As per Integears recommendation that the thread that was and is no more wasnt a bad idea, as it might be a forum for people to vent rtather than garble up other threads. Because I think at this stage everyone is bored of Pro Marine v Anti marine camps dukign it out in the relentless war of words..
So the premise of the thread:
Arguments have been made that marines have taken up design space from other factions.
For example:
Want to have the hardest-hitting melee army in the game? Play white scars. (Or maybe blood angels. Or maybe space wolves)
What to have the shootiest army in the game? Play imperial fists.
Want to have one of the most resilient armies in the game? Play...well, basically any space marines army, now that they all have the absurd chief apothecary and 1CP transhuman + How about IHSM dread + techmarine make wraithlords + bonesinger / Hellbrute + warpsmith look like 2 halflings in a trenchcoat, cute but not going to win many fights..
Want to be super mobile? White scars will do that for you or Ravenwing or Just ATVs.. Or T1 Drop pods...
The argument is thats It's just really bad game design to have one faction that receives far more attention than every other AND at the same time is constantly given new tools that make it as good at just about anything as any of the other armies. The topic has been talked to death for over a year now and GW has not once - not once - actually come out and acknowledged there is a basic problem with the way the game is weighted. Instead, they've doubled down even harder, devoting even more time to the faction and even more energy to giving space marines every tool every other army has.
It's not even about space marines being overpowered. 9th edition has been pretty fluid competitively, with many other lists putting up wins. It's more about the omnipresence of marines. Even if they're only good rather than oppressive, it drains peoples' enthusiasm for the game to see resources so mis-allocated.
Credited to - yukishiro1 October 2020 (30,000 before unification)
Lets try not to shift goal posts, acknowledge when we are ben goofed, and not have to win arguments which aren't really being made!!! We can do it people! We can have a thread which does not get shut down! Just once we can do eeeeeet!!!
So, one could conclude, that whatever a faction does, SM can do it better if they choose to. I'm curious as to what everyone here thinks is a playstyle Marines CANNOT do-or at least, cannot do well.
"The Marinening" is real.
Marines 100% are way to focused on right now and have way too much attention given to them.
Saying that,
I don't think removing unique rules from the more fleshed out sub faction is a good call or going to help all that much.
Did SWs need, deserve, or warrant a new unit. No probably not. Do I think that new unit is kind of cool and neat fluff wise,,, I do,,, do I think its a bit ridiculous they do what the SOS but better... absolutely.
I like units that do fluffy things on the table and I think the sub factions have nice twists aesthetically and on the table. Saying that, I think the primaris range has heavily detracted from that and vanilified them greatly.
What I really wish is that the focus of the designers would be shifted to craftworlds and eldar in general. I would like to see a Harlequins named character that Harlequins can actually use and I want the ynari fluff to actually get resolved and fleshed out properly.
Funny how both threads have the same general point. Want me to report my thread and get it locked/merged with this one?
I mean I did mainly copy Ykashiro post as examples. But I will add what you said to my OP as well as that is a good direction which might steer conversation into interesting points.
Funny how both threads have the same general point. Want me to report my thread and get it locked/merged with this one?
So to answer the question.
I think he only play style marines cant really do well is to drown the board in 100+ bodies and just out hold the majority primary objectives for at least 3 turns while not killing much.
Which highlights one of the main issues I have seen from bat reps, and the way missions are structured. I mean that if one chooses to it can be easy to build a list which does not give up easy secondaries while mainting incredible offensive. capability and shifting targets from primaries. Which compounds the issue even more.
Way back when I joined in 5th ed, I was told the whole point of playing the Space Marines faction was that they'd be the Jack of all Trades but master of none. They'd have a tool for everything, but every other faction would (in theory) have better, but fewer and more specific, tools.
IMO, while I do like the new Marine stuff and think the model artists have done a fantastic job, I do feel a sense that the Marines never "needed" all of these things they're getting, and I disagree with any notion that they should have the "best" tool for any specific job.
Arcanis161 wrote: Way back when I joined in 5th ed, I was told the whole point of playing the Space Marines faction was that they'd be the Jack of all Trades but master of none. They'd have a tool for everything, but every other faction would (in theory) have better, but fewer and more specific, tools.
IMO, while I do like the new Marine stuff and think the model artists have done a fantastic job, I do feel a sense that the Marines never "needed" all of these things they're getting, and I disagree with any notion that they should have the "best" tool for any specific job.
(Bit of a ramble, but I'm tired)
And for most of 8th edition being mediocre at a lot of things just meant you were mediocre.
Arcanis161 wrote: Way back when I joined in 5th ed, I was told the whole point of playing the Space Marines faction was that they'd be the Jack of all Trades but master of none. They'd have a tool for everything, but every other faction would (in theory) have better, but fewer and more specific, tools.
IMO, while I do like the new Marine stuff and think the model artists have done a fantastic job, I do feel a sense that the Marines never "needed" all of these things they're getting, and I disagree with any notion that they should have the "best" tool for any specific job.
(Bit of a ramble, but I'm tired)
And for most of every edition being mediocre at a lot of things just meant you were mediocre.
Arcanis161 wrote: Way back when I joined in 5th ed, I was told the whole point of playing the Space Marines faction was that they'd be the Jack of all Trades but master of none. They'd have a tool for everything, but every other faction would (in theory) have better, but fewer and more specific, tools.
IMO, while I do like the new Marine stuff and think the model artists have done a fantastic job, I do feel a sense that the Marines never "needed" all of these things they're getting, and I disagree with any notion that they should have the "best" tool for any specific job.
(Bit of a ramble, but I'm tired)
And for most of 8th edition being mediocre at a lot of things just meant you were mediocre.
yeah that was the theory the problem is that it rarely worked all that well. if you go back oin the forums to the days of 6th and 7th edition you'll see a lot of discussion on "why are marines bad". intreastingly eneugh a lot of people said Marines would get better with more specialist squads, you also saw a LOT of suggestions to make Marines 2 wounds.
Honestly if you go back and look at Primaris (at least the inital batch) they where more or less what a LOT of Marine players said Marines needed to be to make them work.
Now as for them taking up design space, I think we need to look at it from a larger point of view,
Let's look at some classic units. Space Marine Sniper Scouts compared to Eldar Rangers . both are historicly, troops, and are snipers (I know scouts have been moved to elites but In this case we're talking broad history)
Honestly in mANY MANY situations these are pretty similer units. they both essentially have the same weapon (36 inch heavy 1 sniper rifle that does a mortal wound on a 6 and ignores LOS)
both have a camo cloak. you never saw people feel that one somehow disallowed the other.
So just because Army X has "niche unit Y" doesn't mean that same niche can't be filled in another army. In fact, some niches are just too important not to have an option. (snipers being an obvious example)
I am/ was one of those turned off by the Marine parade. I consider DW the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Xenos. That helps my find something to cling to until January, and I'll take it.
Now I like 9th better than 8th. But I was satisfied with 8th while we were in it. When 9th was announced, I was furious. Why? Because the first year of any edition is a marine parade. Nothing new can really happen until the print everything we've already got... For the ninth freaking time.
I think what I'm getting at is that the next time the 40k Zeitgeist gets to the point where everyone is talking about how we need 10th to save us from bloat... Just STOP. Because the design space for anything new only comes when all of the old stuff from previous editions has finally been reprinted AGAIN. Where we were at the end of 8th, anything was possible. Ninth may be a better game, but we're stuck here for a year or or two AGAIN, just like I was afraid we would be.
If we were still playing Rogue Trader, every faction could have been as big as marines by now, with a few more factions besides. Instead, we've had these same conversations nine times. Ninth is a strong enough platform, that I really hope there is no tenth.. EVER. It's the only way we will ever get parity with the Imperium.
Some Imperial armies NEED to by fixed- Guard needs some love, Custodes, SoS, Agents. Chaos needs to be fixed up too.But xenos... Every Xenos empire should rival the Imperium and Chaos in terms of depth, development and model choices. Eldar are the only ones that are anywhere near this, but even they need to go further. An edition lasting at least a decade is what it will take to get there.
And we've been conditioned to acccept that another edition is the only move the game forward.But I'd rather play this game by the worst rules it's ever had if it could mean true faction parity- even though I do really like 9th (especially Crusade, which is the kind of system I've wanted since 1989).
Do we want to swing things back to the days of every thread being 'Marines are baaad' or 'How to fix Terminators'? Marines need some top tier options and can't just be the plain white bread of 40k that other armies get to snack on.
The issue I'm seeing briefly now (and hearing it being echoed at GW store), is that regardless of the sheer amount of marine releases (which is frankly ridiculous), the points cap at 2000 will prevent most of the codex even being played. Therefore, people want to bump the points to 2500....and I'm totally against that. Make marine players (and yes that includes me) make tough decisions. You ain't getting it all, so pick your poison.
Still, i despise that other armies are stuck with outdated models, limited armies/datasheets, etc. while marines get units that not a single soul was asking for. Hammerfall bunker, Firestrike Turret, Heavy Intercessors, give me a break....it's like peasants watching the aristocrats dine on 12 course meals while they fight over scraps.
I would prefer for GW to stop all marine releases from this point on until every range that needs an update, has done so. That's Eldar revamp, Drukhari HQ options, new Guard regiment in plastic, Ork something or other (not sure). And chaos.....come on, make the chaos marine an absolutely terrifying individual.
I love my Dark Angels, Deathwatch and Ravenguard, truly....but looking at their releases...all I can say is feth marines at this point, it's time to move on. You don't need a single new release for at least 2 years.
Arcanis161 wrote: Way back when I joined in 5th ed, I was told the whole point of playing the Space Marines faction was that they'd be the Jack of all Trades but master of none. They'd have a tool for everything, but every other faction would (in theory) have better, but fewer and more specific, tools.
IMO, while I do like the new Marine stuff and think the model artists have done a fantastic job, I do feel a sense that the Marines never "needed" all of these things they're getting, and I disagree with any notion that they should have the "best" tool for any specific job.
(Bit of a ramble, but I'm tired)
And for most of 8th edition being mediocre at a lot of things just meant you were mediocre.
yeah that was the theory the problem is that it rarely worked all that well. if you go back oin the forums to the days of 6th and 7th edition you'll see a lot of discussion on "why are marines bad". intreastingly eneugh a lot of people said Marines would get better with more specialist squads, you also saw a LOT of suggestions to make Marines 2 wounds.
Honestly if you go back and look at Primaris (at least the inital batch) they where more or less what a LOT of Marine players said Marines needed to be to make them work.
Those people were, by and large, totally wrong. Marines suffered from the AP2-3 ballooning that happened during 5th and 6th. 7th you can basically toss out because it was bananas. As for "Specialized Squads", they already had those. The real stickler for non-specialized squads was the inability to split fire. If people wanted specialists it's because units could only fire at one target, which is a pretty easy fix, see 8th ed.
BrianDavion wrote: Now as for them taking up design space, I think we need to look at it from a larger point of view,
Let's look at some classic units. Space Marine Sniper Scouts compared to Eldar Rangers . both are historicly, troops, and are snipers (I know scouts have been moved to elites but In this case we're talking broad history)
Honestly in mANY MANY situations these are pretty similer units. they both essentially have the same weapon (36 inch heavy 1 sniper rifle that does a mortal wound on a 6 and ignores LOS)
both have a camo cloak. you never saw people feel that one somehow disallowed the other.
So just because Army X has "niche unit Y" doesn't mean that same niche can't be filled in another army. In fact, some niches are just too important not to have an option. (snipers being an obvious example)
Scouts vs Rangers is fine, Snipers are a reasonable unit for any army, and the two balanced out ok. But then Primaris got super special Eliminators and took a dump on the others.
Do we want to swing things back to the days of every thread being 'Marines are baaad' or 'How to fix Terminators'? Marines need some top tier options and can't just be the plain white bread of 40k that other armies get to snack on.
Shouldn't mediocre be the target for all factions? Do marines have to better than other factions because some complain and moan? If all factions are equally good then all are mediocre. If all factions are equally bad then all are mediocre. Maybe we should tell marine players the same thing they have been telling non-marine players. I am not saying that marines should not have some good units, but the entire armies power level should be the equivalent as every other factions army. Making all factions mediocre.
Do we want to swing things back to the days of every thread being 'Marines are baaad' or 'How to fix Terminators'? Marines need some top tier options and can't just be the plain white bread of 40k that other armies get to snack on.
Shouldn't mediocre be the target for all factions? Do marines have to better than other factions because some complain and moan? If all factions are equally good then all are mediocre. If all factions are equally bad then all are mediocre. Maybe we should tell marine players the same thing they have been telling non-marine players. I am not saying that marines should not have some good units, but the entire armies power level should be the equivalent as every other factions army. Making all factions mediocre.
