I realize that this is not at all new ground I’m about to cover here, but I felt the need to share anyway. Today’s subject is that space marines are overpowered. Feel free to ignore the rest of this.
Anyway.
Holy gak are space marines unfair!
We decided to play our first game of 9th edition in TTS, and just for fun we would use armies that we wouldn’t normally. My opponent picked tyranids, and being a chaos and drukhari player normally, I went with salamanders. Oh my god. Tyranids would attack, I would roll some paltry amount of saves, or play a stratagem that said “haha I get to ignore whatever it is you’re doing.” Then on my turn I would drown his units in dice and rerolls to everything. At the end of turn 4 when we stopped, he was down to one ripper swarm, and I had lost one unit.
And then in talking about it afterwards, we realized that I had completely forgotten to use my faction trait at all. It was forgotten among all the other bonuses. I’m used to armies where you describe them by saying “yeah, they’re pretty good, but...”. There was no but here, there was just my wiping someone out. How is this ok?
Very little info and lots to unpack. Not much we can do, but shrug unless we see lists, table, etc. Also using armies you're not familiar with will get you into trouble against marines.
Marines are overpowered and some of the table top tactics testers said so too. However, without lists, point values, etc. there isn't really any info to point out where things went wrong.
2000 points. Tyranids were old one eye and 3 carnifexes, one squad of 16 genestealers, 2 squads of like 9 warriors, 2 primes, 1 hive tyrant, couple ripper swarms. Also 3 bodyguards for the tyrant.
Marines were actually half salamanders half space wolves. Vulkan and Agatone, 3 MSU intercessor squads, 3 aggressors with flamers, 5 assault centurions with flamers and hurricane bolters, 3 incursor squads, 1 squad of long fangs, wolf guard with a bunch of thunder hammers and storm shields, Ragnar, a chaplain, and... a wolf leader? The space wolves half wasn’t me.
Marines are the easiest faction to play in the game, they are there specifically for new players. Makes sense that you can just switch to them and be decently good at using that list.
Tyranids are one of the hardest factions to play, you can't just switch to them and expect to use them correctly.
Crackedgear wrote: 2000 points. Tyranids were old one eye and 3 carnifexes, one squad of 16 genestealers, 2 squads of like 9 warriors, 2 primes, 1 hive tyrant, couple ripper swarms. Also 3 bodyguards for the tyrant.
Marines were actually half salamanders half space wolves. Vulkan and Agatone, 3 MSU intercessor squads, 3 aggressors with flamers, 5 assault centurions with flamers and hurricane bolters, 3 incursor squads, 1 squad of long fangs, wolf guard with a bunch of thunder hammers and storm shields, Ragnar, a chaplain, and... a wolf leader? The space wolves half wasn’t me.
Not sure what he planned to do against centurions with melee nids.
You, in fact, would be correct in not using your super doctrine, because you were soup. Did you take your CP penalty?
Assault Cents are going from 52 to 70 points. Flamer Aggressors are up 5. Intercessors up 3 and Incursors up 2. That's a minimum of 230 points taken off that list. Who knows what the 'nids would increase by, but I'd wager less though.
Space Marines are one of the strongest armys and Tyranids are one of the low tier armys so i am not suprised. And the units the Tyranid player picked are mostly not the good units from the Codex. Genestealers and the tyrant are one only really good units in the list. Carnifexes and tyrant guard are not that good.
i would also add that marines are probably easier to play and tyranits not as easy. so that might also make a difference when both players have not played those amrys.
But we also need to see the board and the equipment the units had.
Crackedgear wrote: 2000 points. Tyranids were old one eye and 3 carnifexes, one squad of 16 genestealers, 2 squads of like 9 warriors, 2 primes, 1 hive tyrant, couple ripper swarms. Also 3 bodyguards for the tyrant.
Marines were actually half salamanders half space wolves. Vulkan and Agatone, 3 MSU intercessor squads, 3 aggressors with flamers, 5 assault centurions with flamers and hurricane bolters, 3 incursor squads, 1 squad of long fangs, wolf guard with a bunch of thunder hammers and storm shields, Ragnar, a chaplain, and... a wolf leader? The space wolves half wasn’t me.
Not sure what he planned to do against centurions with melee nids.
You, in fact, would be correct in not using your super doctrine, because you were soup. Did you take your CP penalty?
Assault Cents are going from 52 to 70 points. Flamer Aggressors are up 5. Intercessors up 3 and Incursors up 2. That's a minimum of 230 points taken off that list. Who knows what the 'nids would increase by, but I'd wager less though.
It was the faction ability I didn’t use. The doctrines were used, because we looked it up and it said every unit had to have the combat doctrines ability, which they did. Was that wrong?
It was the faction ability I didn’t use. The doctrines were used, because we looked it up and it said every unit had to have the combat doctrines ability, which they did. Was that wrong?
You did it properly. "Super doc" is the forum's term for the faction ability.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nordsturmking wrote: Tyranids are one of the low tier armys so i am not suprised. And the units the Tyranid player picked are mostly not the good units from the Codex. Genestealers and the tyrant are one only really good units in the list. Carnifexes and tyrant guard are not that good.
'Nids have gone up in power a bit. They have tools. The biggest problem with the list is it relies on a blob of carnifexes to go toe-to-toe in melee with the best of the marine melee stuff.
If he timed everything perfectly, shut off the Cents O/W with a trash unit and got 3 or 4 fexes in then he could wipe the cents, but then all that other stuff is still kicking around and that makes for a really overly concentrated board that likely isn't getting scored properly.
Now I'd probably just kite the Centurions. Sure, great you got them on this side of the table - see you later while I go cap on your board edge!
It was the faction ability I didn’t use. The doctrines were used, because we looked it up and it said every unit had to have the combat doctrines ability, which they did. Was that wrong?
You did it properly. "Super doc" is the forum's term for the faction ability.
Well it depends what the op is referring to. There's the chapter tactic and there's the super doctrine. You still get the chapter tactic in soup, but not the super doctrine.
Pleasantly surprised this thread is so analytical in it's approach.
--
I don't have much to add to the unit analysis, but I want to share my 2 cents about the general setup:
- Space Marines are very easy to pick up and play decently, even if you make positioning or target priority errors.
- Tyranids I would put on the other side of that spectrum. You have to use your units properly or they won't do much if anything at all before they die.
- Positioning is much more vital as a lot of Tyranid units have really bad saves.
- When you are new to a game or faction you tend to get rules wrong alot or forget to use them. This could go either way for both of you.
In addition of Space Marines having - in general - a stronger ruleset, there are a lot of factors that would skew the experience for you guys.
Get experienced with the armies so you know which units are strong and which are not, so you can create more balanced forces for your next games.
I'd also add on top of Nids just being a harder army in general to play that the list you gave above looks really low power even by their standards.
Warrior spam isn't always awful, but a Marine match up is especially bad for it with all their high AP, multi damage ranged weapons.
I get with all the warriora why they took 2 Primes, but I think its a trap.
Tyrant Guard are pretty poor for their cost.
Carnifexes have their uses, but are often quite meh.
Its not that you can't make an alright list with these elements, just maybe not ALL these elements, against Marines.
Its still going to be an uphill battle, but I think the feeling would be quite different with a better list and a few games practice.
"Oh I'm gonna rush forward with all my stuff because they have claws! I'm totally gonna beat that castle of low mobility high firepower units with this approach! It's not like they have a wall of flamers with Vulkan and Agatone!"
You can win with that nid list against that marine list, but not if you make it a strenght contest. That marine list sucks badly in mobility, so just outmaneuver and outscore.Not that the nid list had much mobility either...
Man, you can make work pretty much any nid unit in the right list, but there is a limit to how badly you can assemble one.
There is definitely a bad play feeling when facing marines.
The amount of rerolls, strategems and options for every scenario can feel like you are perpetually up against it. The majority of these also don't require tactical skill to implement or execute.
That doesn't necessarily mean they are unbalanced (that would be a facile observation given that we don't any points for 9th)
That doesn't necessarily mean they are unbalanced (that would be a facile observation given that we don't any points for 9th)
I mean, we have Marine points for 9e (if you know where to look). But I've not seen any other armies, so in isolation it doesn't mean much!
Marines are above the curve for sure, but I definitely agree with other posters that this imbalance is relatively small compared to the effect of how easy they are to pick up and play without practice compared to many other armies, doubly so for Nids.
That doesn't necessarily mean they are unbalanced (that would be a facile observation given that we don't any points for 9th)
I mean, we have Marine points for 9e (if you know where to look). But I've not seen any other armies, so in isolation it doesn't mean much!
Marines are above the curve for sure, but I definitely agree with other posters that this imbalance is relatively small compared to the effect of how easy they are to pick up and play without practice compared to many other armies, doubly so for Nids.
There is some design issues with marines that if 8 had really take the time to address i think would have set up the game to be much better. Not entirely marine issues, which is why they may not be entirly OP even though 9th.
Spoletta 789935 10863176 wrote:I can already imagine how the game went.
"Oh I'm gonna rush forward with all my stuff because they have claws! I'm totally gonna beat that castle of low mobility high firepower units with this approach! It's not like they have a wall of flamers with Vulkan and Agatone!"
You can win with that nid list against that marine list, but not if you make it a strenght contest. That marine list sucks badly in mobility, so just outmaneuver and outscore.Not that the nid list had much mobility either...
Man, you can make work pretty much any nid unit in the right list, but there is a limit to how badly you can assemble one.
