Switch Theme:

Interesting changes for 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
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Jidmah wrote:
Oh, I missed something pretty essential. ATVs don't give up bring them down unlike all the units they compare to.

They really need to be vehicles...


Neither do Attack Bikes. The ATV should have been 6W not 8 - this is in line with the Attack bike which are supposedly the same 2W marines with bike stat boosts. Some of the other things that are vehicles shouldn't be. Vypers, Deffcoptas, Scout Sentinels. There should be a fairly straight line cap with a few outliers for variety. Under this cap, they're Jump Infantry, or bikers, etc. Above this cap they're vehicles to make the Secondary uniform across factions. So anything 6 or less is some sort of Biker style keyword, above 6 it's a vehicle with a few that may break these rules. Vehicles that should stay vehicles and are 6 should either break the rule because of a high T or something flavor related, OR bump to 7-8 wounds depending on flavor and the rest of their statline.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Well, there probably should be a "Gangbusters"-style secondary to score points of armies spamming Bikes / 3+ wound Elite infantry anyhow.


There is a secondary to score points of 1W hordes (which could admittedly be worded better), one to score of vehicles/monsters, one to score of Titanics, one to score of characters and one to score of Psykers.

Not being able to score off Elite non-Vehicles/Monsters seems an odd omission to begin with.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/16 11:01:42


 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





Wrap it up with some methodology for ObSec Ravenwing, WS Bikers, Wildriders, etc and you're getting somewhere. Well, as long as we're locked into being able to tailor our secondaries to our and our opponent's lists. I far preferred the random must be able to do anything if you want to score idea they had with the cards. The only change(s) I would have made is scoring a card you already completed (not all of them were worded that way, so if you did it before you drew you were hosed) and 2 - discard and replace any card you can't do because your opponent didn't bring that target i.e. Drawing Kill The Psyker vs Black Templar (or anyone who just didn't bring a psyker) You should be stuck with any cards you didn't bring a way to accomplish, and not punished if your opponent didn't bring a viable target.

If you've gotta be able to do it all to score the secondaries, and you need to score the secondaries to win, it'll cut back on the spam trick pony lists.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

I thought having the players pick their Maelstrom cards was an easy fix for their randomness.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Falls Church, VA

I think it's important to remember that when people are complaining about Marines, there seems to be a 2 step process:
Initial Complaint:
Marines are getting lots of support, while Eldar languish with models (and therefore rules) that are holdovers from the 1990s. Fire Dragons didn't get the new Melta rule, for example - but likely would have if they were a new release. The amount of support an army gets does affect its rules, and therefore affects gameplay.

Then, Marine players jump in to defend this state of affairs. This is where the Marine player turns the ire from GW/the Marine army onto the player itself, because the complaint is fairly obvious (imo) and genuinely points out an issue. Denying it as invalid/useless/whatever comes across as the player now essentially saying that Eldar players (to continue the example) DESERVE to have a miserable time, both in the hobby with bad models and playing the game with bad rules.
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think it's important to remember that when people are complaining about Marines, there seems to be a 2 step process:
Initial Complaint:
Marines are getting lots of support, while Eldar languish with models (and therefore rules) that are holdovers from the 1990s. Fire Dragons didn't get the new Melta rule, for example - but likely would have if they were a new release. The amount of support an army gets does affect its rules, and therefore affects gameplay.

Then, Marine players jump in to defend this state of affairs. This is where the Marine player turns the ire from GW/the Marine army onto the player itself, because the complaint is fairly obvious (imo) and genuinely points out an issue. Denying it as invalid/useless/whatever comes across as the player now essentially saying that Eldar players (to continue the example) DESERVE to have a miserable time, both in the hobby with bad models and playing the game with bad rules.