Flip that statement on its head and you can say, 'Should top-tier be the target for all factions? If all factions are equally OP then all are top tier?' The issue with that is that it's never worked that way. The MEQ stat-line and units using it have always been bad choices next to a Guard or Eldar unit that does the same thing but costs less because it lacks that 3+ save even if the roll for both the MEQ and Eldar unit is 'Long Range Shooter' or 'Suicide Anti-Tank'.
If a specialist also has to carry around a sword and heavy armor they don't need they can never be as good as a specialist that doesn't have to bring stuff they don't want.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That's not true, Canadian, only because if they don't need the sword and heavy armor, then the person employing the troops is using them wrong.
If you have a sword and heavy armor, and you're paying for it, perhaps you should use it.
yeah except the problem is if you're using it chances are you're doing two jobs bad.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That's not true, Canadian, only because if they don't need the sword and heavy armor, then the person employing the troops is using them wrong.
If you have a sword and heavy armor, and you're paying for it, perhaps you should use it.
yeah except the problem is if you're using it chances are you're doing two jobs bad.
Well, that depends on what you're doing with that job, eh?
If you're fighting firewarriors, you're doing it very well! If you're fighting Custodes, you're doing it badly.
Conversely, if you're shooting Khorne Berzerkers, you're doing it very well, but if you're shooting Riptides, you're doing it poorly.
Y'know, shoot the fighty and fight the shooty. Tactics for the Tactical Marine Throne!
Unit1126PLL wrote: That's not true, Canadian, only because if they don't need the sword and heavy armor, then the person employing the troops is using them wrong.
If you have a sword and heavy armor, and you're paying for it, perhaps you should use it.
Yes, my Devastators should move up the field and take penalties to hit rather than staying in place and shooting at threats because if they do they might get to use their swords on something... Brilliant why haven't I thought of that before!
EDIT: This also only applies to the current meta where Marine units aren't paying fair points for what they do. If you increase their points costs to where they pay a 'fair' rate for what they can do they won't be able to pull that off.
Mediocre does not mean "average" like you seem to think it means. It is pretty much always used to carry negative connotations, that a thing is of only somewhat below completely awful but still not really good at all.
Did SWs need, deserve, or warrant a new unit. No probably not. Do I think that new unit is kind of cool and neat fluff wise,,, I do,,, do I think its a bit ridiculous they do what the SOS but better... absolutely. I like units that do fluffy things on the table and I think the sub factions have nice twists aesthetically and on the table. Saying that, I think the primaris range has heavily detracted from that and vanilified them greatly.
Just food for thought?
Why do you need another unit, that costs more then the same unit because a shity upgrade sprue is in there, when the actually lore accurate thing to be done would've been to allow SW sargents f.e. to buy for pts protecting talismans?
Because as it stands, NO other SW unit can even fullfill the whole runic fetish talisman aspect of the lore, the accumulation of the rules just gaks on any other supposed anti psy focussed faction, and SW players are expected to pay more for the same unit that allready didn't sell because the unit is designed for a gametype that so doesn't exist in the meta of 40k?
Wouldn't that have been a better solution, one that wouldn't also cannibalise and flanderise at the same time faction identities?
In a game with a win condition asking for that is like asking for people to start liking and wanting to start losing. I haven't won a single game of 8th ed w40k , and had maybe 4-5 games at the very start which I would consider kind of a fun. I ain't trading that for having an actualy working codex. Plus hearing from non marine players, specialy of the eldar or tau kind how marines are too good, and how they should be made more mediocre stinkis of hyporcsy.
SW can't have their own rules and they can't be powerful, but eldar should have CWE , corsairs, DE , harlequins and they are all valid separate faction, but a dude playing DW in 8th should feel bad that IH were really good at the end of it and tha Gulliman was kind of a OP. because all marines are the same faction . Yeah right, thanks for that.
In a game with a win condition asking for that is like asking for people to start liking and wanting to start losing. I haven't won a single game of 8th ed w40k , and had maybe 4-5 games at the very start which I would consider kind of a fun. I ain't trading that for having an actualy working codex. Plus hearing from non marine players, specialy of the eldar or tau kind how marines are too good, and how they should be made more mediocre stinkis of hyporcsy.
SW can't have their own rules and they can't be powerful, but eldar should have CWE , corsairs, DE , harlequins and they are all valid separate faction, but a dude playing DW in 8th should feel bad that IH were really good at the end of it and tha Gulliman was kind of a OP. because all marines are the same faction . Yeah right, thanks for that.
Again karol, you don't seem capable to understand what is said and done.
If you win in sports because you partook in doping, then that is no win. Everything has consequences, just like the incessant nutjobery of marine releases will have consequences.
BTW, just to point that out, don't you think that GK would've been, you know as part of the inqusition specialised in fighting daemons and therefore the odd psyker, been more deserving of some of these rules on the hounds of Morkai?
That IS the issue, they cannibalize other factions speciality and GK are another faction to SM ...
Also hypocrise is a big word for someone permanently complaining about the gak state GK were in, which was pretty much agreed on regardless where you pointed that out, but now that you have some highwater with PA all is suddendly well? Selfreflection
Do we want to swing things back to the days of every thread being 'Marines are baaad' or 'How to fix Terminators'? Marines need some top tier options and can't just be the plain white bread of 40k that other armies get to snack on.
The way to fix terminators is to squat them and move on to the all primaris era.
I do think that with the introduction of the primaris statline, it's almost inevitable that marines will be better than the specialists of other armies. Perhaps not in points efficiency, but definitely when it comes to man for man. Take snipers for instance. There is a minimum one has to pay for the primaris statline which is higher than one would pay for a fully armed specialist in most armies. So naturally, if you want them to be even vaguely valid choices, you have to give them some pretty good armaments. So, we got eradicator supersnipers. We've also seen horrible failures in that regard (see reavers).
Did SWs need, deserve, or warrant a new unit. No probably not. Do I think that new unit is kind of cool and neat fluff wise,,, I do,,, do I think its a bit ridiculous they do what the SOS but better... absolutely. I like units that do fluffy things on the table and I think the sub factions have nice twists aesthetically and on the table. Saying that, I think the primaris range has heavily detracted from that and vanilified them greatly.
Just food for thought?
Why do you need another unit, that costs more then the same unit because a shity upgrade sprue is in there, when the actually lore accurate thing to be done would've been to allow SW sargents f.e. to buy for pts protecting talismans?
Because as it stands, NO other SW unit can even fullfill the whole runic fetish talisman aspect of the lore, the accumulation of the rules just gaks on any other supposed anti psy focussed faction, and SW players are expected to pay more for the same unit that allready didn't sell because the unit is designed for a gametype that so doesn't exist in the meta of 40k?
Wouldn't that have been a better solution, one that wouldn't also cannibalise and flanderise at the same time faction identities?
No. Then EVERY Sargeant could take them, so that not just this one unit could be a better anti-psyker than the SoS instead of just this one unit.
As for not stealing identities, here's how to do that: pick any ONE of the abilities the Hounds get. That way the Hounds are still anti-psyker, the whole army can't be anti-psyker, and genetic blanks trained from birth by the Scholastica Psykana to deal with psykers and ONLY to deal with psykers continue to be better at it than dudes with wolfy-wolf wolf-gems (wolf!). AS THEY SHOULD BE.
How you resolve it with kits doesn't really matter to the people who are complaining about marines getting to do everything that everyone else can do but better. About the kit itself, I may even agree with you. About the Hounds being better anti-psyker than SoS? Nope. Not a chance.
even if an army is as good as anothers unit at doing X... I'm not sure why this is a problem
Yet again space marine sniper scouts and eldar rangers both occupied the same niche for ages, yet... NO ONE SEEMED TO MIND.
this "OHH MY GOD! ONLY MY ARMY CAN DO X! AND IF SOMEONE ELSE'S ARMY DOES X IT'S HORRIABLE" additude that people seem to be pushing lately is, in a word, CHILDISH
BrianDavion wrote: even if an army is as good as anothers unit at doing X... I'm not sure why this is a problem
Yet again space marine sniper scouts and eldar rangers both occupied the same niche for ages, yet... NO ONE SEEMED TO MIND.
this "OHH MY GOD! ONLY MY ARMY CAN DO X! AND IF SOMEONE ELSE'S ARMY DOES X IT'S HORRIABLE" additude that people seem to be pushing lately is, in a word, CHILDISH
No, that is actually not true, rangers were more distinct to scouts and better and pricier. Now we get eliminators which are the pinacle and don't pay appropriatly and rangers now look like happy amateurs comparatively, that is why it is an issue. Primaris just took the status quo that was fine as you yourself point out, OVERTOOK any specialists in their own field AND did so in a manner that is also way to low priced for the abilities tacked on.
Ya, I don't a problem if a melee chapter that sacrifices it's ranged firepower is equal to eh a melee hive fleet.
You don't need a "generalist tax", that will only lead to marines never being allowed to be competitive. It's what fethed over hybrid classes in MMOs for years ("you are not allowed to do as much damage as other damage dealer classes because lyour class also has the ability to heal,theoretically").
BrianDavion wrote: even if an army is as good as anothers unit at doing X... I'm not sure why this is a problem
Yet again space marine sniper scouts and eldar rangers both occupied the same niche for ages, yet... NO ONE SEEMED TO MIND.
this "OHH MY GOD! ONLY MY ARMY CAN DO X! AND IF SOMEONE ELSE'S ARMY DOES X IT'S HORRIABLE" additude that people seem to be pushing lately is, in a word, CHILDISH
Because it's not that simple
Specialist factions eg Tau Drukari give up things the avility to do things to be as good as they are at their specialist field.
If IF where WS 6+ and couldnt take psychers then them outshooting tau point for point might be balanced.
Is White scars were faster and more deadly than drukari but easier to kill point for point they might be more balanced.
The problem is it's all upsides with zero downsides.
What units can whitescars not take for being the super fast faction?
What units or skills to Imperial Fists give up for outshooting Tau?
Drukari give up armour and Toughness and Psychers
Tau give up Melee and psychic and some durability to be better shooters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nekooni wrote: Ya, I don't a problem if a melee chapter that sacrifices it's ranged firepower is equal to eh a melee hive fleet.
You don't need a "generalist tax", that will only lead to marines never being allowed to be competitive. It's what fethed over hybrid classes in MMOs for years ("you are not allowed to do as much damage as other damage dealer classes because lyour class also has the ability to heal,theoretically").
So what do Marine's give up then?
Currently their rules seem to be all buffs with no drawbacks.
nekooni wrote: Ya, I don't a problem if a melee chapter that sacrifices it's ranged firepower is equal to eh a melee hive fleet.
You don't need a "generalist tax", that will only lead to marines never being allowed to be competitive. It's what fethed over hybrid classes in MMOs for years ("you are not allowed to do as much damage as other damage dealer classes because lyour class also has the ability to heal,theoretically").
Actually that would be correct, but the generalist nature OF marines in 40katm is also attached with double the W of nearly any other faction and abilities that are not priced correctly from just beeing marines to just beeing marines of a specific branch...
Sadly now GW hasn't priced anything correctly so in your exemple the class has overtaken the damage dealer AND get's to heal itself.
nekooni wrote: Ya, I don't a problem if a melee chapter that sacrifices it's ranged firepower is equal to eh a melee hive fleet.
You don't need a "generalist tax", that will only lead to marines never being allowed to be competitive. It's what fethed over hybrid classes in MMOs for years ("you are not allowed to do as much damage as other damage dealer classes because lyour class also has the ability to heal,theoretically").
Actually that would be correct, but the generalist nature OF marines in 40katm is also attached with double the W of nearly any other faction and abilities that are not priced correctly from just beeing marines to just beeing marines of a specific branch...
Sadly now GW hasn't priced anything correctly so in your exemple the class has overtaken the damage dealer AND get's to heal itself.
Wants to have the cake and eat it all alone too.
And that has nothing to do with design space or generalist Vs specialist. It's about general balance, and I'm not disagreeing there. Having 2W marines fight 1W chaos marines felt very odd, too.
nekooni wrote: Ya, I don't a problem if a melee chapter that sacrifices it's ranged firepower is equal to eh a melee hive fleet.
You don't need a "generalist tax", that will only lead to marines never being allowed to be competitive. It's what fethed over hybrid classes in MMOs for years ("you are not allowed to do as much damage as other damage dealer classes because lyour class also has the ability to heal,theoretically").
So what do Marine's give up then?
Currently their rules seem to be all buffs with no drawbacks.
They don't have to give up anything as a faction, as you will either run a melee list or a ranged list or a mix of both. Melee builds for eh marines and tyranids should be on par , to make a fair matchup.neither side should have an advantage.
Not saying this is the case right now,just what the goal should be.
nekooni wrote: Ya, I don't a problem if a melee chapter that sacrifices it's ranged firepower is equal to eh a melee hive fleet.