But isn't this a lore vs game problem for some new players? They like nids, they read about nids, in lore the tyranids charge as a unstoppable wave, crushing everything in the end with thier big bugs, while taking heavy loses among the smaller ones. Only in the game this often means they lose the small ones, then they lose the big ones and then they are in for un happy times.
Umbros wrote: There is definitely a bad play feeling when facing marines.
The amount of rerolls, strategems and options for every scenario can feel like you are perpetually up against it. The majority of these also don't require tactical skill to implement or execute.
That doesn't necessarily mean they are unbalanced (that would be a facile observation given that we don't any points for 9th)
This is what I’m talking about. Like I said, I’m used to playing chaos, and if I work hard I can pull off some sort of synergy to take down units. This was totally different though. It was all so easy. Max shots? Done. Reroll wounds? Cool. Shoot twice? Why not. And that’s another unit vaporized with room to spare. I have never been less concerned about the outcome of a game.
You are going to get people who will defend the state marines are in. Likewise, you will get people who deride marines. The truth is often in the middle. GW wants marines to be top tier. They can sell more models that way.
A some point balance becomes a problem. While GW would love for each of us to go out and buy marines they also know there is a limit to that. If everyone is playing marines then they are killing their own game.
My point is this. Yes, marines are unbalanced as of now. By a decent margin. BUT, do not expect this to continue indefinitely. Look for nerfs in about half a year after the next marine codex drops.
That doesn't necessarily mean they are unbalanced (that would be a facile observation given that we don't any points for 9th)
I mean, we have Marine points for 9e (if you know where to look). But I've not seen any other armies, so in isolation it doesn't mean much!
Marines are above the curve for sure, but I definitely agree with other posters that this imbalance is relatively small compared to the effect of how easy they are to pick up and play without practice compared to many other armies, doubly so for Nids.
We don't have marine points for 9E. We only had a fake spoiler, debunked directly by GW. That leak could have been a point proposal at a certain point during the playtesting, but we know for sure that they are not the final ones.
Karol wrote:
Spoletta 789935 10863176 wrote:I can already imagine how the game went.
"Oh I'm gonna rush forward with all my stuff because they have claws! I'm totally gonna beat that castle of low mobility high firepower units with this approach! It's not like they have a wall of flamers with Vulkan and Agatone!"
You can win with that nid list against that marine list, but not if you make it a strenght contest. That marine list sucks badly in mobility, so just outmaneuver and outscore.Not that the nid list had much mobility either...
Man, you can make work pretty much any nid unit in the right list, but there is a limit to how badly you can assemble one.
But isn't this a lore vs game problem for some new players? They like nids, they read about nids, in lore the tyranids charge as a unstoppable wave, crushing everything in the end with thier big bugs, while taking heavy loses among the smaller ones. Only in the game this often means they lose the small ones, then they lose the big ones and then they are in for un happy times.
Nids are rarely portraied in the fluff as acting like that. They rush forward when it is the right thing to do, for example when overrunning the defenses of a small planet. When they face something more fierce, they usually resort to other approaches. The Blood Angels Chapters have been slaugthered by an infiltrated Lictor, not by the might of the swarm. The hyve loves terror and infiltration tactics, the GSC exists for a reason.
Nids avoiding the conflict against an ultra fortified position and pursuing shady activities all around is perfectly fluffy,
That doesn't necessarily mean they are unbalanced (that would be a facile observation given that we don't any points for 9th)
I mean, we have Marine points for 9e (if you know where to look). But I've not seen any other armies, so in isolation it doesn't mean much!
Marines are above the curve for sure, but I definitely agree with other posters that this imbalance is relatively small compared to the effect of how easy they are to pick up and play without practice compared to many other armies, doubly so for Nids.
There is some design issues with marines that if 8 had really take the time to address i think would have set up the game to be much better. Not entirely marine issues, which is why they may not be entirly OP even though 9th.
Well, they did address the design issues with Marines in 8th, that's how they suddenly became top dog.
Except the did such an OP job of it every other faction has essentially had to be redesigned around Marines 2.0
While they have nerfed some of the most broken stuff Ironhands and Imperial fists. Their is a reason that marines in their various flabours are still in the 60% win ratio against the non marines and why they still make up the vast majority of the competitive meta.
They are supposed to be okay and everything and have an army that out does them for each specialist focus, except the end of 8th has marines are being as good as if not better point for point at almost everything against everyone.
They are also significantly easier to achieve your game plan without dynamic thinking due to rerolls upon rerolls making everything overly consistent.
I find it funny, mostly because GK didn't have doctrines named the same way as other marines did, how other armies got boomeranged by rule nerfs that were a hotfix to 8th ed IH.
DA for example their schtick was devastator doctrin and being able to move and shot without penality on tanks, and I think some overwatch buffs. All the rules seem so bad considering 9th rules. I hope they get a codex or a big errata soon. But the changes were still funny to me.
Spoletta 789935 10863176 wrote:I can already imagine how the game went.
"Oh I'm gonna rush forward with all my stuff because they have claws! I'm totally gonna beat that castle of low mobility high firepower units with this approach! It's not like they have a wall of flamers with Vulkan and Agatone!"
You can win with that nid list against that marine list, but not if you make it a strenght contest. That marine list sucks badly in mobility, so just outmaneuver and outscore.Not that the nid list had much mobility either...
Man, you can make work pretty much any nid unit in the right list, but there is a limit to how badly you can assemble one.
But isn't this a lore vs game problem for some new players? They like nids, they read about nids, in lore the tyranids charge as a unstoppable wave, crushing everything in the end with thier big bugs, while taking heavy loses among the smaller ones. Only in the game this often means they lose the small ones, then they lose the big ones and then they are in for un happy times.
Yes, it totally is. While Spoletta is right in that nids can be more than just unending waves, unending waves has the core identity of the army since its inception. I read this as the nid player trying to do what nids do in the lore, and discovering that that isn't viable in the slightest on the tabletop.
I think most of these complaints apply mostly to primaris. I mean you would not have had such an easy time if using the classic tac marines, assult marines, classic bikes and rhinos. Those guys actually die to xeno attacks. Assult cents are also an obvious exception. Making the new bois OP as hell seems to be gws main sales strategy.
Spoletta 789935 10863176 wrote:I can already imagine how the game went.
"Oh I'm gonna rush forward with all my stuff because they have claws! I'm totally gonna beat that castle of low mobility high firepower units with this approach! It's not like they have a wall of flamers with Vulkan and Agatone!"
You can win with that nid list against that marine list, but not if you make it a strenght contest. That marine list sucks badly in mobility, so just outmaneuver and outscore.Not that the nid list had much mobility either...
Man, you can make work pretty much any nid unit in the right list, but there is a limit to how badly you can assemble one.
But isn't this a lore vs game problem for some new players? They like nids, they read about nids, in lore the tyranids charge as a unstoppable wave, crushing everything in the end with thier big bugs, while taking heavy loses among the smaller ones. Only in the game this often means they lose the small ones, then they lose the big ones and then they are in for un happy times.
That's a problem for practically every army in the game, not just 'nids.
But isn't this a lore vs game problem for some new players? They like nids, they read about nids, in lore the tyranids charge as a unstoppable wave, crushing everything in the end with thier big bugs, while taking heavy loses among the smaller ones. Only in the game this often means they lose the small ones, then they lose the big ones and then they are in for un happy times.
That's a problem for practically every army in the game, not just 'nids.
I am struggling to understand, how the fact that such a thing happens to more then one army make it somehow okey or normal. In fact if really happens to all armies, then it is even worse to be honest.
This guy took Salamander incursors, Long Fangs, and Wolf Guard, and you guys are acting like the Nid list was built so poorly cause he played what? A Carnifex? Carnifexes are in the upper end of Tyranid units, the fact that the SM player could just take whatever and Tyranids couldn’t even safely take one of their upper units, is exactly what the imbalance IS you muppets.
Both armies were collected from models of about a similar level of competitiveness from each of their books. Some good stuff and some decent stuff. People just don’t want to admit that yeah there’s a massive imbalance in SM, these sort of threads attract the downplayers
Spoletta wrote: We don't have marine points for 9E. We only had a fake spoiler, debunked directly by GW. That leak could have been a point proposal at a certain point during the playtesting, but we know for sure that they are not the final ones.
Wait, what's this now? The "leaks from Munitorum" are fake? Where did GW directly debunk this?
Nitro Zeus wrote: This guy took Salamander incursors, Long Fangs, and Wolf Guard, and you guys are acting like the Nid list was built so poorly cause he played what? A Carnifex? Carnifexes are in the upper end of Tyranid units, the fact that the SM player could just take whatever and Tyranids couldn’t even safely take one of their upper units, is exactly what the imbalance IS you muppets.
Both armies were collected from models of about a similar level of competitiveness from each of their books. Some good stuff and some decent stuff. People just don’t want to admit that yeah there’s a massive imbalance in SM, these sort of threads attract the downplayers
Thank you, I felt like I was in bizarro world reading this thread. Long Fangs and Wolf Guard are far from meta-busting hotness and literally nothing mentioned for 'Nids was egregiously bad. Triple 'Fexes, a Tyrant, and Genestealers could easily be the core of even a reasonably competitively-oriented list.
Both players took a scattershot mix of units and one player got stomped. Saying that Tyranids are 'hard to play' really boils down to the fact that being weaker makes any army less forgiving of mistakes. Marines are not balanced in their current state and have not been balanced since SM2.0, especially for casual play, where non-Marine armies aren't exploiting their dirtiest tricks to close the gap. The length some people will go to in order to deny this is ridiculous.
