Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, yea I'm assuming people have sent feedback already. I definitely don't see soup going away though.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Well, yea I'm assuming people have sent feedback already. I definitely don't see soup going away though.

I don't think anyone really wants it to go away... I love being able to use allies personally, it just should have some penalties and downsides. When you can just pick the best units from several armies and have a top answer for ever phase of the game you already have a huge advantage. And as much as allies are fun, I'd love for my mono-faction army to be viable and competitive on the same level.

I think there should be one or more smaller allied FOCs that can never contain the warlord, and your only able to take 1 of them per list. Something like 1-2 HQ, 0-2 troops/Elies/FA/HS and 1 LoW at the most, maybe smaller. And they would also give fewer CP than normal detachments.

Allying another army into yours can gain you a significant advantage just because the different books can typically complement each other's strengths and weaknesses. When there aren't any downsides to using allies, it's much less of a choice if you want to be competitive. It also must be more difficult to balance one codex if the ones it can ally with must also be considered, while also being fair to the codexes that can't, so the more that's limited the better imo.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The argument that any fix to GK just makes them too close to Custodes is totally BS. Custodes are what the GK community asked GW to fix for GK. Custodes are a slap in the face to GK players that took the time to respond to GW’s request for fan feedback going into 8th. Instead of fixing the issues with GK, they just put all the requested fixes into Custodes.

So don’t even dare say fixing GK puts them too close to Custodes, when Custodes ARE fixed GK.

SJ

Incorrect. Custodes are basically what people who don't know what they're talking about wanted with Grey Knights and/or Terminators.

Custodes exist now, and we need to give those units and the army a different identity.

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.

7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.

Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.

They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.

Most armies were bad without their OP formation in 7th. I sure don't see people talking about how trash Necrons were if you weren't running a Decurion because everyone was running the Decurion.

Talking about 7th armies without taking their formations into account is like talking about 8th armies without taking their chapter tactics and stratagems into account.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.

7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.

Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.

They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.

BA have been bad for several editions and they only had a brief moment of glory in 5th edition.

GW has WAAAYY over-estimated assault units consistently, pretty much after 3rd edition to the present. Because in-your-face-assault is not "fun" and "friendly" to new players. Which was the metric that GW weighed all of their previous "balance" on... the problem is now, Assault units are still judged on the silly 'smashing beginners' scale while everything else is getting the "competitive' treatment (excluding GK of course).

Mono faction BA got kicked in the junk real hard with the beta-rules because that entire codex is built around 'deep strike and assault' ...but at least they can still function as a generic SM faction with effectively no Chapter-tactic outside of situational use - which still really sucks and doesn't nearly measure up to the current balance - BUT Grey Knights can't even function as a neutered SM faction, GK are pretty much crap as a mono-faction right now.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.

7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.

Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.

They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.

didn't you also have Cent stars, white scar grav spam and other shot? SM only started relying on formations once everyone else did too, and they got the best formation. Don't act like formation design was unique to the dex, most people had to take formations if they wanted to be competitive, that's why they were so bad

 SHUPPET wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.

7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.

Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.

They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.

didn't you also have Cent stars, white scar grav spam and other shot? SM only started relying on formations once everyone else did too, and they got the best formation. Don't act like formation design was unique to the dex, most people had to take formations if they wanted to be competitive, that's why they were so bad

Well the Blood Angels didn't at least... and their formations were total garbage.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.

7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.

Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.

They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.

didn't you also have Cent stars, white scar grav spam and other shot? SM only started relying on formations once everyone else did too, and they got the best formation. Don't act like formation design was unique to the dex, most people had to take formations if they wanted to be competitive, that's why they were so bad

Well the Blood Angels didn't at least... and their formations were total garbage.

So he's doubly wrong

uh what?

 Gunzhard wrote:
uh what?

He just said BA was SM without the formations. I just mentioned things like White Scar grav spam and Tiggy±Cents and other stuff SM was doing to compete before Gladius, so he's wrong about that statement.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
uh what?

He just said BA was SM without the formations. I just mentioned things like White Scar grav spam and Tiggy±Cents and other stuff SM was doing to compete before Gladius, so he's wrong about that statement.

"Compete" is a strong word for an army that tons of people claim is fine but tournament standings show otherwise.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
uh what?

He just said BA was SM without the formations. I just mentioned things like White Scar grav spam and Tiggy±Cents and other stuff SM was doing to compete before Gladius, so he's wrong about that statement.

"Compete" is a strong word for an army that tons of people claim is fine but tournament standings show otherwise.

You realise we're not talking about this edition right

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
uh what?

He just said BA was SM without the formations. I just mentioned things like White Scar grav spam and Tiggy±Cents and other stuff SM was doing to compete before Gladius, so he's wrong about that statement.

"Compete" is a strong word for an army that tons of people claim is fine but tournament standings show otherwise.

You realise we're not talking about this edition right

I'm well aware, yes.

I'm not doubly wrong. I could beat grav stars and white scar bikers with wily play. Eldar and tau rolled over them. BA very much resembled marines with no formations. Eldar didn't need formations; they had undercosted units.