You don't need a "generalist tax", that will only lead to marines never being allowed to be competitive. It's what fethed over hybrid classes in MMOs for years ("you are not allowed to do as much damage as other damage dealer classes because lyour class also has the ability to heal,theoretically").
Actually that would be correct, but the generalist nature OF marines in 40katm is also attached with double the W of nearly any other faction and abilities that are not priced correctly from just beeing marines to just beeing marines of a specific branch...
Sadly now GW hasn't priced anything correctly so in your exemple the class has overtaken the damage dealer AND get's to heal itself.
Wants to have the cake and eat it all alone too.
And that has nothing to do with design space or generalist Vs specialist. It's about general balance, and I'm not disagreeing there. Having 2W marines fight 1W chaos marines felt very odd, too.
The other issue IS, however, and that has to do with design space and how factions are built from the ground up in 40k, that the constant cannibalisation and flandersiation has lead to marines going from THE generalist to THE bloated mess of datasheets with any and all options + 1 because.
Tau, Dark eldar and Necrons all share the NO psy aspect deduced out of the lore.
WE , SoS and GK all share the active anti psyker talent to achieve something against psykers specifically but ALL of them sacrifice for the gained space of design, now look at the hounds of morkai which as allready elaborated gaks on the SW lore itself AND on any of the later following factions rules which would be stronger deducable out of the respective lore, in a faction that does not have ANY drawbacks unlike f.e. WE who magically lose access to half the HQ, any psy, and 3 elite choices..
There is nothing to compensate the encroachment of designspace deducted out of the lore other factions have with for this unit.
Ninth is a strong enough platform, that I really hope there is no tenth.. EVER. It's the only way we will ever get parity with the Imperium.
Boy are you going to be disappointed in about 3 years....
why shouldn't there be a 10th edition indeed. Planned obsolesence and rules sales are probably quite a high margin type of sales for GW and it upsets the balance facilitating more sales through frustration and archetypes getting playable that weren't before.
BrianDavion wrote: even if an army is as good as anothers unit at doing X... I'm not sure why this is a problem
Yet again space marine sniper scouts and eldar rangers both occupied the same niche for ages, yet... NO ONE SEEMED TO MIND.
this "OHH MY GOD! ONLY MY ARMY CAN DO X! AND IF SOMEONE ELSE'S ARMY DOES X IT'S HORRIABLE" additude that people seem to be pushing lately is, in a word, CHILDISH
But if the Space Marines scouts ALSO got 3 other sniping powers that Eldar Scouts got, people would have complained.
If the Hounds want to have -1 to psychic tests, that would be similar to what you're talking about. But they also get an additional -1 at a closer range, plus they get + 1 str and + 1w, plus they get to snipe, plus they have 2 wounds.
It's not that they can hunt psychics that's the problem. It's that they do it better than an army whose only purpose is hunting psychics.
Pretending that the relative equality between SM scouts and Eldar Rangers is the same as the lack of equality between the Hounds and the SoS is childish from my perspective. The hounds are clearly leagues above and beyond SoS- they are not even remotely equal.
nekooni wrote: Ya, I don't a problem if a melee chapter that sacrifices it's ranged firepower is equal to eh a melee hive fleet.
You don't need a "generalist tax", that will only lead to marines never being allowed to be competitive. It's what fethed over hybrid classes in MMOs for years ("you are not allowed to do as much damage as other damage dealer classes because lyour class also has the ability to heal,theoretically").
Actually that would be correct, but the generalist nature OF marines in 40katm is also attached with double the W of nearly any other faction and abilities that are not priced correctly from just beeing marines to just beeing marines of a specific branch...
Sadly now GW hasn't priced anything correctly so in your exemple the class has overtaken the damage dealer AND get's to heal itself.
Wants to have the cake and eat it all alone too.
And that has nothing to do with design space or generalist Vs specialist. It's about general balance, and I'm not disagreeing there. Having 2W marines fight 1W chaos marines felt very odd, too.
The other issue IS, however, and that has to do with design space and how factions are built from the ground up in 40k, that the constant cannibalisation and flandersiation has lead to marines going from THE generalist to THE bloated mess of datasheets with any and all options + 1 because.
Tau, Dark eldar and Necrons all share the NO psy aspect deduced out of the lore.
WE , SoS and GK all share the active anti psyker talent to achieve something against psykers specifically but ALL of them sacrifice for the gained space of design, now look at the hounds of morkai which as allready elaborated gaks on the SW lore itself AND on any of the later following factions rules which would be stronger deducable out of the respective lore, in a faction that does not have ANY drawbacks unlike f.e. WE who magically lose access to half the HQ, any psy, and 3 elite choices..
There is nothing to compensate the encroachment of designspace deducted out of the lore other factions have with for this unit.
Then your issue is with that specific unit. I'm not familiar with it,I've only seen the datasheet but I didn't see point values and to be fair I also haven't checked if the PL is reasonable. But generally speaking I'd expect that the compensation for that ability is that the unit is more expensive than regular reivers.
Having a hard aoe counter for psykers in your army isn't a good thing,to be honest,but having this level of antipsyker on any other army, eg sisters,would be just as bad for psyker armies. So it's a balance issue (in my opinion) with that specific unit, doesn't matter what faction it belongs to
Did SWs need, deserve, or warrant a new unit. No probably not. Do I think that new unit is kind of cool and neat fluff wise,,, I do,,, do I think its a bit ridiculous they do what the SOS but better... absolutely. I like units that do fluffy things on the table and I think the sub factions have nice twists aesthetically and on the table. Saying that, I think the primaris range has heavily detracted from that and vanilified them greatly.
Just food for thought?
Why do you need another unit, that costs more then the same unit because a shity upgrade sprue is in there, when the actually lore accurate thing to be done would've been to allow SW sargents f.e. to buy for pts protecting talismans?
Because as it stands, NO other SW unit can even fullfill the whole runic fetish talisman aspect of the lore, the accumulation of the rules just gaks on any other supposed anti psy focussed faction, and SW players are expected to pay more for the same unit that allready didn't sell because the unit is designed for a gametype that so doesn't exist in the meta of 40k?
Wouldn't that have been a better solution, one that wouldn't also cannibalise and flanderise at the same time faction identities?
My post agreed with you. I even specifically say we didn't need the kit...
And characters can totally take the relic "wolf tail talisman" .. also ruin priests also fullfil that part of the lore (or did previously) ...
But again, yes, your right, the faction doesn't NEED it (as I clearly stated in my post) .
I would disagree that it is "fanderising" but that's fine we can disagree on that part.
Lets stop accusing me of advocating for things I am not. I am trying to be politer and clearer with my posts now so we stop misconstruing everything I write and accusing me of hating every faction just because I don't want to see one of the factions I am invested in vanilified.
All I am doing is thinking it is cool to have unit that does something fluffy on the table... again, did we need that unit ? No. Do I think time could/should have been put somewhere else ? Yes. Do I think other armies deserve a unit with those abilities more? Yes. Do I think that it is ridiculous for SWs to get every ability the Talons of the Emperror have but simply better ? Yes.
So please. Stop pretending my enthusiasm about fluffy rules automatically means "screw all the other factions." Its not binary. I am allowed to like one aspect of what's going on and disagree with everything else.
"The Marinening" is a problem, is happening, and I agree with almost every part of your opinions.
Personally, I don't think the claims that the hounds are better psyker-suppressors than SoS have any merit at all.
They just aren't. I'm sorry. Actually look at SoS prosecutors and Hounds, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT YOU GET TEN PROSECUTORS FOR FIVE HOUNDS, and it's pretty dang obvious the prosecutors will be more effective at their job.
Hounds don't have a 1cp strat to nullify a psychic power on a 3+.
Hounds don't have a stacking -1 with 18" range to psychic powers, and their debuff doesn't effect DTWs
Hounds do get a 4++ and can only be targeted if the closest, true - SoS get total, absolute immunity. Which means, any spell that requires the psyker to target the closest unit - which a ton of them do - you can totally nullify by putting a unit of SoS nearby.
Hounds get +1S +1D vs psykers, but their only ranged weaponry is a pistol and they have no way to guarantee the charge out of the box. Prosecutors get reroll to wounds on their boltguns.
5 hounds vs T4 3+ psyker - 2.77 unsaved wounds.
10 Prosecutors vs T4 3+ psyker - 3.33 unsaved wounds
not in range? Target have a little more health? 1Cp to make your Prosecutors boltguns Assault 3 18" range.
If your opponent does bring psykers, a nullmaiden rhino+2 prosecutors squads is a great way to shut them down. If your opponent doesn't bring psykers, those three squads will perform the role of objective holders/action doers for your super-elite custodes army fantastically.
p.s. the wolf tail talismans in past editions used to be a common equipment upgrade... they nerfed that to make more room for other anti-psyker armies... which was the right call IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Personally, I don't think the claims that the hounds are better psyker-suppressors than SoS have any merit at all.
They just aren't. I'm sorry. Actually look at SoS prosecutors and Hounds, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT YOU GET TEN PROSECUTORS FOR FIVE HOUNDS, and it's pretty dang obvious the prosecutors will be more effective at their job.
Hounds don't have a 1cp strat to nullify a psychic power on a 3+.
Hounds don't have a stacking -1 with 18" range to psychic powers, and their debuff doesn't effect DTWs
Hounds do get a 4++ and can only be targeted if the closest, true - SoS get total, absolute immunity. Which means, any spell that requires the psyker to target the closest unit - which a ton of them do - you can totally nullify by putting a unit of SoS nearby.
Hounds get +1S +1D vs psykers, but their only ranged weaponry is a pistol and they have no way to guarantee the charge out of the box. Prosecutors get reroll to wounds on their boltguns.
5 hounds vs T4 3+ psyker - 2.77 unsaved wounds.
10 Prosecutors vs T4 3+ psyker - 3.33 unsaved wounds
not in range? Target have a little more health? 1Cp to make your Prosecutors boltguns Assault 3 18" range.
If your opponent does bring psykers, a nullmaiden rhino+2 prosecutors squads is a great way to shut them down. If your opponent doesn't bring psykers, those three squads will perform the role of objective holders/action doers for your super-elite custodes army fantastically.
I think that is a fair assessment. I am over exaggerating about them being 100% better at the role... but I think we can both agree that the abilities seem a bit stacked for this unit to have.
nekooni wrote: Ya, I don't a problem if a melee chapter that sacrifices it's ranged firepower is equal to eh a melee hive fleet.
You don't need a "generalist tax", that will only lead to marines never being allowed to be competitive. It's what fethed over hybrid classes in MMOs for years ("you are not allowed to do as much damage as other damage dealer classes because lyour class also has the ability to heal,theoretically").
Actually that would be correct, but the generalist nature OF marines in 40katm is also attached with double the W of nearly any other faction and abilities that are not priced correctly from just beeing marines to just beeing marines of a specific branch...
Sadly now GW hasn't priced anything correctly so in your exemple the class has overtaken the damage dealer AND get's to heal itself.
Wants to have the cake and eat it all alone too.
And that has nothing to do with design space or generalist Vs specialist. It's about general balance, and I'm not disagreeing there. Having 2W marines fight 1W chaos marines felt very odd, too.
The other issue IS, however, and that has to do with design space and how factions are built from the ground up in 40k, that the constant cannibalisation and flandersiation has lead to marines going from THE generalist to THE bloated mess of datasheets with any and all options + 1 because.
Tau, Dark eldar and Necrons all share the NO psy aspect deduced out of the lore.
WE , SoS and GK all share the active anti psyker talent to achieve something against psykers specifically but ALL of them sacrifice for the gained space of design, now look at the hounds of morkai which as allready elaborated gaks on the SW lore itself AND on any of the later following factions rules which would be stronger deducable out of the respective lore, in a faction that does not have ANY drawbacks unlike f.e. WE who magically lose access to half the HQ, any psy, and 3 elite choices..
There is nothing to compensate the encroachment of designspace deducted out of the lore other factions have with for this unit.
Then your issue is with that specific unit. I'm not familiar with it,I've only seen the datasheet but I didn't see point values and to be fair I also haven't checked if the PL is reasonable. But generally speaking I'd expect that the compensation for that ability is that the unit is more expensive than regular reivers.
Having a hard aoe counter for psykers in your army isn't a good thing,to be honest,but having this level of antipsyker on any other army, eg sisters,would be just as bad for psyker armies. So it's a balance issue (in my opinion) with that specific unit, doesn't matter what faction it belongs to
It's not "just" hounds...
Eradicators are another exemple, that spits in any other melta units face atm. Even for factions that SHOULD be better at it then SM, like SoB which give up a whole slew of weapons options for the ammount of melta specialisation they have...
Additionally: They have as a core ability if the focus fire without advancing that they double up shots... something CSM have as a stratagem for 1 unit for 2 CP. Making a joke of ANY kind of obliterator bomb buildable.. (not even going into the price comparison there..)