Nitro Zeus wrote: This guy took Salamander incursors, Long Fangs, and Wolf Guard, and you guys are acting like the Nid list was built so poorly cause he played what? A Carnifex? Carnifexes are in the upper end of Tyranid units, the fact that the SM player could just take whatever and Tyranids couldn’t even safely take one of their upper units, is exactly what the imbalance IS you muppets.
Both armies were collected from models of about a similar level of competitiveness from each of their books. Some good stuff and some decent stuff. People just don’t want to admit that yeah there’s a massive imbalance in SM, these sort of threads attract the downplayers
Thank you, I felt like I was in bizarro world reading this thread. Long Fangs and Wolf Guard are far from meta-busting hotness and literally nothing mentioned for 'Nids was egregiously bad. Triple 'Fexes, a Tyrant, and Genestealers could easily be the core of even a reasonably competitively-oriented list.
Both players took a scattershot mix of units and one player got stomped. Saying that Tyranids are 'hard to play' really boils down to the fact that being weaker makes any army less forgiving of mistakes. Marines are not balanced in their current state and have not been balanced since SM2.0, especially for casual play, where non-Marine armies aren't exploiting their dirtiest tricks to close the gap. The length some people will go to in order to deny this is ridiculous.
We're just washing over the Ragnar, flamer aggressors, flamer centurions, Vulkan, and Agatone? That is absolutely NOT scatter shot.
We know nothing of what the Nids had for weapons, but based on the list I'd bet all melee. If he carried stock weapons then the piddly AP1 would be straight ignored by the Salamanders, too. So, no, this isn't an impeachment of Tyranids and their weaknesses, because we know so very little about what was used and how it was used. Yes, I'm sure any chump could pick up that marine army and do well until they faced someone competent. Not all the armies will have the same skill floor and there isn't anything wrong with that.
Salamanders don't have the same capability of flinging Centurions around. He could easily have had some Biovores and used spore mines to control the board against the very slow moving Cents and Aggressors and those would still be a good choice in any other matchup.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yes, I'm sure any chump could pick up that marine army and do well until they faced someone competent. Not all the armies will have the same skill floor and there isn't anything wrong with that.
Is the idea here that Marines have a high skill floor but low skill ceiling? Because that doesn't seem borne out by tournament results.
Or high skill floor, high skill ceiling... but that doesn't point to any sort of imbalance?
Daedalus81 wrote: Yes, I'm sure any chump could pick up that marine army and do well until they faced someone competent. Not all the armies will have the same skill floor and there isn't anything wrong with that.
Is the idea here that Marines have a high skill floor but low skill ceiling? Because that doesn't seem borne out by tournament results.
Are you really certain of that? Marines got nerfed on 2/27. A few weeks later COVID really took hold. In the time between that nerf and the end of tournaments these were a few of the top results -
(And I have no idea how many of these before 3/14 used the FAQ)
Martel732 wrote: Remember the "marines just need to be cheaper" song? Yeah. feth GW and their UBER ALLES marines.
except no marine player actually wanted cheaper marines, we didn't want "5 point guardsmen and 7 point marines" marine players wanted marines to feel like elite bad asses
Nitro Zeus wrote: This guy took Salamander incursors, Long Fangs, and Wolf Guard, and you guys are acting like the Nid list was built so poorly cause he played what? A Carnifex? Carnifexes are in the upper end of Tyranid units, the fact that the SM player could just take whatever and Tyranids couldn’t even safely take one of their upper units, is exactly what the imbalance IS you muppets.
Both armies were collected from models of about a similar level of competitiveness from each of their books. Some good stuff and some decent stuff. People just don’t want to admit that yeah there’s a massive imbalance in SM, these sort of threads attract the downplayers
catbarf wrote: Thank you, I felt like I was in bizarro world reading this thread. Long Fangs and Wolf Guard are far from meta-busting hotness and literally nothing mentioned for 'Nids was egregiously bad. Triple 'Fexes, a Tyrant, and Genestealers could easily be the core of even a reasonably competitively-oriented list.
Both players took a scattershot mix of units and one player got stomped. Saying that Tyranids are 'hard to play' really boils down to the fact that being weaker makes any army less forgiving of mistakes. Marines are not balanced in their current state and have not been balanced since SM2.0, especially for casual play, where non-Marine armies aren't exploiting their dirtiest tricks to close the gap. The length some people will go to in order to deny this is ridiculous.
Nobody in this thread even closely suggested that Marines and Tyranids are on the same power level. Most posters wrote that Marines are stronger and easier to play and that the Tyranid player has to work harder.
What did happen was people giving proper advice how both players could level the playing field instead of just accepting that one side is better and there is nothing that can be done about it till the next Codex drops.
And then in talking about it afterwards, we realized that I had completely forgotten to use my faction trait at all. It was forgotten among all the other bonuses. I’m used to armies where you describe them by saying “yeah, they’re pretty good, but...”. There was no but here, there was just my wiping someone out. How is this ok?
Marines are the master race that's there to kill evil guys heroicly. Tyranids are not marines and thus are NPC so their role is to be killed in droves by the heroic marines.
Nitro Zeus wrote: This guy took Salamander incursors, Long Fangs, and Wolf Guard, and you guys are acting like the Nid list was built so poorly cause he played what? A Carnifex? Carnifexes are in the upper end of Tyranid units, the fact that the SM player could just take whatever and Tyranids couldn’t even safely take one of their upper units, is exactly what the imbalance IS you muppets.
Both armies were collected from models of about a similar level of competitiveness from each of their books. Some good stuff and some decent stuff. People just don’t want to admit that yeah there’s a massive imbalance in SM, these sort of threads attract the downplayers
Thank you, I felt like I was in bizarro world reading this thread. Long Fangs and Wolf Guard are far from meta-busting hotness and literally nothing mentioned for 'Nids was egregiously bad. Triple 'Fexes, a Tyrant, and Genestealers could easily be the core of even a reasonably competitively-oriented list.
Both players took a scattershot mix of units and one player got stomped. Saying that Tyranids are 'hard to play' really boils down to the fact that being weaker makes any army less forgiving of mistakes. Marines are not balanced in their current state and have not been balanced since SM2.0, especially for casual play, where non-Marine armies aren't exploiting their dirtiest tricks to close the gap. The length some people will go to in order to deny this is ridiculous.
We're just washing over the Ragnar, flamer aggressors, flamer centurions, Vulkan, and Agatone? That is absolutely NOT scatter shot.
1.) he did not wash over that at all? he said a scattershot mix of units - some were top tier, some were not. Nothing you said conflicts with that
2.) what's are Tyranids' Ragnar / Aggressors etc to lean on if not OOE and Genestealers? Tyranid player picked some of the best units in the dex and none of the junk ones. Yeah, Ragnar and aggressors are a lot better than anything he has - that's the entire point. It's not balanced.
punisher357 wrote: Marines are overpowered and some of the table top tactics testers said so too. However, without lists, point values, etc. there isn't really any info to point out where things went wrong.
Marines being crap in former editions when it came to competitive play now made it to the top.
With all the shiny new units they can easily outperform any other faction in the game.
My experience with my Eldar is that in former editions I had never big problems eliminating SM armies.
But I've not yet played a game against the new IH, Imperial Fists, RG and Salamanders.
This will be my plan next time as soon as I can see how to play Eldar in the 9th.
Spoletta wrote: We don't have marine points for 9E. We only had a fake spoiler, debunked directly by GW. That leak could have been a point proposal at a certain point during the playtesting, but we know for sure that they are not the final ones.
Wait, what's this now? The "leaks from Munitorum" are fake? Where did GW directly debunk this?
When I said that, we didn't have the munitorum leaks, we had a random page from a random unidentified document whose point cost for the Lt didn't match with one of GW articles.
Unfortunately, apart from that they ended up pretty much spot on.
The SM points aren't so bad in the end, it was a massive nerf for the most part. And it was well deserved.
The issue is in the new units from Indomitus, Eradicators in particular, which are beyond broken at that point cost.
Everything else doesn't feel really OP anymore. It took just 5 rounds of nerf to achieve that. (IH first nerf, Strategem nerf, Doctrine nerf, CA2020 point nerf and finally Vigilus removed).
Nitro Zeus wrote: This guy took Salamander incursors, Long Fangs, and Wolf Guard, and you guys are acting like the Nid list was built so poorly cause he played what? A Carnifex? Carnifexes are in the upper end of Tyranid units, the fact that the SM player could just take whatever and Tyranids couldn’t even safely take one of their upper units, is exactly what the imbalance IS you muppets.
Both armies were collected from models of about a similar level of competitiveness from each of their books. Some good stuff and some decent stuff. People just don’t want to admit that yeah there’s a massive imbalance in SM, these sort of threads attract the downplayers
Canrifexes aren't the upper end of Tyranid units. A specific Carnifex build, one that isn't intuitive for new players reading the fluff and iirc not build-able out of the box, was effective enough at filling a specific role that it showed up in some lists. Right now over on the Tyranid Tactics page there is a two page long discussion about if the changes to the new edition might make any of the other ways to build Carnifexes useful, and the answer is basically maybe? If you work hard enough at it? We hope?
Warriors can be good, if you use the right Hive Fleet and add in defensive abilities that are not in the core rules. A new player to the faction wouldn't be expected to know that Warriors evaporate like morning dew unless you use the right strategem with them and have the right Adaptive Physiology on them.
I could go on about how Genestealers and Tyrants showing up in competitive builds doesn't mean that plugging and handful of them into a list makes it a strong list. Or how I don't see Hive Guard, or Exocrines, or Neurothropes. Point being, Tyranids are odd and tricky to learn and new players to the faction tend to lose badly until they figure them out.
