Based on the new updates I honestly predict SM to start running away with tournaments when these changes are implemented. I just don't see how a faction can't dominate the meta when they are allowed to take almost every upgrade for free.
A Devastator squad equipped with 4 Lascannons just went from 155pts (Cherub) to 115pts and you can give the Sgt free upgrades as well
A Sternguard Vet squad equipped with Combi-Meltas and 2 Heavy meltas and Sgt with PF just went from 165pts to 100pts
A Aggressor Squad with Boltstorm/grenade launcher just went from 135pts to 90pts.
And those are just some of the ridiculous levels of power increase I'm talking about. With the insane amount of points reductions that Marines got, they can now take about 20% more units, and those new units will be fully kitted out with free upgrades.
Ironically, in a rare twist, with these ridiculous levels of points drops across the board for Marines; Several units which hadn't been playable before are now going to be OP and a few others will go from collecting dust to competitive. I just fear they went too far in the points cuts and drastically overvalued how much AoC was really worth.
SemperMortis wrote: ...Several units which hadn't been playable before are now going to be OP and a few others will go from collecting dust to competitive...
SemperMortis wrote: Based on the new updates I honestly predict SM to start running away with tournaments when these changes are implemented. I just don't see how a faction can't dominate the meta when they are allowed to take almost every upgrade for free.
A Devastator squad equipped with 4 Lascannons just went from 155pts (Cherub) to 115pts and you can give the Sgt free upgrades as well
A Sternguard Vet squad equipped with Combi-Meltas and 2 Heavy meltas and Sgt with PF just went from 165pts to 100pts
A Aggressor Squad with Boltstorm/grenade launcher just went from 135pts to 90pts.
And those are just some of the ridiculous levels of power increase I'm talking about. With the insane amount of points reductions that Marines got, they can now take about 20% more units, and those new units will be fully kitted out with free upgrades.
Ironically, in a rare twist, with these ridiculous levels of points drops across the board for Marines; Several units which hadn't been playable before are now going to be OP and a few others will go from collecting dust to competitive. I just fear they went too far in the points cuts and drastically overvalued how much AoC was really worth.
We're talking about units that were in win rates of 30 to 40%.
Marines will die a lot faster now. And they'll die even faster in a mirror. 2 wounds without mitigation is pretty easy to drop.
I'm not sure I enjoy the increased lethality, but game on.
Just built a list for fun in News and Rumors with the new points cost, this is a 1,993 list with these new numbers. 19 different units including HQs, if you lump Meltas in with Combis it works out to 25 Meltas, 12 Multi-Meltas, 12 Lascannons, 2 Cyclone missile Launchers, 10 Thunder Hammers, 12 Powerfists, and 2 Power swords. Turn 1 you can unload an unholy amount of Melta into your opponent not to mention the 12(Technically 15) Lascannons turn 1. There just isn't much in the game right now that can stand up to that amount of turn 1 firepower. Oh, and if you used the older pts values, that works out to 2,883pts. So in other words this new list is getting 883pts of free upgrades.
Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts Tac Marines: Multi-Melta, Sgt W/Combi-Melta and TH - 90pts
Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts Sternguard Vet Squad: 2 Combi-Melta, 2 Multi-Melta and Sgt W/ Combi-Melta and PF 100pts Terminator Squad: 4x w/sgt and Cyclone Missile Launcher 165pts Terminator Squad: 5x w/sgt and Cyclone Missile Launcher 198pts
Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts (Possibly a free attack Bike since it doesn't assign pts value, though I doubt it) Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts Bike Squad: 2xMeltagun Sgt W/combi-Melta 90pts
I think the free upgrades are super bad for the game, but I don't think this is going to radically alter the tournament meta.
Many, if not most, tournament lists are anti-marine by default, and reverting the global 'less squishy' AoC rule (as dumb as that was) is incredibly bad for them.
I'm not convinced that (mostly) free access to the now under-powered Imperium heavy/special weapons is going to make a big difference. They still aren't throwing a lot of Heavy 20 or Heavy 2 DamXd3+3 ignore invulnerable weapons around, and 9th edition has been treating that as far more normal and expected.
SemperMortis wrote: Based on the new updates I honestly predict SM to start running away with tournaments when these changes are implemented. I just don't see how a faction can't dominate the meta when they are allowed to take almost every upgrade for free.
A Devastator squad equipped with 4 Lascannons just went from 155pts (Cherub) to 115pts and you can give the Sgt free upgrades as well
A Sternguard Vet squad equipped with Combi-Meltas and 2 Heavy meltas and Sgt with PF just went from 165pts to 100pts
A Aggressor Squad with Boltstorm/grenade launcher just went from 135pts to 90pts.
And those are just some of the ridiculous levels of power increase I'm talking about. With the insane amount of points reductions that Marines got, they can now take about 20% more units, and those new units will be fully kitted out with free upgrades.
Ironically, in a rare twist, with these ridiculous levels of points drops across the board for Marines; Several units which hadn't been playable before are now going to be OP and a few others will go from collecting dust to competitive. I just fear they went too far in the points cuts and drastically overvalued how much AoC was really worth.
Lol. I predict you are going to be flat out wrong if that's the worst you can think up for SM.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: Just built a list for fun in News and Rumors with the new points cost, this is a 1,993 list with these new numbers. 19 different units including HQs, if you lump Meltas in with Combis it works out to 25 Meltas, 12 Multi-Meltas, 12 Lascannons, 2 Cyclone missile Launchers, 10 Thunder Hammers, 12 Powerfists, and 2 Power swords. Turn 1 you can unload an unholy amount of Melta into your opponent not to mention the 12(Technically 15) Lascannons turn 1. There just isn't much in the game right now that can stand up to that amount of turn 1 firepower. Oh, and if you used the older pts values, that works out to 2,883pts. So in other words this new list is getting 883pts of free upgrades.
This list will get mauled...
And you have made some huge mistakes in your logic. Those 883 are expected to be worth 883(they are not), that the marines were balanced before(they were not) and every upgrade is worth same everywhere(they are not. Or how you think 1 thunderhammer in devastator squad is worth same as 10 thunderhammers in dedicated melee unit with more attacks and WS)
If this is best you can come up with don't go to tournaments...0-5 beckons.
i mean, I dont think semper is actaully suggesting that his list is good, it was clearly chosen to maximise the amount of "free" stuff he could pack in. But is point stands even without the hyperbole: Marines are at the point where they need hundreds of "extra" points now to compete.
i've seen a few people opine that free upgrades are bad, full stop, but i would counter argue that costed upgrades only matter if the cost is meaningful. I Agree that points are a lever of control to adjust relative value and force choices, but those choices need to be meaningful for it to matter.
Does the points cost of the majority of marine equipment matter all that much?
Either you needed it for your gameplan, and were going to pay it (more-or-less) regardless of cost, or you didnt care, in which case the cost is also meaningless, because you'd only ever pay the cost as a way to sink leftover points on something that *might* be useful. Whats the opportunity cost of giving a sergeant a thunder hammer vs his default chainsword? *Should* that be a decison a player is focused on, or should his list building efforts focus on some other trade off that has greater impact on the game?
xerxeskingofking wrote: i mean, I dont think semper is actaully suggesting that his list is good, it was clearly chosen to maximise the amount of "free" stuff he could pack in. But is point stands even without the hyperbole: Marines are at the point where they need hundreds of "extra" points now to compete.
but that's not really their point, from what I can tell - semper claims that SM will now dominate. That's a VERY different conclusion, and they're starting from a "marines are already too strong without the changes" point of view, from what I understood in the News thread. No idea why semper thinks that when the actual WRs are sub 50 for the best chapters and far below that for the others.
i've seen a few people opine that free upgrades are bad, full stop, but i would counter argue that costed upgrades only matter if the cost is meaningful. I Agree that points are a lever of control to adjust relative value and force choices, but those choices need to be meaningful for it to matter.
Does the points cost of the majority of marine equipment matter all that much?
Doesn't matter at all for external balance if the equipment is free (as in: backed into the base cost) or not.
Matters a ton for internal balance, and that balance has been pretty much taken out the back and shot, in terms of wargear. Internal balance between datasheets seems to be better now, though - if you take the best option available for each of your units. There's no longer any "shave some points off to squeeze in another unit by dropping one of the Lascannons" etc.
Either you needed it for your gameplan, and were going to pay it (more-or-less) regardless of cost, or you didnt care, in which case the cost is also meaningless, because you'd only ever pay the cost as a way to sink leftover points on something that *might* be useful. Whats the opportunity cost of giving a sergeant a thunder hammer vs his default chainsword? *Should* that be a decison a player is focused on, or should his list building efforts focus on some other trade off that has greater impact on the game?
Yeah, semper used a lot of entirely useless upgrades just to inflate the list. I kind of like the THs being free now as I play Salamanders and already ran Intercessors with TH Sarges - which was entirely useless in almost every game where I brought them like that. Now, I get to bring the cool guy every time - and I think that's what GW is aiming for, too.
I see a lot of people saying Semper is wrong while not giving their own top faction predictions...
Mine are:
Daemons (mixed buffs/nerfs to a strong faction)
Custodes (big buffs to a middle of the road faction)
Imperial Guard (no nerfs to a strong faction)
I don't think Space Marines make it quite that high, but I am a bit concerned by the price drops on the Primaris vehicles combined with 5 turns of Dev Doctrine. The problem with Marines is the deep bench of datasheets, if there is one or two good Elites, Fast Attack or Heavy Support, they will be able to take them all in the new AoO detachments.
xerxeskingofking wrote: i mean, I dont think semper is actaully suggesting that his list is good, it was clearly chosen to maximise the amount of "free" stuff he could pack in. But is point stands even without the hyperbole: Marines are at the point where they need hundreds of "extra" points now to compete.
but that's not really their point, from what I can tell - semper claims that SM will now dominate. That's a VERY different conclusion, and they're starting from a "marines are already too strong without the changes" point of view, from what I understood in the News thread. No idea why semper thinks that when the actual WRs are sub 50 for the best chapters and far below that for the others.
Just to clarify, I claim that SM will be a top meta army now. I claim that they (in my opinion) are going to be THE top army now. I openly admit I may be wrong. But nowhere in any of my posts did I suggest that my list was "good" nor did I say "Marines are already too strong". That is a flat out falsehood.
And Tneva, I also never said a TH in a Dev squad was equal value to that of an assault squad. I was using it as an example. However, those TH in Dev squads do have value if for no other reason than it allows the Dev squad flexibility and the ability to inflict dmg on a surprise attack against that unit. I can't remember the # of times i've tagged a Heavy Support choice with a unit of Trukkboyz just to slowly grind it down for a few turns, or the # of times i've had my Deffkoptas get stuck in against a unit like Devs, not expecting to kill them, but just denying them the ability to shoot for a few turns.
Prediction: There will be a hail of moaning/gnashing of teeth regarding the Custodes getting free reign on their strats again, and there will be massive calls for nerfs.
Orks will be completely silent to avoid anyone looking at how actually well off they are now.
Space Marines will become horde now, as you can kick out 17ppm elite units for some stupid reason. DA will likely take the trophy. If not IH.
GSC will cry in the corner, wondering what might have been if their book writer hadn't been popping hits of meth in between writing lines in their codex.
Depends on the Marines. Imperial Fists will still probably be overlooked but yes, the best Marine factions will probably be at least among the top tier. Some factions like Grey Knights (technically loyalist Marines but they are so much more different from them than the other chapters) as well as maybe Custodes might be able to take them but yeah, generic loyalist Marines made out like bandits.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Prediction: There will be a hail of moaning/gnashing of teeth regarding the Custodes getting free reign on their strats again, and there will be massive calls for nerfs.
I don't think Custodes are going to dominate; that sounds like hyperbole talking. They might actually be competitive with something other than Dreadnought or Jetbike or Caladius spam. It'll be nice to face a Custodes list with, y'know, actual Custodes in it!
Orks will be completely silent to avoid anyone looking at how actually well off they are now.
Have you actually read stuff on Dakka before? Ork players will piss and moan about how they didn't get buffed enough and how the aircraft rule changes ruined their Wazbom Blastajets, yada yada...
Space Marines will become horde now, as you can kick out 17ppm elite units for some stupid reason. DA will likely take the trophy. If not IH.
Marines won't become hordes; they'll just be well-equipped (perhaps a bit more than they should be, but...eh). Elite units will actually feel elite when they can actually take the gear that makes them good. Dark Angels and Iron Hands will be the ones to watch, but I think Deathwatch might have a good shot now too.
GSC will cry in the corner, wondering what might have been if their book writer hadn't been popping hits of meth in between writing lines in their codex.
GSC just got a lot better; the removal of AoC will help some of their weapons get damage through, and some of their units got points drops and/or free gear. Plus they can take some Brood Brothers allies without having to pay CP to do it (might open up some wombo-combos).
IG will continue to be mostly meh.
Bruh...seriously? Kasrkin are still completely nuts with their MW spam, and Plasma Russes are completely bananas now. And that's just the very best stuff. That book is very solid.
Personally I predict a lot of moaning/gnashing of teeth because this is Dakka and the internet, and if there isn't anything to complain about they'll just invent something to complain about.
I think this is a really great change, I hope SM absolutely destroy the game so we can get over this gak with free wargear. We tried it in 7th for feths sake. This is bad and stupid, but less bad and stupid than Armour of Contempt and Hammer of the Emperor so I'll start playing 2k again. We'll see if competitive is broken, I'll just play Crusade or Blood Angels if it is.
Have you actually read stuff on Dakka before? Ork players will piss and moan about how they didn't get buffed enough and how the aircraft rule changes ruined their Wazbom Blastajets, yada yada....
Orks have done very well out of this dataslate and the announced AoO in terms of making things more viable, but we've not been given any changes that realistically impacts what is already good.
Flash Gitz and Killa Kanz are worth considering in smaller games, but probably not at a higher level of play unless you take loads of them.
Regular Nobs might now be a niche pick for Trukkboyz with massed big choppas, but they're overshadowed by Mega Nobs once you start thinking about how much you're still spending on them.
Cheaper Kombi weapons and boys special weapons is nice, but no-ones going to be taking them as they don't really help out.
Painboy getting a drop is nice, but still don't see it being worth taking unless you really build around them.
The real winners for Orks is the Orkanauts. They're still overcosted, but they don't cost CP any more and you might actually consider taking one if you want a (kind of) durable beatstick unit and don't want to take Ghaz.
More than anything else, Orks main buff from all of these changes is that our lacklustre AP is worthwhile again against all of the PA factions. I see Orks moving up the board in terms of performance, but not by a big margin.
Christ. . . All my weapons are free now? I mean, I enjoy what this means for my builds competitively but these changes are repulsive for the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: If that list comes anywhere near competitive then just bring contemptors with volkites which will be AP1 for longer and will have no AoC in the way.
Contemptors better be sure they don't die to Multimeltas and Las first.
Semper's list isn't great, but it illustrates the point well enough.
For yuks I got a build with 30 Lascannons. 33 counting Cherub shots. But spend the extra points on Devs to give everyone Multimeltas instead and the 33 Lascannon shots becomes 66 Multimelta shots. (Or 132 Grav Cannon shots)
132x .777 x .777 x .83 x2 = 66 MEQ kills before you get to all the potential free combi-plasma etc you can have going on.
Insectum7 wrote: Christ. . . All my weapons are free now? I mean, I enjoy what this means for my builds competitively but these changes are repulsive for the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: If that list comes anywhere near competitive then just bring contemptors with volkites which will be AP1 for longer and will have no AoC in the way.
Contemptors better be sure they don't die to Multimeltas and Las first.
Semper's list isn't great, but it illustrates the point well enough.
For yuks I got a build with 30 Lascannons. 33 counting Cherub shots. But spend the extra points on Devs to give everyone Multimeltas instead and the 33 Lascannon shots becomes 66 Multimelta shots. (Or 132 Grav Cannon shots)
132x .777 x .777 x .83 x2 = 66 MEQ kills before you get to all the potential free combi-plasma etc you can have going on.
I enjoy the sweet irony here "it's stupid, look how many marines and how easily these marines can kill them".
I'd tend to be much closer to Semper than those disagreeing. I'd be very surprised if *something* from Marines wasn't top-tier.
If the proposed melta-spam army has a weakness its probably that its a bit slow aside from the bikes (which have issues over say something with fly or infantry to go through ruins). So its possible you could play around it. But that's a lot of squads to push objectives etc. I think it could do with some dedicated fast assault units that can troubleshoot - but having thunderhammers and powerfists everywhere will add up. If memory serves Siegler won his 2020 LVO semi-final on the back of a Intercessor Sergeant with Thunder Hammer killing 3 Shining Spears. A lucky roll perhaps - but the sort of thing you just aren't doing with a chainsword.
Certainly "I'll just get in a shooting war with a list packing 49 melta shots and 12 lascannons" isn't going to go well for most lists I can think of. As flagged, Las Devs feel like "we can do better". Ditching say a tactical squad or something for a drop-pod carrying 8 Grav cannons, two thunderhammers and combi-meltas feels kind of good.
Ultimately losing AoC will make Marines more vulnerable to AP-1. But with these points drops that leaves you in much the same spot - while having significantly better damage output across the army as a whole. Against AP- or AP2+ you are better off defensively and dramatically more punchy.
Tyel wrote: I'd tend to be much closer to Semper than those disagreeing. I'd be very surprised if *something* from Marines wasn't top-tier.
I agree. As usual, the point is being missed in favour of picking apart the specifics of the list rather than the general point it illustrates. I don't know exactly what a top-tier SM list will look like but I strongly suspect there's at least one out there now and it'll be very heavily leveraging the points drops and free wargear. I suspect it's most likely to be Iron Hands thanks to the Doctrine change. I think GW's continued attempts to make SM vehicles good will probably not pan out as all the free stuff and points drops on infantry seem like much better value than those on the vehicles.
Truly the balance is absurd when i can cut 30+% of unit cost for upgrades and by extention frontload that all in a list and achive basically not much...
leopard wrote: GW don't care for the balance, they want people to be able to use more and more toys.
they may as well shift to the Apoc rules system as at least thats fast
also whatever is done now is partly done so 10th is "better" when it lands
Well considering the Akrs of omen detachment... yeah.
Still the fact that you can drop units by a 3rd in value due to free options and not get an "issue" is still pretty indicative about the fact that things went wrong.
Not Online!!! wrote: Truly the balance is absurd when i can cut 30+% of unit cost for upgrades and by extention frontload that all in a list and achive basically not much...
What a time to be alive.
Isn't it astonishing how many different colors of flames you start getting once a dumpster fire of this size really gets to burning?
Insectum7 wrote: Contemptors better be sure they don't die to Multimeltas and Las first.
Semper's list isn't great, but it illustrates the point well enough.
For yuks I got a build with 30 Lascannons. 33 counting Cherub shots. But spend the extra points on Devs to give everyone Multimeltas instead and the 33 Lascannon shots becomes 66 Multimelta shots. (Or 132 Grav Cannon shots)
132x .777 x .777 x .83 x2 = 66 MEQ kills before you get to all the potential free combi-plasma etc you can have going on.
That's bowling ball math though.
30" range with a move penalty vs 53" with no penalty.
Often what happens in these kinds of threads is we lose sight of how the game happens on the table.
Do I think this is a bad move? Yea, probably - for slightly different reasons. Do I think marines will do well? Absolutely.
More than likely we'll be seeing a ton of plasma inceptors, which I was hoped would lose their abusable blast, but they did not.
On a macro level people will generally see the same number of models and softer marines and marines will do a lot more damage. At the same time strategic reserves are free, so, a short ranged marine list will lose on angles/lanes and will have to deal with units popping in beside them and taking away their first strike potential ( the opponent will need similar care and chaff ).
The gap between Nids and Marines was 20 to 30%. That's a lot of distance to cover. Ultimately Iron Hands will likely be the army to beat now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: Ultimately losing AoC will make Marines more vulnerable to AP-1. But with these points drops that leaves you in much the same spot - while having significantly better damage output across the army as a whole. Against AP- or AP2+ you are better off defensively and dramatically more punchy.
AoC was AP reduction so all weapons with AP got better vs marines. I was 2+ in cover vs D1 and AP2 or AP3 if it was Scarabs.
This change means marines take 100% more wounds against AP1 while in cover and 50% more when not in cover. That's a remarkable increase.
Slipspace wrote: I agree. As usual, the point is being missed in favour of picking apart the specifics of the list rather than the general point it illustrates. I don't know exactly what a top-tier SM list will look like but I strongly suspect there's at least one out there now and it'll be very heavily leveraging the points drops and free wargear. I suspect it's most likely to be Iron Hands thanks to the Doctrine change. I think GW's continued attempts to make SM vehicles good will probably not pan out as all the free stuff and points drops on infantry seem like much better value than those on the vehicles.
I think the points on some vehicles is getting there - but the problem is there's no synergy, so basic infantry seem better.
I think my pedantry is particularly inspired because I think the list has legs. Its possibly not the optimal Marine build - but we know enough of 40k to say quantity has a quality all its own. If something is too cheap, take more of it and you'll do okay. Which is basically what this list does.
The equivalent blinged out Marine list before these points changes would be without 3 tactical squads, 2 devastator squads, the big unit of terminators and a unit of bikes and Sternguard. (i.e down 888~ points). Would that be easy to beat? Sure - because there isn't much on the table. But now we are bringing 8 more squads - all equally blinged out. That's a massive boost in damage output, resilience and board control - all important elements for winning a game.
For Daed - if stuff is around 70% of the cost (2000/2883), then doing 50% more damage to it gives you 105% damage. But the Marine unit is also effectively doing 44%~ more damage for its points. Your point about cover is reasonable, but I'm not convinced the issue was chucking AP-1 into 2+ save Marines.
Can't really agree with your point about bowling ball maths. Infantry having an effective range of 30" - and being able to walk through ruins then fire (no penalty with Iron Hands, reroll 1s all game if you stay in Devestator, which you may do depending on trade offs), is generally speaking the whole table in modern 40k. The terrain is almost never there to set up some model so it can stay 45" away in a corner and shoot all over the board.
Not Online!!! wrote: Truly the balance is absurd when i can cut 30+% of unit cost for upgrades and by extention frontload that all in a list and achive basically not much...
What a time to be alive.
Isn't it astonishing how many different colors of flames you start getting once a dumpster fire of this size really gets to burning?
No throwing household rubbish on the fire would've been nice...
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Prediction: There will be a hail of moaning/gnashing of teeth regarding the Custodes getting free reign on their strats again, and there will be massive calls for nerfs.
Orks will be completely silent to avoid anyone looking at how actually well off they are now.
Space Marines will become horde now, as you can kick out 17ppm elite units for some stupid reason. DA will likely take the trophy. If not IH.
GSC will cry in the corner, wondering what might have been if their book writer hadn't been popping hits of meth in between writing lines in their codex.
IG will continue to be mostly meh.
The biggest buff in the recent release for Orkz wasn't an ork change LOL. The biggest buff we got was AoC being removed and basically every faction besides SM not getting buffed to make up for it. Orkz just became significantly better against SoB, Grey Knights, Chaos Marines, Thousand Sons etc. Why? Two reasons, 1: our most common weapon is the humble choppa which was our biggest "Buff" in our 9th edition codex because they gave it -1ap...which they promptly took away with AoC since those guys make up about 70-80% of my opponents. And 2: for ork armies that use SpeedWaaagh, their -1AP bonus now actually works. huzzah.
Killakanz might be a niche unit capable of making it to competitive levels, Flashgitz are still not worth it, Nobz only have a limited role as TrukkNobz and even then they are less impressive than Meganobz and significantly more expensive than Boyz. Naughts are still heavily overpriced and challenge them against a similar value of Knights they will lose every time. the Kustom Stompa? When was the last time anyone saw a Stompa in a competitive list and had that list win something? All of the other "buffs" are useless. Free Bigshootas on boyz units is irrelevant, the Painboy going down 10pts is nice but who is going to pay 60pts for a 3' 6+ FNP bubble?
Nothing anyone has said has in the slightest has changed my mind so far that Marines are going to be Top tier and very well might become the top army. Someone mentioned the gap between Marines and Nidz. Nidz just got beaten to death with the nerfhammer and Marines just got free upgrades and almost universal price cuts. Watch as they run away with the show. And for anyone who says "just take infantry", if I can afford to take 37 Meltas, 12 lascannons and 2 Cyclone missile launchers in a list, what chance does a horde army stand? That kind of Dakka is one shotting most infantry unless they hide out of LOS and if they do that than they aren't getting objectives.
For Daed - if stuff is around 70% of the cost (2000/2883), then doing 50% more damage to it gives you 105% damage. But the Marine unit is also effectively doing 44%~ more damage for its points.
Your point about cover is reasonable, but I'm not convinced the issue was chucking AP-1 into 2+ save Marines.
Can't really agree with your point about bowling ball maths. Infantry having an effective range of 30" - and being able to walk through ruins then fire (no penalty with Iron Hands, reroll 1s all game if you stay in Devestator, which you may do depending on trade offs), is generally speaking the whole table in modern 40k. The terrain is almost never there to set up some model so it can stay 45" away in a corner and shoot all over the board.
The 2883 points is a red herring. There's lots of equipment in that list that will never get used and it just exists because it is free. I agree that it's totally silly for every dev squad to have a thunder hammer. That superfluous gear doesn't translate into a more effective army though.
Another piece here is that you're not restricted to the old army building requirements. People ditched Storm Shield squads because AoC was so effective. Now taking them is a huge plus again as it essentially gives AoC and a 4++ against all these potential meltas. You'll probably see some very fast armies that can weather the shooting and tie up the shooting well enough to shut it down.
I agree in principle that entirely superfluous gear shouldn't cost very much (if any) points. Its unclear a thunder hammer on say a Dev squad is going to meaningfully make a list better, as it will very rarely get to be swung in anger. The theory of it doing more damage doesn't really matter.
I'm not sure that applies to the bulk of the list though. Redundancy has value. Some of those squads will get munched before they ever get to shoot their meltas or swing their thunder hammers and power fists. But they will be making space for other squads, that can now get very favourable trades. I'm unclear 25 melta guns, 12 multi-meltas, 12 lascannons, 10 thunder hammers etc should have cost 800ish points before - but I'm confident they aren't worth zero in whatever the new meta comes to look at. This sort of points adjustment is massive - the increase in relative power is likely to be similar in scale.
Tyel wrote: I agree in principle that entirely superfluous gear shouldn't cost very much (if any) points. Its unclear a thunder hammer on say a Dev squad is going to meaningfully make a list better, as it will very rarely get to be swung in anger. The theory of it doing more damage doesn't really matter.
I'm not sure that applies to the bulk of the list though. Redundancy has value. Some of those squads will get munched before they ever get to shoot their meltas or swing their thunder hammers and power fists. But they will be making space for other squads, that can now get very favourable trades. I'm unclear 25 melta guns, 12 multi-meltas, 12 lascannons, 10 thunder hammers etc should have cost 800ish points before - but I'm confident they aren't worth zero in whatever the new meta comes to look at. This sort of points adjustment is massive - the increase in relative power is likely to be similar in scale.
What does it hurt that a thunder hammer is 2 pts on a Devastator Squad instead of 0 pts? If you really wanted that thunder hammer paying 2 pts would not be a big deal even if it rarely comes up. The problem is for all the people that want to optimize their lists, they have to rip apart their Devastator Sergeants to give them free bling. The fact that nobody has taken the upgrade for decades makes the change even more exploitative of the community. You really want to pay GW for this gak? Hecking no. Buy one for your gaming group if you want to play with the new pts and missions, but don't go out and buy one for each player that's rewarding shoddy design and a complete lack of effort. Vote with your vallets when the new book comes out.
Tyel wrote: I'm not sure that applies to the bulk of the list though. Redundancy has value. Some of those squads will get munched before they ever get to shoot their meltas or swing their thunder hammers and power fists. But they will be making space for other squads, that can now get very favourable trades. I'm unclear 25 melta guns, 12 multi-meltas, 12 lascannons, 10 thunder hammers etc should have cost 800ish points before - but I'm confident they aren't worth zero in whatever the new meta comes to look at. This sort of points adjustment is massive - the increase in relative power is likely to be similar in scale.
For sure, but what's the weight of AoC? You'll also be replacing whatever people were taking with basic marine bodies. Taking nothing but W2 makes it easier for an opponent to make full use of their gear.
Insectum7 wrote: Christ. . . All my weapons are free now? I mean, I enjoy what this means for my builds competitively but these changes are repulsive for the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: If that list comes anywhere near competitive then just bring contemptors with volkites which will be AP1 for longer and will have no AoC in the way.
Contemptors better be sure they don't die to Multimeltas and Las first.
Semper's list isn't great, but it illustrates the point well enough.
For yuks I got a build with 30 Lascannons. 33 counting Cherub shots. But spend the extra points on Devs to give everyone Multimeltas instead and the 33 Lascannon shots becomes 66 Multimelta shots. (Or 132 Grav Cannon shots)
132x .777 x .777 x .83 x2 = 66 MEQ kills before you get to all the potential free combi-plasma etc you can have going on.
I enjoy the sweet irony here "it's stupid, look how many marines and how easily these marines can kill them".
Personally it's my favorite matchup. Firstborn Marines gunning Primaris down in droves is one of my favorite 40K experiences.
Insectum7 wrote: Contemptors better be sure they don't die to Multimeltas and Las first.
Semper's list isn't great, but it illustrates the point well enough.
For yuks I got a build with 30 Lascannons. 33 counting Cherub shots. But spend the extra points on Devs to give everyone Multimeltas instead and the 33 Lascannon shots becomes 66 Multimelta shots. (Or 132 Grav Cannon shots)
132x .777 x .777 x .83 x2 = 66 MEQ kills before you get to all the potential free combi-plasma etc you can have going on.
That's bowling ball math though.
30" range with a move penalty vs 53" with no penalty.
Often what happens in these kinds of threads is we lose sight of how the game happens on the table.
Oh absolutely it's bowling ball math. But in my experience the bowling ball math can inform decisions that can convert to real outcomes. In 8th the bowling ball math told me to switch to Plasma Cannons, and I tell you it paid off handsomely.
Also I play UM so moving and firing works just fine for me. Drop Pods can be leveraged to gain first strike capability and reshape firing lanes. Etc. etc.
The math still adequately displays the ridiculous levels of lethality available, and the shoddy design involved.
As for the Thunder Hammers, having them is better than not having them. I've found my Devs in combat enough over the years (sometimes themselves charging, too!) to see the potential value.
There's obviously no risk in NOT taking them - being free and all. It just isn't likely to change the outcome of a game terribly often.
I'm not a fan of big sweeping changes and I doubt GW spent enough time with these changes to really understand the impacts. I sort of feel like hordes might become a bit more popular ( not like 300 model type hordes ) - probably from guard who have their own free specials on super cheap bodies.
But the devil is in the details of the secondaries and missions.
We are talking about post 8th after all, the editions in which models can move, shoot, and assault while firing heavy weapons. Different targets if they want, too.
Drop Pod Devastators, land in short range with Multimeltas. Cook a hard target. Charge a softer one. Press as many casualties as possible for Morale purposes. As UM walk out of the CC and keep on firing next turn.
I wouldn't say Horde exactly but possibly MSU.
I don't think bodies is the key (cos they die too fast to everything) - but units. That can operate independently, trade, hold/deny objectives etc.
Not to keep harking back to it - but this Marine list is MSU. Its got 19 moving parts.
You compare that to say a CSM brick list - with 30 Possessed, Abaddon, a Discolord or two etc. The nerf to Bile probably ends the archetype - but I just don't see how it would survive against these Marines. You'd eat a few units, and then the rest melts you to death. Unless you are really lucky on those invul saves.
- Abaddon is +50
- The termies are +35
- Legionaries are the same, but can push specials in free
So the list has to trim a bit, however, both the front line units of talons and possessed have invulns and Talons can prevent fallback.
Four melta shots ( combi, melta, and multimelta ) with no modifiers kill one possessed. And then there's always the chance you roll 1 or 2 damage when outside half. Boy that would suck.
Four Possessed kill 6 marines ( Talons about 4 )
So...yea...I dunno. The CSM certainly have far more flexible movement and more decisive damage.
Another piece here is that you're not restricted to the old army building requirements. People ditched Storm Shield squads because AoC was so effective. Now taking them is a huge plus again as it essentially gives AoC and a 4++ against all these potential meltas. You'll probably see some very fast armies that can weather the shooting and tie up the shooting well enough to shut it down.
Time will tell, I guess.
I wonder what GW is going to give to faction that lost AoC, but who do not have access to storm shields or the plathora of units that dropped in points. My terminators cost 35pts, but power armoured units are still cheaper and more point efficient, just less so then they were before.
For regular marines the good stuff is not free. Hammers, shields on vengard vets all cost points, same with bikes and jetpacks for characters.
All in all, it is a boon to old prior edition players, who can minimax stuff or people who are willing to print stuff which became the meta. For new players starting with just the primaris stuff, their armies got more expensive to get in money, not that much powerful on the offensive, but a lot less resilient.
What ever marines do good in tournaments depends less on them, unless they get a rules update on top of the points cost drop real fast, and how other armies will deal with their changes. Can SoB, demons, Necron still be played good. How are csm dealing with their mini nerfs. What will the eldar players do, there was a lot of Inari players having much success around here, maybe that is what all the harlequin players will do now.
All in all the buffs are not that important at the very end of an edition, and losing AoC will impact marines greatly. Can some sort of IH, Ultramarines or BA army now rise to the top? Possibly, the ability to stay in a doctrin for longer then a turn is probably more impactful then points drops. Without point drops marines were a weak army in general, and very weak for some factions. Now this may change. Question is how much interest there is in playing marines at the end of an edition, and how hard will covid hit the world that now that it is on the rise again.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's obviously no risk in NOT taking them - being free and all. It just isn't likely to change the outcome of a game terribly often.
I'm not a fan of big sweeping changes and I doubt GW spent enough time with these changes to really understand the impacts. I sort of feel like hordes might become a bit more popular ( not like 300 model type hordes ) - probably from guard who have their own free specials on super cheap bodies.
But the devil is in the details of the secondaries and missions.
There is still no place for hordes. As mentioned MSU has a chance due to the numbers game and lethality but a true horde is still DoA thanks to the changes to blast, base size and morale. My Ork boyz just got FREE big shootas! Can you believe that? we'll never use them because they were only ever a side-grade to a choppa but yeah....free. So there really isn't a point to me spamming MSU boyz units since their only "Buff" is a free big shoota, a cheaper Rokkit launcha (still not worth buying) and the nob can take a cheaper Kombi-weapon that robs the Nob of his main purpose of being good in CC.
On the flipside, Marines are now heavily incentivized to take as many MSU as possible since they get free stuff for their Sgts and the squad gets free heavy/special weapons.
The key here is that only time will tell who is correct. LVO has said they are NOT using Arks of Omen so we will have to wait for about a month or more before we start seeing Arks of Omen GT tournament results. Generally speaking, with sweeping changes like this it takes about a month after the rules are put into use for the meta to stabilize around the new rules so by the end of March we will have definitive answers as to how powerful these free upgrades are. But I still stick to my opinion that SM are now a top meta army and likely the #1 army.
So Johny space marine will have between 4 to 5 months of fun, before the new edition drops. And that is assuming is not living in a plague region, like some of us do, because of RSV/Flu/Covid thriple threat and people not wanting to play, or even not being allowed, when the stores close. Because if that happens, Johny will have maybe 1-2 months of fun, and that is assuming other people will want to play at the very end of edition. I remember getting PA rules as one of the last factions in 8th ed. I got exactly 3 games with the update rule set , which actualy was fun for terminator armies, before stores came down and 9th started.
I'd have thought a more reasonable whinge is that buying a million combi-meltas, multi-meltas, thunder hammers etc to hand out to everyone is going to be somewhat difficult, assuming you want to stay vaguely WYSIWG.
Tyel wrote: I'd have thought a more reasonable whinge is that buying a million combi-meltas, multi-meltas, thunder hammers etc to hand out to everyone is going to be somewhat difficult, assuming you want to stay vaguely WYSIWG.
At the friendly level its not a whinge because why would you roll out with 20+ meltas? At the competitive level...You have dudes who buy entire new armies when a new codex drops...you think they will give a damn about picking up a few extra bits on a 2nd hand site or buying a few sprues?
Tyel wrote: I'd have thought a more reasonable whinge is that buying a million combi-meltas, multi-meltas, thunder hammers etc to hand out to everyone is going to be somewhat difficult, assuming you want to stay vaguely WYSIWG.
well, a lot of people are just resigned to the fact that balance changes force changes to army composition, so its not a HUGE suprise that they are going to be doing something like this. others have deep model collections that they can raid to pull out stuff form the last time it was meta
SemperMortis wrote: At the friendly level its not a whinge because why would you roll out with 20+ meltas? At the competitive level...You have dudes who buy entire new armies when a new codex drops...you think they will give a damn about picking up a few extra bits on a 2nd hand site or buying a few sprues?
I was sort of responding to Karol's "woe is Marines, they only get to be top tier around 2/3rds of the time".
Your competitive types won't care.
Marines will be A tier, but not overly so, they will be in line.
Yes, they received a nice cut. We are talking around a 25% cut, which is a big one. Past experiences told us that win rate is almost linear with price cuts. Getting 10% increases a faction win rate by 10%. Now, with a cut this big it will probably be a bit more. Possibly even 30%.
But we are talking about a low win rate faction, with a buff mostly pointed to the worst parts of the codex (dev squads and tac squads), while the good parts of it got between 5 and 10% cuts.
At the same time, this buff is coupled with a huge nerf, the loss of AoC, and a buff which is very good for some chapters (Dev doctrine chapters) and mostly a nothing burger for the other chapters.
If the top factions didn't also receive nerfs, I would have seen marines land between 40% and 55% depending on the chapter.
With the nerfs to the top factions, we are probably looking at 45-58% (top tables will have anti marine techs, and marines have always suffered from having specific weapon profiles that maw them).
Edit: There is also to consider that marines received an additional nerf, in the removal of most of their secondaries.
Tyel wrote: I'd have thought a more reasonable whinge is that buying a million combi-meltas, multi-meltas, thunder hammers etc to hand out to everyone is going to be somewhat difficult, assuming you want to stay vaguely WYSIWG.
I got everything but the Thunder Hammers, but could easily do Powerfists instead.
Not going to change my build queue though because I don't expect this meta to last long. Seems like 8.5 all over again.
Oh, and I'm playing One Page Rules at the moment. . .
SemperMortis wrote: Just built a list for fun in News and Rumors with the new points cost, this is a 1,993 list with these new numbers. 19 different units including HQs, if you lump Meltas in with Combis it works out to 25 Meltas, 12 Multi-Meltas, 12 Lascannons, 2 Cyclone missile Launchers, 10 Thunder Hammers, 12 Powerfists, and 2 Power swords. Turn 1 you can unload an unholy amount of Melta into your opponent not to mention the 12(Technically 15) Lascannons turn 1. There just isn't much in the game right now that can stand up to that amount of turn 1 firepower. Oh, and if you used the older pts values, that works out to 2,883pts. So in other words this new list is getting 883pts of free upgrades.
Before this slate marines could put together 48 (better) melta shots and 90 (better) plasma shots, a way way higher firepower than the one you mentioned with "883 free points". And they also had Armor of contempt to protect that firebase. Did you see that list make the rounds? Me neither.
Turns out that "unholy amounts" of firepower don't win games.
Spoletta wrote: Before this slate marines could put together 48 (better) melta shots and 90 (better) plasma shots, a way way higher firepower than the one you mentioned with "883 free points". And they also had Armor of contempt to protect that firebase.
Did you see that list make the rounds? Me neither.
Turns out that "unholy amounts" of firepower don't win games.
Anyone able to work out how you would have done this?
Spoletta wrote: Before this slate marines could put together 48 (better) melta shots and 90 (better) plasma shots, a way way higher firepower than the one you mentioned with "883 free points". And they also had Armor of contempt to protect that firebase.
Did you see that list make the rounds? Me neither.
Turns out that "unholy amounts" of firepower don't win games.
Anyone able to work out how you would have done this?
By "better" I'm guessing it's something to do with Primaris units as they tend to have an extra +1 on their weapons. But I'm unfamiliar with their units so I dunno.
But Primaris units dont get shield bodies, and their points costs are higher. Their lethality output drops quicker and because the value of each model is higher, opposition firepower reduces "army value" faster. And when dealing with high AP values, AoC isn't a huge help.
