Switch Theme:

A wider problem with the new Marines...  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 AnomanderRake wrote:


Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.


And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.

You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.


And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.

You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.

I've been using the arbitrary number of 3 for special units, relics, strats, and Warlord traits for sub factions. Infinitely easier to maintain balance and still provides flavor that people crave.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






 AnomanderRake wrote:
Karol wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


I want a game where I don't have to read 4,200 unique relics, warlord traits, stratagems, and sub-faction tactics to avoid getting blindsided by stuff I wasn't aware was possible. But apparently that makes me weird.


if an armyn gets 6 relics, 6 warlord traits and 20+ stratagems, the chance of getting something good is higher, then if you get 1 warlord trait , 3 stratagems and zero relics.


Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.

IMO WL traits and Stratagems should be universal, I'd like the 8 relics for each sub-faction if the others got unionized, it's so easy to go through a relic or two at the start of the game with your opponent and if GW put pts to Relics they could balance those as needed, alternatively making sure none of them are worth less than 1 CP you can put an additional CP penalty on the strongest ones such that 90% of relics instead of 30% of relics have a use. I do feel it is nice to put some flavour to the different Necron Dynasties and I think relics is a fine place to do it.

For unique faction Stratagems I think 3 should be the absolute max, unless you lower the starting number of Stratagems in a codex to below 20. Even 3 for each sub-faction on top of 35 from a codex after getting three different chapter tactics (CT, Doctrine, super Doctrine), feels like a lot. I'd say 20-ish codex Stratagems, no chapter tactics-ish rules and 3 Stratagems would drastically lower complexity without taking much from the game. Maybe I'll need to play SM to know what it feels like to have that many options and to inject that much flavour into the gameplay of a faction, SM players seem to love the flavour it brings to their sub-faction. Maybe SM should have a 8/15 split between shared and subfaction traits, while other factions could get a 20/3 split. All it'd take is locking away some of those SM Strats inside Specialist Detachments.
   
Made in au
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.


And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.

You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.


Indeed but sadly you can never have both balance and variety.

Early 8th with indexes was probably the most "balanced" that 40k has ever been - but it was also the most boring with everything nearly being the same and you may as well be playing with paper cutouts for model markers.

I'd rather variety with several options that lead to different themes based upon how you want to play. That's sort of what they do now - or at least try to. You're not expected to use every single one of those 20 stratagems and traits and relics, you're meant to use them as building blocks to make a list work the way you want it to - sadly they can never get the internal balance right and there's always the "optimum" route that gets you the most for your points which always overshadows everything else.

"why take relic X when relic Y does the same thing but better?" Relic X might be awesome fluff wise and in the game, but if you're basically handicapping yourself by not taking the better option then it's "useless" in game terms (i.e. winning the game)



"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.

To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle


5300 | 2800 | 3600 | 1600 |  
   
Made in se
Dakka Veteran




Relics, traits and stratagems are all quite new to 40k and I dont see how toning it down would kill the hobby. Only reason they might feel like it is since the core rules have 0 flavour and all of is now in each factions special rules.

Removing 90% of faction specific traits/stratagems and some of the relics while making a few more universal traits and strats and improving the core rules would probably make for a better game.

An astartes soup list from the new supplements will have access to 6-7 chapter traits, 27 warlord traits, 30 psychic powers, 30+ relics and about 80 stratagems. Some could argue that they might have a bit too many special rules there that arent bound to the units but to "outside" rules.

You would think that a list with a spearhead detachment, a vanguard detachment and a battalion from the codex only wouldnt be too different from one using a different supplement for each detachment. All the units themselves have the same core rules but all the extra stuff makes them play like almost different armies. The chapters with their own books have less things that make them special outside their extra units than what the supplement chapters have. Its insane the special rules bloat is for marines now.
   
Made in bg
Dakka Veteran




Klickor wrote:
Relics, traits and stratagems are all quite new to 40k and I dont see how toning it down would kill the hobby. Only reason they might feel like it is since the core rules have 0 flavour and all of is now in each factions special rules.

Removing 90% of faction specific traits/stratagems and some of the relics while making a few more universal traits and strats and improving the core rules would probably make for a better game.

An astartes soup list from the new supplements will have access to 6-7 chapter traits, 27 warlord traits, 30 psychic powers, 30+ relics and about 80 stratagems. Some could argue that they might have a bit too many special rules there that arent bound to the units but to "outside" rules.

