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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
OR we could just remove the Super Doctrines.

This isnt a strict marine problem. Every army has some inferior and superior army traits. This should not be the case. Every army trait should be of similar strength. Plus especially across armies with the exact same trait like Levi vs Ironhands....this cases should be thrown out immediately.

As is, outside Salamanders and Crimson Fists being terrible, the Marine traits are pretty balanced. Now would I remove vehicle chart part of the Iron Hand one so they just get two bonuses? Well yeah.

You are a bit off about the power of the tactics. CF for example still have one of the best tactics - it is just there is a better version called IF - literally no reason unless you have some attachment to pedro to take Crimson fists because they even have the same relics and stratagems right? Exploding 6's on bolt weapons is still incredible compared to say...Ultramarines which can fall back and shoot at -1...which is super conditional and -1 LD might as well not even exist. BT is also pretty bad for an entire army because it literally does nothing for 80% of the units in the codex - 5+ FNP to mortals - is okay but also super conditional. Salamanders is also not that bad. The basically have MOA which almost all the competitive lists use and instead of always counts in cover they have ignore ap-1 (which is super conditional). It's still better than garbage Ultras and BT tactics.

IF and IH tactics are literally issane. Plus so is successor traits. Like I explained...Successor traits can be salamanders plus 1 and take your pick of the best super doctrines. Clearly imbalanced from inception. Never should have made it this far.

Crimson Fists are terrible because in a game where you already run MSU outside a couple of deathstar units, the main part of the Tactic will never go off.

The main part of their tactic is exploding 6's on bolt guns...which is amazing. That part alone is better than all the chapters traits which aren't IH or IF or RG(situational because so much ignores cover and -1 to hit isn't great anytmore) Id take that part for ultramarines with no additional benefit so I could run calgar without gimping myself with essentially no chapter tactic. Ultras tactic is straight non existent in over 75% of my games. BT is about equally as useless as ultras though you could run a full melee list and it would be okay(but why would you?). Those are the 2 real duds. CF is just unfrotuantely IF tactic but worse - 1 part is great the other part is not great and mostly useless because you can reroll all hits anyways and you want to miss more to reroll more 6's. I agree it is dumb but CF actually hit about the same on 3's with rerolls as 2's with rerolls with bolt weapons when they are outnumbered.

 ImperialArmy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
IF GW required us to pay for CT it'd not make much differance. We'd still have one or two CTs deemed the best, there'd just be additional factors in figuring out what's best.

Iron Hands meanwhile is so good you'd never want to ditch the doctrine

Thats the point though if Chapter tactics had points and cost appropriate to the effects they give it would make picking a CT meaning full beyond "whats best"

The fact all armies dont have all the tools that some do is why the game is out of whack now.

If The Chapter tactics and doctrines cost points, other armies would be able to compete against them more fairly.


Additionally: If strats cost points instead of force org slots it would even the playing field nicely. Soup wouldn't be required to get the bonus from the loyal 32 to fuel elite armies.

except my point is that if you gave them a points cost you'd still have people going through the CTs and detirmining what is best.

suddenly point would detirming that "Salamanders ignore -1 for an additional 50 points, is more cost effective then raven guards abilities for 100 points" and the tourny people would simply play salamanders. back in 6th/7th relics had a points cost. and some relics where clearly detirmined to be better then others, to the point where some relics wheren't taken cause they where over costed. Points cost does not automaticly make stuff balanced.

BrianDavion wrote:

 ImperialArmy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
IF GW required us to pay for CT it'd not make much differance. We'd still have one or two CTs deemed the best, there'd just be additional factors in figuring out what's best.

Iron Hands meanwhile is so good you'd never want to ditch the doctrine

Thats the point though if Chapter tactics had points and cost appropriate to the effects they give it would make picking a CT meaning full beyond "whats best"

The fact all armies dont have all the tools that some do is why the game is out of whack now.

If The Chapter tactics and doctrines cost points, other armies would be able to compete against them more fairly.


