...is that they seem to break unwritten limitations that all 8E armies had until now. It's as if the entire ruleset of 8th Edition is bending for them, and for no one else.
Take the Infiltrators, for a start. They can deploy within 9 inches of the enemy... and then they can move... and then they can charge. Until now, in the current edition, no infiltrator-type units could reliably get a successful charge after deploying or deep-striking within 9 inches of the enemy. For example, the Craftworlds/Drukhari stratagem "Fire and Fade", which lets you move after shooting, has a specific rule that disallows charging after making this move. The designers of the game clearly intended to make it possible to charge from deep strike, but far too unlikely to rely upon it as part of your battle plan, even with stratagems. But Marine Infiltrators change that. They are, to my knowledge, the only unit in the game that can move and charge after being set up 9 inches away from the enemy.
Other examples: the Impulsor lets models move out of the vehicle and shoot after the vehicle has moved, and Drop Pods can deep strike on turn 1 despite the blanket "no deep strike on turn 1" rule. Again, Marines are given things that no one used to have in 8th Edition, even armies that specialize in dirty tricks (such as Eldar and Tau). I feel like this is a slippery slope that may considerably worsen the game's imbalance.
In part, I blame the loss of USR's for this. If units stuck as closely as possible to a score of USR's, it would make it easier to either set up clear and universal limitations ("A unit that moves after deep-striking cannot charge this round. No exceptions!") or, if needed, give a blanket update to a whole bunch of units by errata-ing the USR ("All deep-striking units are now allowed to both move and charge"). No more special snowflake units.
-Guardsman- wrote: ...is that they seem to break unwritten limitations that all 8E armies had until now. It's as if the entire ruleset of 8th Edition is bending for them, and for no one else.
Take the Infiltrators, for a start. They can deploy within 9 inches of the enemy... and then they can move... and then they can charge. Until now, in the current edition, no infiltrator-type units could reliably get a successful charge after deploying or deep-striking within 9 inches of the enemy. For example, the Craftworlds/Drukhari stratagem "Fire and Fade", which lets you move after shooting, has a specific rule that disallows charging after making this move. The designers of the game clearly intended to make it possible to charge from deep strike, but far too unlikely to rely upon it as part of your battle plan, even with stratagems. But Marine Infiltrators change that. They are, to my knowledge, the only unit in the game that can move and charge after being set up 9 inches away from the enemy.
Other examples: the Impulsor lets models move out of the vehicle and shoot after the vehicle has moved, and Drop Pods can deep strike on turn 1 despite the blanket "no deep strike on turn 1" rule. Again, Marines are given things that no one used to have in 8th Edition, even armies that specialize in dirty tricks (such as Eldar and Tau). I feel like this is a slippery slope that may considerably worsen the game's imbalance.
In part, I blame the loss of USR's for this. If units stuck as closely as possible to a score of USR's, it would make it easier to either set up clear and universal limitations ("A unit that moves after deep-striking cannot charge this round. No exceptions!") or, if needed, give a blanket update to a whole bunch of units by errata-ing the USR ("All deep-striking units are now allowed to both move and charge"). No more special snowflake units.
.
at the start of 8, many armies had acces to an infiltration stratagem, they were nerfed when it made alpha strikes too strong (electroprists + dragoon needing a 2/1" charge). Theres still a few units that can infiltrate outside of space marines : Nurglings and Stealth suits.
I do agree with you, marines have way too many rules / stratagems and they even take rules from other armies , removing the uniqueness of these armies ( For the greater good with ultramarines, neutron laser ++ on the executioner, flying tanks in general)
Pretty sure GSC have a way to deploy 9 away from an enemy then move d6 closer to the enemy and still charge. That or my normal GSC opponent has been cheating.
I think he meant models with the old "infiltrate" USR.
3 Invictor Warsuits, a RG smash captain with a unit of Assault Centurions and a few scout squads deploying 9" away is dangerous. You can also move a few JP units 9" away too with a strat before turn 1. All those units can move, shoot and then charge. If it is Dawn of war you would be hard pressed to be able to deploy out of charge range even with screens unless you also have "infiltrate" units.
This is just the end result of what GW did in 6th, 7th, etc. As the edition continues they need to make more and more units/models/rules. And sadly GW's general policy on rules making is:
Choose one of the following:
1) This unit is allowed to re-roll _________.
2) This unit is allowed to ignore the main game rule: __________.
I think you'll find 90% of their rules are one of these two things. The more into the edition you go, the more this occurs. Look at 3rd-7th, built on essentially the same bones. Now consider the start of 3rd to the end of 7th. How many large game functions were pointless because by the end of 7th, so many armies/units ignored entire game rules (heck GW even decided to break the points limit you agreed to when deciding the size game you wanted to play...) I enjoy listening to Horus Heresy podcasts, but I do enjoy a sensible chuckle when they describe a weapon on a tank and then list it's seven or eight attributes. "This Mega-Vulcanizer Array also has rending, chopping, dicing, splaying, penetrating, hacking, coughing, sneezing, burning and destructor rules...". Almost all of these USRs, or weapon traits are just rules allowing a weapon to ignore any number of actual game mechanics.
We're more or less at that point with 40K now in 8th. To be an attractive sales model, the new units/books, etc. have to break progressively more and more rules because GW doesn't have much flexibility in game design.
Well, in the case of Marines & their drop pods the rules are simply reverting to what everyone had at the beginning of the edition. Nobody should've lost this option in the 1st place.
I had a game against Raven Guard and I had to ask for the supplement to read the rules myself as some of the stuff in there was honestly sounding like a fan-rulebook.
I'm fine with giving marines flavour but they didn't need to go this far.
bullyboy wrote: Infils cannot deploy within 9" of deployment zone either.....not just models. Besides, you are afraid of 22pt Infils that want to get into assault?
It's not a matter of balance, necessarily. Drop pods, Infiltrators, and Impulsors can all be fairly priced to take their advantages into account.
It's just lame when there's one army that gets to be good at everything, and ignore the rules that apply to everyone else. I'm fine with Marines being the easy-to-learn, jack-of-all-trades faction, but that means they're the last army that should get these kinds of 'tricks'. They already effectively ignore morale, the hover vehicles ignore being caught in melee, and they can depending on chapter ignore entire mechanics like movement penalties, fall-back penalties, or cover- they really don't need to violate basic game-wide limitations too.
I think GW is overcompensating to try and make elite armies more appealing. I also believe they haven’t done even a modicum of play testing any of the new marine releases or are throwing the original lessons initial 8E play testing out the window for half-assed rules that invariably sell more marine models.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I had to ask for the supplement to read the rules myself as some of the stuff in there was honestly sounding like a fan-rulebook.
This is basically how I felt when my opponent told me that each of his 37pts Aggressors would now fire 19 shots... after having advanced. At AP-1. For 0 CP. Next turn they were charging me with 4 S8 AP-3 DD3 attacks each.
In my Orks codex, there is a unit called "Meganobz" that costs 35pts a model for 4 shots at BS5+, AP0. And they have 3 S10 AP-3 DD3 attacks.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I had to ask for the supplement to read the rules myself as some of the stuff in there was honestly sounding like a fan-rulebook.
This is basically how I felt when my opponent told me that each of his 37pts Aggressors would now fire 19 shots... after having advanced. At AP-1. For 0 CP. Next turn they were charging me with 4 S8 AP-3 DD3 attacks each.
In my Orks codex, there is a unit called "Meganobz" that costs 35pts a model for 4 shots at BS5+, AP0. And they have 3 S10 AP-3 DD3 attacks.
WTF is wrong with you GW ?
Uh, for what it's worth, they don't get to double-fire if they advance. If they're Ultras they can double-fire if they move, but not if they advance.
bullyboy wrote: Infils cannot deploy within 9" of deployment zone either.....not just models. Besides, you are afraid of 22pt Infils that want to get into assault?
It's not a matter of balance, necessarily. Drop pods, Infiltrators, and Impulsors can all be fairly priced to take their advantages into account.
It's just lame when there's one army that gets to be good at everything, and ignore the rules that apply to everyone else. I'm fine with Marines being the easy-to-learn, jack-of-all-trades faction, but that means they're the last army that should get these kinds of 'tricks'. They already effectively ignore morale, the hover vehicles ignore being caught in melee, and they can depending on chapter ignore entire mechanics like movement penalties, fall-back penalties, or cover- they really don't need to violate basic game-wide limitations too.
Yep, that's where I take issue, not whether the unit cost justifies it. For one thing, there's the uniqueness factor. And it's not as if this were an inconsequential thing: a reliable turn 1 charge out of "deep strike equivalent" is pretty huge, especially for a unit with considerable staying power. For another, Marines are not, by nature, the kind of army that should get all the dirty tricks. Their playing style should be comparatively straightforward.
catbarf wrote: Uh, for what it's worth, they don't get to double-fire if they advance. If they're Ultras they can double-fire if they move, but not if they advance.
That's something I didn't know ! I may misremember then, since his Aggressors didn't advance every turn (he was indeed UM). Still, my point stands : comparing UM Aggressors to [any klan] Meganobz makes me wanna cry. They have TWELVE TIMES the shooting power while also hitting harder in melee. This is madness.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I had a game against Raven Guard and I had to ask for the supplement to read the rules myself as some of the stuff in there was honestly sounding like a fan-rulebook.
I'm fine with giving marines flavour but they didn't need to go this far.
That's the downside, many are choosing Assault Centurions for this.....which are pretty much the least stealthy units you could possibly imagine, so it really breaks the fluff. I just can't bring myself to bring them into my RG force as they just don't "fit" thematically.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I had a game against Raven Guard and I had to ask for the supplement to read the rules myself as some of the stuff in there was honestly sounding like a fan-rulebook.
I'm fine with giving marines flavour but they didn't need to go this far.
That's the downside, many are choosing Assault Centurions for this.....which are pretty much the least stealthy units you could possibly imagine, so it really breaks the fluff. I just can't bring myself to bring them into my RG force as they just don't "fit" thematically.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: Pretty sure GSC have a way to deploy 9 away from an enemy then move d6 closer to the enemy and still charge. That or my normal GSC opponent has been cheating.
Yeah it's a 3CP stratagem.
Not a blanket ability we get for free and on turn 1 lol.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I had to ask for the supplement to read the rules myself as some of the stuff in there was honestly sounding like a fan-rulebook.
This is basically how I felt when my opponent told me that each of his 37pts Aggressors would now fire 19 shots... after having advanced. At AP-1. For 0 CP. Next turn they were charging me with 4 S8 AP-3 DD3 attacks each.
In my Orks codex, there is a unit called "Meganobz" that costs 35pts a model for 4 shots at BS5+, AP0. And they have 3 S10 AP-3 DD3 attacks.
WTF is wrong with you GW ?
Insert "muh GW only focuses on marines because more people play space marines" argument here.
Yep, they are definitely not doing anything to tip that scale.
every edition.
Always.
They're not always the army everyone starts with because they're in every starter box creating sunk-cost in people's brains.
They're not the army that gets the most releases and hype by a mile.
They're not the army consistently given special-snowflake rules only they get that no other faction has an equivalent to.
Those would be silly reasons. It's obvious that everyone just naturally loves marines 50 times more than every other faction in the game!
Ishagu wrote: How can anyone blame the loss of USRs for anything when USRs are what created the invincible death starts of 7th edition?
People have terrible memories lol
At least in my area USRs were not considered the main issue in 7th, that would be formations aka giving units free rules that radically change their performance and make costing a unit or army impossible.
GW basically is back at the same concept at this point with the new marine book being the poster child for bad game design, bad hobby craft, and over all making any attempt to balance the game impossible.
-Guardsman- wrote: ..
Take the Infiltrators, for a start. They can deploy within 9 inches of the enemy... and then they can move... and then they can charge. Until now, in the current edition, no infiltrator-type units could reliably get a successful charge after deploying or deep-striking within 9 inches of the enemy.
.
Couldnt scouts do this whole edition? Am I missing something?
The only marine army that can do what your say more effectively is Ravenguard.
All other marine armies dont play that style typically although they can be built to do it but it may not be that effective.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I had a game against Raven Guard and I had to ask for the supplement to read the rules myself as some of the stuff in there was honestly sounding like a fan-rulebook.
I'm fine with giving marines flavour but they didn't need to go this far.
That's the downside, many are choosing Assault Centurions for this.....which are pretty much the least stealthy units you could possibly imagine, so it really breaks the fluff. I just can't bring myself to bring them into my RG force as they just don't "fit" thematically.
The picture below seems to disagree.
Spoiler:
That picture shows nothing. It has bikes, dreadnoughts, etc....where Centurions would fit. You obviously missed the part of my post where I mentioned "my RG force" where they don't fit. Are you going to tell me that Centurions are stealthy like vanguard units? I'm sure that those Centurions didn't "infiltrate" into that battle....which is what is happening on the tabletop.
Agree with the op. But that's been the trend for every edition since I started in 3rd. I finally just learned to roll with it. Meaning when my marines arent gak I play them! Sucks but what goes around..
Pretty soon csm will get what seems like a badass Dex along with BAs and those players will rejoice. Then they'll realize it's just the testing grounds for the real 9th edition dexes. Rinse. Repeat.
I had wonder recently if the 8th ediition rules are so basic, that is getting in the way of the game itself a lot. They have a lot of ideas but that the game just cannot handle them.
Sorta putting themselves into a worse position that where in even before hand. Honestly i think 40k just needs a rewrite and a sitdown on where they want things to go, and what they want to achieve.
Some of there rules make the units a bit of a joke, and space marines themselves are rather bland due to all the supermen level ups they get.
The supplements show an inherent problem with costing ifentical unit across 6 different factions...
Is an IH vehicle (any vehicle really) worth the same as a vanilla vehicle?
This is an easy example but it can be applied to kraken vs non kraken genestealers, old ynnari everything vs cwe vanilla everything and the list goes on.
Points dont fix everything. I am a big prononent of that. But with no attempt at internal balance its one of the things that should be adressed.
Apple fox wrote: I had wonder recently if the 8th ediition rules are so basic, that is getting in the way of the game itself a lot. They have a lot of ideas but that the game just cannot handle them.
Sorta putting themselves into a worse position that where in even before hand. Honestly i think 40k just needs a rewrite and a sitdown on where they want things to go, and what they want to achieve.
Some of there rules make the units a bit of a joke, and space marines themselves are rather bland due to all the supermen level ups they get.
-Guardsman- wrote: ..
Take the Infiltrators, for a start. They can deploy within 9 inches of the enemy... and then they can move... and then they can charge. Until now, in the current edition, no infiltrator-type units could reliably get a successful charge after deploying or deep-striking within 9 inches of the enemy.
.
Couldnt scouts do this whole edition? Am I missing something?
The only marine army that can do what your say more effectively is Ravenguard.
All other marine armies dont play that style typically although they can be built to do it but it may not be that effective.
All marines now have the invictor warsuit and a few more phobos units. And by making everything better than it used to be with better tactics, doctrines and stratagems you dont have to be ravenguard to infiltrate a sizable and threatening force.
200pts of scouts isnt that bad but add 3 133pt warsuits(that shoot like a predator and hits harder than a dreadnought and deploy like a scout yet are cheaper than a pred?!) with a phobos Librarian and infiltrator/incursors and now its half the army deploying 9" from your lines instead of 24"
Pancakey 781494 10602429 wrote:
Say it with me, “STREEEEAAAMMLINED”.
