According to the latest spoilers, terminators are going to 3 wounds.
The Necron Triarch thing is going from 8 to 10.
Melta is getting its damage increased.
The new primaris veterans are 3 wounds.
The new attak bike has 8 wounds.
I'm starting to see a scheme in this. Looks like that GW is importing another block from AoS, which is the wound system.
In AoS, 2 wounds on infantry is almost baseline, elite units have 3+ wounds and only chaff infantry has 1 wound.
Would make sense as a move to lower the lethality across the board, and fix a bit of the issues that are created by the LoS rule not working for 9W- models.
At this point, I expect Dnaughts and Fexes to go from 8 to 10W, like the Necron walker did.
The advantage of this approach is to make high RoF weapons less effective against big targets, while keeping the efficency against chaff.
Where I'm worried, is that AoS can use this approach because the damage spills over, which doesn't happen in 40K.
Its not a bad thing IF they apply this quickly to all factions.
Having to wait a year a more for "everyone" to get their upgrade would be beyond stupid.
More and more looks like they should have done new Index books given the compelte disaster the revised points has been and IF loads of weapons and models are changing stats it only makes it worse.
BaconCatBug wrote: And oldmarines will remain at 1W because they want to squat them.
Counterpoint, since they want CSM to remain CSM, seemingly at all costs (rip cultists) there's a chance that tacs now will pick up CSM buffs aswell, like f.e. when tacs would go to 2 wounds.
If this happens across the board wouldn't that mean that a lot more units won't benefit from the Obscuring terrain trait? Not that I'm complaining, I'd personally find it hilarious if Repulsor Executioners went up to 18W so my big toys can turn them into slag through windows.
Mr Morden wrote: Its not a bad thing IF they apply this quickly to all factions.
Having to wait a year a more for "everyone" to get their upgrade would be beyond stupid.
More and more looks like they should have done new Index books given the compelte disaster the revised points has been and IF loads of weapons and models are changing stats it only makes it worse.
Have to agree with you on this. It will be painful to wait a year or more until the xenos army one is playing is addressed.
Year? More like years. With all factions having already codex there's less of a rush like in 8th ed where it took 1.5 years to get all codexes out. Plus sisters later as a bonus.
tneva82 wrote: Year? More like years. With all factions having already codex there's less of a rush like in 8th ed where it took 1.5 years to get all codexes out. Plus sisters later as a bonus.
GW gets a lot of money pushing out books so I wouldn't be that surprised if they kept the same release cadence as before.
They really love the eternal turnover of books. My storage space is currently filled with older codexes and tomes that have been replaced at some point.
The damage output from 40k weapons is too severe for how it is now, but it’s how they’ve differentiated weapons it seems.
By upping wound count (carefully) they can drop the lethality a bit and help balance it all out.
It seems they ported AoS over to start 40k but didn’t take into account that shooting in 40k was far more deadly due to the sheer volume in comparison.
If they can raise the wounds without skewing it even worse it should go a long way to helping the game.
Esmer wrote: Here's hoping they'll at least give the Grey Knights 2W, since there are apparently no plans to primarise them for now.
There's rumors all Firstborn Space Marine models will start at 2W (no image to back this up though), while I think basic Primaris will stay at 2W as well.
These drastic changes is probably partly why BA, SW, DA, DW are being compiled into Codex SM, as they can be updated altogether.
If the +1W is added to all models with Terminator Armour, this will definitely help keep GK relatively on par with Chapters with Primaris access (read: every SM chapter except for GKs). Only a total of 3 GKHQs / Characters DON'T have Terminator Amour so we might see:
tneva82 wrote: Year? More like years. With all factions having already codex there's less of a rush like in 8th ed where it took 1.5 years to get all codexes out. Plus sisters later as a bonus.
GW gets a lot of money pushing out books so I wouldn't be that surprised if they kept the same release cadence as before.
They really love the eternal turnover of books. My storage space is currently filled with older codexes and tomes that have been replaced at some point.
We'll see. I think they will want to release some models rather than just books so will slow down a bit to bring in models rather than just book-book-book like in 8th ed. After all models are their prime source of income and most of model sales come first 3 months. Without new models not much income.
They kind of have to. Otherwise they will loose a LOT- ruleswise they will be "just" primaris marines and the fluff will be kicked in the balls. Finest creation? Hand-crafted by the Emperor and now equal to primaris marines mass-crafted by Cawl?
They kind of have to. Otherwise they will loose a LOT- ruleswise they will be "just" primaris marines and the fluff will be kicked in the balls. Finest creation? Hand-crafted by the Emperor and now equal to primaris marines mass-crafted by Cawl?
Also not marines. GW's fanboys. If you aren't loyalist marine you are NPC faction.
I can totally see wounds going up across the board, considering the changes made to wound allocation rules in 9th (will keep wound bookkeeping to a minimum as one always has to target models which have lost wounds first).
Wouldn't be surprised to see ork boyz going up to 2W either. Tau, guard and eldar, maybe not so much..
They kind of have to. Otherwise they will loose a LOT- ruleswise they will be "just" primaris marines and the fluff will be kicked in the balls. Finest creation? Hand-crafted by the Emperor and now equal to primaris marines mass-crafted by Cawl?
Not necessarily, as they are actually quite competitive right now with their Psychic Awakening buffs. They currently still have the general edge with: WS/BS 2+, S5, T5, 2+/4++.
Most of 8Ed Terminators weren't at a competitive level unless they were special snowflake variants such as DG Terminators (T5, 5+++), or GK Paladins (3W, 3A, -1 to wound, 4++). Who really knows at this point, Custodes could get the +1W also though.
Spoletta wrote: According to the latest spoilers, terminators are going to 3 wounds.
The Necron Triarch thing is going from 8 to 10.
Melta is getting its damage increased.
The new primaris veterans are 3 wounds.
The new attak bike has 8 wounds.
I'm starting to see a scheme in this. Looks like that GW is importing another block from AoS, which is the wound system.
In AoS, 2 wounds on infantry is almost baseline, elite units have 3+ wounds and only chaff infantry has 1 wound.
Would make sense as a move to lower the lethality across the board, and fix a bit of the issues that are created by the LoS rule not working for 9W- models.
At this point, I expect Dnaughts and Fexes to go from 8 to 10W, like the Necron walker did.
The advantage of this approach is to make high RoF weapons less effective against big targets, while keeping the efficency against chaff.
Where I'm worried, is that AoS can use this approach because the damage spills over, which doesn't happen in 40K.
Great, fantastic, now if only they could do this change all at once, for all factions, instead of making players YET AGAIN feel like space marines get to play an entirely different game than what they are playing.
But who am I kidding: three factions still have no CT's on their goddamn vehicles, non-marines still have no 'no soup' benefit, and even minor rewordings of gak like Relic strats and reroll auras has yet to be carried through to other factions. Word Bearers is STILL a fething chapter tactic, FOUR CSM RULES UPDATES LATER.
Marines will have better guns, and more wounds, and everyone else will just have to either suck it up or let marine players play another 6months of hot spicy marine vs marine action.
tneva82 wrote: Year? More like years. With all factions having already codex there's less of a rush like in 8th ed where it took 1.5 years to get all codexes out. Plus sisters later as a bonus.
GW gets a lot of money pushing out books so I wouldn't be that surprised if they kept the same release cadence as before.
They really love the eternal turnover of books. My storage space is currently filled with older codexes and tomes that have been replaced at some point.
We'll see. I think they will want to release some models rather than just books so will slow down a bit to bring in models rather than just book-book-book like in 8th ed. After all models are their prime source of income and most of model sales come first 3 months. Without new models not much income.
And start is already slower than 8th ed.
The slowness could be attributed to the world pandemic though.
Don't mind the principle - stuff having more wounds might actually be a good thing, although its somewhat undermined in turn by guns/weapons seemingly doing more damage.
Moving to a chaff/regular/heavy infantry setting over "infantry have 1 wound except for Primaris and multiple wound little-monsters" makes some sense. Vehicles/monsters getting more wounds would have also made more sense than "you get a 5++, you get a 6+++, you get a -1 to hit, you get a combination of all three on almost every new datasheet because otherwise everything just melts."
But this feels like a fairly major edition change - more so arguably that many of the changes advertised in 9th - that should have been in the index. Not "yeah, you get a tougher stat line and much better guns to compensate, while other factions linger in the old rules".
I guess wait and see. If terminators are buffed, but also say go up 50% points wise, its potentially not that much of a change gameplay wise.
As someone who really likes his guard infantry I'm really against this. It makes 40k even more of a heavy infantry game and means that there are even more cases where lasguns (and lots of other basic infantry weapons) might as well not exist.
Dolnikan wrote: As someone who really likes his guard infantry I'm really against this. It makes 40k even more of a heavy infantry game and means that there are even more cases where lasguns (and lots of other basic infantry weapons) might as well not exist.
Well GW already made it clear 9th ed isn't edition for light infantry.
Dolnikan wrote: As someone who really likes his guard infantry I'm really against this. It makes 40k even more of a heavy infantry game and means that there are even more cases where lasguns (and lots of other basic infantry weapons) might as well not exist.
Well GW already made it clear 9th ed isn't edition for light infantry.
There's ways around that that don't require extra stats. Guard orders for example. You could easily make all guard fire 3x if stationary, increasing their output and thus balancing their damage against increased wounds.
There are things you can do beyond just the wounds to keep the light infantry aspect. It just depends on whether gw wants to do them...
Dolnikan wrote: As someone who really likes his guard infantry I'm really against this. It makes 40k even more of a heavy infantry game and means that there are even more cases where lasguns (and lots of other basic infantry weapons) might as well not exist.
Well GW already made it clear 9th ed isn't edition for light infantry.
There's ways around that that don't require extra stats. Guard orders for example. You could easily make all guard fire 3x if stationary, increasing their output and thus balancing their damage against increased wounds.
There are things you can do beyond just the wounds to keep the light infantry aspect. It just depends on whether gw wants to do them...
Yes,but orders make things even more reliant on officers, and that already is a problem with the current rules where the officer/guardsman ratio is quite off.
But I guess that it's all part of the greater problem of moving the game more and more towards a superhero setting where even space marines have become chaff
I definitely sympathize re: officer/guardsman ratio, but I want to point out also that Guardsmen under FRFSRF shoot W2 Marines with the same efficiency as Guardsmen in 3rd/4th Ed shooting W1 Marines.
They also still get an armor save against bolters, so are also tougher against return fire than they used to be.
Point being that Guardsmen have really always been at the upper edge of the chaff infantry category; Orders are the Swiss army knife that gives them flexibility and allows them to function as credible combatants.
Personally I'd like to see both Platoon Commanders and Company Commanders issue 2 orders apiece, but give the CCs a wider radius, maybe 12" instead of 6"- that would let you take cheaper junior officers to stick with the squads, while the senior officers can provide targeted assistance from a greater distance. Right now there's not much reason to take PCs at all.
I had long suspected ever since Primaris were giving 2W that this would eventually become the case - chaff left at 1W, elites at 2W, durable elites at 3W, etc.
I personally hope it doesn't go this way, Toughness used to be the way to distinguish more durable units, but between there being little difference between T4 & T5 and the buckets of dice lobbed around for attacks (and proliferation of D2 weapons), I think GW shot themselves in the foot in this aspect.
Before too long, Primaris will go to 3W base, I suspect.
Stormonu wrote: I had long suspected ever since Primaris were giving 2W that this would eventually become the case - chaff left at 1W, elites at 2W, durable elites at 3W, etc.
I personally hope it doesn't go this way, Toughness used to be the way to distinguish more durable units, but between there being little difference between T4 & T5 and the buckets of dice lobbed around for attacks (and proliferation of D2 weapons), I think GW shot themselves in the foot in this aspect.
Before too long, Primaris will go to 3W base, I suspect.
I'm perfectly OK with my opponent having 5 marines to my 10 genestealer cultists. Heck, even 5 to 15 maybe, if I make 'em real cheap and cheerful.
What I'd like tho is for those 10 cultists to have a fighting chance in either a shooting match, or a melee match, with those marines, if they cost the same points.Currently the cultists just get mowed down instantly, and the kits cost the same amount of money.
Spoletta wrote: According to the latest spoilers, terminators are going to 3 wounds.
The Necron Triarch thing is going from 8 to 10.
Melta is getting its damage increased.
The new primaris veterans are 3 wounds.
The new attak bike has 8 wounds.
I'm starting to see a scheme in this. Looks like that GW is importing another block from AoS, which is the wound system.
In AoS, 2 wounds on infantry is almost baseline, elite units have 3+ wounds and only chaff infantry has 1 wound.
Would make sense as a move to lower the lethality across the board, and fix a bit of the issues that are created by the LoS rule not working for 9W- models.
At this point, I expect Dnaughts and Fexes to go from 8 to 10W, like the Necron walker did.
The advantage of this approach is to make high RoF weapons less effective against big targets, while keeping the efficency against chaff.
Where I'm worried, is that AoS can use this approach because the damage spills over, which doesn't happen in 40K.
Hmm...with the new LOS change to 10 wounds and the 2W marine rumor...it makes a fair bit of sense. But then things like cultists are dog shiiiiiiiii unless they get some useful rules.
Stormonu wrote: I had long suspected ever since Primaris were giving 2W that this would eventually become the case - chaff left at 1W, elites at 2W, durable elites at 3W, etc.
I personally hope it doesn't go this way, Toughness used to be the way to distinguish more durable units, but between there being little difference between T4 & T5 and the buckets of dice lobbed around for attacks (and proliferation of D2 weapons), I think GW shot themselves in the foot in this aspect.
Before too long, Primaris will go to 3W base, I suspect.
I'm perfectly OK with my opponent having 5 marines to my 10 genestealer cultists. Heck, even 5 to 15 maybe, if I make 'em real cheap and cheerful.
What I'd like tho is for those 10 cultists to have a fighting chance in either a shooting match, or a melee match, with those marines, if they cost the same points.Currently the cultists just get mowed down instantly, and the kits cost the same amount of money.
There's plenty of rules issues with Cults since 8th started, but the problem that did remain constant with them since they were brought back in 7th is price.
Stormonu wrote: I had long suspected ever since Primaris were giving 2W that this would eventually become the case - chaff left at 1W, elites at 2W, durable elites at 3W, etc.
I personally hope it doesn't go this way, Toughness used to be the way to distinguish more durable units, but between there being little difference between T4 & T5 and the buckets of dice lobbed around for attacks (and proliferation of D2 weapons), I think GW shot themselves in the foot in this aspect.
Before too long, Primaris will go to 3W base, I suspect.
I'm perfectly OK with my opponent having 5 marines to my 10 genestealer cultists. Heck, even 5 to 15 maybe, if I make 'em real cheap and cheerful.
What I'd like tho is for those 10 cultists to have a fighting chance in either a shooting match, or a melee match, with those marines, if they cost the same points.Currently the cultists just get mowed down instantly, and the kits cost the same amount of money.
There's plenty of rules issues with Cults since 8th started, but the problem that did remain constant with them since they were brought back in 7th is price.
Yeah, its the only thing keeping me from actually wanting a refresh to the Ork boyz/Gants/Guardsmen/Cultist kits. If they did rerelease them, it would effectively kill new players getting into those armies because 45$/10 cultists and 40$/5 acolytes certainly makes GSC a nigh impossible prospect for a new player to get into.
You can get 2000pts of Custodes for the price you pay for about 500pts of GSC.
Yes, GW... Lets massively increase the durability of marines. I think they weren't performing well enough.
*heavy sigh*
It's the implication for the rest of the game that matters. Its not like you saw terminators and mini-marines very often.
The thing I'm struggling with is if there is so much W2 in the game people will definitely scramble for D2 weapons. Where does that leave stuff like the Assault Cannon? We know the OGC is going up two shots.
October can't come soon enough to sort this out and reveal if points will be in line with these changes.
Don't mind the principle - stuff having more wounds might actually be a good thing, although its somewhat undermined in turn by guns/weapons seemingly doing more damage.
I wouldn't worry about wounds going up for this exact reason. GW will often make a correction that makes sense, but then see that it changes something else, and then go and "correct" whatever that something else is. Often forgetting why the initial change was made in the first place, and causing the second change to totally cancel out the initial change. So I can see the conversation going like this:
Designer in far corner of the GW rules dungeon:
"Hey! What if we imported the wounds block over from AoS and gave most infantry 2 wounds base and increased wounds generally across the board? That would probably help with the lethality problem we have."
Everyone in that same corner:
"Hey! Great idea!"
Completely different designer in a completely different, not connected part of the rules dungeon:
"Huh ... with all these wounds going up we should probably increase damage to maintain the lethality!"
If they were going to do this, the logical place to do it would have been at the beginning of the edition, which they didn't do.
It would make absolutely no sense to do this codex by codex, piecemeal. It was bad enough when certain factions had to wait months or years to get rules like bolter discipline everyone knew they were getting based on prior releases. But to have to wait months or years to get basic stat upgrades like +1W on all their models would be truly ridiculous.
Of course, this is Gee-dubs, so you can't count something out just because it would make no sense.
In theory, I don't really have a problem with this, but if they're going to engage in a paradigm shift of increasing wounds, that's really something I'd have preferred to see done all at once, Index style, rather than dripped and drabbed in over the course of an edition where nothing is ever going to be all on the same page or properly align until everyone's had a release and we're on to the next edition. If this really is the intention, then coupled with the awkward points "rebalancing", my enthusiasm for this edition is going to slacken substantially. There also better be points/PL increases involved for many units.
Stormonu wrote: I had long suspected ever since Primaris were giving 2W that this would eventually become the case - chaff left at 1W, elites at 2W, durable elites at 3W, etc.
I personally hope it doesn't go this way, Toughness used to be the way to distinguish more durable units, but between there being little difference between T4 & T5 and the buckets of dice lobbed around for attacks (and proliferation of D2 weapons), I think GW shot themselves in the foot in this aspect.
Before too long, Primaris will go to 3W base, I suspect.
[edit]
Nevermind that, forgot about the extra melee attack.
Stat inflation is rarely good for a game long-term. It just leads to more stat inflation. See multi-meltas going from 1d6 reroll one to 1d6+2, for example. Or even see this +1W thing itself, clearly prompted by stat inflation in offensive weapons.
Daedalus81 wrote:It's the implication for the rest of the game that matters. Its not like you saw terminators and mini-marines very often.
The thing I'm struggling with is if there is so much W2 in the game people will definitely scramble for D2 weapons. Where does that leave stuff like the Assault Cannon? We know the OGC is going up two shots.
I think you might be underestimating how much Primaris have already done that- the overwhelming majority of armies collected by 40K players are Marines, and at this point the strong majority of those are Primaris. Going by the demographics at the shops I've visited, I'd say at least 50% of armies I see on the tables are Primaris. That prevalence means that D2 weapons have been highly popular for basically the entirety of 8th. There's also the fact that D2 is solidly effective against W1 models with FNPs, so things like Death Guard demand D2 weapons as well.
I'm already packing plasma guns out the wazoo because they hit the S8 breakpoint and are D2, it's not like Tacticals and Terminators getting an extra wound is changing my weapon preference.
yukishiro1 wrote: Stat inflation is rarely good for a game long-term. It just leads to more stat inflation. See multi-meltas going from 1d6 reroll one to 1d6+2, for example. Or even see this +1W thing itself, clearly prompted by stat inflation in offensive weapons.
It creates a vicious spiral.
It is bad if it is a generalized inflation.
If you leave at the actual profile some classes of weapons, you solve problems like taking down tanks with showers of bolter fire.
Also, higher stats usually bring also more design space.
Look at the new melta. It is finally getting a place next to the lascannon. One is long range one has more damage.
Meltas would have had a place if they had just been made to do minimum 3 damage at close range, or D3+3; there was no need to inflate their maximum damage potential as well.
Taking down tanks with tons of small-arms fire isn't a problem in the first place though. I've never understood that complaint. If someone is reduced to trying to plink down your tanks with lasguns you are winning.
I think there are two things generally worth pointing out.
1. Giving medium and heavy infantry two wounds allows for greater distinction between chaff-clearing weapons and elite-killing weapons. There's been a significant design problem in 8th with AP modifiers causing a 'flattening' of profiles, where guns that are good against chaff are often still good against Marines, and vice-versa.
Standardizing on W2 means clearer distinction between horde-mulching D1 weapons, heavy-infantry-killing D2 weapons, and anti-tank D3+ weapons. It directly addresses the problem of medium/heavy infantry dying too quickly to massed rifle fire, without simultaneously rendering them overly resilient to weapons that should drop them.
2. Because multi-damage is now a core part of the game, this would probably have felt more natural had it been introduced with 8th- increasing the number of wounds most everything has, while simultaneously increasing the damage most everything outputs.
Having most infantry be W1 made perfect sense in a game where a successful wound did just one damage regardless of the weapon, with the Instant Death mechanic providing the capability for multi-wound heavy infantry to still die instantly to anti-tank guns. With multi-damage now being the norm for anything bigger than a rifle, it makes sense for multi-wound to be the norm as well.
However, I suspect we're going to see a teething period with weapons, since the jump from D1 to D2 is significant (more significant, I would argue, than the jump from W1 to W2). One example is that with the recent speculation that Heavy Bolters are becoming D2, it would make HBs more effective than Autocannons against everything except T6.
catbarf wrote: I think there are two things generally worth pointing out.
1. Giving medium and heavy infantry two wounds allows for greater distinction between chaff-clearing weapons and elite-killing weapons. There's been a significant design problem in 8th with AP modifiers causing a 'flattening' of profiles, where guns that are good against chaff are often still good against Marines, and vice-versa.
Standardizing on W2 means clearer distinction between horde-mulching D1 weapons, heavy-infantry-killing D2 weapons, and anti-tank D3+ weapons. It directly addresses the problem of medium/heavy infantry dying too quickly to massed rifle fire, without simultaneously rendering them overly resilient to weapons that should drop them.
2. Because multi-damage is now a core part of the game, this would probably have felt more natural had it been introduced with 8th- increasing the number of wounds most everything has, while simultaneously increasing the damage most everything outputs.
Having most infantry be W1 made perfect sense in a game where a successful wound did just one damage regardless of the weapon, with the Instant Death mechanic providing the capability for multi-wound heavy infantry to still die instantly to anti-tank guns. With multi-damage now being the norm for anything bigger than a rifle, it makes sense for multi-wound to be the norm as well.
