Serious question no hyperbole just straight how is an 8th edition codex using tyranid or eldar or dark eldar or tau player meant to win against marine armies now. Gw seem to place an additional wound at only 20% of a models point value so your now facing a marine army that just doubled its entire wound value. And it only cost the marine player 20%of their points? How do you win? Please tell me.
Nobody played minimarines anyway, so they didn't double their wound values.
If anything, the problem is going to be competing with the increased offensive deadliness. GW isn't just boosting wounds, they're inflating offensive stats at the same time for many or most of the weapons in the codex.
The game is getting even deadlier, not less deadly. Your problem is not going to be killing marines, it is going to be getting shot off the table even more efficiently than you were before by new Imperium weapons that are even more overpowered than the old ones, which were already overtuned compared to Xenos alternatives.
Space Marine armies haven't doubled their entire wound value. Non-Primaris armies have doubled their entire wound value. Play against the non-Primaris armies the same way you would play against the Primaris armies.
Seeing as you apparently have access to a time machine as you know the points costs and everything else in the new codex, I have to ask- can I have next week's lottery numbers?
Icegoat wrote: Serious question no hyperbole just straight how is an 8th edition codex using tyranid or eldar or dark eldar or tau player meant to win against marine armies now.
Well ideally you would outplay your opponent, unless you're saying 40k isn't about that and is only a matter of math in which case you should buy a better army.
The bigger issue is going to be crazy returns on MMs compared with every other anti-tank in the game (and that could especially hurt certain Xenos armies who fall back on D6 damage one shot guns - at least before a change.)
And the expansion of 3W Primaris. Which did exist before - but with eradicators and bladeguard I think it could be more prevalent. Which potentially sort of messes with 2 damage weapons.
I think a lot of armies could do with some (or more) flat 3 damage weapons.
Tyel wrote: The bigger issue is going to be crazy returns on MMs compared with every other anti-tank in the game (and that could especially hurt certain Xenos armies who fall back on D6 damage one shot guns - at least before a change.)
Still a lot of cases where the longer range, stronger, cheaper lascannon will be preferable, it's just not a clear cut anymore.
Give what can and cannot take it it'll be interesting to see if it tempts more attack bikes, dreads, speerders, landraiders and so on back to the table. Been seeing the blight crawler mentioned a few times as well.
Icegoat wrote: Serious question no hyperbole just straight how is an 8th edition codex using tyranid or eldar or dark eldar or tau player meant to win against marine armies now. Gw seem to place an additional wound at only 20% of a models point value so your now facing a marine army that just doubled its entire wound value. And it only cost the marine player 20%of their points? How do you win? Please tell me.
If First Born max specials/heavy - they're susceptible to blast and some morale.
If First Born load up on power weapons they're leaning into melee and will have fewer models.
e.g. VV will likely be 19 to 20 points now. Assault Intercessors have the same attacks @ 17 and obsec. VV can otherwise load up on power weapons, but then you're seeing fewer attacks and more expensive models.
Have D2 blast weapons. Have fast melee units that can counter charge or cheap obsec garbage to tie them up..
Icegoat, for your own good, take a break. You've been making these alarmist posts that are clearly emotion driven and spontaneous.
Making marine 2w changes to how you have to play since you already had to skew your lists for primaris and no one was bringing oldmarines.
Eldar: starcannons, falcons, hornets and wraithblades with axes can all deal with primaris.
Drukhari: disintegrators still are marine killers and now you don't "waste" their dmage 2 on oldmarines anymore.
Harlequins : Kisses kill marines on every failed saves.
Tau : Riptides still deal 2 damage and kill marines.
Necrons : we already nkow their weapons are being reworked, the spear dudes now have a flat 2 damage and honestly im really not familiar with this army.
Orks : Lootas still kill marines.
Tyranids/GSC : dont know the army enough, i guess hive guards and the exocrine/tyrannofex can pop 2wounds marines.
These are all units that are already being played because of primaris, you barely have to change what youre doing.
Thousands of people own thousands of points worth of old marines who just became the most overpowered horde army in warhammer history. Entire armies are going to be obliterated in one turn. This paradigm shift is going to create a black hole of despair come October to every non marine player in 40k.
Icegoat wrote: Thousands of people own thousands of points worth of old marines who just became the most overpowered horde army in warhammer history. Entire armies are going to be obliterated in one turn. This paradigm shift is going to create a black hole of despair come October to every non marine player in 40k.
points are going up, stop freaking out before even seeing the full codex.
Tacticals being 18pts doesn't make them a horde army and them going to 2W doesnt mean they'll table you any faster than they already do. Even the new weapons stats are mostly buffing unused weapons that are available to non marines armies anyway (Heavy bolters, meltas)
Icegoat wrote: Serious question no hyperbole just straight how is an 8th edition codex using tyranid or eldar or dark eldar or tau player meant to win against marine armies now.
How did you compete against primaris before?
post Marine 2.0 the answer appears to have been "you didn't".
Irkjoe wrote: Well ideally you would outplay your opponent, unless you're saying 40k isn't about that and is only a matter of math in which case you should buy a better army.
Sure a good player with a mediocre army beats a bad player with a good army, atleast some of the time.
But what if both are equally skilled and one has a good army and the other has a bad army?
"Just outplay them" isn't a tactic unless your the greatest player in history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: Even the new weapons stats are mostly buffing unused weapons that are available to non marines armies anyway (Heavy bolters, meltas)
Seriously, take a chill pill.
None marine, Imperial armies.
Xeno just get fethed until they get a codex. I wonder why they might be complaining about marine/Imperial buffs when they still haven't recovered from the Marine 2.0 codex stomping all over them.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Icegoat, for your own good, take a break. You've been making these alarmist posts that are clearly emotion driven and spontaneous.
Making marine 2w changes to how you have to play since you already had to skew your lists for primaris and no one was bringing oldmarines.
Eldar: starcannons, falcons, hornets and wraithblades with axes can all deal with primaris.
Drukhari: disintegrators still are marine killers and now you don't "waste" their dmage 2 on oldmarines anymore.
Harlequins : Kisses kill marines on every failed saves.
Tau : Riptides still deal 2 damage and kill marines.
Necrons : we already nkow their weapons are being reworked, the spear dudes now have a flat 2 damage and honestly im really not familiar with this army.
Orks : Lootas still kill marines.
Tyranids/GSC : dont know the army enough, i guess hive guards and the exocrine/tyrannofex can pop 2wounds marines.
These are all units that are already being played because of primaris, you barely have to change what youre doing.
Its not just the fact that Old Marines gained 2w and terminators got 3, its the fact that the weapons also became much more powerful while at the same time everyone's armies just got significantly more expensive. In my specific case, my tournament ork army just went up over 400pts. So how players dealt with Primaris isn't going to work because an 8th edition Primaris Intercessor was 17pts, a new Tac Marine is almost as good and possibly better and is 18pts, but here is the kicker, Every unit you used to use to kill those 17pt Intercessors is now MORE expensive than ever. As an example, my Lootas which i used to kill primaris just went up in price but even worse the Grot shields they used to survive for longer than 1 turn just went up 66% as well so the price of a loota went up 3pts and a grot went up 2. So now it costs me 5pts (about 30%) more per Loota to kill the same amount of points of enemy marines.
Of course all of this is irrelevant if GW surprises us and puts out an index similar to what they did in 8th which addresses a lot of these concerns but as of right now who knows.
Icegoat wrote: Thousands of people own thousands of points worth of old marines who just became the most overpowered horde army in warhammer history. Entire armies are going to be obliterated in one turn. This paradigm shift is going to create a black hole of despair come October to every non marine player in 40k.
Bloody hell, it's a game designed predominantly for adults with toy soldiers.....
Get a grip. Get some new hobbies, the curve will swing back around at some point and marines will be trash. Eldar were OP for the best part of a decade at some point.
Your livelihood is not on the line, this is just a game....
Nazrak wrote: I'm still slightly taken aback by people freaking out about Multi Meltas being changed just so they aren't complete dogpoop any more.
Now they do make lascannons pretty irrelevant though unless become lot more expensive. S9 ain't as good as twice the shots, extra AP and with the new board sizes range is pretty much irrelevant as well. And then there's the melta bonus.
Unless multi melta almost doubles in cost little reason to take lascannons
Tyrants and Fexes can do ok job as well, as well as Acid Tyrannofex.
Having access to +1D to all shots from a monster, double shooting, double fighting and double moving stratagems is a decent toolset on its own.
Nids also get many movement shenanigans to block the enemy and play the objectives, including 1-2 potential ways to move/advance a unit in the enemy's turn and steal the objective before the next command phase.
It's not going to be pretty, the stat disparity is horrible and it's only about to get worse. But the 9th is less about killing and more about objectives and Nids (and GSC too, in fact) have tools for that.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Bloody hell, it's a game designed predominantly for adults with toy soldiers.....
Get a grip. Get some new hobbies, the curve will swing back around at some point and marines will be trash. Eldar were OP for the best part of a decade at some point.
Your livelihood is not on the line, this is just a game....
I have played since 3rd...I can not remember a single edition where space marines were "trash" tier.
As far as this game and calming down..im not freaking out, i just would like a bit more balance in a game ive spent a lot of time and money on. But if GW wants me to wait until my codex to have a chance at playing a fair game, so be it, thats why I have fishing and shooting as a fall back
Icegoat wrote: Serious question no hyperbole just straight how is an 8th edition codex using tyranid or eldar or dark eldar or tau player meant to win against marine armies now.
How did you compete against primaris before?
post Marine 2.0 the answer appears to have been "you didn't".
Irkjoe wrote: Well ideally you would outplay your opponent, unless you're saying 40k isn't about that and is only a matter of math in which case you should buy a better army.
Sure a good player with a mediocre army beats a bad player with a good army, atleast some of the time.
But what if both are equally skilled and one has a good army and the other has a bad army?
"Just outplay them" isn't a tactic unless your the greatest player in history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: Even the new weapons stats are mostly buffing unused weapons that are available to non marines armies anyway (Heavy bolters, meltas)
Seriously, take a chill pill.
None marine, Imperial armies.
Xeno just get fethed until they get a codex. I wonder why they might be complaining about marine/Imperial buffs when they still haven't recovered from the Marine 2.0 codex stomping all over them.
And being a better player means what? What impactful decisions are made on the table besides target priority? Not positioning when everything can threaten most of the table. I said that outplaying was the ideal, but 40k isn't about that. The point was that if you prioritize winning then you'll have to play what wins, if gw decides that isn't xenos then too bad.
So translation, according to you 40k is completely based on Pay to win and tactics and strategy is borderline meaningless. That is an interesting way to look at it.
I would say that your 2 primary decisions are yes, target priority and positioning.
The more terrain on the table, the more important positioning is. As you decrease the amount of line-of-sight blocking terrain, the balance shifts further and further towards target priority and units' raw efficiency for killing/surviving being killed.
SemperMortis wrote: So translation, according to you 40k is completely based on Pay to win and tactics and strategy is borderline meaningless. That is an interesting way to look at it.
It is and it isn't. Skill matters if both players are playing armies in the same tier, but there are matchups that no amount of skill can overcome.
Nazrak wrote: I'm still slightly taken aback by people freaking out about Multi Meltas being changed just so they aren't complete dogpoop any more.
I think there's a case to be made that they went overboard. MM's needed help, absolutely. Tripling the average damage output however may have been...a wee bit much. Two BS3+ MM's now in optimal range will kill almost any T7 3+ vehicle in one round of shooting, delivering 12 wounds with average rolls with the new Heavy 2 "2d6-pick-highest+2" Damage profile.
By any meaningful comparison, pretty much. 40k isn't a crunchy rule set, there aren't that many mechanics, and everything can do whatever it wants(move,shoot,assault) all of the time with little restriction. On top of that the points and stats are imbalanced. It's a cinematic spectacle with miniatures not a strategy game and people want to buy armies that point click win.
Nazrak wrote: I'm still slightly taken aback by people freaking out about Multi Meltas being changed just so they aren't complete dogshit any more.
I think there's a case to be made that they went overboard. MM's needed help, absolutely. Tripling the average damage output however may have been...a wee bit much. Two BS3+ MM's now in optimal range will kill almost any T7 3+ vehicle in one round of shooting, delivering 12 wounds with average rolls with the new Heavy 2 "2d6-pick-highest+2" Damage profile.
Where are you getting "2d6-pick-highest+2"? Last I checked the leaked statline had a damage of 1d6 and the half-range bonus was +2 instead of roll twice and pick highest, your average per multi-melta at optimal range without rerolls is about 4 wounds to T7/3+ (2/3*2/3*5/6*5.5*2 = 220/54). (5.5 with Captain/Lieutenant, in case anyone's curious)
(The result goes down to an average of 3.3 wounds per multi-melta before rerolls against Wave Serpents and a hilarious 0.8 wounds per multi-melta against quantum-shielded Necrons, while we're talking about xenos competing.)
Nazrak wrote: I'm still slightly taken aback by people freaking out about Multi Meltas being changed just so they aren't complete dogshit any more.
I think there's a case to be made that they went overboard. MM's needed help, absolutely. Tripling the average damage output however may have been...a wee bit much. Two BS3+ MM's now in optimal range will kill almost any T7 3+ vehicle in one round of shooting, delivering 12 wounds with average rolls with the new Heavy 2 "2d6-pick-highest+2" Damage profile.
Where are you getting "2d6-pick-highest+2"? Last I checked the leaked statline had a damage of 1d6 and the half-range bonus was +2 instead of roll twice and pick highest, your average per multi-melta at optimal range without rerolls is about 4 wounds to T7/3+ (2/3*2/3*5/6*5.5*2 = 220/54). (5.5 with Captain/Lieutenant, in case anyone's curious)
Ah ok, seems I missed that they dropped the "pick highest". Still works out to a 2.5x damage bonus and an average of 10 wounds inflicted in my previous example case. A bit better, but still probably overboard.
Isn't the biggest shift going to be that we are going to see 2W models in a Rhino now? Going to be a lot harder to drop SM off of objectives now that they have a faster means of entrenching on them early game...
Nazrak wrote: I'm still slightly taken aback by people freaking out about Multi Meltas being changed just so they aren't complete dogshit any more.
I think there's a case to be made that they went overboard. MM's needed help, absolutely. Tripling the average damage output however may have been...a wee bit much. Two BS3+ MM's now in optimal range will kill almost any T7 3+ vehicle in one round of shooting, delivering 12 wounds with average rolls with the new Heavy 2 "2d6-pick-highest+2" Damage profile.
Where are you getting "2d6-pick-highest+2"? Last I checked the leaked statline had a damage of 1d6 and the half-range bonus was +2 instead of roll twice and pick highest, your average per multi-melta at optimal range without rerolls is about 4 wounds to T7/3+ (2/3*2/3*5/6*5.5*2 = 220/54). (5.5 with Captain/Lieutenant, in case anyone's curious)
Ah ok, seems I missed that they dropped the "pick highest". Still works out to a 2.5x damage bonus and an average of 10 wounds inflicted in my previous example case. A bit better, but still probably overboard.
Which is fine for a 24" weapon that will most likely also get a price increase to 35 or 40 points, which puts it at the level of a twin lascan.
Vaktathi wrote: ...Ah ok, seems I missed that they dropped the "pick highest". Still works out to a 2.5x damage bonus and an average of 10 wounds inflicted in my previous example case. A bit better, but still probably overboard.
Dramatically worse against the most commonly-seen Xenos vehicles (Venoms, Wave Serpents, Quantum Shielded Necrons), mind. The multi-melta's stats seem like more of an argument that older Imperial vehicles (Rhinos and Chimeras) need help.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SaganGree wrote: Isn't the biggest shift going to be that we are going to see 2W models in a Rhino now? Going to be a lot harder to drop SM off of objectives now that they have a faster means of entrenching on them early game...
They already had 2W Primaris Vanguard deploying on objectives, mind.
More fundamentally the issue is somewhere along this Primaris selfloveathon that GW has been having they have taken almost every factions defining thing they do better than everyone else and just made marines do it better or mucked up the balance so hard the army now doesn't work right.
Take the data from 8th
Drukari the fast glass needle army, meta build Transport spam with deapstriking heavy support that played the mobile firepower style?
ELDAR the specialists to beat all when used well, meta list un hitable snipers and more aeroplanes than the US military
Tau the mobile gunline army, meta list Who needs an army when you have drone warfare that can outlast everyone while doing minimal actual damage output.
Knights Noble households going into battle as one, meta build 1Castellen 3 smashcaptains each with their own scout squad and Guard for days.
Choas supposed to be mainly 1 warband or god specific army for the most part, meta list how many wombo combos can we stack from 18 books to make a viable army.
Necrons the hard to get rid of army that doesn't die easy, meta list 3 LoW like WTF?
I swear dakka used to ban people for a lot less than this bs.
Non stop panic posts based on assumptions and no evidence.
We know marines are getting 2 wounds.
What we don’t know is what else is changing for them and by how much.
Until we get specific, it’s just pointless panic posts.
The fact that these are endless now and most end with a lock is just a joke.
And being a better player means what? What impactful decisions are made on the table besides target priority? Not positioning when everything can threaten most of the table. I said that outplaying was the ideal, but 40k isn't about that. The point was that if you prioritize winning then you'll have to play what wins, if gw decides that isn't xenos then too bad.
There's this new thing this edition. Terr...terren?...terrain! Basically they have these rules that make it harder to see everything all the time. And then they made it so winning revolves around holding objectives instead of shooting stuff.
Some decisions in my last game:
- Committing a DP to Assassinate their while risking While We Stand
- Making a movement and advance to make sure the unit is wholly within for Engage
- Picking target priority between preventing Engage or holding an Objective
- Deepstriking Tzaangors into a no-win position in the hopes that a charge will out ObSec the enemy
- Holding back Gaze of Fate reroll on a failed psychic test to use in the even deepstriking Tzaangors rolled something like 6:1 on the charge
- Abandoning the right flank to oncoming Aggressors & Judiciar and pushing towards left flank deployment, but stringing out speed bumps to keep them from catching up
- Pulling back a Vindicator on 2 wounds and then using Warp Time to get it fully behind obscuring to get it heals as well as to block Bring It Down
- Deploying my bigger targets to one side of the board, which forces reserved Eradicators to deploy to that side and subsequently forcing them into their own deployment
I'm a CSM player and survived 6th and 7th Edition. Xenos players just have to survive until the next FAQ. And since we have no actual Info and this is another idiotic nonsense thread from icegoat it's even possible the new SM Codex might be weaker than the current one because GW saw the outrage about their Iron Hands.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I'm a CSM player and survived 6th and 7th Edition. Xenos players just have to survive until the next FAQ. And since we have no actual Info and this is another idiotic nonsense thread from icegoat it's even possible the new SM Codex might be weaker than the current one because GW saw the outrage about their Iron Hands.
Your common sense has little place here mate, we are in a minority on this forum.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Bloody hell, it's a game designed predominantly for adults with toy soldiers.....
Get a grip. Get some new hobbies, the curve will swing back around at some point and marines will be trash. Eldar were OP for the best part of a decade at some point.
Your livelihood is not on the line, this is just a game....
I have played since 3rd...I can not remember a single edition where space marines were "trash" tier.
As far as this game and calming down..im not freaking out, i just would like a bit more balance in a game ive spent a lot of time and money on. But if GW wants me to wait until my codex to have a chance at playing a fair game, so be it, thats why I have fishing and shooting as a fall back
Before the 2nd codex of 8th edition, they were pretty poor, with some chapters having different mileage. I also seem to remember them being quite poor in 3rd edition, they were far too squishy and instant death absolutely gibbed characters, and well, vehicles were poor in 3rd, this was before hull points remember.
Maybe certain marine builds did okay in third, but marines were not good. It was the first edition terminators were awful.
Icegoat wrote: Thousands of people own thousands of points worth of old marines who just became the most overpowered horde army in warhammer history. Entire armies are going to be obliterated in one turn. This paradigm shift is going to create a black hole of despair come October to every non marine player in 40k.
Dude, seriously, just stop. Horde armies are not made of 18 point models that cost even more to get those fancy "overpowered" toys on them. Terrain rules and Strategic Reserves will prevent entire armies from dying to a single well-placed alpha strike. To me, it sounds like the only black hole of despair around here is you. Get over yourself, and wait for the codex to drop at least before you post a billion complaint threads.
Me, I'm just glad my mini-Marines are actually going to be viable. I bought a whole bunch of them to run the Lion's Blade Strike Force back in 7th edition, and I never even actually got to play that because circumstances beyond my control kept me from playing in a tournament and then the edition changed, making all that stuff just a very expensive shelf filler. Now I have a good reason to go back and actually paint those Marines and their vehicles beyond just for funsies.
Ice_can wrote: More fundamentally the issue is somewhere along this Primaris selfloveathon that GW has been having they have taken almost every factions defining thing they do better than everyone else and just made marines do it better or mucked up the balance so hard the army now doesn't work right.
Take the data from 8th
Drukari the fast glass needle army, meta build Transport spam with deapstriking heavy support that played the mobile firepower style?
ELDAR the specialists to beat all when used well, meta list un hitable snipers and more aeroplanes than the US military
Tau the mobile gunline army, meta list Who needs an army when you have drone warfare that can outlast everyone while doing minimal actual damage output.
Knights Noble households going into battle as one, meta build 1Castellen 3 smashcaptains each with their own scout squad and Guard for days.
Choas supposed to be mainly 1 warband or god specific army for the most part, meta list how many wombo combos can we stack from 18 books to make a viable army.
Necrons the hard to get rid of army that doesn't die easy, meta list 3 LoW like WTF?
the fact that the most powerful list for each of those fsctoons is nothing like their fluff just speaks to GW's inability to write good rules. If an army is supposed to be good at X, then X should be their strongest and most efficient choices, with other options in the book as just that, options so that there is still variety and choice enough to keep customers interested in the product.
Jackal90 wrote: I swear dakka used to ban people for a lot less than this bs.
Non stop panic posts based on assumptions and no evidence.
We know marines are getting 2 wounds.
What we don’t know is what else is changing for them and by how much.
Until we get specific, it’s just pointless panic posts.
The fact that these are endless now and most end with a lock is just a joke.
I agree, the Mods need to step in and tell people ENEUGH. theyre too slow for that and the result is DakkDakka has gotten a well deserved reputation as a absolute pit of negativity. I mean the last person to get banned (or I assume banned since he dissappered) only got banned after COUNTLESS warnings, and hijacking literally EVERY thread to complain about the same thing.
to the Mods: for feth's sake start coming down on people who post thread after thread complaining about the same fething thing!
Jackal90 wrote: I swear dakka used to ban people for a lot less than this bs.
Non stop panic posts based on assumptions and no evidence.
We know marines are getting 2 wounds.
What we don’t know is what else is changing for them and by how much.
Until we get specific, it’s just pointless panic posts.
The fact that these are endless now and most end with a lock is just a joke.
I agree, the Mods need to step in and tell people ENEUGH. theyre too slow for that and the result is DakkDakka has gotten a well deserved reputation as a absolute pit of negativity. I mean the last person to get banned (or I assume banned since he dissappered) only got banned after COUNTLESS warnings, and hijacking literally EVERY thread to complain about the same thing.
to the Mods: for feth's sake start coming down on people who post thread after thread complaining about the same fething thing!
Ah, the ork fan.
However, you are correct and these are complaints I have been making for a while now.