The problem is that GW thinks that streamlining one faction to two rules, out of which one is always shot at +3 and the other if you kill something or something dies shot again, is equal to someone rolling -1 D6 on morale and +1Ld of they own.
I understand that stuff never is equal, that something has to be just better. But the gap between w40k normal and bad is so big, some armies may as well not be playing the same game.
I mean lets say WB vs any of the new marines. Both updated to 8.5ed , but one feels as if it was ment for something that maybe have been good in the past, or at least I hope it was good in the past, and the other is a powerhouse in its 2 cycle of hormons.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I had to ask for the supplement to read the rules myself as some of the stuff in there was honestly sounding like a fan-rulebook.
This is basically how I felt when my opponent told me that each of his 37pts Aggressors would now fire 19 shots... after having advanced. At AP-1. For 0 CP. Next turn they were charging me with 4 S8 AP-3 DD3 attacks each.
In my Orks codex, there is a unit called "Meganobz" that costs 35pts a model for 4 shots at BS5+, AP0. And they have 3 S10 AP-3 DD3 attacks.
WTF is wrong with you GW ?
The thing is GW overvaluates 2+ saves. Terminators suffer for the same reason. There are just too many AP-3 or better weapons handed out and mortal wounds flying left right and center that the 2+ save isn't really all that special. Yet you pay through your nose for it.
Klickor 781494 10602451 wrote:
200pts of scouts isnt that bad but add 3 133pt warsuits(that shoot like a predator and hits harder than a dreadnought and deploy like a scout yet are cheaper than a pred?!) with a phobos Librarian and infiltrator/incursors and now its half the army deploying 9" from your lines instead of 24"
yep. and the rest is 3 units of devastators in pods along side 2 HQs and a unit of sterguard, and you can get almost tabled turn 1. Very negative thing to expiriance, but at least the game is short.
The thing is GW overvaluates 2+ saves. Terminators suffer for the same reason. There are just too many AP-3 or better weapons handed out and mortal wounds flying left right and center that the 2+ save isn't really all that special. Yet you pay through your nose for it.
Aggressors are 3+ so they're fine, obviously.
Maybe termintors should have a rule that says, never lower save then +3, and the Stormshield ends up doing something else. Like re-roll saves or something.
Klickor 781494 10602451 wrote:
200pts of scouts isnt that bad but add 3 133pt warsuits(that shoot like a predator and hits harder than a dreadnought and deploy like a scout yet are cheaper than a pred?!) with a phobos Librarian and infiltrator/incursors and now its half the army deploying 9" from your lines instead of 24"
yep. and the rest is 3 units of devastators in pods along side 2 HQs and a unit of sterguard, and you can get almost tabled turn 1. Very negative thing to expiriance, but at least the game is short.
The thing is GW overvaluates 2+ saves. Terminators suffer for the same reason. There are just too many AP-3 or better weapons handed out and mortal wounds flying left right and center that the 2+ save isn't really all that special. Yet you pay through your nose for it.
Aggressors are 3+ so they're fine, obviously.
Maybe termintors should have a rule that says, never lower save then +3, and the Stormshield ends up doing something else. Like re-roll saves or something.
Well not sure if I understood you correctly, always having at least 3+ save would be just bonkers. Storm Shields are fine for just that. And they already have 5++ so -3 is the worst that can affect them. However Meganobz have no invuln outside of Deffskulls Klan trait so they're really fethed over. I wouldn't mind ditching the usesless shooting for some sort of Orky shield that gave them 4++ or even 5++.
Well not sure if I understood you correctly, always having at least 3+ save would be just bonkers
why? the is already about mulit shot, bonus to D weapons. If the only counter to termintors was a 45pts lascannon+model carrying it, then yeah termintors would be really good. But in a world where units roll 100+shots and have options to upgrade the damage on their weapons, view relics, buffs or stratagems, I don't think it is too over the top.
Storm shields are a horrible pice of equipment, because every type of terminator model that can have them is automaticly bad, because +5 inv doesn't save a darn thing for models that cost 40-60pts.
The issue as I see it... GW needs to learn restraint. The rules writers want to give every single unit 2, 3, 4... 7 'cool' abilities to make them 'interesting'. They need to hold back. Maybe keep it to one, maybe two abilities and leave it at that.
That picture shows nothing. It has bikes, dreadnoughts, etc....where Centurions would fit. You obviously missed the part of my post where I mentioned "my RG force" where they don't fit. Are you going to tell me that Centurions are stealthy like vanguard units? I'm sure that those Centurions didn't "infiltrate" into that battle....which is what is happening on the tabletop.
This is where the term "infiltrate" needs to be really understood.
It's not just "stealthy movement into the area". That's a big component of it certainly, but there's nothing suggesting that they did this in the dead of night and absolutely quietly. It wasn't uncommon for, in the Real World(tm), attacks to be launched specifically to allow for infiltration and embedding of heavier assets into an area so that they can be used when needed. There's even some mention of stuff like that with the 6th Company(which use a large amount of bikes) for the Raven Guard.
Well not sure if I understood you correctly, always having at least 3+ save would be just bonkers
why? the is already about mulit shot, bonus to D weapons. If the only counter to termintors was a 45pts lascannon+model carrying it, then yeah termintors would be really good. But in a world where units roll 100+shots and have options to upgrade the damage on their weapons, view relics, buffs or stratagems, I don't think it is too over the top.
Storm shields are a horrible pice of equipment, because every type of terminator model that can have them is automaticly bad, because +5 inv doesn't save a darn thing for models that cost 40-60pts.
Yeah, I'm with Karol here. When you're handing out 12 S5 AP-2 shots that ignore move and shoot heavy to a fething razorback, things have gotten wack.
Looks to me like TC is crying about thematic rules.
I don't particularly like the fact that Guardsmen can move faster across the board than the superhuman Astartes because someone yells at them.
The game is full of special rules and the give armies flavour. Astartes are elite, and should have more abilities to offset the low model count nature of the army.
Ishagu wrote: Looks to me like TC is crying about thematic rules.
I don't particularly like the fact that Guardsmen can move faster across the board than the superhuman Astartes because someone yells at them.
The game is full of special rules and the give armies flavour. Astartes are elite, and should have more abilities to offset the low model count nature of the army.
I'll take my massive buffs to Custodes now please.
Ishagu wrote: Looks to me like TC is crying about thematic rules.
I don't particularly like the fact that Guardsmen can move faster across the board than the superhuman Astartes because someone yells at them.
The game is full of special rules and the give armies flavour. Astartes are elite, and should have more abilities to offset the low model count nature of the army.
Ishagu wrote: Looks to me like TC is crying about thematic rules.
I don't particularly like the fact that Guardsmen can move faster across the board than the superhuman Astartes because someone yells at them.
The game is full of special rules and the give armies flavour. Astartes are elite, and should have more abilities to offset the low model count nature of the army.
I'll take my massive buffs to Custodes now please.
Ishagu wrote: Looks to me like TC is crying about thematic rules.
I don't particularly like the fact that Guardsmen can move faster across the board than the superhuman Astartes because someone yells at them.
The game is full of special rules and the give armies flavour. Astartes are elite, and should have more abilities to offset the low model count nature of the army.
Well they must have missed some of the marines rules when they were writing some books though. Ultramarines have like a whole page of extra rules to all of their units, and two pages of stratagems and a bucket of special heroes, while someone playing lets say WB gets one rule, that other armies get for free.
I think it would be a lot easier to stomach the marine supplements if we didn't have to hear about marines literally constantly. Chaos getting redone? LOOK AT THESE NEW PRIMARIS! Eldar approaching civil war in the new campaigns books? NEW MARINE SUPPLEMENTS GET THEM WHILE THEY ARE BROKEN. Admech finally getting a plastic transport? DON'T WORRY YOU CAN KILL IT WITH THE BRAND NEW PRIMARIS TANK. When marines get something we get to hear about it for months on end. When another army gets something they spit it out in 2 weeks tops.
As for why marines deserve special treatment? Squeaky wheel gets the grease and boy are there a lot of 3+ wheels. Before the supplements you could count on multiple "marines need a buff" threads being active at any given time and that was before you counted all the ones that got derailed on how HORRIBLY UNPLAYABLE marines were.
Why is there an uproar over infiltrators but not any GSC units? I might be missing something but I'm pretty sure GSC infiltrates way better than marines.
fraser1191 wrote: Why is there an uproar over infiltrators but not any GSC units? I might be missing something but I'm pretty sure GSC infiltrates way better than marines.
It’s not even in the same ball park, the GSC have a way better selection of infiltration/burrowing units and they have some really nasty infiltration/burrowing units.
Tend to agree with the OP. However this started imo with Knights.
Their abilities to ignore move/heavy weapon penalties, fall back/shoot even though not a flyer, take relics/upgrades as vehicles and have stratagems where they can move/advance, charge to me was always a slippery slope.....
Klickor 781494 10602451 wrote:
200pts of scouts isnt that bad but add 3 133pt warsuits(that shoot like a predator and hits harder than a dreadnought and deploy like a scout yet are cheaper than a pred?!) with a phobos Librarian and infiltrator/incursors and now its half the army deploying 9" from your lines instead of 24"
yep. and the rest is 3 units of devastators in pods along side 2 HQs and a unit of sterguard, and you can get almost tabled turn 1. Very negative thing to expiriance, but at least the game is short.
Marines have been in that boat most of 8th. "You go first, I don't have enough left to bother with my first turn. I go first, then you go, then I don't have enough left to bother with my second turn." The only thing that's changed is that Marines are now one of the armies that can hit hard enough to end a game on turn one.
That's not a problem with Marines, that's a problem with 40k in general. The system is so stupidly lethal that if you have two armies from non-garbage factions put together by competent players then the dice roll to decide who goes first generally decides the game unless you have so much terrain on the table you can't see each other's deployment zones.
fraser1191 wrote: Why is there an uproar over infiltrators but not any GSC units? I might be missing something but I'm pretty sure GSC infiltrates way better than marines.
It’s not even in the same ball park, the GSC have a way better selection of infiltration/burrowing units and they have some really nasty infiltration/burrowing units.
That's kinda my point. GSC to my knowledge is entirely based on getting into combat turn 1. Marine infiltrate abilities set up the model 9" from enemy deployment zone. GSC: "yeah you can put most of your army in tunnels, DS turn 1, but also place down these tokens so you don't have to commit to where you place your units" .
While his argument is kinda valid, infiltrators are on the table ready to be shot, plus they really only get to melee turn one if you put things on your line to be charged turn one. GSC you move in position to shoot a blip and it could be a poor target to shoot or it could straight up be a false blip.
Point is GSC infiltrates circles around marines and are awesome!
Isn't this what they've done for every release? This new race has an ability that NO ONE ELSE HAS! GSC's had a few. Orks had a few, etc.
Then after 2-3 months after the purchase firestorm dies down, they cry foul and nerf the hell out of them.
It's like that internet meme where the guy shoots the other guy in the chair, and then blames something not related....
GW creates the problem to sell units, then nerfs the problem to create balance, while releasing the next super broken thing. Look at the spike in IH purchases.....or before that Knight purchases....
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Isn't this what they've done for every release? This new race has an ability that NO ONE ELSE HAS! GSC's had a few. Orks had a few, etc.
Then after 2-3 months after the purchase firestorm dies down, they cry foul and nerf the hell out of them.
It's like that internet meme where the guy shoots the other guy in the chair, and then blames something not related....
GW creates the problem to sell units, then nerfs the problem to create balance, while releasing the next super broken thing. Look at the spike in IH purchases.....or before that Knight purchases....
Personally I think all armies should have something unique. In my opinion GSC are the most unique army in the game. I guess being the last codex out really paid off(well barring sisters I suppose)
Argive wrote: The supplements show an inherent problem with costing ifentical unit across 6 different factions...
Is an IH vehicle (any vehicle really) worth the same as a vanilla vehicle?
This is an easy example but it can be applied to kraken vs non kraken genestealers, old ynnari everything vs cwe vanilla everything and the list goes on.
Points dont fix everything. I am a big prononent of that. But with no attempt at internal balance its one of the things that should be adressed.
This is mostly an issue with the way GW has sold subfactions as their own faction. If instead of insisting on each chapter being its own faction, GW had a list of "Detachment Tactics" for marines that were based on but not tied to Chapters, it wouldn't be an issue. Instead of building an Iron Hands detachment you gave your detachment the "Armored Company" Tactics, it would all work fine. You'd arrange your army into 3 detachments with your Tacticals being in the "Ground Forces" group, the Vanguards charging with the "Emperor's Fury" tactics, and the vehicles in you Armored Company. People would think its brilliant, but lose their minds if you make a force divided into Ultramarines, Blood Angels and Iron Hands. Rules wise, its exactly the same, but we've been sold the idea as if these same grey models are somehow different factions.
Apple fox wrote: I had wonder recently if the 8th ediition rules are so basic, that is getting in the way of the game itself a lot. They have a lot of ideas but that the game just cannot handle them.
Sorta putting themselves into a worse position that where in even before hand. Honestly i think 40k just needs a rewrite and a sitdown on where they want things to go, and what they want to achieve.
Some of there rules make the units a bit of a joke, and space marines themselves are rather bland due to all the supermen level ups they get.
Nope. The problem is the giant pile of special snowflake rules, and that each individual thing increasingly 'needs' four or five of the bloody things, to the point that the potential interactions are ridiculous. And then you add traits, stratagems and artifacts which are all unique special snowflakes themselves (outside the basic underpowered ones in the main book- really, one CP for a reroll, when rerolls are tossed out for free by whole swaths of special snowflake rules? Insanity.)
The more interactions you have, the more likely you are to run into problem areas. So each SM unit has 3-4 rules, each chapter has two, plus combat doctrines, plus special chapter doctrines plus ~30 strategems plus 20(?) more chapter strategems, 18(?) psychic powers, 24? warlord traits, 12 artifacts plus 6 more artifacts... you're running into a basic proliferation by multiplication that yields tens of thousands possible combinations. That isn't sane or good for the game.
fraser1191 wrote: Why is there an uproar over infiltrators but not any GSC units? I might be missing something but I'm pretty sure GSC infiltrates way better than marines.
It’s not even in the same ball park, the GSC have a way better selection of infiltration/burrowing units and they have some really nasty infiltration/burrowing units.
That's kinda my point. GSC to my knowledge is entirely based on getting into combat turn 1. Marine infiltrate abilities set up the model 9" from enemy deployment zone. GSC: "yeah you can put most of your army in tunnels, DS turn 1, but also place down these tokens so you don't have to commit to where you place your units" .
While his argument is kinda valid, infiltrators are on the table ready to be shot, plus they really only get to melee turn one if you put things on your line to be charged turn one. GSC you move in position to shoot a blip and it could be a poor target to shoot or it could straight up be a false blip.
Point is GSC infiltrates circles around marines and are awesome!
So...important question...have you ever played against GSC?
Because a couple things:
1) They cannot deep strike turn 1. They get Regular, The Same As Everybody But Marines deep strike. They have 1 stratagem for 2CP that enables them to DS 3" away (and shoot, but not charge) and 1 stratagem for 3CP that enables them to move 1d6" closer than 9". Imagine spending 3CP to move your unit 1", and still having only a 36% chance of getting into combat after that. Yeah lol, GSC sure out-infiltrate marines XDDDDDDD.
2) This means, by tactical reserves, 1/2 of their army has to be deployed on the board. They do get the blips ability for this. But Marines in drop pods and the new marine infiltrate rule both DO NOT COUNT towards the 1/2 of your army that is in deep strike AND they come in turn 1.