However, I suspect we're going to see a teething period with weapons, since the jump from D1 to D2 is significant (more significant, I would argue, than the jump from W1 to W2). One example is that with the recent speculation that Heavy Bolters are becoming D2, it would make HBs more effective than Autocannons against everything except T6.
...and identical against T6.
MEQ being W2 isn't an inherent problem, it only becomes a problem when MEQ are already able to wipe the floor with equivalent points of light infantry. It begs the question "then what are the weapons carried by light infantry for? if they're only for fighting other light infantry, then what is the point of having them at all?" Many MEQ units and vehicles have weapons that effortlessly shovel light infantry off the table at this point, twin assault cannons, storm bolters, bolt rifles, aggressor gauntlets, punisher cannons, wyverns, etc. They're the single worst thing you could try and hold an objective with now. They're the worst at holding cover, the worst at holding objectives, and the worst at fighting already...and now we need to buff Elites by just stright up doubling their wounds so you go from "MEQ beats GEQ in a straight firefight" to "GEQ stands absolutely zero chance whatsoever in a fight, no point in even trying."
If they increase the wounds of models across the board similar to how AoS has it, then I want wounds to carry over. It's absurd that I'd shoot a Multimelta at a unit and do 12 wounds, but only kill one model because they only have one wound.
Tamwulf wrote: If they increase the wounds of models across the board similar to how AoS has it, then I want wounds to carry over. It's absurd that I'd shoot a Multimelta at a unit and do 12 wounds, but only kill one model because they only have one wound.
This is a great idea, it'll really fix the problems with the game right now if I could extremely reliably remove a guard infantry squad with a single shot from a multimelta within 12".
I don't really see the problem with guns that are good at killing chaff also being decent at killing more elite infantry, and vice versa. A S3 AP 0 lasgun is three times as likely to kill a T3 5+ target than a T4 3+ target. Is it really a problem that space marines are only three times as resilient to lasguns as guardsmen? That isn't enough of a power premium for elite infantry?
The problem is that we have too much inflation in gun stats, not too little. If the vast majority of fire out there was S3 or S4 with AP 0 or at best AP 1, this wouldn't be an issue. The problem GW has created is that by inflating S and AP values so high on even normal guns, it has created a compression at the top of the wound and save charts that results in elite infantry not having elite defenses, because nobody has any defenses at all.
The solution to that problem is to reduce the lethality of guns, not increase them even further and then compensate by taking on wounds. When your game is too lethal, just lower the damage. Bumping up Ws just results in even more dice being rolled for even less result.
You can't inflate your way out of a lethal game.
Of course, they just blew their best chance to do this with a version reset, so it's a safe bet that GW thinks that inflation is the way to go, despite it making no sense from a game design perspective.
Nah, it's not quite that bad- 2 shots wounding on 3s beats 3 shots wounding on 5s, by 33%.
They'd be equal against T7. Against T8/T9 or T5 or less, the HB wins.
the_scotsman wrote: MEQ being W2 isn't an inherent problem, it only becomes a problem when MEQ are already able to wipe the floor with equivalent points of light infantry. It begs the question "then what are the weapons carried by light infantry for? if they're only for fighting other light infantry, then what is the point of having them at all?" Many MEQ units and vehicles have weapons that effortlessly shovel light infantry off the table at this point, twin assault cannons, storm bolters, bolt rifles, aggressor gauntlets, punisher cannons, wyverns, etc. They're the single worst thing you could try and hold an objective with now. They're the worst at holding cover, the worst at holding objectives, and the worst at fighting already...and now we need to buff Elites by just stright up doubling their wounds so you go from "MEQ beats GEQ in a straight firefight" to "GEQ stands absolutely zero chance whatsoever in a fight, no point in even trying."
That's fair. I do think a large part of that is Marines being overly performant to begin with; Marines should have the edge versus GEQ in exchange for greater vulnerability to heavier weapons, but current Marine performance turns that into a total blowout.
I would slightly counter with asking what did GEQ do in 3rd/4th? Back then they got no saves against MEQ, and didn't have force-multipliers like Orders. I would suggest that, as much as I'd like to see GEQ hold their own, historically their role has been more about board control, objective control, speed-bumping, and just taking up space rather than direct combat.
I think it should go without saying that any unit getting bumped up to W2 needs a commensurate points increase, which both softens the improvement against GEQ and makes them more vulnerable to existing D2 weapons. It further helps to solidify appropriate weapons and counters; massed rifle fire won't wipe out MEQs anymore, but they'll have more reason to be scared of heavy weapons.
Or put another way, I don't feel too bad about 10 Guardsmen with a Plasma Gun and D2 Heavy Bolter (65pts in 9th) going up against four W2 Tacticals (60pts in 9th). The lasguns aren't going to be doing the heavy lifting anymore, but the plasma and HB are going to do serious work- which, IMO, feels more thematically appropriate.
yukishiro1 wrote: Meltas would have had a place if they had just been made to do minimum 3 damage at close range, or D3+3; there was no need to inflate their maximum damage potential as well.
Taking down tanks with tons of small-arms fire isn't a problem in the first place though. I've never understood that complaint. If someone is reduced to trying to plink down your tanks with lasguns you are winning.
However, I suspect we're going to see a teething period with weapons, since the jump from D1 to D2 is significant (more significant, I would argue, than the jump from W1 to W2). One example is that with the recent speculation that Heavy Bolters are becoming D2, it would make HBs more effective than Autocannons against everything except T6.
Maybe HBs will go to one shot like the leak suggested, but be RF?
yukishiro1 wrote: A S3 AP 0 lasgun is three times as likely to kill a T3 5+ target than a T4 3+ target. Is it really a problem that space marines are only three times as resilient to lasguns as guardsmen?
When the Marine costs three times more than the Guardsman (15pts vs 5pts in 9th), but is only three times harder to kill with lasguns, but is only 1.66x harder to kill with heavy bolters/autocannons, and less than 3x the firepower, yeah, I'd say that's a problem. It makes them feel more vulnerable than Guardsmen, rather than less, and they don't have the firepower to make up for it.
Marines becoming more resilient against small arms, without increasing their durability against heavy weapons, is thematically fitting. It also gives them some intrinsic value that doesn't require constant firepower amplification (eg Doctrines) to make them worth their cost.
However, I suspect we're going to see a teething period with weapons, since the jump from D1 to D2 is significant (more significant, I would argue, than the jump from W1 to W2). One example is that with the recent speculation that Heavy Bolters are becoming D2, it would make HBs more effective than Autocannons against everything except T6.
Maybe HBs will go to one shot like the leak suggested, but be RF?
See, then that creates the opposite problem; HBs would be strictly worse than Autocannons in most cases, although they would be able to move and fire, which feels very weird for infantry.
One way to balance D2 HBs and Autocannons might be to remove the AP from the Heavy Bolter, making it Heavy 3 S5 AP0, versus the Autocannon being Heavy 2 S7 AP-1. This would give each a little more of a distinct role, while still being equally effective against MEQs.
yukishiro1 wrote: A S3 AP 0 lasgun is three times as likely to kill a T3 5+ target than a T4 3+ target. Is it really a problem that space marines are only three times as resilient to lasguns as guardsmen?
When the Marine costs three times more than the Guardsman (15pts vs 5pts in 9th), but is only three times harder to kill with lasguns, but is only 1.66x harder to kill with heavy bolters/autocannons, and less than 3x the firepower, yeah, I'd say that's a problem. It makes them feel more vulnerable than Guardsmen, rather than less, and they don't have the firepower to make up for it.
Marines becoming more resilient against small arms, without increasing their durability against heavy weapons, is thematically fitting. It also gives them some intrinsic value that doesn't require constant firepower amplification (eg Doctrines) to make them worth their cost.
The problem I have with this is that there's no real way to be more resilient against Small Arms without increasing their durability against Heavy Weapons at the same time. GW's rules aren't structured for that. The move to W2 does it fine, but W2 to 3 suddenly makes you much more resilient against:
1) Plasma of all shapes and sizes 2) Autocannons 3) d6 damage weapons (Lascannons, demolisher cannons, Fire Prism lance-mode) 33% of the time 4) d3 damage weapons (battlecannons, harvester cannons, <cannons>, fire prism focused-mode) 66% of the time.
that's the vast majority of heavy weapons in the game that are significantly affected by the move from 2 wounds to 3. I was going to list every single weapon I could think of but ran out of steam after how many I realized there were and then just plopped down categories. But the point is basically everything is affected, not just small arms.
If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.
Nah, it's not quite that bad- 2 shots wounding on 3s beats 3 shots wounding on 5s, by 33%.
They'd be equal against T7. Against T8/T9 or T5 or less, the HB wins.
the_scotsman wrote: MEQ being W2 isn't an inherent problem, it only becomes a problem when MEQ are already able to wipe the floor with equivalent points of light infantry. It begs the question "then what are the weapons carried by light infantry for? if they're only for fighting other light infantry, then what is the point of having them at all?" Many MEQ units and vehicles have weapons that effortlessly shovel light infantry off the table at this point, twin assault cannons, storm bolters, bolt rifles, aggressor gauntlets, punisher cannons, wyverns, etc. They're the single worst thing you could try and hold an objective with now. They're the worst at holding cover, the worst at holding objectives, and the worst at fighting already...and now we need to buff Elites by just stright up doubling their wounds so you go from "MEQ beats GEQ in a straight firefight" to "GEQ stands absolutely zero chance whatsoever in a fight, no point in even trying."
That's fair. I do think a large part of that is Marines being overly performant to begin with; Marines should have the edge versus GEQ in exchange for greater vulnerability to heavier weapons, but current Marine performance turns that into a total blowout.
I would slightly counter with asking what did GEQ do in 3rd/4th? Back then they got no saves against MEQ, and didn't have force-multipliers like Orders. I would suggest that, as much as I'd like to see GEQ hold their own, historically their role has been more about board control, objective control, speed-bumping, and just taking up space rather than direct combat.
I think it should go without saying that any unit getting bumped up to W2 needs a commensurate points increase, which both softens the improvement against GEQ and makes them more vulnerable to existing D2 weapons. It further helps to solidify appropriate weapons and counters; massed rifle fire won't wipe out MEQs anymore, but they'll have more reason to be scared of heavy weapons.
Or put another way, I don't feel too bad about 10 Guardsmen with a Plasma Gun and D2 Heavy Bolter (65pts in 9th) going up against four W2 Tacticals (60pts in 9th). The lasguns aren't going to be doing the heavy lifting anymore, but the plasma and HB are going to do serious work- which, IMO, feels more thematically appropriate.
They didn't do much of anything, to my memory. Admittedly you said 3rd/4th and I only played through 5th/6th, but basically throughout those editions light infantry was totally defined by either
A) whatever special weapons they could take, which they would then fire out their transport's hatch and ignore their small arms entirely (or in the case of a sergeant's melee weapon, it would be basically the only attack that mattered and you'd use it vs the rear armor of a vehicle to fish for insta-kills)
B) You'd have some way to avoid bringing them altogether by taking say a biker HQ, and that would instantly become the competitive build for the faction.
The only edition I've ever played where autoguns, shootas, choppas, bolters, lasguns, etc felt like anything but a liability that you'd try every way you possibly could to minimize was 8th. Largely because of the wound chart, universal split fire, and the fact that you occasionally got to have 5+ and 6+ armor saves unlike in prior editions where those were just categorically ignored by nearly every weapon in the game.
To me, the biggest loss of 9th ed is the game going back to "mechanized is default" because I really do enjoy having models that I painted on the table when I play a miniature wargame.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem I have with this is that there's no real way to be more resilient against Small Arms without increasing their durability against Heavy Weapons at the same time. GW's rules aren't structured for that. The move to W2 does it fine, but W2 to 3 suddenly makes you much more resilient against:
1) Plasma of all shapes and sizes
2) Autocannons
3) d6 damage weapons (Lascannons, demolisher cannons, Fire Prism lance-mode) 33% of the time
4) d3 damage weapons (battlecannons, harvester cannons, <cannons>, fire prism focused-mode) 66% of the time.
that's the vast majority of heavy weapons in the game that are significantly affected by the move from 2 wounds to 3
That's fair. I was focusing specifically on models going from W1 to W2, but you're right, W2 to W3 is a significant shift that devalues D2 weapons.
I would slightly quibble in that random-damage weapons are actually affected less than fixed-D2 ones, since they're less likely to waste damage. It consistently takes 2 unsaved wounds from a D2 weapon to kill a W3 model, while DD3 weapons have a 11% chance to require 3 unsaved wounds, 55% chance to require 2, and 33% chance to do it in 1. DD6 weapons go from a 67% chance to kill to a 50% chance to kill, which is still 75% effectiveness. It's really D2 weapons that get shafted by immediately halving their effectiveness.
yukishiro1 wrote: A S3 AP 0 lasgun is three times as likely to kill a T3 5+ target than a T4 3+ target. Is it really a problem that space marines are only three times as resilient to lasguns as guardsmen?
When the Marine costs three times more than the Guardsman (15pts vs 5pts in 9th), but is only three times harder to kill with lasguns, but is only 1.66x harder to kill with heavy bolters/autocannons, and less than 3x the firepower, yeah, I'd say that's a problem. It makes them feel more vulnerable than Guardsmen, rather than less, and they don't have the firepower to make up for it.
Marines becoming more resilient against small arms, without increasing their durability against heavy weapons, is thematically fitting. It also gives them some intrinsic value that doesn't require constant firepower amplification (eg Doctrines) to make them worth their cost.
But that's a problem with pointing. Which again is solved not by inflation but by deflation.
GW looked at space marines and said "being three times as tough as guardsmen isn't enough! we'll solve the 'problem' by giving them more S, more AP, more shots!"
This is textbook game inflation, and it leads to textbook results. It's all played out exactly, precisely how you would expect: we are left with a game where everything now dies immediately to everything. Space Marines aren't more resilient, nothing is resilient at all.
They don't need to inflate wounds, they just need to stop the pointless compression towards the stop of the stat charts, particularly for S, AP, and shot volumes. S3 AP 0 has become a joke profile, just like T3 5+ is a joke profile, when they should both be average instead. Space marines being "only" 3x as resilient as guardsmen to small arms fire is not a problem that needs fixing.
Spoletta wrote: If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.
Has this been rumored somewhere? I'd actually kind of be of two minds about shock assault being gone. bolter discipline is and always has been cancer of the highest order, encouraging just the absolute worst gameplay pattern that exists in 40k. But shock assault actually made marine melee elements worth using for the first time in ever. I would love to see bolter discipline totally gone and doctrines heavily restructured into something less oppressive in exchange for improved weapon and unit profiles across the board, but I'm not seeing any rumors to the effect that there's going to be any kind of trade-off for any of this.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem I have with this is that there's no real way to be more resilient against Small Arms without increasing their durability against Heavy Weapons at the same time. GW's rules aren't structured for that. The move to W2 does it fine, but W2 to 3 suddenly makes you much more resilient against:
1) Plasma of all shapes and sizes
2) Autocannons
3) d6 damage weapons (Lascannons, demolisher cannons, Fire Prism lance-mode) 33% of the time
4) d3 damage weapons (battlecannons, harvester cannons, <cannons>, fire prism focused-mode) 66% of the time.
that's the vast majority of heavy weapons in the game that are significantly affected by the move from 2 wounds to 3
That's fair. I was focusing specifically on models going from W1 to W2, but you're right, W2 to W3 is a significant shift that devalues D2 weapons.
I would slightly quibble in that random-damage weapons are actually affected less than fixed-D2 ones, since they're less likely to waste damage. It consistently takes 2 unsaved wounds from a D2 weapon to kill a W3 model, while DD3 weapons have a 11% chance to require 3 unsaved wounds, 55% chance to require 2, and 33% chance to do it in 1. DD6 weapons go from a 67% chance to kill to a 50% chance to kill, which is still 75% effectiveness. It's really D2 weapons that get shafted by immediately halving their effectiveness.
Right, but all of that is nontrivial. I agree that fixed D2 are worse than Dd3 and Dd6 against 3 wound models, but I'd still rate a 17% drop in effectiveness (the lowest drop, being the d6 weapon) as a significant drop. If my intel from HQ is that my TOW missiles are now 17% less effective at killing enemy infantry, I'd flip. LOL
if someone wants to run movie marines, let them pay an appropriate cost. something tells me that this current trend to inflate wounds is an attempt to get around that.
Spoletta wrote: If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.
Has this been rumored somewhere? I'd actually kind of be of two minds about shock assault being gone. bolter discipline is and always has been cancer of the highest order, encouraging just the absolute worst gameplay pattern that exists in 40k. But shock assault actually made marine melee elements worth using for the first time in ever. I would love to see bolter discipline totally gone and doctrines heavily restructured into something less oppressive in exchange for improved weapon and unit profiles across the board, but I'm not seeing any rumors to the effect that there's going to be any kind of trade-off for any of this.
Personally I don't think BD is a bad rule, but the layering of other things on top of it gets a bit crazy. Bolter Discipline doesn't seem like an issue in the hands of CSM, for example. It's markedly better in the hands of Tacticals in Tac Doctrine for a -1, but it's still 24". Intercessors 30" at -2. Sternguard at 30" -3.
Spoletta wrote: If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.
Has this been rumored somewhere? I'd actually kind of be of two minds about shock assault being gone. bolter discipline is and always has been cancer of the highest order, encouraging just the absolute worst gameplay pattern that exists in 40k. But shock assault actually made marine melee elements worth using for the first time in ever. I would love to see bolter discipline totally gone and doctrines heavily restructured into something less oppressive in exchange for improved weapon and unit profiles across the board, but I'm not seeing any rumors to the effect that there's going to be any kind of trade-off for any of this.
Personally I don't think BD is a bad rule, but the layering of other things on top of it gets a bit crazy. Bolter Discipline doesn't seem like an issue in the hands of CSM, for example. It's markedly better in the hands of Tacticals in Tac Doctrine for a -1, but it's still 24". Intercessors 30" at -2. Sternguard at 30" -3.
If tau had that rule itd be decried as the most unfun toxic fluff breaking anticompetitive unfair reward for the worst possible playstyle and more proof that tau should be squatted and all tau players out to the sword.
Spoletta wrote: If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.
Has this been rumored somewhere? I'd actually kind of be of two minds about shock assault being gone. bolter discipline is and always has been cancer of the highest order, encouraging just the absolute worst gameplay pattern that exists in 40k. But shock assault actually made marine melee elements worth using for the first time in ever. I would love to see bolter discipline totally gone and doctrines heavily restructured into something less oppressive in exchange for improved weapon and unit profiles across the board, but I'm not seeing any rumors to the effect that there's going to be any kind of trade-off for any of this.
Personally I don't think BD is a bad rule, but the layering of other things on top of it gets a bit crazy. Bolter Discipline doesn't seem like an issue in the hands of CSM, for example. It's markedly better in the hands of Tacticals in Tac Doctrine for a -1, but it's still 24". Intercessors 30" at -2. Sternguard at 30" -3.
If tau had that rule itd be decried as the most unfun toxic fluff breaking anticompetitive unfair reward for the worst possible playstyle and more proof that tau should be squatted and all tau players out to the sword.
Haha. To be fair I think Fire Warriors would be fine with it, considering Intercessors took a crap on the Pulse Rifle.
Bolter Discipline imo does a good job at pumping the offensive output of the classic marine. It's got some nice legacy behind it with older Rapid Fire incarnations, and it makes up for the big hurt given to marines with the loss of AP5 vs. GEQ targets.
Imo the greater problems lie in Intercessors and super doctrines.
Imo the greater problems lie in Intercessors and super doctrines.
I agree the super Doctrines are a bit too much. They already get Chapter Tactics on top of regular Doctrines. That's just too much bloat.
All these profile changes are great, but I wish they coincided with super docs going away.
But as we know for sure that the new Codex will still allow the existing supplements to be used, super docs aren't going anywhere soon.
Argive wrote: ohh wow.. what could possibly go wrong with this approach.
Nothing for gw., Just sucks for those of us that had faction Space removed , didn't get any attention and have to witness another dozen leutnants drop...
Imo the greater problems lie in Intercessors and super doctrines.
I agree the super Doctrines are a bit too much. They already get Chapter Tactics on top of regular Doctrines. That's just too much bloat.
All these profile changes are great, but I wish they coincided with super docs going away.
But as we know for sure that the new Codex will still allow the existing supplements to be used, super docs aren't going anywhere soon.
-
Hey, they promised Power of the Machine Spirit would do something different in 9th edition. The "something different" turned out to be ceasing to exist.
Spoletta wrote: If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.
Has this been rumored somewhere? I'd actually kind of be of two minds about shock assault being gone. bolter discipline is and always has been cancer of the highest order, encouraging just the absolute worst gameplay pattern that exists in 40k. But shock assault actually made marine melee elements worth using for the first time in ever. I would love to see bolter discipline totally gone and doctrines heavily restructured into something less oppressive in exchange for improved weapon and unit profiles across the board, but I'm not seeing any rumors to the effect that there's going to be any kind of trade-off for any of this.
Personally I don't think BD is a bad rule, but the layering of other things on top of it gets a bit crazy. Bolter Discipline doesn't seem like an issue in the hands of CSM, for example. It's markedly better in the hands of Tacticals in Tac Doctrine for a -1, but it's still 24". Intercessors 30" at -2. Sternguard at 30" -3.
If tau had that rule itd be decried as the most unfun toxic fluff breaking anticompetitive unfair reward for the worst possible playstyle and more proof that tau should be squatted and all tau players out to the sword.
Haha. To be fair I think Fire Warriors would be fine with it, considering Intercessors took a crap on the Pulse Rifle.
Bolter Discipline imo does a good job at pumping the offensive output of the classic marine. It's got some nice legacy behind it with older Rapid Fire incarnations, and it makes up for the big hurt given to marines with the loss of AP5 vs. GEQ targets.
Imo the greater problems lie in Intercessors and super doctrines.
I don't think Bolter Discipline is a bad rule in a vacuum, but I do think it's a bad rule for Marines.
If you told me Tactical Marines and Intercessors- the staple units of a faction known for lightning assault, kick-down-the-door-and-kill-everyone-inside, Navy-SEALS-on-steroids tactics- were weak offensively and needed a buff, I think 'give them an extra shot if they're stationary and at long range' would be way down the list of potential solutions. It just doesn't fit their MO, and turns them into a castle gunline- the comparison to Tau is spot-on, because it's not only closer to what Tau are known for, it's also an aggressively boring playstyle.
