You're missing the point. People complain about Aggressors because they actually have to play with and against them. I couldn't care less about a theoretical problem, because it doesn't exist - I've literally never seen that number of Fire Warriors used by anyone because other things are better. If we ended up in a position where Tau armies were routinely getting 100+ shots and rerolling 50 dice between hit and wound re-rolls then yes, I'd be complaining abut Tau re-rolls as well. The problem is the prevalence of re-rolls but the main offender in this case is a SM unit. That's likely because SM in general are pretty broken so a lot of the more egregious examples of broken things are in their Codex. I'm also not a fan of the various other units in the game that show up with large numbers of re-rolls in tow.
Oh I think I'm seeing the point. And it's not the rerolls. Go back and look, how many posts are just like yours? Rerolls are bad, so nerf marines because they're broken.
Why give them anything? How about we remove the double shots and recost them appropriately? Units don't need to have special rules in order to be useful and interesting.
Right, why would marines need to shoot more often than the 200 orks/bugs/fish/etc they’re playing against? Just give them all rapid fire 1, and watch them die. And now we’re removing double shots AND rerolls. Yet again the problem isn’t rerolls, it’s nerfing Marines.
You don't need to shoot more often, you just need to shoot more effectively. There's no inherent reason that Aggressors have to be able to shoot twice. They could be just as effective without that rule if their points and/or weapon stats changed. Also, elite armies should not just be given a get out of jail free card against hordes by upping their firepower to match them. Having a unit that fires more shots than the horde it's up against, while still getting the advantages of an elite unit (better accuracy, better armour, better save, etc) is bad game design.
They're already hitting ~67% of the time, wounding ~50% of the time, and frequently negating saves.
10 Intercessors gets 10-20 shots for about 200 points. 200 points of Orks is 25 Boys, 26 wounds. To get 26 Damage on a 6+ with a S4 -1 1D you need 26 wounds. to get 26 wounds, you need 52 hits. To get 52 his, you need about 70 shots. Turn 1 is 10 shots, Turn 2 is 20 (30 total) Turn 3 is 20 (50 total) Turn 4 is 20, 70 Total.
Now that's probably not too bad. Given how much quicker attrition will hit the Intercessors it's probably not good, but its not bad and that's close to the sweet spot to aim for. The problem is to get the other roles filled something is going to have to be better at ranged infantry killing to make up for the lost volume from the anti-tank etc shooting. 60 intercessors probably does well against 150 Orks or guardsmen. It doesn't work well against a boat load of Leman Russes. So the TAC list has to be able to take an infantry killer to be able to take the tank killer, and the transports, etc on that well rounded non-skew list.
Would you prefer to see all the Marine attacks go up a notch? Assault 6 goes to Assault 7 or 8 to make up for the lost rerolls? Rapid Fire 1 to Rapid Fire 2, and so on?
No, i'd like them to not have as many rerolls. Theyre already good even without them because of their higher rate of fire, strength and AP.
So you want them to get worse. Again, is your problem rerolls or Marines? We get rid of the rerolls, and just give them extra shots to make up for the lost value, and you don’t like that either, so it feels like rerolls is the excuse to nerf Marines.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
Would you prefer to see all the Marine attacks go up a notch? Assault 6 goes to Assault 7 or 8 to make up for the lost rerolls? Rapid Fire 1 to Rapid Fire 2, and so on?
No, i'd like them to not have as many rerolls. Theyre already good even without them because of their higher rate of fire, strength and AP.
So you want them to get worse. Again, is your problem rerolls or Marines? We get rid of the rerolls, and just give them extra shots to make up for the lost value, and you don’t like that either, so it feels like rerolls is the excuse to nerf Marines.
I'm assuming the removal of the double shoot would come with an appropriate pts change. If any other army had the same number of shots with the same number of rerolls on a similar unit, i would be advocating for that unit to lose something to make it less tedious.
Bosskelot wrote: No other army or unit in the game can get 144 dice rolls and re-roll all of them. Even 30 Ork Boyz are incapable of that, especially as you'll never have all 30 in range to attack. Your examples are also laughable in comparison to Aggressors with 90 Termagaunt shots only capable of re-rolling wound rolls of 1 in comparison to 144 re-rolling every hit AND re-rolling wound rolls of 1. Even outside of the re-rolls they'll get more hits, which then leads directly into more wound rolls needing to be made.
There's absolutely no real comparison there. Even assuming non-max shots you're still looking at 110+ re-rollable dice which will still lead to like 80-90 wound rolls. And like the Ork Boyz, the unit size of the Gaunts makes it difficult to get everything in range, so even in optimal conditions you're looking at 90 hit rolls and 45 wound rolls, of which 7-8 can be re-rolled.
This is also assuming that those units wouldn't also be changed somehow, but even then, 30 devourer termagaunts is not as much of an issue as Aggressors. Mathhammer and actual game experience holds up.
So is your problem with rerolls, or with Aggressors/Marines? Because one unit of Guants etc might not have the same number of rerolls, but there will be more units of them won't there? Nor do we reroll the successful hits, so you're only rerolling 1/6th to 1/3 of those 110 dice. And Only when a Captain/ChapterMaster is in range which means we're not just talking about one unit with the Aggressors either.. I'm guessing your 110+ rerollable means 6 Aggressors with Boltstorm and Frag Launcher and that's about 270 points? That's 74 Rapid Fire Pulse Rifles with a Rerolling 1's Marker Light. Plus the points spent on the HQ's to let the Aggressors reroll. 130ish for the captain gets you another 37ish pulse rifle shots = 111 that reroll 1's?
So your equating Reroll 1's to hit on a BS 4 model as equal to full rerolls on a BS 3 model and Reroll 1's to wound
Also WTAF are you on with your firewarrior maths.
270 points gets you 30 Fire warriors thats at most 60 shots in rapid fire range.
That 130 is actually an 85 point Captain who can buff everything in a 14 inch diameter circle and only gets you 28 additional shots in rapid fire range.
Marketlight is 5 points and realistically you need 2 due to needing to hit with it on a 4+, but the due shooting the markerlight can't shoot anything else.so your back down to 84 shots. At 1 target.
But please continue with your Example that Firewarriors out shoot Agressors
So 424 points of FW gets you 88 S5 Ap0 15 inch shots rerolling 1's to hit.
420 points gets you Captain +Lt plus 6 Agressors who get 114 S4 Ap-1 shots on avarage. Reolling 1's to hit and 1's to wound. (Not including the Captain or LT shooting.
That's not exactly going to workout in anyway but in favour of marines but lets shoot Orks to make it as favourable to the marines as possible.
FW 44 hits plus 7.33 after rerolling 1's.
33.2 wounds and 28.51 Failed Saves.
Agressors only 76 hits plus 12.67 after reroll 1's
44.3 wounds plus 7.39 after reroll 1's with no saves allowed is 51.72 wounds
51.72/28.51 aka Agressors are 1.81 times as efficent as FW but sure please explain how they would be useless if they were nerfed.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.
Is it a bandwagon though?
Other factions pay alot more in ressources for double firerate.
Including but not limited to : Subfaction restriction, limited to one use, CP, specific further add ons, pts as if a unit allways would shoot double etc on top of the other stuff..
Breton wrote: The same as Aggressors, they have the same range.
Er, 30 models needing to all be in range is a very different prospect from 6. And even then, it's still less shots, with no hit re-rolls and less wound rolls being made because of worse BS. So it's still an invalid comparison.
Is continually trying to compare a single unit without the relative value points and slot costs as a percentage of the army list supposed to help yours? Those 30ish Firewarriors are approximately equal points, and do in fact get those reroll-able shots you said no other "unit" could get. Once you start matching point for point instead of unit for unit which isn't as uniform from codex to codex your 100+ rerollable shots can happen.
30 Fire Warriors is only 60 shots, hitting at worse BS (unless full ML hits), either only re-rolling ones or only re-rolling failed hit rolls and only once per game. So where are these 100+ fully re-rollable shots coming from? They are also not re-rolling any wound rolls.
And if you're going to spread the comparison to only be based on relative points values, will every single one of those Fire Warriors have LOS and be able to shoot? What about ones that are doing actions?
Just completely ignoring re-rolls, to even get the same level of dice numbers as Aggressors using Fire Warriors you're talking about taking a full 6 units of 12 at the very least. This is practically never, ever seen and it's also over double the points of a single unit of Aggressors and also assumes that every single one of those 72 Fire Warriors has full unobstructed LoS and is also not performing an action in any given turn. Like another poster said, we're talking about actual situations and problems that exist in the game, not theoretical bs.
And now you're at about a third of a 2,000 point list and eating CP in stratagems.
Taking a good unit and spending CP on a unit that benefits from it? How is this a downside? This is is how 40k works. You spend points and spend CP to amplify the effectiveness of those points spent. Maybe try playing the game sometime dude idk
(2 full units of Aggressors is also barely over a quarter of your points and because of their hyper efficiency when it comes to doubleshooting re-roll firepower, they're capable of wiping out anything in the game many times over so it's 100% worth it to invest in them)
Well, we could make them about 20 points per model, in units of 5-10 with ~10-11 shots per model. I think the double shoot mechanic wasn't the best choice. I think taking away the volume of fire a low model count army needs to engage a high model count army probably isn't about the time involved for the low model count army. I think turning them into 3-6 Assault 4 Terminators without an invuln will make a lot of high model count armies happy, but won't do much for balance.
Like I said, even without doubleshoot they'll be getting 72 shots a turn. When you add in good BS, AP in tac doctrine, super doctrines, CM/cap/LT re-rolls, Litanies and stratagems, there is no way that's still a bad unit. What are you smoking when you think that isn't capable of still putting hurt out onto high model count armies? It's still incredibly capable of blowing up most vehicles in one round of shots too.
Would you prefer to see all the Marine attacks go up a notch? Assault 6 goes to Assault 7 or 8 to make up for the lost rerolls? Rapid Fire 1 to Rapid Fire 2, and so on?
No, i'd like them to not have as many rerolls. Theyre already good even without them because of their higher rate of fire, strength and AP.
So you want them to get worse. Again, is your problem rerolls or Marines? We get rid of the rerolls, and just give them extra shots to make up for the lost value, and you don’t like that either, so it feels like rerolls is the excuse to nerf Marines.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
Can we stop complaining about Eradicators being too strong. The codex is not even out yet. It is index 40k. Yes - they cost too little at present. It is undeniable. 2 melta shots for 40 points is insane. 1 for 40 points is pretty bad though. This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
People will complain as long as they exist as they currently are.
I agree that "wait and see" is the correct move right now. the codex is almost here and i really hope that the balance will be better than it is right now. I want to enjoy playing against marines.
Would you prefer to see all the Marine attacks go up a notch? Assault 6 goes to Assault 7 or 8 to make up for the lost rerolls? Rapid Fire 1 to Rapid Fire 2, and so on?
No, i'd like them to not have as many rerolls. Theyre already good even without them because of their higher rate of fire, strength and AP.
So you want them to get worse. Again, is your problem rerolls or Marines? We get rid of the rerolls, and just give them extra shots to make up for the lost value, and you don’t like that either, so it feels like rerolls is the excuse to nerf Marines.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
Can we stop complaining about Eradicators being too strong. The codex is not even out yet. It is index 40k. Yes - they cost too little at present. It is undeniable. 2 melta shots for 40 points is insane. 1 for 40 points is pretty bad though. This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
Basically every thread?
Remember? Karol? Martel?
Heck, you?
You don't remember stuff like
Thread name: Hey I have a question about using liquid greenstuff
First comment: MY GREY KNIGHTS CANT EVEN WIN A GAME AGAINST LIQUID GREENSTUFF!!!!
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.
Is it a bandwagon though?
Other factions pay alot more in ressources for double firerate.
Including but not limited to : Subfaction restriction, limited to one use, CP, specific further add ons, pts as if a unit allways would shoot double etc on top of the other stuff..
How much do berzerkers pay for double fighting?
Actually better comparison...
How much does an exocrine pay to shoot twice if it stays still? 0? Oh yeah. 0.
How much does a LR pay to shoot it's maingun twice if it moves less than half? Oh Yeah...0.
It is absolutely band wagon. They are literally just giving marines rules that other factions have had for the entirety of an edition. FFS Marine vehicles did not even get army traits until this codex....for 2 years!!!! Did GW maybe give marines too much at once? The only thing that really puts marines over the top is the stratagems which are just following the trend for stratagems getting better and better all edition. How good is a RG army without the auto charge turn 1 warlord trait? How good is a relic levi without the character stratagem? How good are salamanders aggressors thought the counts as stationary stratagem? The answer to all these questions is...worth their points.
Stratagems are the real issue and they are all about the change.
Thread name: Hey I have a question about using liquid greenstuff
First comment: MY GREY KNIGHTS CANT EVEN WIN A GAME AGAINST LIQUID GREENSTUFF!!!!
yeah, also this.
And lets not forget that Guilliman and AssBack was THE top tier list to beat at the beginning of 8th.
And yes, i remember many times seeing people wish marines were better (in the time period where they sucked).
Same is happening now with Tyranids, they suck and people wish they didnt.
Oh dear god please give nids the new big scary codex that sits utterly dominating for 12 months. I'd love to see people complain about how npc races were the best in the game.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.
Is it a bandwagon though?
Other factions pay alot more in ressources for double firerate.
Including but not limited to : Subfaction restriction, limited to one use, CP, specific further add ons, pts as if a unit allways would shoot double etc on top of the other stuff..
How much do berzerkers pay for double fighting?
Actually better comparison...
How much does an exocrine pay to shoot twice if it stays still? 0? Oh yeah. 0.
How much does a LR pay to shoot it's maingun twice if it moves less than half? Oh Yeah...0.
It is absolutely band wagon. They are literally just giving marines rules that other factions have had for the entirety of an edition. FFS Marine vehicles did not even get army traits until this codex....for 2 years!!!! Did GW maybe give marines too much at once? The only thing that really puts marines over the top is the stratagems which are just following the trend for stratagems getting better and better all edition. How good is a RG army without the auto charge turn 1 warlord trait? How good is a relic levi without the character stratagem? How good are salamanders aggressors thought the counts as stationary stratagem? The answer to all these questions is...worth their points.
Stratagems are the real issue and they are all about the change.
None of these double shooting units take nearly as long as agressors to resolve a shooting phase.
And yes, the double shooting is included in the base cost of the units.
Its not specifically anti-marine. it just happens that marines are the ones that get a single unit to shoot 200 shots with full rerolls.
You keep thinking that we're complaining about the power-level of aggressors when in reality its the tediousness that we're complaining about.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.
Is it a bandwagon though?
Other factions pay alot more in ressources for double firerate.
Including but not limited to : Subfaction restriction, limited to one use, CP, specific further add ons, pts as if a unit allways would shoot double etc on top of the other stuff..
How much do berzerkers pay for double fighting?
Actually better comparison...
How much does an exocrine pay to shoot twice if it stays still? 0? Oh yeah. 0.
How much does a LR pay to shoot it's maingun twice if it moves less than half? Oh Yeah...0.
It is absolutely band wagon. They are literally just giving marines rules that other factions have had for the entirety of an edition. FFS Marine vehicles did not even get army traits until this codex....for 2 years!!!! Did GW maybe give marines too much at once? The only thing that really puts marines over the top is the stratagems which are just following the trend for stratagems getting better and better all edition. How good is a RG army without the auto charge turn 1 warlord trait? How good is a relic levi without the character stratagem? How good are salamanders aggressors thought the counts as stationary stratagem? The answer to all these questions is...worth their points.
Stratagems are the real issue and they are all about the change.
....No? Stratagems are not what's about to change with the new codex. We already know the supplements are going precisely nowhere, and we also know that Aggressors might be getting a core datasheet change to get 1/2 the shots, depending on how the assembly datasheet translates to the full one.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.
Is it a bandwagon though?
Other factions pay alot more in ressources for double firerate.
Including but not limited to : Subfaction restriction, limited to one use, CP, specific further add ons, pts as if a unit allways would shoot double etc on top of the other stuff..
How much do berzerkers pay for double fighting?
Actually better comparison...
How much does an exocrine pay to shoot twice if it stays still? 0? Oh yeah. 0.
How much does a LR pay to shoot it's maingun twice if it moves less than half? Oh Yeah...0.
It is absolutely band wagon. They are literally just giving marines rules that other factions have had for the entirety of an edition. FFS Marine vehicles did not even get army traits until this codex....for 2 years!!!!
CSM still don't. so what. Btw For berzerkers it's an heightened price , limited acess internally for the faction overall to them and if you intend to fight 3 x , as one might want to get rid of big scary stuff, that'd be another 3cp. Also melee, not shooting, melee by virtue of beeing interactive, unlike shooting, allows for opponents to strike back. And has the issue of range and reach.
Did GW maybe give marines too much at once? The only thing that really puts marines over the top is the stratagems which are just following the trend for stratagems getting better and better all edition.
Heavily debatable considering alot more stratagems have been nerfed for non SM factions.
How good is a RG army without the auto charge turn 1 warlord trait? How good is a relic levi without the character stratagem? How good are salamanders aggressors thought the counts as stationary stratagem? The answer to all these questions is...worth their points.
Stratagems are the real issue and they are all about the change.
Stratagems, unlike eradicators, cost CP, that is a ressource with a price and a built in once / turn limit. The condition is nonexistent comparatively, to other units, which makes them too cheap.
Aggressors have it as an inate capability,with an somewhat working conditional trigger, yet we have stratagems to bypass it.
It's by far not just Stratagems that are a balancing issue, it's the fact that unequal access internally exists to these, whilest units have a singular price. It's the fact that some subfactions have vsatly superior free buffs in form of traits then others. Codex SM is just the worst offender atm, for a design decision issue that GW itself created.
Its fun watching a marine player try to prove that marines are not broken only to grasp and fail at finding comparable scenario's.
Kinda drives home how incomparable marines currently are.
JohnnyHell wrote: Ahhhh tyranids were wonderfully good for a chunk of 8th. I sorta don't even wanna unpack mine right now...
Well - the hive tyrant was pretty good. They Nerfed it big time. Smite nerf really hurt it. Point increase really hurt it. No deep strike turn 1 really hurt it. Rest of tyranid units outside of hivegaurd are pretty bad. Mine are also on the shelf.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.
Ahh the old - I am right - everyone else is therefore wrong is better? A group of people can be right you know.
FFS Marine vehicles did not even get army traits until this codex....for 2 years!!!!
Nor did other factions - all of which was nonsese and I was equally vocal that it was so for any of them.
Can we stop complaining about Eradicators being too strong. The codex is not even out yet. It is index 40k. Yes - they cost too little at present. It is undeniable. 2 melta shots for 40 points is insane. 1 for 40 points is pretty bad though. This antimarine sentiment is outrageous.
So we all agree - they are currently far too powerful, hence the thread fo those who for some bizare reason want such unbalcned units in the game.
Not antimarine - but anti broken units - same as I was against Cheese Serpents back in the day
Ordana wrote: Its fun watching a marine player try to prove that marines are not broken only to grasp and fail at finding comparable scenario's.
Kinda drives home how incomparable marines currently are.
I literally provided a handful (not all) comparable rules to aggressors shoot twice if stationary. These are literally comparable scenarios...they are the exact same scenario...pls explain your thinking?
Ordana wrote: Its fun watching a marine player try to prove that marines are not broken only to grasp and fail at finding comparable scenario's.
Kinda drives home how incomparable marines currently are.
I literally provided a handful (not all) comparable rules to aggressors shoot twice if stationary. These are literally comparable scenarios...they are the exact same scenario...pls explain your thinking?
I will admit Leman Russ's being able to move as fast as a sprinting guardsmen and hence faster than eldar skimmers is very annoying and they are not short of firepower!
Ordana wrote: Its fun watching a marine player try to prove that marines are not broken only to grasp and fail at finding comparable scenario's.
Kinda drives home how incomparable marines currently are.
I literally provided a handful (not all) comparable rules to aggressors shoot twice if stationary. These are literally comparable scenarios...they are the exact same scenario...pls explain your thinking?
I was mainly talking people like the one trying to argue firewarriors were comparable to Aggressors.
But thanks for feeling personally attacked.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.
Is it a bandwagon though?
Other factions pay alot more in ressources for double firerate.
Including but not limited to : Subfaction restriction, limited to one use, CP, specific further add ons, pts as if a unit allways would shoot double etc on top of the other stuff..
How much do berzerkers pay for double fighting?
Actually better comparison...
How much does an exocrine pay to shoot twice if it stays still? 0? Oh yeah. 0.
How much does a LR pay to shoot it's maingun twice if it moves less than half? Oh Yeah...0.
It is absolutely band wagon. They are literally just giving marines rules that other factions have had for the entirety of an edition. FFS Marine vehicles did not even get army traits until this codex....for 2 years!!!!
CSM still don't. so what. Btw For berzerkers it's an heightened price , limited acess internally for the faction overall to them and if you intend to fight 3 x , as one might want to get rid of big scary stuff, that'd be another 3cp. Also melee, not shooting, melee by virtue of beeing interactive, unlike shooting, allows for opponents to strike back. And has the issue of range and reach.
Did GW maybe give marines too much at once? The only thing that really puts marines over the top is the stratagems which are just following the trend for stratagems getting better and better all edition.
Heavily debatable considering alot more stratagems have been nerfed for non SM factions.
How good is a RG army without the auto charge turn 1 warlord trait? How good is a relic levi without the character stratagem? How good are salamanders aggressors thought the counts as stationary stratagem? The answer to all these questions is...worth their points.
Stratagems are the real issue and they are all about the change.
Stratagems, unlike eradicators, cost CP, that is a ressource with a price and a built in once / turn limit. The condition is nonexistent comparatively, to other units, which makes them too cheap.
Aggressors have it as an inate capability,with an somewhat working conditional trigger, yet we have stratagems to bypass it.
It's by far not just Stratagems that are a balancing issue, it's the fact that unequal access internally exists to these, whilest units have a singular price. It's the fact that some subfactions have vsatly superior free buffs in form of traits then others. Codex SM is just the worst offender atm, for a design decision issue that GW itself created.
Bezerkers fight twice for free. Their point cost might be too high and agressors might be too low (it actually not - they got increased in price)
LR shoots twice for free
Exocrine shoots twice for free
Marines really needed those special buffs in order to compete. They were trash teir. In some situations they got a little or a lot too much. Mostly in ironhands supplement and doctrines being chosen rather than changing. Marines are still in the top teir...but...some of you need to realize - marines being top tier is okay. At some point any army can be top tier.
Ordana wrote: Its fun watching a marine player try to prove that marines are not broken only to grasp and fail at finding comparable scenario's.
Kinda drives home how incomparable marines currently are.
I literally provided a handful (not all) comparable rules to aggressors shoot twice if stationary. These are literally comparable scenarios...they are the exact same scenario...pls explain your thinking?
I was mainly talking people like the one trying to argue firewarriors were comparable to Aggressors.
But thanks for feeling personally attacked.
It seemed kinda targeted as I literally just provided examples and it directly proceeded me.
And how often are all of those Gaunts going to be in firing range?
The same as Aggressors, they have the same range.
Bad faith argument. Aggressors come in 3-6 man units, its a hell of a lot easier to stack a bunch of aggressors into range than it is to get 30 models into range.
Breton wrote: Right, why would marines need to shoot more often than the 200 orks/bugs/fish/etc they’re playing against? Just give them all rapid fire 1, and watch them die. And now we’re removing double shots AND rerolls. Yet again the problem isn’t rerolls, it’s nerfing Marines.
I am glad you brought that up. Marines SHOULD NOT be shooting more than 200 orkz/bugs/fish/etc. At least for Orkz this is true. The original design concept was Marines shoot 1 shot but have a likely chance to hit 1 time, orkz on the other hand have to shoot twice in order to get roughly the same hit ratio. There were memes and jokes floating around about Orkz rolling buckets of dice, it was literally a part of the games humor. But right now is that true? well lets look at your own example.
Breton wrote: 10 Intercessors gets 10-20 shots for about 200 points. 200 points of Orks is 25 Boys, 26 wounds. To get 26 Damage on a 6+ with a S4 -1 1D you need 26 wounds. to get 26 wounds, you need 52 hits. To get 52 his, you need about 70 shots. Turn 1 is 10 shots, Turn 2 is 20 (30 total) Turn 3 is 20 (50 total) Turn 4 is 20, 70 Total.
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't Intercessors get bolter discipline which means they get 20 shots turn 1?
In return, Shoota boyz specifically. In order to kill 10 Intercessors you need 20 damage, to get 20 damage you need 60 wounds to get 60 wounds orkz need 120 hits, to get 120 hits orkz need 360 shots. Hell, I'll cheat for you and give you those extra 5 shoota boyz. So 30 Boyz get 0 shots turn 1 (18' range), 70 shots turn 2, 70 shots turn 3 (140 total) 70 shots turn 4 (210 total) and 70 shots turn 5 (280 total). So in order for those Shoota boyz to kill LESS points than they are themselves worth, the game would have to go on for at least 2 more turns. Also, those intercessors have 30' range unless you gave them assault bolters so they are likely sitting their happy little butts in cover which means in order to get 20 damage orkz actually need 120 wounds and 240 hits which is 720 shots So when you sit here complaining that it takes 4 turns for intercessors to kill an ork boyz unit of similar points value, remember it takes 7 turns to make it back, and only then if the orkz sneak in an extra 5 models.
Into your next argument
Breton wrote: Now that's probably not too bad. Given how much quicker attrition will hit the Intercessors it's probably not good, but its not bad and that's close to the sweet spot to aim for. The problem is to get the other roles filled something is going to have to be better at ranged infantry killing to make up for the lost volume from the anti-tank etc shooting. 60 intercessors probably does well against 150 Orks or guardsmen. It doesn't work well against a boat load of Leman Russes. So the TAC list has to be able to take an infantry killer to be able to take the tank killer, and the transports, etc on that well rounded non-skew list.
10 intercessors turn 1 will hit 6.6 times and inflict 3.3 wounds which kill 3.3 boyz, orkz can't shoot back, turn 2 intercessors hit 13.2 times and inflict 6.6 wounds killing 6.6 boyz, those orkz are now down to 15 models, who then return fire with 35 shots for 11 hits and 5.5 wounds which inflicts....1.83 wounds, lets cheat and round up and say 1 dead intercessor. Turn 3 12 hits, 6 wounds and 6 more dead orkz. Boyz return with 21 shots, 7 hits and 3.5 wounds for 1 more wound. Intercessors shoot, 12 more hits, 6 more wounds and 6 more dead boyz. Orkz are now down to 3 models while the SM Intercessors are down to 9 with 1 wound left on another model. Congrats you win the attrition games. So yep, Intercessors are significantly better in regards to attrition vs similar units. (unless I was right and Intercessors get Bolter discipline which means those Intercessors were dishing out 6.6 wounds turn 1 which in turn means the boyz are completely wiped out by turn 4 and have inflicted even less damage in return)
As far as anti-vehicle....ummm, what is going to do more damage vs those Russes you mention, the SM Intercessors with -1 AP Bolters or the 18' S4 shootas from the boyz? or do you want to swap in some heavy weapons? Orkz can take 2 Rokkits in a 25 boy unit for 20pts, since intercessors don't have access to the heavy weapons others do, i'll give you 1 extra Marine.
23 shootas = 54ish shots for 18ish hits and 3 wounds which works out to 1 damage. The 2 rokkits fire for .88 (including ddd) chance to hit, .44 chance to wound and .29 chance to go through the armor and inflict 3 damage, or .88 dmg a turn on average, total? 1.88 dmg inflicted per turn.
Those 11 Intercessors get 22 shots, 14 hits and 7 wounds for 3.5 dmg. Almost DOUBLE the dmg those shoota boyz armed with rokkitz are going to get. So again, significantly better than those shoota boyz.
Breton wrote: It’s fairly straight forward, the low model count armies need higher shots per model to be able to get enough damage output to play with the high model count armies. If you yank the rerolls which gives them limited extra shots, they have to get even more of those extra shots all the time to make up for it. If they’re not complaining about marker lights, their problem isn’t rerolls, if their response is “Yeah, but Agressors” their problem isn’t rerolls.
All of the above math was done without re-rolls factored in, in no scenario were shoota boyz nearly as good at shooting or durability as those intercessors, even when given 20% more pts. If you want to compare aggressors to those shoota boyz the results are significantly worse for orkz. 180pts of aggressors, without re-rolls AND without shoot twice get 48 shots, 32 hits and 16 wounds for over 13 dead orkz per turn, or 104pts. With shoot twice, they are killing MORE than their point value per turn...read that again, PER TURN. Add in rerolls and its even worse.
So if Exocrines and LR shoot twice for free, so do Agressors?
And which of these takes the longest to resolve a shooting phase?
Is it the exocrines with its 12 shots, hitting on 3, rerolling 1's (i'll even add adaptations to make it seem like there are more rerolls happening)
Is it the Tank commander (lets upgrade the basic LR) with its 40 shots, hitting on 2's, rerolling 1's (adding cadian trait + stratagem)
Is it the min-size aggressor squad with 36+6D6 (21 average) shots, hitting on 3's, rerolling ALL hits and 1's to wound? (notice how i don't add chapter tactics and stratagems here, only the support characters that marines always have anyway).
Again, this isnt even a powerlevel problem for me, its a tediousness problem.
Either remove the access to rerolls so the 60-ish shots take faster to resolve or remove the double shoot so you actually get 30-ish shots with rerolls.
Time lately has been blazing by so fast, but for some damn reason it feels like an eternity for these damn books to come out.
It really does. I won't care for it anyway, im a Legion player through and through. I just want it to be over so i can start learning about the new Deathguard stuff after.
Bosskelot wrote: No other army or unit in the game can get 144 dice rolls and re-roll all of them. Even 30 Ork Boyz are incapable of that, especially as you'll never have all 30 in range to attack. Your examples are also laughable in comparison to Aggressors with 90 Termagaunt shots only capable of re-rolling wound rolls of 1 in comparison to 144 re-rolling every hit AND re-rolling wound rolls of 1. Even outside of the re-rolls they'll get more hits, which then leads directly into more wound rolls needing to be made.
There's absolutely no real comparison there. Even assuming non-max shots you're still looking at 110+ re-rollable dice which will still lead to like 80-90 wound rolls. And like the Ork Boyz, the unit size of the Gaunts makes it difficult to get everything in range, so even in optimal conditions you're looking at 90 hit rolls and 45 wound rolls, of which 7-8 can be re-rolled.
This is also assuming that those units wouldn't also be changed somehow, but even then, 30 devourer termagaunts is not as much of an issue as Aggressors. Mathhammer and actual game experience holds up.
So is your problem with rerolls, or with Aggressors/Marines? Because one unit of Guants etc might not have the same number of rerolls, but there will be more units of them won't there? Nor do we reroll the successful hits, so you're only rerolling 1/6th to 1/3 of those 110 dice. And Only when a Captain/ChapterMaster is in range which means we're not just talking about one unit with the Aggressors either.. I'm guessing your 110+ rerollable means 6 Aggressors with Boltstorm and Frag Launcher and that's about 270 points? That's 74 Rapid Fire Pulse Rifles with a Rerolling 1's Marker Light. Plus the points spent on the HQ's to let the Aggressors reroll. 130ish for the captain gets you another 37ish pulse rifle shots = 111 that reroll 1's?
So your equating Reroll 1's to hit on a BS 4 model as equal to full rerolls on a BS 3 model and Reroll 1's to wound
The issue as raised was 110 shots getting rerolls, not how good the shots were. Of course I suspect it's actually about SM getting a good unit more than the re-rolls and the inability for people to do so without "But Aggressors" or "But Eradicators" or both don't exactly prove that guess wrong. But as I said the issue as raised was 100+ shots allowing rerolls.
Also WTAF are you on with your firewarrior maths.
270 points gets you 30 Fire warriors thats at most 60 shots in rapid fire range.
That 130 is actually an 85 point Captain who can buff everything in a 14 inch diameter circle and only gets you 28 additional shots in rapid fire range.
Marketlight is 5 points and realistically you need 2 due to needing to hit with it on a 4+, but the due shooting the markerlight can't shoot anything else.so your back down to 84 shots. At 1 target.
But please continue with your Example that Firewarriors out shoot Agressors
So we're tailoring this only one way? Or would that Captain get some Beat Stick Upgrades? Especially while he's running around with Fist Aggressors? Now from what I understand Fire Warriors are about 7ppm. 400/7 = 57.14 57x2 =114. 56x2=112. 55 if you want your two marker lights when only one has to hit to give the rerolls and we're talking about CAN happen AS INITIALLY RAISED is still 110. Assuming you're right and they're closer to 9, 5 Firewarriors and a Smart Missle Drone is about 60 points for 14 shots, you'll get 6.667 for 400, and hit 93 which is pretty close to that 100+ And once again the issue AS RAISED was NUMBER OF POTENTIALLY REROLLED SHOTS not whether Unit A can outshoot Unit B.
So 424 points of FW gets you 88 S5 Ap0 15 inch shots rerolling 1's to hit.
Compared to the 110 18" shots?
420 points gets you Captain +Lt plus 6 Agressors who get 114 S4 Ap-1 shots on avarage. Reolling 1's to hit and 1's to wound. (Not including the Captain or LT shooting.
That's not exactly going to workout in anyway but in favour of marines but lets shoot Orks to make it as favourable to the marines as possible.
FW 44 hits plus 7.33 after rerolling 1's.
33.2 wounds and 28.51 Failed Saves.
Agressors only 76 hits plus 12.67 after reroll 1's
44.3 wounds plus 7.39 after reroll 1's with no saves allowed is 51.72 wounds
51.72/28.51 aka Agressors are 1.81 times as efficent as FW but sure please explain how they would be useless if they were nerfed.