3) to add insult to fething injury, marine Infiltrators literally have an ability that cockblocks the ever loving feth out of GSC - no deep strike within 12" of those fethers!
A game with GSC vs IH numarines goes a bit like this:
-GSC deploys half their army on the table, generally gakky chaff units.
-The marine player plops all his gak onto the board, infiltrators and drop pod guys and invictus suits show right the feth up turn 1, killing most of the garbage chaff the GSC player puts down.
-The GSC player deep strikes on turn 2, with marines on every single objective, and has to work around giant 12" nope bubbles around each unit of infiltrators. MAYBE if he spends 3CP he gets to send one unit into 5+ overwatch - that is, if he doesn't roll so low that the repulsor fields push him beyond a 12" charge range anyway, lol.
-The marine player then goes into tactical doctrine and shreds all the 7PPM T3 5+ guardsman bodies that are the GSC deep strikers with AP-1 boltgun fire.
It's pretty much like a 5th ed game of Daemons vs GK at this point. I saw this game the last week I went to my 40k club, and all I could think of was "oh look, they brought back Warp Quake".
Apple fox wrote: I had wonder recently if the 8th ediition rules are so basic, that is getting in the way of the game itself a lot. They have a lot of ideas but that the game just cannot handle them.
Sorta putting themselves into a worse position that where in even before hand. Honestly i think 40k just needs a rewrite and a sitdown on where they want things to go, and what they want to achieve.
Some of there rules make the units a bit of a joke, and space marines themselves are rather bland due to all the supermen level ups they get.
Nope. The problem is the giant pile of special snowflake rules, and that each individual thing increasingly 'needs' four or five of the bloody things, to the point that the potential interactions are ridiculous. And then you add traits, stratagems and artifacts which are all unique special snowflakes themselves (outside the basic underpowered ones in the main book- really, one CP for a reroll, when rerolls are tossed out for free by whole swaths of special snowflake rules? Insanity.)
The more interactions you have, the more likely you are to run into problem areas. So each SM unit has 3-4 rules, each chapter has two, plus combat doctrines, plus special chapter doctrines plus ~30 strategems plus 20(?) more chapter strategems, 18(?) psychic powers, 24? warlord traits, 12 artifacts plus 6 more artifacts... you're running into a basic proliferation by multiplication that yields tens of thousands possible combinations. That isn't sane or good for the game.
That is a good summery of what I was sorta getting at, they try to simplify the game. But I think it’s more complicated than it’s every been, but still so shallow.
Everything kinda just happens, and there is only so much thought I can put into it for results when a random dice can decide if I have a chance this game or not.
And even now I think the community sort of looks down on thinking about the game to hard at times, don’t break it or it’s your fault. It’s like a game that encourage netlisting just so you do not end up on the wrong side of the coin. All why the devs think that sort of thing is bad.
DominayTrix wrote: I think it would be a lot easier to stomach the marine supplements if we didn't have to hear about marines literally constantly. Chaos getting redone? LOOK AT THESE NEW PRIMARIS! Eldar approaching civil war in the new campaigns books? NEW MARINE SUPPLEMENTS GET THEM WHILE THEY ARE BROKEN. Admech finally getting a plastic transport? DON'T WORRY YOU CAN KILL IT WITH THE BRAND NEW PRIMARIS TANK. When marines get something we get to hear about it for months on end. When another army gets something they spit it out in 2 weeks tops.
As for why marines deserve special treatment? Squeaky wheel gets the grease and boy are there a lot of 3+ wheels. Before the supplements you could count on multiple "marines need a buff" threads being active at any given time and that was before you counted all the ones that got derailed on how HORRIBLY UNPLAYABLE marines were.
err we only saw a bit about primaris when shadowspear came out, which saw new primaris and chaos. When Chaos got their release it was all about chaos. Admech got their transport alongside the executioner but I don't recall GW ever marketing the executioner as a "admech tank killer" (they where marketed as "need more heavy firepower for apocylpse? check these out!")
the eldar thing was admittingly annoying (made worse by the primaris characters getting leaked as well) And I wish GW had moved a bit faster with the Marine release to avoid the issue.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I had to ask for the supplement to read the rules myself as some of the stuff in there was honestly sounding like a fan-rulebook.
This is basically how I felt when my opponent told me that each of his 37pts Aggressors would now fire 19 shots... after having advanced. At AP-1. For 0 CP. Next turn they were charging me with 4 S8 AP-3 DD3 attacks each.
In my Orks codex, there is a unit called "Meganobz" that costs 35pts a model for 4 shots at BS5+, AP0. And they have 3 S10 AP-3 DD3 attacks.
WTF is wrong with you GW ?
The thing is GW overvaluates 2+ saves. Terminators suffer for the same reason. There are just too many AP-3 or better weapons handed out and mortal wounds flying left right and center that the 2+ save isn't really all that special. Yet you pay through your nose for it.
The supplements are what happens when you're obsessed with having simple core rules.
You want to add more complexity and variety to your game, so it has to come from a supermarket-style assault on your senses with endless choice and combinations.
-Guardsman- wrote: ...is that they seem to break unwritten limitations that all 8E armies had until now. It's as if the entire ruleset of 8th Edition is bending for them, and for no one else.
Take the Infiltrators, for a start. They can deploy within 9 inches of the enemy... and then they can move... and then they can charge. Until now, in the current edition, no infiltrator-type units could reliably get a successful charge after deploying or deep-striking within 9 inches of the enemy. For example, the Craftworlds/Drukhari stratagem "Fire and Fade", which lets you move after shooting, has a specific rule that disallows charging after making this move. The designers of the game clearly intended to make it possible to charge from deep strike, but far too unlikely to rely upon it as part of your battle plan, even with stratagems. But Marine Infiltrators change that. They are, to my knowledge, the only unit in the game that can move and charge after being set up 9 inches away from the enemy.
Other examples: the Impulsor lets models move out of the vehicle and shoot after the vehicle has moved, and Drop Pods can deep strike on turn 1 despite the blanket "no deep strike on turn 1" rule. Again, Marines are given things that no one used to have in 8th Edition, even armies that specialize in dirty tricks (such as Eldar and Tau). I feel like this is a slippery slope that may considerably worsen the game's imbalance.
In part, I blame the loss of USR's for this. If units stuck as closely as possible to a score of USR's, it would make it easier to either set up clear and universal limitations ("A unit that moves after deep-striking cannot charge this round. No exceptions!") or, if needed, give a blanket update to a whole bunch of units by errata-ing the USR ("All deep-striking units are now allowed to both move and charge"). No more special snowflake units.
.
Scouts can T1 charge. Drop Pods have a single storm bolter, all they do is give a unit deep strike, when other factions get the same for 1 CP the Drop Pod can't be more than at the very most 45 pts and still ever be worth taking. Trygons can transport units, but they're also Monsters with actual attacks of their own to attach that rule to, not just a hunk of plastic that can hold an objective and be used as a springboard for charging units to move around the board. Drop Pods did not break the meta, we might see the odd Drop Pod with Salamanders successors, but I don't believe in Drop Pod lists, at the end of the day it's too many pts tied into getting into range that are more of a liability after they come down. Drop Pods desperately needed this rule which I might add they've had in previous editions as well.
The Impulsor's rules might represent specialized tactics done by the Primaris to quickly and effectively disembark and fire, but I do think it's a silly rule for just one vehicle to have, on the other hand it's kind of silly for Drukhari transports to allow people inside to fire out but for Necrons not to be able to. Know what? I love the fact I can't sit inside my Ghost Arks and shoot, it doesn't bring the right feel and maybe Impulsors bring the right feel to Primaris, but would bring the wrong feel to Orks, Drukhari and Necrons. Another possibility is that they're testing out rules to give to other factions, it might be a thing all open-topped datasheets get 2-4 years from now, I can't think of any special rules that turned into rulebook rules that started out this way but I'm sure they existed if not currently exist.
Ishagu wrote: How can anyone blame the loss of USRs for anything when USRs are what created the invincible death starts of 7th edition?
People have terrible memories lol
I didn't know USRs wrote the rules ? They are clever creatures it seems.
GW game designers made those terrible invincible deathstars. They let them remain for long periods of time because they were too awful to FAQ them away in any reasonable quick manner. As well their awful alliance system let super best friends IoM groups all roll together.
USRs had nothing to do with that unless you are claiming they made the rules, didn't fix them, and then wrote allies as well.
As well if you really think these bespoke rules are better than USRs, that in itself is kind of funny. If every army there about has re rolls of 1, and calls it a different fluffy name, does it really end up being any different ? If anything USRs would clear up a good deal of bloat, allow everyone to mostly know what each others units do more easily. Those are all good things in my book.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering that the DROP pod also breaks the general 50%/50% restraint rule...
What's the problem with it breaking that rule?
That marines now can nearly null deploy.
OR are we forgetting how annoying that was?
No, equal long pikes for everyone is something that would solve a lot of issue but alas .
GSC can null deploy as well can't they? Good terrain essentially allows null deploy against armies without ignores LOS shooting. I'll see a problem when Drop Pods see tournament success, have they? You can just do your movement and end your turn if your opponent null deploys, I really don't see the problem. Null deploy and T1 DS was OP for Drukhari and Craftworlds, I don't believe it was ever a SM problem that they Drop Podded T1 and could null-deploy.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering that the DROP pod also breaks the general 50%/50% restraint rule...
What's the problem with it breaking that rule?
That marines now can nearly null deploy.
OR are we forgetting how annoying that was?
No, equal long pikes for everyone is something that would solve a lot of issue but alas .
GSC can null deploy as well can't they? Good terrain essentially allows null deploy against armies without ignores LOS shooting. I'll see a problem when Drop Pods see tournament success, have they? You can just do your movement and end your turn if your opponent null deploys, I really don't see the problem. Null deploy and T1 DS was OP for Drukhari and Craftworlds, I don't believe it was ever a SM problem that they Drop Podded T1 and could null-deploy.
GSC precicesly got denied that ability.
That's the issue.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering that the DROP pod also breaks the general 50%/50% restraint rule...
What's the problem with it breaking that rule?
That marines now can nearly null deploy. OR are we forgetting how annoying that was?
No, equal long pikes for everyone is something that would solve a lot of issue but alas .
GSC can null deploy as well can't they? Good terrain essentially allows null deploy against armies without ignores LOS shooting. I'll see a problem when Drop Pods see tournament success, have they? You can just do your movement and end your turn if your opponent null deploys, I really don't see the problem. Null deploy and T1 DS was OP for Drukhari and Craftworlds, I don't believe it was ever a SM problem that they Drop Podded T1 and could null-deploy.
GSC precicesly got denied that ability. That's the issue.
Fair point, I'd forgotten about that. If I'm not mistaken the rules on null deployment as far as the Drop Pods isn't fully settled on whether you just need 50% army in Drop Pods or 100% army in Drop Pods to null deploy if it's meant to be the second one I don't really see the issue as you're paying 100s of pts to null-deploy and not just a batch of CP. Have you actually played against a null-deploy Marine army or seen it being player or heard of it being played or is it just something you oppose because it created issues for other factions?
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering that the DROP pod also breaks the general 50%/50% restraint rule...
What's the problem with it breaking that rule?
That marines now can nearly null deploy. OR are we forgetting how annoying that was?
No, equal long pikes for everyone is something that would solve a lot of issue but alas .
GSC can null deploy as well can't they? Good terrain essentially allows null deploy against armies without ignores LOS shooting. I'll see a problem when Drop Pods see tournament success, have they? You can just do your movement and end your turn if your opponent null deploys, I really don't see the problem. Null deploy and T1 DS was OP for Drukhari and Craftworlds, I don't believe it was ever a SM problem that they Drop Podded T1 and could null-deploy.
GSC precicesly got denied that ability. That's the issue.
Fair point, I'd forgotten about that. If I'm not mistaken the rules on null deployment as far as the Drop Pods isn't fully settled on whether you just need 50% army in Drop Pods or 100% army in Drop Pods to null deploy if it's meant to be the second one I don't really see the issue as you're paying 100s of pts to null-deploy and not just a batch of CP. Have you actually played against a null-deploy Marine army or seen it being player or heard of it being played or is it just something you oppose because it created issues for other factions?
Yes i have seen it and was on the reciving end aswell. Playing a mass model army is annoying especially when i need to get into melee because the new Bolters just shred what little armor i have on my average unit.
Additionally: the FAQ to my knowledge is out due to beeing for Codex 2.0 and i find it questionable that GSC got this denied from them but marines all off a sudden are no issue supposedly. Especially considering the reason stated to deny such Alpha strike possibilities and Null deployment due to "beeing not fun" which also lead to a lot of nerfs for such stratagems.
So yes i take issue with it because it is inconsitent, annoying as feth and depending on your army absurd and not really able to work around. And whilest it isn't top tier it is still questionable due to the inconsistency.
Drukhari break the rules by shooting out of their transports. Khorne Berzerkers break the game by having a 3CP stratagem stapled on them for free. Warptime* and the Swarmlord lets a unit get a free extra movement phase. Bloodletters get a 97%+ chance to make a charge from Deepstrike. Where are the dedicated threads complaining about these?
The difference, I posit, between these and Drop Pods is that Drop Pods belong to Marines, and as we all know the uninspiring, overhyped, boring, baby-eating, candy-stealing Marines shouldn't be allowed good things ever or they're completely broken (see Leviathan Dreadnought for another example of this mentality). Neither the examples above nor the Drop Pod break the game, but the edgy counter-culture revolts against Space Marines because they're "the man".
Marines have been objectively bottom-tier trash for most of this edition's existence, and yet people immediately fly off the handle about "favouritism" when the buff finally happens.**
*And no, this doesn't mean I'm saying Chaos is perfectly fine and doesn't need a bunch of changes.
**Note that I'm talking about rules here, not model releases.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Drukhari break the rules by shooting out of their transports. Khorne Berzerkers break the game by having a 3CP stratagem stapled on them for free. Warptime* and the Swarmlord lets a unit get a free extra movement phase. Bloodletters get a 97%+ chance to make a charge from Deepstrike. Where are the dedicated threads complaining about these?
The difference, I posit, between these and Drop Pods is that Drop Pods belong to Marines, and as we all know the uninspiring, overhyped, boring, baby-eating, candy-stealing Marines shouldn't be allowed good things ever or they're completely broken (see Leviathan Dreadnought for another example of this mentality). Neither the examples above nor the Drop Pod break the game, but the edgy counter-culture revolts against Space Marines because they're "the man".
Marines have been objectively bottom-tier trash for most of this edition's existence, and yet people immediately fly off the handle about "favouritism" when the buff finally happens.**
*And no, this doesn't mean I'm saying Chaos is perfectly fine and doesn't need a bunch of changes.
**Note that I'm talking about rules here, not model releases.
I agree with this. It's fine for factions to have fancy stuff that other factions dont get. Imo that's a good thing.
Balance is the key, not that's not the same thing as " every army can do the same thing/has the same mechanics."
The problem is more that Marines have a TON of units, and now a ton of sub-faction rules. In order to differenntiate them they wind up with more and more stacking pecial rules. That's currently the issue, imo.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Drukhari break the rules by shooting out of their transports. Khorne Berzerkers break the game by having a 3CP stratagem stapled on them for free. Warptime* and the Swarmlord lets a unit get a free extra movement phase. Bloodletters get a 97%+ chance to make a charge from Deepstrike. Where are the dedicated threads complaining about these?
