthy amount of Primaris and Wulfen in the like 5 different Space Wolf players, but mostly there's W1 models like Guardsmen, Boyz, Death Company, Genestealers, etc.
That said, AP-3 D2 infantry-carried weapons are what I didn't want to see and why I dislike all these changes. AP-3 against basic infantry isn't super useful, since you were at the point of effectively eliminating armor saves already at AP-2. An AP-3 D2 infantry-carried sniper rifle is quickly approaching the realm where infantry can fight tanks without having squad light antitank weapons, which is one of the things I just don't think should be an option.
Like, I don't really want basic infantry buffed to the point of tank hunting with assault rifles. Doctrines should have given +1BS to the weapon category or something
D2 is not ineffective against 3 wound models. A 5 man squad is unlikely to get more than 1 wound through on a custodian guard unit. Smart players (like me) rotate and manufacture kills across the battlefeild.
Example.
5 Man stalker unit shoots at custodian gaurd - if a wound gets through and they have 1 wound left - I'll shoot it with storm bolters or other chaff nonsense until that wound falls. Then I'll start with the multi wound stuff again. Lets just say this is turn 1 also - the custodian used prepared positions and has a 1 plus save. With AP -3 you bring him to a 4+ - He's got a 2+ against both other bolter options. Vs a firewarriors you are averaging about the same damage on turn 1. Vs a primaris you are doing about twice as much damage. Vs most tanks you are averaging more damage. Vs most flyers you are averaging more damage. The only units they are less effective against are literally dirt chaf infantry. Which redemptor dreads and repulsors clear with infinite ease. Or a single intercessor squad with bolt rifles switched to the tactical doctrine and rapid fire. Been running a 10 man with BR and 5x 5mans with stalkers. The move and shoot penalty isn't really a big deal when you reroll all hits. 75% from 89% is not a massive difference - it's great that ironhands get it turn 1 though - it is in fact OP as hell and makes them hands down better than Ultras. It doesn't mean that Ultras aren't still better off being in devastator doctrine with most their units and just switching a few every turn. IMO the doctrines should work based on your battlefield roll and not the weapon you are using. It is just far to easy to stack your army to rampage all game in the dev doctrine.
Fundamentally, if you have 2 shots for 1 damage, or 1 shot with 2 damage, and their profiles are otherwise identical, then you essentially always want the 2 for 1.
This. Barring edge cases with auto-wounding rules (looking at you Deathwatch), volume of fire wins out due to the highly fickle nature of the wounding system.
If the AP was equal you'd be correct. When 1 has higher AP that tips the scales in favor of the 2 damage weapon.
It's not as bad as it seems as a lot of really powerful units are characters. Plus this is a great trait for snipers as well. It's bad though. Not worth taking.
you weren't kidding, that's going to be brutal on some units ie sniper scouts and other things but no wonder noone was talking about ravenguard as a powerful suplement.
I foresee a lot of Iron raven chapters appearing as the power difference is comical.
Yeah; good for Eliminators, not terrible for sniper scouts, and nice for anything that can DS into potential "that character is the closest thing to me" positions. It also helps when any of your stuff winds up in melee with an enemy character, not normally somewhere your regular troops want to be.
Edit: RV get a derpy character-only version of Da' Jump. That's not great.
Bit odd that they spoiled the RG warlord trait and the relic that we already knew about instead of some new ones, that either speaks poorly for the new content or speaks very poorly for the preview writers.
The Newman wrote: Yeah; good for Eliminators, not terrible for sniper scouts, and nice for anything that can DS into potential "that character is the closest thing to me" positions. It also helps when any of your stuff winds up in melee with an enemy character, not normally somewhere your regular troops want to be.
RG basically gets Da' Jump, which isn't bad.
Bit odd that they spoiled the RG warlord trait and the relic that we already knew about instead of some new ones, that either speaks poorly for the new content or speaks very poorly for the preview writers.
The psychic power is good appart from 1 main issue the only unit I can think off that it really helps is captain in gravis armour as old marines have jumppacks etc. So yeah your gravis captain can now shadow step to your deepstriking old marine's and then have to hope he doesn't get left behind.
until you realise that excactly one loadouts is played?
Involving combiplas, slaanesh and chainaxes?
Right, a balance cheapest and most effective for all scenarios. Loyalists can't do that and that's the point - CSM lamenting they have nothing. Could they use more? Sure, but there isn't this giant chasm where nothing works in CSM's favor.
Combi-plas terminators that can deepstrike and offload are precisely the thing primaris are going to worry about.
the following have not access to the required COMBO:
Purge, Brazen, WE, Scourged --> these here are just the ones that are not going to get the requirements to even use the combo.
Not to mention that CSM terminators still are more expensive baseline, which is hillarious contrasted with SW as another poster mentioned.
Additionally the following traits are also automatically discarded due to beeing bad beyond believe: WB, WE, IW.
And some of these can't rely on the warlord trait to pull them out of the gutter. Others just make no sense trait wise, because the Stratagem associated with the mark and trait are contraintuitive: EC
Additionally 4 units and 3 stratagems that work competitively whilest the rest simply does not is not what i would describe as a JOB well done. There are people out there that don't want to dabble necessarily in TS and DG. And in that regard i am happy for Marines. For once not needing a guard babysitter and a Knight Damage dealer. But to state there is NO chasm, between the two codexes that are at the Stage of 2.0 is hillariously loopsided. As was your first exemple.
The Newman wrote: Yeah; good for Eliminators, not terrible for sniper scouts, and nice for anything that can DS into potential "that character is the closest thing to me" positions. It also helps when any of your stuff winds up in melee with an enemy character, not normally somewhere your regular troops want to be.
RG basically gets Da' Jump, which isn't bad.
Bit odd that they spoiled the RG warlord trait and the relic that we already knew about instead of some new ones, that either speaks poorly for the new content or speaks very poorly for the preview writers.
The psychic power is good appart from 1 main issue the only unit I can think off that it really helps is captain in gravis armour as old marines have jumppacks etc. So yeah your gravis captain can now shadow step to your deepstriking old marine's and then have to hope he doesn't get left behind.
...it would work on a Chaplain Dreadnaught. That's something.
you weren't kidding, that's going to be brutal on some units ie sniper scouts and other things but no wonder noone was talking about ravenguard as a powerful suplement.
Dollars to donuts there's a stratagem in there allowing for Marksman Bolt Carbines to function as Sniper weapons.
I foresee a lot of Iron raven chapters appearing as the power difference is comical.
Seeing as how the Iron Ravens are an actual Successor Chapter, I hope people don't just do that nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Newman wrote: Yeah; good for Eliminators, not terrible for sniper scouts, and nice for anything that can DS into potential "that character is the closest thing to me" positions. It also helps when any of your stuff winds up in melee with an enemy character, not normally somewhere your regular troops want to be.
I didn't even think about that bit! My Reivers with BP/CCWs might have some more fun now...
Bit odd that they spoiled the RG warlord trait and the relic that we already knew about instead of some new ones, that either speaks poorly for the new content or speaks very poorly for the preview writers.
It really shouldn't be a surprise that those are the ones they spoiled though.
The Newman wrote: Yeah; good for Eliminators, not terrible for sniper scouts, and nice for anything that can DS into potential "that character is the closest thing to me" positions. It also helps when any of your stuff winds up in melee with an enemy character, not normally somewhere your regular troops want to be.
RG basically gets Da' Jump, which isn't bad.
Bit odd that they spoiled the RG warlord trait and the relic that we already knew about instead of some new ones, that either speaks poorly for the new content or speaks very poorly for the preview writers.
The psychic power is good appart from 1 main issue the only unit I can think off that it really helps is captain in gravis armour as old marines have jumppacks etc. So yeah your gravis captain can now shadow step to your deepstriking old marine's and then have to hope he doesn't get left behind.
...it would work on a Chaplain Dreadnaught. That's something.
I doubt that is intended and will be two week FAQ'd to non vehical charictors.
the following have not access to the required COMBO:
Purge, Brazen, WE, Scourged --> these here are just the ones that are not going to get the requirements to even use the combo.
Not to mention that CSM terminators still are more expensive baseline, which is hillarious contrasted with SW as another poster mentioned.
And we're talking about people playing only IH. Why does it matter if your aim is to have the most cutting edge stuff? These are the factions that can't move and fire with all their heavy weapons: SW, BA, DA, UM, RG, BT, CF, WS, SL.
SW can do it, but they also aren't reworked like codex marines, yet, either.
What makes the RG tactic lame is that it is on tactical doctrine. Sniper Rifles, Stalker bolt rifles and Eliminators are heavy weapons. If it was during devastator doctrine, it would be stacking good. Now you have to trade +1 hit and wound for your -1AP. Really lame. Like, Icjust hope Shrike is good
Also, they are the ultimate counter to knights and demon primarchs. I need to see the stratagems, but right now the ravenguard appears to me to be quite strong. Don't forget that they have the strongest trait (IH is IMHO worse).
the following have not access to the required COMBO:
Purge, Brazen, WE, Scourged --> these here are just the ones that are not going to get the requirements to even use the combo.
Not to mention that CSM terminators still are more expensive baseline, which is hillarious contrasted with SW as another poster mentioned.
And we're talking about people playing only IH. Why does it matter if your aim is to have the most cutting edge stuff? These are the factions that can't move and fire with all their heavy weapons: SW, BA, DA, UM, RG, BT, CF, WS, SL.
SW can do it, but they also aren't reworked like codex marines, yet, either.
Correction have to substract one -1 and you still are insisting that there is no chasm. Even after all of the above. Gimme abreak.
Kithail wrote: What makes the RG tactic lame is that it is on tactical doctrine. Sniper Rifles, Stalker bolt rifles and Eliminators are heavy weapons. If it was during devastator doctrine, it would be stacking good. Now you have to trade +1 hit and wound for your -1AP. Really lame. Like, Icjust hope Shrike is good
I don't know, all the sniper units are pretty low shot volume. Having that hit Termies/Inceptors that are DSing in on turn two so they get the +1 Ap seems like it might be better. It also depends on what sort of anti-overwatch tech RG has outside of the one relic.