You would think that a list with a spearhead detachment, a vanguard detachment and a battalion from the codex only wouldnt be too different from one using a different supplement for each detachment. All the units themselves have the same core rules but all the extra stuff makes them play like almost different armies. The chapters with their own books have less things that make them special outside their extra units than what the supplement chapters have. Its insane the special rules bloat is for marines now.


That was never a problem before the SM 2.0 through. Most of the factions warlord traits and relics are to situational or simply bad.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




BAs seemed to have liked theirs. They even went as far as running BA armies with CP batteries, just to hog on the relics and stratagems.

Orcs can't play without their better shokka attack gun.

I don't think I have seen or heard of a DA army that wouldn't use their plasma bikers and the plasma stratagem with them, or hellblasters.

And then there was knights standing up, withb cawl gun relic being the standard weapon for a castellan .

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 06:38:38


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Marin wrote:
Klickor wrote:
Relics, traits and stratagems are all quite new to 40k and I dont see how toning it down would kill the hobby. Only reason they might feel like it is since the core rules have 0 flavour and all of is now in each factions special rules.

Removing 90% of faction specific traits/stratagems and some of the relics while making a few more universal traits and strats and improving the core rules would probably make for a better game.

An astartes soup list from the new supplements will have access to 6-7 chapter traits, 27 warlord traits, 30 psychic powers, 30+ relics and about 80 stratagems. Some could argue that they might have a bit too many special rules there that arent bound to the units but to "outside" rules.

You would think that a list with a spearhead detachment, a vanguard detachment and a battalion from the codex only wouldnt be too different from one using a different supplement for each detachment. All the units themselves have the same core rules but all the extra stuff makes them play like almost different armies. The chapters with their own books have less things that make them special outside their extra units than what the supplement chapters have. Its insane the special rules bloat is for marines now.


That was never a problem before the SM 2.0 through. Most of the factions warlord traits and relics are to situational or simply bad.


You as an eldar player should know your last statement is bs.
Alone in your codexes internal balance.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







Klickor wrote:
The chapters with their own books have less things that make them special outside their extra units than what the supplement chapters have. Its insane the special rules bloat is for marines now.

Can you elaborate on this? Assuming you're talking about the Angels, the Angels and the Wolves, they've all got their own Relics, Traits, Stratagems and Psychic Powers - the bit they lack is the Super Doctrine (because they were written before Doctrines were a thing), and access to "generic" Codex: Space Marines Relics/Traits/Stratagems/Psychic Powers, but by definition those elements are not special ass they're common to seven factions (assuming we count the Supplement Chapters as their own factions)...

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in se
Dakka Veteran




New marines are on a different level but even older books have too much crap in them.

Like most psychic diciplines could be 3 instead of 6 powers. Its usually 2-3 powers that buff or debuff something and then 3-4 worse variants of Smite.

As a BA player I use 3 traits only and one of them is from the core rules actually since the BA traits are mostly gak. Same with relics. Only 3 that is worth to even think about. Its no surptise that its the wings + artisan of war combo that shows up in every list on a smash captain.

Half of the stratagems are useless as well. Lol my Baal Predator can advance even further!!! But it cant shoot since it only have heavy weapons!

Removing most of these things wouldnt change much for the player playing a faction if anything. It would make it much easier for everyone else to learn what that faction can do and not get confused by an overwhelming amount of special rules that might or might not affect the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dysartes wrote:
Klickor wrote:
The chapters with their own books have less things that make them special outside their extra units than what the supplement chapters have. Its insane the special rules bloat is for marines now.

Can you elaborate on this? Assuming you're talking about the Angels, the Angels and the Wolves, they've all got their own Relics, Traits, Stratagems and Psychic Powers - the bit they lack is the Super Doctrine (because they were written before Doctrines were a thing), and access to "generic" Codex: Space Marines Relics/Traits/Stratagems/Psychic Powers, but by definition those elements are not special ass they're common to seven factions (assuming we count the Supplement Chapters as their own factions)...


Most stratagems for BA are the same as the marine codex(old codex) . Then we have like 10 that is unique for BA but that is fewer than what the supplements have. I might have been exaggerating a bit but the supplements have about the same amount of rules as BA outside of the units and UM have almost the same amount of special units.