The difference, I posit, between these and Drop Pods is that Drop Pods belong to Marines, and as we all know the uninspiring, overhyped, boring, baby-eating, candy-stealing Marines shouldn't be allowed good things ever or they're completely broken (see Leviathan Dreadnought for another example of this mentality). Neither the examples above nor the Drop Pod break the game, but the edgy counter-culture revolts against Space Marines because they're "the man".
Marines have been objectively bottom-tier trash for most of this edition's existence, and yet people immediately fly off the handle about "favouritism" when the buff finally happens.**
*And no, this doesn't mean I'm saying Chaos is perfectly fine and doesn't need a bunch of changes.
**Note that I'm talking about rules here, not model releases.
Nah. The difference is that Marines get so many of these game-breaking abilities now seemingly just for the heck of it, rather than it fitting their characterization as an army.
Yeah, Drukhari can shoot out of transports. That's their thing. They're an extremely mobile glass hammer army, hyper-specialized into use of fast transports, so they get the single rule-breaking ability of having transports that they can shoot out of, and that largely defines their gameplay style.
Meanwhile, the jack-of-all-trades Space Marines can move and then disembark, prevent nearby DS, DS turn 1, null-deploy, move and charge after DS deployment, and largely ignore morale. That's not even touching on what they can additionally do with stratagems or army traits; those are just unit and army-wide abilities.
If GW wanted to push Marines towards being an alpha-strike army and make T1 DS 'their thing', I'd be completely fine with that. It's when they get every other rule-breaking buff in the book too that it looks less like characterization and more like favoritism. Like I said on the first page, not because it's unbalanced, but because it hurts the flavor of the game if it boils down to 'Marines are best at everything'.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Drukhari break the rules by shooting out of their transports. Khorne Berzerkers break the game by having a 3CP stratagem stapled on them for free. Warptime* and the Swarmlord lets a unit get a free extra movement phase. Bloodletters get a 97%+ chance to make a charge from Deepstrike. Where are the dedicated threads complaining about these?
The difference, I posit, between these and Drop Pods is that Drop Pods belong to Marines, and as we all know the uninspiring, overhyped, boring, baby-eating, candy-stealing Marines shouldn't be allowed good things ever or they're completely broken (see Leviathan Dreadnought for another example of this mentality). Neither the examples above nor the Drop Pod break the game, but the edgy counter-culture revolts against Space Marines because they're "the man".
Marines have been objectively bottom-tier trash for most of this edition's existence, and yet people immediately fly off the handle about "favouritism" when the buff finally happens.**
*And no, this doesn't mean I'm saying Chaos is perfectly fine and doesn't need a bunch of changes.
**Note that I'm talking about rules here, not model releases.
Except that Gw just literally removed all similar abilities due to beeing unfun.
And just reimplement them again?
That is bs.
Marines have been objectively bottom-tier trash for most of this edition's existence, and yet people immediately fly off the handle about "favouritism" when the buff finally happens.**
You can't claim that there isn't any favouritism when if you look at GW's available pre orders there are 31 items, 22 of which are Space Marines and 7 are Eldar. There are triple the amount of Marines, who were released already, than Eldar who are reaching the fruition of weeks of buildup. Even taking into account duplicate products and the potential 4 releases that Eldar might have soon there are still more Marines. They may not be the competitive top dogs but Marines, are and have been for a long time, the clear favourites.
Marines have been objectively bottom-tier trash for most of this edition's existence, and yet people immediately fly off the handle about "favouritism" when the buff finally happens.**
You can't claim that there isn't any favouritism when if you look at GW's available pre orders there are 31 items, 22 of which are Space Marines and 7 are Eldar. There are triple the amount of Marines, who were released already, than Eldar who are reaching the fruition of weeks of buildup. Even taking into account duplicate products and the potential 4 releases that Eldar might have soon there are still more Marines. They may not be the competitive top dogs but Marines, are and have been for a long time, the clear favourites.
What part of "I'm talking about rules, not models" was unclear?
Marines have been objectively bottom-tier trash for most of this edition's existence, and yet people immediately fly off the handle about "favouritism" when the buff finally happens.**
You can't claim that there isn't any favouritism when if you look at GW's available pre orders there are 31 items, 22 of which are Space Marines and 7 are Eldar. There are triple the amount of Marines, who were released already, than Eldar who are reaching the fruition of weeks of buildup. Even taking into account duplicate products and the potential 4 releases that Eldar might have soon there are still more Marines. They may not be the competitive top dogs but Marines, are and have been for a long time, the clear favourites.
What part of "I'm talking about rules, not models" was unclear?
Sadly, even if you try (which I don't think you did seeing as you complained about how Marines are percieved) you can't neatly separate rules from everything else. The ultimate truth is that Marines are a favourite product for GW and whatever their reasoning is for it that has an impact on how people are going to view them which in turn affects their reactions to rules.
Marines have been objectively bottom-tier trash for most of this edition's existence, and yet people immediately fly off the handle about "favouritism" when the buff finally happens.**
You can't claim that there isn't any favouritism when if you look at GW's available pre orders there are 31 items, 22 of which are Space Marines and 7 are Eldar. There are triple the amount of Marines, who were released already, than Eldar who are reaching the fruition of weeks of buildup. Even taking into account duplicate products and the potential 4 releases that Eldar might have soon there are still more Marines. They may not be the competitive top dogs but Marines, are and have been for a long time, the clear favourites.
you mean when space Marines just had a new release because they've been dragging it out? Christ man, I could if I timed it right use your "proof" to "prove" that GW favors fething adeptus Titanicus over 40K.
Marines have been objectively bottom-tier trash for most of this edition's existence, and yet people immediately fly off the handle about "favouritism" when the buff finally happens.**
You can't claim that there isn't any favouritism when if you look at GW's available pre orders there are 31 items, 22 of which are Space Marines and 7 are Eldar. There are triple the amount of Marines, who were released already, than Eldar who are reaching the fruition of weeks of buildup. Even taking into account duplicate products and the potential 4 releases that Eldar might have soon there are still more Marines. They may not be the competitive top dogs but Marines, are and have been for a long time, the clear favourites.
What part of "I'm talking about rules, not models" was unclear?
Well… arguably, if you look up at the amount of rules available, there are way more rules available for purchase for marines! They got 4 supplements with two more coming!
Marines have been objectively bottom-tier trash for most of this edition's existence, and yet people immediately fly off the handle about "favouritism" when the buff finally happens.**
You can't claim that there isn't any favouritism when if you look at GW's available pre orders there are 31 items, 22 of which are Space Marines and 7 are Eldar. There are triple the amount of Marines, who were released already, than Eldar who are reaching the fruition of weeks of buildup. Even taking into account duplicate products and the potential 4 releases that Eldar might have soon there are still more Marines. They may not be the competitive top dogs but Marines, are and have been for a long time, the clear favourites.
you mean when space Marines just had a new release because they've been dragging it out? Christ man, I could if I timed it right use your "proof" to "prove" that GW favors fething adeptus Titanicus over 40K.
Why don't we count up all of the new Marine models that have been released since 8th began and all the new models of other factions that have been released and see how the two compare?
This isn't the only massive new release marines have enjoyed. Nor could GW stop themselves having smaller marine releases in between their larger ones. The favouritism is obvious, alienating and impossible to deny.
As to the OP - I fully agree with them. Marines are playing a different game now with their new codexes where they get to break every rule that other factions must follow. Not all of these lead to OP or even strong combinations, but many do. In addition, they now enjoy access to more stratagems and relics than any other faction in the game. Balance has been thrown out.
Rumours are that BT are in next PA, then BA, then Wolves. After that no doubt it'll be DA and GK. Oh and the worse GW perceive the Marine army, the more new stuff its going to get. The Marine train isn't gonna slow for no one. I can't wait for the next PA where xenos feature with Marines and get a quarter of what the Marines get in the same release. GW are fething this right up.
Guard got so many 8th edition model releases...wait..I know Dark Eldar did..wait...I know Tau did...oh..
Well. Yeah. Does seem pretty dry for some factions yeah ?
Yea, that's exactly what I'm saying - some factions have had little or no model releases and that's a bad thing when one faction has a literal never ending swathe of new model releases.
Why don't we count up all of the new Marine models that have been released since 8th began and all the new models of other factions that have been released and see how the two compare?
I actually attempted to count up all of the releases of the different factions and with seeing this thread updated it with the new releases. It isn’t a perfect list, since I haven’t figured out quite well what to do with non—main-army miniatures like the gellerpox or the releases of Blackstone Fortress. (Thank you lexicanum for your miniature list)
The Imperium
Spoiler:
- The Imperium forces, minus all the characters of Blackstone fortress, the Elucidan Starstriders, and their terrain, stand at a whopping 47 releases. Of those 47 releases, 32 in total (I’m including the space marine heroes sets) are space marine releases, with 30 being Primaris releases. If I treat all the Lieutenants and Captain releases as seperate, you can add 11 more to that list. Only the Suppressors marines haven’t had their release yet outside of the Shadowspear box.
- The IG got only two releases; Sly Marbo and commissar Raine. That is it.
- I haven’t added in the new upcoming Sisters box with this list, but they currently do have one release with the one Sister Superior model we had a month ago.
-More than half of Imperium releases so far have been Astartes.
Chaos
Spoiler:
- Chaos has had the most releases so far, namely 52. Death Guard gained the most in this, with about 20 units solely for them.
-Chaos Daemons have gotten 18 units out of this. Though you can say this is also thanks to their cross compatibility with AoS. If you don’t count them, you only have 34 units left.
- The main Chaos Space marine army only had 12 units. And 4 of those aren’t available outside of Shadowspear.
-Chaos has had a decent release, but only thanks to AoS sharing units with 40k
Xenos
Spoiler:
- without terrain like the Mekboy Workshop and Blackstone units like Amallyn Shadowguide, Xenos only had 26 unit releases.
- Genestealer Cults have had it quite good. 12 units. Very good for a faction that only existed one edition ago.
-Orks come in second with their 6 different vehicles.
- Eldar this editon got 4 releases. A Spiritseer, Jain Zar, New Banshees, and their exarch. That is it.
- Dark Eldar only have 3 units, and all of them were just released with Phoenix Rising. Drazhar, Incubi, and a Klaivex.
- Harlequins actually got a new Shadowseer if you could believe it.
- Necrons only got a single Cryptek. And don’t tell me that the Seraptek counts, since that is a Forgeworld.
-Tyranids got nothing
- Tau got nothing
-All of the xenos faction together got less releases than Primaris got in this edition.
TL;DR Space marines have gotten more releases than all of the xenos combined this edition. Some of the xenos factions still haven’t gotten anything so far. Only Chaos has had more releases than the Imperium because they share units with AoS.
Also, people seem to forget that we still have more space marines to come. Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and Black Templars are definitely going to have stuff incoming.
I doubt we'll see much more then the odd special character for space wolves, black tempalrs etc. I could be wrong (there was a referance in the UM supplement to "Hellfuries") but that's generally how it goes.
I think it's worth breaking things down to look at the releases. Primaris Marines are effectively a new army (one that coincidntly works with their most popular army) and got a lot of releases. deathguard also new and got the lion's share of the new chaos stuff (in addition to demons that where part of new AOS armies) other armies with signfcigent releases, GSCs, custodes. Imperial Knights.
all of these have something in common, they're all fairly new armies that GW wants to flesh out.
BTW useful data in that poll, according to it, (the thread is still active in 2019, although it was started in 2014 so the data has been collected long term) Space Marines (Vanilla, BA, DA and space wolves, whom all benifit from the primaris release) make up over a quarter of the army of those who play 40k. Orks are the most popular xenos race, and Chaos Marines are the most popular non imperial faction (and second most popular army)
It is really fethed up, GK were designed with 1st turn deep strike in mind and non of the 50% stuff, the units have the cost of it in rules they lack, models and gear options, stats and point costs. GSC the same, the mechanics were deemed unfun, so something that mechanicaly made sense for them was removed. And SM come and get those mechanics or ways to go around those mechanics, just like that. And they get it for free, well aside for the books cost.
I don't really care how you cut it or rationalize it. The numbers are pretty shocking. Aside from a random character here or there, Xeno got butt all except for GSC. Which if you want to be true, they were also a relatively new army.
Even other imperial forces got relatively little to nothing. Guard since 8th, Sly Marbo who I forgot and a commissar model. Wow, pretty awesome.
No matter how you cut it, Marines have been literally stomping all over everything in relation to model releases anyways. Will this trend at this point ever dial back ? Lord only knows.
Why don't we count up all of the new Marine models that have been released since 8th began and all the new models of other factions that have been released and see how the two compare?
I actually attempted to count up all of the releases of the different factions and with seeing this thread updated it with the new releases. It isn’t a perfect list, since I haven’t figured out quite well what to do with non—main-army miniatures like the gellerpox or the releases of Blackstone Fortress. (Thank you lexicanum for your miniature list)
The Imperium
Spoiler:
- The Imperium forces, minus all the characters of Blackstone fortress, the Elucidan Starstriders, and their terrain, stand at a whopping 47 releases. Of those 47 releases, 32 in total (I’m including the space marine heroes sets) are space marine releases, with 30 being Primaris releases. If I treat all the Lieutenants and Captain releases as seperate, you can add 11 more to that list. Only the Suppressors marines haven’t had their release yet outside of the Shadowspear box.
- The IG got only two releases; Sly Marbo and commissar Raine. That is it.
- I haven’t added in the new upcoming Sisters box with this list, but they currently do have one release with the one Sister Superior model we had a month ago.
-More than half of Imperium releases so far have been Astartes.
Chaos
Spoiler:
- Chaos has had the most releases so far, namely 52. Death Guard gained the most in this, with about 20 units solely for them.
-Chaos Daemons have gotten 18 units out of this. Though you can say this is also thanks to their cross compatibility with AoS. If you don’t count them, you only have 34 units left.
- The main Chaos Space marine army only had 12 units. And 4 of those aren’t available outside of Shadowspear.
-Chaos has had a decent release, but only thanks to AoS sharing units with 40k
Xenos
Spoiler:
- without terrain like the Mekboy Workshop and Blackstone units like Amallyn Shadowguide, Xenos only had 26 unit releases.
- Genestealer Cults have had it quite good. 12 units. Very good for a faction that only existed one edition ago.
-Orks come in second with their 6 different vehicles.
- Eldar this editon got 4 releases. A Spiritseer, Jain Zar, New Banshees, and their exarch. That is it.
- Dark Eldar only have 3 units, and all of them were just released with Phoenix Rising. Drazhar, Incubi, and a Klaivex.
- Harlequins actually got a new Shadowseer if you could believe it.
- Necrons only got a single Cryptek. And don’t tell me that the Seraptek counts, since that is a Forgeworld.
-Tyranids got nothing
- Tau got nothing
-All of the xenos faction together got less releases than Primaris got in this edition.
TL;DR Space marines have gotten more releases than all of the xenos combined this edition. Some of the xenos factions still haven’t gotten anything so far. Only Chaos has had more releases than the Imperium because they share units with AoS.
Also, people seem to forget that we still have more space marines to come. Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and Black Templars are definitely going to have stuff incoming.
I appreciate the effort here but some of your numbers are wrong - the Klaivex for DE and the Exarch for Banshees are sergeant models that exist in their respective unit bundles. They're equivalent models to SM Sergeants in their squads so the xeno numbers are even worse.
BrianDavion wrote: I doubt we'll see much more then the odd special character for space wolves, black tempalrs etc. I could be wrong (there was a referance in the UM supplement to "Hellfuries") but that's generally how it goes.