Marines are pretty strong, sure. Tyranids are probably mid tier. Marines might be overpowered in 9th. They might not be. I have zero doubt that OP is acting in good faith, and believes that marines are over powered and badly balanced. OP could be 100% right about that.
I'm not willing to take two beginning players running poorly optimized lists as proof that we need to bow to our new marine overlords. Particularly seeing as how one of these players was running a faction that is designed to be straightforward to play, because it is the flagship product of the entire company, and the other was running a faction that is notorious for being one of the hardest to learn in the game.
He didn't have Hive Guard and his opponent didn't have vehicles for them to shoot at, or thunderfires to counter his ground assault. That works both ways.
Nitro Zeus wrote: This guy took Salamander incursors, Long Fangs, and Wolf Guard, and you guys are acting like the Nid list was built so poorly cause he played what? A Carnifex? Carnifexes are in the upper end of Tyranid units, the fact that the SM player could just take whatever and Tyranids couldn’t even safely take one of their upper units, is exactly what the imbalance IS you muppets.
Both armies were collected from models of about a similar level of competitiveness from each of their books. Some good stuff and some decent stuff. People just don’t want to admit that yeah there’s a massive imbalance in SM, these sort of threads attract the downplayers
Canrifexes aren't the upper end of Tyranid units. A specific Carnifex build, one that isn't intuitive for new players reading the fluff and iirc not build-able out of the box, was effective enough at filling a specific role that it showed up in some lists. Right now over on the Tyranid Tactics page there is a two page long discussion about if the changes to the new edition might make any of the other ways to build Carnifexes useful, and the answer is basically maybe? If you work hard enough at it? We hope?
Absolute nonsense. Carnifexes are one of the better units in the dex without a doubt. I contributed to that discussion. YOUR answer was "maybe, if you work hard enough at it". Other people's answers were either "they seem pretty good" or "time will tell".
I'm sorry, let's just take a step back here anyway - are we genuinely arguing that there isn't a serious power level imbalance between the Marine codex and the Tyranids?
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know what, you're right. We should wait and see. I suspect Marines are broke as hell, but we don't know. I thought this thread was about 8th cause it was made two weeks ago, but I see OP was testing 9th rules.
This still works both ways though. If we don't know what's strong yet, it's way too early to also say that the Nid players list was gak. Looks tight enough to me, and yeah I'm standing strong that Carnifexes arent bad - depends on their loadout but I think they've actually improved.
As long as Eradicators are not in the equation, I'm not going to express an opinion on the matter.
The points nerfs on marines were harsh, and I'm not sure that they cope reall well with 9th missions structure. Nids could very well be better than them at this point, who knows.
Now, put Eradicators back into the pack, and they are the best of best at everything.
Spoletta wrote: As long as Eradicators are not in the equation, I'm not going to express an opinion on the matter.
The points nerfs on marines were harsh, and I'm not sure that they cope reall well with 9th missions structure. Nids could very well be better than them at this point, who knows.
Now, put Eradicators back into the pack, and they are the best of best at everything.
You keep repeating the same "marine point increases were harsh" BS but you don't seem to fathom the fact that they were HORRIBLY underpriced in 8th
Spoletta wrote: As long as Eradicators are not in the equation, I'm not going to express an opinion on the matter.
The points nerfs on marines were harsh, and I'm not sure that they cope reall well with 9th missions structure. Nids could very well be better than them at this point, who knows.
Now, put Eradicators back into the pack, and they are the best of best at everything.
You keep repeating the same "marine point increases were harsh" BS but you don't seem to fathom the fact that they were HORRIBLY underpriced in 8th
....and?
I fail to see how it is a valid counterpoint you are making.
Were the point increases harsh? Yes, that is simple math, can't argue with that.
So if I were to say "This post got longer with our messages." you would reply "That's BS! It was too short!"? Should that make my statement "BS"?
You keep using that BS word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
Spoletta wrote: As long as Eradicators are not in the equation, I'm not going to express an opinion on the matter.
The points nerfs on marines were harsh, and I'm not sure that they cope reall well with 9th missions structure. Nids could very well be better than them at this point, who knows.
Now, put Eradicators back into the pack, and they are the best of best at everything.
You keep repeating the same "marine point increases were harsh" BS but you don't seem to fathom the fact that they were HORRIBLY underpriced in 8th
....and?
I fail to see how it is a valid counterpoint you are making.
Were the point increases harsh? Yes, that is simple math, can't argue with that.
So if I were to say "This post got longer with our messages." you would reply "That's BS! It was too short!"? Should that make my statement "BS"?
You keep using that BS word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
...and? The're not harsh at all if the base points are hugely undercosted to begin with, in comparison the +30 points a Tervigon received are much harsher than the additional cost of a Thunderfire since the former was already nearly unplayable and the latter on the other hand was oppressive asf.
Percentage increments don't tell the truth, what really matters the most is the final points cost and Thunderfires at 140 pts (with the included Techmarine) is not a steep cost (still undercosted if you consider the BS 2+ no LoS shooting that can halve any type of movement for 2 units)
Maybe GW wants codex marines to have good rules and good points costs for the army. It is their flag ship product, with the most sales, and most people playing and buying stuff. Any company that turns their back on their core audiance has better have some super good plan how to get new people from somewhere, or it starts bleeding money really fast.
And in case of armies like tyranids or other xeno armies. GW seems to only be interested in them, when a new codex and a new model line for that army comes out. Their anwser to them being bad or much weaker right now, seems to be play another GW game or buy a good army, waiting till we update your codex with new rules and new models.
Karol wrote: Maybe GW wants codex marines to have good rules and good points costs for the army. It is their flag ship product, with the most sales, and most people playing and buying stuff. Any company that turns their back on their core audiance has better have some super good plan how to get new people from somewhere, or it starts bleeding money really fast.
And in case of armies like tyranids or other xeno armies. GW seems to only be interested in them, when a new codex and a new model line for that army comes out. Their anwser to them being bad or much weaker right now, seems to be play another GW game or buy a good army, waiting till we update your codex with new rules and new models.
You have to be very careful as a company that focus only on a core audience, as that tends to mean a ever shrinking audience if you are not very careful. From what we see i already feel GW maybe pushing into that a lot. Still very profitable, but on the backs of getting more and more money from a core audience tends to push towards colapse.
As its been said, on that poll i think i also put something other than balance. But its still very important for me from a narrative perspective. And it really sucks as a eldar player, as every space marine player complains constantly about OP stuff i never even used against them >.<
Spoletta wrote: As long as Eradicators are not in the equation, I'm not going to express an opinion on the matter.
The points nerfs on marines were harsh, and I'm not sure that they cope reall well with 9th missions structure. Nids could very well be better than them at this point, who knows.
Now, put Eradicators back into the pack, and they are the best of best at everything.
You keep repeating the same "marine point increases were harsh" BS but you don't seem to fathom the fact that they were HORRIBLY underpriced in 8th
....and?
I fail to see how it is a valid counterpoint you are making.
Were the point increases harsh? Yes, that is simple math, can't argue with that.
So if I were to say "This post got longer with our messages." you would reply "That's BS! It was too short!"? Should that make my statement "BS"?
You keep using that BS word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
...and? The're not harsh at all if the base points are hugely undercosted to begin with, in comparison the +30 points a Tervigon received are much harsher than the additional cost of a Thunderfire since the former was already nearly unplayable and the latter on the other hand was oppressive asf. Percentage increments don't tell the truth, what really matters the most is the final points cost and Thunderfires at 140 pts (with the included Techmarine) is not a steep cost (still undercosted if you consider the BS 2+ no LoS shooting that can halve any type of movement for 2 units)
You fail to understand the basics of balancing if you think that percentages don't matter.
So, on one hand you have a model which wasn't really played, so it didn't really receive a cost increase (Tervigon, 16,66% increase). On the other hand you have a model which was played a lot, so it received one of the biggest nerfs in the edition (TFC, 52%). 52% is harsh? Yes it is, maths says so. What you say doesn't matter. If you say otherwise you are wrong by definition. Now, if I did say "SM were nerfed a lot, they are now underpowered" you could have a point. But I didn't do that, so you don't have one. I always said "SM received a big nerf, but they deserved it". So, again, what's your point?
Spoletta wrote: As long as Eradicators are not in the equation, I'm not going to express an opinion on the matter.
The points nerfs on marines were harsh, and I'm not sure that they cope reall well with 9th missions structure. Nids could very well be better than them at this point, who knows.
Now, put Eradicators back into the pack, and they are the best of best at everything.
You keep repeating the same "marine point increases were harsh" BS but you don't seem to fathom the fact that they were HORRIBLY underpriced in 8th
....and?
I fail to see how it is a valid counterpoint you are making.
Were the point increases harsh? Yes, that is simple math, can't argue with that.
So if I were to say "This post got longer with our messages." you would reply "That's BS! It was too short!"? Should that make my statement "BS"?
You keep using that BS word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
...and? The're not harsh at all if the base points are hugely undercosted to begin with, in comparison the +30 points a Tervigon received are much harsher than the additional cost of a Thunderfire since the former was already nearly unplayable and the latter on the other hand was oppressive asf.
Percentage increments don't tell the truth, what really matters the most is the final points cost and Thunderfires at 140 pts (with the included Techmarine) is not a steep cost (still undercosted if you consider the BS 2+ no LoS shooting that can halve any type of movement for 2 units)
You fail to understand the basics of balancing if you think that percentages don't matter.
So, on one hand you have a model which wasn't really played, so it didn't really receive a cost increase (Tervigon, 16,66% increase). On the other hand you have a model which was played a lot, so it received one of the biggest nerfs in the edition (TFC, 52%). 52% is harsh? Yes it is, maths says so. What you say doesn't matter. If you say otherwise you are wrong by definition.