Now take the heavy intercessor, isn't durability the kind of schtick plague marines should've had?
The balance issue of the whole baseline packet and btwPL is 5 so the same price as three eradicators! can be about expectated so 120 pts.. is frankly, ridicoulus no matter how you look at it.
as a general concept though - marines do absolutely take up design space. Not by necessarily doing x or y or z thing and 'stealing' it from another army usually, but mostly just by the plain simple process of:
-GW makes up new idea
-GW expands new idea to every loyalist marine faction in an attempt to make sure no marine player feels hard done by
-by the time they get done, they basically have no time to expand it to every other faction in the game before the edition ends.
As I said in the other thread: GW came up with the idea of upgrading your characters into a more powerful version in order to introduce variety through the marine Chapter Master, and for whatever reason, only 3 other factions ever received that kind of a system but they had time to redesign the rule for loyalist marines 3 times and expand it to every single generic marine character type.
Characters that can be upgraded to higher-ranking character types: Captain, librarian, chaplain, company champ, apothecary, techmarine, warboss, weirdboy, greater daemon, troupe master.
Nobody else. it was more important to make sure you could upgrade your apothecary, than to come up with an idea for a higher-ranked Eldar Farseer, or to port over the abilities to chaos space marines, or to make rules for a generic necron Phaeron who isn't a named character, or whatever.
Same thing with the idea of "religious leader who has pseudo-psychic power prayers" - GW invented this concept with Dark Apostles, gave chaos 10 prayers, and then made like 40 prayers for space marine chaplains. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvery chapter gets at least one unique prayer ability, unless they get a full 6. Do we get this ability translated to anyone within the ecclesiarchy? Harlequins? Chaos Daemons? Anyone else? Nope, gotta come up with the Dark Angels Specific prayers to the emperor and what THOSE prayers do!
Again, same with the concept of "a unique ability that your army gets if you take no allies" which has existed for over a year. Who's got that? Well, so far we've gotten to every loyalist marine army, sisters of battle, and necrons! That's it. It's been over a year. We didn't have time to give it to everyone else - say, you're still having fun, right? even though you're playing against an opponent who gets extra AP on a bunch of their guns and you get nothing to compensate for that? The game still feels fair, marines haven't been scraping up against 70% winrates in competitive at all, have they?
There are so many marines, and they all require all their own special-snowflake gak and they can't share anything, that GW just doesn't have the time in their release schedule to carry concepts that seemingly everyone is supposed to get past the huge bloated marine range.
And honestly, the way they've chosen to do this, "Consolidating" the snowflake marines into the main marine dex didn't fix anything. We're still not getting anything but fething marines for all of 2020, they still take up the same amount of space in the release schedule. We have to slog through fething whatever sixteen marine supplements before anyone else - and for some reason they're super fething urgent that they just HAVE to come out first despite GW having released the index rules free so nobody's special unique units are playing with W1 (LIKE ALL OF CHAOS MARINES WILL BE UNTIL 20 fething 21, ALL OF THEM) so everyone just gets to sit and wait with their thumbs up their butts and their troop units 30-40% overpriced thanks to CA2020 wondering whether they'll actually get stuff to bring them to parity with marines or if, like with necrons, they see a codex with less than half the time or effort put into it despite having waited for it 4 times longer.
Type40 wrote: p.s. the wolf tail talismans in past editions used to be a common equipment upgrade... they nerfed that to make more room for other anti-psyker armies... which was the right call IMO.
Aside: I'm not sure 'Anti-Something' armies should really exist.
I know some people disagree with this, but I honestly wish SWs went in the direction of GK... I play SWs for the unique stuff. I would have much preferred no pramaris in the faction at all and instead have them diverge more significantly.
It's not like I have bought any of the new releases other then the codex and supplement... there is just way to much and I don't find the vanilla stuff exciting...
the_scotsman wrote: as a general concept though - marines do absolutely take up design space. Not by necessarily doing x or y or z thing and 'stealing' it from another army usually, but mostly just by the plain simple process of:
-GW makes up new idea
-GW expands new idea to every loyalist marine faction in an attempt to make sure no marine player feels hard done by
-by the time they get done, they basically have no time to expand it to every other faction in the game before the edition ends.
And honestly, the way they've chosen to do this, "Consolidating" the snowflake marines into the main marine dex didn't fix anything. We're still not getting anything but fething marines for all of 2020, they still take up the same amount of space in the release schedule. We have to slog through fething whatever sixteen marine supplements before anyone else - and for some reason they're super fething urgent that they just HAVE to come out first despite GW having released the index rules free so nobody's special unique units are playing with W1 (LIKE ALL OF CHAOS MARINES WILL BE UNTIL 20 fething 21, ALL OF THEM) so everyone just gets to sit and wait with their thumbs up their butts and their troop units 30-40% overpriced thanks to CA2020 wondering whether they'll actually get stuff to bring them to parity with marines or if, like with necrons, they see a codex with less than half the time or effort put into it despite having waited for it 4 times longer.
Type40 wrote: p.s. the wolf tail talismans in past editions used to be a common equipment upgrade... they nerfed that to make more room for other anti-psyker armies... which was the right call IMO.
Aside: I'm not sure 'Anti-Something' armies should really exist.
I can understand that sentiment.
There is definitely something to be said about how games are boring when you show up and the game is already won or lost based on list or army choice.
Not Online!!! wrote: atm we have a 60% winrate for first turs competitvely and that made a ruckus but a GW paid meta expert said it is fine and dandy...
40k has massive issues, balance wise, beyond just factions that are getting overbloated..
This was the article that made me spit out my coffee XD.
Type40 wrote: p.s. the wolf tail talismans in past editions used to be a common equipment upgrade... they nerfed that to make more room for other anti-psyker armies... which was the right call IMO.
Aside: I'm not sure 'Anti-Something' armies should really exist.
I can understand that sentiment.
There is definitely something to be said about how games are boring when you show up and the game is already won or lost based on list or army choice.
And there's also something to be said for being "anti" a thing that basically nobody plays. I've gotten to play my deathwatch army against xenos exactly 1 time.
Do you know what unique stratagems deathwatch had access to vs an army that wasn't a xeno? let me tell you, it was
1cp - deep strike a thing
1cp - shoot a bolt weapon, deal d3 mortal wounds instead of normal damage. So wait, just the normal strat regular marines got on heavy bolters, but for any bolt weapon? Yes, yes indeed.
2cp - +1 to wound.
.....and then literally that last one 4 more times, but for different Battlefield Roles.
especially the last entry "more marines."
I was like,,,, "they have to be trolling right"
it's fething GW, of course they put that there along a slew of other not to well selling options that clearly don't work , like the helldrake...
harsh truth, it is about the only competent option in there with the mass ap-1 doctrine spam going on in the average SM list that they are indeed one of the competenter ways to remove another marine...
Further, selling more marines means even better economy of scale and even easier to sell these, as you put it, vanilia reivers, because all you need is add in an extra sprue and bam , hounds of morkai...
It's not "just" hounds...
Eradicators are another exemple, that spits in any other melta units face atm. Even for factions that SHOULD be better at it then SM, like SoB which give up a whole slew of weapons options for the ammount of melta specialisation they have..
Fully agree, but Eradicators would be fine if they weren't sitting at 40ppm but higher. They're just the primaris version of Dev Squads with MMs, and those have been around for a bit. The issue is that they're way more efficient ,points wise.
Their core ability is just to have two shots when focussing,that doesn't invalidate olbiterators.
Now take the heavy intercessor, isn't durability the kind of schtick plague marines should've had?
Sure, but it's done in a different way with completely different weapon loadouts - once DG get 2W (already mentioned that it feels wrong to have them sit at 1W right now) they'll tear them apart in CC. And DG has the fnp on everything, their uniqueness still exists.
The balance issue of the whole baseline packet and btwPL is 5 so the same price as three eradicators! can be about expectated so 120 pts.. is frankly, ridicoulus no matter how you look at it.
Reivers are 18ppm +2 for grappling hooks, so the upgrade to be better vs psykers is 2ppm, assuming they're really 120 pts, and it seems like you lose access to grav chutes.
I mean 10 points really isn't much, granted, but it's still a niche unit restricted to a single chapter
the_scotsman wrote: Personally, I don't think the claims that the hounds are better psyker-suppressors than SoS have any merit at all.
They just aren't. I'm sorry. Actually look at SoS prosecutors and Hounds, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT YOU GET TEN PROSECUTORS FOR FIVE HOUNDS, and it's pretty dang obvious the prosecutors will be more effective at their job.
Hounds don't have a 1cp strat to nullify a psychic power on a 3+.
Hounds don't have a stacking -1 with 18" range to psychic powers, and their debuff doesn't effect DTWs
Hounds do get a 4++ and can only be targeted if the closest, true - SoS get total, absolute immunity. Which means, any spell that requires the psyker to target the closest unit - which a ton of them do - you can totally nullify by putting a unit of SoS nearby.
Hounds get +1S +1D vs psykers, but their only ranged weaponry is a pistol and they have no way to guarantee the charge out of the box. Prosecutors get reroll to wounds on their boltguns.
5 hounds vs T4 3+ psyker - 2.77 unsaved wounds.
10 Prosecutors vs T4 3+ psyker - 3.33 unsaved wounds
not in range? Target have a little more health? 1Cp to make your Prosecutors boltguns Assault 3 18" range.
If your opponent does bring psykers, a nullmaiden rhino+2 prosecutors squads is a great way to shut them down. If your opponent doesn't bring psykers, those three squads will perform the role of objective holders/action doers for your super-elite custodes army fantastically.
Except have GW finally changed the rules to allow you to do that in a custodes detachment without it breaking it being mono custodes and you gaining the +1 invulnerable save etc?
If not your sruck with tacking them in 3 or more squads and veing down the 3CP.
Not to mention at 3PL vrs 5PL you dont get 10 for 5 either
Type40 wrote: p.s. the wolf tail talismans in past editions used to be a common equipment upgrade... they nerfed that to make more room for other anti-psyker armies... which was the right call IMO.
Aside: I'm not sure 'Anti-Something' armies should really exist.
I can understand that sentiment.
There is definitely something to be said about how games are boring when you show up and the game is already won or lost based on list or army choice.
And there's also something to be said for being "anti" a thing that basically nobody plays. I've gotten to play my deathwatch army against xenos exactly 1 time.
Do you know what unique stratagems deathwatch had access to vs an army that wasn't a xeno? let me tell you, it was
1cp - deep strike a thing
1cp - shoot a bolt weapon, deal d3 mortal wounds instead of normal damage. So wait, just the normal strat regular marines got on heavy bolters, but for any bolt weapon? Yes, yes indeed.
2cp - +1 to wound.
.....and then literally that last one 4 more times, but for different Battlefield Roles.
My playgroup is pretty good for this. we are about 15 - 20 people and only two people play marines. Myself as my second army (primary being harlies/CWE) and even then, I don't play a single pramris model so the army seems still super strong but it could be worse. And another player who plays Primaris White scars... So it is nice that most of the time there are quite a variety of armies on the table across from us and Tau, necrons, Aldari and nids arn't an uncommon sight... Usually when the white scars player is playing though people encourage my FBSWs as his matchup, so that's a bit boring. We arn't a narrative playgroup, but we are definitely casual and invest in our armies in a way less about stats and more about what we think is cool from a fluff or aesthetic standpoint.
The point is, those play groups are out there ... I am in one... but i have also been to tournaments and then its just marines all day. I brought CWE to my last 2v2 tournament with a CSM player... we came in second last,,, it wasn't even close.
the_scotsman wrote: Personally, I don't think the claims that the hounds are better psyker-suppressors than SoS have any merit at all.
They just aren't. I'm sorry. Actually look at SoS prosecutors and Hounds, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT YOU GET TEN PROSECUTORS FOR FIVE HOUNDS, and it's pretty dang obvious the prosecutors will be more effective at their job.
Hounds don't have a 1cp strat to nullify a psychic power on a 3+.
Hounds don't have a stacking -1 with 18" range to psychic powers, and their debuff doesn't effect DTWs
Hounds do get a 4++ and can only be targeted if the closest, true - SoS get total, absolute immunity. Which means, any spell that requires the psyker to target the closest unit - which a ton of them do - you can totally nullify by putting a unit of SoS nearby.
Hounds get +1S +1D vs psykers, but their only ranged weaponry is a pistol and they have no way to guarantee the charge out of the box. Prosecutors get reroll to wounds on their boltguns.
5 hounds vs T4 3+ psyker - 2.77 unsaved wounds.
10 Prosecutors vs T4 3+ psyker - 3.33 unsaved wounds
not in range? Target have a little more health? 1Cp to make your Prosecutors boltguns Assault 3 18" range.