My experience in 40k has never seen any army made intentionally overpowered, rather a byproduct of circumstance. Eldar for example dominated the meta for a long time not because they were buffed, but because the game at the time lent itself to their ability to move fast in maelstrom missions.
As such, the question to ask yourself is not how they are supposed to complete, it’s how should they compete and do they have the ability to do so? Stat changes aside, to me the game looks like one where grabbing and holding objectives for a long time is what will win the game, as such I feel that armies which can field durable, ObSec units will be the real winners of this edition. That said, stat changes could see said units nullified by high damage weapons, lending the game instead to horde armies in the future. All very much in the air but one thing I am sure of - it’s all going to be about objectives.
Jackal90 wrote: I swear dakka used to ban people for a lot less than this bs.
Non stop panic posts based on assumptions and no evidence.
We know marines are getting 2 wounds.
What we don’t know is what else is changing for them and by how much.
Until we get specific, it’s just pointless panic posts.
The fact that these are endless now and most end with a lock is just a joke.
I agree, the Mods need to step in and tell people ENEUGH. theyre too slow for that and the result is DakkDakka has gotten a well deserved reputation as a absolute pit of negativity. I mean the last person to get banned (or I assume banned since he dissappered) only got banned after COUNTLESS warnings, and hijacking literally EVERY thread to complain about the same thing.
to the Mods: for feth's sake start coming down on people who post thread after thread complaining about the same fething thing!
Ah, the ork fan.
However, you are correct and these are complaints I have been making for a while now.
Indeed, it's pretty much gotten to this way after a while.
Nazrak wrote: I'm still slightly taken aback by people freaking out about Multi Meltas being changed just so they aren't complete dogshit any more.
I think there's a case to be made that they went overboard. MM's needed help, absolutely. Tripling the average damage output however may have been...a wee bit much. Two BS3+ MM's now in optimal range will kill almost any T7 3+ vehicle in one round of shooting, delivering 12 wounds with average rolls with the new Heavy 2 "2d6-pick-highest+2" Damage profile.
Where are you getting "2d6-pick-highest+2"? Last I checked the leaked statline had a damage of 1d6 and the half-range bonus was +2 instead of roll twice and pick highest, your average per multi-melta at optimal range without rerolls is about 4 wounds to T7/3+ (2/3*2/3*5/6*5.5*2 = 220/54). (5.5 with Captain/Lieutenant, in case anyone's curious)
Ah ok, seems I missed that they dropped the "pick highest". Still works out to a 2.5x damage bonus and an average of 10 wounds inflicted in my previous example case. A bit better, but still probably overboard.
Which is fine for a 24" weapon that will most likely also get a price increase to 35 or 40 points, which puts it at the level of a twin lascan.
Lol, it's not gonna go up to 35 or 40pts. Multimeltas were unusable garbage before at 25 for vehicles and 20 for infantry. Them going up to be the same price as a twin lascannon just makes them unusable garbage again.
The changes to the MM prices in CA are almost certainly intended for the new statline(because it made NO sense for the old one) they might need to nerf it down at some point in the future, but honestly, with how terrible multimeltas were before, I wouldn't be surprised if 25pts ends up being fair for their current output.
I been playing (theoretically) One of the biggest winners of the change in editions in custodes and I am going. "How the heck am I gonna compare to all these stat bumps?"
The way Xenos compete is to wait for their codex and see what has changed. We have been told endlessly that play-testers were involved in this part of the development.
It sucks right now, but no need to panic if the 9th ed codexes hit in a timely matter.
Rinkydink wrote: The way Xenos compete is to wait for their codex and see what has changed. We have been told endlessly that play-testers were involved in this part of the development.
It sucks right now, but no need to panic if the 9th ed codexes hit in a timely matter.
sounds good right no need to panic if your faction is unplayable bad by comparison for months on end.
The game needed a rebaseline for a while. This is the absolute worst way to do it. Updates should have been all at once. People will still buy the codexes when they come out if the crusade stuff is really all that like they say. Plus, new models? Gw says they're a model company, so make some new kits for someone other than space marines and put the rules in their new books when they're released.
The main problem is that the superDoctrine codex 2.0 is very fresh. Marines just got an overhaul for a massive boost. Now they're getting another overhaul and it also looks like a big boost. So while a bunch of xenos aren't getting much at all, marines get these two huge inflations.
Rinkydink wrote: The way Xenos compete is to wait for their codex and see what has changed. We have been told endlessly that play-testers were involved in this part of the development.
It sucks right now, but no need to panic if the 9th ed codexes hit in a timely matter.
sounds good right no need to panic if your faction is unplayable bad by comparison for months on end.
While I would normally agree with this, and it's a fair complaint, given the current state of world affairs, how relevant is it when many if not most gaming venues are closed and events are practically nonexistent? Most of us aren't getting any games in right now, or for the foreseeable future, either way. None of the clubs or stores within about an hour's drive of me are open for gaming, only limited occupancy shopping or curbside service, and that doesn't look to be changing any time soon, though I'll grant other areas of the world may be different.
Rinkydink wrote: The way Xenos compete is to wait for their codex and see what has changed. We have been told endlessly that play-testers were involved in this part of the development.
It sucks right now, but no need to panic if the 9th ed codexes hit in a timely matter.
sounds good right no need to panic if your faction is unplayable bad by comparison for months on end.
While I would normally agree with this, and it's a fair complaint, given the current state of world affairs, how relevant is it when many if not most gaming venues are closed and events are practically nonexistent? Most of us aren't getting any games in right now, or for the foreseeable future, either way. None of the clubs or stores within about an hour's drive of me are open for gaming, only limited occupancy shopping or curbside service, and that doesn't look to be changing any time soon, though I'll grant other areas of the world may be different.
Honestly that is a problem for the future health of the game. A long period of stagnation with no games, events, releases, etc is really deadly to a hobby type community that could easily move on to the next thing. Now is not the time for GW to make unforced errors that will only serve to further drive players away from their game during this downtime.
What if instead they had said “hey guys, we wanted to release 9th edition this summer, and that’s what we’re going to do... however, with the current state of the world due to covid, we're seeing production and shipping delays on our end. But don’t worry! We are taking this time to finish up (and this is the part where GW adapts) a complete rework of the game, so that you’ll be able to enjoy 9th edition as the best edition of 40k yet!” They take the 2-4 month delay we are seeing to package up new indices covering all factions basic stat lines and weapons, then sell these as digital editions $10 each for imperium, chaos, xenos, however they want to break them up.
This would accomplish several things simultaneously:
1) Nobody is left behind waiting months and months for new stats. When the new space marine and neuron codexes drop in October, everybody else is served by a stop gap $10 index to bring their state and weapons in line so everyone can be playing the same game.
2) This gives customers something to buy, which keeps higher ups happy because money is flowing in.
3) Digital index releases would cost almost nothing to produce, because this is the same work GW is already doing, but now they get to sell it to everybody twice - once as a barebones index with just stays, and again later when the codex is fully released with updated points, crusade gak, new special rules, kits, whatever else they’re adding.
4) They could even make these digital editions app only, which would essentially force people to use the app. If it’s too gak to handle that at the moment... well honestly the app is just another unforced error by GW that should never have been released in the state it was.
Vaktathi wrote: While I would normally agree with this, and it's a fair complaint, given the current state of world affairs, how relevant is it when many if not most gaming venues are closed and events are practically nonexistent? Most of us aren't getting any games in right now, or for the foreseeable future, either way. None of the clubs or stores within about an hour's drive of me are open for gaming, only limited occupancy shopping or curbside service, and that doesn't look to be changing any time soon, though I'll grant other areas of the world may be different.
I think your post was intended to be kind, and to redirect the anger and frustration of not just OP, but all of those who feel betrayed. I appreciate the comment on that level. But this is the second time I've seen this argument, and I'd like to point out that tournaments and public play spaces are not necessary to play 40k. In fact, the changes to board size in this edition, which cynics attributed entirely to corporate greed, were probably based on solid market research that indicated there were more play at home customers than there are tournament/ public play space people. Could be wrong, and certainly not saying corporate greed didn't play a part. But dude, I can play combat patrol games on my coffee table. Seriously- not even a kitchen table. It's awesome. It's nice and low so we feel like we have a bird's eye view when we're sitting in our computer chairs.
As for OP, and to continue the small game, small table theme, I recommend crusade.
Your army will grow and improve, win or lose, so it will always be fun.
Better armies will grow and improve slightly faster, but if they get too far ahead, you start getting giant killer bonuses, which levels things out.
Best part? Crusade is actually best with friends and family instead of strangers, because the story of your crusade links with the story of your opponents crusades. Playing random pickup games in stores is nowhere as rich, because you might never get enough battles against one enemy crusade to build a real impact on the growth of their army, or for them to impact the growth yours. Crusade rivalries are fun- just ask Yarrick and Ghaz.
Rinkydink wrote: The way Xenos compete is to wait for their codex and see what has changed. We have been told endlessly that play-testers were involved in this part of the development.
It sucks right now, but no need to panic if the 9th ed codexes hit in a timely matter.
sounds good right no need to panic if your faction is unplayable bad by comparison for months on end.
While I would normally agree with this, and it's a fair complaint, given the current state of world affairs, how relevant is it when many if not most gaming venues are closed and events are practically nonexistent? Most of us aren't getting any games in right now, or for the foreseeable future, either way. None of the clubs or stores within about an hour's drive of me are open for gaming, only limited occupancy shopping or curbside service, and that doesn't look to be changing any time soon, though I'll grant other areas of the world may be different.
That's the key thing other areas of the world are different their might not be any 100 to 200 people events but smaller events are coming back and the ability to play is increasing as lockdowns are lifted/easing. This isn't some theoretical exercise this is the current game state for people, not to mention all the TTS games etc peoole are playing.
Eldar: starcannons, falcons, hornets and wraithblades with axes can all deal with primaris.
Harlequins : Kisses kill marines on every failed saves.
1. It is fairly difficult to build a balanced / interesting list, and still cram in enough starcannons to get through even one unit of 2W marines in a turn. It takes 7 starcannons to kill an MSU unit, and that is assuming you always roll 2s for damage. For every 1 you roll on that D3, you have to fire at least 1 or 2 more starcannons. That's, at minimum, using the cheapest option I can think of, ... 600 points of specialised units, to kill a single MSU troops choice.
Hornets are more expensive again. Wraithblades are never going to get into combat with marines offensively, unless the marines come to them.
2. Kisses are the same. Every failed save does not make a kill. You still need to roll that D3. It takes 30 kiss attacks to kill an MSU squad (double what it used to take), which is 120 points of harlequins (assuming they get into melee without any losses, and are frozen stars). This is significantly better, but again relies on those damage rolls being 2's, otherwise lacking wound rollover means you wasted that attack. So realistically it'll take more like 7 or maybe 8 players (so call it 160pts), depending on when you get 1's in the wound allocation. Taking that into account, the caresses still probably work out as the more reliable killer (as wounds are never wasted), and still requires 7 players on average.
So you're mostly right on harlequins, except they rely on getting into melee to do anything. And marines can kill whole units of harlequins really very easily.
Edit:
Just to add, I agree the bigger problem (though the wounds is also a big problem) is that marine weapons in many cases are increasing in power significantly. The new multi melta alone is capable of destroying most eldar vehicles in a single volley, now that it has both doubled it's number of shots AND increased its reliable AND maximum damage output.
Was it a bad gun before? Maybe. It was basically equivalent to the best anti-tank options that Eldar have available, so if it was bad then it was equally as bad as everyone elses. Now it's more than twice as good as the xeno equivalent. Will it also double in price? Probably not. But even if it does, the fact that you can take double the firepower per vehicle platform means your vehicles costs suddenly become HUGELY more efficient.
Do marines need this boost right now? Not even slightly. If every other army got these buffs first, they'd probably just end up on the same level marines are already at now. Buffing the current best army in the game even more, with years of a delay before you update the armies that actually already needed buffs, is just an insane tactic. But it will probably sell a lot of marines, I guess.
And definitely way off on Eldar Wraithblades. There are these things called objectives near the middle of the board...my axe blades will meet you there.
Nazrak wrote: I'm still slightly taken aback by people freaking out about Multi Meltas being changed just so they aren't complete dogshit any more.
I think there's a case to be made that they went overboard. MM's needed help, absolutely. Tripling the average damage output however may have been...a wee bit much. Two BS3+ MM's now in optimal range will kill almost any T7 3+ vehicle in one round of shooting, delivering 12 wounds with average rolls with the new Heavy 2 "2d6-pick-highest+2" Damage profile.
Where are you getting "2d6-pick-highest+2"? Last I checked the leaked statline had a damage of 1d6 and the half-range bonus was +2 instead of roll twice and pick highest, your average per multi-melta at optimal range without rerolls is about 4 wounds to T7/3+ (2/3*2/3*5/6*5.5*2 = 220/54). (5.5 with Captain/Lieutenant, in case anyone's curious)
Ah ok, seems I missed that they dropped the "pick highest". Still works out to a 2.5x damage bonus and an average of 10 wounds inflicted in my previous example case. A bit better, but still probably overboard.
Which is fine for a 24" weapon that will most likely also get a price increase to 35 or 40 points, which puts it at the level of a twin lascan.
Lol, it's not gonna go up to 35 or 40pts. Multimeltas were unusable garbage before at 25 for vehicles and 20 for infantry. Them going up to be the same price as a twin lascannon just makes them unusable garbage again.
The changes to the MM prices in CA are almost certainly intended for the new statline(because it made NO sense for the old one) they might need to nerf it down at some point in the future, but honestly, with how terrible multimeltas were before, I wouldn't be surprised if 25pts ends up being fair for their current output.
Minor nitpick: the average damage output is actually 4.93 for an unbuffed bs3+ multimelta shooting a t7 3+ target in optimal range. AnomanderRake added a 1/6 armor save in there which shouldn't be there. Instead it should be 2 * 4/6 * 4/6 * 5.5 = 4.89.
BrianDavion wrote: Why is it that the loudest voices about Marines are almost universally Eldar?
They're not, these posters are just discussing the problems the current eldar codices have targetting multiwound infantry. Nice try though, maybe next time try actually adressing what's being discussed instead of hopping threads attempting to discredit anyone that dares to be critical of your beloved marines? I mean, just a few posts earlier you were actually calling for banning posters for being too negative (read: about space marines). Where would your own behavior fall on your bannable offense scale?
Well, an even stronger move to loyal Marines could kill the game.
Imagine you go to a tourney with your Marine army and face 5 Marine armies over the weekend, two or three of which from the same chapter.
I guess the tourney scene could loose grip and extinct.
However, GW announced (with the announcement of 2W Tacticals) that they would do something to Xenos as well.
Not sure how this would look like.
Two wound Aspect warriors, say?
wuestenfux wrote: Well, an even stronger move to loyal Marines could kill the game.
Imagine you go to a tourney with your Marine army and face 5 Marine armies over the weekend, two or three of which from the same chapter.
I guess the tourney scene could loose grip and extinct.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, an even stronger move to loyal Marines could kill the game.
Imagine you go to a tourney with your Marine army and face 5 Marine armies over the weekend, two or three of which from the same chapter.
I guess the tourney scene could loose grip and extinct.
However, GW announced (with the announcement of 2W Tacticals) that they would do something to Xenos as well.
Not sure how this would look like.
Two wound Aspect warriors, say?
keep in mind with Marines right now there's a LOT of varity in a list. you could play those 5 other marine armies and every list would be fairly differant so for people who like marines that might not be THAT big a deal. as it's not like it'll be the same list played over and over
wuestenfux wrote: Well, an even stronger move to loyal Marines could kill the game.
Imagine you go to a tourney with your Marine army and face 5 Marine armies over the weekend, two or three of which from the same chapter.
I guess the tourney scene could loose grip and extinct.
However, GW announced (with the announcement of 2W Tacticals) that they would do something to Xenos as well.
Not sure how this would look like.
Two wound Aspect warriors, say?
keep in mind with Marines right now there's a LOT of varity in a list. you could play those 5 other marine armies and every list would be fairly differant so for people who like marines that might not be THAT big a deal. as it's not like it'll be the same list played over and over
At that point people actually could go play 30k , which atleast still is a war(game)...
wuestenfux wrote: Well, an even stronger move to loyal Marines could kill the game.
Imagine you go to a tourney with your Marine army and face 5 Marine armies over the weekend, two or three of which from the same chapter.
Not saying it will or should happen, but assuming it would: Chess has exactly one "build", mirrored for both sides. In terms of balance it is pretty solid, or so I hear.
What could be funny, just for a change: a tournament of only loyalist SM lists, and another one of no loyalist SM lists. Maybe a Xenos-only event too. I'm genuinely curious how that would turn out.
Nazrak wrote: I'm still slightly taken aback by people freaking out about Multi Meltas being changed just so they aren't complete dogshit any more.
I think there's a case to be made that they went overboard. MM's needed help, absolutely. Tripling the average damage output however may have been...a wee bit much. Two BS3+ MM's now in optimal range will kill almost any T7 3+ vehicle in one round of shooting, delivering 12 wounds with average rolls with the new Heavy 2 "2d6-pick-highest+2" Damage profile.
Where are you getting "2d6-pick-highest+2"? Last I checked the leaked statline had a damage of 1d6 and the half-range bonus was +2 instead of roll twice and pick highest, your average per multi-melta at optimal range without rerolls is about 4 wounds to T7/3+ (2/3*2/3*5/6*5.5*2 = 220/54). (5.5 with Captain/Lieutenant, in case anyone's curious)
Ah ok, seems I missed that they dropped the "pick highest". Still works out to a 2.5x damage bonus and an average of 10 wounds inflicted in my previous example case. A bit better, but still probably overboard.
Which is fine for a 24" weapon that will most likely also get a price increase to 35 or 40 points, which puts it at the level of a twin lascan.
Lol, it's not gonna go up to 35 or 40pts. Multimeltas were unusable garbage before at 25 for vehicles and 20 for infantry. Them going up to be the same price as a twin lascannon just makes them unusable garbage again.
The changes to the MM prices in CA are almost certainly intended for the new statline(because it made NO sense for the old one) they might need to nerf it down at some point in the future, but honestly, with how terrible multimeltas were before, I wouldn't be surprised if 25pts ends up being fair for their current output.
I would be, but I'm also looking at this from a Salamanders pov where MM are worth more than for other chapters. To me, 35 points would be fine for the updated profile, while Las talons have to drop to 30 or 25 even
BrianDavion wrote: Why is it that the loudest voices about Marines are almost universally Eldar?
Cause all the other xenos players have been ground down into expecting their uselessness. Only Eldar were good enough to compete and so haven't lost that sense of optimism that they can manage a fight against marines.
I would be, but I'm also looking at this from a Salamanders pov where MM are worth more than for other chapters. To me, 35 points would be fine for the updated profile, while Las talons have to drop to 30 or 25 even
No. lascannons and MM needs to be the same price, with different utility : one must have range, and the other, damage.
BrianDavion wrote: Why is it that the loudest voices about Marines are almost universally Eldar?
Cause all the other xenos players have been ground down into expecting their uselessness. Only Eldar were good enough to compete and so haven't lost that sense of optimism that they can manage a fight against marines.
And that Marines dun git gud by wholesale pilfering of Eldar rules
Slightly off topic, but I cant help noticing here and elsewhere that the main complaint against Tau is their over reliance on drones and 'tides to play and that its boring to play.
And yet when someone asks how to compete against SM we're told "use 'tides with plenty of drones!"
AndrewC wrote: Slightly off topic, but I cant help noticing here and elsewhere that the main complaint against Tau is their over reliance on drones and 'tides to play and that its boring to play.
And yet when someone asks how to compete against SM we're told "use 'tides with plenty of drones!"
Andrew
Well.
Tides and drones is a boring playstyle to play against or with, i rekon, but also was the only one actually capable of competing in most ways.
Truth of the matter is that the Taudex has a lot of dead entries in dex, wrong choice so to speak, like most dexes do aswell.
The difference is, the Sm 2.0 dex allowed even for comparable dead entries to function against non internal armies or units well whilest other dexes don't really allow for that all that well.
BrianDavion wrote: Why is it that the loudest voices about Marines are almost universally Eldar?
Cause all the other xenos players have been ground down into expecting their uselessness. Only Eldar were good enough to compete and so haven't lost that sense of optimism that they can manage a fight against marines.
Probably because the Eldar are a good guy faction to players, xenos second. They're the most human of all the aliens so players can connect with them fairly easily.
And GW have spent 20 years stealing their distinctiveness, undermining their heroicness, making them appear less than all to push marines up and keep their army expanding with units.
Eldar exarchs, warlocks, Phoenix lords were all mighty characters that the eldar had in 2nd ed, their equivalent of the mightiest of marine Champions.
But only marines get to be that cool, only they get expanded army lists, extra characters, mighty heroes.
Of all the xenos, the Eldar are the most like the human army and have the same kind of connection that a human army player would have, in comparisons to say Orks or nids.
All armies should be treated equally, the Eldar have just been treated worse precisely because they compete with the imperium conceptually more closely, and so always come out last.
AndrewC wrote: Slightly off topic, but I cant help noticing here and elsewhere that the main complaint against Tau is their over reliance on drones and 'tides to play and that its boring to play.
And yet when someone asks how to compete against SM we're told "use 'tides with plenty of drones!"
Andrew
It's almost like gw refuses to make any other playstyle viable (I miss my JSJ crisis suits).
To answer the original question, I actually don't know yet how to beat Marines with Xenos.
Myself and a friend are going through our armies with 9th rules and points. So far my Orks beat his Chaos Knights, and also his Tyrannids (I'm running mechanised).
However...this week my same Ork list played his Salamanders and it was a disaster. I had a great first turn, 20 mortal wounds inflicted with a suicide burna bomber and some decent shooting.. But after that he just offloaded from his transport and moved his dreads up, and I never shifted him off the central objectives. I made a couple of mistakes, but the fact was it was a completely different experience than the previous 2 games.
I'm trying Death Guard against his same Salamander list next, then ad mech and then Iron Hands.
So, we're the same players, using repeatable lists, and so far I'm sorry but I don't know how to beat Salamanders.
BrianDavion wrote: Why is it that the loudest voices about Marines are almost universally Eldar?
Oh please, the loudest voices about Marines are universally Marines because they're the vast majority of the playerbase.
This forum was 50% drowned in Marine players complaining back when Guard were Top Tier for the first ten minutes of 8th. People STILL don't shut up about Eldar and Tau in 6th/7th. Hell, it was only a couple of years ago people stopped saying, "Well CSM was OP in 3.5 so it's fine they had a crap codexes for fifteen years."
This is off topic, and something I've been thinking about starting a topic on, but there is genuinely a far right movement within 40k players, and part of the argument for their liking of the game is that they actually enjoy the idea of the imperium, totalitarianism and fascism is what they want in a government.
Eldar are just a different side of that far right mentality.
Icegoat wrote: Thousands of people own thousands of points worth of old marines who just became the most overpowered horde army in warhammer history. Entire armies are going to be obliterated in one turn. This paradigm shift is going to create a black hole of despair come October to every non marine player in 40k.
This is not the level of emotion someone should be pouring into any game.
Icegoat wrote: Thousands of people own thousands of points worth of old marines who just became the most overpowered horde army in warhammer history. Entire armies are going to be obliterated in one turn. This paradigm shift is going to create a black hole of despair come October to every non marine player in 40k.