How many of those Firewarrior shots are rerollable? Because again, the issue as raised isn't nerf Aggressors because I hate marines, it's nerf rerolls because they slow the game down. For 5 points the entire Tau Army gets to reroll 1's at that unit. For 10 points they get to do it pretty reliably.
I just grabbed my typical list from 8E which sadly needs to get reworked with the new points costs as it's now 60points too much - I've got 55 non character bodies, 3 character bodies in 7 non-character units. 14 marker lights for 70 points lets you reroll 1's against my entire non-character army with the entirely Tau army reliably. Obviously it would be better to focus fire only some of those units with more marker-light bonuses but that isn't the point. The point is how many attacks can be rerolled or add-rolled.
Rerolling 1's on a BS4 model is worse than rerolling everything on a BS3 model.
Its not about the power level of the specific units, its about the number of dice rolled.
100 shots of markerlight supported Fire Warrior is : 100 dice + 17 rerolls, netting you 58 hits. Total dice rolled : (100 + 17 +58) 175
100 shots of CM + lieutenant aggressors is : 100 dice + 33 rerolls, netting you 88 hits. Then you have 14 more dice to roll for the lieutenant reroll. Total dice rolled : (100 + 33 + 88 + 14) 235
And the rerolls from the Fire Warrior isnt "always on".
Rerolling 1's on a BS4 model is worse than rerolling everything on a BS3 model.
Its not about the power level of the specific units, its about the number of dice rolled.
And yet, you just included BS4 vs BS3. I'm the one saying if it's REALLY about the rerolls, it doesn't matter what the BS is. I'm not even saying 100 Firewarrior shots are as good or not as good or in any way relevant to the comparison other than how many there are, because someone else drew that line in the sand.
100 shots of markerlight supported Fire Warrior is : 100 dice + 17 rerolls, netting you 58 hits. Total dice rolled : (100 + 17 +58) 175
100 shots of CM + lieutenant aggressors is : 100 dice + 33 rerolls, netting you 88 hits. Then you have 14 more dice to roll for the lieutenant reroll. Total dice rolled : (100 + 33 + 88 + 14) 235
And the rerolls from the Fire Warrior isnt "always on".
Neither are the rerolls for the Aggressors.
You want to say Aggressors are bad, and all marines should be nerfed, that's your right. I'll disagree. You want to say it's not-anti Marine salt but because of Rerolls that can be equally available in other factions you're not calling to nerf, I'm going to point that out.
Rerolling 1's on a BS4 model is worse than rerolling everything on a BS3 model.
Its not about the power level of the specific units, its about the number of dice rolled.
And yet, you just included BS4 vs BS3. I'm the one saying if it's REALLY about the rerolls, it doesn't matter what the BS is. I'm not even saying 100 Firewarrior shots are as good or not as good or in any way relevant to the comparison other than how many there are, because someone else drew that line in the sand.
100 shots of markerlight supported Fire Warrior is : 100 dice + 17 rerolls, netting you 58 hits. Total dice rolled : (100 + 17 +58) 175
100 shots of CM + lieutenant aggressors is : 100 dice + 33 rerolls, netting you 88 hits. Then you have 14 more dice to roll for the lieutenant reroll. Total dice rolled : (100 + 33 + 88 + 14) 235
And the rerolls from the Fire Warrior isnt "always on".
Neither are the rerolls for the Aggressors.
You want to say Aggressors are bad, and all marines should be nerfed, that's your right. I'll disagree. You want to say it's not-anti Marine salt but because of Rerolls that can be equally available in other factions you're not calling to nerf, I'm going to point that out.
I include the BS because BS3 means more hits, which means more dice to roll in the end.
270 points gets you 30 Fire warriors thats at most 60 shots in rapid fire range.
That 130 is actually an 85 point Captain who can buff everything in a 14 inch diameter circle and only gets you 28 additional shots in rapid fire range.
Marketlight is 5 points and realistically you need 2 due to needing to hit with it on a 4+, but the due shooting the markerlight can't shoot anything else.so your back down to 84 shots. At 1 target.
But please continue with your Example that Firewarriors out shoot Agressors
So we're tailoring this only one way? Or would that Captain get some Beat Stick Upgrades? Especially while he's running around with Fist Aggressors? Now from what I understand Fire Warriors are about Try 9PPM7ppm. 424-10 =414/9 = 46-2 as can't shoot markerlight and pulse rifle 44x2 =88400/7 = 57.14 57x2 =114. 56x2=112. 55 if you want your two marker lights when only one has to hit to give the rerolls and we're talking about CAN happen AS INITIALLY RAISED is still 110. Assuming you're right and they're closer to 9, 5 Firewarriors and a Smart Missle Drone now your just making units up as no such unit exsistsis about 60 points for 14 shots, you'll get 6.667 for 400, and hit 93 which is pretty close to that 100+ And once again the issue AS RAISED was NUMBER OF POTENTIALLY REROLLED SHOTS not whether Unit A can outshoot Unit B.
So 424 points of FW gets you 88 S5 Ap0 15 inch shots rerolling 1's to hit. The fire warriors only get 2 shots at 15 inches
Compared to the 110 18" shots?
420 points gets you Captain +Lt plus 6 Agressors who get 114 S4 Ap-1 shots on avarage. Reolling 1's to hit and 1's to wound. (Not including the Captain or LT shooting.
That's not exactly going to workout in anyway but in favour of marines but lets shoot Orks to make it as favourable to the marines as possible.
FW 44 hits plus 7.33 after rerolling 1's.
33.2 wounds and 28.51 Failed Saves.
Agressors only 76 hits plus 12.67 after reroll 1's
44.3 wounds plus 7.39 after reroll 1's with no saves allowed is 51.72 wounds
51.72/28.51 aka Agressors are 1.81 times as efficent as FW but sure please explain how they would be useless if they were nerfed.
How many of those Firewarrior shots are rerollable? Because again, the issue as raised isn't nerf Aggressors because I hate marines, it's nerf rerolls because they slow the game down. For 5 points the entire Tau Army gets to reroll 1's at that unit. For 10 points they get to do it pretty reliably.
I just grabbed my typical list from 8E which sadly needs to get reworked with the new points costs as it's now 60points too much - I've got 55 non character bodies, 3 character bodies in 7 non-character units. 14 marker lights for 70 points lets you reroll 1's against my entire non-character army with the entirely Tau army reliably. Obviously it would be better to focus fire only some of those units with more marker-light bonuses but that isn't the point. The point is how many attacks can be rerolled or add-rolled.
I'm calling you out for misrepresentation as this is the third of forth time a marine player has used made up stats and points to prove oh look marines are fine this Tau unit is way more OP and frankly the attitude and the blatant disregard for facts even when confronted about them is dismised as "well it's just an example" it's a deliberate attempt to lie and mislead other posters.
Um, why are you correcting the 7/9 ppm thing about half a sentence before I did it myself?
I'm sorry instead of Smart Missle Drone, I meant DS8 Tactical Support Turret with a Smart Missile System. That wasn't close enough to understand what I meant? It's the only thing in the unit that can take a Smart Missile?
As for your 15 inches vs 18 inches.. could you elaborate? 15" and 18" isn't very different.
I include the BS because BS3 means more hits, which means more dice to roll in the end.
Tell you what, make me a list. Make me a list that can Take All Comers. And doesn't use Captains, Lieutenants, Aggressors, Eradicators or Dakka Inceptors. Don't use any unit that gets more than 1 shot per 10 points. If you want, take the Cap/LT, we just not use the reroll rules. I'll be interested to see that. And don't worry I won't accuse you of making something up if you say drone instead of turret or something.
Breton wrote: Um, why are you correcting the 7/9 ppm thing about half a sentence before I did it myself?
I'm sorry instead of Smart Missle Drone, I meant DS8 Tactical Support Turret with a Smart Missile System. That wasn't close enough to understand what I meant? It's the only thing in the unit that can take a Smart Missile?
As for your 15 inches vs 18 inches.. could you elaborate? 15" and 18" isn't very different.
Because you know what the dang difference is the marines with their 110 shots at 18 inches have more shots more range more hits, more wounds and MORE rerolls for the less points
Also the unit doesnt actually prove your point so your now going to make it 6 units as you dont have more than 6 troops and they are now taking non mobile destroyed if the unit moves wargear into account.
And shielded missle drones do exsist they just are riptide only wargear. And I have been told by other marine posters Fire warriora can take burst cannons so I assume nothing at this point.
Tell you what, make me a list. Make me a list that can Take All Comers. And doesn't use Captains, Lieutenants, Aggressors, Eradicators or Dakka Inceptors. Don't use any unit that gets more than 1 shot per 10 points. If you want, take the Cap/LT, we just not use the reroll rules. I'll be interested to see that. And don't worry I won't accuse you of making something up if you say drone instead of turret or something.
Why should i? What would it prove to you?
We're agreeing about rerolls being the source of the problem btw, unless you're being sarcastic.
The whole aggressor thing just exacerbates the issue with the sheer volume of fire they bring.
Because everyone is mad about how lately Marines are the Eldar from 2nd edition, where they were the most powerful codex. With things like how a Shuriken Catapult was better than a Storm Bolter, and could be in the hands of every Guardian.
AegisGrimm wrote: Because everyone is mad about how lately Marines are the Eldar from 2nd edition, where they were the most powerful codex. With things like how a Shuriken Catapult was better than a Storm Bolter, and could be in the hands of every Guardian.
Marines are literally getting ALL the toys.
it's mostly the eldar fans annoyed Marines are more powerful then them. thats not fair! marines are supposed to be the noob army that they can seal club!
AegisGrimm wrote: Because everyone is mad about how lately Marines are the Eldar from 2nd edition, where they were the most powerful codex. With things like how a Shuriken Catapult was better than a Storm Bolter, and could be in the hands of every Guardian.
Marines are literally getting ALL the toys.
it's mostly the eldar fans annoyed Marines are more powerful then them. thats not fair! marines are supposed to be the noob army that they can seal club!
any non-eldar players want to take this one ?
Coz I was going to start a nid army.. but .. whel...
AegisGrimm wrote: Because everyone is mad about how lately Marines are the Eldar from 2nd edition, where they were the most powerful codex. With things like how a Shuriken Catapult was better than a Storm Bolter, and could be in the hands of every Guardian.
Marines are literally getting ALL the toys.
Wow, that's going back a while. Shuriken catapults actually being usable. How many years ago was that, 25?
Billagio wrote: Id be in favor of them just getting rid of re-rolls (aside from CP) as a whole tbh.
Agreed, rerolls are are annoying, even when they aren't effective. I once had an opponent fire a six man squad of aggressors into my Fellblade that was currently rocking a -1 to be hit with full rerolls from a chapter master and lieutenant. After a couple hundred dice the result was like, four wounds. I don't know if that was "statistical", but I do know it was a waste of both of our time.
AegisGrimm wrote: Because everyone is mad about how lately Marines are the Eldar from 2nd edition, where they were the most powerful codex. With things like how a Shuriken Catapult was better than a Storm Bolter, and could be in the hands of every Guardian.
Marines are literally getting ALL the toys.
it's mostly the eldar fans annoyed Marines are more powerful then them. thats not fair! marines are supposed to be the noob army that they can seal club!
any non-eldar players want to take this one ?
Coz I was going to start a nid army.. but .. whel...
No, sorry. If you play Eldar then YOU are at fault for everything that is wrong in the game of 40k. You have the audacity to play an army that was strong once 25 years ago, and since then has mostly survived on gimmick lists and rules loopholes because the bulk of your codex has been garbage. How dare you even exist.
I would say /s but this is literally the general feeling on Dakka. It's better to just say you play 'xenos' and don't get specific, as all the xenos armies are in the same boat of being underpowered and underdeveloped.
Billagio wrote: Id be in favor of them just getting rid of re-rolls (aside from CP) as a whole tbh.
Agreed, rerolls are are annoying, even when they aren't effective. I once had an opponent fire a six man squad of aggressors into my Fellblade that was currently rocking a -1 to be hit with full rerolls from a chapter master and lieutenant. After a couple hundred dice the result was like, four wounds. I don't know if that was "statistical", but I do know it was a waste of both of our time.
the only reason i have rerolls in my night lords is because the chaos lord is the only guy with 4 attacks that can also use a power sword (flayer) and have a jumppack.
AegisGrimm wrote: Because everyone is mad about how lately Marines are the Eldar from 2nd edition, where they were the most powerful codex. With things like how a Shuriken Catapult was better than a Storm Bolter, and could be in the hands of every Guardian.
Marines are literally getting ALL the toys.
it's mostly the eldar fans annoyed Marines are more powerful then them. thats not fair! marines are supposed to be the noob army that they can seal club!
The only players clubbing seals through to dang grizzly bears (the most powerful lists certain codex's can bring) are marine players .
Eldar were annoying at competitive lists but you know what they could and did do, tone down the cheese, marines are chedder wrapped in brie dipped in mozzarella fondue the amount of cheese GW rammed in their between codex suppliments and Psychic Awakening.
You can litterly throw darts at the all the pages of that book on a wall and still get a casual/semicomp RTT level viable list.
But at this rate I'm sure some Marine player will apear on his white charger and enamel armour to defend GW and Marine players honer
Billagio wrote: Id be in favor of them just getting rid of re-rolls (aside from CP) as a whole tbh.
Agreed, rerolls are are annoying, even when they aren't effective. I once had an opponent fire a six man squad of aggressors into my Fellblade that was currently rocking a -1 to be hit with full rerolls from a chapter master and lieutenant. After a couple hundred dice the result was like, four wounds. I don't know if that was "statistical", but I do know it was a waste of both of our time.
the only reason i have rerolls in my night lords is because the chaos lord is the only guy with 4 attacks that can also use a power sword (flayer) and have a jumppack.
Give Exalted champion a jetpack too GW !!!!
Exalted Champs and Apostles aren't allowed those because Jump Packs are for COWARDS that won't run at the enemy. So yes, any Chaos Lord with a Jump Pack is a COWARD.
Billagio wrote: Id be in favor of them just getting rid of re-rolls (aside from CP) as a whole tbh.
Agreed, rerolls are are annoying, even when they aren't effective. I once had an opponent fire a six man squad of aggressors into my Fellblade that was currently rocking a -1 to be hit with full rerolls from a chapter master and lieutenant. After a couple hundred dice the result was like, four wounds. I don't know if that was "statistical", but I do know it was a waste of both of our time.
"Nuh uhhh marines without rerolls of their rerolls would totally be like unplayably underpowered and like totally over costed brah, trust me, know eradicators arnt overpowered I run 6 of them in every game and they always die bro. But I still win my games because I'm a G and like all you NPC player just need to Learn to Play Bruh."
Billagio wrote: Id be in favor of them just getting rid of re-rolls (aside from CP) as a whole tbh.
Agreed, rerolls are are annoying, even when they aren't effective. I once had an opponent fire a six man squad of aggressors into my Fellblade that was currently rocking a -1 to be hit with full rerolls from a chapter master and lieutenant. After a couple hundred dice the result was like, four wounds. I don't know if that was "statistical", but I do know it was a waste of both of our time.
100%. Even watching batreps where they cut out most of the bs it still pretty unsatisfying to see a roll and then "oh wait ive got rerolls lol" every. single. roll
for what it's worth I'd be fine with them dropping re-rolls from the game myself. I like the idea of auras in that it makes a commander feel like a commander rather then a high point beat stick, but they could easily replicate THAT by a number of ways.
1: giving every army their own form of orders ala Guard (seriously are we supposed to belive Guard commanders are the only ones shouting orders at their troops?)
2: Requiring a HQ to be present and make a LDR role to use a stratigum
3: having the +1 CP each turn be dependant on the presence of a captain or equivilant. (this is similer to how kill team does it)
AegisGrimm wrote: Because everyone is mad about how lately Marines are the Eldar from 2nd edition, where they were the most powerful codex. With things like how a Shuriken Catapult was better than a Storm Bolter, and could be in the hands of every Guardian.
Marines are literally getting ALL the toys.
it's mostly the eldar fans annoyed Marines are more powerful then them. thats not fair! marines are supposed to be the noob army that they can seal club!
And Tyranid fans, and Ork fans, and Tau fans, and Necron fans. . .
Would you prefer to see all the Marine attacks go up a notch? Assault 6 goes to Assault 7 or 8 to make up for the lost rerolls? Rapid Fire 1 to Rapid Fire 2, and so on?
No, i'd like them to not have as many rerolls. Theyre already good even without them because of their higher rate of fire, strength and AP.
So you want them to get worse. Again, is your problem rerolls or Marines? We get rid of the rerolls, and just give them extra shots to make up for the lost value, and you don’t like that either, so it feels like rerolls is the excuse to nerf Marines.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
Can we stop complaining about Eradicators being too strong. The codex is not even out yet. It is index 40k. Yes - they cost too little at present. It is undeniable. 2 melta shots for 40 points is insane. 1 for 40 points is pretty bad though. This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
So many logic mistakes in this post I don't know where to start.
1. Space Marine win rates are always dragged down by virtue of being the "starter" faction that has the lowest level playerbase. Even when Space Marines are top 1 in the game we see this.
2. Win rates are an awful measure of anything in the first place.
3. An overpowered faction unbalances the entire game. An underpowered faction just unbalances one army.
4. Even with that, SM being weak was one the most whined about things I've ever seen. Seriously, it affected one portion of the playerbase and you guys still managed to outwhine the entire rest of the playerbase when the roles are reversed.
JohnnyHell wrote: Ahhhh tyranids were wonderfully good for a chunk of 8th. I sorta don't even wanna unpack mine right now...
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that flying Hive Tyrants were wonderfully good? From what I gathered a lot of the Tyranid options were just left at home as flyrants were flat out more cost effective than pretty much any other option (same issue as Tau commanders, basically)
Would you prefer to see all the Marine attacks go up a notch? Assault 6 goes to Assault 7 or 8 to make up for the lost rerolls? Rapid Fire 1 to Rapid Fire 2, and so on?
No, i'd like them to not have as many rerolls. Theyre already good even without them because of their higher rate of fire, strength and AP.
So you want them to get worse. Again, is your problem rerolls or Marines? We get rid of the rerolls, and just give them extra shots to make up for the lost value, and you don’t like that either, so it feels like rerolls is the excuse to nerf Marines.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
Can we stop complaining about Eradicators being too strong. The codex is not even out yet. It is index 40k. Yes - they cost too little at present. It is undeniable. 2 melta shots for 40 points is insane. 1 for 40 points is pretty bad though. This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
So many logic mistakes in this post I don't know where to start.
1. Space Marine win rates are always dragged down by virtue of being the "starter" faction that has the lowest level playerbase. Even when Space Marines are top 1 in the game we see this.
yes because we all know people buy a starter set and immediatly enroll in a major tourny.
yes because we all know people buy a starter set and immediatly enroll in a major tourny.
You say it as a joke, but since the Marines dex came out the following tournaments were flooded with relative "unknowns" getting high placements ahead of seasoned pros. Goonhammer mentioned it fairly often (they still talk about it now, as things have only settled down slightly after nerfs to the biggest offenders).
yes because we all know people buy a starter set and immediatly enroll in a major tourny.
Lots of people go to tourneys for the yuks. Tourneys are big community events that many people enjoy. Not everybody that goes is a top tier competetive player.
Yeah, I've been to a fair few tourneys that had players who clearly just brought whatever they had at hand. Odd little mixtures of odds and ends. Nothing wrong with it at all, as long as they're having fun and understand theres a change some of their games may be massively one sided.
Tell you what, make me a list. Make me a list that can Take All Comers. And doesn't use Captains, Lieutenants, Aggressors, Eradicators or Dakka Inceptors. Don't use any unit that gets more than 1 shot per 10 points. If you want, take the Cap/LT, we just not use the reroll rules. I'll be interested to see that. And don't worry I won't accuse you of making something up if you say drone instead of turret or something.
Why should i? What would it prove to you?
If it’s broken as you say, there should be an alternative that works. My brain doesn’t work the way everyone else’s does some things obvious to me aren’t to others, some things obvious to others are a mystery to me. So show me what I’m missing. Show me how a TAC Marine list deals with 250-350 models this game and 4 knights the next game without things like Aggressors, Inceptors, Eradicators, sideboards, or list tailoring.
We're agreeing about rerolls being the source of the problem btw, unless you're being sarcastic.
Um, neither. I’m not being sarcastic, and I don’t think rerolls/high volume of fire are exactly a problem. The same system that can allow Army A to take 45 minutes on movement will necessarily have to allow Army B to take 45 minutes to shoot at Army A. Complaining 30 minutes are spent on this unit, and 15 on these other 6 units, vs 5 minutes each on 9 units is really just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titianic.
The whole aggressor thing just exacerbates the issue with the sheer volume of fire they bring.
Would you prefer to see all the Marine attacks go up a notch? Assault 6 goes to Assault 7 or 8 to make up for the lost rerolls? Rapid Fire 1 to Rapid Fire 2, and so on?
No, i'd like them to not have as many rerolls. Theyre already good even without them because of their higher rate of fire, strength and AP.
So you want them to get worse. Again, is your problem rerolls or Marines? We get rid of the rerolls, and just give them extra shots to make up for the lost value, and you don’t like that either, so it feels like rerolls is the excuse to nerf Marines.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
Can we stop complaining about Eradicators being too strong. The codex is not even out yet. It is index 40k. Yes - they cost too little at present. It is undeniable. 2 melta shots for 40 points is insane. 1 for 40 points is pretty bad though. This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
So many logic mistakes in this post I don't know where to start. 1. Space Marine win rates are always dragged down by virtue of being the "starter" faction that has the lowest level playerbase. Even when Space Marines are top 1 in the game we see this.
yes because we all know people buy a starter set and immediatly enroll in a major tourny.
I love these comments from people who have clearly never attended a tournament in their life. Seriously, actually go to one - just once - before making implications like the one you just did. There's ALWAYS a ton of players who are extremely casual or outright new. Tournaments are a great experience and great atmosphere for people of all skill levels. People go just to SPECTATE, this idea that players on their first army or new to their army aren't attending tourneys is a myth. That goes for most games. It's how I learned MTG, I knew I was gonna get the mop, I still went down every Friday and Saturday, interacted with the community, built up my collection, and learned the deeper aspects of the game and what I needed to do to improve. Even though it took months for me just to break the top half we all kept attending. I met players on a similar level to me, we became friends, practiced amongst each other and discussed what we needed to do to reach that dream of 1st place finish. Having tournament's available weekly is a newer phenomena for 40k, and it seems some players still sitting at home have a completely misguided idea of who is actually attending these things. Go to a major event, take a look at the lower tables, not just the top ones, and have a look at which army is most prevalent. Space Marines have the more entry level players than any other faction at every event, to dispute this is to completely misunderstand the amount of work GW has dedicated to achieving this goal over the years, the last 2 especially. Win rate as a statistic is an unreliable balance measure at the BEST of times (and just thinking about it for more than 10 seconds should tell you why), but even more so for SM.
Tell you what, make me a list. Make me a list that can Take All Comers. And doesn't use Captains, Lieutenants, Aggressors, Eradicators or Dakka Inceptors. Don't use any unit that gets more than 1 shot per 10 points. If you want, take the Cap/LT, we just not use the reroll rules. I'll be interested to see that. And don't worry I won't accuse you of making something up if you say drone instead of turret or something.
Why should i? What would it prove to you?
If it’s broken as you say, there should be an alternative that works. My brain doesn’t work the way everyone else’s does some things obvious to me aren’t to others, some things obvious to others are a mystery to me. So show me what I’m missing. Show me how a TAC Marine list deals with 250-350 models this game and 4 knights the next game without things like Aggressors, Inceptors, Eradicators, sideboards, or list tailoring.
We're agreeing about rerolls being the source of the problem btw, unless you're being sarcastic.
Um, neither. I’m not being sarcastic, and I don’t think rerolls/high volume of fire are exactly a problem. The same system that can allow Army A to take 45 minutes on movement will necessarily have to allow Army B to take 45 minutes to shoot at Army A. Complaining 30 minutes are spent on this unit, and 15 on these other 6 units, vs 5 minutes each on 9 units is really just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titianic.
The whole aggressor thing just exacerbates the issue with the sheer volume of fire they bring.
250 models is 8 PPM.
With Grots at 5 PPM, I don't think any list can manage that and be in any way effective.
But, even an army of 400 Grots (2,000 points) loses to 2,000 points of Intercessors armed with basic Bolt Rifles.
They get 200 shots at 30", at AP-1 and S4.
That's 400/3 hits
2,000/18 or 1,000/9 wounds, all of which punch through army
And 111 dead Grots, not accounting for Morale.
If the Grots move up, the Marines can move up and get Rapid Fire still by being in half range, plus a potential charge.
If all 400 Grots fire at the Intercessors, they get...
400 shots
200 hits plus 66 DDD shots, generating an extra 33 hits
78 wounds
26 failed saves
13 dead Intercessors, out of 100
And considering the Grots have worse movement and much, MUCH worse range... Yeah, all 400 firing in one turn ain't happening.
This means tournaments in Australia are different from what I have seen or heard about. Because there are no new or casual players willing to spend a ton on money on a 1 day trip to a tournament, sometimes in another country, paying the entry fee just to get slaughtered 6 times and then go home. Or are we talking about store events here too?
The same happens with MtG, outside of drafs no one is going to pay for an event, if they know their expiriance is going to be getting beaten all day. It would be like paying for others to win.
Karol wrote: This means tournaments in Australia are different from what I have seen or heard about. Because there are no new or casual players willing to spend a ton on money on a 1 day trip to a tournament, sometimes in another country, paying the entry fee just to get slaughtered 6 times and then go home. Or are we talking about store events here too?
The same happens with MtG, outside of drafs no one is going to pay for an event, if they know their expiriance is going to be getting beaten all day. It would be like paying for others to win.
It's the same thing in US and UK by literally all accounts. I think as per usual, if there's an outlier here its probably on your end, karol. You gotta stop thinking your local area is at all representative of the scenes elsewhere, even inside your country. Plus didn't you say that YOU don't attend tournaments either? More lies?
It's the same thing in US and UK by literally all accounts. I think as per usual, if there's an outlier here its probably on your end, karol. You gotta stop thinking your local area is at all representative of the scenes elsewhere, even inside your country. Plus didn't you say that YOU don't attend tournaments either? More lies?
I took part, in 2 store events over 3 years, but I don't take those. But I said multiple times, or at least I think I did, that at my old store there were people who went to tournaments, and the two brothers which convinced me to start w40k both ended up doing a lot of tournaments, so I played vs their eldar armies a lot. That is why I said from what I heard or seen, not what I played in myself. I don't see where the lies suppose to be here.
Karol wrote: This means tournaments in Australia are different from what I have seen or heard about. Because there are no new or casual players willing to spend a ton on money on a 1 day trip to a tournament, sometimes in another country, paying the entry fee just to get slaughtered 6 times and then go home. Or are we talking about store events here too?
The same happens with MtG, outside of drafs no one is going to pay for an event, if they know their expiriance is going to be getting beaten all day. It would be like paying for others to win.
It's the same thing in US and UK by literally all accounts. I think as per usual, if there's an outlier here its probably on your end, karol. You gotta stop thinking your local area is at all representative of the scenes elsewhere, even inside your country. Plus didn't you say that YOU don't attend tournaments either? More lies?
Keep in mind I did say MAJOR tournments. Karol assuming that involves some travel honestly isn't unfair.
Karol wrote: This means tournaments in Australia are different from what I have seen or heard about. Because there are no new or casual players willing to spend a ton on money on a 1 day trip to a tournament, sometimes in another country, paying the entry fee just to get slaughtered 6 times and then go home. Or are we talking about store events here too?
The same happens with MtG, outside of drafs no one is going to pay for an event, if they know their expiriance is going to be getting beaten all day. It would be like paying for others to win.
It's the same thing in US and UK by literally all accounts. I think as per usual, if there's an outlier here its probably on your end, karol. You gotta stop thinking your local area is at all representative of the scenes elsewhere, even inside your country. Plus didn't you say that YOU don't attend tournaments either? More lies?
Keep in mind I did say MAJOR tournments. Karol assuming that involves some travel honestly isn't unfair.
So we go from "boo tournament- yuck.. tournament competitive players - yuck.." to "Major tournaments suck boooo... yuck..."
Some people drive 1hr+ just to play a game at weekend on a normal weekend.. Why is it unreasonable people would have to travel to a tournament?
Its as Nitro says... believe it or not many people go to tourneys of any and all size simply because its a way to spend an entire day playing with your army.. where normally you get in one game an evening.. you can get 3-4 during a tourney day if you have nothing better to do.. Some people take a fluffy army to see how well they can do with their fluffy army despite knowing the odds on them winning is non-existant to slim. But they still go to see how well they can general. I dont get why theres such a snobbery about this.. If I can get 4 games in with an army I spent months creating that's a good return on my investment lol.
With Grots at 5 PPM, I don't think any list can manage that and be in any way effective.
Not too long ago I was jumped all over for making a similar point. I used their model range with the low end dropped to 250 for a few reasons:
I knew someone would make the same point about 400 model count and it would entertain me to see it, so thank you.
2000 points is 250 boys, and as we just saw 200 points of intercessors will "table" 200 points of boys on average on turn 4 only if the boys never shoot back, never charge, and never fight where they get the advantage. As I said then that's probably a little slow, but its in the ball park.
Not everyone bought CA2020, and has the upgraded points.
But, even an army of 400 Grots (2,000 points) loses to 2,000 points of Intercessors armed with basic Bolt Rifles.
They get 200 shots at 30", at AP-1 and S4.
That's 400/3 hits
2,000/18 or 1,000/9 wounds, all of which punch through army
And 111 dead Grots, not accounting for Morale.
If the Grots move up, the Marines can move up and get Rapid Fire still by being in half range, plus a potential charge.
If all 400 Grots fire at the Intercessors, they get...
400 shots
200 hits plus 66 DDD shots, generating an extra 33 hits
78 wounds
26 failed saves
13 dead Intercessors, out of 100
And considering the Grots have worse movement and much, MUCH worse range... Yeah, all 400 firing in one turn ain't happening.
Oh yeah, that's why they get to make the TAC Marine list, and I get to pick the All Comers it'll be taken against. I was planning on one of the top finisher Ork lists, probably that Ghaz/Skarboyz list, and some sort of elite army probably not Custodes also from the finishers list(s). I was even going to look for a mixed list like mechanized guard or similar for a third successful army build type. Don't know if I'd find it, but I'd look.
My point is that those high Rate of Fire units allow the low model count armies to address high model count armies while still taking enough other more specialized units for alternate builds/purposes.
If someone can TAC in a Marine list without using those specialist units, those specialist units and rerolls are less vital to balance. If you can't, then it sounds like they're part of the Marine list balance and making them cheaper but less effective - or just across the board less effective - will disrupt that balance.
Now, I'd probably agree with someone who says the gulf of "power" between a 5point grot and a 50 point Custodian Guard is probably just way too large. But that's not a problem with Marines, Marines balance, Custode Balance, Ork balance, rerolls, or what have you - rather it's an issue with the size of the difference they're allowing between two models/armies/build types.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.
Ahh the old - I am right - everyone else is therefore wrong is better? A group of people can be right you know.
This is called a strawman - where you incorrectly restate the original argument into a more easily "defeated" premise.
Since you've now done this twice in the same post I feel the need to point out to you that simply identifying that someone has used a logical fallacy does not in itself prove their argument wrong, nor your own argument correct. Identifying a fallacy is the first step on the path to countering someone's argument, not the last.
TBH, at this point I'm really not sure what the arguments in this thread are. All I'm getting is you don't seem to understand that people are using Aggressors to illustrate the re-roll problems because they're the worst offenders, not because they're the only offenders and not because they're a SM unit. Being a SM unit does allow them to get more re-rolls more easily than other armies, so that is a factor but the core complaint is aobut re-rolls in general slowing the game down. If all your examples are of things that never actually appear in a game (loads of Fire Warriors, for example) then they're not much use.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.
Ahh the old - I am right - everyone else is therefore wrong is better? A group of people can be right you know.
This is called a strawman - where you incorrectly restate the original argument into a more easily "defeated" premise.
Since you've now done this twice in the same post I feel the need to point out to you that simply identifying that someone has used a logical fallacy does not in itself prove their argument wrong, nor your own argument correct. Identifying a fallacy is the first step on the path to countering someone's argument, not the last.
. He didn’t have an arguement. He posted a drive by fallacy but made no argument. Why would you pretend otherwise?
A lot of people just argueing for the sake of the argument.
The amount of dice carried by a person has a limit, in my limited experience most people carry 20-30 dice, and having units firing more than 100 dice rerolling every one is exhausting, as they have to throw them wave after wave, counting, rerolling... it just breaks the immersion for me.
So in my opinion, the less rerolls the better, the rule should be a premium ability, not something every 50pt HQ in the game gives to everyone else.
On models with good BS it is - in my personal impression - also not really worth the additional hassle compared to upping the BS by 1.
Chance to hit:
BS 3+: 66.7%
BS 3+, rerolling 1s: 77.8%
BS 3+, rerolling all misses: 88.9%
BS 2+: 83.3%.
So giving +1 to hit instead of rerolling 1s is "just" 5.5% better. Or alternativly just 5.6% worse than rerolling all misses. That is in the margin that can be tackled by price adjustments, while it would reduce the number of dice rolled.
Simulatously: on average "each sucessful hit roll scores two hits" comes out the same as "shoot twice", which would halve the number of dice rolled by Aggressors, Leman Russ, etc.
As would changing rapid fire to say "each successful hit within half range scores two hits", which would reduce the dice rolled by IG significantly.
What I'm saying by that: the statement "all those rerolls and shoot twice abilities bog the game down" does not have to mean nerfing the unit. If the offending fact is the number of dice rolled and the time consumed by that, the abilities could be reworded in a way that grants the same average bonus to firepower without increasing the number of rolled dice.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Worth noting that 200 relloable dice is more dice than would be rolled in a complete game of epic.