Also, they are the ultimate counter to knights and demon primarchs. I need to see the stratagems, but right now the ravenguard appears to me to be quite strong. Don't forget that they have the strongest trait (IH is IMHO worse).
LOL 6+ FNP that is always on is better than +1 armor (cover - ignores cover takes it away) within 12 ". -1 to hit is nice but vehicals can't even get it. Ignoring the other 2 free bonus iron hands get too.
Xenomancers wrote: LOL 6+ FNP that is always on is better than +1 armor (cover - ignores cover takes it away) within 12 ". -1 to hit is nice but vehicals can't even get it. Ignoring the other 2 free bonus iron hands get too.
ZOMG THAT 5+ OVERWATCH, OP PLZ NERF GW
So nice to see history still repeats itself around here.
I do not believe that you do not know that I'm talking about Chaos Marine squads and Terminators. And duh they don't do doctrines, which is why I said 'something like'. CSM and Tacs are supposed to be similar and equivalent units. Basic marines have been garbage all of 8th. Now they've fixed some of them, and they need to fix the rest.
And I'm not responding to the rest of this because we do this in every thread and I think you're just baiting at this point.
CSM terminators are absurdly more flexible than loyalists. Come on.
Ah yes, the good ol "One unit in one configuration is good, so it's not a problem that tons of other stuff isn't worth using." I love that one.
Chaos terminators sort of work but only because of plasma being so crazy in 8th. Take away plasma and Chaos terminators have less use than loyalists.
I want to see these units become useful in more loadouts and more ways, like they are supposed to be, and like they were in the past.
I cannot fathom why you are against weak, unplayed units and play styles becoming useful. How does this possibly hurt you.
Xenomancers wrote: LOL 6+ FNP that is always on is better than +1 armor (cover - ignores cover takes it away) within 12 ". -1 to hit is nice but vehicals can't even get it. Ignoring the other 2 free bonus iron hands get too.
ZOMG THAT 5+ OVERWATCH, OP PLZ NERF GW
So nice to see history still repeats itself around here.
LOL You know that 5+ overwatch rerolling all hits is about the same odds of hitting on a 4+? Yeah - totally terrible. Half their shots hit in overwatch. That's a pretty big deal when it's an executioner or even a redemptor dread. Or 10 autocannon hits from a levithan. Compared to the 3ish you'd get without those buffs.
Xenomancers wrote: LOL You know that 5+ overwatch rerolling all hits is about the same odds of hitting on a 4+? Yeah - totally terrible. Half their shots hit in overwatch. That's a pretty big deal when it's an executioner or even a redemptor dread. Or 10 autocannon hits from a levithan. Compared to the 3ish you'd get without those buffs.
You think you're getting overwatch against players who know what they're doing. That's adorable.
Kithail wrote: What makes the RG tactic lame is that it is on tactical doctrine. Sniper Rifles, Stalker bolt rifles and Eliminators are heavy weapons. If it was during devastator doctrine, it would be stacking good. Now you have to trade +1 hit and wound for your -1AP. Really lame. Like, Icjust hope Shrike is good
I don't know, all the sniper units are pretty low shot volume. Having that hit Termies/Inceptors that are DSing in on turn two so they get the +1 Ap seems like it might be better. It also depends on what sort of anti-overwatch tech RG has outside of the one relic.
Ah yes, the good ol "One unit in one configuration is good, so it's not a problem that tons of other stuff isn't worth using." I love that one.
Chaos terminators sort of work but only because of plasma being so crazy in 8th. Take away plasma and Chaos terminators have less use than loyalists.
I want to see these units become useful in more loadouts and more ways, like they are supposed to be, and like they were in the past.
I cannot fathom why you are against weak, unplayed units and play styles becoming useful. How does this possibly hurt you.
I'm not against changes at all. Clearly its a bum deal for traits to apply to marine vehicles and not to CSM and it's quite clear 2.0 was rushed out the door using a pretty old rules design.
I'm against the concept that if something isn't tip-top efficiency then it isn't worth it and the expression envy of other armies without introspection of one's own army.
The Newman wrote:[I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. I said Marines still have an issue with durability and you seem to be countering with an argument about how Marines aren't very durable.
Not Online!!! wrote: Oh noes the bolter doesn't negate the armor of guard automatically anymore. Schock and horror.
Imagine for one edition basic guard infantry be good.
Altough i still wonder why cultists got the hike and removal of traits.
either one or the other would've been fairer.
Yes, why should an Assault rifle that fires RPGs be able to shoot through a basic flak vest? Why indeed...
Because a flak vest will save you in case of indirect fire.
Sure, if you are hit straight on you are fine red mist, but the shrapnel of something being hit by that near you will be stopped by the vest, so a 5+ is a correct representation.
Also, the fact that guards outshoot marines point by point is old math now heavily wrong.
Nowadays a tac marine costs 12 ponts and has shock attack and bolter drill. It will shred guards point per point, and let's not talk about intercessors.
Sure, if you just put them standing still at 12" you will lose (with tacs, not with intercessors) but why would you ever do that???
It's like saying that a kabalite with a blaster pistol outshoots a leman russ command tank point per point, so the tank is underpowered. Range matters.
If you pit 10 tacs against 3 infantry squads (equal points), the math easilly shows that the 10 tacs kill 24 points of guards (plus morale), while the guards kill 18 points of marines. If you factor in cover, this becomes hugely skewed in favor of the marines. This is balanced by the fact that marines are more susceptible to bigger weapons, so after all this buffs, marines are absolutely on the same level of guards when it comes to shoot outs between basic troops (which is a useless analysis, but since it was thrown in here i wanted to rectify the mistakes).
I would like to see your math on that. I get that 40 points of dead marines, not 18. Do get me wrong, in an open shooting match guard should beat marines. Marines should only outshoot guard when cover, doctrines, bolter discipline, etc. come into play. But marines barely outshoot guard when ones of those is active, and not at all when you trade 1 guard squad for a company commander to get FRFSRF, as all guard players do. Say doctrines alone put marines almost equal to guard with no orders, this means marines need to be 4/3rds more survivable to equalize them against guard. Something like a one-time FNP on a 5+ would balance them, maybe while putting them back to 13 ppm.
There's CSM, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Sisters of Battle, vehicle units as a broad category, some Eldar units, etc. And even then, the mirror match matters a lot.
The proliferation of AP2 is, in my opinion, terrible for the balance of toughness, armor, and wounds as metrics of resilience. A fundamental principle of AP is that the more armor you have, the more you're affected by a point of AP. Guardsmen or Orks have paper for armor, and their resilience comes from wound count in the unit, they don't really feel the additional AP. Marine units, however, feel the AP a lot more. Armor is already the weakest defense mode, and wounds is already the strongest; proliferating AP, especially AP2, further encourages massed light infantry and units that have a high wound density over units with armor.
The relative difference between the way a Space Marine and a Guardsmen felt against a Boltgun wound between this edition and last edition was a matter of a Guardsman taking 200% more wounds. Now, Guardsmen take only 100% more wounds by default, and when you start introducing AP it drop to 66% more and then 50% more.
This is also further affecting vehicle unit's relative immunity to light arms. Vehicle's armor saves are already a formality against AT systems and only really existed to neutralize the effect of infantry against them; and AP-2 infantry is also dismantling that.
I think the solution should have been a measure that improve Marine's troops' offensive and defensive capabilities against light troops without seriously affecting heavy infantry units. This is hard to actually find a special-rules based solution, because wounds and shots are the "base value" and effectively the most important factors and will almost always be less affected than systems relying on quality. Quality effects improve the value of each shot or wound, but they don't substitute for more wounds or shots.
So really all these new AP rules will only make marine armies even more fragile against each other, rip GKDABASWCSM. I have SS as a DW player, but they can only do so much. I can't think of a good rule to fix durability either. A FNP for marines is the best solution I can come up with, and that's a pretty bad solution. It only increases the quantity of wounds in a statistical manner, and that doesn't address the real problem. Unless the real problem is that marines have too few wounds to manage given the current game rules. Custodes have a baseline of 3 wounds, and that is before a good invuln and a FNP during the psychic phase.
Points cuts for marines is probably the worst solution, marines at an all-time low price (tacs used to be 15 points each) and it turns them into guardsmen who've eaten an extra protein bar. If you don't want angles of death style rules, then marines need basic statline changes.
I don't see why there's a problem with points cost reductions. Reducing the cost both improves the viability of bringing large numbers of Marine infantry [saturation] or leaves more space for toys like tanks or plasma guns or thunder hammer WGPL's. Fundamentally, if the unit is cheap, I can buy capability if it needs it in the form of sergeant power swords, plasmaguns, or WGPL's with hammers; and if I don't need the capability they can be cheap and no drag on my army when they're sitting in the back on an objective or getting blasted off the board while trying to take a forward objective. If the unit is expensive, I can't make them less capable if my plan for them doesn't require that capability, and I also can't afford the capability I really want [wolf guard pack leaders with hammers, or multiple plasmaguns], because instead a bunch of points went towards trying to enforce a 3 guardsmen to 1 marine equivalency rate when the profile's been devalued to about 2 to 2.5 guardsmen per marine.
The thing is, whenever I prep a new Space Wolves list, I wind up at 2k points and half the stuff I wanted to/was planning to have, because everything is so damn expensive. I would like less heroism, more efficiency, because I'm not expecting heroism out of cannon-fodder grade units and HQ's who won't be getting near the fight because they're buffing mostly immobile heavy weapons bearers and cheap tanks and would like to instead be able to buy and extra Long Fang squad or something so I don't have to worry about the one I have being zonked, or more cheap IFV's.
Appreciably, all of these random rules went towards making Marines killier, which IMO wasn't the problem, so much as their resilience was really poor for a troop choice and their support units were really glass cannony. All the tanks are T7 and can be fairly easily harassed or inconvenienced by infantry arms. I think fixing it would have been properly re-assessing a marine's actual worth, as opposed to trying to make him worth the cost they're charging.
Have you tried playing guard or some other hoard army, maybe even admech or eldar? I think they're the armies for you.