This is not the level of emotion someone should be pouring into any game.
it's dakkadakka. Negative Hyperbole is the name of the game here.
The world could be going to hell in a handbasket, with a global pandmic and economic collapse. but you can be sure there are people online saying "THE SPACE MARINE CHANGES ARE THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD TO HAPPEN... EVER!"
However, GW announced (with the announcement of 2W Tacticals) that they would do something to Xenos as well.
I think that's exactly what the xenos are afraid of.
Roll a d6 for xenos upgrade: 1) Nerf a unit central to their current strategy into the ground 2) Delete a HQ 3) Buff a unit that is not competitive to a level that is still non-competitive 4) Retcon the entire background 5) Reduce durability of signature units 6) Add a powerful buff, but it can only affect a single unit that doesn't actually benefit from it
wuestenfux wrote: Well, an even stronger move to loyal Marines could kill the game.
Imagine you go to a tourney with your Marine army and face 5 Marine armies over the weekend, two or three of which from the same chapter.
I guess the tourney scene could loose grip and extinct.
However, GW announced (with the announcement of 2W Tacticals) that they would do something to Xenos as well.
Not sure how this would look like.
Two wound Aspect warriors, say?
keep in mind with Marines right now there's a LOT of varity in a list. you could play those 5 other marine armies and every list would be fairly differant so for people who like marines that might not be THAT big a deal. as it's not like it'll be the same list played over and over
At that point people actually could go play 30k , which atleast still is a war(game)...
No idea why vehicles exploding instantly every time they're targeted and/or get to close to a bush or a fence makes it more of a wargame, but hey you do you.
Rinkydink wrote: The way Xenos compete is to wait for their codex and see what has changed. We have been told endlessly that play-testers were involved in this part of the development.
It sucks right now, but no need to panic if the 9th ed codexes hit in a timely matter.
sounds good right no need to panic if your faction is unplayable bad by comparison for months on end.
While I would normally agree with this, and it's a fair complaint, given the current state of world affairs, how relevant is it when many if not most gaming venues are closed and events are practically nonexistent? Most of us aren't getting any games in right now, or for the foreseeable future, either way. None of the clubs or stores within about an hour's drive of me are open for gaming, only limited occupancy shopping or curbside service, and that doesn't look to be changing any time soon, though I'll grant other areas of the world may be different.
That's the key thing other areas of the world are different their might not be any 100 to 200 people events but smaller events are coming back and the ability to play is increasing as lockdowns are lifted/easing. This isn't some theoretical exercise this is the current game state for people, not to mention all the TTS games etc peoole are playing.
TTS is a valid point, but anyone running IRL tournaments at present needs prosecuting for reckless endangerment.
Not Online!!! wrote: At that point people actually could go play 30k , which atleast still is a war(game)...
No idea why vehicles exploding instantly every time they're targeted and/or get to close to a bush or a fence makes it more of a wargame, but hey you do you.
Pretty sure you've had it pointed out to you before that you're talking a load of gak with that claim, ERJAK.
keep in mind with Marines right now there's a LOT of varity in a list. you could play those 5 other marine armies and every list would be fairly differant so for people who like marines that might not be THAT big a deal. as it's not like it'll be the same list played over and over
True I have seen so many different marines armies comparing to 8th ed, and am not couting my GK. Aggresor heavy armies, lots of bikes and outridders, spam of regular and melee intercessors. Armies with dreads and vehicles, armies without a single vehicles. Even the HQs aren't the same, everyone does run a master of sancticity, but not everyone runs a librarians, and in some armies the capt+2 Lt are just buff bots, while other armies run them with jump packs and bikes.
Over the last 2 weeks I played 7 games, all vs some sort of marines, and not a single list was the same.
keep in mind with Marines right now there's a LOT of varity in a list. you could play those 5 other marine armies and every list would be fairly differant so for people who like marines that might not be THAT big a deal. as it's not like it'll be the same list played over and over
True I have seen so many different marines armies comparing to 8th ed, and am not couting my GK. Aggresor heavy armies, lots of bikes and outridders, spam of regular and melee intercessors. Armies with dreads and vehicles, armies without a single vehicles. Even the HQs aren't the same, everyone does run a master of sancticity, but not everyone runs a librarians, and in some armies the capt+2 Lt are just buff bots, while other armies run them with jump packs and bikes.
Over the last 2 weeks I played 7 games, all vs some sort of marines, and not a single list was the same.
Thanks to GW.
Loyal Marine armies have a variety we have never seen before.
And the variety will even increase with first-born Marines getting 2W.
I personally can't wait until Tau Fire Warriors do a mortal wound on a 6 to hit, and Eldar Aspect Warriors get double wounds and 24" assault 4 S -2 AP 3 D weapons standard. It's gonna be awesome!
wuestenfux wrote: Well, an even stronger move to loyal Marines could kill the game.
Imagine you go to a tourney with your Marine army and face 5 Marine armies over the weekend, two or three of which from the same chapter.
I guess the tourney scene could loose grip and extinct.
However, GW announced (with the announcement of 2W Tacticals) that they would do something to Xenos as well.
Not sure how this would look like.
Two wound Aspect warriors, say?
keep in mind with Marines right now there's a LOT of varity in a list. you could play those 5 other marine armies and every list would be fairly differant so for people who like marines that might not be THAT big a deal. as it's not like it'll be the same list played over and over
At that point people actually could go play 30k , which atleast still is a war(game)...
No idea why vehicles exploding instantly every time they're targeted and/or get to close to a bush or a fence makes it more of a wargame, but hey you do you.
I don't know how much you know about warfare, especially vehicles, but let's just say terrain attrition is damn high compared to actual combat casualities of vehicles....
bullyboy wrote: And definitely way off on Eldar Wraithblades. There are these things called objectives near the middle of the board...my axe blades will meet you there.
I did say that they won't get to marines offensively, only if the marines come to them. Which you are right, it's not exactly correct, if the marines stand still then the blades will get to them... Eventually.
Objective heavy games have added to wraithbkades usefulness, for sure
AndrewC wrote: Slightly off topic, but I cant help noticing here and elsewhere that the main complaint against Tau is their over reliance on drones and 'tides to play and that its boring to play.
And yet when someone asks how to compete against SM we're told "use 'tides with plenty of drones!"
Andrew
Tau need a new book. The current one can't be salvaged. It's either bad to play, or bad to play against, and often both.
bullyboy wrote: And definitely way off on Eldar Wraithblades. There are these things called objectives near the middle of the board...my axe blades will meet you there.
I did say that they won't get to marines offensively, only if the marines come to them. Which you are right, it's not exactly correct, if the marines stand still then the blades will get to them... Eventually.
?? Does the current Codex stop you from popping them in Wave Serpents? That was never a thing before, and the WS largely escaped the Crushing Hammer of Doom that hit most eldar.
However, GW announced (with the announcement of 2W Tacticals) that they would do something to Xenos as well.
I think that's exactly what the xenos are afraid of.
GW said Vengeance of the Machine Spirit would "do something different" in 9th, that something turned out to be ceasing to exist. I'd say Xenos have a right to be worried.
However, GW announced (with the announcement of 2W Tacticals) that they would do something to Xenos as well.
I think that's exactly what the xenos are afraid of.
GW said Vengeance of the Machine Spirit would "do something different" in 9th, that something turned out to be ceasing to exist. I'd say Xenos have a right to be worried.
Where did they say that?
Wait... you are talking about Power of the Machine Spirit, and not the strat that actually still works, right?
AndrewC wrote: Slightly off topic, but I cant help noticing here and elsewhere that the main complaint against Tau is their over reliance on drones and 'tides to play and that its boring to play.
And yet when someone asks how to compete against SM we're told "use 'tides with plenty of drones!"
Andrew
Tau need a new book. The current one can't be salvaged. It's either bad to play, or bad to play against, and often both.
Shield drones are the fething worst thing in the game, I'd rather play triptides all day if they didnt have 30 fething drones(yes I'm exaggerating).
However, GW announced (with the announcement of 2W Tacticals) that they would do something to Xenos as well.
I think that's exactly what the xenos are afraid of.
GW said Vengeance of the Machine Spirit would "do something different" in 9th, that something turned out to be ceasing to exist. I'd say Xenos have a right to be worried.
Where did they say that?
Wait... you are talking about Power of the Machine Spirit, and not the strat that actually still works, right?
BrianDavion wrote:Why is it that the loudest voices about Marines are almost universally Eldar?
kinda like sour grapes
More like the pot complaining about the color of the kettle. When people say that xenos have had a rough edition, they are not talking about the eldar. The eldar spent a third of 8th ed wildly overpowered, a third mildly overpowered, and a third as a close runner up the the space marines in terms of win percentage. You know what I have to say about that, good for them, if not for the eldar 8th would have been an IoM circle jerk, well more than it already was. I just wish there was more self awareness amongst eldar players of their relative strength, that they would be a tad more sympathetic towards less successful factions, and less cattish towards other strong factions.
bullyboy wrote: And definitely way off on Eldar Wraithblades. There are these things called objectives near the middle of the board...my axe blades will meet you there.
yup. this.
We have a guy running an army with 2 units of wraith axes and he is an absolute terror when he gets midfield. Given that wave serpents can get him there, and aeldari have no problems killing armour to get it cleared off, its been an absolute pain in the ass to get him off of those objectives.
But to acknowledge that would mean that people would actually have to try new and different things, and this shithole vortex of negativity just can't have that.
bullyboy wrote: And definitely way off on Eldar Wraithblades. There are these things called objectives near the middle of the board...my axe blades will meet you there.
I did say that they won't get to marines offensively, only if the marines come to them. Which you are right, it's not exactly correct, if the marines stand still then the blades will get to them... Eventually.
?? Does the current Codex stop you from popping them in Wave Serpents? That was never a thing before, and the WS largely escaped the Crushing Hammer of Doom that hit most eldar.
No, but we were comparing the units, adding a wave serpent almost doubles the cost. You could also deepstrike them, with a soiritseer, for a 1 in 3 chance to make a charge, but that's then a bunch more points and 3cp. However you butter it, they come out expensive and risky. Sitting them on an objective and keeping them there the whole game is likely the most reliable use for them.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, an even stronger move to loyal Marines could kill the game.
Imagine you go to a tourney with your Marine army and face 5 Marine armies over the weekend, two or three of which from the same chapter.
I guess the tourney scene could loose grip and extinct.
However, GW announced (with the announcement of 2W Tacticals) that they would do something to Xenos as well.
Not sure how this would look like.
Two wound Aspect warriors, say?
keep in mind with Marines right now there's a LOT of varity in a list. you could play those 5 other marine armies and every list would be fairly differant so for people who like marines that might not be THAT big a deal. as it's not like it'll be the same list played over and over
At that point people actually could go play 30k , which atleast still is a war(game)...
No idea why vehicles exploding instantly every time they're targeted and/or get to close to a bush or a fence makes it more of a wargame, but hey you do you.
I don't know how much you know about warfare, especially vehicles, but let's just say terrain attrition is damn high compared to actual combat casualities of vehicles....
VladimirHerzog wrote: Icegoat, for your own good, take a break. You've been making these alarmist posts that are clearly emotion driven and spontaneous.
Making marine 2w changes to how you have to play since you already had to skew your lists for primaris and no one was bringing oldmarines.
Eldar: starcannons, falcons, hornets and wraithblades with axes can all deal with primaris.
Drukhari: disintegrators still are marine killers and now you don't "waste" their dmage 2 on oldmarines anymore.
Harlequins : Kisses kill marines on every failed saves.
Tau : Riptides still deal 2 damage and kill marines.
Necrons : we already nkow their weapons are being reworked, the spear dudes now have a flat 2 damage and honestly im really not familiar with this army.
Orks : Lootas still kill marines.
Tyranids/GSC : dont know the army enough, i guess hive guards and the exocrine/tyrannofex can pop 2wounds marines.
These are all units that are already being played because of primaris, you barely have to change what youre doing.
Boyz still kill marines. I lost half my army to mass boyz today in a game, and while my Bladeguard and Outriders did a good job, they weren't enough to save the game for me. Shoota boyz are amazing at holding objectives now too, which I really like. It was fun trying to assault a squad of 20 in a crater!
bullyboy wrote: And definitely way off on Eldar Wraithblades. There are these things called objectives near the middle of the board...my axe blades will meet you there.
I did say that they won't get to marines offensively, only if the marines come to them. Which you are right, it's not exactly correct, if the marines stand still then the blades will get to them... Eventually.
?? Does the current Codex stop you from popping them in Wave Serpents? That was never a thing before, and the WS largely escaped the Crushing Hammer of Doom that hit most eldar.
No, but we were comparing the units, adding a wave serpent almost doubles the cost. You could also deepstrike them, with a soiritseer, for a 1 in 3 chance to make a charge, but that's then a bunch more points and 3cp. However you butter it, they come out expensive and risky. Sitting them on an objective and keeping them there the whole game is likely the most reliable use for them.
I have run them on foot and 6 in a serpent (spiritseer in a second with regular guard). On foot they can get close quickly, either through quicken or using the auto 6" advance strat. I prefer the serpent overall, simply because the protection gives you the opportunity to survive turn 1 before adding protect and fortune onto them.
No, but we were comparing the units, adding a wave serpent almost doubles the cost.
Not from my PoV as I've always considered the serpent as integral to the unit as any of the Wraiths it transports. To me? That's just what the unit costs.
No, but we were comparing the units, adding a wave serpent almost doubles the cost.
Not from my PoV as I've always considered the serpent as integral to the unit as any of the Wraiths it transports. To me? That's just what the unit costs.
yeah it's not like a WS is just a box to go from point a to point b like a rhino. I mean the firepower it has for 150 points is pretty solid.
No, but we were comparing the units, adding a wave serpent almost doubles the cost.
Not from my PoV as I've always considered the serpent as integral to the unit as any of the Wraiths it transports. To me? That's just what the unit costs.
yeah it's not like a WS is just a box to go from point a to point b like a rhino. I mean the firepower it has for 150 points is pretty solid.
Well...no. The WS has a lot of perks going for him, but the 150 point version (Shuricannon and shuripult) has pitiful firepower for the cost.
Eldar can do well in 9th, maybe not the best but pretty top tier overall. They will probably have to rely on expert crafters msu style lists but their firepower is still hyper efficient, especially against eilte armies.
No, but we were comparing the units, adding a wave serpent almost doubles the cost.
Not from my PoV as I've always considered the serpent as integral to the unit as any of the Wraiths it transports. To me? That's just what the unit costs.
yeah it's not like a WS is just a box to go from point a to point b like a rhino. I mean the firepower it has for 150 points is pretty solid.
Well...no. The WS has a lot of perks going for him, but the 150 point version (Shuricannon and shuripult) has pitiful firepower for the cost.
yeah I'd misread the entry and thought EACH shuricanon was 6 shots giving it firepower about on par with a razorback, I stand corrected.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Icegoat, for your own good, take a break. You've been making these alarmist posts that are clearly emotion driven and spontaneous.
Making marine 2w changes to how you have to play since you already had to skew your lists for primaris and no one was bringing oldmarines.
Eldar: starcannons, falcons, hornets and wraithblades with axes can all deal with primaris.
Drukhari: disintegrators still are marine killers and now you don't "waste" their dmage 2 on oldmarines anymore.
Harlequins : Kisses kill marines on every failed saves.
Tau : Riptides still deal 2 damage and kill marines.
Necrons : we already nkow their weapons are being reworked, the spear dudes now have a flat 2 damage and honestly im really not familiar with this army.
Orks : Lootas still kill marines.
Tyranids/GSC : dont know the army enough, i guess hive guards and the exocrine/tyrannofex can pop 2wounds marines.
These are all units that are already being played because of primaris, you barely have to change what youre doing.
Boyz still kill marines. I lost half my army to mass boyz today in a game, and while my Bladeguard and Outriders did a good job, they weren't enough to save the game for me. Shoota boyz are amazing at holding objectives now too, which I really like. It was fun trying to assault a squad of 20 in a crater!
While I would agree that orks should not have a lot of trouble pushing marines off objectives, neither lootas nor boyz are the tools to do so. Lootas lost pretty much everything that made them viable and weren't great at killing marines to begin with, while boyz simply bounce off 2W marines. But between scrapjets, KBB, nauts, dreads, MANz, killa klaw warboss, da boomer, anything holding a killsaw and deff rollas there are plenty of tools to crush primaris and upgraded firstborns.
Oh, and objectives cannot be inside craters, or any terrain for that matter. Check the rules on how to create the battlefield in front of the missions, you set up objectives first and place terrain afterwards. Terrain cannot be set up on top of objective markers.
While I agree that Dissies are efficient vs 2W Marines, they are really expensive now, as are the platforms that can carry them which are fodder for heavy bolters.
While I would agree that orks should not have a lot of trouble pushing marines off objectives, neither lootas nor boyz are the tools to do so. Lootas lost pretty much everything that made them viable and weren't great at killing marines to begin with, while boyz simply bounce off 2W marines. But between scrapjets, KBB, nauts, dreads, MANz, killa klaw warboss, da boomer, anything holding a killsaw and deff rollas there are plenty of tools to crush primaris and upgraded firstborns.
Oh, and objectives cannot be inside craters, or any terrain for that matter. Check the rules on how to create the battlefield in front of the missions, you set up objectives first and place terrain afterwards. Terrain cannot be set up on top of objective markers.
Boyz kill Primaris just fine. 20 Boyz attacking with no buffs kills over four Intercessors on average, or about 80 points worth.
The same point cost (160 points) of Intercessors, so eight of them, kill seven on average, or 56 points of Boyz. Boyz are far more efficient at killing Intercessors in melee than the opposite..
I didn't factor Boss Nobz or Sergeants into the equation, but that favors the Boyz more than the Intercessors. A Boss Nob with a Power Klaw is 18 points, the sergeant 35, with both having the same number of attacks with the Boyz having 20+ models and the sergeant having just charged/been charged.
Which is to say nothing if your Boyz are Goffs, which is apparently a thing now in competitive? If they're Goffs 20 Boyz can reliably kill a MSU of Intercessors on the charge with no buffs before even factoring in the Boss Nob, and will take a max sized unit down to half strength.
I went with 20 because I'm not sure how many Boyz can reasonably be expected to be able to fight. It may be that more or less can fight; I haven't played with or against any horde factions as of yet in ninth, so I don't know how well they do with the new rules for who can fight in the fight phase.
And obviously this doesn't factor in shooting, if your Boyz squad got lit up like the fourth of July in the enemy's turn you're not going to be able to do gak with them obviously.
Void__Dragon wrote: Boyz kill Primaris just fine. 20 Boyz attacking with no buffs kills over four Intercessors on average, or about 80 points worth.
20 shoota boyz have 60 attacks, hit 40, wound 20, cause 7.33 unsaved wounds for 3-4 dead intercessor on average. Except you can only have about 10-12 attack in combat due to the new half inch rule. So the actual output is more like 36 attacks, hit 24, wound 12, cause 4 unsaved wounds for 2 dead intercessors.
The same point cost (160 points) of Intercessors, so eight of them, kill seven on average, or 56 points of Boyz. Boyz are far more efficient at killing Intercessors in melee than the opposite..
It would be really bad if intercessors were just as efficient in combat as a unit with no defense or shooting capability, right? I suggest utilizing those 30" bolters with AP-1 instead.
Which is to say nothing if your Boyz are Goffs, which is apparently a thing now in competitive?
It's not. People are just playing games with their newly finished Thrakkas as their countries start to lift social distancing restrictions.
I went with 20 because I'm not sure how many Boyz can reasonably be expected to be able to fight. It may be that more or less can fight; I haven't played with or against any horde factions as of yet in ninth, so I don't know how well they do with the new rules for who can fight in the fight phase.
Maybe you should have lead with this - 20 boyz striking combat is completely unrealistic unless your squad was already surrounded before the boyz moved. Boyz are now a 250 points unit that needs two turns of combat to grind through 100 points of intercessors while taking casualties from them fighting back. A bonebreaka, a fairly inefficient close combat unit, is 180 and has a decent chance to wipe them out in one go before they can fight back.
I don't understand why we can't have an Index this time, too :(
I can wait for the fancy new rules from Commorragh, but I would like to know why my outdated Kabalites, Disintegrators or Vehicles are way more expensive now without waiting for the codex.
kingheff wrote: Eldar can do well in 9th, maybe not the best but pretty top tier overall. They will probably have to rely on expert crafters msu style lists but their firepower is still hyper efficient, especially against eilte armies.
Hyper efficient for a xenos army. Pitifully weak and inaccurate when compared to imperials.
kingheff wrote: Eldar can do well in 9th, maybe not the best but pretty top tier overall. They will probably have to rely on expert crafters msu style lists but their firepower is still hyper efficient, especially against eilte armies.
Hyper efficient for a xenos army. Pitifully weak and inaccurate when compared to imperials.
Hyper efficient for any army, Craftworlds are still one of the best shooting armies in the game, with probably the best manouvrability of the top shooting factions.
harlokin wrote: While I agree that Dissies are efficient vs 2W Marines, they are really expensive now, as are the platforms that can carry them which are fodder for heavy bolters.
...and not exactly abundant. Raider(Transport), Ravager(actual gunboat), and a jet.
If we could still take trueborns the story would be completely different.
BrianDavion wrote:Why is it that the loudest voices about Marines are almost universally Eldar?
kinda like sour grapes
More like the pot complaining about the color of the kettle. When people say that xenos have had a rough edition, they are not talking about the eldar. The eldar spent a third of 8th ed wildly overpowered, a third mildly overpowered, and a third as a close runner up the the space marines in terms of win percentage. You know what I have to say about that, good for them, if not for the eldar 8th would have been an IoM circle jerk, well more than it already was. I just wish there was more self awareness amongst eldar players of their relative strength, that they would be a tad more sympathetic towards less successful factions, and less cattish towards other strong factions.
I think the problem here is more that people are conflating all of Aeldari together, especially Ynnari. Ynnari was dominating in the early days with its ridiculous ability. When accounting for pure forces they did much less.
Are old marines really going to be such an issue with 2 wounds? If anything these weapon buffs are actually better for sisters I think and I'm looking forward to 12" flamers and heavy bolters being cool again.
SagesStone wrote: Are old marines really going to be such an issue with 2 wounds? If anything these weapon buffs are actually better for sisters I think and I'm looking forward to 12" flamers and heavy bolters being cool again.
Depends on points really.
As many have said, in principle 2 wound *Space Marines* have been a thing for ages.
So if anything, the balance issues would more be for say CSM, GK etc. On the other hand giving something like Devastators an extra wound for 3 points a model seems like a good trade (if they were to mirror the tactical increase). Even the humble assault marine might (*might*) have a spot - with a base AP-1 attack, and two wounds so they don't die if something looks at them. Maybe thats too far - but something odd like vanguard veterans might get through though.
Weapon changes probably matter more. Strangely, if GW add a lot more D2 weapons, the meta might be more hostile to Marines (and, in turn, 3 wound models, vehicles/monsters/characters etc.)
Tbh I think the new MM is going to break the edition unless its around 35-40 points, and possibly even then. Well - it won't break the edition, its just going to be a hard skew against vehicles. Which will hurt certain factions more than others.
Weirdly - if GW gives a lot more guns 2D like the Heavy Bolter, the meta might become more anti-Marine than now. But also potentially more anti-vehice/monster/character.