Supplements do have more variations though since they have their own + the codex to choose from. Especially with the ability to run successors.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 07:01:15


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Xenomancers wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Drop Pods do not have to be 25 points. 65 points is fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
65 points to Deep Strike two Devastator Squads with Grav Cannons turn 1 is totally worth it. As UM I can get them both in Tactical Doctrine, too. The reduction in Grav Cannon cost pays for the Pod even. And now Cherubs dont take up a space in the transport anymore either.

What does it matter? You could take 3 ravagers for the cost and do even more damage...while being about 4 times as survivable and mobile. 65 points to teleport a unit is outrageous when you can do it for 1 cp. Orks can teleport 30 models every turn for the cost of a psychic power. Several relics do it. Just because you CAN do something. Doesn't make it good. The points are off on drop pods. It is clear - they get 0 play in competitive because they are a waste of points.


There's no better way to ensure models dont get shot off the table than keeping them off the table until you want them. Drop Pods are guaranteed Alpha Strike for units that otherwise make for very juicy targets.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in kr
Stalwart Space Marine






Drop Pods suffer more from making enemy units to charge it and render themselves immune to space marine shooting.
This problem becomes worse if the enemy unit charging the pod can fly.
Spend a turn hugging the pod, become immune to shooting and then fall back and shoot.
Compared to this, points cost does not seem to cause serious issue.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Chillicothe, OH

 Insectum7 wrote:
 nintura wrote:
So everyone has to play jorm? Wow i love the options...


No. But you can. Otherwise you have two options compared to the Space Marine one.


Wait, what? One option?

My Painting Blog, UPDATED!

Armies in 8th:
Minotaurs: 1-0-0
Thousand Sons: 15-3

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 nintura wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 nintura wrote:
So everyone has to play jorm? Wow i love the options...


No. But you can. Otherwise you have two options compared to the Space Marine one.


Wait, what? One option?


Drop Pod is one option, vs. Tyrannofex and Trygon.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





I think it's worth noting that despite Iron Hands getting all the attention, now that the enrf has been applied, all of the chapters are solid armies, whatever our views otherwise, codex space marines and it's supplements has a solid internal balance that should be (and IMHO from many of these posts is) envied each of the chapters has some solid reasons to pick it over the others, and a white scars player is going to be, more or less, quite happy with what he has. this is a nice change from most 8th edition codices where it's obvious one subfaction is the only one worth a damn

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Insectum7 wrote:
 nintura wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 nintura wrote:
So everyone has to play jorm? Wow i love the options...


No. But you can. Otherwise you have two options compared to the Space Marine one.


Wait, what? One option?


Drop Pod is one option, vs. Tyrannofex and Trygon.
Terminators. Inceptors. Jump-pack Ordinary Marines.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 14:12:44


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
Drop Pods suffer more from making enemy units to charge it and render themselves immune to space marine shooting.
This problem becomes worse if the enemy unit charging the pod can fly.
Spend a turn hugging the pod, become immune to shooting and then fall back and shoot.
Compared to this, points cost does not seem to cause serious issue.


That's a risk, yes. Although the new Space Marine books help make that less viable by making Marine counterassault more dangerous. If the opponent hides by charging the Pod, they cant overwatch anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 nintura wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 nintura wrote:
So everyone has to play jorm? Wow i love the options...


No. But you can. Otherwise you have two options compared to the Space Marine one.


Wait, what? One option?


Drop Pod is one option, vs. Tyrannofex and Trygon.
Terminators. Inceptors. Jump-pack Ordinary Marines.


Terminators do not bring other units with them. Just like Gargoyles , Flyrants and Spores aren't transports either.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 14:16:37


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





BrianDavion wrote:
I think it's worth noting that despite Iron Hands getting all the attention, now that the enrf has been applied, all of the chapters are solid armies, whatever our views otherwise, codex space marines and it's supplements has a solid internal balance that should be (and IMHO from many of these posts is) envied each of the chapters has some solid reasons to pick it over the others, and a white scars player is going to be, more or less, quite happy with what he has. this is a nice change from most 8th edition codices where it's obvious one subfaction is the only one worth a damn


I think it's also worth noting that while Marines got stronger they didn't get a whole lot tougher so their natural predators didn't change much. Run into a lG armored column and you're still going to have a bad time, you still can't build a Marine army that can tank 10 Russes/Russ Demolishers or that can consistently kill five Russes on turn one before they gut your army.

And yes, I have six pages of strategems to choose from but that's still being applied to an army that has a hard time putting two Battalions into 2000 points and wants to spend half it's CP on extra relics/warlord traits/deployment shenanigans before the game starts. If the strats are good but I can't use more than five or six of them in a game then those two things balance out. Which is how it's supposed to be.