Now, if I did say "SM were nerfed a lot, they are now underpowered" you could have a point. But I didn't do that, so you don't have one.
I always said "SM received a big nerf, but they deserved it".
So, again, what's your point?
And again it's not a nerf if the previous price points was WAY WAY off what it should have been, therefore you cannot claim that the nerf was "bigger or more impactful" only due to percentage increases, but solely in light of new usability and competitiveness (Thunderfire went from autoinclude to strong, Tervigon to nearly unplayable to totally unplayable)
TFC was rebalanced, Tervigon was nerfed, understood?
Spoletta wrote: As long as Eradicators are not in the equation, I'm not going to express an opinion on the matter.
The points nerfs on marines were harsh, and I'm not sure that they cope reall well with 9th missions structure. Nids could very well be better than them at this point, who knows.
Now, put Eradicators back into the pack, and they are the best of best at everything.
You keep repeating the same "marine point increases were harsh" BS but you don't seem to fathom the fact that they were HORRIBLY underpriced in 8th
....and?
I fail to see how it is a valid counterpoint you are making.
Were the point increases harsh? Yes, that is simple math, can't argue with that.
So if I were to say "This post got longer with our messages." you would reply "That's BS! It was too short!"? Should that make my statement "BS"?
You keep using that BS word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
...and? The're not harsh at all if the base points are hugely undercosted to begin with, in comparison the +30 points a Tervigon received are much harsher than the additional cost of a Thunderfire since the former was already nearly unplayable and the latter on the other hand was oppressive asf.
Percentage increments don't tell the truth, what really matters the most is the final points cost and Thunderfires at 140 pts (with the included Techmarine) is not a steep cost (still undercosted if you consider the BS 2+ no LoS shooting that can halve any type of movement for 2 units)
You fail to understand the basics of balancing if you think that percentages don't matter.
So, on one hand you have a model which wasn't really played, so it didn't really receive a cost increase (Tervigon, 16,66% increase). On the other hand you have a model which was played a lot, so it received one of the biggest nerfs in the edition (TFC, 52%). 52% is harsh? Yes it is, maths says so. What you say doesn't matter. If you say otherwise you are wrong by definition.
Now, if I did say "SM were nerfed a lot, they are now underpowered" you could have a point. But I didn't do that, so you don't have one.
I always said "SM received a big nerf, but they deserved it".
So, again, what's your point?
I think the point is that loyalists were already underpriced and were nerfed about the same as everyone else, and are therefore still underpriced. Yes, TFCs took a big hit, but most loyalist stuff didn't compared to everyone else. They took similar hits.
But since you want to talk %:
Intercessors:up 17% vs csm: up 27%
Relic leviathan with double storm cannons: up 15% vs hellforged leviathan with double butcher cannons: up 41%
Relic contemptor: down 4% vs hellforged contemptor: up 19%
Call it a nerf or not. The fact is Loyalist marines are still OP and this "re-balancing" didn't change that. We can argue the semantics of the word "nerf" until the cows come home... it doesnt change the facts.
Call it a nerf or not. The fact is Loyalist marines are still OP and this "re-balancing" didn't change that. We can argue the semantics of the word "nerf" until the cows come home... it doesnt change the facts.
But they were nerfed "HARSHER", so they aren't as OP anymore!
It has been since marines 2.0 since I have not had to, when playing marines:
1) pull up 1d4chan and write out on a piece of paper allllllllll the crazy crap THIS particular bs subfaction is going to pull on me. What are their doctrines, what are their 9 stratagems, what are their 6 psychic powers, what are their 6 chaplain litanies, what are their special relics, on and on
2) make the most optimized, cutthroat, fine tuned list for whatever faction im playing
3) resolve myself that regardless of whether I win or lose itll be probably a 2-turn game. 3 turns max. And itll probably be decided mostly by first turn, since it's been a while since I've seen a marine list that didnt have those stupid stupid "if you get first turn you win" donkey-caves that get special snowflake turn 1 deep strike.
Its about as fun as the 7th ed eldar meta, but if 70% of the people you played against had 3 WK+30 Scatbikes.
Call it a nerf or not. The fact is Loyalist marines are still OP and this "re-balancing" didn't change that. We can argue the semantics of the word "nerf" until the cows come home... it doesnt change the facts.
But they were nerfed "HARSHER", so they aren't as OP anymore!
they really are still OP ... just compare the point costs of similar units and weapons... it doesnt even compare... SM have been OP to some degree consistently for 20 years... if they are not OP that would be the exception.
Spoletta wrote: As long as Eradicators are not in the equation, I'm not going to express an opinion on the matter.
The points nerfs on marines were harsh, and I'm not sure that they cope reall well with 9th missions structure. Nids could very well be better than them at this point, who knows.
Now, put Eradicators back into the pack, and they are the best of best at everything.
You keep repeating the same "marine point increases were harsh" BS but you don't seem to fathom the fact that they were HORRIBLY underpriced in 8th
....and?
I fail to see how it is a valid counterpoint you are making.
Were the point increases harsh? Yes, that is simple math, can't argue with that.
So if I were to say "This post got longer with our messages." you would reply "That's BS! It was too short!"? Should that make my statement "BS"?
You keep using that BS word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
...and? The're not harsh at all if the base points are hugely undercosted to begin with, in comparison the +30 points a Tervigon received are much harsher than the additional cost of a Thunderfire since the former was already nearly unplayable and the latter on the other hand was oppressive asf. Percentage increments don't tell the truth, what really matters the most is the final points cost and Thunderfires at 140 pts (with the included Techmarine) is not a steep cost (still undercosted if you consider the BS 2+ no LoS shooting that can halve any type of movement for 2 units)
You fail to understand the basics of balancing if you think that percentages don't matter.
So, on one hand you have a model which wasn't really played, so it didn't really receive a cost increase (Tervigon, 16,66% increase). On the other hand you have a model which was played a lot, so it received one of the biggest nerfs in the edition (TFC, 52%). 52% is harsh? Yes it is, maths says so. What you say doesn't matter. If you say otherwise you are wrong by definition. Now, if I did say "SM were nerfed a lot, they are now underpowered" you could have a point. But I didn't do that, so you don't have one. I always said "SM received a big nerf, but they deserved it". So, again, what's your point?
I think the point is that loyalists were already underpriced and were nerfed about the same as everyone else, and are therefore still underpriced. Yes, TFCs took a big hit, but most loyalist stuff didn't compared to everyone else. They took similar hits.
But since you want to talk %: Intercessors:up 17% vs csm: up 27%
Relic leviathan with double storm cannons: up 15% vs hellforged leviathan with double butcher cannons: up 41%
Relic contemptor: down 4% vs hellforged contemptor: up 19%
Sorry, not seeing the "nerfs".
That's the common misconception. SM nerfs were on average greater than the other factions. The average increase was around 15% points.
Now, look at the point changes on all the SM competitive datasheets (except chars, which were spared as a general rule).
What you can see is that the average increase on the competitive choices was huge. There is no way to look at that list and think "What a nice SM buff!". You may be able to find specific cases where someone had a bigger nerf on a model compared to them, but on average this was clearly a big nerf for SM.
This also comes on top of the doctrine nerf, which we still don't know which effects had on them, since for the most part we couldn't play a lot with it.
Is this enough to bring them on an even level with other factions? I don't know, but surely it is one more stop in the right direction.
Spoletta wrote: As long as Eradicators are not in the equation, I'm not going to express an opinion on the matter.
The points nerfs on marines were harsh, and I'm not sure that they cope reall well with 9th missions structure. Nids could very well be better than them at this point, who knows.
Now, put Eradicators back into the pack, and they are the best of best at everything.
You keep repeating the same "marine point increases were harsh" BS but you don't seem to fathom the fact that they were HORRIBLY underpriced in 8th
....and?
I fail to see how it is a valid counterpoint you are making.
Were the point increases harsh? Yes, that is simple math, can't argue with that.
So if I were to say "This post got longer with our messages." you would reply "That's BS! It was too short!"? Should that make my statement "BS"?
You keep using that BS word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
...and? The're not harsh at all if the base points are hugely undercosted to begin with, in comparison the +30 points a Tervigon received are much harsher than the additional cost of a Thunderfire since the former was already nearly unplayable and the latter on the other hand was oppressive asf.
Percentage increments don't tell the truth, what really matters the most is the final points cost and Thunderfires at 140 pts (with the included Techmarine) is not a steep cost (still undercosted if you consider the BS 2+ no LoS shooting that can halve any type of movement for 2 units)
You fail to understand the basics of balancing if you think that percentages don't matter.
So, on one hand you have a model which wasn't really played, so it didn't really receive a cost increase (Tervigon, 16,66% increase). On the other hand you have a model which was played a lot, so it received one of the biggest nerfs in the edition (TFC, 52%). 52% is harsh? Yes it is, maths says so. What you say doesn't matter. If you say otherwise you are wrong by definition.
Now, if I did say "SM were nerfed a lot, they are now underpowered" you could have a point. But I didn't do that, so you don't have one.
I always said "SM received a big nerf, but they deserved it".
So, again, what's your point?
I think the point is that loyalists were already underpriced and were nerfed about the same as everyone else, and are therefore still underpriced. Yes, TFCs took a big hit, but most loyalist stuff didn't compared to everyone else. They took similar hits.
But since you want to talk %:
Intercessors:up 17% vs csm: up 27%
Relic leviathan with double storm cannons: up 15% vs hellforged leviathan with double butcher cannons: up 41%
Relic contemptor: down 4% vs hellforged contemptor: up 19%
Sorry, not seeing the "nerfs".