Icegoat wrote: Serious question no hyperbole just straight how is an 8th edition codex using tyranid or eldar or dark eldar or tau player meant to win against marine armies now. Gw seem to place an additional wound at only 20% of a models point value so your now facing a marine army that just doubled its entire wound value. And it only cost the marine player 20%of their points? How do you win? Please tell me.
SagesStone wrote: Are old marines really going to be such an issue with 2 wounds? If anything these weapon buffs are actually better for sisters I think and I'm looking forward to 12" flamers and heavy bolters being cool again.
Depends on points really.
As many have said, in principle 2 wound *Space Marines* have been a thing for ages.
So if anything, the balance issues would more be for say CSM, GK etc. On the other hand giving something like Devastators an extra wound for 3 points a model seems like a good trade (if they were to mirror the tactical increase). Even the humble assault marine might (*might*) have a spot - with a base AP-1 attack, and two wounds so they don't die if something looks at them. Maybe thats too far - but something odd like vanguard veterans might get through though.
Weapon changes probably matter more. Strangely, if GW add a lot more D2 weapons, the meta might be more hostile to Marines (and, in turn, 3 wound models, vehicles/monsters/characters etc.)
Tbh I think the new MM is going to break the edition unless its around 35-40 points, and possibly even then. Well - it won't break the edition, its just going to be a hard skew against vehicles. Which will hurt certain factions more than others.
Weirdly - if GW gives a lot more guns 2D like the Heavy Bolter, the meta might become more anti-Marine than now. But also potentially more anti-vehice/monster/character.
MMs being able to one shot tanks reasonably reliably is who the gun functioned back before 8th, I think GW simply wanted to revisit Melta's because they went from "hands down the best anti tank weapon avaliab,e albiet short ranged" to "..... why would I take this?"
I'm with Tyel though, I think they overshot the mark on melta. Double shot AND d6+2 is pretty rough, especially since its coming with fast platforms (and already had some).
I don't really want to see 'one volley' tank removal again, even if 'one shot' is technically impossible.
Boyz still kill marines. I lost half my army to mass boyz today in a game, and while my Bladeguard and Outriders did a good job, they weren't enough to save the game for me. Shoota boyz are amazing at holding objectives now too, which I really like. It was fun trying to assault a squad of 20 in a crater!
If you have trouble shifting a unit that is T4 with a 6+ save your issue isn't how powerful that unit is, its how you are playing (no offense intended). I don't see Space Marine players swooning over how amazing a Whirlewind is, but 250pts of Whirlwinds with Castellan launchers fire 24 S6 shots which result in 11 wounds and about 9 dead Orkz a turn. So in 2 turns you can wipe out that mob of 20 relatively easily. Heck, a LR Crusader can pump out 28 S4 shots and 12 S6 Ap-1 shots a turn which kills about 13-14 boyz a turn, before morale mind you.
Before the 2nd codex of 8th edition, they were pretty poor, with some chapters having different mileage. I also seem to remember them being quite poor in 3rd edition, they were far too squishy and instant death absolutely gibbed characters, and well, vehicles were poor in 3rd, this was before hull points remember.
Maybe certain marine builds did okay in third, but marines were not good. It was the first edition terminators were awful.
Marines basically started 8th as the super OP faction. Girlyman gun lines and Storm Ravens flying everywhere were the dominant lists. Marines were brought to NON-OP levels but were still used in top lists with the Loyal 32, after that they went right back to OP Broken nonsense as soon as Codex 2 electric boogaloo got released.
As far as 3rd goes, its been too long for me to remember 100% but I don't remember my Marine buddies having any major problems.
The thing I said was Marines have never gone a full edition as garbage tier, by your own admission they haven't yet either. Orkz on the other hand...7th edition was a nightmare. When we finally got our "super" formation, it was so hamstrung with requirements that by the time you met the minimum there was no points left to get units that actually benefit from the rules you got from taking the stupid thing. Compare that to Marines with their Free "Transports" which always tended to be Razorbacks with lots of guns.
Well, I think Xenos armies don't have a high priority atm.
GW is driven by the sales figures of Marines, especially the Primaris products,
and the sales figures will even rise when Tacticals get 2W and every Marine player will purchase Razorbacks or whatnot.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I think Xenos armies don't have a high priority atm. GW is driven by the sales figures of Marines, especially the Primaris products,
and the sales figures will even rise when Tacticals get 2W and every Marine player will purchase Razorbacks or whatnot.
Necrons at least are important enough to receive a massive update and expansion of their range together with the first (or second) codex of the edition and being featured in a starter set as well.
My gut feeling is that this edition will be to Xenos what 8th was to Chaos.
And we really need to settle on a narrative. Either GW is making everybody buy their Marine army again in an upscaled version of Primaris and make firstborn weaker on purpose or they buff old marines to make people buy more of them to clear their stock (best one i read here so far ).
Voss wrote: I'm with Tyel though, I think they overshot the mark on melta. Double shot AND d6+2 is pretty rough, especially since its coming with fast platforms (and already had some).
I don't really want to see 'one volley' tank removal again, even if 'one shot' is technically impossible.
Mathhammer isn't perfect - but I think a lot of people just haven't done the numbers.
On a T7/3+ target, in 12", you do 3.7 times as much damage as a lascannon. At over 12" you do 2.4 times as much. These are not small numbers.
Against say a 5++ Knight (about as bad as it gets for an MM)
Las: 1*2/3*2/3*2/3*3.5=1.037 wounds.
MM 12+ inches: 2*2/3*1/2*2/3*3.5=1.555 wounds. (1.5 times as good.)
MM in 12+ inches: 2*2/3*1/2*2/3*5.5=2.444. So about 2.35 times as good as a lascannon.
The argument goes up that a lascannon has 36" range - but given a smaller table where stuff has to get forward to claim objectives, and vehicles pay no penalty for moving, that's less valuable than before - and doesn't come close to making up these differences in expected output.
I wouldn't mind this "MMs have been terrible forever, they deserve their time in the sun" - but their time in the sun is set to be crazy good compared to other 1 shot D6 damage weapons - unless they see a comparable buff. Or MMs are made really expensive to compensate.
harlokin wrote: While I agree that Dissies are efficient vs 2W Marines, they are really expensive now, as are the platforms that can carry them which are fodder for heavy bolters.
...and not exactly abundant. Raider(Transport), Ravager(actual gunboat), and a jet.
If we could still take trueborns the story would be completely different.
harlokin wrote: I can't help but think that GW publishing a release schedule for the next 12 months would go some way to reducing the overall vitriol.
You have more faith then I. Let's say GW published a scheudle and it reads something like "Marines, Necrons, marine supplements, eldar, Guard, Admech, Chaos marines, Orks"
You'd have ork players complaining 12 months is too long and "our codex needs an update nooow" you'd have Tau players complaining they're not even on the list etc.
It'd solve nothing, and to top it off people would likely save their money and impulse buy less.
(I wanna note to Ork and Tau Players I'm just using you guys as an example, not implying Ork and Tau players are extra whiny or something)
harlokin wrote: I can't help but think that GW publishing a release schedule for the next 12 months would go some way to reducing the overall vitriol.
You have more faith then I. Let's say GW published a scheudle and it reads something like "Marines, Necrons, marine supplements, eldar, Guard, Admech, Chaos marines, Orks"
You'd have ork players complaining 12 months is too long and "our codex needs an update nooow" you'd have Tau players complaining they're not even on the list etc.
It'd solve nothing, and to top it off people would likely save their money and impulse buy less.
(I wanna note to Ork and Tau Players I'm just using you guys as an example, not implying Ork and Tau players are extra whiny or something)
Yup, that's inevitable, but I don't think it changes if the customers don't know (even roughly) when anything is going to be released.
Maybe I'm odd, but if I knew that Drukhari weren't getting a codex till next July, and the only model released over that period would be Lelith Hesperax, I could make an adult decision as to how I want to go forward.
Firstly, we’d have to assume they actually have a year long plan.
Keep in mind that a lot of their releases seem sporadic and out of the blue.
So if that 12 month list didn’t include last chance to buy, limited items etc then people would complain even more.
What I’d like (won’t happen as it would hurt sales) is a list of items they plan on retiring.
Been burned far too many times with models/books that seem great, but from nowhere they just vanish and get retired.
So something like a warning would be good.
However, it impacts sales severely (kind of) so it’s not going to happen.
On one side, players would avoid stuff that’s about to go as it’s useless to them.
On the other, collectors and ebayers would go nuts buying them.
Well, we know (from play testers) that most of the codexes are done. GW don't print in-house so they would have to plan the print runs in advance with whoever is doing it for them, and then shipment storage and distribution, GW obviously manufacture the miniatures themselves, but they have limited capacity, so that would also need to be planned out well in advance.
I genuinely believe that GW have a detailed release plan for at least the next 12 months already.
Oh they may have, but currently, planning anything is destined to fail.
With the on and off lockdowns and changing rules it can easily cripple those plans.
I also think people would get bored.
If I knew nothing was being released for my army in the next year or so, where’s the attraction to play?
The way they drop releases isn’t great, but it does generate some hype.
With a 12 month list that hype would likely die off quickly.
harlokin wrote: Well, we know (from play testers) that most of the codexes are done. GW don't print in-house so they would have to plan the print runs in advance with whoever is doing it for them, and then shipment storage and distribution, GW obviously manufacture the miniatures themselves, but they have limited capacity, so that would also need to be planned out well in advance.
I genuinely believe that GW have a detailed release plan for at least the next 12 months already.
If the codexes are done then hopefully we'll see a release schedule similar to 8th, two a month would be great. I hope they don't drag this out.
To pick a paragraph from the WH Community article:
"‘But what about my lovely xenos army?’ we hear you cry. Don’t worry – your weaponry will get the same treatment! 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."
Park your xeno army for now, and play SM until your codex comes out.
Or, learn how the new rules affect your current army, while getting gunned down. For now. By the time your new codex arrives, you'll have learned new tricks that the SM and Necrons haven't had to.
harlokin wrote: While I agree that Dissies are efficient vs 2W Marines, they are really expensive now, as are the platforms that can carry them which are fodder for heavy bolters.
...and not exactly abundant. Raider(Transport), Ravager(actual gunboat), and a jet.
If we could still take trueborns the story would be completely different.
Why?
Trueborns could never take Disintegrators anyway.
No, but they could take blasters which helped a lot in giving Drukhari some edge, especially since you could load them in a venom and have them fire out of it. A venom with 4 blasters was a decent gun platform.
Skinnereal wrote: To pick a paragraph from the WH Community article:
"‘But what about my lovely xenos army?’ we hear you cry. Don’t worry – your weaponry will get the same treatment! 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."
Park your xeno army for now, and play SM until your codex comes out.
Or, learn how the new rules affect your current army, while getting gunned down. For now. By the time your new codex arrives, you'll have learned new tricks that the SM and Necrons haven't had to.
I like option 2, compete as best as possible and when the new stuff rolls out you'll be in good stead.
Necrons at least are important enough to receive a massive update and expansion of their range together with the first (or second) codex of the edition and being featured in a starter set as well.
Indeed, Necrons will receive an update (and maybe a boost).
But Marines are still the dominating army.
Necrons are a bit one-dimensional if you ask me and players will get bored playing them too soon.
ERJAK wrote: Lol, because 'terrain attrition' and 'touched a bush and violently exploded killing several of the soldiers inside' are totally the same thing.
Whomever told you that this was a consequence of the HH rules cheated. It is impossible, in the rules, for a vehicle to suffer the Explodes! result on the vehicle damage chart from touching terrain.
It is also not possible for the passengers inside to suffer casualties if the Explodes! result doesn't occur, unless the vehicle's access points are blocked by foes (in which case, the problem appears to be the enemy murdering the passengers as they struggle to extricate themselves from the vehicle, not any sort of detonation).
Also, I hope you engage with me on this one, because this is the 4th thread now where you've outright lied about HH rules surrounding vehicles.
Skinnereal wrote: To pick a paragraph from the WH Community article:
"‘But what about my lovely xenos army?’ we hear you cry. Don’t worry – your weaponry will get the same treatment! 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."
Park your xeno army for now, and play SM until your codex comes out.
Or, learn how the new rules affect your current army, while getting gunned down. For now. By the time your new codex arrives, you'll have learned new tricks that the SM and Necrons haven't had to.
I gotta be honest, that is what is bothering me the most. GW is fine to increase everyone's points for 9th from the start but won't release the new rules/weapons/buffs etc to compensate everyone else's armies until they get their own codex. Which means everyone is forced to go either play Warhammer Space Marine, die numerous times or feth off until your codex drops to have any fair shot at winning.
I'm also a bit worried that people keep saying "GW already has the codex's written" because that same line was said for 8th as well and codex creep was absolutely a thing and the codex's themselves were definitely not balanced against one another as evident by the shenanigans pulled off by Eldar, Marines and Knights who controlled most of 8th edition.
Necrons at least are important enough to receive a massive update and expansion of their range together with the first (or second) codex of the edition and being featured in a starter set as well.
Indeed, Necrons will receive an update (and maybe a boost).
But Marines are still the dominating army.
Necrons are a bit one-dimensional if you ask me and players will get bored playing them too soon.
Yeah, it's also worth noting that we know the rules of a lot of the new necron units...and they're honestly kind of crap.
You've got the big tripod, which is just a Doomsday Ark but worse, the new Spyder thing that is just a Cryptek but easier to target, the new warrior gun which turns them into "Immortals, but bad", the new change to Deathmarks that makes them the same as every other sniper unit in the game (read: less useful for their job than just killing the models next to the offending character and then lobbing a couple anti-tank shots their way to splat them)
So far, compared to what we know marines are getting, the buffs to Necrons have been decidedly pretty meh. Maybe there's some big overhaul to Res Prots that puts crons on the map, but bear in mind Necrons have been solidly the worst army in the game for a while, and the buffs and new units theyre getting are way worse than the buffs and new units marines are getting...and marines are currently the best army in the game.
The points increases would have happened literally either way. That's what happens with Chapter Approved.
This is the important thing for you to take into consideration: these increases? They aren't really representative of what Necrons and Marines will see when their codices drop. They're for what is there now.
These isn't new or earthshattering developments. Chapter Approved comes out, points get raised or lowered or stay the same. Then a codex drops and invalidates those points anyways.
Kanluwen wrote: The points increases would have happened literally either way. That's what happens with Chapter Approved.
This is the important thing for you to take into consideration: these increases? They aren't representative of what Necrons and Marines will see when their codices drop. They're for what is there now.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that the new weapon profiles were included in the 9th point values. It does go a long way to explaining why all Power Fist and Chainfist equivalents got set to the same point values (i.e. Killsaws+Power Klaws for orks which are the same weapons) and why Heavy Bolters for example are so pricy.
Im betting marine bodies get more expensive, and marine weapons stay the same as CA2020.
ERJAK wrote: Lol, because 'terrain attrition' and 'touched a bush and violently exploded killing several of the soldiers inside' are totally the same thing.
Whomever told you that this was a consequence of the HH rules cheated. It is impossible, in the rules, for a vehicle to suffer the Explodes! result on the vehicle damage chart from touching terrain.
It is also not possible for the passengers inside to suffer casualties if the Explodes! result doesn't occur, unless the vehicle's access points are blocked by foes (in which case, the problem appears to be the enemy murdering the passengers as they struggle to extricate themselves from the vehicle, not any sort of detonation).
Also, I hope you engage with me on this one, because this is the 4th thread now where you've outright lied about HH rules surrounding vehicles.
So i wasn't just dreaming then and have seen that played out now multiple times?
That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
They're going to be identical in October.
BrianDavion wrote: MMs being able to one shot tanks reasonably reliably is who the gun functioned back before 8th
Absolutely not like this, though.
Back before 8th, melta weapons were only getting their 2D6 to penetrate armor if they were within half range. Because of variable armor facings, you were often looking at S8 versus AV13+ frontal armor early in the game, which means the multi-melta's S8 was a real liability, having to fish for 5s and 6s to get penetrating hits (thanks to AP1). Melta only got really scary to tanks when it either was within half range or was able to flank your vehicles and hit a lower armor, and the latter was largely irrelevant to units with AV13 sides.
If you could keep multi-meltas more than a foot away, they were less effective than lascannons, penetrating on the same rolls but unable to get glancing hits in addition. To give a real example: Against AV13, a multi-melta was penetrating on a 5+, while a lascannon was glancing on a 4 and penetrating on a 5+. A lascannon was strictly better than a multi-melta unless you got within the 12" magic zone.
The problem we're about to run into in 9th is that with two shots, the multi-melta is strictly better than the lascannon by a wide margin. Against a T8 tank, the multi-melta will average 50% more wounds, at higher AP and the same damage, outside melta range.
In 4th Ed, if you wanted to kill a Leman Russ on the first turn (AV14 front) at 12-24", at BS4 you would need an average of 18 multi-meltas to do the job. If you had a speedy platform and could expect a side shot (not likely, but sure) against AV12 at 12-24", you 'only' needed 6 multimeltas to do it. If you got within 12", against AV12, 3.3 multi-meltas averaged a kill.
In 9th Ed, killing a single Leman Russ at BS3+ will require an average of 5.14 multi-meltas outside of melta range. No flanking necessary, just dip your toe within 24" and go for that frontal shot at maximum range. If you do get within melta range, 3.27 multi-meltas do the job.
Basically the new multi-melta has performance within 12" comparable to getting flanking shots at the same range in older editions, and is astronomically better outside of 12". In the early game where frontal shots are the norm, the new multi-melta will be over three times more powerful than it was in 4th. It's not a weapon that has to get close or get flanking shots to be effective, it's just strictly better than a lascannon, and any platform that can take lots of them is perfectly safe to camp in its deployment zone.
Why they didn't just change the melta rule to something like a flat 2D6 damage within melta range is beyond me. Doubling its shots dramatically improves performance at all ranges and completely displaces the lascannon.
ERJAK wrote: Lol, because 'terrain attrition' and 'touched a bush and violently exploded killing several of the soldiers inside' are totally the same thing.
Whomever told you that this was a consequence of the HH rules cheated. It is impossible, in the rules, for a vehicle to suffer the Explodes! result on the vehicle damage chart from touching terrain.
It is also not possible for the passengers inside to suffer casualties if the Explodes! result doesn't occur, unless the vehicle's access points are blocked by foes (in which case, the problem appears to be the enemy murdering the passengers as they struggle to extricate themselves from the vehicle, not any sort of detonation).
Also, I hope you engage with me on this one, because this is the 4th thread now where you've outright lied about HH rules surrounding vehicles.
So i wasn't just dreaming then and have seen that played out now multiple times?
Yeah, he lies about HH and then ducks any attempt at correction.
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
They're going to be identical in October.
which is the core issue i guess.
Right. Why release points now based on rules that won't be in place until October. And even if that explains the odd changes to weapon points nothing explains some of the bizarre changes to actual units. We already know loyalist points will change with the new codex. Ca 2020 is just insane.
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
They're going to be identical in October.
which is the core issue i guess.
Right. Why release points now based on rules that won't be in place until October. And even if that explains the odd changes to weapon points nothing explains some of the bizarre changes to actual units. We already know loyalist points will change with the new codex. Ca 2020 is just insane.
It's even more insane when your looking at the xeno factions that don't share weapons with marines and as such won't actually get their updated weapon stats untill their codex's.
I suppose the other option for the CA 2020 points being BS is they are based on some future codex points minus some small random values to hide the true future points costs while not relating in anyway to how the units play untill their new codex.
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
They're going to be identical in October.
which is the core issue i guess.
Right. Why release points now based on rules that won't be in place until October. And even if that explains the odd changes to weapon points nothing explains some of the bizarre changes to actual units. We already know loyalist points will change with the new codex. Ca 2020 is just insane.
Yeah, I have no idea, can't even begin to fathom why rules content and miniatures produced at Games Workshop's factory in Nottingham, England might be coming out now, while codex books produced and printed in factories in China might be delayed until October.
I can't even possibly think to speculate! It's a grand mystery! What could be going on to produce this strange, bizarre delay in China???
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
They're going to be identical in October.
which is the core issue i guess.
Right. Why release points now based on rules that won't be in place until October. And even if that explains the odd changes to weapon points nothing explains some of the bizarre changes to actual units. We already know loyalist points will change with the new codex. Ca 2020 is just insane.
It's even more insane when your looking at the xeno factions that don't share weapons with marines and as such won't actually get their updated weapon stats untill their codex's.
I suppose the other option for the CA 2020 points being BS is they are based on some future codex points minus some small random values to hide the true future points costs while not relating in anyway to how the units play untill their new codex.
which then goes to show that GW artificially holds back releases to sell an aditional book and pad their income over all quartals.
Yeah, I have no idea, can't even begin to fathom why rules content and miniatures produced at Games Workshop's factory in Nottingham, England might be coming out now, while codex books produced and printed in factories in China might be delayed until October.
I can't even possibly think to speculate! It's a grand mystery! What could be going on to produce this strange, bizarre delay in China???
Print space. Assuming they do bulk orders, over time, they may very well have a contractor which then produces X ammount of books over a certain time.
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
They're going to be identical in October.
which is the core issue i guess.
Right. Why release points now based on rules that won't be in place until October. And even if that explains the odd changes to weapon points nothing explains some of the bizarre changes to actual units. We already know loyalist points will change with the new codex. Ca 2020 is just insane.
Yeah, I have no idea, can't even begin to fathom why rules content and miniatures produced at Games Workshop's factory in Nottingham, England might be coming out now, while codex books produced and printed in factories in China might be delayed until October.
I can't even possibly think to speculate! It's a grand mystery! What could be going on to produce this strange, bizarre delay in China???
Sarcasm duly noted. But you know that nothing in those codexes will explain some of the weird points in ca 2020. It's just a mess. Nothing in those books will explain guardsmen and grots being the same price or relic contemptors getting a drop so they're the same price as all the other contemptors. Some of it seems to be in anticipation of the new codexes, some of it seems to be based on current rules, and some of it is just nuts.
Kanluwen wrote: That's actually something to consider, Scotsman. Especially if the weapons are spread across several factions like we know is the case with the 'Marine weapon buffs' we know are coming to all the Imperium stuff.
Yeah, there's a reason that (For example) Atalan Incinerators and Heavy Flamers in the GSC list are the exact same point cost despite being, as of now, 8" range Heavy Flamers and 12" range heavy flamers.
They're going to be identical in October.
which is the core issue i guess.
Right. Why release points now based on rules that won't be in place until October. And even if that explains the odd changes to weapon points nothing explains some of the bizarre changes to actual units. We already know loyalist points will change with the new codex. Ca 2020 is just insane.
Yeah, I have no idea, can't even begin to fathom why rules content and miniatures produced at Games Workshop's factory in Nottingham, England might be coming out now, while codex books produced and printed in factories in China might be delayed until October.
I can't even possibly think to speculate! It's a grand mystery! What could be going on to produce this strange, bizarre delay in China???
Sarcasm duly noted. But you know that nothing in those codexes will explain some of the weird points in ca 2020. It's just a mess. Nothing in those books will explain guardsmen and grots being the same price or relic contemptors getting a drop so they're the same price as all the other contemptors. Some of it seems to be in anticipation of the new codexes, some of it seems to be based on current rules, and some of it is just nuts.
Yup. Agreed. My assessment is "the points pass in CA2020 is overall just bad."