Additionally: If strats cost points instead of force org slots it would even the playing field nicely. Soup wouldn't be required to get the bonus from the loyal 32 to fuel elite armies.

except my point is that if you gave them a points cost you'd still have people going through the CTs and detirmining what is best.

suddenly point would detirming that "Salamanders ignore -1 for an additional 50 points, is more cost effective then raven guards abilities for 100 points" and the tourny people would simply play salamanders. back in 6th/7th relics had a points cost. and some relics where clearly detirmined to be better then others, to the point where some relics wheren't taken cause they where over costed. Points cost does not automaticly make stuff balanced.

The problem with Relics is that anything based around Morale sucks and weapons went through the garbage AP system of 3rd onwards. Look at something like the Spartean. It makes more sense now than it did last edition. HOWEVER, why would I take it for free over something else that's free? Point costs would make that balanced.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
OR we could just remove the Super Doctrines.

This isnt a strict marine problem. Every army has some inferior and superior army traits. This should not be the case. Every army trait should be of similar strength. Plus especially across armies with the exact same trait like Levi vs Ironhands....this cases should be thrown out immediately.

What their probably shouldn't be is "global" traits. Alaitoc being the obvious example, but generally speaking the traits should be targeted to make a specific aspect of an army strong enough to be a competitive focus. Iron Hands can be the Dreadnought chapter while White Scars is where you get competitive bikes. This helps create design space for a lot of otherwise niche units and helps define each trait's unique army style.

IDK about that - it's pretty lame having 1 chapter but the units I pay the same price for are worse than other chapters. Traits should be useful for all or most of your models. IE Ironhands dreads have 6+ fnp. White scars can advance and charge. BT get a close combat bonus and inspire their infantry somehow when they complete charges. IF get additional bonus to cover save if in cover. Ultras can shoot on the move and count as stationary. Salamanders get bonus to flame and melta weapons. (just realistic as all of these traits seem somewhat balanced and fit the fluff).

There was no need for these insane traits IH and IF got. That is just pure ignorance of what balance is.

Apart from that and certain super doctrines and a few WLT (looking at you master of ambush). I feel like most of the other changes were good. You could pretty much just removed super doctrines.

Personally I feel like the Dev Doctrine should be a +1 to hit with heavy weapons (or ignore move penalties for heavies). Tactical and assault are fine. As is shock assault (it should only affect marine infantry though - not their dreads). Succesor traits are fine except for a few obvious ones like (MOA) which is basically the salamanders chapter tactic where you can also pick another really good trait...obviously too much. Maybe limit to just 1 trait for the successors would have been fine.

Ignore move penalties would be fine, +1 to hit is stronger than the current dev doctrine yall, since you always get the die shift as opposed to the AP which doens't work on most units with invuln saves...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 ImperialArmy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
IF GW required us to pay for CT it'd not make much differance. We'd still have one or two CTs deemed the best, there'd just be additional factors in figuring out what's best.

Iron Hands meanwhile is so good you'd never want to ditch the doctrine

Thats the point though if Chapter tactics had points and cost appropriate to the effects they give it would make picking a CT meaning full beyond "whats best"

The fact all armies dont have all the tools that some do is why the game is out of whack now.

If The Chapter tactics and doctrines cost points, other armies would be able to compete against them more fairly.


Additionally: If strats cost points instead of force org slots it would even the playing field nicely. Soup wouldn't be required to get the bonus from the loyal 32 to fuel elite armies.

except my point is that if you gave them a points cost you'd still have people going through the CTs and detirmining what is best.

suddenly point would detirming that "Salamanders ignore -1 for an additional 50 points, is more cost effective then raven guards abilities for 100 points" and the tourny people would simply play salamanders. back in 6th/7th relics had a points cost. and some relics where clearly detirmined to be better then others, to the point where some relics wheren't taken cause they where over costed. Points cost does not automaticly make stuff balanced.

Hey I've got a great cool game system for you to play it's called AOS before general's handbook.

if things had points people would still just find the most efficient option, right? Adding points doesn't automatically equal balanced!!!