Imo it's just the difference between packing lots of firepower into a fragile army build vs the same firepower into a more robust build. Delivery is also a huge deal too, which is why (back when I played regularly) I always swapped some of the bowlingball-mathhammer-build for Rhinos and Pods. Primaris just don't do transports as well as their far superior counterparts
Marines in general don't do , or didn't, do transports well in 9th. Maybe storm ravens now with substential point drops and the protection of being in reservs, will help marines with that. But again this is playing proto legacy marine stuff, not a very good thing to do for the future or for new players.
Jump packs primaris units could help a lot, if GW doesn't go overboard with points. Right now I can imagine some nice marine armies going dread heavy, as always, with aggresors and plasmaceptors. Few or no troops, specialy with the new missions puting a penality on units like incursors.
And who knows, for marines, maybe in 10th GW will notice the fact that their primaris transport is somehow both a pick up in looks and a non open topped unit in rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta 808330 11474853 wrote:
Before this slate marines could put together 48 (better) melta shots and 90 (better) plasma shots, a way way higher firepower than the one you mentioned with "883 free points". And they also had Armor of contempt to protect that firebase.
Did you see that list make the rounds? Me neither.
Turns out that "unholy amounts" of firepower don't win games.
Because it couldn't materialise 12-18" away from the enemy turn 1 every time the marine player starts a game. Marine problems aren't that TH or melta guns are bad weapons, or that plasma is bad. It is the fact that with how they are costed and how fast they can move around, they generaly do not reach the opponent to use those weapons in large enough numbers. Other good armies, which were wining by killing opponents, could always catch the opponent and push their own initiative on them. Marines have those wierd one, sometimes two, turns per game when they don't really do anything. At the same time they didn't have secondaries like pre omen necron and sob.
Being able to be in dev doctrin all game is going to be a lot more impactful to marines, or at least some of them, then the free gear. The free gear, lets marines catch up to other good armies, but they still die very fast. So the builds we are going to see are going to be skew heavy, at least that is what people have been testing here for the last few weeks.
SemperMortis wrote: At the friendly level its not a whinge because why would you roll out with 20+ meltas? At the competitive level...You have dudes who buy entire new armies when a new codex drops...you think they will give a damn about picking up a few extra bits on a 2nd hand site or buying a few sprues?
I was sort of responding to Karol's "woe is Marines, they only get to be top tier around 2/3rds of the time".
Your competitive types won't care.
I have seen only two editions. Never played or seen games under different rule sets, aside for some YT videos. Marines in 8th and 9th NEVER had a time when they were top tier for 2/3ed of an edition. Not even if you took all marines, including GK, chaos etc and counted them as a single faction. In 8th till the PA books came out, marines were horrible. What was the "best" way to play marines in 8th, pre PA? BA, again suprise suprise, minimal troops, max out BA characters, and then get a IGCP generator and a knight, preferably a castellan. Everything else paled in comperation to other factions good lists. And armies like GK or csm didn't really have a good way to play. GK affected me more, but with csm it was really crazy. The prefered way to play the army was to not run csm in your csm army. That is not being top tier 2/3ed of the time. Same thing happened in 9th. Armies like custodes and harlequins were better, then marines with 9th ed books.And not just the bad ones. All of them. Harlis were a tier of their own till DE came out.
And the woe of bad army hits the weak ones more then the armies build out of a power codex.
Tau in 8th, were an NPE codex. Horrible to play against and the tau player had to play a drone spam list, or else playing at all made no sense. In casual games. GK were mathematicly unable to kill some armies, even if they did nothing for 2 turns and just stood there taking shots. IH, Fists, practicaly all csm were horrible to play in 8th. and the same goes for most of 9th too. And while yes, the tournament players don't care, because they will just move to the power lists, an army being bad, especialy a popular one, is a huge problem. GW is extremly slow with updates. Necron had to wait what 2 years to be good, and that is a new model line army? Plus we don't even know if GW made necrons good on purpose or they just missed what their secondaries would do with combination of silent king+certain "chapter" rules.
Tyel wrote: I'd have thought a more reasonable whinge is that buying a million combi-meltas, multi-meltas, thunder hammers etc to hand out to everyone is going to be somewhat difficult, assuming you want to stay vaguely WYSIWG.
At the friendly level its not a whinge because why would you roll out with 20+ meltas? At the competitive level...You have dudes who buy entire new armies when a new codex drops...you think they will give a damn about picking up a few extra bits on a 2nd hand site or buying a few sprues?
Because it is the most optimal load out for a unit to have. How many non falchion GK armies in 8th ed do you think existed, and I say this as someone who played one without a single falchion in his. If a weapon is mathemathicly better then anything else, people will spam it. If both, lets say plasma ans melta are needed, then maybe some questions about rates of one to the other maybe risen. But Abadon for chaos armies pre Omen? a no brainer, even for stuff like chaos knights. Flamers pre Omen, well there is a reason we got a new faction join the tournament win rates , called "tzeench".
If the point costs between a power fist and a thunder hammer is not substential, no one who can take a thunder hammer will take a power fist over it. etc.
And getting stuff like a bag of 20 weapon X for marines in the age of 3d printing and horus heresy being a thing, enticing the printers to have stuff like volkite, plasma etc on hand is a no problem.
SemperMortis wrote: Just built a list for fun in News and Rumors with the new points cost, this is a 1,993 list with these new numbers. 19 different units including HQs, if you lump Meltas in with Combis it works out to 25 Meltas, 12 Multi-Meltas, 12 Lascannons, 2 Cyclone missile Launchers, 10 Thunder Hammers, 12 Powerfists, and 2 Power swords. Turn 1 you can unload an unholy amount of Melta into your opponent not to mention the 12(Technically 15) Lascannons turn 1. There just isn't much in the game right now that can stand up to that amount of turn 1 firepower. Oh, and if you used the older pts values, that works out to 2,883pts. So in other words this new list is getting 883pts of free upgrades.
Before this slate marines could put together 48 (better) melta shots and 90 (better) plasma shots, a way way higher firepower than the one you mentioned with "883 free points". And they also had Armor of contempt to protect that firebase.
Did you see that list make the rounds? Me neither.
Turns out that "unholy amounts" of firepower don't win games.
The only thing I can think of that you are referring to was the 3xEradicators build which featured 18 eradicators. So 6MM for 24 shots (double tapping) and 12 melta rifles getting 24 shots for double tapping.
Yeah go figure a list built around 3 units didn't appear like that...ironically modified lists featuring 2-3 units of Eradicators did show up and did place regularly until codex creep killed the build. But just to clarify, 3 eradicator units built like that are 870pts in 18 models. The list I showed for fun has 49 Melta shots and 15 lascannon shots but instead of being in 3 (6 if you combat squad them) squads they are spread out over 18 different units. As far as Plasma..thank you I had forgotten about Plasma inceptors. That 3 man squad just went from 180pts for 3 models down to 120. Should have used those instead of the bikes LOL, 3x6 of them now costs 720pts instead of 1080...but i'm sure those won't be abused either and help bump Marines up to top tier
SemperMortis wrote: At the friendly level its not a whinge because why would you roll out with 20+ meltas? At the competitive level...You have dudes who buy entire new armies when a new codex drops...you think they will give a damn about picking up a few extra bits on a 2nd hand site or buying a few sprues?
I was sort of responding to Karol's "woe is Marines, they only get to be top tier around 2/3rds of the time".
Your competitive types won't care.
I have seen only two editions. Never played or seen games under different rule sets, aside for some YT videos. Marines in 8th and 9th NEVER had a time when they were top tier for 2/3ed of an edition. Not even if you took all marines, including GK, chaos etc and counted them as a single faction. In 8th till the PA books came out, marines were horrible. What was the "best" way to play marines in 8th, pre PA? BA, again suprise suprise, minimal troops, max out BA characters, and then get a IGCP generator and a knight, preferably a castellan. Everything else paled in comperation to other factions good lists. And armies like GK or csm didn't really have a good way to play. GK affected me more, but with csm it was really crazy. The prefered way to play the army was to not run csm in your csm army. That is not being top tier 2/3ed of the time. Same thing happened in 9th. Armies like custodes and harlequins were better, then marines with 9th ed books.And not just the bad ones. All of them. Harlis were a tier of their own till DE came out.
And the woe of bad army hits the weak ones more then the armies build out of a power codex.
Tau in 8th, were an NPE codex. Horrible to play against and the tau player had to play a drone spam list, or else playing at all made no sense. In casual games. GK were mathematicly unable to kill some armies, even if they did nothing for 2 turns and just stood there taking shots. IH, Fists, practicaly all csm were horrible to play in 8th. and the same goes for most of 9th too. And while yes, the tournament players don't care, because they will just move to the power lists, an army being bad, especialy a popular one, is a huge problem. GW is extremly slow with updates. Necron had to wait what 2 years to be good, and that is a new model line army? Plus we don't even know if GW made necrons good on purpose or they just missed what their secondaries would do with combination of silent king+certain "chapter" rules.
Thank god for bloodofkittens. 8th edition bud, #1 army with the most top placings.....Space Marines with 158 wins. #2 was Imperial Guard with 103 wins and realistically we know that was Soup with SM Smash captains and knights.
So when you say they weren't good for 2/3rds of the edition you mean...they were only the best faction of the edition but that wasn't enough since they dominated the first 3rd or so of the edition when Index's were a thing and then did ok in the middle of the edition with soup and then finished the edition as the most broken army in the entire game with un-killable ironhands lists.
Oh, and in 9th where they are supposedly garbage tier...they are currently in the top half of the rankings for tournament placings and final note on that whinge, the #s i quoted only include codex SM if you lump in Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights etc, they shoot to #1...and by a long ways.
Oh, and in 9th where they are supposedly garbage tier...they are currently in the top half of the rankings for tournament placings and final note on that whinge, the #s i quoted only include codex SM if you lump in Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights etc, they shoot to #1...and by a long ways.
The units that currently win do not typically include those who got the free upgrades though.
I am curious to see if people just take the Primaris route and only the old guard with a deep first born model bench show up with the upgrade heaven.
I've been out for a bit - where is this new Upgrades are Free thing, and what is AoC short for other than a video game and a Congresswoman from New York?
I'm assuming this whole Weapons and Upgrades are now Free thing is not as blanket as we're being led to believe if nobody has yet talked about 10 Jumping Flying Death-From-Above Marines with Lightning Claws or TH/SS for 200ish points?
If a weapon is mathemathicly better then anything else, people will spam it.
I wonder if that's why Plasma was FOTM when Hellblasters released, and Melta became FOTM when Eradicators released.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Finally if this MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2023 MK I is where this is all coming from or some other similar source, I'd say we haven't figured out what is going to be top tier from a cursory glance at it. This is all surface level knee jerk reactions and not the harvest of some in depth sneaky thought. Also if this download IS where the free upgrades came from, let's all have a moment of silence for Company Veterans who someone really owes a dinner or two.
I'm already looking at Firestrike Turrets with Lastalons now. I don't see a weapon points cost AND it looks like they've had a model points reduction too since release. The Repulsor and Land Raider points drops are also potentially intruiging. No weapons upgrade costs. and about a 80-100 (50ish for the Land Raider) point per model nose dive. But they still need terrain/board equalization between Planet Bowling Ball and Planet You're Stuck There. Impulsors look like they went down, but not enough - especially since the Bladeguard bomb you'd want to put in them also stayed the same. Rhinos are still comically overpriced in comparison. Sternguard are in an interesting spot. Assault and Heavy Intercessors are giving me a tingling sensation. Infiltrators are still too high, especially compared to Intercessros and Incursors. But 30 Assorted Assault Intercessors and Heavy Intercessors can now be the backbone even cheaper. Plus the free Heavy XYZ Bolters. Aggressors took a nose dive on cost too - both per model, and now free weapon swaps. Centurions are better, but are they CORE again or not? They're more maneuverable than Firestrikes(which isn't saying much), and they have a little more shooting, but I kind of like the Firestrike quality of shooting better. But I'd swap the Cents for the Strikes before I'd cut points off something else if I needed 20-30 points to fit. Tiggy and Papa Smurf got cheaper. Between that and the nose dive for Troops per model you can almost run two Aura of Death Star Balls. With Papa Smurf, Lieutenant Smurf in one, and Grandpapa Smurf in the other. Wait until you see Lion and Primaris Azrael doing it with Plasma (I was going to say "and Deathwing", but they didn't really benefit) in a few months - especially if Plasma ends up being the next FOTM.
xerxeskingofking wrote: i mean, I dont think semper is actaully suggesting that his list is good, it was clearly chosen to maximise the amount of "free" stuff he could pack in. But is point stands even without the hyperbole: Marines are at the point where they need hundreds of "extra" points now to compete.
but that's not really their point, from what I can tell - semper claims that SM will now dominate. That's a VERY different conclusion, and they're starting from a "marines are already too strong without the changes" point of view, from what I understood in the News thread. No idea why semper thinks that when the actual WRs are sub 50 for the best chapters and far below that for the others.
Just to clarify, I claim that SM will be a top meta army now. I claim that they (in my opinion) are going to be THE top army now. I openly admit I may be wrong. But nowhere in any of my posts did I suggest that my list was "good" nor did I say "Marines are already too strong". That is a flat out falsehood.
And Tneva, I also never said a TH in a Dev squad was equal value to that of an assault squad. I was using it as an example. However, those TH in Dev squads do have value if for no other reason than it allows the Dev squad flexibility and the ability to inflict dmg on a surprise attack against that unit. I can't remember the # of times i've tagged a Heavy Support choice with a unit of Trukkboyz just to slowly grind it down for a few turns, or the # of times i've had my Deffkoptas get stuck in against a unit like Devs, not expecting to kill them, but just denying them the ability to shoot for a few turns.
You keep posting that list as example of why that's bad. So yes you ARE making that claim. Your words and actions don't match and actions ALWAYS trumps words so your words don't matter. Your actions do.
So you are in error in your words compared to actions or you are lying, Either way you are saying TH in dev is equal value to elsewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: I think this is a really great change, I hope SM absolutely destroy the game so we can get over this gak with free wargear. We tried it in 7th for feths sake. This is bad and stupid, but less bad and stupid than Armour of Contempt and Hammer of the Emperor so I'll start playing 2k again. We'll see if competitive is broken, I'll just play Crusade or Blood Angels if it is.
Why BA? They didn't exactly benefit from this losing AoC. Troops get sticky objectives. Yey. Except they don't have troops they really want to use. Doctrine change is 100% irrelevant for them as they want assault doctrine T3 and not T4.
Salamanders or Iron hands are much more likely to benefit from this change. Incidentally those have also units that enjoy units that get the free wargear(especially salamander)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: I'd tend to be much closer to Semper than those disagreeing. I'd be very surprised if *something* from Marines wasn't top-tier.
If the proposed melta-spam army has a weakness its probably that its a bit slow aside from the bikes (which have issues over say something with fly or infantry to go through ruins). So its possible you could play around it. But that's a lot of squads to push objectives etc. I think it could do with some dedicated fast assault units that can troubleshoot - but having thunderhammers and powerfists everywhere will add up. If memory serves Siegler won his 2020 LVO semi-final on the back of a Intercessor Sergeant with Thunder Hammer killing 3 Shining Spears. A lucky roll perhaps - but the sort of thing you just aren't doing with a chainsword.
Another weakness. It's on soft bodies. You simply alpha strike out of them...
They are slow. They get -1 to hit. Hide. Don't give them alpha strike. Then move out(you are faster) and then blow up their units. They don't even have bodies to soak up casualties so every kill on those soft bodies is dead heavy weapon.
That list will get outshot. Sure it's impressive shot amount if you get to shoot...But ummm....don't play on planet bowling ball? Slow moving infantry isn't going to shoot anything t1 unless opponentn wants you to shoot them.
Of course you can assume you are playing against newborn baby As anybody above that has intelligence to simply ensure he gets alpha strike against such a low moving army.
AoC is Armour of Contempt an ability which let (Chaos) Space Marines and Adepta Sororitas with the exception of models with storm shields and one or two Sororitas units reduce the AP of all weapons that hit them by 1. It made AP-1 pretty useless and AP-2 also got a lot worse since that left just Necrons and Custodes as the factions that cared about getting hit by those lower AP values. AP-3 or better didn't care so much because of some math I can go into if you don't already know it and mortal wounds did not care at all so it totally failed to have the desired effect, as most rules changes designed to balance the game instead of reflect fluff tend to do. The fact is that 2W Marines and 3W Terminators are plenty tough already. The rest of the problems in the game are caused by offensive stat creep, which makes everyone, not just power armoured factions die too fast. Stuff like arming a Space Marine with two assault plasma cannons is just silly.
Why are any of you arguing the merrits/flaws of this melta-list?
Its stated purpose was to showcase how much more formerly expensive stuff you can have now that you aren't paying for it.
ccs wrote: Why are any of you arguing the merrits/flaws of this melta-list? Its stated purpose was to showcase how much more formerly expensive stuff you can have now that you aren't paying for it.
Its fun to talk about?
I'm afraid I find Tneva's argument somewhat contradictory. The list can apparently be alpha-struck, but don't worry, it can't shoot you. As if LOS-blocking terrain only works one way. Its almost certainly going to be IH, so there is almost certainly going to be no penalty for moving with heavy, the MMs and Las (or Grav, which might be preferable) get reroll 1s to hit regardless of what the Captain is doing, and every model gets a 6+++. You are going to move up behind breachable terrain and then go through it to shoot/charge as appropriate on your turn.
You are looking at 82 models, which by the standards of most tournament lists is towards the high side - so saying they don't have the bodies to take casualties doesn't make sense to me. They also have 19 units, which gives plenty of flexibility. If you have to trade off tactical squads to give you good exchanges with the rest of your army, that's fine. That's how you play an MSU list - or 40k in general.
Before this change you could have run this list (+/- 25 points), but it would have been nothing (including the Devs) but naked guys with bolters. Unsurprisingly it would have hurt nothing and so just be cleared from the table. Or you could have run the same list with every unit kitted out - but you'd have had to leave behind 3 Tactical Squads, a Sternguard Squad, the Large Terminator Squad, a Bike Squad and two Dev Squads. Which, at 39 models, is approaching half the army. Unsurprisingly 43 Marines would have easily been removed from the table. When you have effectively double its not as easy - even with the loss of AoC. You are combining punchy bling with plenty of bodies.
I can see the argument for it being slow - and somewhat lacking dedicated assault. The Termies however sort of contribute here, with the Teleport Homer opening up some movement options. The DE in me says any force without advance and charge is intrinsically limited. But slower forces do manage, and giving up the IH benefits for say White Scars almost certainly isn't worth it without going down quite a different list. (Assault Intercessors at 17 points for instance may be getting towards being pushed, although BA is probably better than WS unless there is a trick to make them S5.)
Lets go through the list - I already sort of did, but lets do it methodically.
Skip the characters, Smash Captains are going to Smash, the others are going to do their shenanigans, and that's third or fourth tier analyzing anyway with too much variation for chapter etc.
Troops:
Assault Intercessors - The Good got better.
Heavy Intercessors - The OK got Good.
Incursors - The I guess I should got cheaper.
Infiltrators - The I'd rather have Incursors got stuck behind incursors again.
Intercessors - I'm supposed to like these but I don't and I still dont - AGL's need a boost to get these even value with Tacs, and Assault Intercessors.
The Tac Squad getting free upgrades is nice, but its still a meh unit with a bunch of 1.0 Bolters?
Elites:
Aggressors - Happy Birthday to me, Happy Birthday to me.
Assorted Ancients, Champions, and Apothecaries - characters, and skipped beyond - individually minor, collectively big.
Bladeguard - no change.
Centurion Assaults - big price drop - Much cheaper, and still much too slow.
Company Vets - took it in the shorts. No price reduction, no free gear.
Assorted Dreads and Invictors - usually cheaper, but not Jaw Droppingly so
Judiciar - Character and still phased out by better FOC/point choices.
Reivers: Now get Grap and Grav for free, still don't count as Jump Infantry, still lag behind regular Assault Marines
Terminators - Relic,Shooty: Free Heavies, free mix and match of fists, no discounts for Sergeant Swords - Assault: Come to Mama! Free TH/SS or Dual LC. Land Raider price drop folds in - but probably not enough, and Terminator Homer is also not helpful as a shortcut across the board anymore but Teleport Strike, maul (IF you can- probably requires outside assistance), and Homer away has minor potential.
Scout Squad - I think this one is under the radar, underrated. Sniping isn't usually big thing, but 10 snipers in camo cloaks for regular scout price could be tough to pass up.
Servitors - must have been mindlocked next to the Company vets. No price drop, no free gear, still need a rare Techmarine.
Sternguard - easy to see boost. No Price Drop, but all those combi-weapons are free (and currently more than one turn only) with a nice Drop Pod Bomb.
Vanguard Veterans - appear to have gone UP in PPM, Which they gain back in cheaper but not free TH/SS (but not in LCLC)
Veteran Intercessors - A cheaper version of one of the dumbest things you can take at any price. A shooty Troops unit with increased melee stats that loses ObSec.
Fast Attack:
Assault Squad - Free Jump Packs, Eviscerators, and Sgt weapons. Its going to be harder and harder to run out of points before you take one, but not impossible.
Attack Bike Squad - no price change, free weapons, still very hard to justify over other toys unless you're Ravenwing when it's moderately difficult.
Bike Squad - Same PPM, and strangely an upcharge for the Multi-Melta that wasn't on the Attack Bike Squad.
Inceptors - Same PPM, free guns, and come with a built in Deep Strike. Possible Interchangable for the Sternguard Bomb - they'll do it cheaper but less flexibly and without the Drop Pod extra unit for Objectives and LOS.
Invader ATVs. Points drop and free weapons. The weapon swap was already a tough choice - they're almost equal value in different situations. You'll see more from the PPM drop than the free swaps.
First Born Landspeeders, Assorted - No change - and most weapon swaps were replaced by separating data sheets there are better platforms for AssCans and MM Outrider Squad - Large and attractive Drop in ppm - no customization and still 3-and-Only-3 squad size makes optimization difficult.
Storm Strike Speeders, Assorted: PPM drop, Weapon Options are changed by datasheet not options - price drop makes them better than First Born Land Speeders for almost the same price. First Born are better at hiding as they're smaller but that's about it.
Suppresor Squad - significant price drop on a somewhat insignificant unit. 3-and-only-3 hamstrings the unit more than PPM.
Heavy Support:
Centurion Devs - Minor PPM drop meets MASSIVE free Weapons boost. These guys and Terminator Assault Squads could be the big winners of the free wargear sweepstakes.
Devastator Squad - Significant PPM jump sort of offset by free weapons, until you realize each ablative wound Marine also has the price jump, and you still have to pay extra on top of that for Multi-Meltas - in fact 10 Devs with 4 MM then is cheaper than 10 Devs with 4 MM now.
Eliminators - get it coming and going. Scout Snipers are now cheaper than they were, and not 3-and-only-3 for snipers that need a little more volume of fire to make a difference in a far more contested FOC slot than Elites. At least they get free weapon swaps now - Further review of infiltrating Las Talon Eliminators is recommended.
Eradicators - no change, free weapons swaps for weapon swaps I was already not fond of.
Firestrike Servo Turrets - No Price Change with MASSIVE free weapons should have been giving these another look - still vehicles making cover, hiding, etc a pain.
Gladiator Lancer: Significant Price Drop, Minor freebie addon weapons. Still a big silhouette that doesn't fly or hide with only the one big gun.
Gladiator Reaper: Significant Price Drop, Minor Freebie addons. Big Silhouette that doesn't fly or hide - with an insane number of medium guns.
Gladiator Valiant: Significant Price Drop, Minor Freebie Addons, Big Silhouette - impressive number of big guns but I give the edge to the Lancer.
Hellblasters - Noteworthy PPM drop Weapon swaps were already free and of dubious value.
Hunter/Stalker - no change
Land Raider, Assorted: Significant PPM drop from what I remembered, but apparently, I'm behind the times and that was old. Free MM and Hunter Killer provide modest benefit. Probably still not viable as non flying terrain impeded large metal bawkses while Termies can teleport, and others can Pod.
Predators, Assorted: No PPM change, Free HB sponsons, reduced LC Sponson cost.
Repulsor: Very Large PPM drop from what I remember, and from what it was. Free weapon swaps most of which are dubious or equal. Also large metal bawkses that don't fly and will have difficulty transporting on Planet Pedestrians Only - but also the only option for things like Gravis or 7+ non-gravis Primaris.
Repulsor Executioner: Very Large PPM drop from what I remember, and from what it was. Free weapon swaps most of which are dubious or equal. All the drawbacks of a Repulsor with a transport capacity small enough to negate the Repulsor's bonus there - Not enough room for more than a min-size Gravis squad with no Character support - and if you're not doing Gravis you might as well do an Impulsor and a Lancer for fewer points.
Stalker - No change
Thunderfire Cannon - No change. Still sorely missing it's special rounds for versatility/value
Vinidcator - no change
Whirlwind - no change
Flyers: No change. Stormravens get a tangential boost by the improved value of Terminators.
Fortifications:
Hammerfall Bunker - Ginormous PPM drop. Still zero value if you can't place 1-3 of them on the board long enough to earn back the DET cost as well as the points
Dedicated Transports:
Drop Pods: No change, but changes to Sternguard and Devs could bring back some form of Drop Pod Assault.
Impulsor: Noteworthy but small price drop, free Rooftop Doodads make interesting potential for MSU/Impulsor Spam depending on terrain density, (Hello White Scar Players)
Rihno/Razorback - No change, free weapons for the now relatively pricey Rhino and Razorback
From the Ultramarines:
Mostly characters being Chapter Specific:
Captain Sicarius got a PPM reduction, but he's still as forgettable on the tabletop as he is in the Library because his primary shenanigans target is the Company Vets who got zip.
Chaplain Cassius got a small PPM increase, that was probably needed to keep him in value range for Masters of Sanctity.
Tiggy got a pretty sizable drop in PPM - hes an even better value now.
Chronus - no direct change, but Terminators improving Land Raiders improves Chronus - if you DO go that way, he's a cheap upgrade for the Land Raider
Sgt Telion - No direct change, but sniper scouts just got a whole lot better, and he gets to improve them even more.
Calgar got a sizable PPM reduction - 2+ Death Star Aura Balls with Special character Support are now easier but still unlikely
Uriel Ventris - only slightly better off than Sicarius. As a Primaris Cap, his shenanigan has more likely (already improved) targets and is easier to use but the price drop for Calgar squeezes him out even more.
First born Chapter Ancient, Champion, and Honor Guard - these guys might as well be legends now in both the fluff and the tabletop - the new rules are just too out of phase for when they were released at any price.
Tyrranic War Vets - no change, no options, no point if you're not playing a narrative against Nids because their special is back to Nids only instead of MONSTER etc.
Victrix Honor Guard - - minor price drop, Still missing the Heavy Bolt Pistol that should have been Errata'ed onto them when Indomitus shipped - still with the price drops making Papa/Grandpapa Smurf goodness possible and the slot free Victrix you could get one for each of them. Another interesting but unlikely event - the price drops are probably not enough to get enough of the rest of the layers - Smash units, Apothecaries to heal the Victrix with their 3+ Storm Shields, etc.
From the Dark Angels:
Characters - yadda yadda
Deathwing - minor to no change - most of their change will come from base Terminators - the DW Command Squad did not get a price drop either.
Ravenwing - Black Knights and Black Knight characters all got sizable PPM drops.
Ravenwing Darkshroud and Vengeance: Both got modest PPM drops, and free AssCan upgrades.
Both Aircraft also got sizable PPM decreases.
End result: Deathwing, Ravenwing and Combi-wing armies are still a fun list gimmick, but not as bad off as they were before.
Overall End Result? Melta is both unlikely to be the FOTM of the next edition, and not necessarily the freebie madness that was implied. The stand-out winners at this point appear to be:
Centurion Devs Firestrikes
Assault Intercessors
Heavy Intercessors
Aggressors
Terminator Assault Squads
Sternguard,
Assault Squads,
Scout Snipers,
Impulsors,
- and possibly Land Raiders, Stormravens, Repulsors (But not Executioners) and Stormstrike Speeders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: Why are any of you arguing the merrits/flaws of this melta-list?
Its stated purpose was to showcase how much more formerly expensive stuff you can have now that you aren't paying for it.
Free Stuff isn't necessarily Good Stuff. This is sort of like the PL vs Points debate. In fact these new prices are probably the next step to get us switched over. But even in PL where nearly EVERYTHING is free not just most stuff on most units not everything that's free is worth it.
ccs wrote: Why are any of you arguing the merrits/flaws of this melta-list?
Its stated purpose was to showcase how much more formerly expensive stuff you can have now that you aren't paying for it.
Its fun to talk about?
I'm afraid I find Tneva's argument somewhat contradictory. The list can apparently be alpha-struck, but don't worry, it can't shoot you. As if LOS-blocking terrain only works one way. Its almost certainly going to be IH, so there is almost certainly going to be no penalty for moving with heavy, the MMs and Las (or Grav, which might be preferable) get reroll 1s to hit regardless of what the Captain is doing, and every model gets a 6+++. You are going to move up behind breachable terrain and then go through it to shoot/charge as appropriate on your turn.
You are looking at 82 models, which by the standards of most tournament lists is towards the high side - so saying they don't have the bodies to take casualties doesn't make sense to me. They also have 19 units, which gives plenty of flexibility. If you have to trade off tactical squads to give you good exchanges with the rest of your army, that's fine. That's how you play an MSU list - or 40k in general.
Before this change you could have run this list (+/- 25 points), but it would have been nothing (including the Devs) but naked guys with bolters. Unsurprisingly it would have hurt nothing and so just be cleared from the table.
Or you could have run the same list with every unit kitted out - but you'd have had to leave behind 3 Tactical Squads, a Sternguard Squad, the Large Terminator Squad, a Bike Squad and two Dev Squads. Which, at 39 models, is approaching half the army. Unsurprisingly 43 Marines would have easily been removed from the table. When you have effectively double its not as easy - even with the loss of AoC. You are combining punchy bling with plenty of bodies.
I can see the argument for it being slow - and somewhat lacking dedicated assault. The Termies however sort of contribute here, with the Teleport Homer opening up some movement options. The DE in me says any force without advance and charge is intrinsically limited. But slower forces do manage, and giving up the IH benefits for say White Scars almost certainly isn't worth it without going down quite a different list. (Assault Intercessors at 17 points for instance may be getting towards being pushed, although BA is probably better than WS unless there is a trick to make them S5.)
Most of the list is barebones W2. I could see some bubbles of Iron Hands at 5++ and some other more durable marines making a go of it though, but not with that list.
Five Plasma Inceptors are now 200 points down from 360 n( arguably this is the silliest change of any of them ). You could support two squads with a double chapter master - each being 145.
So we're talking about 10D3 S8 shots. The nice thing is plasma will actually benefit from the extra doctrine AP more than melta. On average when in tactical those inceptors will kill 15 ( or 3 squads ) of the melta marines when not in cover from 18" with a 10" fly. And the next turn you have a jp captain charging from behind cover.
If you can force an 18.001" bubble from any remaining units then either you have to run to shoot the combi meltas and forgo the MM or you sit with just the MM. Inceptors are T5 and W3 so without being in half range that's about as disadvantaged as you can get with melta against infantry without defensive gear.
You can get two of those setups for 690 points or so.
This idea that you can just force unbalance by spamming one particular thing is a very 7th edition mindset. There are so many different profile and mission considerations now.
ccs wrote: Why are any of you arguing the merrits/flaws of this melta-list?
Its stated purpose was to showcase how much more formerly expensive stuff you can have now that you aren't paying for it.
Its fun to talk about?
I'm afraid I find Tneva's argument somewhat contradictory. The list can apparently be alpha-struck, but don't worry, it can't shoot you. As if LOS-blocking terrain only works one way. Its almost certainly going to be IH, so there is almost certainly going to be no penalty for moving with heavy, the MMs and Las (or Grav, which might be preferable) get reroll 1s to hit regardless of what the Captain is doing, and every model gets a 6+++. You are going to move up behind breachable terrain and then go through it to shoot/charge as appropriate on your turn.
You are looking at 82 models, which by the standards of most tournament lists is towards the high side - so saying they don't have the bodies to take casualties doesn't make sense to me. They also have 19 units, which gives plenty of flexibility. If you have to trade off tactical squads to give you good exchanges with the rest of your army, that's fine. That's how you play an MSU list - or 40k in general.
Before this change you could have run this list (+/- 25 points), but it would have been nothing (including the Devs) but naked guys with bolters. Unsurprisingly it would have hurt nothing and so just be cleared from the table.
Or you could have run the same list with every unit kitted out - but you'd have had to leave behind 3 Tactical Squads, a Sternguard Squad, the Large Terminator Squad, a Bike Squad and two Dev Squads. Which, at 39 models, is approaching half the army. Unsurprisingly 43 Marines would have easily been removed from the table. When you have effectively double its not as easy - even with the loss of AoC. You are combining punchy bling with plenty of bodies.
I can see the argument for it being slow - and somewhat lacking dedicated assault. The Termies however sort of contribute here, with the Teleport Homer opening up some movement options. The DE in me says any force without advance and charge is intrinsically limited. But slower forces do manage, and giving up the IH benefits for say White Scars almost certainly isn't worth it without going down quite a different list. (Assault Intercessors at 17 points for instance may be getting towards being pushed, although BA is probably better than WS unless there is a trick to make them S5.)
Most of the list is barebones W2. I could see some bubbles of Iron Hands at 5++ and some other more durable marines making a go of it though, but not with that list.
Five Plasma Inceptors are now 200 points down from 360 n( arguably this is the silliest change of any of them ). You could support two squads with a double chapter master - each being 145.
So we're talking about 10D3 S8 shots. The nice thing is plasma will actually benefit from the extra doctrine AP more than melta. On average when in tactical those inceptors will kill 15 ( or 3 squads ) of the melta marines when not in cover from 18" with a 10" fly. And the next turn you have a jp captain charging from behind cover.
If you can force an 18.001" bubble from any remaining units then either you have to run to shoot the combi meltas and forgo the MM or you sit with just the MM. Inceptors are T5 and W3 so without being in half range that's about as disadvantaged as you can get with melta against infantry without defensive gear.
You can get two of those setups for 690 points or so.
This idea that you can just force unbalance by spamming one particular thing is a very 7th edition mindset. There are so many different profile and mission considerations now.
10d3 S8 Shots, hitting on a 3+ Rerollable, against MEQ...
20 shots (average)
160/9 hits
800/54 or 400/27 wounds
2,000/162 or 1,000/81 failed saves
That's 12 MEQ, assuming no overkill on squads, no FNP on the Marines, no cover (though also no Tactical Doctrine).
And, here's the thing: Assuming that list is run as Iron Hands, for the Dev Doctrine ability mostly, they all have a 6+ FNP. That means that any given failed save has around a 30% of failing to kill a guy. The next failed save is almost certain to dumpster them, less than 3% odds of survival, but that's still eating a shot.
Insectum7 wrote: I think I get about 11 MEQ kills with a Grav-Dev squad, Captain+Lt bubble. 30 inch range. The Cpt and Lts effect multiple units too.
Three of those squads, plus the Captain and Lt. is 500 points. 33 MEQ kills.
I honestly can't tell which side of this you're stood on. Are you highlighting that marines are super squishy so need to be cheap, or super killy now that they're cheap? Both?
The point is they have all the extra output but still fart and die in a stiff breeze. Showing off how easily they die isn't a good argument for showing how overpowered they are at the same time.
Insectum7 wrote: I think I get about 11 MEQ kills with a Grav-Dev squad, Captain+Lt bubble. 30 inch range. The Cpt and Lts effect multiple units too.
Three of those squads, plus the Captain and Lt. is 500 points. 33 MEQ kills.
I honestly can't tell which side of this you're stood on. Are you highlighting that marines are super squishy so need to be cheap, or super killy now that they're cheap? Both?
The point is they have all the extra output but still fart and die in a stiff breeze. Showing off how easily they die isn't a good argument for showing how overpowered they are at the same time.
I'm on the Firstborn are better than Primaris side
I'm fine with "squishy" marines. You want to reduce squishiness? Reduce overall lethality. AoC was a **** rule.
I think its fair to say Marines are squishy to certain weapon stats. If they become meta bringing units that can spam S5 Ap-2 2 damage attacks (or better) will be much more popular. This may limit Marines in tournaments because there may be a lot of gate-keeper lists which are unlikely to go the distance, but have good odds into Marines.
This sort of skew has generally been greater into Marines, because MEQ is so common. But equally, that hasn't stopped Marines being top tier at various periods of time.
But you do have the wider meta. You can't just say "your list will run into mass Inceptors and lose" - unless that's a feature of the meta. In which case Marines are still presumably top tier, just a different form to the style covered here.
vict0988 wrote: 2W T4 3+ Sv is not squishy, go play Custodes.
Yet 500 points of marines removes 33 of them a turn as per 2 posts prior....
Well is the problem offense or defense? There's two sides to that. And also compare to hordes which as far as I can tell just don't see competetive play. The increased lethality has put us back at 7th ed 40k, except this time GW escalated in 4 years rather than 15.
Dudeface wrote: The point is they have all the extra output but still fart and die in a stiff breeze. Showing off how easily they die isn't a good argument for showing how overpowered they are at the same time.
It's not like they're easier to kill than Guardsmen. Everyone dies quickly in 9th Ed, and T4/W2/3+ is still one of the toughest basic troop profiles in the game.
AoC was the band-aid to stop the larger problem of handing out too many save modifiers to too many weapons - precisely what happened in 2nd Ed and exactly why GW created the AP system we had in 3rd-7th - only (predictably) it didn't work because it pushed things too far in the other way, and the entire meta shifted towards dealing with AoC.
The larger fix is something GW doesn't want to do - that being a review of all the weapons in the game and shifting lethality* downwards - but they won't do it this edition. That's why suddenly everything became free for Marines, as they want people to bring more of them so they will still have an army at the start of turn 3.
*Something they noted as being a real thing in the latest video.
H.B.M.C. wrote: AoC was the band-aid to stop the larger problem of handing out too many save modifiers to too many weapons - precisely what happened in 2nd Ed and exactly why GW created the AP system we had in 3rd-7th - only (predictably) it didn't work because it pushed things too far in the other way, and the entire meta shifted towards dealing with AoC.
The larger fix is something GW doesn't want to do - that being a review of all the weapons in the game and shifting lethality* downwards - but they won't do it this edition. That's why suddenly everything became free for Marines, as they want people to bring more of them so they will still have an army at the start of turn 3.
*Something they noted as being a real thing in the latest video.
This is the tl;Dr of the situation, but as much as t4 2w 3+ should be a good defensive profile, it simply isn't any more, which is why AoC was introduced in the first place.
Those grav cannons kill 33 marines at 18 points, they also only kill 33 guardsmen at 6.5 points. Feels hard to justify the cost of that defensive profile at that point, which takes us back to where we started before AoC but with more guns.
Dudeface wrote: The point is they have all the extra output but still fart and die in a stiff breeze. Showing off how easily they die isn't a good argument for showing how overpowered they are at the same time.
It's not like they're easier to kill than Guardsmen. Everyone dies quickly in 9th Ed, and T4/W2/3+ is still one of the toughest basic troop profiles in the game.
As above, in the grav cannons example, they're just as easy to kill as guardsmen. They are for a lot of weapons.
H.B.M.C. wrote: AoC was the band-aid to stop the larger problem of handing out too many save modifiers to too many weapons - precisely what happened in 2nd Ed and exactly why GW created the AP system we had in 3rd-7th - only (predictably) it didn't work because it pushed things too far in the other way, and the entire meta shifted towards dealing with AoC.
The larger fix is something GW doesn't want to do - that being a review of all the weapons in the game and shifting lethality* downwards - but they won't do it this edition. That's why suddenly everything became free for Marines, as they want people to bring more of them so they will still have an army at the start of turn 3.
*Something they noted as being a real thing in the latest video.
That is also a different issue than "free wargear". That problem exists if Wargear is free or not. I'd also point out there are other themes going on - vehicles got cheaper in previous PPM reviews, many got a further reduction this time around - and most/many of the places that get free wargear Marine-Or-Not did not get free lascanons or Thunderhammers. I would postulate they don't have a baseline for an entire Army, where at X number of points this prototypical army has Y number of models with Z level of mix i.e.:
At 2K points a prototypical Marine army is either a full company, or a Demi Company with Toys:
(I'm going to use Primaris, but you can easily slot in First Born Equivalents like Assault Marines for Inceptors etc.)