Probably also more than would be rolled in an entire game of 3rd edition 40k.
Mannnnnnnyyyy more than in a game of Battlefleet Gothic or DnD.
More than a good game of Flames of War too.
There is no cause to need to roll 400 dice for one unit in any game system ever.
Off the cuff ideas:
10 shots, each hit = 20 hits (helps highlight how stupid that number is) is 1 option
10 shots or w/e but hits = d6 wound rolls which adds some random back in but with less dice
X shots at 5 damage and the wounds carry over on models with fewer than 3 wounds.
Lots of maths ways to juggle the numbers.
Edit: ooh low shot number but the number of hits applies to number of models in the unit, stops them blazing a tank down by tickling it.
Or, here's an idea: since rerolling all hits is roughly the equivalent of having a BS2, just give them BS2. Price them appropriately. Nix the rerolls and find something better for characters to do besides screaming "SHOOT BETTER!" at anything within earshot.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Worth noting that 200 relloable dice is more dice than would be rolled in a complete game of epic.
Probably also more than would be rolled in an entire game of 3rd edition 40k.
Mannnnnnnyyyy more than in a game of Battlefleet Gothic or DnD.
More than a good game of Flames of War too.
There is no cause to need to roll 400 dice for one unit in any game system ever.
Off the cuff ideas:
10 shots, each hit = 20 hits (helps highlight how stupid that number is) is 1 option
10 shots or w/e but hits = d6 wound rolls which adds some random back in but with less dice
X shots at 5 damage and the wounds carry over on models with fewer than 3 wounds.
Lots of maths ways to juggle the numbers.
Edit: ooh low shot number but the number of hits applies to number of models in the unit, stops them blazing a tank down by tickling it.
Or, here's an idea: since rerolling all hits is roughly the equivalent of having a BS2, just give them BS2. Price them appropriately. Nix the rerolls and find something better for characters to do besides screaming "SHOOT BETTER!" at anything within earshot.
Edit: Nijad by Pyroalchi.
All good and well but are you then advocating the bs2 with rerolls units to simply become auto hit?
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Worth noting that 200 relloable dice is more dice than would be rolled in a complete game of epic.
Probably also more than would be rolled in an entire game of 3rd edition 40k.
Mannnnnnnyyyy more than in a game of Battlefleet Gothic or DnD.
More than a good game of Flames of War too.
There is no cause to need to roll 400 dice for one unit in any game system ever.
Off the cuff ideas:
10 shots, each hit = 20 hits (helps highlight how stupid that number is) is 1 option
10 shots or w/e but hits = d6 wound rolls which adds some random back in but with less dice
X shots at 5 damage and the wounds carry over on models with fewer than 3 wounds.
Lots of maths ways to juggle the numbers.
Edit: ooh low shot number but the number of hits applies to number of models in the unit, stops them blazing a tank down by tickling it.
Or, here's an idea: since rerolling all hits is roughly the equivalent of having a BS2, just give them BS2. Price them appropriately. Nix the rerolls and find something better for characters to do besides screaming "SHOOT BETTER!" at anything within earshot.
Edit: Nijad by Pyroalchi.
You've probably seen me be a broken record by saying you could give Vanguard Vets WS2+, Sternguard BS2+, and Terminators WS/BS2+, which would've been its own counter to stacking modifiers whilst helping differentiate the units besides "these Vets shoot and these ones take Jump Packs".
We could also just cost the Captain appropriately.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Worth noting that 200 relloable dice is more dice than would be rolled in a complete game of epic.
Probably also more than would be rolled in an entire game of 3rd edition 40k.
Mannnnnnnyyyy more than in a game of Battlefleet Gothic or DnD.
More than a good game of Flames of War too.
There is no cause to need to roll 400 dice for one unit in any game system ever.
Off the cuff ideas:
10 shots, each hit = 20 hits (helps highlight how stupid that number is) is 1 option
10 shots or w/e but hits = d6 wound rolls which adds some random back in but with less dice
X shots at 5 damage and the wounds carry over on models with fewer than 3 wounds.
Lots of maths ways to juggle the numbers.
Edit: ooh low shot number but the number of hits applies to number of models in the unit, stops them blazing a tank down by tickling it.
Or, here's an idea: since rerolling all hits is roughly the equivalent of having a BS2, just give them BS2. Price them appropriately. Nix the rerolls and find something better for characters to do besides screaming "SHOOT BETTER!" at anything within earshot.
Edit: Nijad by Pyroalchi.
All good and well but are you then advocating the bs2 with rerolls units to simply become auto hit?
Just give them better weapons in the case of custodes.
If youre talking about things like captains, they already won't be affected by the rerolls anyway.
Would you prefer to see all the Marine attacks go up a notch? Assault 6 goes to Assault 7 or 8 to make up for the lost rerolls? Rapid Fire 1 to Rapid Fire 2, and so on?
No, i'd like them to not have as many rerolls. Theyre already good even without them because of their higher rate of fire, strength and AP.
So you want them to get worse. Again, is your problem rerolls or Marines? We get rid of the rerolls, and just give them extra shots to make up for the lost value, and you don’t like that either, so it feels like rerolls is the excuse to nerf Marines.
It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators
Can we stop complaining about Eradicators being too strong. The codex is not even out yet. It is index 40k. Yes - they cost too little at present. It is undeniable. 2 melta shots for 40 points is insane. 1 for 40 points is pretty bad though. This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
So many logic mistakes in this post I don't know where to start.
1. Space Marine win rates are always dragged down by virtue of being the "starter" faction that has the lowest level playerbase. Even when Space Marines are top 1 in the game we see this.
yes because we all know people buy a starter set and immediatly enroll in a major tourny.
I love these comments from people who have clearly never attended a tournament in their life. Seriously, actually go to one - just once - before making implications like the one you just did. There's ALWAYS a ton of players who are extremely casual or outright new. Tournaments are a great experience and great atmosphere for people of all skill levels. People go just to SPECTATE, this idea that players on their first army or new to their army aren't attending tourneys is a myth. That goes for most games. It's how I learned MTG, I knew I was gonna get the mop, I still went down every Friday and Saturday, interacted with the community, built up my collection, and learned the deeper aspects of the game and what I needed to do to improve. Even though it took months for me just to break the top half we all kept attending. I met players on a similar level to me, we became friends, practiced amongst each other and discussed what we needed to do to reach that dream of 1st place finish. Having tournament's available weekly is a newer phenomena for 40k, and it seems some players still sitting at home have a completely misguided idea of who is actually attending these things. Go to a major event, take a look at the lower tables, not just the top ones, and have a look at which army is most prevalent. Space Marines have the more entry level players than any other faction at every event, to dispute this is to completely misunderstand the amount of work GW has dedicated to achieving this goal over the years, the last 2 especially. Win rate as a statistic is an unreliable balance measure at the BEST of times (and just thinking about it for more than 10 seconds should tell you why), but even more so for SM.
I love how we have you around to tell us the competitiveness levels of everyone - including space marine players as a whole. You are the master of pretentious pseudo knowledge. There is some truth to what you say though. Space marines on the whole in 8th edition were played sparingly in comparison to those who have marine armies. Suggesting the majority of people who played in invents considerd them trash lvl. Because they were trash level. Ofc you are a space marine player yourself can agree to that? If you don't agree - can't see how anyone could take you seriously in the competitive environment. They are quite strong now but lots of events don't even factor them in the top 4. Considering they are always represented in high numbers it is clear evidence that they aren't as OP as the internet or dakka suggests.
You are also wrong about winrate. With enough data collected it is literally the best metric to determine army power lvl. Top tournament placements is the other.
Low win rate with high tournament placements suggests an army is random or difficult to play.
High winrate but low torny placements suggest the army has a bad matchup with another strong meta contender.
Low win rate and low tournament placements suggest they army is underpowered.
Obviously high winrate and high tournament placements suggest the army is overpowered.
Which category do marines fall in here in 8th?
Clearly the low/low category.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Or, here's an idea: since rerolling all hits is roughly the equivalent of having a BS2, just give them BS2. Price them appropriately. Nix the rerolls and find something better for characters to do besides screaming "SHOOT BETTER!" at anything within earshot.
Edit: Nijad by Pyroalchi.
All good and well but are you then advocating the bs2 with rerolls units to simply become auto hit?
Good lord yes. Rolling dozens of dice to see if any turn up the 2.78% possibility of failure (note: ten dice at 2+/re-roll 1s only have a 1-in-4 chance of any failing) is a perfect example of excessive rolling for negligible effect. If we're not going to consider whether having 97.2% hit rates is actually healthy for the game to begin with, just round it up to 100% and be done with it.
You are also wrong about winrate. With enough data collected it is literally the best metric to determine army power lvl. Top tournament placements is the other.
Low win rate with high tournament placements suggests an army is random or difficult to play.
High winrate but low torny placements suggest the army has a bad matchup with another strong meta contender.
Low win rate and low tournament placements suggest they army is underpowered.
Obviously high winrate and high tournament placements suggest the army is overpowered.
Which category do marines fall in here in 8th?
Clearly the low/low category.
You're saying that space marines have a low win rate, and low tournament placements?
Space Marines (according to the most recent analysis done, which doesn't take into account the tournaments in September but nothing much has changed in that time) were on a 52% win rate. So they were not low, they were slightly above average.
But that is for ALL space marines. If you break them down by army, then you start getting space marine armies with 71%, 69% and 61% win rates, wayyyyy above average and in fact the highest win rate of any army in the entire game by a large margin.
And as far as low placement goes, I'm not sure there's been many/any tournaments without a space marine army in the top 5. It probably has happened, but it certainly not the norm.
And this is with Space Marines having by far the most representation too (so more likely to be a mix of 'top' and 'casual' players dragging the averages down), with over 5x more armies in play than most of the other factions. (Over 10x more than most of the xenos armies).
So... yeh, I'm not sure if you were making a poor attempt to be sarcastic, or if you're just wrong. Marines are in the high win-rate and high-placements category. Even the worst of the marine subfactions is average-average at worst. The worst marine army outperforms the best of most other factions right now.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Worth noting that 200 relloable dice is more dice than would be rolled in a complete game of epic.
Probably also more than would be rolled in an entire game of 3rd edition 40k.
Mannnnnnnyyyy more than in a game of Battlefleet Gothic or DnD.
More than a good game of Flames of War too.
There is no cause to need to roll 400 dice for one unit in any game system ever.
Off the cuff ideas:
10 shots, each hit = 20 hits (helps highlight how stupid that number is) is 1 option
10 shots or w/e but hits = d6 wound rolls which adds some random back in but with less dice
X shots at 5 damage and the wounds carry over on models with fewer than 3 wounds.
Lots of maths ways to juggle the numbers.
Edit: ooh low shot number but the number of hits applies to number of models in the unit, stops them blazing a tank down by tickling it.
Or, here's an idea: since rerolling all hits is roughly the equivalent of having a BS2, just give them BS2. Price them appropriately. Nix the rerolls and find something better for characters to do besides screaming "SHOOT BETTER!" at anything within earshot.
Edit: Nijad by Pyroalchi.
All good and well but are you then advocating the bs2 with rerolls units to simply become auto hit?
Just give them better weapons in the case of custodes.
If youre talking about things like captains, they already won't be affected by the rerolls anyway.
So to prevent rolling more dice with marines, you propose all elite units to fire more shots with better weapons to compensate... creating more total dice rolls...
Let's not stop to mention that guns with immensly higher rate of fire are now magically more accurate than sniper rifles for some reason.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Or, here's an idea: since rerolling all hits is roughly the equivalent of having a BS2, just give them BS2. Price them appropriately. Nix the rerolls and find something better for characters to do besides screaming "SHOOT BETTER!" at anything within earshot.
Edit: Nijad by Pyroalchi.
All good and well but are you then advocating the bs2 with rerolls units to simply become auto hit?
Good lord yes. Rolling dozens of dice to see if any turn up the 2.78% possibility of failure (note: ten dice at 2+/re-roll 1s only have a 1-in-4 chance of any failing) is a perfect example of excessive rolling for negligible effect. If we're not going to consider whether having 97.2% hit rates is actually healthy for the game to begin with, just round it up to 100% and be done with it.
I actually buy into this but it strips the game of some charm a little, those moments when your 10 2+ reroll shots all still miss somehow etc.
It should be a small factor as there's comparatively few 2+ reroll 1's ranged weapons off top of my head that have any meaningful rate of fire. It would also cause problems for hit modifiers.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Or, here's an idea: since rerolling all hits is roughly the equivalent of having a BS2, just give them BS2. Price them appropriately. Nix the rerolls and find something better for characters to do besides screaming "SHOOT BETTER!" at anything within earshot.
Edit: Nijad by Pyroalchi.
All good and well but are you then advocating the bs2 with rerolls units to simply become auto hit?
Good lord yes. Rolling dozens of dice to see if any turn up the 2.78% possibility of failure (note: ten dice at 2+/re-roll 1s only have a 1-in-4 chance of any failing) is a perfect example of excessive rolling for negligible effect. If we're not going to consider whether having 97.2% hit rates is actually healthy for the game to begin with, just round it up to 100% and be done with it.
Actually, I kinda agree with this and that's why I think Custodes should actually get the Lt. aura of rerolling 1s to wound and Chapter Masters have an actual price. They did the latter at least.
So to prevent rolling more dice with marines, you propose all elite units to fire more shots with better weapons to compensate... creating more total dice rolls...
Let's not stop to mention that guns with immensly higher rate of fire are now magically more accurate than sniper rifles for some reason.
better weapons doesnt mean more shots.....
Higher strength, AP, range, damage and special rules (rending) are all ways to make weapons better.
Lets take Custodes and change the shield-captain aura to : "Add 1 to the strength of weapons for custodes within 6"". Same amount of shots, more efficiency, less dice rolls.
You are also wrong about winrate. With enough data collected it is literally the best metric to determine army power lvl. Top tournament placements is the other.
Low win rate with high tournament placements suggests an army is random or difficult to play.
High winrate but low torny placements suggest the army has a bad matchup with another strong meta contender.
Low win rate and low tournament placements suggest they army is underpowered.
Obviously high winrate and high tournament placements suggest the army is overpowered.
Which category do marines fall in here in 8th?
Clearly the low/low category.
You're saying that space marines have a low win rate, and low tournament placements?
Space Marines (according to the most recent analysis done, which doesn't take into account the tournaments in September but nothing much has changed in that time) were on a 52% win rate. So they were not low, they were slightly above average.
But that is for ALL space marines. If you break them down by army, then you start getting space marine armies with 71%, 69% and 61% win rates, wayyyyy above average and in fact the highest win rate of any army in the entire game by a large margin.
And as far as low placement goes, I'm not sure there's been many/any tournaments without a space marine army in the top 5. It probably has happened, but it certainly not the norm.
And this is with Space Marines having by far the most representation too (so more likely to be a mix of 'top' and 'casual' players dragging the averages down), with over 5x more armies in play than most of the other factions. (Over 10x more than most of the xenos armies).
So... yeh, I'm not sure if you were making a poor attempt to be sarcastic, or if you're just wrong. Marines are in the high win-rate and high-placements category. Even the worst of the marine subfactions is average-average at worst. The worst marine army outperforms the best of most other factions right now.
Sorry you are miss understanding me. Talking about 8.0 marine codex - not 8.5. 8.5 they are top teir - no doubt about it. They aren't the only top teir army though.
They are an A army no matter what faction you play too. Some of them are A+ though - like Iron hands and Salamanders. There are other A armies though. Custdians/DE/CWE/CSM are all A armies too. Orks Tau and Admech are armies that can place highly too and win lots of games. Any one of these armies can win a 25-50 man tornament and it's not a surpise. It is actually a sign of a healthy balance between these armies. Basically the marine complaining should have stopped by now. Complain about individual units at this point...if you must complain.
You are also wrong about winrate. With enough data collected it is literally the best metric to determine army power lvl. Top tournament placements is the other.
Low win rate with high tournament placements suggests an army is random or difficult to play.
High winrate but low torny placements suggest the army has a bad matchup with another strong meta contender.
Low win rate and low tournament placements suggest they army is underpowered.
Obviously high winrate and high tournament placements suggest the army is overpowered.
Which category do marines fall in here in 8th?
Clearly the low/low category.
You're saying that space marines have a low win rate, and low tournament placements?
Space Marines (according to the most recent analysis done, which doesn't take into account the tournaments in September but nothing much has changed in that time) were on a 52% win rate. So they were not low, they were slightly above average.
But that is for ALL space marines. If you break them down by army, then you start getting space marine armies with 71%, 69% and 61% win rates, wayyyyy above average and in fact the highest win rate of any army in the entire game by a large margin.
And as far as low placement goes, I'm not sure there's been many/any tournaments without a space marine army in the top 5. It probably has happened, but it certainly not the norm.
And this is with Space Marines having by far the most representation too (so more likely to be a mix of 'top' and 'casual' players dragging the averages down), with over 5x more armies in play than most of the other factions. (Over 10x more than most of the xenos armies).
So... yeh, I'm not sure if you were making a poor attempt to be sarcastic, or if you're just wrong. Marines are in the high win-rate and high-placements category. Even the worst of the marine subfactions is average-average at worst. The worst marine army outperforms the best of most other factions right now.
Sorry you are miss understanding me. Talking about 8.0 marine codex - not 8.5. 8.5 they are top teir - no doubt about it. They aren't the only top teir army though.
They are an A army no matter what faction you play too. Some of them are A+ though - like Iron hands and Salamanders. There are other A armies though. Custdians/DE/CWE/CSM are all A armies too. Orks Tau and Admech are armies that can place highly too and win lots of games. Any one of these armies can win a 25-50 man tornament and it's not a surpise. It is actually a sign of a healthy balance between these armies. Basically the marine complaining should have stopped by now. Complain about individual units at this point...if you must complain.
I'm sorry what Tau and DE/CWE lists are winning 25-50 man events in 9th?
So to prevent rolling more dice with marines, you propose all elite units to fire more shots with better weapons to compensate... creating more total dice rolls...
Let's not stop to mention that guns with immensly higher rate of fire are now magically more accurate than sniper rifles for some reason.
better weapons doesnt mean more shots.....
Higher strength, AP, range, damage and special rules (rending) are all ways to make weapons better.
Lets take Custodes and change the shield-captain aura to : "Add 1 to the strength of weapons for custodes within 6"". Same amount of shots, more efficiency, less dice rolls.
Maybe just remove rerolls and repoint aggressors? Or remove fire twice? Or reduce their shot count? All are better than messing everyones profiles around against the fluff.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Worth noting that 200 relloable dice is more dice than would be rolled in a complete game of epic.
Probably also more than would be rolled in an entire game of 3rd edition 40k.
Mannnnnnnyyyy more than in a game of Battlefleet Gothic or DnD.
More than a good game of Flames of War too.
There is no cause to need to roll 400 dice for one unit in any game system ever.
Off the cuff ideas:
10 shots, each hit = 20 hits (helps highlight how stupid that number is) is 1 option
10 shots or w/e but hits = d6 wound rolls which adds some random back in but with less dice
X shots at 5 damage and the wounds carry over on models with fewer than 3 wounds.
Lots of maths ways to juggle the numbers.
Edit: ooh low shot number but the number of hits applies to number of models in the unit, stops them blazing a tank down by tickling it.
Or, here's an idea: since rerolling all hits is roughly the equivalent of having a BS2, just give them BS2. Price them appropriately. Nix the rerolls and find something better for characters to do besides screaming "SHOOT BETTER!" at anything within earshot.
Edit: Nijad by Pyroalchi.
All good and well but are you then advocating the bs2 with rerolls units to simply become auto hit?
No. They stay BS/WS2 and are priced accordingly. Nothing that hits on 2s needs rerolls. Otherwise what's the point of even using dice? There should always be the possibility of missing, unless it's something like a flamer.
AegisGrimm wrote: Because everyone is mad about how lately Marines are the Eldar from 2nd edition, where they were the most powerful codex. With things like how a Shuriken Catapult was better than a Storm Bolter, and could be in the hands of every Guardian.
Marines are literally getting ALL the toys.
it's mostly the eldar fans annoyed Marines are more powerful then them. thats not fair! marines are supposed to be the noob army that they can seal club!
any non-eldar players want to take this one ?
Coz I was going to start a nid army.. but .. whel...
No, sorry. If you play Eldar then YOU are at fault for everything that is wrong in the game of 40k. You have the audacity to play an army that was strong once 25 years ago, and since then has mostly survived on gimmick lists and rules loopholes because the bulk of your codex has been garbage. How dare you even exist.
I would say /s but this is literally the general feeling on Dakka. It's better to just say you play 'xenos' and don't get specific, as all the xenos armies are in the same boat of being underpowered and underdeveloped.
I guess 7th didn't happen where Eldar could pick almost any unit in the codex and over power most other lists.
Xenomancers wrote: Sorry you are miss understanding me. Talking about 8.0 marine codex - not 8.5. 8.5 they are top teir - no doubt about it. They aren't the only top teir army though.
They are an A army no matter what faction you play too. Some of them are A+ though - like Iron hands and Salamanders. There are other A armies though. Custdians/DE/CWE/CSM are all A armies too. Orks Tau and Admech are armies that can place highly too and win lots of games. Any one of these armies can win a 25-50 man tornament and it's not a surpise. It is actually a sign of a healthy balance between these armies. Basically the marine complaining should have stopped by now. Complain about individual units at this point...if you must complain.
Ahh ok, then I apologise, I had assumed you were talking about the current meta. I agree the 8.5 dex was a big uplift. Shame nobody else got one.
DE and CWE are not A armies right now though, neither are Tau. Xenos are occasionally doing well with gimmick or skew lists but that's about it. The only exception is Harlequins, though you could argue that their only list option -is- a gimmick skew list by default.
Alwrath wrote: This Ork GT second place winner is my hero, it proves half the whiners on Dakka are just internet trolls who dont actually play the game, and just cry " Space Marines are OP cause they get all the shiny new stuff ", meanwhile, in some 28 year olds dark mother's basement, another guy runs home with all his space marine models crying after losing to an Ork list. Cause you know, Orks are OP in 8th apparently...
I love these comments from people who have clearly never attended a tournament in their life. Seriously, actually go to one - just once - before making implications like the one you just did. There's ALWAYS a ton of players who are extremely casual or outright new. Tournaments are a great experience and great atmosphere for people of all skill levels. People go just to SPECTATE, this idea that players on their first army or new to their army aren't attending tourneys is a myth. That goes for most games. It's how I learned MTG, I knew I was gonna get the mop, I still went down every Friday and Saturday, interacted with the community, built up my collection, and learned the deeper aspects of the game and what I needed to do to improve. Even though it took months for me just to break the top half we all kept attending. I met players on a similar level to me, we became friends, practiced amongst each other and discussed what we needed to do to reach that dream of 1st place finish. Having tournament's available weekly is a newer phenomena for 40k, and it seems some players still sitting at home have a completely misguided idea of who is actually attending these things. Go to a major event, take a look at the lower tables, not just the top ones, and have a look at which army is most prevalent. Space Marines have the more entry level players than any other faction at every event, to dispute this is to completely misunderstand the amount of work GW has dedicated to achieving this goal over the years, the last 2 especially. Win rate as a statistic is an unreliable balance measure at the BEST of times (and just thinking about it for more than 10 seconds should tell you why), but even more so for SM.
You are also wrong about winrate. With enough data collected it is literally the best metric to determine army power lvl. Top tournament placements is the other. Low win rate with high tournament placements suggests an army is random or difficult to play. High winrate but low torny placements suggest the army has a bad matchup with another strong meta contender. Low win rate and low tournament placements suggest they army is underpowered. Obviously high winrate and high tournament placements suggest the army is overpowered.
Which category do marines fall in here in 8th? Clearly the low/low category.
At the start of 8th, for about the first 5-6 months, Space Marines were the best in the game thanks to girlyman being OP as all hell, and thanks to Stormravens.
When SMs were at their lowest point (mid 8th) they were still doing average.
And then at the end of 8th? Or as you call it 8.5, Yeah....SM's were OP borderline unbeatable.
So I would say that they were high/high or at worst high/mid at the absolute worst, no way were they low win rate and low placement. As far as being dragged down by newbies and fluffy lists? yeah, i've seen it at major events and in local events. I've watched a kid (18-20ish) play his first ever event at a GT with a SM smurf list which contained no less than 40 tactical Marines and a host of Predators. Why? because it was his fluffy list and he liked his army. He got steam rolled at the event but still had fun.
I've seen other factions do that as well, but never as often as SM players. You literally have guys playing who bring the closest approximation to a SM company as the event will allow, because they would never play anything besides X company of X Chapter. I personally love their enthusiasm even if they do have no real chance at winning.
Maybe just remove rerolls and repoint aggressors? Or remove fire twice? Or reduce their shot count? All are better than messing everyones profiles around against the fluff.
Because Marines shouldn't be able to handle hordes? Can you make a TAC list without Aggressors, Eradicators, and/or Inceptors? Can it actually TAC? A few posts up you just made half the point I've been making. Does it matter if they roll X dice because of their shots or because of their rerolls? Does it matter if it's one unit doing X shots, or the whole army doing those X shots in addition to their own? A low model count TAC army needs to have some number Y (I don't know what that is, and it depends on other factors) of attacks and dice rolls to be balanced against a high model count army. Taking away the dice SM need isn't (necessarily?) balance. If you want to double (or so) the dice Non-rerolling Non-double tapping Aggressors, Dreads, Terminators, Intercessors and Tactical Marines throw out to maintain that Y number of shots per game I can get behind that. At that point it's not all the anti-infantry eggs in one or two baskets but almost the entire army is able to do the job which is probably a better design.
I guess 7th didn't happen where Eldar could pick almost any unit in the codex and over power most other lists.
You are correct. This did not happen.
Yeah. From what I recall, 7th edition craftworlder cheese was mostly...
*Scatbikes
* Wraith knights
* Warp spiders
* Maybe wraithguard (but they were mostly an anti-knight unit)
* I guess farseers making invisible deathstars, but that was really more of an issue with invisibility.
1 LoW, 2 fast attacks, maybe 1 elite, and a psychic power that was a problem in every army that could utilize the telepathy discipline is a farcry from "any unit in the codex."
Most 7th edition craftworld units were good enough to work in a casual environment; there weren't a lot of stinkers, but every competitive list I remember spammed the above units in some combination. If you were getting wrecked by dire avengers and striking scorpions and vypers, it wasn't because of their amazing stats.
And some decent formations as I recall. Yeah Eldar had some pain in the arse units. But also had a fair few units that felt weak without having repeated buffs slapped on them. If you gave any unit pre 8th re-roll hits and wounds they'd be a killer.
cody.d. wrote: And some decent formations as I recall. Yeah Eldar had some pain in the arse units. But also had a fair few units that felt weak without having repeated buffs slapped on them. If you gave any unit pre 8th re-roll hits and wounds they'd be a killer.
I might be misremembering, but I feel like most eldar lists primarily just used the CAD (the default pseudo-batallion) detachment. The Aspect Host formation was good (take 3 aspect squads; give them all 1 better WS or BS), but that generally didn't make a reasonable unit OP. Dire Avengers hitting on 2s just wasn't that big a deal. Fire dragons were generally already blowing up whatever tank they shot at (I kind of miss that), so the extra BS was usually just icing on the cake. 7th was weird in that there was such a huge disparity between competitive and non-competitive units that even a powerful boost like the aspect host could seem relatively reasonable if you put it on a non-competitive unit. So aspect host warp spiders were really good because warp spiders were already really good. But aspect host striking scorpions and howling banshees could be seen as a friendly pick for casual games.
Maybe just remove rerolls and repoint aggressors? Or remove fire twice? Or reduce their shot count? All are better than messing everyones profiles around against the fluff.
Because Marines shouldn't be able to handle hordes? Can you make a TAC list without Aggressors, Eradicators, and/or Inceptors? Can it actually TAC? A few posts up you just made half the point I've been making. Does it matter if they roll X dice because of their shots or because of their rerolls? Does it matter if it's one unit doing X shots, or the whole army doing those X shots in addition to their own? A low model count TAC army needs to have some number Y (I don't know what that is, and it depends on other factors) of attacks and dice rolls to be balanced against a high model count army. Taking away the dice SM need isn't (necessarily?) balance. If you want to double (or so) the dice Non-rerolling Non-double tapping Aggressors, Dreads, Terminators, Intercessors and Tactical Marines throw out to maintain that Y number of shots per game I can get behind that. At that point it's not all the anti-infantry eggs in one or two baskets but almost the entire army is able to do the job which is probably a better design.
Marines can handle hordes without a unit firing nearly 200 shots. Simply put it's beyond excessive.
Orks historically have high shot output to offset their horrendous ballistic skill. 30 boyz is 60 ranged shots for chaff clearing. Wyverns are a premier horde killer with 4d6 shots, as are traditional missile launcher squads. Mortar units, even maxing heavy support slots do 9d6 shots or 54 against a horde.
Those are horde/chaff clearing units. Auto bolt rifles are assault 3, a unit of 10 throws out 30 shots, thats an anti infantry weapon.
Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.
With that knowledge, you could limit them to units of 3, make them only get the double shots against 1 target ala eradicators and they might begin to be OK, but 3 aggressors at 135 points doing as many shots at 3 wyverns is excessive.
Maybe just remove rerolls and repoint aggressors? Or remove fire twice? Or reduce their shot count? All are better than messing everyones profiles around against the fluff.
Because Marines shouldn't be able to handle hordes? Can you make a TAC list without Aggressors, Eradicators, and/or Inceptors? Can it actually TAC? A few posts up you just made half the point I've been making. Does it matter if they roll X dice because of their shots or because of their rerolls? Does it matter if it's one unit doing X shots, or the whole army doing those X shots in addition to their own? A low model count TAC army needs to have some number Y (I don't know what that is, and it depends on other factors) of attacks and dice rolls to be balanced against a high model count army. Taking away the dice SM need isn't (necessarily?) balance. If you want to double (or so) the dice Non-rerolling Non-double tapping Aggressors, Dreads, Terminators, Intercessors and Tactical Marines throw out to maintain that Y number of shots per game I can get behind that. At that point it's not all the anti-infantry eggs in one or two baskets but almost the entire army is able to do the job which is probably a better design.
Marines can handle hordes without a unit firing nearly 200 shots. Simply put it's beyond excessive.
Orks historically have high shot output to offset their horrendous ballistic skill. 30 boyz is 60 ranged shots for chaff clearing. Wyverns are a premier horde killer with 4d6 shots, as are traditional missile launcher squads. Mortar units, even maxing heavy support slots do 9d6 shots or 54 against a horde.
Those are horde/chaff clearing units. Auto bolt rifles are assault 3, a unit of 10 throws out 30 shots, thats an anti infantry weapon.
Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.
With that knowledge, you could limit them to units of 3, make them only get the double shots against 1 target ala eradicators and they might begin to be OK, but 3 aggressors at 135 points doing as many shots at 3 wyverns is excessive.
Especially as, for the points, and taking into account the widespread access to rerolls and doctrines and other buffs, means those "overkill anti-horde" shots also absolutely murder expensive elite units like Harlequins and ... well pretty much anything really.
120pts of aggressors can wipe out 160-180 points of harlequins in a single shooting phase. This is with zero rerolls, add in rerolls and you get it up to 220-240 points dead.
Or, once the 12" flamers come out, a Salamander unit can walk in from a table edge and kill... around 500 points of harlequins in a single shooting phase. (I use Harlequins for these, but its no better for any other units)
Upping the toughness to a Wraithguard (T6, 3W, 3+/4++) on the normal boltstorm guys, still gets you 2 dead wraiths (so 80 points, still a respectable return on a 120pt unit for one turn of shooting against their worst target). The Salamander unit puts that up to 4 dead Wraiths, so that's... 160 points of return. (Again, this is with no rerolls).
So yeh, even without rerolls these guys murder hordes, elite infantry, and heavy infantry. And as T6 is also the toughness of a lot of Eldar (and other) light vehicles, they can do a fair chunk of damage to them too if need be.
Weight of dice does damage. And they just throw too many dice. They don't really need the double-shoot, especially not for free. At best, it should be a stratagem (like it is for most other people, except Eldar who don't get one for... reasons).
Marines can handle hordes without a unit firing nearly 200 shots. Simply put it's beyond excessive.
How? What's the list?
Orks historically have high shot output to offset their horrendous ballistic skill. 30 boyz is 60 ranged shots for chaff clearing. Wyverns are a premier horde killer with 4d6 shots, as are traditional missile launcher squads. Mortar units, even maxing heavy support slots do 9d6 shots or 54 against a horde.
Those are horde/chaff clearing units. Auto bolt rifles are assault 3, a unit of 10 throws out 30 shots, thats an anti infantry weapon.
with 3/4 the range, and no armor pen. 8.4 damage vs T4 6+ vs 6.7 vs T4 6+
11 vs Gaunts vs 9 vs gaunts.
Grey Knights Strike Squads with Rapid Firing Storm Bolters for ~60% of Terminators will get 15.
Your Infantry squad is going to... 16*.5*.5*.84 3.36 + 3 *.5*.67= 1 +3.36 = 4.36 per 60 points which is .7 and change per 10 points, and 14.5 per 200 points
Two of those Tempestus Squads is going to do 24*.67*.67 = 7.184 14 just off the Volleys with another 3.35x2 if you want to decide the 18" Hot Shots are in range or out. As that's actually about 110% of the points costs.. about 12.6 and 3.01 per 200 points
In your defense, and something I've already pointed out, Guard got screwed by the CP/Detachment changes making the exact same mistake they made in 8th, just going the other direction. Because you can't take multiple troop choices per slot, or take larger troop choices per slot, you have to take more slots which costs you CP. But that's GW being stupid with CP generation/list building not an issue with table balance.
Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.
So the new tank that's going to throw out 40? What difference does it make if it's one model, one unit, or an aggregate across the army?