That's the common misconception. SM nerfs were on average greater than the other factions. The average increase was around 15% points.
Now, look at the point changes on all the SM competitive datasheets (except chars, which were spared as a general rule).
What you can see is that the average increase on the competitive choices was huge. There is no way to look at that list and think "What a nice SM buff!".
You may be able to find specific cases where someone had a bigger nerf on a model compared to them, but on average this was clearly a big nerf for SM.
This also comes on top of the doctrine nerf, which we still don't know which effects had on them, since for the most part we couldn't play a lot with it.
Is this enough to bring them on an even level with other factions? I don't know, but surely it is one more stop in the right direction.
But thats 8th edition competitive...
It means nothing for 9th edition. Your favourite units went up a ton, now go buy the new stuff and the stuff no one has been using in a while... theirs your new competitive stuff.
Just because the old OP stuff isnt as OP anymore doesnt mean SM arn't OP overall as a faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Some of the stuff no space marine players will touch because you simply just have "better options" are still twice as good for value/abilities/stat lines then other factions have at all.
Yeah, that's 8th edition competitive.
We have no idea what is 9th edition competitive. All the other factions are measuring their buffs and nerfs on what currently works, because no one knows what the meta will be in 4 months.
Based on that, that list qualifies as a nerf to SM as we know them now.
2.) what's are Tyranids' Ragnar / Aggressors etc to lean on if not OOE and Genestealers? Tyranid player picked some of the best units in the dex and none of the junk ones. Yeah, Ragnar and aggressors are a lot better than anything he has - that's the entire point. It's not balanced.
OOE encourages you to run your Carnifexes in a blob. Vulkan and Agatone encourages you to run aggressors and cents in a blob.
Whomever gets the charge usually wins (ignoring that D3 weapons on W4 models is very painful). You can't charge Centurions without something cheap to take the O/W. The marines had plenty of guns to block the genestealers so most everything from there was an expensive unit. The Tyranids have to make several charges where the marines had to make one or two. Throw in Salamander's buddy O/W and you just aren't getting in.
Literally the only ranged weapons the Centurions wouldn't straight up ignore (based on units the nids had) would have been the VC / HVC and we have no idea what he had.
It would be dumb to push your whole army into a melee with the marines, but I'd bet that's what he did. The MAX move of the marine army was 6". He should have literally ignored half the marine army, ran past, taken out the long fangs and intercessors, grab secondaries, and force their blob to split to be able to cover objectives. The tyranids had plenty of wounds to deal with the occasional bolter fire. The salamanders weren't even 11" flamers. You could easily kite them.
But people are going to sit here and say, "well if I smash these non-descript models into those models and I lose that means the army is bad".
SM would probably look quite hard done by if the new units didn't seem incredibly cheap.
Eradicators are the obvious one, but going to keep banging the drum for the bikers too. As White Scars they seem set to be an especially effective assassin of small objective holder/stealer units, with the speed to get around the table and the wounds to not just die if you look at them funny.
Especially if (when?) the kit comes out and you can stick some assault guns on the bikes instead of rapid fire.
But isn't this a lore vs game problem for some new players? They like nids, they read about nids, in lore the tyranids charge as a unstoppable wave, crushing everything in the end with thier big bugs, while taking heavy loses among the smaller ones. Only in the game this often means they lose the small ones, then they lose the big ones and then they are in for un happy times.
I think this is the key-what kind of game is 40K to you? what are you looking for?
With the right mindset and like minded players it is a great game, with the wrong mindset it is a terrible game system.
It was not and never will be "balanced" there are to many factions and to many unique abilities and gear now for that to ever happen.
40K when i got into it (3rd) was still very much the kind of game you describe and it was great for that reason, but it is terrible as a straight up competitive tournament environment game
Unfortunately for the players like myself who want the more thematic game GW has gone the direction of hard competition. to the point it has become the focus point of the game. this leads us to the never ending discussions about "balance"
The game now is all about damage output comparisons, not about what those units would actually do if they behaved as in lore.
If you want the kind of lore/narrative based rules you have to go back to previous editions codexes like 3rd, 4th or 5th where the army/unit rules actually caused you to behave more in accordance with the lore.
In lore being put into a chaos dreadnought was punishment and the marines put in them went insane. so they had rules where they might do insanely good things for you, or they might turn around and attack their own forces in a fit of rage. you didn't know until the dice gods decided.
In those editions many of the units people point to as "sub-par" in the OPs explanation, especially for nids were actually some of the best units to take because of their biomorph options, the way synapse worked and so on.
I don't think 9th ed is the kind of game the OP thinks it is or should be. there is a reason why those of us who have been around the game for a while are familiar with terms like "power gamer", "rules lawyer", "min/max", "WAAC" and "band wagon jumper"
because the tourney players have been successful in breaking the game in every edition trying to squeeze the most insanely powerful combos into an army even if they make no sense in the lore. including changing armies based on whatever the new winning meta is at that point in time.
It is just easier to do it now with the way GW changed the mechanics of the game in 8th and has followed on with it into 9th.
Yeah the real problem here is that a person who buys the starter box from last edition + the starter from this edition is going to have an army that their opponents are going to need to bring their version of tournament optimized vs to have any chance in hell.
I see tons and tons of new players. Anyone who starts with marines nowadays fething ragdolls anyone who doesnt.
I honestly don't give a gak about tournament competitive play balance. Marines are absolute autowin for new players and it means 100% of new players who actually stick around are playing marines because everyone else loses every game.
If someone goes "oh ill get my start collecting and a couple more kits" and the other guy goes "oh ive got indomitus cool" then the first person will quit if hes playing against the second his first few games. He will just get smashed again and again and again, and the sheer amount he gets murdered by is going to be demoralizing.
Oh, you bought start collecting orks? Your buddys bike squad and assault squad kill either of your infantry units in one single round of attacks. Also, your buddy's antitank unit one shots your vehicle effortlessly even outside melta range, it gets zero saves. You probably moved it up once 6" and then it got blown the feth away by a single shooting attack. Doesnt matter if youre behind cover. Doesnt matter if you try to be on the other side of the board, they can advance and shoot you and still kill you in one shot.
nekooni wrote: To nerf something means to make it not as good as it was before. It has nothing to do with how well balanced the end result is, Kurt.
Rebalancing can go either way, both up and down. Buffing means going up, nerfing means going down
This is totally false, wrong and defies the very nature of a nerf.
NERF
"reduction in power of a game feature for the sake of balance"
That's exactly what I said. What's your point?
What is wrong with the second part that you think this is "false, wrong and defies the very nature of a nerf"?
You can slap a 10 points increase on guardsmen and that's a nerf.
You can slap a 1 point increase on a leviathan dreadnought and that's a nerf.
One is over the top, the other not nearly enough of a nerf. But both are nerfs.
They are both aimed towards general balance
Yes, even if one is completely over the top - the reason behind any nerf or buff is game balance. It's not like I said otherwise, so - as I've asked earlier - what's wrong with my statement from earlier?
Both are aiming towards general balance, but one of them does not yield a well-balanced end result. So the "absolute" result doesn't matter for it to be called a "nerf" - it could still be overpowered. What matters is that the thing being changed isn't as good as it was before the change.
Tyel wrote: SM would probably look quite hard done by if the new units didn't seem incredibly cheap.
Eradicators are the obvious one, but going to keep banging the drum for the bikers too. As White Scars they seem set to be an especially effective assassin of small objective holder/stealer units, with the speed to get around the table and the wounds to not just die if you look at them funny.
Especially if (when?) the kit comes out and you can stick some assault guns on the bikes instead of rapid fire.
The only thing I see is that both units suck at protecting babysitters.
2.) what's are Tyranids' Ragnar / Aggressors etc to lean on if not OOE and Genestealers? Tyranid player picked some of the best units in the dex and none of the junk ones. Yeah, Ragnar and aggressors are a lot better than anything he has - that's the entire point. It's not balanced.
OOE encourages you to run your Carnifexes in a blob. Vulkan and Agatone encourages you to run aggressors and cents in a blob.
Whomever gets the charge usually wins (ignoring that D3 weapons on W4 models is very painful). You can't charge Centurions without something cheap to take the O/W. The marines had plenty of guns to block the genestealers so most everything from there was an expensive unit. The Tyranids have to make several charges where the marines had to make one or two. Throw in Salamander's buddy O/W and you just aren't getting in.
Literally the only ranged weapons the Centurions wouldn't straight up ignore (based on units the nids had) would have been the VC / HVC and we have no idea what he had.
It would be dumb to push your whole army into a melee with the marines, but I'd bet that's what he did. The MAX move of the marine army was 6". He should have literally ignored half the marine army, ran past, taken out the long fangs and intercessors, grab secondaries, and force their blob to split to be able to cover objectives. The tyranids had plenty of wounds to deal with the occasional bolter fire. The salamanders weren't even 11" flamers. You could easily kite them.
But people are going to sit here and say, "well if I smash these non-descript models into those models and I lose that means the army is bad".
So, this is the whole difficulty i have with this conversation.
When do people look at their games and ask "what could i have done different"? at what point do people take responsibility for their own losses, accept that perfect balance will never be attained, and choose to focus on what they could have done differently?