Yeah they're not complaining their unit is weak. They're complaining the brand new Marine unit that doesn't math out better than the old ones is too strong.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in ca
Aspirant Tech-Adept






Breton wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think it's important to remember that when people are complaining about Marines, there seems to be a 2 step process:
Initial Complaint:
Marines are getting lots of support, while Eldar languish with models (and therefore rules) that are holdovers from the 1990s. Fire Dragons didn't get the new Melta rule, for example - but likely would have if they were a new release. The amount of support an army gets does affect its rules, and therefore affects gameplay.

Then, Marine players jump in to defend this state of affairs. This is where the Marine player turns the ire from GW/the Marine army onto the player itself, because the complaint is fairly obvious (imo) and genuinely points out an issue. Denying it as invalid/useless/whatever comes across as the player now essentially saying that Eldar players (to continue the example) DESERVE to have a miserable time, both in the hobby with bad models and playing the game with bad rules.


Yeah they're not complaining their unit is weak. They're complaining the brand new Marine unit that doesn't math out better than the old ones is too strong.



The complaints about the ATV mostly seems to gravitate around "it should have the vehicle keyword" and not "its too strong"

Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Spoiler:
Breton wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think it's important to remember that when people are complaining about Marines, there seems to be a 2 step process:
Initial Complaint:
Marines are getting lots of support, while Eldar languish with models (and therefore rules) that are holdovers from the 1990s. Fire Dragons didn't get the new Melta rule, for example - but likely would have if they were a new release. The amount of support an army gets does affect its rules, and therefore affects gameplay.

Then, Marine players jump in to defend this state of affairs. This is where the Marine player turns the ire from GW/the Marine army onto the player itself, because the complaint is fairly obvious (imo) and genuinely points out an issue. Denying it as invalid/useless/whatever comes across as the player now essentially saying that Eldar players (to continue the example) DESERVE to have a miserable time, both in the hobby with bad models and playing the game with bad rules.


Yeah they're not complaining their unit is weak. They're complaining the brand new Marine unit that doesn't math out better than the old ones is too strong.



The complaints about the ATV mostly seems to gravitate around "it should have the vehicle keyword" and not "its too strong"

Right, it not being a vehicle causes some pretty weird rules interactions, like it being revived by a medic. I wouldn't consider it OP, I can't see why anyone would take one over a land speeder or a good old fashioned attack bike. It's just that it's obviously a vehicle and should be treated as such. Making it a vehicle could even be beneficial for it. It could, for example, shoot in melee.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Falls Church, VA

Breton wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think it's important to remember that when people are complaining about Marines, there seems to be a 2 step process:
Initial Complaint:
Marines are getting lots of support, while Eldar languish with models (and therefore rules) that are holdovers from the 1990s. Fire Dragons didn't get the new Melta rule, for example - but likely would have if they were a new release. The amount of support an army gets does affect its rules, and therefore affects gameplay.

Then, Marine players jump in to defend this state of affairs. This is where the Marine player turns the ire from GW/the Marine army onto the player itself, because the complaint is fairly obvious (imo) and genuinely points out an issue. Denying it as invalid/useless/whatever comes across as the player now essentially saying that Eldar players (to continue the example) DESERVE to have a miserable time, both in the hobby with bad models and playing the game with bad rules.


Yeah they're not complaining their unit is weak. They're complaining the brand new Marine unit that doesn't math out better than the old ones is too strong.


I don't see many people complaining it is too strong. I do see them complaining that it is nonsense (and it is). This is the same problem in 7th, with the obviously-vehicle Riptide not being a vehicle so it could benefit from different (better for it) rules.

Now we have, you guessed it, an obviously-vehicle Unit not being a vehicle so it can benefit from different (better for it) rules.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Wouldn't giving them the vehicle keyword allow them to shoot in combat. That also seems like it would be more of a buff than a nerf. Also DG have been able to bring back blight haulers since the begining of 8th and that has never really taken off.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Falls Church, VA

The Salt Mine wrote:
Wouldn't giving them the vehicle keyword allow them to shoot in combat. That also seems like it would be more of a buff than a nerf. Also DG have been able to bring back blight haulers since the begining of 8th and that has never really taken off.


