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.

 Marmatag wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You don't get regimental tactics, but you get Strats, you get the CP regen if you want, you get relics...

Right, and I get nothing regimental specific, which cuts that field down further.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But, if guard are as OP as you claim... Surely losing that would still leave them amazing, yes?

Are you trying to make an argument or be a troll? Pick one. For instance, I can throw in a baneblade variant, but i can't make it hit on 2s with -1 to hit and a 2+ save, or make it outflank, etc. Come on man.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Lastly, I want to play Nurgle Daemons. Not Chaos Marines, not Tzeentch, not anything but Daemons of Papa Nurgle. So saying "Use Death Guard vehicles, they kick ass!" is pretty much the same as me telling you "Play one of the three big soups, they kick ass!"

It's really not, you're still united under the chaos banner. Saying that "guard is to Tyranids" as "death guard is to nurgle" is a dumb argument and you should see that without me having to explain why.

You still get most relics, warlord traits, and strats. Notably, you still get Grand Strategist and Kurov's Aquila.

And you can still have a 2+ to-hit Baneblade with a 2+ save and -1 to-hit. Bring a Searchlight for your Shadowsword, target something Titanic, and bring two Primaris Psykers.

Actually, you might not be able to bring the Searchlight-I'm not sure of its slot, and you can only bring HQs and an Elite with your LoW in a Supreme Command.

As for that last bit, I'll agree there's a difference of degree, but NOT of principal. You want to play Nids-you have options to ally in Guardsmen via GSC. It's harder than allying in Death Guard is for Nurgle Daemons (you need to spend two detachments, not just one) but the principal is the same.

meleti wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

meleti wrote:

Bharring wrote:
But would you argue Marines are top tier, because they can take Guardsmen - as they're Imperial?

BA battalions definitely are top tier in Imperium armies. Those tend to be Scouts, Captains, maybe Mephiston or Sanguinary Guard. But what's there is top tier.

SG are garbage tier, but the rest I agree with.

They're the weakest part and don't make it into lists now that Knights have come up, but the SG package was them and a Sang Priest and it definitely got work done. Made it into a lot of competitive armies from February until June/July when the Knights showed up in force.

edit: oh, and Drukhari screwing over BA stratagems was a big factor there as well.

Beta deep strike rules ruined them.

 Jaxler wrote:
My arguemebt is that at 8-9 points with the jump pack they’d be comparable in cost to scions, which they are worse than in every way. Their ability to tie down things in CC is rather pointless when scions will delete a unit instead of making a charge 50~% of the time with a reroll. Also, without their jump packs they literally cannot do anything useful. A guardsmen has better killing power when buffed with orders, and a better gun. Compare an assault marine to a fire warrior. A fire warrior has a vastly better gun and more synergy, and honestly is comparable in CC because they’re both useless in CC.

Convince me that they’re not a 5-6 point model that’s just overpriced.

If they get rid of the rule of 3(which they DEFINITELY should) then a change like this immediately destroys the game. That many 3+ save bodies would be almost impossible to shift. ever.

With the rule of 3, they're still not great at 8-9 points and they're only really a chaff unit at 5-6. The problem with Assault marines is that they just don't have the tools to do anything meaningful. They need GW to stop trying to make them a jack of all trades type thing and give them a role to fill.

It's not though, i have to bring 2 allies to get 1. If i could freely ally in guard, without GSC, and also get regimental bonuses, then yeah, sure, i'd do it. But it is very limited with <Blood Brothers> to the point where it's not worth it.

I suppose I could bring 3 primaris psykers and a baneblade. But, my baneblade will still be inferior to guards, so when I run into guard that's built for it I flatly lose. This is the problem. <Imperium> will do everything I do but more efficiently and with better traits. In that regard, it's a losing proposition.

That said, some Tyranids players have won by allying in and taking a superheavy baneblade variant (probably a shadowsword). When GSC gets a book I might do it myself. But, i need to get more miles out of GSC before it ever even remotely becomes worth it.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The best way to understand the value of a 3+ is to run units without a 3+.

Except for me. Because my DAs with a shimmershield make more 5++s than my whole army makes 3+/4+ saves. That 5++ has like an 80% success rate.

I do now, and i like them much better. Too many ways 3+ can fail in 8th. The 5++ is very weak on da, but incredibly strong on a raider or venom.

But the 3+ infantry save is a pure liability in 8th because of how gw prices it. And how they price weapons that cut through through easily.

3+ saves on sub 10 point models are fantastic. Nothing like eating 5 rounds of triple quad launcher fire and losing 1 model. Sisters point costs are right around where you start to see 3+ become extremely valuable.

 Xenomancers wrote:

meleti wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

meleti wrote:

Bharring wrote:
But would you argue Marines are top tier, because they can take Guardsmen - as they're Imperial?

BA battalions definitely are top tier in Imperium armies. Those tend to be Scouts, Captains, maybe Mephiston or Sanguinary Guard. But what's there is top tier.

SG are garbage tier, but the rest I agree with.