My point is that the base marine has been a failure for a long time now. Since 5th, imo. And gk now just exemplify the same problems, only worse.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The argument that any fix to GK just makes them too close to Custodes is totally BS. Custodes are what the GK community asked GW to fix for GK. Custodes are a slap in the face to GK players that took the time to respond to GW’s request for fan feedback going into 8th. Instead of fixing the issues with GK, they just put all the requested fixes into Custodes.

So don’t even dare say fixing GK puts them too close to Custodes, when Custodes ARE fixed GK.

SJ

This is precisely why listening to fan feedback is dangerous. Everybody wants their favourite thing to be the most super-duper special bestest thing ever.

GK are not physically superior to other Astartes, nor are they more skilled warriors. They are regular Astartes, with 3 main differences:

- they have a higher standard of equipment, owing to the requirements of their role, small numbers and having their own dedicated Forge World
- they are all psykers, of varying degrees - they are not all Mephiston-esque Alpha+ battle-psykers, but this is their biggest selling point
- they have a huge amount of training in a very specific skill set; they wreck face in dealing with the daemonic, but an Imperial Fist will lay a better siege, an Ultramarine will be more tactically flexible, an Iron Hand would mount a better armoured assault and so on

They also descend from a gene seed with a much higher resistance to corruption.

So no, they should not have triple the Wounds and Attacks of regular Astartes, a standard 2+/4++/6+++ save, use Astartes Captain-level guns as their basic sidearm, higher Strength and Toughness than Astartes nor be more accurate in shooting and combat than other Astartes. Custodes rules are where Custodes should be.

GK should have an Astartes statline, a Storm Bolter and Force Weapon as their standard weaponry, much more ready access to Terminator Armour, access to psychic powers across the board and some anti-Daemon specialty rules. When those psychic powers are inactive, they should be no more dangerous than an Ultramarine with a Storm Bolter and Force Sword. When those powers are active, they should be able to outfight, outshoot, outmanoeuvre and/or outlast that Ultramarine on a 1-1 basis, but still lose to a Custodian on a 1-1 basis. They should be costed higher than Astartes because they have the potential to be more dangerous, but they should not be costed assuming those psychic buffs are always active, since they won’t always be. I know that’s a super difficult balance to achieve but it should be the aim.

I think conceptually GK are fine, just the execution of that concept into rules in 8th Ed is very sub-par. They are costed as if they have constant access to their psychic buffs, rather than sometimes having them, and the core psychic rules prevent them from even attempting to gain those buffs on all their units. Worse, a number of units are overcosted even with the assumption that they have their powers active. Furthermore, the core and beta rules come down really hard on their specialised method of combat - sudden teleport strike.

Beyond that they have another issue - the Marine statline - but that’s not a GK-specific issue, they just show the low efficiency and terrible durability-for-cost more acutely due to their higher individual points investment. Personally I reckon the best way to solve this common issue is to do away with the Primaris distinction entirely and give every Astartes of every stripe the +1 W/A Primaris have, along with a slight points hike. I think this would help solve a lot of GK’s issues, the rest of which could be fixed by giving them a much broader Psychic discipline, a few more Stratagems and a general redo-of their points.

A bit of an ignorant rant. The GK fanbase sent in fixes that would correct problems with TDA in general, which would fix GK TDA units as well. Custodes got those suggestions, not Astartes TDA.

No one wants super Astartes in the form of GK, we just want less gross negligence from GW.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
A bit of an ignorant rant. The GK fanbase sent in fixes that would correct problems with TDA in general, which would fix GK TDA units as well. Custodes got those suggestions, not Astartes TDA.

No one wants super Astartes in the form of GK, we just want less gross negligence from GW.

SJ

That... doesn’t seem to be at all what you said in what I quoted above. You didn’t mention TDA/Terminators in that post at all. You said Custodes are what GK players wanted GK to be. That’s very different to saying ‘Custodes are what GK players wanted Terminators to be.’

If that is genuinely what you meant then fine, but it isn’t what you said, which is all I had to respond to.

kombatwombat wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
A bit of an ignorant rant. The GK fanbase sent in fixes that would correct problems with TDA in general, which would fix GK TDA units as well. Custodes got those suggestions, not Astartes TDA.

No one wants super Astartes in the form of GK, we just want less gross negligence from GW.

SJ

That... doesn’t seem to be at all what you said in what I quoted above. You didn’t mention TDA/Terminators in that post at all. You said Custodes are what GK players wanted GK to be. That’s very different to saying ‘Custodes are what GK players wanted Terminators to be.’

If that is genuinely what you meant then fine, but it isn’t what you said, which is all I had to respond to.

I already pointed that out earlier. All Terminators outside the Troop Grey Knights need a WS/BS2+ and then the Troop dudes need a super price cut.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not doubly wrong. I could beat grav stars and white scar bikers with wily play. Eldar and tau rolled over them. BA very much resembled marines with no formations. Eldar didn't need formations; they had undercosted units.