With that knowledge, you could limit them to units of 3, make them only get the double shots against 1 target ala eradicators and they might begin to be OK, but 3 aggressors at 135 points doing as many shots at 3 wyverns is excessive.
Don't wyverns have +1T, +8W, more than double the range, and indirect fire? How many shots per point is a guard army getting? Militarum Tempestus with 4 Hot Shot volleys will get 20-25 for just over 100 points. 10 Intercessors get 10-20 shots for 200. SM are getting one shot per 10 points or so out of their troop slots, Guard are getting closer to 1 shot per 5. And yes, those shots are less effective. They are not half as effective. A regular Infantry Squad with a Heavy Bolter will get 11-18 shots per 60 or so points. Almost 1 shot per 3 points on your basic troop type.
Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.
With that knowledge, you could limit them to units of 3, make them only get the double shots against 1 target ala eradicators and they might begin to be OK, but 3 aggressors at 135 points doing as many shots at 3 wyverns is excessive.
But isn't the difference the point costs of units? orks or IG can afford to have a separate option for anti tank, anti horde, that does nothing to something else, because their basic troops cost a few points. SM either need a unit like erdictors, which kills tanks and HQ by looking at them, or they need units that are great vs horde , but still have the number of shots to kill heavy infantry or light vehicles. Otherwise if a marine players goes second and loses his specific units, then they may as well stop playing the game at all, because the disadventage is too big if your army is specilised. Isn't just a SM thing either. If someone kills the HQs in a GK army turn 1, or in a custodes army the same thing happens.
Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.
With that knowledge, you could limit them to units of 3, make them only get the double shots against 1 target ala eradicators and they might begin to be OK, but 3 aggressors at 135 points doing as many shots at 3 wyverns is excessive.
But isn't the difference the point costs of units? orks or IG can afford to have a separate option for anti tank, anti horde, that does nothing to something else, because their basic troops cost a few points. SM either need a unit like erdictors, which kills tanks and HQ by looking at them, or they need units that are great vs horde , but still have the number of shots to kill heavy infantry or light vehicles. Otherwise if a marine players goes second and loses his specific units, then they may as well stop playing the game at all, because the disadventage is too big if your army is specilised. Isn't just a SM thing either. If someone kills the HQs in a GK army turn 1, or in a custodes army the same thing happens.
How is this unique to Marines?
In fact Marines are the most resistant to this problem because they are the easiest army to build an effective list. You can quite happily have anti-horde, anti-tank and anti-elite equally and strongly represented in a Marine army without many real issues or having to make any real sacrifices. This is in complete contrast to almost every other army, including ones which are considered powerful, that have to make serious concessions somewhere. A Craftworld army cannot have all 3 of those anti-things represented in their army without all of them being diluted down and becoming completely ineffective. A CWE list can kind of keep up with an 8.5 Marine army by building heavily into anti-MEQ weaponry, but they have to do that at the expense of any sort of anti-horde. It's why throughout 8th, even when Aeldari were at their scariest vs some of the tougher types of army lists, just putting down an Ork or GSC horde could cause them to automatically lose. You either go for anti-vehicle/elite or you go for anti-horde. You absolutely cannot do all 3 and so you always face a tough balancing act in list construction.
Marines, by design and throughout many editions, do not and have never had this problem. Disregarding the current Codex and whatever power level it might be at, this is not something Marines ever struggle with.
Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.
So the new tank that's going to throw out 40? What difference does it make if it's one model, one unit, or an aggregate across the army?
In general, the problem most people are complaining about is the sheer number of dice being rolled. Aggressors are simply the most egregious example of it. I think most people feel the same way about something like the attacks from a horde of Ork Boyz as well, but at least you have to work a bit harder to achieve that and it happens less often in the real world.
There is a fundamental problem if it's concentrated in one unit, though, and that comes down to buffs. If one unit is getting nearly 150 shots before re-rolls any buffs applied to that unit are going to be multiplied much more than if you have the same aggregate number of shots but spread across a whole army. It's not difficult to get most of your army covered by a CM and Lt buff, but any stratagems become extremely difficult to balance when it could apply to a unit pumping out 144 shots or one firing 30.
Incidentally, as a Necron and DE player that 30-shot number is close to the highest number of shots I can ever get from a single unit, while Aggressors can get 24 from a single model, and you think that's absolutely fine? In fact, I just counted up the total number of shots in my Necron army and it barely totals more than a single unit of Aggressors pumps out in 1 turn. And that Aggressor is more accurate and gets more buffs than my shots get.
The change to the wounding chart in 8th also caused a problem by flattening the damage curve, which means volume of fire is now king in 40k. that means the moment you start handing out huge numbers of shots to units not only are they excellent at removing chaff, they become excellent at killing anything. Aggressors don't care if the target is 30 Ork Boyz, a squadron of Land Speeders or a single plane, they kill all of them just as easily because getting over 100 hits with pretty much any weapon in the game (never mind a S4 AP-1 weapon) will bring anything down. Refactoring rules to reduce the total number of shots is one way to help balance this problem.
I think at this point the problem is you seem blind to the possibility that there are other ways to balance units and make them effective without just giving them more shots. I mean, the title of this whole thread is asking what makes Eradicators so good - a unit universally acknowledged as broken by pretty much anyone with any semblance of knowledge or experience of the game (barring the usual SM defenders, of course). It seems as though that wasn't a genuine question asked in good faith.
Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.
So the new tank that's going to throw out 40? What difference does it make if it's one model, one unit, or an aggregate across the army?
In general, the problem most people are complaining about is the sheer number of dice being rolled. Aggressors are simply the most egregious example of it. I think most people feel the same way about something like the attacks from a horde of Ork Boyz as well, but at least you have to work a bit harder to achieve that and it happens less often in the real world.
There is a fundamental problem if it's concentrated in one unit, though, and that comes down to buffs. If one unit is getting nearly 150 shots before re-rolls any buffs applied to that unit are going to be multiplied much more than if you have the same aggregate number of shots but spread across a whole army. It's not difficult to get most of your army covered by a CM and Lt buff, but any stratagems become extremely difficult to balance when it could apply to a unit pumping out 144 shots or one firing 30.
Incidentally, as a Necron and DE player that 30-shot number is close to the highest number of shots I can ever get from a single unit, while Aggressors can get 24 from a single model, and you think that's absolutely fine? In fact, I just counted up the total number of shots in my Necron army and it barely totals more than a single unit of Aggressors pumps out in 1 turn. And that Aggressor is more accurate and gets more buffs than my shots get.
And I would say that's probably an issue that needs to be fixed. And probably a reason why Necrons were doing so poorly.
The change to the wounding chart in 8th also caused a problem by flattening the damage curve, which means volume of fire is now king in 40k.
Volume of Fire was king long before that.
that means the moment you start handing out huge numbers of shots to units not only are they excellent at removing chaff, they become excellent at killing anything. Aggressors don't care if the target is 30 Ork Boyz, a squadron of Land Speeders or a single plane, they kill all of them just as easily because getting over 100 hits with pretty much any weapon in the game (never mind a S4 AP-1 weapon) will bring anything down. Refactoring rules to reduce the total number of shots is one way to help balance this problem.
And create another one.
I think at this point the problem is you seem blind to the possibility that there are other ways to balance units and make them effective without just giving them more shots.
Taking away attacks necessary for low model counts to be able to address high model counts sure isn't going to do it. And I asked if people wanted to give more shots to the rest of the SM Army to make up for these lost shots, but still keep enough shots for a TAC list to actually TAC. But sure, I'm the blind one.
I mean, the title of this whole thread is asking what makes Eradicators so good - a unit universally acknowledged as broken by pretty much anyone with any semblance of knowledge or experience of the game (barring the usual SM defenders, of course). It seems as though that wasn't a genuine question asked in good faith.
Nothing like a little out of context well poisoning. They're slow, short to mid ranged. I still didn't see it - when comparing them to a 2 shot MM speeder -until someone pointed out there's a strat to deep strike them, and I figured out they could cluster with G Man for bonus movement.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, I also pointed out that the difference between a 50 point Custode and a 5 point Grot or an 8 point boy should probably shrink some so the low model count armies get a few more slightly less capable ones, while the high model counts get slightly fewer (but still lots of) slightly more capable ones.
Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.
So the new tank that's going to throw out 40? What difference does it make if it's one model, one unit, or an aggregate across the army?
In general, the problem most people are complaining about is the sheer number of dice being rolled. Aggressors are simply the most egregious example of it. I think most people feel the same way about something like the attacks from a horde of Ork Boyz as well, but at least you have to work a bit harder to achieve that and it happens less often in the real world.
There is a fundamental problem if it's concentrated in one unit, though, and that comes down to buffs. If one unit is getting nearly 150 shots before re-rolls any buffs applied to that unit are going to be multiplied much more than if you have the same aggregate number of shots but spread across a whole army. It's not difficult to get most of your army covered by a CM and Lt buff, but any stratagems become extremely difficult to balance when it could apply to a unit pumping out 144 shots or one firing 30.
Incidentally, as a Necron and DE player that 30-shot number is close to the highest number of shots I can ever get from a single unit, while Aggressors can get 24 from a single model, and you think that's absolutely fine? In fact, I just counted up the total number of shots in my Necron army and it barely totals more than a single unit of Aggressors pumps out in 1 turn. And that Aggressor is more accurate and gets more buffs than my shots get.
And I would say that's probably an issue that needs to be fixed. And probably a reason why Necrons were doing so poorly.
Just so we're clear here, do you mean the problem is with the Necrons and not the unit that can output more firepower than an entire army?
Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.
So the new tank that's going to throw out 40? What difference does it make if it's one model, one unit, or an aggregate across the army?
In general, the problem most people are complaining about is the sheer number of dice being rolled. Aggressors are simply the most egregious example of it. I think most people feel the same way about something like the attacks from a horde of Ork Boyz as well, but at least you have to work a bit harder to achieve that and it happens less often in the real world.
There is a fundamental problem if it's concentrated in one unit, though, and that comes down to buffs. If one unit is getting nearly 150 shots before re-rolls any buffs applied to that unit are going to be multiplied much more than if you have the same aggregate number of shots but spread across a whole army. It's not difficult to get most of your army covered by a CM and Lt buff, but any stratagems become extremely difficult to balance when it could apply to a unit pumping out 144 shots or one firing 30.
Incidentally, as a Necron and DE player that 30-shot number is close to the highest number of shots I can ever get from a single unit, while Aggressors can get 24 from a single model, and you think that's absolutely fine? In fact, I just counted up the total number of shots in my Necron army and it barely totals more than a single unit of Aggressors pumps out in 1 turn. And that Aggressor is more accurate and gets more buffs than my shots get.
And I would say that's probably an issue that needs to be fixed. And probably a reason why Necrons were doing so poorly.
Just so we're clear here, do you mean the problem is with the Necrons and not the unit that can output more firepower than an entire army?
Yes Breton is inferring that "make it shoot more" is the answer to necrons.
Edit: just to clarify as well, being able to score over 90 wounds with all the rerolls against termagants is apparently the only way marines can handle those low ranked npc races. That's a the Aggressors paying for themselves and their support vs basic gaunts, or nearly double that if they were lucky to find 90 devourer gaunts.
The fact this is impossible because they can reliably kill more light infantry than they can actually target just emphasises the issue with that volume of shots.
Make them cheaper, fire less, problem solved. The same doesn't quite work for eradicators admittedly.
Just so we're clear here, do you mean the problem is with the Necrons and not the unit that can output more firepower than an entire army?
I wouldn't say either are the root problem, but I'd say Necrons being underserved is a bigger symptom than Aggressors being overserved. If you take away Aggressors from Marines, Necrons aren't going to do any better, and by all accounts Necrons are bad right now, and in desperate need of this upcoming make-over.
If a Full Knight list is 4 models, and a horde list is 150+ (Just for argument's sake I'm not picking hard and fast numbers, just for a common ground for discussion)
Let's say for example's sake a Custodes list averages 30 modes, a SM list averages 50 models and the Something Else Army numbers about 150...
Well first off the Knights list is screwed. They have four models in a game that frequently has six objectives and objectives are roughly half the winning points.
A TAC Custodes List has to be able to deal with 50 marines, or 150 something elses. Now the difference between 30 Custodes and 50 marines is pretty small. Each Custode only needs 2ish "actions" for lack of a better word to at least address (not necessarily successful but at least have a chance at) each Marine. They need 5 "actions" to address each Something Else.
What is your Necron list at? 60ish? You need 2 and a half "actions" per your model, and you need what 3 actions (2/3 hit, so you need of the two one wounds) per their model for an on average positive result? Thus you need 2.5*3 7.5 actions per model over a 5 turn game to half the time kill and half the time not kill 150 "enemy" models. And that number goes up as you lose models before they get their 7.5 actions per 5 turn game even if you're only losing at the normal T4 3+ Reanimation etc rate.
I wouldn't say either are the root problem, but I'd say Necrons being underserved is a bigger symptom than Aggressors being overserved.
Disagree. Necrons being bad is bad for Necron players. Marines being OP is bad for everybody not playing Marines, which includes the Necron players.
Fixing Marines may not fix all the issues that Necrons have but it will make those problems less of an issue than they were before, which then makes it easier to fix the Necrons.
If you bring the Necrons up to Marine levels of power then congratulations! Now everyone not at that level has to deal with 2 armies who are on a completely other level in terms of capability. In other words you make the game better for Necrons, the same for Marines and worse for literally everyone else as now there's 2 armies which are crazy strong compared to them as opposed to the 1 they had to deal with before.
I wouldn't say either are the root problem, but I'd say Necrons being underserved is a bigger symptom than Aggressors being overserved.
Disagree. Necrons being bad is bad for Necron players. Marines being OP is bad for everybody not playing Marines, which includes the Necron players.
Will Necrons suddently become good if Aggressors get removed? Or are the reasons they're bad even more indicative of a game wide issue than Aggressors being good?
I wouldn't say either are the root problem, but I'd say Necrons being underserved is a bigger symptom than Aggressors being overserved.
Disagree. Necrons being bad is bad for Necron players. Marines being OP is bad for everybody not playing Marines, which includes the Necron players.
Will Necrons suddently become good if Aggressors get removed? Or are the reasons they're bad even more indicative of a game wide issue than Aggressors being good?
They may not get good, but they will be better relative to the current top dog and remain the same vs everyone else (who will also now be better relative to the top dog).
Fixing Marines makes everyone better and the power discrepancy is less whilst they wait for their updates to bring them up to that level which now requires less of a jump in power, meaning that the changes will need to be less drastic and so easier to tune to prevent over or undershooting it.
If everyone gets lifted up to Marine levels, then how will it feel to be the army which gets the update last? You've had to wait months/years and during that time the armies you can get fun, competitive games against has gradually dwindled down as everyone reaches a power level you cannot match. That will surely feel great for the people who have spent hundreds of <insert currency here> on their army, countless hours assembling and painting etc.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If everyone gets lifted up to Marine levels, then how will it feel to be the army which gets the update last? You've had to wait months/years and during that time the armies you can get fun, competitive games against has gradually dwindled down as everyone reaches a power level you cannot match. That will surely feel great for the people who have spent hundreds of <insert currency here> on their army, countless hours assembling and painting etc.
I would welcome every army getting buffed to Marine 2.0 levels. The game would be in a vastly better state of balance afterwards and armies are actually interesting to play and tinker with.
If somebody has to wait 2 years for all codizes to finish the cycle, so be it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If everyone gets lifted up to Marine levels, then how will it feel to be the army which gets the update last? You've had to wait months/years and during that time the armies you can get fun, competitive games against has gradually dwindled down as everyone reaches a power level you cannot match. That will surely feel great for the people who have spent hundreds of <insert currency here> on their army, countless hours assembling and painting etc.
I would welcome every army getting buffed to Marine 2.0 levels. The game would be in a vastly better state of balance afterwards and armies are actually interesting to play and tinker with.
If somebody has to wait 2 years for all codizes to finish the cycle, so be it.
So your pro the game being able to table entire armies in 2-3 turns?
Everyone having an answer to everything, in a 2k list.
Volume of dice being so high you need to use an app to stop rolling dice becoming a 5 minuit affair per unit.
Also you really believe that when Other armies finally get buffed to be able to compete with marines 2.0 that the salt from marine players won't be epic.
Heck i'm looking forward to seeing how salty they are when, Scatter lasers become D2, dissy cannons become 8 shoots each D3.
Burst cannons become 12 shoots each.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If everyone gets lifted up to Marine levels, then how will it feel to be the army which gets the update last? You've had to wait months/years and during that time the armies you can get fun, competitive games against has gradually dwindled down as everyone reaches a power level you cannot match. That will surely feel great for the people who have spent hundreds of <insert currency here> on their army, countless hours assembling and painting etc.
I would welcome every army getting buffed to Marine 2.0 levels. The game would be in a vastly better state of balance afterwards and armies are actually interesting to play and tinker with.
If somebody has to wait 2 years for all codizes to finish the cycle, so be it.
Yeah , Tell that to ork or gsc Players straight to the face
Just singling out the point that marines pay 20is points/shot and guard pay 5: the point is that Units are not killed by shots, but by unsaved wounds and thanks to bolter discipline the marines often enought pay more closely to 10 points per shot, as they can fire at full range.
So if we compare 10 Intersessor (BS3+ 10xRR1, 4/-1/1, 200 points) with 40 Guardsmen (BS4+, 40xRR1, 3/0/1, 200 points) we immediatly see that the Intersessors have a better chance to wound against anything outside of T1, T5, T8+ and a better chance to get this wound through against anything with a 6+ save or better.
Just some examples for "normal Intersessors (I), doubletapping with bolter disciplin (I2) and Guardsmen (G):
against GEQs (T3, 5+): I: 3.7damage, I2: 7.4 damage, G: 8.33
against Boyz: I: 3.33, I2: 6.66, G: 5.55
against Marines: I: 1.66, I2: 3.33, G: 2.22
Note that the difference is much slimmer than the numerical superiority would have you believe.
Now this was calculated in a vacuum, so of course the guardsmen might get double shots from FRFSRF, but they have to be ordered by commanders which can only buff 1-2 squads and are killed pretty easily. The only regimental doctrine that really helps their chance to hit is cadian for reroll 1s.
Simultanously the Marines can get boni for their chapter and various rerolls as well as doctrine. I'm no specialist for marines, but I assume, that these boni have a higher effect than potential boni for the guardsmen.
Also note that while the Guardsmen have indeed more shots for their points, they are also much squishier and worse in CC.
Yeah , Tell that to ork or gsc Players straight to the face
Orks seem to do fine in the current meta with diverse lists placing well in tournaments.
And yes, making it better for everyone in the end at the expense of those who have to wait longer for their update is my way to go. Play a different army, take a break from the game, come back later when it's your turn.
Whats the current alternative that we experience? Your codex update is a hit or miss. You still wait two years and then could be worse off than before.
Yeah , Tell that to ork or gsc Players straight to the face
Orks seem to do fine in the current meta with diverse lists placing well in tournaments.
And yes, making it better for everyone in the end at the expense of those who have to wait longer for their update is my way to go. Play a different army, take a break from the game, come back later when it's your turn.
Whats the current alternative that we experience? Your codex update is a hit or miss. You still wait two years and then could be worse off than before.
Not a tough decision for me which way is better.
No, actually there is a third option, the actually consumer friendly option, GW should release updated rules at once. as they could do but don't.
This makes the situation into an arms race regardless if the endproduct would be balanced. And would allow for actually acurate corrections via CA.
And we know that GW has all the rules ready. So no the waiting is unneded beancounter intervention in order to spread earnings over quartals, due to a lack of faith in the actual product.
Just so we're clear here, do you mean the problem is with the Necrons and not the unit that can output more firepower than an entire army?
I wouldn't say either are the root problem, but I'd say Necrons being underserved is a bigger symptom than Aggressors being overserved. If you take away Aggressors from Marines, Necrons aren't going to do any better, and by all accounts Necrons are bad right now, and in desperate need of this upcoming make-over.
If a Full Knight list is 4 models, and a horde list is 150+ (Just for argument's sake I'm not picking hard and fast numbers, just for a common ground for discussion)
Let's say for example's sake a Custodes list averages 30 modes, a SM list averages 50 models and the Something Else Army numbers about 150...
Well first off the Knights list is screwed. They have four models in a game that frequently has six objectives and objectives are roughly half the winning points.
A TAC Custodes List has to be able to deal with 50 marines, or 150 something elses. Now the difference between 30 Custodes and 50 marines is pretty small. Each Custode only needs 2ish "actions" for lack of a better word to at least address (not necessarily successful but at least have a chance at) each Marine. They need 5 "actions" to address each Something Else.
What is your Necron list at? 60ish? You need 2 and a half "actions" per your model, and you need what 3 actions (2/3 hit, so you need of the two one wounds) per their model for an on average positive result? Thus you need 2.5*3 7.5 actions per model over a 5 turn game to half the time kill and half the time not kill 150 "enemy" models. And that number goes up as you lose models before they get their 7.5 actions per 5 turn game even if you're only losing at the normal T4 3+ Reanimation etc rate.
Why should any army b3 able to just wipe 150 models of the board in 1 or 2 turns?
Just so we're clear here, do you mean the problem is with the Necrons and not the unit that can output more firepower than an entire army?
I wouldn't say either are the root problem, but I'd say Necrons being underserved is a bigger symptom than Aggressors being overserved. If you take away Aggressors from Marines, Necrons aren't going to do any better, and by all accounts Necrons are bad right now, and in desperate need of this upcoming make-over.
Right, so you're saying the root problem isn't that SM have a unit that outputs more firepower than entire armies? I'm not really sure how to respond to that in any sensible manner. You seem to be implying everyone should be at Aggressor levels of lethality. Or, in a broader sense, everyone should be brought up to the level of the most powerful. That's a really bad way to balance a game because it leads to the arms race we saw in 8th edition where lethality spiralled ever upwards to the point you've got people trying to defend the damage output of Aggressors with a straight face.
You also seem obsessed with this idea that Aggressors are the only way for SM to deal with hordes, which is just as absurd. Even were it not, there are plenty of ways to win the game without completely removing entire units in one turn of shooting. Most other armies have to content themselves with using multiple units to remove one enemy unit per turn. The fact SM don't (thanks to units like Aggressors and Eradicators) and think this is somehow normal is the real root of the problem.
Marines can handle hordes without a unit firing nearly 200 shots. Simply put it's beyond excessive.
I admit i'm slightly confused. Why are people doing reroll calculations on 144 shots, which is the maximum? The average is 108 for bolters and 84 for flamers.
I think because it was argued about their ability to remove horde, so units with 11+ models, where the grenade launcher does flat 6 shots. So 12 per aggressor, shooting twice makes 144 per 6 man squad
Marines can handle hordes without a unit firing nearly 200 shots. Simply put it's beyond excessive.
I admit i'm slightly confused. Why are people doing reroll calculations on 144 shots, which is the maximum? The average is 108 for bolters and 84 for flamers.
My apologies, it was repeated hyperbole, 144 is being used as the number because it's in direct claim that marines need 24 shot aggressors to deal with hordes (which maxes the shots) as they don't have capacity otherwise.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If everyone gets lifted up to Marine levels, then how will it feel to be the army which gets the update last? You've had to wait months/years and during that time the armies you can get fun, competitive games against has gradually dwindled down as everyone reaches a power level you cannot match. That will surely feel great for the people who have spent hundreds of <insert currency here> on their army, countless hours assembling and painting etc.
I would welcome every army getting buffed to Marine 2.0 levels. The game would be in a vastly better state of balance afterwards and armies are actually interesting to play and tinker with.
If somebody has to wait 2 years for all codizes to finish the cycle, so be it.
So your pro the game being able to table entire armies in 2-3 turns?
Everyone having an answer to everything, in a 2k list.
Volume of dice being so high you need to use an app to stop rolling dice becoming a 5 minuit affair per unit.
Also you really believe that when Other armies finally get buffed to be able to compete with marines 2.0 that the salt from marine players won't be epic.
Heck i'm looking forward to seeing how salty they are when, Scatter lasers become D2, dissy cannons become 8 shoots each D3.
Burst cannons become 12 shoots each.
I agree. Marine codex is the worst designed codex yet. An army just being able to do EVERYTHING is not good design. They should have versatile list of options to choose from and be able to adapt to the meta, but they shouldn't be able to have as many options all at once as they do.
Ice_can wrote: So your pro the game being able to table entire armies in 2-3 turns?
Everyone having an answer to everything, in a 2k list.
Volume of dice being so high you need to use an app to stop rolling dice becoming a 5 minuit affair per unit.
Also you really believe that when Other armies finally get buffed to be able to compete with marines 2.0 that the salt from marine players won't be epic.
Heck i'm looking forward to seeing how salty they are when, Scatter lasers become D2, dissy cannons become 8 shoots each D3.
Burst cannons become 12 shoots each.
So you are pro having barren codizes where you have to spam the best three units or don't bother showing up at all to a tournament?
Where you ask yourself "why bother" with 2/3 of your units in a casual environment either?
Getting units stripped from your codex instead of added with every iteration?
Ice_can wrote: So your pro the game being able to table entire armies in 2-3 turns?
Everyone having an answer to everything, in a 2k list.
Volume of dice being so high you need to use an app to stop rolling dice becoming a 5 minuit affair per unit.
Also you really believe that when Other armies finally get buffed to be able to compete with marines 2.0 that the salt from marine players won't be epic.
Heck i'm looking forward to seeing how salty they are when, Scatter lasers become D2, dissy cannons become 8 shoots each D3.
Burst cannons become 12 shoots each.
So you are pro having barren codizes where you have to spam the best three units or don't bother showing up at all to a tournament?
Where you ask yourself "why bother" with 2/3 of your units in a casual environment either?
Getting units stripped from your codex instead of added with every iteration?
Arguments for the argument's sake
You still seem under the illusion, that GW writes them on the go. They do not.
They allready have all the rules wirtten out.
Ice_can wrote: So your pro the game being able to table entire armies in 2-3 turns?
Everyone having an answer to everything, in a 2k list.
Volume of dice being so high you need to use an app to stop rolling dice becoming a 5 minuit affair per unit.
Also you really believe that when Other armies finally get buffed to be able to compete with marines 2.0 that the salt from marine players won't be epic.
Heck i'm looking forward to seeing how salty they are when, Scatter lasers become D2, dissy cannons become 8 shoots each D3.
Burst cannons become 12 shoots each.
So you are pro having barren codizes where you have to spam the best three units or don't bother showing up at all to a tournament?
Where you ask yourself "why bother" with 2/3 of your units in a casual environment either?
Getting units stripped from your codex instead of added with every iteration?
Arguments for the argument's sake
I don't think you're reading his argument. His argument was not against every dex having internal balance at all.
Ice_can wrote: So your pro the game being able to table entire armies in 2-3 turns?
Everyone having an answer to everything, in a 2k list.
Volume of dice being so high you need to use an app to stop rolling dice becoming a 5 minuit affair per unit.
Also you really believe that when Other armies finally get buffed to be able to compete with marines 2.0 that the salt from marine players won't be epic.
Heck i'm looking forward to seeing how salty they are when, Scatter lasers become D2, dissy cannons become 8 shoots each D3.
Burst cannons become 12 shoots each.
So you are pro having barren codizes where you have to spam the best three units or don't bother showing up at all to a tournament?
Where you ask yourself "why bother" with 2/3 of your units in a casual environment either?
Getting units stripped from your codex instead of added with every iteration?
Arguments for the argument's sake
1 if you think that's also not how the marine codex plays your sadly mistaken. They spam their best units still to win it's just their soo OP casual lists are the level of plent of other codex's competitive lists.
2 I've played enough editions to know GW isnt good enough at balance to get multiple units internally balanced well enough to all be viable,(they should be doing way better than they often achieve) but atleast having some level of balance is better than just dialing everything up to overkill tabled turn 2 power.
3 Lower killing power means more player choices, more chances to have those choices impact the game.
4 Maybe if GW would get over their Pimaracrap phase other factions could get their olf failcast models replaced instead of LT number 275. But you won't get units without new kits.
Why should any army b3 able to just wipe 150 models of the board in 1 or 2 turns?
Who said wipe off the board? Who said 1 or 2 turns? Hell the example you quoted then ignored or lied about specifically mentioned over the course of a five turn game.
Thus you need 2.5*3 7.5 actions per model over a 5 turn game to half the time kill and half the time not kill 150 "enemy" models.
Seriously if you're just going to lie about what people said, what's the point?
Well considering they have to replace the whole model line for their flag ship product, there is bound to be a lot of marine units. Sure they are GW style spread over year , but in the end probably the majority of classic marine models are going to get a replacment.
And because GW also seem to think that the way to give a new unit for new codex is to give them a hero character for 60$, we are getting a BA hero, SW hero, DA hero etc.
And if GW is going to remake a faction from ground up, then the best thing that can happen to a faction is a necron style update.
I can imagine GW making updates in their AoS style 4-5 heros, 3 units and some 1-2 big things too, with maybe some stuff being a dual kit.
Why should any army b3 able to just wipe 150 models of the board in 1 or 2 turns?
Who said wipe off the board? Who said 1 or 2 turns? Hell the example you quoted then ignored or lied about specifically mentioned over the course of a five turn game.
Thus you need 2.5*3 7.5 actions per model over a 5 turn game to half the time kill and half the time not kill 150 "enemy" models.
Seriously if you're just going to lie about what people said, what's the point?
What on ever is this actions malarkey got to do with anything.
And plenty of TAC marine lits can remove 150 orks or guard easily enough.
Centurion Devastator Squad [14 PL, 285pts] . Centurion: Hurricane bolter, Two Heavy Bolters
. Centurion: Hurricane bolter, Two Heavy Bolters
. Centurion Sergeant: Hurricane bolter, Two Heavy Bolters
Devastator Squad [8 PL, 120pts]: Armorium Cherub
. Space Marine Sergeant
. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon and grav-amp . Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon and grav-amp . Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon and grav-amp . Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon and grav-amp
Devastator Squad [8 PL, 160pts]: Armorium Cherub
. Space Marine Sergeant
. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Multi-melta
. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Multi-melta
. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Multi-melta
. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Multi-melta
++ Total: [93 PL, -5CP, 1,632pts] ++ So still 368 points for you to add whatever's missing as quitefrankly the bad faith arguments are tiresum and I can be bothered doing the maths for you
Nitro Zeus wrote: I don't think you're reading his argument. His argument was not against every dex having internal balance at all.
Ice_can wrote: 1 if you think that's also not how the marine codex plays your sadly mistaken. They spam their best units still to win it's just their soo OP casual lists are the level of plent of other codex's competitive lists.
2 I've played enough editions to know GW isnt good enough at balance to get multiple units internally balanced well enough to all be viable,(they should be doing way better than they often achieve) but atleast having some level of balance is better than just dialing everything up to overkill tabled turn 2 power.
3 Lower killing power means more player choices, more chances to have those choices impact the game.
4 Maybe if GW would get over their Pimaracrap phase other factions could get their olf failcast models replaced instead of LT number 275. But you won't get units without new kits.
I said I would like for all armies to be buffed to Marine 2.0 levels. Simplifying it to mean "every army is able to table the opponent in 2-3 turns" is a dishonest, hyperbolic representation. Maybe ask me what I mean with it before making a strawman argument against my position for the sake of arguing.
What did Marines 2.0 bring to the army on the positive side?
- Lots of new units
- Old units have been made viable
- Tons of relics, warlord traits, stratagems and psychic disciplines
- Supplements for the most popular sub-factions
- Good internal balance for casual play
And that is what I want for every army. No idea how you could have an opposing position to that, but I'm sure somebody will quote me and tell me exactly why lol
I agree. Marine codex is the worst designed codex yet. An army just being able to do EVERYTHING is not good design. They should have versatile list of options to choose from and be able to adapt to the meta, but they shouldn't be able to have as many options all at once as they do.
I disagree. At 2,000 points every army should be able to do at least a little bit of everything.
Even using the relatively current points costs making half a somewhat equivalent first born old school (Cap, LT, 3x 10Tacs, Flamer, ML, 1x10 Assaults, 1x10 DevsHB, LC, PC, ML) company with a 5 man Terminator fluffy loaner from the First Company runs about 1200 points. Without the Terminators its just over the 1,000. Players have been able to take a little of everything (role wise, not named unit wise) at 2,000 for most of the history of the game.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I don't think you're reading his argument. His argument was not against every dex having internal balance at all.
Ice_can wrote: 1 if you think that's also not how the marine codex plays your sadly mistaken. They spam their best units still to win it's just their soo OP casual lists are the level of plent of other codex's competitive lists.
2 I've played enough editions to know GW isnt good enough at balance to get multiple units internally balanced well enough to all be viable,(they should be doing way better than they often achieve) but atleast having some level of balance is better than just dialing everything up to overkill tabled turn 2 power.
3 Lower killing power means more player choices, more chances to have those choices impact the game.
4 Maybe if GW would get over their Pimaracrap phase other factions could get their olf failcast models replaced instead of LT number 275. But you won't get units without new kits.
I said I would like for all armies to be buffed to Marine 2.0 levels. Simplifying it to mean "every army is able to table the opponent in 2-3 turns" is a dishonest, hyperbolic representation. Maybe ask me what I mean with it before making a strawman argument against my position for the sake of arguing.
What did Marines 2.0 bring to the army on the positive side?
- Lots of new units
- Old units have been made viable
- Tons of relics, warlord traits, stratagems and psychic disciplines
- Supplements for the most popular sub-factions
- Good internal balance for casual play
And that is what I want for every army. No idea how you could have an opposing position to that, but I'm sure somebody will quote me and tell me exactly why lol
- Lots of new units That just primarachads and your not going to see such a crazy doubling in size of any other faction.
- Old units have been made viable They haven't realy as they're never in competitive lists which is what is actually 100% viable.