Marines getting deadlier wasn't a step in the right direction, but quite frankly 4 out of 5 games around here are ending with a start-of-turn-two-scoop already so the problem can't get all that much worse. The rate GW is going the entire rule set for 10th or 11th ed is going to read "player 1 and player 2 take turns deploying models. Both players then roll a die, the player with the higher result wins the game." At least there won't be any arguments over which army is the best at that point.

   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





The Newman wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I think it's worth noting that despite Iron Hands getting all the attention, now that the enrf has been applied, all of the chapters are solid armies, whatever our views otherwise, codex space marines and it's supplements has a solid internal balance that should be (and IMHO from many of these posts is) envied each of the chapters has some solid reasons to pick it over the others, and a white scars player is going to be, more or less, quite happy with what he has. this is a nice change from most 8th edition codices where it's obvious one subfaction is the only one worth a damn


I think it's also worth noting that while Marines got stronger they didn't get a whole lot tougher so their natural predators didn't change much. Run into a lG armored column and you're still going to have a bad time, you still can't build a Marine army that can tank 10 Russes/Russ Demolishers or that can consistently kill five Russes on turn one before they gut your army.

And yes, I have six pages of strategems to choose from but that's still being applied to an army that has a hard time putting two Battalions into 2000 points and wants to spend half it's CP on extra relics/warlord traits/deployment shenanigans before the game starts. If the strats are good but I can't use more than five or six of them in a game then those two things balance out. Which is how it's supposed to be.

Marines getting deadlier wasn't a step in the right direction, but quite frankly 4 out of 5 games around here are ending with a start-of-turn-two-scoop already so the problem can't get all that much worse. The rate GW is going the entire rule set for 10th or 11th ed is going to read "player 1 and player 2 take turns deploying models. Both players then roll a die, the player with the higher result wins the game." At least there won't be any arguments over which army is the best at that point.
If your games are ending in 1 turn you need to bring more terrain.
Not to say your wrong in that the game is to lethal but if its that much your doing something wrong.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




How does terrain help with opponents charing you from 9" away or landing a pod behind your termintors blowing them up with multiple units of devastators? Or both at the same time. I mean I guess you could bunker up the whole army in a corner, hoping there is also terrain there that LoS blocks, but then opponents will just claim all objectives. So you still lose the game, you just don't get tabled turn 1. unless they are very alfa strike focused and don't care about cover.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
Drop Pods suffer more from making enemy units to charge it and render themselves immune to space marine shooting.
This problem becomes worse if the enemy unit charging the pod can fly.
Spend a turn hugging the pod, become immune to shooting and then fall back and shoot.
Compared to this, points cost does not seem to cause serious issue.

Paying 65 points to make your opponents have an easy place to hide from shooting attacks...That's a lot worse than 40 or 25 points for that. The point remains - all they do is give a unit deep strike. The drop pod while existing is often to your detriment. The value of that is between 20-40 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
How does terrain help with opponents charing you from 9" away or landing a pod behind your termintors blowing them up with multiple units of devastators? Or both at the same time. I mean I guess you could bunker up the whole army in a corner, hoping there is also terrain there that LoS blocks, but then opponents will just claim all objectives. So you still lose the game, you just don't get tabled turn 1. unless they are very alfa strike focused and don't care about cover.

Terminators can deep strike for free. Your opponent takes devs - you counter with a unit of terminators for less points and they do a whole lot more on top of being twice/3times harder to kill.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/21 17:23:02


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Chillicothe, OH

 Insectum7 wrote:
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
Drop Pods suffer more from making enemy units to charge it and render themselves immune to space marine shooting.
This problem becomes worse if the enemy unit charging the pod can fly.
Spend a turn hugging the pod, become immune to shooting and then fall back and shoot.
Compared to this, points cost does not seem to cause serious issue.


That's a risk, yes. Although the new Space Marine books help make that less viable by making Marine counterassault more dangerous. If the opponent hides by charging the Pod, they cant overwatch anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 nintura wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 nintura wrote:
So everyone has to play jorm? Wow i love the options...


No. But you can. Otherwise you have two options compared to the Space Marine one.


Wait, what? One option?


Drop Pod is one option, vs. Tyrannofex and Trygon.
Terminators. Inceptors. Jump-pack Ordinary Marines.


Terminators do not bring other units with them. Just like Gargoyles , Flyrants and Spores aren't transports either.