Cap/Chap
LT (Optional: or Two)
(Optional: Chap/Cap)
30-60 Troop models with about 10/20 Heavy Intercessors, 10/20 Intercessors, 10/20 Infiltrator/Incursors for mix.
10-20 Elites with 5/5 or 10/10 Bladeugard/Aggresors
10-20 Fast Attack with 5/5 Inceptors/Outriders (and yeah all the 3-and-only-3 or 3-6 units should be 3-5 and lose Combat Squad or 5-10)
10-20 Heavy Support i.e. 5/5 or 10/10 Aggressors and Hellblasters
And then a couple of SMALL toys - Thunderfire, Rhinos/Impulsors Speeders and the like.
In a perfect world 2,000 points would be:
Primaris/Firstborn Captain
Mix and Match Primaris/Firstborn LT's
Firstborn/Primaris Chaplain
a couple Rhino/Pods, a few Impulsors (Upgraded to Transport: 10 because Transport:6 is stupid for the Primaris Rhino), Potentially a couple Repulsors/LandRaiders as a Dedicated Transport
1 Aircraft - Fighter or Bomber or Transport Gunship with an option for a second.
Optionally 1-3 Forts.
And if you do the Demi Company with 1 Cap/Chap 1 LT, and 30/10/10/10 Marines then you start adding tanks, more speeders and other toys because they traded some of their company to others and were reinforced with more from the Chapter Armoury.
Now at the moment, even with the new MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2023 MK I I'm betting that would easily clear 3-4,000 points and we'd need to play on 6 to 8x4 tables. I'm ok with that and would prefer it. I think the shrinking table is also a significant part of the blame for the Fortification placement and vehicle movement problems. And yeah, that might be a little too much but it is a starting point that's likely to match a lot of the fluff books when the Strike Cruiser drops out of (the) warp, and landings begin - and from that starting point we can start figuring out both how to balance the transports and other vehicles.
Dudeface wrote: The point is they have all the extra output but still fart and die in a stiff breeze. Showing off how easily they die isn't a good argument for showing how overpowered they are at the same time.
It's not like they're easier to kill than Guardsmen. Everyone dies quickly in 9th Ed, and T4/W2/3+ is still one of the toughest basic troop profiles in the game.
As above, in the grav cannons example, they're just as easy to kill as guardsmen. They are for a lot of weapons.
Yes, but it requires those more powerful guns.
A bolt rifle shot kills a Guardsman as well as a Grav Cannon shot kills a Space Marine. Wounds on 3, leaves a 6+ save. Bolt Rifles are easier to get than Grav Cannons.
Dudeface wrote: The point is they have all the extra output but still fart and die in a stiff breeze. Showing off how easily they die isn't a good argument for showing how overpowered they are at the same time.
It's not like they're easier to kill than Guardsmen. Everyone dies quickly in 9th Ed, and T4/W2/3+ is still one of the toughest basic troop profiles in the game.
As above, in the grav cannons example, they're just as easy to kill as guardsmen. They are for a lot of weapons.
Yes, but it requires those more powerful guns.
A bolt rifle shot kills a Guardsman as well as a Grav Cannon shot kills a Space Marine. Wounds on 3, leaves a 6+ save. Bolt Rifles are easier to get than Grav Cannons.
Duh?
You mean in number? Yes. In cost? No. A Grav cannons now costs less than a bolt rifle when you add the body holding it.
The lethality was too high, they put AoC in because marines died too easily. They took AoC out and put up lethality further. Marines now die even easier as a result.
The state of the game means that a marine profile is too squishy. GW admit it, I think the vast majority of the playerbase know it, you're highlighting it unironically, but refusing to acknowledge it.
As shown, the correct idea is to reduce AP game wide as has been stated repeatedly for over a year by pretty much everyone. That won't happen however, so instead just accept that in this game, at this state, a marine defensive profile means very little.
I seem to recall that people preferred the 12(iirc) point 1w chaos marines for a time because they actually had the bodies to take the hits on, wasted d2 weapons and were armed with the same weapons at the end of the day.
Free wargear only increases the problem. If you want bodies on the table then incentivise building tanky lists, more Rhinos, fewer Razorbacks. More Tacticals, fewer Devastators. This is not freaking rocket science. Drop Rhinos to 40 pts and we'll have Rhino rushes again, that's part of what was keeping lethality down in previous editions, cheap transports that didn't do a tonne of damage.
Dudeface wrote: This is the tl;Dr of the situation, but as much as t4 2w 3+ should be a good defensive profile, it simply isn't any more, which is why AoC was introduced in the first place.
Those grav cannons kill 33 marines at 18 points, they also only kill 33 guardsmen at 6.5 points. Feels hard to justify the cost of that defensive profile at that point, which takes us back to where we started before AoC but with more guns.
S3 AP- weapons kill 6 times as many Guardsmen as Marines. Does that mean Guardsmen should be 3 points? Grav cannons are good against things with T4 or T5 a 2+ or 3+ save and 2 or 4+ wounds. Marines are the ideal target. You are being silly.
vict0988 wrote: Free wargear only increases the problem. If you want bodies on the table then incentivise building tanky lists, more Rhinos, fewer Razorbacks. More Tacticals, fewer Devastators. This is not freaking rocket science. Drop Rhinos to 40 pts and we'll have Rhino rushes again, that's part of what was keeping lethality down in previous editions, cheap transports that didn't do a tonne of damage.
Dudeface wrote: This is the tl;Dr of the situation, but as much as t4 2w 3+ should be a good defensive profile, it simply isn't any more, which is why AoC was introduced in the first place.
Those grav cannons kill 33 marines at 18 points, they also only kill 33 guardsmen at 6.5 points. Feels hard to justify the cost of that defensive profile at that point, which takes us back to where we started before AoC but with more guns.
S3 AP- weapons kill 6 times as many Guardsmen as Marines. Does that mean Guardsmen should be 3 points? Grav cannons are good against things with T4 or T5 a 2+ or 3+ save and 2 or 4+ wounds. Marines are the ideal target. You are being silly.
I'm being silly yet we're showing off how killy space marines are by using space marines as an example of how easily things die in the same example? You're allowed to just admit that marines have survivability issues, otherwise I'd lose you to explain why AoC came into being in the first place and why it propped up some marine armies into the mid tiers. Stop pretending like every other army out there throws rocks around, there's plenty of 2d and/or reasonable ap attacks in literally every book.
I agree on transports though, I do feel they're underused atm and not well represented.
Dudeface wrote: I seem to recall that people preferred the 12(iirc) point 1w chaos marines for a time because they actually had the bodies to take the hits on, wasted d2 weapons and were armed with the same weapons at the end of the day.
This isn't my memory of things. 12 point CSM were widely regarded as useless - lacking threat into most targets beyond basic chaff, and by comparison dying faster to d1 weapons which are typically much more plentiful than d2.
T4 2w 3+ is a good defensive profile if its cheap - i.e. around 10 points a wound. The problem - which has arguably always applied - was that blinged out Marine squads went considerably higher than this. This is no longer the case.
Dudeface wrote: I seem to recall that people preferred the 12(iirc) point 1w chaos marines for a time because they actually had the bodies to take the hits on, wasted d2 weapons and were armed with the same weapons at the end of the day.
This isn't my memory of things. 12 point CSM were widely regarded as useless - lacking threat into most targets beyond basic chaff, and by comparison dying faster to d1 weapons which are typically much more plentiful than d2.
T4 2w 3+ is a good defensive profile if its cheap - i.e. around 10 points a wound. The problem - which has arguably always applied - was that blinged out Marine squads went considerably higher than this. This is no longer the case.
Oh I agree on the csm, they weren't overly great, but they were sometimes seen as better than their loyalist counterparts for a while due to reduced wastage and points saved. There were some who actually were concerned at getting 2w in the end due to the increase price tags for gaining what felt like little in return.
Would you say you're for the changes at this point then in that case?
I'm being silly yet we're showing off how killy space marines are by using space marines as an example of how easily things die in the same example? You're allowed to just admit that marines have survivability issues, otherwise I'd lose you to explain why AoC came into being in the first place and why it propped up some marine armies into the mid tiers. Stop pretending like every other army out there throws rocks around, there's plenty of 2d and/or reasonable ap attacks in literally every book.
I agree on transports though, I do feel they're underused atm and not well represented.
Shouldn't the case be then, that we actually look at the guns and weaponry? When even overly squishy marines can turn each other into paste easily (mind boltrifles already start that nonsense), And we certainly don't fix that by handing marines the key to the arsenal and tell them to go wild.
Shouldn't we also reintroduce larger tables and faster transports, as to facilitate a tactical need for transport, instead of infantry outspeeding in most cases transports? Is it a good thing that we can frontload slots of specific types without reprecussions now in arks of omen even more easily?
Shouldn't we consider a cover system that is beneficial to ALL infantry in order to actually create a need for indirect fire and artillery aswell as cover ignoring weapons, like flamers? Shouldn't that also be a niche that nade launchers could and should fullfill same as nades?
You know, f.e. a dualistic system that grants a "hard" cover save and improves the armor if the armor is better than the cover save? Because then both unit types, light aswell as heavy profit from cover in an equal manner, with light infantry benefitting more as they should, whilest heavy infantry can also take advantage whilest still being the choice assault unit?
I'm being silly yet we're showing off how killy space marines are by using space marines as an example of how easily things die in the same example? You're allowed to just admit that marines have survivability issues, otherwise I'd lose you to explain why AoC came into being in the first place and why it propped up some marine armies into the mid tiers. Stop pretending like every other army out there throws rocks around, there's plenty of 2d and/or reasonable ap attacks in literally every book.
I agree on transports though, I do feel they're underused atm and not well represented.
Shouldn't the case be then, that we actually look at the guns and weaponry? When even overly squishy marines can turn each other into paste easily (mind boltrifles already start that nonsense), And we certainly don't fix that by handing marines the key to the arsenal and tell them to go wild.
Shouldn't we also reintroduce larger tables and faster transports, as to facilitate a tactical need for transport, instead of infantry outspeeding in most cases transports? Is it a good thing that we can frontload slots of specific types without reprecussions now in arks of omen even more easily?
Shouldn't we consider a cover system that is beneficial to ALL infantry in order to actually create a need for indirect fire and artillery aswell as cover ignoring weapons, like flamers? Shouldn't that also be a niche that nade launchers could and should fullfill same as nades?
You know, f.e. a dualistic system that grants a "hard" cover save and improves the armor if the armor is better than the cover save? Because then both unit types, light aswell as heavy profit from cover in an equal manner, with light infantry benefitting more as they should, whilest heavy infantry can also take advantage whilest still being the choice assault unit?
You speak from my heart and yes 100%, it's what I'd love to see, but confined to the situation we're in, it's a dead duck I think.
vict0988 wrote: Free wargear only increases the problem. If you want bodies on the table then incentivise building tanky lists, more Rhinos, fewer Razorbacks. More Tacticals, fewer Devastators. This is not freaking rocket science. Drop Rhinos to 40 pts and we'll have Rhino rushes again, that's part of what was keeping lethality down in previous editions, cheap transports that didn't do a tonne of damage.
Dudeface wrote: This is the tl;Dr of the situation, but as much as t4 2w 3+ should be a good defensive profile, it simply isn't any more, which is why AoC was introduced in the first place.
Those grav cannons kill 33 marines at 18 points, they also only kill 33 guardsmen at 6.5 points. Feels hard to justify the cost of that defensive profile at that point, which takes us back to where we started before AoC but with more guns.
S3 AP- weapons kill 6 times as many Guardsmen as Marines. Does that mean Guardsmen should be 3 points? Grav cannons are good against things with T4 or T5 a 2+ or 3+ save and 2 or 4+ wounds. Marines are the ideal target. You are being silly.
I'm being silly yet we're showing off how killy space marines are by using space marines as an example of how easily things die in the same example? You're allowed to just admit that marines have survivability issues, otherwise I'd lose you to explain why AoC came into being in the first place and why it propped up some marine armies into the mid tiers. Stop pretending like every other army out there throws rocks around, there's plenty of 2d and/or reasonable ap attacks in literally every book.
I agree on transports though, I do feel they're underused atm and not well represented.
I will admit Marines have survivability issues, but so does AdMech infantry, Necron infantry and Custodes infantry and every vehicle in the game. I am not pretending that attacks with reasonable AP attacks and a Damage characteristic above 1 are rare, that's the whole problem, they're too plentiful, that's what's making Marines have survivability issues despite having good defensive stats. The answer is not to increase SM stats further or give them defensive abilities. GW fethed the bed, now we have to lay in until 10th and then I hope they release a big errata lowering AP and Damage and then quickly release codexes with the lowered stats. You can't even make a joke thread about an insane boost to your faction's lethality or durability without people taking it seriously in 9th edition and saying "this seems like something GW would do".
I'm being silly yet we're showing off how killy space marines are by using space marines as an example of how easily things die in the same example? You're allowed to just admit that marines have survivability issues, otherwise I'd lose you to explain why AoC came into being in the first place and why it propped up some marine armies into the mid tiers. Stop pretending like every other army out there throws rocks around, there's plenty of 2d and/or reasonable ap attacks in literally every book.
I agree on transports though, I do feel they're underused atm and not well represented.
Shouldn't the case be then, that we actually look at the guns and weaponry? When even overly squishy marines can turn each other into paste easily (mind boltrifles already start that nonsense), And we certainly don't fix that by handing marines the key to the arsenal and tell them to go wild.
Shouldn't we also reintroduce larger tables and faster transports, as to facilitate a tactical need for transport, instead of infantry outspeeding in most cases transports? Is it a good thing that we can frontload slots of specific types without reprecussions now in arks of omen even more easily?
Shouldn't we consider a cover system that is beneficial to ALL infantry in order to actually create a need for indirect fire and artillery aswell as cover ignoring weapons, like flamers? Shouldn't that also be a niche that nade launchers could and should fullfill same as nades? You know, f.e. a dualistic system that grants a "hard" cover save and improves the armor if the armor is better than the cover save? Because then both unit types, light aswell as heavy profit from cover in an equal manner, with light infantry benefitting more as they should, whilest heavy infantry can also take advantage whilest still being the choice assault unit?
You speak from my heart and yes 100%, it's what I'd love to see, but confined to the situation we're in, it's a dead duck I think.
And yet GW seem perfectly capable of running such a system with other core mechanics with HH with nighfighting and augury scanner equipment.
HH has problems as well but from a core mechanic standpoint it is far better off than 40k right now, nvm from a list building and modelling perspective which is absurd considering that there are not even alien factions in HH. HH also still has the cheap transports which is a boon. Artillery reduced AP severly accross the board in most cases. Is that atm more favourable to terminators, dreads (mostly contemptors) and infantry than HH1 , sure, but it still has a place for tanks which themselves are less of a pushover than in 40k absurdly despite being able to be one-shot simply because you require dedicated AT for that and can't just scratch of the paint with lasguns if there's only one W left.
We are in a completly absurd situation right now in 40k.
As for the csm , tbh, 12 pts csm were better than the legionaires because you could spam them and achieve redundancy. Now we don't see legionaires but cultists or traitor guard as troops instead to supplement the elite and FA slot so prevalent in a csm list.
I will admit Marines have survivability issues, but so does AdMech infantry, Necron infantry and Custodes infantry and every vehicle in the game. I am not pretending that attacks with reasonable AP attacks and a Damage characteristic above 1 are rare, that's the whole problem, they're too plentiful, that's what's making Marines have survivability issues despite having good defensive stats. The answer is not to increase SM stats further or give them defensive abilities. GW fethed the bed, now we have to lay in until 10th and then I hope they release a big errata lowering AP and Damage and then quickly release codexes with the lowered stats. You can't even make a joke thread about an insane boost to your faction's lethality or durability without people taking it seriously in 9th edition and saying "this seems like something GW would do".
The fact that choppas have AP-1, boltrifles somehow aswell and an autocannon just having -1 should make you pause because there's a whole class of weapons that shouldn't be AP -1 and yet are treated the same as a heavy bolter or autocannon.
Dai wrote: Didnt gw say when they were previewing 8th that is was noticeably much more lethal? For them this is a feature not a bug I fear.
Lethality is not an inherent issue au contraire high lethality can be beneficial for a wargame to make movement and manouvre matter far more aswell as putting more emphasis on terrain, if there is counterplay through mechanics aswell as listbuilding decisions not just reliant on skewing for a specific defensive statline.
F.e. If the cover system would be better e.g. actual benefit from cover, infantry and smaller vehicles would hug cover more, by extention unprepared and under manned offensive action would be far more punishable in such a system making positioning and manouvre matter more if you require to dislocate an enemy from an objective f.e.
Another exemple would be allowing units to dig in, basically allowing to alter the board minorly by building makehsift defensive barricades.
Remaining threats are also something that HH does with phosphex and grav weapons which are also tactical tools of area denial, beyond chaffing and screening deepstrikes.
Meanwhile the only counterplay right now is either skewing a defensive profile in your list, or redundancy if you have units that don't cost many points which is also skewing for a specific defensive profile.
Dudeface wrote: Oh I agree on the csm, they weren't overly great, but they were sometimes seen as better than their loyalist counterparts for a while due to reduced wastage and points saved. There were some who actually were concerned at getting 2w in the end due to the increase price tags for gaining what felt like little in return.
Would you say you're for the changes at this point then in that case?
I guess I'm kind of mixed really. I think this may make Marines too good. I don't play Marines, I don't really like Marines and Marines being good (again) will probably get old real fast. Especially if 1 in 3 (pushing 1 in 2) players move back to playing them, as we saw in late 8th/early 9th.
But I equally don't like armies to be bad (well, except Grey Knights) and clearly they had become so (outside of certain specific BA lists).
I don't have a sacred cow on "gear must cost something" - because I think its fair plenty of gear is worthless, or units without specials are functionally bad, and splitting the difference is hard.
Aesthetically I prefer blinged out squads. Its always felt bad to me that say unit champions often come with fancy weapons and pistols, that you were just meant to ignore because they cost far too much. Other people may prefer to keep their guys with basic equipment but that feels a bit sad to me. Like not taking Standard Bearers and Musicians in WHFB (because they were often overcosted too.)
For a long time now I think GW have struggled with "basic Marine", 13 points, 1 T4 3+ save 1 wound, bolt gun and naked fist. This model was kind of tough but toothless.
Now lets buy him a lascannon or something for say 20 points, making him 33 points. Well he's still 1 T4 3+ save 1 wound model. So now he has a respectable gun (ymmv on whether a lascannon is that good these days) but is incredibly fragile. Theoretically there is probably some sort of tipping point here - but it may not be possible to identify. Certainly across the whole game with its thousand or so variations.
I also think part of the problem with the game is deciding what is meant to counter what. I.E. "Choppers shouldn't have AP-1". Well, without it, you'd need on average 18 Chopper Swings to kill a 2 wound marine. (18*2/3*1/2*1/3=2). Should say 30 boyz on average just kill 5 tactical marines? That seems kind of terrible for a unit which has token shooting, isn't especially fast or is especially tough. You can I guess go "its fine, make Boyz 5~ points" - but then they would be tough *for the points* and people would turn up with say 300~ to just sit on Objectives. The same applies to things like Wych Elves.
But as people said, the problem is if most units are at least "okay" into Marines, then marines start to drift down the pecking order. So Marine damage output needs to be buffed up to match. Which brings us to 9th's "everything counters everything" model. Which is sort of balanced, but has often been too lethal as a result.
Maybee sm shouldn't have 2 wounds to beginn with, atleast not normal marines and aswell not primaris...
But that is another discussion tieing back to ap beeing handed out, abandoning the binary armor system whilest doing so and then being surprised why we see marines not taking hits well.
Dudeface wrote: Those grav cannons kill 33 marines at 18 points, they also only kill 33 guardsmen at 6.5 points. Feels hard to justify the cost of that defensive profile at that point, which takes us back to where we started before AoC but with more guns.
I'm not so sure I have a problem with Grav Cannons killing Marines effectively or efficiently. It's kinda what they're there for.
Dudeface wrote: Those grav cannons kill 33 marines at 18 points, they also only kill 33 guardsmen at 6.5 points. Feels hard to justify the cost of that defensive profile at that point, which takes us back to where we started before AoC but with more guns.
I'm not so sure I have a problem with Grav Cannons killing Marines effectively or efficiently. It's kinda what they're there for.
Well in the past you had to trade your HS slots for that many grav cannons.
Now you can pick the arks of omen detachment and still slap in more HS slots if you so choose.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well in the past you had to trade your HS slots for that many grav cannons.
Now you can pick the arks of omen detachment and still slap in more HS slots if you so choose.
The "I want more Heavy Support slots!" detachment has been part of the game for a while. I fail to see the difference.
The FOC is as useless now with the the Ark of Omen detachment as it was prior to its existence. All it does is cut out the clutter, so now you can bring whatever the feth you want with a single detachment rather than whatever the feth you want with multiple detachments.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well in the past you had to trade your HS slots for that many grav cannons.
Now you can pick the arks of omen detachment and still slap in more HS slots if you so choose.
The "I want more Heavy Support slots!" detachment has been part of the game for a while. I fail to see the difference.
The FOC is as useless now with the the Ark of Omen detachment as it was prior to its existence. All it does is cut out the clutter, so now you can bring whatever the feth you want with a single detachment rather than whatever the feth you want with multiple detachments.
Oh absolutely 8th and 9th already facilitated this. 7th aswell with certain formations and movement of unit types to troops etc.
But atleast before you had to pay an additional CP and pts tax for an HQ.
As it stands the opportunity cost for fielding 3 units of devastator has dropped from old FOC to kinda severe before 8th to 8th/9th Pts for an additional HQ and some CP and now to no CP and no additional points.
Dudeface wrote: As above, in the grav cannons example, they're just as easy to kill as guardsmen. They are for a lot of weapons.
I don't see any problem with there existing dedicated anti-MEQ weapons that kill Marines well, and talking like that makes Marines no more durable than Guardsmen is silly. Guardsmen get mulched by bolt rifles, Marines don't.
Now if you're staring down armies of just grav cannons, then that's proof positive that (a) unrestricted FOC makes access to heavy weapons too easy, (b) free wargear makes spamming heavy weapons too easy, and (c) you play a game where a majority of armies on the table are power armor so of course people are going to zero in on anti-MEQ weapons. None of which is really about the utility of a T4/W2/3+ profile, which is pretty great when it's bolt rifles shooting at you rather than your hard-counters, and buffing Marine defensive profiles until they can survive a table full of grav cannons would be insanity.
Every army in the game is having durability issues because every army in the game has seen an escalation of offensive capabilities, from a combination of statline creep and expanded availability, on top of 9th Ed factors like less impactful terrain and smaller tables. This isn't a Marine-specific thing.
It's also range and boardsize, terrain, mechanics that would significantly weaken ranged out put, etc.
That's one of the things I think had an underrated affect on the game - shrinking board sizes with increased ranges. The original bolt gun was 24 inches if you stand still on a 4 foot board and a generally speaking not-within-24 no-man's-land. Now you've got 30 inches at 16ish inch no man's lands.
You keep posting that list as example of why that's bad. So yes you ARE making that claim. Your words and actions don't match and actions ALWAYS trumps words so your words don't matter. Your actions do.
So you are in error in your words compared to actions or you are lying, Either way you are saying TH in dev is equal value to elsewhere.
Sorry Tneva, not to be rude, but you don't get to decide the "hidden" meaning of my words when I bluntly state my position and do so for the purposes of understanding. The list I made was just to highlight the stupidity of this. From what i'm seeing the more competitive builds will take TH/SS assault termies and Plasma Inceptors like crazy..but again, i'm not a SM player so I don't know for certain.
I honestly can't tell which side of this you're stood on. Are you highlighting that marines are super squishy so need to be cheap, or super killy now that they're cheap? Both?
The point is they have all the extra output but still fart and die in a stiff breeze. Showing off how easily they die isn't a good argument for showing how overpowered they are at the same time.
That whistling sound you hear Dudeface is the point sailing happily over your head. Complaining that Marines are squishy right after they got hundreds of points of free heavy/special weapons which are almost always better at killing MEQs than they are GEQs is stupid. "Ohh woe is us, we lost AoC and now look how fast we die...definitely doesn't have anything to do with the 3x times the # of Heavy/specials on the table, totally because Marines are squishy".
I'm being silly yet we're showing off how killy space marines are by using space marines as an example of how easily things die in the same example? You're allowed to just admit that marines have survivability issues, otherwise I'd lose you to explain why AoC came into being in the first place and why it propped up some marine armies into the mid tiers. Stop pretending like every other army out there throws rocks around, there's plenty of 2d and/or reasonable ap attacks in literally every book.
I agree on transports though, I do feel they're underused atm and not well represented.
Marines don't have durability issues, what they have is the #1 problem i've been stating for years, the most common defensive profile in the game. I build lists with T4 3+ in mind because...MOST ARMIES HAVE THAT PROFILE; or a derivative of. (Marines, CSM, Special Marines, SoB etc).
My last GT I placed 5th overall and by points it would have been 2nd, my best units were 3x10 Kommandos, A unit of Burnas and 3x3 Squigriders. Against Marines Kommandos get no benefits because they lose -1AP on their choppas. So 9 of them do 27 attacks, 18 hits, usually 12 wounds (Sometimes 15 if in cover) and after saves they end up with...2 dead Marines. The nob swings and gets 4 attacks, 2 hits, 1.66 wounds and after AoC its like 1 more dead Marines. So a CC specialist unit kills 3 Marines a turn. Marines aren't squishy, its the lethality of the game for a bunch of different factions, and now Marines just jumped to hte head of hte line in terms of lethality.
Dudeface wrote: As shown, the correct idea is to reduce AP game wide as has been stated repeatedly for over a year by pretty much everyone.
Honest questions -
What do you do with AP0 guns? Is it worthwhile to even take primaris when the standard issue is just as good and the flexibility is better on tacticals? Or would everyone just use stalker bolt rifles?
The first point of AP is the most crucial in this system. How will you prevent units who have access to change from AP0 to AP1 costed in a way that doesn't discourage either?
How are you going to handle AP improving abilities and the uneven access to them and the weapons they affect?
Dudeface wrote: As shown, the correct idea is to reduce AP game wide as has been stated repeatedly for over a year by pretty much everyone.
Honest questions -
What do you do with AP0 guns? Is it worthwhile to even take primaris when the standard issue is just as good and the flexibility is better on tacticals? Or would everyone just use stalker bolt rifles?
The first point of AP is the most crucial in this system. How will you prevent units who have access to change from AP0 to AP1 costed in a way that doesn't discourage either?
How are you going to handle AP improving abilities and the uneven access to them and the weapons they affect?
Honestly, primaris were a mistake... they launched 2 w troop nonsense. They launched baseline better boltguns and made marines obsolete, probably by design. They are not an actual tactical flexible unit at all and are supposed to be one respectivly replace one.
It's also range and boardsize, terrain, mechanics that would significantly weaken ranged out put, etc.
That's one of the things I think had an underrated affect on the game - shrinking board sizes with increased ranges. The original bolt gun was 24 inches if you stand still on a 4 foot board and a generally speaking not-within-24 no-man's-land. Now you've got 30 inches at 16ish inch no man's lands.
uh? No Man's land' size is the same, deployments are usually 12" from the centerline, not from the board edge
It's also range and boardsize, terrain, mechanics that would significantly weaken ranged out put, etc.
That's one of the things I think had an underrated affect on the game - shrinking board sizes with increased ranges. The original bolt gun was 24 inches if you stand still on a 4 foot board and a generally speaking not-within-24 no-man's-land. Now you've got 30 inches at 16ish inch no man's lands.
The boardsize shrinking alone was problematic because artillery alread had too small tables to perform and transports worked borderline but moresoe as cheap protection units for it's contents.
Size increases on infantry guns are merely the tip of issues caused by the smaller tables.
It's also range and boardsize, terrain, mechanics that would significantly weaken ranged out put, etc.
That's one of the things I think had an underrated affect on the game - shrinking board sizes with increased ranges. The original bolt gun was 24 inches if you stand still on a 4 foot board and a generally speaking not-within-24 no-man's-land. Now you've got 30 inches at 16ish inch no man's lands.
Plus there were very deliberate and specific interactions that have been undermined- although I have to point out that the no man's land has stayed the same size; it's the deployment zone that has shrunk.
For a long time, a boltgun was 24" max range in a game where you start more than 24" away from one another, and which could only shoot at 12" if you moved. So, barring exposed infiltrators and the like, it was impossible to shoot the enemy with boltguns if you got the first turn.
Heavy weapons couldn't move and shoot. If you didn't have ideal targets from deployment (and if you did, your opponent screwed up), you might need to spend a turn moving to get in better position.
Speeds generally maxed out at 12" move and 6" charge, or vice versa. A very few units could move 12" and charge 12"- still not enough to cross the > 24" to the other army.
Go figure that when you can feasibly shoot with every model in your army T1 (including moving into ideal positions at no or minimal cost to shooting), or pull off a charge T1, that the game will have problems, even if the raw lethality math were to be scaled back.
If they don't adhere to fluff and good game design in terms of how killy they are? Lower S, shots or Damage. 1 shot S3 AP- D1 weapons don't have a lethality problem.
Is it worthwhile to even take primaris when the standard issue is just as good and the flexibility is better on tacticals? Or would everyone just use stalker bolt rifles?
Points will solve it. Tacticals aren't flexible, you take whatever loadout you want for your army, you don't get to change between battles, the flexibility doesn't actually matter in terms of balance. If every datasheet is worth bringing and every option on a datasheet is good in some situations then it's fine.
How are you going to handle AP improving abilities and the uneven access to them and the weapons they affect?
Design with intent. If something is supposed to boost anti-vehicle weapons then have it increase AP for weapons with AP-3 or better, if something is supposed to boost the regular soldiers then just let it give AP-1 to everything. When assigning points to upgrades like a storm bolter and a combi-plasma you just have to keep in mind what sorts of upgrades are available, cheap re-roll 1s means combi-plasma probably needs to be a little more expensive, easy access to an AP boost means a storm bolter should probably cost a little more than otherwise. You'll only get a range of acceptable points when doing math for the unit anyways. Post-release-æ you look at whether people are spamming combi-plasma in SM lists that constantly win tournaments while SM lists that don't run those lose more and then you nerf combi-plasma. If Space Marines are doing poorly and nobody takes storm bolters then you buff storm bolters. The buffs/nerfs stop at the point where it mathematically doesn't make sense to continue buffing/nerfing the unit further, like no free plasma pistols for Astra Militarum Sergeants even if people don't take them at 1 point.
Dudeface wrote: The point is they have all the extra output but still fart and die in a stiff breeze. Showing off how easily they die isn't a good argument for showing how overpowered they are at the same time.
It's not like they're easier to kill than Guardsmen. Everyone dies quickly in 9th Ed, and T4/W2/3+ is still one of the toughest basic troop profiles in the game.
As above, in the grav cannons example, they're just as easy to kill as guardsmen. They are for a lot of weapons.
Yes, but it requires those more powerful guns.
A bolt rifle shot kills a Guardsman as well as a Grav Cannon shot kills a Space Marine. Wounds on 3, leaves a 6+ save. Bolt Rifles are easier to get than Grav Cannons.
Duh?
You mean in number? Yes. In cost? No. A Grav cannons now costs less than a bolt rifle when you add the body holding it.
Uhhh, how the heck do you come to that conclusion? Both Intercessors and Tacs cost 18 ppm. Intercessors have 5 Bolt Rifles. Tacs get one Grav Cannon.
The lethality was too high, they put AoC in because marines died too easily. They took AoC out and put up lethality further. Marines now die even easier as a result.
The state of the game means that a marine profile is too squishy. GW admit it, I think the vast majority of the playerbase know it, you're highlighting it unironically, but refusing to acknowledge it.
As shown, the correct idea is to reduce AP game wide as has been stated repeatedly for over a year by pretty much everyone. That won't happen however, so instead just accept that in this game, at this state, a marine defensive profile means very little.
.
You're barking up the wrong tree there. I've accepted the Marine profile not living up to bolter-porn hype since 2nd ed. However, their profile still means that they're much more resilient than GEQ. Not realizing that is pants-on-head territorry.
Marines feel "squishy" because of a combination of game mechanics, and the fact that they're fighting against armies that also need to be able to deal with a table full of Knights or tanks.
Plus there were very deliberate and specific interactions that have been undermined- although I have to point out that the no man's land has stayed the same size; it's the deployment zone that has shrunk.
For a long time, a boltgun was 24" max range in a game where you start more than 24" away from one another, and which could only shoot at 12" if you moved. So, barring exposed infiltrators and the like, it was impossible to shoot the enemy with boltguns if you got the first turn.
Heavy weapons couldn't move and shoot. If you didn't have ideal targets from deployment (and if you did, your opponent screwed up), you might need to spend a turn moving to get in better position.
Speeds generally maxed out at 12" move and 6" charge, or vice versa. A very few units could move 12" and charge 12"- still not enough to cross the > 24" to the other army.
Go figure that when you can feasibly shoot with every model in your army T1 (including moving into ideal positions at no or minimal cost to shooting), or pull off a charge T1, that the game will have problems, even if the raw lethality math were to be scaled back.
You highlighted some stuff there that has been swirling around in my head for a while now.
It wasn't that the guns in older editions were much less lethal than they are now. It was that you basically could barely move and use them at the same time. Plasma was king, hordes barely got saves, tanks could die to one hit, and morale would force you to run away. The guys who set up in fire lanes first or that had circumvention was going to do better -- OOLOS artillery, scatbikes, etc.
It's as much a movement thing as it is a stats thing. MM is the only weapon that took on a lot of change compare to others and it started as a 1 shot with 2D6 pick highest damage. The real proliferation wasn't the old weapons themselves, but the Primaris line and army rule add-ons.
In terms of movement I feel as though this system is better and I think most people agree that the go-first advantage is either gone or not significant enough to be worth mentioning. Go first in older editions could be quite rough especially considering how little terrain there was and how preventing a tank kill was a coin-flip.
I don't think the board size change hugely mattered. 8th was a famously assault-unfriendly edition, where a lot of armies just castled up in the corner with the intention of shooting you for 3 turns and then claiming the objectives. Many expected the same in 9th - but it turned out this wasn't the case, because you need stuff on the midboard contesting Primary objectives. Assault is the best way of getting models on to an objective - and killing the models your opponent has placed there.
The issue of taking something with 40"+ range and hiding in the corner is that it should end up LOS-blocked from a lot of the table, and even if it isn't, it needs to contribute hideous firepower, because its likely contributing almost nothing to your objective game. (I guess it can sit on an objective in your deployment zone, but again, terrain shouldn't make that the best place to park long-range guns.)
9th's issue of lethality is because GW upped the damage. To a degree this happened through 8th - but went into supernova with Marines 2.0 and specifically getting doctrines. I.E. Ironhands in super-doctrine, okay I ignore the -1 to hit from moving and I get to reroll 1s to hit. Ignoring the point of AP, that's a 55.5% (!!!) upgrade in expected output versus a scenario where neither of those buffs are in place. (I.e. I'd expect to hit 14 in 18 shots versus 9 in 18 shots). The cap on -1 to hit arguably makes it less valuable in 9th - but still.
Every army now has the equivalent - and most of these rules buff damage output rather than defense.
Daedalus81 wrote: It wasn't that the guns in older editions were much less lethal than they are now. It was that you basically could barely move and use them at the same time. Plasma was king, hordes barely got saves, tanks could die to one hit, and morale would force you to run away. The guys who set up in fire lanes first or that had circumvention was going to do better -- OOLOS artillery, scatbikes, etc.
It's as much a movement thing as it is a stats thing. MM is the only weapon that took on a lot of change compare to others and it started as a 1 shot with 2D6 pick highest damage. The real proliferation wasn't the old weapons themselves, but the Primaris line and army rule add-ons.
In terms of movement I feel as though this system is better and I think most people agree that the go-first advantage is either gone or not significant enough to be worth mentioning. Go first in older editions could be quite rough especially considering how little terrain there was and how preventing a tank kill was a coin-flip.
Cover gave you a 5+ or 4+ invuln, which kept those squishy hordes in the fight and gave Marines a chance against heavy weapons. You got your full save unless the enemy had enough AP to ignore it, so no 3+ saves getting degraded to 4+ or 5+, and most armies couldn't spam all plasma like armies today can spam AP-1/AP-2. Boards were big enough and ranges low enough that being out of range was reasonably common. Melee troops weren't regularly throwing 4+ attacks, because breaking the enemy through morale allowed melee to be decisive without needing to wipe out the enemy in one go. You couldn't split fire to ensure every weapon went into its optimal target. Twin-linked weapons got re-rolling hits, not twice as many shots. And maybe more than anything else, you did not get stacks of re-roll 1s, re-roll misses, +1 to wound, reduce saves by 1, mortal wounds on 6s, or stratagems conferring similar abilities whenever you want.
The requirement to choose between moving or shooting at full effectiveness was definitely part of what made lethality lower in older editions, but I don't think it was the main thing. Offensive capabilities have crept upwards through raw stat changes, core rule changes, and access to force-multipliers, while defensive capabilities have been degraded through the de-emphasis of cover, reduced board size relative to ranges, and permissive LOS/casualty systems. It's those factors plus the removal of limitations (on moving and shooting, targeting, and shooting and charging) that have dramatically increased lethality.
You could probably re-work the current game to significantly reduce lethality without going back on units being able to move and shoot as freely as they can now. But frankly, I think the game would benefit from more constraints on what capabilities a unit can employ in any given turn- beyond reducing lethality, it makes combat more driven by tactical decisions and less by raw weapon/target pairing spreadsheet optimization. Plus, maybe those anti-MEQ heavy weapons would be less oppressive if you could avoid them by just breaking LOS, rather than the impossible task of hiding from everywhere they could reach with a 6" move. And maybe Shuriken Catapults and Fleshborers wouldn't need lethality-boosting glow-ups if the Assault weapon type's looser restrictions actually mattered like it used to. Stuff like that.
catbarf wrote: Melee troops weren't regularly throwing 4+ attacks, because breaking the enemy through morale allowed melee to be decisive without needing to wipe out the enemy in one go.
No, it didn't. Because SM, Nids and cult CSM were immune to it and catching a unit with +2/+3 Initiative was super unlikely. It was a garbage rule and melee just dealing whatever damage it is supposed to do instead of that BS is a thousand times better.
Moving 6" with your marines and then firing your impressive 4 bolt pistols and a flamer (couldn't shoot with certain weapons if you wanted to charge and I think you could only shoot the target you wanted to charge) before doing that impressive 6" charge to hit them with your 8 basic CC attacks that most likely hit on 4+, wounded on 4+ and gave them a 3+ save. Then 3 power fist attacks after the opponent have hit back.
Not exactly a huge radius of "deadly" force compared to now. 12" threat when combining shooting and melee for the basic unit. If they did not charge they had only a 24" range if standing still or 18" if moving.
Now you can have 5 intercessors move/advance up to 13", shoot 3 shots at a target 24"(with the short range bolter) away and then charge a target up to 12" away. Then hit with at least 12 normal attacks and 4 powered up sergeant attacks. With stacking buffs almost everything could hit at 2+ with rerolls to hit. Most likely wound even tanks on a 4+ in both shooting and melee with at least ap 1 and perhaps even some rerolls here too. Depending on exact chapter you could easily add exploding 6s, additional damage, a bunch of extra attacks or even more ap. Thunderhammer on the sergeant and you could buff it up to easily kill a normal vehicle and perhaps in a more extreme scenario even kill a 24w knight.
Even the most basic troop choice for marines can now charge something up to 25" from its starting position (a lot of chapters have some access to advance + charge besides BA....) and at the same time also shoot at full capacity at a different target from what it is charging, up to 37" from where the intercessors began their turn.
Not only did the board become like 20% smaller, even the most basic unit marine unit can threaten stuff that isnt behind solid walls(so not ruins) 100% further with melee but in range also about 100% further (bit depending on what bolter and chapter). There also isn't always 24" no mans land. It can actually be much much shorter than that. The shortest distance between deployment zones is a distance the average unit can charge into with a 6" move and a 7" charge roll. It is only just below 13" the shortest distance between the corners when it is quartered deployment and at most 18" when going through the middle "circle".