No, that isn't generally "how it goes". Literally all evidence we have, not just this edition, but for many, many, many editions before is that Marine releases overshadow every other release both in terms of quantity and quality.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't really care how you cut it or rationalize it. The numbers are pretty shocking. Aside from a random character here or there, Xeno got butt all except for GSC. Which if you want to be true, they were also a relatively new army.
Even other imperial forces got relatively little to nothing. Guard since 8th, Sly Marbo who I forgot and a commissar model. Wow, pretty awesome.
No matter how you cut it, Marines have been literally stomping all over everything in relation to model releases anyways. Will this trend at this point ever dial back ? Lord only knows.
Agreed, it's shocking.
No, this trend will never change. The SM fanboys will REEE themselves silly if it did and GW aren't interested in any other factions unless they somehow make Marines seem even more cool/interesting (see Phoenix Rising book).
Why don't we count up all of the new Marine models that have been released since 8th began and all the new models of other factions that have been released and see how the two compare?
I actually attempted to count up all of the releases of the different factions and with seeing this thread updated it with the new releases. It isn’t a perfect list, since I haven’t figured out quite well what to do with non—main-army miniatures like the gellerpox or the releases of Blackstone Fortress. (Thank you lexicanum for your miniature list)
The Imperium
Spoiler:
- The Imperium forces, minus all the characters of Blackstone fortress, the Elucidan Starstriders, and their terrain, stand at a whopping 47 releases. Of those 47 releases, 32 in total (I’m including the space marine heroes sets) are space marine releases, with 30 being Primaris releases. If I treat all the Lieutenants and Captain releases as seperate, you can add 11 more to that list. Only the Suppressors marines haven’t had their release yet outside of the Shadowspear box.
- The IG got only two releases; Sly Marbo and commissar Raine. That is it.
- I haven’t added in the new upcoming Sisters box with this list, but they currently do have one release with the one Sister Superior model we had a month ago.
-More than half of Imperium releases so far have been Astartes.
Chaos
Spoiler:
- Chaos has had the most releases so far, namely 52. Death Guard gained the most in this, with about 20 units solely for them.
-Chaos Daemons have gotten 18 units out of this. Though you can say this is also thanks to their cross compatibility with AoS. If you don’t count them, you only have 34 units left.
- The main Chaos Space marine army only had 12 units. And 4 of those aren’t available outside of Shadowspear.
-Chaos has had a decent release, but only thanks to AoS sharing units with 40k
Xenos
Spoiler:
- without terrain like the Mekboy Workshop and Blackstone units like Amallyn Shadowguide, Xenos only had 26 unit releases.
- Genestealer Cults have had it quite good. 12 units. Very good for a faction that only existed one edition ago.
-Orks come in second with their 6 different vehicles.
- Eldar this editon got 4 releases. A Spiritseer, Jain Zar, New Banshees, and their exarch. That is it.
- Dark Eldar only have 3 units, and all of them were just released with Phoenix Rising. Drazhar, Incubi, and a Klaivex.
- Harlequins actually got a new Shadowseer if you could believe it.
- Necrons only got a single Cryptek. And don’t tell me that the Seraptek counts, since that is a Forgeworld.
-Tyranids got nothing
- Tau got nothing
-All of the xenos faction together got less releases than Primaris got in this edition.
TL;DR Space marines have gotten more releases than all of the xenos combined this edition. Some of the xenos factions still haven’t gotten anything so far. Only Chaos has had more releases than the Imperium because they share units with AoS.
Also, people seem to forget that we still have more space marines to come. Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and Black Templars are definitely going to have stuff incoming.
Ooof.
That to see written out, hurts.
I'd like a pie Diagramm of it.
Also DG are the chaos primaris equivalent it feels like, meanwhile other Spikey boys get Jack all.
Some of them don't even have a dex....
Not Online!!! wrote: Also DG are the chaos primaris equivalent it feels like, meanwhile other Spikey boys get Jack all.
Some of them don't even have a dex....
Well, that would have something to do with Death Guard being introduced as a discrete Codex, no?
And I think a lot of people are expecting a World Eaters Codex and an Emperor's Children Codex at some point - and at that point, I'd expect those two to get a decent number of releases, too.
Not Online!!! wrote: Also DG are the chaos primaris equivalent it feels like, meanwhile other Spikey boys get Jack all.
Some of them don't even have a dex....
Well, that would have something to do with Death Guard being introduced as a discrete Codex, no?
And I think a lot of people are expecting a World Eaters Codex and an Emperor's Children Codex at some point - and at that point, I'd expect those two to get a decent number of releases, too.
Fine and Dandy and all but what about normal legions?
It allready took too long to finally get a kit update.
And what about non Slaanesh or khorne daemons.
What about Dex update for fw armies?
Don't get me wrong i would love to see EC or we but it feels like to me these factions could've been solved supplement style like sm now.
Not Online!!! wrote: Also DG are the chaos primaris equivalent it feels like, meanwhile other Spikey boys get Jack all.
Some of them don't even have a dex....
Well, that would have something to do with Death Guard being introduced as a discrete Codex, no?
And I think a lot of people are expecting a World Eaters Codex and an Emperor's Children Codex at some point - and at that point, I'd expect those two to get a decent number of releases, too.
Fine and Dandy and all but what about normal legions?
It allready took too long to finally get a kit update.
And what about non Slaanesh or khorne daemons.
What about Dex update for fw armies?
Don't get me wrong i would love to see EC or we but it feels like to me these factions could've been solved supplement style like sm now.
But alas
They could've helped a lot of the legions with a few lines in the main csm codex.
Raptors count as troops in night lords detachments.
There is that so fething hard? I've also heard that salamanders have a votlw equivalent strategem now that works for all their units not just infantry. Our best strategem but better. That's. Fething. Gak.
Marines have been objectively bottom-tier trash for most of this edition's existence, and yet people immediately fly off the handle about "favouritism" when the buff finally happens.**
You can't claim that there isn't any favouritism when if you look at GW's available pre orders there are 31 items, 22 of which are Space Marines and 7 are Eldar. There are triple the amount of Marines, who were released already, than Eldar who are reaching the fruition of weeks of buildup. Even taking into account duplicate products and the potential 4 releases that Eldar might have soon there are still more Marines. They may not be the competitive top dogs but Marines, are and have been for a long time, the clear favourites.
you mean when space Marines just had a new release because they've been dragging it out? Christ man, I could if I timed it right use your "proof" to "prove" that GW favors fething adeptus Titanicus over 40K.
Space Marines got a codex, multiple new units, and multiple supplements. Four Eldar armies combined have less than that in their new release. One release is far bigger than the other. On top of that Marines are getting another three new characters for some reason. Eldar got two redone characters both of which replacing models that are older than me. Oh and their other new units replace things in Finecrap. Must be nice for Marines who get plastic units then get those replaced super fast.
GW has no clue how to fix Space Marines so they just threw a literal bucket of special rules at them.
That is the problem with new marines. There was no attempt at balancing marines to be competitive in the existing game. They just throw a load of special rules at the army,
Army wide +1 attack, -1 ap.
Better rules of everyones existing rules.
Lets give them turn 1 deepstrikes....
ect ect.
GW has no clue how to fix Space Marines so they just threw a literal bucket of special rules at them.
That is the problem with new marines. There was no attempt at balancing marines to be competitive in the existing game. They just throw a load of special rules at the army,
Army wide +1 attack, -1 ap.
Better rules of everyones existing rules.
Lets give them turn 1 deepstrikes....
ect ect.
Its just stupid, lazy and incompetent.
So let me get this straight, they literally take one of the best stratagems (due to their bad wounding table),which allready could be problematic and decide to slap it on in a doctrine for a whole army?!?!?!
Drop pods cost 65 points where several armies can deploy much more powerful units for the cost of a relic turn 1. Drop pods are in fact pretty garbage. Without several stratagems going off and spending a ton on the units to go inside the pod you are at best looking at a really expensive suicide unit.
Impuslors are pretty good but can only hold intercessors/hellblasters and you can't charge after. So basically if just gets you in range to shoot with short range guns...hardly an issue in a game with first turn charges being a common thing.
The issue with marines is doctrine are very powerful and every marine just got +1 attack across the board. This puts marines at top tier currently. With certain busted super doctrines like Imperial fist and Iron hands - they are clearly the best option in the game right now BUT every army is going to be getting updated rules most likely...so we have no idea what the power level of this 8.5 edition is going to be like.
Drop pods cost 65 points where several armies can deploy much more powerful units for the cost of a relic turn 1. Drop pods are in fact pretty garbage. Without several stratagems going off and spending a ton on the units to go inside the pod you are at best looking at a really expensive suicide unit.
Impuslors are pretty good but can only hold intercessors/hellblasters and you can't charge after. So basically if just gets you in range to shoot with short range guns...hardly an issue in a game with first turn charges being a common thing.
The issue with marines is doctrine are very powerful and every marine just got +1 attack across the board. This puts marines at top tier currently. With certain busted super doctrines like Imperial fist and Iron hands - they are clearly the best option in the game right now BUT every army is going to be getting updated rules most likely...so we have no idea what the power level of this 8.5 edition is going to be like.
Yeah... I'm not nearly as confident that every army is going to get similar updates in short order.
And even if they do I still don't like it. 8th edition is already a very lethal edition that has seen GW scramble to limit alpha strike, increasing the power of everyone is a mistake.
Drop pods cost 65 points where several armies can deploy much more powerful units for the cost of a relic turn 1. Drop pods are in fact pretty garbage. Without several stratagems going off and spending a ton on the units to go inside the pod you are at best looking at a really expensive suicide unit.
Impuslors are pretty good but can only hold intercessors/hellblasters and you can't charge after. So basically if just gets you in range to shoot with short range guns...hardly an issue in a game with first turn charges being a common thing.
The issue with marines is doctrine are very powerful and every marine just got +1 attack across the board. This puts marines at top tier currently. With certain busted super doctrines like Imperial fist and Iron hands - they are clearly the best option in the game right now BUT every army is going to be getting updated rules most likely...so we have no idea what the power level of this 8.5 edition is going to be like.
Xenomancer isn't wrong here, no one was taking droppods because 65 points to deepstrike was excessive. and he's not wrong to note that well marines are powerful now, within 6 months they could be trash tier again.
GW has no clue how to fix Space Marines so they just threw a literal bucket of special rules at them.
That is the problem with new marines. There was no attempt at balancing marines to be competitive in the existing game. They just throw a load of special rules at the army,
Army wide +1 attack, -1 ap.
Better rules of everyones existing rules.
Lets give them turn 1 deepstrikes....
ect ect.
Its just stupid, lazy and incompetent.
"They are my Angels of Death. My Space Marines.
...and they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!"
GW has no clue how to fix Space Marines so they just threw a literal bucket of special rules at them.
That is the problem with new marines. There was no attempt at balancing marines to be competitive in the existing game. They just throw a load of special rules at the army,
Army wide +1 attack, -1 ap.
Better rules of everyones existing rules.
Lets give them turn 1 deepstrikes....
ect ect.
Its just stupid, lazy and incompetent.
"They are my Angels of Death. My Space Marines.
...and they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!"
Yes because Space Marines have NEVER had crappy rules before
When did you start playing? Because SMs have ALWAYS had rules that circumvent or outright ignore restrictions put in the rulebook the rest of the other armies have to follow (literally ATSKNF. First codex out the gate in 3rd ed and one of the game's core rules was already circumvented).
If they fell behind due to the inevitable codex creep, GW would bump them back up again. Loads of AP2 weapons? Time for Termies to get and invulnerable save. (which admittedly was needed, but it still reinforces my point).
I'd also like to know where all the outrage was when Orks got the Black Templars Chapter Tactic except strictly better across their entire army on top of getting clan tactics or where the anger was when Slaanesh Marines got a strictly better version of the Black Helm, since having better versions of someone else's rules is apparently now a deadly sin.
This whole gnashing and wailing about how Marines are always overpowered is conflating having a disproportionate amount of model releases with having too powerful rules.
Drop pods cost 65 points where several armies can deploy much more powerful units for the cost of a relic turn 1. Drop pods are in fact pretty garbage. Without several stratagems going off and spending a ton on the units to go inside the pod you are at best looking at a really expensive suicide unit.
Impuslors are pretty good but can only hold intercessors/hellblasters and you can't charge after. So basically if just gets you in range to shoot with short range guns...hardly an issue in a game with first turn charges being a common thing.
The issue with marines is doctrine are very powerful and every marine just got +1 attack across the board. This puts marines at top tier currently. With certain busted super doctrines like Imperial fist and Iron hands - they are clearly the best option in the game right now BUT every army is going to be getting updated rules most likely...so we have no idea what the power level of this 8.5 edition is going to be like.
I mean, my drop pods (tyrannocytes) cost 110+ points and cant drop turn 1..... id kill for 65
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also like to know where all the outrage was when Orks got the Black Templars Chapter Tactic except strictly better across their entire army on top of getting clan tactics or where the anger was when Slaanesh Marines got a strictly better version of the Black Helm, since having better versions of someone else's rules is apparently now a deadly sin.
This whole gnashing and wailing about how Marines are always overpowered is conflating having a disproportionate amount of model releases with having too powerful rules.
The problem here is you are mentioning one army and one rules. Marines are getting MASS new rules and rules breaks, buffs and everything else.
Grimtuff wrote: When did you start playing? Because SMs have ALWAYS had rules that circumvent or outright ignore restrictions put in the rulebook the rest of the other armies have to follow (literally ATSKNF. First codex out the gate in 3rd ed and one of the game's core rules was already circumvented).
If they fell behind due to the inevitable codex creep, GW would bump them back up again. Loads of AP2 weapons? Time for Termies to get and invulnerable save. (which admittedly was needed, but it still reinforces my point).
You can go back even earlier with Marines being immune to those grenades that could otherwise wipe an entire army before the game started. That was what, RT/2nd Ed era?
JNAProductions wrote: It only applies to Flamers and Melta weapons in Tactical Doctrine. But it's still pretty potent.
With the ammunt of flamers posible and T1 delivery systems that are guaranteed, think it is still preety bonkers.
And they should've known such effects are strong allready, they had their fieldstudy so to speak.
JNAProductions wrote: It only applies to Flamers and Melta weapons in Tactical Doctrine. But it's still pretty potent.
With the ammunt of flamers posible and T1 delivery systems that are guaranteed, think it is still preety bonkers.
And they should've known such effects are strong allready, they had their fieldstudy so to speak.
Tactical Doctrine doesn't start till turn 2 at the earliest.
There's ways to make one or two units count as a different doctrine, I think, but the overall army has to start in Devastator.
Grimtuff wrote: When did you start playing? Because SMs have ALWAYS had rules that circumvent or outright ignore restrictions put in the rulebook the rest of the other armies have to follow (literally ATSKNF. First codex out the gate in 3rd ed and one of the game's core rules was already circumvented).
If they fell behind due to the inevitable codex creep, GW would bump them back up again. Loads of AP2 weapons? Time for Termies to get and invulnerable save. (which admittedly was needed, but it still reinforces my point).
Sure. Most of 40k from Rogue Trader to today was horribly balanced.
It's not that there wasn't a terrible 40K-tradition of OP / stupid rules and that Nu-Marines don't fit nicely into the line with Chaos 3.5, Matt Ward Grey Knights, TauDar or Screamer Stars. In the long view, nothing new here.