Lets take a look at rules here. My basic termagants vs tactical marines.

Numbers: 10 terms vs 4+1 marines. Nids win
Guns: assault 1 s:4 vs pistol 1 s: 4. Advantage: marines
Rules:
hail of living ammunition
Hyper aggression

Vs

Combat squad
Atsknf
Bolter discipline
Shock assault
Fnp 6+
Overwatch 5-6+
(Double wounds if vehicle with damage table)

So not only are you better with assault than almost every basic troop out there, you shoot better as well. And you have THREE times the number of rules. AND you get this on every infantry model ON TOP OF their own rules. Then lets look at synergy. How many different units with auras can you stack? Because Ive got 1 that makes it harder to be shot. No rerolls. All that and your squad only costs 20 points more.

Now, you mentioned trygons. How many S:7 weapons do you have in your dex? And how many different ways can you take them? Im willing to bet hundreds of combinations, with rerolls and other auras.

You do realize you have almost as many elite units as my entire combined codex?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/21 18:06:28


My Painting Blog, UPDATED!

Armies in 8th:
Minotaurs: 1-0-0
Thousand Sons: 15-3

 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 NurglesR0T wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.


And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.

You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.


Indeed but sadly you can never have both balance and variety.

Early 8th with indexes was probably the most "balanced" that 40k has ever been - but it was also the most boring with everything nearly being the same and you may as well be playing with paper cutouts for model markers.

I'd rather variety with several options that lead to different themes based upon how you want to play. That's sort of what they do now - or at least try to. You're not expected to use every single one of those 20 stratagems and traits and relics, you're meant to use them as building blocks to make a list work the way you want it to - sadly they can never get the internal balance right and there's always the "optimum" route that gets you the most for your points which always overshadows everything else.

"why take relic X when relic Y does the same thing but better?" Relic X might be awesome fluff wise and in the game, but if you're basically handicapping yourself by not taking the better option then it's "useless" in game terms (i.e. winning the game)




8e 40k is 5e D&D. Everyone has the same speed and gets to move and attack at (proficiency)+5 dealing d6+5 or d8+5 damage every round, no matter what their class. To make the game "interesting" the designers then stacked a hundred pages of spells on top of a really, really bland system.

The hundred pages of spells don't make the game less bland, they make the game take longer to play while still being about as bland. I don't find Codex-era 40k more interesting than Index-era 40k because every model still gets to attack at full efficiency every turn, and whoever has the edge in the linear damage/durability structure wins unless someone is actively being an idiot. Decisions taken during the game don't really matter. Stratagems just make the whole thing take a lot longer because everyone needs to spend ten minutes looking through the hundred pages of spells every turn.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:
 NurglesR0T wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.


And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.

You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.


Indeed but sadly you can never have both balance and variety.

Early 8th with indexes was probably the most "balanced" that 40k has ever been - but it was also the most boring with everything nearly being the same and you may as well be playing with paper cutouts for model markers.

I'd rather variety with several options that lead to different themes based upon how you want to play. That's sort of what they do now - or at least try to. You're not expected to use every single one of those 20 stratagems and traits and relics, you're meant to use them as building blocks to make a list work the way you want it to - sadly they can never get the internal balance right and there's always the "optimum" route that gets you the most for your points which always overshadows everything else.

"why take relic X when relic Y does the same thing but better?" Relic X might be awesome fluff wise and in the game, but if you're basically handicapping yourself by not taking the better option then it's "useless" in game terms (i.e. winning the game)




8e 40k is 5e D&D. Everyone has the same speed and gets to move and attack at (proficiency)+5 dealing d6+5 or d8+5 damage every round, no matter what their class. To make the game "interesting" the designers then stacked a hundred pages of spells on top of a really, really bland system.

The hundred pages of spells don't make the game less bland, they make the game take longer to play while still being about as bland. I don't find Codex-era 40k more interesting than Index-era 40k because every model still gets to attack at full efficiency every turn, and whoever has the edge in the linear damage/durability structure wins unless someone is actively being an idiot. Decisions taken during the game don't really matter. Stratagems just make the whole thing take a lot longer because everyone needs to spend ten minutes looking through the hundred pages of spells every turn.

Something something get rid of IGOUGO something something

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.


And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.

You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.


I remember Warmachine defined each of its warcasters with once-per-game ability and 3-5 spells, and that made for huge differences between them. Even warcasters from the same faction had a totally different feel from one another, because the spells and feats dictated how the warcaster interacted with their army.