Daedalus81 wrote: It wasn't that the guns in older editions were much less lethal than they are now. It was that you basically could barely move and use them at the same time. Plasma was king, hordes barely got saves, tanks could die to one hit, and morale would force you to run away. The guys who set up in fire lanes first or that had circumvention was going to do better -- OOLOS artillery, scatbikes, etc.
It's as much a movement thing as it is a stats thing. MM is the only weapon that took on a lot of change compare to others and it started as a 1 shot with 2D6 pick highest damage. The real proliferation wasn't the old weapons themselves, but the Primaris line and army rule add-ons.
In terms of movement I feel as though this system is better and I think most people agree that the go-first advantage is either gone or not significant enough to be worth mentioning. Go first in older editions could be quite rough especially considering how little terrain there was and how preventing a tank kill was a coin-flip.
Cover gave you a 5+ or 4+ invuln, which kept those squishy hordes in the fight and gave Marines a chance against heavy weapons. You got your full save unless the enemy had enough AP to ignore it, so no 3+ saves getting degraded to 4+ or 5+, and most armies couldn't spam all plasma like armies today can spam AP-1/AP-2. Boards were big enough and ranges low enough that being out of range was reasonably common. Melee troops weren't regularly throwing 4+ attacks, because breaking the enemy through morale allowed melee to be decisive without needing to wipe out the enemy in one go. You couldn't split fire to ensure every weapon went into its optimal target. Twin-linked weapons got re-rolling hits, not twice as many shots. And maybe more than anything else, you did not get stacks of re-roll 1s, re-roll misses, +1 to wound, reduce saves by 1, mortal wounds on 6s, or stratagems conferring similar abilities whenever you want.
The requirement to choose between moving or shooting at full effectiveness was definitely part of what made lethality lower in older editions, but I don't think it was the main thing. Offensive capabilities have crept upwards through raw stat changes, core rule changes, and access to force-multipliers, while defensive capabilities have been degraded through the de-emphasis of cover, reduced board size relative to ranges, and permissive LOS/casualty systems. It's those factors plus the removal of limitations (on moving and shooting, targeting, and shooting and charging) that have dramatically increased lethality.
You could probably re-work the current game to significantly reduce lethality without going back on units being able to move and shoot as freely as they can now. But frankly, I think the game would benefit from more constraints on what capabilities a unit can employ in any given turn- beyond reducing lethality, it makes combat more driven by tactical decisions and less by raw weapon/target pairing spreadsheet optimization. Plus, maybe those anti-MEQ heavy weapons would be less oppressive if you could avoid them by just breaking LOS, rather than the impossible task of hiding from everywhere they could reach with a 6" move. And maybe Shuriken Catapults and Fleshborers wouldn't need lethality-boosting glow-ups if the Assault weapon type's looser restrictions actually mattered like it used to. Stuff like that.
I would be curious to see a couple of pros really take the screws to an older edition and see what happens.
The no pre-measure was a factor as well given the limited tolerances to get it right against incoming melee. It's why I loved my Rubric marines who could move and pop off at 24" regardless.
Terrain then might give better protection when dice get rolled, but terrain now gives better protection overall - at least that's my gut feeling. That and morale potentially forcing you to move back from only 25% casualties made getting in range pretty tough for some.
Toss initiative and grenades ( and units lacking both ) as well as removing casualties in initiative order and overrun - pretty brutal.
You're right about the layered rules. Rerolls were pretty rough for all of 8th. Strats are a factor, but they're a bit more sensible ( mostly ).
Dudeface wrote: Oh I agree on the csm, they weren't overly great, but they were sometimes seen as better than their loyalist counterparts for a while due to reduced wastage and points saved. There were some who actually were concerned at getting 2w in the end due to the increase price tags for gaining what felt like little in return.
Would you say you're for the changes at this point then in that case?
I guess I'm kind of mixed really. I think this may make Marines too good. I don't play Marines, I don't really like Marines and Marines being good (again) will probably get old real fast. Especially if 1 in 3 (pushing 1 in 2) players move back to playing them, as we saw in late 8th/early 9th.
But I equally don't like armies to be bad (well, except Grey Knights) and clearly they had become so (outside of certain specific BA lists).
I don't have a sacred cow on "gear must cost something" - because I think its fair plenty of gear is worthless, or units without specials are functionally bad, and splitting the difference is hard.
Aesthetically I prefer blinged out squads. Its always felt bad to me that say unit champions often come with fancy weapons and pistols, that you were just meant to ignore because they cost far too much. Other people may prefer to keep their guys with basic equipment but that feels a bit sad to me. Like not taking Standard Bearers and Musicians in WHFB (because they were often overcosted too.)
For a long time now I think GW have struggled with "basic Marine", 13 points, 1 T4 3+ save 1 wound, bolt gun and naked fist. This model was kind of tough but toothless.
Now lets buy him a lascannon or something for say 20 points, making him 33 points. Well he's still 1 T4 3+ save 1 wound model. So now he has a respectable gun (ymmv on whether a lascannon is that good these days) but is incredibly fragile. Theoretically there is probably some sort of tipping point here - but it may not be possible to identify. Certainly across the whole game with its thousand or so variations.
I also think part of the problem with the game is deciding what is meant to counter what. I.E. "Choppers shouldn't have AP-1". Well, without it, you'd need on average 18 Chopper Swings to kill a 2 wound marine. (18*2/3*1/2*1/3=2). Should say 30 boyz on average just kill 5 tactical marines? That seems kind of terrible for a unit which has token shooting, isn't especially fast or is especially tough. You can I guess go "its fine, make Boyz 5~ points" - but then they would be tough *for the points* and people would turn up with say 300~ to just sit on Objectives. The same applies to things like Wych Elves.
But as people said, the problem is if most units are at least "okay" into Marines, then marines start to drift down the pecking order. So Marine damage output needs to be buffed up to match. Which brings us to 9th's "everything counters everything" model. Which is sort of balanced, but has often been too lethal as a result.
100% on board with this, you hit the nail on the head.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote: Those grav cannons kill 33 marines at 18 points, they also only kill 33 guardsmen at 6.5 points. Feels hard to justify the cost of that defensive profile at that point, which takes us back to where we started before AoC but with more guns.
I'm not so sure I have a problem with Grav Cannons killing Marines effectively or efficiently. It's kinda what they're there for.
Fair enough point, it's more the s5 ap-1 fleshborers of the world which are more a problem in this circumstance.
catbarf wrote:
Dudeface wrote: As above, in the grav cannons example, they're just as easy to kill as guardsmen. They are for a lot of weapons.
I don't see any problem with there existing dedicated anti-MEQ weapons that kill Marines well, and talking like that makes Marines no more durable than Guardsmen is silly. Guardsmen get mulched by bolt rifles, Marines don't.
Now if you're staring down armies of just grav cannons, then that's proof positive that (a) unrestricted FOC makes access to heavy weapons too easy, (b) free wargear makes spamming heavy weapons too easy, and (c) you play a game where a majority of armies on the table are power armor so of course people are going to zero in on anti-MEQ weapons. None of which is really about the utility of a T4/W2/3+ profile, which is pretty great when it's bolt rifles shooting at you rather than your hard-counters, and buffing Marine defensive profiles until they can survive a table full of grav cannons would be insanity.
Every army in the game is having durability issues because every army in the game has seen an escalation of offensive capabilities, from a combination of statline creep and expanded availability, on top of 9th Ed factors like less impactful terrain and smaller tables. This isn't a Marine-specific thing.
I'd argue marines also get mulched by tac doctrine bolt rifles far more than they should. All the tail end of that I agree with vigorously, lethality overall is too high and decision making is too narrow/fixated on killing.
I honestly can't tell which side of this you're stood on. Are you highlighting that marines are super squishy so need to be cheap, or super killy now that they're cheap? Both?
The point is they have all the extra output but still fart and die in a stiff breeze. Showing off how easily they die isn't a good argument for showing how overpowered they are at the same time.
That whistling sound you hear Dudeface is the point sailing happily over your head. Complaining that Marines are squishy right after they got hundreds of points of free heavy/special weapons which are almost always better at killing MEQs than they are GEQs is stupid. "Ohh woe is us, we lost AoC and now look how fast we die...definitely doesn't have anything to do with the 3x times the # of Heavy/specials on the table, totally because Marines are squishy".
Back at you, I can see the vapour trail of my point in the distance - Marines got AoC to assist survivability because they were too easily killed by most lists/forces. Highlighting that they die faster/easier as an example of how amazing free gear is, is kinda like pointing out water is wet. Please, continue to fixate on "OMG FREE THINGS" rather than the reason they have them - they cannot reasonably rework marine survivability without altering the entire games lethality. Increasing marine lethality in turn accentuates their issues and actually highlights why AoC was brought in, this has a net gain for a lot of people playing into marines if you can get past the concept they have free stuff. They could have made devastators cheap per model and pay for the grav cannons to the same points value, but for some reason I don't think you'd be complaining as much then.
vict0988 wrote: 2W T4 3+ Sv is not squishy, go play Custodes.
Yet 500 points of marines removes 33 of them a turn as per 2 posts prior....
Now take away the 800+pts of free wargear and redo the math. Oh, its the ridiculous amount of free things that are killing those Marines.
Again, the total end value in points can be kept the same and they can stop being free, would that help in your head? If so how cheap should a AoC-less marine be?
I'm being silly yet we're showing off how killy space marines are by using space marines as an example of how easily things die in the same example? You're allowed to just admit that marines have survivability issues, otherwise I'd lose you to explain why AoC came into being in the first place and why it propped up some marine armies into the mid tiers. Stop pretending like every other army out there throws rocks around, there's plenty of 2d and/or reasonable ap attacks in literally every book.
I agree on transports though, I do feel they're underused atm and not well represented.
Marines don't have durability issues, what they have is the #1 problem i've been stating for years, the most common defensive profile in the game. I build lists with T4 3+ in mind because...MOST ARMIES HAVE THAT PROFILE; or a derivative of. (Marines, CSM, Special Marines, SoB etc).
My last GT I placed 5th overall and by points it would have been 2nd, my best units were 3x10 Kommandos, A unit of Burnas and 3x3 Squigriders. Against Marines Kommandos get no benefits because they lose -1AP on their choppas. So 9 of them do 27 attacks, 18 hits, usually 12 wounds (Sometimes 15 if in cover) and after saves they end up with...2 dead Marines. The nob swings and gets 4 attacks, 2 hits, 1.66 wounds and after AoC its like 1 more dead Marines. So a CC specialist unit kills 3 Marines a turn. Marines aren't squishy, its the lethality of the game for a bunch of different factions, and now Marines just jumped to hte head of hte line in terms of lethality.
They just lost AoC, your Kommandos now do at least 1 extra marines worth of wounds in return but have to fear a free thunder hammer. Well done, those super lethal marines (because we're focusing on firstborn for some reason today) do the exact same damage in return rounding off as before because the thunder hammer cancels out the extra casualty. I'd agree they've gained a lot of oomph, more than I'd like to see from any faction, but I think they've shown that they can't rules stack marines into relevance.
Daedalus81 wrote:
Dudeface wrote: As shown, the correct idea is to reduce AP game wide as has been stated repeatedly for over a year by pretty much everyone.
Honest questions -
What do you do with AP0 guns? Is it worthwhile to even take primaris when the standard issue is just as good and the flexibility is better on tacticals? Or would everyone just use stalker bolt rifles?
The first point of AP is the most crucial in this system. How will you prevent units who have access to change from AP0 to AP1 costed in a way that doesn't discourage either?
How are you going to handle AP improving abilities and the uneven access to them and the weapons they affect?
All good questions, I'm not smart enough to answer some of it comprehensively and don't want to be an armchair games designer. AP0 should be around a lot more than it is. Pulse rifles, bolter/bolt rifles, fleshborers, shuriken catapults (can be convinced there maybe) etc. should be AP0, they should also not fire more to compensate, sometimes even less than they do now. As a bone to Semper I actually think a bolter or chainsword at ap 0 is ok but accept a choppa at AP-1.
Regards the costing question in comparison, maybe tie that cost specifically to the upgrade, which needs to be a fixed upgrade at that, not an imaginary CP. If a unit can fundamentally shift the game like that there does need to be some balancing involved and I don't think temporary boosts like strats cover it well enough.
I don't think there should be AP improving abilities, I don't understand how a guy yelling makes someone's projectiles sharper/tougher/better designed. I see the value as a lever for GW to pull in terms of flavour and balance but it's not one that should be touched imo, same way very few auras should give a fnp type ability imo.
We're well into me being "some idiot attempting to rewrite the game" which isn't what we're going to get though. There's people out there on here who can do a far better job than me of these things, I don't envy the GW rules team one bit though.
As a concluding thought, firstly apologies to all I've had a sofa related existential crisis as the day went on. Other than that, there's a mix of "OMG FREE THINGS" with no conversation about what things should cost generally and a resigned "meh, what else were they supposed to do at this stage" on the other end of the spectrum with a few opinions dotted in between. I don't think 10th ed will fix a lot of this in honesty, but it also isn't going to go away with some heeavvvvyyyy editing and I'd rather see a game where having a lot of your force left top of T3 is normal and expected. Make hordes great again, make power armoured dudes feel tough, stop making pocket knives pierce armoured bunkers.
Dudeface wrote: ...with no conversation about what things should cost generally
What's the point of doing the math on what things should cost if you don't have the manpower to playtest the points costs you think things should be to find out where things are broken? Even if you did have the manpower to test it you wouldn't have the influence in even your local community to make them play with your points, because you certainly won't get the bigger community to accept it. Here's a shot in the dark.
4‑9 Devastator Marines 14/model
1 Devastator Marine Sergeant 20
• The Devastator Marine Sergeant’s bolt pistol can be replaced with one of the following: 1 grav-pistol +1; 1 plasma pistol +2; 1 Astartes chainsword; 1 lightning claw +1; 1 power axe +1; 1 power fist +2; 1 power maul +1; 1 power sword +1; 1 thunder hammer +3.
• The Devastator Marine Sergeant’s boltgun can be replaced with one of the following: 1 combi-flamer +2; 1 combi-grav +2; 1 combi-melta +3; 1 combi-plasma +3; 1 storm bolter +1; 1 bolt pistol +1; 1 grav-pistol +2; 1 plasma pistol +3; 1 Astartes chainsword +1; 1 lightning claw +2; 1 power axe +3; 1 power fist +3; 1 power maul +2; 1 power sword +2; 1 thunder hammer +4.
• Up to 4 Devastator Marines can each have their boltgun replaced with 1 grav-cannon +10; 1 heavy bolter +5; 1 lascannon +10; 1 missile launcher +5; 1 multi-melta +20; 1 plasma cannon +8.
• The unit can be equipped with 1 Armorium Cherub +10.
Dudeface wrote: ...with no conversation about what things should cost generally
What's the point of doing the math on what things should cost if you don't have the manpower to playtest the points costs you think things should be to find out where things are broken? Even if you did have the manpower to test it you wouldn't have the influence in even your local community to make them play with your points, because you certainly won't get the bigger community to accept it. Here's a shot in the dark.
4‑9 Devastator Marines 14/model
1 Devastator Marine Sergeant 20
• The Devastator Marine Sergeant’s bolt pistol can be replaced with one of the following: 1 grav-pistol +1; 1 plasma pistol +2; 1 Astartes chainsword; 1 lightning claw +1; 1 power axe +1; 1 power fist +2; 1 power maul +1; 1 power sword +1; 1 thunder hammer +3.
• The Devastator Marine Sergeant’s boltgun can be replaced with one of the following: 1 combi-flamer +2; 1 combi-grav +2; 1 combi-melta +3; 1 combi-plasma +3; 1 storm bolter +1; 1 bolt pistol +1; 1 grav-pistol +2; 1 plasma pistol +3; 1 Astartes chainsword +1; 1 lightning claw +2; 1 power axe +3; 1 power fist +3; 1 power maul +2; 1 power sword +2; 1 thunder hammer +4.
• Up to 4 Devastator Marines can each have their boltgun replaced with 1 grav-cannon +10; 1 heavy bolter +5; 1 lascannon +10; 1 missile launcher +5; 1 multi-melta +20; 1 plasma cannon +8.
• The unit can be equipped with 1 Armorium Cherub +10.
OK, so no reason to ever take the chainsword unless you acknowledge you're not supposed to be in melee with them. Otherwise the tiny number of points means they're either an auto include due to negligible impact on the roster. Not really convinced 1bonus s4 ap-1 d1 attack is only worth 1 point less than a s5 ap-3 d1 profile for example.
I can't think of a situation where I would ever want the heavy bolter there, the points gaps are too small to differentiate clearly enough. I kinda feel plasma cannons are the easy go to point. For most issues with those points.
Why is the sergeant 20? Is a single melee attack worth 6 points? Do you think that 166 points for the 5 melta guys with a cherub seem a good choice? A whole 11 points less than the AoC version?
catbarf wrote: Melee troops weren't regularly throwing 4+ attacks, because breaking the enemy through morale allowed melee to be decisive without needing to wipe out the enemy in one go.
No, it didn't. Because SM, Nids and cult CSM were immune to it and catching a unit with +2/+3 Initiative was super unlikely. It was a garbage rule and melee just dealing whatever damage it is supposed to do instead of that BS is a thousand times better.
I remember Marines falling back but auto-rallying if they didn't get caught by Sweeping Advance, and Tyranids staying in combat but taking extra wounds that, ironically, was perceived as making them more vulnerable in melee rather than less. We're talking about a span of multiple editions here, in which melee changed a lot, so you'll need to be specific.
If you feel that none of them got it right and there's no possible way to reasonably handle the few exceptions to the normal morale system, suit yourself. I think the current system where melee troops have to be so lethal that they wipe out units on the charge kinda sucks.
catbarf wrote: I remember Marines falling back but auto-rallying if they didn't get caught by Sweeping Advance, and Tyranids staying in combat but taking extra wounds that, ironically, was perceived as making them more vulnerable in melee rather than less. We're talking about a span of multiple editions here, in which melee changed a lot, so you'll need to be specific.
If you feel that none of them got it right and there's no possible way to reasonably handle the few exceptions to the normal morale system, suit yourself. I think the current system where melee troops have to be so lethal that they wipe out units on the charge kinda sucks.
Ah yea - the old fearless mechanic. Same for Orks over a certain size. If you lost all your models in base then you didn't swing and then fearless kept you there so you instead took some number of S3/S4 hits instead and allowed your opponent to be safe from shooting AND they probably got to swing first again.
Daedalus81 wrote: I would be curious to see a couple of pros really take the screws to an older edition and see what happens.
If by "pros" you mean tournament players, I'd rather they didn't. The tournament scene already has a disproportionate amount of influence over 40k as it is. I hate to ever see it expanded.
Daedalus81 wrote: ... but terrain now gives better protection overall - at least that's my gut feeling.
Terrain and LOS rules go hand-in-hand. Right now you can target the tip of a claw on a wing that's sticking out behind cover, even if you literally cannot see any other part of the model. That didn't used to be the case. You had to be able to see what you were shooting at - properly see it - and that combined with the flat cover saves that 3rd-7th gave you meant that cover meant more, did more and, in a strange twist, was a more interactive mechanic.
And that's something to keep in mind. 2nd Edition, and by extension 8th/9th, as they have basically the same systems for saves, are non-interactive for the opponent. There are so many save modifiers, and you so rarely ever get to roll your actual save if you don't start with a high one, that opponent shooting phases are just you removing casualties. Cover saves let you do something. They kept you involved. They were inelegant, and didn't scale perhaps as well as they should have, but it meant that you were doing something other than just pulling models off the board every time it wasn't your turn.
I distinctly remember a friend and I trying out our 3rd-7th style Guard and Eldar armies out in 2nd Ed, and when it got to the shooting phase I just spent my time putting models back in my case. Never got to roll a single die to protect myself. With cover saves, as clunky as the whole AP system might have been, I at least got to participate in the game when it wasn't my turn.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And that's something to keep in mind. 2nd Edition, and by extension 8th/9th, as they have basically the same systems for saves, are non-interactive for the opponent. There are so many save modifiers, and you so rarely ever get to roll your actual save if you don't start with a high one, that opponent shooting phases are just you removing casualties. Cover saves let you do something. They kept you involved. They were inellegant, and didn't scale perhaps as well as they should have, but it meant that you were doing something other than just pulling models off the board every time it wasn't your turn.
I distinctly remember a friend and I trying out our 3rd-7th style Guard and Eldar armies out in 2nd Ed, and when it got to the shooting phase I just spent my time putting models back in my case. Never got to roll a single die to protect myself. With cover saves, as clunky as the whole AP system might have been, I at least got to participate in the game when it wasn't my turn.
I've often felt that the cover save mechanic along with all-or-nothing AP system were weird and unintuitive from a design standpoint, but I liked what they did in practice. Guardsmen rarely benefited from their body armor and so hugged terrain whenever they could, while Marines ignored cover and relied on their armor against small arms, but would sensibly seek cover against heavy weapons. It allowed for both 'real-world' troops and power armored space knights to exist side-by-side and behave differently, and there's an elegance to achieving that with such a simple mechanic.
Representing cover as save modifiers instead has this counterintuitive effect where Guardsmen rarely bother with cover because prevalent AP renders it ineffective, while Marines get significantly more benefit and are incentivized to hide. And either way, if the enemy has AP-4 weapons you might as well be standing in the open in your birthday suit because you're probably not getting better than 6+ anyways. It makes more sense on paper, but has undesirable effects in practice.
I've told the story of my first experience with 3rd Ed before, and how it specifically relates to armour saves.
It was a demo game in a GW store, long after 3rd had come out, and it was the standard store 10 Tacs + Land Speeder vs 20 Dark Eldar Warrior set up of that era.
I only remember two things from that game:
1. Having a Land Speeder felt a bit OP for the Marines. 2. How utterly shocked I was at Marines getting to use their 3+ save.
I was a die-hard 2nd Ed player, right into Necromunda. Armour Save values were flights of fancy - you never got to actually take a 3+ save on power armour, or even a 3+ on 2D6 save on Terminator armour. Damn near everything in the game had a Save Modifier - even Lasguns! - so times when a 3+ save actually meant needing a 3+ were almost unheard of (Gretchin Autoguns was one area).
In Necromunda armour was rare, and why bother with a 6+ set of Flak Armour when, as I just said, even Lasguns had a -1 Save Mod? Flak Armour gave you a 5+ against blast weapons, but Frag weapons had a -1 Save Mod, so you were still taking 6+ saves! Armour was pointless.
This demo game took place sometime between 2001 and 2002 (after the 3rd Ed Tyranid Codex, but before the 3.5 Chaos Codex which is the book that got me back into 40k), but it sticks like a ever-shining lighthouse in my memory of the first time a Marine ever felt like a frickin' Marine, capable of standing in the open and letting his suit of bright blue tank armour actually take the hit.
I get the criticisms of the all-or-nothing AP system, but I'd take it over the jumbled overly lethal mess we have now. It was simple, it worked (mostly*), and it let you remain part of the game when it wasn't your turn.
*GW has never been good at finding a middle ground, so Choppas were an example of something that always frustrated me because they didn't scale and were good against one area, but did nothing in another. Reduce you down to 4+ save, so a choppa reduces Terminators to a 4+ yet has no additional effect on Guardsmen... what? Autocannons could crack vehicles, but they were AP4 and couldn't ding Space Marines. When we eventually did our own rules, we added a 'High Impact' rule that went with the standard 3rd-7th AP system. It was simple: If you had 'High Impact' rule (so heavy close combat weapons, things like Choppas) or were S7 and above you had a -1 Save Mod. Meant that an Autocannon didn't ignore a Marine's armour, but it also had a 50/50 shot of getting through. Meant that a Krak Missile didn't completely bounce off Terminators. Also meant a Choppa reduced Terminator saves, but not as much as Marine saves, and did reduce Guard saves. Worked pretty well.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Autocannons could crack vehicles, but they were AP4 and couldn't ding Space Marines.
Vehicles should have had both armor and AV, like a Rhino might have a 4+ save with 10 AV while a Land Raider is rocking a 2+ with 14 AV all around. It toughens up vehicles because you need both strength and AP to start generating rolls on the damage chart.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've told the story of my first experience with 3rd Ed before, and how it specifically relates to armour saves.
It was a demo game in a GW store, long after 3rd had come out, and it was the standard store 10 Tacs + Land Speeder vs 20 Dark Eldar Warrior set up of that era.
I only remember two things from that game:
1. Having a Land Speeder felt a bit OP for the Marines. 2. How utterly shocked I was at Marines getting to use their 3+ save.
Many GW boxed sets (and that was the boxed set force of 3rd edition) often had weirdly unfavorable match-ups. But that one was, I think, the absolute worst. There was simply no pretense of being fair, but was regarded by quite a few GW employees as what the game was 'supposed to feel like.' Mostly it taught many a nascent dark eldar player (that was their introduction, sadly enough) that they absolutely needed to spam dark lances/blasters. Splinter cannons and rifles were horribly deficient.
Once upon a time they entire concept of a first turn charge was next to impossible. Even in the days of Rhino Rushing I don't think it was possible outside of maybe Blood Angels and they supercharged engines (and I could be remembering that incorrectly as well). Maybe grey codex Eldar with their AV14 Wave Serpents where you could get out the front (rather than access points, which were added later, and probably should come back) could do it?
Dudeface wrote: ...with no conversation about what things should cost generally
What's the point of doing the math on what things should cost if you don't have the manpower to playtest the points costs you think things should be to find out where things are broken? Even if you did have the manpower to test it you wouldn't have the influence in even your local community to make them play with your points, because you certainly won't get the bigger community to accept it. Here's a shot in the dark.
4‑9 Devastator Marines 14/model 1 Devastator Marine Sergeant 20 • The Devastator Marine Sergeant’s bolt pistol can be replaced with one of the following: 1 grav-pistol +1; 1 plasma pistol +2; 1 Astartes chainsword; 1 lightning claw +1; 1 power axe +1; 1 power fist +2; 1 power maul +1; 1 power sword +1; 1 thunder hammer +3. • The Devastator Marine Sergeant’s boltgun can be replaced with one of the following: 1 combi-flamer +2; 1 combi-grav +2; 1 combi-melta +3; 1 combi-plasma +3; 1 storm bolter +1; 1 bolt pistol +1; 1 grav-pistol +2; 1 plasma pistol +3; 1 Astartes chainsword +1; 1 lightning claw +2; 1 power axe +3; 1 power fist +3; 1 power maul +2; 1 power sword +2; 1 thunder hammer +4. • Up to 4 Devastator Marines can each have their boltgun replaced with 1 grav-cannon +10; 1 heavy bolter +5; 1 lascannon +10; 1 missile launcher +5; 1 multi-melta +20; 1 plasma cannon +8. • The unit can be equipped with 1 Armorium Cherub +10.
OK, so no reason to ever take the chainsword unless you acknowledge you're not supposed to be in melee with them. Otherwise the tiny number of points means they're either an auto include due to negligible impact on the roster. Not really convinced 1bonus s4 ap-1 d1 attack is only worth 1 point less than a s5 ap-3 d1 profile for example.
I can't think of a situation where I would ever want the heavy bolter there, the points gaps are too small to differentiate clearly enough. I kinda feel plasma cannons are the easy go to point. For most issues with those points.
Why is the sergeant 20? Is a single melee attack worth 6 points? Do you think that 166 points for the 5 melta guys with a cherub seem a good choice? A whole 11 points less than the AoC version?
You don't get to choose whether your Devastators get into melee, 40k is an adversarial game. You also usually won't try to get them into melee. Where does that leave melee options? Usually useless, but still worth more than 0. 4 S4 AP-1 attacks aren't bad compared to 3 S5 AP-3 attacks when it's easy to get an extra AP. Better against T5 or heavily armoured units, but you'll rarely be facing them in melee and even then the power weapon is only going to help a little. I already acknowledged the points might be wrong, but that's still better than knowing the points are wrong because there is no incentive to take the boltgun boltpistol Sergeant with 4 HB Devastators. Hopefully someone would look at those points and say "why would I ever take anything other than heavy bolters, my Devastators always get sniped off the board I just need them to be cheap and hold my backfield objective". The Sergeant has the +1 BS thing and his cost is that high as an MSU tax.
catbarf wrote: Melee troops weren't regularly throwing 4+ attacks, because breaking the enemy through morale allowed melee to be decisive without needing to wipe out the enemy in one go.
No, it didn't. Because SM, Nids and cult CSM were immune to it and catching a unit with +2/+3 Initiative was super unlikely. It was a garbage rule and melee just dealing whatever damage it is supposed to do instead of that BS is a thousand times better.
I remember Marines falling back but auto-rallying if they didn't get caught by Sweeping Advance, and Tyranids staying in combat but taking extra wounds that, ironically, was perceived as making them more vulnerable in melee rather than less. We're talking about a span of multiple editions here, in which melee changed a lot, so you'll need to be specific.
If you feel that none of them got it right and there's no possible way to reasonably handle the few exceptions to the normal morale system, suit yourself. I think the current system where melee troops have to be so lethal that they wipe out units on the charge kinda sucks.
I hate all the ones where Necrons weren't Fearless. I don't know how you can combine the thought of "melee needs to be decisive" and "melee dealing enough damage to be decisive is problematic". Tri-pointing actually requires skill as opposed to just rolling your headless goons into the enemy and hoping the artificial stupidity of the game resolves it for you.
Not Online!!! wrote: Maybee sm shouldn't have 2 wounds to beginn with, atleast not normal marines and aswell not primaris...
But that is another discussion tieing back to ap beeing handed out, abandoning the binary armor system whilest doing so and then being surprised why we see marines not taking hits well.
Nah, the Intercessor statline is what the baseline of Marines should've always been. The problem is GW deciding even Fleshborers should be AP-1 and wounding both Marines and Infantry on the same roll.
Also the modifier system is a lot better than the all-or-nothing system.
Daedalus81 wrote: I would be curious to see a couple of pros really take the screws to an older edition and see what happens.
If by "pros" you mean tournament players, I'd rather they didn't. The tournament scene already has a disproportionate amount of influence over 40k as it is. I hate to ever see it expanded.
Daedalus81 wrote: ... but terrain now gives better protection overall - at least that's my gut feeling.
Terrain and LOS rules go hand-in-hand. Right now you can target the tip of a claw on a wing that's sticking out behind cover, even if you literally cannot see any other part of the model. That didn't used to be the case. You had to be able to see what you were shooting at - properly see it - and that combined with the flat cover saves that 3rd-7th gave you meant that cover meant more, did more and, in a strange twist, was a more interactive mechanic.
And that's something to keep in mind. 2nd Edition, and by extension 8th/9th, as they have basically the same systems for saves, are non-interactive for the opponent. There are so many save modifiers, and you so rarely ever get to roll your actual save if you don't start with a high one, that opponent shooting phases are just you removing casualties. Cover saves let you do something. They kept you involved. They were inelegant, and didn't scale perhaps as well as they should have, but it meant that you were doing something other than just pulling models off the board every time it wasn't your turn.
I distinctly remember a friend and I trying out our 3rd-7th style Guard and Eldar armies out in 2nd Ed, and when it got to the shooting phase I just spent my time putting models back in my case. Never got to roll a single die to protect myself. With cover saves, as clunky as the whole AP system might have been, I at least got to participate in the game when it wasn't my turn.
Your post is just TL;DR when lethality is bad, IGOUGO makes it not a game. No gak you didn't get to interact with your opponent. You don't interact with your opponent on their turn period unless melee is involved.
And no, rolling saves is not interacting with the opponent.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Once upon a time they entire concept of a first turn charge was next to impossible. Even in the days of Rhino Rushing I don't think it was possible outside of maybe Blood Angels and they supercharged engines (and I could be remembering that incorrectly as well). Maybe grey codex Eldar with their AV14 Wave Serpents where you could get out the front (rather than access points, which were added later, and probably should come back) could do it?
Blood Angels in 3rd could do it, definitely. They could max out at a 32" charge on turn one I think. 6 (Blood Rage) + 18 (Supercharged Engine transport) + 2 (Disembark) + 6 (Charge). It was bogus.
Not Online!!! wrote: Maybee sm shouldn't have 2 wounds to beginn with, atleast not normal marines and aswell not primaris...
But that is another discussion tieing back to ap beeing handed out, abandoning the binary armor system whilest doing so and then being surprised why we see marines not taking hits well.
Nah, the Intercessor statline is what the baseline of Marines should've always been. The problem is GW deciding even Fleshborers should be AP-1 and wounding both Marines and Infantry on the same roll.
Also the modifier system is a lot better than the all-or-nothing system.
I disagree.
- A Marine has no buisness being a nob in regards to wounds. Especially since marines unlike Nobs are massable, meaning we enter the defensive profile skewing that i mentioned. (but considering the whole detachment system nobs and their cousin profile the flashgit would techncally also be massable but both suck kinda unlike you stack shenanigans.)
- And the reason why the binary system was as absurd as it was, was the fact that GW didn't give a lot of weapons armor penetrating properties whilest making them plenty workable against tanks (cue Krak rockets and Autocannons and heavy bolters).
- Whilest making AP3 a gold standard for a good shooting weapon and handing them out far to easily.
Incidentally HH solves my second point fairly well and the third point decently by reducing AP 3 availability.
Further against the modifier system speaks: it increases lethality on high armor units per points excessivly (hence AP-1 being such a massive problem because it is a "cheap" stat whilest any armor over 5+ is an comparatively expensive one) due to GW deciding that any pip of armor after the first increases quite a bit in cost. There's also the fact that the wound chart as you brought up is hillariously lopsided compared to the old one making fleshborers stupid but it doesn't stop there, because a lasgun or autogun doesn't care if it shoots a medium bug, chaos spawn or a marine, all the same to it, despite there being a clear size toughness increase that is basically worthless pts wasted due to the wounding chart, hence why we see so many correction "rules" to such units to increase their durability again or even more wounds.
Not Online!!! wrote: Maybee sm shouldn't have 2 wounds to beginn with, atleast not normal marines and aswell not primaris...
But that is another discussion tieing back to ap beeing handed out, abandoning the binary armor system whilest doing so and then being surprised why we see marines not taking hits well.
Nah, the Intercessor statline is what the baseline of Marines should've always been. The problem is GW deciding even Fleshborers should be AP-1 and wounding both Marines and Infantry on the same roll.
Also the modifier system is a lot better than the all-or-nothing system.
I disagree.
- A Marine has no buisness being a nob in regards to wounds. Especially since marines unlike Nobs are massable, meaning we enter the defensive profile skewing that i mentioned. (but considering the whole detachment system nobs and their cousin profile the flashgit would techncally also be massable but both suck kinda unlike you stack shenanigans.
From experience with my own rules I can say that Marines with 2 wounds baseline work pretty well, but you have to be quite restrictive with damage 2 weapons and up. They need to be rare and/or expensive. Even having modifiying AP on most weapons is no issue then. Everything is too cheap right now in 9th edition, units and equipment.
There really isn't anything wrong with marines being 2 wounds. The problem is wanting them to be "survivable" in all circumstances.
If someone brings 15 plasma Inceptors, a dozen Grav Cannons, and wall-to-wall S5 AP-3 2 damage melee attacks, then Marines are going to die - and they should die. This has to be even more exaggerated if you also make them functionally immune to fleshborers, lasguns and so on.
But I don't see why this is any more of a problem than going "yeah, my Footdar really seem to melt before several hundred S4 AP-1 attacks." The issue is making a meta such that running an anti-Marine skew shouldn't be the default build option. Arguably I think GW have tried to alter this by pushing 3 wound Marine models (and to some extent with other factions) - which in turn invites 3 damage weapons into the meta.
From experience with my own rules I can say that Marines with 2 wounds baseline work pretty well, but you have to be quite restrictive with damage 2 weapons and up. They need to be rare and/or expensive. Even having modifiying AP on most weapons is no issue then. Everything is too cheap right now in 9th edition, units and equipment.
And why do you think D2 has become the norm for a lot of weapons?
Surely it has nothing to do with moving a whole army up the wound bracket, that would not lead to any issues at all right? Especially one of the most commons that also has a brother faction and outnumbers other factions played massively.
/S
From experience with my own rules I can say that Marines with 2 wounds baseline work pretty well, but you have to be quite restrictive with damage 2 weapons and up. They need to be rare and/or expensive. Even having modifiying AP on most weapons is no issue then. Everything is too cheap right now in 9th edition, units and equipment.
And why do you think D2 has become the norm for a lot of weapons?
Surely it has nothing to do with moving a whole army up the wound bracket, that would not lead to any issues at all right?
/S
Maybe it shouldn't push up the normal?
Maybe a faction getting 2 wounds as a defensive profile should be allowed to use it without everyone else being given reasonably spammable solutions making it trivial?
Back at you, I can see the vapour trail of my point in the distance - Marines got AoC to assist survivability because they were too easily killed by most lists/forces. Highlighting that they die faster/easier as an example of how amazing free gear is, is kinda like pointing out water is wet. Please, continue to fixate on "OMG FREE THINGS" rather than the reason they have them - they cannot reasonably rework marine survivability without altering the entire games lethality. Increasing marine lethality in turn accentuates their issues and actually highlights why AoC was brought in, this has a net gain for a lot of people playing into marines if you can get past the concept they have free stuff. They could have made devastators cheap per model and pay for the grav cannons to the same points value, but for some reason I don't think you'd be complaining as much then.
Marines got AoC because yet again GW doesn't know how to handle their biggest issue, whatever happens to Marines intrinsically impacts every other aspect of the game; Why? Because they are the most common army in the game...bar none. Its like a revolving door of ridiculousness that for some reason a lot of folks can't seem to see. Marines complained that they were too squishy, so GW gave them a 2nd wound. The rest of the game (including Marines) then complained they didn't have enough dakka to take down 2W Marines, so GW pushed the dakka up again; to which Marines complained they were too squishy again so GW gave them AoC. Marines continued to complain they weren't competitive enough (they weren't). So here we sit now with Marine players losing AoC, more importantly, EVERYONE lost AoC, and realistically Marines were the only faction that were compensated for it which means Marines will go up while most everyone else goes down.
Again, the total end value in points can be kept the same and they can stop being free, would that help in your head? If so how cheap should a AoC-less marine be?
How about writing Marine rules such that they are balanced? Or, if you are really concerned about your T4 3+ profile, maybe find a way to encourage players to bring other armies since Power armored factions are literally over half of all competitors I face at GTs and until that ends we will always build my army and do pre-game math hammer with T4 3+ in mind.
They just lost AoC, your Kommandos now do at least 1 extra marines worth of wounds in return but have to fear a free thunder hammer. Well done, those super lethal marines (because we're focusing on firstborn for some reason today) do the exact same damage in return rounding off as before because the thunder hammer cancels out the extra casualty. I'd agree they've gained a lot of oomph, more than I'd like to see from any faction, but I think they've shown that they can't rules stack marines into relevance.
Beautiful strawman. nobody has claimed Marines are going to be great because a Sgt gets a free thunderhammer. Instead lets look at two of the Kommandos biggest impacts on the game, area denial and durability (Pt for pt). My Kommandos start every game forward deployed in no-mans land and on objectives. They ALWAYS start the game in cover, bar none. Turn 1 my opponents who seem to rarely face off against orkz will do the normal "Shoot the scary orkz" routine. They will inevitably focus on my big units and mostly forget about those kommandos, thinking they can finish them off with a few extra bolter shots. An ork boy in cover takes 6.75 bolter shots to kill. A Kommando in cover (+1 armor) takes about 14.5 bolter shots. Realistically a squad of 5 tac Marines isn't going to kill even 1 Kommando. Now though, the Sgt has a Kombi weapon and the squad has a lascannon or a multi-melta. Those 5 Marines cost the same but now just those 2 models average 1-2 dead Kommandos. so against throw away firepower those kommandos went from losing nothing to losing about 2 Kommandos. Which because GW, means they have to take a Morale test.
So in just this little example of real life scenarios that i've had happen multiple times, a single squad of throw away troop tax just went from killing about 9/14th of an Ork to killing 28+/14th of an Ork. And on the return those Kommandos are only deadlier when they finally get into CC and they went from doing 3dmg to doing 4.5dmg.
Main point though is that Marines just got a lot deadlier for no points increase which means that its not going to be rare at all where my 3 Kommando units get wiped out turn 1 even while hanging out in cover, not to mention, any vehicle i bring is going to have to start the game out of LoS or off the table because there is literally no way for them to survive if they can be seen thanks to all the heavy weapons floating around now in those lists. Don't worry though, my Ramshackle will save a grand total of.....(does math in head)...0 wounds.