If your opponent does bring psykers, a nullmaiden rhino+2 prosecutors squads is a great way to shut them down. If your opponent doesn't bring psykers, those three squads will perform the role of objective holders/action doers for your super-elite custodes army fantastically.
Except have GW finally changed the rules to allow you to do that in a custodes detachment without it breaking it being mono custodes and you gaining the +1 invulnerable save etc?
If not your sruck with tacking them in 3 or more squads and veing down the 3CP.
Not to mention at 3PL vrs 5PL you dont get 10 for 5 either
Isnt this exactly what the "Talons of the Emperor" rule does? Allows Sisters of Silence to be fielded in a custodes detachment without gaining benefits but without taking away benefits? I don't actually own the PA book its in but I've heard that's what they got along with their strats and stuff.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That's not true, Canadian, only because if they don't need the sword and heavy armor, then the person employing the troops is using them wrong.
If you have a sword and heavy armor, and you're paying for it, perhaps you should use it.
Yes, my Devastators should move up the field and take penalties to hit rather than staying in place and shooting at threats because if they do they might get to use their swords on something... Brilliant why haven't I thought of that before!
EDIT: This also only applies to the current meta where Marine units aren't paying fair points for what they do. If you increase their points costs to where they pay a 'fair' rate for what they can do they won't be able to pull that off.
Devastators don't have swords?
If you mean combat stats, then I would be very happy with cheap and powerful devastators if getting into melee with them was reliable. Did you know that 5 devastators kill 3-4 Daemonettes in melee, and 10 daemonettes kill one and a half Devastators in melee? For a shooting-only unit, those guys sure are scrappy. Make them WS4+, 1 attack with no Shock Assault or chainsword/ccw on the sergeant, and then we can make them cheaper. But they aren't generalists anymore.
Do we want to swing things back to the days of every thread being 'Marines are baaad' or 'How to fix Terminators'? Marines need some top tier options and can't just be the plain white bread of 40k that other armies get to snack on.
The way to fix terminators is to squat them and move on to the all primaris era.
I'm more offended that there are still people to this day that think Terminators were good to begin with.
BrianDavion wrote: even if an army is as good as anothers unit at doing X... I'm not sure why this is a problem
Yet again space marine sniper scouts and eldar rangers both occupied the same niche for ages, yet... NO ONE SEEMED TO MIND.
this "OHH MY GOD! ONLY MY ARMY CAN DO X! AND IF SOMEONE ELSE'S ARMY DOES X IT'S HORRIABLE" additude that people seem to be pushing lately is, in a word, CHILDISH
Then you're not understanding the issue. Marines had Snipers, Eldar had snipers. Marine Snipers were part of a unit that could do a bunch of other stuff too, and were ok snipers. The Eldar unit was a pure sniper unit, and while it wasn't flexible, it did the sniper thing better.
Then Primaris Eliminators came along with a hur-dur-we're-the bestest.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That's not true, Canadian, only because if they don't need the sword and heavy armor, then the person employing the troops is using them wrong.
If you have a sword and heavy armor, and you're paying for it, perhaps you should use it.
Yes, my Devastators should move up the field and take penalties to hit rather than staying in place and shooting at threats because if they do they might get to use their swords on something... Brilliant why haven't I thought of that before!
EDIT: This also only applies to the current meta where Marine units aren't paying fair points for what they do. If you increase their points costs to where they pay a 'fair' rate for what they can do they won't be able to pull that off.
Devastators don't have swords?
If you mean combat stats, then I would be very happy with cheap and powerful devastators if getting into melee with them was reliable. Did you know that 5 devastators kill 3-4 Daemonettes in melee, and 10 daemonettes kill one and a half Devastators in melee? For a shooting-only unit, those guys sure are scrappy. Make them WS4+, 1 attack with no Shock Assault or chainsword/ccw on the sergeant, and then we can make them cheaper. But they aren't generalists anymore.
Correct. Devs are still more capable in combat than Fire warriors or an IG weapons team. You need more to deal with them in melee.
Honestly if you go back and look at Primaris (at least the inital batch) they where more or less what a LOT of Marine players said Marines needed to be to make them work.
Not really. That initial batch was pretty much universally panned for not being very good. It took multiple point reductions and many additional special rules to get them into consideration.
Now as for them taking up design space, I think we need to look at it from a larger point of view,
Let's look at some classic units. Space Marine Sniper Scouts compared to Eldar Rangers . both are historicly, troops, and are snipers (I know scouts have been moved to elites but In this case we're talking broad history)
Honestly in mANY MANY situations these are pretty similer units. they both essentially have the same weapon (36 inch heavy 1 sniper rifle that does a mortal wound on a 6 and ignores LOS)
both have a camo cloak. you never saw people feel that one somehow disallowed the other.
So just because Army X has "niche unit Y" doesn't mean that same niche can't be filled in another army. In fact, some niches are just too important not to have an option. (snipers being an obvious example)
That's either a disingenuous point, or you've misunderstood the thrust of the argument (sometimes I feel like you have a balanced view of things and other times I swear if marines got a rule that said "if a "6" is rolled at any time on any die the Marines automatically win", you'd find a way to argue that the rule is fine, so it's hard to tell where you're coming from at times). You say "Let's look at it from a larger point of view", but then zoom in to a fairly small level. You went the opposite direction. In addition to the examples people already gave of why your comparison doesn't really pan out well, the argument isn't about individual units. It's about army identities. Two armies having potentially overlapping units is essentially meaningless i the context of this discussion.
The issue at play, as others have said is the greater identities. It use to be that marines were generally ok at everything, but the point is, they could do everything. Some armies could shoot, but not much else, some were melee experts but couldn't shoot, others were fast and could outmanuever you. None of them could be built to shift in and out of those modes, and when they did something well, they almost couldn't do the other thing at all. Tau and shooting vs melee is great example. Marines meanwhile, could engage on all of these fronts to some degree but wouldn't be able to do your "one thing" as well as you.
The current marines? Yeah - they can be built to do "your thing" better than you (sometimes significantly so), and they give up nothing for it. While armies like 'nids have been stuck playing zero sum games for multiple editions, and armies like DE have only lost units over the last few years while also becoming an incoherent mess, I can build a marine army that can outshoot Tau while still being really good at close combat and manuevering. They give up almost nothing to do this and that's what the complaint is here. You can, essentially, build a marine army that does another army's specialty BETTER than that army, but that gives up almost nothing in return for this.
That said, I'm hoping this gets readjusted with the Chaos and Xenos books for 9th and that their release renders that complaint untrue. Hopefully. Fingers crossed. Not holding my breath based on the last 2-3 years though. lol
Slayer-Fan123 793391 10969025 wrote:
The way to fix terminators is to squat them and move on to the all primaris era.
I'm more offended that there are still people to this day that think Terminators were good to begin with.
From what I have been told GK paladins were one of the better armies at some point. Why shouldn't someone expect them to return to being good, if GW could have had them with a good rule set in the past?
Slayer-Fan123 793391 10969025 wrote: The way to fix terminators is to squat them and move on to the all primaris era.
I'm more offended that there are still people to this day that think Terminators were good to begin with.
From what I have been told GK paladins were one of the better armies at some point. Why shouldn't someone expect them to return to being good, if GW could have had them with a good rule set in the past?
Because if any SM can go through a process to become a primaris then caul can start walking every GK through it and see who survives. If GK are supposed to be super specialized best of the best for facing chaos then the new more resistant to chaos primaris organs are needed for them to continue to function in their role. New primaris paladins in specialized gravis with iron halos can be the thing.
Because if any SM can go through a process to become a primaris then caul can start walking every GK through it and see who survives. If GK are supposed to be super specialized best of the best for facing chaos then the new more resistant to chaos primaris organs are needed for them to continue to function in their role. New primaris paladins in specialized gravis with iron halos can be the thing.
You're not wrong, but "Specialized Gravis Paladins with Iron Halos" makes me mildly queasy. lol
Because if any SM can go through a process to become a primaris then caul can start walking every GK through it and see who survives. If GK are supposed to be super specialized best of the best for facing chaos then the new more resistant to chaos primaris organs are needed for them to continue to function in their role. New primaris paladins in specialized gravis with iron halos can be the thing.
You're not wrong, but "Specialized Gravis Paladins with Iron Halos" makes me mildly queasy. lol
Well it's that or the whole faction eventually gets squatted. I dunno what to tell you.
Slayer-Fan123 793391 10969025 wrote:
The way to fix terminators is to squat them and move on to the all primaris era.
I'm more offended that there are still people to this day that think Terminators were good to begin with.
From what I have been told GK paladins were one of the better armies at some point. Why shouldn't someone expect them to return to being good, if GW could have had them with a good rule set in the past?
Because if any SM can go through a process to become a primaris then caul can start walking every GK through it and see who survives. If GK are supposed to be super specialized best of the best for facing chaos then the new more resistant to chaos primaris organs are needed for them to continue to function in their role. New primaris paladins in specialized gravis with iron halos can be the thing.
Well Grey Knights are gonna get W+1 with the new codex but I really don't think anyone would disagree they should've had A2 to begin with.
Except have GW finally changed the rules to allow you to do that in a custodes detachment without it breaking it being mono custodes and you gaining the +1 invulnerable save etc?
Yes they have. that was the "big news" for custodes in PA. it's why, to be blunt we're even talking about SOS.
As I dont own custodes mt SoS go to battle on their own so I've been using them the same old way but as they're more a for fun fluff addition they kind of got removed from playability by the rampit increase of marine cheese after codex 2.0 in 8th as even in "frendly games" you had to take a tournament level list.
The last couple of months I've been doing a homebrew Marine codex to basically cover this. For strict uniqueness I'm thinking along the lines of maybe:
1. Dark Angels get their fancy statue Speeder, Ravenwing Knights, Deathwing Knights, and the Deathwing Champion
2. Blood Angels keep Death Company, Sanguine Guard, Sanguine Priest (not the novice) and the Death Company Dread
3. Space Wolves keep Ferisian Wolves, Calvary, Blood Claws (with a consolidated profile to keep the Biker and Jump versions), Wulfen, and I'd like to see Lone Wolves as well
For the existing Chapters I'm leaning towards this direction:
1. Ultramarines get to keep Victrix Honour Guard, Tyranid War Vets (which should be reworked to be more generic unit rather than just some Marines with a hateboner for Tyranids, more akin to Sternguard of old/Deathwatch Vets), the Rhino Primaris, and I've been theory crafting a support Character that doesn't step on the Ancient's toes, like helping ignore negative modifiers to hit and wound from the opponent.
2. Iron Hands gain a Dreadnought HQ with the Captain aura basically, Iron Father, Helfathers (which are hard to work on not gonna lie since we know the basics but not much else), and I'm currently working on a shield unit inspired by 30k Immortals but obviously not directly.
3. Imperial Fists get Vet status Centurions, a support Character that can add +1 Damage or reroll damage of a squad's Heavy Weapons going after Buildings/Vehicles/Monsters, Breachers, and a souped up Imperial Bastion
4. White Scars keep the Khan on (and off) the Bike but he would need a completely different identity compared to the Captain (I hadn't thought of anything yet for an ability, but probably a bonus to advance and charge), an Honour Guard equivalent on bikes, a specialized Speeder Storm for Power Armor dudes (which I might rid of since why shouldn't all Chapters have access to something like that?), and I'm working on a last one.
5. Raven Guard will get an elite Sniper unit (with Eliminators being, well, eliminated, and relegated to a simpler Sniper rifle and consolidated Infiltrator/Scout profile), an equivalent of the 30k Moritat, then an equivalent of the 30k Destroyer squads, and I'm working on a last one
6. Salamanders I haven't done anything for yet because Salamanders suck
Successors will then have access to a couple of those specialized units (after all, why wouldn't Blood Angels successors still have Death Company?), and then maybe replace some for other ones to show some sorta deviation being Successors and all that. To make sure that doesn't get all broken, on top of those limitations, I'm already charting out how Successors will operate when choosing Chapter Tactics (with the core aspect staying and the Successors get to choose their secondary part. After all I think we can all agree an Iron Hands successor is NOT Stealthy, so why is that a thing to begin with?)
Unknown Founding will get more free reign in all these aspects in turn for losing Strat and Relic access and different interactions with allies.
Renegades lose all the specialized units in place of a few Chaotic entries, including Spawn, Possessed, Furies, and I'm working on a fourth one.
Once you fittingly split the wargear choices amongst the Chapters along with various units you'll find nothing is actually missed, unless one actually misses bloat (and who would?)
You don't need 8+ different codices to be unique and you don't need arbitrary wargear restrictions for the sake of pretending the two Marines are different.