Marines are an elite army, you should not be taking any unit as cannon fodder. Imagine going up against a guard player and having almost as many models as they do, it would be insane. Are even playing a 40k game at that point? Custodes showed that elite armies can be durable, marines need the same treatment. They needed universal statline changes at the beginning of 8th, but it is too late for that now. If marines are going to go the angles of death route (i.e. lots of small rules instead of big statline changes), then they need a rule to increase their durability. As I've said earlier, I think the best rule would be a one-time FNP. It would not take away from IH and DG (who have a repeatable FNP), mitigate the 2 damage weapon weakness on primaris, and be most beneficial on 1 wound marines.
Ah yes, the good ol "One unit in one configuration is good, so it's not a problem that tons of other stuff isn't worth using." I love that one.
Chaos terminators sort of work but only because of plasma being so crazy in 8th. Take away plasma and Chaos terminators have less use than loyalists.
I want to see these units become useful in more loadouts and more ways, like they are supposed to be, and like they were in the past.
I cannot fathom why you are against weak, unplayed units and play styles becoming useful. How does this possibly hurt you.
I'm not against changes at all. Clearly its a bum deal for traits to apply to marine vehicles and not to CSM and it's quite clear 2.0 was rushed out the door using a pretty old rules design.
I'm against the concept that if something isn't tip-top efficiency then it isn't worth it and the expression envy of other armies without introspection of one's own army.
Then why are we even having any of this discussion? Or are you going to come back and tell me that vanilla CSM are everything they are supposed to be?
Xenomancers wrote: LOL You know that 5+ overwatch rerolling all hits is about the same odds of hitting on a 4+? Yeah - totally terrible. Half their shots hit in overwatch. That's a pretty big deal when it's an executioner or even a redemptor dread. Or 10 autocannon hits from a levithan. Compared to the 3ish you'd get without those buffs.
You think you're getting overwatch against players who know what they're doing. That's adorable.
Outside of having a unit that can't be overwatched (rare). Or charging from behind a wall (as if that isn't the most predictable move ever). Then I have exactly no idea what you are talking about.
Ah yes, the good ol "One unit in one configuration is good, so it's not a problem that tons of other stuff isn't worth using." I love that one.
Chaos terminators sort of work but only because of plasma being so crazy in 8th. Take away plasma and Chaos terminators have less use than loyalists.
I want to see these units become useful in more loadouts and more ways, like they are supposed to be, and like they were in the past.
I cannot fathom why you are against weak, unplayed units and play styles becoming useful. How does this possibly hurt you.
I'm not against changes at all. Clearly its a bum deal for traits to apply to marine vehicles and not to CSM and it's quite clear 2.0 was rushed out the door using a pretty old rules design.
I'm against the concept that if something isn't tip-top efficiency then it isn't worth it and the expression envy of other armies without introspection of one's own army.
Then why are we even having any of this discussion? Or are you going to come back and tell me that vanilla CSM are everything they are supposed to be?
The Newman wrote:[I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. I said Marines still have an issue with durability and you seem to be countering with an argument about how Marines aren't very durable.
He is making your point.
Yeah, well, he's making it in a way that sure sounds like he's disagreeing with me about something. Possibly whether Marines have pretty good chaff-clearing abilities now.
Xenomancers wrote: LOL You know that 5+ overwatch rerolling all hits is about the same odds of hitting on a 4+? Yeah - totally terrible. Half their shots hit in overwatch. That's a pretty big deal when it's an executioner or even a redemptor dread. Or 10 autocannon hits from a levithan. Compared to the 3ish you'd get without those buffs.
You think you're getting overwatch against players who know what they're doing. That's adorable.
I have yet to see a BA player not take the deny overwatch relic jump pack on their smash captain because they "know what they're doing"
The Newman wrote:[I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. I said Marines still have an issue with durability and you seem to be countering with an argument about how Marines aren't very durable.
Not Online!!! wrote: Oh noes the bolter doesn't negate the armor of guard automatically anymore. Schock and horror.
Imagine for one edition basic guard infantry be good.
Altough i still wonder why cultists got the hike and removal of traits. either one or the other would've been fairer.
Yes, why should an Assault rifle that fires RPGs be able to shoot through a basic flak vest? Why indeed...
Because a flak vest will save you in case of indirect fire. Sure, if you are hit straight on you are fine red mist, but the shrapnel of something being hit by that near you will be stopped by the vest, so a 5+ is a correct representation.
Also, the fact that guards outshoot marines point by point is old math now heavily wrong. Nowadays a tac marine costs 12 ponts and has shock attack and bolter drill. It will shred guards point per point, and let's not talk about intercessors. Sure, if you just put them standing still at 12" you will lose (with tacs, not with intercessors) but why would you ever do that??? It's like saying that a kabalite with a blaster pistol outshoots a leman russ command tank point per point, so the tank is underpowered. Range matters.
If you pit 10 tacs against 3 infantry squads (equal points), the math easilly shows that the 10 tacs kill 24 points of guards (plus morale), while the guards kill 18 points of marines. If you factor in cover, this becomes hugely skewed in favor of the marines. This is balanced by the fact that marines are more susceptible to bigger weapons, so after all this buffs, marines are absolutely on the same level of guards when it comes to shoot outs between basic troops (which is a useless analysis, but since it was thrown in here i wanted to rectify the mistakes).
I would like to see your math on that. I get that 40 points of dead marines, not 18. Do get me wrong, in an open shooting match guard should beat marines. Marines should only outshoot guard when cover, doctrines, bolter discipline, etc. come into play. But marines barely outshoot guard when ones of those is active, and not at all when you trade 1 guard squad for a company commander to get FRFSRF, as all guard players do. Say doctrines alone put marines almost equal to guard with no orders, this means marines need to be 4/3rds more survivable to equalize them against guard. Something like a one-time FNP on a 5+ would balance them, maybe while putting them back to 13 ppm.
There's CSM, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Sisters of Battle, vehicle units as a broad category, some Eldar units, etc. And even then, the mirror match matters a lot.
The proliferation of AP2 is, in my opinion, terrible for the balance of toughness, armor, and wounds as metrics of resilience. A fundamental principle of AP is that the more armor you have, the more you're affected by a point of AP. Guardsmen or Orks have paper for armor, and their resilience comes from wound count in the unit, they don't really feel the additional AP. Marine units, however, feel the AP a lot more. Armor is already the weakest defense mode, and wounds is already the strongest; proliferating AP, especially AP2, further encourages massed light infantry and units that have a high wound density over units with armor.
The relative difference between the way a Space Marine and a Guardsmen felt against a Boltgun wound between this edition and last edition was a matter of a Guardsman taking 200% more wounds. Now, Guardsmen take only 100% more wounds by default, and when you start introducing AP it drop to 66% more and then 50% more.
This is also further affecting vehicle unit's relative immunity to light arms. Vehicle's armor saves are already a formality against AT systems and only really existed to neutralize the effect of infantry against them; and AP-2 infantry is also dismantling that.
I think the solution should have been a measure that improve Marine's troops' offensive and defensive capabilities against light troops without seriously affecting heavy infantry units. This is hard to actually find a special-rules based solution, because wounds and shots are the "base value" and effectively the most important factors and will almost always be less affected than systems relying on quality. Quality effects improve the value of each shot or wound, but they don't substitute for more wounds or shots.
So really all these new AP rules will only make marine armies even more fragile against each other, rip GKDABASWCSM. I have SS as a DW player, but they can only do so much. I can't think of a good rule to fix durability either. A FNP for marines is the best solution I can come up with, and that's a pretty bad solution. It only increases the quantity of wounds in a statistical manner, and that doesn't address the real problem. Unless the real problem is that marines have too few wounds to manage given the current game rules. Custodes have a baseline of 3 wounds, and that is before a good invuln and a FNP during the psychic phase.
Points cuts for marines is probably the worst solution, marines at an all-time low price (tacs used to be 15 points each) and it turns them into guardsmen who've eaten an extra protein bar. If you don't want angles of death style rules, then marines need basic statline changes.
I don't see why there's a problem with points cost reductions. Reducing the cost both improves the viability of bringing large numbers of Marine infantry [saturation] or leaves more space for toys like tanks or plasma guns or thunder hammer WGPL's. Fundamentally, if the unit is cheap, I can buy capability if it needs it in the form of sergeant power swords, plasmaguns, or WGPL's with hammers; and if I don't need the capability they can be cheap and no drag on my army when they're sitting in the back on an objective or getting blasted off the board while trying to take a forward objective. If the unit is expensive, I can't make them less capable if my plan for them doesn't require that capability, and I also can't afford the capability I really want [wolf guard pack leaders with hammers, or multiple plasmaguns], because instead a bunch of points went towards trying to enforce a 3 guardsmen to 1 marine equivalency rate when the profile's been devalued to about 2 to 2.5 guardsmen per marine.
The thing is, whenever I prep a new Space Wolves list, I wind up at 2k points and half the stuff I wanted to/was planning to have, because everything is so damn expensive. I would like less heroism, more efficiency, because I'm not expecting heroism out of cannon-fodder grade units and HQ's who won't be getting near the fight because they're buffing mostly immobile heavy weapons bearers and cheap tanks and would like to instead be able to buy and extra Long Fang squad or something so I don't have to worry about the one I have being zonked, or more cheap IFV's.
Appreciably, all of these random rules went towards making Marines killier, which IMO wasn't the problem, so much as their resilience was really poor for a troop choice and their support units were really glass cannony. All the tanks are T7 and can be fairly easily harassed or inconvenienced by infantry arms. I think fixing it would have been properly re-assessing a marine's actual worth, as opposed to trying to make him worth the cost they're charging.
Have you tried playing guard or some other hoard army, maybe even admech or eldar? I think they're the armies for you.
Marines are an elite army, you should not be taking any unit as cannon fodder. Imagine going up against a guard player and having almost as many models as they do, it would be insane. Are even playing a 40k game at that point? Custodes showed that elite armies can be durable, marines need the same treatment. They needed universal statline changes at the beginning of 8th, but it is too late for that now. If marines are going to go the angles of death route (i.e. lots of small rules instead of big statline changes), then they need a rule to increase their durability. As I've said earlier, I think the best rule would be a one-time FNP. It would not take away from IH and DG (who have a repeatable FNP), mitigate the 2 damage weapon weakness on primaris, and be most beneficial on 1 wound marines.