The new imperial weapons were, most likely, factored in, but that doesn't make a 35ppm Abberrant or a 10ppm eldar guardian or a 5ppm grot make any goddamn sense at all.
Certain xenos factions, notably Drukhari, GSC, CWE, and Orks, just got a pants-on-head stupid points adjustment and their only hope is to get their new codex quickly.
At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
Did I miss something? How do we know that?
There was a preview video in one of the "After Indomitus" articles on WHC, which showed bits of four or five models, finishing with the full reveal of the SoB Palantine. I can't remember which article, unfortunately.
However, we saw segments of a model each for, from memory, AdMech, Dark Eldar, Orks, Death Guard and SoB. As a result, we know they'll get a small release each, possibly by the end of the year (I'd normally say within 3 months or so, but this is 2020...).
the_scotsman wrote: At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
Given that all signs point to the Drukhari one being yet another bloody remake of an existing character, the only thing stopping my optimism from sinking any lower is that I've not yet tunnelled out the requisite subbasement.
At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
Did I miss something? How do we know that?
There was a preview video in one of the "After Indomitus" articles on WHC, which showed bits of four or five models, finishing with the full reveal of the SoB Palantine. I can't remember which article, unfortunately.
However, we saw segments of a model each for, from memory, AdMech, Dark Eldar, Orks, Death Guard and SoB. As a result, we know they'll get a small release each, possibly by the end of the year (I'd normally say within 3 months or so, but this is 2020...).
I wouldn't mind this "MMs have been terrible forever, they deserve their time in the sun" - but their time in the sun is set to be crazy good compared to other 1 shot D6 damage weapons - unless they see a comparable buff. Or MMs are made really expensive to compensate.
For all we know LC could see a tweak to damage as well.
I wouldn't mind this "MMs have been terrible forever, they deserve their time in the sun" - but their time in the sun is set to be crazy good compared to other 1 shot D6 damage weapons - unless they see a comparable buff. Or MMs are made really expensive to compensate.
For all we know LC could see a tweak to damage as well.
Giving lascannons the "minimum 3 damage" rule would make sense. Less pure damage potential than a multi-melta but less swingy and with greater range. Makes it more of a choice between the two.
ERJAK wrote: Lol, because 'terrain attrition' and 'touched a bush and violently exploded killing several of the soldiers inside' are totally the same thing.
Whomever told you that this was a consequence of the HH rules cheated. It is impossible, in the rules, for a vehicle to suffer the Explodes! result on the vehicle damage chart from touching terrain.
It is also not possible for the passengers inside to suffer casualties if the Explodes! result doesn't occur, unless the vehicle's access points are blocked by foes (in which case, the problem appears to be the enemy murdering the passengers as they struggle to extricate themselves from the vehicle, not any sort of detonation).
Also, I hope you engage with me on this one, because this is the 4th thread now where you've outright lied about HH rules surrounding vehicles.
So i wasn't just dreaming then and have seen that played out now multiple times?
Yeah, he lies about HH and then ducks any attempt at correction.
Sorry, your vehicle just suffers an immobilized result so it's only essentially destroyed. I deeply, deeeply apologize that I got the pedantry of your stupid rule wrong. But please, go ahead and explain to me why it's SOOOOOO realistic that a future tank made out out space magic can become totally immobolized on a bush or small stone.
Tanks get bogged or the tracks are damaged in some way it's not hard for them to get stuck in place. It was a flawed but good way to represent just how different a tank and anything else functions. Now there's almost no real difference, in the attempt to make the game less clunky you've lost neat mechanics like that.
if points are so jacked with CA2020, is there really anything stopping people just not using those points and continue with those from CA2019 until Codexes come out? If GW refuses to deliver better rules for these increased points, why endorse them? Let marines play with their new points and rules in October, and Imperial forces use new weapon points for rules that change, while other armies continue with 8th points until their codexes come out. Heck, it's not like tournaments are going on right now anyway.
Of course, if Necrons suck with their new increased points, that would be rough, but what is so out of whack right now which is Xenos if you are using CA2019? Of course, this means you don't get to implement the new Blast rules on weapons unless you are willing to accept their new cost.
I totally agree with other posters, why on earth would you adjust points while expecting people to wait on their codex to receive better rules. it's pretty asinine.
bullyboy wrote: if points are so jacked with CA2020, is there really anything stopping people just not using those points and continue with those from CA2019 until Codexes come out? If GW refuses to deliver better rules for these increased points, why endorse them? Let marines play with their new points and rules in October, and Imperial forces use new weapon points for rules that change, while other armies continue with 8th points until their codexes come out. Heck, it's not like tournaments are going on right now anyway.
Of course, if Necrons suck with their new increased points, that would be rough, but what is so out of whack right now which is Xenos if you are using CA2019? Of course, this means you don't get to implement the new Blast rules on weapons unless you are willing to accept their new cost.
I totally agree with other posters, why on earth would you adjust points while expecting people to wait on their codex to receive better rules. it's pretty asinine.
Some things are definitely not right. Eradicators are one egregious example. But if you're going to play with people you don't know, you can't really go too far out from the standard.
bullyboy wrote: if points are so jacked with CA2020, is there really anything stopping people just not using those points and continue with those from CA2019 until Codexes come out? If GW refuses to deliver better rules for these increased points, why endorse them? Let marines play with their new points and rules in October, and Imperial forces use new weapon points for rules that change, while other armies continue with 8th points until their codexes come out. Heck, it's not like tournaments are going on right now anyway.
Of course, if Necrons suck with their new increased points, that would be rough, but what is so out of whack right now which is Xenos if you are using CA2019? Of course, this means you don't get to implement the new Blast rules on weapons unless you are willing to accept their new cost.
I totally agree with other posters, why on earth would you adjust points while expecting people to wait on their codex to receive better rules. it's pretty asinine.
Some things are definitely not right. Eradicators are one egregious example. But if you're going to play with people you don't know, you can't really go too far out from the standard.
well it all depends on the power level of the new marine dex in October. If it just makes the current marine meta worse, the community should simply reject the current point values. If marines get a little nerf, then we can go on as normal.
At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
Did I miss something? How do we know that?
There was a preview video in one of the "After Indomitus" articles on WHC, which showed bits of four or five models, finishing with the full reveal of the SoB Palantine. I can't remember which article, unfortunately.
However, we saw segments of a model each for, from memory, AdMech, Dark Eldar, Orks, Death Guard and SoB. As a result, we know they'll get a small release each, possibly by the end of the year (I'd normally say within 3 months or so, but this is 2020...).
I wouldn't mind this "MMs have been terrible forever, they deserve their time in the sun" - but their time in the sun is set to be crazy good compared to other 1 shot D6 damage weapons - unless they see a comparable buff. Or MMs are made really expensive to compensate.
For all we know LC could see a tweak to damage as well.
Giving lascannons the "minimum 3 damage" rule would make sense. Less pure damage potential than a multi-melta but less swingy and with greater range. Makes it more of a choice between the two.
Giving LC a minimum 3 rule would be terrible and a kick in the teeth to many xenos players no matter how well intentioned it is. Xenos have their own d6 weaponry which would benefit from such a rule but to give it to Imperial Armies but not xenos..... besides which such a change in the Tau costs them a 'relic' and to one unit only. You couldn't give all LCs the rule for nothing.
I don't think anyone would be opposed to the same concept being applied to other weapons for other factions such as Bright Lances, but were only talking about it in the context of the MM vs LC.
Lascannons should be made reliable by the ability to have many of them and change their points to reflect that properly. Most armies can't have as many of their primary long-range tank hunting weapons as marines or guard factions can have lascannons.
If you want to reliably take out vehicles you either take a melta and get up close and personal or take a bunch of lascannons and shoot them from a distance.
I wouldn't mind this "MMs have been terrible forever, they deserve their time in the sun" - but their time in the sun is set to be crazy good compared to other 1 shot D6 damage weapons - unless they see a comparable buff. Or MMs are made really expensive to compensate.
For all we know LC could see a tweak to damage as well.
Giving lascannons the "minimum 3 damage" rule would make sense. Less pure damage potential than a multi-melta but less swingy and with greater range. Makes it more of a choice between the two.
Giving LC a minimum 3 rule would be terrible and a kick in the teeth to many xenos players no matter how well intentioned it is. Xenos have their own d6 weaponry which would benefit from such a rule but to give it to Imperial Armies but not xenos..... besides which such a change in the Tau costs them a 'relic' and to one unit only. You couldn't give all LCs the rule for nothing.
Andrew
So ,apply the rule to Xenos equivalents of lascannons too, like Vaktathi said. And if you think I want that rule for Imperial armies, you obviously don't know who you're talking to.
They could just give lascannons, fusion blasters, lances, and so on have two shots or minimum 3 damage or whatever - but then you have the issue of significantly improving lethality in an already very lethal game.
I guess we'll just see - but I think a future coming to us soon is wall to wall complaining as MMs make all vehicles/monsters essentially non-viable in a meta sense, because the odds of them dying straight off is just too high.
Increasing damage for anti tank weapons could be ok IF vehicles and monsters also go up in wounds. This way mid strenght low AP weapons would be good only in dealing with infantries, giving proper anti tank weapons the role they should have. Meltas or lascannons are already effective against monsters and vehicles, it's weapons with S5/6 AP-1/-2 Damage2 that are too effective against the same targets and compete with anti tank weapons despite being designed for a different role.
One shotting vehicles was a silly mechanic of older editions, and I'm glad it's no more possible. In fact I'd like vehicles to be even a bit more resilient that how they are now.
Gadzilla666 wrote: We've already seen the stats for Vindicators and Redemptors from their in box instructions. No changes for wounds, toughness, or saves.
Silly, also considering that marine infantries will get +1W.
The problem with this increasing damage output without changing statlines makes almost all LoW unplayable as they need to last 2-3 turn to have half a chance of being worthwhile and plenty of them already had issues being nuclear alpha stuck off the table turn 1.
Short of points cuts which would have to be in the range of 300 point Knights, 400 point Stompas and 500 castellens they aren't viable with this damage increase.
So unless GW has decieded to give LoW a flat rule to reduce the damage of weapons used against them by 1 to a minimum of 1 they have the balance again.
Well, all factions are meant to compete.
This should be the general approach of a gaming system.
But one could get the impression that Primaris Marines are more competitive than others atm.
Let's wait for the new codices.
We play 9th ed rules with 8th ed codices atm.
If they bring MM to 40 points and Eradicators to 55 (or just change them in the codex), then we can still salvage vehicle and monsters in this edition, if not this is the 1W edition. Even Gravis models are useless with these weapons around.
At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
Did I miss something? How do we know that?
There was a preview video in one of the "After Indomitus" articles on WHC, which showed bits of four or five models, finishing with the full reveal of the SoB Palantine. I can't remember which article, unfortunately.
However, we saw segments of a model each for, from memory, AdMech, Dark Eldar, Orks, Death Guard and SoB. As a result, we know they'll get a small release each, possibly by the end of the year (I'd normally say within 3 months or so, but this is 2020...).
Video then pic of the Palantine all near the bottom.
My bet for all the models is lieutenant-equivalents for the relevant faction.
Death Guard, Ad Mech, Dark Eldar, Orks and Sisters
No idea if they're attached to a codex or just something random.
As much as I would love that, the drukhari model is understood from various previews to be Lelith Hesperax, a named character who can only be taken in the worst wych cult, who currently is fluffed as a "Peerless duellist" but has a tendency to lose duels with space marine chainsword/bolt pistol captains.
The model itself gives drukhari no reason for being excited, really it's just the matter of whether we get a codex or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: If they bring MM to 40 points and Eradicators to 55 (or just change them in the codex), then we can still salvage vehicle and monsters in this edition, if not this is the 1W edition. Even Gravis models are useless with these weapons around.
Im really REALLY not understanding this. In my first game against eradicators, they rolled up in melta range of my bonebreaka, did 6 shots, 4 wounds, 2 unsaved (I had the kustom job on it) and did 8 damage.
Then I booped them with rokkits and they died.
they just...dont seem that bonkers to me, I don't know. they're undercosted. Sure. maybe a bit.
At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
Did I miss something? How do we know that?
There was a preview video in one of the "After Indomitus" articles on WHC, which showed bits of four or five models, finishing with the full reveal of the SoB Palantine. I can't remember which article, unfortunately.
However, we saw segments of a model each for, from memory, AdMech, Dark Eldar, Orks, Death Guard and SoB. As a result, we know they'll get a small release each, possibly by the end of the year (I'd normally say within 3 months or so, but this is 2020...).
Video then pic of the Palantine all near the bottom.
My bet for all the models is lieutenant-equivalents for the relevant faction.
Death Guard, Ad Mech, Dark Eldar, Orks and Sisters
No idea if they're attached to a codex or just something random.
As much as I would love that, the drukhari model is understood from various previews to be Lelith Hesperax, a named character who can only be taken in the worst wych cult, who currently is fluffed as a "Peerless duellist" but has a tendency to lose duels with space marine chainsword/bolt pistol captains.
The model itself gives drukhari no reason for being excited, really it's just the matter of whether we get a codex or not.
bit premature to say that it's going to be her absolutely. also a bit premature to say her new stats (and if she gets a new model she WILL get new stats) will suck.
I don't remember ever being afraid of Lilith, despite her prowess in the Lore. GW thinks that having 12 attacks or whatever makes a model good, but if they are strength 3 AP who-cares-everyone-important-has-an-invuln then they are not good attacks.
She freaking attacks with her *hair* as one of her weapons in the current iteration, iirc. Ewww, your GW is showing, GW.
Anyways, if she comes out and can actually beat a nameless captain in Gravis armor without dying, then I would be surprised.
Spoletta wrote: If they bring MM to 40 points and Eradicators to 55 (or just change them in the codex), then we can still salvage vehicle and monsters in this edition, if not this is the 1W edition. Even Gravis models are useless with these weapons around.
Im really REALLY not understanding this. In my first game against eradicators, they rolled up in melta range of my bonebreaka, did 6 shots, 4 wounds, 2 unsaved (I had the kustom job on it) and did 8 damage.
Then I booped them with rokkits and they died.
they just...dont seem that bonkers to me, I don't know. they're undercosted. Sure. maybe a bit.
I've had a few games with those guys, and they simply over perform for that cost. There isn't much more than that, the contribute they bring to the battlefield in terms of focused focus fire, damage and forces depolyments is simply worth much much more than 120 points.
At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
Did I miss something? How do we know that?
There was a preview video in one of the "After Indomitus" articles on WHC, which showed bits of four or five models, finishing with the full reveal of the SoB Palantine. I can't remember which article, unfortunately.
However, we saw segments of a model each for, from memory, AdMech, Dark Eldar, Orks, Death Guard and SoB. As a result, we know they'll get a small release each, possibly by the end of the year (I'd normally say within 3 months or so, but this is 2020...).
Video then pic of the Palantine all near the bottom.
My bet for all the models is lieutenant-equivalents for the relevant faction.
Death Guard, Ad Mech, Dark Eldar, Orks and Sisters
No idea if they're attached to a codex or just something random.
As much as I would love that, the drukhari model is understood from various previews to be Lelith Hesperax, a named character who can only be taken in the worst wych cult, who currently is fluffed as a "Peerless duellist" but has a tendency to lose duels with space marine chainsword/bolt pistol captains.
The model itself gives drukhari no reason for being excited, really it's just the matter of whether we get a codex or not.
bit premature to say that it's going to be her absolutely. also a bit premature to say her new stats (and if she gets a new model she WILL get new stats) will suck.
It isn't just the video preview we've had for that model. We've seen her hair (Lelith has an auxiliary weapon that is literally her hair, which she fills with fishhooks and such) and we've seen her knife, which is slightly different from the normal wych knife and an exact match to the current lelith model.
The model previewed is also exactly the same stance lelith is in. it is 99.999% certain its lelith.
Jain Zar JUST got a new model, and they nerfed her best ability and kept her utterly pathetic A4 statline and weapon that is now literally worse than a basic power fist exactly the same. GW seemingly has no interest in making any kind of reasonable parity between the stats of Eldar characters who are supposed to be "combat specialists" and....anyone, really, even their own codexes. The slow ass janky ass frankenstein HQs in the dark eldar codex are far better at killing things in melee than succubi/lelith.
Spoletta wrote: If they bring MM to 40 points and Eradicators to 55 (or just change them in the codex), then we can still salvage vehicle and monsters in this edition, if not this is the 1W edition. Even Gravis models are useless with these weapons around.
Im really REALLY not understanding this. In my first game against eradicators, they rolled up in melta range of my bonebreaka, did 6 shots, 4 wounds, 2 unsaved (I had the kustom job on it) and did 8 damage.
Then I booped them with rokkits and they died.
they just...dont seem that bonkers to me, I don't know. they're undercosted. Sure. maybe a bit.
I've had a few games with those guys, and they simply over perform for that cost. There isn't much more than that, the contribute they bring to the battlefield in terms of focused focus fire, damage and forces depolyments is simply worth much much more than 120 points.
I'd be way happier to see them across the table from me than a squad of lascannon devastators using the new statlines. Or multimelta devastators. You know, those guys that get 8 melta shots, can split fire, and have a transport that lets them deep strike turn 1.
At least we know Drukhari and Ork models are incoming, hopefully with a new 'dex in tow that will give them....something.....I don't know.
Did I miss something? How do we know that?
There was a preview video in one of the "After Indomitus" articles on WHC, which showed bits of four or five models, finishing with the full reveal of the SoB Palantine. I can't remember which article, unfortunately.
However, we saw segments of a model each for, from memory, AdMech, Dark Eldar, Orks, Death Guard and SoB. As a result, we know they'll get a small release each, possibly by the end of the year (I'd normally say within 3 months or so, but this is 2020...).
Video then pic of the Palantine all near the bottom.
My bet for all the models is lieutenant-equivalents for the relevant faction.
Death Guard, Ad Mech, Dark Eldar, Orks and Sisters
No idea if they're attached to a codex or just something random.
As much as I would love that, the drukhari model is understood from various previews to be Lelith Hesperax, a named character who can only be taken in the worst wych cult, who currently is fluffed as a "Peerless duellist" but has a tendency to lose duels with space marine chainsword/bolt pistol captains.
The model itself gives drukhari no reason for being excited, really it's just the matter of whether we get a codex or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: If they bring MM to 40 points and Eradicators to 55 (or just change them in the codex), then we can still salvage vehicle and monsters in this edition, if not this is the 1W edition. Even Gravis models are useless with these weapons around.
Im really REALLY not understanding this. In my first game against eradicators, they rolled up in melta range of my bonebreaka, did 6 shots, 4 wounds, 2 unsaved (I had the kustom job on it) and did 8 damage.
Then I booped them with rokkits and they died.
they just...dont seem that bonkers to me, I don't know. they're undercosted. Sure. maybe a bit.
A lot of the panic is mathhammering people who note that point for point they out perform fire dragons (which as far as I know no one takes) so "they're OP!" or... something like that I dunno. they're potent but at the end of the day it's only a 3 man infantry squad
I'd be way happier to see them across the table from me than a squad of lascannon devastators using the new statlines. Or multimelta devastators. You know, those guys that get 8 melta shots, can split fire, and have a transport that lets them deep strike turn 1.
Of course you'd rather see 120pts of Eradicators than 190 points of Lascannons devastators, or a 250 point drop melta squad. I'd rather see less points than more.
The new melta rules will require an game wide reevaluation of their usefulness, and the usefulness of every unit that can take them. Depending on how that goes, if melta is the "new hotness" and ends up in drop pods, attack bikes, eradicators, tactical squads with double melta, combi-metla sergeant spam, invader spam....etc, then we will have to reevaluate everything in our armies toughness wise. Are vehicles too fragile? Does the damage increase REALLY matter when they were so bad before or does it bring them inline with other guns? Are we back into a 1 wound meta? Horde armies now reign supreme?
That doesn't even take into account that all the marines are going to a 2W base. That's a HUGE shuffle in the codex. It feels like the new codex may require us to throw out almost everything we know and start from scratch, because yeah, Eradicators don't look amazing compared to what we are theorizing in the 9th edition codex....but they are pretty amazing with the 8th edition codex ATM, and that's if they get NO CHANGES.
It feels like GW are throwing a lot of the "tradition" out of the window in terms of weapon/stat design, and I for one love that they are going this direction. Eg. why was a melta weapons 2D6 pick the highest at close range? Because it's always been that way....no other reason. If they can get rid of some of these old stupid stipulations and "because they always have been!" army building guidelines, than we might see some really interesting stuff. Aspect warriors to S4? T4? Tyranid warriors to T6? 3+ save? Changes to lasgun or shuriken catapult stats? What's stopping them? Ork boys to W2, nobz to W3? Their imagination is the only limit!
Without a doubt, there will be growing pains (cough Eradicators cough), especially while some of the codexs are waiting for updates, but this "dumping of tradition" in design has me more excited than 9th edition itself did!
dexs are waiting for updates, but this "dumping of tradition" in design has me more excited than 9th edition itself did!
A lot of the panic is mathhammering people who note that point for point they out perform fire dragons (which as far as I know no one takes) so "they're OP!" or... something like that I dunno. they're potent but at the end of the day it's only a 3 man infantry squad
It's never been that that was marine players moving the goal posts to justify why their 120 point unit should achieve 90% or more returns in points killed in a single round of shooting.
Even against the bone break in that example they achieved destruction of 75% of their points in that single round and that was below avarage for them.
A lot of the panic is mathhammering people who note that point for point they out perform fire dragons (which as far as I know no one takes) so "they're OP!" or... something like that I dunno. they're potent but at the end of the day it's only a 3 man infantry squad
It's never been that that was marine players moving the goal posts to justify why their 120 point unit should achieve 90% or more returns in points killed in a single round of shooting.
Even against the bone break in that example they achieved destruction of 75% of their points in that single round and that was below avarage for them.
It^s also utter nonsense, compared to metla chosen, or even a singular obliterator.
A lot of the panic is mathhammering people who note that point for point they out perform fire dragons (which as far as I know no one takes) so "they're OP!" or... something like that I dunno. they're potent but at the end of the day it's only a 3 man infantry squad
It's never been that that was marine players moving the goal posts to justify why their 120 point unit should achieve 90% or more returns in points killed in a single round of shooting.
Even against the bone break in that example they achieved destruction of 75% of their points in that single round and that was below avarage for them.
They what? How? A bonebreaka is like...160pts, they didn't kill it, and it spent the entire rest of the game blenderizing primaris marines without taking a single wound.
The downsides to melta (4+ to wound vs T8, AP-4 being reduced in effectiveness vs invuln saves, shorter range meaning the units tend to operate as single-shot suicide squads rather than sitting in the back and plonking away all game like lascannons do) still exist. They're just not the absolute death on arrival that they used to be.
A lot of the panic is mathhammering people who note that point for point they out perform fire dragons (which as far as I know no one takes) so "they're OP!" or... something like that I dunno. they're potent but at the end of the day it's only a 3 man infantry squad
It's never been that that was marine players moving the goal posts to justify why their 120 point unit should achieve 90% or more returns in points killed in a single round of shooting.
Even against the bone break in that example they achieved destruction of 75% of their points in that single round and that was below avarage for them.
They what? How? A bonebreaka is like...160pts, they didn't kill it, and it spent the entire rest of the game blenderizing primaris marines without taking a single wound.
180, and considered too expensive. Orks are currently moving towards the cheaper battlewagons which can do almost as much blenderizing for less points but more transport capacity.