- Tons of relics, warlord traits, stratagems and psychic disciplines You might think that's good plenty of others on this forum think it's a bad thing as they have over laping effects and are way too many to memorise.
- Supplements for the most popular sub-factions Or we could just have better subfaction rules in the codex no xeno codex includes anything like the bloat of marines
- Good internal balance for casual play If by that you mean they are so above the level of every other codex they can take whatever, if everyone else is as OP marines won't have that any more it's a function of them being rediculous compaired to other factions.
Sorry but none of what your asking for is anything to do with the marine codex's power level, or atleast can't be still true if marines are actually balanced against other codex's.
Its an argument I don't like - because it leads into "balance is impossible/no one wants balance" - but really, when you say "everyone wants Marine codex" - its impossible, because what you want is "everyone should be overpowered/pointed too aggressively".
Because while Marines are perhaps the most egregious examples, aggressive pointing is the issue. So when say the Guard and Dark Eldar books came out they were pointed aggressively. You just got so much stuff that even the bad stuff seemed *viable* - because you could take on someone with a weaker codex.
But this is the problem of top tier codexes being valued say 7-10 on an internal balance system, while weaker codexes are balanced 4-8. So yes, if you bring that codex's meta list, composed of all the tier 8 units, it will *probably* have an advantage of the weakest selection of the top tier codex. But if you bring the weaker tier 4-5 options, its a ludicrous walkover.
But this viability is caused by the power point. If every codex was a 4-8, everyone would look at their tier 4 options and say they'd suck. Because they would.
Now admittedly if external balance could sort of be worked in this way, you would then hope internal balance could follow - and at the very least everyone would at least have a capable meta build rather than potentially being left completely out in the cold.
I'm also not convinced GW does have all the rules. They might I guess - and they undoubtedly have rules way in advance of release - but I'm suspect they are sitting on a complete set of codexes for every faction, even if playtesters may be playing certain ideas out.
A 6 man squad of agressors does 5 wounds with reroll all hits to custodian guard (with no -1 to hit even) and with their shoots twice activated with auto bolters.
Not that impressive for nearly a 300 point unit.
A unit of 20 Necron warriors with gauss Reapers (the str 5 ap-2 rapid fire gun) 2+ to hit and reroll 1's does. Does nearly 10 wounds to custodians.
They kill more intercessors too. 17 wounds. to 13.2.
LIKE WOW GUYS. And...I bet most of you would say warriors suck too? Am I right?
Imagine what this unit can do with a new stratagem that say....gives them +1 wound or something or get bonus -1 AP (hinted in their new codex). They could literally kill ANYTHING. But but but...marines OP!
The gak is checkers! It aint Chess!
Cheers to anyone who gets this!
Agressors are quite good but warriors are objective secured and are required slot selections.
The issue is that your Gauss Reapers have 7" rapid fire range. Which sort of sucks.
Now if this increases to 14" (or even 18") with a chapter tactic, I think you could be in business - but the codex isn't out yet, and that seems like something they won't do.
Xenomancers wrote: A 6 man squad of agressors does 5 wounds with reroll all hits to custodian guard (with no -1 to hit even) and with their shoots twice activated with auto bolters.
Not that impressive for nearly a 300 point unit.
A unit of 20 Necron warriors with gauss Reapers (the str 5 ap-2 rapid fire gun) 2+ to hit and reroll 1's does. Does nearly 10 wounds to custodians.
They kill more intercessors too. 17 wounds. to 13.2.
LIKE WOW GUYS. And...I bet most of you would say warriors suck too? Am I right?
Imagine what this unit can do with a new stratagem that say....gives them +1 wound or something or get bonus -1 AP (hinted in their new codex). They could literally kill ANYTHING. But but but...marines OP!
The gak is checkers! It aint Chess!
Cheers to anyone who gets this!
Agressors are quite good but warriors are objective secured and are required slot selections.
The complaint is about the number of dice rolled to get those 5 wounds, not their power. It's ridiculous and a waste of time, as your example proves, just as my real example earlier about when an opponent did the same against my Fellblade. It's tedious and annoying. Rerolls need to go away, for aggressors and everything else.
Tyel wrote: The issue is that your Gauss Reapers have 7" rapid fire range. Which sort of sucks.
Now if this increases to 14" (or even 18") with a chapter tactic, I think you could be in business - but the codex isn't out yet, and that seems like something they won't do.
Oh that part is already confirmed. Sautec get 18" rapid on all their weapons. So That makes the reaper always rapid fire. It could be even better with mephrite with a stratagem.
The complaint is about the number of dice rolled to get those 5 wounds, not their power. It's ridiculous and a waste of time, as your example proves, just as my real example earlier about when an opponent did the same against my Fellblade. It's tedious and annoying. Rerolls need to go away, for aggressors and everything else.
Exactly, people have to stop thinking the complaints are from a powerlevel perspective. Rerolls don't do much for aggressors anyway, either they dont do meaningful damage (your fellblade example) or they overkill whatever they shoot at anyway (gaunts, stealers, boys, etc)
Xenomancers wrote: A 6 man squad of agressors does 5 wounds with reroll all hits to custodian guard (with no -1 to hit even) and with their shoots twice activated with auto bolters.
Not that impressive for nearly a 300 point unit.
A unit of 20 Necron warriors with gauss Reapers (the str 5 ap-2 rapid fire gun) 2+ to hit and reroll 1's does. Does nearly 10 wounds to custodians.
They kill more intercessors too. 17 wounds. to 13.2.
LIKE WOW GUYS. And...I bet most of you would say warriors suck too? Am I right?
Imagine what this unit can do with a new stratagem that say....gives them +1 wound or something or get bonus -1 AP (hinted in their new codex). They could literally kill ANYTHING. But but but...marines OP!
The gak is checkers! It aint Chess!
Cheers to anyone who gets this!
Agressors are quite good but warriors are objective secured and are required slot selections.
You're missing the point. Aggressors aren't op against anything other than chaff, the complaint is the 15 minute dice throwing exercise required to do it and the fact that volume of shots makes them hard to balance against tougher targets they accidentally do well against.
@Gadzilla.
I get that rerolls are annoying. d6 system is limited in what you can do.
For insane near 100 dice rolls. You make an agreement with your opponent. How about we roll 20 dice and multiply times 5? or use dice ap?
I can agree with you. Which is why I typically only take 3 man units of agressors...YOU DONT NEED 6 man unit to wipe chaff. They are chaff obliterators - in an army that specializes in anti infantry anyways. Their roll isn't really required...Not in my games anyways and admittedly not many games in 9th yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A reroll to wound against infantry would have been a better rule than shoots twice. I agree to that. It makes them good vs infantry and bad vs everything else.
Because Marines shouldn't be able to handle hordes? Can you make a TAC list without Aggressors, Eradicators, and/or Inceptors? Can it actually TAC? A few posts up you just made half the point I've been making. Does it matter if they roll X dice because of their shots or because of their rerolls? Does it matter if it's one unit doing X shots, or the whole army doing those X shots in addition to their own? A low model count TAC army needs to have some number Y (I don't know what that is, and it depends on other factors) of attacks and dice rolls to be balanced against a high model count army. Taking away the dice SM need isn't (necessarily?) balance. If you want to double (or so) the dice Non-rerolling Non-double tapping Aggressors, Dreads, Terminators, Intercessors and Tactical Marines throw out to maintain that Y number of shots per game I can get behind that. At that point it's not all the anti-infantry eggs in one or two baskets but almost the entire army is able to do the job which is probably a better design.
I've mentioned this before but I guess I'll do so again, maybe you'll respond this time. 200pts of Intercessors fires 20 shots for 14ish hits and 7ish wounds at 30' range which kill 7 ork boyz a turn. 7 orkz = 56pts, Intercessors, with just shooting, will make back their points on turn 4, and realistically before that when you add in morale. Those same 10 Intercessors are dishing out the same 14 hits vs a T7 3+ save vehicle, but instead of 7 wounds they get a bit less than 5 and at -1 it ends up doing 2.5ish damage a turn (tac doctrine over 3), not great but still a lot better than most infantry can manage. Against a Terminator elite they do 7 wounds for 2.33 dmg (tac doctrine its 3.5), so you have killed at least 1 (unless terminators get 3 wounds) terminators making back 36pts and possibly damaging another terminator. So in other words, those boring intercessors are capable of slaying hordes and elite infantry fairly well. Definitely not wiping out a squad of boyz per turn but that shouldn't even be a thing to begin with for a single unit.
Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.
With that knowledge, you could limit them to units of 3, make them only get the double shots against 1 target ala eradicators and they might begin to be OK, but 3 aggressors at 135 points doing as many shots at 3 wyverns is excessive.
But isn't the difference the point costs of units? orks or IG can afford to have a separate option for anti tank, anti horde, that does nothing to something else, because their basic troops cost a few points. SM either need a unit like erdictors, which kills tanks and HQ by looking at them, or they need units that are great vs horde , but still have the number of shots to kill heavy infantry or light vehicles. Otherwise if a marine players goes second and loses his specific units, then they may as well stop playing the game at all, because the disadventage is too big if your army is specilised. Isn't just a SM thing either. If someone kills the HQs in a GK army turn 1, or in a custodes army the same thing happens.
An Ork infantry unit maxed out is 240pts, 4 aggressors at 180pts can wipe them out in 1 turn. 3 Eradicators cost 120pts and can kill an Ork buggy a turn (110pts) with relative ease. These are units that are making back their value or MORE than their value in a single turn and without rerolls, stratagems or auras. I can't think of an ork unit that costs 360pts let alone 180pts that can kill 30 boyz a turn. As far as vehicles, probably our best infantry anti-vehicle unit would be Tankbustas, 120pts of Tankbustas is 7 Bustas who have full reroll to hit if they shoot vehicles, thats 7 shots for 8.16 actual shots (Dakka). 2.7 hits, reroll the 5.4ish misses for 1.8 extra hits, 4.5ish hits. Against a Buggy that is 3 wounds, against a 5+ save is 2 going through for 6 dmg....50% less dmg than the eradicators manage. In other words, to get the same dmg vs a light vehicle the Orkz have to take 180pts to the SM's 120, and those 180 are useless vs anything besides vehicles, literally losing their reroll misses so significantly worse than eradicators vs elite infantry and who is going to die quicker? a mob of 7 T4 6+ models or 3 T5 3+ 3 wound Eradicators? So Orkz can take more models than SM's but they are significantly less effective and die significantly faster and who are less useful vs other targets.
Orks seem to do fine in the current meta with diverse lists placing well in tournaments.
Orkz have won with 2 builds. Horde and light vehicle spam. Both types have won events by playing to the mission and pretty much ignoring the enemy as far as attempting to kill units unless killing that unit was imperative to the mission. They have in turn played against SM lists that are built to attempt to table your opponent as quickly as possible. In other words, they had wonderful match ups against people who didn't want to win in the mission but were instead trying to table them. give it a few months (Covid slowness) and watch as those lists die out as SM players realize they don't need to table their opponent to win and they don't need to bring as much anti-knight weapons as they are used to. Kind of hard to kill 120 boyz with lascannons.
Xenomancers wrote: A 6 man squad of agressors does 5 wounds with reroll all hits to custodian guard (with no -1 to hit even) and with their shoots twice activated with auto bolters.
Not that impressive for nearly a 300 point unit.
A unit of 20 Necron warriors with gauss Reapers (the str 5 ap-2 rapid fire gun) 2+ to hit and reroll 1's does. Does nearly 10 wounds to custodians.
They kill more intercessors too. 17 wounds. to 13.2.
LIKE WOW GUYS. And...I bet most of you would say warriors suck too? Am I right?
Imagine what this unit can do with a new stratagem that say....gives them +1 wound or something or get bonus -1 AP (hinted in their new codex). They could literally kill ANYTHING. But but but...marines OP!
The gak is checkers! It aint Chess!
Cheers to anyone who gets this!
Agressors are quite good but warriors are objective secured and are required slot selections.
Also side note your maths is once again skewed and misrepresenting the facts
270 not 300 points
Vrs 240 points of warriors or 5 agressors worth of points who still do 4.7 wounds to custodes
Xenomancers wrote: @Gadzilla.
I get that rerolls are annoying. d6 system is limited in what you can do.
For insane near 100 dice rolls. You make an agreement with your opponent. How about we roll 20 dice and multiply times 5? or use dice ap?
I can agree with you. Which is why I typically only take 3 man units of agressors...YOU DONT NEED 6 man unit to wipe chaff. They are chaff obliterators - in an army that specializes in anti infantry anyways. Their roll isn't really required...Not in my games anyways and admittedly not many games in 9th yet.
That is an option, and I appreciate your candor. Just don't let certain other loyalist players hear you say aggressors aren't necessary for loyalists to deal with massed infantry.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A reroll to wound against infantry would have been a better rule than shoots twice. I agree to that. It makes them good vs infantry and bad vs everything else.
That is an interesting idea. Half the actual shots but rerolling wounds against infantry. That would cut down on dice rolls and make aggressors pure chaff killers. That could work.
I've mentioned this before but I guess I'll do so again, maybe you'll respond this time. 200pts of Intercessors fires 20 shots for 14ish hits and 7ish wounds at 30' range which kill 7 ork boyz a turn. 7 orkz = 56pts, Intercessors, with just shooting, will make back their points on turn 4, and realistically before that when you add in morale. Those same 10 Intercessors are dishing out the same 14 hits vs a T7 3+ save vehicle, but instead of 7 wounds they get a bit less than 5 and at -1 it ends up doing 2.5ish damage a turn (tac doctrine over 3), not great but still a lot better than most infantry can manage. Against a Terminator elite they do 7 wounds for 2.33 dmg (tac doctrine its 3.5), so you have killed at least 1 (unless terminators get 3 wounds) terminators making back 36pts and possibly damaging another terminator. So in other words, those boring intercessors are capable of slaying hordes and elite infantry fairly well. Definitely not wiping out a squad of boyz per turn but that shouldn't even be a thing to begin with for a single unit.
First off, Did I ever Intercessors should be able to wipe out a squad of boys per turn?
Second: What is there to reply to? That sounds like the math I put up pointing out Intercessors were a little slow but in the performance ballpark. Well technically you're trying to convert it into "winning it's points back" which isn't accurate or related to the point I'm making. You can shoot all the T1 1W 1 point models you want, if they have a thousand of them, you'll win your points back, and never been able to shoot/attack enough of them to make any headway on the objectives. You're not actually disagreeing with anything I've already said there. You're just skipping the OTHER half of my point. They either need another unit skewed/dedicated towards anti-infantry like Aggressors, or they need extra shooting to make up for the lost shooting from things like transports, Anti-tank, and so on you would see in an actual TAC list. The barebones Impulsor starts out at about 1 shot per 25 points. If you want to throw good money after bad, they get to 1 shot per 13 or so points. Transports have an entirely different set of issues - losing a turn or more of opportunity from the internal unit - making them bad. That doesn't change the fact that this is ANOTHER reason they're bad, and is an easy example of the point I'm making.
How many SM lists do you see with 6x10 troops squads? I was just playing with this the other day. You can make (the important iconic part of) a full Old Marine 2nd Company for just under to just over 2,000 points in a Batallion. You can't make the Ultra Marines 2nd Company from the Damnos book(Named character prices, Command Squad changes, Dreads, and Dev Weapon prices) , but you can get pretty close. Cap/LT vs Sicarius/Tiggy. Skip the Command Squad, skip the Dreads, technically one was a loaner from the First Company anyway - but yeah you can get close. You can't get anywhere close with Primaris - You're at just under 2400 if you use 3x10 Intercessors and 3x10 Assault Intercessors, 20 Chute Reivers as the analogue to Assault Marines and 20 Hellblasters as the analogue to Devs. Neither of those lists are particularly TAC. The Reivers and Assault Marines are/were abysmal. Aside from the Assault Marines, nothing has any speed for things like Line Breaker or some sort of Rapid Redploy objective mechanic etc.
Xenomancers wrote:
I can agree with you. Which is why I typically only take 3 man units of agressors...
When I take them, I take a 5 man'er. My eye would twitch way too hard for way too long with a 3 man squad. 100 Marines divides by 10, and it divides by 5. It does not divide by 3 or by 6.
Xenomancers wrote: A 6 man squad of agressors does 5 wounds with reroll all hits to custodian guard (with no -1 to hit even) and with their shoots twice activated with auto bolters.
Not that impressive for nearly a 300 point unit.
A unit of 20 Necron warriors with gauss Reapers (the str 5 ap-2 rapid fire gun) 2+ to hit and reroll 1's does. Does nearly 10 wounds to custodians.
They kill more intercessors too. 17 wounds. to 13.2.
LIKE WOW GUYS. And...I bet most of you would say warriors suck too? Am I right?
Imagine what this unit can do with a new stratagem that say....gives them +1 wound or something or get bonus -1 AP (hinted in their new codex). They could literally kill ANYTHING. But but but...marines OP!
The gak is checkers! It aint Chess!
Cheers to anyone who gets this!
Agressors are quite good but warriors are objective secured and are required slot selections.
But isn't this comparison quite unbalanced? You are comparing a unit optimized to handle T3-T4 with low saves with a Necron unit whose weaponry is optimized against units with T3-T5 with very good saves.
And then you choose as target a T5, 2+, 3++, so almost the worst you could choose for the Aggressors (only thing worse would be T8, 2+).
On the other hand I would say a 270 (?) points unit optimized to kill chaff with bad saves being able to do 5 wounds to custodian guard is pretty dang awesome. I just collect IG, but I don't see anything (Edit: designed for chaff clearing, so punishers etc.) managing that for that pricetag...
But then again maybe you meant that ironic and I just missed that. In that case sorry.
Xenomancers wrote: A 6 man squad of agressors does 5 wounds with reroll all hits to custodian guard (with no -1 to hit even) and with their shoots twice activated with auto bolters.
Not that impressive for nearly a 300 point unit.
A unit of 20 Necron warriors with gauss Reapers (the str 5 ap-2 rapid fire gun) 2+ to hit and reroll 1's does. Does nearly 10 wounds to custodians.
They kill more intercessors too. 17 wounds. to 13.2.
LIKE WOW GUYS. And...I bet most of you would say warriors suck too? Am I right?
Imagine what this unit can do with a new stratagem that say....gives them +1 wound or something or get bonus -1 AP (hinted in their new codex). They could literally kill ANYTHING. But but but...marines OP!
The gak is checkers! It aint Chess!
Cheers to anyone who gets this!
Agressors are quite good but warriors are objective secured and are required slot selections.
But isn't this comparison quite unbalanced? You are comparing a unit optimized to handle T3-T4 with low saves with a Necron unit whose weaponry is optimized against units with T3-T5 with very good saves.
And then you choose as target a T5, 2+, 3++, so almost the worst you could choose for the Aggressors (only thing worse would be T8, 2+).
On the other hand I would say a 270 (?) points unit optimized to kill chaff with bad saves being able to do 5 wounds to custodian guard is pretty dang awesome. I just collect IG, but I don't see anything (Edit: designed for chaff clearing, so punishers etc.) managing that for that pricetag...
But then again maybe you meant that ironic and I just missed that. In that case sorry.
It's xeno.
On one side he's comparing a basic unit, on another side he's comparing a squad of 5" movement models with 7" of enemy custodians while at full strength and effected by My Will Be Done.
Meanwhile, he didn't even include Manrione Rerolls or Sadalomandor faction bonus. It's not even worth arguing with him
I'm yet to see a logical post from Xenos. Just point out one or two of the limitless logic faults in his post and keep it moving, engaging with him just ends up with him writing a narrative about you being a "marine hater" or something. It's insufferable, but it's the internet, everyone gets an opinion even those who most. definitely. should. not.
It's xeno.
On one side he's comparing a basic unit, on another side he's comparing a squad of 5" movement models with 7" of enemy custodians while at full strength and effected by My Will Be Done.
Meanwhile, he didn't even include Manrione Rerolls or Sadalomandor faction bonus. It's not even worth arguing with him
Wait, so when xeno players are pointed out on their shield drones or inari rules etc it is okey to use the defence that no everyone plays those. But when we are talking about marines, every marine is playing salamanders and IH, or what ever is the best marine at the time.
It's xeno.
On one side he's comparing a basic unit, on another side he's comparing a squad of 5" movement models with 7" of enemy custodians while at full strength and effected by My Will Be Done.
Meanwhile, he didn't even include Manrione Rerolls or Sadalomandor faction bonus. It's not even worth arguing with him
Wait, so when xeno players are pointed out on their shield drones or inari rules etc it is okey to use the defence that no everyone plays those. But when we are talking about marines, every marine is playing salamanders and IH, or what ever is the best marine at the time.
You understand the concept that Orks are not Ynnari or Tau but that any Marine army can become any Chapter by simply saying you are right?
And you don't even need to bring in chapters to break his comparison when simply applying Tactical Doctrine will double the Aggressors wounds and make them as good as the Necrons.
So this time Xenomancer I am talking to you when i say
Its fun watching a marine player try to prove that marines are not broken only to grasp and fail at finding comparable scenario's.
Ordana wrote: You understand the concept that Orks are not Ynnari or Tau but that any Marine army can become any Chapter by simply saying you are right?
And you don't even need to bring in chapters to break his comparison when simply applying Tactical Doctrine will double the Aggressors wounds and make them as good as the Necrons.
But the assumption was put forward that marine units should be changed to be nerfed for the most optimal version of us of the model. And I know how this ends. This ends with razorback point nerfs for armies that do not have access to Gulliman or chapter master re-rolls. Tactical doctrin is an extra rule, and necron seem to have their version of it too. Plus we are comparing aggresor an elite squad vs a troop option of an army. The options to spam those, capture objectives are all a much better option for a unit of warriors. They also suffer less from multi D weapons, and I am sure the meta is going to move to weapons doing d2 or more wounds per hit. Also, unlike the necron warriors, the aggressors tend to not stend back up.
@Karol: As far as I followed this discussion it was argued that Eradicators as well as Aggressors are a bit over the top even without chapters. So it is not argued about them "in their most optimal version" but in their base version.
Both units killing their points in one round of shooting without chapter boni (as repeatedly calculated throughout the thread) is the problem argued about, not some specific chapter interaction.
JNAProductions wrote: Also, Tactical doctrine literally doubles the damage against Custodes.
And tactical doctrine is when those 18 range guns will be used most often. Double firing aggressors in the tactical doctrine will also average 16 wounds against T7 3+ targets, meaning they can efficiently wipe out Predators, rhinos, most Eldar vehicles, and every daemon engine I can think of off the top of my head. That's excessive for a "chafe clearing" unit. They only drop off when T8 is involved.
Ordana wrote: You understand the concept that Orks are not Ynnari or Tau but that any Marine army can become any Chapter by simply saying you are right?
And you don't even need to bring in chapters to break his comparison when simply applying Tactical Doctrine will double the Aggressors wounds and make them as good as the Necrons.
But the assumption was put forward that marine units should be changed to be nerfed for the most optimal version of us of the model. And I know how this ends. This ends with razorback point nerfs for armies that do not have access to Gulliman or chapter master re-rolls. Tactical doctrin is an extra rule, and necron seem to have their version of it too. Plus we are comparing aggresor an elite squad vs a troop option of an army. The options to spam those, capture objectives are all a much better option for a unit of warriors. They also suffer less from multi D weapons, and I am sure the meta is going to move to weapons doing d2 or more wounds per hit. Also, unlike the necron warriors, the aggressors tend to not stend back up.
Blame GW for giving out rules for free. You can't charge more for a Salamander Aggressor so what other option is there then nerfing all chapter tactics into doing nothing so they are equal or nerfing the base unit?
Same gak that killed 7th edition, free rules are garbage for balance.
Ordana wrote: You understand the concept that Orks are not Ynnari or Tau but that any Marine army can become any Chapter by simply saying you are right?
And you don't even need to bring in chapters to break his comparison when simply applying Tactical Doctrine will double the Aggressors wounds and make them as good as the Necrons.
But the assumption was put forward that marine units should be changed to be nerfed for the most optimal version of us of the model. And I know how this ends. This ends with razorback point nerfs for armies that do not have access to Gulliman or chapter master re-rolls. Tactical doctrin is an extra rule, and necron seem to have their version of it too. Plus we are comparing aggresor an elite squad vs a troop option of an army. The options to spam those, capture objectives are all a much better option for a unit of warriors. They also suffer less from multi D weapons, and I am sure the meta is going to move to weapons doing d2 or more wounds per hit. Also, unlike the necron warriors, the aggressors tend to not stend back up.
Blame GW for giving out rules for free. You can't charge more for a Salamander Aggressor so what other option is there then nerfing all chapter tactics into doing nothing so they are equal or nerfing the base unit?
Same gak that killed 7th edition, free rules are garbage for balance.
So maybe you should have to pay points for faction traits, etc?
This isn't how the game works because you have synergy.
You use rule X with unit Y.
Gets nerfed?
Okay, I'll put rule A with unit B.
Gets nerfed - or some other thing gets added to the game?
Okay, I'll put rule K with unit L.
Its not Salamanders. Its not Iron Hands. Its not Imperial Fists or Raven Guard or White Scars or Ultramarines.
Its the core engine of Marines, which bring with it a vast suite of potential buffs, far in excess for what other factions can get.
Now maybe you could fundamentally kill the Chapter Tactic system, and replace it selectively purchasable *buffs* at a points cost. But that's not going to happen (and, as seen before, doesn't necesarilly result in a better balanced game). If you want Marines to be *worse* its the engine that has to go. Not attacks on a specific build, that just evolves into another.
Tyel wrote: This isn't how the game works because you have synergy.
You use rule X with unit Y.
Gets nerfed?
Okay, I'll put rule A with unit B.
Gets nerfed - or some other thing gets added to the game?
Okay, I'll put rule K with unit L.
Its not Salamanders. Its not Iron Hands. Its not Imperial Fists or Raven Guard or White Scars or Ultramarines.
Its the core engine of Marines, which bring with it a vast suite of potential buffs, far in excess for what other factions can get.
Now maybe you could fundamentally kill the Chapter Tactic system, and replace it selectively purchasable *buffs* at a points cost. But that's not going to happen (and, as seen before, doesn't necesarilly result in a better balanced game). If you want Marines to be *worse* its the engine that has to go. Not attacks on a specific build, that just evolves into another.
The problem is also with the sheer number of options SM have. Whether it's in their Chapter Tactics or in the vast number of units they have access to, the likelihood of something being broken simply because there's so much to balance is always going to be high. In general I agree that the problem lies with the core ruleset for SM but I do think the vast array of Chapter Tactics are also a problem, along with the ability to mix custom traits with parent Chapters to create builds with more felxibility than any other Codex has access to.
Tyel wrote: This isn't how the game works because you have synergy.
You use rule X with unit Y.
Gets nerfed?
Okay, I'll put rule A with unit B.
Gets nerfed - or some other thing gets added to the game?
Okay, I'll put rule K with unit L.
Its not Salamanders. Its not Iron Hands. Its not Imperial Fists or Raven Guard or White Scars or Ultramarines.
Its the core engine of Marines, which bring with it a vast suite of potential buffs, far in excess for what other factions can get.
Now maybe you could fundamentally kill the Chapter Tactic system, and replace it selectively purchasable *buffs* at a points cost. But that's not going to happen (and, as seen before, doesn't necesarilly result in a better balanced game). If you want Marines to be *worse* its the engine that has to go. Not attacks on a specific build, that just evolves into another.
Its a combination of things. Yes a whole bunch of Marine units are simply broken, no matter what chapter they are and this can be solved by simply changing the units point cost or changing their rules but how can you balance a Flamer Aggressor when 1 out of however many chapters gets +1 to wound with them? If they are balanced for everyone else the Salamander version is to good. If the Salamander version is balanced everyones else's is bad.
Because of how GW has set up points independently from the unit entry they could make Salamanders pay +10 points for Flamestorm gauntlets, in addition to tweaking the base numbers, if they wanted to.
- Lots of new units That just primarachads and your not going to see such a crazy doubling in size of any other faction.
- Old units have been made viable They haven't realy as they're never in competitive lists which is what is actually 100% viable.
- Tons of relics, warlord traits, stratagems and psychic disciplines You might think that's good plenty of others on this forum think it's a bad thing as they have over laping effects and are way too many to memorise.
- Supplements for the most popular sub-factions Or we could just have better subfaction rules in the codex no xeno codex includes anything like the bloat of marines
- Good internal balance for casual play If by that you mean they are so above the level of every other codex they can take whatever, if everyone else is as OP marines won't have that any more it's a function of them being rediculous compaired to other factions.
Sorry but none of what your asking for is anything to do with the marine codex's power level, or atleast can't be still true if marines are actually balanced against other codex's.
This is a perfect example why discussing anything related to Marines on this board has become so tedious. You are against it because you are against it.
1. What does it matter if new models for Marines were Primaris? How does it counter my point that the faction got new models? Apart from that, they are popular within the target audience.
2. Not showing up in tournament lists means they are not viable? Must have only imagined all those threads on Dakka for the past year where people complained that Marines can bring whatever they want and other factions still have to bring their tournament lists to compete lol. Maybe tournament players go for an army composition where all units are A tier. Doesn't say anything about the rest of the faction who could be A- tier.
3. Yes, lots of options are good. Out of 200* options 25 are good, 50 situational and the rest is "maybe" to "nah". Still beats your average codex with 6 relics where one is "viable". Who forces you to memorise the whole codex and supplements? And since only so many things are showing up in tournaments, shouldn't it be easy?
4. So you agree that fleshed out subfactions are good. You just don't want them to be separate from the main codex. While I personally don't mind either way, I can see the burning threads on Dakka "Why do I have to pay extra for 4 subfactions that I don't play, GW bad".
5. Yeah no. I mean that you can take Infiltrator or Incursor or Intercessor or Assault Intercessor according to your preference, because all of them work. You can take Eradicator or Eliminator or Hellblaster according to your preference, because all of them work. You can take a Captain, a Chaplain or a Librarian according to your preference, because all of them work. And so on. Imagine Eldar would have a viable Avatar and Autarch on top of their Farseer? You make it sound like there must be an imbalance between codizes. Multiple factions on the same level of internal and external balance are possible, GW only has to want it.
How is having new units, buffed old units, supplements and extra options not possible if Marines are balanced against other codizes?
I'm sorry, but if you aren't trolling, then we disagree on a fundamental level. I'm out of the discussion.
I've mentioned this before but I guess I'll do so again, maybe you'll respond this time. 200pts of Intercessors fires 20 shots for 14ish hits and 7ish wounds at 30' range which kill 7 ork boyz a turn. 7 orkz = 56pts, Intercessors, with just shooting, will make back their points on turn 4, and realistically before that when you add in morale. Those same 10 Intercessors are dishing out the same 14 hits vs a T7 3+ save vehicle, but instead of 7 wounds they get a bit less than 5 and at -1 it ends up doing 2.5ish damage a turn (tac doctrine over 3), not great but still a lot better than most infantry can manage. Against a Terminator elite they do 7 wounds for 2.33 dmg (tac doctrine its 3.5), so you have killed at least 1 (unless terminators get 3 wounds) terminators making back 36pts and possibly damaging another terminator. So in other words, those boring intercessors are capable of slaying hordes and elite infantry fairly well. Definitely not wiping out a squad of boyz per turn but that shouldn't even be a thing to begin with for a single unit.
First off, Did I ever Intercessors should be able to wipe out a squad of boys per turn?
I am pointing out that you do NOT need aggressors or eradicators to be as ridiculously OP as they are and that your typical Intercessor is capable of handling the role as TAC. So when you argue that you need or should have the option to include aggressors..you are saying you want to wipe out a boyz mob in 1 turn with 1 unit. Again, the math is above but i'll do it here for ease of access. 4 Aggressors cost 180pts, they pump out 96 shots a turn, against boyz they get 64 hits which does 32 wounds, without tactical doctrine, without rerolls, without chapter benefits that does 26 to 27 dmg which is 208 to 216pts of dmg to a boys squad. Literally earning back MORE than their points in a single shooting phase. If you add in any kind of buffs they wipe out the Mob completely.
Breton wrote: Second: What is there to reply to? That sounds like the math I put up pointing out Intercessors were a little slow but in the performance ballpark. Well technically you're trying to convert it into "winning it's points back" which isn't accurate or related to the point I'm making. You can shoot all the T1 1W 1 point models you want, if they have a thousand of them, you'll win your points back, and never been able to shoot/attack enough of them to make any headway on the objectives. You're not actually disagreeing with anything I've already said there.
Well since you are pushing the logic that SM's need Aggressors and Eradicators in order to be competitive since your basic troops aren't strong enough, I decided to show you that your basic intercessor is already more than a match for my Ork boyz which seem to be able to appear from nowhere, cap any objective and have every kind of buff on at the exact same time, everywhere on the field of battle. As far as Intercessors being slow....they are M6 to my Ork boyz M5. You could argue that boyz have once a turn access to "Da Jump" but that is 1 unit, once a turn and only if the desired destination is 9' away from enemy units. So intercessors are technically faster than my boyz. As far as not being able to shift boyz off an objective. 200pts of Intercessors vs 200pts of boyz works out to 20 RF shots for 14ish hits and 7 wounds, 7 dead orkz. Charge into CC with 31 attacks for 20ish hits and 10 more wounds for 8 or 9 more dead boyz. Orkz are down to 10 to 11 boyz, they swing back with 30 to 33 attacks for 20 to 21ish hits and 10-11 wounds for.... 3.33 to 3.66 wounds or 1-2 dead Intercessors. So boyz hold the objective, barely, but next turn they are wiped out. So what is your complaint with how intercessors are doing? That they can't wipe out the boyz in 1 turn? that they just barely miss killing enough in 1 turn to seize an objective? They earn back their points easily vs boyz AND in 2 turns they seize objectives from a similar points value of boyz. Conversely, if boyz have to shift those intercessors from an objective they tend to fail.... a lot. Most notable about the difference is that those intercessors get to blast boyz turn 1 no matter where they are where as the boyz, even with shootas, have to be almost 50% closer to return fire.