Quite easy math actually. 27 laser shots from 3 squads, 13,5 hits, 4,5 wounds, 1,5 kills- Multiplied by 12 ppm that is 18 points. 2 squads with FRFSRF lose a lot of durability but raise the output to 24 points, getting on par with the tac marines. Obviously this is not within 12", which was the point i was making in the first place.
Some things deny overwatch - it's true. Smash captains are a poor example though because they are exceptionally busted and require a bunch of spells and stratagems to make an nearly automatic deep strike charge and 1 shot 700 point models (no one in the world actually enjoys this things) K you got me there - 5+ overwatch is not an answer to smash captains. Outside of that there are solitaires and autarchs (haha not anymore). Beyond that Irons hands are pretty much close to unchargeable as you'll take more damage charging than you'll do in assault.
I think the RG doctrine is way better than everyone is giving it credit for.
RG just became the best SM faction at taking out Character Knights. It will also be fantastic vs. Tank Commanders and Disco-lords.
The physic power also allows you to teleport your Chaplain around, which mitigates one of the big downsides of having to chant at the start of the round.
Think about having a chaplain on the table that uses the +2 to charge and 6' pile-in chant, and deep-striking vanguard vets who now have +1 to wound and hit thunder-hammers and 3 attacks each (sergeant 4).
To be honest I'd be surprised if it actually continues to count against vehicles. However it's true. It will be great against these units. The big issue is it only takes effect turn 2.
I really wouldn't put them above Ultramarines for putting down superheavies - seal of oath is a straight up gman buff against their most powerful unit.
Seems highly situational, their doctrine. The psychic power is interesting, in that it is a weaker gate. Ultramarine one or the IH one seems much stronger.
RG are very powerful and are meta defying as so many armies, eldar, orks, GSC, knights, Chaos, rely on characters or units with the character key word. In your local pick up game I can understand the feeling they are not up there with IH or UM but in terms of meta, you basically now have to build against them at the tournament level which is crazy good. They are also, ironically, now one of the premier marine killer armies.
Ishagu wrote: None of this is verified BTW, it's second hand info from B&C forum but I personally believe it all. The FLG guys have said that the Iron Hands supplement is one of the strongest.
- The Iron Father gives units within 6 inches of him a 5+ invulnerable save.
Oh sure, the marines get a 6" 5+ invul bubble, but necrons have to make do with a 3" bubble that doesn't even work in close combat.
Goddammit GW
Ishagu wrote: None of this is verified BTW, it's second hand info from B&C forum but I personally believe it all. The FLG guys have said that the Iron Hands supplement is one of the strongest.
- The Iron Father gives units within 6 inches of him a 5+ invulnerable save.
Oh sure, the marines get a 6" 5+ invul bubble, but necrons have to make do with a 3" bubble that doesn't even work in close combat.
Goddammit GW
He atleast you will get probably still a proper 2.0 update
Ishagu wrote: None of this is verified BTW, it's second hand info from B&C forum but I personally believe it all. The FLG guys have said that the Iron Hands supplement is one of the strongest.
- The Iron Father gives units within 6 inches of him a 5+ invulnerable save.
Oh sure, the marines get a 6" 5+ invul bubble, but necrons have to make do with a 3" bubble that doesn't even work in close combat.
Goddammit GW
He atleast you will get probably still a proper 2.0 update
Yeah, hopefully that's the case. Maybe they'll catch on that necrons aren't as strong as their early playtesters thought. Apparently the first team they had hated necrons for some reason.
The Newman wrote:[I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. I said Marines still have an issue with durability and you seem to be countering with an argument about how Marines aren't very durable.
Not Online!!! wrote: Oh noes the bolter doesn't negate the armor of guard automatically anymore. Schock and horror.
Imagine for one edition basic guard infantry be good.
Altough i still wonder why cultists got the hike and removal of traits.
either one or the other would've been fairer.
Yes, why should an Assault rifle that fires RPGs be able to shoot through a basic flak vest? Why indeed...
Because a flak vest will save you in case of indirect fire.
Sure, if you are hit straight on you are fine red mist, but the shrapnel of something being hit by that near you will be stopped by the vest, so a 5+ is a correct representation.
Also, the fact that guards outshoot marines point by point is old math now heavily wrong.
Nowadays a tac marine costs 12 ponts and has shock attack and bolter drill. It will shred guards point per point, and let's not talk about intercessors.
Sure, if you just put them standing still at 12" you will lose (with tacs, not with intercessors) but why would you ever do that???
It's like saying that a kabalite with a blaster pistol outshoots a leman russ command tank point per point, so the tank is underpowered. Range matters.
If you pit 10 tacs against 3 infantry squads (equal points), the math easilly shows that the 10 tacs kill 24 points of guards (plus morale), while the guards kill 18 points of marines. If you factor in cover, this becomes hugely skewed in favor of the marines. This is balanced by the fact that marines are more susceptible to bigger weapons, so after all this buffs, marines are absolutely on the same level of guards when it comes to shoot outs between basic troops (which is a useless analysis, but since it was thrown in here i wanted to rectify the mistakes).
I would like to see your math on that. I get that 40 points of dead marines, not 18. Do get me wrong, in an open shooting match guard should beat marines. Marines should only outshoot guard when cover, doctrines, bolter discipline, etc. come into play. But marines barely outshoot guard when ones of those is active, and not at all when you trade 1 guard squad for a company commander to get FRFSRF, as all guard players do. Say doctrines alone put marines almost equal to guard with no orders, this means marines need to be 4/3rds more survivable to equalize them against guard. Something like a one-time FNP on a 5+ would balance them, maybe while putting them back to 13 ppm.
There's CSM, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Sisters of Battle, vehicle units as a broad category, some Eldar units, etc. And even then, the mirror match matters a lot.
The proliferation of AP2 is, in my opinion, terrible for the balance of toughness, armor, and wounds as metrics of resilience. A fundamental principle of AP is that the more armor you have, the more you're affected by a point of AP. Guardsmen or Orks have paper for armor, and their resilience comes from wound count in the unit, they don't really feel the additional AP. Marine units, however, feel the AP a lot more. Armor is already the weakest defense mode, and wounds is already the strongest; proliferating AP, especially AP2, further encourages massed light infantry and units that have a high wound density over units with armor.
The relative difference between the way a Space Marine and a Guardsmen felt against a Boltgun wound between this edition and last edition was a matter of a Guardsman taking 200% more wounds. Now, Guardsmen take only 100% more wounds by default, and when you start introducing AP it drop to 66% more and then 50% more.
This is also further affecting vehicle unit's relative immunity to light arms. Vehicle's armor saves are already a formality against AT systems and only really existed to neutralize the effect of infantry against them; and AP-2 infantry is also dismantling that.
I think the solution should have been a measure that improve Marine's troops' offensive and defensive capabilities against light troops without seriously affecting heavy infantry units. This is hard to actually find a special-rules based solution, because wounds and shots are the "base value" and effectively the most important factors and will almost always be less affected than systems relying on quality. Quality effects improve the value of each shot or wound, but they don't substitute for more wounds or shots.
So really all these new AP rules will only make marine armies even more fragile against each other, rip GKDABASWCSM. I have SS as a DW player, but they can only do so much. I can't think of a good rule to fix durability either. A FNP for marines is the best solution I can come up with, and that's a pretty bad solution. It only increases the quantity of wounds in a statistical manner, and that doesn't address the real problem. Unless the real problem is that marines have too few wounds to manage given the current game rules. Custodes have a baseline of 3 wounds, and that is before a good invuln and a FNP during the psychic phase.
Points cuts for marines is probably the worst solution, marines at an all-time low price (tacs used to be 15 points each) and it turns them into guardsmen who've eaten an extra protein bar. If you don't want angles of death style rules, then marines need basic statline changes.
I don't see why there's a problem with points cost reductions. Reducing the cost both improves the viability of bringing large numbers of Marine infantry [saturation] or leaves more space for toys like tanks or plasma guns or thunder hammer WGPL's. Fundamentally, if the unit is cheap, I can buy capability if it needs it in the form of sergeant power swords, plasmaguns, or WGPL's with hammers; and if I don't need the capability they can be cheap and no drag on my army when they're sitting in the back on an objective or getting blasted off the board while trying to take a forward objective. If the unit is expensive, I can't make them less capable if my plan for them doesn't require that capability, and I also can't afford the capability I really want [wolf guard pack leaders with hammers, or multiple plasmaguns], because instead a bunch of points went towards trying to enforce a 3 guardsmen to 1 marine equivalency rate when the profile's been devalued to about 2 to 2.5 guardsmen per marine.
The thing is, whenever I prep a new Space Wolves list, I wind up at 2k points and half the stuff I wanted to/was planning to have, because everything is so damn expensive. I would like less heroism, more efficiency, because I'm not expecting heroism out of cannon-fodder grade units and HQ's who won't be getting near the fight because they're buffing mostly immobile heavy weapons bearers and cheap tanks and would like to instead be able to buy and extra Long Fang squad or something so I don't have to worry about the one I have being zonked, or more cheap IFV's.
Appreciably, all of these random rules went towards making Marines killier, which IMO wasn't the problem, so much as their resilience was really poor for a troop choice and their support units were really glass cannony. All the tanks are T7 and can be fairly easily harassed or inconvenienced by infantry arms. I think fixing it would have been properly re-assessing a marine's actual worth, as opposed to trying to make him worth the cost they're charging.
Have you tried playing guard or some other hoard army, maybe even admech or eldar? I think they're the armies for you.
Marines are an elite army, you should not be taking any unit as cannon fodder. Imagine going up against a guard player and having almost as many models as they do, it would be insane. Are even playing a 40k game at that point? Custodes showed that elite armies can be durable, marines need the same treatment. They needed universal statline changes at the beginning of 8th, but it is too late for that now. If marines are going to go the angles of death route (i.e. lots of small rules instead of big statline changes), then they need a rule to increase their durability. As I've said earlier, I think the best rule would be a one-time FNP. It would not take away from IH and DG (who have a repeatable FNP), mitigate the 2 damage weapon weakness on primaris, and be most beneficial on 1 wound marines.
Quite easy math actually.
27 laser shots from 3 squads, 13,5 hits, 4,5 wounds, 1,5 kills- Multiplied by 12 ppm that is 18 points.