A lot of the panic is mathhammering people who note that point for point they out perform fire dragons (which as far as I know no one takes) so "they're OP!" or... something like that I dunno. they're potent but at the end of the day it's only a 3 man infantry squad
It's never been that that was marine players moving the goal posts to justify why their 120 point unit should achieve 90% or more returns in points killed in a single round of shooting.
Even against the bone break in that example they achieved destruction of 75% of their points in that single round and that was below avarage for them.
It^s also utter nonsense, compared to metla chosen, or even a singular obliterator.
They're also better than, I dunno. Heat lance scourges? Whole squads of combi-melta terminators? Torsion cannon breachers? All these units that have always been at the cutting edge of competitive discussion, yep, they absolutely blow those guys out of the water.
Im sick and god damned tired of space marines. you know that. I find playing against doctrines miserable, I hate how I need to memorize a whole codex worth of god damn stratagems and powers and traits every time I play against them. I hate that they break rules that everyone else seems to have to follow like turn 1 deep strike, models with multiple warlord traits, getting to choose custom chapters and still get the goodies from the standard fixed chapters, all that crap. I am in NO WAY a marine apologist.
This thing is just not as crazy as you seem to think it is, on the actual table.
As said, I'm not sure "they did 75% of their points in a turn and then I killed them" is necessarily a sign they aren't all that good.
As with all things - if your opponent takes 1 squad, its only 6 24" range melta gun shots. They can easily roll a bit soft, bounce on T8, Invuls etc, and then you can just nuke them off the table. Admittedly sometimes they'll roll hot instead, but so it goes.
The issue's going to be when people take 3 such squads - and so the numbers should tend more towards the average.
I'd say it's an excellent Distraction Carnifex, at the very least.
120 points for a unit that has to be killed as soon as possible, because it projects firepower like units twice its cost without spending any CPs, while still being durable enough to require decent amount of firepower to take out.
Tyel wrote: As said, I'm not sure "they did 75% of their points in a turn and then I killed them" is necessarily a sign they aren't all that good.
As with all things - if your opponent takes 1 squad, its only 6 24" range melta gun shots. They can easily roll a bit soft, bounce on T8, Invuls etc, and then you can just nuke them off the table. Admittedly sometimes they'll roll hot instead, but so it goes.
The issue's going to be when people take 3 such squads - and so the numbers should tend more towards the average.
Yeah, you can just roll badly with it and... don't care, because in the end they are so cheap that you don't care.
They can roll hot and destroy a vehicle or a gravis squad in a turn, or just miss completely, but that is not what a 120 point unit should do.
Again, this is not mathhammer, I've played with them and against them, and they always contribute way more than what the cost suggests in every game.
A lot of the panic is mathhammering people who note that point for point they out perform fire dragons (which as far as I know no one takes) so "they're OP!" or... something like that I dunno. they're potent but at the end of the day it's only a 3 man infantry squad
It's never been that that was marine players moving the goal posts to justify why their 120 point unit should achieve 90% or more returns in points killed in a single round of shooting.
Even against the bone break in that example they achieved destruction of 75% of their points in that single round and that was below avarage for them.
They what? How? A bonebreaka is like...160pts, they didn't kill it, and it spent the entire rest of the game blenderizing primaris marines without taking a single wound.
The downsides to melta (4+ to wound vs T8, AP-4 being reduced in effectiveness vs invuln saves, shorter range meaning the units tend to operate as single-shot suicide squads rather than sitting in the back and plonking away all game like lascannons do) still exist. They're just not the absolute death on arrival that they used to be.
They spent 120 points to take a below avarage half the wounds on a bonebreak (as already pointed out they are now 180)which you also I am assuming spent CP on the invulnerable save for.
Also FYI they benifit from doctrines so AP-5 turns 2&3 so it's invulnerable saves or FNP only.
You've obviously not seen them run on mass as Salamanders or their sucessors where they can have yet more buffs stacked on them.
There is a reason they are showing up as 3 units of 3 in competitive lists.
A lot of the panic is mathhammering people who note that point for point they out perform fire dragons (which as far as I know no one takes) so "they're OP!" or... something like that I dunno. they're potent but at the end of the day it's only a 3 man infantry squad
It's never been that that was marine players moving the goal posts to justify why their 120 point unit should achieve 90% or more returns in points killed in a single round of shooting.
Even against the bone break in that example they achieved destruction of 75% of their points in that single round and that was below avarage for them.
It^s also utter nonsense, compared to metla chosen, or even a singular obliterator.
They're also better than, I dunno. Heat lance scourges? Whole squads of combi-melta terminators? Torsion cannon breachers? All these units that have always been at the cutting edge of competitive discussion, yep, they absolutely blow those guys out of the water.
Im sick and god damned tired of space marines. you know that. I find playing against doctrines miserable, I hate how I need to memorize a whole codex worth of god damn stratagems and powers and traits every time I play against them. I hate that they break rules that everyone else seems to have to follow like turn 1 deep strike, models with multiple warlord traits, getting to choose custom chapters and still get the goodies from the standard fixed chapters, all that crap. I am in NO WAY a marine apologist.
This thing is just not as crazy as you seem to think it is, on the actual table.
They're not the game winning, knight melting, unstoppable force that many seem to think they are, but they're just another example of a loyalist unit that punches above its points cost. When taken into account with all the other confusingly priced units available to loyalists (*cough* relic contemptors *cough* blade guard *cough*) they're just one more slap in the face to other factions. By themselves they wouldn't be a problem, but it all adds up, just like all those strategems, powers, and traits you mentioned.
But no, by themselves they're not much. They're definitely not the "death of LoWs" that some are claiming. I consider their average damage potential against my (not remotely competitive) Fellblade, and all I can think is "Meh". But they can still do more than a 120 point unit should be capable of (especially if they're Salamanders).
On their own, 1 unit of 3, Eradicators aren't really a problem. Kind of like how Eliminators on their own weren't really a problem.
But it's that they're juuuust cheap enough to allow you to take multiple units of them very easily that they have the potential to become a pain to deal with. 9 Eliminators was an actual nightmare to deal with and I can see the same being true for some lists when faced with Eradicators because compared to lots of other similar units, they are incredibly points efficient.
Bosskelot wrote: On their own, 1 unit of 3, Eradicators aren't really a problem. Kind of like how Eliminators on their own weren't really a problem.
But it's that they're juuuust cheap enough to allow you to take multiple units of them very easily that they have the potential to become a pain to deal with. 9 Eliminators was an actual nightmare to deal with and I can see the same being true for some lists when faced with Eradicators because compared to lots of other similar units, they are incredibly points efficient.
Pretty much this. With the right configuration they're independent and extremely efficient, which for 40k in general and 9th specifically is an absolute bonkers asset.
Bull. How the hell did your vehicle save half the wounds vs melta? You can't point to invuln saves and say "oh well I passed half my invuln saves so... the unit's fine." My dunecrawler could get hit by a volcano cannon and make its invuln save. Should I shrug and say the volcano cannon sucks? Do you know many vehicles straight up don't have invulns? Are you just supposed to not take those?
On average rolls. AVERAGE. A 120 point unit of those melta buttholes one shots a guard tank commander that costs twice as much.
If you play guard are you supposed to just scoop? Just don't play guard? lol
If they're going to keep this level of lethality (including 2 damage heavy bolters that are just going to chew threw guard vehicles), they need to up the durability of all vehicles by like... 33%. This is getting ridiculous.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, all factions are meant to compete.
This should be the general approach of a gaming system.
But one could get the impression that Primaris Marines are more competitive than others atm.
Let's wait for the new codices.
We play 9th ed rules with 8th ed codices atm.
How long do we need to wait? When should I expect my Daemons Codex? A month? A year? Two years?
The problem is a bit more convoluted than them being cheap, which is why I hope that that rule gets modified in the codex.
Eradicators currently cannot be balanced at any point level, they go straight from OP to UP.
If you increase the point cost over a certain level, they get relegated to glass cannons that are really good at hitting from reserves, but should never be deployed. You either balance them without reserves in mind and make them OP from reserves, or you balance them on arriving from reserves and then you turned that unit into a gimmick.
They need a redesign, there is simply too much cannon in that unit, even for a glasscannon.
I would make them cheaper and remove the double shoot rule.
Honestly if LoWs die I wouldn't give a damn, IMHO they shouldn't even exist outside 3000+ points games. But even accepting them as part of regular 40k we're talking about a few units in total, and many armies don't even have one. Some other factions have a LoW that never see the table anyway.
Issue with lethality against vehicles going up is that ANY vehicle become a liability and a paper thing, like in 6-7 editions.
I'm more concerning about 50ish models that suddenly could vanish from the table, and most of them are also taken multiple times, than those 4-5 LoWs that become unplayable.
6 multi-melta shots for 120 points is just stupid. Everyone knows it's just stupid. Especially on T5 3W bodies with assault weapons, when equivalents tend to be on 1W models that actually cost more per shot despite having 1/3 the wounds and often less toughness as well.
Whoever thought they were a good idea should be removed from having responsibility for balance, either they're not competent or they're deliberately overpowering a new unit to sell models. There's no way a reasonable person thought they were balanced at their current points.
yukishiro1 wrote: 6 multi-melta shots for 120 points is just stupid. Everyone knows it's just stupid. Especially on T5 3W bodies with assault weapons, when equivalents tend to be on 1W models that actually cost more per shot despite having 1/3 the wounds and often less toughness as well.
Whoever thought they were a good idea should be removed from having responsibility for balance, either they're not competent or they're deliberately overpowering a new unit to sell models. There's no way a reasonable person thought they were balanced at their current points.
Or we could wait and see how other melta specialists in other factions get treated and then pass judgment. You're comparing a 9th edition unit to 8th edition bottom tier units, no gak eradicators are better if GW is planning on fixing meltas across the board.
If that had been their intention, it's almost like the start of a new edition would be an ideal time to apply changes to all AT, not just the new models while everyone else waits months or years for their AT to be brought up to the same level. Moreover, did anyone really think that AT weapons weren't good enough at deleting stuff in 8th? This is the weirdest part of these changes - it's like GW thought the problem with 8th was too little deadliness, not too much. MMs themselves might not have been great, but it's hardly like people were complaining that one of the problems with the game was unkillable vehicles.
"Just wait a year! Everything will be great!" is a wonderful argument because it always works. A year from now you could (and probably will be) saying the same thing again.
It's a bad idea to release one unit way better than all others at the same role. Whether or not you're planning on updating other units later.
Your answer to the OP's question appears to be: "You can't compete now. Wait 6 months or a year and maybe you'll be able to compete then. Don't complain in the meantime."
yukishiro1 wrote: 6 multi-melta shots for 120 points is just stupid. Everyone knows it's just stupid. Especially on T5 3W bodies with assault weapons, when equivalents tend to be on 1W models that actually cost more per shot despite having 1/3 the wounds and often less toughness as well.
Whoever thought they were a good idea should be removed from having responsibility for balance, either they're not competent or they're deliberately overpowering a new unit to sell models. There's no way a reasonable person thought they were balanced at their current points.
Or we could wait and see how other melta specialists in other factions get treated and then pass judgment. You're comparing a 9th edition unit to 8th edition bottom tier units, no gak eradicators are better if GW is planning on fixing meltas across the board.
I didn't take obliterators as bottom tier, And as for wait and see?
Sure, wait what 6 ,months to a year about a 3rd of the edition and just don't play vs marines then / against any faction that has a codex and you an index?
Is that reallly the solution to the problem?
yukishiro1 wrote: If that had been their intention, it's almost like the start of a new edition would be an ideal time to apply changes to all AT, not just the new models while everyone else waits months or years for their AT to be brought up to the same level. Moreover, did anyone really think that AT weapons weren't good enough at deleting stuff in 8th? This is the weirdest part of these changes - it's like GW thought the problem with 8th was too little deadliness, not too much. MMs themselves might not have been great, but it's hardly like people were complaining that one of the problems with the game was unkillable vehicles.
"Just wait a year! Everything will be great!" is a wonderful argument because it always works. A year from now you could (and probably will be) saying the same thing again.
It's a bad idea to release one unit way better than all others at the same role. Whether or not you're planning on updating other units later.
Your answer to the OP's question appears to be: "You can't compete now. Wait 6 months or a year and maybe you'll be able to compete then. Don't complain in the meantime."
It's not a great answer.
I'm not saying it doesnt suck that other codexes have to wait for their fix while marines get day 1 playable melta.
And im pretty sure it was almost universally agreed that melta sucked ass in 8th edition.
You're free to approach it as negatively as you wish but personally i'll reserve my judgement until i start seeing what melta looks like in other codexes instead of letting this theoretical boogeyman sour my enjoyment of the game.
I didn't take obliterators as bottom tier, And as for wait and see?
Sure, wait what 6 ,months to a year about a 3rd of the edition and just don't play vs marines then / against any faction that has a codex and you an index?
Is that reallly the solution to the problem?
arent we talking about eradicators? so the better comparison would be melta chosen?
Does it suck that non marines are getting delayed releases? absolutely but other codexes can still deal with eradicators.
And if all else fails, just talk to your opponents beforehand and ask them to bring a list that isnt minmaxed so you get to play on a similar level.
again : Yes, all codexes shouldve been released at once for 9th.
Bosskelot wrote: On their own, 1 unit of 3, Eradicators aren't really a problem. Kind of like how Eliminators on their own weren't really a problem.
But it's that they're juuuust cheap enough to allow you to take multiple units of them very easily that they have the potential to become a pain to deal with. 9 Eliminators was an actual nightmare to deal with and I can see the same being true for some lists when faced with Eradicators because compared to lots of other similar units, they are incredibly points efficient.
Which is why people dropping everything to run elites and vehicles are going to have a bad time. You need to buffer out the table and limit their targets. They must deploy fully within 6" of an edge (and 9" from enemies) and can't move.
The nice thing about the missions is the grid represents one inch so it makes it easier to plan out an approach.
This is the turn 2 arrival options for Eradicators. Yellow deploy line matches the opposite yellow line for the range they have and so on. As you can see in a hammerhead deployment having Eradicators go into their own deployment means they can't shoot anything past mid-board. Your own deployment offers you an easy opportunity to squeeze yellow. This offers you a pocket behind the blue and pink where you will 100% be safe. The safety zone increases the harder you can push toward their deploy and terrain available.
yukishiro1 wrote: 6 multi-melta shots for 120 points is just stupid. Everyone knows it's just stupid. Especially on T5 3W bodies with assault weapons, when equivalents tend to be on 1W models that actually cost more per shot despite having 1/3 the wounds and often less toughness as well.
Whoever thought they were a good idea should be removed from having responsibility for balance, either they're not competent or they're deliberately overpowering a new unit to sell models. There's no way a reasonable person thought they were balanced at their current points.
Or we could wait and see how other melta specialists in other factions get treated and then pass judgment. You're comparing a 9th edition unit to 8th edition bottom tier units, no gak eradicators are better if GW is planning on fixing meltas across the board.
People have been pointing out literally since the datasheet was leaked that, regardless of how other anti-tank compares, Eradicators are incredibly efficient at killing any vehicle in the game, often making back their points in a single volley. They don't outclass 'other melta specialists', they outclass virtually all other anti-tank in the game, including choices that were considered effective, not 'bottom tier'.
The fact that melta was weak before is completely irrelevant.
Other melta specialists getting the same treatment makes the problem worse.
They're just too good, and they're going to get nerfed in the December points update, assuming there is one. And when they do, people who said "wait and see" will show up here and say "see! it got fixed!" without any recognition of the irony involved.
yukishiro1 wrote: 6 multi-melta shots for 120 points is just stupid. Everyone knows it's just stupid. Especially on T5 3W bodies with assault weapons, when equivalents tend to be on 1W models that actually cost more per shot despite having 1/3 the wounds and often less toughness as well.
Whoever thought they were a good idea should be removed from having responsibility for balance, either they're not competent or they're deliberately overpowering a new unit to sell models. There's no way a reasonable person thought they were balanced at their current points.
I'm sure that the designers have thought about Eradicators.
But it seems that GW doesn't care much about a balanced game.
Sad but true, we need to accept this as a working hypothesis.
yukishiro1 wrote: They're just too good, and they're going to get nerfed in the December points update, assuming there is one. And when they do, people who said "wait and see" will show up here and say "see! it got fixed!" without any recognition of the irony involved.
I don't think anyone thinks they don't deserve a points nerf, but there's something to be said about a unit that most definitely arrives via reserves (unless you're doing the all Aggressor/Eradicator Salamanders), because otherwise they DO get hit early and hit hard. My Salamanders opponent reserves his, because I always bring a Heldrake now and I always get the jump on him if he doesn't.
yukishiro1 wrote: 6 multi-melta shots for 120 points is just stupid. Everyone knows it's just stupid. Especially on T5 3W bodies with assault weapons, when equivalents tend to be on 1W models that actually cost more per shot despite having 1/3 the wounds and often less toughness as well.
Whoever thought they were a good idea should be removed from having responsibility for balance, either they're not competent or they're deliberately overpowering a new unit to sell models. There's no way a reasonable person thought they were balanced at their current points.
Or we could wait and see how other melta specialists in other factions get treated and then pass judgment. You're comparing a 9th edition unit to 8th edition bottom tier units, no gak eradicators are better if GW is planning on fixing meltas across the board.
People have been pointing out literally since the datasheet was leaked that, regardless of how other anti-tank compares, Eradicators are incredibly efficient at killing any vehicle in the game, often making back their points in a single volley. They don't outclass 'other melta specialists', they outclass virtually all other anti-tank in the game, including choices that were considered effective, not 'bottom tier'.
The fact that melta was weak before is completely irrelevant.
Other melta specialists getting the same treatment makes the problem worse.
Yes, because many of those units do it better. As The_Scotsman has pointed out devastators can deep strike with a drop pod, with Salamanders getting a +1 to wound. SOB can increase the range of their Retributor's multi-meltas by 50% for 2CP while gaining an additional 1D. Any vehicle that isn't at least T8 with a 5++ is going to have a hard time surviving when these changes are implemented.
I didn't take obliterators as bottom tier, And as for wait and see?
Sure, wait what 6 ,months to a year about a 3rd of the edition and just don't play vs marines then / against any faction that has a codex and you an index?
Is that reallly the solution to the problem?
arent we talking about eradicators? so the better comparison would be melta chosen?
Does it suck that non marines are getting delayed releases? absolutely but other codexes can still deal with eradicators.
And if all else fails, just talk to your opponents beforehand and ask them to bring a list that isnt minmaxed so you get to play on a similar level.
again : Yes, all codexes shouldve been released at once for 9th.
Because the obliterator is also a Heavy support, has also an assult weapon, is even better comparable pts wise (105 to 120 to over 150 for melta chosen) and is an actual comptetitve choice and yet get's completely fethed out of it's job by them.
The issue is not only is the eradicator too good for what he does, but also in a dex that for the forseable future will overperform.
yukishiro1 wrote: They're just too good, and they're going to get nerfed in the December points update, assuming there is one. And when they do, people who said "wait and see" will show up here and say "see! it got fixed!" without any recognition of the irony involved.
I don't think anyone thinks they don't deserve a points nerf, but there's something to be said about a unit that most definitely arrives via reserves (unless you're doing the all Aggressor/Eradicator Salamanders), because otherwise they DO get hit early and hit hard. My Salamanders opponent reserves his, because I always bring a Heldrake now and I always get the jump on him if he doesn't.
Yeah but that is not a reason for the Eradicators being so cheap, practically every army has units that have to be brought in from reserve or they die before doing anything and they don't get the be extra cheap to compensate.
yukishiro1 wrote: 6 multi-melta shots for 120 points is just stupid. Everyone knows it's just stupid. Especially on T5 3W bodies with assault weapons, when equivalents tend to be on 1W models that actually cost more per shot despite having 1/3 the wounds and often less toughness as well.
Whoever thought they were a good idea should be removed from having responsibility for balance, either they're not competent or they're deliberately overpowering a new unit to sell models. There's no way a reasonable person thought they were balanced at their current points.
Or we could wait and see how other melta specialists in other factions get treated and then pass judgment. You're comparing a 9th edition unit to 8th edition bottom tier units, no gak eradicators are better if GW is planning on fixing meltas across the board.
People have been pointing out literally since the datasheet was leaked that, regardless of how other anti-tank compares, Eradicators are incredibly efficient at killing any vehicle in the game, often making back their points in a single volley. They don't outclass 'other melta specialists', they outclass virtually all other anti-tank in the game, including choices that were considered effective, not 'bottom tier'.
The fact that melta was weak before is completely irrelevant.
Other melta specialists getting the same treatment makes the problem worse.
Yes, because many of those units do it better. As The_Scotsman has pointed out devastators can deep strike with a drop pod, with Salamanders getting a +1 to wound. SOB can increase the range of their Retributor's multi-meltas by 50% for 2CP while gaining an additional 1D. Any vehicle that isn't at least T8 with a 5++ is going to have a hard time surviving when these changes are implemented.
Well, with Multimeltas at 20 points and Devastators at 18, a five-man Dev unit prices out at 175 (assuming Cherub is 5) before the Drop Pod. The squad is also 34 ppw to the Eradicators 13.33. Melta-shot-per-point is roughly the same when using the one-time Cherub, although the Eradicators wind up being more accurate on delivery since their weapons are Assault instead of Heavy.
I'm usually the first to say "Wait and see how it plays out", but in this I couldn't really say it after seeing the datasheet and I can't say it now that I have some direct experience with them.
The fact that all the MM are also going up in lethality isn't a good thing. Changing the effect to 1D6+2 was all they needed.
Also, I'm not saying that this change is only happening because the new Primaris Predator and Primaris Spacemario Kart have multi-meltas mounted on them...
.....but it sure didn't happen when they re-released the ENTIRE sisters of battle range with multimeltas on nearly every unit....
Bosskelot wrote: On their own, 1 unit of 3, Eradicators aren't really a problem. Kind of like how Eliminators on their own weren't really a problem.
But it's that they're juuuust cheap enough to allow you to take multiple units of them very easily that they have the potential to become a pain to deal with. 9 Eliminators was an actual nightmare to deal with and I can see the same being true for some lists when faced with Eradicators because compared to lots of other similar units, they are incredibly points efficient.
Which is why people dropping everything to run elites and vehicles are going to have a bad time. You need to buffer out the table and limit their targets. They must deploy fully within 6" of an edge (and 9" from enemies) and can't move.
The nice thing about the missions is the grid represents one inch so it makes it easier to plan out an approach.
This is the turn 2 arrival options for Eradicators. Yellow deploy line matches the opposite yellow line for the range they have and so on. As you can see in a hammerhead deployment having Eradicators go into their own deployment means they can't shoot anything past mid-board. Your own deployment offers you an easy opportunity to squeeze yellow. This offers you a pocket behind the blue and pink where you will 100% be safe. The safety zone increases the harder you can push toward their deploy and terrain available.
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
I'm not sure is 120pts counts as 'leaning'. That's less points than most xenos armies have to throw away every game on useless tax units like their troops options. For 360 points, space marines have bought themselves the ability to remove at least 3 enemy tanks/monsters of their choice from the table. Per turn of shooting (and they're easily durable enough to survive a turn or two).
On a related note...i just thought about this. If they increase all melta across the board...my Boyz carrying Melta bombs just became an actual vehicle threat now
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
When 3-4 vehicals/monsters can account for half your points very few other factions have tge ability to not have units pulling double duty.