If space marines were very resilient, they would either have to be pretty bad at the whole damage dealing business compared to other factions or they would have to be much more expensive. And that in turn would make them more fragile for their points. Another issue is that marines and derivatives are by far the most common armies in the game, so everyone will always be looking to include the best ways to kill them.
Marines got AoC because yet again GW doesn't know how to handle their biggest issue, whatever happens to Marines intrinsically impacts every other aspect of the game; Why? Because they are the most common army in the game...bar none. Its like a revolving door of ridiculousness that for some reason a lot of folks can't seem to see. Marines complained that they were too squishy, so GW gave them a 2nd wound. The rest of the game (including Marines) then complained they didn't have enough dakka to take down 2W Marines, so GW pushed the dakka up again; to which Marines complained they were too squishy again so GW gave them AoC. Marines continued to complain they weren't competitive enough (they weren't). So here we sit now with Marine players losing AoC, more importantly, EVERYONE lost AoC, and realistically Marines were the only faction that were compensated for it which means Marines will go up while most everyone else goes down.
Are you not noticing that there's a trend there of GW caving into complaints rather than actually taking a hard stance to fix something? if that whole process stopped at "Marines complained that they were too squishy, so GW gave them a 2nd wound" (which is inaccurate anyway since primaris launched at 2 wounds before there was chance to be "too squishy"), then problem solved? you can then adjust the rest via points and lowering the damage output of marines to compensate, instead we end up with the eternal arms race.
How about writing Marine rules such that they are balanced? Or, if you are really concerned about your T4 3+ profile, maybe find a way to encourage players to bring other armies since Power armored factions are literally over half of all competitors I face at GTs and until that ends we will always build my army and do pre-game math hammer with T4 3+ in mind.
People will bring what they bring, it should be the games dynamic that the tools for you to kill MEQ effectively aren't good into GEQ etc. Again the kill things super fast ideology is the problem, lower numbers of weaker attacks all round would accomplish this.
Beautiful strawman. nobody has claimed Marines are going to be great because a Sgt gets a free thunderhammer. Instead lets look at two of the Kommandos biggest impacts on the game, area denial and durability (Pt for pt). My Kommandos start every game forward deployed in no-mans land and on objectives. They ALWAYS start the game in cover, bar none. Turn 1 my opponents who seem to rarely face off against orkz will do the normal "Shoot the scary orkz" routine. They will inevitably focus on my big units and mostly forget about those kommandos, thinking they can finish them off with a few extra bolter shots. An ork boy in cover takes 6.75 bolter shots to kill. A Kommando in cover (+1 armor) takes about 14.5 bolter shots. Realistically a squad of 5 tac Marines isn't going to kill even 1 Kommando. Now though, the Sgt has a Kombi weapon and the squad has a lascannon or a multi-melta. Those 5 Marines cost the same but now just those 2 models average 1-2 dead Kommandos. so against throw away firepower those kommandos went from losing nothing to losing about 2 Kommandos. Which because GW, means they have to take a Morale test.
So in just this little example of real life scenarios that i've had happen multiple times, a single squad of throw away troop tax just went from killing about 9/14th of an Ork to killing 28+/14th of an Ork. And on the return those Kommandos are only deadlier when they finally get into CC and they went from doing 3dmg to doing 4.5dmg.
Main point though is that Marines just got a lot deadlier for no points increase which means that its not going to be rare at all where my 3 Kommando units get wiped out turn 1 even while hanging out in cover, not to mention, any vehicle i bring is going to have to start the game out of LoS or off the table because there is literally no way for them to survive if they can be seen thanks to all the heavy weapons floating around now in those lists. Don't worry though, my Ramshackle will save a grand total of.....(does math in head)...0 wounds.
You admit marines weren't capable of competing, you acknowledge they took away their defensive crutch, you can't then complain they gave them the one thing they could in order to reasonably give them a chance: much higher damage output. We ultimately agree that the current state of play is a problem and marines weren't salvageable with point adjustments and a balance dataslate. The difference is you're so fixated on "OMG THEY GOT FREE GUNS" that the rest doesn't seem to matter. I really doubt we'll see marines breach 55%, I'd be shocked if all but a couple of sub-flavours breach 50% and in honesty it's downright unfair what has happened to SoB, DG, CSM & Tsons out of all this.
Again we come back to: what else could they have done in the confines of 9th edition to fix marines without making them more lethal? Very little is the answer I think beyond turning them into a pseudo horde, which they did in a round about way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dolnikan wrote: If space marines were very resilient, they would either have to be pretty bad at the whole damage dealing business compared to other factions or they would have to be much more expensive. And that in turn would make them more fragile for their points. Another issue is that marines and derivatives are by far the most common armies in the game, so everyone will always be looking to include the best ways to kill them.
That's exactly the niche they were supposed to fall in, base bolters suck, combat doctrines was brought in to give them a semblance of teeth without stacking full rerolls on everything, the 2nd wound came with a price bump to make them fewer in number and yes people will bring the best tool to kill then, but the best tool to kill marines, or at least an adequate tool, also happens to kill everything else generally.
Dolnikan wrote: If space marines were very resilient, they would either have to be pretty bad at the whole damage dealing business compared to other factions
I think this is also part of the issue. People say they want Marines to be resilient - but they also want them to be exceptionally lethal. The tip of the spear, somehow elite in a game with Custodes and Knights. (And fancier Necrons, Aspect Warriors, basically anything that's not sub 10 point chaff.)
And you can't be both "for the points" without being overpowered. So Marines can be made overpowered for a bit, as has happened various times in 40k's history. But its never going to last. Because its boring. (And GW loves the Sun Elfs, Tau etc).
Dolnikan wrote: If space marines were very resilient, they would either have to be pretty bad at the whole damage dealing business compared to other factions
I think this is also part of the issue. People say they want Marines to be resilient - but they also want them to be exceptionally lethal. The tip of the spear, somehow elite in a game with Custodes and Knights. (And fancier Necrons, Aspect Warriors, basically anything that's not sub 10 point chaff.)
And you can't be both "for the points" without being overpowered. So Marines can be made overpowered for a bit, as has happened various times in 40k's history. But its never going to last. Because its boring. (And GW loves the Sun Elfs, Tau etc).
Welllll . . . . . They actually made this work before, during the days of 3rd and 4th edition.
Step 1: Reduce the availability of high AP weapons.
Step 2: Reintroduce mechanics that allow Infantry to be credible threats to high armor targets like big tanks and Knights, without those mechanics being a threat to Marines, i.e. use of Krak and Melta in CC against them.
Step 3: Make hyper elite armies like Custodes cost a lot, balanced with retaining the effectiveness of the few high AP weapons available against them.
vict0988 wrote: I don't know how you can combine the thought of "melee needs to be decisive" and "melee dealing enough damage to be decisive is problematic". Tri-pointing actually requires skill as opposed to just rolling your headless goons into the enemy and hoping the artificial stupidity of the game resolves it for you.
Melee needs to be decisive, and the game having such high lethality that units are wiped out altogether before they get to swing back is problematic. There is no contradiction there. The problem can be resolved by making melee decisive through mechanics other than raw lethality. The same goes for shooting, to a lesser degree, where the middle ground between an attack doing nothing and an attack killing a unit is too narrow.
Horus Heresy 2.0 has achieved this by making pinning and morale both relevant, so you can have games where lots of stuff happens but you aren't pulling models off the table by the handful, and might still have an army by turn 4.
Also, tri-pointing can die in a fire. A mass-battle game with 100+ models on the table having you micro-positioning individual models down to the millimeter (before rolling all attacks in aggregate, when it suddenly remembers it's not a skirmish game) is garbage. There is skill in it- more grade-school than grandmaster, since you can learn to tri-point optimally in about fifteen minutes- but it's a clunky, time-consuming, unintended, and all-around poor mechanic for what 40K is trying to be. Save the fiddly micromanagement for Kill Team.
@catbarf thank you. You're a fan of Initiative too though right? How do you combine liking Initiative with not liking when units don't get to fight back because they get destroyed. If you don't actually kill tonnes of enemies at your higher Initiative step because you're relying on other game mechanics for melee to be viable then Initiative is mostly meaningless right? Or do you think that Initiative had just enough effect in previous editions because of the lower lethality?
Dudeface wrote: Marines got AoC to assist survivability because they were too easily killed by most lists/forces.
I think they got it because of power creep and a low win rate. They said they removed it because it stopped working because people stopped taking AP-1 weapons and SM still had a bad win rate. I'm wondering if there was a statement as to why they implemented it in the first place.
vict0988 wrote: @catbarf thank you. You're a fan of Initiative too though right? How do you combine liking Initiative with not liking when units don't get to fight back because they get destroyed. If you don't actually kill tonnes of enemies at your higher Initiative step because you're relying on other game mechanics for melee to be viable then Initiative is mostly meaningless right? Or do you think that Initiative had just enough effect in previous editions because of the lower lethality?
Dudeface wrote: Marines got AoC to assist survivability because they were too easily killed by most lists/forces.
I think they got it because of power creep and a low win rate. They said they removed it because it stopped working because people stopped taking AP-1 weapons and SM still had a bad win rate. I'm wondering if there was a statement as to why they implemented it in the first place.
Because they died too easily due to the proliferation of AP:
In addition to these changes, we have also introduced a new generic rule: Armour of Contempt. Applying to certain faction keywords, this rule is intended to reduce the lethality of the game for a whole swathe of factions which have traditionally relied on their armour to help them survive the punishing battlefields of Warhammer 40,000, and which are currently finding the ubiquity of high AP weaponry a little bit much!
vict0988 wrote: @catbarf thank you. You're a fan of Initiative too though right?
No, I'm really not. I liked that the system took wargear and cover into account, at least, so there were more things that could affect it. And as you said, the generally lower lethality meant that wiping out a unit before it got to strike back was much rarer than it is now, so striking first just reduced the amount of incoming attacks you would take rather than mitigating them entirely. But GW wrote a numerical system and then only modified it with essentially 'strikes first' and 'strikes last', and the idea of every member of Species X always without fail every time getting to hit before any member of Species Y regardless of circumstance never sat right with me.
It works better in HH, where most armies are some flavor of Marine, so differences in Initiative come from unit types and wargear. But I'm okay with the side that charged hitting first, and having that be the bonus to charging, so long as melee isn't so overwhelmingly lethal that whoever charges first often wins. And it'd be nice if they could re-write it as a coherent system that takes activation-order-modifying abilities into account, rather than having to write FAQs on how to resolve strikes-first and strikes-last abilities interacting.
uh? No Man's land' size is the same, deployments are usually 12" from the centerline, not from the board edge
Eternal War: Outriders, Encircle, Crossfire, Four Pillars, All Out War just to name a few...
And you're forgetting the second half of the point. Now we have 30" range.
the "9" radius circle" deploymenat was a thing before too.
All-out war is still 24" between deployments.
i had no idea about Encircle, isnt combat patrol played on a super small board tho?
i don't think no man's land really got smaller than before, more that you have less room to backpedal in your deployment.
100% agreed on ranges being too long, i've been of the opinion that 24" should be the longest range that is easily accessible, with very few rare 36" weapons and almost no 48" weapons
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: D2 was common and spamable long before Marines got their second wound. Marines getting their second wound only made it way more prevalent.
Do we have a list of weapons that got D2 following primaris? (aka, weapons that historically were D1 or new weapons that feel like they shouldve been D1)
Not Online!!! wrote: And why do you think D2 has become the norm for a lot of weapons?
Surely it has nothing to do with moving a whole army up the wound bracket, that would not lead to any issues at all right? Especially one of the most commons that also has a brother faction and outnumbers other factions played massively.
/S
Never disputed that. Just saying that 2 wound Marines can be done and they can feel right offensively and defensively. That is not just grey theory, I went and done it.
GW upping the damage for everbody and their dog might not solely based on 2w Marines. Everything got more lethal in this edition, not just classic anti-Marine weapons.
Melee needs to be decisive, and the game having such high lethality that units are wiped out altogether before they get to swing back is problematic. There is no contradiction there. The problem can be resolved by making melee decisive through mechanics other than raw lethality. The same goes for shooting, to a lesser degree, where the middle ground between an attack doing nothing and an attack killing a unit is too narrow.
I disagree, somewhat.
Sure standard troops shouldn't be instantly wiping each other, but if a heavy melee unit like a Carnifex walked all the way across the table to reach melee, it should kill whatever it hits unless it is another heavy melee unit. It is even more true for glass melee units like Genestealers, Slaanesh or the whole Witch side of DE that really need to kill whatever they touch or will get mauled even by basic troops.
Also, tri-pointing can die in a fire. A mass-battle game with 100+ models on the table having you micro-positioning individual models down to the millimeter (before rolling all attacks in aggregate, when it suddenly remembers it's not a skirmish game) is garbage. There is skill in it- more grade-school than grandmaster, since you can learn to tri-point optimally in about fifteen minutes- but it's a clunky, time-consuming, unintended, and all-around poor mechanic for what 40K is trying to be. Save the fiddly micromanagement for Kill Team.
+1 to this. It's a mechanic that 40k should very much do without.
Also, tri-pointing can die in a fire. A mass-battle game with 100+ models on the table having you micro-positioning individual models down to the millimeter (before rolling all attacks in aggregate, when it suddenly remembers it's not a skirmish game) is garbage. There is skill in it- more grade-school than grandmaster, since you can learn to tri-point optimally in about fifteen minutes- but it's a clunky, time-consuming, unintended, and all-around poor mechanic for what 40K is trying to be. Save the fiddly micromanagement for Kill Team.
+1 to this. It's a mechanic that 40k should very much do without.
Model positioning as a whole should matter less. Unit positioning should matter more
Model positioning as a whole should matter less. Unit positioning should matter more
Unless it's vehicle armor facings
well for a vehicle Model and Unit positioning is usually the same thing :p (unless we're talking about squadable vehicles)
To be fair, Genestealer Cults have a mechanic with positioning that could've been a universal thing for all armies. The bonuses are bit much for a D6 setup though unless you're willing to be open to no cap on modifiers again.
Melee needs to be decisive, and the game having such high lethality that units are wiped out altogether before they get to swing back is problematic. There is no contradiction there. The problem can be resolved by making melee decisive through mechanics other than raw lethality. The same goes for shooting, to a lesser degree, where the middle ground between an attack doing nothing and an attack killing a unit is too narrow.
I disagree, somewhat.
Sure standard troops shouldn't be instantly wiping each other, but if a heavy melee unit like a Carnifex walked all the way across the table to reach melee, it should kill whatever it hits unless it is another heavy melee unit. It is even more true for glass melee units like Genestealers, Slaanesh or the whole Witch side of DE that really need to kill whatever they touch or will get mauled even by basic troops.
Well, there are a bunch of other compounding factors to that.
The need for melee specialists to kill whatever they hit instantaneously is largely a product of high lethality. If your unit arriving from DS is likely to get shot off the board immediately, or if your footslogging melee troops will struggle to get into contact, you need your guys to kill their own value's worth in one go to have any realistic chance of them being 'worth it'. There's also the fact that you don't get locked in melee anymore, so if you don't take out the enemy on the charge, they may just walk out of combat and expose you to shooting. Scale back shooting lethality and make it harder to get out of melee, and then it might be okay if a melee unit expects significantly less than a 100% return.
The change in how WS works means that two elite units meeting each other tends to be more lethal than it would have been even with otherwise identical statlines in prior editions, and melee specialists are more vulnerable to non-specialists. Having compared WS (even if it was overly flat before- HH2.0 has improved this a lot) allows for damage output to scale based on the relative value of the combatants. Even if a melee specialist doesn't completely wipe out a shooting specialist in one turn, if they're not taking much damage in return, that's fine.
And the other factor is that if melee could be decisive via morale effects, then it wouldn't be necessary to have a statline capable of wiping out a whole unit in one round to achieve the desired effect of taking that unit out of the fight. In prior editions melee specialists didn't necessarily output all that much more raw damage than shooting specialists, but because of how morale was handled in melee could produce significantly more decisive effects, either wiping out the enemy or forcing them to flee. Getting into melee was risky, but rewarding.
I agree that melee specialists should be powerful because they are obviously harder to get into contact, and should be able to inflict heavy damage to non-melee troops. What I don't like seeing is a fight between melee specialists (or characters) often being this harsh binary where one side gets wiped out and the other takes minimal damage, based entirely on who got the charge, because Purestrains currently kill an average of 108% of their own value in Berserkers (seriously, that's the actual number).
Model positioning as a whole should matter less. Unit positioning should matter more
Unless it's vehicle armor facings
well for a vehicle Model and Unit positioning is usually the same thing :p (unless we're talking about squadable vehicles)
To be fair, Genestealer Cults have a mechanic with positioning that could've been a universal thing for all armies. The bonuses are bit much for a D6 setup though unless you're willing to be open to no cap on modifiers again.
Yeah, the crossfire rule was something I looked at and immediately wished was just part of the game. Carve out an exception to the normal no-modifier-stacking if need be.
Daedalus81 wrote: I would be curious to see a couple of pros really take the screws to an older edition and see what happens.
If by "pros" you mean tournament players, I'd rather they didn't. The tournament scene already has a disproportionate amount of influence over 40k as it is. I hate to ever see it expanded.
Not in like a burn it to the ground sort of thing, but just to see if our understanding of the game now vs then would change.
Daedalus81 wrote: I would be curious to see a couple of pros really take the screws to an older edition and see what happens.
If by "pros" you mean tournament players, I'd rather they didn't. The tournament scene already has a disproportionate amount of influence over 40k as it is. I hate to ever see it expanded.
Not in like a burn it to the ground sort of thing, but just to see if our understanding of the game now vs then would change.
That seems pretty straightforward as a thought exercise.
1- Many would straight up fail without the current game's lethality crutch to burn through everything.
2- The rest would adapt to the 'best in slot' units that were available at the time. Each edition was a mostly solved system at its point of relevance. There aren't any magical advances in 'playing games' or 'tournament play' that would make that any different.
To be fair, Genestealer Cults have a mechanic with positioning that could've been a universal thing for all armies. The bonuses are bit much for a D6 setup though unless you're willing to be open to no cap on modifiers again.
modifiers were fixed when they made 6's always hit
and nerfed aircrafts 25 times
if theyre dead set on keeping the cap, it should be +1/-1 per player (so no more "free" advancing if youre gonna shoot a unit that has -1 to hit anyway)
catbarf wrote: The need for melee specialists to kill whatever they hit instantaneously is largely a product of high lethality. If your unit arriving from DS is likely to get shot off the board immediately, or if your footslogging melee troops will struggle to get into contact, you need your guys to kill their own value's worth in one go to have any realistic chance of them being 'worth it'. There's also the fact that you don't get locked in melee anymore, so if you don't take out the enemy on the charge, they may just walk out of combat and expose you to shooting. Scale back shooting lethality and make it harder to get out of melee, and then it might be okay if a melee unit expects significantly less than a 100% return.
I don't think that works.
Dedicated melee units have a lot going against them and as such when they reach combat they need to do something for the effort. You certainly could reduce shooting a bit, but then they'd get shot with more stuff and the table isn't in a state where everything has a good target, so, those melee units up front as considerably exposed to more.
Conversely in older editions it wasn't really a big deal to walk backwards, either so the 6" move for everything made it easier to kite. The current missions have disincentive to leaving the objective, which gives melee a chance to make an impact.
You would probably find that on a bowling ball Intercessors with no upgrades beat Genestealers all day long. With terrain, objectives, and abilities the pendulum would shift.
And to me a proper melee unit needs to be scary enough for you to want to delete it. Otherwise if you know it's just going to wind up in a protracted combat why bother? Just focus on more dangerous things.
Daedalus81 wrote: Dedicated melee units have a lot going against them and as such when they reach combat they need to do something for the effort.
Once upon a time, shooting units expecting 10-20% return was pretty standard. In that context, a melee unit that expects a 30-60% return (be it raw lethality, or a combination of direct lethality + morale effects) is already outperforming shooting units by a factor of three and more directly relevant for objective-grabbing in midfield.
In 9th Ed, we have melee units with no force-multipliers often exceeding 100% return just on their base profile. That's nuts.
Daedalus81 wrote: Conversely in older editions it wasn't really a big deal to walk backwards, either so the 6" move for everything made it easier to kite. The current missions have disincentive to leaving the objective, which gives melee a chance to make an impact.
I thought you just said two pages back that in older editions, you basically couldn't move and shoot at all?
But yes, I am actually a fan of mission design that encourages both players to participate in the middle of the table and am not suggesting a return to camping at the edge of your deployment zone only to sally forth on turn 5 when the enemy is dead.
To be fair, Genestealer Cults have a mechanic with positioning that could've been a universal thing for all armies. The bonuses are bit much for a D6 setup though unless you're willing to be open to no cap on modifiers again.
modifiers were fixed when they made 6's always hit
and nerfed aircrafts 25 times
if theyre dead set on keeping the cap, it should be +1/-1 per player (so no more "free" advancing if youre gonna shoot a unit that has -1 to hit anyway)
I completely agree with the the first two parts, but I think the player should be allowed to stack their buffs more than once. Everyone says it leads to deathstar units, but aren't deathstars the only units you're stacking stuff on to begin with?
MAYBE +2/-2 is where I'd negotiate.
Once upon a time, shooting units expecting 10-20% return was pretty standard. In that context, a melee unit that expects a 30-60% return (be it raw lethality, or a combination of direct lethality + morale effects) is already outperforming shooting units by a factor of three and more directly relevant for objective-grabbing in midfield.
You might need to specify because to be honest I cannot recall such time. Definitely before 5th ed in which AP2 pie plates and spamable force weapons made 100%+ returns pretty damn easy.
Because they died too easily due to the proliferation of AP:
How many players were taking high AP weapons to deal with Orkz? How about Harlequins? How about IG? how about Eldar? How about Nidz?
Its almost like there isn't a good benefit to taking high AP on weapons against most factions... almost like people are list tailoring to play against a high armor army or armies that make up a majority of the game... weird.
To put it bluntly again, Marines and their statline are the MOST POPULAR in the game and as such when people build lists they do so with the express intent of killing Marines. As a wonderful example of this, how many times do you see people doing general mathhammer and use anything besides a SM as the metric?
GW upping the damage for everbody and their dog might not solely based on 2w Marines. Everything got more lethal in this edition, not just classic anti-Marine weapons.
Marines got a 2nd wound and almost immediately Heavy Bolters went to D2. When 9th started the go to Sisters list that won some GTs was spamming Heavy bolters. As far as "Everything got more lethal in this edition" Ready for this?
7th Edition, 1w Marines vs a Big Shoota. 3 shots, 1 hit, 0.66 wounds 0.22dmg A Big shoota at Max range takes 5 turns to kill 1 Marine.
9th Edition, 2w Marines vs a Big Shoota (Out of/In Dakka Range) 3/5 shots, 1/1.66 hits, 1/1.11 wounds 0.22/0.37dmg. A big shoota at 19+ range takes 9 turns to kill 1 Marine. At HALF RANGE it takes 5.4 turns to kill 1 Marine. I could do the math for regular shootas and choppas as well but its similarly bad. Not everything got deadlier thats for sure (Specifically against those squishy Marines that SM players complain about a lot)
From experience with my own rules I can say that Marines with 2 wounds baseline work pretty well, but you have to be quite restrictive with damage 2 weapons and up. They need to be rare and/or expensive. Even having modifiying AP on most weapons is no issue then. Everything is too cheap right now in 9th edition, units and equipment.
And why do you think D2 has become the norm for a lot of weapons?
Surely it has nothing to do with moving a whole army up the wound bracket, that would not lead to any issues at all right?
/S
Maybe it shouldn't push up the normal?
Well when the "normal" IE most common opponent/statline is T4 3+ its going to, i'll bring you back to my other comment, convince more people to switch to other factions that don't worship Da emprah or Chaos gods. Until I go to a tournament where most of my opponents AREN'T wearing power armor i'll continue to list tailor against that statline because its common sense.
Dudeface wrote: Maybe a faction getting 2 wounds as a defensive profile should be allowed to use it without everyone else being given reasonably spammable solutions making it trivial?
You have to realize how that reads right? "My faction got a buff, nobody should be allowed to beat us now!". You can keep complaining about the arms race until you are blue in the face, your faction is the most popular in the game and therefore will be tailored against, you are the measuring stick, sorry.
SemperMortis wrote: You have to realize how that reads right? "My faction got a buff, nobody should be allowed to beat us now!". You can keep complaining about the arms race until you are blue in the face, your faction is the most popular in the game and therefore will be tailored against, you are the measuring stick, sorry.
This. If you want marines to be elite you need marines to stop being the most common faction, otherwise by definition they're average and the entire rest of the game will be evaluated by how well it performs against marines. If W2 is the basic infantry profile then D2 will be the basic weapon profile.
No to all the above, you're right people don't spam high ap weapons into orks, they do it because there's no reason not to. D2 ap-2/3 weapons are so accessible and high rate of fire often, which combined with the morale/horde rules, means there's no need for horde killing. Conveniently the ork T5 buff is handily cancelled out or ignored by, you guessed it, marine killing weapons.
Marines being common is one thing but a lack of viable playstyles for their foils is the real issue. If hordes were viable people would have to build lists differently for example. But they don't, the game supports pounding plasma/melta etc out every orifice in such high quantities it no longer matters.
Slow and purposeful being the weaker of the two due to the downside of always counting as moving through cover. And back in the day that meant a movement value of D6.
Lead to meganobz occasionally moving at a brisk 1"
Dudeface wrote: If hordes were viable people would have to build lists differently for example.
Only if marines stop dominating the meta. Orks gaining a viable horde build doesn't change list building very much if 75% of your games are against marines (and spiky marines, gold marines, etc). Beating marines will still be the dominant consideration in list building. You'll still put most of your choices into anti-MEQ, and even the few anti-horde choices you take will need to be at least reasonably good against marines.
To do that GW first has to define a horde as something higher than 6+ models.
Right now the start of "anti-horde" rules, like blast markers, starts at 6 models. That means that some basic squads - not even horde units - just count as being a "horde" despite just being a regular squad. A 10-man Tactical Squad/Sisters of Battle Squad/Fire Warrior unit/etc. should never be considered a "horde" as far as rules mechanics are concerned.
I've said before that any number they pick will be arbitrary, whether it's 15 models or 20 models or whatever, but I think that game mechanics that impact massed infantry should only come into effect from at least 11 or higher, because so many 100% non-horde units in the game cap out at 10 models (some even start and are stuck at that amount).
To do that GW first has to define a horde as something higher than 6+ models.
Right now the start of "anti-horde" rules, like blast markers, starts at 6 models. That means that some basic squads - not even horde units - just count as being a "horde" despite just being a regular squad. A 10-man Tactical Squad/Sisters of Battle Squad/Fire Warrior unit/etc. should never be considered a "horde" as far as rules mechanics are concerned.
I've said before that any number they pick will be arbitrary, whether it's 15 models or 20 models or whatever, but I think that game mechanics that impact massed infantry should only come into effect from at least 11 or higher, because so many 100% non-horde units in the game cap out at 10 models (some even start and are stuck at that amount).
For Blast, I think what would've been better is this:
1-5 Models, no special minimum
6-10, minimum of 2 on each d6 rolled
11-15, minimum of 3 on each d6 16-20, minimum of 4 on each d6 21-25, minimum of 5 on each d6 26+, maximum shots
And for d3, it'd be 1-10 no minimum, 11-20 min 2, 21+ max shots.
That does technically start at 6 models, but it's an increase from 3.5 to 3.67 shots for each d6.
It would ALSO work based on the number of dice rolled, so nothing like a Wyvern gaining no benefit from targeting a 10-man squad and then suddenly jumping to 24 shots against an 11-man squad.
You could even do it via the Keywords system (something GW never really takes advantage of) and have 'Horde' simply be a keyword.
Less gamey that way (ie. take a unit of 19 boyz to avoid a jump in anti-horde rules).
Yes, that doesn't scale, but to make it scale you'd need to make... dare I say it... a special rule that one might call "universal" that covers what a horde is and defines rules interactions.
Dudeface wrote: No to all the above, you're right people don't spam high ap weapons into orks, they do it because there's no reason not to. D2 ap-2/3 weapons are so accessible and high rate of fire often, which combined with the morale/horde rules, means there's no need for horde killing. Conveniently the ork T5 buff is handily cancelled out or ignored by, you guessed it, marine killing weapons.
Marines being common is one thing but a lack of viable playstyles for their foils is the real issue. If hordes were viable people would have to build lists differently for example. But they don't, the game supports pounding plasma/melta etc out every orifice in such high quantities it no longer matters.
Let me think of all the high RoF weapons I have that at least D2 and AP-2+.....umm....hmmm......still thinking....i mean...maybe kopta rokkits? 2D3 shots at S8Ap-2 3dmg....but an average of 1.3 hits a turn isn't exactly "High rate of fire". Maybe for some other factions but definitely not Orkz.
I have to yet again point out the obvious to you because you seem to want to ignore it. SM are the yard stick by which we measure how effective things are because they are the most common faction in the game. Literally the last Major GT in Best Coast Pairings is "Glass City GT" lets count how many Power Armor factions there are (excluding SoB and Custards but including all Chaos sub factions barring demons). 17.
Only 65 participants in the event and 17 were power armor. if you include SoB and Custards its another 6-8. If you include LoV which are almost Marines as well (including AoC ) its pushing another 5-7. You are talking almost half the damn tournament being flooded with power armor of one sort or another. Christ, why would you ever take a HRoF weapon that wasn't geared towards AP or D2? most of the game these days is inundated with units that are weak against that weapon type. Thats honestly why orkz usually do ok even when their units are under powered point for point compared to Marines, we don't care about losing cheap bodies, we don't mind if you target our troops choice with a melta.
Again your biggest enemy is your own success and its going to remain that way for a LONG LONG time, so if you don't like it, switch factions because there literally isn't a scenario where you are going to be happy and for the game to be healthy.
To do that GW first has to define a horde as something higher than 6+ models.
Right now the start of "anti-horde" rules, like blast markers, starts at 6 models. That means that some basic squads - not even horde units - just count as being a "horde" despite just being a regular squad. A 10-man Tactical Squad/Sisters of Battle Squad/Fire Warrior unit/etc. should never be considered a "horde" as far as rules mechanics are concerned.
I've said before that any number they pick will be arbitrary, whether it's 15 models or 20 models or whatever, but I think that game mechanics that impact massed infantry should only come into effect from at least 11 or higher, because so many 100% non-horde units in the game cap out at 10 models (some even start and are stuck at that amount).
Yea honestly it's a big reason why plasma inceptors will murder anything that dares to have 6+ models.
Though I still feel like 6+ models should feel the effects of blast so the problem is more the weapon for me.
Maybe like +1 attack for 6, 2 for 11, and 3 for 21.
I didn't do the math on that - just a rough thought.
1-5 Models, no special minimum
6-10, minimum of 2 on each d6 rolled
11-15, minimum of 3 on each d6 16-20, minimum of 4 on each d6 21-25, minimum of 5 on each d6 26+, maximum shots
And for d3, it'd be 1-10 no minimum, 11-20 min 2, 21+ max shots.
That does technically start at 6 models, but it's an increase from 3.5 to 3.67 shots for each d6.
It would ALSO work based on the number of dice rolled, so nothing like a Wyvern gaining no benefit from targeting a 10-man squad and then suddenly jumping to 24 shots against an 11-man squad.
catbarf wrote: The need for melee specialists to kill whatever they hit instantaneously is largely a product of high lethality. If your unit arriving from DS is likely to get shot off the board immediately, or if your footslogging melee troops will struggle to get into contact, you need your guys to kill their own value's worth in one go to have any realistic chance of them being 'worth it'. There's also the fact that you don't get locked in melee anymore, so if you don't take out the enemy on the charge, they may just walk out of combat and expose you to shooting. Scale back shooting lethality and make it harder to get out of melee, and then it might be okay if a melee unit expects significantly less than a 100% return.
I don't think that works.
Dedicated melee units have a lot going against them and as such when they reach combat they need to do something for the effort. You certainly could reduce shooting a bit, but then they'd get shot with more stuff and the table isn't in a state where everything has a good target, so, those melee units up front as considerably exposed to more.
Conversely in older editions it wasn't really a big deal to walk backwards, either so the 6" move for everything made it easier to kite. The current missions have disincentive to leaving the objective, which gives melee a chance to make an impact.
You would probably find that on a bowling ball Intercessors with no upgrades beat Genestealers all day long. With terrain, objectives, and abilities the pendulum would shift.
And to me a proper melee unit needs to be scary enough for you to want to delete it. Otherwise if you know it's just going to wind up in a protracted combat why bother? Just focus on more dangerous things.
It works perfectly fine. Especially in a game that has more ways for units to interact with each other than just deleting each other and "trading". Trust me. The game exists, is "current", and is a gw game to boot.
In prior editions there was a huge incentive to get to melee even if you weren't deleting the target, simply because you could keep it busy for a few rounds of fighting and it couldn't do other things instead. I did that ALL the time.
My 5 man Tactical squad wasn't very killy in CC, but if I could lock up some Devastaotors or Dark Reapers or whatever in combat, that's effort well spent!
Heck, that was a major part of Tyranid strategy in particular. The light and fast units hold down some units while the heavy hitters make their way to the front and start chewing through others.
SemperMortis wrote: You have to realize how that reads right? "My faction got a buff, nobody should be allowed to beat us now!". You can keep complaining about the arms race until you are blue in the face, your faction is the most popular in the game and therefore will be tailored against, you are the measuring stick, sorry.
This. If you want marines to be elite you need marines to stop being the most common faction, otherwise by definition they're average and the entire rest of the game will be evaluated by how well it performs against marines. If W2 is the basic infantry profile then D2 will be the basic weapon profile.
Common on the table =/= common in the setting, which both y'all completely don't understand based on these posts.
GW upping the damage for everbody and their dog might not solely based on 2w Marines. Everything got more lethal in this edition, not just classic anti-Marine weapons.
Marines got a 2nd wound and almost immediately Heavy Bolters went to D2.
Imma stop you right there because both you and I know Heavy Bolters weren't ever supposed to be a Marine killer to begin with, which completely defeats your point.
This is true. Heavy Bolters aren't meant to be Marine killers.
I suspect that they went to D2 specifically because if an HB does get through power armour, then it probably should kill a Marine. Doesn't make it an anti-Marine weapon, because HBs don't deal with armour that well.
To be fair, Genestealer Cults have a mechanic with positioning that could've been a universal thing for all armies. The bonuses are bit much for a D6 setup though unless you're willing to be open to no cap on modifiers again.
modifiers were fixed when they made 6's always hit and nerfed aircrafts 25 times
if theyre dead set on keeping the cap, it should be +1/-1 per player (so no more "free" advancing if youre gonna shoot a unit that has -1 to hit anyway)
I completely agree with the the first two parts, but I think the player should be allowed to stack their buffs more than once. Everyone says it leads to deathstar units, but aren't deathstars the only units you're stacking stuff on to begin with? MAYBE +2/-2 is where I'd negotiate.
+2 to hit is less dangerous than +1 to hit +1 to wound. Every attack should only ever be able to benefit from one of the following: *Re-roll all hits or hits of 1. *Re-roll all wounds or wounds of 1 and/or attacks inflict mortal wounds on hit rolls. *Add 1 or more to hit and/or 6s explode and/or attacks inflict mortal wounds on hit rolls. *Add 1 or more to wound and/or 6s on wound rolls explode and/or attacks inflict mortal wounds on hit or wound rolls. *Attacks inflict mortal wounds and/or have increased AP.
A unit shouldn't be able to stack -1 to hit effects, because that has multiplicative effects just like +1 to hit +1 to wound. Make a Space Marine -1 to hit and your Drukhari Raider will be 33% harder to kill, -2 100%, -3 300%. It's not that -3 to hit cannot be balanced, you could balance one of the modifiers around making the unit 3x as hard to hit and that'd be balanced, but that modifier would be super niche as it'd only be useful in the combo scenario.
A unit of Devastators isn't a deathstar, a unit of Devastators with +1 to hit, +1 to wound, re-roll 1s to hit and to wound, ignores cover and invulnerable saves is, it's basically like two or even four units of regular Devastators in terms of damage output. What did you pay for the privilege of increasing their Damage output so? Probably not much, because individually each bonus isn't overwhelmingly strong, but the combo is stronger the the individual parts.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Common on the table =/= common in the setting, which both y'all completely don't understand based on these posts.
Common in the setting is a fluff argument that has nothing to do with anything I said.
Imma stop you right there because both you and I know Heavy Bolters weren't ever supposed to be a Marine killer to begin with, which completely defeats your point.
No, but GW certainly made sure that the anti-horde weapon was at least decent as a marine killer by adding a stat upgrade that is powerful against marines but has no effect against hordes.
But did it need additional effects against hordes?
If the weapon was effective against hordes, and suddenly gets D2, does it become less effective against hordes?
Like I said, a Heavy Bolter, should it defeat a Marine's armour, should probably kill your average Marine. That's what the D2 represents. It getting D2 didn't change its impact vs everything else it was already killing as, and correct me if I'm wrong, there aren't a lot of horde armies out there with massive multitudes of 2 wound models.
Ultimately the Heavy Bolter should be better than a Bolt Pistol or Bolter (or one of the any 30 variants thereof) at killing a Marine, assuming it gets through the armour, and slightly better at getting through the armour than a regular Bolter. The idea that a Bolter can defeat a Marine's armour, but leave him alive (D1) vs a Heavy Bolter getting past the armour and cutting the Marine in half (D2) doesn't seem at all far fetched. If anything, the change to D2 was an appropriate increase to ensure congruence between what should happen and what does happen. And it had zero effect on their damage vs hordes because, again, why should it? It hasn't lost efficacy as a result of this change, so what's the issue?
H.B.M.C. wrote: It hasn't lost efficacy as a result of this change, so what's the issue?
It's not an issue, it's just an example of marine-focused design. Marines drive everything about the game to such an extent that when marines got W2 GW felt compelled to buff an anti-horde weapon to D2 to make it more effective against marines. Whatever the balance between needing to make anti-horde weapons at least decent against marines or they'll never appear vs. lore-wise feeling that a heavy bolter should kill a marine was it's still in both cases marines being the standard by which everything is evaluated.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ultimately the Heavy Bolter should be better than a Bolt Pistol or Bolter (or one of the any 30 variants thereof) at killing a Marine, assuming it gets through the armour, and slightly better at getting through the armour than a regular Bolter. The idea that a Bolter can defeat a Marine's armour, but leave him alive (D1) vs a Heavy Bolter getting past the armour and cutting the Marine in half (D2) doesn't seem at all far fetched. If anything, the change to D2 was an appropriate increase to ensure congruence between what should happen and what does happen. And it had zero effect on their damage vs hordes because, again, why should it? It hasn't lost efficacy as a result of this change, so what's the issue?
A heavy bolter was better at killing Marines because it had 3 shots at S5 AP-1. 40k is pretty abstract, a heavy bolter in the foot might not take a Marine immediately out of active combat. D2 makes it twice as good against vehicles as well, which then mucks up autocannons for no good reason, insane lethality is also a problem, those are the reasons why it should be D1 again.
vict0988 wrote: A heavy bolter was better at killing Marines because it had 3 shots at S5 AP-1.
And then they changed Marines, so to make sure that it still fits and to keep pace, it went to D2. This change makes perfect sense.
vict0988 wrote: 40k is pretty abstract, a heavy bolter in the foot might not take a Marine immediately out of active combat.
It did before, and now does so again. If anything, this change increased the granularity between bolters and heavy bolters, giving them a clear distinction in stopping power as well as rate of fire.
vict0988 wrote: D2 makes it twice as good against vehicles as well, which then mucks up autocannons for no good reason, insane lethality is also a problem, those are the reasons why it should be D1 again.
Shouldn't it be twice as good against vehicles than a bolter?
And the Autocannons problems are the Autocannons problems. They are unrelated to the heavy bolter.
Aecus Decimus wrote: ... when marines got W2 GW felt compelled to buff an anti-horde weapon to D2 to make it more effective against marines.
Not to make it more effective, to keep it as effective against Marines. It didn't stop being the anti-horde weapon it was. That part of it has not changed at all.
Yes, Marines drive changes, but this is an example of a change keeps things consistent. If the Heavy Bolter hadn't changed it would be a head-scratcher.
vict0988 wrote: A heavy bolter was better at killing Marines because it had 3 shots at S5 AP-1.