2 squads with FRFSRF lose a lot of durability but raise the output to 24 points, getting on par with the tac marines.
Obviously this is not within 12", which was the point i was making in the first place.
I see. I wouldn't just assume marines always get bolter discipline, it's something you have to make a big sacrifice to use (ultramarines aside). I would expect them to handily outperform guard when it is active. It is when no special variables are involved that people get worried about how much hordes dominate marines. Again, that's the way it should be. But now there is an excessive difference. Marines need to be buffed to the point where active doctrines will almost equalize them against hordes. And the solution is not to make marines into their own horde army. If marines were 13 points again, had a one-use 5+ FNP (times 1.333 wounds), and tactical doctrine was active, Guard would outshoot them by 1.2 points in rapid-fire range, marines would win by .2 points outside of rapid-fire range.
What game are you playing where 2 damage is wasted on most targets? LOL. You don't really play this game do you?
Lets just ignore the fact it starts the game in range and at AP-3 compared to barely in range and AP-1.
Less also ignore the "In my personal opinion"
Probably the same one I'm playing. There aren't a lot of multiwound infantry out there, and most of the multiwound infantry are 3W custodes which D2 is inefficient again. There are a healthy amount of Primaris and Wulfen in the like 5 different Space Wolf players, but mostly there's W1 models like Guardsmen, Boyz, Death Company, Genestealers, etc.
That said, AP-3 D2 infantry-carried weapons are what I didn't want to see and why I dislike all these changes. AP-3 against basic infantry isn't super useful, since you were at the point of effectively eliminating armor saves already at AP-2. An AP-3 D2 infantry-carried sniper rifle is quickly approaching the realm where infantry can fight tanks without having squad light antitank weapons, which is one of the things I just don't think should be an option.
Like, I don't really want basic infantry buffed to the point of tank hunting with assault rifles. Doctrines should have given +1BS to the weapon category or something
That is oddly enough what is going to press me to use some stalker teams as assault rifle tank hunters using kraken rounds for the Death watch. I mean it's silly but add in 2+ to wound MCs from same rifles with 2 damage and it's just too versatile to over look on the cheap.
What game are you playing where 2 damage is wasted on most targets? LOL. You don't really play this game do you?
Lets just ignore the fact it starts the game in range and at AP-3 compared to barely in range and AP-1.
Less also ignore the "In my personal opinion"
Probably the same one I'm playing. There aren't a lot of multiwound infantry out there, and most of the multiwound infantry are 3W custodes which D2 is inefficient again. There are a healthy amount of Primaris and Wulfen in the like 5 different Space Wolf players, but mostly there's W1 models like Guardsmen, Boyz, Death Company, Genestealers, etc.
That said, AP-3 D2 infantry-carried weapons are what I didn't want to see and why I dislike all these changes. AP-3 against basic infantry isn't super useful, since you were at the point of effectively eliminating armor saves already at AP-2. An AP-3 D2 infantry-carried sniper rifle is quickly approaching the realm where infantry can fight tanks without having squad light antitank weapons, which is one of the things I just don't think should be an option.
Like, I don't really want basic infantry buffed to the point of tank hunting with assault rifles. Doctrines should have given +1BS to the weapon category or something
That is oddly enough what is going to press me to use some stalker teams as assault rifle tank hunters using kraken rounds for the Death watch. I mean it's silly but add in 2+ to wound MCs from same rifles with 2 damage and it's just too versatile to over look on the cheap.
Poor Rubric Marines... they just keep getting worse and now the meta will have an inherent bias against them...
What game are you playing where 2 damage is wasted on most targets? LOL. You don't really play this game do you?
Lets just ignore the fact it starts the game in range and at AP-3 compared to barely in range and AP-1.
Less also ignore the "In my personal opinion"
Probably the same one I'm playing. There aren't a lot of multiwound infantry out there, and most of the multiwound infantry are 3W custodes which D2 is inefficient again. There are a healthy amount of Primaris and Wulfen in the like 5 different Space Wolf players, but mostly there's W1 models like Guardsmen, Boyz, Death Company, Genestealers, etc.
That said, AP-3 D2 infantry-carried weapons are what I didn't want to see and why I dislike all these changes. AP-3 against basic infantry isn't super useful, since you were at the point of effectively eliminating armor saves already at AP-2. An AP-3 D2 infantry-carried sniper rifle is quickly approaching the realm where infantry can fight tanks without having squad light antitank weapons, which is one of the things I just don't think should be an option.
Like, I don't really want basic infantry buffed to the point of tank hunting with assault rifles. Doctrines should have given +1BS to the weapon category or something
That is oddly enough what is going to press me to use some stalker teams as assault rifle tank hunters using kraken rounds for the Death watch. I mean it's silly but add in 2+ to wound MCs from same rifles with 2 damage and it's just too versatile to over look on the cheap.
Poor Rubric Marines... they just keep getting worse and now the meta will have an inherent bias against them...
As a space wolf player, I've always had a bias against rubrics, the meta just caught up. I kid, but seriously, I don't think they'll like this at all.
Ishagu wrote: None of this is verified BTW, it's second hand info from B&C forum but I personally believe it all. The FLG guys have said that the Iron Hands supplement is one of the strongest.
- The Iron Father gives units within 6 inches of him a 5+ invulnerable save.
Oh sure, the marines get a 6" 5+ invul bubble, but necrons have to make do with a 3" bubble that doesn't even work in close combat.
Goddammit GW
Deredeo dreadnoughts had that ability since the start of 8th edition, just FYI.
Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
:shrug: Drive a Rhino into it.
It's got 20 hitting on 5+, Re-roll 1's autocannons in overwatch can your rhino survive?
I'm not saying that it's the be all and end all of the codex but I see people calling for unit nerfs when it's only 1 chapter that makes it this disgusting.
It's also funny that they are one of the best chapters for any fly vehicals too.
Are they so well known for their landspeeders and flyers?
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
:shrug: Drive a Rhino into it.
It's got 20 hitting on 5+, Re-roll 1's autocannons in overwatch can your rhino survive?
I'm not saying that it's the be all and end all of the codex but I see people calling for unit nerfs when it's only 1 chapter that makes it this disgusting.
It's also funny that they are one of the best chapters for any fly vehicals too.
Are they so well known for their landspeeders and flyers?
By my math the Rhino survives
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but Imo vehicle-heavy armies tend to have some major drawbacks. It'll certainly make for a couple nasty units, but I think there will be enough ability to counter the army as a whole. I mean, not long ago I was building armies to go against 3++ 28W Knights anyways. I feel like the tools to deal with IH are lying around.
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
:shrug: Drive a Rhino into it.
It's got 20 hitting on 5+, Re-roll 1's autocannons in overwatch can your rhino survive?
I'm not saying that it's the be all and end all of the codex but I see people calling for unit nerfs when it's only 1 chapter that makes it this disgusting.
It's also funny that they are one of the best chapters for any fly vehicals too.
Are they so well known for their landspeeders and flyers?
By my math the Rhino survives
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but Imo vehicle-heavy armies tend to have some major drawbacks. It'll certainly make for a couple nasty units, but I think there will be enough ability to counter the army as a whole. I mean, not long ago I was building armies to go against 3++ 28W Knights anyways. I feel like the tools to deal with IH are lying around.
I agree though after combat it's very close to dead hot dice or a smite or two could be enough to have it shooting next turn.
I don't think it's a game breaking problem, I'm more worried that GW do a true GW and jack the cost of the units for a stack that only ironhands players can play.
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
:shrug: Drive a Rhino into it.
Easier play, drive a rhino into the techmarine three inches from it hauling the uber-relic, and powerslide on the pile-in.
Honestly it baffles me that they've managed to put the less exciting spoiler second when any sensible person should realize you put WS or RGbefore UM or IH to ramp up the hype instead of spiking the hype and then letting it dribble away prior to the actual release. It's almost like they have no idea what the players will get excited about.
Honestly it baffles me that they've managed to put the less exciting spoiler second when any sensible person should realize you put WS or RGbefore UM or IH to ramp up the hype instead of spiking the hype and then letting it dribble away prior to the actual release. It's almost like they have no idea what the players will get excited about.
Actually stopping and thinking about it I would be a great buff if knights were still meta defining, disco lords and Thousand Sons supreme commands get nerfed by this but knights are already dropping off.
They're pitching it in the context of the meta of about the last FAQ.
Honestly it baffles me that they've managed to put the less exciting spoiler second when any sensible person should realize you put WS or RGbefore UM or IH to ramp up the hype instead of spiking the hype and then letting it dribble away prior to the actual release. It's almost like they have no idea what the players will get excited about.
Personally I'm more excited about RG than IH because it fits my custom chapter so much better (I'll be having the RG and WS supplements and play them with whatever rules I feel like at the moment). My dudes are feral hunters and assassins in power armor, not half-machines. I'mma have lots of fun sniping other peoples' Mary Sues Anyway, GW don't tease stuff in order of power level, that should be quite well known at this point. And as is also well known, Dakkadakka seems to think that everyone is a competitive tournament player, which is actually far from the case.
People are excited for differant things, I suspect GW has an idea on chapter popularity better then we do. especially as they likely have long term indicators of popularity. IMHO an exciting inital release and an exciting final release are the important factors and I'd be willing to bet, long term the Scions and Gulliman and the Sons of Dorn are proably the most popular subfactions.
I guess I can see it from a Marketing perspective. I'm not a tournament player, but I would still have been more excited about the WS/RG previews if I hadn't had the much more exciting UM/IH previews right before them, but I also wouldn't have given them any further thought at all once the UM/IH previews dropped. As-is the WS/RG are still on my mind. Mostly for the 'wtf' factor, but at least I'm still thinking about them.
Honestly it baffles me that they've managed to put the less exciting spoiler second when any sensible person should realize you put WS or RGbefore UM or IH to ramp up the hype instead of spiking the hype and then letting it dribble away prior to the actual release. It's almost like they have no idea what the players will get excited about.
Or people are over blowing it, because they don't have all the rules from the books and can't see the full picture. And GW's goal is to excite people for each faction. People who play RG are still going to play RG. WS will still play WS. Meta chasers will play IH until they take a nerf, if necessary.
...it's almost as if this has happened before...huh...dejavu, I guess.