My point is that the base marine has been a failure for a long time now. Since 5th, imo. And gk now just exemplify the same problems, only worse.

Ah so if you aren't as good as 7th ed Eldar, you aren't a real army.



Well that's a rational standard of measure.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.

7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.

Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.

They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.

BA have been bad for several editions and they only had a brief moment of glory in 5th edition.

GW has WAAAYY over-estimated assault units consistently, pretty much after 3rd edition to the present. Because in-your-face-assault is not "fun" and "friendly" to new players. Which was the metric that GW weighed all of their previous "balance" on... the problem is now, Assault units are still judged on the silly 'smashing beginners' scale while everything else is getting the "competitive' treatment (excluding GK of course).

Mono faction BA got kicked in the junk real hard with the beta-rules because that entire codex is built around 'deep strike and assault' ...but at least they can still function as a generic SM faction with effectively no Chapter-tactic outside of situational use - which still really sucks and doesn't nearly measure up to the current balance - BUT Grey Knights can't even function as a neutered SM faction, GK are pretty much crap as a mono-faction right now.

I've had a lot of success with charge after deepstrike termie formation in 7th. They were even able to beat a standard eldar scatbike+wk list.

 Hollow wrote:
Currently, all factions can build lists to beat all other factions. GK can beat all other factions, but it is situational.

And you post this after suggesting that other people's opinions are juvenile and simplistic?

Of course it is possible for every codex to beat every other codex.

That doesn't mean that they are all equal. The GK codex is riddled with flaws that make it a disadvantageous matchup to the overwhelming majority of competitive builds.

If there are vastly more situations where GK are at a disadvantage and vastly fewer where they are at an advantage then clearly it is a problem codex. This isn't something you can shrug off as "situational". Of course it's, situational - that's an incredibly trite and obvious observation.

i met 2 Gk in a row in tournaments, also with my mistakes they cant just handle 60 plaguebearers Magnus+Dp's 18 enlighted and plague drones of Nurgles and tons of mortal wound i almost tabled both of them and i repeat i did many mistakes in both matches, a little more skilled player should table them easily, so for me the codex with the actual play rules aren't so good.

kombatwombat wrote:
GK are not physically superior to other Astartes, nor are they more skilled warriors

This is a side-effect of them being turned into a marine style book in 5th.

The old daemonhunters brought a WS of 5, bonuses while using their (pretty limited) specialist equipment and psychic defensive/mobility abilities related to their dismounted infantry playstyle. They weren't particularly good, but had a lot more scope for being expanded into something unique.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.

7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.

Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.

They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.

I'm gonna let you go ahead and read what you originally posted, which made zero references to BA.

Then I'm gonna let the ridiculousness of your argument sink in when you claim codex A is garbage because it relied on one or two overpowered elements, but it is somehow terrible to codex B because it relies on a different overpowered element.

If you wanted to bitch about BA again, you should have made that clear, but your original post was entirely and specifically about the 'ACTUAL marine codex', which was, without a doubt a good book, and I'd argue it was top tier throughout the edition.

And people wonder why Space Marine players have a rep for whining. Dear god this last page...

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
When was the last time the ACTUAL marine codex was good? What were marines without skyhammer or gladius last edition? Scatterlaser fodder, that's what.

7th. You know this. Everyone knows this. Arguing anything to the contrary for any reason would be an insult to the intelligence of this board.

Now, you can make the argument and distinction between a good codex and strong codex, which can have more nuance, but even then, 7th marines were one of the better internally balanced books, with lots of strong formations and boosts, and were externally very powerful. All elements of a top tier book.

They had two crutch formations, which BA lacked. Without those two crutches, you had BA, who were definitely terrible in 7th.

I'm gonna let you go ahead and read what you originally posted, which made zero references to BA.

Then I'm gonna let the ridiculousness of your argument sink in when you claim codex A is garbage because it relied on one or two overpowered elements, but it is somehow terrible to codex B because it relies on a different overpowered element.

If you wanted to bitch about BA again, you should have made that clear, but your original post was entirely and specifically about the 'ACTUAL marine codex', which was, without a doubt a good book, and I'd argue it was top tier throughout the edition.

Oh it was a good codex only in the same way the Tyranid 6th Edition was a good codex. It could win tournaments but nobody should be saying it's good. It was codex: Flyrant, Mawloc, and Spores.

As GK players and as GK communities, we sent TONS of feedback, but without results. And we didn't ask for OP stuff, only some points adjustment, and some rules to face some of our problems (no CP from non detachment source, no antitank, etc) and grant us access to librarius discipline (like TS). Stuff like this.

Moreover in september FAQ we will not get anything, because Cruddace said that GK will have points drop and some other changes in this year CA.

ANyway, I can agree that GK should have marines statline, but the price must be comparative. and I can't understand how is it possible that every single point change made on SM stuff will hit us harder while some of our weapons or units (TLPHC and tech marines) cost more than the SM ones.

Moreover in september FAQ we will not get anything, because Cruddace said that GK will have points drop and some other changes in this year CA.

What's the source on that?