Breton wrote: You're just skipping the OTHER half of my point. They either need another unit skewed/dedicated towards anti-infantry like Aggressors, or they need extra shooting to make up for the lost shooting from things like transports, Anti-tank, and so on you would see in an actual TAC list. The barebones Impulsor starts out at about 1 shot per 25 points. If you want to throw good money after bad, they get to 1 shot per 13 or so points. Transports have an entirely different set of issues - losing a turn or more of opportunity from the internal unit - making them bad. That doesn't change the fact that this is ANOTHER reason they're bad, and is an easy example of the point I'm making.
So your argument is that Intercessors need a hefty buff in shooting OR they need support from OP units like aggressors or eradicators because their transport is weak. Ohh goody. Ok, well lets address this point. Ork boyz transport is a Trukk with 1 shot per 21ish points OR a battlewagon which barebones is 135pts and has NO shots you could sink a lot of points into it and give 4 big shootas for 20pts and a killkannon for 15 more but that's throwing points away because now it costs 170 pts for 12+D6 shots but they only hit on 5s compared to your terrible Impulsor which hits on 3s and who for 10pts can go from 4 S4 stormbolter shots to....4 Stormbolter shots AND 9 Ironhail Stubber (S4 -1) shots. Which hits more often? which does more damage? So do Ork boyz need a massive buff in their shooting potential or should we gain access to some kind of anti-infantry and anti-vehicle units that do 50% more dmg than other factions comparable units?
As far as support roles....you already have a plethora of support choices without including aggressors and Eradicators. Were Devestators, Centurions, Predators, whirlwinds, Vanguard, etc etc etc not enough nor good enough?
So your troop choice is better at shooting, significantly more durable and in CC can actually beat a comparable unit of boyz, but they need more buffs or better units in support because the transport they have access to is better than my Ork Trukkz or Battlewagon? Gonna need better reasoning than this.
Breton wrote: How many SM lists do you see with 6x10 troops squads? I was just playing with this the other day. You can make (the important iconic part of) a full Old Marine 2nd Company for just under to just over 2,000 points in a Batallion. You can't make the Ultra Marines 2nd Company from the Damnos book(Named character prices, Command Squad changes, Dreads, and Dev Weapon prices) , but you can get pretty close. Cap/LT vs Sicarius/Tiggy. Skip the Command Squad, skip the Dreads, technically one was a loaner from the First Company anyway - but yeah you can get close. You can't get anywhere close with Primaris - You're at just under 2400 if you use 3x10 Intercessors and 3x10 Assault Intercessors, 20 Chute Reivers as the analogue to Assault Marines and 20 Hellblasters as the analogue to Devs. Neither of those lists are particularly TAC. The Reivers and Assault Marines are/were abysmal. Aside from the Assault Marines, nothing has any speed for things like Line Breaker or some sort of Rapid Redploy objective mechanic etc.
Likewise I can't recreate Ghazghkuuls Armegeddon Hordes under 2k pts either....how is that relavent? As far as 6x10 Troops choices for SMs? Only in fluffy games and non-competitive games. Probably has something to do with the fact that SMs have access to units that are ridiculously OP in comparison to a basic troops choice like intercessors who are as noted, significantly better than their Ork equivalents. And as we know, in tournament play, competitive players take only the best unit for a task which means that units like Intercessors who are great are left off the field of battle for the most part because why would I want to take 10 great troops when for less points I can take 4 Aggressors which kill way more infantry and can punch vehicles to death with their defacto Power Fists. (SIDE NOTE: I am always flabbergasted at how little use SM players have for their Aggressors in CC since they are almost as good as Meganobz in CC). Summary: arguing a unit is bad or needs support because another unit in your codex is way better is not an argument for buffing said unit but is in fact an argument to nerf the support unit since its significantly better than ANY other unit for similar points value.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyroalchi wrote: @Karol: As far as I followed this discussion it was argued that Eradicators as well as Aggressors are a bit over the top even without chapters. So it is not argued about them "in their most optimal version" but in their base version.
Both units killing their points in one round of shooting without chapter boni (as repeatedly calculated throughout the thread) is the problem argued about, not some specific chapter interaction.
Correct Pyro, I just did the math above, but its a bit ridiculous that a SM player can take 3 units of 4 Aggressors for 540pts and completely eradicate an entire horde of boyz in 1 turn. Without buffs that is about 80 dead boyz, with even a minor buff like a Lieutenant nearby it becomes 3 full mobz of boyz dead in 1 turn of shooting, or equivalent to 720pts or over 1/3rd of my army dead. Even if you gave each mob a painboy and a KFF its still a ridiculous amount of dead boyz. (With KFF and a painboy, a unit of 4 aggressors without buffs kills almost 18 boyz a turn)
Blame GW for giving out rules for free. You can't charge more for a Salamander Aggressor so what other option is there then nerfing all chapter tactics into doing nothing so they are equal or nerfing the base unit?
Same gak that killed 7th edition, free rules are garbage for balance.
I don't know much about 7th, besides stories, but I agree that in 8th GW types of fixs were wierd. When they changed the doctrines instead of changing the IH rules, it backfired on armies like DA. So yes GW does fix their rules in a special way.
I don't play marines, but I understand why marine players wouldn't want to see their army fixed by GW, specialy when their dominance fell for a time, when a ton of people couldn't even use the rule set. PA gave my army "free" rules and finaly my army became fun to play with. And while I understand the plight of orc or gsc players, I also understand the fact that there is very little to non sympathy for eldar or tau, from marine players. Specialy those that weren't the IH of 8th ed.
And rules wise, yes marines have very good rules now. They are also the only normal army writen with 9th ed in mind. So of course they are the best in 9th, at least as casual games go, as in tournaments it seems to be more balanced.
I will give a lot though to see what rule set are eldar going to get, when their codex comes out.
Blame GW for giving out rules for free. You can't charge more for a Salamander Aggressor so what other option is there then nerfing all chapter tactics into doing nothing so they are equal or nerfing the base unit?
Same gak that killed 7th edition, free rules are garbage for balance.
I don't know much about 7th, besides stories, but I agree that in 8th GW types of fixs were wierd. When they changed the doctrines instead of changing the IH rules, it backfired on armies like DA. So yes GW does fix their rules in a special way.
I don't play marines, but I understand why marine players wouldn't want to see their army fixed by GW, specialy when their dominance fell for a time, when a ton of people couldn't even use the rule set. PA gave my army "free" rules and finaly my army became fun to play with. And while I understand the plight of orc or gsc players, I also understand the fact that there is very little to non sympathy for eldar or tau, from marine players. Specialy those that weren't the IH of 8th ed.
And rules wise, yes marines have very good rules now. They are also the only normal army writen with 9th ed in mind. So of course they are the best in 9th, at least as casual games go, as in tournaments it seems to be more balanced.
I will give a lot though to see what rule set are eldar going to get, when their codex comes out.
They were so written with 9th ed in mind they had to release a new codex for them as the joint first faction.
Blame GW for giving out rules for free. You can't charge more for a Salamander Aggressor so what other option is there then nerfing all chapter tactics into doing nothing so they are equal or nerfing the base unit?
Same gak that killed 7th edition, free rules are garbage for balance.
I don't know much about 7th, besides stories, but I agree that in 8th GW types of fixs were wierd. When they changed the doctrines instead of changing the IH rules, it backfired on armies like DA. So yes GW does fix their rules in a special way.
I don't play marines, but I understand why marine players wouldn't want to see their army fixed by GW, specialy when their dominance fell for a time, when a ton of people couldn't even use the rule set. PA gave my army "free" rules and finaly my army became fun to play with. And while I understand the plight of orc or gsc players, I also understand the fact that there is very little to non sympathy for eldar or tau, from marine players. Specialy those that weren't the IH of 8th ed.
And rules wise, yes marines have very good rules now. They are also the only normal army writen with 9th ed in mind. So of course they are the best in 9th, at least as casual games go, as in tournaments it seems to be more balanced.
I will give a lot though to see what rule set are eldar going to get, when their codex comes out.
Yeah, sure Space Marines 2.0 were so good because they were made for 9th, despite getting a new codex right away in 9th.
Not buying it buddy.
I've mentioned this before but I guess I'll do so again, maybe you'll respond this time. 200pts of Intercessors fires 20 shots for 14ish hits and 7ish wounds at 30' range which kill 7 ork boyz a turn. 7 orkz = 56pts, Intercessors, with just shooting, will make back their points on turn 4, and realistically before that when you add in morale. Those same 10 Intercessors are dishing out the same 14 hits vs a T7 3+ save vehicle, but instead of 7 wounds they get a bit less than 5 and at -1 it ends up doing 2.5ish damage a turn (tac doctrine over 3), not great but still a lot better than most infantry can manage. Against a Terminator elite they do 7 wounds for 2.33 dmg (tac doctrine its 3.5), so you have killed at least 1 (unless terminators get 3 wounds) terminators making back 36pts and possibly damaging another terminator. So in other words, those boring intercessors are capable of slaying hordes and elite infantry fairly well. Definitely not wiping out a squad of boyz per turn but that shouldn't even be a thing to begin with for a single unit.
First off, Did I ever Intercessors should be able to wipe out a squad of boys per turn?
I am pointing out that you do NOT need aggressors or eradicators to be as ridiculously OP as they are and that your typical Intercessor is capable of handling the role as TAC. So when you argue that you need or should have the option to include aggressors..
With intercessors. You were specifically talking about Intercessors not Aggressors which was not honest then, and trying to twist it to Aggressors isn't honest now.
those boring intercessors are capable of slaying hordes and elite infantry fairly well. Definitely not wiping out a squad of boyz per turn
If you're not going to be honest, what's the point?
Upcoming Quotes Emphasis Mine.
Correct Pyro, I just did the math above, but its a bit ridiculous that a SM player can take 3 units of 4 Aggressors for 540pts and completely eradicate an entire horde of boyz in 1 turn.
Without buffs that is about 80 dead boyz, with even a minor buff like a Lieutenant nearby it becomes 3 full mobz of boyz dead in 1 turn of shooting, or equivalent to 720pts or over 1/3rd of my army dead. Even if you gave each mob a painboy and a KFF its still a ridiculous amount of dead boyz. (With KFF and a painboy, a unit of 4 aggressors without buffs kills almost 18 boyz a turn)[/quote]
Isn't 18 60% of one mob?
And Wait, are you saying when your large mobs of boys get their buffs , the giant block of damage capable of wiping out "entire hordes of boys in one turn" suddenly wipes out.. just over half of one squad?
Yeah, sure Space Marines 2.0 were so good because they were made for 9th, despite getting a new codex right away in 9th.
Not buying it buddy.
I'm not sure their 2.0 codex was built for 9th but I don't think it was built for just for 8th either. I do know they're not getting a new codex because their old one doesn't work, they're getting a new codex because it's replacing the DA/BA/DW etc books, plus the new Weapon profiles. The pre-existing Codex Supplements aren't changing, most of the changes to the Codex:SM are going to be for DA/BA/etc supplements, profile changes, and maybe fixing some of the Strats that became obsolete based on 9th rule changes.
And Wait, are you saying when your large mobs of boys get their buffs , the giant block of damage capable of wiping out "entire hordes of boys in one turn" suddenly wipes out.. just over half of one squad?
I mean... yes, that means 4 Aggressors (180 points, right? They were 45 per Aggressor or am I mistaken?) without any boni kill 18 boyz that are under two of the best sturdiness buffs they can get. That's 152 points of boyz or 84% of their points costs. And note that all those 30 boyz have to stand within the range of the custom forcefield. I personally would say that is pretty problematic.
This notion of "just over half of one squad" that seems to imply that they are not efficient at removing this horde is a bit misleading when I think about what other Codizes have to pull up to kill 18 boyz under both buffs.
And Wait, are you saying when your large mobs of boys get their buffs , the giant block of damage capable of wiping out "entire hordes of boys in one turn" suddenly wipes out.. just over half of one squad?
I mean... yes, that means 4 Aggressors (180 points, right? They were 45 per Aggressor or am I mistaken?) without any boni kill 18 boyz that are under two of the best sturdiness buffs they can get. That's 152 points of boyz or 84% of their points costs. And note that all those 30 boyz have to stand within the range of the custom forcefield. I personally would say that is pretty problematic.
This notion of "just over half of one squad" that seems to imply that they are not efficient at removing this horde is a bit misleading when I think about what other Codizes have to pull up to kill 18 boyz under both buffs.
That's also only counting the aggressors guns. The grenade launchers will kill another 8 boyz, bringing the total to 25. So 180 points of aggressors kill 200 points of boyz being buffed by 183 points of characters, assuming you take the cheapest possible Big Mek in Mega Armour, which I think is the cheapest way to get a kff (I could be wrong, I don't play Orks). Yeah, that's balanced.
Edit: Whoops! That was the guns + the grenade launchers killing 17 boyz. My bad. So 180 points of aggressors only kill 17 boyz being buffed by 183 points of characters. Still ridiculous.
On a maybe relevant sidenote:
Even though it is unclear if they will drop into legends or disappear completely one unit that could be surprisingly good at removing Gravis armored dudes from the IG Codex are 3 Sentinel Powerlifters (135 points) under the influence of "Crush them" (1 CP).
With a 9'' scout move + 9'' normal move + D6'' advance + 2D6'' charge a turn 1 charge seems possible, leading to:
9 attacks, 7.5 hits, 6.25 wounds, 4.167 unsaved wounds => 2.34 killed T5 3+ models (taking into account that dD3 weapons need on average 16/9 = 1.77 unsaved wounds to kill W3)
That's 105 points of Aggressors or 94 points of Eradicators and beats even a Manticore with full payload. If they are Catachan and one somehow manages to get Straken nearby they even kill 3.12 Also each Aggressor only does 0.53 damage to them on Overwatch and each Eradicator 1.22 and powerlifters don't degrade.
This is not meant as an argument that both units were not problematic and it's also a "trick" that is easily spotted and avoided by any Marine player, but so far this seems to be the most points efficient method for IG that I found to counter Gravis armor in a vacuum.
Xenomancers wrote: A 6 man squad of agressors does 5 wounds with reroll all hits to custodian guard (with no -1 to hit even) and with their shoots twice activated with auto bolters.
Not that impressive for nearly a 300 point unit.
A unit of 20 Necron warriors with gauss Reapers (the str 5 ap-2 rapid fire gun) 2+ to hit and reroll 1's does. Does nearly 10 wounds to custodians.
They kill more intercessors too. 17 wounds. to 13.2.
LIKE WOW GUYS. And...I bet most of you would say warriors suck too? Am I right?
Imagine what this unit can do with a new stratagem that say....gives them +1 wound or something or get bonus -1 AP (hinted in their new codex). They could literally kill ANYTHING. But but but...marines OP!
The gak is checkers! It aint Chess!
Cheers to anyone who gets this!
Agressors are quite good but warriors are objective secured and are required slot selections.
Also side note your maths is once again skewed and misrepresenting the facts
270 not 300 points
Vrs 240 points of warriors or 5 agressors worth of points who still do 4.7 wounds to custodes
A misrepresentation is not what I did. I said "nearly" 300 points. I was also comparing them against an even cheaper unit than out performs them. If anything I was understating my case. I could has compared them against 22 warriors for the cost.
JNAProductions wrote: Also, Tactical doctrine literally doubles the damage against Custodes.
And tactical doctrine is when those 18 range guns will be used most often. Double firing aggressors in the tactical doctrine will also average 16 wounds against T7 3+ targets, meaning they can efficiently wipe out Predators, rhinos, most Eldar vehicles, and every daemon engine I can think of off the top of my head. That's excessive for a "chafe clearing" unit. They only drop off when T8 is involved.
12 wounds - if they are within 23" of a Predator and also in tactical at that very moment and are also Ultramarines or have CP to "stand still".
JNAProductions wrote: Also, Tactical doctrine literally doubles the damage against Custodes.
And tactical doctrine is when those 18 range guns will be used most often. Double firing aggressors in the tactical doctrine will also average 16 wounds against T7 3+ targets, meaning they can efficiently wipe out Predators, rhinos, most Eldar vehicles, and every daemon engine I can think of off the top of my head. That's excessive for a "chafe clearing" unit. They only drop off when T8 is involved.
12 wounds - if they are within 23" of a Predator and also in tactical at that very moment and are also Ultramarines or have CP to "stand still".
Its 16 with reroll all hits. Really - this is just bad execution of the new toughness system. With str 4 being the primary anti infantry str. The standard vehicle should be T8 and T9 should be the heavy T level for tanks. T10 should also be a thing. Agressors are too good against things they shouldn't be good against...
For a unit like agressors or erradicators - instead of double shooting - they should reroll wounds against their preferred target. Effectively it would make them just about as effective vs their prefered targets but significantly weaker vs non preferred. Erads should be vehical or monster. Aggressors infantry or biker.
Xenomancers wrote: A 6 man squad of agressors does 5 wounds with reroll all hits to custodian guard (with no -1 to hit even) and with their shoots twice activated with auto bolters.
Not that impressive for nearly a 300 point unit.
A unit of 20 Necron warriors with gauss Reapers (the str 5 ap-2 rapid fire gun) 2+ to hit and reroll 1's does. Does nearly 10 wounds to custodians.
They kill more intercessors too. 17 wounds. to 13.2.
LIKE WOW GUYS. And...I bet most of you would say warriors suck too? Am I right?
Imagine what this unit can do with a new stratagem that say....gives them +1 wound or something or get bonus -1 AP (hinted in their new codex). They could literally kill ANYTHING. But but but...marines OP!
The gak is checkers! It aint Chess!
Cheers to anyone who gets this!
Agressors are quite good but warriors are objective secured and are required slot selections.
But isn't this comparison quite unbalanced? You are comparing a unit optimized to handle T3-T4 with low saves with a Necron unit whose weaponry is optimized against units with T3-T5 with very good saves.
And then you choose as target a T5, 2+, 3++, so almost the worst you could choose for the Aggressors (only thing worse would be T8, 2+).
On the other hand I would say a 270 (?) points unit optimized to kill chaff with bad saves being able to do 5 wounds to custodian guard is pretty dang awesome. I just collect IG, but I don't see anything (Edit: designed for chaff clearing, so punishers etc.) managing that for that pricetag...
But then again maybe you meant that ironic and I just missed that. In that case sorry.
It's xeno.
On one side he's comparing a basic unit, on another side he's comparing a squad of 5" movement models with 7" of enemy custodians while at full strength and effected by My Will Be Done.
Meanwhile, he didn't even include Manrione Rerolls or Sadalomandor faction bonus. It's not even worth arguing with him
This is a common build. It will be automatic and almost impossible to stop.
Veil of darkness after you MWBD and shoot with a triarch stalker. This is a standard opening for crons with sautech.
Salamanders get dick for bonus with aggressors unless they have flamers (which ends up doing less damage than bolters because its half the shots unless you dump stratagems into it and even then its about the same). I am giving the aggressors reroll all hits and double shots (which I listed). You could add in reroll 1's to wound to if you want. It's just negligible for the amount of extra math involved. Assume these agressors are ultramarines or salamanders because they are the only ones that can actually manage to shoot with aggressors before they get wiped out.
It's not arguing. I'm stating facts. You can't argue with facts.
Aggressors are really good against units no one takes (AKA trash units). And unfortunately too good against t6/7 vehcials with 3+ save because they still wound them on 5's.
JNAProductions wrote: Also, Tactical doctrine literally doubles the damage against Custodes.
And tactical doctrine is when those 18 range guns will be used most often. Double firing aggressors in the tactical doctrine will also average 16 wounds against T7 3+ targets, meaning they can efficiently wipe out Predators, rhinos, most Eldar vehicles, and every daemon engine I can think of off the top of my head. That's excessive for a "chafe clearing" unit. They only drop off when T8 is involved.
12 wounds - if they are within 23" of a Predator and also in tactical at that very moment and are also Ultramarines or have CP to "stand still".
Sorry, I did the math with rerolling all hits. You're right, it's twelve without that. But that's still a dead predator, rhino, contemptor (at least the non-relic varieties), etc. That's a bit too efficient at killing vehicles for an anti-infantry unit. And they're a bit too efficient against infantry as well. And they involve rolling WAY too many dice.
JNAProductions wrote: Also, Tactical doctrine literally doubles the damage against Custodes.
And tactical doctrine is when those 18 range guns will be used most often. Double firing aggressors in the tactical doctrine will also average 16 wounds against T7 3+ targets, meaning they can efficiently wipe out Predators, rhinos, most Eldar vehicles, and every daemon engine I can think of off the top of my head. That's excessive for a "chafe clearing" unit. They only drop off when T8 is involved.
12 wounds - if they are within 23" of a Predator and also in tactical at that very moment and are also Ultramarines or have CP to "stand still".
Sorry, I did the math with rerolling all hits. You're right, it's twelve without that. But that's still a dead predator, rhino, contemptor (at least the non-relic varieties), etc. That's a bit too efficient at killing vehicles for an anti-infantry unit. And they're a bit too efficient against infantry as well. And they involve rolling WAY too many dice.
The issue is their many dice. str 4 ap -1 (cause tactical doc) isn't great against tanks, but if you have enough shots for cheap enough it works regardless.
I'm not gonna lie, I am scared that Aggressors will get some form of Las-talon "Heavy" weapon variant, that is designed to be anti-tank Devestatorish...With some form of Rocket pods. I have zero information that this will happen, but it's the only thing we haven't seen from GW at this point, "HEAVY aggressors".
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm not gonna lie, I am scared that Aggressors will get some form of Las-talon "Heavy" weapon variant, that is designed to be anti-tank Devestatorish...With some form of Rocket pods. I have zero information that this will happen, but it's the only thing we haven't seen from GW at this point, "HEAVY aggressors".
JNAProductions wrote: Also, Tactical doctrine literally doubles the damage against Custodes.
And tactical doctrine is when those 18 range guns will be used most often. Double firing aggressors in the tactical doctrine will also average 16 wounds against T7 3+ targets, meaning they can efficiently wipe out Predators, rhinos, most Eldar vehicles, and every daemon engine I can think of off the top of my head. That's excessive for a "chafe clearing" unit. They only drop off when T8 is involved.
12 wounds - if they are within 23" of a Predator and also in tactical at that very moment and are also Ultramarines or have CP to "stand still".
Sorry, I did the math with rerolling all hits. You're right, it's twelve without that. But that's still a dead predator, rhino, contemptor (at least the non-relic varieties), etc. That's a bit too efficient at killing vehicles for an anti-infantry unit. And they're a bit too efficient against infantry as well. And they involve rolling WAY too many dice.
The issue is their many dice. str 4 ap -1 (cause tactical doc) isn't great against tanks, but if you have enough shots for cheap enough it works regardless.
Right, which is why the new wounding table sucks. But that isn't changing, so they need to lose double shooting. Give them preferred enemy: infantry instead.
Daedalus81 wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm not gonna lie, I am scared that Aggressors will get some form of Las-talon "Heavy" weapon variant, that is designed to be anti-tank Devestatorish...With some form of Rocket pods. I have zero information that this will happen, but it's the only thing we haven't seen from GW at this point, "HEAVY aggressors".
That's what Eradicators are for.
I thought they were for invalidating any vehicle without an invul or T9 (which have all been invalidated by CA).
With intercessors. You were specifically talking about Intercessors not Aggressors which was not honest then, and trying to twist it to Aggressors isn't honest now.
We have been talking about Aggressors/Eradicators and Intercessors this entire time, I've done the math for you showing you that Intercessors are by themselves (no buffs, or chapter or doctrine) already better than an Equivalent points value worth of Boyz. The argument being that since they are already BETTER than Boyz, why would you need a ridiculous unit of Aggressors to even exist? You can deflect all you want but the point remains that you have yet to make a valid argument for Aggressors or Eradicators to be so ridiculously OP. You've ranged from saying Intercessors aren't tac enough (proven false) to saying your transport options are limited and bad (proven false) to saying well that doesn't matter because you aren't being honest. seriously?
Correct Pyro, I just did the math above, but its a bit ridiculous that a SM player can take 3 units of 4 Aggressors for 540pts and completely eradicate an entire horde of boyz in 1 turn.
Without buffs that is about 80 dead boyz, with even a minor buff like a Lieutenant nearby it becomes 3 full mobz of boyz dead in 1 turn of shooting, or equivalent to 720pts or over 1/3rd of my army dead. Even if you gave each mob a painboy and a KFF its still a ridiculous amount of dead boyz. (With KFF and a painboy, a unit of 4 aggressors without buffs kills almost 18 boyz a turn)[/quote]
Isn't 18 60% of one mob?
Yes, a 4 man unit of Aggressors which cost 180pts is capable of gutting a unit of boyz, 3 of them combine to kill about 80 boyz a turn. that is 2 full mobz and 66% of another.
Is 18 60% of 30? Yep. I like how you just happily ignore the caveat you yourself highlighted WITH KFF AND PAINBOY. LOL. Yeah, if you add in 140pts of buffing characters they go from losing 26-27 Models a turn to 18ish So they lose 144pts with the help of 140pts of characters, so 380pts tied up to hold an objective for 1 turn because turn 2 they are dead. So long as they are completely within 9' of the Big Mek and 3' of the Painboy. For about the same price we can give those aggressors a Captain and a LT, and i have yet to come across a captain who wasn't buffed to be a chapter master. So now its 96 shots, 85 hits, and basically 50 wounds for 27 to 28 Dead boyz...or right back to where we were pre-buffs for everyone.
Breton wrote: And Wait, are you saying when your large mobs of boys get their buffs , the giant block of damage capable of wiping out "entire hordes of boys in one turn" suddenly wipes out.. just over half of one squad?
Yeah, if I bring 3 Big mekz with KFF and 3 Painboyz (420pts)I can make those 720pts of boyz survive for....2 turns against Aggressors, or 1 if you bring a Chapter Master and a LT. Amazing how you just hand out 3 HQ choices 3 elite choices and 420pts to make your point seem valid. And it really would only take 1 Chapter master since its fairly easy to fit 12 models in a 1 foot in diameter circle. So my super buffed orkz can survive until turn 2 against unbuffed aggressors or 1 turn against buffed aggressors...i mean, in fairness I would have about 3-5 boyz left out of 90 after morale and what not
@ Admiral Halsey: I'm Sorry And as I said, it's only in a vacuum and I'm fully aware that saying "it's hard to pull off" is an understatement. Then again, in theory (!!!) 9 WS2+ T10 AP-2 dD3 attacks for 135 points +1 CP seems to me currently the best IG can do.
The full payload Manticore (which also has a neat statline) while obviously with range and without the need for line of sight costs about the same and kills "just" 7×1/2×5/6x2/3 =35/18 ~2 gravis models.
On snipers/assassins, don't really get the counter play argument because in my experience in 40k stuff just dies, so it just seems this dislike that you can't run your list entirely as you would if those units didn't exist, which seems a bit like saying "I like tanks, the fact people can bring lascannons is bs".
In any case, we are what, days away, from the purpose of this thread. How nerfed to SM have to be for us to think its all good?
Because, perhaps odd combos aside, I'm looking at the Necron rules rollout and laughing.
Not sure how, but I think this is in completely the wrong thread.
Oh well.
Tbh they all turn into one after a while.
Tyel wrote: On snipers/assassins, don't really get the counter play argument because in my experience in 40k stuff just dies, so it just seems this dislike that you can't run your list entirely as you would if those units didn't exist, which seems a bit like saying "I like tanks, the fact people can bring lascannons is bs".
In any case, we are what, days away, from the purpose of this thread. How nerfed to SM have to be for us to think its all good?
Because, perhaps odd combos aside, I'm looking at the Necron rules rollout and laughing.
Not sure how, but I think this is in completely the wrong thread.
Oh well.
Tbh they all turn into one after a while.
I would say: some amount?
They have to be not "primaris stuff exactly as good as it is now, most firstborn stuff super buffed up"?
So far, we have a speculated nerf to specifically aggressors, and a confirmed nerf to Salamanders/Master Crafters trait and now Long Range Marksmen trait. Also limits to captains/lieutenants. Also the CORE mechanic, which is still kind of a question mark as to what will be affected by that beyond "a bunch of vehicles nobody is currently taking in competitive lists anyway because what's good about marines has never been non-dread vehicles"
All that's pretty good stuff. But there's still the buff to Eradicators/melta stuff in general (including the crazy 8 melta/lascannon shot predator equivalent tank) and the buffs to allllllllllllllllllllllll that is firstborn marines incoming.
We also know there's a significant buff to DA chapter tactic (got a captain? Congrats, you've got yourself a rerollable 2+ to hit gunline, gee that sounds fun.)
And Wait, are you saying when your large mobs of boys get their buffs , the giant block of damage capable of wiping out "entire hordes of boys in one turn" suddenly wipes out.. just over half of one squad?
I mean... yes, that means 4 Aggressors (180 points, right? They were 45 per Aggressor or am I mistaken?) without any boni kill 18 boyz that are under two of the best sturdiness buffs they can get. That's 152 points of boyz or 84% of their points costs. And note that all those 30 boyz have to stand within the range of the custom forcefield. I personally would say that is pretty problematic.
This notion of "just over half of one squad" that seems to imply that they are not efficient at removing this horde is a bit misleading when I think about what other Codizes have to pull up to kill 18 boyz under both buffs.
Still and all that's quite a swing from "An entire horde of boys in 1 turn", to less than a single unit.
With intercessors. You were specifically talking about Intercessors not Aggressors which was not honest then, and trying to twist it to Aggressors isn't honest now.
We have been talking about Aggressors/Eradicators and Intercessors this entire time, I've done the math for you showing you that Intercessors are by themselves (no buffs, or chapter or doctrine) already better than an Equivalent points value worth of Boyz.
I did the math "too". And I did it first. And shooty intercessors are better than fighty boys AT SHOOTING. And you still have a problem with honesty.
First you imply anyone who disagrees with you wants Intercessors to wipe out an entire squad of boys a turn.
Then you claim you were talking about Aggressors not Intercessors despite the quote proving otherwise.
Now you claim Intercessors are just plain better because of the math "you" did.
And didn't include the fighting math for an overall "Better" while my math pointed out it took four turns, as that was a slow but ballpark landing spot for equal points shooting vs equal points fight as the fight should be in Fight by turn 2 or turn 3.
The argument being that since they are already BETTER than Boyz, why would you need a ridiculous unit of Aggressors to even exist?
Because the fight oriented boys aren't going to spend four turns shooting instead of what they're built for? Oh wait, that's something someone honest would point out.
And Because as I said SM players have to trade Intercessors for specialists in a TAC list, meaning when they trade a squad of intercessors for Anti-Tank or Mobility, or what have you, they have to trade another squad of intercessors for Aggressors to regain that ROF lost.
You can deflect all you want but the point remains that you have yet to make a valid argument for Aggressors or Eradicators to be so ridiculously OP. You've ranged from saying Intercessors aren't tac enough (proven false) to saying your transport options are limited and bad (proven false) to saying well that doesn't matter because you aren't being honest. seriously?
And you're still lying. I never said Intercessors weren't TAC enough, I said they had to take Aggressors to make up for shortages in a TAC list. I mean I suppose you could say Intercessors with an Aux Grenade Launcher isn't Tac Enough - Unless you're going to lie about 6x20 Intercessors vs a BladeSwordHammer etc. in the near future. Seriously, if you're just going to lie, why are we doing this?
I mean all this does is you lie about what I said, I point it out, and everyone gets annoyed. Why do this?
I wonder why it is that all these amazing, top level players, will tell you that these units are top tier and are able to prove it by taking these very units to the very peak of competitive play.
Yet a couple of familiar-faced Dakkanauts in here can't even make them feel too strong for their casual FLGS meta.
I wonder what the difference is between these two sets of players, for them to have such a different perspective on the exact same unit.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I wonder why it is that all these amazing, top level players, will tell you that these units are top tier and are able to prove it by taking these very units to the very peak of competitive play.
Yet a couple of familiar-faced Dakkanauts in here can't even make them feel too strong for their casual FLGS meta.
I wonder what the difference is between these two sets of players, for them to have such a different perspective on the exact same unit.
Hmmm... whatever could it be?
They're really bad at the game as well as being completely delusional as to how much their own irrelevant bad players playing against other bad players experiences matter.
Which isn't to say that I'm a super great or competitive player, but I'm also not so arrogant as to think that my own subjective gaming experience with friends is even relevant when talking about what's good in the game, and I'm definitely not delusional enough to think I know better than top players.
Side note: Aggressors are fething disgusting. I nearly evaporated 26 Boyz charging me with overwatch alone, leaving like three left. Because I could reroll everything. It's absurd, and I actually felt dirty trying them out.
And Wait, are you saying when your large mobs of boys get their buffs , the giant block of damage capable of wiping out "entire hordes of boys in one turn" suddenly wipes out.. just over half of one squad?
I mean... yes, that means 4 Aggressors (180 points, right? They were 45 per Aggressor or am I mistaken?) without any boni kill 18 boyz that are under two of the best sturdiness buffs they can get. That's 152 points of boyz or 84% of their points costs. And note that all those 30 boyz have to stand within the range of the custom forcefield. I personally would say that is pretty problematic.
This notion of "just over half of one squad" that seems to imply that they are not efficient at removing this horde is a bit misleading when I think about what other Codizes have to pull up to kill 18 boyz under both buffs.
Still and all that's quite a swing from "An entire horde of boys in 1 turn", to less than a single unit.
Lets make this as simple as possible. ZERO buffs for either side.
Those Aggressors kill almost an entire Mob in 1 turn. (26-27 boyz for 208 to 216pts)
Intercessors kill 7 a turn (56pts a turn).
If you add in the 140pts of Durability buffs (KFF and Painboy) than I will add in the chapter master and LT and the math stays about the same, about 26 dead boyz.