I've played 8 games with Tyranids in 9th now, and ill freely admit I've lost more than I've won with them, but every game I've played, the games are getting closer, and I'm learning from my mistakes. Obviously, that is not going to make me some top tier Warhammer operator, but close games are fun and I've had a lot of them with my Tyranids.
that said, that list was scattershot. OOE is a great model, and he does want to see a mob of carnifexes with him, but carnifexes are hardly the "competitive option" in the codex unless you are running 9 of them as dakka fexes. If we wanted to discuss the power units in the Tyranid codex, it would obviously be the hive guard. everything else is just filler (with a special mention to flyrants if kitted outright). The Tyranid player probably didn't understand all of the options available to him. So the lessons to learn here are how to maximize efficiency and build some synergy in his list. If he wanted to run GS bomb, then he needed a swarm lord and more gene stealers and brood lords. If he wanted to run warrior spam, then he needs a lot more warriors and Tyranid primes in that mix. The list feels very unfocused, based on the information given.
so, step one, would be to look at the list and figure out what he wanted to do with the army.
Also, someone said it, but i'll second it. The Tyranid players in this edition are going to be fast. Expect behemoth, and they will be all over the table. Everyone says hordes are dead, but I've been playing with 20 GS, 30 Hormogaunts, 30 Termagants, 30 Gargoyles ripper swarms, swarm lord and a brood lord, plus extra stuff (either flyrant, or trygon prime, or warriors, there are points to play with in that list...a lot of points) and so far, in my games where i have decided to go full-on horde, my opponents just haven't had the shots to deal with all of that and keep up on scenario. It's been strong. Tyranids have a lot of strats that really push their mobility up, between consolidating 6" bounding leap on hormogaunts, the swarmlord, behemoth, and new terrain rules, it been tough and my wins have been with building something like this.
That said, I wouldn't have gotten there if I just threw my hands up the first time I lost and said "marines OP" and not kept trying new things.
again, not saying my experience is universal, but if you want to not lose as much at the game, you have to look at yourself and ask what you could have done better.
Seabass wrote: So, this is the whole difficulty i have with this conversation.
When do people look at their games and ask "what could i have done different"?
at what point do people take responsibility for their own losses, accept that perfect balance will never be attained, and choose to focus on what they could have done differently?
I've played 8 games with Tyranids in 9th now, and ill freely admit I've lost more than I've won with them, but every game I've played, the games are getting closer, and I'm learning from my mistakes. Obviously, that is not going to make me some top tier Warhammer operator, but close games are fun and I've had a lot of them with my Tyranids.
that said, that list was scattershot. OOE is a great model, and he does want to see a mob of carnifexes with him, but carnifexes are hardly the "competitive option" in the codex unless you are running 9 of them as dakka fexes. If we wanted to discuss the power units in the Tyranid codex, it would obviously be the hive guard. everything else is just filler (with a special mention to flyrants if kitted outright). The Tyranid player probably didn't understand all of the options available to him. So the lessons to learn here are how to maximize efficiency and build some synergy in his list. If he wanted to run GS bomb, then he needed a swarm lord and more gene stealers and brood lords. If he wanted to run warrior spam, then he needs a lot more warriors and Tyranid primes in that mix. The list feels very unfocused, based on the information given.
so, step one, would be to look at the list and figure out what he wanted to do with the army.
Also, someone said it, but i'll second it. The Tyranid players in this edition are going to be fast. Expect behemoth, and they will be all over the table. Everyone says hordes are dead, but I've been playing with 20 GS, 30 Hormogaunts, 30 Termagants, 30 Gargoyles ripper swarms, swarm lord and a brood lord, plus extra stuff (either flyrant, or trygon prime, or warriors, there are points to play with in that list...a lot of points) and so far, in my games where i have decided to go full-on horde, my opponents just haven't had the shots to deal with all of that and keep up on scenario. It's been strong. Tyranids have a lot of strats that really push their mobility up, between consolidating 6" bounding leap on hormogaunts, the swarmlord, behemoth, and new terrain rules, it been tough and my wins have been with building something like this.
That said, I wouldn't have gotten there if I just threw my hands up the first time I lost and said "marines OP" and kept trying new things.
again, not saying my experience is universal, but if you want to not lose as much at the game, you have to look at yourself and ask what you could have done better.
I think what you are saying is completely legitimate. I also generally agree with your take on Tyranids in 9th (Although did you mean Behemoth, or Kraken?). I've played 4 games so far of 9th and won 3 of them.
I also generally think there's a tendency to over-emphasize listbuilding and army choice, when player tactics on the battlefield matter a huge deal. I've beaten meta lists run by bad players, using a faction generally recognized as underpowered.
That said- I've played 8th Ed games using the current Marine rules over TTS, and in comparison to Tyranids where I need to bring my A-game and really stay on top of things, it's felt like a much more forgiving experience. It's not an auto-win and the army doesn't play itself, but it's less necessary to take top units and well-known synergies and specific stratagems to win.
I see this disparity even in the casual community: Just about every casual Tyranid player I run into is running Hive Guard and Genestealers, and often Exocrines too, and the most common Hive Fleets by far are Kraken and Kronos. Conversely, I see plenty of casual Marine players with no Chaplain Dreads, no Leviathans, no Thunderfires, and running whatever chapters they like. They get by fine with scattershot Primaris purchases, while new Tyranid players wind up on Reddit and Facebook asking for meta suggestions because they keep getting stomped.
The frustration you're seeing is with the replies that focus on what the Tyranid player brought, and treat it as if the Tyranid player getting stomped was a natural result of bringing a bad army- neglecting both that the Marine player didn't appear to be using hyper-optimized units either, and that the whole reason Tyranids are so susceptible to building 'bad armies' is because they're weaker to begin with. It doesn't take a huge disparity in overall power to turn a mistake in generalship or slightly-less-optimal army, or a combination of both into a one-sided stomp. Or to put it more simply, I don't think you can fairly blame losing on army imbalance, but at the same time, to neglect army imbalance as a factor just because there are other factors (including generalship) is wrong too.
To be clear: This isn't intended as a Tyranid player woe-is-me bitchfest. I don't feel like my army is underpowered against most of the factions in the game. It's literally just Marines at the moment that feel like they punch well above their weight.
2 players used armies they were inexperienced with for 1 game in a new edition and this is evidence of major game imbalance
TL;DR:
Two players of similar skill levels field lists from two different factions of similar quality (relative to the faction) and one player gets absolutely destroyed due to power discrepancies.
Moreover, even though this is merely anecdotal and not a giant resource of data, are you really going to claim that Space Marines and Nids are balanced against each other, in a casual setting?
2 players used armies they were inexperienced with for 1 game in a new edition and this is evidence of major game imbalance
TL;DR:
Two players of similar skill levels field lists from two different factions of similar quality (relative to the faction) and one player gets absolutely destroyed due to power discrepancies.
Moreover, even though this is merely anecdotal and not a giant resource of data, are you really going to claim that Space Marines and Nids are balanced against each other, in a casual setting?
I wouldn't claim they have balanced this edition..... Also wouldn't claim that they are imbalanced. Playing 1 game with players unfamiliar with the armies is the most laughable test of balance that I have ever heard.
I have a terrible solution that won’t work one bit... restricted lists for overpowered units in tournaments. You can bring a maximum of one of each restricted unit. Once that hits the tourney scene, maybe it’ll work it’s way into the non competitive scene and GW will balance things better to sell models because no one is buying play sets (3 full units) of busted things they want to sell like hot cakes...
Asmodios wrote: ...I wouldn't claim they have balanced this edition..... Also wouldn't claim that they are imbalanced. Playing 1 game with players unfamiliar with the armies is the most laughable test of balance that I have ever heard...
Yes and no. On one hand playing one game with players unfamiliar to the armies isn't a fair test of tournament balance, but on the other hand the first impression the two players unfamiliar with the armies get out of that one game is awful. I feel like the thing people don't parse about balance is that a more balanced game is also more new-player-friendly because the new player can pick the models they like and play the game instead of needing to sit down and do legwork figuring out whether the models they like are unplayable because nobody at GW likes the army and they haven't gotten a real update in a decade or something.
macluvin wrote: I have a terrible solution that won’t work one bit... restricted lists for overpowered units in tournaments. You can bring a maximum of one of each restricted unit. Once that hits the tourney scene, maybe it’ll work it’s way into the non competitive scene and GW will balance things better to sell models because no one is buying play sets (3 full units) of busted things they want to sell like hot cakes...
It won't work.
Because there are the haves, like Marines, who look at units like Eradicators and say "Good, but I've got better" and so can still fill a brigade with OP nonsense.
And then there are the have-nots, like... Most other factions, actually, that get maybe three competitive units across their entire Dex.
Asmodios wrote: ...I wouldn't claim they have balanced this edition..... Also wouldn't claim that they are imbalanced. Playing 1 game with players unfamiliar with the armies is the most laughable test of balance that I have ever heard...
Yes and no. On one hand playing one game with players unfamiliar to the armies isn't a fair test of tournament balance, but on the other hand the first impression the two players unfamiliar with the armies get out of that one game is awful. I feel like the thing people don't parse about balance is that a more balanced game is also more new-player-friendly because the new player can pick the models they like and play the game instead of needing to sit down and do legwork figuring out whether the models they like are unplayable because nobody at GW likes the army and they haven't gotten a real update in a decade or something.
I have no idea where SM stand in the current meta, they could be everywhere from top to bottom as much as we know.
That said, even if SM and nids were 100% balanced, that game would have gone the same way.
SM are a faction designed to be easy to play. Tyranids are hard to collect, hard to transport and hard to play. They are an unforgiving faction on many levels.
On their first game, the SM player will always crush the nid player.
Nitro Zeus wrote: He didn't have Hive Guard and his opponent didn't have vehicles for them to shoot at, or thunderfires to counter his ground assault. That works both ways.