I was just talking about this with my IF-playing friend, actually. He was pointing out to me that 9th Ed kind of screws his Firstborn army, since being reliant on bubbles prevents him from spreading out to take objectives, and Bolter Discipline only kicking in when stationary precludes moving while putting out fire. His best tactic is probably to Rhino rush... and then Bolter Discipline isn't relevant at all.
IMO it would have been better to have it be... say... 'Shock Assault: When firing Bolt weapons, this unit gains +1 shot when firing at half range or less'. Now your Marines are getting three shots at close range whether moving or stationary, allowing you to stay mobile and aggressively push on objectives. They wouldn't be units that gun you down at maximum range, they'd be units that burst onto the objective and kill everyone on it- and isn't that closer to their fluff?
I for one am not looking forward to waiting 1+ years for my plastic to receive a similar wound treatment.
tbh Shock Assault in its current format makes the army braindead easy to play, the hardest part is remembering to apply the correct doctrines to your models.
The way I envisage a more interactive style of play, is the "Doctrine" being decided during your opponents command phase and only effecting one unit +1 for each lieutenant. A living chapter master would instead let you go *back* in the doctrine table if required.
It's still pretty Spot on, allbeit the comparison to commando Units seems of , well imo astartes allways reminded me more of shocktroops.
Regardless the half range +1 is a better fitting suggestion, but has so e consequences... I doubt people would Like 60 boltguns wounding 3+ on t4 rerolling 1 '. Etc.
Not Online!!! wrote: It's still pretty Spot on, allbeit the comparison to commando Units seems of , well imo astartes allways reminded me more of shocktroops.
Regardless the half range +1 is a better fitting suggestion, but has so e consequences... I doubt people would Like 60 boltguns wounding 3+ on t4 rerolling 1 '. Etc.
Sure, Marines coming in via DS would be significantly more powerful, Rhino rush would be back in style, and I'm sure there would be exploits I'm not even thinking of.
But honestly, I'm fine with that, because we're already in an unbalanced state. If it comes down to it, I'd rather my Guard gunline was getting rolled by Marines piling out of transports to gun me down at close range, or coming down in drop pods and slaughtering everything near the landing zone, than sitting way back in their deployment and out-gunlining the Guard gunline. If it's going to be imbalanced, I'd rather it be imbalanced but feel right versus being imbalanced and also not playing like how the factions should.
Same goes for the re-roll auras. I don't just dislike those mechanically, I dislike them thematically, as multiple-centuries-old veterans accustomed to clandestine operations executing a well-rehearsed battle plan and in constant/instant communication should not be needing to huddle around the boss to maintain effectiveness. When it comes down to it, Marine re-roll auras play more like Tyranid Synapse auras than actual Tyranids do.
Yeah, nothing about the marine special rules makes any sort of thematic sense. Shock assault is also stupid - space marines shouldn't run out of steam after a round, if anything they should be the ones who keep going and going and going while non-engineered humans get tired.
Spoletta wrote: If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.
Has this been rumored somewhere? I'd actually kind of be of two minds about shock assault being gone. bolter discipline is and always has been cancer of the highest order, encouraging just the absolute worst gameplay pattern that exists in 40k. But shock assault actually made marine melee elements worth using for the first time in ever. I would love to see bolter discipline totally gone and doctrines heavily restructured into something less oppressive in exchange for improved weapon and unit profiles across the board, but I'm not seeing any rumors to the effect that there's going to be any kind of trade-off for any of this.
Personally I don't think BD is a bad rule, but the layering of other things on top of it gets a bit crazy. Bolter Discipline doesn't seem like an issue in the hands of CSM, for example. It's markedly better in the hands of Tacticals in Tac Doctrine for a -1, but it's still 24". Intercessors 30" at -2. Sternguard at 30" -3.
If tau had that rule itd be decried as the most unfun toxic fluff breaking anticompetitive unfair reward for the worst possible playstyle and more proof that tau should be squatted and all tau players out to the sword.
Haha. To be fair I think Fire Warriors would be fine with it, considering Intercessors took a crap on the Pulse Rifle.
Bolter Discipline imo does a good job at pumping the offensive output of the classic marine. It's got some nice legacy behind it with older Rapid Fire incarnations, and it makes up for the big hurt given to marines with the loss of AP5 vs. GEQ targets.
Imo the greater problems lie in Intercessors and super doctrines.
I don't think Bolter Discipline is a bad rule in a vacuum, but I do think it's a bad rule for Marines.
If you told me Tactical Marines and Intercessors- the staple units of a faction known for lightning assault, kick-down-the-door-and-kill-everyone-inside, Navy-SEALS-on-steroids tactics- were weak offensively and needed a buff, I think 'give them an extra shot if they're stationary and at long range' would be way down the list of potential solutions. It just doesn't fit their MO, and turns them into a castle gunline- the comparison to Tau is spot-on, because it's not only closer to what Tau are known for, it's also an aggressively boring playstyle.
I was just talking about this with my IF-playing friend, actually. He was pointing out to me that 9th Ed kind of screws his Firstborn army, since being reliant on bubbles prevents him from spreading out to take objectives, and Bolter Discipline only kicking in when stationary precludes moving while putting out fire. His best tactic is probably to Rhino rush... and then Bolter Discipline isn't relevant at all.
IMO it would have been better to have it be... say... 'Shock Assault: When firing Bolt weapons, this unit gains +1 shot when firing at half range or less'. Now your Marines are getting three shots at close range whether moving or stationary, allowing you to stay mobile and aggressively push on objectives. They wouldn't be units that gun you down at maximum range, they'd be units that burst onto the objective and kill everyone on it- and isn't that closer to their fluff?
Eh. Just ranting about an army I don't even play.
Yes I sorta agree. My original suggestion before Bolter Discipline was to give them an extra shot at each range band, but yours works too. I think the idea of Bolter Discipline was to go with a more legacy Rapid-Fire feeling, from 2nd through 4th(?) edition, when standing still gave them the bonus shots.
There's a whole host of problems around basic weapons of different factions now too, which just muddies things futher.
To be honest bolter discipline and traits on marine vehicles solved pretty much most of ther "issues" pre 2.0 marines faced. I thought it was really unfair they didint get traits on their vehicles. But how can you balance 3 sets of rules 30+ relics and 20 + warlord traits and not goof aye ? lol..
It's great to see Firstborn Terminators finally seeing some improvement. God-Emperor knows how many, "How to improve Terminators" threads have been put in the 40K Propose Rules section over what? THREE Editions already?
It was funny (yet sad), how all the ideas generated ended up going over to the new and shiny Primaris units each and every time. How about T5? Goes to the Aggressors. How about 3W? Now that also goes to the Aggressors and the even newer Bladeguard Veterans.
It was like always getting skipped for promotion despite always doing overtime compared to the junior employees. It was something Firstborn Terminators needed Editions ago, now that it has happened, it's almost unbelievable (yet thoroughly deserved).
Maybe iconic armies like pure Firstborn Deathwing can now be put on the table, without them being blown completely off the table easier than an all-Primaris army.
Terminators were already good in 9th though. Their points finally went down so far compared to other stuff that they are now competitively priced. If they add 1W to them without kicking up the points, they'll be seriously underpriced.
GW has done a bunch of hamfisted changes to try to fix what 8th broke. AP changes hurt marine small arms damage a lot, so they were right to try to up it a bit. Losing the +1 attack on the charge and sweeping advance hurt their melee, so they were right to try to bring some of that back too.
But there were 2 problems: First, the Primaris statline already addressed some of these issues, so adding another layer of fixes on top of that was too powerful. And second, the way they did it was bad, and didn't address that a lot of factions had similar issues.
In older editions, units like Tacticals were not considered damage dealers. Their strength was defense and the ability to hurt anything at ranged or in melee (thanks to the powerfist and special/heavy weapons.) So you could never ignore them, but they weren't putting out much pain. About the most damage they could do was via classic Rhino rush: Move, disembark, rapidfire, and dare the opponent to come melee you with 9 ablative wounds on a powerfist. Only dedicated CC specialists with power weapons or massive hordes would want that deal.
But 8th gutted this because transports stopped being cheap, and you can't move and disembark anymore (unless you're Primaris!)
Bolters were doing too little damage overall. Bolter discipline increased their damage at range, but didn't address their overall problem of not being anywhere near as good as they used to be at killing hordes (part of why 8th was dominated by durable chaff units.) So BD didn't actually address the problem. What they should have done is given Bolter's a 3rd shot when rapidfiring, or just an extra AP in general (they already had given Primaris an extra AP), or something along those lines.
Shock assault was the right idea, but they should have just brought back the +1 attack on the charge for the entire game system, as all melee was underwhelming in 8th. And again, they'd already given Primaris an extra attack. Astartes Chainswords giving everything -1 ap is also the right move, because chainsword marine infantry was always lackluster, even in previous editions.
Now that said, Primaris had more offensive firepower and an extra wound and they were STILL bad for most of 8th. Even when they were made quite cheap. But I think the updated, 2 part chapter trait + super doctrine would have been enough to fix that. They didn't need the extra AP from doctrines, as they already had it. I support super doctrines because they give another way to differentiate chapters, and incentivize mono-faction lists to help balance soup. I think the problem is doctrines themselves.
If I had been doing it, I would have had all marines be W2, and given Bolters back old AP5: Ignore 5+ and 6+ entirely, but no BD. Everyone would get +1A on the charge like in the past. Bolt Rifles would still have a point of AP, making them better against other saves (it wouldn't make them ignore 4+, just reduce it to 5+ as usual.) Super doctrines and updated traits, but no doctrines. And marine infantry goes up another couple points. Of course, Xenos wargear would need adjustments, just as it does now.
The problem is that all this statline stuff ought to have been changed at the launch of 8th. Thinking they could change the core rules so much and keep the same statlines is where almost all of 8th's problems came from, and why we're having to go through this whole process now.
Also, on another topic: This is a longshot, but did eldar infantry go up to such silly points costs because they're going to be W2 as well?
I dont think rangers or guardians are going to 2 W.
Aspecst sure, I can see primaspects being a thing & that would actually make sense. At this stage Ill take it.. But then we are back to square 1 of how a guardian has essentialy the same stat line as an aspect and is arguably better coz ob sec and celestial shield..
I think the eldar troops infantry going up so drastically is just coz the rules dudes at GW think that somehow T3 1W infantry with a 5+ and a 12" is good coz xenos so must be good coz eldar good? They have no idea/dont care they are doing with factions outside of space marines.
I think the fire dragons might be my pick for the wild card. at 115 pts its a decent payload for a falcon. .
Argive wrote: I dont think rangers or guardians are going to 2 W
I doubt it too. But it'd be interesting if the price change reflects an increase in durability of some sort. If they got a better armor save or something, that might be enough. We don't know what sorts of changes are on the table anymore. We've had the general idea going around that the points changes represent the amount/distribution of these units that GW wants to see. In that case, they may be adjusting statlines to make the new prices work (as opposed to their previous approach of adjusting points to reflect the power of the statline.)
They better make Custodes the just slightly more cost than Primaris now, because Primaris are basically just better Custodes now. I am basing that off points per model. Primaris Wolves can wreck us now. What is the point of play them if Primaris are getting all the benefits. I really don't see S/T=5 as all that worth it now, or at least not 20-30 points more per model, worth it.
Spoletta wrote: If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.
Has this been rumored somewhere? I'd actually kind of be of two minds about shock assault being gone. bolter discipline is and always has been cancer of the highest order, encouraging just the absolute worst gameplay pattern that exists in 40k. But shock assault actually made marine melee elements worth using for the first time in ever. I would love to see bolter discipline totally gone and doctrines heavily restructured into something less oppressive in exchange for improved weapon and unit profiles across the board, but I'm not seeing any rumors to the effect that there's going to be any kind of trade-off for any of this.
Personally I don't think BD is a bad rule, but the layering of other things on top of it gets a bit crazy. Bolter Discipline doesn't seem like an issue in the hands of CSM, for example. It's markedly better in the hands of Tacticals in Tac Doctrine for a -1, but it's still 24". Intercessors 30" at -2. Sternguard at 30" -3.
If tau had that rule itd be decried as the most unfun toxic fluff breaking anticompetitive unfair reward for the worst possible playstyle and more proof that tau should be squatted and all tau players out to the sword.
Haha. To be fair I think Fire Warriors would be fine with it, considering Intercessors took a crap on the Pulse Rifle.
Bolter Discipline imo does a good job at pumping the offensive output of the classic marine. It's got some nice legacy behind it with older Rapid Fire incarnations, and it makes up for the big hurt given to marines with the loss of AP5 vs. GEQ targets.
Imo the greater problems lie in Intercessors and super doctrines.
I don't think Bolter Discipline is a bad rule in a vacuum, but I do think it's a bad rule for Marines.
If you told me Tactical Marines and Intercessors- the staple units of a faction known for lightning assault, kick-down-the-door-and-kill-everyone-inside, Navy-SEALS-on-steroids tactics- were weak offensively and needed a buff, I think 'give them an extra shot if they're stationary and at long range' would be way down the list of potential solutions. It just doesn't fit their MO, and turns them into a castle gunline- the comparison to Tau is spot-on, because it's not only closer to what Tau are known for, it's also an aggressively boring playstyle.
I was just talking about this with my IF-playing friend, actually. He was pointing out to me that 9th Ed kind of screws his Firstborn army, since being reliant on bubbles prevents him from spreading out to take objectives, and Bolter Discipline only kicking in when stationary precludes moving while putting out fire. His best tactic is probably to Rhino rush... and then Bolter Discipline isn't relevant at all.
IMO it would have been better to have it be... say... 'Shock Assault: When firing Bolt weapons, this unit gains +1 shot when firing at half range or less'. Now your Marines are getting three shots at close range whether moving or stationary, allowing you to stay mobile and aggressively push on objectives. They wouldn't be units that gun you down at maximum range, they'd be units that burst onto the objective and kill everyone on it- and isn't that closer to their fluff?
Eh. Just ranting about an army I don't even play.
Yes I sorta agree. My original suggestion before Bolter Discipline was to give them an extra shot at each range band, but yours works too. I think the idea of Bolter Discipline was to go with a more legacy Rapid-Fire feeling, from 2nd through 4th(?) edition, when standing still gave them the bonus shots.
There's a whole host of problems around basic weapons of different factions now too, which just muddies things futher.
We could always be boring and just give all Astartes weapons a proc rule. I've been a very big voice for that.
In terms of durability, the change to 3W improves Terminators as follows:
50% better vs 1D (108 lasgun shots, 54 AP 0 bolter shots, 27 AP -1 bolter shots, 13.5 reglar plasma shots)
100% better vs 2D (18 BS 4+ or 13.5 BS 3+ autocannon shots, 10.8 overcharge plasma, 7.2 WS 3+ or 5.8 WS 2+ power fist attacks)
No change vs flat 3D or more (3.6 WS 3+ or 2.7 WS 2+ thunder hammer attacks)
33.33% better vs d3D (6 BS 3+ grav-cannon shots, 8 if moving)
16.67% better vs d6D (3.68 BS 3+ lascannon shots, 6.53 BS 4+ or 4.9 BS 3+ krak missile shots)
The bracket shot numbers are for taking out a single model, ignore re-rolls, plus and minus to hit/wound that aren't baked in, and are against 5++ invulns (so not storm shields). It looks like it'll take hard hitting melee or anti-tank weapons to reliably kill them, and overcharging plasma may not even be worth it.
Pretty nice improvements for what is supposed to be the best of the best of the Firstborn infantry.
Not Online!!! wrote: It's still pretty Spot on, allbeit the comparison to commando Units seems of , well imo astartes allways reminded me more of shocktroops.
Regardless the half range +1 is a better fitting suggestion, but has so e consequences... I doubt people would Like 60 boltguns wounding 3+ on t4 rerolling 1 '. Etc.
Sure, Marines coming in via DS would be significantly more powerful, Rhino rush would be back in style, and I'm sure there would be exploits I'm not even thinking of.
The main issue would be CSM in such a scenario, well, somewhat.
But honestly, I'm fine with that, because we're already in an unbalanced state. If it comes down to it, I'd rather my Guard gunline was getting rolled by Marines piling out of transports to gun me down at close range, or coming down in drop pods and slaughtering everything near the landing zone, than sitting way back in their deployment and out-gunlining the Guard gunline. If it's going to be imbalanced, I'd rather it be imbalanced but feel right versus being imbalanced and also not playing like how the factions should.
well, it would certainly reinstate the faction identity that got lost somewhere along the 30" bolt rifles.
Same goes for the re-roll auras. I don't just dislike those mechanically, I dislike them thematically, as multiple-centuries-old veterans accustomed to clandestine operations executing a well-rehearsed battle plan and in constant/instant communication should not be needing to huddle around the boss to maintain effectiveness. When it comes down to it, Marine re-roll auras play more like Tyranid Synapse auras than actual Tyranids do.
I agree, and it get's especially jarring imo when you compare it to things like 18th century -19century line infantry warfare. Also why tyranids got the worse synapse is just another exemple of the atm great philosophy that primaris follow of everything you have +1.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, nothing about the marine special rules makes any sort of thematic sense. Shock assault is also stupid - space marines shouldn't run out of steam after a round, if anything they should be the ones who keep going and going and going while non-engineered humans get tired.
Think of it less of them running out of steam, and more as their opponents recovering from the initial shock of the assault.
After all, the A stat is representing how many effective attacks you make in a given period of time. If you can use "shock & awe" to be more effective at the initial point of impact, that's either going to increase your A or decrease your opponent's - but it will wear off.
Spoletta wrote: If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.
Or it's just more bonuses for master faction. Not even quaranteed to come to chaos marines as they are NPC race as well. But loyal marines? They get everything poured at them.
Spoletta wrote: If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.
Or it's just more bonuses for master faction. Not even quaranteed to come to chaos marines as they are NPC race as well. But loyal marines? They get everything poured at them.
Let me help you here: You must post this 4-5 times a day at the minute, I think you need a break.
Eldar going to W2 would be truly bizarre in a game where Necrons are confirmed W1 and orks didn't receive any price increases indicating they're going to W2.
Maybe they'll get a save bump, that'd be pretty dang helpful. All currently 5+ models go to 4+, all currently 4+ models go to 3+ and currently 3+ models stay at 3+. Eldar with millenias-advanced super hyper armor providing the same save as a mass-produced flak vest has been pretty stupid for a while.
Did we already see the new immortals datasheets? If those things went to 2W then we can safely assume that wounds are getting increased around the board.
Spoletta wrote: Did we already see the new immortals datasheets? If those things went to 2W then we can safely assume that wounds are getting increased around the board.
We saw Lychguard I believe. And of course Warriors.
The cynic in me also sees this as GW having finally recouped enough costs from the Primaris moulds that they can get back to promoting oldmarines again. If everyone has already stocked up on Primaris, just buff everything else to have it sell more again?
Not that I'd be complaining, I prefer oldmarines. Already the fact that terminators are viable again makes me happy.
This could end up a bigger shake up than expected depending what happens elsewhere, it does suggest that the marine codex will look radically different to what is out now. The points will almost have to change across the board.
Dudeface wrote: This could end up a bigger shake up than expected depending what happens elsewhere, it does suggest that the marine codex will look radically different to what is out now. The points will almost have to change across the board.
Far be it from me to complain that lethality is going down, that's definitely a good thing. But holy heck how are W1 infantry going to compete with this stuff? Are Eldar Guardians going to W2? Is that why they're twice as expensive as a guardsmen despite having an identical defensive statline ATM?
Dudeface wrote: This could end up a bigger shake up than expected depending what happens elsewhere, it does suggest that the marine codex will look radically different to what is out now. The points will almost have to change across the board.
The amount of boosts marines are getting they will need a significant point hike which I don't see happening.
With all these changes and boosts I am getting serious marine fatigue.
Dudeface wrote: This could end up a bigger shake up than expected depending what happens elsewhere, it does suggest that the marine codex will look radically different to what is out now. The points will almost have to change across the board.
The amount of boosts marines are getting they will need a significant point hike which I don't see happening.
With all these changes and boosts I am getting serious marine fatigue.
MEQ going from W1 to W2 is a more significant change than...basically the whole edition drop. at this point, they HAVE to make some kind of structural change to the whole game's statlines when Codex Marines comes out. Or else Marines are going to be bigger badder custodes and will need to have the prices to match.
Dudeface wrote: This could end up a bigger shake up than expected depending what happens elsewhere, it does suggest that the marine codex will look radically different to what is out now. The points will almost have to change across the board.
The amount of boosts marines are getting they will need a significant point hike which I don't see happening.
With all these changes and boosts I am getting serious marine fatigue.
MEQ going from W1 to W2 is a more significant change than...basically the whole edition drop. at this point, they HAVE to make some kind of structural change to the whole game's statlines when Codex Marines comes out. Or else Marines are going to be bigger badder custodes and will need to have the prices to match.
This, if they remove some special rules or tone down doctrines on marines, I can see intercessors staying where they are points wise but tacs need to be clawing behind them by a point or so.
Strap in, buckle up and look to the skies folks. The stars are aligning in one of those mysterious positions, foretelling another rare year of space marine supremacy!
To all non Ultramarines, Space Wolves, Imperial Fists, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Black Templars and other various high tech individuals, please take a seat and wait for your turn at the paperback reader. I'm sure you'll get yours eventually! Unless of course you're Tyranids, Eldar or Orks. Everyone knows they don't sell, so don't be silly about it.
2 wounds for old marnies
4 dmgTH Powerfists and powerswords to 2 damage
It's getting a bit out of hand here. ATM wondering how other codexes are gonna change to be able to compete..
This pretty much confirms it.
Damage and wounds going up all over the place.
The real question now is if GW will issue really fast an update to all profiles. or the marines will play between themselves until all factions are updated.
I think you're getting confused with the relic blade. Power swords are still D1.
Seems everything's getting more lethal, and veteran Marine units are getting extra wounds. Can't say I like it. I'd much rather have had lethality reduced and everything cost more points to increase granularity instead of this, and I certainly hope this isn't exclusive to Marines.
I think you're getting confused with the relic blade. Power swords are still D1.
Seems everything's getting more lethal, and veteran Marine units are getting extra wounds. Can't say I like it. I'd much rather have had lethality reduced and everything cost more points to increase granularity instead of this, and I certainly hope this isn't exclusive to Marines.
It seems it is partially, the necron elite infantry hasn't moved up to 3 wounds so unless new reanimation protocols pack a meaningful change, they're no more survivable despite their marine equivalents getting a wound.
harlokin wrote: I wonder what this move to reduce lethality means for 'glass cannon' factions/armies.