If ap is so meaningless. Why are marines so strong? Apart from doctrines...nothing dropped in price...only a few units like agressors and assault cents and supressors...and only a few marine armies take assault cents as ravengaurd. The +1 attack almost never comes into play. It is in fact the AP from doctrines that is doing most the damage. Plus the buff of the reroll all hits auras to to allow you to reroll even failed successes (the way it always should have been). A +1 to hit would be a lot weaker than -1 AP. Considering marines hit with most their shots anyways IMO. Ignore penalties for moving would be just fine though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 ImperialArmy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
IF GW required us to pay for CT it'd not make much differance. We'd still have one or two CTs deemed the best, there'd just be additional factors in figuring out what's best.

Iron Hands meanwhile is so good you'd never want to ditch the doctrine

Thats the point though if Chapter tactics had points and cost appropriate to the effects they give it would make picking a CT meaning full beyond "whats best"

The fact all armies dont have all the tools that some do is why the game is out of whack now.

If The Chapter tactics and doctrines cost points, other armies would be able to compete against them more fairly.


Additionally: If strats cost points instead of force org slots it would even the playing field nicely. Soup wouldn't be required to get the bonus from the loyal 32 to fuel elite armies.

except my point is that if you gave them a points cost you'd still have people going through the CTs and detirmining what is best.

suddenly point would detirming that "Salamanders ignore -1 for an additional 50 points, is more cost effective then raven guards abilities for 100 points" and the tourny people would simply play salamanders. back in 6th/7th relics had a points cost. and some relics where clearly detirmined to be better then others, to the point where some relics wheren't taken cause they where over costed. Points cost does not automaticly make stuff balanced.

The problem with Relics is that anything based around Morale sucks and weapons went through the garbage AP system of 3rd onwards. Look at something like the Spartean. It makes more sense now than it did last edition. HOWEVER, why would I take it for free over something else that's free? Point costs would make that balanced.

I agree. Relics should certainly cost points. Points and CP are not equal in any way.

 Xenomancers wrote:
If ap is so meaningless. Why are marines so strong? Apart from doctrines...nothing dropped in price...only a few units like agressors and assault cents and supressors...and only a few marine armies take assault cents as ravengaurd. The +1 attack almost never comes into play. It is in fact the AP from doctrines that is doing most the damage. Plus the buff of the reroll all hits auras to to allow you to reroll even failed successes (the way it always should have been). A +1 to hit would be a lot weaker than -1 AP. Considering marines hit with most their shots anyways IMO. Ignore penalties for moving would be just fine though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 ImperialArmy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
IF GW required us to pay for CT it'd not make much differance. We'd still have one or two CTs deemed the best, there'd just be additional factors in figuring out what's best.

Iron Hands meanwhile is so good you'd never want to ditch the doctrine

Thats the point though if Chapter tactics had points and cost appropriate to the effects they give it would make picking a CT meaning full beyond "whats best"

The fact all armies dont have all the tools that some do is why the game is out of whack now.

If The Chapter tactics and doctrines cost points, other armies would be able to compete against them more fairly.


Additionally: If strats cost points instead of force org slots it would even the playing field nicely. Soup wouldn't be required to get the bonus from the loyal 32 to fuel elite armies.

except my point is that if you gave them a points cost you'd still have people going through the CTs and detirmining what is best.

suddenly point would detirming that "Salamanders ignore -1 for an additional 50 points, is more cost effective then raven guards abilities for 100 points" and the tourny people would simply play salamanders. back in 6th/7th relics had a points cost. and some relics where clearly detirmined to be better then others, to the point where some relics wheren't taken cause they where over costed. Points cost does not automaticly make stuff balanced.

The problem with Relics is that anything based around Morale sucks and weapons went through the garbage AP system of 3rd onwards. Look at something like the Spartean. It makes more sense now than it did last edition. HOWEVER, why would I take it for free over something else that's free? Point costs would make that balanced.

I agree. Relics should certainly cost points. Points and CP are not equal in any way.

As should warlord traits. Some are auto takes others just ok. They shouldn't be the same price. Especially for armies that can spam them. (Loyalist marines obviously).

the_scotsman 784967 10702870 wrote:

Hey I've got a great cool game system for you to play it's called AOS before general's handbook.

if things had points people would still just find the most efficient option, right? Adding points doesn't automatically equal balanced!!!

It sure as hell beats out playing without them, because then you have a race of who can afford to spend the most money.

Warlord Traits are a lot easier to balance than one would give credit for. You just don't need 6 of them for Vanilla Marines and 6 specifically for Iron Hands. The 6 basic ones and then 3 for Iron Hands is a lot easier to balance but still adds that supposed flavor y'all crave.

Sometimes people forget removing options isn't the same as removing Baron Whatever from Dark Eldar. Sometimes there's simply a good purpose to streamlining.

yeah, and sometimes you get codex GK pre PA with all the removing being done over and over again.

With warlord traits balance can only come from half of them being actually useful. So it is a real choice, and not the way it is for GK for example, where there is one and all other are uncomperably worse.

In fact this is how good armies should function. Most of the stuff should be good. The choice of taking a specific unit or detachment should matter, and by matter I mean the choice should both be valid. A choice of you can take this ultra good option or you can have this that is very bad, is a non choice.

I miss the times, when you could play a biel tan sword wind army, where aspect warriors counted as troops...

In my oppinion, that was a nice way to differentiate the armys. I'm not sure, if that would work properly these days, but I think it could be a way of giving different armies different playstyles without getting too much for free.

Not good for GW though. They would have to make such specific armies work on their own. And if they worked, you wouldn't be buying much of the other stuff they want. Right now people seem to be given two options either buy the whole army in a month after a big FAQ or CA drops to be safe for 6-12 months. Or be unhappy with how stuff works, buy more stuff, see it nerfed, buy more stuff etc.

 Xenomancers wrote:

This is why I wish they went for the apporach to just make marine units cost less rather than a billion free rules.

Remove 2.0 marines rules
Make a tac cost 10
Make an intercessor cost 15
Reduce most units 15-20% in cost
and give some stratagems

Wow marines are balanced.

What? If you want a Power armoured horde I will direct you to Sisters!

These changes would be very silly, marines 2.0 was good in principle, but changes would need to be the Doctrine changes each turn. Heavy 1, Tactical 2 assault 3 and then repeat or go backwards. Supplements made it too over the top, not the codex itself which also needs to bump up in points for some key offenders.

Man 15 pt Intercessors even with marine 1.0 codex would be so crazy, does that mean my Tyranid warriors can go down to 16 points base? and 9 point dire avengers? The game needs points higher to allow for more granularity in gauging pts to strength of the model, not less.

Good luck with making GW design the game in a such a way that you need fewer models to play it, specialy for the faction tey sell the most of.

That is like expecting cigarette companies make smokes in a such a way that you only need one per day.

In my mind an army should NEVER get a bonus based solely on the color of its models. Individual Chapter rules are flat out stupid, and should have been quashed 5 editions ago, leaving it in the festering hole of 2nd Ed. where it belongs.

So what is suppose to make space marine armies different from each other? the way they are painted ?lol

you think marines are bad now? think about all of them having one build to play. now an IH , IF and RG armies have stuff in common, but they are different. RG run centurion, IH do not. If all had the same list and no different rules, everyone would be playing the same list, and then people would really feel bad.

Karol wrote:

the_scotsman 784967 10702870 wrote:

Hey I've got a great cool game system for you to play it's called AOS before general's handbook.

if things had points people would still just find the most efficient option, right? Adding points doesn't automatically equal balanced!!!

It sure as hell beats out playing without them, because then you have a race of who can afford to spend the most money.

Yeah, that was the point. I was being sarcastic. The argument here is, relics are currently set equal to each other, shuriken pistol that deals 2 damage = Imperial Knights Endless Fury. That's clearly ludicrous, and if they did have points that probably means the knight player is playing at a 40-50 point advantage.

Would point costs make them instantly perfectly balanced? No, of course not. Would it help? I mean, yes? Almost by definition?

Imagine if GW said "Ok, we notice that elite armies are kind of suffering, so from now on everyone gets one unit free of charge, no point costs, in their army list! Wooo!" That would be blatantly silly and would lead to the factions with the most expensive units receiving a massive power boost, while you'd be screwed if you wanted to play say Drukhari or Harlequins into the wall of free knights, baneblades, stompas and 10-man custode squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Good luck with making GW design the game in a such a way that you need fewer models to play it, specialy for the faction tey sell the most of.

That is like expecting cigarette companies make smokes in a such a way that you only need one per day.

Or vape companies, deciding to not put a chemically addictive substance in their product.

Or vape companies, deciding to not put a chemically addictive substance in their product.

right up there with politicians not stealing more then it is okey.

Yeah, that was the point. I was being sarcastic.

no worries, I general don't understand jokes or sarcasm, even in polish. Not offended in anyway, and I hope I didn't offend you.

I think we had the relic talk on dakka when knight castelans came out, and everyone without a knight was asking for a point hike on them. Now when they are no longer played, we see that the problem was the free cawl gun and the raven stratagems, and not the point cost of the castellan. I don't play w40k long enough to be able to say with certanity, but I think the point cost hike and point cost drop is a recuring theame. And very rarly bad units come with just a point cost problem.

Doesn't matter that GW doesn't over do it on their rule. Iron hands clearly got, at least one extra rule within their rule set comparing to other marines. And because they work with easy to use and cheap, as in GW cheap, to get units they become a problem. If IH were an army that required one to buy a 2000$ train transport with guns to be just as OP, few people outside of top tournaments would have problems with them. But getting 40-55 intercessors and some heroes is really easy to do. And even without the flyers or dreadnoughts they are a tough army to beat, specially at a small store meta level.

I can imagine someone taking just intercessors and sniper marines and heroes and doing okeyish, even at a tournament. they wouldn't win it, unless dice miracle happened, but I doubt they go 0-6.



Ah and GW defence, they did set up a trap for themselvs. I think they ment 8th to be very ally friendly, then got 2 years of people asking for mono factions to be good. But for monofactions to be good they have to be really good, and not work in soups real good. Mix that with multiple marines and GW way of testing stuff. And we get white scars or black templar in the same basket as Iron Hands. If GW nerfs the units for RG or IH, they are going to be double or triple bad for other marines. If they change the army rules, which they don't seem to do without a codex and they just did all the books for marines save for SW, then people may end up with castellans or inari type armies. I really worry about SW, if their codex was not finished yet. GW tends to over react, and they may streamline SW. And God help SW players if they get an 8th ed codex GK style update.

 Just Tony wrote:
In my mind an army should NEVER get a bonus based solely on the color of its models. Individual Chapter rules are flat out stupid, and should have been quashed 5 editions ago, leaving it in the festering hole of 2nd Ed. where it belongs.

Disagree. The red buggy should go faster.

As long as they paid for red paint, of course!

Agree with the point, which is armies shouldn't get Chapter Tactics/Craftworlds/etc. At least without paying for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
So what is suppose to make space marine armies different from each other? the way they are painted ?lol

you think marines are bad now? think about all of them having one build to play. now an IH , IF and RG armies have stuff in common, but they are different. RG run centurion, IH do not. If all had the same list and no different rules, everyone would be playing the same list, and then people would really feel bad.

So how does it feel to be the one Loyalist Marine faction that pays more for *your* Marines, just because of their special faction rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

[...]marines 2.0 was good in principle

Respectfully disagree. Beyond how balanced/imbalanced it is, it's *way* too much bloat. A guy with a bolter, power armor, training, support, and implants is a Space Marine. He should have the rules those things give him. We have far too many "bloat sells books" rules. In theory, you should be able to look at a model, and know most of it's rules if you know the faction. Without even looking at their specific book. You can see what weapons it has. You can see how sturdy it is. You can see what it's wearing.

This is probably more of an aside but I think 40k is in dire need of some sort of central mechanic to build around.

And when I say 'central mechanic', I'm not referring to move+shoot+fight. These are just the basic elements of any tabletop game. There's absolutely nothing to them and outside of CPs/Stratagems (which I'll get to), there's nothing else for the game to build on.

I'll try and give you some examples of what I mean.

As an example, let's look at Warmachine/Hordes:
- One of the core mechanics is resource-management (and risk-management in the case of the latter). If you're playing Warmachine, then you'll only have a limited amount of Focus - which is used to cast spells, to protect your Warcaster (the linchpin of your entire army) and to power your Warjacks. So you're never going to have enough to do everything and will have to think very carefully each turn about how to dish it out. Hordes is a little different in that Fury pulls double-duty, being generated by Warbeasts and then spent by the Warlock. However, if you generate too much Fury and can't remove it then there's a good chance you'll lose control of one or more of your Warbeasts next turn. Hence, you've got both resource-management and risk-management.
- Another mechanic is that each Warcaster/Warlock has a Control Range, which represents the absolute limit of their ability to affect the battle. As well as the inherent risk-management (you want him far enough forward that he can influence your front-liners, but not so close that you can't protect him), this also creates more choices with Warjacks and the like. You can, for example, pump a Warjack full of Focus and charge it out of your Warcaster's aura. But if you do, you won't be able to give it any Focus at all next turn.
- Of course, you've also got a variety of other stuff to consider, including a lot of movement abilities and shenanigans.


40k, though, just doesn't have any equivalent for this sort of thing.

You've got Command Points but as far as resource-management goes, they fall completely flat.
- They're generated before the game starts (and any in-game generation is almost always based on rolling a 5+ with an appropriate artefact or whatever), so once the game starts players have no control over their generation.
- Because they're generated in a big pile (rather than a small number each turn), players are encouraged to use them to just win the alpha-strike every game.
- They're not tied to any specific models, even turn by turn, and have unlimited range. Hence, there's absolutely no tactical requirement to keep HQs or such near other models in order to use Stratagems on them, nor any requirement to allocate resources prior to their intended use.
- They don't tie into any other aspects of the game. For example, an Eldar player doesn't need to worry about saving CPs to cast his Farseer's Psychic Powers because they're based on an entirely different resource. Same goes for SoB players and Miracle Dice.

Basically, rather than being a core mechanic for new books to build on, the CP system just feels completely detached from the rest of 40k.

I don't know how well I'm explaining myself but the issue is that 8th editions core mechanics are so shallow and lacking any meaningful mechanics for different armies to use and expand on.

Aren't the mechanics supposed to be somewhat different in 40k, army by army? For example:

- IG is managing their Orders.
- Sisters are managing their Acts and Miracle Dice.
- AdMech is managing Canticles.
- Tau is managing Markerlights
- Tyranids are managing Synapse

Anyway you get the idea. I definitely feel you that Stratagems not been executed so well... perhaps it's one of the things that needs a comprehensive cleanup when GW does a consolidation of 8th.

Rather than making it cost points, perhaps the various "free" rules could be better equalized within the internal balance of the various codices.

But internal balance is kind of a hard thing to accomplish so eeeeh.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Aren't the mechanics supposed to be somewhat different in 40k, army by army? For example:

- IG is managing their Orders.
- Sisters are managing their Acts and Miracle Dice.
- AdMech is managing Canticles.
- Tau is managing Markerlights
- Tyranids are managing Synapse

Anyway you get the idea. I definitely feel you that Stratagems not been executed so well... perhaps it's one of the things that needs a comprehensive cleanup when GW does a consolidation of 8th.

The thing is, i don't think any of those are remotely strong enough to build an army around.

For example, IG Orders really don't take much management and there's absolutely no cost to using them. What's more, a lot of IG armies can probably ignore them and still do just fine.

The penalties for not being in Synpase are almost nonexistent at this point, and the slew of fast (and often untargetable) Synapse creatures mean that it really doesn't take much effort to keep units in the bubble. Not only that, but there are virtually no means by which enemies can move models (unlike other games where push/pull effects are common), so there's no way for the opponent to push bugs out of synapse range. Nor any way for them to affect casualties (so if the nid player only has 1-2 gaunts in synpase, out of a squad of 30, there's nothing the enemy can do to kill those 1-2 specific models and leave the rest stranded out of Synapse).

What's more, what about armies like Eldar, DE, Harlequins, Necrons, Orks etc.? What resources are they supposed to be managing?


Something I will say, though, is that (out of the examples you gave) Miracle Dice are by far the closest to an actual resource-management system. And I think it's quite good. Unfortunately, it's entirely limited to SoB, and even then it's still entirely independent of CPs.

I think the game would have been in a much better position if CPs and Stratagems were dropped entirely and every army used something more akin to Miracle Dice.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ultimately you are correct but you are acknowledging something that GW refuses to do. The bonuses are not equal. WE ALL KNOW THIS. There is no way to be fair if these bonuses are not equal.

It's pretty obvious that they aren't even trying to be equal when you have the exact same rule for something like...

Hive fleet Leviathan gets a 6+FNP if within 6" of a synapse creature.

Iron-hands get 6+ FNP at all times and over-watch on 5+ and ignore penalties and reroll 1's with heavies and vehcials take half damage when accounting for degrading profiles.

Like....isn't it obvious that one army is getting too much free crap?

You forgot reroll morale and rapid fire weapons out to full range and +1 attack if charged or charging and -1AP on all heavy weapons.

Just sayin'. Keep the list straight.

I think we have to distinguish what marines needed from what was overload. Reroll morale, double tap, +1A, and double damage table don't matter much at all to IH marines (for example).

I wouldn't balk at seeing supplements cost points to use though.

Those are some really broad criticisms!

It's tricky to hammer out the details but in terms of overall design, you want to identify what makes an army thematic and flavorful, then push those design elements.

So how does it feel to be the one Loyalist Marine faction that pays more for *your* Marines, just because of their special faction rules?

well we aren't the only one, death watch has the same problems. As do space wolfs. Plus GK over and under costing specific things is a separate matter, not many people play GK anyway, so the number of people affected would be low. If all marines were playing the same army, the one of two things would happen. It would either mean the army is good, and then everyone else would be unhappy, but the majority of players over all would be happy OR the marine army would be bad, which I guess for eldar player would mean the game is the way it should be, but for majority of people playing it would be rather unfun. And I think making the most popular army in the game unfun to play would not be a good idea.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ultimately you are correct but you are acknowledging something that GW refuses to do. The bonuses are not equal. WE ALL KNOW THIS. There is no way to be fair if these bonuses are not equal.

It's pretty obvious that they aren't even trying to be equal when you have the exact same rule for something like...

Hive fleet Leviathan gets a 6+FNP if within 6" of a synapse creature.

Iron-hands get 6+ FNP at all times and over-watch on 5+ and ignore penalties and reroll 1's with heavies and vehcials take half damage when accounting for degrading profiles.

Like....isn't it obvious that one army is getting too much free crap?

You forgot reroll morale and rapid fire weapons out to full range and +1 attack if charged or charging and -1AP on all heavy weapons.

Just sayin'. Keep the list straight.

I think we have to distinguish what marines needed from what was overload. Reroll morale, double tap, +1A, and double damage table don't matter much at all to IH marines (for example).

I wouldn't balk at seeing supplements cost points to use though.

Well, let's see, specialist detachments, nobody thinks those are OP, right?

Those generally come with 2 stratagems, 1 relic, 1 WL trait, and sometimes 1 psychic power for 1CP.

A space marine supplement is 12 strats, 6 relics, 6 WL traits, 6CP and heck, we'll throw in the super-doctrine completely free (if you call now)

How 'bout 6CP.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Those are some really broad criticisms!

It's tricky to hammer out the details but in terms of overall design, you want to identify what makes an army thematic and flavorful, then push those design elements.

Maybe I'm just not explaining myself very well?

Let's take the example of Orders.
- What core mechanic does it use? None.
- What core mechanic does it build on? None.
- What core, finite resource does it use or compete for? None.

This is what I'm trying to get at. The core rules for 8th gives absolutely nothing that the different armies can use or expand on. This is why Orders have absolutely nothing in common with Markerlights and why neither bear any resemblance to AdMech Canticles.

Because there's nothing in the core rules to even get you started.

This is why the only thing new books can do is to endlessly pile on new special rules. Because the core rules don't offer anything else. There's no universal resource that can be used for new abilities. There are no interesting mechanics to be incorporated or used in different ways.

Orders are just one mechanic, though. If we were to sit down and define what makes the Guard distinctive, we'd probably also mention things like commissars, their logistics, regimental identity, abhumans, mechanization, etc. Then we'd try and build the mechanics of the army around that.

You could try and build around one universal mechanic (like Focus in your Warmachine example) but it would be at the expense of how each army carves out their thematic identity.

The core rules are barebones by intention. All the interesting stuff is delegated to the codex for that exact reason.

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

This is why I wish they went for the apporach to just make marine units cost less rather than a billion free rules.

Remove 2.0 marines rules
Make a tac cost 10
Make an intercessor cost 15
Reduce most units 15-20% in cost
and give some stratagems

Wow marines are balanced.

What? If you want a Power armoured horde I will direct you to Sisters!

These changes would be very silly, marines 2.0 was good in principle, but changes would need to be the Doctrine changes each turn. Heavy 1, Tactical 2 assault 3 and then repeat or go backwards. Supplements made it too over the top, not the codex itself which also needs to bump up in points for some key offenders.

Man 15 pt Intercessors even with marine 1.0 codex would be so crazy, does that mean my Tyranid warriors can go down to 16 points base? and 9 point dire avengers? The game needs points higher to allow for more granularity in gauging pts to strength of the model, not less.

Just saying these were their options. Make marines elite or reduce their cost. Marines previously were not worth their points. Clearly apparent.

I think it is clearly apparent that lots of nid units aren't worth their points ether. They deserve buffs or drops as well. GW had the opportunity...they completely missed the ball on that one. I hate to toote this horn but Xenos are getting hugely shafted compared to these marine releases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ultimately you are correct but you are acknowledging something that GW refuses to do. The bonuses are not equal. WE ALL KNOW THIS. There is no way to be fair if these bonuses are not equal.

It's pretty obvious that they aren't even trying to be equal when you have the exact same rule for something like...

Hive fleet Leviathan gets a 6+FNP if within 6" of a synapse creature.

Iron-hands get 6+ FNP at all times and over-watch on 5+ and ignore penalties and reroll 1's with heavies and vehcials take half damage when accounting for degrading profiles.

Like....isn't it obvious that one army is getting too much free crap?

You forgot reroll morale and rapid fire weapons out to full range and +1 attack if charged or charging and -1AP on all heavy weapons.

Just sayin'. Keep the list straight.

I think we have to distinguish what marines needed from what was overload. Reroll morale, double tap, +1A, and double damage table don't matter much at all to IH marines (for example).

I wouldn't balk at seeing supplements cost points to use though.

The chapter supplements should not cost points - that would be idiotic. Like why shouldn't every army be charged points to use their codex? Seems pretty obvious why they shouldn't. I don't think successor chapters should get access to them though. That would be a start to nerfing marines. The game also needs some general fixes to make it actually playable. Character targeting just needs to change - straight up remove it. You shoot at a character you suffer a -2 to hit to a max of -2 (ignoring abiltiies that always hit on a certain number)(only sniper abiltiies remove this.)- unless they are not screened. That is a start. No bodyguard abilities can be used against a shooting attack unless the bodyguard unit is in LOS to the shooting unit. Any units that is firing using indirect fire suffers a natural -1 to hit.

Ad that to the current nerfs I have suggested and we are well on the path to having a better overall gaming experience for everyone.