This is a slow ass project due to making sure that consolidation isn't fething whack as hell but I'm happy with it so far.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The last couple of months I've been doing a homebrew Marine codex to basically cover this. For strict uniqueness I'm thinking along the lines of maybe:
1. Dark Angels get their fancy statue Speeder, Ravenwing Knights, Deathwing Knights, and the Deathwing Champion
2. Blood Angels keep Death Company, Sanguine Guard, Sanguine Priest (not the novice) and the Death Company Dread
3. Space Wolves keep Ferisian Wolves, Calvary, Blood Claws (with a consolidated profile to keep the Biker and Jump versions), Wulfen, and I'd like to see Lone Wolves as well
For the existing Chapters I'm leaning towards this direction:
1. Ultramarines get to keep Victrix Honour Guard, Tyranid War Vets (which should be reworked to be more generic unit rather than just some Marines with a hateboner for Tyranids, more akin to Sternguard of old/Deathwatch Vets), the Rhino Primaris, and I've been theory crafting a support Character that doesn't step on the Ancient's toes, like helping ignore negative modifiers to hit and wound from the opponent.
2. Iron Hands gain a Dreadnought HQ with the Captain aura basically, Iron Father, Helfathers (which are hard to work on not gonna lie since we know the basics but not much else), and I'm currently working on a shield unit inspired by 30k Immortals but obviously not directly.
3. Imperial Fists get Vet status Centurions, a support Character that can add +1 Damage or reroll damage of a squad's Heavy Weapons going after Buildings/Vehicles/Monsters, Breachers, and a souped up Imperial Bastion
4. White Scars keep the Khan on (and off) the Bike but he would need a completely different identity compared to the Captain (I hadn't thought of anything yet for an ability, but probably a bonus to advance and charge), an Honour Guard equivalent on bikes, a specialized Speeder Storm for Power Armor dudes (which I might rid of since why shouldn't all Chapters have access to something like that?), and I'm working on a last one.
5. Raven Guard will get an elite Sniper unit (with Eliminators being, well, eliminated, and relegated to a simpler Sniper rifle and consolidated Infiltrator/Scout profile), an equivalent of the 30k Moritat, then an equivalent of the 30k Destroyer squads, and I'm working on a last one
6. Salamanders I haven't done anything for yet because Salamanders suck
Successors will then have access to a couple of those specialized units (after all, why wouldn't Blood Angels successors still have Death Company?), and then maybe replace some for other ones to show some sorta deviation being Successors and all that. To make sure that doesn't get all broken, on top of those limitations, I'm already charting out how Successors will operate when choosing Chapter Tactics (with the core aspect staying and the Successors get to choose their secondary part. After all I think we can all agree an Iron Hands successor is NOT Stealthy, so why is that a thing to begin with?)
Unknown Founding will get more free reign in all these aspects in turn for losing Strat and Relic access and different interactions with allies.
Renegades lose all the specialized units in place of a few Chaotic entries, including Spawn, Possessed, Furies, and I'm working on a fourth one.
Once you fittingly split the wargear choices amongst the Chapters along with various units you'll find nothing is actually missed, unless one actually misses bloat (and who would?)
You don't need 8+ different codices to be unique and you don't need arbitrary wargear restrictions for the sake of pretending the two Marines are different.
This is a slow ass project due to making sure that consolidation isn't fething whack as hell but I'm happy with it so far.
Interesting that Space Marines are even taking up YOUR design space XD ... sorry, couldn't help myself...
What about the other details like Wolfgaurd termies with combi weapons ? would having a wolfgaurd unit member still be a thing ? just curious or is the idea to remove the flavour aim everyone at vanila and just justify the existing unique kits ?
Not a bad effort but seems like a lot of work which honestly could be focused on developing up the xenos factions.
Wolfguard termies are just veteran termites... CSM terminators are also just one entry and represent a whole slew more options and models and not one CSM player cries about that..
Not Online!!! wrote: Wolfguard termies are just veteran termites... CSM terminators are also just one entry and represent a whole slew more options and models and not one CSM player cries about that..
There is a datasheet called vet termies ?
Vet termies can have SS and combi weapons or TH and combi weapons and mixed assault termies and shooting variant and mixed inbetween ?
AND be added as additional member to tactical marine squads ? or an additional member to an assault squad ?
When did that happen ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Either way, this all seems like a lot of attention and work being put into removing stuff for the purpose of finding more time to put attention into other stuff.
Not Online!!! wrote: Wolfguard termies are just veteran termites... CSM terminators are also just one entry and represent a whole slew more options and models and not one CSM player cries about that..
There is a datasheet called vet termies ?
Vet termies can have SS and combi weapons or TH and combi weapons and mixed assault termies and shooting variant and mixed inbetween ?
AND be added as additional member to tactical marine squads ? or an additional member to an assault squad ?
When did that happen ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Either way, this all seems like a lot of attention and work being put into removing stuff for the purpose of finding more time to put attention into other stuff.
Not Online!!! wrote: Wolfguard termies are just veteran termites... CSM terminators are also just one entry and represent a whole slew more options and models and not one CSM player cries about that..
There is a datasheet called vet termies ?
Vet termies can have SS and combi weapons or TH and combi weapons and mixed assault termies and shooting variant and mixed inbetween ?
AND be added as additional member to tactical marine squads ? or an additional member to an assault squad ?
When did that happen ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Either way, this all seems like a lot of attention and work being put into removing stuff for the purpose of finding more time to put attention into other stuff.
Answer my question.. instead of strawmaning.
I'll even give you a hint...
it starts with C.
when I responded to you didn't post a question,,, that came after an edit LOL ... don't accuse me of strawmaning when you edited in the question later.
now, that you actually have proposed a question : its because flavourwise chaos marines have traditionally been able to take individual load outs and alternative load outs to loyalist marine termies.
Not to mention Chaos termies do not have access to the variety of wargear that assault termies and the shooty variety have combined and definitly nowhere close to the variety afforded and wargear composition choices that wolfgaurd have. Neither the chaos and none SW termies have the option of having an individual termie placed into a tactical/grey hunter/CSM squad except for wolf gaurd. Also chaos termies and wolfgaurd termies do not have access to teleport homers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: p.s. C is for cookie.
Type40 wrote: when I responded to you didn't post a question,,, that came after an edit LOL ... don't accuse me of strawmaning when you edited in the question later.
now, that you actually have proposed a question : its because flavourwise chaos marines have traditionally been able to take individual load outs and alternative load outs to loyalist marine termies.
Not to mention Chaos termies do not have access to the variety of wargear that assault termies and the shooty variety have combined and definitly nowhere close to the variety afforded and wargear composition choices that wolfgaurd have. Neither the chaos and none SW termies have the option of having an individual termie placed into a tactical/grey hunter/CSM squad except for wolf gaurd. Also chaos termies and wolfgaurd termies do not have access to teleport homers.
Yes, because Chaos is well known for stagnating and standardization. They always fight uniformly, and consider advancing tech to be taboo.
Not Online!!! wrote: no, again. WHY does it not matter to CSM that there are tartaros or normal csm terminators in one slot?
CUSTOMIZABILITY...
There is no issue with all the differing types of CSM termites that exist in the lore because the entry lets YOU, THE PLAYER, decide.
There is NO NEED for a diffrent termite sheet
GW seems to think there is.
restrictions and affordances for different factions has been part of the game since the very beginning. Forcing you to make different tactical decisions depending on your faction and thus affecting tactics, play style, and choices when using specific units.
So its either different sheets or one sheet with loads of different exceptions , affordances, and alternative rules... Unless the goal is to vanillafy particular factions. Or if your goal is to provide even more min/max potential for ALL general space marines. instead of allowing it as a reward for choose particular sub faction and giving up certain other rules...
We can't say all these factions are exactly the same if the only way to make them exactly the same is to literally erase everything that makes them different.
Not Online!!! wrote: no, again. WHY does it not matter to CSM that there are tartaros or normal csm terminators in one slot?
CUSTOMIZABILITY...
There is no issue with all the differing types of CSM termites that exist in the lore because the entry lets YOU, THE PLAYER, decide.
There is NO NEED for a diffrent termite sheet
It just makes stuff easier. Assault, Relic and standard Terminators have the same basic stat line, and different sets of equipment to go with that. If you combine all of that into one datasheet, you either get a clusterfeth of "upgrade this but only while that" to keep Terminators from becoming too versatile (by mixing and matching all the options you have right now separated in three datasheets), or you have just made Terminators that much more versatile.
a single page of paper more or less really doesn't matter, and unless you're obsessed with the number of datasheets each faction has this has absolutely no impact.
And every single terminator is by definition a veteran, like Brian said.
Type40 wrote: when I responded to you didn't post a question,,, that came after an edit LOL ... don't accuse me of strawmaning when you edited in the question later.
now, that you actually have proposed a question : its because flavourwise chaos marines have traditionally been able to take individual load outs and alternative load outs to loyalist marine termies.
Not to mention Chaos termies do not have access to the variety of wargear that assault termies and the shooty variety have combined and definitly nowhere close to the variety afforded and wargear composition choices that wolfgaurd have. Neither the chaos and none SW termies have the option of having an individual termie placed into a tactical/grey hunter/CSM squad except for wolf gaurd. Also chaos termies and wolfgaurd termies do not have access to teleport homers.
Yes, because Chaos is well known for stagnating and standardization. They always fight uniformly, and consider advancing tech to be taboo.
Right?
That's hard to answer, I talk a lot more then chaos having access to combi weapons in my post... but from my perspective, what ever "reason" chaos does that doesn't mater. The affordances and restrictions they are given is what gives their table top flavour and what causes their players to have different tactics, list choices, and play which feels different from loyalist players... the lore justification is secondary, the play difference is primary.
SWs also have a different table top flavour much like CSM with their terminators and some lore justifications for it aswell.
Again,,, sure, they will be exactly the same, once you erase everything that makes them different.
regarding chaos, I'd be 100% behind them getting more options. CSMs should be wanting to move up to LSMs level, not drag every codex down to their, admittingly craptacular, level
Not to mention, why are we advocating for general SMs to have access to even more min/max potential without any need for any of the current drawbacks for getting those customization options... I would think that giving SM yet another specialty of CSM would be frowned upon.
BrianDavion wrote: regarding chaos, I'd be 100% behind them getting more options. CSMs should be wanting to move up to LSMs level, not drag every codex down to their, admittingly craptacular, level
Oh, for sure. It just bugs me that the Loyalist (and not even Primaris Loyalists-regular ol' Terminators) have more options than CSM Terminators, when the Imperium is 10,000 years of stagnation and dogma, while Chaos is a lot more free to make improvements. It seems bass ackwards.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The last couple of months I've been doing a homebrew Marine codex to basically cover this. For strict uniqueness I'm thinking along the lines of maybe:
1. Dark Angels get their fancy statue Speeder, Ravenwing Knights, Deathwing Knights, and the Deathwing Champion
2. Blood Angels keep Death Company, Sanguine Guard, Sanguine Priest (not the novice) and the Death Company Dread
3. Space Wolves keep Ferisian Wolves, Calvary, Blood Claws (with a consolidated profile to keep the Biker and Jump versions), Wulfen, and I'd like to see Lone Wolves as well
For the existing Chapters I'm leaning towards this direction:
1. Ultramarines get to keep Victrix Honour Guard, Tyranid War Vets (which should be reworked to be more generic unit rather than just some Marines with a hateboner for Tyranids, more akin to Sternguard of old/Deathwatch Vets), the Rhino Primaris, and I've been theory crafting a support Character that doesn't step on the Ancient's toes, like helping ignore negative modifiers to hit and wound from the opponent.
2. Iron Hands gain a Dreadnought HQ with the Captain aura basically, Iron Father, Helfathers (which are hard to work on not gonna lie since we know the basics but not much else), and I'm currently working on a shield unit inspired by 30k Immortals but obviously not directly.
3. Imperial Fists get Vet status Centurions, a support Character that can add +1 Damage or reroll damage of a squad's Heavy Weapons going after Buildings/Vehicles/Monsters, Breachers, and a souped up Imperial Bastion
4. White Scars keep the Khan on (and off) the Bike but he would need a completely different identity compared to the Captain (I hadn't thought of anything yet for an ability, but probably a bonus to advance and charge), an Honour Guard equivalent on bikes, a specialized Speeder Storm for Power Armor dudes (which I might rid of since why shouldn't all Chapters have access to something like that?), and I'm working on a last one.
5. Raven Guard will get an elite Sniper unit (with Eliminators being, well, eliminated, and relegated to a simpler Sniper rifle and consolidated Infiltrator/Scout profile), an equivalent of the 30k Moritat, then an equivalent of the 30k Destroyer squads, and I'm working on a last one
6. Salamanders I haven't done anything for yet because Salamanders suck
Successors will then have access to a couple of those specialized units (after all, why wouldn't Blood Angels successors still have Death Company?), and then maybe replace some for other ones to show some sorta deviation being Successors and all that. To make sure that doesn't get all broken, on top of those limitations, I'm already charting out how Successors will operate when choosing Chapter Tactics (with the core aspect staying and the Successors get to choose their secondary part. After all I think we can all agree an Iron Hands successor is NOT Stealthy, so why is that a thing to begin with?)