<snipped quote tree>
Absolute nonsense. Carnifexes are one of the better units in the dex without a doubt. I contributed to that discussion. YOUR answer was "maybe, if you work hard enough at it". Other people's answers were either "they seem pretty good" or "time will tell".
I'm sorry, let's just take a step back here anyway - are we genuinely arguing that there isn't a serious power level imbalance between the Marine codex and the Tyranids?
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know what, you're right. We should wait and see. I suspect Marines are broke as hell, but we don't know. I thought this thread was about 8th cause it was made two weeks ago, but I see OP was testing 9th rules.
This still works both ways though. If we don't know what's strong yet, it's way too early to also say that the Nid players list was gak. Looks tight enough to me, and yeah I'm standing strong that Carnifexes arent bad - depends on their loadout but I think they've actually improved.
I think we are actually in agreement more than we think. My main argument is that a new player with one of the hardiest to learn armies losing to a new player with one of the easiest to learn armies isn't proof of brokenness.
I think Hive Guard would have helped him, because they are excellent at killing MSU units when not distracted by tanks.
Getting Carnifexes right is hard. A good list can kill two of them a turn, so you have to bring threat saturation so that they actually get to do something. I hope that 9th will shift that dynamic enough to make them more useful. I love big monster builds. I posted a 9 fex list in the other thread (which i need to get back to, i think i made a points mistake) that I have the models to field tomorrow.
I suspect marines will be strong, possibly broken. I suspect 'nids will be in the middle of the pack. I'm not going to panic over one game at the start of the edition.
Dandelion wrote: What exactly makes nids hard to play? (Assuming they are balanced)
First of all Synapse. Contrarily to SM which have auras that buff you, not taking care of your auras with Tyranids will cripple the army.
Monster creatures. These things are big and want to enter melee. This means that you have to plan a path for them at the start of the game, because changing idea and going around a building costs an entire turn of movement.
Then it's mostly a matter of having stuff that is on the squishy side of life and that depends on rules interactions and special abilities to what it must. Rarely a tyranids unit is good for its stats, they all have some quirk and you need to know how to best make use of it.
Could you give an example of “bad stat, but good quirk”? I’m not too familiar with nids units.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by the melee. Wouldn’t a carnifex and a dreadnought be subjected to the same problem? And don’t they have shooty fexes? I don’t see how that’s an inherent problem specific to nids.
Synapse is the only real difference I can see and understand, but it seems simple to maintain, no? It’s 18” right? And shouldn’t nids be balanced between having synapse and not having it? As in, gants and such are pointed for being out of synapse, but warriors and such act as buffers by providing synapse (which they pay for).
2 players used armies they were inexperienced with for 1 game in a new edition and this is evidence of major game imbalance
TL;DR:
Two players of similar skill levels field lists from two different factions of similar quality (relative to the faction) and one player gets absolutely destroyed due to power discrepancies.
Moreover, even though this is merely anecdotal and not a giant resource of data, are you really going to claim that Space Marines and Nids are balanced against each other, in a casual setting?
That is very true. I don't think many people worry about some world champ class player beating their store army with one that costs 2000$ upwards. The problems are when people start or play for some time, and suddenly one or two players feel as if playing against their friends makes no sense.
Dandelion wrote: Could you give an example of “bad stat, but good quirk”? I’m not too familiar with nids units.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by the melee. Wouldn’t a carnifex and a dreadnought be subjected to the same problem? And don’t they have shooty fexes? I don’t see how that’s an inherent problem specific to nids.
Synapse is the only real difference I can see and understand, but it seems simple to maintain, no? It’s 18” right? And shouldn’t nids be balanced between having synapse and not having it? As in, gants and such are pointed for being out of synapse, but warriors and such act as buffers by providing synapse (which they pay for).
Tyranid units are pointed for being half in synapse and half out. They are not supposed to have the penalties, but they are also not pointed including an immunity to morale. Synpase units pay something for it because it also comes with a penalty for enemy psykers.
Now, just to give an example of different approaches between SM and Nids.
Haruspex and assault terminators. Both are elite choices, slow and durable. Termies have the deepstrike, but apart from that these 2 units cover similar roles.
On one hand you have the assault terminators, where after you have read the model profile and the weapon profile, there isn't much else you need to know.
On the other hand you have the haruspex, which is based on self healing abilities for which it must kill enemy models. He can do so both in the assault phase and in the shooting phase with a close ranged attack, but in melee he has 2 different melee profiles, One of the 2 melee profiles is weaker but if he gets kills with that, he gets bonus attacks with the other profile... in short, playing correctly the haruspex requires experience and a master degree in biological engineering.
Apart from the carnifex, the nids don't have many units which are "There are my stats, use me". The stats are always interwined with some peculiar rule they are based on.
Spoletta wrote: As long as Eradicators are not in the equation, I'm not going to express an opinion on the matter.
The points nerfs on marines were harsh, and I'm not sure that they cope reall well with 9th missions structure. Nids could very well be better than them at this point, who knows.
Now, put Eradicators back into the pack, and they are the best of best at everything.
You keep repeating the same "marine point increases were harsh" BS but you don't seem to fathom the fact that they were HORRIBLY underpriced in 8th
....and?
I fail to see how it is a valid counterpoint you are making.
Were the point increases harsh? Yes, that is simple math, can't argue with that.
So if I were to say "This post got longer with our messages." you would reply "That's BS! It was too short!"? Should that make my statement "BS"?
You keep using that BS word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
...and? The're not harsh at all if the base points are hugely undercosted to begin with, in comparison the +30 points a Tervigon received are much harsher than the additional cost of a Thunderfire since the former was already nearly unplayable and the latter on the other hand was oppressive asf.
Percentage increments don't tell the truth, what really matters the most is the final points cost and Thunderfires at 140 pts (with the included Techmarine) is not a steep cost (still undercosted if you consider the BS 2+ no LoS shooting that can halve any type of movement for 2 units)
You fail to understand the basics of balancing if you think that percentages don't matter.
So, on one hand you have a model which wasn't really played, so it didn't really receive a cost increase (Tervigon, 16,66% increase). On the other hand you have a model which was played a lot, so it received one of the biggest nerfs in the edition (TFC, 52%). 52% is harsh? Yes it is, maths says so. What you say doesn't matter. If you say otherwise you are wrong by definition.
Now, if I did say "SM were nerfed a lot, they are now underpowered" you could have a point. But I didn't do that, so you don't have one.
I always said "SM received a big nerf, but they deserved it".
So, again, what's your point?
I think the point is that loyalists were already underpriced and were nerfed about the same as everyone else, and are therefore still underpriced. Yes, TFCs took a big hit, but most loyalist stuff didn't compared to everyone else. They took similar hits.
But since you want to talk %:
Intercessors:up 17% vs csm: up 27%
Relic leviathan with double storm cannons: up 15% vs hellforged leviathan with double butcher cannons: up 41%
Relic contemptor: down 4% vs hellforged contemptor: up 19%
Sorry, not seeing the "nerfs".
This my friend, is called the Chaos Tax. Its been with us for over two decades and is a core feature of every edition. I used to downplay the chaos tax. After 9th and the leaks ive seen, it is unavoidable. The tax is real and its heavy this coming edition. Dont compare your army to marines unless you want a aneurysm.. Of course, other players will peg you as a whiner if you bring this up. See you in 10th.
Dandelion wrote: Could you give an example of “bad stat, but good quirk”? I’m not too familiar with nids units.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by the melee. Wouldn’t a carnifex and a dreadnought be subjected to the same problem? And don’t they have shooty fexes? I don’t see how that’s an inherent problem specific to nids.
Synapse is the only real difference I can see and understand, but it seems simple to maintain, no? It’s 18” right? And shouldn’t nids be balanced between having synapse and not having it? As in, gants and such are pointed for being out of synapse, but warriors and such act as buffers by providing synapse (which they pay for).
Tyranid Carnifexes. The shooty version with the right upgrades can do a lot of damage to the right targets. If you pick the right gun, and the right upgrades, and the right targets. They don't care about being in synapse, unless they end up closer to something you don't want to shoot than they are what you want to shoot. Or if you plan to split fire. Then they want to be in synapse. Also, the box doesn't have enough of the correct gun. They are substantially less durable than dreadnoughts, so they will die, and quickly. If you make any mistakes with them (wrong loadout, wrong deployment, wrong movement, wrong target), then you have handed your opponent a couple hundred points advantage.
babelfish wrote: They are substantially less durable than dreadnoughts, so they will die, and quickly. If you make any mistakes with them (wrong loadout, wrong deployment, wrong movement, wrong target), then you have handed your opponent a couple hundred points advantage.
They're the same toughness, wounds, and save as every other dreadnought and you can give it -1 to be hit. The problem with fexes is they pay 10 points more than marines plus another 10 for BS3.
babelfish wrote: They are substantially less durable than dreadnoughts, so they will die, and quickly. If you make any mistakes with them (wrong loadout, wrong deployment, wrong movement, wrong target), then you have handed your opponent a couple hundred points advantage.
They're the same toughness, wounds, and save as every other dreadnought and you can give it -1 to be hit. The problem with fexes is they pay 10 points more than marines plus another 10 for BS3.
I don't know Marines all that well, so I pulled up battlescribe and looked at all of the dreadnoughts. Most of them are more durable than Carnifexes in some way (T8, or 10 wounds, or whatever) but not nearly to the extent that I had thought. The -1 to hit basically makes up for the differences.
I may just be used to only seeing the very specific really good ones that my local group run. Today I learned that Space Marine dreadnoughts suck more than I thought they did.