They're the weakest part and don't make it into lists now that Knights have come up, but the SG package was them and a Sang Priest and it definitely got work done. Made it into a lot of competitive armies from February until June/July when the Knights showed up in force.

edit: oh, and Drukhari screwing over BA stratagems was a big factor there as well.

Beta deep strike rules ruined them.

AM/BA armies? Not really.

Can we also bring up that some people in this thread agree that:
A. Imperial Guardsmen should cost 5 points
B. Assault Marines should cost 5 points

???

Movement, fly, strength, toughness, weapon skill, ballistic skill, melee attacks, bolt weapons, armor saves and near morale immunity count for nothing in this edition, so this seems fair. If anything assault marines should be even cheaper since guardsmen get lasguns.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Can we also bring up that some people in this thread agree that:
A. Imperial Guardsmen should cost 5 points
B. Assault Marines should cost 5 points

???

I don't think that anyone in this thread seriously believes that ASM should be anything less than 10 points, those who say the contrary are just doing that for fun and to stir the discussion.

Spoletta wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Can we also bring up that some people in this thread agree that:
A. Imperial Guardsmen should cost 5 points
B. Assault Marines should cost 5 points

???

I don't think that anyone in this thread seriously believes that ASM should be anything less than 10 points, those who say the contrary are just doing that for fun and to stir the discussion.

I think 9 is reasonable - if a tac marine is 10 - then 11 or 12 with a jump pack. It is perfectly reasonable points.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Can we also bring up that some people in this thread agree that:
A. Imperial Guardsmen should cost 5 points
B. Assault Marines should cost 5 points

???

I don't think that anyone in this thread seriously believes that ASM should be anything less than 10 points, those who say the contrary are just doing that for fun and to stir the discussion.

I think 9 is reasonable - if a tac marine is 10 - then 11 or 12 with a jump pack. It is perfectly reasonable points.

I disagree with ASM costing less than tacs, provided though that the cost of melee weapons goes considerably down for them. There is no reason why a bonesword is 2 points and a lightning claw is 8.
With eviscerators costing a reasonable amount of points (8, at least for ASM) and other melee weapons getting cheaper, 10 points is the right cost for ASM.
They become a good bully unit if used with packs, or a worthy package for a rhino if without packs (10 ASM with decent equp and a Rhino would come around 200 points, fair).

Also, i would add to the chaplain aura that they reroll charges. In general the game would be more healthy if the SM factions could perform the correct mix of assault and shooting that they are expected too. As long as SM are purely shooting, then they will not work and the game will miss a founding element. Most of the problems we have with shooting being overperforming, is due to the SM not being able to pose a melee threath and the game is skewed as a consequence.

I think it's pretty simple. Assualt marines should cost less than tactical marines because they do the exact same damage per turn - except - assault marines have get get within 1" do do their damage but tacs can do most their damage at 12" or even 24" if they have to.

Mobility is nice but increased mobility is not worth a loss of damage at even equal points cost.

Things like evicerators going down in price should also be included in any change to them too. They have 1 attack - they weapon is absolutely useless on them. It should be 5 points - lol.

I am totally fine with the unit having poor upgrade options - these are essentially rookie marines. It's possibly some of their first battles.

I dunno about the damage argument. My ASM squad can shut down a Predator or Russ the turn they engage. Or a backfield camper unit. My Tac squads can't do that.

Granted, they cost too much and it takes too much to make that happen currently. But the same goes for Tacs.

I still agree that ASM are in a worse spot than Tacs, and that Tacs are in a bad spot. I still think 11ppm ASM w/2ppm Jetpacks (like VV), beside 11ppm Tacs, with +1A at least for the ASM (I'd like to see it on all Battle Brothers) would be a better spot. But then, that's still balanced more around the 'Boyz/Necron/Nid troop balance level, not the Guardsman/Kabs balance level.

I think all the CC weapons in the Marine dex are costed much more fairly for Characters than squadies - with the notable exception of Vanguard Vets. I'd imagine if Sarges payed ~1-2pts for a Power Weapon, and other such costs, while that alone wouldn't change the game, it might offer some utility and add character. Not to mention what sane per-unit costs would do to Terminator squads (not necessarily make them good, but certainly less overcosted).

For a comparison, lets look at the Eldar CC weapons. Banshees are a 13ppm model, after paying 4ppm for the power sword. That means they pay 9ppm for a Dire Avenger body +plus+ super movement +plus+ ignore overwatch, on top of being a dirty Space Elf (with all the OP that entails). 9ppm is easily cheap enough for the body. But at 13ppm - paying 4ppm for a Power Sword - they're bad (even with Space Elf shenanigans). Very bad. And look at Storm Guardians. You can pay 4ppm to give a 7ppm frame a Power Sword, and even hide it behind 7ppm ablaitive wounds. But it's not even worth the 4ppm they pay. So should the Eldar power sword be dropped down? Well, I'd argue 4ppm for a Power Sword on an Autarch is more than worth it - only overshadowed by better options. So it shouldn't go down in points. So how do you balance that?