Iron hands look great so far, very tempted to pick up the supplement and run my marines as iron hands for now as I run 2 repulsors and 2 dreads in my list which would hugely benefit from the doctrine and also the FNP on them which is brilliant.
I have a relic contemptor dread with 4 lascannons who will sit in cover next to the executioner and stalker bolt rifle squad and just pump out fire and let the other half of my force roll forward and engage at medium range where we are most deadly.
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
:shrug: Drive a Rhino into it.
It's got 20 hitting on 5+, Re-roll 1's autocannons in overwatch can your rhino survive?
I'm not saying that it's the be all and end all of the codex but I see people calling for unit nerfs when it's only 1 chapter that makes it this disgusting.
It's also funny that they are one of the best chapters for any fly vehicals too.
Are they so well known for their landspeeders and flyers?
By my math the Rhino survives
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but Imo vehicle-heavy armies tend to have some major drawbacks. It'll certainly make for a couple nasty units, but I think there will be enough ability to counter the army as a whole. I mean, not long ago I was building armies to go against 3++ 28W Knights anyways. I feel like the tools to deal with IH are lying around.
With rerolls its dead. 50% hit. 50% wound with reroll 1's you'll get 6 wounds. AP-3 in dev doct. So you take 10 wounds making one 6+ save. Then 7 heavy flamer shots 3 wounds at AP -2. Probably take 12 wounds or more. So more than half the time it kills a rhino in overwatch. Plus it would still need to survive a round of combat. And I think we've seen a stratagem it can fall back and shoot on for 2 CP.
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
6+ fnp has been around since thr beginning of 8th(well, lots longer and with better rolls previously); it is pretty good, but not really fame breaking. As you showed: ups the survivability by 2 wounds in this case.
Half damage strat is only for the phase(or maybe turn) that the strat is popped; and only going to effect multi-damage wounds(effectively doubling the shots required for the same damage that phase). This costs CPs, and isn't as borken as you might think.
The real gem is the character sitting behind it with an iron stone, -1 damage all the time for no CP cost.but all this really does on some cases is remove desire to supercharge the guns that potentially explode and keep heavy bolters as kings of anti-tank scratch damage(or any multi-shot S5-6 AP -1 1D weapons)
With rerolls its dead. 50% hit. 50% wound with reroll 1's you'll get 6 wounds. AP-3 in dev doct. So you take 10 wounds making one 6+ save. Then 7 heavy flamer shots 3 wounds at AP -2. Probably take 12 wounds or more. So more than half the time it kills a rhino in overwatch. Plus it would still need to survive a round of combat. And I think we've seen a stratagem it can fall back and shoot on for 2 CP.
With rerolls its dead. 50% hit. 50% wound with reroll 1's you'll get 6 wounds. AP-3 in dev doct. So you take 10 wounds making one 6+ save. Then 7 heavy flamer shots 3 wounds at AP -2. Probably take 12 wounds or more. So more than half the time it kills a rhino in overwatch. Plus it would still need to survive a round of combat. And I think we've seen a stratagem it can fall back and shoot on for 2 CP.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I never go Heavy Flamers for the Levi. Heavy Bolters mesh better with the preferred range unless you're going melee.
I don't believe you have a choice or I am doing something wrong.
No HBs for Levi - maybe the chaos one?
I'm not sure what math you are doing there. You should be averaging 11 hits with 5.5 wounds before reroll 1's. So basically 6 wounds after reroll 1's. That is already enough to kill it with ap-3 before heavy flamers which will average 1-2 wounds.
Ahhh I think I know what you are doing wrong now. The rhino will have a 6+ save if the levi is in dev doctrine (it will never leave this doctrine all game lol)
Yeah I would totally take the cheapest option available - it just has to take heavy flamers in 40k. It add 30 something points to the unit (which still keeps it at quite OP levels)
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
6+ fnp has been around since thr beginning of 8th(well, lots longer and with better rolls previously); it is pretty good, but not really fame breaking. As you showed: ups the survivability by 2 wounds in this case.
Half damage strat is only for the phase(or maybe turn) that the strat is popped; and only going to effect multi-damage wounds(effectively doubling the shots required for the same damage that phase). This costs CPs, and isn't as borken as you might think.
The real gem is the character sitting behind it with an iron stone, -1 damage all the time for no CP cost.but all this really does on some cases is remove desire to supercharge the guns that potentially explode and keep heavy bolters as kings of anti-tank scratch damage(or any multi-shot S5-6 AP -1 1D weapons)
What your missing is that a non iron hands one doesn't double it's remaining wounds for it's damage table, doesn't have a 6+ FnP either.
The strategum on a non ironhands one takes it from 7 wounds to 14 to be bracketed and dead at 28 wounds.
Ironhands strategum use goes from 13 to 26 wounds after saves, basically an iron hand leviathn needs to take the same amount of damage as a non iron hands one does with the half damage strategum before applying a bracket change. And double with the same strategum. It's2 less wounds than killing a normal one would be just to bracket an iron hands model.
It is the sort of insane stacking that will see GW nerf the model into unplayable overcosted trash for anyone by ironhands to make it balanced for them.
It's like they learned nothing with prophets of the flesh....
Oh 1 faction gets +1 T +1 Inv across the board and none of the others get used.....Really surprising.
The good news soon a new OP xenos codex will come out and I can play Blue ironhands without being that guy because I literally have to not get tabled.
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
:shrug: Drive a Rhino into it.
Easier play, drive a rhino into the techmarine three inches from it hauling the uber-relic, and powerslide on the pile-in.
Ironhands strategum use goes from 13 to 26 wounds after saves, basically an iron hand leviathn needs to take the same amount of damage as a non iron hands one does with the half damage strategum before applying a bracket change.
Sorry, I haven't seen the stratagem, but presumably its half damage rounding up? In which case 1D weapons aren't affected.
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
:shrug: Drive a Rhino into it.
Easier play, drive a rhino into the techmarine three inches from it hauling the uber-relic, and powerslide on the pile-in.
Ironhands strategum use goes from 13 to 26 wounds after saves, basically an iron hand leviathn needs to take the same amount of damage as a non iron hands one does with the half damage strategum before applying a bracket change.
Sorry, I haven't seen the stratagem, but presumably its half damage rounding up? In which case 1D weapons aren't affected.
How many 1 damage S8 + weapons are you using?
Also just to be clear this isn't a leviathan specific problem the same numbers are also true for the redemptor dreadnaughts
7 and 14 vrs 12 and 24 to bracket with 13/26 to kill vrs 15/30.
If they do have double repair and wound generating psychic powers the only option is killing it in 1 round. People thought knights with rotate ion shield was OP bad.
If the relic for -1 damage stacks after halfing or they have a strategum/relic to improve their FNP to a 5+++, you better believe we'll see a new Iron hands and MW spam meta.
It's almost good enough to make Marines viable again. Almost.
How much further to go until you think they will hit an almost 50% win rate, or whatever you define as viable? And what would help them reach that the most?
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
6+ fnp has been around since thr beginning of 8th(well, lots longer and with better rolls previously); it is pretty good, but not really fame breaking. As you showed: ups the survivability by 2 wounds in this case.
Half damage strat is only for the phase(or maybe turn) that the strat is popped; and only going to effect multi-damage wounds(effectively doubling the shots required for the same damage that phase). This costs CPs, and isn't as borken as you might think.
The real gem is the character sitting behind it with an iron stone, -1 damage all the time for no CP cost.but all this really does on some cases is remove desire to supercharge the guns that potentially explode and keep heavy bolters as kings of anti-tank scratch damage(or any multi-shot S5-6 AP -1 1D weapons)
What your missing is that a non iron hands one doesn't double it's remaining wounds for it's damage table, doesn't have a 6+ FnP either.
The strategum on a non ironhands one takes it from 7 wounds to 14 to be bracketed and dead at 28 wounds.
Ironhands strategum use goes from 13 to 26 wounds after saves, basically an iron hand leviathn needs to take the same amount of damage as a non iron hands one does with the half damage strategum before applying a bracket change. And double with the same strategum. It's2 less wounds than killing a normal one would be just to bracket an iron hands model.
It is the sort of insane stacking that will see GW nerf the model into unplayable overcosted trash for anyone by ironhands to make it balanced for them.
I'm not missing any of that.
I never said the IH buffed Levi wasn't better than any others; I said the strat costa CPs and will only effect the Levi for 1 phase/turn.
Tactical restraint means popping the strat on the Levi leaves the rest of the army available to die to your multidamage weapons.
I also talked about 6+ fnp... You quoted me doing so.
Yes double remaining wounds for chart is powerful, but that is not related to the strat, nor does it change death from a thousand cuts(hitting it with single-damage weapons, which are uneffected by the strat).
You keep conflating half-damage with doubling wounds. These are not the same thing. The IH levi under Duty Eternal can take more than twice as many Autocannon hits, true. But will still die at only 5/6 the rate of heavy bolter or assault cannon shots.
Hell, Hellblasters still eat these things for breakfast with either heavy plas incinerators or the normal plas incinerator. Anything that deals multiple mortal wounds will also take this thing down quickly.
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
6+ fnp has been around since thr beginning of 8th(well, lots longer and with better rolls previously); it is pretty good, but not really fame breaking. As you showed: ups the survivability by 2 wounds in this case.
Half damage strat is only for the phase(or maybe turn) that the strat is popped; and only going to effect multi-damage wounds(effectively doubling the shots required for the same damage that phase). This costs CPs, and isn't as borken as you might think.
The real gem is the character sitting behind it with an iron stone, -1 damage all the time for no CP cost.but all this really does on some cases is remove desire to supercharge the guns that potentially explode and keep heavy bolters as kings of anti-tank scratch damage(or any multi-shot S5-6 AP -1 1D weapons)
What your missing is that a non iron hands one doesn't double it's remaining wounds for it's damage table, doesn't have a 6+ FnP either.
The strategum on a non ironhands one takes it from 7 wounds to 14 to be bracketed and dead at 28 wounds.
Ironhands strategum use goes from 13 to 26 wounds after saves, basically an iron hand leviathn needs to take the same amount of damage as a non iron hands one does with the half damage strategum before applying a bracket change. And double with the same strategum. It's2 less wounds than killing a normal one would be just to bracket an iron hands model.