Also you also forgot that just by forcing an opponent to esentially huddle in their deployment zone your killing their ability to score secondarys which when you have people loosing games with 95 and 98 VP is a problem. Anything that says can't score without trading out a 200 point or more unit is a problem.
However honestly the missions and marines have far more fundamental balance issues than just eradicators.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: On a related note...i just thought about this. If they increase all melta across the board...my Boyz carrying Melta bombs just became an actual vehicle threat now
That they would, just a shame you'll struggle to find vehicals to use them against as they'll have been long banished from playability by all the imperial melta buffs reducing them to their old paper thin one hit and exploding satus.
"If you set up your whole army by carefully measuring the intersections of 6 lines on the board and determining the precise placement to avoid being deleted by a 120 point unit coming in from reserves you might be able to cope" honestly kinda says it all, doesn't it? Talk about making the opposite of the point you're trying to make...
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
Ah yes, terrain, as in Obscuring terrain? Which those eradicators and devastators can potentially see 18+W models through but can't be seen by them in return? Not good for an army comprised almost entirely of such units. Good luck to pure knights trying to screen with armigiers.
Ah yes, terrain, as in Obscuring terrain? Which those eradicators and devastators can potentially see 18+W models through but can't be seen by them in return? Not good for an army comprised almost entirely of such units. Good luck to pure knights trying to screen with armigiers.
Yes, I will admit I don't include titanics when I think about these things, but they can be particularly devastating on their own (usually).
One thing that has not been brought up is the fact that the Eradicators MELTA RIFLE is the way it is, it is not a Multimelta or a Meltagun so there is the possibility it does not get more lethal and might stay the same. Time will tell. Personally, I think it will stay the same because they clearly designed it with new rules in mind so it will remain D6 damage, while other melta weapons are going to have +2 damage rules.
Ah yes, terrain, as in Obscuring terrain? Which those eradicators and devastators can potentially see 18+W models through but can't be seen by them in return? Not good for an army comprised almost entirely of such units. Good luck to pure knights trying to screen with armigiers.
Yes, I will admit I don't include titanics when I think about these things, but they can be particularly devastating on their own (usually).
It isn't just knights that are going to have trouble screening these things out. Other low model count armies without access to cheap chaff units like Custodes and Grey Knights will also have trouble. Eradicators are just too cheap. A 120 point unit shouldn't be able to strip a third of a leviathans wounds off in a single round of average shooting. Either eradicators and multi-meltas will have to become more expensive or vehicles will need to become cheaper whenever gw gets around to fixing the mess they made with CA2020.
Crusaderobr wrote: One thing that has not been brought up is the fact that the Eradicators MELTA RIFLE is the way it is, it is not a Multimelta or a Meltagun so there is the possibility it does not get more lethal and might stay the same. Time will tell. Personally, I think it will stay the same because they clearly designed it with new rules in mind so it will remain D6 damage, while other melta weapons are going to have +2 damage rules.
I don't think anybody was speculating that Eradicators will get even better.
It's more that Eradicators were OP to begin with, and rather than address the problem by giving other melta units a mild buff while nerfing Eradicators, they're doubling down into massive buffs for existing melta units.
Spoletta wrote: The problem is a bit more convoluted than them being cheap, which is why I hope that that rule gets modified in the codex.
Eradicators currently cannot be balanced at any point level, they go straight from OP to UP.
If you increase the point cost over a certain level, they get relegated to glass cannons that are really good at hitting from reserves, but should never be deployed. You either balance them without reserves in mind and make them OP from reserves, or you balance them on arriving from reserves and then you turned that unit into a gimmick.
They need a redesign, there is simply too much cannon in that unit, even for a glasscannon.
I would make them cheaper and remove the double shoot rule.
This is where I am at with Eradicators. I really like the idea of them and want to include them in my army. That said, 1 unit is a waste of my time most games as they are going to have a bullseye on them so bright I'll be lucky to shoot them even once. So I am going to want to field 2-3 just to have the redundancy to get some utility out them. At which point they have a very good chance to eating up way too much of my opponent's army/attention if they have anything close to single, expensive unit in their force. Which I don't see leading to a particularly interesting game.
I would much rather them lose the double shot, or at very least make it a Stratagem. I actually wouldn't even mind the range going down to 18" to allow some breathing room for opponent's to deal with them and challenges for me to get them into position. That might be enough to allow squads of six too. Which is something I kinda want for them to allow for more Gravis armor symmetry or whatever.
Spoletta wrote: The problem is a bit more convoluted than them being cheap, which is why I hope that that rule gets modified in the codex.
Eradicators currently cannot be balanced at any point level, they go straight from OP to UP.
If you increase the point cost over a certain level, they get relegated to glass cannons that are really good at hitting from reserves, but should never be deployed. You either balance them without reserves in mind and make them OP from reserves, or you balance them on arriving from reserves and then you turned that unit into a gimmick.
They need a redesign, there is simply too much cannon in that unit, even for a glasscannon.
I would make them cheaper and remove the double shoot rule.
This is where I am at with Eradicators. I really like the idea of them and want to include them in my army. That said, 1 unit is a waste of my time most games as they are going to have a bullseye on them so bright I'll be lucky to shoot them even once. So I am going to want to field 2-3 just to have the redundancy to get some utility out them. At which point they have a very good chance to eating up way too much of my opponent's army/attention if they have anything close to single, expensive unit in their force. Which I don't see leading to a particularly interesting game.
I would much rather them lose the double shot, or at very least make it a Stratagem. I actually wouldn't even mind the range going down to 18" to allow some breathing room for opponent's to deal with them and challenges for me to get them into position. That might be enough to allow squads of six too. Which is something I kinda want for them to allow for more Gravis armor symmetry or whatever.
Gravis armour double shoot just needs to go away, period.
Spoletta wrote: The problem is a bit more convoluted than them being cheap, which is why I hope that that rule gets modified in the codex.
Eradicators currently cannot be balanced at any point level, they go straight from OP to UP.
If you increase the point cost over a certain level, they get relegated to glass cannons that are really good at hitting from reserves, but should never be deployed. You either balance them without reserves in mind and make them OP from reserves, or you balance them on arriving from reserves and then you turned that unit into a gimmick.
They need a redesign, there is simply too much cannon in that unit, even for a glasscannon.
I would make them cheaper and remove the double shoot rule.
This is where I am at with Eradicators. I really like the idea of them and want to include them in my army. That said, 1 unit is a waste of my time most games as they are going to have a bullseye on them so bright I'll be lucky to shoot them even once. So I am going to want to field 2-3 just to have the redundancy to get some utility out them. At which point they have a very good chance to eating up way too much of my opponent's army/attention if they have anything close to single, expensive unit in their force. Which I don't see leading to a particularly interesting game.
I would much rather them lose the double shot, or at very least make it a Stratagem. I actually wouldn't even mind the range going down to 18" to allow some breathing room for opponent's to deal with them and challenges for me to get them into position. That might be enough to allow squads of six too. Which is something I kinda want for them to allow for more Gravis armor symmetry or whatever.
Gravis armour double shoot just needs to go away, period.
No, double shoot needs to go away, period. And yes, that includes Endless Cacophony, I'm sick of csm units relying on strategems and psychic powers to function. I'm hoping that when we get our new codex gw continues this push for new stats on older units so csm can stop being "Team Wombo Combo" and actually have units that can work on their own merits.
Spoletta wrote: The problem is a bit more convoluted than them being cheap, which is why I hope that that rule gets modified in the codex.
Eradicators currently cannot be balanced at any point level, they go straight from OP to UP.
If you increase the point cost over a certain level, they get relegated to glass cannons that are really good at hitting from reserves, but should never be deployed. You either balance them without reserves in mind and make them OP from reserves, or you balance them on arriving from reserves and then you turned that unit into a gimmick.
They need a redesign, there is simply too much cannon in that unit, even for a glasscannon.
I would make them cheaper and remove the double shoot rule.
This is where I am at with Eradicators. I really like the idea of them and want to include them in my army. That said, 1 unit is a waste of my time most games as they are going to have a bullseye on them so bright I'll be lucky to shoot them even once. So I am going to want to field 2-3 just to have the redundancy to get some utility out them. At which point they have a very good chance to eating up way too much of my opponent's army/attention if they have anything close to single, expensive unit in their force. Which I don't see leading to a particularly interesting game.
I would much rather them lose the double shot, or at very least make it a Stratagem. I actually wouldn't even mind the range going down to 18" to allow some breathing room for opponent's to deal with them and challenges for me to get them into position. That might be enough to allow squads of six too. Which is something I kinda want for them to allow for more Gravis armor symmetry or whatever.
Gravis armour double shoot just needs to go away, period.
No, double shoot needs to go away, period. And yes, that includes Endless Cacophony, I'm sick of csm units relying on strategems and psychic powers to function. I'm hoping that when we get our new codex gw continues this push for new stats on older units so csm can stop being "Team Wombo Combo" and actually have units that can work on their own merits.
this, so very, very much so!
units shouldnt rely on other stuff to work especially strats(worst mechanic ever, keep CCG crap out). But gravis double shots is something you pay for in the unit cost so I'm all for them going up in pts rather than being removed.
Spoletta wrote: The problem is a bit more convoluted than them being cheap, which is why I hope that that rule gets modified in the codex.
Eradicators currently cannot be balanced at any point level, they go straight from OP to UP.
If you increase the point cost over a certain level, they get relegated to glass cannons that are really good at hitting from reserves, but should never be deployed. You either balance them without reserves in mind and make them OP from reserves, or you balance them on arriving from reserves and then you turned that unit into a gimmick.
They need a redesign, there is simply too much cannon in that unit, even for a glasscannon.
I would make them cheaper and remove the double shoot rule.
This is where I am at with Eradicators. I really like the idea of them and want to include them in my army. That said, 1 unit is a waste of my time most games as they are going to have a bullseye on them so bright I'll be lucky to shoot them even once. So I am going to want to field 2-3 just to have the redundancy to get some utility out them. At which point they have a very good chance to eating up way too much of my opponent's army/attention if they have anything close to single, expensive unit in their force. Which I don't see leading to a particularly interesting game.
I would much rather them lose the double shot, or at very least make it a Stratagem. I actually wouldn't even mind the range going down to 18" to allow some breathing room for opponent's to deal with them and challenges for me to get them into position. That might be enough to allow squads of six too. Which is something I kinda want for them to allow for more Gravis armor symmetry or whatever.
Gravis armour double shoot just needs to go away, period.
No, double shoot needs to go away, period. And yes, that includes Endless Cacophony, I'm sick of csm units relying on strategems and psychic powers to function. I'm hoping that when we get our new codex gw continues this push for new stats on older units so csm can stop being "Team Wombo Combo" and actually have units that can work on their own merits.
^This but for all armies that are currently costed according to "potential." Tau are costed like FtGG and SP are always available. Riptides are trash without excessive drones. Or does GW really think a 14W, T7 model that has to tank a mortal wound every turn to use its abilities, has 0 melee capability, BS 4, and requires CP injections via Prototype systems or Branched Nova Charge is worth 300 points. Not to mention all the various strategems that were costed with 8th edition amounts of CP in mind. The armies with more expensive/weak strategems are starting with less CP due to needing more detachments....why?
BrianDavion wrote: Riptides I suspect suffer from "they where really goo last edition" pointing
Riptides, and the other big Tau suits, suffer from "Not having been removed from the game with a blow torch, and therefore not yet replaced with a mix of decent airpower and alien auxiliaries..."
I think it’s time to propose again divisions for 40k events.
Similar to weight classes in other sports.
Imperium only = heavyweight division
All others = Cruiserweight Divison
This to me would level the field and make a much more fun environment for player sick of auto losing to imperials. And GW can just keep pumping all the steroids they want up top. Win win for all.
Mr.Church13 wrote: I think it’s time to propose again divisions for 40k events.
Similar to weight classes in other sports.
Imperium only = heavyweight division
All others = Cruiserweight Divison
This to me would level the field and make a much more fun environment for player sick of auto losing to imperials. And GW can just keep pumping all the steroids they want up top. Win win for all.
Imperium's a looot more then just marines, if you can't beat guard sisters or admech I think you might need to sit down and learn your army. that or find your local grey knight player and play with them a few rounds. if they win well.. you proably owe em a win or two given the state of their army for the last 2 editions
Mr.Church13 wrote: I think it’s time to propose again divisions for 40k events.
Similar to weight classes in other sports.
Imperium only = heavyweight division
All others = Cruiserweight Divison
This to me would level the field and make a much more fun environment for player sick of auto losing to imperials. And GW can just keep pumping all the steroids they want up top. Win win for all.
This is actually a nice idea.
It demonstrates GW's lack of providing a balanced game and GW's preference of loyal Marines as sales matter (which is comprehensible).
Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. They are top tier, but still in a tier. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.
The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.
Spoletta wrote: Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.
The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.
What data? The one were out of 10 top places 8 were marines?
Spoletta wrote: Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. They are top tier, but still in a tier. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.
The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.
So 60% win ratio against all other factions (were they have played 3 or more games) is not over performing.
They loose to Harliquines and Eldar hard without those that ratio goes even higher
Necrons 80% Marine Wins
Guard 71% Marine wins
Tau 69% Marine Wins
AdMech, DeathGuard and Orks 67% Marine Wins
Spoletta wrote: Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.
The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.
What data? The one were out of 10 top places 8 were marines?
I was more referring to the average tournaments more than the last GT, which was indeed dominated by white scars and salamanders. Going by the streams though, it looked like they were playing with really too few terrain elements, which in 9th is simply unacceptable.
If you go by 40kstats, then marines are in a nice position, but nothing oppressive on the levels of 8th edition SM, Castellan or Ynnari.
Spoletta wrote: Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.
The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.
What data? The one were out of 10 top places 8 were marines?
I was more referring to the average tournaments more than the last GT, which was indeed dominated by white scars and salamanders. Going by the streams though, it looked like they were playing with really too few terrain elements, which in 9th is simply unacceptable.
If you go by 40kstats, then marines are in a nice position, but nothing oppressive on the levels of 8th edition SM, Castellan or Ynnari.
Seriously how much terrain do you think should be on the table?
You realise people don't all have flying vehicals and can ignore terrain, they need spaces to be able to move around too.
I know, I'm only partially a Xenos player with my main focus being on my Imperial Guard, but today, I made the great mistake of taking a look at an article about what the Space Marines have. And seriously, they have so ridiculously much stuff and special versions of everything, and then endless relics and stratagems. That alone is a strength because more units means a greater chance of there being OP ones amongst them. Especially now there is greater diversity between them because of the Primaris units and all the different chapters that give lots more options.
That however also made me wonder. Would there actually be enough room in a Codex Chapter to include all the different datasheets in its organisation? I mean, why even have standard Dreadnoughts when they have a dozen different makes (while the whole Ultramarines Chapter had 23 in total before Behemoth. And nothing anyone says would convince me that they got out of that with more of those ancient relics than they had before).
It doesn't need to cost CP as the main nerf will be it going to 1 unit per turn.
Which makes it a more interesting ability as you have to make a tactical decision on when to use it.
Its a nerf, but I think there is a growing hostility to these "auto-use like its a hotkey in a computer game" stratagems that GW has seemingly decided just about every unit should have.
Dolnikan wrote: That however also made me wonder. Would there actually be enough room in a Codex Chapter to include all the different datasheets in its organisation? I mean, why even have standard Dreadnoughts when they have a dozen different makes (while the whole Ultramarines Chapter had 23 in total before Behemoth. And nothing anyone says would convince me that they got out of that with more of those ancient relics than they had before).
Maybe GW are planning on changing the Relic rule to 1 per detachment - the 'must take non-relic units from the same slot' version never seemed to be much of a tax for marines.
It doesn't need to cost CP as the main nerf will be it going to 1 unit per turn.
Which makes it a more interesting ability as you have to make a tactical decision on when to use it.
Its a nerf, but I think there is a growing hostility to these "auto-use like its a hotkey in a computer game" stratagems that GW has seemingly decided just about every unit should have.
It's still better than a auto-use datasheet ability that isn't restricted in any meaningful way.
Making it a Gravis strat means you have to choose between doubleshooting your eradicators or your aggressors, etc.
Dolnikan wrote: I know, I'm only partially a Xenos player with my main focus being on my Imperial Guard, but today, I made the great mistake of taking a look at an article about what the Space Marines have. And seriously, they have so ridiculously much stuff and special versions of everything, and then endless relics and stratagems. That alone is a strength because more units means a greater chance of there being OP ones amongst them. Especially now there is greater diversity between them because of the Primaris units and all the different chapters that give lots more options.
That however also made me wonder. Would there actually be enough room in a Codex Chapter to include all the different datasheets in its organisation? I mean, why even have standard Dreadnoughts when they have a dozen different makes (while the whole Ultramarines Chapter had 23 in total before Behemoth. And nothing anyone says would convince me that they got out of that with more of those ancient relics than they had before).
Keep in mind Primaris can change things up. A squad that deployed as hellblasters might the next battle deploy as 3 squads of agressors the next. or even a mix of agressors, eradicators and eliminators etc.
the Important thing is the 6/2/2 ratio and even that can be adjusted through the use of reserve companies.
Spoletta wrote: Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.
The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.
What data? The one were out of 10 top places 8 were marines?
I was more referring to the average tournaments more than the last GT, which was indeed dominated by white scars and salamanders. Going by the streams though, it looked like they were playing with really too few terrain elements, which in 9th is simply unacceptable.
If you go by 40kstats, then marines are in a nice position, but nothing oppressive on the levels of 8th edition SM, Castellan or Ynnari.
Seriously how much terrain do you think should be on the table?
You realise people don't all have flying vehicals and can ignore terrain, they need spaces to be able to move around too.
It's not what I think. That was 8th where the amount of terrain was left to player's taste.
In 9th we have guidelines for that. You can choose not to follow them, but then you can expect to be called out for it.
The guidelines say 15-18 terrain elements per strike force board. According to the guidelines if you go below that, you should expect shooting lists to get the advantage, so I'm not exactly surprised that the marine issue gets nastier when you have a terrain selection like that.
Spoletta wrote: Tournaments are where this has less importance. SM are not overperforming in tournaments, at least not to a level which makes them a different category. The data right now tells us of multiple factions making it into the top end of the ladder, the balance at tournament level is actually decent. Salamanders are overperforming, but that's because they are carried by the eradicators and that's also a chapter which we know that is going to receive a good nerf.
The SM problem is more at a casual level. The fact that performing well with them is so easy and that they are less affected by RNG, makes them a frustrating experience to face for new players.
What data? The one were out of 10 top places 8 were marines?
I was more referring to the average tournaments more than the last GT, which was indeed dominated by white scars and salamanders. Going by the streams though, it looked like they were playing with really too few terrain elements, which in 9th is simply unacceptable.
If you go by 40kstats, then marines are in a nice position, but nothing oppressive on the levels of 8th edition SM, Castellan or Ynnari.
Seriously how much terrain do you think should be on the table?
You realise people don't all have flying vehicals and can ignore terrain, they need spaces to be able to move around too.
We know how much terrain a table should have because the rulebook recommends 1 piece per 12".
I was watching Flying Monkey last weekend and they clearly did not have that much terrain.
As for 9th tournament results. Most of the world is still dealing with a pandemic and tournaments are not even allowed to happen. We have limited results right now and you can look at that for some idea of how 9th is shaping up I would be hesitant to rely on it to much.
What bothers me is that they forget that they have created a game that they, themselves, benefit and encourages being played in tournements.
But even though its being played in tournements they still slack off with the balancing for the sake of marketing and economics.
Thats not okay. As long as they encourage this being played as a tournement game they should dedicate themselves to actually balancing the game, and not hold back codexes and gak just to get more hype and thus more money.
GW isnt the little backwater shop it used to be. it has responsibilities; some which they completely fail on.
Mr.Church13 wrote: I think it’s time to propose again divisions for 40k events.
Similar to weight classes in other sports.
Imperium only = heavyweight division
All others = Cruiserweight Divison
This to me would level the field and make a much more fun environment for player sick of auto losing to imperials. And GW can just keep pumping all the steroids they want up top. Win win for all.
Well I wouldn't put all imperium armies in the same pot actually. Adepta Sororitas, AM, Ad Mech and old style classic marines armies aren't overpowered. But relegating competitive primaris armies to just face each other is already reality here
In fact I think that 40k without primaris is reasonably well balanced at the moment.
True. Can't sell a car with a not working or broken engine, and just expect the buyers are suppose to make it right on their own.
But then again gaming companies have been doing this for all my concious life. Maybe GW wants to run table top gaming, rules, models and related updates the same way mobile games and the AAA industry runs theirs.
It is just that GW is more like EA, then Sucker Punch.
This is true, and that's why SM are a huge problem. Tournaments are just a tiny fraction of 40k and overly competitive lists are boring for many players. I couldn't care less if SM had an impossible to defeat list that spams 3-4 overpowered specialist units, that's not what I'll ever face in real life. 5+ stormravens never existed outside that lone dude that bullied other players at a tournament.
Not to mention that competitive primaris armies are usually quite cheap, other armies need to spam a few particular units just to be top tier with the consequence that the first round of FAQ will screw the entire army and force the player to re-do the entire list from scratch.
An average primaris collection is tipycally overpowered, that's the issue. Not the tournament scene.
Space marines make up the majority of lists on all levels, including casual. They should be better then the avarge army. And if they are the best, then it only means tha thte majority of w40k players are having more fun, then they had before.
Marines players of all kinds are having a great time now. How fun was it for non tournament DA or BA running only scouts and smash hammers with ally in 8th ed? now they can play more or less what ever they want and it works. And the armies aren't carbon copies of each other. A BA list is going to be different from a RG or Salamander one. That is great.
And xeno player can wait for the next CA and their codex, just like marine players had to wait for their updates.
Not to mention that competitive primaris armies are usually quite cheap, other armies need to spam a few particular units just to be top tier with the consequence that the first round of FAQ will screw the entire army and force the player to re-do the entire list from scratch.
How dare those marines player have an option to get an army cheaper? As all we know armies should cost even more, so fewer people play the game and only the rich can dominate people with armies build out of two dark empires or 3-4 know no fear.
And even better when the dominant ones are those xeno factions that few new player pick up. Nothing beats getting owned by someone with an army that costs more now, but they bought it 10-15 years ago. That is how it should be.
This is true, and that's why SM are a huge problem. Tournaments are just a tiny fraction of 40k and overly competitive lists are boring for many players. I couldn't care less if SM had an impossible to defeat list that spams 3-4 overpowered specialist units, that's not what I'll ever face in real life. 5+ stormravens never existed outside that lone dude that bullied other players at a tournament.
In my experience most tournament-level issues blow through all the way down to casual level. A castellan fed CP by an AdMech army was as much a problem in a semi-competitive player pool as one super-charged by the loyal32, and gulliman providing his index bubble to one stormraven, a storm talon, two razorbacks and two predators was so much of a slaughter that the UM player stopped playing his army because it wasn't fun for him anymore. We had a 2vs2 where I was matched up with a tzeench daemons player and we just overwhelmed our opponents because we unintentionally had build a poxwalker farm. Granted, some things like malefic lords never reached our group as they require looking and investing in broken models, and most of our players don't do that.