Unknown Founding will get more free reign in all these aspects in turn for losing Strat and Relic access and different interactions with allies.
Renegades lose all the specialized units in place of a few Chaotic entries, including Spawn, Possessed, Furies, and I'm working on a fourth one.
Once you fittingly split the wargear choices amongst the Chapters along with various units you'll find nothing is actually missed, unless one actually misses bloat (and who would?)
You don't need 8+ different codices to be unique and you don't need arbitrary wargear restrictions for the sake of pretending the two Marines are different.
This is a slow ass project due to making sure that consolidation isn't fething whack as hell but I'm happy with it so far.
Interesting that Space Marines are even taking up YOUR design space XD ... sorry, couldn't help myself...
What about the other details like Wolfgaurd termies with combi weapons ? would having a wolfgaurd unit member still be a thing ? just curious or is the idea to remove the flavour aim everyone at vanila and just justify the existing unique kits ?
Not a bad effort but seems like a lot of work which honestly could be focused on developing up the xenos factions.
If you saw my even half asked attempts at fixing 7th you'll see I put care into Tyranids (where everyone got various abilities depending which Synapse creature was affecting them) and Orks (where each squad gained more and more abilities as the squad size grew). I would try to keep that in line for those and Eldar would be the next step. Necrons are ALMOST there but need some work.
The reason is I'm frustrated at the bloat of the game. While the project itself seems large in terms of rules, the ultimate goal of losing unit entries that simply aren't necessary and making Marines more of ease to balance (and create lists at that).
Also the Lone Wolf would basically be able to fulfill any role the Wolf Guard leaders might have in terms of being a character. In terms of crunch they honestly don't add anything. Terminators are to have a consolidated profile (so no more four entries) and Combi-Weapons are available, correct.
BrianDavion wrote: regarding chaos, I'd be 100% behind them getting more options. CSMs should be wanting to move up to LSMs level, not drag every codex down to their, admittingly craptacular, level
100% CSM termies should get access to SS at least IMO ... or maybe some other kind of very available unique equipment... that would be cool.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The last couple of months I've been doing a homebrew Marine codex to basically cover this. For strict uniqueness I'm thinking along the lines of maybe:
1. Dark Angels get their fancy statue Speeder, Ravenwing Knights, Deathwing Knights, and the Deathwing Champion
2. Blood Angels keep Death Company, Sanguine Guard, Sanguine Priest (not the novice) and the Death Company Dread
3. Space Wolves keep Ferisian Wolves, Calvary, Blood Claws (with a consolidated profile to keep the Biker and Jump versions), Wulfen, and I'd like to see Lone Wolves as well
For the existing Chapters I'm leaning towards this direction:
1. Ultramarines get to keep Victrix Honour Guard, Tyranid War Vets (which should be reworked to be more generic unit rather than just some Marines with a hateboner for Tyranids, more akin to Sternguard of old/Deathwatch Vets), the Rhino Primaris, and I've been theory crafting a support Character that doesn't step on the Ancient's toes, like helping ignore negative modifiers to hit and wound from the opponent.
2. Iron Hands gain a Dreadnought HQ with the Captain aura basically, Iron Father, Helfathers (which are hard to work on not gonna lie since we know the basics but not much else), and I'm currently working on a shield unit inspired by 30k Immortals but obviously not directly.
3. Imperial Fists get Vet status Centurions, a support Character that can add +1 Damage or reroll damage of a squad's Heavy Weapons going after Buildings/Vehicles/Monsters, Breachers, and a souped up Imperial Bastion
4. White Scars keep the Khan on (and off) the Bike but he would need a completely different identity compared to the Captain (I hadn't thought of anything yet for an ability, but probably a bonus to advance and charge), an Honour Guard equivalent on bikes, a specialized Speeder Storm for Power Armor dudes (which I might rid of since why shouldn't all Chapters have access to something like that?), and I'm working on a last one.
5. Raven Guard will get an elite Sniper unit (with Eliminators being, well, eliminated, and relegated to a simpler Sniper rifle and consolidated Infiltrator/Scout profile), an equivalent of the 30k Moritat, then an equivalent of the 30k Destroyer squads, and I'm working on a last one
6. Salamanders I haven't done anything for yet because Salamanders suck
Successors will then have access to a couple of those specialized units (after all, why wouldn't Blood Angels successors still have Death Company?), and then maybe replace some for other ones to show some sorta deviation being Successors and all that. To make sure that doesn't get all broken, on top of those limitations, I'm already charting out how Successors will operate when choosing Chapter Tactics (with the core aspect staying and the Successors get to choose their secondary part. After all I think we can all agree an Iron Hands successor is NOT Stealthy, so why is that a thing to begin with?)
Unknown Founding will get more free reign in all these aspects in turn for losing Strat and Relic access and different interactions with allies.
Renegades lose all the specialized units in place of a few Chaotic entries, including Spawn, Possessed, Furies, and I'm working on a fourth one.
Once you fittingly split the wargear choices amongst the Chapters along with various units you'll find nothing is actually missed, unless one actually misses bloat (and who would?)
You don't need 8+ different codices to be unique and you don't need arbitrary wargear restrictions for the sake of pretending the two Marines are different.
This is a slow ass project due to making sure that consolidation isn't fething whack as hell but I'm happy with it so far.
Interesting that Space Marines are even taking up YOUR design space XD ... sorry, couldn't help myself...
What about the other details like Wolfgaurd termies with combi weapons ? would having a wolfgaurd unit member still be a thing ? just curious or is the idea to remove the flavour aim everyone at vanila and just justify the existing unique kits ?
Not a bad effort but seems like a lot of work which honestly could be focused on developing up the xenos factions.
If you saw my even half asked attempts at fixing 7th you'll see I put care into Tyranids (where everyone got various abilities depending which Synapse creature was affecting them) and Orks (where each squad gained more and more abilities as the squad size grew). I would try to keep that in line for those and Eldar would be the next step. Necrons are ALMOST there but need some work.
The reason is I'm frustrated at the bloat of the game. While the project itself seems large in terms of rules, the ultimate goal of losing unit entries that simply aren't necessary and making Marines more of ease to balance (and create lists at that).
Also the Lone Wolf would basically be able to fulfill any role the Wolf Guard leaders might have in terms of being a character. In terms of crunch they honestly don't add anything. Terminators are to have a consolidated profile (so no more four entries) and Combi-Weapons are available, correct.
Totally fair. I really just don't wana see any loss of the actual unique mechanics, rules, and flavours of the really divergent subfactions.
But I do understand the motivation for your project. If the flavour is preserved , I am all for it.
BrianDavion wrote: regarding chaos, I'd be 100% behind them getting more options. CSMs should be wanting to move up to LSMs level, not drag every codex down to their, admittingly craptacular, level
Oh, for sure. It just bugs me that the Loyalist (and not even Primaris Loyalists-regular ol' Terminators) have more options than CSM Terminators, when the Imperium is 10,000 years of stagnation and dogma, while Chaos is a lot more free to make improvements. It seems bass ackwards.
100% agree with this.
I think CSM Termies should be even more divergent from the Wolfgaurd ones. I think CSM termies should have a variety of unique equipment, especially without access to SSs. they shouldn't feel like worse wolfgaurd termies, or even worse loyalist termies with more variety... instead they should feel like different but equally as interesting to play termies.
Not Online!!! wrote: no, again. WHY does it not matter to CSM that there are tartaros or normal csm terminators in one slot?
CUSTOMIZABILITY...
There is no issue with all the differing types of CSM termites that exist in the lore because the entry lets YOU, THE PLAYER, decide.
There is NO NEED for a diffrent termite sheet
THANK YOU. Separate entries for the sake of separate entries are just a nono. What happens when a Chapter has 3 suits of Cata, 3 suits of Tart, and 3 suits of Indo? They just NEVER get fielded together ever?
Not Online!!! wrote: no, again. WHY does it not matter to CSM that there are tartaros or normal csm terminators in one slot?
CUSTOMIZABILITY...
There is no issue with all the differing types of CSM termites that exist in the lore because the entry lets YOU, THE PLAYER, decide.
There is NO NEED for a diffrent termite sheet
THANK YOU. Separate entries for the sake of separate entries are just a nono. What happens when a Chapter has 3 suits of Cata, 3 suits of Tart, and 3 suits of Indo? They just NEVER get fielded together ever?
So what do you do about the min-maxing potential that you just gave SM player by allowing them to customize like wolf-gaurd but not get the restrictions of specifically using SWs and not having teleport homers ? Also, you just removed the unique customization options CSM had as a privilege and gave SMs a better version of it. Also, now it wont feel unique or significant that the faction you may have chosen had that level of customization options... so you loose the rules flavour specifically afforded to you for choosing certain factions and you lose the extra tactical options you had from that affordance because now SMs have a better version of it.
Why would we remove restrictions on a faction that already has to many affordances for free ? why give loyalists one of the few options CSM have that the loyalist didnt get ? seems counter intuitive.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Then, if you leave in all the different restrictions, affordances, chapter rules, chapter unit size differnces, unit composition differences (like including a wolfgaurd terminator in a tactical marine unit) and etc... on that one datasheet... The sheet is going to be a User Interface nightmare... it would have been better to keep them separate. So your options for a single datasheet unit of termies is to consolidate ALL the rules and options with no restrictions,,, leaving incredible min/max potential and causing CSM to be have even less unique load outs compared to SMs,... have an unreadable mess of restrictions, exceptions, and unit compositions or,... you can vanilify all the options and admit that the units wern't really that similar in the first place whilst simultaneously vanillafying unique units, causing players to have to get rid of their unique wargear options, tactical options and the unique flavour of game play a player chose or bought into.
So I guess you could have one datasheet... but i can't see how it would help... the work in even figuring out the best way to approach this could be spent focusing on other factions than Power Armor factions,,, in my opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, just noticed this
Also the Lone Wolf would basically be able to fulfill any role the Wolf Guard leaders might have in terms of being a character. In terms of crunch they honestly don't add anything.
You don't see how it could be tactically significant or useful to have a Terminator , potentially with a SS, in a tactical marine/grey hunter unit ? that is very different from having a character running around near by. Not to mention the character has to take up an extra slot...
I'm more offended that there are still people to this day that think Terminators were good to begin with.
I can see why people would think they were good in 2nd, but that was the trap. After just a few games, no one I ever played with bothered to point anything at them smaller then a krak missile. They were good in that they could carry an assault cannon to delete avatars and monstrous creatures VERY reliably, but 300+ points in a low model count army meant they were getting a lot of the heavy weapons pointed at them.
I'm more offended that there are still people to this day that think Terminators were good to begin with.
I can see why people would think they were good in 2nd, but that was the trap. After just a few games, no one I ever played with bothered to point anything at them smaller then a krak missile. They were good in that they could carry an assault cannon to delete avatars and monstrous creatures VERY reliably, but 300+ points in a low model count army meant they were getting a lot of the heavy weapons pointed at them.
I used mine in conjunction with a Dreadnought with auto launchers and an Assault Squad with Blind grenades. They were barely visible to the opponent a lot of the time, and used their BS5 and Targeters to good use, often on Overwatch. The Dreadnought also had an Assault Cannon, so even if one jammed there was backup.
Also Heavy Weapons could fire at monsters and vehicles instead of just the chaff iirc, so they still got good work done even if the opponent was screening. Because Terminators could move and fire, you could also use the available firing corridors between blind grenades to have some choice in targets.
Type40 wrote: Not to mention, why are we advocating for general SMs to have access to even more min/max potential without any need for any of the current drawbacks for getting those customization options... I would think that giving SM yet another specialty of CSM would be frowned upon.
Oh noes, woe be upon GW which would then be forced to actually balance the rules bloat every SM free update brings to a datasheet instead of just spamming out more datasheets.
On another side note, you could also hide upgrades and equipment behind subfaction choice AND STILL have one datasheet, which would lead to hopefully more correctly priced overall terminators as a whole and not autoincludes for some and others can twiddle their thumbs..
It would also remove skew, because frankly RO3 applying equally to ALL factions is about high fething time, especially for SM.
On another side note, you could also hide upgrades and equipment behind subfaction choice AND STILL have one datasheet
Totally agree, you totally could.
The problem with that is increased design time effort and a problem with User Interfacing.
It takes more work to make sure everything synergizes then to just make two datasheets (this actually might not be a bad thing though, but it does increase time not reduce it)
And in terms of User Interfacing, a single datasheet with a slew of exceptions, affordances, bans, unit size and unit composition differences is not good for user readability and comprehension... (though people are smart and would be able to decipher it if motivated, its just not ideal and would be prone to confusions [lots if YMDC questions I assume XD]). If you are just printing the exceptions in alternative supplements and codexes anyways... why not just print an easy to read datasheet ?