It is the sort of insane stacking that will see GW nerf the model into unplayable overcosted trash for anyone by ironhands to make it balanced for them.
I'm not missing any of that.
I never said the IH buffed Levi wasn't better than any others; I said the strat costa CPs and will only effect the Levi for 1 phase/turn.
Tactical restraint means popping the strat on the Levi leaves the rest of the army available to die to your multidamage weapons.
I also talked about 6+ fnp... You quoted me doing so.
Yes double remaining wounds for chart is powerful, but that is not related to the strat, nor does it change death from a thousand cuts(hitting it with single-damage weapons, which are uneffected by the strat).
You keep conflating half-damage with doubling wounds. These are not the same thing. The IH levi under Duty Eternal can take more than twice as many Autocannon hits, true. But will still die at only 5/6 the rate of heavy bolter or assault cannon shots.
Hell, Hellblasters still eat these things for breakfast with either heavy plas incinerators or the normal plas incinerator. Anything that deals multiple mortal wounds will also take this thing down quickly.
Still not answered what single damage S8+ weapons are you packing on the regular?
Additionally I'm not claiming its outright OP it just insane stacking the benifits vrs any other chapter's. The survivability is different leagues.
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
6+ fnp has been around since thr beginning of 8th(well, lots longer and with better rolls previously); it is pretty good, but not really fame breaking. As you showed: ups the survivability by 2 wounds in this case.
Half damage strat is only for the phase(or maybe turn) that the strat is popped; and only going to effect multi-damage wounds(effectively doubling the shots required for the same damage that phase). This costs CPs, and isn't as borken as you might think.
The real gem is the character sitting behind it with an iron stone, -1 damage all the time for no CP cost.but all this really does on some cases is remove desire to supercharge the guns that potentially explode and keep heavy bolters as kings of anti-tank scratch damage(or any multi-shot S5-6 AP -1 1D weapons)
What your missing is that a non iron hands one doesn't double it's remaining wounds for it's damage table, doesn't have a 6+ FnP either.
The strategum on a non ironhands one takes it from 7 wounds to 14 to be bracketed and dead at 28 wounds.
Ironhands strategum use goes from 13 to 26 wounds after saves, basically an iron hand leviathn needs to take the same amount of damage as a non iron hands one does with the half damage strategum before applying a bracket change. And double with the same strategum. It's2 less wounds than killing a normal one would be just to bracket an iron hands model.
It is the sort of insane stacking that will see GW nerf the model into unplayable overcosted trash for anyone by ironhands to make it balanced for them.
I'm not missing any of that.
I never said the IH buffed Levi wasn't better than any others; I said the strat costa CPs and will only effect the Levi for 1 phase/turn.
Tactical restraint means popping the strat on the Levi leaves the rest of the army available to die to your multidamage weapons.
I also talked about 6+ fnp... You quoted me doing so.
Yes double remaining wounds for chart is powerful, but that is not related to the strat, nor does it change death from a thousand cuts(hitting it with single-damage weapons, which are uneffected by the strat).
You keep conflating half-damage with doubling wounds. These are not the same thing. The IH levi under Duty Eternal can take more than twice as many Autocannon hits, true. But will still die at only 5/6 the rate of heavy bolter or assault cannon shots.
Hell, Hellblasters still eat these things for breakfast with either heavy plas incinerators or the normal plas incinerator. Anything that deals multiple mortal wounds will also take this thing down quickly.
Still not answered what single damage S8+ weapons are you packing on the regular?
Additionally I'm not claiming its outright OP it just insane stacking the benifits vrs any other chapter's. The survivability is different leagues.
It is outright OP because their damage is in the same spot and actually increased by dying less. Plus they also die less.
Regardless of what some of you people think. This game is about killing things. It's firepower vs defense and target allocation. Defense really does win in this game because a unit that doesn't die gets to react to agressive moves and often take a turn away from what it's reacting to.
Iron Hand seems really strong right now, but we don't know yet about the psychic discipline, the relics and the stratagems and I think those will do a lot to balance out those supplement codexes. I've already written that somewhere but the absurd amount of stratagems and relics that codex compliant SM have access to is a huge problem for balance and has the potential to open up some nasty combos. I really think GW should tone it down and really think about giving all factions across the board the same number of stratagem/relics (and give some form of vect to everyone) because right now it's a mess.
With rerolls its dead. 50% hit. 50% wound with reroll 1's you'll get 6 wounds. AP-3 in dev doct. So you take 10 wounds making one 6+ save. Then 7 heavy flamer shots 3 wounds at AP -2. Probably take 12 wounds or more. So more than half the time it kills a rhino in overwatch. Plus it would still need to survive a round of combat. And I think we've seen a stratagem it can fall back and shoot on for 2 CP.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I never go Heavy Flamers for the Levi. Heavy Bolters mesh better with the preferred range unless you're going melee.
I don't believe you have a choice or I am doing something wrong.
No HBs for Levi - maybe the chaos one?
I'm not sure what math you are doing there. You should be averaging 11 hits with 5.5 wounds before reroll 1's. So basically 6 wounds after reroll 1's. That is already enough to kill it with ap-3 before heavy flamers which will average 1-2 wounds.
Ahhh I think I know what you are doing wrong now. The rhino will have a 6+ save if the levi is in dev doctrine (it will never leave this doctrine all game lol)
Yeah I would totally take the cheapest option available - it just has to take heavy flamers in 40k. It add 30 something points to the unit (which still keeps it at quite OP levels)
How are you getting more that 50% hits on 5s to hit with reroll 1s? What have I missed? 20 shots, right?
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
:shrug: Drive a Rhino into it.
Easier play, drive a rhino into the techmarine three inches from it hauling the uber-relic, and powerslide on the pile-in.
Ironhands strategum use goes from 13 to 26 wounds after saves, basically an iron hand leviathn needs to take the same amount of damage as a non iron hands one does with the half damage strategum before applying a bracket change.
Sorry, I haven't seen the stratagem, but presumably its half damage rounding up? In which case 1D weapons aren't affected.
How many 1 damage S8 + weapons are you using?
Also just to be clear this isn't a leviathan specific problem the same numbers are also true for the redemptor dreadnaughts
7 and 14 vrs 12 and 24 to bracket with 13/26 to kill vrs 15/30.
If they do have double repair and wound generating psychic powers the only option is killing it in 1 round. People thought knights with rotate ion shield was OP bad.
If the relic for -1 damage stacks after halfing or they have a strategum/relic to improve their FNP to a 5+++, you better believe we'll see a new Iron hands and MW spam meta.
S8? Not many. Lower Strength? Possibly tons upon tons. The Knights could still walk away from CC and shoot. The Dreds can't unless UM. I just feel like I see easy ways around this one.
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
:shrug: Drive a Rhino into it.
Easier play, drive a rhino into the techmarine three inches from it hauling the uber-relic, and powerslide on the pile-in.
Ironhands strategum use goes from 13 to 26 wounds after saves, basically an iron hand leviathn needs to take the same amount of damage as a non iron hands one does with the half damage strategum before applying a bracket change.
Sorry, I haven't seen the stratagem, but presumably its half damage rounding up? In which case 1D weapons aren't affected.
How many 1 damage S8 + weapons are you using?
Also just to be clear this isn't a leviathan specific problem the same numbers are also true for the redemptor dreadnaughts
7 and 14 vrs 12 and 24 to bracket with 13/26 to kill vrs 15/30.
If they do have double repair and wound generating psychic powers the only option is killing it in 1 round. People thought knights with rotate ion shield was OP bad.
If the relic for -1 damage stacks after halfing or they have a strategum/relic to improve their FNP to a 5+++, you better believe we'll see a new Iron hands and MW spam meta.
S8? Not many. Lower Strength? Possibly tons upon tons. The Knights could still walk away from CC and shoot. The Dreds can't unless UM. I just feel like I see easy ways around this one.
this is the case with every new rule GW puts out, a handfull of people scream "OMG! IT'S A MASSIVE NEW META BREAKING RULE THAT WILL DESTROY THE GAME THROUGH BEING OP" then it reaches the table and after a week people find it's a over priced edge ase that honestly isn't that great
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
6+ fnp has been around since thr beginning of 8th(well, lots longer and with better rolls previously); it is pretty good, but not really fame breaking. As you showed: ups the survivability by 2 wounds in this case.
Half damage strat is only for the phase(or maybe turn) that the strat is popped; and only going to effect multi-damage wounds(effectively doubling the shots required for the same damage that phase). This costs CPs, and isn't as borken as you might think.
The real gem is the character sitting behind it with an iron stone, -1 damage all the time for no CP cost.but all this really does on some cases is remove desire to supercharge the guns that potentially explode and keep heavy bolters as kings of anti-tank scratch damage(or any multi-shot S5-6 AP -1 1D weapons)
What your missing is that a non iron hands one doesn't double it's remaining wounds for it's damage table, doesn't have a 6+ FnP either.
The strategum on a non ironhands one takes it from 7 wounds to 14 to be bracketed and dead at 28 wounds.
Ironhands strategum use goes from 13 to 26 wounds after saves, basically an iron hand leviathn needs to take the same amount of damage as a non iron hands one does with the half damage strategum before applying a bracket change. And double with the same strategum. It's2 less wounds than killing a normal one would be just to bracket an iron hands model.
It is the sort of insane stacking that will see GW nerf the model into unplayable overcosted trash for anyone by ironhands to make it balanced for them.
I'm not missing any of that.
I never said the IH buffed Levi wasn't better than any others; I said the strat costa CPs and will only effect the Levi for 1 phase/turn.
Tactical restraint means popping the strat on the Levi leaves the rest of the army available to die to your multidamage weapons.
I also talked about 6+ fnp... You quoted me doing so.
Yes double remaining wounds for chart is powerful, but that is not related to the strat, nor does it change death from a thousand cuts(hitting it with single-damage weapons, which are uneffected by the strat).
You keep conflating half-damage with doubling wounds. These are not the same thing. The IH levi under Duty Eternal can take more than twice as many Autocannon hits, true. But will still die at only 5/6 the rate of heavy bolter or assault cannon shots.