Not to mention that competitive primaris armies are usually quite cheap, other armies need to spam a few particular units just to be top tier with the consequence that the first round of FAQ will screw the entire army and force the player to re-do the entire list from scratch.
An average primaris collection is tipycally overpowered, that's the issue. Not the tournament scene.
While I have no problems crushing primaris armies with either my orks or my death guard, players in my group which are less experienced and/or have less models to chose from certainly feel the same way. Not everyone has a pool of 10k+ points to chose from when constructing their armies.
This is true, and that's why SM are a huge problem. Tournaments are just a tiny fraction of 40k and overly competitive lists are boring for many players. I couldn't care less if SM had an impossible to defeat list that spams 3-4 overpowered specialist units, that's not what I'll ever face in real life. 5+ stormravens never existed outside that lone dude that bullied other players at a tournament.
In my experience most tournament-level issues blow through all the way down to casual level. A castellan fed CP by an AdMech army was as much a problem in a semi-competitive player pool as one super-charged by the loyal32, and gulliman providing his index bubble to one stormraven, a storm talon, two razorbacks and two predators was so much of a slaughter that the UM player stopped playing his army because it wasn't fun for him anymore. We had a 2vs2 where I was matched up with a tzeench daemons player and we just overwhelmed our opponents because we unintentionally had build a poxwalker farm.
Granted, some things like malefic lords never reached our group as they require looking and investing in broken models, and most of our players don't do that.
Exactly, many a casual game because 2 casual players has been ruined because one of the two unknowingly put a completely broken unit on the table that proceeded to dominate the game.
Everyone has a better time when the game is more balanced (more balanced, not perfect that's not possible. Nor does this mean everything has to be the same)
Karol wrote: Space marines make up the majority of lists on all levels, including casual. They should be better then the avarge army. And if they are the best, then it only means tha thte majority of w40k players are having more fun, then they had before.
Marines players of all kinds are having a great time now. How fun was it for non tournament DA or BA running only scouts and smash hammers with ally in 8th ed? now they can play more or less what ever they want and it works. And the armies aren't carbon copies of each other. A BA list is going to be different from a RG or Salamander one. That is great.
And xeno player can wait for the next CA and their codex, just like marine players had to wait for their updates.
"Balancing" a game by making the most popular army hugely overpowered is insane. Balancing a game around vindictiveness is insane. Good games balance things independent of how good armies were in the past or how popular they are. Sometimes you get a situation where players with certain armies complain they've been hit too hard, which is sometimes true but often more because their "armies" are a very specific build of whatever the meta-hotness was last edition. I'm not even sure SM players are having more fun now with their current power level. I've stopped playing my BA for now because they feel so utterly mindlessly broken against many armies that it barely feels like I'm playing a game any more and certainly not the same game as my opponent.
The internal balance in the SM Codex is OK (there are literally dozens of options that are terrible however). The problem is that balance is achieved by making SM so good that even formerly mediocre units get enough of a power boost to make them broken. That's not how you should approach internal balance.
The other problem with telling xenos players to wait is many of them have been waiting for a long time and multiple Codices without much to show for it. There's a growing feeling among some xenos players that GW doesn't really get their armies and therefore a growing feeling that armies like Nids and Necrons are likely going to be bad again this edition. That's not an exciting prospect for players of those armies. At the very least we can hope the new SM Codex severely reduces their power level.
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
Ah yes, terrain, as in Obscuring terrain? Which those eradicators and devastators can potentially see 18+W models through but can't be seen by them in return? Not good for an army comprised almost entirely of such units. Good luck to pure knights trying to screen with armigiers.
yes, but on the other hand
A) knights are T8 and have an invuln, making them naturally the best type of heavy unit to survive meltas
and
B) screw knights.
Knights have since the beginning of their existence relied on the fact that take all comers lists can't have enough antitank to kill 2000pts of T8 models with invuln saves and still be called TAC lists.Obviously a list composed of only a single defensive profile is going to struggle into certain metas, that isn't just a 'maybe' that's an 'inevitable.'
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
Just out of curiosity makes you think 2k warhamer 40k games are platoon level skirmish games?
40k has not been this "Skirmish game" people claim for like 4-5 editions.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
I mean, it makes sense. Hyper-skew lists are hugely hugely popular among people wanting to play AS them, "All X" lists seem to be what everybody dreams of building.
The problem is they're always incredibly booooooooooooooooooooring to play against.
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
Ah yes, terrain, as in Obscuring terrain? Which those eradicators and devastators can potentially see 18+W models through but can't be seen by them in return? Not good for an army comprised almost entirely of such units. Good luck to pure knights trying to screen with armigiers.
yes, but on the other hand
A) knights are T8 and have an invuln, making them naturally the best type of heavy unit to survive meltas
and
B) screw knights.
Knights have since the beginning of their existence relied on the fact that take all comers lists can't have enough antitank to kill 2000pts of T8 models with invuln saves and still be called TAC lists.Obviously a list composed of only a single defensive profile is going to struggle into certain metas, that isn't just a 'maybe' that's an 'inevitable.'
Agreed, knights are a skew list automatically. They just seemed like the best example of an army that wouldn't be able to use Daedalus's strategy to screen out eradicators. Other low model count armies like Custodes and Grey Knights will have similar problems, though not as extreme. The fact that people are planning strategies to avoid these things is a sign, however, that they are worth more than 120 points per squad. I don't think they're overpowered, just underpriced.
And a knight's T8 3+ 5++ defensive profile isn't the best against meltas. T9 2+ is better. Unfortunately all those units have been priced out of the game....
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
Ah yes, terrain, as in Obscuring terrain? Which those eradicators and devastators can potentially see 18+W models through but can't be seen by them in return? Not good for an army comprised almost entirely of such units. Good luck to pure knights trying to screen with armigiers.
yes, but on the other hand
A) knights are T8 and have an invuln, making them naturally the best type of heavy unit to survive meltas
and
B) screw knights.
Knights have since the beginning of their existence relied on the fact that take all comers lists can't have enough antitank to kill 2000pts of T8 models with invuln saves and still be called TAC lists.Obviously a list composed of only a single defensive profile is going to struggle into certain metas, that isn't just a 'maybe' that's an 'inevitable.'
Agreed, knights are a skew list automatically. They just seemed like the best example of an army that wouldn't be able to use Daedalus's strategy to screen out eradicators. Other low model count armies like Custodes and Grey Knights will have similar problems, though not as extreme. The fact that people are planning strategies to avoid these things is a sign, however, that they are worth more than 120 points per squad. I don't think they're overpowered, just underpriced.
And a knight's T8 3+ 5++ defensive profile isn't the best against meltas. T9 2+ is better. Unfortunately all those units have been priced out of the game....
Chaos knights can get T9 by wounding themselves no?
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
Just out of curiosity makes you think 2k warhamer 40k games are platoon level skirmish games?
40k has not been this "Skirmish game" people claim for like 4-5 editions.
I mean, because it is.
An Imperial Guard Army literally consists of about two Platoons of Infantry.
An Imperial Guard Company would be 250+ Guardsmen with support assets.
On the tabletop, I rarely see more than sixty.
Most games are done with 100 or less minitures on either side.
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
Ah yes, terrain, as in Obscuring terrain? Which those eradicators and devastators can potentially see 18+W models through but can't be seen by them in return? Not good for an army comprised almost entirely of such units. Good luck to pure knights trying to screen with armigiers.
yes, but on the other hand
A) knights are T8 and have an invuln, making them naturally the best type of heavy unit to survive meltas
and
B) screw knights.
Knights have since the beginning of their existence relied on the fact that take all comers lists can't have enough antitank to kill 2000pts of T8 models with invuln saves and still be called TAC lists.Obviously a list composed of only a single defensive profile is going to struggle into certain metas, that isn't just a 'maybe' that's an 'inevitable.'
Agreed, knights are a skew list automatically. They just seemed like the best example of an army that wouldn't be able to use Daedalus's strategy to screen out eradicators. Other low model count armies like Custodes and Grey Knights will have similar problems, though not as extreme. The fact that people are planning strategies to avoid these things is a sign, however, that they are worth more than 120 points per squad. I don't think they're overpowered, just underpriced.
And a knight's T8 3+ 5++ defensive profile isn't the best against meltas. T9 2+ is better. Unfortunately all those units have been priced out of the game....
Chaos knights can get T9 by wounding themselves no?
Yes, they can. I completely forgot about that. Well, that's going to be good when everyone is using all these buffed melta units. You could have a whole army of T9 3+ 5++ 24W models. But apparently one T9 2+ model is too much for csm. Good balance again gw.
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
Ah yes, terrain, as in Obscuring terrain? Which those eradicators and devastators can potentially see 18+W models through but can't be seen by them in return? Not good for an army comprised almost entirely of such units. Good luck to pure knights trying to screen with armigiers.
yes, but on the other hand
A) knights are T8 and have an invuln, making them naturally the best type of heavy unit to survive meltas
and
B) screw knights.
Knights have since the beginning of their existence relied on the fact that take all comers lists can't have enough antitank to kill 2000pts of T8 models with invuln saves and still be called TAC lists.Obviously a list composed of only a single defensive profile is going to struggle into certain metas, that isn't just a 'maybe' that's an 'inevitable.'
Agreed, knights are a skew list automatically. They just seemed like the best example of an army that wouldn't be able to use Daedalus's strategy to screen out eradicators. Other low model count armies like Custodes and Grey Knights will have similar problems, though not as extreme. The fact that people are planning strategies to avoid these things is a sign, however, that they are worth more than 120 points per squad. I don't think they're overpowered, just underpriced.
And a knight's T8 3+ 5++ defensive profile isn't the best against meltas. T9 2+ is better. Unfortunately all those units have been priced out of the game....
Chaos knights can get T9 by wounding themselves no?
Yes, they can. I completely forgot about that. Well, that's going to be good when everyone is using all these buffed melta units. You could have a whole army of T9 3+ 5++ 24W models. But apparently one T9 2+ model is too much for csm. Good balance again gw.
Personally I'm looking forward to these guys going up against my -1 to hit 4++ starweavers when I have min 3 damage on my 5-point fusion pistols.
Ok. I really should’ve phrased my suggestion better. But it was late when I rambled it out.
Divisions like that of course wouldn’t be set in stone, changing them up to create fun events would take time of course.
But honestly looking at Eradicators as the benchmark and going from there with the new units I can’t help but think this given GWs lack of.......care with marines releases at the tail end of 8th that the other armies will see half of what we’re gonna see in Astartes. If you want to keep interest going there needs to be a distinct call out that there is an issue without hurting events overall.
By splitting into divisions you send the message that Space Marines especially and potentially Imperium as a whole are headed in a bad direction for enjoyment of the game while also offering people who don’t want to play those favored and overtweaked Codices a reason to attend without fear of the glaring issues GW has rolled out.
Honestly problem isn't even tanks and knights. imagine poor Nids. Can't play horde-maganuts because Blast will, well, blast them, can't play monsters because every single one of them save the Tyrants is getting one-shotted by eradicators, who are killing like 130% of their points worth of Nid monsters every turn.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Honestly problem isn't even tanks and knights. imagine poor Nids. Can't play horde-maganuts because Blast will, well, blast them, can't play monsters because every single one of them save the Tyrants is getting one-shotted by eradicators, who are killing like 130% of their points worth of Nid monsters every turn.
As a Nid player, this isn't too far off. Hormagaunts aren't terrible due to Blast, they're more terrible due to really mediocre melee performance for a melee-only unit, and the other horde-y melee troop (Genestealers) got hit hard by points adjustment. For monsters, well, I'm almost at the point of not fielding my Carnifexes anymore- Tyrants have a 4+ invuln* and Tyrannofexes are tough with Dermic Symbiosis, but Carnifexes at eight wounds and no invuln die very quickly.
It's particularly worse when going up against smash captains and their equivalents in other armies, particularly since Tyranids have no sniper units, so melee is really the only answer. You can get 4-5 high-strength attacks from a 'Fex on the charge, but only hitting on 4+ most of the time so it's a real gamble against anything with an invuln. Even Orks, not exactly a hot meta pick, can easily field a Warboss with four attacks hitting on 2s at S10+, rerolling failed hits and wounds, and Da Jump + 'Ere We Go gives him the sort of reliable delivery mechanism I'd kill for. Most of all, the Tyranid bruisers are all monsters, so as noted they have trouble surviving long enough to be useful.
I will say Nids have benefitted a lot from the 9th Ed mission design favoring mobility, but taking six Hive Guard and multiple Hive Tyrants is practically a necessity, and that doesn't make for much variety. Eradicators are really just the worst offender in a game system that has devalued armor to the point where anything big with no invuln is dead meat.
It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
Just out of curiosity makes you think 2k warhamer 40k games are platoon level skirmish games?
40k has not been this "Skirmish game" people claim for like 4-5 editions.
It has been, and still is, a skirmish game - if you're following the core rules, you're not using unit bases, we're not dealing with blocks of troops that need to wheel and reform. Each trooper is his or her own island in this game, therefore they're skirmishing. There's far too much detail in terms of weapons and wargear for anyone to claim it is company-level, either.
Epic is not a skirmish game, and arguably neither is Apocalypse (assuming the unit bases are used). Both operate from a C&C perspective at around company-level.
Nothing wrong with several platoons of infantry fighting a lance of Knights, the problem is that in Warhammer 40k as it stands the Knights are playing a different game.
The Knight is never going to lose any weapons, regardless of how many wounds it takes, it's not going to lose wounds to morale tests, or be forced to fall back, or worry about most types of terrain, or really do anything particularly interesting.
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
Its less of a case in 9th but people were talking about more then just the current edition.
Plus you probably still want to be able to do it in 9th because the 2-3 knight and half a dozen Armiger list looks pretty decent.
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
the concept is from 8th where if you didn't get rid of a Knight a turn you had little hope of winning. And keep in mind, the tournament lists weren't taking 5 knights and nothing else, it was 1-3 knights, the loyal 32 and some smash captains.
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
Its less of a case in 9th but people were talking about more then just the current edition.
Plus you probably still want to be able to do it in 9th because the 2-3 knight and half a dozen Armiger list looks pretty decent.
Not really it still folds like paper against to many lists and looses against board control lists too.
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
the concept is from 8th where if you didn't get rid of a Knight a turn you had little hope of winning. And keep in mind, the tournament lists weren't taking 5 knights and nothing else, it was 1-3 knights, the loyal 32 and some smash captains.
Funny think is despite them being some hyper skew list that people are convinced will romp through your opponents army every game at the end of 8th they were pretry much gone from competitive play with some odd choas summoning shenangins keeping renegades going longer.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
Just out of curiosity makes you think 2k warhamer 40k games are platoon level skirmish games?
40k has not been this "Skirmish game" people claim for like 4-5 editions.
I mean, because it is.
An Imperial Guard Army literally consists of about two Platoons of Infantry.
An Imperial Guard Company would be 250+ Guardsmen with support assets.
On the tabletop, I rarely see more than sixty.
Most games are done with 100 or less minitures on either side.
This then, is a Platoon scale game.
Ah okay your working on a concept of model count of less than 100= skirmish. I've seen orks and guard lists packing significantly more than that guard where about 150 + infantry models and orks were way past that. Also knights are a problem but marines having more aircraft types than many other armies have vehicals let alone tanks is just ignored?
Heavy Support:
Heavy Weapons Team W/3x Missile Launcher
Heavy Weapons Team W/3x Missile Launcher
Heavy Weapons Team W/3x Missile Launcher
Quad Launcher x2
Quad Launcher x2
So grand total 30 Missile Launchers and 4 Quad Launchers (my favorite thing in the IG arsenal) as well as 9 Grenade Launchers. Obviously going to be Cadian 30 Krak or 180 Frag Missiles, 9 Krak Grenades or 54 Frag. And my favorite 96 Quad launcher shots that don't care about LOS and can be used (preferably not) against vehicles.
Will it work against most lists? well enough. Tournament list? probably not. Too many armies can pink mist most of these units in a few turns.
Funny think is despite them being some hyper skew list that people are convinced will romp through your opponents army every game at the end of 8th they were pretry much gone from competitive play with some odd choas summoning shenangins keeping renegades going longer.
In 9th they aren't exactly doing well either.
Being a skew list has nothing to do with power. In fact, the worst list in the game is almost always a skew list - one that skews hard into the worst unit in the game. 50 pyrovores or whatever in 7th ed.
A skew list is just a list that presents only a single type of target to its opponent, therefore making certain categories of weapon less effective. Certain armies are hard-locked into being skew lists - you will never make a 2000pt Harlequin list that doesn't make 100% of the AP stat on weapons useless because they all have 4++ invulns as their save.
Typically skew lists do something pretty badly as compared to Take All Comers lists. In the case of knights, that's obviously holding objectives. The goal is to hope that your invalidation of a certain subset of weaponry makes up for that by making your list impossible to interact with.
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
Its less of a case in 9th but people were talking about more then just the current edition.
Plus you probably still want to be able to do it in 9th because the 2-3 knight and half a dozen Armiger list looks pretty decent.
Not really it still folds like paper against to many lists and looses against board control lists too.
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
the concept is from 8th where if you didn't get rid of a Knight a turn you had little hope of winning. And keep in mind, the tournament lists weren't taking 5 knights and nothing else, it was 1-3 knights, the loyal 32 and some smash captains.
Funny think is despite them being some hyper skew list that people are convinced will romp through your opponents army every game at the end of 8th they were pretry much gone from competitive play with some odd choas summoning shenangins keeping renegades going longer.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
Just out of curiosity makes you think 2k warhamer 40k games are platoon level skirmish games?
40k has not been this "Skirmish game" people claim for like 4-5 editions.
I mean, because it is.
An Imperial Guard Army literally consists of about two Platoons of Infantry.
An Imperial Guard Company would be 250+ Guardsmen with support assets.
On the tabletop, I rarely see more than sixty.
Most games are done with 100 or less minitures on either side.
This then, is a Platoon scale game.
Ah okay your working on a concept of model count of less than 100= skirmish. I've seen orks and guard lists packing significantly more than that guard where about 150 + infantry models and orks were way past that. Also knights are a problem but marines having more aircraft types than many other armies have vehicals let alone tanks is just ignored?
Knights were a gatekeeper army. You have to be able to deal with X to pass, and if you can its 'easy'.
Knights were gone from the competitive scene because all good competitive lists could kill a Knight per turn.
That doesn't stop their warping effect on the meta. If every good competitive list could kill a Knight per turn any monster/vehicle without an invul save will have a hard time.
Without Knights existing there was no need for lists to have enough anti-tank to kill a Knight per turn and other vehicles/monsters might have had more of a chance.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
Just out of curiosity makes you think 2k warhamer 40k games are platoon level skirmish games?
40k has not been this "Skirmish game" people claim for like 4-5 editions.
I mean, because it is.
An Imperial Guard Army literally consists of about two Platoons of Infantry.
An Imperial Guard Company would be 250+ Guardsmen with support assets.
On the tabletop, I rarely see more than sixty.
Most games are done with 100 or less minitures on either side.
This then, is a Platoon scale game.
Ah okay your working on a concept of model count of less than 100= skirmish. I've seen orks and guard lists packing significantly more than that guard where about 150 + infantry models and orks were way past that. Also knights are a problem but marines having more aircraft types than many other armies have vehicals let alone tanks is just ignored?
Way to not read the post there.
A company sized game would be one that actually uses company sized engagements. A company sized force would, using the only force that actually has a 'Company' in real terms, as I mentioned, be 250 guardsmen plus support assets. [The support assets are the command, support, and heavy weapons teams, so we're talking close to 275 models.] This is a good size for an Apocalypse game, which is another system specifically designed for that scale.
40k is not a company sized game. It is a platoon level skirmish game, where literal platoons of infantry are the troops you take.
Epic is a company sized game. You literally have companies as the basic units that you can take.
I don't know how to make that any clearer.
I have no idea where Marine Aircraft come from either. I've not mentioned them once in this thread, but I have numerous times on this forum since the first year they were introduced, made lengthy, bitter comments about the inclusion of supersonic aircraft models in a skirmish based game. Particularly one that has the madness of an Imperial Guard Officer of the Fleet calling in 'Airstrikes' that do marginally less damage than a single gun on one of the actual aircraft that is actually on the table.
But sure. Randomly assume I'm okay with supersonic aircraft. Why not?
A company sized game would be one that actually uses company sized engagements. A company sized force would, using the only force that actually has a 'Company' in real terms, as I mentioned, be 250 guardsmen plus support assets. [The support assets are the command, support, and heavy weapons teams, so we're talking close to 275 models.] This is a good size for an Apocalypse game, which is another system specifically designed for that scale.
40k is not a company sized game. It is a platoon level skirmish game, where literal platoons of infantry are the troops you take.
Epic is a company sized game. You literally have companies as the basic units that you can take.
I don't know how to make that any clearer.
I have no idea where Marine Aircraft come from either. I've not mentioned them once in this thread, but I have numerous times on this forum since the first year they were introduced, made lengthy, bitter comments about the inclusion of supersonic aircraft models in a skirmish based game. Particularly one that has the madness of an Imperial Guard Officer of the Fleet calling in 'Airstrikes' that do marginally less damage than a single gun on one of the actual aircraft that is actually on the table.
But sure. Randomly assume I'm okay with supersonic aircraft. Why not?
Sorry that wasn't ment as a dig at you, my response got lost in a rant.
I am just absolutely sick of people calling for Knights shouldn't be allowed in 40k, skew lists shouldnt be allowed insert X, Y, Z gimic that armies have to use to be vaguely competitive as it's not in the spirit of the game.
While they are usually the same people saying wait and see oh the points will fix marines/ Yannari, cost free allies.
It's really annoying listening to people continually portray codex's and or play styles they don't like as being OP or gatekeepery and hence shouldn't be part of the game.
No GW should just be better at their dang jobs.
Not to mention that due to all of these people spreading mis information about factions or lists, no-one ever wants to play certain games outside of tournaments where because of all the baseless because they suck at playing the game GW nerfs codex's into unplayable overcosted codex wide.
It's almost at the point of I kind of wish GW would stop listening to some of these people as their feedback is actively making the game worse for people who don't play their faction.
Yet again Marines have more aircraft than Tau/Necrons sure others can add to this list have vehicals, but I would guaranty that GW has probably had more complaints about Tau havibg OP vehicals than people addmiting Marines aircraft were broken with Iron hands.
I only play Necrons and we are in a weird place right now. Our 8th edition codex was pretty bad - in fact the only good things in it were the strategems. We haven't had any content since then so we are hanging all our hopes on the October codex. But I just don't have any faith in GW to deliver a good, fun and well balanced book. Especially after seeing the various leaked new datasheets and the Indomitus rules. Most are mediocre, a couple are decent, some just straight up suck. If that's what the codex is going to look like as well, 9th is a write off. Currently we are just sitting on our hands
Yet again Marines have more aircraft than Tau/Necrons sure others can add to this list have vehicals, but I would guaranty that GW has probably had more complaints about Tau havibg OP vehicals than people addmiting Marines aircraft were broken with Iron hands.
If it comforts you, I can promise you with 1000% certainty that there are not more people complaining to GW currently about Tau vehicles than marines. Every single post they put on their fb pages currently gets an absolutely unending flood of marine hatred. Every time I see something on there I go "Damn, this is a bunch of people malding harder than Dakka!"
Also it makes me sad that every post on dakka doesn't have a really unflattering selfie of the person posting it next to the post.
the balance again.