So in my opinion, the cons outweigh any benefits.
It would also remove skew, because frankly RO3 applying equally to ALL factions is about high fething time, especially for SM.
The problem isn't multiple datasheets, its that GW refuses to write a few lines in the FAQ to uniformly do their power creep... This isn't solved by consolidated datasheets, it is solved by GW making an effort to uniformly give all players the same benefits. In fact, most of the problems people complain about are a problem with GW not putting effort... None of this will actually be solved by consolidating data-sheets,,, it will just remove flavour from the game or make things more confusing... what we need is GW to start paying attention to what they are doing and catering to their entire audience and not just to power armor.
On another side note, you could also hide upgrades and equipment behind subfaction choice AND STILL have one datasheet
Totally agree, you totally could.
The problem with that is increased design time effort and a problem with User Interfacing.
It takes more work to make sure everything synergizes then to just make two datasheets (this actually might not be a bad thing though, but it does increase time not reduce it)
And in terms of User Interfacing, a single datasheet with a slew of exceptions, affordances, bans, unit size and unit composition differences is not good for user readability and comprehension... (though people are smart and would be able to decipher it if motivated, its just not ideal and would be prone to confusions [lots if YMDC questions I assume XD]). If you are just printing the exceptions in alternative supplements and codexes anyways... why not just print an easy to read datasheet ?
So in my opinion, the cons outweigh any benefits.
It would also remove skew, because frankly RO3 applying equally to ALL factions is about high fething time, especially for SM.
The problem isn't multiple datasheets, its that GW refuses to write a few lines in the FAQ to uniformly do their power creep... This isn't solved by consolidated datasheets, it is solved by GW making an effort to uniformly give all players the same benefits.
For what GW demands and supposedly puts in time for in regards to rules they im could've easily done better, regardless how they go about it.
And no, RO3 not applying to terminator types for loyalists is a decidedly GW issue with Datasheet spam. Just as it was for Daemonprinces, etc.
On another side note, you could also hide upgrades and equipment behind subfaction choice AND STILL have one datasheet
Totally agree, you totally could.
The problem with that is increased design time effort and a problem with User Interfacing.
It takes more work to make sure everything synergizes then to just make two datasheets (this actually might not be a bad thing though, but it does increase time not reduce it)
And in terms of User Interfacing, a single datasheet with a slew of exceptions, affordances, bans, unit size and unit composition differences is not good for user readability and comprehension... (though people are smart and would be able to decipher it if motivated, its just not ideal and would be prone to confusions [lots if YMDC questions I assume XD]). If you are just printing the exceptions in alternative supplements and codexes anyways... why not just print an easy to read datasheet ?
So in my opinion, the cons outweigh any benefits.
It would also remove skew, because frankly RO3 applying equally to ALL factions is about high fething time, especially for SM.
The problem isn't multiple datasheets, its that GW refuses to write a few lines in the FAQ to uniformly do their power creep... This isn't solved by consolidated datasheets, it is solved by GW making an effort to uniformly give all players the same benefits.
For what GW demands and supposedly puts in time for in regards to rules they im could've easily done better, regardless how they go about it.
And no, RO3 not applying to terminator types for loyalists is a decidedly GW issue with Datasheet spam. Just as it was for Daemonprinces, etc.
Ah, ya I see the problem,
Sure, again easy fix is a single line of rules text instead of all the hoops and confusion of consolidating datasheets... I can think of a few ways to elegantly implement a fix... how about RO3 applies to <special unifying keywords> ... Either way, consolidating the datasheets brings too many problems...
Also RO3 was put into place for a few specific types of spam... honestly ... back in 8th no one had a problem when I showed up with 6 death jesters... but when If I showed up with 6 deamon princes. different story. TBH I thought rule of 3 was a knee jerk reaction to a problem in competitive play... and its fine,,, it just could have been implemented in a more specific and elegant way to solve the specific problem. But GW has never been one for elegance in their rules design and presentation (though this edition seems to be a bit better then previous ones,,, I actually have a suspicion that they hired FF as consultants due to what seems to be an adoption of some of the FF style conviences they added to their new rulebooks AND the fact that they have worked with FF on spinoff games in the past,,, but this is a conspiracy theory and it's place is in a thread of its own lol)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Either way, on the topic of this thread. We both agree marines take up too much design space currently. We disagree on the solution...
I am under the impression that the options for consolidating the datasheets only removes flavour (which a lot of players join the game for), keeps flavour but creats datasheets with poor design and user interfacing, or gives factions way to many affordances with no room for restrictions, depending on the implementation choice.
Not to mentioned any of these solutions would require increased attention on power armor armies not decreased to figure out the details.
So no, I do not think this a good method for shifting design space to other factions, in fact I think it would be worse.
My idea for giving other factions attention ,,, is to do just that,,, have the GW team start actually caring about and focusing on other factions ... It really shouldn't be that hard to make universal changes, tweaks to all factions when necessary and equal attention to army rules... other games do it, even other games that have an overwhelmingly popular faction...
Ice_can wrote: As I dont own custodes mt SoS go to battle on their own so I've been using them the same old way but as they're more a for fun fluff addition they kind of got removed from playability by the rampit increase of marine cheese after codex 2.0 in 8th as even in "frendly games" you had to take a tournament level list.
I too like to field SoS without Custodes. My trick is attaching Inquisitors to Null Maiden Vanguards. SoS get their own strats, but the Inquisitor can use their own strats to augment the SoS and their other abilities to stack debuffs; they can also hitch a ride in a Null Maiden Rhino. Love it when the Hereticus uses No Escape to prevent units from running away from Vigilators.
Planetary Bombard is expensive, but fun. You can also use a strat to buff the SoS vs. the Inquisitor's Quarry.
I miss the old Armory system from 3rd and 4th, where all the options available to an army were listed on one page with points costs (that varied based on character/sergeant/regular model in some cases) and then could be doled out to customize your units.
I remember Techmarines with Storm Shields in a Sons of Medusa army, anti-tank shells (in addition to the normal battlecannon blast) for Leman Russ tanks in an armored company, a regular Imperial Guardsman with the one Imperial medal that gave him the profile of a Heroic Senior Officer, Autarchs with all sorts of wargear...
The armory days were awesome. If you wanted to make your dudes into Your Dudes, those were the days.
Stevefamine wrote: Thats why half the factions in the game are marines - its the iconic faction. They're not taking up design space
Marines seem to be in a great place right now. No issue with them at all
I agree that marines are in a great place right now, you can build strong fluffy armies and still compete. The problem is that theyre the only ones that have that luxury. i'd love for my other armies to also be able to do that.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I miss the old Armory system from 3rd and 4th, where all the options available to an army were listed on one page with points costs (that varied based on character/sergeant/regular model in some cases) and then could be doled out to customize your units.
I remember Techmarines with Storm Shields in a Sons of Medusa army, anti-tank shells (in addition to the normal battlecannon blast) for Leman Russ tanks in an armored company, a regular Imperial Guardsman with the one Imperial medal that gave him the profile of a Heroic Senior Officer, Autarchs with all sorts of wargear...
The armory days were awesome. If you wanted to make your dudes into Your Dudes, those were the days.
Agreed.
I also preferred that layout to the current one where a model's dataslate will tell you what wargear lists it can choose from, and then you have to go to another page to find out what is actually on those lists, and then a third completely different page to find out what the named weapons actually do. And if you want to find out what relics a model can take, you'll need to go to a forth page, nowhere near any of the previous ones.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I miss the old Armory system from 3rd and 4th, where all the options available to an army were listed on one page with points costs (that varied based on character/sergeant/regular model in some cases) and then could be doled out to customize your units.
I remember Techmarines with Storm Shields in a Sons of Medusa army, anti-tank shells (in addition to the normal battlecannon blast) for Leman Russ tanks in an armored company, a regular Imperial Guardsman with the one Imperial medal that gave him the profile of a Heroic Senior Officer, Autarchs with all sorts of wargear...
The armory days were awesome. If you wanted to make your dudes into Your Dudes, those were the days.
Agreed.
I also preferred that layout to the current one where a model's dataslate will tell you what wargear lists it can choose from, and then you have to go to another page to find out what is actually on those lists, and then a third completely different page to find out what the named weapons actually do. And if you want to find out what relics a model can take, you'll need to go to a forth page, nowhere near any of the previous ones.
Both systems could work, it's just GW cheaping out, because the community holds them really rarely accountable, on an editor...
Not Online!!! wrote: And no, RO3 not applying to terminator types for loyalists is a decidedly GW issue with Datasheet spam. Just as it was for Daemonprinces, etc.
Getting to the real issues of 40k here, right? GW really needs to limit the Terminator spam down to 30 Terminators in a 2k points list, it's gotten totally out of hand.
edit: I still don't see any point in making a single unified hyper-complex "Terminator Squad" datasheet. There's no real benefit, and you're still arguing that GW should waste time on trying to do that anyway? Instead you claim that ... idk, it's the communities fault that we have too many Terminator Squad datasheets, when GW just consolidated some ?
The problem is how the Rule Of Three is applied. For the common 2000 point game it's silly, but there's merit to it for smaller games. Turn it into something stupid simple like "Each unit that is not a TROOP choice can only be selected once per 500 point in game size. So Rule of 2 at 1000-1499, Rule of 3 at 1500-1999, and Rule of 4 at 2000-2499, etc.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The problem is how the Rule Of Three is applied. For the common 2000 point game it's silly, but there's merit to it for smaller games. Turn it into something stupid simple like "Each unit that is not a TROOP choice can only be selected once per 500 point in game size. So Rule of 2 at 1000-1499, Rule of 3 at 1500-1999, and Rule of 4 at 2000-2499, etc.
That would be a good idea but still does not address the disparity in datasheets available between factions. As it stand adding more than 3 Hellbrutes is a big no-no for me, but from the looks of it SM can easily fit 9 Dreadnoughts into their list. Same for Terminators, Guard with their absurd amount of Tanks + combat squad equivalent. Now this is not even a balance complaint, but rather about the skewed way in which RO3 was implemented.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The problem is how the Rule Of Three is applied. For the common 2000 point game it's silly, but there's merit to it for smaller games. Turn it into something stupid simple like "Each unit that is not a TROOP choice can only be selected once per 500 point in game size. So Rule of 2 at 1000-1499, Rule of 3 at 1500-1999, and Rule of 4 at 2000-2499, etc.
That would be a good idea but still does not address the disparity in datasheets available between factions. As it stand adding more than 3 Hellbrutes is a big no-no for me, but from the looks of it SM can easily fit 9 Dreadnoughts into their list. Same for Terminators, Guard with their absurd amount of Tanks + combat squad equivalent. Now this is not even a balance complaint, but rather about the skewed way in which RO3 was implemented.
And quite frankly I want Dreads consolidated into regular and the Primaris one. GW's version of the Contemptor sucks so I won't even address it.
I'm more offended that there are still people to this day that think Terminators were good to begin with.
I can see why people would think they were good in 2nd, but that was the trap. After just a few games, no one I ever played with bothered to point anything at them smaller then a krak missile. They were good in that they could carry an assault cannon to delete avatars and monstrous creatures VERY reliably, but 300+ points in a low model count army meant they were getting a lot of the heavy weapons pointed at them.
I was told that GK are bad now, because back in the past edition GW made a GK codex, which had a terminator only army which run less then 30 models and was powerful enough to be played by casual players in tournaments. That is why the army I bought consisted mostly of termintors and had non strikes or interceptors.
So at some point they seemed to have been fun and good to play, and GW knew how to give them proper rules to achive such a state.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The problem is how the Rule Of Three is applied. For the common 2000 point game it's silly, but there's merit to it for smaller games. Turn it into something stupid simple like "Each unit that is not a TROOP choice can only be selected once per 500 point in game size. So Rule of 2 at 1000-1499, Rule of 3 at 1500-1999, and Rule of 4 at 2000-2499, etc.
Isn't the rule kinda like that anyway ? Just with 1-1000/1000-2000/2000+ for 2/3/4 ?
I can tell you that restricting this further feths over other armies too much, ars bellica is kinda like that (popular tournament system in Europe ), and the only real change with your approach is for 1000-1500pt games,isn't it ?
Stevefamine wrote: Thats why half the factions in the game are marines - its the iconic faction. They're not taking up design space
Marines seem to be in a great place right now. No issue with them at all
I agree that marines are in a great place right now, you can build strong fluffy armies and still compete. The problem is that theyre the only ones that have that luxury. i'd love for my other armies to also be able to do that.
I'm hoping when you get your 9th edition codex you will.
it's worth ntoing that both sisters of battle and codex necrons allow for a fairly fluff flexable force that performs quite well, so there's definate hope for future armies.