Hell, Hellblasters still eat these things for breakfast with either heavy plas incinerators or the normal plas incinerator. Anything that deals multiple mortal wounds will also take this thing down quickly.
Still not answered what single damage S8+ weapons are you packing on the regular?
Additionally I'm not claiming its outright OP it just insane stacking the benifits vrs any other chapter's. The survivability is different leagues.
You should really read what you quote: Heavy Plasma Incinerator on Hellblasters: 5-10 S 8 D1 weapons.
Macro Plasma Incinerator d6 S8 D1 weapon.
Are just 2 S8 D1 weapons that you either field a unit of, or are multishot from this codex.
But S8 isn't a requirement any S5-7 D1, multishot weapon will do as well (1/3 wounds instead of 1/2).
Ice_can wrote: Can someone just check the following as it looks too disgusting to be true
Ironnhands leviathan
Counts as double wounds for damage table so requires 11 wounds lost to bracket it
It then gets the 6+++FnP for 13 wounds
Take not this is after saves
Play the half damage strategum and your talking 26 wounds that's dominus class knight damage just to bracket it.
The above also doesnt account for any additional strategums to allow them to ignore damage on damage tables or any repairing ability.
:shrug: Drive a Rhino into it.
Easier play, drive a rhino into the techmarine three inches from it hauling the uber-relic, and powerslide on the pile-in.
Ironhands strategum use goes from 13 to 26 wounds after saves, basically an iron hand leviathn needs to take the same amount of damage as a non iron hands one does with the half damage strategum before applying a bracket change.
Sorry, I haven't seen the stratagem, but presumably its half damage rounding up? In which case 1D weapons aren't affected.
How many 1 damage S8 + weapons are you using?
Also just to be clear this isn't a leviathan specific problem the same numbers are also true for the redemptor dreadnaughts
7 and 14 vrs 12 and 24 to bracket with 13/26 to kill vrs 15/30.
If they do have double repair and wound generating psychic powers the only option is killing it in 1 round. People thought knights with rotate ion shield was OP bad.
If the relic for -1 damage stacks after halfing or they have a strategum/relic to improve their FNP to a 5+++, you better believe we'll see a new Iron hands and MW spam meta.
S8? Not many. Lower Strength? Possibly tons upon tons. The Knights could still walk away from CC and shoot. The Dreds can't unless UM. I just feel like I see easy ways around this one.
this is the case with every new rule GW puts out, a handfull of people scream "OMG! IT'S A MASSIVE NEW META BREAKING RULE THAT WILL DESTROY THE GAME THROUGH BEING OP" then it reaches the table and after a week people find it's a over priced edge ase that honestly isn't that great
I forgot the Leviathans much shorter range than the Castellan, too. Just touch it and shut down a 300 point unit. This is why I'm still all in on UM, they remove a whole toolkit the opponent could normally use.
As usual people are blowing things out of proportion.
Honestly i am much more scared by a RG list than an IH parking lot. The IH parking lot has 3 huge flaws:
1) Low mobility. It is formed by models with a move characteristic of 8", which must be kept within 3" of a model that moves 6". 2) Low range. Leviathan, repulsors, redemptors, razorbacks... they are all range 24" except for a few heavy bolters here and there. Which means no damage on the turn 1 that you all seem to give so much importance to, because the enemy will counter deploy if going second or counter move if going first and not give you any important target to shoot at with your 1000+ point death star. Play Azrael castles for a while and you will realize all the limitations of such a playstyle. 3) You cannot retreat and shoot and you don't have the ultra overwatch strat of ultramarines. Who cares if a Leviathan can shred my assault units in overwatch, i will assault the weaker element and consolidate into the full formation.
All these things put together means that such a list will get maybe 1 good shooting phase on average.
Now, an RG list which removes all my chars by turn 2, THAT is scary.
Spoletta wrote: As usual people are blowing things out of proportion.
Honestly i am much more scared by a RG list than an IH parking lot. The IH parking lot has 3 huge flaws:
1) Low mobility. It is formed by models with a move characteristic of 8", which must be kept within 3" of a model that moves 6".
2) Low range. Leviathan, repulsors, redemptors, razorbacks... they are all range 24" except for a few heavy bolters here and there. Which means no damage on the turn 1 that you all seem to give so much importance to, because the enemy will counter deploy if going second or counter move if going first and not give you any important target to shoot at with your 1000+ point death star. Play Azrael castles for a while and you will realize all the limitations of such a playstyle.
3) You cannot retreat and shoot and you don't have the ultra overwatch strat of ultramarines. Who cares if a Leviathan can shred my assault units in overwatch, i will assault the weaker element and consolidate into the full formation.
All these things put together means that such a list will get maybe 1 good shooting phase on average.
Now, an RG list which removes all my chars by turn 2, THAT is scary.
I think a lot of people tend to put a lot of weight on big impressive units and forget that 90% of the time it's characters holding those lists together. a lot of the power combis collapse without captain re-rolls and psyker powers providing buffs etc
Spoletta wrote: As usual people are blowing things out of proportion.
Honestly i am much more scared by a RG list than an IH parking lot. The IH parking lot has 3 huge flaws:
1) Low mobility. It is formed by models with a move characteristic of 8", which must be kept within 3" of a model that moves 6".
2) Low range. Leviathan, repulsors, redemptors, razorbacks... they are all range 24" except for a few heavy bolters here and there. Which means no damage on the turn 1 that you all seem to give so much importance to, because the enemy will counter deploy if going second or counter move if going first and not give you any important target to shoot at with your 1000+ point death star. Play Azrael castles for a while and you will realize all the limitations of such a playstyle.
3) You cannot retreat and shoot and you don't have the ultra overwatch strat of ultramarines. Who cares if a Leviathan can shred my assault units in overwatch, i will assault the weaker element and consolidate into the full formation.
All these things put together means that such a list will get maybe 1 good shooting phase on average.
Now, an RG list which removes all my chars by turn 2, THAT is scary.
1) Why do you think they have to be within 3 inches of a move 6 charictor? This is just their basic resilience with iron hands and the half damage strategum.
2) Leviathans are 24 inch range but redeptors repulsors etc have longer range weapons, they can also move a shoot without penalty so their effective range is over 30 inches so they can shoot turn 1
3) outside of Chapter master or LT reroll bubbles Iron hands that go hard into heavy weapons don't need to be so aura dependant that they need to be that close.
Ravenguard can't be in tactical doctrine untill turn 2 so they're not getting that +1,+1 vrs charictors untill turn 2.
The only thing keeping that parking lot together is the iron stone. Without that you will eat a lot of fire and will become nothing more than a mesh of decent vehicles with ad additional 1 ap on some weapons. You will not outgun tau and guard like that.
I think that here we have a big problem of game format.
ITC players will prefer iron hands because turn 1 matters a lot.
CA18 players will prefer the other doctrines because as long as you don't play against huge range castles, not much will get killed turn 1.
Xenomancers wrote: Power discrepancies of this level between factions in the same codex are UNACCEPTABLE.
I disagree, its logical some units to perform better in some factions. What will be bad if one faction is clearly superior to the rest.
For now every SM chapter look really good and better than all other factions and that will be real problem.
I think GW really put them self in the corner with this books and if the pshychic awakening and CA don`t fix things this will kill the edition.
Xenomancers wrote: Power discrepancies of this level between factions in the same codex are UNACCEPTABLE.
I disagree, its logical some units to perform better in some factions. What will be bad if one faction is clearly superior to the rest.
For now every SM chapter look really good and better than all other factions and that will be real problem.
I think GW really put them self in the corner with this books and if the pshychic awakening and CA don`t fix things this will kill the edition.
I think you've rather missed the point, if the whole codex is over or under performing then points changes can be used to balance them out.
If 1 subfaction traits make a unit worth 200 points while all the others only make the unit worth 150 points, that is a problem as all those subfactions pay the same points.
Also marine's had a long way to climb before the were on the same level of broken a alitoc flyer spam, GSC and choas soup, GW may have managed to get them past that point for 1 or 2 combinations
Xenomancers wrote: Power discrepancies of this level between factions in the same codex are UNACCEPTABLE.
I disagree, its logical some units to perform better in some factions. What will be bad if one faction is clearly superior to the rest.
For now every SM chapter look really good and better than all other factions and that will be real problem.
I think GW really put them self in the corner with this books and if the pshychic awakening and CA don`t fix things this will kill the edition.
I think you've rather missed the point, if the whole codex is over or under performing then points changes can be used to balance them out.
If 1 subfaction traits make a unit worth 200 points while all the others only make the unit worth 150 points, that is a problem as all those subfactions pay the same points.
Also marine's had a long way to climb before the were on the same level of broken a alitoc flyer spam, GSC and choas soup, GW may have managed to get them past that point for 1 or 2 combinations
Even in CSM the discrepancies are still there, it's nothing new and just proves that gw has no idea how to subfaction propperly.
Xenomancers wrote: Power discrepancies of this level between factions in the same codex are UNACCEPTABLE.
I disagree, its logical some units to perform better in some factions. What will be bad if one faction is clearly superior to the rest. For now every SM chapter look really good and better than all other factions and that will be real problem. I think GW really put them self in the corner with this books and if the pshychic awakening and CA don`t fix things this will kill the edition.
I think you've rather missed the point, if the whole codex is over or under performing then points changes can be used to balance them out. If 1 subfaction traits make a unit worth 200 points while all the others only make the unit worth 150 points, that is a problem as all those subfactions pay the same points.
Also marine's had a long way to climb before the were on the same level of broken a alitoc flyer spam, GSC and choas soup, GW may have managed to get them past that point for 1 or 2 combinations
This would make sense if every unit had a "correct" point cost. Problem is that a unit can never been assigned a mathematically correct point cost, since the actual value of that unit depends on the rest of the list. There are models which are worth more points, the more you take of them, while there are other which have diminishing returns the more you take. Many models are worth more in combination with other models, and so on.
If you make a model a bit stronger in one subfaction than in others, it still works design wise. It just means that that subfaction will be able to efficiently deploy it in more configurations, so it will be present in more lists, which was the intended aim of the bonus to that model in that subfaction. The other subfactions will still use it, but in less cases.
It works, nothing wrong in that design. Sure, this assumes that every unit is well designed and has a point cost similar to its average point value.
Anyway, 
.