And then they changed Marines, so to make sure that it still fits and suddenly to keep pace, it went to D2. This change makes perfect sense.
Why does it need be as good at killing SM as it was previously? Why shouldn't boltguns keep pace with the durability increase on Marines?
vict0988 wrote: 40k is pretty abstract, a heavy bolter in the foot might not take a Marine immediately out of active combat.
It did before, and now does so again. If anything, this change increased the granularity between bolters and heavy bolters, giving them a clear distinction in stopping power as well as rate of fire.
+1 S +1 AP is a clear distinction.
vict0988 wrote: D2 makes it twice as good against vehicles as well, which then mucks up autocannons for no good reason, insane lethality is also a problem, those are the reasons why it should be D1 again.
Shouldn't it be twice as good against vehicles than a bolter?
And the Autocannons problems are the Autocannons problems. They are unrelated to the heavy bolter.
AP-1 makes it 50% better against most vehicles, combined with S5 it's 200% better against Knights.
Reminder that autocannons were considered too good at killing everything in 8th.
Aecus Decimus wrote: ... when marines got W2 GW felt compelled to buff an anti-horde weapon to D2 to make it more effective against marines.
Not to make it more effective, to keep it as effective against Marines. It didn't stop being the anti-horde weapon it was. That part of it has not changed at all.
Yes, Marines drive changes, but this is an example of a change that made perfect sense.
By definition it stops being an anti-horde weapon when it becomes an anti-Marine weapon. Plasma guns are better than boltguns at killing hordes, but they're not an anti-horde weapon. Each weapon has a power budget based on its cost or a cost assigned based on its power. When power is allocated to killing Marines that means budget that could be spent killing hordes is instead allocated to killing Marines.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Not to make it more effective, to keep it as effective against Marines. It didn't stop being the anti-horde weapon it was. That part of it has not changed at all.
Yes, Marines drive changes, but this is an example of a change keeps things consistent. If the Heavy Bolter hadn't changed it would be a head-scratcher.
But why does an anti-horde weapon's performance against marines need to keep constant, especially when marines just got W2 to make them more durable against things that aren't marine killers? Because marines are the game and everything is evaluated based on how well it does against marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: By definition it stops being an anti-horde weapon when it becomes an anti-Marine weapon. Plasma guns are better than boltguns at killing hordes, but they're not an anti-horde weapon. Each weapon has a power budget based on its cost or a cost assigned based on its power. When power is allocated to killing Marines that means budget that could be spent killing hordes is instead allocated to killing Marines.
Exactly. In terms of design role heavy weapons are on a scale from anti-horde to anti-tank. Heavy bolters are the anti-horde end of the scale, lascannons and multimeltas are the anti-tank end of the scale, with autocannons and missile launchers and plasma cannons falling somewhere in the middle. But even the weapon at the far anti-horde end of the scale has to allocate some of its power to anti-marine performance because a pure anti-horde weapon with very poor performance against marines can't exist in 40k. If it doesn't have at least reasonable performance against marines nobody will take it, even if it's the perfect horde killer.
uh? No Man's land' size is the same, deployments are usually 12" from the centerline, not from the board edge
Eternal War: Outriders, Encircle, Crossfire, Four Pillars, All Out War just to name a few...
And you're forgetting the second half of the point. Now we have 30" range.
the "9" radius circle" deploymenat was a thing before too.
All-out war is still 24" between deployments.
Not way back when on 6x4 boards and 24" inch bolters. Way back when you had one Deployment Map, and 3 or 6 (I don't remember if it was 3 per side or 6 per side) mission cards like Assasinstion, Kill the Witch, etc.
i had no idea about Encircle, isnt combat patrol played on a super small board tho?
No idea, I just flipped through the book looking at the pictures of the deployment maps for anything that wasn't 12, 24, 12. Though none of them are even 12/24/12 anymore they're 10/24/10. You've lost another two inches of distance from their edge.
i don't think no man's land really got smaller than before, more that you have less room to backpedal in your deployment.
100% agreed on ranges being too long, i've been of the opinion that 24" should be the longest range that is easily accessible, with very few rare 36" weapons and almost no 48" weapons
What used to move 4 inches now moves 6 or more. What used to not be able to shoot more than 12 inches if they moved now shoot 30 even if they moved and 6" move plus 30" shooting range means basic troops can shoot off the board on turn one while a 4" move plus a 12" double tap doesn't even cross the 24" no-man's land.
When Marines had 1 wound. How do you not get this?
vict0988 wrote: AP-1 makes it 50% better against most vehicles, combined with S5 it's 200% better against Knights.
Ok, and? Why shouldn't it be better than a bolter against these types of targets?
vict0988 wrote: By definition it stops being an anti-horde weapon when it becomes an anti-Marine weapon.
But it didn't suddenly become an anti-Marine weapon. Nothing changed. It is just as good at killing Marines as it was before. It used to do D1 vs W1, and now it does D2 vs W2. That's a net gain of zero vs a Marine.
The issue lies not with the heavy bolter, but the other things that surround it. What other D1 weapons are suddenly not being shot at Marines? Frag Missiles?
vict0988 wrote: When power is allocated to killing Marines that means budget that could be spent killing hordes is instead allocated to killing Marines.
But it's ability to kill hordes/Marines didn't change.
I'm not really sure HBs were "meant" to be anything in the old days.
I guess, if you didn't move (kind of an issue), they did marginally more theoretical points worth of damage into say Boyz than naked Tactical Marines. But its so marginal as to be more or less incidental (and if you gave those marines any special weapons it could come out a wash). They were generic weapons that were kind of okay into everything, but probably not worth getting overly excited about. Flamers were better into GEQ.
I'm fairly confident they got D2 because they were seen as bad, because they were bad. Much like how Big Shootas are seen as bad today. It obviously trod all over the Autocannon - but that was bad too, and will probably get moved up next edition. We already see various iterations now, with extra AP (Havocs) or damage 3 (Predators, Helverins get both etc.)
Because the whole point of giving marines W2 was to make them more durable against things that aren't specialized marine killers! HBs are supposed to be the far anti-horde end of the heavy weapon spectrum, fully dedicated to killing boyz/guardsmen/tyranid hordes/etc. But even the dedicated anti-horde weapon has to be buffed to keep its anti-marine performance the same. The game is so absurdly marine-focused that a dedicated horde killer is complete and will never be taken if it doesn't have D2 to make it at least a decent anti-marine weapon too.
+2 to hit is less dangerous than +1 to hit +1 to wound. Every attack should only ever be able to benefit from one of the following:
*Re-roll all hits or hits of 1.
*Re-roll all wounds or wounds of 1 and/or attacks inflict mortal wounds on hit rolls.
*Add 1 or more to hit and/or 6s explode and/or attacks inflict mortal wounds on hit rolls.
*Add 1 or more to wound and/or 6s on wound rolls explode and/or attacks inflict mortal wounds on hit or wound rolls.
*Attacks inflict mortal wounds and/or have increased AP.
A unit shouldn't be able to stack -1 to hit effects, because that has multiplicative effects just like +1 to hit +1 to wound. Make a Space Marine -1 to hit and your Drukhari Raider will be 33% harder to kill, -2 100%, -3 300%. It's not that -3 to hit cannot be balanced, you could balance one of the modifiers around making the unit 3x as hard to hit and that'd be balanced, but that modifier would be super niche as it'd only be useful in the combo scenario.
A unit of Devastators isn't a deathstar, a unit of Devastators with +1 to hit, +1 to wound, re-roll 1s to hit and to wound, ignores cover and invulnerable saves is, it's basically like two or even four units of regular Devastators in terms of damage output. What did you pay for the privilege of increasing their Damage output so? Probably not much, because individually each bonus isn't overwhelmingly strong, but the combo is stronger the the individual parts.
So make -1's stack (with 6's always succeeding)
Remove auras/strats/relics
Make ONE character able to join a squad to give only them a buff.
As for the "horde is bad" conversation. Yeah GW really didnt want them to be viable, even if we don't take blast into account, the coherency and engagement range rules made horded non functional. Why would you even bring a squad of 30 boys if only ~50% of it is ever gonna be able to hit their targets even if they make the charge? (yeah, i know, extra wounds means the squad is harder to kill)
vict0988 wrote: Why does it need be as good at killing SM as it was previously?
Why should it be suddenly worse?
Because Space Marines were too easy to kill, that's the whole point of giving them an extra wound. If you're tuning up the damage of everything and durability of SM only then you're just making Primaris and every other faction in the game into glass cannons.
When Marines had 1 wound. How do you not get this?
Do models with multiple wounds not use saving throws and do you not need to roll to wound against models with multiple wounds? +1S +1 AP would still have been a clear distinction, just like it was at the end of 8th when Firstborn weren't played and Primaris had 2 wounds.
vict0988 wrote: AP-1 makes it 50% better against most vehicles, combined with S5 it's 200% better against Knights.
Ok, and? Why shouldn't it be better than a bolter against these types of targets?
Why should it merely deal 3x instead of 6x damage against Knights (Ignoring the extra rate of fire)? Because it's an anti-horde weapon in the fluff not an anti-Marine or anti-Knight weapon.
vict0988 wrote: By definition it stops being an anti-horde weapon when it becomes an anti-Marine weapon.
But it didn't suddenly become an anti-Marine weapon. Nothing changed. It is just as good at killing Marines as it was before. It used to do D1 vs W1, and now it does D2 vs W2. That's a net gain of zero vs a Marine.
The definition of what a Marine is has changed. An optimal anti-MEQ weapon in 8th would be Damage 1, in 9th an optimal anti-MEQ weapon is Damage 2, otherwise power budget is being allocated to being better against units that aren't MEQ. Marines are also more expensive because of the increased power they gained by having an extra wound, that makes heavy bolters kill more points of Marines per shot compared to previously.
By definition it stops being an anti-horde weapon when it becomes an anti-Marine weapon.
So from RT days through 8th ed everyone who thought of the HB as an anti-horde weapon was wrong? You know, since 1 HB shot could kill 1 SM.
If HBs were AP3 instead of AP4 you would have called them anti-MEQ instead of anti-horde even if the weapon would be just as good against hordes as previously, the power budget being assigned to killing MEQ means less power budget or pts-efficiency for killing hordes. Lascannons are not anti-horde. If lascannons were negative 100 points and Space Marines started playing with 50 lascannons and used them to clear out hordes they still wouldn't be anti-horde weapons.
Because the whole point of giving marines W2 was to make them more durable against things that aren't specialized marine killers! HBs are supposed to be the far anti-horde end of the heavy weapon spectrum, fully dedicated to killing boyz/guardsmen/tyranid hordes/etc. But even the dedicated anti-horde weapon has to be buffed to keep its anti-marine performance the same. The game is so absurdly marine-focused that a dedicated horde killer is complete and will never be taken if it doesn't have D2 to make it at least a decent anti-marine weapon too.
Giving HBs D2 is just bad design, not at all necessary, anti-horde weapons can be good. Flamers, punishers, mortars, Guardsmen, these are not anti-MEQ units but they have been good, it's just a question of finding the right pts cost. On the other hand lots of anti-MEQ weapons have been bad because their points costs have been too high.
Giving HBs D2 is just bad design, not at all necessary, anti-horde weapons can be good. Flamers, punishers, mortars, Guardsmen, these are not anti-MEQ units but they have been good, it's just a question of finding the right pts cost. On the other hand lots of anti-MEQ weapons have been bad because their points costs have been too high.
Giving HBs D2 is just bad design, not at all necessary, anti-horde weapons can be good. Flamers, punishers, mortars, Guardsmen, these are not anti-MEQ units but they have been good, it's just a question of finding the right pts cost. On the other hand lots of anti-MEQ weapons have been bad because their points costs have been too high.
Well that's pretty much over now.
Surely heavy bolters are great with D2 though right? Right GW?
SemperMortis wrote: You have to realize how that reads right? "My faction got a buff, nobody should be allowed to beat us now!". You can keep complaining about the arms race until you are blue in the face, your faction is the most popular in the game and therefore will be tailored against, you are the measuring stick, sorry.
This. If you want marines to be elite you need marines to stop being the most common faction, otherwise by definition they're average and the entire rest of the game will be evaluated by how well it performs against marines. If W2 is the basic infantry profile then D2 will be the basic weapon profile.
Common on the table =/= common in the setting, which both y'all completely don't understand based on these posts.
Common on Table = list building against which means you will never feel durability buffs because opponents build against it. Which you and dudeface don't understand based on these posts. I don't care about fluff, i am strictly talking about the game as it is played. "Oh my Marines are super elite warriors, there's only 1 Marine per Planet in the imperium Ooooo!" Ok. now show up to a GT and count how many Power armored models you see, I bet you there will be more Marine infantry than Ork boyz and by an order of magnitude as well.
GW upping the damage for everbody and their dog might not solely based on 2w Marines. Everything got more lethal in this edition, not just classic anti-Marine weapons.
Marines got a 2nd wound and almost immediately Heavy Bolters went to D2.
Imma stop you right there because both you and I know Heavy Bolters weren't ever supposed to be a Marine killer to begin with, which completely defeats your point.
Umm...it was. Go back S5 Ap-1 Heavy 3. Back in the day that worked out to 2 hits and against Ork boyz it was 1.33 dead boyz. That works out to 8pts of dead Ork. Against Marines it worked out to 0.66 dead Marines which works out to...10pts of dead Marine. But even with that said you still missed the point. Marines got 2Ws and because of the power imbalance they buffed a bunch of Marine weapons before they buffed everyone else so that Marines would still kill each other with glee. Heavy Bolters got D2, my big shoota got...dakka 3/5 which means I get 0.66 extra hits if i'm in half range, but the thing still costs the same...its just mathematically worse vs. Marines.
H.B.M.C. wrote: *Comments about Heavy Bolters blah blah blah*
They buffed the HB to give Imperials more stopping power against Marines. The problem is that in doing so they accidentally made it 100% more effective vs. vehicles, which is why the aforementioned SoB list featuring 15+ of the things did so well for a bit; it was good vs. everything.
But the main point i was making is that Marines complained about durability so GW gave them a 2nd wound for 2ppm, and then immediately complained that they weren't doing enough dmg to kill things and so GW buffed weapons which made Marines less durable. So Marines complained and then they came out with AoC which completely destroyed the usability of entire weapon selections...hell, it completely removed my factions biggest buff in 9th edition (AP-1 Choppas). But it didn't work because what happened to the meta? Players took fewer AP-1 weapon and went hard into AP2+. So now GW's answer is to make everything free for Marines and say screw it until 10th drops.
vict0988 wrote: D2 makes it twice as good against vehicles as well, which then mucks up autocannons for no good reason, insane lethality is also a problem, those are the reasons why it should be D1 again.
Shouldn't it be twice as good against vehicles than a bolter?
its not "twice as good" a Heavy bolter Vs a T7 3+ vehicle does 3 shots, 2 hits, 0.66 wounds and 0.66dmg. A Bolter does 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.44 wounds and 0.15dmg. So its a bit more than 4x as good Vs. vehicles as a bolter.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yes, Marines drive changes, but this is an example of a change keeps things consistent. If the Heavy Bolter hadn't changed it would be a head-scratcher.
Read my comment about Big shootas above, I could also point out the bog standard Ork Boyz model equipped with a slugga/pistol.
In the past it took about 3 Ork boyz to kill 1 Marine. That was 18pts of boyz killing 15pts of Marine. 3 boyz, 9 attacks, 6 hits, 3 wounds and 1 failed armor save. So the math worked out to 0.83 for points efficiency.
Now? to kill 1 Marine without AoC it takes 4 Ork Boyz YAY! 4 boyz 12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds and 2dmg. I mean...its just 1 more boy right? not a big deal right? Those Ork boyz are now 32pts and the Marine is 18pts. Thats a points efficiency of 0.56.
So your logic of "if X then Y should happen otherwise headscratcher" seems to only apply to Marines and Marine weapons.
I'm fairly confident they got D2 because they were seen as bad, because they were bad. Much like how Big Shootas are seen as bad today. It obviously trod all over the Autocannon - but that was bad too, and will probably get moved up next edition. We already see various iterations now, with extra AP (Havocs) or damage 3 (Predators, Helverins get both etc.)
That isn't really the case though. Heavy bolters still did a good job at mulching medium and light infantry. They were viewed as "Crap" only after Marines went to 2w. A heavy bolter in 9th is as effective against their normal Light/medium infantry targets as it was back in 7th its just now better vs elites and vehicles.
Also the Big shoota has been "seen" as bad since 7th edition dropped. Here we are at the tail end of 9th and I have literally never brought a big shoota to a game unless the model had it as required equipment (Morkanaut/trukkz/Scrapjetz). There just isn't a reason to take them.
Ironically, getting back to the main point of this entire thread, Heavy Bolters are effectively DEAD except on units where they are the best optional upgrade available. A predator for example can now take 2 of them for FREE (used to be 30pts) or pay 20pts for a pair of lascannons.
SemperMortis wrote: That isn't really the case though. Heavy bolters still did a good job at mulching medium and light infantry. They were viewed as "Crap" only after Marines went to 2w. A heavy bolter in 9th is as effective against their normal Light/medium infantry targets as it was back in 7th its just now better vs elites and vehicles.
Not sure I'd agree because of your statement above:
SemperMortis wrote: Umm...it was. Go back S5 Ap-1 Heavy 3. Back in the day that worked out to 2 hits and against Ork boyz it was 1.33 dead boyz. That works out to 8pts of dead Ork. Against Marines it worked out to 0.66 dead Marines which works out to...10pts of dead Marine.
I mean was killing 1.33 Boyz good? I don't think so. If you were looking at an 8th edition Green Tide list with say 120-150~ bodies (possibly more factoring in a unit coming back), you'd have had to bring an awful lot of HBs to make a dent. I feel there was much better horde clearance in the game than this.
SemperMortis wrote: That isn't really the case though. Heavy bolters still did a good job at mulching medium and light infantry. They were viewed as "Crap" only after Marines went to 2w. A heavy bolter in 9th is as effective against their normal Light/medium infantry targets as it was back in 7th its just now better vs elites and vehicles.
Not sure I'd agree because of your statement above:
SemperMortis wrote: Umm...it was. Go back S5 Ap-1 Heavy 3. Back in the day that worked out to 2 hits and against Ork boyz it was 1.33 dead boyz. That works out to 8pts of dead Ork. Against Marines it worked out to 0.66 dead Marines which works out to...10pts of dead Marine.
I mean was killing 1.33 Boyz good? I don't think so. If you were looking at an 8th edition Green Tide list with say 120-150~ bodies (possibly more factoring in a unit coming back), you'd have had to bring an awful lot of HBs to make a dent. I feel there was much better horde clearance in the game than this.
Were there better options? yeah, but it did a good job at killing Marines as well so it was a nice "TAC" option as opposed to specializing into hordes. BTW, why were Ork hordes good in 8th? Nobody took enough dakka to kill them. Instead of taking those Heavy Bolters they took Plasma or Melta instead because Knights and other Marines. Orkz have lived and died by the Counter Meta list for a long long time. Going to D2 did make it better Vs. Marines, nobody can argue against that point, but it didn't make it any better vs Hordes or light infantry. Its just a bit disappointing that GW chooses to only buff certain weapons to adjust for a meta shift such as the most common infantry in the game going to 2W....ironically the weapon they chose to buff just happens to be a very common weapon across a large spectrum of armies
Ork hordes were good in 8th because Boyz got a buff to their Attacks characteristic and Ld in big units and they had a fight twice Stratagem and a weird healing/deep strike Stratagem both of which were more CP efficient when used on a big unit. Weirdboys were also better and their powers synergize with big units of Boyz. Boyz also used smaller bases and the rules for which models could fight was more lenient. Ork hordes did okay at the start of 9th as well, it's the 9th ed Orks codex that ruined them by making them T9 with no Stratagems or abilities to reward big units.
SemperMortis wrote: You have to realize how that reads right? "My faction got a buff, nobody should be allowed to beat us now!". You can keep complaining about the arms race until you are blue in the face, your faction is the most popular in the game and therefore will be tailored against, you are the measuring stick, sorry.
This. If you want marines to be elite you need marines to stop being the most common faction, otherwise by definition they're average and the entire rest of the game will be evaluated by how well it performs against marines. If W2 is the basic infantry profile then D2 will be the basic weapon profile.
Common on the table =/= common in the setting, which both y'all completely don't understand based on these posts.
Common on Table = list building against which means you will never feel durability buffs because opponents build against it. Which you and dudeface don't understand based on these posts. I don't care about fluff, i am strictly talking about the game as it is played. "Oh my Marines are super elite warriors, there's only 1 Marine per Planet in the imperium Ooooo!" Ok. now show up to a GT and count how many Power armored models you see, I bet you there will be more Marine infantry than Ork boyz and by an order of magnitude as well.
The ideal game state imo should be that if you only ever build to face marines you lose more regularly into everything else. The state of the game as it is means building into marines has no negatives for nearly all decisions. You highlight it yourself by pointing out green tides works by being counter meta. The game should be encouraging people to bring TAC lists not "lets make sure I beat marines and then figure the rest out from there", which in turn might be a symptom of 2k games come to think of it.
SemperMortis wrote: You have to realize how that reads right? "My faction got a buff, nobody should be allowed to beat us now!". You can keep complaining about the arms race until you are blue in the face, your faction is the most popular in the game and therefore will be tailored against, you are the measuring stick, sorry.
This. If you want marines to be elite you need marines to stop being the most common faction, otherwise by definition they're average and the entire rest of the game will be evaluated by how well it performs against marines. If W2 is the basic infantry profile then D2 will be the basic weapon profile.
Common on the table =/= common in the setting, which both y'all completely don't understand based on these posts.
Common on Table = list building against which means you will never feel durability buffs because opponents build against it. Which you and dudeface don't understand based on these posts. I don't care about fluff, i am strictly talking about the game as it is played. "Oh my Marines are super elite warriors, there's only 1 Marine per Planet in the imperium Ooooo!" Ok. now show up to a GT and count how many Power armored models you see, I bet you there will be more Marine infantry than Ork boyz and by an order of magnitude as well.
So don't bring Heavy Bolters to a GT if that's what you expect.
GW upping the damage for everbody and their dog might not solely based on 2w Marines. Everything got more lethal in this edition, not just classic anti-Marine weapons.
Marines got a 2nd wound and almost immediately Heavy Bolters went to D2.
Imma stop you right there because both you and I know Heavy Bolters weren't ever supposed to be a Marine killer to begin with, which completely defeats your point.
Umm...it was. Go back S5 Ap-1 Heavy 3. Back in the day that worked out to 2 hits and against Ork boyz it was 1.33 dead boyz. That works out to 8pts of dead Ork. Against Marines it worked out to 0.66 dead Marines which works out to...10pts of dead Marine. But even with that said you still missed the point. Marines got 2Ws and because of the power imbalance they buffed a bunch of Marine weapons before they buffed everyone else so that Marines would still kill each other with glee. Heavy Bolters got D2, my big shoota got...dakka 3/5 which means I get 0.66 extra hits if i'm in half range, but the thing still costs the same...its just mathematically worse vs. Marines.
I don't care about your whining about Orks because literally everyone and their mother knows the Ork codex wasn't done well. That seems to be more your motivation to defend a D2 Heavy Bolter than anything else.
SemperMortis wrote: They buffed the HB to give Imperials more stopping power against Marines. The problem is that in doing so they accidentally made it 100% more effective vs. vehicles, which is why the aforementioned SoB list featuring 15+ of the things did so well for a bit; it was good vs. everything.
My point is that it didn't change. It has the exact same impact against Marines that it always did. Yes, the rule changed from D1 to D2, but the net gain was zero. It does as much to Marines as it always did, and certainly no more damage to lesser targets because they've only got 1 wound anyway.
SemperMortis wrote: But the main point i was making is that Marines complained about durability so GW gave them a 2nd wound for 2ppm, and then immediately complained that they weren't doing enough dmg to kill things and so GW buffed weapons which made Marines less durable. So Marines complained and then they came out with AoC which completely destroyed the usability of entire weapon selections...hell, it completely removed my factions biggest buff in 9th edition (AP-1 Choppas). But it didn't work because what happened to the meta? Players took fewer AP-1 weapon and went hard into AP2+. So now GW's answer is to make everything free for Marines and say screw it until 10th drops.
I agree with you here, except the complaint isn't about Marine durability, it's about durability in general. AoC existed because GW doesn't know how to write rules and/or isn't willing to correct the actual core mistake that exists in 9th: There are too many weapons with save modifiers.
SemperMortis wrote: Read my comment about Big shootas above, I could also point out the bog standard Ork Boyz model equipped with a slugga/pistol....
So your logic of "if X then Y should happen otherwise headscratcher" seems to only apply to Marines and Marine weapons.
They upped the Shuriken Cannon as well. Whether the Big Shoota should have been buffed is a matter of debate. It doesn't make the change to Heavy Bolters wrong.
drbored wrote: The solution is to not care, build and paint what you think is cool, and just wait for your faction to have its 15 minutes of fame)
Recommending that we not care is, to me at least, akin to the way 4Chan outright mocks anyone who dares to show any passion towards any topic.
I think they mean don't worry about whats happening or get worked up too much.
Enjoy what you enjoy, have passion and your favourite army will have it's time.
But there is a difference between passion and obsession. Passion = good. Obsssion = bad.
I think this is largely true for most long term hobbyist/casual players, have a broad collection of a faction you care about and you'll have ability to react and enjoy it regardless of the current competitive shenanigans playing more laid back games. It's only those wanting to chase wins/titles/event win rates etc. that might really be that bothered.
At the end of the day marine units cost what they cost, that price can can be reached through a few methods, they took the lazy route and threw any semblance of looking in control out the window, likely as they know it'll get binned and reset shortly. It doesn't by default mean marines will be stomping about winning everything everywhere, I'm not convinced they'll rocked past everyone else as a whole it'll be a couple of special sub-lists who benefit more than others. But enjoy playing what you play and it'll be all change again in 3 months.
"Nothing matters" isnt the most fun prediction.
I mean if you dont think Marines will be top tier thats fine. It just raises the question of who you think will be. And why its Guard.
Tyel wrote: "Nothing matters" isnt the most fun prediction.
I mean if you dont think Marines will be top tier thats fine. It just raises the question of who you think will be. And why its Guard.
I think some marine lists will punch up to top tier, but just not with some disastrous win rate annihilating all before them. Iron hands might end up looking like late 8th lists again and both death/raven wing lists benefit a lot from the changes. But as it stands, I agree it'll be guard.
I don't care about your whining about Orks because literally everyone and their mother knows the Ork codex wasn't done well. That seems to be more your motivation to defend a D2 Heavy Bolter than anything else.
I'm not defending Heavy Bolters going to D2, I was stating how they came about and the ridiculous cyclical logic that got us to this point. And honestly I don't think the arms race has worked nor has it been good for the game balance.
The ideal game state imo should be that if you only ever build to face marines you lose more regularly into everything else. The state of the game as it is means building into marines has no negatives for nearly all decisions. You highlight it yourself by pointing out green tides works by being counter meta. The game should be encouraging people to bring TAC lists not "lets make sure I beat marines and then figure the rest out from there", which in turn might be a symptom of 2k games come to think of it.
I actually agree with you on the first statement, but it will never happen because when you show up to a GT or a regular event the plurality of opponents you are likely to face will be rocking a 3+ save and likely be T3-5 so any weapon that is good against that profile is going to do well. Not to mention by upping Marines to 2W, hitting them with a heavy weapon doesn't seem as silly anymore. But that also ties into my comments about Heavy bolters and weapons in general. I've sat in these forums and watched players complain ad nauseam that their weapon of choice isn't good enough against *Insert thing it wasn't designed for*. The heavy bolter should never have gone to D2, the Shuriken version shouldn't have gone to D2. A lot of the weapon upgrades in 9th shouldn't have happened because all it did was feed into the cycle and now every other army that isn't being given a 100% durability boost is suffering, Marines are suffering because they are the default setting and GW will have to eventually realize there isn't anything they can do to balance Marines and their 27 cousin variants until fewer people play them to the point where I'm not immediately incentivized to take D2 weapons with high AP as much as possible. Putting it simply, giving Marines upwards of 800-900pts of free weapon upgrades isn't going to help the game balance and yet again, my best guess is that Marines are going to be Top tier, and when I say top tier i'm not talking about ALL Marines ALL the time. I'm saying at GTs you are going to see Marines constantly in the top 4 (8 for bigger events).
SemperMortis wrote: I'm not defending Heavy Bolters going to D2, I was stating how they came about and the ridiculous cyclical logic that got us to this point. And honestly I don't think the arms race has worked nor has it been good for the game balance.
Yeah. To put it bluntly: If you try to make the most commonly encountered defensive profile in the game resilient to all but a few specialized weapons, the end result is not that that defensive profile starts to feel tough.
It's that everything besides those specialized weapons collects dust.
The increase in the number of weapons with D2 didn't devalue Marine durability so much as open up more viable options for participating in a game that is majority-Marines and where 'take-all-comers' translates to 'kills Marines'. They're not an outlier, they're not unique, they're not special, they're not tough, they are the bog-standard middle-of-the-road yardstick by which everything else is judged, and until/unless T4/W2/3+ actually becomes an outlier rather than the baseline, there's no getting away from that.
I don't know how it "open up more viable options for participating in a game", where each time marines become easy to kill. Marines bounce between minimum marines in a marine army, like it was through out most of 8th to hope that your faction can do something marine+, like it was in 9th.
A regular marine player, using actual marines, in a setting where a marine is easily killed and on top of that anti marine weapons are okeyish vs vehicles and monsters too, is not going to have much fun. And it shows in stuff like green wing or other regular marine armies. Now for non marine players it is great, because they can farm easy wins, and in case of store events get store credit more easily. But for the marine players that actualy are getting blown up on the tables or tabled without really doing nothing, it is not very fun.
If marines, for the sake of game play situation caused by their popularity are supposed to get armies that don't feel tough and unique aka like space marine armies. Then why does GW does that to for other factions. GW has no problems with letting nids or orks play swarm one time, then force them to spam big monsters or vehicles. Eldar always get the above everyone +1 rule set etc. If marines are suppose to be the way they are in game, then other factions should be adjusted to it too.
Especialy as making marine player unhappy, means that GW is making the majority of their player base unhappy. And doing that, on top of doing that, so that a minority can have fun is just evil. And if GW has and wants to keep this as policy, they should be open about it. Make a video or Q&A , and some DT person can openly say that marines are suppose to be the bad army for noobs to buy, but if you want to have fun, you should buy something else or wait for those 4-5 months at the end of an edition when marines are okey. Which kind of a seems to be the norm with what GW does.
Karol wrote: I don't know how it "open up more viable options for participating in a game", where each time marines become easy to kill. Marines bounce between minimum marines in a marine army, like it was through out most of 8th to hope that your faction can do something marine+, like it was in 9th.
A regular marine player, using actual marines, in a setting where a marine is easily killed and on top of that anti marine weapons are okeyish vs vehicles and monsters too, is not going to have much fun. And it shows in stuff like green wing or other regular marine armies. Now for non marine players it is great, because they can farm easy wins, and in case of store events get store credit more easily. But for the marine players that actualy are getting blown up on the tables or tabled without really doing nothing, it is not very fun.
If marines, for the sake of game play situation caused by their popularity are supposed to get armies that don't feel tough and unique aka like space marine armies. Then why does GW does that to for other factions. GW has no problems with letting nids or orks play swarm one time, then force them to spam big monsters or vehicles. Eldar always get the above everyone +1 rule set etc. If marines are suppose to be the way they are in game, then other factions should be adjusted to it too.
Especialy as making marine player unhappy, means that GW is making the majority of their player base unhappy. And doing that, on top of doing that, so that a minority can have fun is just evil. And if GW has and wants to keep this as policy, they should be open about it. Make a video or Q&A , and some DT person can openly say that marines are suppose to be the bad army for noobs to buy, but if you want to have fun, you should buy something else or wait for those 4-5 months at the end of an edition when marines are okey. Which kind of a seems to be the norm with what GW does.
So to summarize your entire rant "I want my special toys to be better than everyone else's toys, otherwise GW is evil". I do love your rants though Karol, its always so lacking in self reflection that it genuinely puts a smile on my face.
"Wait for those 4-5 months" umm I hate to tell you this, but most factions don't even get those 4-5 months. This edition a lot of armies were top dog for a bit, Harlequins, DE, AdMech, Tau, Necrons hell, Orkz were at one point the 3rd best army in the game. Marines though universally have not had a single edition where they weren't Top tier for at least a bit, including 9th. Is that true for every single special snowflake chapter? No, but in the broader sense that All Marines are the same with minor differences (mostly paint scheme).
The entirety of 7th edition Orkz and DE were bottom of the barrel hot garbage. 8th Edition you had IG and Tau suffering...Chaos Marines....Holy crap, they got like 10 minutes of good play in 7th and 8th and then, bam new edition. Sorry that your army is only top tier for 4-5 months (2/3rds of 8th....most of 7th) in an edition, don't worry though, based on my prediction ....you know the thread's purpose, I think they will again be Top Tier for the last 4-6 months of 9th.
To be fair to Karol, as weird and tone deaf as that was, the entire thread is based on "it's stupid marines get free upgrades! Look at my army! Look how evil and dumb GW is!"
Dudeface wrote: To be fair to Karol, as weird and tone deaf as that was, the entire thread is based on "it's stupid marines get free upgrades! Look at my army! Look how evil and dumb GW is!"
More like "It's stupid that ANY army gets free upgrades. No way is a lascannon the same worth as a basic boltgun" (these weapons used as examples since everyone knows what they do because , guess what, Marines are the most commonly played faction)
Dudeface wrote: To be fair to Karol, as weird and tone deaf as that was, the entire thread is based on "it's stupid marines get free upgrades! Look at my army! Look how evil and dumb GW is!"
More like "It's stupid that ANY army gets free upgrades. No way is a lascannon the same worth as a basic boltgun" (these weapons used as examples since everyone knows what they do because , guess what, Marines are the most commonly played faction)
I don't recall an outrage at lasguns being replaced with lascannons for free. But as shown in here you also cannot balance the points out to get the units to where they are now without screwing it up in some other way. If they'd just cut every point value for Marines by 30% giving us the units at the price they're at in this hypothetical meta but with numbers attached, I suspect you'd be less upset.
I can see the obvious issues for internal balance but the entire premise of the thread is the concern with external balance. Do 4 lascannons and a thunder hammer seem a problem at 115?
Dudeface wrote: To be fair to Karol, as weird and tone deaf as that was, the entire thread is based on "it's stupid marines get free upgrades! Look at my army! Look how evil and dumb GW is!"
More like "It's stupid that ANY army gets free upgrades. No way is a lascannon the same worth as a basic boltgun" (these weapons used as examples since everyone knows what they do because , guess what, Marines are the most commonly played faction)
I don't recall an outrage at lasguns being replaced with lascannons for free. But as shown in here you also cannot balance the points out to get the units to where they are now without screwing it up in some other way. If they'd just cut every point value for Marines by 30% giving us the units at the price they're at in this hypothetical meta but with numbers attached, I suspect you'd be less upset.
Hammer of the Emperor was even more stupid, but free lascannons being stupid was part of the discussion as well. I don't know how you can show that it's impossible to balance points without screwing it up in a way, care to elaborate? I don't get what you mean by the 30% comment. Making a reasonable points cost decrease to every bad option on a datasheet is obviously going to be more popular than imitating PL.
Dudeface wrote: I don't recall an outrage at lasguns being replaced with lascannons for free.
You don't? Seriously?
I mean, it certainly wasn't the only thing people were talking about with Hammer of the Emperor and Armour of Contempt also added at the same time, and Guard wargear getting changed doesn't affect nearly as many players as Marine wargear getting changed, but go back to April/May of last year and you will find plenty of people complaining about Guard weapons suddenly all becoming free.
Dudeface wrote: But as shown in here you also cannot balance the points out to get the units to where they are now without screwing it up in some other way.
'You can't get it perfect so it might as well be terrible' has always been a poor argument.
Especially when the problems relating to wargear costs had in large part to do with GW deciding that wargear needed universal costs, rather than costs appropriate to the unit receiving it. This is a step in the wrong direction.
I don't recall an outrage at lasguns being replaced with lascannons for free. But as shown in here you also cannot balance the points out to get the units to where they are now without screwing it up in some other way. If they'd just cut every point value for Marines by 30% giving us the units at the price they're at in this hypothetical meta but with numbers attached, I suspect you'd be less upset.
I can see the obvious issues for internal balance but the entire premise of the thread is the concern with external balance. Do 4 lascannons and a thunder hammer seem a problem at 115?
then you have very selective memory, theres been a vocal group on here that were against free upgrades
Dudeface wrote: To be fair to Karol, as weird and tone deaf as that was, the entire thread is based on "it's stupid marines get free upgrades! Look at my army! Look how evil and dumb GW is!"
More like "It's stupid that ANY army gets free upgrades. No way is a lascannon the same worth as a basic boltgun" (these weapons used as examples since everyone knows what they do because , guess what, Marines are the most commonly played faction)
I don't recall an outrage at lasguns being replaced with lascannons for free. But as shown in here you also cannot balance the points out to get the units to where they are now without screwing it up in some other way. If they'd just cut every point value for Marines by 30% giving us the units at the price they're at in this hypothetical meta but with numbers attached, I suspect you'd be less upset.
Hammer of the Emperor was even more stupid, but free lascannons being stupid was part of the discussion as well. I don't know how you can show that it's impossible to balance points without screwing it up in a way, care to elaborate? I don't get what you mean by the 30% comment. Making a reasonable points cost decrease to every bad option on a datasheet is obviously going to be more popular than imitating PL.
You need to drop their points from where they were, you drop the marines too much and they become a pseudo horde which unbalances the wider game. If you cut the cost of the weapons, there isn't a large enough point bracket to accurately create decisions as there's either too much overlap in weapons purpose or too few point difference to actually make it a choice.
An example is if you want a 115 point lascannon dev squad with thunder hammer, accurate as per the manual, they were 165 with wargear. If you leave wargear untouched the marines in the unit need to be 40 points, or 8 points each. You can't facilitate a bolter guy at 8 points. If you assume they bake some of the heavy weapon cost in and make heavy bolters/grav free and default loadout, move the lascannon/thunderhammer to a 5pt upgrade you get 18pt marines. Is a lascannon worth 5 points more than a heavy bolter? Is it worth the same as a plasma cannon? Is a multimelta worth 5 points more than a lascannon? If you need to differentiate lascannons from missile launchers, how do you do that inside a 5pt window?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can people park the free wargear thing for a second. Is a lascannon unit currently fairly priced at 115? If so what is a heavy bolter squad worth?
I think this doesn't go far enough, Marines should get some sort of configuration (a formation even) that gives them free transports and the ability to attach characters to their units. Then maybe they could get a psyker that can give some sort of negative to hit for the unit they're attached to. That should make them worth playing again and it can't be any worse than pre-nerf DE, Tyranids, AdMech, or what was planned for the Squats.
Dudeface wrote: I don't recall an outrage at lasguns being replaced with lascannons for free.
There absolutely was outrage. The only reason there wasn't more outrage was that a lot of people assumed it was a one-time emergency balance fix to the worst army in the game without a point cut that would enable 400+ conscript spam. The assumption was that it would be removed as soon as the new codex was published (which was assumed to be coming much sooner IIRC) and therefore there was no need to worry about it too much. I don't think anyone ever thought it was a good rule or wanted it to stay.
If a 5 man Devastator unit with 4 grav cannons, TH and plasma pistol is 115 pts then Guardsmen should be 4 pts. So even if the naked Devastators were only 12 pts each, they'd still be 3x the cost of a Guardsman. WS/BS 3+ 2W T4 3+ Sv models are never going to be a horde.
5 Devastators with 4 lascannons and a cherub should be 126 points. With plasma pistol and TH 131 pts. It'd be worse than a lot of units and better than a lot of units. 115 for any loadout is inherently unfair. The goal shouldn't be to make every army list competitive because that'd lead to blatant power creep like in Yugioh. If you have 3 factions that are A tier, 5 B tier, 10 C tier, 2 D tier and you buff every B, C and D tier army up 1-3 tiers, you're going to end up with a couple A+ tier armies and now every army has to catch up to those two new overpowered armies. Next you'll have A++ armies that then get power crept by A+++ armies and before long you have 5W Space Marines and free Rhinos.