It's that there was a strange, miraculous and in hindsight likely unintended 6 month or so period between the Castellan getting finally fixed and this new Marine book coming out, which kinda felt different. Where people were winning tournaments with Orks, Tau, GSC, Eldar, Chaos .. and yes, even Marines. It was a time when people had success if they knew there armies well, not if they simply were the people who could 3-colour-paint the latest rules-hickup fastest. It wasn't perfect by any means. But it was a time when the game was curiously diverse.
The disappointment isn't that Nu-Marines are just the same-old-same-old Leafblower-Screamer-Star-whatever nonesense we've seen from GW consistently for 20 years. The disappointment is that we've had an every so tiny taste of what 40K could've been instead.
Grimtuff wrote: When did you start playing? Because SMs have ALWAYS had rules that circumvent or outright ignore restrictions put in the rulebook the rest of the other armies have to follow (literally ATSKNF. First codex out the gate in 3rd ed and one of the game's core rules was already circumvented).
If they fell behind due to the inevitable codex creep, GW would bump them back up again. Loads of AP2 weapons? Time for Termies to get and invulnerable save. (which admittedly was needed, but it still reinforces my point).
Sure. Most of 40k from Rogue Trader to today was horribly balanced.
It's not that there wasn't a terrible 40K-tradition of OP / stupid rules and that Nu-Marines don't fit nicely into the line with Chaos 3.5, Matt Ward Grey Knights, TauDar or Screamer Stars. In the long view, nothing new here.
It's that there was a strange, miraculous and in hindsight likely unintended 6 month or so period between the Castellan getting finally fixed and this new Marine book coming out, which kinda felt different. Where people were winning tournaments with Orks, Tau, GSC, Eldar, Chaos .. and yes, even Marines. It was a time when people had success if they knew there armies well, not if they simply were the people who could 3-colour-paint the latest rules-hickup fastest. It wasn't perfect by any means. But it was a time when the game was curiously diverse.
The disappointment isn't that Nu-Marines are just the same-old-same-old Leafblower-Screamer-Star-whatever nonesense we've seen from GW consistently for 20 years. The disappointment is that we've had an every so tiny taste of what 40K could've been instead.
Quite litterally shattered by the supplements iron hand.
JNAProductions wrote: It only applies to Flamers and Melta weapons in Tactical Doctrine. But it's still pretty potent.
With the ammunt of flamers posible and T1 delivery systems that are guaranteed, think it is still preety bonkers.
And they should've known such effects are strong allready, they had their fieldstudy so to speak.
Tactical Doctrine doesn't start till turn 2 at the earliest.
There's ways to make one or two units count as a different doctrine, I think, but the overall army has to start in Devastator.
Well that is something.
Still quite an amazing buff.
JNAProductions wrote: It only applies to Flamers and Melta weapons in Tactical Doctrine. But it's still pretty potent.
With the ammunt of flamers posible and T1 delivery systems that are guaranteed, think it is still preety bonkers.
And they should've known such effects are strong allready, they had their fieldstudy so to speak.
And for a whopping 1cp more they get another +1 to wound on ANY unit with ANY weapon. Infantry? 1cp. Tank? 1cp. Fething super heavy? 1cp. Csm get it on infantry only for the same cost. And it's one of our few good strategems. It's not that sm got good rules. They got all the good rules but made better.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.
? I wanted traits fixed and thought of them as a bad idea as soon as I saw them. *
I also wanted that soup gets deincentiveced not intencivice mono via buffs galore.
* i am not persay against them, i am against the fact that you just get them all for the same price, namely for free.
And gw /fw knew before that this ain't working that way because the proto traits that were found in IA 13 for demagogues also had differing point costs....
It's like 1 step forwards 5 steps back all over the damn place.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.
It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.
It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?
Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.
It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?
Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?
Yes, ? Scourged are literally psychic nutjobs.
Admech are more machine and the Parade soldiers have that only if they are in formation.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.
It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?
Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?
People want special snowflake rules that only they get I guess?
With poor morale and melee rules, how much variety can someone really create? Some overlap is fine but sometimes the more "creative" attempts are just plan frickin bad. You know anyone using Biel Tan or whatever for the extra LD on their Aspect Warriors. Hell no LOL
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.
It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?
Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?
Are you really asked why we shouldn't be giving factions a random pile of special rules?
Less is more.
And IH's don't get 1 sub faction rule. They get 3.
If all IH's got was 5+ overwatch there wouldn't be the same amount of complaining.
But they also get 6+++ and double wounds for brackets.
With poor morale and melee rules, how much variety can someone really create? Some overlap is fine but sometimes the more "creative" attempts are just plan frickin bad. You know anyone using Biel Tan or whatever for the extra LD on their Aspect Warriors. Hell no LOL
WB says hello, getting a trait equal but cheaper units get for free...
No, traits should cost per model.
An AL legionaire should cost 13 pts, a WB /BL one maybee 11.
Heck it isn't that difficult and gw knew this before which makes the whole situation as agrivating as it is atm.
Do we need unique traits per sub-faction, then? There are fifteen books in the game big enough to have sub-factions right now, if you want all of them to have sort of 8-ish unique rules that's an extra 120 unique special rules you want the designers to try and work into the game. And that's independent of the whole supplement business, do we need just one unique trait per sub-faction or do we need 2-3 traits, a full table of six Warlord Traits and psychic powers, 8+ relics, and a dozen stratagems for each of the 120 sub-factions? 4,200 "unique" little paragraphs of rule to make sure everyone's sufficiently characterful and distinct?
Do we need unique traits per sub-faction, then? There are fifteen books in the game big enough to have sub-factions right now, if you want all of them to have sort of 8-ish unique rules that's an extra 120 unique special rules you want the designers to try and work into the game. And that's independent of the whole supplement business, do we need just one unique trait per sub-faction or do we need 2-3 traits, a full table of six Warlord Traits and psychic powers, 8+ relics, and a dozen stratagems for each of the 120 sub-factions? 4,200 "unique" little paragraphs of rule to make sure everyone's sufficiently characterful and distinct?
Or does it just become bloat at some point?
Quite frankly traits for free as they are now are just bad designed.
See above.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.
It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?
Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?
Are you really asked why we shouldn't be giving factions a random pile of special rules?
Less is more.
And IH's don't get 1 sub faction rule. They get 3.
If all IH's got was 5+ overwatch there wouldn't be the same amount of complaining.
But they also get 6+++ and double wounds for brackets.
Two parters are fine as is though. So maybe that's where the problem is? Remove the double bracket bonus or the Overwatch and your problem is solved?
With poor morale and melee rules, how much variety can someone really create? Some overlap is fine but sometimes the more "creative" attempts are just plan frickin bad. You know anyone using Biel Tan or whatever for the extra LD on their Aspect Warriors. Hell no LOL
WB says hello, getting a trait equal but cheaper units get for free...
No, traits should cost per model.
An AL legionaire should cost 13 pts, a WB /BL one maybee 11.
Heck it isn't that difficult and gw knew this before which makes the whole situation as agrivating as it is atm.
Nobody would take Word Bearers dudes at 11 points anyway so that's not a good argument.
The rework of the Space Marine Chapter Tactics was good. The issue is the supplements cranking everything to an unbearable level.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.
It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?
Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?
People want special snowflake rules that only they get I guess?
No we want rules that reflect each factions lore and different play style. Not just stacks of special rules given out randomly.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.
It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?
Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?
Are you really asked why we shouldn't be giving factions a random pile of special rules?
Less is more.
And IH's don't get 1 sub faction rule. They get 3.
If all IH's got was 5+ overwatch there wouldn't be the same amount of complaining.
But they also get 6+++ and double wounds for brackets.
Two parters are fine as is though. So maybe that's where the problem is? Remove the double bracket bonus or the Overwatch and your problem is solved?
It would fix 'a' problem. But the SM codex and supplements are full of em.
It is a good argument if you'd understood the idea behind it.
It would give actual margin to balance either buff the rules or implement cheaper prices for units.
Heck you could fix problem unit +trait interactions that way waaay better then now.
Do we need unique traits per sub-faction, then? There are fifteen books in the game big enough to have sub-factions right now, if you want all of them to have sort of 8-ish unique rules that's an extra 120 unique special rules you want the designers to try and work into the game. And that's independent of the whole supplement business, do we need just one unique trait per sub-faction or do we need 2-3 traits, a full table of six Warlord Traits and psychic powers, 8+ relics, and a dozen stratagems for each of the 120 sub-factions? 4,200 "unique" little paragraphs of rule to make sure everyone's sufficiently characterful and distinct?
Or does it just become bloat at some point?
Want to know how a codex looks, that has a lot of it stratagems being copy pasted from old codex marines and its own being mostly bad?
I would love to have 8 relics, heck I would love to have 3-4 relics that could be taken by heroes used as characters. more then one warlord would be great too.
Drop pods cost 65 points where several armies can deploy much more powerful units for the cost of a relic turn 1. Drop pods are in fact pretty garbage. Without several stratagems going off and spending a ton on the units to go inside the pod you are at best looking at a really expensive suicide unit.
Impuslors are pretty good but can only hold intercessors/hellblasters and you can't charge after. So basically if just gets you in range to shoot with short range guns...hardly an issue in a game with first turn charges being a common thing.
The issue with marines is doctrine are very powerful and every marine just got +1 attack across the board. This puts marines at top tier currently. With certain busted super doctrines like Imperial fist and Iron hands - they are clearly the best option in the game right now BUT every army is going to be getting updated rules most likely...so we have no idea what the power level of this 8.5 edition is going to be like.
I mean, my drop pods (tyrannocytes) cost 110+ points and cant drop turn 1..... id kill for 65
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also like to know where all the outrage was when Orks got the Black Templars Chapter Tactic except strictly better across their entire army on top of getting clan tactics or where the anger was when Slaanesh Marines got a strictly better version of the Black Helm, since having better versions of someone else's rules is apparently now a deadly sin.
This whole gnashing and wailing about how Marines are always overpowered is conflating having a disproportionate amount of model releases with having too powerful rules.
The problem here is you are mentioning one army and one rules. Marines are getting MASS new rules and rules breaks, buffs and everything else.
I'd kill for a 170 point beast with 7 d6 damage attacks that can charge on an 8 that can deploy ANY troop unit. Tyranocyte is garbage but Trygons are pretty great.
JNAProductions wrote: It only applies to Flamers and Melta weapons in Tactical Doctrine. But it's still pretty potent.
With the ammunt of flamers posible and T1 delivery systems that are guaranteed, think it is still preety bonkers.
And they should've known such effects are strong allready, they had their fieldstudy so to speak.
The only way to do that with flamers is to take a successor chapter. So no special characters. In case you haven't noticed. Space marines special characters are quite good. That is a big trade off. drop pods would be really good at like 25 points but at 65 they are just too much. Taking 65 more points in units is basically always better.
Do we need unique traits per sub-faction, then? There are fifteen books in the game big enough to have sub-factions right now, if you want all of them to have sort of 8-ish unique rules that's an extra 120 unique special rules you want the designers to try and work into the game. And that's independent of the whole supplement business, do we need just one unique trait per sub-faction or do we need 2-3 traits, a full table of six Warlord Traits and psychic powers, 8+ relics, and a dozen stratagems for each of the 120 sub-factions? 4,200 "unique" little paragraphs of rule to make sure everyone's sufficiently characterful and distinct?
Or does it just become bloat at some point?
It could really just be a marine thing because unique chapters are kinda a big deal for a lot of space marine players. The way you fix it to where it's not a problem is successor chapters should only get space marine codex warlord traits and relics AND they should not get access to the bonus doctrines. That way there wouldn't really be any chance that a random successor combo that works really well would significantly increase the power of the army - because at a very minimum they would not be getting the extra bonus.
Do we need unique traits per sub-faction, then? There are fifteen books in the game big enough to have sub-factions right now, if you want all of them to have sort of 8-ish unique rules that's an extra 120 unique special rules you want the designers to try and work into the game. And that's independent of the whole supplement business, do we need just one unique trait per sub-faction or do we need 2-3 traits, a full table of six Warlord Traits and psychic powers, 8+ relics, and a dozen stratagems for each of the 120 sub-factions? 4,200 "unique" little paragraphs of rule to make sure everyone's sufficiently characterful and distinct?
Or does it just become bloat at some point?
Want to know how a codex looks, that has a lot of it stratagems being copy pasted from old codex marines and its own being mostly bad?
I would love to have 8 relics, heck I would love to have 3-4 relics that could be taken by heroes used as characters. more then one warlord would be great too...
I want a game where I don't have to read 4,200 unique relics, warlord traits, stratagems, and sub-faction tactics to avoid getting blindsided by stuff I wasn't aware was possible. But apparently that makes me weird.
Nope.
But gw can't anyways design regardless few or many rules.
Just instead of blindsided you get roffled.
Chose one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only way to do that with flamers is to take a successor chapter. So no special characters. In case you haven't noticed. Space marines special characters are quite good. That is a big trade off. drop pods would be really good at like 25 points but at 65 they are just too much. Taking 65 more points in units is basically always better.
Remind me how much is a normal transport costing?
And how often do you see them.
And how many of them are T1 in range for anything?
Yeah, no your 25 pts suggestion is to be blunt delusional.
I want a game where I don't have to read 4,200 unique relics, warlord traits, stratagems, and sub-faction tactics to avoid getting blindsided by stuff I wasn't aware was possible. But apparently that makes me weird.
if an armyn gets 6 relics, 6 warlord traits and 20+ stratagems, the chance of getting something good is higher, then if you get 1 warlord trait , 3 stratagems and zero relics.
Do we need unique traits per sub-faction, then? There are fifteen books in the game big enough to have sub-factions right now, if you want all of them to have sort of 8-ish unique rules that's an extra 120 unique special rules you want the designers to try and work into the game. And that's independent of the whole supplement business, do we need just one unique trait per sub-faction or do we need 2-3 traits, a full table of six Warlord Traits and psychic powers, 8+ relics, and a dozen stratagems for each of the 120 sub-factions? 4,200 "unique" little paragraphs of rule to make sure everyone's sufficiently characterful and distinct?
Or does it just become bloat at some point?
Want to know how a codex looks, that has a lot of it stratagems being copy pasted from old codex marines and its own being mostly bad?
I would love to have 8 relics, heck I would love to have 3-4 relics that could be taken by heroes used as characters. more then one warlord would be great too...
I want a game where I don't have to read 4,200 unique relics, warlord traits, stratagems, and sub-faction tactics to avoid getting blindsided by stuff I wasn't aware was possible. But apparently that makes me weird.
Relics and WL traits have to be declared before the game, stratagems don't which is why relic and trait bloat is harmless compared to Strat bloat.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.
It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?
Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?
If you're going to go fluff, then why doesnt a squad of tac marines kill an entire army. I mean they do it all the time. Let's just go there. So then I have a reason to never play against marines.
Of course while your'e at it, maybe you can have your platoon of marines and I get enough tyrannocytes and gaunts to blot out the sun and swarm the board. Something like 500 units in a 1,000 point game? Sure, let's do fluff based armies.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.
It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?
Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?
If you're going to go fluff, then why doesnt a squad of tac marines kill an entire army. I mean they do it all the time. Let's just go there. So then I have a reason to never play against marines.
Of course while your'e at it, maybe you can have your platoon of marines and I get enough tyrannocytes and gaunts to blot out the sun and swarm the board. Something like 500 units in a 1,000 point game? Sure, let's do fluff based armies.
Seeing as many have argued PA Marines needed a buff and that almost all iterations of them have had issues, that's not unreasonable.