Most games have a 24' "No mans" land, boyz can only move 5 + D6 a turn. It will be at a minimum turn 2 before they are close enough to consider a charge against SM's. If boyz go first they will attempt to get to the middle objective and sit on it turn 2, no point advancing past, where as SM players can sit still turn 1 and shoot, turn 2 they can move up 6, rapid fire and than charge into combat where as i mentioned they do more than hold their own. So they are plenty capable of taking on choppy orkz by simply shooting the piss out of them at range turn 1 and finishing them in CC turn 2-3. I'm reasonably sure I've done the math for you as far as 25 Orkz vs 10 intercessors in CC, but basically it boils down to who goes first to see who wins. 25 boyz = 100 attacks, 66 hits, 33 wounds 5-6 damage, 2-3 dead Intercessors They retaliate for (assuming 7 left) 22 attacks, 14 hits 7 wounds, 6 dead Orkz. orkz hit back with 57 attacks, 38 hits, 19 wounds for 3 more dmg, 6 intercessors left, 13 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds about 4 dead orkz. This keeps going until both sides are basically mauled to death. In other words, Intercessors are AS good as similar value of boyz in CC, and if those intercessors get the charge off they will win because they deny the boyz their 1 round of +1 attacks from 20+ models. (Again, no buffs included in these calculations)
With intercessors. You were specifically talking about Intercessors not Aggressors which was not honest then, and trying to twist it to Aggressors isn't honest now.
We have been talking about Aggressors/Eradicators and Intercessors this entire time, I've done the math for you showing you that Intercessors are by themselves (no buffs, or chapter or doctrine) already better than an Equivalent points value worth of Boyz.
I did the math "too". And I did it first. And shooty intercessors are better than fighty boys AT SHOOTING. And you still have a problem with honesty.
First you imply anyone who disagrees with you wants Intercessors to wipe out an entire squad of boys a turn.
Then you claim you were talking about Aggressors not Intercessors despite the quote proving otherwise.
Now you claim Intercessors are just plain better because of the math "you" did.
And didn't include the fighting math for an overall "Better" while my math pointed out it took four turns, as that was a slow but ballpark landing spot for equal points shooting vs equal points fight as the fight should be in Fight by turn 2 or turn 3.
"wants intercessors to wipe out an entire squad of boyz a turn" No, what I actually said was that if you are arguing that need to take aggressors because Intercessors aren't good enough at shooting mobz then you are wrong. intercessors make back their points in slightly less than 4 turns of shooting. Aggressors do it in 1. What is the happy median than for you? Should Intercessors kill 25 orkz in 3 turns? 2? How many turns should it take intercessors to wipe out boyz by shooting at them? I posted the numbers, they are already capable of doing it, and they are as good in CC as those boyz, and in fact if they get 1 turn of shooting and charge or get charged they likely beat similar pts value of boyz in CC. So please, give me your opinion, how many turns of shooting should it take intercessors to kill a mob of boyz to make you accept nerfing aggressors so they aren't destroying mobz in 1 turn?
"Claim you were talking about aggressors not intercessors" yeah, Ive been talking about 3 units this entire time, pointing out that your basic troops choice is already damn good and capable making aggressors un needed, and ridiculously OP.
"claim intercessors are better" yeah...because they are. The only thing I can think of that Boyz are better at than Intercessors is holding an objective and only for 1 turn. And it has nothing to do with stats and everything to do with model count.
The argument being that since they are already BETTER than Boyz, why would you need a ridiculous unit of Aggressors to even exist?
Because the fight oriented boys aren't going to spend four turns shooting instead of what they're built for? Oh wait, that's something someone honest would point out.
And Because as I said SM players have to trade Intercessors for specialists in a TAC list, meaning when they trade a squad of intercessors for Anti-Tank or Mobility, or what have you, they have to trade another squad of intercessors for Aggressors to regain that ROF lost.
Again math directly above, in a real game scenario those intercessors get at least 2 turns of shooting against a Mob of boyz, and will likely get the charge off unless i want to abandon the objective to charge you, which wouldn't be that smart since I also just showed you that those boyz have a hard time in CC against intercessors.
And now your other argument, because you need mobility or anti-tank firepower you have to get rid of the unit that is better than the boyz unit at both those tasks....so why have troops at all? Why are players even bringing TAC units to begin with? Your argument is based on "Well I want to be as good or better than everyone else's armies in every category so in order to do so I need to be able to mulch everything in the game so Intercessors aren't good enough". The entire concept of TAC is tactical flexibility. You aren't asking for tactical flexibility, you are asking for units that are so utterly OP that you can mulch any competitive build in 1-2 turns.
You can deflect all you want but the point remains that you have yet to make a valid argument for Aggressors or Eradicators to be so ridiculously OP. You've ranged from saying Intercessors aren't tac enough (proven false) to saying your transport options are limited and bad (proven false) to saying well that doesn't matter because you aren't being honest. seriously?
And you're still lying. I never said Intercessors weren't TAC enough, I said they had to take Aggressors to make up for shortages in a TAC list. I mean I suppose you could say Intercessors with an Aux Grenade Launcher isn't Tac Enough - Unless you're going to lie about 6x20 Intercessors vs a BladeSwordHammer etc. in the near future. Seriously, if you're just going to lie, why are we doing this?
And the circle continues. Intercessors aren't good enough at slaying hordes of infantry (They are capable of doing this just not fast enough to your liking) so you have to have aggressors which do that job in literally 1 turn. And Intercessors aren't doing enough damage against vehicles so therefore you need Eradicators...which do that job in 1 turn.....Are you assuming I am saying you can't take any other units in the codex besides intercessors? Is that where this ridiculous argument is coming from? No, the point I am making, as well as about 99% of dakkadakka is that Aggressors and Eradicators are utterly OP at what they do. These units are making back their points in 1 turn of shooting and doing their jobs so ridiculously well that its not even worth playing against. Honestly, If i show up to a game and set up an ork army and my opponent has 3 units of aggressors, it will not even be remotely fun because hes just invalidated a third of my army in 1 turn, and that is before you even get into the other 3/4ths of his list that hes going to shoot me with.
SM's are ridiculously OP, a lot of this has to do with Aggressors and Eradicators as well as a host of other things. Instead of accepting this opinion which is shared by basically everyone in the game, including tournament players who are winning events with these very units, you choose to say you "need them" because intercessors aren't going to be enough...nobody said you couldn't take other units, hell nobody is saying you can't take aggressors or eradicators, we are just saying they need to be HEAVILY tuned down because they are broken right now.
Side note: Aggressors are fething disgusting. I nearly evaporated 26 Boyz charging me with overwatch alone, leaving like three left. Because I could reroll everything. It's absurd, and I actually felt dirty trying them out.
That level of success is well above the average - unless you were using flamers?
Side note: Aggressors are fething disgusting. I nearly evaporated 26 Boyz charging me with overwatch alone, leaving like three left. Because I could reroll everything. It's absurd, and I actually felt dirty trying them out.
That level of success is well above the average - unless you were using flamers?
Side note: Aggressors are fething disgusting. I nearly evaporated 26 Boyz charging me with overwatch alone, leaving like three left. Because I could reroll everything. It's absurd, and I actually felt dirty trying them out.
That level of success is well above the average - unless you were using flamers?
(I'm not saying they're not strong)
In just overwatch that is ridiculously good rolls
Looking at the odds, assuming Tactical Doctrine, CM, Lt., and no durability buffs on the Boyz...
Aggressors.......Percent Odds of Killing 26+ Boys
3...................................0.02%
4...................................1.60%
5...................................16.29%
6...................................50.51%
So, they've actually got a good chance of wiping that many Boys in Overwatch with the Bolters. It can get better, too-if you're Fists, you get 2 hits on every six for the Boltstorm Gauntlets (but not the Grenades) which will significantly increases damage.
Oh, and 6 Aggressors (with the above buffs) have about a 20% chance of killing all 30 in Overwatch.
JNAProductions wrote: Looking at the odds, assuming Tactical Doctrine, CM, Lt., and no durability buffs on the Boyz...
Aggressors.......Percent Odds of Killing 26+ Boys
3...................................0.02%
4...................................1.60%
5...................................16.29%
6...................................50.51%
So, they've actually got a good chance of wiping that many Boys in Overwatch with the Bolters. It can get better, too-if you're Fists, you get 2 hits on every six for the Boltstorm Gauntlets (but not the Grenades) which will significantly increases damage.
Oh, and 6 Aggressors (with the above buffs) have about a 20% chance of killing all 30 in Overwatch.
Right....so 410 points and 2 CP to kill 240 against a careless opponent.
I get marines are strong, but they're being beaten (and not by one single type of list from a single faction) and these anecdotes and overly massaged math hammer scenarios don't do anyone any favors.
JNAProductions wrote: Looking at the odds, assuming Tactical Doctrine, CM, Lt., and no durability buffs on the Boyz...
Aggressors.......Percent Odds of Killing 26+ Boys
3...................................0.02%
4...................................1.60%
5...................................16.29%
6...................................50.51%
So, they've actually got a good chance of wiping that many Boys in Overwatch with the Bolters. It can get better, too-if you're Fists, you get 2 hits on every six for the Boltstorm Gauntlets (but not the Grenades) which will significantly increases damage.
Oh, and 6 Aggressors (with the above buffs) have about a 20% chance of killing all 30 in Overwatch.
Right....so 410 points and 2 CP to kill 240 against a careless opponent.
I get marines are strong, but they're being beaten (and not by one single type of list from a single faction) and these anecdotes and overly massaged math hammer scenarios don't do anyone any favors.
In Overwatch. You know, a step a lot of people used to skip because it did basically nothing. And that's not even as buffed up as they could be.
Their damage goes up by nearly three times in regular shooting, or one squad can wipe 75 Boys in a single phase. Without adding any Chapter buffs. Off-hand, Fists would increase that to 84. Salamanders, if you use their +1 Wound strat, net just shy of 100.
JNAProductions wrote: Looking at the odds, assuming Tactical Doctrine, CM, Lt., and no durability buffs on the Boyz...
Aggressors.......Percent Odds of Killing 26+ Boys
3...................................0.02%
4...................................1.60%
5...................................16.29%
6...................................50.51%
So, they've actually got a good chance of wiping that many Boys in Overwatch with the Bolters. It can get better, too-if you're Fists, you get 2 hits on every six for the Boltstorm Gauntlets (but not the Grenades) which will significantly increases damage.
Oh, and 6 Aggressors (with the above buffs) have about a 20% chance of killing all 30 in Overwatch.
6 get 144 shots, hitting on 6s so 24 hits, rerolling all misses (Chapter master), for another 20 hits 44 hits for 22 wounds, rerolling 7 for 3.5 ish more so 25 ish wounds which works out to 20-21 dead Orkz, or 25ish if -1 AP wow that is ridiculous.
Right....so 410 points and 2 CP to kill 240 against a careless opponent.
I get marines are strong, but they're being beaten (and not by one single type of list from a single faction) and these anecdotes and overly massaged math hammer scenarios don't do anyone any favors.
Well the 2 CP is spent regardless because why wouldn't you? but yeah, i get your point, but 6 of them is ridiculously strong and its 240pts dead on the ENEMY's turn. Those 6 are slaying 40 boyz (320pts) worth of Orkz a turn without buffs, add in tac/dev and its worse, add in rerolls and its ridiculous. the only thing surprising to me is why they aren't brought more often.
JNAProductions wrote: Looking at the odds, assuming Tactical Doctrine, CM, Lt., and no durability buffs on the Boyz...
Aggressors.......Percent Odds of Killing 26+ Boys
3...................................0.02%
4...................................1.60%
5...................................16.29%
6...................................50.51%
So, they've actually got a good chance of wiping that many Boys in Overwatch with the Bolters. It can get better, too-if you're Fists, you get 2 hits on every six for the Boltstorm Gauntlets (but not the Grenades) which will significantly increases damage.
Oh, and 6 Aggressors (with the above buffs) have about a 20% chance of killing all 30 in Overwatch.
Right....so 410 points and 2 CP to kill 240 against a careless opponent.
I get marines are strong, but they're being beaten (and not by one single type of list from a single faction) and these anecdotes and overly massaged math hammer scenarios don't do anyone any favors.
a CARELESS opponent? What did he do wrong here? He made the charge with his assault unit in his assault army, against a shooty unit from a shooty army. What’s careless about this other than the fact that the Aggressors get to do exactly this - kill 26 of them?
Also no it’s not 410 pts. That’s not a cost here. You’re still getting MORE THAN your 410 pts worth of Aggressors in your own turn. This is in OVERWATCH, in your opponents turn. Absurd.
Nobody is saying Marines can’t be beaten. Jesus Christ dude you’re in denial. Why is it ALWAYS you, Xenos, Martel or Karol? You guys are like the four hoursemen of Space Marine downplay.
Yeah, I think it's hard to say that Marines aren't massively over tuned at the moment. Certain units more so than others. This could change with codex creep but then we'll just get codex 2.0 But this is nothing new, marines have frequently been top tier armies and occasionally lower tier armies. We can hope GW listens to the complaints but little more.
a CARELESS opponent? What did he do wrong here? He made the charge with his assault unit in his assault army, against a shooty unit from a shooty army. What’s careless about this other than the fact that the Aggressors get to do exactly this - kill 26 of them?
Also no it’s not 410 pts. That’s not a cost here. You’re still getting MORE THAN your 410 pts worth of Aggressors in your own turn. This is in OVERWATCH, in your opponents turn. Absurd.
Nobody is saying Marines can’t be beaten. Jesus Christ dude you’re in denial. Why is it ALWAYS you, Xenos, Martel or Karol? You guys are like the four hoursemen of Space Marine downplay.
I'm not in denial. text removed. Reds8n If no one is saying marines can't be beaten why are we on page 37? Why is almost every thread a referendum on marines?
What did he do wrong? He FED a unit that he knew would die without a plan. In an edition where overwatch likely happens once per turn. In an edition where killing units isn't always required. If they didn't charge then they're still on the board next turn and require removal.
Nobody is saying Marines can’t be beaten. Jesus Christ dude you’re in denial. Why is it ALWAYS you, Xenos, Martel or Karol? You guys are like the four hoursemen of Space Marine downplay.
lmfao beautiful quote.
Although to be fair, at least Martel and Daedaluls have reasoning. Karol is just like me gk me good and xenos can't post without hyperbole.
a CARELESS opponent? What did he do wrong here? He made the charge with his assault unit in his assault army, against a shooty unit from a shooty army. What’s careless about this other than the fact that the Aggressors get to do exactly this - kill 26 of them?
Also no it’s not 410 pts. That’s not a cost here. You’re still getting MORE THAN your 410 pts worth of Aggressors in your own turn. This is in OVERWATCH, in your opponents turn. Absurd.
Nobody is saying Marines can’t be beaten. Jesus Christ dude you’re in denial. Why is it ALWAYS you, Xenos, Martel or Karol? You guys are like the four hoursemen of Space Marine downplay.
I'm not in denial. If no one is saying marines can't be beaten why are we on page 37? Why is almost every thread a referendum on marines?
What did he do wrong? He FED a unit that he knew would die without a plan. In an edition where overwatch likely happens once per turn. In an edition where killing units isn't always required. If they didn't charge then they're still on the board next turn and require removal.
Honestly, handwaving balance in the name of objectives is pretty gak. If we were to say, focus more on killpoints the game would be *extremely* favoured to the flavour of marines. Ork Boyz wouldn't exist etc etc.
I've always found creating balance that relies on games ending early is bad design, especially more so when orks can only win by slow rolling on objectives.
Honestly, handwaving balance in the name of objectives is pretty gak. If we were to say, focus more on killpoints the game would be *extremely* favoured to the flavour of marines. Ork Boyz wouldn't exist etc etc.
I've always found creating balance that relies on games ending early is bad design, especially more so when orks can only win by slow rolling on objectives.
I'm not handwaving balance at all. It seems some people just can't handle someone not being of the same exact opinion as theirs.
I'm not in denial.If no one is saying marines can't be beaten why are we on page 37? Why is almost every thread a referendum on marines?
Honestly, we're on Page 37 because this is about the third or fourth different topic in the thread, Eradicators played out 20 or so pages ago.
What did he do wrong? He FED a unit that he knew would die without a plan. In an edition where overwatch likely happens once per turn. In an edition where killing units isn't always required. If they didn't charge then they're still on the board next turn and require removal.
He had a unit that needs to get thrown in. What "he did wrong" was to try and take out Rock with Scissors. 8 Mek Guns with a Smasha Gun is also about 270 points, and will decimate 6 Aggressors. For the same price you can get 4.5 Kustom Mega-Kannons and do about the same. They're arguing their worst unit for the encounter vs the opponent's unit designed for such an encounter.
Basically taking my point about a TAC list needing some anti-"horde" to make up for lost power from Anti-tank/etc and throwing it full speed reverse by pretending the Ork army only has 30 strong mobs of boys.
That level of success is well above the average - unless you were using flamers?
(I'm not saying they're not strong)
It's not.
On average I'd have actually wiped the entire squad.
In Overwatch. On his turn.
It's fething absurd my man.
What's fething absurd isn't even that.
Let's momentarily accept the premise that Aggressors are supposed to be dedicated anti-horde units. My problem with them is not that they can wipe a horde; they're not alone in being able to do this. Let's even concede, for the sake of argument, that they're allowed to do so during overwatch using flame weapons and that isn't hideously broken.
My problem with them is that they should not, being anti-horde units, then also be able to turn around and cripple if not outright destroy any vehicle of less than T8/3+ with those same weapons - and that's without being Salamanders; If they're Salamanders under optimal conditions (standing still, Tactical Doctrine, max squad size) and they burn 3CP worth of strats (4CP if you count Overwatch or the strat that makes them count as standing still) they have a slightly better than 50% chance of destroying a Knight.
144 shots, all hits
5+ to wound: 48 wounds (Assuming no LT rerolls!)
-1 AP: 4+ armor save: 24 wounds
And THAT doesn't even count the fact that for some reason they all get powerfists on top of that and could punch any surviving vehicles apart. Antihorde unit my arse.
BlaxicanX wrote: And what is your opinion on the strength of marines relative to other factions, exactly?
They're the best and easiest faction available, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
apparently there's no room for nuance in between "Marines are actually UNDERPOWERED and if you can't beat them you need to learn to play" and "MARINES ARE UNBEATABLE AND RUINING THE GAME"
honestly this entire drama is rediculas, marines are getting a new codex in less then 2 weeks. we have no idea what the state of the codex will be.
honestly this entire drama is rediculas, marines are getting a new codex in less then 2 weeks. we have no idea what the state of the codex will be.
Of course it's ridiculous. We're mostly grown adults arguing about the rules for absurdly overpriced plastic models in a setting so far over the top it needs a damn spacesuit. That doesn't mean we can't all come together and care passionately about those rules to the point of mental illness.
honestly this entire drama is rediculas, marines are getting a new codex in less then 2 weeks. we have no idea what the state of the codex will be.
Of course it's ridiculous. We're mostly grown adults arguing about the rules for absurdly overpriced plastic models in a setting so far over the top it needs a damn spacesuit. That doesn't mean we can't all come together and care passionately about those rules to the point of mental illness.
honestly this entire drama is rediculas, marines are getting a new codex in less then 2 weeks. we have no idea what the state of the codex will be.
Of course it's ridiculous. We're mostly grown adults arguing about the rules for absurdly overpriced plastic models in a setting so far over the top it needs a damn spacesuit. That doesn't mean we can't all come together and care passionately about those rules to the point of mental illness.
I thoroughly enjoy your posts. Kudos. That was a good pre-bedtime chuckle.
honestly this entire drama is rediculas, marines are getting a new codex in less then 2 weeks. we have no idea what the state of the codex will be.
Of course it's ridiculous. We're mostly grown adults arguing about the rules for absurdly overpriced plastic models in a setting so far over the top it needs a damn spacesuit. That doesn't mean we can't all come together and care passionately about those rules to the point of mental illness.
BlaxicanX wrote: And what is your opinion on the strength of marines relative to other factions, exactly?
They're the best and easiest faction available, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
So what exactly should the price of the tea in question be? Assuming eradicators and aggressors have the same rules in the new Loyalist Scum codex, would you say they should stay at their current price? That's what the question here is. Anything is ok if you pay enough for it. It's fine if eradicators can burn through any vehicle without an invul and aggressors can chew through any infantry that isn't some kind of TEQ as long as they pay for those rules. So, are their current prices fair? Or should they increase if they keep their current rules? Personally I think they're both too cheap for what they do. What's your call?
BrianDavion wrote:But... I took my medication today!
But.... don't you miss The Voices? I always get so lonely when mine go away.
He had a unit that needs to get thrown in. What "he did wrong" was to try and take out Rock with Scissors. 8 Mek Guns with a Smasha Gun is also about 270 points, and will decimate 6 Aggressors. For the same price you can get 4.5 Kustom Mega-Kannons and do about the same. They're arguing their worst unit for the encounter vs the opponent's unit designed for such an encounter.
Basically taking my point about a TAC list needing some anti-"horde" to make up for lost power from Anti-tank/etc and throwing it full speed reverse by pretending the Ork army only has 30 strong mobs of boys.
8 Smasha gunz = 320pts not 270pts, 16 shots (bonus 2.6 shots for 1.3 extra hits) for 9 hits on average, wounding on 5+ (2D6) = equivalent of wounding on 2s so 7-8 wounds, -4 AP so it goes straight through and becomes...D6dmg per shot so you will roll less than 3 twice, in the order they come in is kind of important but the likelihood is you kill 4-5 models. So you earned back 160pts of your 320 cost and were able to gut the unit. Of course that also assumes a lot but fair is fair, we will say the mek gunz all somehow drew LOS and there wasn't enough models/terrain between them to draw a -1 to hit or +1 to their saves which would reduce the dmg by a fairly significant amount.
KMKs are 65pts each so you can take 5 for 325pts, they do D6 shots so you are talking about 17 to 18 shots (bonus 3ish shots for 1.5 more hits), so about 10 hits (likely 3-4 Mortal wounds on themselves) wounding on 3s so 6 wounds and -3 AP so they still get a 6+ save so 5 wounds go through for D6 damage which again means on average 1 to 2 rolls of less than 3 which means between 3 and 4 dead models.
So the 325pt unit designed to kill Heavy Infantry/Vehicles were able to kill between 120pts (Average Low end) and 200pts (Average high end) of aggressors with above average conditions (No cover/terrain bonus over 36-48' range), so between 33-66% of their costs..compared to the aggressors (40pts) which kill 6-7 boyz(48-56pts) each or 120-140% of their cost.
And in an infantry horde skew list, you don't take mek gunz because they draw fire and die ridiculously quickly, so the likelihood is that the ork player didn't even have the option of shooting the Aggressors with anything like reliable firepower.
80-100% points return in a single turn is crazy for a unit that is:
-in no way a glass cannon (T5 W3 3+)
-in no way a single-target type specialist (also equipped with powerfists, A3 on the charge, WS3+)
-in no way a suicide unit
Aggressors (and eradicators, frankly, they've got the same defensive profile) are only concentrated on by opponents because they HAVE to be taken out instantly or they will make their points back usually over the course of 1-2 turns.
They're just overtuned. For eradicators, I would increase their cost (because you could do something like make melta rifiles 18" range to deny them the possibility of melta range on deep strike, but there is such a massive array of levers available to marines that SOMEONE has ways around every restriction you try to put down) and for Aggressors I would do what it seems they are going to do, decrease their firepower to make them more into the brawler unit that their fluff identity seems to indicate that they should be.
The whole 'shoot twice if they stand still' thing is just kind of stupid. I'm sorry. It's stupid because they modeled them with Powerfists, which are always going to be an expensive piece of wargear that you generally want to be MOVING to use, so the only way to make Aggressors worthwhile with both the powerfists and the double shoot rule is to make them SUPER CRAZY overtuned.
GW has always had this bizarre fetish with making marine units with hyper-inefficient, non synergistic loadouts that mean they either have to get a bunch of gak essentially for free over competing choices from other factions, or they just suck at their job.
Are you going to give the thunderfire cannon gunner dude a free servo-arm, a free power axe, a free flamer, and a free plasma pistol? Or is the thunderfire cannon just going to suck compared to a Wyvern or a vauls wrath gun? How 'bout a Havoc squad, is that mandatory meltagun or flamer on the sergeant going to be free, or just a baked-in 5-10 points of useless inefficiency on your long range heavy support unit? Mandatory battlecannon on your defiler! Mandatory 4 Lascannons on your transport tank for delivering short range/melee infantry!
Is the all-melee or all-guns version of the standard dreadnought ALWAYS going to be the best way to run it, or are you going to price and stat the one-gun-one-arm version such that it's basically as good at melee as the all melee version and gets its shooting almost for free?
Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.
Ice_can wrote: Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.
And 90% of dakka was not surprised The other 10% weren't either, they are just celebrating quietly by themselves.
Ice_can wrote: Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.
Can you show me where the rest of the codex got leaked so I can look for myself how everything else is interacting with Eradicators? I don't want to base my opinion about their OPness purely on a rumoured point value. Thanks!
Ice_can wrote: Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.
Gives them something to do in the 2 week eratta - although there will likely be plenty of other stuff given the usual cock ups
Ice_can wrote: Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.
Can you show me where the rest of the codex got leaked so I can look for myself how everything else is interacting with Eradicators? I don't want to base my opinion about their OPness purely on a rumoured point value. Thanks!
That you think they need an interactions with any other rules to be broken OP at 40PPM says enough.
Roumer is in news and roumers.
Ice_can wrote: Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.
Can you show me where the rest of the codex got leaked so I can look for myself how everything else is interacting with Eradicators? I don't want to base my opinion about their OPness purely on a rumoured point value. Thanks!
Posting the leaked codex on Dakka would be against the rules.
Its also entirely unsourced, and unsubstantiated. I guarantee that if there were credible images in the wild that covered as much as the "rumor" claims to, it would be showing up in multiple locations.
It isnt.
Getting worked up about likely bs doesnt serve anyone.
Its also entirely unsourced, and unsubstantiated. I guarantee that if there were credible images in the wild that covered as much as the "rumor" claims to, it would be showing up in multiple locations.
It isnt.
Getting worked up about likely bs doesnt serve anyone.
I do appreciate that these leaks are so dubious that even "rumor" got put in quotes.
But I'm in agreement. Until some evidence emerges, this is even less credible than the backs of those unit boxes, and this rumor and those boxes contradict each other.
Ice_can wrote: Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.
Can you show me where the rest of the codex got leaked so I can look for myself how everything else is interacting with Eradicators? I don't want to base my opinion about their OPness purely on a rumoured point value. Thanks!
Posting the leaked codex on Dakka would be against the rules.
I'm aware of that. I am poking at Ice_can for their text since we obviously still don't have enough information to make an informed decision about what units will be good and which will be bad. For all we know the double shoot ability could have been moved to a 1CP stratagem.
"Wait and see" means "wait until we have the full codex rules", not "wait until we have one additional tidbit but still missing 95% of the rest".
Chapter Master is apparently 40 points and gives only one CORE full rerolls, buuuut it also sounds like Eradicators are 3-6 so if they don't lose double shoot...sweet jesus...
Do we know if the heavy intercessors are going to get some nonsense fire twice ability as well (like firing twice after advancing)? Is it not tied to the aggressor armour, or is it the elite status of aggressors/eradicators? Really confused by the justification for GW to pass this ability out.
Daedalus81 wrote: Chapter Master is apparently 40 points and gives only one CORE full rerolls, buuuut it also sounds like Eradicators are 3-6 so if they don't lose double shoot...sweet jesus...
Considering even something like Eradicators are Core this only matters as a nerf for dreadnought/tanks and most if not all of the infantry will be Core.
If Aggressors are Core (and I would consider that likely if Eradicators are) then 40 points for full re-rolls is probably worth it.
Daedalus81 wrote: Chapter Master is apparently 40 points and gives only one CORE full rerolls, buuuut it also sounds like Eradicators are 3-6 so if they don't lose double shoot...sweet jesus...
Considering even something like Eradicators are Core this only matters as a nerf for dreadnought/tanks and most if not all of the infantry will be Core.
If Aggressors are Core (and I would consider that likely if Eradicators are) then 40 points for full re-rolls is probably worth it.
It's nice just in the fact that we can directly measure the direct cost of full rerolls. 40 points seems low if you can take 6 Eradicators in a unit and give it to them though.
Still just rumors, which had TH at AP2 D3 and 20 points so no idea if any of it is correct.
cody.d. wrote: Do we know if the heavy intercessors are going to get some nonsense fire twice ability as well (like firing twice after advancing)? Is it not tied to the aggressor armour, or is it the elite status of aggressors/eradicators? Really confused by the justification for GW to pass this ability out.
If I was going to guess it would be "ignores heavy"
cody.d. wrote: Do we know if the heavy intercessors are going to get some nonsense fire twice ability as well (like firing twice after advancing)? Is it not tied to the aggressor armour, or is it the elite status of aggressors/eradicators? Really confused by the justification for GW to pass this ability out.
If I was going to guess it would be "ignores heavy"
Eh, while nice the changes to stacking modifies makes it not quite as impactful. I mean, if I ever want to fire at something with a heavy weapon on the move i'll just target a flyer or something with native -1 to hit. (not always going to happen but i'm sure you get the gist of what I mean.)
Ice_can wrote: Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.
Can you show me where the rest of the codex got leaked so I can look for myself how everything else is interacting with Eradicators? I don't want to base my opinion about their OPness purely on a rumoured point value. Thanks!
I would suggest that anyone who needs the rest of the codex to judge has completely missed the point with Eradicators. It has been shown time and time again that they overperform with no buffs whatsoever; that they become ridiculous when buffed is exacerbating the problem, not the problem in and of itself.
Next thing you know the codex is going to come out and the same people will be saying 'We can't judge yet; we don't know the full details of all the other codices, for all you know they'll be more resistant to Eradicators!'.
Ice_can wrote: Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.
Can you show me where the rest of the codex got leaked so I can look for myself how everything else is interacting with Eradicators? I don't want to base my opinion about their OPness purely on a rumoured point value. Thanks!
I would suggest that anyone who needs the rest of the codex to judge has completely missed the point with Eradicators. It has been shown time and time again that they overperform with no buffs whatsoever; that they become ridiculous when buffed is exacerbating the problem, not the problem in and of itself.
Next thing you know the codex is going to come out and the same people will be saying 'We can't judge yet; we don't know the full details of all the other codices, for all you know they'll be more resistant to Eradicators!'.
It's really tiring.
And it will be the same people who were saying IH's aren't that strong and BA Smash captains aren't broken etc etc.
And THAT doesn't even count the fact that for some reason they all get powerfists
Mini/Discount Calgar + Terminator parallel. They got the first fist for being the Primaris equivalent to Shooty Terminators. They don't gain anything from two fists over 1 (so far) and a lot of people run/ran Calgar in their DIY Counts As Ultramarines so give them double fists for "free" to sell more. That's the reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Chapter Master is apparently 40 points and gives only one CORE full rerolls, buuuut it also sounds like Eradicators are 3-6 so if they don't lose double shoot...sweet jesus...
You can take 3-6 of them? That wouldn't suck. I absolutely hate the 3 and only 3 infantry (or non-vehicle so include the bikers etc) units. Neither 1000 nor 100 divides by 3. Heck, they should start at 3, and expand to 5 not 6. Just to make my eye quit twitching.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cody.d. wrote: Do we know if the heavy intercessors are going to get some nonsense fire twice ability as well (like firing twice after advancing)? Is it not tied to the aggressor armour, or is it the elite status of aggressors/eradicators? Really confused by the justification for GW to pass this ability out.
The Fire Twice is different for each unit. My Guess is it's fluffed via training, not a feature of the armor. Eradicators can't split fire, Aggressors can't move very far if at all. It's possible all Gravis get a Fire Twice similar to Bolter Drill always being on for Termies though, but not any time soon. If that happens I'd guess Aggressors and Erads lose their bespoke fire Twice, and instead get a universal Gravis Drill rule similar to Bolter Drill.
cody.d. wrote: Do we know if the heavy intercessors are going to get some nonsense fire twice ability as well (like firing twice after advancing)? Is it not tied to the aggressor armour, or is it the elite status of aggressors/eradicators? Really confused by the justification for GW to pass this ability out.
If I was going to guess it would be "ignores heavy"
Could be both. Gravis is more and more showing up as some sort of Primaris Terminator equivalent. Terminators have frequently ignored Heavy in the past, and they're getting Bolter Drill in the current. Probably not right away, but people are going to side-eye this until GW figures out what to do. If the others can fire twice, and Terminators get to Rapid Fire 2 x 2 storm bolters, why can't Heavy Intercessors double Rapid Fire their bolters?
catbarf wrote: I would suggest that anyone who needs the rest of the codex to judge has completely missed the point with Eradicators. It has been shown time and time again that they overperform with no buffs whatsoever; that they become ridiculous when buffed is exacerbating the problem, not the problem in and of itself.
Next thing you know the codex is going to come out and the same people will be saying 'We can't judge yet; we don't know the full details of all the other codices, for all you know they'll be more resistant to Eradicators!'.
It's really tiring.
SemperMortis wrote: And it will be the same people who were saying IH's aren't that strong and BA Smash captains aren't broken etc etc.
If you guys are so sure about the final rules for Eradicators, their point costs and how the new codex will interact with them, why don't you enlighten the rest of us?
Or MAYBE your opinion that they are overperforming is purely based on what they do right now in context of the current codex with rules that will be outdated in 2 weeks?
Ice_can wrote: Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.
The “wait and see crew”? “Another epic fail”? Honestly, do people have to create ‘sides’ for everything? Is there a “panic and thrash about crew” you’re a part of? Seriously people, wind it in. Discuss civilly. This forum is becoming a damn cesspool.
Ice_can wrote: Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.