People are quick to discount the Heavy Bolter. Especially when it can be AP2 in marine hands. Here's a comparison on an AP4 LC squad and AP2 HB squad against various targets ( not cherubs or anything else to keep the setup simple ).
In short the HB is a bit worse at boats, worse into tanks, marginally better vs TEQ, and entirely better vs MEQ and GEQ. TEQ is perhaps the only (slight) surprise there.
The question on whether or not HB are better than LC relies entirely upon what you expect to face. Tons of marines with MM? Better take some HBs. Grav Cannons outclass HBs except in the "narrow" circumstances that you will face multi-wound models with 4+ or worse saves -- Warriors, Raveners, DE Grots, Elf boats, Squigosaurs, Daemons, GSC Technicals/Bikes, Necron Scarabs/Spiders, etc
So the goal isn't to determine which loadout is most efficient. It is to pay 115 points and pick the weapons that will be more effective to your battle plan and opponent pool.
Aecus Decimus wrote: There absolutely was outrage. The only reason there wasn't more outrage was that a lot of people assumed it was a one-time emergency balance fix to the worst army in the game without a point cut that would enable 400+ conscript spam. The assumption was that it would be removed as soon as the new codex was published (which was assumed to be coming much sooner IIRC) and therefore there was no need to worry about it too much. I don't think anyone ever thought it was a good rule or wanted it to stay.
Exactly!
Free weapons and 6 to hit = auto-wound were both absurdly stupid (and lazy and poorly designed) changes that we assumed were a stopgap until the new Codex came out.
None of us expected that free weapons would suddenly become the latest mid-edition paradigm shift, and certainly none of us expected Hammer of the Emperor to become the Guard's core rule.
drbored wrote: The solution is to not care, build and paint what you think is cool, and just wait for your faction to have its 15 minutes of fame)
Recommending that we not care is, to me at least, akin to the way 4Chan outright mocks anyone who dares to show any passion towards any topic.
Sorry let me explain. By 'not care' I mean - don't get too invested in the crunch of the rules, since they change every few months. Don't go chasing the meta, don't try to always have the most competitive army at all times, don't try to crush every opponent you meet.
I personally would prefer that Warhammer doesn't get closer to Magic the Gathering, where every 3 months a new set of cards comes out, invalidates the oldest set of cards from a year ago, and if you want to chase it you have to buy increasingly rare products that...
drbored wrote: Sorry let me explain. By 'not care' I mean - don't get too invested in the crunch of the rules, since they change every few months. Don't go chasing the meta, don't try to always have the most competitive army at all times, don't try to crush every opponent you meet.
Ok, right, I see what you meant.
I would say though, that these kind of constant (and often completely nonsensical/illogical/outright boneheaded) changes don't just impact those that "chase the meta". Like a few others have stated in this thread (and others), I'm tired of having my army messed with because a tiny minority of tournament players can't help but stretch this game to the limits of what it's capable (and incapable) of handling.
And groups can differ. I'm firmly of the mindset that I want to say "No, feth it. I'm using my Tyranid Codex, that I purchased, and the Tyranid cards, that I purchased, exactly as they are presented. Munitorum Manuals and "Balance" Dataslates be damned!", but not everyone in my group will see it that way. We have one guy who is big into tournaments. I had my group around to play 40k a while back, and specifically asked everyone in advance to not bring tournament lists. He showed up with a Trajan-led Custodes netdeck list. *shrugs* So... what can I do?
Essentially, when the people who write the game keep fething with the game, it impacts everyone, whether you're a tournament gamer or not. I care not because I care about tournaments - that time in my life has long since passed - but because I'm tired of seeing the potential of this game get squandered time and time again by people who should know better, refuse to improve, and then bluster away on "Metawatch" articles about win-rates and other things that they pretend matters.
drbored wrote: I personally would prefer that Warhammer doesn't get closer to Magic the Gathering, where every 3 months a new set of cards comes out, invalidates the oldest set of cards from a year ago, and if you want to chase it you have to buy increasingly rare products that... wait a minute... Oh god, it's already too late.
H.B.M.C. wrote: and then bluster away on "Metawatch" articles about win-rates and other things that they pretend matters
The worst thing about it is they openly admit they only care about faction win rates. Your faction has a 52% win rate with a single very specific netlist that abuses the units we gave an excessive dataslate buff to and a 20% win rate with anything else? Build diversity is nonexistent because free gear makes all but one choice obsolete? 52% win rate is within the 45-55% target range and nothing more needs to be done! Who cares if the game is a miserable experience for the majority of players of that faction, we have some pretty graphs that show everything is fine and you can't disagree because we have data!
I disagree though that it's the tournament players that deserve the blame for pushing the game beyond its limits. The blame belongs with GW for continuing to employ horrifically incompetent writers long past the point where any other company would have fired them, resulting in a constant dumpster fire of errors followed by hasty overreactions followed by sweeping changes across the entire game, all of it built on a foundation of "we had the intern write this book on his lunch break". It shouldn't matter that tournament players will always look for the best way to win games because the books we're spending hundreds of dollars on should not be this hilariously dysfunctional.
Aecus Decimus wrote: I disagree though that it's the tournament players that deserve the blame for pushing the game beyond its limits.
Oh oh oh, wait, wait, wait. I can see how what I've said might be interpreted that way, but let's be very clear: I'm not pulling a Kanluwen here, blaming the players for everything wrong with the game. This is entirely on GW for treating the opinions of a small minority of players in such high regard.
Tournament players were doing what they were doing long before GW knew what the word 'meta' was, but all this crap now is only because GW is listening to them (and no one else, it seems). It's still all on GW's shoulders. I'm totally fine with tournament players, as I said, "stretch[ing] this game to the limits of what it's capable (and incapable) of handling". I just wish GW wouldn't listen to them as much, or to the exclusion of all else.
Your point about "The win rate is now 52%, so everything is clearly completely fixed!" is one I hadn't considered, and a good one, and depressing...
It's demonstrative of the lack of understanding I keep mentioning. And we see people here (I can think of some specific names) who really do just go "But the the winrate is XX%, so what's the problem?".
H.B.M.C. wrote: Oh oh oh, wait, wait, wait. I can see how what I've said might be interpreted that way, but let's be very clear: I'm not pulling a Kanluwen here, blaming the players for everything wrong with the game. This is entirely on GW for treating the opinions of a small minority of players in such high regard.
Ah, gotcha.
Tournament players were doing what they were doing long before GW knew what the word 'meta' was, but all this crap now is only because GW is listening to them (and no one else, it seems). It's still all on GW's shoulders. I'm totally fine with tournament players, as I said, "stretch[ing] this game to the limits of what it's capable (and incapable) of handling". I just wish GW wouldn't listen to them as much, or to the exclusion of all else.
I think it's the opposite actually: GW isn't listening to tournament players enough. They're listening just enough to get into this weird cargo cult of "competitive" 40k where the know enough to parrot some of the language but don't understand any of it. It's why you get nice self-congratulatory win rate graphs but no apparent understanding of more advanced metagame analysis statistics, how to fine-tune a metagame without sweeping overreactions like the plane ban, or how to apply a competitive mindset to pre-release playtesting and keep the egregious balance mistakes from making it to print. Or how GW's cargo cult version of competitive play has quarterly balance updates because a competitive game is supposed to have regular balance updates, but they're still insisting on constraining those updates with the need to protect the cash cow of printed rulebooks and creating abominations like AoC and HotE because they aren't allowed to publish better solutions. And I'm sure in a couple months we'll see a Metawatch article on how everything is the best it's ever been because lots of people went to the LVO.
Tyel wrote: "Nothing matters" isnt the most fun prediction.
I mean if you dont think Marines will be top tier thats fine. It just raises the question of who you think will be. And why its Guard.
I think some marine lists will punch up to top tier, but just not with some disastrous win rate annihilating all before them. Iron hands might end up looking like late 8th lists again and both death/raven wing lists benefit a lot from the changes. But as it stands, I agree it'll be guard.
What changes do you think Deathwing benefits from? I mean a few points drops to their Command Squad characters, but that was pretty universal across the board. Ravenwing got the old school speeders, new speeders as generic price drops, and aircraft drops. The Freebie upgrades for Terminators?
Daedalus81 wrote: People are quick to discount the Heavy Bolter. Especially when it can be AP2 in marine hands. Here's a comparison on an AP4 LC squad and AP2 HB squad against various targets ( not cherubs or anything else to keep the setup simple ).
In short the HB is a bit worse at boats, worse into tanks, marginally better vs TEQ, and entirely better vs MEQ and GEQ. TEQ is perhaps the only (slight) surprise there.
The question on whether or not HB are better than LC relies entirely upon what you expect to face. Tons of marines with MM? Better take some HBs. Grav Cannons outclass HBs except in the "narrow" circumstances that you will face multi-wound models with 4+ or worse saves -- Warriors, Raveners, DE Grots, Elf boats, Squigosaurs, Daemons, GSC Technicals/Bikes, Necron Scarabs/Spiders, etc
So the goal isn't to determine which loadout is most efficient. It is to pay 115 points and pick the weapons that will be more effective to your battle plan and opponent pool.
Spoiler:
The weapon that is more effective for your battle plan and opponent pool is more points efficient. Paying 40 points for multi-meltas if you're staying so far back with your Devastators they cannot shoot turn 1/2 would be inefficient and taking heavy bolters on your drop pod Devastators you need to clear out monsters would be inefficient. Mathhammer is meant to model this.
Aecus Decimus wrote: There absolutely was outrage. The only reason there wasn't more outrage was that a lot of people assumed it was a one-time emergency balance fix to the worst army in the game without a point cut that would enable 400+ conscript spam. The assumption was that it would be removed as soon as the new codex was published (which was assumed to be coming much sooner IIRC) and therefore there was no need to worry about it too much. I don't think anyone ever thought it was a good rule or wanted it to stay.
Exactly!
Free weapons and 6 to hit = auto-wound were both absurdly stupid (and lazy and poorly designed) changes that we assumed were a stopgap until the new Codex came out.
None of us expected that free weapons would suddenly become the latest mid-edition paradigm shift, and certainly none of us expected Hammer of the Emperor to become the Guard's core rule.
I checked the Guard codex to make sure HotE was gone but they just changed the name T_T
Aecus Decimus wrote: I disagree though that it's the tournament players that deserve the blame for pushing the game beyond its limits.
Oh oh oh, wait, wait, wait. I can see how what I've said might be interpreted that way, but let's be very clear: I'm not pulling a Kanluwen here, blaming the players for everything wrong with the game. This is entirely on GW for treating the opinions of a small minority of players in such high regard.
Tournament players were doing what they were doing long before GW knew what the word 'meta' was, but all this crap now is only because GW is listening to them (and no one else, it seems). It's still all on GW's shoulders. I'm totally fine with tournament players, as I said, "stretch[ing] this game to the limits of what it's capable (and incapable) of handling". I just wish GW wouldn't listen to them as much, or to the exclusion of all else.
Your point about "The win rate is now 52%, so everything is clearly completely fixed!" is one I hadn't considered, and a good one, and depressing...
It's demonstrative of the lack of understanding I keep mentioning. And we see people here (I can think of some specific names) who really do just go "But the the winrate is XX%, so what's the problem?".
The experience of tournament players don't really matter, the only reason to care about what they're doing is because it's the easiest way to get data about the game to improve it for casual players and find out which combos are broken to make sure that casual players can build whatever lists they want without the game breaking. When Grey Knights are terrible or Space Marines overpowered it makes the game worse for players.
One yearly update to the game ought to be enough to make the game reasonably balanced assuming new releases are playtested prior to release and should create little fatigue and keep the game interesting. The old model where the only way the game got interesting was with a new edition or the release of an OP codex was a bad idea because the system necessitated OP codexes to not get stale.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And groups can differ. I'm firmly of the mindset that I want to say "No, feth it. I'm using my Tyranid Codex, that I purchased, and the Tyranid cards, that I purchased, exactly as they are presented. Munitorum Manuals and "Balance" Dataslates be damned!", but not everyone in my group will see it that way. We have one guy who is big into tournaments. I had my group around to play 40k a while back, and specifically asked everyone in advance to not bring tournament lists. He showed up with a Trajan-led Custodes netdeck list. *shrugs* So... what can I do?
You're the host, and he's the only one that can't follow a simple "don't bring a tournament list" request? The answer would appear simple - don't invite him next time, and if he complains, explain why in words of one syllable...
Tyel wrote: "Nothing matters" isnt the most fun prediction.
I mean if you dont think Marines will be top tier thats fine. It just raises the question of who you think will be. And why its Guard.
I think some marine lists will punch up to top tier, but just not with some disastrous win rate annihilating all before them. Iron hands might end up looking like late 8th lists again and both death/raven wing lists benefit a lot from the changes. But as it stands, I agree it'll be guard.
What changes do you think Deathwing benefits from? I mean a few points drops to their Command Squad characters, but that was pretty universal across the board. Ravenwing got the old school speeders, new speeders as generic price drops, and aircraft drops. The Freebie upgrades for Terminators?
Given their wonderfully abundant access to storm shields they're less bothered by the drop of AoC, have benefitted from both the free stuff and the removal of AoC on targets in turn and still get to walk around with permanent transhuman. They basically get to maintain well above average durability and got cheaper doing it.
One yearly update to the game ought to be enough to make the game reasonably balanced assuming new releases are playtested prior to release and should create little fatigue and keep the game interesting.
Update once a week if they want/need to. The players will always be more creative than the rules writers. Having to wait a year because John found the newest wombo combo 2 days after the last update is no reason to wait a year.
One yearly update to the game ought to be enough to make the game reasonably balanced assuming new releases are playtested prior to release and should create little fatigue and keep the game interesting.
Update once a week if they want/need to. The players will always be more creative than the rules writers. Having to wait a year because John found the newest wombo combo 2 days after the last update is no reason to wait a year.
Why would a points or mission update create a new wombo combo? New rules sources should still get a FAQ/Errata 1 month after release.
One yearly update to the game ought to be enough to make the game reasonably balanced assuming new releases are playtested prior to release and should create little fatigue and keep the game interesting.
Update once a week if they want/need to. The players will always be more creative than the rules writers. Having to wait a year because John found the newest wombo combo 2 days after the last update is no reason to wait a year.
Why would a points or mission update create a new wombo combo? New rules sources should still get a FAQ/Errata 1 month after release.
Because drastic points differences or rules changes - or both at once can have dramatic effects. Beyond that, sometimes you just don't see something right away.
I think it's almost possible now to run a double deathstar list with Grandpappy and Papa Smurf each getting an entourage - especially with the nosedive on Aggressor pricing and upgrades. Bobby G force multiplies Assault Weapon Gravis pretty well, and Calgar pretty much is an Aggressor Captain. There isn't an Aggressor LT, but the Bladeguard version is now cheaper and a free upgrade (whoops) - The new SM ability also lends itself right into this. Stick one Heavy Intercessor or Assault Intercessor group with each Deathstar to trigger
The initial knee jerk reaction was all about the Free Thunderhammers and Multi-meltas, but no deeper dive on the Centurion Devs, Inceptors, Aggressors, Sniper Scouts was really done.
vict0988 wrote: Why would a points or mission update create a new wombo combo? New rules sources should still get a FAQ/Errata 1 month after release.
It wouldn't necessarily create the combo. It might be purely a coincidence that someone finds a new combo shortly after the scheduled update. Or maybe the combo was there the whole time but not on anyone's radar because the units involved were in the "bad" category because of their point costs and the points update suddenly made it viable. Or maybe it's an interaction with something about the new missions that makes a previously-acceptable thing oppressive.
vict0988 wrote: Why would a points or mission update create a new wombo combo? New rules sources should still get a FAQ/Errata 1 month after release.
It wouldn't necessarily create the combo. It might be purely a coincidence that someone finds a new combo shortly after the scheduled update. Or maybe the combo was there the whole time but not on anyone's radar because the units involved were in the "bad" category because of their point costs and the points update suddenly made it viable. Or maybe it's an interaction with something about the new missions that makes a previously-acceptable thing oppressive.
People find combos just from half of a codex's rules being leaked.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And groups can differ. I'm firmly of the mindset that I want to say "No, feth it. I'm using my Tyranid Codex, that I purchased, and the Tyranid cards, that I purchased, exactly as they are presented. Munitorum Manuals and "Balance" Dataslates be damned!", but not everyone in my group will see it that way. We have one guy who is big into tournaments. I had my group around to play 40k a while back, and specifically asked everyone in advance to not bring tournament lists. He showed up with a Trajan-led Custodes netdeck list. *shrugs* So... what can I do?
You're the host, and he's the only one that can't follow a simple "don't bring a tournament list" request? The answer would appear simple - don't invite him next time, and if he complains, explain why in words of one syllable...
Why should a Custodes player not be allowed to use Trajan?
H.B.M.C. wrote: And groups can differ. I'm firmly of the mindset that I want to say "No, feth it. I'm using my Tyranid Codex, that I purchased, and the Tyranid cards, that I purchased, exactly as they are presented. Munitorum Manuals and "Balance" Dataslates be damned!", but not everyone in my group will see it that way. We have one guy who is big into tournaments. I had my group around to play 40k a while back, and specifically asked everyone in advance to not bring tournament lists. He showed up with a Trajan-led Custodes netdeck list. *shrugs* So... what can I do?
You're the host, and he's the only one that can't follow a simple "don't bring a tournament list" request? The answer would appear simple - don't invite him next time, and if he complains, explain why in words of one syllable...
On the other hand, he is using a Tyranid codex without changes. A Custodes player pretty much needs to bring a tournament list to have a chance against that.
Tyran wrote: On the other hand, he is using a Tyranid codex without changes. A Custodes player pretty much needs to bring a tournament list to have a chance against that.
Oh my God... did you two have a bet for who could miss the point the most?
1. I never said he "couldn't use Trajan". I said to avoid bringing tournament lists. 2. This was well before the "balance" sheets and points changes came into effect.
I think it's the opposite actually: GW isn't listening to tournament players enough. They're listening just enough to get into this weird cargo cult of "competitive" 40k where the know enough to parrot some of the language but don't understand any of it. It's why you get nice self-congratulatory win rate graphs but no apparent understanding of more advanced metagame analysis statistics, how to fine-tune a metagame without sweeping overreactions like the plane ban, or how to apply a competitive mindset to pre-release playtesting and keep the egregious balance mistakes from making it to print. Or how GW's cargo cult version of competitive play has quarterly balance updates because a competitive game is supposed to have regular balance updates, but they're still insisting on constraining those updates with the need to protect the cash cow of printed rulebooks and creating abominations like AoC and HotE because they aren't allowed to publish better solutions. And I'm sure in a couple months we'll see a Metawatch article on how everything is the best it's ever been because lots of people went to the LVO.
I think you are both partially correct. Its that GW is listening intently with full focus....to like 6-10 tournament players who by happenstance also have large websites/channels devoted to the game which somehow get leaked material from GW...and who also double as playtesters for the game....weird.
DE get tabled at a final...doesn't matter that the ork codex was still 3rd string to Ad-Mech and DE, an emergency patch had to be implemented which also hit weak units which those same websites/channels had predicted to be OP and break the game. *Stares in Mozrog* (still wish I could find an archived version of the video of the guy doing a full on panic attack on mozrog).
The problem is that a few competitive players have an absurd impact on the game, and unless those guys are fair and play your army...well, you are screwed.
Dudeface wrote: To be fair to Karol, as weird and tone deaf as that was, the entire thread is based on "it's stupid marines get free upgrades! Look at my army! Look how evil and dumb GW is!"
More like "It's stupid that ANY army gets free upgrades. No way is a lascannon the same worth as a basic boltgun" (these weapons used as examples since everyone knows what they do because , guess what, Marines are the most commonly played faction)
I don't recall an outrage at lasguns being replaced with lascannons for free. But as shown in here you also cannot balance the points out to get the units to where they are now without screwing it up in some other way. If they'd just cut every point value for Marines by 30% giving us the units at the price they're at in this hypothetical meta but with numbers attached, I suspect you'd be less upset.
I can see the obvious issues for internal balance but the entire premise of the thread is the concern with external balance. Do 4 lascannons and a thunder hammer seem a problem at 115?
This entire thread is that GW is over correcting yet again and I'm betting that they become the new top dog (Minority opinion but I don't care I think I'm right). Its been hammered pretty hard but yeah people complained a lot about Free Lascannons and upgrades in general on IG...the difference here though is that I think i've played 2 IG players this entire edition, I literally can't count how many Marines i've played against...has to be close to 50-60.
As to your direct question. Yes, 4 lascannons which fire 5 times turn 1 and one has BS2 seem like a problem at 115pts. Only Ork unit that I think is fair to compare to is a Smasha Mek gun...so I can take 3 of those for 120pts...almost the same.
So turn 1: Against a T8 3+ vehicle.
Marine get 5 shots, 2 of them at BS2 because why wouldn't you double tap the Signum dude? So 5 shots, 3.66 hits, 2.44 wounds, 2 failed saves for 7dmg on average.
But lets be clear here, I don't think Dev squads are going to become the top meta choice, there are a lot of crazy options now. But lets look at the easiest way to break this. 3 dev squads clustered around a Captain/LT, or Girlyman. you now have 450-600pts bastion of deletion 15 shots turn 1, 6 hitting on 2s rerolling, 9 hitting on 3s, rerolling. So just shy of 14 hits, against T5-T8 its 10.7ish wounds, and against a 3+ save that is about 9 unsaved wounds for almost 31.5dmg for 645pts...and again, this still isn't even remotely close to the most broken thing I can think of.
Hell, a 170pt suicide melta squad of Sternguard in a drop pod have 3 combi meltas and 2 multi-meltas, Turn 2 you drop in and at 12' range you are pumping out 12-13dmg with ease against a T7 3+ target.
You could also just push out a Terminator assault squad with TH/SS to sit on an objective. Put them in cover on an objective and they functionally have 0+ armor, pretty cheap for a squad at 165pts.
I can keep going through this but its mostly all the same.
And Dudeface, to your last point that if Marines got a 30% price cut instead of free gear we wouldn't be complaining....umm yes, yes I would. Any "Buff" that i perceive as being too strong i'll always be vocal about. By no means am I perfect in my predictions but I believe I'm more often correct in my analysis.
And nobody wants to see 12pt Space Marines running around the board
Free special and heavy weapons would have been tolerable on Troops choices, and just as a means to help save a faction from drowning. Free weapons being given to basically half the factions in the game is not healthy for the game.
I've not played any games since the dataslate dropped and quite frankly I don't think I want to. Instead of removing half my models on turn one I can remove all of them instead. Or save myself the effort and just flip a coin to decide who wins and congratulate my opponent on a coin flip well played.
SemperMortis wrote: The problem is that a few competitive players have an absurd impact on the game, and unless those guys are fair and play your army...well, you are screwed.
Has the forum created Schrödinger's Tournament Player?
Bother a meta hopper and devoted to one army depending on if we're talking about balance or selling models?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: Hell, a 170pt suicide melta squad of Sternguard in a drop pod have 3 combi meltas and 2 multi-meltas, Turn 2 you drop in and at 12' range you are pumping out 12-13dmg with ease against a T7 3+ target.
I think people are still missing free reserves and, I believe, every army has some sort of tool to interact with incoming units ( though no idea on WE yet ). Guard don't have a shooting strat, but can basically force something not to come in once. There's enough stuff that pushes to 12" that it becomes a potential liability to rely on being in 12".
Anything like that squad popping in on me is going to be met with AP2 bolters that don't have to worry about AoC any more.
Anyway, yes, free upgrades can be silly, but I am more interested in the outcome than the concept.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: The weapon that is more effective for your battle plan and opponent pool is more points efficient. Paying 40 points for multi-meltas if you're staying so far back with your Devastators they cannot shoot turn 1/2 would be inefficient and taking heavy bolters on your drop pod Devastators you need to clear out monsters would be inefficient. Mathhammer is meant to model this.
Your last sentence contradicts the rest. I am unsure if you intended to write it that way?
Mathhammer models what the weapons do. It doesn't model what happens on the table or what you face.
With no points your choice is now 'how can I beat my opponents' rather than 'how can I fit enough stuff to be effective'.
The one thing we do know that GW does, because they have discussed it in their meta watch articles and people on the ground have noticed it, is that if they see a unit that is in zero lists, they'll give it a buff. If they see a unit that is in EVERY list, they'll target it for a nerf.
It's not perfect. Far from it, but at least they are a little cognizant of the situation with underpowered units.
In my mind, the ideal situation is that we'd have editions that would last 6 years instead of 3. The core rules don't need to change every 3 years. In fact, I've said it many times, the core rules of 9th edition are actually pretty solid. Movement, shooting, fighting, etc, are where they should be. The major complaint I hear is about terrain, but that could be addressed in a Chapter Approved or something.
When it comes to the Codexes, yes, I'd want them to come out faster than slower since more factions getting up to date with the latest rules is good; get people playing with their models and motivated to buy. From there, GW tends to start handing out the edition-gimmick one at a time, which can be infuriating to someone who has to wait 3 years to get their codex at long last, only for the edition to suddenly change and start the system all over again.
In order for the books, the cards, and other things that we purchase to RETAIN SOME VALUE (wild concept I know), they need to STICK AROUND for a little while. Otherwise, stop selling us 60 dollar hardbacks and go back to 30 dollar softbacks that we can tear apart or put into 3-ring binders without feeling too bad about it.
Once Codexes are updated within the life of an edition, ideally then THAT is where GW would start introducing the edition-gimmick. So, for example, the Codexes should launch with Crusade rules, but superfaction rules (space marine doctrines, for example) could be held for a campaign/tournament book, along with 5 other factions worth of edition-gimmicks, that would release across 4 relatively inexpensive campaign/tournament books that are OPTIONAL.
Want to play with the Tyranid codex you bought an the cards you bought and nothing more? It becomes much easier to do that. "Hey, let's just play a 'base' game, without all that extra stuff." Cool, you and your opponent have one less book to worry about. This *could* also make it easier to balance, with changes targeted at those campaign books rather than the codexes.
So the ideal situation would be this in a 6-year edition cycle:
Year 1: core rules updated, half the codexes brought up to speed
Year 2: other half of codexes updated, first large tournament pack revealed
Year 3: tournament pack full release, factions that get new models get new codexes
Year 4: large balance tweaks and addressing core rules that may need to be updated, along with factions that get new models get new codexes
Year 5: new large tournament pack released, new edition-gimmick out into the wild, factions that get new models get new codexes
Year 6: factions that get big updates get new codexes, end-of-edition wind-down campaign with new gimmicks, modes of play
Year 7: new cycle new core rules
The major downside that people might notice to this system is that some factions that get new models will likely get 2 codexes within the course of an edition... but if editions are cycling every 3 years, then in the same span of time you're going to get that anyway, whether you get new models or not. Imagine Dark Eldar, that haven't gotten any new models in 6 years, and yet have bought 2 books regardless. Oof, I say.
Anyway, that's my rant and what I'd try to push as a solution, but my solution focuses on selling *less* product, not more, so it'd never be adopted.
We're basically on year 6 of these core rules. The updates for 9th were pretty minor. The biggest changes came with codexes and tournament packs.
GW's problem is they need a release every single week to drive engagement. This makes it pretty unlikely for them to want to release codexes in batches.
GW's problem is they need a release every single week to drive engagement.
^This mentality . . .
I would love to have some data that showed this weas necessary for a hobby like 40k. Growing your youtube channel, sure, but model purchases?
It isn't even true, given that the 'release every week' is across all systems, not just 40k (and there are occasional two week preorders, but I can understand discounting those). And even when it is 40k, the releases are faction based, so people still go years at a time without 'new releases' to be engaged with.
GW's problem is they need a release every single week to drive engagement.
^This mentality . . .
I would love to have some data that showed this weas necessary for a hobby like 40k. Growing your youtube channel, sure, but model purchases?
To maintain their current level of sales, yea.
Every release is an opportunity to reach people and convince them to buy something. If you group releases monthly then people start to feel like nothing is happening and their hobby dollars go elsewhere. There might also be multiple things they would buy, but they only reserved so much money and wind up buying one thing when they might otherwise have bought more if the releases were more spread out.
It's a horrible gakky reality of the consumer world we live in.
I understand the argument, but I want to see the data. I'm always suspicious of sales people who will use their sales skills to constantly sell you on the importance of sales people.
Plus I'm interested in any hard data surrounding consumer attention spans in general.
SemperMortis wrote: The problem is that a few competitive players have an absurd impact on the game, and unless those guys are fair and play your army...well, you are screwed.
Has the forum created Schrödinger's Tournament Player?
Bother a meta hopper and devoted to one army depending on if we're talking about balance or selling models?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: Hell, a 170pt suicide melta squad of Sternguard in a drop pod have 3 combi meltas and 2 multi-meltas, Turn 2 you drop in and at 12' range you are pumping out 12-13dmg with ease against a T7 3+ target.
I think people are still missing free reserves and, I believe, every army has some sort of tool to interact with incoming units ( though no idea on WE yet ). Guard don't have a shooting strat, but can basically force something not to come in once. There's enough stuff that pushes to 12" that it becomes a potential liability to rely on being in 12".
Anything like that squad popping in on me is going to be met with AP2 bolters that don't have to worry about AoC any more.
Anyway, yes, free upgrades can be silly, but I am more interested in the outcome than the concept.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: The weapon that is more effective for your battle plan and opponent pool is more points efficient. Paying 40 points for multi-meltas if you're staying so far back with your Devastators they cannot shoot turn 1/2 would be inefficient and taking heavy bolters on your drop pod Devastators you need to clear out monsters would be inefficient. Mathhammer is meant to model this.
Your last sentence contradicts the rest. I am unsure if you intended to write it that way?
Mathhammer models what the weapons do. It doesn't model what happens on the table or what you face.
With no points your choice is now 'how can I beat my opponents' rather than 'how can I fit enough stuff to be effective'.
Pretty sure how you "beat your opponent" will just boil down to fitting in more "effective stuff", since it's now free/cheaper. There's arguments to be had over what stuff will be "effective", but in the end, marines will die faster (no AoC), and so will their opponents (because suddenly the marines will have more guns). So, more lethality! Which is exactly what 9th edition needs! /s
This "concept" was already tested in 7th edition. I think we know what happens already.
vict0988 wrote: The weapon that is more effective for your battle plan and opponent pool is more points efficient. Paying 40 points for multi-meltas if you're staying so far back with your Devastators they cannot shoot turn 1/2 would be inefficient and taking heavy bolters on your drop pod Devastators you need to clear out monsters would be inefficient. Mathhammer is meant to model this.
Your last sentence contradicts the rest. I am unsure if you intended to write it that way?
Mathhammer models what the weapons do. It doesn't model what happens on the table or what you face.
With no points your choice is now 'how can I beat my opponents' rather than 'how can I fit enough stuff to be effective'.
I don't see the contradiction.
Mathhamer is math that helps you win 40k games. If mathhammer says that plasma cannons are bad against Knights and you for that reason you choose not to use plasma cannons but you don't play in an environment where you might face Knights then you have done mathhammer wrong. Mathhammer cannot predict the future, but knowing the chance of passing psychic tests is useful when making risk assessments and planning your turn.
If missile launcher Devastators are C tier compared to grav Devastators being D tier into your meta filled with Daemons you'll probably skip both and take the A tier Assault Centurions. Missile launchers need to have a cost that makes them a good choice into some targets, they might already have that, but I doubt they're actually ever the right choice.
drbored wrote: The one thing we do know that GW does, because they have discussed it in their meta watch articles and people on the ground have noticed it, is that if they see a unit that is in zero lists, they'll give it a buff. If they see a unit that is in EVERY list, they'll target it for a nerf.
GW don't do this. Where are my Annihilation Barge and Doomstalker buffs and why did Tomb Blades get buffed? No lists, no lists, all the lists.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Pretty sure how you "beat your opponent" will just boil down to fitting in more "effective stuff", since it's now free/cheaper. There's arguments to be had over what stuff will be "effective", but in the end, marines will die faster (no AoC), and so will their opponents (because suddenly the marines will have more guns). So, more lethality! Which is exactly what 9th edition needs! /s
This "concept" was already tested in 7th edition. I think we know what happens already.
The game isn't centered around killing. I would agree with you if it were 8th edition.
If efficiency were the only metric then melta WOULD be the absolute answer to the game, but it isn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: If missile launcher Devastators are C tier compared to grav Devastators being D tier into your meta filled with Daemons you'll probably skip both and take the A tier Assault Centurions. Missile launchers need to have a cost that makes them a good choice into some targets, they might already have that, but I doubt they're actually ever the right choice.
The idea that the meta is filled with enough of one entity is also an 8th edition thing.
Back when Loyal 32 and Castellans were a thing you best have brought lascannons/MM and no heavy bolters.
During this past season if you want to 5-0 there is a significant change you'll face Tyranids, Harlies, BA, Votann, Daemons, and CSM at the very least. When is the last time you heard about some skew list winning a tournament? Even knights trend into baby knights, because you just can't win with four models.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Pretty sure how you "beat your opponent" will just boil down to fitting in more "effective stuff", since it's now free/cheaper. There's arguments to be had over what stuff will be "effective", but in the end, marines will die faster (no AoC), and so will their opponents (because suddenly the marines will have more guns). So, more lethality! Which is exactly what 9th edition needs! /s
This "concept" was already tested in 7th edition. I think we know what happens already.
The game isn't centered around killing. I would agree with you if it were 8th edition.
If efficiency were the only metric then melta WOULD be the absolute answer to the game, but it isn't.
Of course it is.
Dead units can't hold objectives or do actions, after all. Pure killing power like massed multi-meltas might not be the most "effective", because getting your guns into position also matters. But that just changes what's "effective". High mobility + good lethality might be more effective, but it's still because it's more lethal, because it brings your guns to bear where you need them faster.
This change makes the game more lethal. End of story.
drbored wrote: The one thing we do know that GW does, because they have discussed it in their meta watch articles and people on the ground have noticed it,is that if they see a unit that is in zero lists, they'll give it a buff. If they see a unit that is in EVERY list, they'll target it for a nerf.
Yeah...that just isn't true. Sorry for being ork centric...but its literally the only army I play. Ork boyz appeared as bare minimum troops choices (10 models per army) for more than half this edition. It took a year or so before GW dropped them 1ppm. Now they appear...umm...still 1 or NONE per army. In fact, I just checked blood Of Kittens. A grand total of 2 units of boyz have appeared in the last 7 Ork GT wins. Painboss I don't think has ever appeared, regular beastboss same, KFF big mek isn't seen anymore, Snikrot, Badrukk, Buzzgob, Mozrog, Wurrboy, Zodgrod, Mad Dok, Mek, Banner Nob, Painboy, Gunwagon has not been seen in awhile, Flashgitz, Hunta Rig, Kannon Wagon, Lootas are still nowhere to be found, Blitza/burna bommer. Some of these just received a buff finally, others got tiny insignificant buffs that didn't change anything (Lootas going down a few points but still being garbage tier).
GW doesn't really adjust things much, and definitely not enough on units that desperately need help. Hell, the Stompa hasn't been seen in so long that I think we might need to send the police to do a welfare check on him.
drbored wrote: The one thing we do know that GW does, because they have discussed it in their meta watch articles and people on the ground have noticed it,is that if they see a unit that is in zero lists, they'll give it a buff. If they see a unit that is in EVERY list, they'll target it for a nerf.
Yeah...that just isn't true. Sorry for being ork centric...but its literally the only army I play. Ork boyz appeared as bare minimum troops choices (10 models per army) for more than half this edition. It took a year or so before GW dropped them 1ppm. Now they appear...umm...still 1 or NONE per army. In fact, I just checked blood Of Kittens. A grand total of 2 units of boyz have appeared in the last 7 Ork GT wins. Painboss I don't think has ever appeared, regular beastboss same, KFF big mek isn't seen anymore, Snikrot, Badrukk, Buzzgob, Mozrog, Wurrboy, Zodgrod, Mad Dok, Mek, Banner Nob, Painboy, Gunwagon has not been seen in awhile, Flashgitz, Hunta Rig, Kannon Wagon, Lootas are still nowhere to be found, Blitza/burna bommer. Some of these just received a buff finally, others got tiny insignificant buffs that didn't change anything (Lootas going down a few points but still being garbage tier).
GW doesn't really adjust things much, and definitely not enough on units that desperately need help. Hell, the Stompa hasn't been seen in so long that I think we might need to send the police to do a welfare check on him.
Oh that's not true, you spend at least as much time being anti-marine as you do being pro-ork.
As for your point about the Orks not getting buffed/nerfed - Its already been hypothesized that they don't play Orks and don't notice them - suggesting an exception to the rule does not invalidate the rule per se. I'd add a different exception to the rule that may also contribute to Orks being ignored - armies/units that are being played the way they envision them don't get buffed/nerfed either - and I think past performance bears this out. They didn't nerf Guilliman, they nerfed soup/vehicles. The constant CORE Keyword Hokey Pokey.
Dead units can't hold objectives or do actions, after all. Pure killing power like massed multi-meltas might not be the most "effective", because getting your guns into position also matters. But that just changes what's "effective". High mobility + good lethality might be more effective, but it's still because it's more lethal, because it brings your guns to bear where you need them faster.
This change makes the game more lethal. End of story.
That first point isn't necessarily true anymore. But the last one is probably truer than you intended.
Now that SM Troops can sticky objectives, I foresee a paradigm where SM have a couple of their fastest/toughest/both troops units running around capping objectives while the rest of the army obliterates the opponent so they can't un-sticky them. And for as much as we bash GW for not knowing what they're doing they either thought about or fell backwards into this one - its only troop units. That means Eliminators using the Carbine trick don't work, that means Reivers, Assault Squads, Inceptors etc. don't work. It even means Teleporting Deathwing Terminators or Ravenwing Bikes that get ObSec but are not troops don't get this. - and truth be told that's maybe/probably a mistake. If someone's running all DW or RW or combined RW/DW with no Green Wing, those specialist Dets should probably confer "Troops" onto the FOC that qualify as ObSec. But it is probably also be a little OP for 12-14" movers to be sticky capping objectives in the deep field.
Dead units can't hold objectives or do actions, after all. Pure killing power like massed multi-meltas might not be the most "effective", because getting your guns into position also matters. But that just changes what's "effective". High mobility + good lethality might be more effective, but it's still because it's more lethal, because it brings your guns to bear where you need them faster.
This change makes the game more lethal. End of story.
And forward units aren't guarding the backfield, holding/stickying objectives, or doing actions.
If I see blocks of Sang Guard / Inceptors coming at me I'm putting terminators on the table and the rest into reserves. Scarabs can tank 5 Inceptors and lose a model, no problem.
Dead units can't hold objectives or do actions, after all. Pure killing power like massed multi-meltas might not be the most "effective", because getting your guns into position also matters. But that just changes what's "effective". High mobility + good lethality might be more effective, but it's still because it's more lethal, because it brings your guns to bear where you need them faster.
This change makes the game more lethal. End of story.
And forward units aren't guarding the backfield, holding/stickying objectives, or doing actions.
If I see blocks of Sang Guard / Inceptors coming at me I'm putting terminators on the table and the rest into reserves. Scarabs can tank 5 Inceptors and lose a model, no problem.
Oh, you can take troops for that......who now get free long range guns (lascannons, etc). So, more lethality! Marines are less durable (no AoC), but bring more firepower (cheaper bodies with more and BETTER guns). Lethality goes up.
And you're not even arguing against that by pointing out that you'll just put your toughest units on the board and hide everything else in reserves, your acknowledging it.
Look, I'm just pointing out what these changes will do, I don't actually care. I've been done with 9th edition 40k for months now. I found a game that I enjoy WAY more. If this gets everyone's "win rates" to 50%, and that's good enough for you? Have fun!
10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"
Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"
Unit1126PLL wrote: 10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"
Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"
First 10th Ed "Balance" Dataslate:
"We've made a few changes to tails, as we felt that heads was falling behind in some cases."
Unit1126PLL wrote: 10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"
Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"
Completely unrealistic. Each player will flip any number of Citadel™ FineCoins™ which can be purchased for $99.99 each and whoever wins the most flips wins the game. Any deviation from the 50% win rate will be explained by players not understanding the format and it will be shown with FineStatistics™ that only the top 5% of competitive players should be counted in the data set.
Unit1126PLL wrote: 10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"
Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"
Completely unrealistic. Each player will flip any number of Citadel™ FineCoins™ which can be purchased for $99.99 each and whoever wins the most flips wins the game. Any deviation from the 50% win rate will be explained by players not understanding the format and it will be shown with FineStatistics™ that only the top 5% of competitive players should be counted in the data set.