11ppm ASM with 2ppm Jetpacks and +1A and 1-2pts for Sarge powerweapon, with an option for a cheaper Executioner, and we're looking at a unit that can be used. Not a super scary threat (that should be VV), but capable of playing the bully - like it should be. Throw in a fix for Flamers and maybe even Plasma Pistols, and they'd actually have a use. Not meta-shifting OP, but a place in some lists.

Final point - most ASM on the tabletop are *not* rookie marines. While there is a Reserve Company full of them in most chapters, the first two ASM squads (whether as that entry, as bikers, or as drivers) are much more likely to be part of a Battle Company, even in engagements with Scouts. If a Tactical Squad is on the board, those odds jump substantially. While a little more than half the ASM of the typical chapter are Rookies, Battle Companies are in the field much more frequently and represented on the tabletop much more frequently than the *reserve*. SM Reserves do see action, but they're still reserves.

How you do you balance ASM and VV when they are literally the same thing but one has added bling?

By looking at what differentiates them: loadout options.

ASM are bullies. No matter how you kit them, they aren't taking down a Dread in one round of CC. You can kit them to be better at bullying different threats (melta bomb and/or plas pistol for harassing tanks, power sword for MEQ targets, power maul/flamer for light targets like Rangers/Guardsmen). But even at it's best, a Dread or Berzerkers or just about any other actual CC unit should trash them regardless of how you kitted them. They are *not* a CC threat.

VV pay too much to just bully the small stuff. But you can kit them to be an actual CC threat. Power weapons (or dual Chainswords) will make short-ish work of many light targets ASM would just tie up. Thunder Hammers or Power Fist will let them drop a vehicle. Throw on some Storm Shields, and they can even stand up in CC against Dreads and MCs. They shouldn't be as heavy a CC threat as Zerkers or other dedicated CC units. But they should be more mobile than Zerkers or other heavier dedicated CC units.

In other words, ASM are the Assault Marines that specialize in outmaneuvering the enemy and supporting Tacs in offensive operations. VV are a Veteran unit that can take the fight to the enemy, and even form the vanguard of a protracted CC fight. The rules don't currently make either great, but the themes and potential is definitely there.

Unfortunately VV aren't very good at what they do. And ASM are only 1 ppm cheaper.

2 points cheaper. One point each for LD and attack. So now they're also even less likely to flee.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2 points cheaper. One point each for LD and attack. So now they're also even less likely to flee.

Is that an aknowledgement that morale matters?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2 points cheaper. One point each for LD and attack. So now they're also even less likely to flee.

Is that an aknowledgement that morale matters?

It doesn't to me. I'm content with the better options and extra attack for the 2 points.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2 points cheaper. One point each for LD and attack. So now they're also even less likely to flee.

Is that an aknowledgement that morale matters?

It doesn't to me. I'm content with the better options and extra attack for the 2 points.

Not mattering to you personally is a far cry from:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nobody cares about morale checks. Morale is a useless mechanic just like in last edition.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

No morale isn't a thing. Quit acting like it is.

Just sayin.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
2 points cheaper. One point each for LD and attack. So now they're also even less likely to flee.

Is that an aknowledgement that morale matters?

It doesn't to me. I'm content with the better options and extra attack for the 2 points.

Not mattering to you personally is a far cry from:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nobody cares about morale checks. Morale is a useless mechanic just like in last edition.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

No morale isn't a thing. Quit acting like it is.

Just sayin.

Well lemme rephrase that for you.

Morale doesn't matter. Extra LD would mostly matter for psyker shenanigans.

Morale is hugely important for anyone not playing an army with high leadership and re-rolling morale tests.

meleti wrote:
Morale is hugely important for anyone not playing an army with high leadership and re-rolling morale tests.

And who would that be?

Tyel wrote:

meleti wrote:
Morale is hugely important for anyone not playing an army with high leadership and re-rolling morale tests.

And who would that be?

Lists people dont play like Horde SoB 10 girl units lists, Horde 10-20 man/girl/Beast units DE, etc..

Sisters of Battle should cost 3 points. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Sisters of Battle should cost 3 points. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

I dont make dares with people that reads 9 as a 3

Well, in the Proposed Rules section, we have Necron Warriors being buffed to out-CC even things like Shining Spears and Berzerkers.

Faced with that, 3ppm Sisters don't sound so bad.

Where's my buff Hormagants and Termagants thread? Are there so few Tyranids players running around in 8th these days?

ASM @ 9 pts would be awesome as a start

Make chainswords AP-1

how is it still the same profile as a damn butter knife?

let a squad take a melta bomb rather than the one guy (SGT) that can take the damn power fist!

and then come back in 6 months see how it's going on


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Where's my buff Hormagants and Termagants thread? Are there so few Tyranids players running around in 8th these days?

I bought a Kraken army and built 60 stealers so I can get my assault fix that space marines wasn't giving me.

I'm not replacing them with gaunts at whatever the cost! .... sooooo many arms !!

9 points is just too cheap for power armored bodies.

Yes, sisters are too cheap.

I disagree. They seem about right compared to guardsmen/kabalites. They are power armor done correctly in 8th ed.