Drop pods cost 65 points where several armies can deploy much more powerful units for the cost of a relic turn 1. Drop pods are in fact pretty garbage. Without several stratagems going off and spending a ton on the units to go inside the pod you are at best looking at a really expensive suicide unit.
Impuslors are pretty good but can only hold intercessors/hellblasters and you can't charge after. So basically if just gets you in range to shoot with short range guns...hardly an issue in a game with first turn charges being a common thing.
The issue with marines is doctrine are very powerful and every marine just got +1 attack across the board. This puts marines at top tier currently. With certain busted super doctrines like Imperial fist and Iron hands - they are clearly the best option in the game right now BUT every army is going to be getting updated rules most likely...so we have no idea what the power level of this 8.5 edition is going to be like.
I mean, my drop pods (tyrannocytes) cost 110+ points and cant drop turn 1..... id kill for 65
Tyrannocytes can drop Tyranid tanks or 20 Genestealers. They can move and charge, fly and have decent guns.
Trygons/Primes are big threatening units by themselves, and can truck up to 30 models with them.
Or you can play Jormungandr and deep strike additional units for a single CP each.
You got a nice variety of DS options as Tyranids. I play Jorm myself.
Not Online!!! wrote: Nope.
But gw can't anyways design regardless few or many rules.
Just instead of blindsided you get roffled.
Chose one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only way to do that with flamers is to take a successor chapter. So no special characters. In case you haven't noticed. Space marines special characters are quite good. That is a big trade off. drop pods would be really good at like 25 points but at 65 they are just too much. Taking 65 more points in units is basically always better.
Remind me how much is a normal transport costing?
And how often do you see them.
And how many of them are T1 in range for anything?
Yeah, no your 25 pts suggestion is to be blunt delusional.
Drop pods do approximately nothing. It is a deep strike for a unit and a storm bolter. The value of that is...wait...free - because there are an infinite number of ways to deep strike a unit for a CP and plenty can do it naturally. It's worth maybe 2 points per model. Turn 1 is great but it never needed that. It just needed a fair cost. It's hard to cost the turn 1 value because a lot of times you are better off coming in turn 2 anyways. Maybe 40 points with the turn 1. 65 is mindboggling overpriced for a drop pod in this game.
Drop pods are not transports. They are just deep strike platforms. I'd be fine with the model having 0 interaction with the game actually.
Drop Pods do not have to be 25 points. 65 points is fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 65 points to Deep Strike two Devastator Squads with Grav Cannons turn 1 is totally worth it. As UM I can get them both in Tactical Doctrine, too. The reduction in Grav Cannon cost pays for the Pod even. And now Cherubs dont take up a space in the transport anymore either.
Insectum7 wrote: Drop Pods do not have to be 25 points. 65 points is fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 65 points to Deep Strike two Devastator Squads with Grav Cannons turn 1 is totally worth it. As UM I can get them both in Tactical Doctrine, too. The reduction in Grav Cannon cost pays for the Pod even. And now Cherubs dont take up a space in the transport anymore either.
What does it matter? You could take 3 ravagers for the cost and do even more damage...while being about 4 times as survivable and mobile. 65 points to teleport a unit is outrageous when you can do it for 1 cp. Orks can teleport 30 models every turn for the cost of a psychic power. Several relics do it. Just because you CAN do something. Doesn't make it good. The points are off on drop pods. It is clear - they get 0 play in competitive because they are a waste of points.
How many points is a CP worth? How many factions have "Deep Strike a unit" for 1 CP, with no limits? Usually it's 1 CP for one, 3 CP for two.
How many points is that Weirdboy? How likely is he to fail his power? How often does he blow himself up? How vulnerable is he to snipers?
How many points is a Relic slot worth, when everyone but Marines caps at three from your Warlord's faction?
On another forum someone was complaining about the Iron Hands nerf because the game had some valid counter play. Raven Guard and White Scars had a high win rate against them...
So all is well if we all switch to Codex Marines lol.
I want a game where I don't have to read 4,200 unique relics, warlord traits, stratagems, and sub-faction tactics to avoid getting blindsided by stuff I wasn't aware was possible. But apparently that makes me weird.
if an armyn gets 6 relics, 6 warlord traits and 20+ stratagems, the chance of getting something good is higher, then if you get 1 warlord trait , 3 stratagems and zero relics.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.
And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.
You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.
And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.
You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.
I've been using the arbitrary number of 3 for special units, relics, strats, and Warlord traits for sub factions. Infinitely easier to maintain balance and still provides flavor that people crave.
I want a game where I don't have to read 4,200 unique relics, warlord traits, stratagems, and sub-faction tactics to avoid getting blindsided by stuff I wasn't aware was possible. But apparently that makes me weird.
if an armyn gets 6 relics, 6 warlord traits and 20+ stratagems, the chance of getting something good is higher, then if you get 1 warlord trait , 3 stratagems and zero relics.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.
IMOWL traits and Stratagems should be universal, I'd like the 8 relics for each sub-faction if the others got unionized, it's so easy to go through a relic or two at the start of the game with your opponent and if GW put pts to Relics they could balance those as needed, alternatively making sure none of them are worth less than 1 CP you can put an additional CP penalty on the strongest ones such that 90% of relics instead of 30% of relics have a use. I do feel it is nice to put some flavour to the different Necron Dynasties and I think relics is a fine place to do it.
For unique faction Stratagems I think 3 should be the absolute max, unless you lower the starting number of Stratagems in a codex to below 20. Even 3 for each sub-faction on top of 35 from a codex after getting three different chapter tactics (CT, Doctrine, super Doctrine), feels like a lot. I'd say 20-ish codex Stratagems, no chapter tactics-ish rules and 3 Stratagems would drastically lower complexity without taking much from the game. Maybe I'll need to play SM to know what it feels like to have that many options and to inject that much flavour into the gameplay of a faction, SM players seem to love the flavour it brings to their sub-faction. Maybe SM should have a 8/15 split between shared and subfaction traits, while other factions could get a 20/3 split. All it'd take is locking away some of those SM Strats inside Specialist Detachments.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.
And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.
You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.
Indeed but sadly you can never have both balance and variety.
Early 8th with indexes was probably the most "balanced" that 40k has ever been - but it was also the most boring with everything nearly being the same and you may as well be playing with paper cutouts for model markers.
I'd rather variety with several options that lead to different themes based upon how you want to play. That's sort of what they do now - or at least try to. You're not expected to use every single one of those 20 stratagems and traits and relics, you're meant to use them as building blocks to make a list work the way you want it to - sadly they can never get the internal balance right and there's always the "optimum" route that gets you the most for your points which always overshadows everything else.
"why take relic X when relic Y does the same thing but better?" Relic X might be awesome fluff wise and in the game, but if you're basically handicapping yourself by not taking the better option then it's "useless" in game terms (i.e. winning the game)
Relics, traits and stratagems are all quite new to 40k and I dont see how toning it down would kill the hobby. Only reason they might feel like it is since the core rules have 0 flavour and all of is now in each factions special rules.
Removing 90% of faction specific traits/stratagems and some of the relics while making a few more universal traits and strats and improving the core rules would probably make for a better game.
An astartes soup list from the new supplements will have access to 6-7 chapter traits, 27 warlord traits, 30 psychic powers, 30+ relics and about 80 stratagems. Some could argue that they might have a bit too many special rules there that arent bound to the units but to "outside" rules.
You would think that a list with a spearhead detachment, a vanguard detachment and a battalion from the codex only wouldnt be too different from one using a different supplement for each detachment. All the units themselves have the same core rules but all the extra stuff makes them play like almost different armies. The chapters with their own books have less things that make them special outside their extra units than what the supplement chapters have. Its insane the special rules bloat is for marines now.
Klickor wrote: Relics, traits and stratagems are all quite new to 40k and I dont see how toning it down would kill the hobby. Only reason they might feel like it is since the core rules have 0 flavour and all of is now in each factions special rules.
Removing 90% of faction specific traits/stratagems and some of the relics while making a few more universal traits and strats and improving the core rules would probably make for a better game.
An astartes soup list from the new supplements will have access to 6-7 chapter traits, 27 warlord traits, 30 psychic powers, 30+ relics and about 80 stratagems. Some could argue that they might have a bit too many special rules there that arent bound to the units but to "outside" rules.
You would think that a list with a spearhead detachment, a vanguard detachment and a battalion from the codex only wouldnt be too different from one using a different supplement for each detachment. All the units themselves have the same core rules but all the extra stuff makes them play like almost different armies. The chapters with their own books have less things that make them special outside their extra units than what the supplement chapters have. Its insane the special rules bloat is for marines now.
That was never a problem before the SM 2.0 through. Most of the factions warlord traits and relics are to situational or simply bad.
Klickor wrote: Relics, traits and stratagems are all quite new to 40k and I dont see how toning it down would kill the hobby. Only reason they might feel like it is since the core rules have 0 flavour and all of is now in each factions special rules.
Removing 90% of faction specific traits/stratagems and some of the relics while making a few more universal traits and strats and improving the core rules would probably make for a better game.
An astartes soup list from the new supplements will have access to 6-7 chapter traits, 27 warlord traits, 30 psychic powers, 30+ relics and about 80 stratagems. Some could argue that they might have a bit too many special rules there that arent bound to the units but to "outside" rules.
You would think that a list with a spearhead detachment, a vanguard detachment and a battalion from the codex only wouldnt be too different from one using a different supplement for each detachment. All the units themselves have the same core rules but all the extra stuff makes them play like almost different armies. The chapters with their own books have less things that make them special outside their extra units than what the supplement chapters have. Its insane the special rules bloat is for marines now.
That was never a problem before the SM 2.0 through. Most of the factions warlord traits and relics are to situational or simply bad.
You as an eldar player should know your last statement is bs.
Alone in your codexes internal balance.
Klickor wrote: The chapters with their own books have less things that make them special outside their extra units than what the supplement chapters have. Its insane the special rules bloat is for marines now.
Can you elaborate on this? Assuming you're talking about the Angels, the Angels and the Wolves, they've all got their own Relics, Traits, Stratagems and Psychic Powers - the bit they lack is the Super Doctrine (because they were written before Doctrines were a thing), and access to "generic" Codex: Space Marines Relics/Traits/Stratagems/Psychic Powers, but by definition those elements are not special ass they're common to seven factions (assuming we count the Supplement Chapters as their own factions)...
New marines are on a different level but even older books have too much crap in them.
Like most psychic diciplines could be 3 instead of 6 powers. Its usually 2-3 powers that buff or debuff something and then 3-4 worse variants of Smite.
As a BA player I use 3 traits only and one of them is from the core rules actually since the BA traits are mostly gak. Same with relics. Only 3 that is worth to even think about. Its no surptise that its the wings + artisan of war combo that shows up in every list on a smash captain.
Half of the stratagems are useless as well. Lol my Baal Predator can advance even further!!! But it cant shoot since it only have heavy weapons!
Removing most of these things wouldnt change much for the player playing a faction if anything. It would make it much easier for everyone else to learn what that faction can do and not get confused by an overwhelming amount of special rules that might or might not affect the game.
Klickor wrote: The chapters with their own books have less things that make them special outside their extra units than what the supplement chapters have. Its insane the special rules bloat is for marines now.
Can you elaborate on this? Assuming you're talking about the Angels, the Angels and the Wolves, they've all got their own Relics, Traits, Stratagems and Psychic Powers - the bit they lack is the Super Doctrine (because they were written before Doctrines were a thing), and access to "generic" Codex: Space Marines Relics/Traits/Stratagems/Psychic Powers, but by definition those elements are not special ass they're common to seven factions (assuming we count the Supplement Chapters as their own factions)...
Most stratagems for BA are the same as the marine codex(old codex) . Then we have like 10 that is unique for BA but that is fewer than what the supplements have. I might have been exaggerating a bit but the supplements have about the same amount of rules as BA outside of the units and UM have almost the same amount of special units.
Supplements do have more variations though since they have their own + the codex to choose from. Especially with the ability to run successors.
Insectum7 wrote: Drop Pods do not have to be 25 points. 65 points is fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 65 points to Deep Strike two Devastator Squads with Grav Cannons turn 1 is totally worth it. As UM I can get them both in Tactical Doctrine, too. The reduction in Grav Cannon cost pays for the Pod even. And now Cherubs dont take up a space in the transport anymore either.
What does it matter? You could take 3 ravagers for the cost and do even more damage...while being about 4 times as survivable and mobile. 65 points to teleport a unit is outrageous when you can do it for 1 cp. Orks can teleport 30 models every turn for the cost of a psychic power. Several relics do it. Just because you CAN do something. Doesn't make it good. The points are off on drop pods. It is clear - they get 0 play in competitive because they are a waste of points.
There's no better way to ensure models dont get shot off the table than keeping them off the table until you want them. Drop Pods are guaranteed Alpha Strike for units that otherwise make for very juicy targets.
Drop Pods suffer more from making enemy units to charge it and render themselves immune to space marine shooting.
This problem becomes worse if the enemy unit charging the pod can fly.
Spend a turn hugging the pod, become immune to shooting and then fall back and shoot.
Compared to this, points cost does not seem to cause serious issue.
I think it's worth noting that despite Iron Hands getting all the attention, now that the enrf has been applied, all of the chapters are solid armies, whatever our views otherwise, codex space marines and it's supplements has a solid internal balance that should be (and IMHO from many of these posts is) envied each of the chapters has some solid reasons to pick it over the others, and a white scars player is going to be, more or less, quite happy with what he has. this is a nice change from most 8th edition codices where it's obvious one subfaction is the only one worth a damn
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: Drop Pods suffer more from making enemy units to charge it and render themselves immune to space marine shooting.
This problem becomes worse if the enemy unit charging the pod can fly.
Spend a turn hugging the pod, become immune to shooting and then fall back and shoot.
Compared to this, points cost does not seem to cause serious issue.
That's a risk, yes. Although the new Space Marine books help make that less viable by making Marine counterassault more dangerous. If the opponent hides by charging the Pod, they cant overwatch anymore.
BrianDavion wrote: I think it's worth noting that despite Iron Hands getting all the attention, now that the enrf has been applied, all of the chapters are solid armies, whatever our views otherwise, codex space marines and it's supplements has a solid internal balance that should be (and IMHO from many of these posts is) envied each of the chapters has some solid reasons to pick it over the others, and a white scars player is going to be, more or less, quite happy with what he has. this is a nice change from most 8th edition codices where it's obvious one subfaction is the only one worth a damn
I think it's also worth noting that while Marines got stronger they didn't get a whole lot tougher so their natural predators didn't change much. Run into a lG armored column and you're still going to have a bad time, you still can't build a Marine army that can tank 10 Russes/Russ Demolishers or that can consistently kill five Russes on turn one before they gut your army.
And yes, I have six pages of strategems to choose from but that's still being applied to an army that has a hard time putting two Battalions into 2000 points and wants to spend half it's CP on extra relics/warlord traits/deployment shenanigans before the game starts. If the strats are good but I can't use more than five or six of them in a game then those two things balance out. Which is how it's supposed to be.
Marines getting deadlier wasn't a step in the right direction, but quite frankly 4 out of 5 games around here are ending with a start-of-turn-two-scoop already so the problem can't get all that much worse. The rate GW is going the entire rule set for 10th or 11th ed is going to read "player 1 and player 2 take turns deploying models. Both players then roll a die, the player with the higher result wins the game." At least there won't be any arguments over which army is the best at that point.
BrianDavion wrote: I think it's worth noting that despite Iron Hands getting all the attention, now that the enrf has been applied, all of the chapters are solid armies, whatever our views otherwise, codex space marines and it's supplements has a solid internal balance that should be (and IMHO from many of these posts is) envied each of the chapters has some solid reasons to pick it over the others, and a white scars player is going to be, more or less, quite happy with what he has. this is a nice change from most 8th edition codices where it's obvious one subfaction is the only one worth a damn
I think it's also worth noting that while Marines got stronger they didn't get a whole lot tougher so their natural predators didn't change much. Run into a lG armored column and you're still going to have a bad time, you still can't build a Marine army that can tank 10 Russes/Russ Demolishers or that can consistently kill five Russes on turn one before they gut your army.
And yes, I have six pages of strategems to choose from but that's still being applied to an army that has a hard time putting two Battalions into 2000 points and wants to spend half it's CP on extra relics/warlord traits/deployment shenanigans before the game starts. If the strats are good but I can't use more than five or six of them in a game then those two things balance out. Which is how it's supposed to be.
Marines getting deadlier wasn't a step in the right direction, but quite frankly 4 out of 5 games around here are ending with a start-of-turn-two-scoop already so the problem can't get all that much worse. The rate GW is going the entire rule set for 10th or 11th ed is going to read "player 1 and player 2 take turns deploying models. Both players then roll a die, the player with the higher result wins the game." At least there won't be any arguments over which army is the best at that point.
If your games are ending in 1 turn you need to bring more terrain.
Not to say your wrong in that the game is to lethal but if its that much your doing something wrong.
How does terrain help with opponents charing you from 9" away or landing a pod behind your termintors blowing them up with multiple units of devastators? Or both at the same time. I mean I guess you could bunker up the whole army in a corner, hoping there is also terrain there that LoS blocks, but then opponents will just claim all objectives. So you still lose the game, you just don't get tabled turn 1. unless they are very alfa strike focused and don't care about cover.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: Drop Pods suffer more from making enemy units to charge it and render themselves immune to space marine shooting.
This problem becomes worse if the enemy unit charging the pod can fly.
Spend a turn hugging the pod, become immune to shooting and then fall back and shoot.
Compared to this, points cost does not seem to cause serious issue.
Paying 65 points to make your opponents have an easy place to hide from shooting attacks...That's a lot worse than 40 or 25 points for that. The point remains - all they do is give a unit deep strike. The drop pod while existing is often to your detriment. The value of that is between 20-40 points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: How does terrain help with opponents charing you from 9" away or landing a pod behind your termintors blowing them up with multiple units of devastators? Or both at the same time. I mean I guess you could bunker up the whole army in a corner, hoping there is also terrain there that LoS blocks, but then opponents will just claim all objectives. So you still lose the game, you just don't get tabled turn 1. unless they are very alfa strike focused and don't care about cover.
Terminators can deep strike for free. Your opponent takes devs - you counter with a unit of terminators for less points and they do a whole lot more on top of being twice/3times harder to kill.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: Drop Pods suffer more from making enemy units to charge it and render themselves immune to space marine shooting.
This problem becomes worse if the enemy unit charging the pod can fly.
Spend a turn hugging the pod, become immune to shooting and then fall back and shoot.
Compared to this, points cost does not seem to cause serious issue.
That's a risk, yes. Although the new Space Marine books help make that less viable by making Marine counterassault more dangerous. If the opponent hides by charging the Pod, they cant overwatch anymore.
Terminators do not bring other units with them. Just like Gargoyles , Flyrants and Spores aren't transports either.
Lets take a look at rules here. My basic termagants vs tactical marines.
Numbers: 10 terms vs 4+1 marines. Nids win
Guns: assault 1 s:4 vs pistol 1 s: 4. Advantage: marines
Rules:
hail of living ammunition
Hyper aggression
Vs
Combat squad
Atsknf Bolter discipline
Shock assault
Fnp 6+
Overwatch 5-6+
(Double wounds if vehicle with damage table)
So not only are you better with assault than almost every basic troop out there, you shoot better as well. And you have THREE times the number of rules. AND you get this on every infantry model ON TOP OF their own rules. Then lets look at synergy. How many different units with auras can you stack? Because Ive got 1 that makes it harder to be shot. No rerolls. All that and your squad only costs 20 points more.
Now, you mentioned trygons. How many S:7 weapons do you have in your dex? And how many different ways can you take them? Im willing to bet hundreds of combinations, with rerolls and other auras.
You do realize you have almost as many elite units as my entire combined codex?
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.
And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.
You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.
Indeed but sadly you can never have both balance and variety.
Early 8th with indexes was probably the most "balanced" that 40k has ever been - but it was also the most boring with everything nearly being the same and you may as well be playing with paper cutouts for model markers.
I'd rather variety with several options that lead to different themes based upon how you want to play. That's sort of what they do now - or at least try to. You're not expected to use every single one of those 20 stratagems and traits and relics, you're meant to use them as building blocks to make a list work the way you want it to - sadly they can never get the internal balance right and there's always the "optimum" route that gets you the most for your points which always overshadows everything else.
"why take relic X when relic Y does the same thing but better?" Relic X might be awesome fluff wise and in the game, but if you're basically handicapping yourself by not taking the better option then it's "useless" in game terms (i.e. winning the game)
8e 40k is 5e D&D. Everyone has the same speed and gets to move and attack at (proficiency)+5 dealing d6+5 or d8+5 damage every round, no matter what their class. To make the game "interesting" the designers then stacked a hundred pages of spells on top of a really, really bland system.
The hundred pages of spells don't make the game less bland, they make the game take longer to play while still being about as bland. I don't find Codex-era 40k more interesting than Index-era 40k because every model still gets to attack at full efficiency every turn, and whoever has the edge in the linear damage/durability structure wins unless someone is actively being an idiot. Decisions taken during the game don't really matter. Stratagems just make the whole thing take a lot longer because everyone needs to spend ten minutes looking through the hundred pages of spells every turn.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.
And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.
You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.
Indeed but sadly you can never have both balance and variety.
Early 8th with indexes was probably the most "balanced" that 40k has ever been - but it was also the most boring with everything nearly being the same and you may as well be playing with paper cutouts for model markers.
I'd rather variety with several options that lead to different themes based upon how you want to play. That's sort of what they do now - or at least try to. You're not expected to use every single one of those 20 stratagems and traits and relics, you're meant to use them as building blocks to make a list work the way you want it to - sadly they can never get the internal balance right and there's always the "optimum" route that gets you the most for your points which always overshadows everything else.
"why take relic X when relic Y does the same thing but better?" Relic X might be awesome fluff wise and in the game, but if you're basically handicapping yourself by not taking the better option then it's "useless" in game terms (i.e. winning the game)
8e 40k is 5e D&D. Everyone has the same speed and gets to move and attack at (proficiency)+5 dealing d6+5 or d8+5 damage every round, no matter what their class. To make the game "interesting" the designers then stacked a hundred pages of spells on top of a really, really bland system.
The hundred pages of spells don't make the game less bland, they make the game take longer to play while still being about as bland. I don't find Codex-era 40k more interesting than Index-era 40k because every model still gets to attack at full efficiency every turn, and whoever has the edge in the linear damage/durability structure wins unless someone is actively being an idiot. Decisions taken during the game don't really matter. Stratagems just make the whole thing take a lot longer because everyone needs to spend ten minutes looking through the hundred pages of spells every turn.
Something something get rid of IGOUGO something something
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.
And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.
You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.
I remember Warmachine defined each of its warcasters with once-per-game ability and 3-5 spells, and that made for huge differences between them. Even warcasters from the same faction had a totally different feel from one another, because the spells and feats dictated how the warcaster interacted with their army.
There's no reason why Warhammer couldn't be fun with just a couple of flavorful, competently-written traits and stratagems per army, rather than the avalanche of crap that we have now.
'Bland and uninspired' is repeating the same few stratagems and traits for each army. Hands up, who's got a 'get CP back on a 5+' warlord trait or a 'everyone can throw grenades' stratagem, and what fluffy, faction-specific flavor are those supposed to represent?
Better to incorporate those into a limited, curated set of universal warlord traits and stratagems, then give each faction their own unique warlord trait and handful of appropriate stratagems, and then an extra stratagem for each subfaction. Each faction and subfaction can keep their flavor without the scattershot implementation of stratagems as they currently stand.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.
And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.
You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.
I remember Warmachine defined each of its warcasters with once-per-game ability and 3-5 spells, and that made for huge differences between them. Even warcasters from the same faction had a totally different feel from one another, because the spells and feats dictated how the warcaster interacted with their army.
There's no reason why Warhammer couldn't be fun with just a couple of flavorful, competently-written traits and stratagems per army, rather than the avalanche of crap that we have now.
'Bland and uninspired' is repeating the same few stratagems and traits for each army. Hands up, who's got a 'get CP back on a 5+' warlord trait or a 'everyone can throw grenades' stratagem, and what fluffy, faction-specific flavor are those supposed to represent?
Better to incorporate those into a limited, curated set of universal warlord traits and stratagems, then give each faction their own unique warlord trait and handful of appropriate stratagems, and then an extra stratagem for each subfaction. Each faction and subfaction can keep their flavor without the scattershot implementation of stratagems as they currently stand.
This.
Especially mind boggling when some of the stratagems are literal equipment pieces
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.
And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.
You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.
Indeed but sadly you can never have both balance and variety.
Early 8th with indexes was probably the most "balanced" that 40k has ever been - but it was also the most boring with everything nearly being the same and you may as well be playing with paper cutouts for model markers.
I'd rather variety with several options that lead to different themes based upon how you want to play. That's sort of what they do now - or at least try to. You're not expected to use every single one of those 20 stratagems and traits and relics, you're meant to use them as building blocks to make a list work the way you want it to - sadly they can never get the internal balance right and there's always the "optimum" route that gets you the most for your points which always overshadows everything else.
"why take relic X when relic Y does the same thing but better?" Relic X might be awesome fluff wise and in the game, but if you're basically handicapping yourself by not taking the better option then it's "useless" in game terms (i.e. winning the game)
8e 40k is 5e D&D. Everyone has the same speed and gets to move and attack at (proficiency)+5 dealing d6+5 or d8+5 damage every round, no matter what their class. To make the game "interesting" the designers then stacked a hundred pages of spells on top of a really, really bland system.
The hundred pages of spells don't make the game less bland, they make the game take longer to play while still being about as bland. I don't find Codex-era 40k more interesting than Index-era 40k because every model still gets to attack at full efficiency every turn, and whoever has the edge in the linear damage/durability structure wins unless someone is actively being an idiot. Decisions taken during the game don't really matter. Stratagems just make the whole thing take a lot longer because everyone needs to spend ten minutes looking through the hundred pages of spells every turn.
Oh god thank you. I've never had either 8E or 5E D&D explained so susinctly.
We're at "Well, now we've made a mess of things with all these spells/special-rules. So we'll add more spells/special-rules. That'll fix things!".
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: Drop Pods suffer more from making enemy units to charge it and render themselves immune to space marine shooting.
This problem becomes worse if the enemy unit charging the pod can fly.
Spend a turn hugging the pod, become immune to shooting and then fall back and shoot.
Compared to this, points cost does not seem to cause serious issue.
That's a risk, yes. Although the new Space Marine books help make that less viable by making Marine counterassault more dangerous. If the opponent hides by charging the Pod, they cant overwatch anymore.
Tbf if you look at them do you honestly think they would've sold more if the rules were good?
Something can look like poo, but if it has powerful rules people are going to buy a playset. More like they didn't have plastic models or any ideas what to do with csm. In fact from what they are doing with csm and the csm model line, it seems like they are tryin to push csm away from actual csm, and it to some sort demons, demonic machines etc stuff.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.
And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.
You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.
I remember Warmachine defined each of its warcasters with once-per-game ability and 3-5 spells, and that made for huge differences between them. Even warcasters from the same faction had a totally different feel from one another, because the spells and feats dictated how the warcaster interacted with their army.
There's no reason why Warhammer couldn't be fun with just a couple of flavorful, competently-written traits and stratagems per army, rather than the avalanche of crap that we have now.
'Bland and uninspired' is repeating the same few stratagems and traits for each army. Hands up, who's got a 'get CP back on a 5+' warlord trait or a 'everyone can throw grenades' stratagem, and what fluffy, faction-specific flavor are those supposed to represent?
Better to incorporate those into a limited, curated set of universal warlord traits and stratagems, then give each faction their own unique warlord trait and handful of appropriate stratagems, and then an extra stratagem for each subfaction. Each faction and subfaction can keep their flavor without the scattershot implementation of stratagems as they currently stand.
It's funny you use Warmachine as an example considering the game crumpled under its own weight as it became bloated with units as maintaining balance while creating new units to keep the game profitable became harder and harder until it had to undergo a massive changes to both its release and play style, changes which nearly killed the game and forced it to change AGAIN.
Did you know they're launching Warmachine 40k with custom casters, out of curiosity?
Sim-Life wrote: It's funny you use Warmachine as an example considering the game crumpled under its own weight as it became bloated with units as maintaining balance while creating new units to keep the game profitable became harder and harder until it had to undergo a massive changes to both its release and play style, changes which nearly killed the game and forced it to change AGAIN.
Did you know they're launching Warmachine 40k with custom casters, out of curiosity?
Perhaps the lesson should be that expecting a game to grow indefinitely while still maintaining balance and interesting thematic roles for every unit is a losing proposition. I would think that the current sprawl of stratagems makes the long-term problem worse, not better.
I have seen the barest of hints about the new Warmachine, and I'm not particularly excited. I stopped playing around 2008 or so and haven't followed what happened since then.
BrianDavion wrote: I think it's worth noting that despite Iron Hands getting all the attention, now that the enrf has been applied, all of the chapters are solid armies, whatever our views otherwise, codex space marines and it's supplements has a solid internal balance that should be (and IMHO from many of these posts is) envied each of the chapters has some solid reasons to pick it over the others, and a white scars player is going to be, more or less, quite happy with what he has. this is a nice change from most 8th edition codices where it's obvious one subfaction is the only one worth a damn
I think it's also worth noting that while Marines got stronger they didn't get a whole lot tougher so their natural predators didn't change much. Run into a lG armored column and you're still going to have a bad time, you still can't build a Marine army that can tank 10 Russes/Russ Demolishers or that can consistently kill five Russes on turn one before they gut your army.
And yes, I have six pages of strategems to choose from but that's still being applied to an army that has a hard time putting two Battalions into 2000 points and wants to spend half it's CP on extra relics/warlord traits/deployment shenanigans before the game starts. If the strats are good but I can't use more than five or six of them in a game then those two things balance out. Which is how it's supposed to be.
Marines getting deadlier wasn't a step in the right direction, but quite frankly 4 out of 5 games around here are ending with a start-of-turn-two-scoop already so the problem can't get all that much worse. The rate GW is going the entire rule set for 10th or 11th ed is going to read "player 1 and player 2 take turns deploying models. Both players then roll a die, the player with the higher result wins the game." At least there won't be any arguments over which army is the best at that point.
If your games are ending in 1 turn you need to bring more terrain.
Not to say your wrong in that the game is too lethal but if its that much your doing something wrong.
We're already putting 15+ pieces of terrain on the table at 1000-points, unfortunately a lot of what we have is GW terrain and quick "cerial box ruins" so it's full of holes and doesn't block LoS. Some of us (myself included) have started adding taller and wider LoS blocking terrain to the collection en masse, so unrecoverable turn-1 damage should get less prevalent. We shall see.
I predict all that will really happen is that long-range artillery will become a lot more common and IG will still end up dominating the local meta.