I agree with the sentiment, but what other data is GW supposed to use for balancing? Beer and pretzels gamers playing garagehammer don't exactly submit data about their games for analysis.
Unit1126PLL wrote: 10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"
Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"
Completely unrealistic. Each player will flip any number of Citadel™ FineCoins™ which can be purchased for $99.99 each and whoever wins the most flips wins the game. Any deviation from the 50% win rate will be explained by players not understanding the format and it will be shown with FineStatistics™ that only the top 5% of competitive players should be counted in the data set.
I agree with the sentiment, but what other data is GW supposed to use for balancing? Beer and pretzels gamers playing garagehammer don't exactly submit data about their games for analysis.
Using tournament data is fine, the issue is the self-congratulatory nonsense of only looking at faction win rates. According to GW a faction with a 50% win rate is in a perfect position and requires no balancing action even if it's limited to a single list that abuses a single overpowered unit while the rest of the codex is F-tier trash. Similarly, a faction that gets a 50% win rate by cleaning up the losers bracket but never makes the top tables is fine according to GW. And if that one-dimensional faction gets up to a 60% win rate by abusing their one good unit GW thinks the solution is to nerf the one overpowered thing and do nothing to help the rest of the faction. There are various ways of doing a more detailed analysis of the tournament data that will be far more informative about these issues but GW is content to do the laziest possible analysis and call it good enough.
As an example of this look at the latest marine buff. Not only is giving free upgrades everywhere profoundly stupid design on a conceptual level it's also the kind of thing that guarantees we'll see a self-congratulatory Metawatch article from GW while marines continue to be a miserable gaming experience for most players. The change will almost certainly mean an increase in win rates, but only for a handful of chapters and units that can best exploit the several hundred points worth of free gear they suddenly get and/or the ability to stay in a single doctrine (probably devastator doctrine) all game. I'm sure the Iron Hands players spamming free heavy weapons will win some games, and who cares if there's zero list diversity or balanced distribution of win rates as long as space marines hit the magic 45-55% number. GW will congratulate themselves on fixing the problem and see no reason to make any further improvements. Meanwhile the advanced statistics will tell you the real story, that the faction is still fundamentally broken and in desperate need of help.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Using tournament data is fine, the issue is the self-congratulatory nonsense of only looking at faction win rates. According to GW a faction with a 50% win rate is in a perfect position and requires no balancing action even if it's limited to a single list that abuses a single overpowered unit while the rest of the codex is F-tier trash. Similarly, a faction that gets a 50% win rate by cleaning up the losers bracket but never makes the top tables is fine according to GW. And if that one-dimensional faction gets up to a 60% win rate by abusing their one good unit GW thinks the solution is to nerf the one overpowered thing and do nothing to help the rest of the faction. There are various ways of doing a more detailed analysis of the tournament data that will be far more informative about these issues but GW is content to do the laziest possible analysis and call it good enough.
As an example of this look at the latest marine buff. Not only is giving free upgrades everywhere profoundly stupid design on a conceptual level it's also the kind of thing that guarantees we'll see a self-congratulatory Metawatch article from GW while marines continue to be a miserable gaming experience for most players. The change will almost certainly mean an increase in win rates, but only for a handful of chapters and units that can best exploit the several hundred points worth of free gear they suddenly get and/or the ability to stay in a single doctrine (probably devastator doctrine) all game. I'm sure the Iron Hands players spamming free heavy weapons will win some games, and who cares if there's zero list diversity or balanced distribution of win rates as long as space marines hit the magic 45-55% number. GW will congratulate themselves on fixing the problem and see no reason to make any further improvements. Meanwhile the advanced statistics will tell you the real story, that the faction is still fundamentally broken and in desperate need of help.
I agree with all of this. I actually think that an official VTT version of the game would be amazing as it could gather deeper data from thousands of extra games most of which probably won't feature the 'ardest meta lists around.
Unit1126PLL wrote: 10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"
Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"
Completely unrealistic. Each player will flip any number of Citadel™ FineCoins™ which can be purchased for $99.99 each and whoever wins the most flips wins the game. Any deviation from the 50% win rate will be explained by players not understanding the format and it will be shown with FineStatistics™ that only the top 5% of competitive players should be counted in the data set.
I agree with the sentiment, but what other data is GW supposed to use for balancing? Beer and pretzels gamers playing garagehammer don't exactly submit data about their games for analysis.
The garagehammer players don't exactly have an obvious route to submit data about their games through, should they wish to do so, without cluttering up the Customer Services or FAQ mailboxes.
Unit1126PLL wrote: 10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"
Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"
Completely unrealistic. Each player will flip any number of Citadel™ FineCoins™ which can be purchased for $99.99 each and whoever wins the most flips wins the game. Any deviation from the 50% win rate will be explained by players not understanding the format and it will be shown with FineStatistics™ that only the top 5% of competitive players should be counted in the data set.
I agree with the sentiment, but what other data is GW supposed to use for balancing? Beer and pretzels gamers playing garagehammer don't exactly submit data about their games for analysis.
The garagehammer players don't exactly have an obvious route to submit data about their games through, should they wish to do so, without cluttering up the Customer Services or FAQ mailboxes.
There's also the issue of vetting that data. Tournament data can be considered accurate because there are judges and rules but a submission from a rando internet user could easily be nonsense and you'd have no way to tell. Data self reported from casual games could actually be worse than no data at all.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Using tournament data is fine, the issue is the self-congratulatory nonsense of only looking at faction win rates. According to GW a faction with a 50% win rate is in a perfect position and requires no balancing action even if it's limited to a single list that abuses a single overpowered unit while the rest of the codex is F-tier trash. Similarly, a faction that gets a 50% win rate by cleaning up the losers bracket but never makes the top tables is fine according to GW. And if that one-dimensional faction gets up to a 60% win rate by abusing their one good unit GW thinks the solution is to nerf the one overpowered thing and do nothing to help the rest of the faction. There are various ways of doing a more detailed analysis of the tournament data that will be far more informative about these issues but GW is content to do the laziest possible analysis and call it good enough.
As an example of this look at the latest marine buff. Not only is giving free upgrades everywhere profoundly stupid design on a conceptual level it's also the kind of thing that guarantees we'll see a self-congratulatory Metawatch article from GW while marines continue to be a miserable gaming experience for most players. The change will almost certainly mean an increase in win rates, but only for a handful of chapters and units that can best exploit the several hundred points worth of free gear they suddenly get and/or the ability to stay in a single doctrine (probably devastator doctrine) all game. I'm sure the Iron Hands players spamming free heavy weapons will win some games, and who cares if there's zero list diversity or balanced distribution of win rates as long as space marines hit the magic 45-55% number. GW will congratulate themselves on fixing the problem and see no reason to make any further improvements. Meanwhile the advanced statistics will tell you the real story, that the faction is still fundamentally broken and in desperate need of help.
A counter-example is Drukhari, where they nerfed one overpowered list and buffed units that weren't in that list only to create an equally powerful new list. When an army is as strong as Drukhari relative to the rest of the meta, a nerf should be the only thing done because there could be many hidden dragons in the codex that are suppressed by the more powerful and obvious meta build. I think the problems with tonnes of completely unviable units stem from GW never doing the foundational math needed to create a balanced game. It's not really a problem if each faction only has one tournament build, as long as the non-tournament builds aren't awful. Internal balance is already being increased just by nerfing the most overpowered list, any options and datasheets that don't start showing up after nerfing the most overpowered list can be buffed a year later in the next pts update.
Using tournament data is fine, the issue is the self-congratulatory nonsense of only looking at faction win rates. According to GW a faction with a 50% win rate is in a perfect position and requires no balancing action even if it's limited to a single list that abuses a single overpowered unit while the rest of the codex is F-tier trash. Similarly, a faction that gets a 50% win rate by cleaning up the losers bracket but never makes the top tables is fine according to GW. And if that one-dimensional faction gets up to a 60% win rate by abusing their one good unit GW thinks the solution is to nerf the one overpowered thing and do nothing to help the rest of the faction. There are various ways of doing a more detailed analysis of the tournament data that will be far more informative about these issues but GW is content to do the laziest possible analysis and call it good enough.
As an example of this look at the latest marine buff. Not only is giving free upgrades everywhere profoundly stupid design on a conceptual level it's also the kind of thing that guarantees we'll see a self-congratulatory Metawatch article from GW while marines continue to be a miserable gaming experience for most players. The change will almost certainly mean an increase in win rates, but only for a handful of chapters and units that can best exploit the several hundred points worth of free gear they suddenly get and/or the ability to stay in a single doctrine (probably devastator doctrine) all game. I'm sure the Iron Hands players spamming free heavy weapons will win some games, and who cares if there's zero list diversity or balanced distribution of win rates as long as space marines hit the magic 45-55% number. GW will congratulate themselves on fixing the problem and see no reason to make any further improvements. Meanwhile the advanced statistics will tell you the real story, that the faction is still fundamentally broken and in desperate need of help.
AOS side at least tries to claim they are also looking at % each warscroll/artefact etc is used to adjust internal balance.
Whether that is true or not is another thing...
But in theory at least in AOS if one warscroll is op and spammed it would get adjusted.
vict0988 wrote: A counter-example is Drukhari, where they nerfed one overpowered list and buffed units that weren't in that list only to create an equally powerful new list. When an army is as strong as Drukhari relative to the rest of the meta, a nerf should be the only thing done because there could be many hidden dragons in the codex that are suppressed by the more powerful and obvious meta build. I think the problems with tonnes of completely unviable units stem from GW never doing the foundational math needed to create a balanced game. It's not really a problem if each faction only has one tournament build, as long as the non-tournament builds aren't awful. Internal balance is already being increased just by nerfing the most overpowered list, any options and datasheets that don't start showing up after nerfing the most overpowered list can be buffed a year later in the next pts update.
2-weeks can feel like an eternity when your main character in an online game is behind the power curve, why should it be acceptable to have an army that you paid hundreds of dollars for and invested weeks or free time into building and painting have to suffer for months or years? GW has the resources to gather better data and release bi-weekly patches like we've come to expect from video games, and we should hold them to that standard.
I think one of gws biggest fears is people realising they prefer a digital copy of the game. Its silly of course because the vast majority of players would have got into it because of the miniatures to some extent. I reckon it does influence how they approach things though and officially working with tts would likely be a bridge too far for them
vict0988 wrote: A counter-example is Drukhari, where they nerfed one overpowered list and buffed units that weren't in that list only to create an equally powerful new list. When an army is as strong as Drukhari relative to the rest of the meta, a nerf should be the only thing done because there could be many hidden dragons in the codex that are suppressed by the more powerful and obvious meta build. I think the problems with tonnes of completely unviable units stem from GW never doing the foundational math needed to create a balanced game. It's not really a problem if each faction only has one tournament build, as long as the non-tournament builds aren't awful. Internal balance is already being increased just by nerfing the most overpowered list, any options and datasheets that don't start showing up after nerfing the most overpowered list can be buffed a year later in the next pts update.
The problem is GW inevitably react to data late. This may change in a more quasi-digital rule set, but its always been an issue.
But in say this case of Drukhari - we had a lot of people go "everything's good in this codex except Talos". And this became a strange sort of orthodoxy for six months or so both on forums like this and amongst the influential professional circuit.
So inevitably, as GW were setting up for their second round of Drukhari nerfs, the feedback they were getting was "Talos=bad".
But this was wrong - partly due to the meta shifting. Sort of relevant to the thread, the meta of "cracking Marines" which dominated the first period of 2021 was over. Ad Mech, mass Ork Buggies and GK (GMNDKs) were making Talos with Heat Lances much more attractive rather than the somewhat unreliable overkill they were before. Talos started to appear in top tournament lists.
And then they got a 10~ point reduction, which made them a standout choice.
The problem with balancing based on say tournament rules, is that the meta inevitably warps what's "viable" or not. Unit X can have reasonable "foundational maths" - but if half the lists people are currently running are the "anti-X", then it won't appear very good. So inevitably you end up buffing X to the point its viable in that meta - which changes that meta - which then leaves it overpowered.
Basically you need to have a complicated eco-system. Which to be fair, was largely achieved in the last season, due to having multiple "top lists", that were all top in different ways.
vict0988 wrote: A counter-example is Drukhari, where they nerfed one overpowered list and buffed units that weren't in that list only to create an equally powerful new list. When an army is as strong as Drukhari relative to the rest of the meta, a nerf should be the only thing done because there could be many hidden dragons in the codex that are suppressed by the more powerful and obvious meta build. I think the problems with tonnes of completely unviable units stem from GW never doing the foundational math needed to create a balanced game. It's not really a problem if each faction only has one tournament build, as long as the non-tournament builds aren't awful. Internal balance is already being increased just by nerfing the most overpowered list, any options and datasheets that don't start showing up after nerfing the most overpowered list can be buffed a year later in the next pts update.
2-weeks can feel like an eternity when your main character in an online game is behind the power curve, why should it be acceptable to have an army that you paid hundreds of dollars for and invested weeks or free time into building and painting have to suffer for months or years? GW has the resources to gather better data and release bi-weekly patches like we've come to expect from video games, and we should hold them to that standard.
The problem is that this isn't a video game, so downloading an updates isn't a case where the game does all the work for you and you don't have to think much about it. When Warmachine Mk3 started to tank one of the reasons people stated for its failings was that it was updating too frequently, making what rules were current to hard to follow.
Do GW need to do more with their rules updates? Absolutely. Do they need to be as frequent as even monthly? Not at all. Every 6 months is a good time frame for releasing updates. Its frequent enough that armies don't languish but not so frequent that people lose track of whats what. We even have a precedent. When Psychic Awakening was a thing the books were coming out so quickly that it was incredibly difficult to keep track of the changes and updates and these were full on books, not digital documents with minor adjustments.
Using tournament data is fine, the issue is the self-congratulatory nonsense of only looking at faction win rates. According to GW a faction with a 50% win rate is in a perfect position and requires no balancing action even if it's limited to a single list that abuses a single overpowered unit while the rest of the codex is F-tier trash. Similarly, a faction that gets a 50% win rate by cleaning up the losers bracket but never makes the top tables is fine according to GW. And if that one-dimensional faction gets up to a 60% win rate by abusing their one good unit GW thinks the solution is to nerf the one overpowered thing and do nothing to help the rest of the faction. There are various ways of doing a more detailed analysis of the tournament data that will be far more informative about these issues but GW is content to do the laziest possible analysis and call it good enough.
As an example of this look at the latest marine buff. Not only is giving free upgrades everywhere profoundly stupid design on a conceptual level it's also the kind of thing that guarantees we'll see a self-congratulatory Metawatch article from GW while marines continue to be a miserable gaming experience for most players. The change will almost certainly mean an increase in win rates, but only for a handful of chapters and units that can best exploit the several hundred points worth of free gear they suddenly get and/or the ability to stay in a single doctrine (probably devastator doctrine) all game. I'm sure the Iron Hands players spamming free heavy weapons will win some games, and who cares if there's zero list diversity or balanced distribution of win rates as long as space marines hit the magic 45-55% number. GW will congratulate themselves on fixing the problem and see no reason to make any further improvements. Meanwhile the advanced statistics will tell you the real story, that the faction is still fundamentally broken and in desperate need of help.
I would disagree with it being a horrible design decision. It wasn't a good one either, I admit. And, of course, they also didn't REALLY give free upgrades everywhere. The first places I thought of for that sort of thing actually didn't get free upgrades. Vanguard Vets still pay for a bunch of choices for example and one of the first things I thought of was Dante and a metric ton of Jump Elites- Vanguard Vets, Death Company, Sanguinary Guard. Vanguard Vets and Death Company still pay for jump packs and (some) upgrades - especially the big ones in Fists and Hammers. Sanguinary Guard always have Jump Packs, so I'd assume the cost of that was already baked into their base cost. Most of the big winners from this change are ones that weren't getting much usage. Plasma Inceptors, Centurion Devs. And I'm pretty sure Dakka Inceptors to Plasma Inceptors was much closer to a side-grade than the upgraded price would have suggested. Likewise, Centurion Devs compared to a Gladiator Valiant are still a tough sell. The Devs Cost more and are Infantry, but the Valiant has M10, T8, and more/better-ish but shorter range shots. Neither is CORE, so the main advantage the Cent Devs would have - joining a big block of Moving Castle doesn't matter.
I haven't really done much list building since at least two Points Updates ago. Very little in my list(s) are going away. Most of my 2000 point lists from then dropped roughly 300-500ish points. The rare unit I'm deleting is leaving because I want to shrink the overall footprint of the Deathstar. Because of rules changes - Sticky Objectives for example - I want to include some Troops Unit in the Deathstar ball to sticky the objective the moving castle plows under so they can move on to the next one with it still capped. That added bodies to the Deathstar - likely 5 Gravis Heavy Intercessors. So I dropped the 5 Gravis Eradicators and looked at what else I could add. I'm not finished but I'm leaning towards two Stormstrike Speeders and two Gladiator Tanks.
But freebie upgrades and potential points drops only made "I wish..." units good enough, they didn't make them outstanding, and they didn't make bad units even close to good enough. Centurion Assault Squads are still bad. Ridiculously bad. Sniper Scouts are (probably) still better than Eliminators but still not quite good enough to take. Devastator Squads get free Heavies of (almost) any variety. But the 5 ablative marines cost more than the weapons would have(and in fact went up more than you gained from the freebie weapons). 10 Devs with four Plasma Cannons are 230. 8 Hellblasters with roughly equivalent but more plasma Somethings is 240. Min squad with 4 MultiMeltas are 155, vs 3 Eradicators with double shoot and Gravis Armor for 135. Two sets of 5 Devs with 4MM and 4 LC and 20 T4 Wounds are 270 points. 1 Gladiator Valiant with 2MM and 4 Lastalon shots on a T8 12W platform is just over half that cost. In other words the best option for a Dev Squad is a throw away Alpha Bomb, and not only do I not really like that gimmick, but there are also less fragile uses for roughly similar points.
The only one so far - as I go through the list - that's a head scratcher is the Boltstorm Aggressors. I mean the Flamestorm Aggressors are (usually) terribad. I'm not sure the Boltstorm Aggressors are Model per Model less valuable than Bladeguard. I'm not sure they're more valuable either. But tack a 5PPM cost for Boltstorm upgrades and then we're starting to get into some understandable territory. I'm definitely sure Centurion Assaults are not worth twice as much as an Aggressor. Give an Aggressor a shoulder mounted flamer, +1 Armor Save, and Super Master Crafted Boltstorm Gauntlets (Melee) and are you paying double for them? Even with CORE?
Bladeguard Captain and Lieutenant Upgrades for free is more than a little bit of a headscratcher. Of course on a Limit 1 kind of character like the Captain its hard to get worked up over. The endless parade of Primaris Lieutenant models are probably not happy, but lets be honest few people were taking them anyway the Bladeguard LT upgrades were one of the first places you padded your points to hit exactly 2000. Which is ironically MUCH harder to do now. There's going to be a lot of 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 lists going forwards.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Got interrupted at the end of that, and forgot one of the points I wanted to make:
The health of a faction isn't it's win %. A faction is healthy by the variety of lists that win. Using tournament lists/results is fine but they need to look at what's in the list, what changes and how drastic the change is.
Sim-Life wrote: The problem is that this isn't a video game, so downloading an updates isn't a case where the game does all the work for you and you don't have to think much about it. When Warmachine Mk3 started to tank one of the reasons people stated for its failings was that it was updating too frequently, making what rules were current to hard to follow.
Do GW need to do more with their rules updates? Absolutely. Do they need to be as frequent as even monthly? Not at all. Every 6 months is a good time frame for releasing updates. Its frequent enough that armies don't languish but not so frequent that people lose track of whats what. We even have a precedent. When Psychic Awakening was a thing the books were coming out so quickly that it was incredibly difficult to keep track of the changes and updates and these were full on books, not digital documents with minor adjustments.
A VTT that handles the rules would solve that almost entirely and I suspect that it would be a 90/10 split between games played online and games played on the table after that launches. To help folks who are playing with plastic instead of pixels GW would need to support a robust army builder that catches list-building errors and points changes, a self-updating set of living rules that can be accessed on any device, and a commitment to getting release balance right so most patches are minor. You could even go an augmented reality route if VR ever becomes ubiquitous where models on the table are moved to match moves made on the VTT and effects like units shooting are projected over the IRL table and terrain.
I think that most Wargames and TTRPGs are going to need alignment between digital and physical to stay relevant in the emerging market.
Sim-Life wrote: The problem is that this isn't a video game, so downloading an updates isn't a case where the game does all the work for you and you don't have to think much about it. When Warmachine Mk3 started to tank one of the reasons people stated for its failings was that it was updating too frequently, making what rules were current to hard to follow.
Do GW need to do more with their rules updates? Absolutely. Do they need to be as frequent as even monthly? Not at all. Every 6 months is a good time frame for releasing updates. Its frequent enough that armies don't languish but not so frequent that people lose track of whats what. We even have a precedent. When Psychic Awakening was a thing the books were coming out so quickly that it was incredibly difficult to keep track of the changes and updates and these were full on books, not digital documents with minor adjustments.
A VTT that handles the rules would solve that almost entirely and I suspect that it would be a 90/10 split between games played online and games played on the table after that launches. To help folks who are playing with plastic instead of pixels GW would need to support a robust army builder that catches list-building errors and points changes, a self-updating set of living rules that can be accessed on any device, and a commitment to getting release balance right so most patches are minor. You could even go an augmented reality route if VR ever becomes ubiquitous where models on the table are moved to match moves made on the VTT and effects like units shooting are projected over the IRL table and terrain.
I think that most Wargames and TTRPGs are going to need alignment between digital and physical to stay relevant in the emerging market.
You're basically asking GW to turn into a software developer now. People don't play Warhammer (or any analogue game) because they want to play a video game. People like that the game is tactile and social. If you REALLY think 90% of Warhammer games would take place online all I can ask is why the board game market is so massive, with hundreds of physical games released every year when Tabletop Simulator exists? Its cheap, makes playing games smoother by leaving set up to a script, cheaper because most games are free mods and more convenient because you can play with other people without leaving the house. So why do a majority of people still play with physical games and in person? Why is the board game market still so huge when a thing exactly like what you describe as wanting GW to make exists and hasn't killed it?
You're basically asking GW to turn into a software developer now. People don't play Warhammer (or any analogue game) because they want to play a video game. People like that the game is tactile and social. If you REALLY think 90% of Warhammer games would take place online all I can ask is why the board game market is so massive, with hundreds of physical games released every year when Tabletop Simulator exists? Its cheap, makes playing games smoother by leaving set up to a script, cheaper because most games are free mods and more convenient because you can play with other people without leaving the house. So why do a majority of people still play with physical games and in person? Why is the board game market still so huge when a thing exactly like what you describe as wanting GW to make exists and hasn't killed it?
I'd postulate he's closer to accurate than you think. They still play the physical games in person because GW has generally been VERY careful not to put their tabletop game directly on the computer. The closest is probably Total War II - and they didn't do that until after they'd changed from WHFB to Age of Sigmar.
Sim-Life wrote: You're basically asking GW to turn into a software developer now. People don't play Warhammer (or any analogue game) because they want to play a video game. People like that the game is tactile and social. If you REALLY think 90% of Warhammer games would take place online all I can ask is why the board game market is so massive, with hundreds of physical games released every year when Tabletop Simulator exists? Its cheap, makes playing games smoother by leaving set up to a script, cheaper because most games are free mods and more convenient because you can play with other people without leaving the house. So why do a majority of people still play with physical games and in person? Why is the board game market still so huge when a thing exactly like what you describe as wanting GW to make exists and hasn't killed it?
Look at how popular sites like foundry and Roll20 have been in the TTRPG space. Then factor in that a VTT game of 40k is likely to turn a multi-hour game into something that can be finished in an hour as the software rolls dice, calculates casualties, and groups models to move as a unit. It can even help players remember to use special rules by prompting them when a stratagem has been triggered and could go so far as to display odds on attacks XCOM style to help players make certain choices more quickly instead of having to do the mental math.
GW could still monetize their models, which seems to be 99% of what they actually care about, by including an NFC card in each box and selling a reader both standalone and in start collecting boxes. You scan the card and have access to one of that unit with all its accessories and options in the VTT. VTT-only cards could be sold cheaper in blind pull packs, like MtG, which seems like something GW would salivate at being able to sell.
As for board games, look at how many games get a digital release and/or are played on various VTTs. These products wouldn't be produced if they didn't get a good return so people are clearly buying and playing them. I would also like you to prove that the majority of games played are done with cardboard around a table because it sounds like conjecture that fits your own personal bias.
Canadian 5th wrote: There's also the issue of vetting that data. Tournament data can be considered accurate because there are judges and rules but a submission from a rando internet user could easily be nonsense and you'd have no way to tell. Data self reported from casual games could actually be worse than no data at all.
While I agree there could be issues vetting data from casual games, I disagree that you can reach the conclusion that tournament games are better than casual ones in that regard.
As I see it, there are two areas where tournaments have an advantage - you can confirm the games happened, and you can make some inferences on the terrain used (not that I suspect GW looks that deeply into the results). We've seen enough examples of problematic gameplay in streamed tournament games - from mistakes through to observed cheating - that I would be very hesitant to claim that tournament gameplay was much more accurate than casual.
Dysartes wrote: While I agree there could be issues vetting data from casual games, I disagree that you can reach the conclusion that tournament games are better than casual ones in that regard.
As I see it, there are two areas where tournaments have an advantage - you can confirm the games happened, and you can make some inferences on the terrain used (not that I suspect GW looks that deeply into the results). We've seen enough examples of problematic gameplay in streamed tournament games - from mistakes through to observed cheating - that I would be very hesitant to claim that tournament gameplay was much more accurate than casual.
I'd argue that even with the imperfect gameplay tournament players like get the rules right at a higher rate than non-tournament players. People will still do everything you see in tournament games in home games because some people like to win more than they like to play by the rules. There's also the fact that this data can't be spammed by bots and/or trolls to produce absurd results, look at what happens with public naming polls and sports All-Star voting for examples of what people will do even with nothing at stake.
Dysartes wrote: claim that tournament gameplay was much more accurate than casual.
Not the gameplay, the reporting. The people who report their faction was tabled on turn one by the faction they hate the most while their minis collect dust.
Sim-Life wrote: You're basically asking GW to turn into a software developer now. People don't play Warhammer (or any analogue game) because they want to play a video game. People like that the game is tactile and social. If you REALLY think 90% of Warhammer games would take place online all I can ask is why the board game market is so massive, with hundreds of physical games released every year when Tabletop Simulator exists? Its cheap, makes playing games smoother by leaving set up to a script, cheaper because most games are free mods and more convenient because you can play with other people without leaving the house. So why do a majority of people still play with physical games and in person? Why is the board game market still so huge when a thing exactly like what you describe as wanting GW to make exists and hasn't killed it?
Look at how popular sites like foundry and Roll20 have been in the TTRPG space. Then factor in that a VTT game of 40k is likely to turn a multi-hour game into something that can be finished in an hour as the software rolls dice, calculates casualties, and groups models to move as a unit. It can even help players remember to use special rules by prompting them when a stratagem has been triggered and could go so far as to display odds on attacks XCOM style to help players make certain choices more quickly instead of having to do the mental math.
GW could still monetize their models, which seems to be 99% of what they actually care about, by including an NFC card in each box and selling a reader both standalone and in start collecting boxes. You scan the card and have access to one of that unit with all its accessories and options in the VTT. VTT-only cards could be sold cheaper in blind pull packs, like MtG, which seems like something GW would salivate at being able to sell.
As for board games, look at how many games get a digital release and/or are played on various VTTs. These products wouldn't be produced if they didn't get a good return so people are clearly buying and playing them. I would also like you to prove that the majority of games played are done with cardboard around a table because it sounds like conjecture that fits your own personal bias.
lol wut
My data is that most companies don't actually bother releasing their games in any virtual way at all or make official mods for TSS. Almost everything on Tabletop Simulator is driven by fan creations. You know you can also play 40k on it right? You can also play 40k on Vassal, which also never really took over physical games either. 3000 board games are released every year, so claiming that somehow making them virtual would be the market's prefered way of playing is clearly wrong.
But if you want raw numbers sure. Here's a comparison of board games with dedicated apps to owners of physical copies listed on Board Game Geek
Wingspan, one of the most popular board games of the last few years has 10k downloads on the Google Play store. The all time peak on Steam was 1470 users. Meanwhile on BoardGameGeek 112k people own the physical version.
Terraforming Mars
Google Play - 50k downloads
Steam All Time Peak - 1600ish
BGG Owners - 119k
Sim-Life wrote: lol wut
My data is that most companies don't actually bother releasing their games in any virtual way at all or make official mods for TSS. Almost everything on Tabletop Simulator is driven by fan creations. You know you can also play 40k on it right? You can also play 40k on Vassal, which also never really took over physical games either.
Most companies in the board game space are tiny indies that are lucky to get a single production run of their game produced. Among the companies that can afford to make a digital game pretty much everything gets a conversion.
Among the top-5 companies Hasbro puts basically everything to digital for every platform they can reach, Asmodée has their entire catalogue open for licensing into digital versions, Goliath B.V. doesn't seem to do digital but they're more into the arts and crafts side of the hobby and their products don't look as if they would translate well, Grand Prix International is a company that produces products for external IP holders so don't really fit the mold, and Ravensburger is mostly known for puzzles but even they have gone digital. So 3 of the top 5 companies in the space are heavily invested in digital versions of their game and the two that don't either don't have their own IP or don't make traditional board games.
On steam over 2,000 titles are categorized as board games.
I don't think that it could be more clear that board games are increasingly going digital and that companies that can afford to invest are seeing huge reasons to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: lol wut
My data is that most companies don't actually bother releasing their games in any virtual way at all or make official mods for TSS. Almost everything on Tabletop Simulator is driven by fan creations. You know you can also play 40k on it right? You can also play 40k on Vassal, which also never really took over physical games either. 3000 board games are released every year, so claiming that somehow making them virtual would be the market's prefered way of playing is clearly wrong.
But if you want raw numbers sure. Here's a comparison of board games with dedicated apps to owners of physical copies listed on Board Game Geek
Wingspan, one of the most popular board games of the last few years has 10k downloads on the Google Play store. The all time peak on Steam was 1470 users. Meanwhile on BoardGameGeek 112k people own the physical version.
Terraforming Mars
Google Play - 50k downloads
Steam All Time Peak - 1600ish
BGG Owners - 119k
Root
Google Play - 10k downloads
BGG owners - 62k
Are you seeing a pattern?
How does BGG verify ownership of a game? How do they verify the number of people who actively play the games they own? Why are Steam numbers shown in peak player count instead of purchases? Why aren't you including games like Monopoly?
Your data seems purposefully biased toward the conclusion you want, your methodology is dishonest, and there are no trends shown for purchase rates of physical versus digital copies of games.
A counter-example is Drukhari, where they nerfed one overpowered list and buffed units that weren't in that list only to create an equally powerful new list. When an army is as strong as Drukhari relative to the rest of the meta, a nerf should be the only thing done because there could be many hidden dragons in the codex that are suppressed by the more powerful and obvious meta build. I think the problems with tonnes of completely unviable units stem from GW never doing the foundational math needed to create a balanced game. It's not really a problem if each faction only has one tournament build, as long as the non-tournament builds aren't awful. Internal balance is already being increased just by nerfing the most overpowered list, any options and datasheets that don't start showing up after nerfing the most overpowered list can be buffed a year later in the next pts update.
While I agree there could be issues vetting data from casual games, I disagree that you can reach the conclusion that tournament games are better than casual ones in that regard.
As I see it, there are two areas where tournaments have an advantage - you can confirm the games happened, and you can make some inferences on the terrain used (not that I suspect GW looks that deeply into the results). We've seen enough examples of problematic gameplay in streamed tournament games - from mistakes through to observed cheating - that I would be very hesitant to claim that tournament gameplay was much more accurate than casual.
Tournament games are better than casual ones if we are judging those games based on a balance analysis. "I brought out my Flashgitz army! but I lost spectacularly to the IG player" ok well in a vacuum that is meaningless, but when you start getting thousands if not tens of thousands of similar reports of beer and pretzel games where players bring crap lists that don't function or have synergy you are in essence getting corrupt data that will not help in the analysis on balancing units both internally or externally.
The better analysis from GW should be which units are being taken in faction lists and then giving buffs to the units that aren't seeing regular gameplay in order to bring them up to a more balanced level. Look at the Stompa for example, its not appeared in a single ork list that placed well in tournaments, GW should have then adjusted the points value of it or gave it a rules buff to encourage its use. Same for most units, conversely if you see a Custodes list that is taking Trajann 99 times out of 100...well you might need to look at toning him down a bit.
Instead we get GW's hamfisted balance attempts. Marines now get free wargear and pts cuts and again, mark my words, they will be top meta army to finish out 9th edition. We also then got Deathguard and Thousand sons....two under performing factions who were relying heavily on AoC to stay relevant, they got almost nothing to compensate for them losing that buff. And having played both DG and TS recently in tournaments and friendly games I can tell you, they did not need a nerf.
There is a big issue I think that gets glossed over, one thing with the balance debate with 40k isn’t just the ballance.
But how army’s feel to play, which I think is much more important to casual players.
A lot of the game can feel bloated and complex for little return wether it’s balanced or not, and that can be very important and I think GW drops that ball more than the balance itself right now.
Sim-Life wrote: Someone better tell all those companies publishing physical games to pack it in then cause Netflix is coming!
Please quote where I said that I advocate for companies to stop producing physical board games. I've merely advocated that the clear trend is towards digital versions of physical board games and supposed that a digital version of 40k specifically would explode in popularity due to its faster pace and ease of play.
You're shoving words down my throat and providing terribly sourced numbers that show only niche games from relatively small companies to support your position. GW isn't Fryxgames, they're Hasbro so compare apples to apples.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: There is a big issue I think that gets glossed over, one thing with the balance debate with 40k isn’t just the ballance.
But how army’s feel to play, which I think is much more important to casual players. A lot of the game can feel bloated and complex for little return wether it’s balanced or not, and that can be very important and I think GW drops that ball more than the balance itself right now.
They just kinda suck at both.
The upcoming patch for League of Legends is addressing this for the ADC role. The data shows that the role is balanced but player perception is that the role is weak and play rates are low. The response is to give buffs to areas that ADC players feel impact them highly while overall not increasing power by a large amount. One example of this approach is allowing an item that many ADCs want to use to be better earlier so people get to buy and use a fun item sooner. This is only a 4% actual buff to its effectiveness but it feels good and allows for people to buy 2 generically good items first which gives more time to see which of the more focused items to build 3rd.
GW could emulate this by adding power to basic troops, which pretty much every army should be running front and center, while nudging down other roles that would otherwise push troops out of their niche. Make the core strong and then add elites or fast attack as your game plan requires. This combined with things like free upgrades and aiming to give each army standard prices for units could lead to being able to sideboard in units pregame to further even out match-ups and make the core portion of your army the thing to build around.
Sim-Life wrote: Someone better tell all those companies publishing physical games to pack it in then cause Netflix is coming!.
Please quote where I said that I advocate for companies to stop producing physical board games. I've merely advocated that the clear trend is towards digital versions of physical board games and supposed that a digital version of 40k specifically would explode in popularity due to its faster pace and ease of play.
You're shoving words down my throat and providing terribly sourced numbers that show only niche games from relatively small companies to support your position. GW isn't Fryxgames, they're Hasbro so compare apples to apples.
The numbers are sourced from the best sources I could find while sitting the car while going around the shops. Though I find no reason do doubt them. If you want official numbers here: As of April 2022 Wingspan had sold 1,410,539 copies according to Stonemeier's official reports.
Kind of makes the 10k downloads on the Google Play store seem even worse now right. Like, dude, you're asking me why I didn't include Monopoly in a discussion about why people choose to play a tactile version of a niche hobby over a digital one.
People do not play 40k for the gameplay. They play it for the tactile experience of owning models and having something they can touch and build. Its like saying if Lego VR was a thing people would just stop playing with Lego.
Sim-Life wrote: The numbers are sourced from the best sources I could find while sitting the car while going around the shops. Though I find no reason do doubt them. If you want official numbers here:
As of April 2022 Wingspan had sold 1,410,539 copies according to Stonemeier's official reports.
Kind of makes the 10k downloads on the Google Play store seem even worse now right.
That's a single platform that is likely to appeal to a more casual audience and a single game. That's an anecdote.
Why don't you look at the industry-wide data I posted and refute the pronounced growth curve and adoption by major players projecting revenue from digital board games?
People do not play 40k for the gameplay.
I'm going to have to ask for proof of this claim.
Its like saying if Lego VR was a thing people would just stop playing with Lego.
That's patently false because I never said people would stop playing the physical game, in fact, I never even suggested that the physical game market share would shrink. I am simply projecting that a version of 40k that is faster to play and more accessible would be, in my opinion, likely to eclipse the physical game. You have rebutted by misconstruing my position and providing facts that do not fit the argument.
Also, I can point to the entire [Mundane Task] Simulator genre to show that people have an appetite for digital versions of things that can be replicated IRL.
As for Lego: https://www.mecabricks.com/ that and those little games like Lego Star Wars that seek to offer a different take on the brand that focuses more on play than building.
In these cases, the digital version probably won't eclipse the physical one for the foreseeable future in one case because the simulator genre replicates real-life tasks many of which are needed for society to keep existing, and the other because Lego is a toy and not a game which makes me wonder why you'd compare it to 40k.
Tournament games are better than casual ones if we are judging those games based on a balance analysis. "I brought out my Flashgitz army! but I lost spectacularly to the IG player" ok well in a vacuum that is meaningless, but when you start getting thousands if not tens of thousands of similar reports of beer and pretzel games where players bring crap lists that don't function or have synergy you are in essence getting corrupt data that will not help in the analysis on balancing units both internally or externally.
Why are beer and pretzel games less worthy of being balanced? Shouldn't these lists be equally plausible targets for balance and synergy? Especially if they're fluffy?
The better analysis from GW should be which units are being taken in faction lists and then giving buffs to the units that aren't seeing regular gameplay in order to bring them up to a more balanced level. Look at the Stompa for example, its not appeared in a single ork list that placed well in tournaments, GW should have then adjusted the points value of it or gave it a rules buff to encourage its use. Same for most units, conversely if you see a Custodes list that is taking Trajann 99 times out of 100...well you might need to look at toning him down a bit.
I'm on board with the concept here, but I'm still unclear on why the Beer and Pretzel Stompa isn't worthy of buffing until it goes to a tournament. I'd also like to know why Trajann needs to be toned down instead of additional options need to be added. How many Datasheets is Trajann fighting for space with? How many of them are a named Special Character which usually provide better-for-cheaper or unique-shenanigan-potential?
Instead we get GW's hamfisted balance attempts. Marines now get free wargear and pts cuts and again, mark my words, they will be top meta army to finish out 9th edition. We also then got Deathguard and Thousand sons....two under performing factions who were relying heavily on AoC to stay relevant, they got almost nothing to compensate for them losing that buff. And having played both DG and TS recently in tournaments and friendly games I can tell you, they did not need a nerf.
Which free wargear and points cuts specifically do you think are a problem? Centurion Assault Squads went down 10ppm. Did you see a lot of them before? Will you see a lot of them now? But they get Meltaguns and Hurricane Bolters for free. Devastators went up about 5PPM and a 10 model squad now likely costs more than it did before they got free heavies. The obvious units to cheer about getting free wargear actually didn't. Vanguard Vets (etc.) still pay for jump packs and Thunderhammers. A price dropped Gladiator Valiant averages 88% of the anti-tankish shots, for roughly 80% of the points after the Centurion Devastator Squad got its freebie upgrades AND points drop. So even though their price per model drop was impressive IF that drop makes them viable is still questionable. Should this test balloon have been expanded to the rest of the factions? Probably. And in some ways it was. Look at your Predator price now. Your sponsons are cheaper/free just like the loyalists. Your Havoc Missile too. Your Plague Marines are freebie Upgrades now. Your Foetid Bloat Drones. Strangely the base Chaos Havoc's and bikers still pay, as do the TS Terminators and Vindicators. I'm kind of hoping they come out with another one of these on the 19th with the rest of the things they forgot. It feels like this release was not the final draft. Or Not Supposed to be the final draft.
)
and will never be taken if it doesn't have D2 to make it at least a decent anti-marine weapon too.