There's no reason why Warhammer couldn't be fun with just a couple of flavorful, competently-written traits and stratagems per army, rather than the avalanche of crap that we have now.

'Bland and uninspired' is repeating the same few stratagems and traits for each army. Hands up, who's got a 'get CP back on a 5+' warlord trait or a 'everyone can throw grenades' stratagem, and what fluffy, faction-specific flavor are those supposed to represent?

Better to incorporate those into a limited, curated set of universal warlord traits and stratagems, then give each faction their own unique warlord trait and handful of appropriate stratagems, and then an extra stratagem for each subfaction. Each faction and subfaction can keep their flavor without the scattershot implementation of stratagems as they currently stand.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 19:18:56


   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 catbarf wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.


And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.

You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.


I remember Warmachine defined each of its warcasters with once-per-game ability and 3-5 spells, and that made for huge differences between them. Even warcasters from the same faction had a totally different feel from one another, because the spells and feats dictated how the warcaster interacted with their army.

There's no reason why Warhammer couldn't be fun with just a couple of flavorful, competently-written traits and stratagems per army, rather than the avalanche of crap that we have now.

'Bland and uninspired' is repeating the same few stratagems and traits for each army. Hands up, who's got a 'get CP back on a 5+' warlord trait or a 'everyone can throw grenades' stratagem, and what fluffy, faction-specific flavor are those supposed to represent?

Better to incorporate those into a limited, curated set of universal warlord traits and stratagems, then give each faction their own unique warlord trait and handful of appropriate stratagems, and then an extra stratagem for each subfaction. Each faction and subfaction can keep their flavor without the scattershot implementation of stratagems as they currently stand.


This.

Especially mind boggling when some of the stratagems are literal equipment pieces

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend





Crazy thought...perhaps GW make up rules to push the new hotness?

Wacky I know...having shareholders and all.

Please note, for those of you who play Chaos Daemons as a faction the term "Daemon" is potentially offensive. Instead, please play codex "Chaos: Mortally Challenged". Thank you. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 AnomanderRake wrote:
 NurglesR0T wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.


And then people complain how bland and uninspired that is.

You'd probably kill Warhammer as an IP doing that.


Indeed but sadly you can never have both balance and variety.

Early 8th with indexes was probably the most "balanced" that 40k has ever been - but it was also the most boring with everything nearly being the same and you may as well be playing with paper cutouts for model markers.

I'd rather variety with several options that lead to different themes based upon how you want to play. That's sort of what they do now - or at least try to. You're not expected to use every single one of those 20 stratagems and traits and relics, you're meant to use them as building blocks to make a list work the way you want it to - sadly they can never get the internal balance right and there's always the "optimum" route that gets you the most for your points which always overshadows everything else.

"why take relic X when relic Y does the same thing but better?" Relic X might be awesome fluff wise and in the game, but if you're basically handicapping yourself by not taking the better option then it's "useless" in game terms (i.e. winning the game)




8e 40k is 5e D&D. Everyone has the same speed and gets to move and attack at (proficiency)+5 dealing d6+5 or d8+5 damage every round, no matter what their class. To make the game "interesting" the designers then stacked a hundred pages of spells on top of a really, really bland system.

The hundred pages of spells don't make the game less bland, they make the game take longer to play while still being about as bland. I don't find Codex-era 40k more interesting than Index-era 40k because every model still gets to attack at full efficiency every turn, and whoever has the edge in the linear damage/durability structure wins unless someone is actively being an idiot. Decisions taken during the game don't really matter. Stratagems just make the whole thing take a lot longer because everyone needs to spend ten minutes looking through the hundred pages of spells every turn.

Oh god thank you. I've never had either 8E or 5E D&D explained so susinctly.

We're at "Well, now we've made a mess of things with all these spells/special-rules. So we'll add more spells/special-rules. That'll fix things!".
   
Made in it
Regular Dakkanaut




They should increase relics and stratagem twofold at least.
Make everything superbloated.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Crazy thought...perhaps GW make up rules to push the new hotness?

Wacky I know...having shareholders and all.


No, never, ever! How dare you accuse GW of such behaviour





Automatically Appended Next Post:
CapRichard wrote:
They should increase relics and stratagem twofold at least.
Make everything superbloated.


Why not Multiply it by x.
X is the numer a headless chicken runs on like in southpark bank.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/21 20:47:17


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: