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.

I disagree. Weapons are not worth the same on every platform. They just aren't. More than BS matters.

Martel732 wrote:
Weapons are not worth the same on every platform.

I agree. But it doesn't fit the format of 8E, which is (in theory) a weapon costs the same on every platform and the PLATFORM is costed up or down depending on how effective they use any given weapon.

This is also why some options have a 0 cost when they are mandatory "options" for all platforms in the given book. For example, Pulse Lasers. You would think a weapon like that would be 30+pts, but no, it's 0. Because the only 2 platforms it can be on (Falcons and Crimson Hunter) have to take PLs, thus the cost is part of the platform.
The reverse is true for Reaper Launchers and Avenger Catapults, which are the default weapon for Reapers and Avengers, but require a points cost as they are not mandatory for the Exarch and are options for Autarchs.

Overall, the costs for Marine weapons is close to fine. Plasma & Melta points should be swapped and MMs need to be cheaper or Heavy 2, but otherwise they are fairly costed on 95% of platforms. Assigning points costs to specific datasheets will not happen. 8E is designed with Open/Narrative play in mind first and foremost (b/c that's how the designers play the game), with Matched play having to add extra rules and points costs.
Obviously Marines aren't a good platform for the weapons they carry, but rather than start adding pts costs to datasheets, a Matched play note can be added to make some of their options free. It's the easiest way to do it that still fits the 8E format.

-

Their method doesn't hold up to me.

Melta is worth more on a fast platform than a slow one. But long range weapons are equally valuable on fast or slow usually.

Melta needs to be a lot cheaper, not just switch.

Plasma doesn't really need to go up, as it has some downsides, just not vs marines.

Grav needs to be quite cheap, as it is pretty terrible.

Grav was an amazing addition to 7th ed. Where you still had Armour Values....

now it really doesn't matter cause even a las pistol can take down a titan if he rolls badly enough

 Galef wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I think one of the things Marines need (but not the only) is to move away from a la carte pricing.

If Tacs/Devs/ASM could take Flamers for 5 pts, Melta for 10, Grav or Plas for 15, and could take MM/HB for 5 pts, PC for 10, LC/ML for 15, and Grav for 20, it'd really help them out, and make them more flavorful. But a Quadlas Pred paying only 15pts per LC wouldn't be good.

Likewise, the Land Raider shouldn't need to pay the same point cost for an Assault Cannon that a "Rhino" pays (as in, the total price difference between a Rhino and an AC Razorback).

Alone, that doesn't fix the codex. But wouldn't it help?

I would prefer not giving dual points costs to weapons. The "a la carte" pricing is actually one of the best things about 8E, at least from a consistency standpoint.
Having said that, I think Tacs and ASM could be good with "free" options like in prior editions.
2 ASMs could swap pistol/chainsword for Special weapons* or Plasma Pistol/chainsword
5 Tac Marines could swap 1 bolter for a Special* or Heavy, at 10 models another model can swap for another Special or Heavy*

Each datasheet would have a note for Matched play to this affect: "Options markes with an * do not cost points in Matched play"
So Tacs get 1 Special for free, but would have to pay for the second at 10 models
OR would pay for the 1st Heavy weapon, but get a second for free at 10 models
OR 10 models get 1 Special and 1 Heavy for free.

This would basically encourage mixing weapons (as per fluff) and discourage spamming the same weapon.
After that you just need to either price down a few options, or make them better. i.e. Heavy 2 MMs and RF2 HBs (Guard can keep them Heavy 3)

-

Even if options were free, people are gonna go for a specialized squad. Command Squads will always be used even if you gave Tactical Marines a free Heavy Weapon.

Also free "upgrades" are not something people should need to relive. Mechanicus wa busted last edition because of it, and Marines getting free units was busted. It's a slippery slope as you can start to justify "free" in every codex. OR, you can fix the problem that they cannot specialize in the first place, and fix weapon costs too.

Martel732 wrote:
Their method doesn't hold up to me.

Melta is worth more on a fast platform than a slow one. But long range weapons are equally valuable on fast or slow usually.

Melta needs to be a lot cheaper, not just switch.

Plasma doesn't really need to go up, as it has some downsides, just not vs marines.

Grav needs to be quite cheap, as it is pretty terrible.

And I agree with all those points.
But in order to make those changes, the format of 8E needs to change and datasheets needs to include points costs for wargear.
As much as I am personally fine with that, it isn't the format GW has decided to go with for 8E, thus isn't likely to change in a Chapter Approved.

The costs of the wargear might change, but it will change for every unit, not just the ones that make better use of them.

-

GW needs to decide if the dissy cannon is going to be the standard heavy weapon or not. If so, Imperial weapons need a LOT of price cuts. Because they suck in comparison across the board.

Martel732 wrote:
GW needs to decide if the dissy cannon is going to be the standard heavy weapon or not. If so, Imperial weapons need a LOT of price cuts. Because they suck in comparison across the board.

Or they bump the price on the Disintegrator like they're most likely to with the next update/Chapter Approved.

Martel732 wrote:
GW needs to decide if the dissy cannon is going to be the standard heavy weapon or not. If so, Imperial weapons need a LOT of price cuts. Because they suck in comparison across the board.

Ya know what I find funny about dissy cannons being so "OP" is that they are so very similar to Star Cannons, which no competitive Eldar player will touch. Both weapons are 36" range, multiple shots, decent AP and multi-damage, but because Dissies go on a platform that makes them Assault weapons, Dissies get to be "OP". It sounds to me like Ravagers and the thing that needs to go up in points.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or they bump the price on the Disintegrator like they're most likely to with the next update/Chapter Approved.

Fingers crossed.

-

Bharring wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I think one of the things Marines need (but not the only) is to move away from a la carte pricing.

If Tacs/Devs/ASM could take Flamers for 5 pts, Melta for 10, Grav or Plas for 15, and could take MM/HB for 5 pts, PC for 10, LC/ML for 15, and Grav for 20, it'd really help them out, and make them more flavorful. But a Quadlas Pred paying only 15pts per LC wouldn't be good.

Likewise, the Land Raider shouldn't need to pay the same point cost for an Assault Cannon that a "Rhino" pays (as in, the total price difference between a Rhino and an AC Razorback).

Alone, that doesn't fix the codex. But wouldn't it help?

Why is a predator which is basically a rhino anyway paying 15 points per lascannon an issue, it would actually just bring them into line with the Leman Russ. Thats how over costed the marine codex currently is.

Because when comparing the quad-las Pred to other faction offerings in the same class (Railhead, BL Falcon, etc), it's already not in a bad spot.

Bharring wrote:
Because when comparing the quad-las Pred to other faction offerings in the same class (Railhead, BL Falcon, etc), it's already not in a bad spot.

So a leman russ needs a points increase then?
I'm not in disagreement with you, but guard players constantly bitch that a leman russ isn't OP and some claim it is over pointed and needs a 15 point reduction to be competitive.

So are leman russes undercosted or has everyone else just been screwed with unuseable vehicals as they're overcosted massively?

Bharring wrote:
Because when comparing the quad-las Pred to other faction offerings in the same class (Railhead, BL Falcon, etc), it's already not in a bad spot.

Once again, the Falcon is akin to a Razorback.

 Galef wrote:
It just seems dumb to me that Marines are designed to be withstand damage that would kill a normal human (even without the armour), but on the table-top, 5 Marines (with the armour) die faster than 10 GEQs in just about every situation.

This, in general, is a problem with Guardsmen, more than marines. They are brutally undercosted. Unless you ask a guard player. Then, everything is fine.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galef wrote:
It just seems dumb to me that Marines are designed to be withstand damage that would kill a normal human (even without the armour), but on the table-top, 5 Marines (with the armour) die faster than 10 GEQs in just about every situation.

This, in general, is a problem with Guardsmen, more than marines. They are brutally undercosted. Unless you ask a guard player. Then, everything is fine.

They basically got every request you could've asked for last edition. For their price point, they needed 1 or 2 of the following:
1. Be a point cheaper
2. Make the Lasgun less fallible
3. Make Orders automatic
4. More durability to the basic AP5 weapon
They got literally all that at once, with their armor only being ignored by what used to ignore Power Armor entirely last edition.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galef wrote:
It just seems dumb to me that Marines are designed to be withstand damage that would kill a normal human (even without the armour), but on the table-top, 5 Marines (with the armour) die faster than 10 GEQs in just about every situation.

This, in general, is a problem with Guardsmen, more than marines. They are brutally undercosted. Unless you ask a guard player. Then, everything is fine.

They basically got every request you could've asked for last edition. For their price point, they needed 1 or 2 of the following:
1. Be a point cheaper
2. Make the Lasgun less fallible
3. Make Orders automatic
4. More durability to the basic AP5 weapon
They got literally all that at once, with their armor only being ignored by what used to ignore Power Armor entirely last edition.

As a guard player, agreed. Guardsmen really should be 5ppm now, however it seems like GW doubled down on the cheap infantry dynamic by making rangers and fire warriors 7ppm. Now guardsmen have to be 4ppm in order to make sense because a mechanicus ranger is basically a guardsmen with a 30" bolter, a 4+ and a 6++ for only 7 pts.

w1zard wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galef wrote:
It just seems dumb to me that Marines are designed to be withstand damage that would kill a normal human (even without the armour), but on the table-top, 5 Marines (with the armour) die faster than 10 GEQs in just about every situation.

This, in general, is a problem with Guardsmen, more than marines. They are brutally undercosted. Unless you ask a guard player. Then, everything is fine.

They basically got every request you could've asked for last edition. For their price point, they needed 1 or 2 of the following:
1. Be a point cheaper
2. Make the Lasgun less fallible
3. Make Orders automatic
4. More durability to the basic AP5 weapon
They got literally all that at once, with their armor only being ignored by what used to ignore Power Armor entirely last edition.

As a guard player, agreed. Guardsmen really should be 5ppm now, however it seems like GW doubled down on the cheap infantry dynamic by making rangers and fire warriors 7ppm. Now guardsmen have to be 4ppm in order to make sense because a mechanicus ranger is basically a guardsmen with a 30" bolter, a 4+ and a 6++ for only 7 pts.

To which the most feasible solution for Marines then becomes making them 10ppm.
It's essentially an arms race, but instead of units getting better, they just keep getting cheaper. You can always find justification that X should be cheaper than Y. It's an endless cyle

That's part of the reason I want MEQs to be 2W. It specifically goes against the "arms race" of just making everything cheaper. If everything gets cheaper, nothing really changes does it? X will still cost more than Y.

-

A Falcon is akin to a Razorback the way a Space Marine is akin to a Guardsmen. Same general profile - vehicle w/heavy weapon vs infantry w/infantry weapon. Very different build though.

The Falcon is a tank that can transport. The Razorback is a transport that carries a heavy turret. The Razorback is more like the Starweaver or Venom in that regard. Craftworlders won't risk precious lives that actually matter in anything that doesn't get a 5-star crash rating. They don't have anything akin to a Rhino or Razorback.

If the LasPred, Railhead, and BL Falcon are all on about the same level, a Lascannon-heavy Russ should probably be brought to that level instead of the LasPred being brought to the Russ level. Which vehicles m I leaving out?

On infantry pricing, there seems to be two different pricing levels:
-IG, DE troops, Tau troops etc are pointed on one scale
-SM, CWE troops, etc seem to be pointed on a completely different one

Which side to repoint is certainly debateable. When Guardsmen were the outlier, it would have been really easy to just put them at 5ppm. I still prefer that change, but more things need updating now than would have back then.

Guardsmen at 5ppm and Marines at 11ppm would be an acceptable compromise.

But then other things priced around IG are now OP, and the other things priced around Tacs are trash?

The things priced around tacs are probably already trash. Your eldar infantry can't compete with guardsmen and kabalites already. Marines are irrelevant.

I was thinking more Necrons and Ork Boyz (the rest of the Ork codex isn't even in the Tac range).

Bharring wrote:
I was thinking more Necrons and Ork Boyz (the rest of the Ork codex isn't even in the Tac range).

I don't think we can discuss Orks just yet as we don't know what ruels they'll get in the Codex.
Necron, otoh, I agree. Warriors and Immortals both need about a 2-3ppm drop if Marines go to 10-11ppm. A Tac Marine and a Nercon Warrior are roughly equal, with Immortals not being too far better.

-

Yeah, sure. Whatever necrons need. Another army boned by splinter for sure.

Bharring wrote:
If the LasPred, Railhead, and BL Falcon are all on about the same level, a Lascannon-heavy Russ should probably be brought to that level instead of the LasPred being brought to the Russ level. Which vehicles m I leaving out?

Russes aren't exactly OP. If a las-pred had chapter tactics like it SHOULD, it would perform comparably to a Russ. GW really fethed up with the marine codex. Compare russes with something better like fire prisms.

Bharring wrote:
On infantry pricing, there seems to be two different pricing levels:
-IG, DE troops, Tau troops etc are pointed on one scale
-SM, CWE troops, etc seem to be pointed on a completely different one

Which side to repoint is certainly debateable. When Guardsmen were the outlier, it would have been really easy to just put them at 5ppm. I still prefer that change, but more things need updating now than would have back then.

This.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, sure. Whatever necrons need. Another army boned by splinter for sure.

Sounds like you have a severe Dark Eldar problem in your meta to justify such contempt. I can't say they're a huge problem in mine. 1-2 DE players that don't win our local tourneys, that's about it.

I'd need to see some larger tourney results placing DE in the top 5 before I can understand your raw loathing for DE. They've got good options, sure, but you often come off more like a Rock complaining about Paper while refusing to take some Scissors.

-

What are the scissors? I've got two stalkers in all my lists now. DE laugh theiir asses off. Every marine unit is a joke to them.

The game didn't need the disintegrator cannon. It just didn't.

Martel732 wrote:
What are the scissors? I've got two stalkers in all my lists now. DE laugh theiir asses off. Every marine unit is a joke to them.

The game didn't need the disintegrator cannon. It just didn't.

Well it didn't need to be 15 points - assault - and do 2 damage.

Take a look at the TS soulreaper cannon. It's heavy 4 str 5 ap-3 24" D1. It costs 15 points....HOW THE HECK is this weapon 15 points?

If Dark Lances are 20ppm, Dissies should be 25. Fixed.
I'm fine with Dissies having the profile they have (maybe should only be damage 1 though).
I'm not fine with them costing less than DLs, which are an inferior (but appropriately costed) weapon.

-

Let's go bananas. Marines with custodes stats. Sans invuln save on basic troop maybe. Bolters rapid fire 2 baseline. Custodes with dreaddy stats.

Cost should be something appropriaterly in the middle. And that's it really.