I think the logical is a radical increase in damage output ironically. The extra damage is wasted on other 1 wound glass cannon units, but has more bite on the tougher elite factions. If they ditch the ap off doctrines that'll help.
So as a counter to this, I hope that Eldar get more killy because they should not be getting more durable (unless maybe Aspects). But to compete, they will have to be far more efficient at killing 2W marines because some of the units struggle to kill 1W marines currently.
The cynic in me, however, sees that the TT guys invested in adding Banshees to their army and have been involved in playtesting codexes (not basic rules). Might see the girls be better down the road. Surely hope so.
harlokin wrote: I wonder what this move to reduce lethality means for 'glass cannon' factions/armies.
They're only reducing lethality for marines everyone else has to deal with d6+2 damage melta and D4 thunderhammers with their current defensive profiles because feth you for not buying marines.
harlokin wrote: I wonder what this move to reduce lethality means for 'glass cannon' factions/armies.
I think the logical is a radical increase in damage output ironically. The extra damage is wasted on other 1 wound glass cannon units, but has more bite on the tougher elite factions. If they ditch the ap off doctrines that'll help.
We already know they're keeping super doctrines so they absolutely need to ditch Angels of death entirely and move doctrines to something like 'reroll hit rolls of 1 for X weapon type' for this to not become '30k, but with some NPCs you can take in fluff games.'
bullyboy wrote: So as a counter to this, I hope that Eldar get more killy because they should not be getting more durable (unless maybe Aspects). But to compete, they will have to be far more efficient at killing 2W marines because some of the units struggle to kill 1W marines currently.
The cynic in me, however, sees that the TT guys invested in adding Banshees to their army and have been involved in playtesting codexes (not basic rules). Might see the girls be better down the road. Surely hope so.
Quite cunning....invest in whatever Tabletop Tactics are adding to their armies ..... not seen Lawrence use Incubi yet
harlokin wrote: I wonder what this move to reduce lethality means for 'glass cannon' factions/armies.
I think the logical is a radical increase in damage output ironically. The extra damage is wasted on other 1 wound glass cannon units, but has more bite on the tougher elite factions. If they ditch the ap off doctrines that'll help.
We already know they're keeping super doctrines so they absolutely need to ditch Angels of death entirely and move doctrines to something like 'reroll hit rolls of 1 for X weapon type' for this to not become '30k, but with some NPCs you can take in fluff games.'
Devastator: Reroll 1s with Heavy Weapons if you didn't move
Tactical: Rapid Fire weapons can still be fired if you advanced (not the stupid "become assault 1" rule some factions get, just be fired normally)
Assault: Same as current.
Ditch stupid static gunline bolter discipline, give CSM a doctrine-equivalent no soup thing, redesign CSM chapter tactics and give them to their vehicles, and that's a fine and dandy marine update pass. +durability, -lethality, -static gunline uninteractive stupidity.
harlokin wrote: I wonder what this move to reduce lethality means for 'glass cannon' factions/armies.
They're only reducing lethality for marines everyone else has to deal with d6+2 damage melta and D4 thunderhammers with their current defensive profiles because feth you for not buying marines.
Yeah because your gaunts/boyz w/e would be surviving melta shots and thunder hammers now would they? Same way a 2 wound marine dies to a thunder hammer or melta just as easily as they did before. They put the wounds up to compensate slightly on the larger units we've seen for Necrons so dial back the hyperbole for now.
harlokin wrote: I wonder what this move to reduce lethality means for 'glass cannon' factions/armies.
They're only reducing lethality for marines everyone else has to deal with d6+2 damage melta and D4 thunderhammers with their current defensive profiles because feth you for not buying marines.
Yeah because your gaunts/boyz w/e would be surviving melta shots and thunder hammers now would they? Same way a 2 wound marine dies to a thunder hammer or melta just as easily as they did before. They put the wounds up to compensate slightly on the larger units we've seen for Necrons so dial back the hyperbole for now.
....Are you...now pretending that the new meltas and thunderhammers will be used against gaunts? Not, say, used to two-shot ork buggies or tau suits or eldar wraiths?
Necron lychguard and Praetorians are keeping the same defensive statline. this means they just got easier to kill with:
harlokin wrote: I wonder what this move to reduce lethality means for 'glass cannon' factions/armies.
They're only reducing lethality for marines everyone else has to deal with d6+2 damage melta and D4 thunderhammers with their current defensive profiles because feth you for not buying marines.
Yeah because your gaunts/boyz w/e would be surviving melta shots and thunder hammers now would they? Same way a 2 wound marine dies to a thunder hammer or melta just as easily as they did before. They put the wounds up to compensate slightly on the larger units we've seen for Necrons so dial back the hyperbole for now.
....Are you...now pretending that the new meltas and thunderhammers will be used against gaunts? Not, say, used to two-shot ork buggies or tau suits or eldar wraiths?
Of course they will, but the marginal targets where the changes will impact are so narrow or are in the case of necrons being adapted to fit. More importantly the marines boost in durability ERJAK was complaining about is marines infantry getting more wounds, the direct comparison is if boyz etc went to 2 wounds, ERJAK then used high damage weaponry as the boogey man the 1 wound infantry have to be scared of.
Further to your revised post I do agree that previous 2 wound infantry need to be slightly more worried by a potential heavy bolter change, but in the case of crons we're pinning a lot of hopes on the RP changes.
I'm kind of okay with this but marines are going to need to get a points jump or other armies are going to need some big boosts to compete. If Necrons isn't on par with Marines (and this basically hinges on Reanimation at this point) I'm going to sit this edition out despite having multiple other armies.
Sim-Life wrote: I'm kind of okay with this but marines are going to need to get a points jump or other armies are going to need some big boosts to compete.
Pretty much this. If changes like these continue to roll out, we're looking at geometric growth on the capabilities of Marines, and that must be countered by immediate alterations or we're going to have another Iron Hands situation, but so much worse.
Sim-Life wrote: I'm kind of okay with this but marines are going to need to get a points jump or other armies are going to need some big boosts to compete.
Pretty much this. If changes like these continue to roll out, we're looking at geometric growth on the capabilities of Marines, and that must be countered by immediate alterations or we're going to have another Iron Hands situation, but so much worse.
I think realistic best case scenario is GK & CSM get a FAQ to pull the unit profiles to match and then a global FAQ for all weapons to match where possible in line with current points. Worst case it will literally be book by book again.
I am ecstatic that Marines are getting more wounds and more lethal melee weapons. It will make them feel like actual super human beat sticks.
However, this NEEDS to be accompanied by matching buffs for Chaos Marines and a bit more lethality in Xenos options. We'll see if the Necron codex is a match for Marines. If it's significantly lackluster in comparison, that doesn't bode well.
And I really hope they don't go overboard in a year or so with a super powered Eldar codex like they did in 7th just to compensate
I'm actually hoping that regular Tac Marines stay at 1W, however it would be neat if Tac Sgts became 2W, just like Eldar Exarchs.
I can also see Devs becoming 2W (or maybe T5 like Havocs) and regular Bikes become 3W
Eonfuzz wrote: I'm sure you'll get yours eventually! Unless of course you're Tyranids, Eldar or Orks. Everyone knows they don't sell, so don't be silly about it.
Yeah I'm sure Sisters will get theirs soon. Very soon. Very very soon. End of edition soon. Maybe end of future edition?
Eonfuzz wrote: I'm sure you'll get yours eventually! Unless of course you're Tyranids, Eldar or Orks. Everyone knows they don't sell, so don't be silly about it.
Yeah I'm sure Sisters will get theirs soon. Very soon. Very very soon. End of edition soon. Maybe end of future edition?
I wonder whether their plan hinges on getting that accursed army builder out. They could update the whole product line at once and just point at the app while the paper codexes continue at their glacial tempo...
What I'm betting: every Firstborn gets 2W, and every heavy/elite style infantry gets a similar boost like Lychguards.
However it's very dumb to amp up wounds and amp up damage at the same time. D4 Thunder Hammers ? Nice, so if Custodes gets boosted to 4W they'll still get one-shot. If they don't get boosted then Allarus and Bikes get one-shot instead.
Sincerely hope they'll change the points QUICKLY when all these changes go live and that we don't have to go through a period of 15 pts SM with 2W while my Skitarii are 10 pts and vastly inferior
Aaranis wrote: What I'm betting: every Firstborn gets 2W, and every heavy/elite style infantry gets a similar boost like Lychguards.
However it's very dumb to amp up wounds and amp up damage at the same time. D4 Thunder Hammers ? Nice, so if Custodes gets boosted to 4W they'll still get one-shot. If they don't get boosted then Allarus and Bikes get one-shot instead.
Sincerely hope they'll change the points QUICKLY when all these changes go live and that we don't have to go through a period of 15 pts SM with 2W while my Skitarii are 10 pts and vastly inferior
The changes come with a new codex, so they definitely will have points revisions.
Aaranis wrote: What I'm betting: every Firstborn gets 2W, and every heavy/elite style infantry gets a similar boost like Lychguards.
However it's very dumb to amp up wounds and amp up damage at the same time. D4 Thunder Hammers ? Nice, so if Custodes gets boosted to 4W they'll still get one-shot. If they don't get boosted then Allarus and Bikes get one-shot instead.
Sincerely hope they'll change the points QUICKLY when all these changes go live and that we don't have to go through a period of 15 pts SM with 2W while my Skitarii are 10 pts and vastly inferior
...You mean like Lychguards aren't? We already have the new datasheet for Lychguards. This isn't a thing. They're the exact same with +1 Attack in melee.
Aaranis wrote: What I'm betting: every Firstborn gets 2W, and every heavy/elite style infantry gets a similar boost like Lychguards.
However it's very dumb to amp up wounds and amp up damage at the same time. D4 Thunder Hammers ? Nice, so if Custodes gets boosted to 4W they'll still get one-shot. If they don't get boosted then Allarus and Bikes get one-shot instead.
Sincerely hope they'll change the points QUICKLY when all these changes go live and that we don't have to go through a period of 15 pts SM with 2W while my Skitarii are 10 pts and vastly inferior
They're upping wounds and upping melee damage while ranged damage stays mostly the same.
Makes assault necessary to displace things, while ranged fire is no longer about annihilating units off the board, but rather softening them up for your assault troops.
Aaranis wrote: What I'm betting: every Firstborn gets 2W, and every heavy/elite style infantry gets a similar boost like Lychguards.
However it's very dumb to amp up wounds and amp up damage at the same time. D4 Thunder Hammers ? Nice, so if Custodes gets boosted to 4W they'll still get one-shot. If they don't get boosted then Allarus and Bikes get one-shot instead.
Sincerely hope they'll change the points QUICKLY when all these changes go live and that we don't have to go through a period of 15 pts SM with 2W while my Skitarii are 10 pts and vastly inferior
They're upping wounds and upping melee damage while ranged damage stays mostly the same.
Makes assault necessary to displace things, while ranged fire is no longer about annihilating units off the board, but rather softening them up for your assault troops.
This is also not a thing that we're seeing.
Across the new necron and marine datasheets ranged damage has increased, particularly in the dedicated anti-tank side of things.
We saw ranged weapon damage increases on:
-Triarch stalker weapons
-invictor and new Turret Autocannon weapons
-heavy bolters
-heavy destroyer (previously was a lascannon-equivalent is now damage 3d3)
We also, again, DID NOT see a durability increase for necron elite units.All these heavy bolters with D2 and autocannons with AP-2 and 33% more shots and meltas with minimum damage 3 and heavy destroyers with minimum damage 3 will be killing non-marine elites faster than before, not slower.
You point *seems* to hold for *some* anti light infantry weapons...but not stuff like the OGC, which got a 25% boost to the number of shots it put out, or the heavy flamer, which is now 12" range meaning it's available straight out of deep strike for stuff like terminators.
Aaranis wrote: However it's very dumb to amp up wounds and amp up damage at the same time.
I disagree. Sure if EVERYTHING goes up it's a net wash, but if only SOME things go up, it creates a far more varied game. It also makes far more use of the Damage stat, which is still a new concept for 40k. It used to be even Lascannons were 1D. So everything HAD to have 1W unless it was a Monster or Vehicle.
Now we can explore a whole breadth of 2-3W models and multi Damage weapons to match.
It the same reason points went up, so we didn't have so many units sitting at the extremes of cheap or expensive. There's now far more 'middle ground' units now.
But I will agree that sufficient counters need to exist or else Marines are going to be top tier for a while.
And not just 8th ed kind of top tier in which a few other armies can still give them a run, but like 7th ed Eldar heights of top tier in which the other 3 top tiers at the time couldn't dethrone Eldar until the whole edition had to be rebooted.
It's still not guaranteed that all SM infantry will start with 2W, so far only veterans have leaked to get 2W while wearing terminator armour, they get a total of 3W. Tactical marines could (probably?) still stay at 1W...
Waking Dreamer wrote: It's still not guaranteed that all SM infantry will start with 2W, so far only veterans have leaked to get 2W while wearing terminator armour, they get a total of 3W. Tactical marines could (probably?) still stay at 1W...
I'd be happy with that, but like I posted in the N&R thread it leaves chaos marines in a weird spot since in theory they're all veterans apart from the renegades. If all basic CSM troops are renegades then it makes little sense for them to appear in a legion list.
yukishiro1 wrote: Terminators were already good in 9th though. Their points finally went down so far compared to other stuff that they are now competitively priced. If they add 1W to them without kicking up the points, they'll be seriously underpriced.
They're not grossly far off.
42 points for assault.
36 for regular.
An bolter aggressor is 45.
Presume you didn't have to buy the fragstorm launcher and terminators were W3. That's makes Aggressors 4 points more for +1T, +1A, +2shots, -1sv, +run and gun, -deepstrike, +double shoot.
the_scotsman wrote: We also, again, DID NOT see a durability increase for necron elite units.All these heavy bolters with D2 and autocannons with AP-2 and 33% more shots and meltas with minimum damage 3 and heavy destroyers with minimum damage 3 will be killing non-marine elites faster than before, not slower.
You point *seems* to hold for *some* anti light infantry weapons...but not stuff like the OGC, which got a 25% boost to the number of shots it put out, or the heavy flamer, which is now 12" range meaning it's available straight out of deep strike for stuff like terminators.
Also a points issue. The Heavy Lokhust is a lot more points than a heavy destroyer. We really need the full rules - but it might not be much of an upgrade. And its a clear downgrade in terms of toughness/wounds per point.
On Lychguard and Praetorians - I just think people saw them so rarely many didn't realise they already had 2 wounds.
Daedalus81 wrote: So what is the source for all of this stuff? What are the odds we're being trolled by a supremely skilled photoshop guru?
Instruction booklets in kit recently ordered/supplied by GW with 9th ed packaging. It is possible it's a trolling method but it's a lot of effort to render the models weapons etc then mock up a booklet and boxart which means it's pretty unlikely overall imo.
Daedalus81 wrote: So what is the source for all of this stuff? What are the odds we're being trolled by a supremely skilled photoshop guru?
Dubious screenshots supposedly from repackages.
Tbh, the fact GW hasn't immediately gone "haha silly potato camera people, here are the new rules proving Marines are total 150% better than ever" makes me vaguely hope its all a wind up.
Daedalus81 wrote: So what is the source for all of this stuff? What are the odds we're being trolled by a supremely skilled photoshop guru?
Dubious screenshots supposedly from repackages.
Tbh, the fact GW hasn't immediately gone "haha silly potato camera people, here are the new rules proving Marines are total 150% better than ever" makes me vaguely hope its all a wind up.
Or a crafty ploy by GW for people to buy boxes just to get the datasheet and see what's coming.
yukishiro1 wrote: Terminators were already good in 9th though. Their points finally went down so far compared to other stuff that they are now competitively priced. If they add 1W to them without kicking up the points, they'll be seriously underpriced.
They're not grossly far off.
42 points for assault.
36 for regular.
An bolter aggressor is 45.
Presume you didn't have to buy the fragstorm launcher and terminators were W3. That's makes Aggressors 4 points more for +1T, +1A, +2shots, -1sv, +run and gun, -deepstrike, +double shoot.
Yea we had the cult marine 2W rumors as well. So seems like that was just a very early rumor and this stuff has been in the pipeline for a long time.
I'm sorry 4pts for +1T +1A +2 shots, assault everything and ignore the move and shoot penalty and the ability to fire twice if you stand still (or use a particular superdoctrine lololol we totes balanced around these)?
Seems like a BIT of a discount bundle, not sure of any other faction analogues that get that kind of value out of 4pts. My genestealer cultists pay 10pts for a squad of 10 GEQ to reroll hits of 1 in melee.
Aaranis wrote: What I'm betting: every Firstborn gets 2W, and every heavy/elite style infantry gets a similar boost like Lychguards.
However it's very dumb to amp up wounds and amp up damage at the same time. D4 Thunder Hammers ? Nice, so if Custodes gets boosted to 4W they'll still get one-shot. If they don't get boosted then Allarus and Bikes get one-shot instead.
Sincerely hope they'll change the points QUICKLY when all these changes go live and that we don't have to go through a period of 15 pts SM with 2W while my Skitarii are 10 pts and vastly inferior
...You mean like Lychguards aren't? We already have the new datasheet for Lychguards. This isn't a thing. They're the exact same with +1 Attack in melee.
Uh, I was sure I saw a picture of a datasheet with Praetorians or Lychguards or something going up to 2W, as well as people confirming it. Sorry if that's not the case.
Asmodai wrote:They're upping wounds and upping melee damage while ranged damage stays mostly the same.
Makes assault necessary to displace things, while ranged fire is no longer about annihilating units off the board, but rather softening them up for your assault troops.
Unsure about that, multi-melta going up and another few weapons we've seen on the Warsuit changing I don't think they're aiming at just boosting CC.
Aaranis wrote: What I'm betting: every Firstborn gets 2W, and every heavy/elite style infantry gets a similar boost like Lychguards.
However it's very dumb to amp up wounds and amp up damage at the same time. D4 Thunder Hammers ? Nice, so if Custodes gets boosted to 4W they'll still get one-shot. If they don't get boosted then Allarus and Bikes get one-shot instead.
Sincerely hope they'll change the points QUICKLY when all these changes go live and that we don't have to go through a period of 15 pts SM with 2W while my Skitarii are 10 pts and vastly inferior
...You mean like Lychguards aren't? We already have the new datasheet for Lychguards. This isn't a thing. They're the exact same with +1 Attack in melee.
Uh, I was sure I saw a picture of a datasheet with Praetorians or Lychguards or something going up to 2W, as well as people confirming it. Sorry if that's not the case.
Asmodai wrote:They're upping wounds and upping melee damage while ranged damage stays mostly the same.
Makes assault necessary to displace things, while ranged fire is no longer about annihilating units off the board, but rather softening them up for your assault troops.
Unsure about that, multi-melta going up and another few weapons we've seen on the Warsuit changing I don't think they're aiming at just boosting CC.
A few anti tank weapons are getting a damage boost, but most of the anti infantry weapons are being kept the same.
The plasma and the grav for example look to be the same, and the bolters also didn't change.
By the way, pretorians and Lichguards have always been 2 wounds.
Daedalus81 wrote: So what is the source for all of this stuff? What are the odds we're being trolled by a supremely skilled photoshop guru?
Dubious screenshots supposedly from repackages.
Tbh, the fact GW hasn't immediately gone "haha silly potato camera people, here are the new rules proving Marines are total 150% better than ever" makes me vaguely hope its all a wind up.
I'm sorry 4pts for +1T +1A +2 shots, assault everything and ignore the move and shoot penalty and the ability to fire twice if you stand still (or use a particular superdoctrine lololol we totes balanced around these)?
Seems like a BIT of a discount bundle, not sure of any other faction analogues that get that kind of value out of 4pts. My genestealer cultists pay 10pts for a squad of 10 GEQ to reroll hits of 1 in melee.
I don't expect them to stay as is, but they're not going to be terribly different in the codex I presume.
I really do wonder if doctrines will survive all these changes in tact.
I really do wonder if doctrines will survive all these changes in tact.
At this point I really hope not. We can already guess that Doctrines are still going to be a thing, because the exist 6 Marine supplements will still be compatible with the new Marine codex and those supplements have loads of rules referencing Doctrines.
What could offset those, however is if the new codex doesn't give the AP bonus any longer.
They could easily rework Doctrines to JUST give the Chapter specific bonus, plus maybe a handful of generic Tac/Assault/Dev bonuses for "build your own" Chapters. Of which the AP bonus could be an example.
So if I choose Salamanders or a Successor, I'll only get the +1 to wound with flamer/melts bonus while Tactical Doc is active, but not the AP bonus.
But if I am my own chapter that does not claim ties with an existing chapter, I could choose the AP bonus for either Tac/Assault/Dev as my "super Doctrine"
That would cut down on the bloat while still keeping the flavour. It would also make things like the AP-2 Autocannons and AP-1 chainswords more relevant as your need the better AP on the weapon if the Doctrines no longer grant it.
I mean I'm not denying the repackaging is taking place.
Or even that people have opened them up and got these sheets. Its after all most likely correct.
But I want to believe.
Galef wrote: It's only a matter of time before someone opens that repackaged Tac squad and we find out if classic Marines are getting 2W
For selfish reasons I hope they are, but admit for balance/varied armies it might be better if they don't. It's the big one for sure though, although I get a feeling if they do scouts might still be 1w.
Also, with the fact that these changes are in the new boxes, I guess it means that we'll have those rules as soon as they restock their stores ? I don't believe they'll wait for the new codices to start selling these new boxes. So does that mean we'll soon have a quantum state of the game where we have Terminators that have both 2W and 3W or what ? Will people have to play with the codex rules until the new codex comes out and they're finally allowed to use the new profile ? Or will we have Firstborn SM at 2W for 15 pts until the new codex ?
Seriously with all these changes I feel like nothing makes sense and GW is changing things in all directions at once which is REALLY confusing
Aaranis wrote: Also, with the fact that these changes are in the new boxes, I guess it means that we'll have those rules as soon as they restock their stores ? I don't believe they'll wait for the new codices to start selling these new boxes. So does that mean we'll soon have a quantum state of the game where we have Terminators that have both 2W and 3W or what ? Will people have to play with the codex rules until the new codex comes out and they're finally allowed to use the new profile ? Or will we have Firstborn SM at 2W for 15 pts until the new codex ?
Seriously with all these changes I feel like nothing makes sense and GW is changing things in all directions at once which is REALLY confusing
They are hitting stores, that's where these images are coming from. But they are designed to key in with the codex and the codex entries are the correct ones to use. If you want 2w 15pt firstborn, they have no chapter keywords or special abilities beyond those on that instruction booklet.
Aaranis wrote: Also, with the fact that these changes are in the new boxes, I guess it means that we'll have those rules as soon as they restock their stores ? I don't believe they'll wait for the new codices to start selling these new boxes. So does that mean we'll soon have a quantum state of the game where we have Terminators that have both 2W and 3W or what ? Will people have to play with the codex rules until the new codex comes out and they're finally allowed to use the new profile ? Or will we have Firstborn SM at 2W for 15 pts until the new codex ?
Seriously with all these changes I feel like nothing makes sense and GW is changing things in all directions at once which is REALLY confusing
Box sets have never been an official source for rules, otherwise you could have had 3-man units of UM Intercessors since the dawn of 8th.
But they are an indication of how the official rule may be.
This repackaging 100% coincided with the development of the new codex, so it only makes sense for those datasheet to match what will soon come out.
Also, the data sheets are incomplete as-is because they do not include the plethora of special rules we know these units have
Aaranis wrote: Or will we have Firstborn SM at 2W for 15 pts until the new codex ?
We won't have 2W firstborn until the codex.
There's still the possibility that only the SGTS get 2W, while Tacs/Devs/Assault Marines stay at 1W.
I'm kinda hoping that's what happens, and maybe Devs get T5 to match Havocs
Aaranis wrote: Also, with the fact that these changes are in the new boxes, I guess it means that we'll have those rules as soon as they restock their stores ? I don't believe they'll wait for the new codices to start selling these new boxes. So does that mean we'll soon have a quantum state of the game where we have Terminators that have both 2W and 3W or what ? Will people have to play with the codex rules until the new codex comes out and they're finally allowed to use the new profile ? Or will we have Firstborn SM at 2W for 15 pts until the new codex ?
Seriously with all these changes I feel like nothing makes sense and GW is changing things in all directions at once which is REALLY confusing
Box sets have never been an official source for rules, otherwise you could have had 3-man units of UM Intercessors since the dawn of 8th.
But they are an indication of how the official rule may be.
This repackaging 100% coincided with the development of the new codex, so it only makes sense for those datasheet to match what will soon come out.
Also, the data sheets are incomplete as-is because they do not include the plethora of special rules we know these units have
Aaranis wrote: Or will we have Firstborn SM at 2W for 15 pts until the new codex ?
We won't have 2W firstborn until the codex.
There's still the possibility that only the SGTS get 2W, while Tacs/Devs/Assault Marines stay at 1W.
I'm kinda hoping that's what happens, and maybe Devs get T5 to match Havocs
-
Don't taunt the chaos players. Let them have their one nice thing.
----
On the condensed datasheets-- these are official.
Its on pages 7-8 of the rules pdf,
A condensed version of a model’s datasheet can be found in its construction guide – this contains less
information than the full version, but will still let you get your unit on the field straight away.
Page 8 then has both versions of the outrider datasheet (plus a 'full' version of assault intercessors)
From a design perspective, two wound SM makes sense.
As long as the following applies
1) They actually pay the POINTS for this. 15 point tacs would be ball bustingly busted to the point where you won't be able to win a casual game against SM if they aren't full blown stupid.
2) With other fundament changes to weapons that seem to be happening (see: Multimeltas, Thunder Hammers going up to 4 damage, etc), other codexes DESPERATELY need their rules dropped ASAP, otherwise how the hell are armies supposed to beat the horde of 2 wound, cheap elite infantry that's being dropped on the board?
Most armies basic weapon is AP-0, 1 damage, with no major access to army wide re-rolls to hit and wound
All xenos armies are now completely irrelevant, until they get a codex release.
Overstating it?
I pay 15-20 points for a T3 5+ guy, that is completely destroyed in every stat compared to a 24pt veteran. That is now 100% harder to kill than it used to be.
Far as I can see, even the new necron buffs are nowhere near this good
Niiru wrote: All xenos armies are now completely irrelevant, until they get a codex release.
Overstating it?
I pay 15-20 points for a T3 5+ guy, that is completely destroyed in every stat compared to a 24pt veteran. That is now 100% harder to kill than it used to be.
Far as I can see, even the new necron buffs are nowhere near this good
It depends if points remain the same or near same. If we are now dealing with 2W marines at 15pts, then Xenos have nothing that can compete at that price range. If they go up proportionally, along with primaries, then large cheap Xenos units could still be viable.
Means high liklihood of chaos chosen, noise marines, plague marines etc also all going to 2 wounds.
Chaos terminators 3w
Blightlords and scarabs and deathshroud 3w.
Eldar (especially harlequins) have nothing even close to being efficient enough to kill those things fast enough that they won't get destroyed first. T3 bodies for the same cost as a T4 pseudo terminator. T5 in some cases. Noise marines can be T5 2W with the same attacks on the charge as a harlequin, for the same points. But is about 200% harder to kill.
Niiru wrote: All xenos armies are now completely irrelevant, until they get a codex release.
Overstating it?
I pay 15-20 points for a T3 5+ guy, that is completely destroyed in every stat compared to a 24pt veteran. That is now 100% harder to kill than it used to be.
Far as I can see, even the new necron buffs are nowhere near this good
It depends if points remain the same or near same. If we are now dealing with 2W marines at 15pts, then Xenos have nothing that can compete at that price range. If they go up proportionally, along with primaries, then large cheap Xenos units could still be viable.
Yeah, and everyone can have all the fun of their 400 year old eldar aspect warriors, the last 0.1% of a near-extinct race obsessed with survival being suicidal chaff getting mowed down in droves by space marines.
Niiru wrote: All xenos armies are now completely irrelevant, until they get a codex release.
Overstating it?
I pay 15-20 points for a T3 5+ guy, that is completely destroyed in every stat compared to a 24pt veteran. That is now 100% harder to kill than it used to be.
Far as I can see, even the new necron buffs are nowhere near this good
It depends if points remain the same or near same. If we are now dealing with 2W marines at 15pts, then Xenos have nothing that can compete at that price range. If they go up proportionally, along with primaries, then large cheap Xenos units could still be viable.
Yeah, and everyone can have all the fun of their 400 year old eldar aspect warriors, the last 0.1% of a near-extinct race obsessed with survival being suicidal chaff getting mowed down in droves by space marines.
Umm ya isn't that the proverbial joke about storm guardians?
Eldar need a rework as well for this new edition so we'll see what direction GW takes with them.
Typical GW, they find the wrong solution even if they identify a problem. The way to reduce lethality is to reduce lethality directly, not buff the wound characteristic. Instead, they're increasing lethality at the same time they're increasing wounds, which is the classic stat inflation progression that kills games.
Not to mention the absolute mess it is going to create if they do the update piecemeal, faction by faction. And if they were going to do it all together...why didn't they do it on the release of the new edition?
By 12th at this rate marines will have 6 wounds each and shoot 12 strength 6 shots per bolter.
One advantage I see of Firstborn getting 2W AND HOPEFULLY increasing in points proportionally, is that SM will have less models on the table but be more durable, closing the gap between "lore-marines" and "game-marines". SM are supposed to be played as a small elite force but I feel they had a lot of models on the table still, back in 8th. In my opinion that would enhance the game as it will feel more cinematic (the horde of cultists fighting a few Marines) while making it harder for Marines to contest objectives by virtue of having less ObSec models, meaning they'll have to fight more than usual to secure objectives.
It may seem a bit naive when I read what I'm saying but being an eternal pessimist about 40k I think it's a nice improvement
Yeah, marines being 3x as good as a normal human wasn't nearly enough. In 2020 we're used to super hero movies where one super hero is worth 10,000 normal dudes. Space marines should have Imperial Knight level statlines, otherwise you don't feel like you're playing the hero faction.
I'm going to await judgement of anything until the whole picture is clearer.
2W Sternguard are gonna compete against Tacticals and Intercessors really hard though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, marines being 3x as good as a normal human wasn't nearly enough. In 2020 we're used to super hero movies where one super hero is worth 10,000 normal dudes. Space marines should have Imperial Knight level statlines, otherwise you don't feel like you're playing the hero faction.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, marines being 3x as good as a normal human wasn't nearly enough. In 2020 we're used to super hero movies where one super hero is worth 10,000 normal dudes. Space marines should have Imperial Knight level statlines, otherwise you don't feel like you're playing the hero faction.
Also we have to make sure to keep hiking the prices on those cheap dudes to make sure we're squeezing every last penny from the filthy nonmarine players. 45$ for 10 cultists is not enough! it can go higher! Make it 60$! Make them take 6 times longer to paint than an intercessor - more greebly bits and wires and tubes!
The year is 2021. GW has just released plastic renegades and heretics. They are sold exclusively in monopose, single model kits for 45$ apiece, as the entire army is based only around Blackstone Fortress. The core troop choice for the army is the renegade militia, with a min squad size of 60, 1ppm. They have an army wide special rule "terrifying presence" - if any model with the ADEPTUS ASTARTES keyword declares a charge or shooting attack at a unit with this rule, remove the unit from the table.
I feel like people complaining about Firstborn Marines potentially being made better in comparison to Guardsmen are forgetting that Guardsmen are better in comparison to Firstborn Marines than they've ever been.
In 4th Ed, my Guardsmen had no orders, never got a save, and had an annoying tendency to temporarily flee after taking 3 casualties, or flee for good after losing half the squad.
In 9th Ed, my Guardsmen can double their firepower just by being near an officer, can sprint across the table as needed, hit first when they charge, always get their armor save (subject to modifiers), and are nigh-impossible to wipe out via morale.
What have the Tacticals gotten? An extra attack in the first round of combat, and a point of AP that still doesn't negate Guardsman armor?
15pts for a Tactical versus 5pts for a Guardsman right now is just not fair. They aren't 3x as good as a normal human. A W2 Tactical at 15-16pts feels more right, particularly in comparison to Intercessors, which they're still strictly inferior to stat-wise.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, marines being 3x as good as a normal human wasn't nearly enough. In 2020 we're used to super hero movies where one super hero is worth 10,000 normal dudes. Space marines should have Imperial Knight level statlines, otherwise you don't feel like you're playing the hero faction.
While not going to the lengths you're describing, do you really prefer a game where a lucky Cultist can kill 2 Marines with his ragtag weapons in one shooting phase ? A game that is as close to the lore as possible within the realm of balance is a better game, more immersive. What Custodes are in game, Marines should have been in the first place. How Custodes would fit in this I don't know but I'm not the one designing a game around a D6 value with units ranging from Grots to Imperial Knights.
catbarf wrote: I feel like people complaining about Firstborn Marines potentially being made better in comparison to Guardsmen are forgetting that Guardsmen are better in comparison to Firstborn Marines than they've ever been.
In 4th Ed, my Guardsmen had no orders, never got a save, and had an annoying tendency to temporarily flee after taking 3 casualties, or flee for good after losing half the squad.
In 9th Ed, my Guardsmen can double their firepower just by being near an officer, can sprint across the table as needed, hit first when they charge, always get their armor save (subject to modifiers), and are nigh-impossible to wipe out via morale.
What have the Tacticals gotten? An extra attack in the first round of combat, and a point of AP that still doesn't negate Guardsman armor?
15pts for a Tactical versus 5pts for a Guardsman right now is just not fair. They aren't 3x as good as a normal human. A W2 Tactical at 15-16pts feels more right, particularly in comparison to Intercessors, which they're still strictly inferior to stat-wise.
I'd say a significant part of the issue is the huge nerf to Flamers in 8th. In prior editions my Assault Squads would utterly butcher Guardsmen with their Flamers alone. A good turn with them meant: shoot through one squad into another squad, cause huge casualties, charge them both, cause more casualties and then sweep them off the table. It was brutal, and I didn't have any need for 2W marines or anything, just having the right tools for the job, and morale rules that had some bite.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, marines being 3x as good as a normal human wasn't nearly enough. In 2020 we're used to super hero movies where one super hero is worth 10,000 normal dudes. Space marines should have Imperial Knight level statlines, otherwise you don't feel like you're playing the hero faction.
While not going to the lengths you're describing, do you really prefer a game where a lucky Cultist can kill 2 Marines with his ragtag weapons in one shooting phase ? A game that is as close to the lore as possible within the realm of balance is a better game, more immersive. What Custodes are in game, Marines should have been in the first place. How Custodes would fit in this I don't know but I'm not the one designing a game around a D6 value with units ranging from Grots to Imperial Knights.
Ok but here's the problem you run in to. How good should marines be at killing other marines? Chaos vs. Loyalists, how does that go down? Then, Marines vs. Aspect Warriors, how does that go down? etc.
I expect Firstborn infantry to go up about 3 ppm. Terminators are about right in cost for 3W already (compared to Bladeguard, Aggressors, etc), but I could see maybe 1 more ppm for them
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, marines being 3x as good as a normal human wasn't nearly enough. In 2020 we're used to super hero movies where one super hero is worth 10,000 normal dudes. Space marines should have Imperial Knight level statlines, otherwise you don't feel like you're playing the hero faction.
While not going to the lengths you're describing, do you really prefer a game where a lucky Cultist can kill 2 Marines with his ragtag weapons in one shooting phase ? A game that is as close to the lore as possible within the realm of balance is a better game, more immersive. What Custodes are in game, Marines should have been in the first place. How Custodes would fit in this I don't know but I'm not the one designing a game around a D6 value with units ranging from Grots to Imperial Knights.
I would hazard to say that most marine players I know would be extremely unhappy if they were limited to only running 20 models in their army. Or at least, they would be after not very long. I know a lot of people who own like 5000-10000 points of one space marine chapter and they like bringing their toys to the tabletop.
catbarf wrote: I feel like people complaining about Firstborn Marines potentially being made better in comparison to Guardsmen are forgetting that Guardsmen are better in comparison to Firstborn Marines than they've ever been.
In 4th Ed, my Guardsmen had no orders, never got a save, and had an annoying tendency to temporarily flee after taking 3 casualties, or flee for good after losing half the squad.
In 9th Ed, my Guardsmen can double their firepower just by being near an officer, can sprint across the table as needed, hit first when they charge, always get their armor save (subject to modifiers), and are nigh-impossible to wipe out via morale.
What have the Tacticals gotten? An extra attack in the first round of combat, and a point of AP that still doesn't negate Guardsman armor?
15pts for a Tactical versus 5pts for a Guardsman right now is just not fair. They aren't 3x as good as a normal human. A W2 Tactical at 15-16pts feels more right, particularly in comparison to Intercessors, which they're still strictly inferior to stat-wise.
I don't know about everyone else here, but I wasn't even thinking of guardsmen. I'm more concerned with xenos options.
I pay 15 points for a T3 model with a 5+ (3+ in cover). 13 points for a T3 with 4+. With an 18" weapon and no melee.
So for 0-3 points, I would already get 1T, +1 or +2 Sv, +1S, 6" more range. Which is already a bargain. Adding 1 wound to be 100% more durable is insane.
Put another way, space marines pay 3x the points to be better than a guardsman stat line. I pay 3x the points to be worse than a guardsman.
yukishiro1 wrote: Typical GW, they find the wrong solution even if they identify a problem. The way to reduce lethality is to reduce lethality directly, not buff the wound characteristic. Instead, they're increasing lethality at the same time they're increasing wounds, which is the classic stat inflation progression that kills games.
Not to mention the absolute mess it is going to create if they do the update piecemeal, faction by faction. And if they were going to do it all together...why didn't they do it on the release of the new edition?
By 12th at this rate marines will have 6 wounds each and shoot 12 strength 6 shots per bolter.
A marine that has W2 will be more points. That decreases the number of guns on the table. These datasheets aren't revealing additional attacks, either. A S5 powersword VV with 2 attacks doesn't kill any more Eldar than the one that was only S4 with 2A.
Typical GW, they find the wrong solution even if they identify a problem. The way to reduce lethality is to reduce lethality directly, not buff the wound characteristic. Instead, they're increasing lethality at the same time they're increasing wounds, which is the classic stat inflation progression that kills games.
Yes, but they're ALSO increasing lethality on many weapons as well so ... oh. Oh wait ... aww hell ...
Don't taunt the chaos players. Let them have their one nice thing.
As a Chaos player, I legit lol's at this. People keep saying this means there's a good chance the CSM stuff will get corresponding buffs - I mean, anything is possible, but I can't think of a single time GW has given the Loyalists a boost like this and then carried it over to the second class citizens that are my CSM. I wouldn't hold my breath.
catbarf wrote: I feel like people complaining about Firstborn Marines potentially being made better in comparison to Guardsmen are forgetting that Guardsmen are better in comparison to Firstborn Marines than they've ever been.
In 4th Ed, my Guardsmen had no orders, never got a save, and had an annoying tendency to temporarily flee after taking 3 casualties, or flee for good after losing half the squad.
In 9th Ed, my Guardsmen can double their firepower just by being near an officer, can sprint across the table as needed, hit first when they charge, always get their armor save (subject to modifiers), and are nigh-impossible to wipe out via morale.
What have the Tacticals gotten? An extra attack in the first round of combat, and a point of AP that still doesn't negate Guardsman armor?
15pts for a Tactical versus 5pts for a Guardsman right now is just not fair. They aren't 3x as good as a normal human. A W2 Tactical at 15-16pts feels more right, particularly in comparison to Intercessors, which they're still strictly inferior to stat-wise.
How does that work for an 11 point battle sister? You'd have double the wounds, double the attacks on the charge, +1S, +1 Toughness, +1WS, bolter drill, and much better special weapon options. Even with the 6+ invul, extra special weapon in a min squad, and 1d6 deny the witch on the other side, there's no possible way you could justify a 2W tac at 15 if a battle sister stays at 11. They very nearly ARE twice as good now.
Even with just basic marine army rules, tacs will have to come in at maybe a point or 2 below intercessors to not just be +1 intercessors +10 Battle Sisters and CSM(until the CSM get their second wound...maybe.) and +20 versions of things like Necron warriors or Eldar dire avengers.
yukishiro1 wrote: Typical GW, they find the wrong solution even if they identify a problem. The way to reduce lethality is to reduce lethality directly, not buff the wound characteristic. Instead, they're increasing lethality at the same time they're increasing wounds, which is the classic stat inflation progression that kills games.
Not to mention the absolute mess it is going to create if they do the update piecemeal, faction by faction. And if they were going to do it all together...why didn't they do it on the release of the new edition?
By 12th at this rate marines will have 6 wounds each and shoot 12 strength 6 shots per bolter.
A marine that has W2 will be more points. That decreases the number of guns on the table. These datasheets aren't revealing additional attacks, either. A S5 powersword VV with 2 attacks doesn't kill any more Eldar than the one that was only S4 with 2A.
A unit of S8 VV with 4 damage thunderhammers sure as hell kills more Eldar vehicles in 11 attacks than a S8 VV with 3 damage thunderhammers does in 11 attacks.
A S5 powersword VV with 2 attacks doesn't kill any more Eldar than the one that was only S4 with 2A.
Only if you're up against a foot elf. This significantly increases lethality against T4 targets for power swords and T5 and T3 targets for axes, which is a *significant* portion of the playspace.
Insectum7 wrote:Ok but here's the problem you run in to. How good should marines be at killing other marines? Chaos vs. Loyalists, how does that go down? Then, Marines vs. Aspect Warriors, how does that go down? etc.
In an ideal setting SMC would be on par with the Loyalists stats-wise, but have other special rules in line with their Legion to represent their experience. Aspect Warriors may be less resilient but be better than a Marine at their specific job by miles. Fire Dragons should be WAY better than Eradicators at destroying armour, but Eradicators fight way better and are more resilient. And so on. I'm no expert on Aeldari though.
I just remember the times where I was told "Space Marines are the ideal starting army, they're jack-of-all trades but master of none" and now they're almost master of all.
the_scotsman wrote:I would hazard to say that most marine players I know would be extremely unhappy if they were limited to only running 20 models in their army. Or at least, they would be after not very long. I know a lot of people who own like 5000-10000 points of one space marine chapter and they like bringing their toys to the tabletop.
Yeah of course, that's the problem with retroactive changes like the Primarisation of the line, if it had been like that from day 1 it would have been fine but then suddenly coexisted squatty Marines and well-proportioned Marines in the same line. So they made them different.
I agree that it feels better to use most of the models in your collection when you're proud of their paint etc and want epic games.
Typical GW, they find the wrong solution even if they identify a problem. The way to reduce lethality is to reduce lethality directly, not buff the wound characteristic. Instead, they're increasing lethality at the same time they're increasing wounds, which is the classic stat inflation progression that kills games.
Yes, but they're ALSO increasing lethality on many weapons as well so ... oh. Oh wait ... aww hell ...
Don't taunt the chaos players. Let them have their one nice thing.
As a Chaos player, I legit lol's at this. People keep saying this means there's a good chance the CSM stuff will get corresponding buffs - I mean, anything is possible, but I can't think of a single time GW has given the Loyalists a boost like this and then carried it over to the second class citizens that are my CSM. I wouldn't hold my breath.
I'm going to await judgement of anything until the whole picture is clearer.
2W Sternguard are gonna compete against Tacticals and Intercessors really hard though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, marines being 3x as good as a normal human wasn't nearly enough. In 2020 we're used to super hero movies where one super hero is worth 10,000 normal dudes. Space marines should have Imperial Knight level statlines, otherwise you don't feel like you're playing the hero faction.
Utter garbage. F comic book movies.
Aren't Reaper Launchers D3? I thought I remembered they were able to kill Custardes in one hit.
Niiru wrote: All xenos armies are now completely irrelevant, until they get a codex release.
Overstating it?
I pay 15-20 points for a T3 5+ guy, that is completely destroyed in every stat compared to a 24pt veteran. That is now 100% harder to kill than it used to be.
Far as I can see, even the new necron buffs are nowhere near this good
It depends if points remain the same or near same. If we are now dealing with 2W marines at 15pts, then Xenos have nothing that can compete at that price range. If they go up proportionally, along with primaries, then large cheap Xenos units could still be viable.
Yeah, and everyone can have all the fun of their 400 year old eldar aspect warriors, the last 0.1% of a near-extinct race obsessed with survival being suicidal chaff getting mowed down in droves by space marines.
Umm ya isn't that the proverbial joke about storm guardians?
Eldar need a rework as well for this new edition so we'll see what direction GW takes with them.
Quite frankly Storm Guardians shouldn't exist to begin with. They don't fulfill any role correctly, are garbage in terms of crunch, and they're REALLY bad in terms of fluff. That's a triple whammy.
I wouldn't hold your breath on Marine points going up. It's fairly obvious that points, stat changes, etc were set for the new codex at the same time as developing 9th including all the new units.
I would be surprised if the codex includes different points costs to the Munitorum Field Manual.
A prime example is the Multimelta vs Lascannon. The MFM has the MM 5ppm more than the LC. That makes no sense...unless it's accounting for the new 2shot profile.
It's very possible that Flamers become 12" which would explain being the same cost as Plasma or Melta.
Ditto for Heavy Bolters if they become Damage 2. 15ppm from non-Infantry is lame if it stays at Damage 1. But D:2 makes more sense
If Tactical Marines go to 2Ws, Intercessors will still have better bolters and more Atx. I'm not sure that's worth 5ppm more, but if Tacs stay at 1W, than 5ppm more is a bargain by comparison. So who knows.
Point being, there is far more reason to believe that all these changes have ALREADY been accounted for with the current 9th ed points
Aren't Reaper Launchers D3? I thought I remembered they were able to kill Custardes in one hit.
They have multiple profiles.
I'm not worried about Eldar coming up with decent counters to Multiwound Marines. Dark Reapers, Shining spears, Star cannons and loads of other multi damage weapons are plentiful. It just means taking specific units more often
A S5 powersword VV with 2 attacks doesn't kill any more Eldar than the one that was only S4 with 2A.
Only if you're up against a foot elf. This significantly increases lethality against T4 targets for power swords and T5 and T3 targets for axes, which is a *significant* portion of the playspace.
Sure, but then you're also going up in points. And then I presume people would prefer jump packs, so, even fewer models still.
A unit of S8 VV with 4 damage thunderhammers sure as hell kills more Eldar vehicles in 11 attacks than a S8 VV with 3 damage thunderhammers does in 11 attacks.
What you're getting is additional overkill and not likely additional vehicles dead unless you park them really close together. The end result is melee is more decisive and people don't have to take all thunderhammers.
Quite frankly Storm Guardians shouldn't exist to begin with. They don't fulfill any role correctly, are garbage in terms of crunch, and they're REALLY bad in terms of fluff. That's a triple whammy.
Quite frankly Storm Guardians shouldn't exist to begin with. They don't fulfill any role correctly, are garbage in terms of crunch, and they're REALLY bad in terms of fluff. That's a triple whammy.
I'm glad you're not designing the game.
And I'm glad you can be contrarian for the sake of it and somehow defend a unit that's always been bad for role fulfilling, crunch, and fluff.
ERJAK wrote: How does that work for an 11 point battle sister? You'd have double the wounds, double the attacks on the charge, +1S, +1 Toughness, +1WS, bolter drill, and much better special weapon options. Even with the 6+ invul, extra special weapon in a min squad, and 1d6 deny the witch on the other side, there's no possible way you could justify a 2W tac at 15 if a battle sister stays at 11. They very nearly ARE twice as good now.
Battle Sisters are, IMO, overpriced as it stands. Most basic infantry is overpriced for its capabilities, for that matter- CSMs, Guardians, Kabalites, Fire Warriors are all expensive enough to only be taken as taxes. If we set Guardsmen as the exemplars for light infantry and Intercessors as the exemplars for heavy infantry, there's a lot of rebalancing to be done.
Is a Battle Sister worth over twice as much as a Guardsman? I don't think so- they're twice as hard to kill with AP0 weapons, but much more vulnerable to higher-AP weapons, and have identical output in melee. Let's say a Sister is worth 9pts.
So putting 9pt Sisters against 16pt W2 Tacticals, for a given points level the Sisters have 78% more shooting, and against bolter fire the Tacticals are 50% more durable. The Tacticals inflict 50% more hits in the first round of melee, and at S4 instead of S3, but the Sisters inflict 33% more hits in subsequent rounds. When hit by Autocannons, the Tacticals take 42% more damage, and when hit by overcharged plasma, the Tacticals take a full 78% more damage.
Does that seem unreasonable? The Tacticals would have significantly lower raw shooting (even with doctrines) and be considerably more vulnerable to multi-damage weapons, but be tougher against basic rifle fire and (at least initially) better in melee. Even if we keep Tacticals at 15pts, the margins don't change much.
I mean, we certainly could go the opposite way and say that Guardsmen and Intercessors are overperformant, and rebalance with 11pt Sisters as a baseline. But at the moment that seems less likely to me than Tacticals getting an extra wound and Sisters hopefully getting cost adjustments.
Quite frankly Storm Guardians shouldn't exist to begin with. They don't fulfill any role correctly, are garbage in terms of crunch, and they're REALLY bad in terms of fluff. That's a triple whammy.
I'm glad you're not designing the game.
And I'm glad you can be contrarian for the sake of it and somehow defend a unit that's always been bad for role fulfilling, crunch, and fluff.
Yeah...I kinda felt that Storm Guardians should have been basically just rolled into the normal Guardian datasheet and just give them the options they had there. I'm pretty sure even in previous editions where Eldar were in their competitive heyday that no one ever really bothered with SG when you had Aspects/Wraithknights/Wraithguard to do the real damage in CC. The kit upgrades being finecast is an even bigger sin.
I have to question anyone's view on balance if they think the game would be *fine* if Marines were 15 ppm and just got 2 wounds because, eh, its only a wound right?
I have nothing in principle against turning a Terminator into a Custodes. But they should pay Custodes points. Given what was in Indomitus, and the past 12 months, I have very little faith GW will do it. So I think we are in for 12 months of broken Marine domination, until they eventually get nerfed, or we get utterly ludicrous rules somewhere else. (See: Ynnari 2.0, this time Eldar units can shoot 5 times in a single phase - it'll be fine, honest)
I've got very little faith.
Oh well. At least the Necron models are great. I might actually get them painted in time for a February big FAQ.
Galef wrote: I'm not worried about Eldar coming up with decent counters to Multiwound Marines. Dark Reapers, Shining spears, Star cannons and loads of other multi damage weapons are plentiful. It just means taking specific units more often
-
Not that plentiful, and not that cheap, and all of those require craftworlds.
Most competitive lists already require spamming those units in order to be even vaguely competitive. You can't spam more spam. Unless the points costs of all those units goes down significantly.
And if you don't want to run 9x war walkers and 3x falcons in every list? Well then screw you, you aren't allowed to play.
A S5 powersword VV with 2 attacks doesn't kill any more Eldar than the one that was only S4 with 2A.
Only if you're up against a foot elf. This significantly increases lethality against T4 targets for power swords and T5 and T3 targets for axes, which is a *significant* portion of the playspace.
Sure, but then you're also going up in points. And then I presume people would prefer jump packs, so, even fewer models still.
A unit of S8 VV with 4 damage thunderhammers sure as hell kills more Eldar vehicles in 11 attacks than a S8 VV with 3 damage thunderhammers does in 11 attacks.
What you're getting is additional overkill and not likely additional vehicles dead unless you park them really close together. The end result is melee is more decisive and people don't have to take all thunderhammers.
I would also assume TH cost going up.
Some vehicles come in units
Also, aren't you sort of killing your own point in the middle of it? "Marines aren't getting more killy for seriously guys!!! Oh also marines are killing stuff so fast in melee now they don't even need to specialize their units! That would be overkill!"
Quite frankly Storm Guardians shouldn't exist to begin with. They don't fulfill any role correctly, are garbage in terms of crunch, and they're REALLY bad in terms of fluff. That's a triple whammy.
I'm glad you're not designing the game.
And I'm glad you can be contrarian for the sake of it and somehow defend a unit that's always been bad for role fulfilling, crunch, and fluff.
Nothin contrarian about it. Storm Guardians meant to fight in the confines of a vessel or structure makes plenty of sense. There's even lore backing up the idea that CC weapons are more effective against Daemons, a la the Battle of Calth novel.
ERJAK wrote: How does that work for an 11 point battle sister? You'd have double the wounds, double the attacks on the charge, +1S, +1 Toughness, +1WS, bolter drill, and much better special weapon options. Even with the 6+ invul, extra special weapon in a min squad, and 1d6 deny the witch on the other side, there's no possible way you could justify a 2W tac at 15 if a battle sister stays at 11. They very nearly ARE twice as good now.
Battle Sisters are, IMO, overpriced as it stands. Most basic infantry is overpriced for its capabilities, for that matter- CSMs, Guardians, Kabalites, Fire Warriors are all expensive enough to only be taken as taxes. If we set Guardsmen as the exemplars for light infantry and Intercessors as the exemplars for heavy infantry, there's a lot of rebalancing to be done.
Is a Battle Sister worth over twice as much as a Guardsman? I don't think so- they're twice as hard to kill with AP0 weapons, but much more vulnerable to higher-AP weapons, and have identical output in melee. Let's say a Sister is worth 9pts.
So putting 9pt Sisters against 16pt W2 Tacticals, for a given points level the Sisters have 78% more shooting, and against bolter fire the Tacticals are 50% more durable. The Tacticals inflict 50% more hits in the first round of melee, and at S4 instead of S3, but the Sisters inflict 33% more hits in subsequent rounds. When hit by Autocannons, the Tacticals take 42% more damage, and when hit by overcharged plasma, the Tacticals take a full 78% more damage.
Does that seem unreasonable? The Tacticals would have significantly lower raw shooting (even with doctrines) and be considerably more vulnerable to multi-damage weapons, but be tougher against basic rifle fire and (at least initially) better in melee. Even if we keep Tacticals at 15pts, the margins don't change much.
I mean, we certainly could go the opposite way and say that Guardsmen and Intercessors are overperformant, and rebalance with 11pt Sisters as a baseline. But at the moment that seems less likely to me than Tacticals getting an extra wound and Sisters hopefully getting cost adjustments.
The one glaring flaw in all of this is that sisters went up from 9 to 11 points TWO WEEKS AGO. Why move sisters to 11 just to move them right back down to 9? That doesn't make any gorram sense.
None of the options presented make any sense given that we had a cost rebalancing less than a twitter-meme lifecycle ago. Our best option for parity, out of a strange, strange situation GW created, is to bump two wound tacs up to 17-19ppm depending on what other space marine rules get rebalanced and accept that infantry squads are really, really good for their points.
Nothing about the way they rolled out these changes makes any sense. Trying to make sense out of it is just as silly as the people who were trying to make sense out of the last LOS change, only to be made to look like fools when a couple of days later GW came out and said "ok, yeah, that change was stupid and didn't make any sense, sorry."
When you see a company operating in a way that doesn't seem to make any sense, 9 times out of 10 that is exactly what is happening. There's no subtle and cunning plan here, it's just exactly what it looks like: a company flying by the seat of its pants with nobody talking to anybody else.
Releasing a points update at the start of 9th that reflects Codex changes that could easily be two years away from release is mind-bogglingly stupid. That's "GW gonna GW" on a whole new level.
ERJAK wrote: The one glaring flaw in all of this is that sisters went up from 9 to 11 points TWO WEEKS AGO. Why move sisters to 11 just to move them right back down to 9? That doesn't make any gorram sense.
I'm not saying I think they're going to do it. I'm saying I think that's what should be done, whether Tacs go up to W2 or not. Tacs staying at W1 does not make Sisters better compared to Guardsmen or compared to the other options in their own codex. It doesn't make 10pt Guardians or 9pt Kabalites better, either.
The points are a complete mess, and I don't buy the idea that they're all based on upcoming rules changes that have yet to materialize.
15pts for a Tactical versus 5pts for a Guardsman right now is just not fair. They aren't 3x as good as a normal human. A W2 Tactical at 15-16pts feels more right, particularly in comparison to Intercessors, which they're still strictly inferior to stat-wise.
True, but they are actually twice as good as an ork boy which is 8ppm. Guardsmen are on par with ork boyz, so they should be 8 or even 9ppm. Being 5ppm (like T2 6+ gretchins with pistols) is the problem, not SM being 15. If classic SM get 2W base they'd be underpriced unless many other infantry units from different armies get their +1W as well.
Intercessors should be 24-25ppm with the current state of 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: Terminators at 3w with a 2+ and 5++, a 24' BS3+ 4 shot stormbolter and a Powerfist at 36pts
Vs
a Mega nob at 3w with a 2+ no invuln a 18' BS5+ 4 shot kustom shoota and a powerklaw at 38pts
If that is actually a thing please someone explain how GW balanced this even remotely.
Yeah, Meganobz should definitely get their +1W (if not +2W) as well. Like many other infantry units. Termies also have free deepstrike ability, we typically pay 2CPs to deliver Meganobz, or add an expensive Heavy Support transport to carry them, and it's still considered a good deal, even if the HS section is crowded with good options and we have to make some decisions.
Sure, but then you're also going up in points. And then I presume people would prefer jump packs, so, even fewer models still.
A 5-man VanVet team with jump packs and a Power Sword/Axe/Maul on the Sarge is exactly the same cost as an Intercessor squad. There's no "fewer models" here.
SemperMortis wrote: Terminators at 3w with a 2+ and 5++, a 24' BS3+ 4 shot stormbolter and a Powerfist at 36pts
Vs
a Mega nob at 3w with a 2+ no invuln a 18' BS5+ 4 shot kustom shoota and a powerklaw at 38pts
If that is actually a thing please someone explain how GW balanced this even remotely.
It doesn't look good. I really hope that get's addressed with point releases. Have Ork points been leaked yet?
Yes, they're 38ppm base, 40ppm with dual saws. Points cost is appropriate, it can't really go down more than that. The unit needs to get buffs in stats like Termies got or Termies need to be 55-60ppm.
SemperMortis wrote: Terminators at 3w with a 2+ and 5++, a 24' BS3+ 4 shot stormbolter and a Powerfist at 36pts
Vs
a Mega nob at 3w with a 2+ no invuln a 18' BS5+ 4 shot kustom shoota and a powerklaw at 38pts
If that is actually a thing please someone explain how GW balanced this even remotely.
It doesn't look good. I really hope that get's addressed with point releases. Have Ork points been leaked yet?
Yes, they're 38ppm base, 40ppm with dual saws. Points cost is appropriate, it can't really go down more than that. The unit needs to get buffs in stats like Termies got or Termies need to be 55-60ppm.
Also, aren't you sort of killing your own point in the middle of it? "Marines aren't getting more killy for seriously guys!!! Oh also marines are killing stuff so fast in melee now they don't even need to specialize their units! That would be overkill!"
So you've got people fielding VV at a markedly higher cost than other options. That unit is no better at killing targets outside of tanks and W4 models. Spending 50+ points over Assault Intercessors means there's A) fewer models on the table and B) fewer weapons. If those two thunderhammer VV do 10.3 damage instead of 7.8 then the tank is still crippled. You didn't vastly change the game state.
All of this is pointless. People can bluster and complain all they want but at the end of the day, Space Marines sell. they are the preferred army for the majority of new players and people that win like to play more games - therefore it makes good business sense to ensure every other release is a space marine and that said Space Marines are crazy good at what they do.
Remember it wasn’t so long ago they gained extra attacks in combat and Rapid Fire rules for bolters got buffed, then they got doctrines and enhanced chapter tactics. It’s unsurprising they get buffed further.
The solution is not to ask whether standard Space Marines will go to 2 wounds, it’s instead to ask why they aren’t already at 3 wounds each and why you haven’t spend your kids’ inheritance on them.
SemperMortis wrote: Terminators at 3w with a 2+ and 5++, a 24' BS3+ 4 shot stormbolter and a Powerfist at 36pts
Vs
a Mega nob at 3w with a 2+ no invuln a 18' BS5+ 4 shot kustom shoota and a powerklaw at 38pts
If that is actually a thing please someone explain how GW balanced this even remotely.
It doesn't look good. I really hope that get's addressed with point releases. Have Ork points been leaked yet?
Yes, they're 38ppm base, 40ppm with dual saws. Points cost is appropriate, it can't really go down more than that. The unit needs to get buffs in stats like Termies got or Termies need to be 55-60ppm.
Then yeah, that looks bad. I agree.
If not for shock assault it'd be better...
MANZ are S5 3A base as opposed to S4 2A for termies. MANZ can also come as 3 mans, which is super flexible especially with Combis and more so if Skorchas go to 12".
While it isn't the most perfect balance we also don't know what might happen to MANZ.
Sumilidon wrote: All of this is pointless. People can bluster and complain all they want but at the end of the day, Space Marines sell. they are the preferred army for the majority of new players and people that win like to play more games - therefore it makes good business sense to ensure every other release is a space marine and that said Space Marines are crazy good at what they do.
Remember it wasn’t so long ago they gained extra attacks in combat and Rapid Fire rules for bolters got buffed, then they got doctrines and enhanced chapter tactics. It’s unsurprising they get buffed further.
The solution is not to ask whether standard Space Marines will go to 2 wounds, it’s instead to ask why they aren’t already at 3 wounds each and why you haven’t spend your kids’ inheritance on them.
Although. . . if Space Mariens sell so well it seems like the thing to do would be to encourage larger armies of them. You'd actually want to make them cheaper, points-wise, rather than keep buffing them and adjusting points to fit.
But really GW looks like it's just churning the balance as they tend to do, so your "optimal" collection of models shifts and you expand because of that.
Sumilidon wrote: All of this is pointless. People can bluster and complain all they want but at the end of the day, Space Marines sell. they are the preferred army for the majority of new players and people that win like to play more games - therefore it makes good business sense to ensure every other release is a space marine and that said Space Marines are crazy good at what they do...
The fallacy here is the assumption that fun is a purely binary thing based solely on whether you win or not. There are a lot of different sorts of people who buy GW minis in the world for all sorts of reasons, but I find the most common element in whether people have fun playing the game is whether the game was close. People don't like winning if they feel like there was no way they could have lost, people don't like losing if they feel like there's no way they could have won. People like coming away from the game with the impression that whether they won or lost was based on how they played rather than on who had the more broken army book.
Sumilidon wrote: All of this is pointless. People can bluster and complain all they want but at the end of the day, Space Marines sell. they are the preferred army for the majority of new players and people that win like to play more games - therefore it makes good business sense to ensure every other release is a space marine and that said Space Marines are crazy good at what they do.
Remember it wasn’t so long ago they gained extra attacks in combat and Rapid Fire rules for bolters got buffed, then they got doctrines and enhanced chapter tactics. It’s unsurprising they get buffed further.
The solution is not to ask whether standard Space Marines will go to 2 wounds, it’s instead to ask why they aren’t already at 3 wounds each and why you haven’t spend your kids’ inheritance on them.
Although. . . if Space Mariens sell so well it seems like the thing to do would be to encourage larger armies of them. You'd actually want to make them cheaper, points-wise, rather than keep buffing them and adjusting points to fit.
But really GW looks like it's just churning the balance as they tend to do, so your "optimal" collection of models shifts and you expand because of that.
Far from it, you want to encourage smaller armies to start with. 8th edition did the same:
* You increase points to make the armies smaller. New players can get themselves an army up to scratch quicker this way And new players are the lifeblood of the business (can’t expand without new players)
* Smaller armies lead to simpler games and this makes integration to the new Rules easier. Less frustration, less complexity and as a result, you are more likely to retain new and old players
* Add new models to give your old players new things to collect to keep their armies current. Buff those units to make them sell better (a lesson learnt from 8th when Primaris were lacklustre and did not sell as well as projected)
* Finally you increase the complexity and decrease the points as the edition ages. This keeps all parties interested with new and wonderful rules, whilst also encouraging those new players to continue buying models to be able to field an army.
MANZ are S5 3A base as opposed to S4 2A for termies. MANZ can also come as 3 mans, which is super flexible especially with Combis and more so if Skorchas go to 12".
While it isn't the most perfect balance we also don't know what might happen to MANZ.
Termies have access to free deepstrike, cheap 3++ and thunder hammers are flat 3 damage. They shoot at BS3+ and can have re-rolls quite easily. Some, like SW, also have native +1 to hit and multiple ways to get free +1A. Buffing meganobz stats is not as easy, giving them re-rolls flat out impossible outside a couple of klans.
Skorchas at 15ppm will never see the table, unless (maybe) their range become 24'', which is absurd of course and never gonna happen.
Sumilidon wrote: All of this is pointless. People can bluster and complain all they want but at the end of the day, Space Marines sell. they are the preferred army for the majority of new players and people that win like to play more games - therefore it makes good business sense to ensure every other release is a space marine and that said Space Marines are crazy good at what they do.
Remember it wasn’t so long ago they gained extra attacks in combat and Rapid Fire rules for bolters got buffed, then they got doctrines and enhanced chapter tactics. It’s unsurprising they get buffed further.
The solution is not to ask whether standard Space Marines will go to 2 wounds, it’s instead to ask why they aren’t already at 3 wounds each and why you haven’t spend your kids’ inheritance on them.
Although. . . if Space Mariens sell so well it seems like the thing to do would be to encourage larger armies of them. You'd actually want to make them cheaper, points-wise, rather than keep buffing them and adjusting points to fit.
But really GW looks like it's just churning the balance as they tend to do, so your "optimal" collection of models shifts and you expand because of that.
Far from it, you want to encourage smaller armies to start with. 8th edition did the same:
* You increase points to make the armies smaller. New players can get themselves an army up to scratch quicker this way And new players are the lifeblood of the business (can’t expand without new players)
* Smaller armies lead to simpler games and this makes integration to the new Rules easier. Less frustration, less complexity and as a result, you are more likely to retain new and old players
* Add new models to give your old players new things to collect to keep their armies current. Buff those units to make them sell better (a lesson learnt from 8th when Primaris were lacklustre and did not sell as well as projected)
* Finally you increase the complexity and decrease the points as the edition ages. This keeps all parties interested with new and wonderful rules, whilst also encouraging those new players to continue buying models to be able to field an army.
Or you could, without increasing points, release a starter with a decent selection of models on the cheap.
Then, adjust rules and points semi-annually to make those units less competitive and encourage more purchases.
Either way they got a good system for churning things. I'm just glad I'm sitting on a large collection of flexible units where I can whether the changes.
Quite frankly Storm Guardians shouldn't exist to begin with. They don't fulfill any role correctly, are garbage in terms of crunch, and they're REALLY bad in terms of fluff. That's a triple whammy.
I'm glad you're not designing the game.
And I'm glad you can be contrarian for the sake of it and somehow defend a unit that's always been bad for role fulfilling, crunch, and fluff.
Nothin contrarian about it. Storm Guardians meant to fight in the confines of a vessel or structure makes plenty of sense. There's even lore backing up the idea that CC weapons are more effective against Daemons, a la the Battle of Calth novel.
If that were the case rules would've justified it, but here we are.
Quite frankly Storm Guardians shouldn't exist to begin with. They don't fulfill any role correctly, are garbage in terms of crunch, and they're REALLY bad in terms of fluff. That's a triple whammy.
I'm glad you're not designing the game.
And I'm glad you can be contrarian for the sake of it and somehow defend a unit that's always been bad for role fulfilling, crunch, and fluff.
Nothin contrarian about it. Storm Guardians meant to fight in the confines of a vessel or structure makes plenty of sense. There's even lore backing up the idea that CC weapons are more effective against Daemons, a la the Battle of Calth novel.
If that were the case rules would've justified it, but here we are.
And humans can punch a tank to death, too. Lore =/= Rules, Slayer. You should know that.
MANZ are S5 3A base as opposed to S4 2A for termies. MANZ can also come as 3 mans, which is super flexible especially with Combis and more so if Skorchas go to 12".
While it isn't the most perfect balance we also don't know what might happen to MANZ.
Blackie already covered it fairly well, but Termies also benefit from free deep strike, access to really good gear like the aforementioned 3++, they can be buffed easily by a plethora of readily available competitive characters who are most likely already organically included in the army and that is before you mention the buffs they receive from Chapter Tactics.
While I agree we don't know what GW intends to do with Meganobz, its a better than even chance that it won't be much. As far as the Kombi-Skorcha is concerned. I mean with the Heavy Flamer getting 12' range there is hope we could get a 12' Skorcha but even that wouldn't do much do help them since the go to load out for a meganob right now is Twin Saws since they get +1 attack for 2pts more and realistically a Kustom Shoota is a waste of time/space. and the Kombi is an additional 15pts each for a fire and forget unit of meganobz which will not live past the first enemy shooting phase after they arrive on the table.
For me though the biggest imbalance is the complete lack of organic invuln save in an edition which seems geared towards multi-damage weapons. Why field expensive elite infantry that will get destroyed easily by the enemies numerous multi-damage ranged weapons?
Quite frankly Storm Guardians shouldn't exist to begin with. They don't fulfill any role correctly, are garbage in terms of crunch, and they're REALLY bad in terms of fluff. That's a triple whammy.
I'm glad you're not designing the game.
And I'm glad you can be contrarian for the sake of it and somehow defend a unit that's always been bad for role fulfilling, crunch, and fluff.
Nothin contrarian about it. Storm Guardians meant to fight in the confines of a vessel or structure makes plenty of sense. There's even lore backing up the idea that CC weapons are more effective against Daemons, a la the Battle of Calth novel.
If that were the case rules would've justified it, but here we are.
And humans can punch a tank to death, too. Lore =/= Rules, Slayer. You should know that.
And lore had them doing it too on rare occasion. So is it justified?
MANZ are S5 3A base as opposed to S4 2A for termies. MANZ can also come as 3 mans, which is super flexible especially with Combis and more so if Skorchas go to 12".
While it isn't the most perfect balance we also don't know what might happen to MANZ.
Termies have access to free deepstrike, cheap 3++ and thunder hammers are flat 3 damage. They shoot at BS3+ and can have re-rolls quite easily. Some, like SW, also have native +1 to hit and multiple ways to get free +1A. Buffing meganobz stats is not as easy, giving them re-rolls flat out impossible outside a couple of klans.
Skorchas at 15ppm will never see the table, unless (maybe) their range become 24'', which is absurd of course and never gonna happen.
And lore had them doing it too on rare occasion. So is it justified?
I'd argue no, which cuts both ways btw, so any point you're trying to make is irrelevant.
Storm Guardians are a thing, they have a reason to exist, some people think they're cool and fluffy. It doesn't matter if they're on their own datasheet or folded into a generic Guardian one. There's no reason to drop them.
SemperMortis wrote: Terminators at 3w with a 2+ and 5++, a 24' BS3+ 4 shot stormbolter and a Powerfist at 36pts
Vs
a Mega nob at 3w with a 2+ no invuln a 18' BS5+ 4 shot kustom shoota and a powerklaw at 38pts
If that is actually a thing please someone explain how GW balanced this even remotely.
It doesn't look good. I really hope that get's addressed with point releases. Have Ork points been leaked yet?
Do you mean terminator points? Because we have the current ork points (38 for the base gear he listed), and they aren't likely to change until the ork codex rolls around (and we have no ETA on that, not even a vague notion).
We don't yet have points for 3W terminators, but definitely will in October.
Sumilidon wrote: All of this is pointless. People can bluster and complain all they want but at the end of the day, Space Marines sell. they are the preferred army for the majority of new players and people that win like to play more games - therefore it makes good business sense to ensure every other release is a space marine and that said Space Marines are crazy good at what they do...
The fallacy here is the assumption that fun is a purely binary thing based solely on whether you win or not. There are a lot of different sorts of people who buy GW minis in the world for all sorts of reasons, but I find the most common element in whether people have fun playing the game is whether the game was close. People don't like winning if they feel like there was no way they could have lost, people don't like losing if they feel like there's no way they could have won. People like coming away from the game with the impression that whether they won or lost was based on how they played rather than on who had the more broken army book.
I'm sad that no one has commented on this, because it's spot-on. Losing a close game is way more fun than winning a blow-out, regardless of whether you're playing casual or competitive.
Also, aren't you sort of killing your own point in the middle of it? "Marines aren't getting more killy for seriously guys!!! Oh also marines are killing stuff so fast in melee now they don't even need to specialize their units! That would be overkill!"
So you've got people fielding VV at a markedly higher cost than other options. That unit is no better at killing targets outside of tanks and W4 models. Spending 50+ points over Assault Intercessors means there's A) fewer models on the table and B) fewer weapons. If those two thunderhammer VV do 10.3 damage instead of 7.8 then the tank is still crippled. You didn't vastly change the game state.[/quote
Well, its the difference between the new thunderhammers killing the tank, while the old ones leave the tank alive to shoot for another turn. Kind of a big deal.
Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?
I just can't get behind the idea that GW created these points values in December 2019 at the latest (since playtesters said those points were frozen before they were brought in) based on defensive buffs that would be coming in codices 1-2 years out. GW's never planned out an entire edition's worth of codices in advance like that before.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?
I just can't get behind the idea that GW created these points values in December 2019 at the latest (since playtesters said those points were frozen before they were brought in) based on defensive buffs that would be coming in codices 1-2 years out. GW's never planned out an entire edition's worth of codices in advance like that before.
It would be utterly terrible if they did, too. Imagine having an army that's number 10 in line for a codex, and for no explicable reason, its written based on the state of play and rules that were only valid 2 years previous under a different edition.
It'd be a catastrophe.
And that doesn't even address different weapon and unit profiles that didn't even exist at the time.
----
The idea that they made a mess of quick and dirty 'get-you-by' point values for the 9th edition launch is much more coherent. There are a lot of traces of old formulas and biases, and a lot of reversions of CA 2018 & 19 points updates to what GW believes things are 'supposed to' cost. An not insignificant number of units are back to their 8th edition Index costs, or close to it. (Intercessors are 20 points again, MultiMeltas are once again more expensive than Lascannons, and so on)
Sumilidon wrote: All of this is pointless. People can bluster and complain all they want but at the end of the day, Space Marines sell. they are the preferred army for the majority of new players and people that win like to play more games - therefore it makes good business sense to ensure every other release is a space marine and that said Space Marines are crazy good at what they do...
The fallacy here is the assumption that fun is a purely binary thing based solely on whether you win or not. There are a lot of different sorts of people who buy GW minis in the world for all sorts of reasons, but I find the most common element in whether people have fun playing the game is whether the game was close. People don't like winning if they feel like there was no way they could have lost, people don't like losing if they feel like there's no way they could have won. People like coming away from the game with the impression that whether they won or lost was based on how they played rather than on who had the more broken army book.
I'm sad that no one has commented on this, because it's spot-on. Losing a close game is way more fun than winning a blow-out, regardless of whether you're playing casual or competitive.
In the long run then yes, but during the first few months of a hobby - nobody likes to play only games which are crushing defeats - especially kids who fall under the new blood category. Imagine playing against your own child and you keep smashing their army because they picked one that was hard to play or nerfed to hell whilst you play a full-on competitive list. I doubt that child will want to keep playing - hell I doubt most adults would. Space Marines allow new players to reliably do well and as such, make it seem like a game they could be good at.
Sumilidon wrote: All of this is pointless. People can bluster and complain all they want but at the end of the day, Space Marines sell. they are the preferred army for the majority of new players and people that win like to play more games - therefore it makes good business sense to ensure every other release is a space marine and that said Space Marines are crazy good at what they do...
The fallacy here is the assumption that fun is a purely binary thing based solely on whether you win or not. There are a lot of different sorts of people who buy GW minis in the world for all sorts of reasons, but I find the most common element in whether people have fun playing the game is whether the game was close. People don't like winning if they feel like there was no way they could have lost, people don't like losing if they feel like there's no way they could have won. People like coming away from the game with the impression that whether they won or lost was based on how they played rather than on who had the more broken army book.
I'm sad that no one has commented on this, because it's spot-on. Losing a close game is way more fun than winning a blow-out, regardless of whether you're playing casual or competitive.
In the long run then yes, but during the first few months of a hobby - nobody likes to play only games which are crushing defeats - especially kids who fall under the new blood category. Imagine playing against your own child and you keep smashing their army because they picked one that was hard to play or nerfed to hell whilst you play a full-on competitive list. I doubt that child will want to keep playing - hell I doubt most adults would. Space Marines allow new players to reliably do well and as such, make it seem like a game they could be good at.
You're being unnecessarily black-and-white here. There's a difference between making sure the newbie has an easy learning curve and can win games, and making sure the newbie army book can steamroll every other army book without effort.
Custodes Terminators are currently 3 Wounds. They should be 4 wounds, why they are only 3 is just weird. If normal marine terminators go up to 3 wounds I absolutely DEMAND 4 wound Custodes Terminators, possibly even 5 wounds.
Custodes Terminators are currently 3 Wounds. They should be 4 wounds, why they are only 3 is just weird. If normal marine terminators go up to 3 wounds I absolutely DEMAND 4 wound Custodes Terminators, possibly even 5 wounds.
Custodes Terminators (Allarus/Aquilon) are already 4W. Are you thinking of regular Custodian Guard/Wardens?
Custodes Terminators are currently 3 Wounds. They should be 4 wounds, why they are only 3 is just weird. If normal marine terminators go up to 3 wounds I absolutely DEMAND 4 wound Custodes Terminators, possibly even 5 wounds.
Oh well if you demand it, GW will definitely get right on that. You hold your breath, they‘ll announce it any time now.
Custodes Terminators are currently 3 Wounds. They should be 4 wounds, why they are only 3 is just weird. If normal marine terminators go up to 3 wounds I absolutely DEMAND 4 wound Custodes Terminators, possibly even 5 wounds.
Custodes Terminators (Allarus/Aquilon) are already 4W. Are you thinking of regular Custodian Guard/Wardens?
Okay, I'll admit I had a brain fart. Been too darn long since I've had a game.
Custodes Terminators are currently 3 Wounds. They should be 4 wounds, why they are only 3 is just weird. If normal marine terminators go up to 3 wounds I absolutely DEMAND 4 wound Custodes Terminators, possibly even 5 wounds.
Custodes Terminators (Allarus/Aquilon) are already 4W. Are you thinking of regular Custodian Guard/Wardens?
Okay, I'll admit I had a brain fart. Been too darn long since I've had a game.
I mean, I'd love it if they went to 4W in 30k, but they might be a bit too good if they did.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?
Points we have now are based on 8th edition codexes, with new book they should definitely change according to how things develop in the new codex. 1W 15ppm tacs makes sense comparing to many other troops like boyz, sisters, all aeldary ones, firewarriors, necron warriors, etc...
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?
Points we have now are based on 8th edition codexes, with new book they should definitely change according to how things develop in the new codex. 1W 15ppm tacs makes sense comparing to many other troops like boyz, sisters, all aeldary ones, firewarriors, necron warriors, etc...
20 point intercessors and 5 point Guardsmen don't though.
These points arn't based on anything more than dumb luck and some idiots formula.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?
Points we have now are based on 8th edition codexes, with new book they should definitely change according to how things develop in the new codex. 1W 15ppm tacs makes sense comparing to many other troops like boyz, sisters, all aeldary ones, firewarriors, necron warriors, etc...
Does it make sense though ? An eldar ranger is 15 pts without extra toughness, save, or dctrines, attacks, leadership reroll and whatever chapter traits you can pick and zeo AP. And im sure ive forgotten soem rules...
A Dire avenger is 13 pts. again less toughness worse save worse range no ap unless you roll a six.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?
Points we have now are based on 8th edition codexes, with new book they should definitely change according to how things develop in the new codex. 1W 15ppm tacs makes sense comparing to many other troops like boyz, sisters, all aeldary ones, firewarriors, necron warriors, etc...
Does it make sense though ?
In terms of gameplay? No.
But GW has almost always overvalued the elf stat line. And it doesn't seem to matter that the distinct elf-stats are all gone from 40k, and baseline before gear and special rules, they're not that different from guardsmen (guardians) or stormtroopers/sisters (aspects)
The only eldar fix at this point is rebuilding those armies from the ground up, and that means it ain't happening until their new codex.
... and it might end up being an absurd over-reaction. I do fear some bizarre, wack-a-doodle Ynnari suicide squad army and everything else tossed in the Legends box.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?
Points we have now are based on 8th edition codexes, with new book they should definitely change according to how things develop in the new codex. 1W 15ppm tacs makes sense comparing to many other troops like boyz, sisters, all aeldary ones, firewarriors, necron warriors, etc...
Does it make sense though ?
In terms of gameplay? No.
But GW has almost always overvalued the elf stat line. And it doesn't seem to matter that the distinct elf-stats are all gone from 40k, and baseline before gear and special rules, they're not that different from guardsmen (guardians) or stormtroopers/sisters (aspects)
The only eldar fix at this point is rebuilding those armies from the ground up, and that means it ain't happening until their new codex.
... and it might end up being an absurd over-reaction. I do fear some bizarre, wack-a-doodle Ynnari suicide squad army and everything else tossed in the Legends box.
The upside would be id kick 40k for good lol.
More time for non GW models and painting for displays.
I find it funny how people keep trying to use the Lore to justify tactical marines having 2W.
In the Lore Necrons are insanely resilient and hard to put down
Tau are expert sharp shooters
Orcs outnumber you like 1000 to 1
Tyranids will take the bodies of the fallen and turn them into better predators who won't make the same mistake twice
The lore is created to get you invested in the game and not as a way to determine what stats or rules model should have all factions have crazy broken lore and if GW started trying to adhere to that then the game would be hard as hell to balance
I can get behind GK, DW and elite marines having 2 W but not all old marines
If this is rolled out for cult marines and Chosen then Chosen should be a troops choice for the undivided legions, otherwise that would mean the mono God legions would have 2W troops while the rest wouldn't. Unless basic csm go to 2W, which I doubt.
I must say that the idea of wounds/attacks and weapons changing for Chaos Marines has me actually interested in the faction again. After Primaris came out, it totally killed any interest i had at all in all marines. Primaris are the stats that all marines should have, but until Indomitus, Primaris were some of the worst looking models in the GW range. Now that we've come to our senses and created more medieval looking marines, they are actually cool looking again (I'm looking at you Blade Guard). This has piqued my interest in Black Templars again and possibly Black Legion, if the rumours are true regarding stat changes. If not, then whatever. Move on to Xenos armies.
I was gonna say... if the changes and abilities that GW give to chaos isn't enough for you, the last thing you want to do is get involved in the Xenos.
I have models that are likely older than you are, and they're the same sculpts being sold now. And the rules for them haven't been good in over a decade.
Aza'Gorod wrote: I find it funny how people keep trying to use the Lore to justify tactical marines having 2W.
In the Lore Necrons are insanely resilient and hard to put down
Tau are expert sharp shooters
Orcs outnumber you like 1000 to 1
Tyranids will take the bodies of the fallen and turn them into better predators who won't make the same mistake twice
The lore is created to get you invested in the game and not as a way to determine what stats or rules model should have all factions have crazy broken lore and if GW started trying to adhere to that then the game would be hard as hell to balance
I can get behind GK, DW and elite marines having 2 W but not all old marines
Well people were complaining about Necrons being tough when 7.5th was a thing. Tau aren't really sharp shooters in the fluff so much as they just prefer range combat and are apt for it, and Orks are still a horde army, though not a great one.
Aza'Gorod wrote: I find it funny how people keep trying to use the Lore to justify tactical marines having 2W.
In the Lore Necrons are insanely resilient and hard to put down
Tau are expert sharp shooters
Orcs outnumber you like 1000 to 1
Tyranids will take the bodies of the fallen and turn them into better predators who won't make the same mistake twice
The lore is created to get you invested in the game and not as a way to determine what stats or rules model should have all factions have crazy broken lore and if GW started trying to adhere to that then the game would be hard as hell to balance
I can get behind GK, DW and elite marines having 2 W but not all old marines
Well people were complaining about Necrons being tough when 7.5th was a thing. Tau aren't really sharp shooters in the fluff so much as they just prefer range combat and are apt for it, and Orks are still a horde army, though not a great one.
Your missing my point though. If we start going by the fluff we'll have some really stupid lists. And I know your referencing the decurion which I admit was tough but as I said if we start going by fluff we'll never stop.
Pretty certain if we go by fluff marneus calgar has to strength to pick up pretty much any vehicle and swing it around like it weighs nothing or imotekh the storm lord will pretty much never lose a fight as in his fluff he had a fight with marshall helbrect and the Marshall got tired (yes a space marine got tired) as Imotekh regenerated any damage faster then he could inflict it
I would rather play a fair and balanced game then a game of who had the best fluff
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?
Points we have now are based on 8th edition codexes, with new book they should definitely change according to how things develop in the new codex. 1W 15ppm tacs makes sense comparing to many other troops like boyz, sisters, all aeldary ones, firewarriors, necron warriors, etc...
20 point intercessors and 5 point Guardsmen don't though.
These points arn't based on anything more than dumb luck and some idiots formula.
Guardsmen being 5 is the problem, not intercessors being 20 (those primaris are still undercosted!)
Guardsmen aren't inferior to Kabalite Warriors or ork Boyz so they should be 8-9 ppm. 5 ppm is the cost of a Gretchin: T2 6+, equipped with pistols, no clan bonus.
The reason there’s a perceived need for “something else” to differentiate elite units is really just an effect of the change to the AP system. Before, you could simply limit the classes of weapons that could reliably hurt a unit, now even a little bit of AP goes a long way. Toughness was a good way, but as was said on the first page a point of toughness rarely makes much of a difference.
Well I mean, hell Boyz are already 33% more expensive than they were 2 editions ago. Why not just go all the way up to 12 to 15ppm Ork boyz and give them 2 wounds each, probably want to give them good armor due to price, so lets make it 3+ save, And i can't really see them being useful at that price and armor without a good ranged weapon so what if we gave them a longer ranged shoota, say 24' S4 and make it Rapid fire instead of assault to balance it. Then we should probably increase their BS to 3+ to make the Boyz worth taking with their new longer ranged rapid fire bolt...i mean shoota. Probably want to redo "Kultures" to make them more in line with shooting...we could call them Kombat Doctrines.
But then Ork boyz would be competitive against Space Marine Tacs. I think this is a good idea.
SemperMortis wrote: Well I mean, hell Boyz are already 33% more expensive than they were 2 editions ago. Why not just go all the way up to 12 to 15ppm Ork boyz and give them 2 wounds each, probably want to give them good armor due to price, so lets make it 3+ save, And i can't really see them being useful at that price and armor without a good ranged weapon so what if we gave them a longer ranged shoota, say 24' S4 and make it Rapid fire instead of assault to balance it. Then we should probably increase their BS to 3+ to make the Boyz worth taking with their new longer ranged rapid fire bolt...i mean shoota. Probably want to redo "Kultures" to make them more in line with shooting...we could call them Kombat Doctrines.
But then Ork boyz would be competitive against Space Marine Tacs. I think this is a good idea.
Give me AP-1 choppas and +1A on the charge and you got a DEAL.
SemperMortis wrote: Well I mean, hell Boyz are already 33% more expensive than they were 2 editions ago. Why not just go all the way up to 12 to 15ppm Ork boyz and give them 2 wounds each, probably want to give them good armor due to price, so lets make it 3+ save, And i can't really see them being useful at that price and armor without a good ranged weapon so what if we gave them a longer ranged shoota, say 24' S4 and make it Rapid fire instead of assault to balance it. Then we should probably increase their BS to 3+ to make the Boyz worth taking with their new longer ranged rapid fire bolt...i mean shoota. Probably want to redo "Kultures" to make them more in line with shooting...we could call them Kombat Doctrines.
But then Ork boyz would be competitive against Space Marine Tacs. I think this is a good idea.
Give me AP-1 choppas and +1A on the charge and you got a DEAL.
That would make orcs better then meq elites in melee, and orcs should never be stronger in melee then marines.
SemperMortis wrote: Well I mean, hell Boyz are already 33% more expensive than they were 2 editions ago. Why not just go all the way up to 12 to 15ppm Ork boyz and give them 2 wounds each, probably want to give them good armor due to price, so lets make it 3+ save, And i can't really see them being useful at that price and armor without a good ranged weapon so what if we gave them a longer ranged shoota, say 24' S4 and make it Rapid fire instead of assault to balance it. Then we should probably increase their BS to 3+ to make the Boyz worth taking with their new longer ranged rapid fire bolt...i mean shoota. Probably want to redo "Kultures" to make them more in line with shooting...we could call them Kombat Doctrines.
But then Ork boyz would be competitive against Space Marine Tacs. I think this is a good idea.
Give me AP-1 choppas and +1A on the charge and you got a DEAL.
That would make orcs better then meq elites in melee, and orcs should never be stronger in melee then marines.
Orks should me equal of marines in melee but win through being more numerous going by the fluff, going back a few years a choppa used to prevent any save being better than 4+, back in the days of the old AP system, that was a massive deal forcing terminators to use a 4+.
Karol wrote: That would make orcs better then meq elites in melee, and orcs should never be stronger in melee then marines.
Karol, you are missing the joke. They are pushing for using the exact SM statline for an ork. Hence the 3+, Kombat doctrine, Astartes Chainchoppas, shock assault, ...
Karol wrote: That would make orcs better then meq elites in melee, and orcs should never be stronger in melee then marines.
Karol, you are missing the joke. They are pushing for using the exact SM statline for an ork. Hence the 3+, Kombat doctrine, Astartes Chainchoppas, shock assault, ...
"An ork should never be better than a Marine in melee" is exactly the problem. It should work like this (just as examples):
The Eldar should be faster than the Marine.
The Necron should be tougher than the Marine.
The Ork should melee better than the Marine.
The Tau should shoot better than the Marine.
But:
The Marine should be tougher than the Eldar.
The Marine should be faster than the Necron.
The Marine should shoot better than the Ork.
The Marine should melee better than the Tau.
Unit1126PLL wrote: "An ork should never be better than a Marine in melee" is exactly the problem. It should work like this (just as examples):
The Eldar should be faster than the Marine.
The Necron should be tougher than the Marine.
The Ork should melee better than the Marine.
The Tau should shoot better than the Marine.
But:
The Marine should be tougher than the Eldar.
The Marine should be faster than the Necron.
The Marine should shoot better than the Ork.
The Marine should melee better than the Tau.
This sums it up nicely, kind of skirts past the point of multiple bodies potentially but if it were a very basic 1-2-1 comparison it's spot on,
Wounds going up across the board would make for some really really interesting games. it would definitely have to be done very carefully, and there would be definite winners and losers (as always) but in the lieu of aos would massively decrease lethality and make the game more fun.
Maybe it could be a game wide faq upon the cron/marine dex drop day? From what it seems lots of things from both are going up in wounds so maybe they would change everything in one fell swoop.
Or they would do what usually happens and have the armies with codexes just be far better than ones without. We'll see.
Unit1126PLL wrote: "An ork should never be better than a Marine in melee" is exactly the problem. It should work like this (just as examples):
The Eldar should be faster than the Marine.
The Necron should be tougher than the Marine.
The Ork should melee better than the Marine.
The Tau should shoot better than the Marine.
But:
The Marine should be tougher than the Eldar.
The Marine should be faster than the Necron.
The Marine should shoot better than the Ork.
The Marine should melee better than the Tau.
This sums it up nicely, kind of skirts past the point of multiple bodies potentially but if it were a very basic 1-2-1 comparison it's spot on,
Exactly. and this is where we run into the problem of OPness, because 9th looves flexibility.
I don't think the problem is flexibility, I think it's that:
The (Primaris) Space Marine outshoots all of them.
The (Primaris) Space Marine outfights all of them.
The (Primaris) Space Marine outlasts all of them.
The (Primaris) Space Marine outruns all of them.
(though for the last one you have to use an Impulsor and disembark after the move )
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't think the problem is flexibility, I think it's that:
The (Primaris) Space Marine outshoots all of them.
The (Primaris) Space Marine outfights all of them.
The (Primaris) Space Marine outlasts all of them.
The (Primaris) Space Marine outruns all of them.
(though for the last one you have to use an Impulsor and disembark after the move )
Whilst not being outnumbered enough that table presence is an issue.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't think the problem is flexibility, I think it's that:
The (Primaris) Space Marine outshoots all of them. The (Primaris) Space Marine outfights all of them. The (Primaris) Space Marine outlasts all of them. The (Primaris) Space Marine outruns all of them.
(though for the last one you have to use an Impulsor and disembark after the move )
Whilst not being outnumbered enough that table presence is an issue.
I mean, whatever. You could outnumber an aggressor squad 90 models to 10, and the only reason the Aggressors couldn't wipe out the 90 models in a single shooting phase is that you can't target multiple units efficiently in modern 40k.
Unit1126PLL wrote: "An ork should never be better than a Marine in melee" is exactly the problem. It should work like this (just as examples):
The Eldar should be faster than the Marine.
And they are.
The Necron should be tougher than the Marine.
Maybe. Immortals should. Not sure about the basic warriors.
The Ork should melee better than the Marine.
Strong nope. Orks are good in melee, but a single ork shouldn't come even close to a marine in the melee power. Orks fight as hordes, marines are rare elites.
The Tau should shoot better than the Marine.
Nope again. A basic tau is a feeble guardsman with a decent gun and they're a dime in a dozen.
Unit1126PLL wrote: "An ork should never be better than a Marine in melee" is exactly the problem. It should work like this (just as examples):
The Eldar should be faster than the Marine.
And they are.
The Necron should be tougher than the Marine.
Maybe. Immortals should. Not sure about the basic warriors.
The Ork should melee better than the Marine.
Strong nope. Orks are good in melee, but a single ork shouldn't come even close to a marine in the melee power. Orks fight as hordes, marines are rare elites.
The Tau should shoot better than the Marine.
Nope again. A basic tau is a feeble guardsman with a decent gun and they're a dime in a dozen.
My opinion disagrees with your opinion on the lore surrounding Marines. We've probably read different novels and 1d4chan articles. Let's fight for seven more pages and derail the entire thread. GO!
(or you could make a point that doesn't rely on subjectivity). Because game balance wise, that's a good way to make Marines generalists. They lose to the specialists in the specialist's arena, and beat the specialists outside said situation.
Strong nope. Orks are good in melee, but a single ork shouldn't come even close to a marine in the melee power. Orks fight as hordes, marines are rare elites.
Point for point they should. [edit]If the single ork is a nob they definitely should, maybe better than marine veterans.[/edit]
Strong nope. Orks are good in melee, but a single ork shouldn't come even close to a marine in the melee power. Orks fight as hordes, marines are rare elites.
Why?
Admittedly I dropped out during 7th, but I'm fairly certain that an Ork Slugga has outperformed a Marine in melee combat in every edition of the game thus far.
Marines have pretty consistently been A1(2) S4 up until Primaris
Sluggas have experienced significant change but:
3rd- A3(4) S3, Waaagh and Choppa
4th- A3(4) S3(4)
8th- A3(4 in a horde) S4
In every instance, the Ork delivers more damage on an individual basis, without considering the numbers advantage.
My opinion disagrees with your opinion on the lore surrounding Marines. We've probably read different novels and 1d4chan articles. Let's fight for seven more pages and derail the entire thread. GO!
(or you could make a point that doesn't rely on subjectivity)
I don't really read either 40K novels or 1d4chan, both are full of childish hyperbole. But orks and tau can easily muster insane numbers against the handful that the Space Marines can field. If a tau Firewarrior could outshoot a marine one to one or an ork outfight him then the marines would be utterly and ludicrously useless. If your really hard to produce and super numerically limited elite warrior cannot outshoot and outfight the dime in a dozen basic mook of the enemy then your super warriors are complete waste of resources.
This BTW is also why I feel that Aspect Warriors should have a lot stronger rules than they have now. They are rare elites of an already rare dying race so they must be able to take on numerically superior foes or they really serve no purpose.
Crimson wrote: I don't really read either 40K novels or 1d4chan, both are full of childish hyperbole. But orks and tau can easily muster insane numbers against the handful that the Space Marines can field. If a tau Firewarrior could outshoot a marine one to one or an ork outfight him then the marines would be utterly and ludicrously useless.
*mumbles something about having to employ actual tactics to shoot the choppy and chop the shooty that other armies have to do to win*
Crimson wrote: If your really hard to produce and super numerically limited elite warrior cannot outshoot and outfight the dime in a dozen basic mook of the enemy then your super warriors are complete waste of resources.
Not if their strengths lie in attacking the enemy's weakness, and being given the mobility and support to do so. A smart superwarrior will fight a gunfight against someone who beats them with knives, and will try to turn a fight into a melee against someone who has greater firepower. But that's ... hard or something, idk.
Marine's aren't line troopers, sitting in a trench desperately trying to hold off waves of Orks or trading shots at extended range with the Tau. They're a highly mobile advanced fighting force designed to pressure the enemy's weakness until they break.
Basic warriors used to. But the models back then where quite bulky.
I think the idea of the Necron Warrior has kinda morphed over the years. They're really not invincible terminator-like super robots any more (Immortals are that,) they're more like undead legionaries (a scifi version of the skeleton warriors etc.)
Point for point they should.
Yes, I don't disagree with that. Both Orks and Tau can field much larger numbers than the Marines. But this was about one to one comparison.
Strong nope. Orks are good in melee, but a single ork shouldn't come even close to a marine in the melee power. Orks fight as hordes, marines are rare elites.
Why?
Admittedly I dropped out during 7th, but I'm fairly certain that an Ork Slugga has outperformed a Marine in melee combat in every edition of the game thus far.
Marines have pretty consistently been A1(2) S4 up until Primaris
Sluggas have experienced significant change but:
3rd- A3(4) S3, Waaagh and Choppa
4th- A3(4) S3(4)
8th- A3(4 in a horde) S4
In every instance, the Ork delivers more damage on an individual basis, without considering the numbers advantage.
Mr Morden wrote: Its not a bad thing IF they apply this quickly to all factions.
Having to wait a year a more for "everyone" to get their upgrade would be beyond stupid.
More and more looks like they should have done new Index books given the compelte disaster the revised points has been and IF loads of weapons and models are changing stats it only makes it worse.
Never happen though it will take 3 years to update all the codexes and by then they will want to redo SM again. GW need to make the leap to digital releases that can be updated en mass as the primary source of rules rather than trying to work round print media but a desire to constantly update the game
Crimson wrote: I don't really read either 40K novels or 1d4chan, both are full of childish hyperbole. But orks and tau can easily muster insane numbers against the handful that the Space Marines can field. If a tau Firewarrior could outshoot a marine one to one or an ork outfight him then the marines would be utterly and ludicrously useless.
*mumbles something about having to employ actual tactics to shoot the choppy and chop the shooty that other armies have to do to win*
Crimson wrote: If your really hard to produce and super numerically limited elite warrior cannot outshoot and outfight the dime in a dozen basic mook of the enemy then your super warriors are complete waste of resources.
Not if their strengths lie in attacking the enemy's weakness, and being given the mobility and support to do so. A smart superwarrior will fight a gunfight against someone who beats them with knives, and will try to turn a fight into a melee against someone who has greater firepower. But that's ... hard or something, idk.
Marine's aren't line troopers, sitting in a trench desperately trying to hold off waves of Orks or trading shots at extended range with the Tau. They're a highly mobile advanced fighting force designed to pressure the enemy's weakness until they break.
There is only so much than clever tactics can accomplish. If the enemy has tens or hundreds of times the numbers you're just busted. Besides, if you think such methods are such a force multiplier, then certainly it is still waste of time making marines? Just train your guardsmen that way and not they can take on twenty times their numbers of orks!
SemperMortis wrote: Well I mean, hell Boyz are already 33% more expensive than they were 2 editions ago. Why not just go all the way up to 12 to 15ppm Ork boyz and give them 2 wounds each, probably want to give them good armor due to price, so lets make it 3+ save, And i can't really see them being useful at that price and armor without a good ranged weapon so what if we gave them a longer ranged shoota, say 24' S4 and make it Rapid fire instead of assault to balance it. Then we should probably increase their BS to 3+ to make the Boyz worth taking with their new longer ranged rapid fire bolt...i mean shoota. Probably want to redo "Kultures" to make them more in line with shooting...we could call them Kombat Doctrines.
But then Ork boyz would be competitive against Space Marine Tacs. I think this is a good idea.
Give me AP-1 choppas and +1A on the charge and you got a DEAL.
That would make orcs better then meq elites in melee, and orcs should never be stronger in melee then marines.
They kinda already are. They're A2 base and S4. They also hit the same.
Crimson wrote: There is only so much than clever tactics can accomplish. If the enemy has tens or hundreds of times the numbers you're just busted. Besides, if you think such methods are such a force multiplier, then certainly it is still waste of time making marines? Just train your guardsmen that way and not they can take on twenty times their numbers of orks!
Part of strategic mobility is that you don't fight tens or hundreds of times the numbers all at once, obviously.
And of course it's not a waste of time, because it's more than training. You have to train them, sure, but you also have to give them power armor (so they can operate in terrain and conditions inimical to human life), and genetic augmentation (so they can stay awake and aware during redeployments deep behind enemy lines, and have redundant organs and the like so that medical supplies don't run low in highly mobile logistically challenging operations), and you'd have to equip them with their own spaceships and armored vehicles so that they have the tactical and strategic flexibility to react on the fly to emergent threats. Lastly, you'd have to sever or drastically shorten their chain of command so they're not paralyzed by indecision and communications lagti-
wait no that's just Space Marines, and we've left the Imperial Guard behind.
One of the issues people seem to hit head on is that people view each model as an actual person or monster on the battlefield. A better way to view them would each individual representing the idea of a unit or group of warriors. In no battle field situation should a Space Marine lose to an Ork boy if we are going by fluff alone. But, if we view each Marine as a single Marine or 2 and view each Ork model as 10-20 boyz you can get the feeling from the fluff. So when that mob of 30 boyz kills 5 Marines it wasn't 30 boyz it was the equivalent fluff wise of 300 to 600.
Don't get caught up in the numbers, im not doing a 1 for 1 comparison I am just throwing the scenario into a different light.
The main takeaway though is that this game needs more balance and the 2 wounds for standard marines and 3 for termies, barring other major changes, will result in a game imbalance.
That doesn't work. Each model IS an individual. A captain isn't a flock of captains, a squad of 10 is a squad of 10.
We simply have too many hard numbers about how units are organized at every level, squads, platoons, companies, etc.
what you see is exactly what they are.
Voss, I am talking about in your imagination not on the board, in order to better perceive fluff on the game board and i literally said "Dont get caught up in the numbers" because i was just throwing them out as an idea.
SemperMortis wrote: Voss, I am talking about in your imagination not on the board, in order to better perceive fluff on the game board and i literally said "Dont get caught up in the numbers" because i was just throwing them out as an idea.
But the numbers are defined? I assumed you meant you weren't specifically trying to lock in a 2:1, 3:1 or whatever ratio.
But we know what squad sizes are. 'Better perceiving the fluff' is the numbers are exactly what they are. There is no number other than one that makes 10 squads of 10 yields a company of 100 (plus support).
Heck, GW battlereports used to give individual names for models. Not just sergeants, but I can remember whole squads of Brother So-and-so. And standout individuals often got names even when most of the squad didn't. Badrukk's squad was led by an ork nob named Badrukk, and he had 9 boyz, and Grinner was the -one- with the rokkit.
There's too much fluff and direct statements that one is one for 'one is just representative' to be viable.
Crimson wrote: There is only so much than clever tactics can accomplish. If the enemy has tens or hundreds of times the numbers you're just busted. Besides, if you think such methods are such a force multiplier, then certainly it is still waste of time making marines? Just train your guardsmen that way and not they can take on twenty times their numbers of orks!
Seriously?
Operation Gothic Serpent (AKA Black Hawk Down) pitted 160 US Army Rangers and Delta Force operators, with air support, against an estimated 2,000-4,000 Somali militants. That's a ratio of somewhere between 12.5:1 and 25:1. The final casualty count was 19 dead Americans and 1 captured, to 250-500 dead Somalis. There are similar examples from both World Wars of soldiers succeeding against overwhelming odds. Audie Murphy single-handedly held off an entire company of Germans for over an hour. In one incident on the Eastern Front, a German platoon held a frontage of an entire kilometer against a Soviet infantry division.
Training, tactics, and operational conditions count for a lot more than wargamers credit, and it's a classic and all-too-common mistake to focus almost exclusively on technology and equipment. Soft factors are the distinguishing characteristic between a team of special forces operators and a team of grunts, not super-weapons that give the former 5x the offensive firepower.
To more directly address your question, you used the phrase force multiplier, but then asked why bother using Marines- well, that's why it's a multiplier; its effectiveness is still contingent on what you started with. Both Navy SEALs and clerks with rifles are going to be more effective if used in a surprise ambush rather than in a pitched battle; but I'd still rather have the SEALs in the first place. You don't take random cooks and put them through BUD/S, you start with the best of the best and train those soldiers to be SEALs.
40K's problem in representing Marines is failing to model the advantages they have in the fluff- favorable employment conditions, extensive experience, tactical flexibility, high operational tempo, and constant seamless communication. On the tabletop they're no more mobile than Guardsmen, no quicker to react than Guardsmen, no easier to command than Guardsmen, and don't get scenarios that model their lightning-strike method of warfare, so of course they're not going to win a straight-up shooting fight against Guardsmen while highly outnumbered.
You could never fight Gothic Serpent in 40K without extensive rules changes, because there is no way to make a few dozen Scions win overwhelmingly against a few hundred Conscripts. The soft factors that let Rangers and Deltas run rings around untrained militants communicating solely by word of mouth just don't exist. Move over to Epic, and something like that becomes a lot more viable; the game actually models C&C, making a highly-trained elite force of Marines much more tactically mobile and coordinated than hordes of Orks, and suddenly they can win against superior numbers despite not having massively superior stats.
And that puts us in this awkward position of Marines needing to be buffed to absurd levels of firepower and resilience in order to hold their own, when the biggest things that make Marines special just aren't in the rules.
"While most of their wargear may not be as ubiquitous as the Imperium’s mass-produced arsenal, their weapons will also be looked at too, when each of their codexes comes around."
....Welp, that's. Yep. Preeeeeeeeeeeeeetty much what I thought.
Which means Intercessors pay just two points for the extra attack and significantly better gun. Tacticals can't even be cheaper meatshields for the gak Special and Heavy Weapon saturation they already had. Soooooo what's really the point in the unit?
Speculation over. All Marines 2W. (Tacticals are 18 points.)
Other factions get stat updates in October when the Codexes arrive.
Well... called it.
Now I'm just going to cry in my corner until they update nids.
At least they are upping the point costs on models, and 18 ppm for the new tacs seems fair.
Just to clarify for this guy, other "Factions" aren't getting an update in October. Space Marine and other Imperial factions will be, and maybe Chaos too (thought that isn't confirmed) as they use the same units and weapons.
Xenos? They get updates when THEIR codex is released. So 2021 at the earliest, more likely 2022 or even 2023 for some.
So yeh, 9th edition is MarineHammer. All Marines, all the Time.
the_scotsman wrote: "While most of their wargear may not be as ubiquitous as the Imperium’s mass-produced arsenal, their weapons will also be looked at too, when each of their codexes comes around."
....Welp, that's. Yep. Preeeeeeeeeeeeeetty much what I thought.
Yea, Xenos power swords and uhh...what else is shared with imperium?
the_scotsman wrote: "While most of their wargear may not be as ubiquitous as the Imperium’s mass-produced arsenal, their weapons will also be looked at too, when each of their codexes comes around."
....Welp, that's. Yep. Preeeeeeeeeeeeeetty much what I thought.
Yeah it being rolled out to all same named weapons is good but yeah, seems a bit rough for everyone else. Lines up with expectations though.
It says "other genetically modified super soldiers" will be getting 2W in their future codexes. So the same old waiting game and "arms race". So nothing new. They could update those stats all at the same time as easily as the weapon stats.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It says "other genetically modified super soldiers" will be getting 2W in their future codexes. So the same old waiting game and "arms race". So nothing new. They could update those stats all at the same time as easily as the weapon stats.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Which means Intercessors pay just two points for the extra attack and significantly better gun. Tacticals can't even be cheaper meatshields for the gak Special and Heavy Weapon saturation they already had. Soooooo what's really the point in the unit?
Tacs with a ML = 105
Same durability, but more flexible. Tacs with plasma will mess Intercessors up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: It says "other genetically modified super soldiers" will be getting 2W in their future codexes. So the same old waiting game and "arms race". So nothing new. They could update those stats all at the same time as easily as the weapon stats.
Oh yeah, they could do it for Xenos too, I guess.
It comes with a point adjustment, so, while I'd like to see it now the rest of the codex could quickly suffer if CSM become overwhelmingly useful.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Which means Intercessors pay just two points for the extra attack and significantly better gun. Tacticals can't even be cheaper meatshields for the gak Special and Heavy Weapon saturation they already had. Soooooo what's really the point in the unit?
Tac Squads can do things OTHER than mow down GEQs and MEQs, that's what they're good for.
Well its better than I thought in that all same named weapons are getting an update but its disapoitning that some factions will likely to have to wait a year to get the upgrades.
At least Banshees and co might get the +1 Str Powerswords
Every other unit that utilises the same wargear – regardless of Faction – will get their weapon profiles upgraded accordingly
Yep, GW actually is that stupid, they are updating wounds and weapons codex by codex (except for weapons that are shared across codexes) instead of at the start of the edition as anyone with any sense of balance would do. Mind-bogglingly weird decision, presumably based on an judgment that they'll sell more by writing rules that encourage people to jump on the bandwagon with the new releases instead of sticking with their own underpowered factions while they wait for a codex.
I am really floored by this, honestly. Space Marines will go to 2W in October, whereas the Chaos variant won't for several months or even a year longer? Seriously? This takes the bolter discipline and hateful assault roll-out to new levels of absurdity. Space Marine weapons get supercharged in October, whereas (non-Necron) Xenos weapons will have to wait months or years to get their buff?
Downright bizarre. Especially since the result is even greater lethality in the meantime, as Space Marines will become even better at blowing everyone else off the table, without any corresponding buff to other factions' durability.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Which means Intercessors pay just two points for the extra attack and significantly better gun. Tacticals can't even be cheaper meatshields for the gak Special and Heavy Weapon saturation they already had. Soooooo what's really the point in the unit?
Tac Squads can do things OTHER than mow down GEQs and MEQs, that's what they're good for.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It says "other genetically modified super soldiers" will be getting 2W in their future codexes. So the same old waiting game and "arms race". So nothing new. They could update those stats all at the same time as easily as the weapon stats.
Oh yeah, they could do it for Xenos too, I guess.
It comes with a point adjustment, so, while I'd like to see it now the rest of the codex could quickly suffer if CSM become overwhelmingly useful.
So? After the lowly csm has suffered so long I say:
Let's give people a reason to use csm! Put away those cultists, daemon engines, possessed, and daemons! Let the Chaos Space Marines reign over their own codex as they should!
Gadzilla666 wrote: It says "other genetically modified super soldiers" will be getting 2W in their future codexes. So the same old waiting game and "arms race". So nothing new. They could update those stats all at the same time as easily as the weapon stats.
Oh yeah, they could do it for Xenos too, I guess.
It comes with a point adjustment, so, while I'd like to see it now the rest of the codex could quickly suffer if CSM become overwhelmingly useful.
So? After the lowly csm has suffered so long I say:
Let's give people a reason to use csm! Put away those cultists, daemon engines, possessed, and daemons! Let the Chaos Space Marines reign over their own codex as they should!
I kinda feel this way too. May be the necessary incentive to go for CSM after Necrons.
You must post this 4-5 times a day at the minute, I think you need a break.
..... not seen Lawrence use Incubi yet
)