The “wait and see crew”? “Another epic fail”? Honestly, do people have to create ‘sides’ for everything? Is there a “panic and thrash about crew” you’re a part of? Seriously people, wind it in. Discuss civilly. This forum is becoming a damn cesspool.
a_typical_hero wrote: If you guys are so sure about the final rules for Eradicators, their point costs and how the new codex will interact with them, why don't you enlighten the rest of us?
Or MAYBE your opinion that they are overperforming is purely based on what they do right now in context of the current codex with rules that will be outdated in 2 weeks?
Since there is likely about 12 hours to go in general ignorance (assuming we get full codex reveals via youtube tonight, although I guess they could delay another week) - perhaps we could just talk about what might be?
I mean for the sake of argument, if Eradicators remain 40 points (or at the outside, 45), if you can take them in units of 3-6, if they are *Core* so can still be buffed, if CM has been nerfed to impact one unit rather than everyone in 6", if one Eradicator model (or who knows, 2 in a unit of 6) can take an MM to get 4(4.) shots - what do you think about them?
Because that's what I currently expect.
GW doesn't think these are a problem - because everyone (well, Imperium and a bit of chaos) can have 2 shot Multimeltas.
And who knows. Maybe they're right. Eradicator's won't be busted, because they'll sit alongside a whole range of other models bringing these ludicrously overtuned weapons.
Unfortunately, for all the factions that don't, I think its going to be a further six months of woe.
Now the alternative is they cost 50 points, they lose the 2 shot rule, they are not Core and can't be buffed and suddenly they look quite lame in the world of 2 shot MMs. But I don't see that happening.
If their profile and point costs don't change substantially like in the example given of what you expect, then they will be overperforming in my opinion.
I'd like to see double shoot moved to a stratagem. 2CP for 3 and 3CP for 6.This way you could still make something deader than dead if you put some ressources into it, but only one Eradicator unit per turn. And up them to 45 or 50 points.
In general I hope they will stay the exception in case of new unit performance. Not because I play Marines, but because hyper efficient units like them are taking away from my enjoyment of the game.
By the way, I appreciate your style of discussion.
If erdictors and other marine stuff wasn't tuned to be very good in 9th, but tuned against books from 8th ed, wouldn't this make marines kind of a bad or requiring another codex very soon after other armies get their own 9th ed codex?
Karol wrote: If erdictors and other marine stuff wasn't tuned to be very good in 9th, but tuned against books from 8th ed, wouldn't this make marines kind of a bad or requiring another codex very soon after other armies get their own 9th ed codex?
It would make those units bad, yes. But nobody's saying SM should be tuned to be bad in 9th, just that they should be nowhere near as busted as they were for the latter part of 8th. I think the problem with SM is down to the sheer number of datasheets and sub-factions they have. It makes balancing them very difficult because the number of combinations is so high it's likely something is going to be broken if you mess up even slightly with the balance. We've seen that with 8th and early 9th where IH were completely broken, then got nerfed, which opened the way for the previously very good RG to become top dog. Then 9th comes along and Salamanders are well-placed to take over because of how their rules interact with the new units.
As another poster said earlier, it gets really tiring after a while.
Well but people seem to either talk about perfect situations or straight out want not their faction nerfed. GW doesn't do good and balanced fixs. They either over tune stuff to be good or bad, or the change is like the first 4-5 changes to dark reapers, where people playing against them didn't really notice the change that much.
I get that it takes me over 2 years to understand why GW does something, but I am not the fasters thinker and 8th was my first edition.
Do people really think that after the sm codex all the xeno ones are going to be bad, and that eldar aren't going to get some mind breaking super codex?
The rest is GW problems with how they write rules or books. If they made free rules, which they won't, they could make salamander aggresors cost different then white scar ones etc A GM that can get a pack or a bike, shouldn't cost the same as one that doesn't have a codex option for those. But they won't do it, because for what ever reason they want a powerfist cost the same for a str 5 dude and a str 3 dude.
Slipspace wrote: It makes balancing them very difficult because the number of combinations is so high it's likely something is going to be broken if you mess up even slightly with the balance. We've seen that with 8th and early 9th where IH were completely broken, then got nerfed, which opened the way for the previously very good RG to become top dog. Then 9th comes along and Salamanders are well-placed to take over because of how their rules interact with the new units.
As another poster said earlier, it gets really tiring after a while.
My personal moral of the story:
Play with people who share the same approach to the game as you do and who understand that both participants are supposed to have fun. That makes a lot of flaws that the game has less relevant/interrupting for me.
Karol wrote: If erdictors and other marine stuff wasn't tuned to be very good in 9th, but tuned against books from 8th ed, wouldn't this make marines kind of a bad or requiring another codex very soon after other armies get their own 9th ed codex?
Other armies got their codex very early in 8th and never got their codex 2.0, now other armies will get their codex shortly after the SM one and no way they'll get a 2.0 in the same edition even if they will be kinda "left behind" at some point. I don't see why SM should be entitled to be top tier forever. I get that they sell a lot and I totally accept GW releasing tons of new SM kits for that reason, no problem about tham, but rulewise?
What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?
Oh you don't have to tell me about it. If it wasn't for PA, then I don't know for what GK rules were ment, because it wasn't 8th ed.
And marines are entitled to the treatments, because they are the best seller and the group of factions that are played the most.
And this is also why marine being bad is bad for GW. because if marines are bad, the majority of their buyers are unhappy.
If you have a company that makes pizza, then pizza eaters are your focus and they will get the most stuff. End those that like something else are not going to be getting as much focus. A pizza company ain't going to sacrifice its pizza buyers to make vegans happy. Well not if they want to make money.
What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?
Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.
Ice_can wrote: Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.
The “wait and see crew”? “Another epic fail”? Honestly, do people have to create ‘sides’ for everything? Is there a “panic and thrash about crew” you’re a part of? Seriously people, wind it in. Discuss civilly. This forum is becoming a damn cesspool.
You think that's creating sides, when their has been people in thia thread dismising people saying the make the game unenjoyable with LTP arguments, it doesn't matter this is just 2 months untill the new codex.
Followed by misrepresenting facts, unit justifications using incorrect points and then ignoring cross faction comparisons what else do you call that same group of 4-6 posters?
True a majority of the blame lies squarely with GW for the joke of game balance that they have allowed to persist for the last year, but when people deffend such imbalances as it is and can't see the hypocrisy of their position, heck we have one poster who continues to reference Taudar and Scatbikes as a justification for the current power level of marines like it's vengeance.
What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?
Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.
Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?
Also you seem to ignore the fact that the other half of the playerbase (the non marine players) get let down by GW all the time but apparently that's ok?
What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?
Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.
Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?
Also you seem to ignore the fact that the other half of the playerbase (the non marine players) get let down by GW all the time but apparently that's ok?
Everyone gets let down by GW, marine players can never win with the rest of the player base, eldar can never have models as good as the rules, chaos marines never get things as nice as loyalists get, xenos never get enough rules/minis and if they do, its the wrong ones. Anyone who isn't in the above simply loses due to volume of whinging and price hikes.
What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?
Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.
They were bad before codex 2.0 that was over a year ago, they were bad for what 6 months a year tops. Does that really justify the level of bais GW is currently pumping into the rules?
Do GSC get to become the next marines and unbeatable for an entire year qhen they get their 9th edition codex? as where have they been for the last year?
What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?
Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.
They were bad before codex 2.0 that was over a year ago, they were bad for what 6 months a year tops. Does that really justify the level of bais GW is currently pumping into the rules?
Do GSC get to become the next marines and unbeatable for an entire year qhen they get their 9th edition codex? as where have they been for the last year?
What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?
Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.
They were bad before codex 2.0 that was over a year ago, they were bad for what 6 months a year tops. Does that really justify the level of bais GW is currently pumping into the rules?
Do GSC get to become the next marines and unbeatable for an entire year qhen they get their 9th edition codex? as where have they been for the last year?
Why can't SM be bad?
They were, remember?
It wasn't for long enough!
That's not the point in that post at all, you said they were bad, people now complain their good(you mean OP as feth)
Being bad in the past doesnt justify being broken, because lets be honest they aren't good they are downright gamebreaking currently and the new codex leaks don't appear to be changing that.
The issue isnt marines can't be good it's that they are so far beyond good it's rediculous when people claim they are just balanced.
Ice_can wrote: Well if the latest leaks are true it seems the wait and see crew have another epic fail on their record as eradicators are still 40ppm in the codex with their new improved melta rifles.
The “wait and see crew”? “Another epic fail”? Honestly, do people have to create ‘sides’ for everything? Is there a “panic and thrash about crew” you’re a part of? Seriously people, wind it in. Discuss civilly. This forum is becoming a damn cesspool.
You think that's creating sides, when their has been people in thia thread dismising people saying the make the game unenjoyable with LTP arguments, it doesn't matter this is just 2 months untill the new codex.
Followed by misrepresenting facts, unit justifications using incorrect points and then ignoring cross faction comparisons what else do you call that same group of 4-6 posters?
True a majority of the blame lies squarely with GW for the joke of game balance that they have allowed to persist for the last year, but when people deffend such imbalances as it is and can't see the hypocrisy of their position, heck we have one poster who continues to reference Taudar and Scatbikes as a justification for the current power level of marines like it's vengeance.
REMOVED - Rule #1 please
people who say "wait and see" aren't defending GW, they're just saying "we won't know the full picture until the complete codex is out"
Look the days when you can look at one or two units in isolation are, well I'm not gonna say they're gone, but they're on the decline, with stratigiums, auras etc one doesn't know the full story until we have the whole codex.
What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?
Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.
The point is they were never really bad, and even if they were it was just for a short period. They were mid tiers at worst, and I'm only talking about competitive gaming. In casual metas they have always been good in 8th.
I wish my armies that were considered "bad" in 3rd-7th were just as "bad" as those space marines pre codex 2.0.
No reason to feel irritated with a codex like the 1.0 version: the competitive players don't care about the faction they bring as they're switching armies after short periods anyway and the casual ones were never really left behind. I played with firstborn SW the entire edition, no allies, no doctrines until the last couple of months, and never felt they were bad; in fact I though they were way better than orks despite tournament results said otherwise, because in real life lists are not the same as those ones that place high at GTs. Unless they are "average" collections of models, like codex 2.0 Space Marines.
It seems like there is a portion of the player base that feels irritated if they don't autowin against anyone, those kind of players should be avoided like plague, and they're definitely not half GW's costumer base.
a_typical_hero wrote: I think a better analogy would be to have pizza with different toppings.
I assume a pizza "special" is the default one that most customers order, but you want to have others on your menu, too.
Having the same pizza everyday gets stale soon.
No company is going to focus on those that think pine apple or anchovies are a good toping, comparing to those that want extra cheese and extra cheese+.
What do people think about relics and upgrades to characters/units costing points now?
Even if erdictors stay the same point costs, the marine armis still seem to take a big points hit from their masters of sancticity, chapter master and aggresors going up in points.
At the end of the day it comes to equality and the same standards applied in terms of rule support.
Model support is one thing, we all know Space Marines sell well and it's accepted they get priority in terms of models.
But rules are a very different thing and when Space Marines had a period of time, less than a year, where they weren't considered very good and were considered to show a lot of problematic design elements on early 8th edition, GW decided to go about giving them beta rules updates and then an entirely new Codex. Which, if Covid hadn't happened, would have come out less than a year before the new Edition and the NEXT Marine Codex.
Meanwhile CSM had ALL of the same issues as the old Marine codex, but they never got any actual structural rules update to address them. They got new models, but these didn't "fix" the army. Necrons Reanimation Protocols were functionally unusable in the game through the entire edition and they got no little beta rules update in an FAQ, Errata or a White Dwarf article. But Marines did. And then they got a new Codex too.
I don't expect every army to get 30 new sculpts released every 2 years, but there is NO reason to have a policy of Marine exceptionalism when it comes to providing free Beta rules changes. It costs literally nothing, you can even put it in WD to push sales of that, but otherwise it's a pdf that goes on the official WarCom site. Necron RP rules are busted? Don't wait 3 years for a new Codex and new Edition, just put an amended version in a PDF, call it a beta rule, and allow people to use and test it. If all goes well then when the next Codex rolls around you can THEN include it in an actual book.
Well I just waited almost 3 years for a codex amendment and I am happy about the rules change, specialy whent he other options to waiting seems to be not getting any updates at all. Specialy for factions that get 1 new model every 5-6 years.
What do people think about relics and upgrades to characters/units costing points now?
Even if erdictors stay the same point costs, the marine armis still seem to take a big points hit from their masters of sancticity, chapter master and aggresors going up in points.
I think not enough people had enough time with Master of Sanctity etc as a CP cost instead of a point cost for this to be a thing. I think it probably should have always been a point cost instead of a CP cost. Are aggressors going up in points? Someone said they were staying the same? Relics costing points has the potential to be silly. Either you're still limited to the one or so per... or you can go hog wild, or worst of all, you're limited to the one or so per, have to buy the regular plasma power pistol sword in order to pay more points to get the Plasma Power Pistol Sword of Doom and you'll think GW should have at least bought you dinner first.
catbarf wrote: I would suggest that anyone who needs the rest of the codex to judge has completely missed the point with Eradicators. It has been shown time and time again that they overperform with no buffs whatsoever; that they become ridiculous when buffed is exacerbating the problem, not the problem in and of itself.
Next thing you know the codex is going to come out and the same people will be saying 'We can't judge yet; we don't know the full details of all the other codices, for all you know they'll be more resistant to Eradicators!'.
It's really tiring.
SemperMortis wrote: And it will be the same people who were saying IH's aren't that strong and BA Smash captains aren't broken etc etc.
If you guys are so sure about the final rules for Eradicators, their point costs and how the new codex will interact with them, why don't you enlighten the rest of us?
Or MAYBE your opinion that they are overperforming is purely based on what they do right now in context of the current codex with rules that will be outdated in 2 weeks?
Not sure at all about the final product, but some of us have a long history with GW and can guess the general trend based on leaks and current rule sets. As far as comparing it based on a 9th perspective. I will tell you how I "GUESS" this will turn out, based on my experience.
So far we have 8th Marines being OP as hell, the apology committee comes out and says "Wait and see". Next we have several leaks about 9th which show those broken units being broken still but GW adding in more broken elements to buff or increase the level of OP, and the apology committee comes out and says "Wait and see". Now we have confirmed leaks showing problematic units not receiving a nerf at all or so minor as too be negligible, but we don't have the full context of the codex so the apology committee says "Wait and see". This is where we currently are. Next, when the codex comes out and shows all the likely broken units being relatively unchanged and powerful you will have the apology committee come out and say "Well, we don't know what the rest of the codex's are going to be like, wait and see". Which is a wonderful apology because for some factions it could take upwards of 2 years to get their new rules, so they can just suck it up and take the L for those 2 years. Every codex that comes out after SM's will be excused for not being as powerful or the SM codex will be excused for being too powerful by the apology committee coming out and saying "Wait until the CA or FAQ".
is this all guaranteed to happen? Nope, just my opinion based on past experience with GW.
Karol wrote: If erdictors and other marine stuff wasn't tuned to be very good in 9th, but tuned against books from 8th ed, wouldn't this make marines kind of a bad or requiring another codex very soon after other armies get their own 9th ed codex?
Not necessarily, just because we change editions does not mean a codex has to be upgraded to be more lethal in every category. in fact a lot of players would argue, over tuning a codex because of an edition change is just bad for the game in general. Parking lots aren't fun to play against, but neither is losing your entire army by turn 3.
a_typical_hero wrote: I think a better analogy would be to have pizza with different toppings.
I assume a pizza "special" is the default one that most customers order, but you want to have others on your menu, too.
Having the same pizza everyday gets stale soon.
What's the matter if SM become "bad" at some point? Stick to casual games, accept matches where the odds are against you or play a different army. Like anyone else. Where's the issue?
Usually where people forget SM were bad and people just did that, while complaining when they're good. Plus irritating something like half your customer base (Theyre in almost every starter set) isn't much of a strong business move.
And this is the mindset that annoys players the most. Space marines were never "Bad" in 8th edition. The worst they had it was they were "average" and for SM players who are used to being handed OP rules this felt like hell because they couldn't start the game with an immediate advantage over their opponents.
Speaking strictly from personal experience (anecdotal) playing against SM players has shown me that the vast majority of SM players at tournaments are not that good at the game. This opinion was encapsulated in 7th edition where I had a better than 80% win/loss ratio at tournaments playing Orkz who were arguably the weakest army in the game. I managed to win games against Space Marine players who were allowed to bring upwards of 300-400pts of extra vehicles for free, So my games were 1750 Orkz vs 2050-2150 Space Marines.
GW literally handed SM players an amazing codex filled with good units and then gave them a super formation that allowed them to take a Razorback for every squad for free, and I was still able to beat them regularly in tournament settings with one of, if not THE weakest codex in the game.
Why bring that up? because in my opinion SM players think having a balanced/average codex is "bad" because they are so used to playing people while having +1 to everything their opponent can bring.
Not necessarily, just because we change editions does not mean a codex has to be upgraded to be more lethal in every category. in fact a lot of players would argue, over tuning a codex because of an edition change is just bad for the game in general. Parking lots aren't fun to play against, but neither is losing your entire army by turn 3.
Oh I am sure eldar or tau players would have loved if codex marines, DG and BA/SW/DW brought the power down , only to have it brought up when their codex comes up. That is exactly what happened in 8th. The first books were all about nerf and lower damage, and then someone at the design team thought that having double activation for dark reapers is the way to go.
Same way a lot of marines players wouldn't mind the stream line and less kill power to happen after their codex drops.
- selling rules is good ,
- spreading them to pad quartal numbers is great,
- saving money through laymens and amateurs for designers in regards to rules is acceptable quality
- as is supposedly the clear lack of a proofreading editor.
- and intervening for sales reason is acceptable (wraithknight).
I think there is one more. They often drop rule sets in to an edition the rule set isn't really ment for. I am not sure if it was true to prior editions, besides stories about it being told, but stuff like 2.0 marines clearly was tested and designed for 9th ed.
IH traits at the end of 8th were very good, but in 9th having a +5 overwatch is kind of a meh.
But what is worse, it feels like some books are writen or copy pasted from older projects or projects from prior editions. Some books are really hard to explain, when they miss all the things books ment for edition have.
History of Marines in 8th edition:
Release of game->CA17. Top tier.
CA17->2018 codexes coming out. Mediocre. Getting worse.
Lets say Knights about mid-2018. Now bad. Would remain bad (and get worse and worse) through to some point in 2019 with bolter discipline and hateful assault. Still not great.
New Codex->Very good.
Supplements->Broken.
Faith and Fury->Just stop.
Indomitus->Pls. Just. Stop.
They've had a lot of time at the top - but this doesn't deny the fact at some point between the December 2017 nerfs, and April (?) 2019 beta rules, they were objectively bad. The fact GK were even worse doesn't change this.
Tyel wrote: History of Marines in 8th edition:
Release of game->CA17. Top tier.
CA17->2018 codexes coming out. Mediocre. Getting worse.
Lets say Knights about mid-2018. Now bad. Would remain bad (and get worse and worse) through to some point in 2019 with bolter discipline and hateful assault. Still not great.
New Codex->Very good.
Supplements->Broken.
Faith and Fury->Just stop.
Indomitus->Pls. Just. Stop.
They've had a lot of time at the top - but this doesn't deny the fact at some point between the December 2017 nerfs, and April (?) 2019 beta rules, they were objectively bad. The fact GK were even worse doesn't change this.
except they weren't bad and getting worse mid 2018. They were average. Which again, to most SM players feels like the end of the world because they are so used to being OP as all hell. You still had good players placing well in tournaments with SM lists and having their highest placings near the top of tournaments. Just because IK's were the MOST op does not lower the strength of Space Marines from great to bad, it just moves them from great to average. Same thing with the eldar flying circus nonsense.
Yeah and those BA armies that placed high were often consisting of a large group of IG, a castellan, 15 scouts and smash hammer heroes.
And go tell a DA or any non ultramarines player that he got used to super OP rules, and that is why he wants rules now. Specialy pre 2.0 Iron Hand players or people that started primaris armies in 8th ed. They love to be told that after 2 years of bad rules, now their good rules have to be nerfed, so that people that had good rules for 2 years can have good rules and fun again. In the name of balance.
Daedalus81 wrote: Eradicators can still double tap if they did NOT advance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Aggressors LOST double tap.
So agressors finally got nerfed but eradicators are still broken, suppose that's about a score draw for balance, hopefully GW don't take another year or so to fix eradicators.
Karol wrote: Yeah and those BA armies that placed high were often consisting of a large group of IG, a castellan, 15 scouts and smash hammer heroes.
And go tell a DA or any non ultramarines player that he got used to super OP rules, and that is why he wants rules now. Specialy pre 2.0 Iron Hand players or people that started primaris armies in 8th ed. They love to be told that after 2 years of bad rules, now their good rules have to be nerfed, so that people that had good rules for 2 years can have good rules and fun again. In the name of balance.
I was actually referencing PURE SM lists, and BA armies were a whole different story. Usually BA players were relegated to minimum detachment to gain access to smash captains + Loyal 32 + whatever other flavor of Imperial soup you desired, usually castellan. But why didn't BA players run a pure BA list instead of using allies? Because they could soup and make themselves significantly better, which brings us full circle to the point where we mention that bringing multiple detachments from different factions was bad for game balance NERF IMPERIAL GUARD! why? Because SM players are abusing Loyal 32 detachments to feed CP into their Castellans from another codex
As to your second paragraph, I should go tell DA and Non Codex SM players that they got used to Super op rules? beyond the fact that I specifically said SMs and not DA/BA etc, there is also the fact that those DA players miraculously appeared at Tournaments in 8th as both Green Ultramarines and the even rarer Green Iron Hands. Almost like the only thing which separates the vast majority of units between different Chapters is....armor color. Sure you might have to pick up Bobby G to benefit the most for your Green Ultramarines, likewise you might have to purchase a couple of Wolf cavalry for your Green Space Wolves.
Daedalus81 wrote: Eradicators can still double tap if they did NOT advance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Aggressors LOST double tap.
So agressors finally got nerfed but eradicators are still broken, suppose that's about a score draw for balance, hopefully GW don't take another year or so to fix eradicators.
Eradicators don't bug me as much as salamander Eradicators.
Giving them 6 models and CS will be nuts if they don't strip out some doctrines.
Spoletta wrote: With eradicators still getting that amount of firepower and aggressors gone, I think that we are going to see a lot more horde lists.
If Aggressors completely lose shoot twice instead of getting it for a 2CP strat, a unit of 6 is still doing 72 shots, 48 hits and 24 wounds for 20 dead Orkz a turn. That is 160pts of dead Orkz a turn for the price of 240.
What is sad is Marine players will consider them dead because of this, even when other factions would still kill for a 240pt unit with Power Fists capable of mauling 2/3rds of a Boyz mob a turn.
Which is a good thing for everyone, including the SM players. Rolling 140 dice was a real pain and even the standard volley of shots is still an insane amount of firepower for their points. I play orks since 3rd, I don't mind rolling tons of dice, but I've never rolled as many dice as a SM player does for those 6 dudes. I definitely wouldn't want to roll that many dice for a single unit, let alone a squad of just a handful of models
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: With eradicators still getting that amount of firepower and aggressors gone, I think that we are going to see a lot more horde lists.
Agressors are still fantastic against hordes. They can wipe 20+ models in a single round of shots.
Spoletta wrote: With eradicators still getting that amount of firepower and aggressors gone, I think that we are going to see a lot more horde lists.
If Aggressors completely lose shoot twice instead of getting it for a 2CP strat, a unit of 6 is still doing 72 shots, 48 hits and 24 wounds for 20 dead Orkz a turn. That is 160pts of dead Orkz a turn for the price of 240.
What is sad is Marine players will consider them dead because of this, even when other factions would still kill for a 240pt unit with Power Fists capable of mauling 2/3rds of a Boyz mob a turn.
Actually I consider them dead because they lost that AND the ability to advance + fire with no penalty.
Spoletta wrote: With eradicators still getting that amount of firepower and aggressors gone, I think that we are going to see a lot more horde lists.
If Aggressors completely lose shoot twice instead of getting it for a 2CP strat, a unit of 6 is still doing 72 shots, 48 hits and 24 wounds for 20 dead Orkz a turn. That is 160pts of dead Orkz a turn for the price of 240.
What is sad is Marine players will consider them dead because of this, even when other factions would still kill for a 240pt unit with Power Fists capable of mauling 2/3rds of a Boyz mob a turn.
Actually I consider them dead because they lost that AND the ability to advance + fire with no penalty.
Flamers don't roll to hit and hasn't the range gone up?
From the other thread
Eradicators can have either a heavy 1 +2 damage melta rifle or the regular assault flavor.
1 in every 3 can have a multimelta. It's a special weapon
Daedalus81 wrote: Eradicators can still double tap if they did NOT advance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Aggressors LOST double tap.
So agressors finally got nerfed but eradicators are still broken, suppose that's about a score draw for balance, hopefully GW don't take another year or so to fix eradicators.
Eradicators don't bug me as much as salamander Eradicators.
Giving them 6 models and CS will be nuts if they don't strip out some doctrines.
CS?
If I'm piecing together the correct leaks and they are true we now have eradicators at same old points more damage, is that actually an easier to use shoot twice as they do NOT have to shoot 1 unit with all 6 of them?
Plus they now pack MultiMeltas.
I really want GW to include some of whatever their deaigners are smoking in the next WD as it's got to be crazy.
Spoletta wrote: With eradicators still getting that amount of firepower and aggressors gone, I think that we are going to see a lot more horde lists.
If Aggressors completely lose shoot twice instead of getting it for a 2CP strat, a unit of 6 is still doing 72 shots, 48 hits and 24 wounds for 20 dead Orkz a turn. That is 160pts of dead Orkz a turn for the price of 240.
What is sad is Marine players will consider them dead because of this, even when other factions would still kill for a 240pt unit with Power Fists capable of mauling 2/3rds of a Boyz mob a turn.
Seriously this. A unit of 6 Crisis Suits with triple BCs costs 324 points to accomplish the same number of dead Orkz. They have the same T, W, Ld, save as the Aggressors. They have worse BS, WS and A. And they have 3" of extra movement and fly compared to Aggressors. So Fly and 3" of movement is apparently worth more than 14 points per model for an Aggressor.
But are they 84 points too expensive not good? Or are Aggressors massively undercosted for their firepower relative to their closest comparison in terms of defensive statline and inflicted damage even without being able to shoot twice?
But are they 84 points too expensive not good? Or are Aggressors massively undercosted for their firepower relative to their closest comparison in terms of defensive statline and inflicted damage even without being able to shoot twice?
Aggressors are dead to Slayer because he can't move, advance and shoot with them without suffering that horrible -1 to hit....which puts them at BS4. Your Crisis suits were already hitting on 4s to begin with
This just underlines the point I made, certain Marine players will consider Aggressors dead because they are no longer deleting an entire horde of Ork boyz in a single turn while other factions would clamor for a unit to be as good as aggressors currently are, let alone how ridiculous they were prior.
But are they 84 points too expensive not good? Or are Aggressors massively undercosted for their firepower relative to their closest comparison in terms of defensive statline and inflicted damage even without being able to shoot twice?
UM yeah probably. A unit with BS4+ with a bunch of shooting weapons is usually not going to be good without even a modicum of support. I've been saying they should've been BS3+ to begin with and adjust from there. FLY is good but without shooting not as good as it was.
But are they 84 points too expensive not good? Or are Aggressors massively undercosted for their firepower relative to their closest comparison in terms of defensive statline and inflicted damage even without being able to shoot twice?
Aggressors are dead to Slayer because he can't move, advance and shoot with them without suffering that horrible -1 to hit....which puts them at BS4. Your Crisis suits were already hitting on 4s to begin with
This just underlines the point I made, certain Marine players will consider Aggressors dead because they are no longer deleting an entire horde of Ork boyz in a single turn while other factions would clamor for a unit to be as good as aggressors currently are, let alone how ridiculous they were prior.
They lost two rules and for the record I was using the Advance and Fire rule a lot more playing Carcharodons, thanks.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Or are Aggressors massively undercosted for their firepower relative to their closest comparison in terms of defensive statline and inflicted damage even without being able to shoot twice?
Daedalus81 wrote: Eradicators can still double tap if they did NOT advance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Aggressors LOST double tap.
So agressors finally got nerfed but eradicators are still broken, suppose that's about a score draw for balance, hopefully GW don't take another year or so to fix eradicators.
Eradicators don't bug me as much as salamander Eradicators.
Giving them 6 models and CS will be nuts if they don't strip out some doctrines.
CS?
If I'm piecing together the correct leaks and they are true we now have eradicators at same old points more damage, is that actually an easier to use shoot twice as they do NOT have to shoot 1 unit with all 6 of them?
Plus they now pack MultiMeltas.
I really want GW to include some of whatever their deaigners are smoking in the next WD as it's got to be crazy.
Photo leaks show that to shoot twice its still one single target unit and they are Core.
Multimelta swap is free for each 3rd Eradicator
Now we wait to see how they are further boosted by strats
Daedalus81 wrote: Eradicators can still double tap if they did NOT advance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Aggressors LOST double tap.
So agressors finally got nerfed but eradicators are still broken, suppose that's about a score draw for balance, hopefully GW don't take another year or so to fix eradicators.
Eradicators don't bug me as much as salamander Eradicators.
Giving them 6 models and CS will be nuts if they don't strip out some doctrines.
^^^^This. 6 eradicators double tapping against a Fellblade (T9, 2+) in tactical doctrine average 9.333 wounds, make them Salamanders it jumps to 14. That's a 33% increase just for green paint. All rules that break the (already bad) wounding table need to go.
Still good to see they can no longer advance and double tap. And all I can say for aggressors losing double tap is: .
Daedalus81 wrote: Eradicators can still double tap if they did NOT advance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Aggressors LOST double tap.
So agressors finally got nerfed but eradicators are still broken, suppose that's about a score draw for balance, hopefully GW don't take another year or so to fix eradicators.
Eradicators don't bug me as much as salamander Eradicators.
Giving them 6 models and CS will be nuts if they don't strip out some doctrines.
^^^^This. 6 eradicators double tapping against a Fellblade (T9, 2+) in tactical doctrine average 9.333 wounds, make them Salamanders it jumps to 14. That's a 33% increase just for green paint. All rules that break the (already bad) wounding table need to go.
Still good to see they can no longer advance and double tap. And all I can say for aggressors losing double tap is: .
Is that including the new rifles that are Damage D6+2 at non melta range and D6+4 in melta range.
So 8 D6+2 shots plus 8D6 shots from the Free MultiMeltas.
Also someone said their was a strategum to make a unit BS2
This just sounds like insanity. Base damage is 16 wounds to a knight for 240 points with no buffs doctorines or chapter bonuses WTAF GW?
But are they 84 points too expensive not good? Or are Aggressors massively undercosted for their firepower relative to their closest comparison in terms of defensive statline and inflicted damage even without being able to shoot twice?
Aggressors are dead to Slayer because he can't move, advance and shoot with them without suffering that horrible -1 to hit....which puts them at BS4. Your Crisis suits were already hitting on 4s to begin with
Hitting on 4s but we make up for it with that extra point of strength on the gun, in this situation at least. Equal damage as each other at T4, Marines superior at T3- and T6-7 and T10+, Tau better at T5 and T8-9.
This just underlines the point I made, certain Marine players will consider Aggressors dead because they are no longer deleting an entire horde of Ork boyz in a single turn while other factions would clamor for a unit to be as good as aggressors currently are, let alone how ridiculous they were prior.
Definitely. Aggressors are still a horde killer, they just now are no longer able to put out enough wounds to kill two maxed out horde units in one player turn.
Spoletta wrote: With eradicators still getting that amount of firepower and aggressors gone, I think that we are going to see a lot more horde lists.
If Aggressors completely lose shoot twice instead of getting it for a 2CP strat, a unit of 6 is still doing 72 shots, 48 hits and 24 wounds for 20 dead Orkz a turn. That is 160pts of dead Orkz a turn for the price of 240.
What is sad is Marine players will consider them dead because of this, even when other factions would still kill for a 240pt unit with Power Fists capable of mauling 2/3rds of a Boyz mob a turn.
Which is half of what they did.
Previously if I left even a single one alive, it could eat my gants easily. Now it is a bit more forgiving, I can counter that.
Daedalus81 wrote: Eradicators can still double tap if they did NOT advance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Aggressors LOST double tap.
So agressors finally got nerfed but eradicators are still broken, suppose that's about a score draw for balance, hopefully GW don't take another year or so to fix eradicators.
Eradicators don't bug me as much as salamander Eradicators.
Giving them 6 models and CS will be nuts if they don't strip out some doctrines.
^^^^This. 6 eradicators double tapping against a Fellblade (T9, 2+) in tactical doctrine average 9.333 wounds, make them Salamanders it jumps to 14. That's a 33% increase just for green paint. All rules that break the (already bad) wounding table need to go.
Still good to see they can no longer advance and double tap. And all I can say for aggressors losing double tap is: .
Is that including the new rifles that are Damage D6+2 at non melta range and D6+4 in melta range.
So 8 D6+2 shots plus 8D6 shots from the Free MultiMeltas.
Also someone said their was a strategum to make a unit BS2
This just sounds like insanity. Base damage is 16 wounds to a knight for 240 points with no buffs doctorines or chapter bonuses WTAF GW?
No, that's the assault version. The heavy rifles do 12.222 for everyone else, 18.333 for Salamanders, outside of melta range, and without additional buffs (no bonus AP, if you get within 24 turn one I screwed up bad). Not doing the math with the multi-meltas, as I fear it would depress me.
So when you sit here complaining that it takes 4 turns for intercessors to kill an ork boyz unit of similar points value, remember it takes 7 turns to make it back, and only then if the orkz sneak in an extra 5 models.
it's a deliberate attempt to lie and mislead other posters.