It would allow them to shoot in combat at a -1 with their heavy weapons, but it would prevent anything that works on bikes from keying off of them, which is a good number of things in the SM book including army bonuses, unit special abilities, and stratagems.
   
Made in gb
Wicked Canoptek Wraith




UK

The Salt Mine wrote:
Wouldn't giving them the vehicle keyword allow them to shoot in combat. That also seems like it would be more of a buff than a nerf. Also DG have been able to bring back blight haulers since the begining of 8th and that has never really taken off.


Giving them the Vehicle keyword stops them from being healed or rezzed by a Chief Apothecary, opens them up to multiple different anti-vehicle weapons and units and makes taking 9 of them be a gigantic liability when it comes to Secondary scoring because each dead one gives your opponent 2 VP's.
   
Made in ca
Aspirant Tech-Adept






The Salt Mine wrote:
Wouldn't giving them the vehicle keyword allow them to shoot in combat. That also seems like it would be more of a buff than a nerf. Also DG have been able to bring back blight haulers since the begining of 8th and that has never really taken off.


Honestly, DG shouldnt be able to either. At least you can still make an argument that demons don't follow physical rules and that a GUO can simply "repossess" the machine with a new demon to reanimate it.


Keep in mind that to do it, DG needs to take a nurgle demon detachment unlike marines.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/16 15:42:22


Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




The would just be able to be healed by the techmarine. They are already a prime target for you anti tank guns. There are a few edge case scenario weapons that would be improved but also just as many weapons that would become ineffective DE weapons come to mind here. Also as stated DG have been able to bring back BH which are tougher to kill since mid 8th and that hasn't been a huge meta warping army list. I also think the apothecary thing will get changed regardless. I use mine on bladegaurd and its too good for that. I could see the vp points issue but I think thats more of a game issue as a whole considering there is no gang buster secondary as previously stated.

Im aware they need to take a daemon detatchment but I don't think that is a down side as they probably want some nurglings anyways.

I guess Im just trying to point out that the ATVs themselves are not the problem its the apothecary that needs a nerf and a new gang busters like secondary needs to be introduced into the game as there are a few outliers like the atv that dont give out vp.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/10/16 15:58:59


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, there probably should be a "Gangbusters"-style secondary to score points of armies spamming Bikes / 3+ wound Elite infantry anyhow.


There is a secondary to score points of 1W hordes (which could admittedly be worded better), one to score of vehicles/monsters, one to score of Titanics, one to score of characters and one to score of Psykers.

Not being able to score off Elite non-Vehicles/Monsters seems an odd omission to begin with.



This is true, but doesn't address the keyword issues specifically tied to Marines. Having the ATV be a keyworded as a bike is a problem due to the new Apothecary.

I know GW had it in their heads that the ATV should be driving around with bikes, similar to the GSC quad + bikes, but the wounds, toughness, and firepower, plus the fact that it explodes don't gel with Combat Revival.

It needs an errata--specifically excluding units with the "Explodes" rule from Combat Revival resurrection would be a good, fluffy change IMO.

In fact, I just emailed 40kfaq@gwplc.com with a kindly worded suggestion myself about it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/16 16:13:29


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 CEO Kasen wrote:
Breton wrote:
Gee Vlad, why do you suppose those Marine players get defensive? It's not like they don't see over and over this kind of commentary from you, then from someone else, then from yet another and so on and so on. But yeah, it's the Marine Player's fault for choosing an army 20 years ago.


This is a point I had to clarify with a Marine-playing friend: No one is blaming the median Marine player for the current utterly ridiculous state of Marines, or at least, no one sensible is doing so, because the situation sucks almost as much for them. We're blaming the company that can't write balanced rules for overpriced plastic spacemen.


Nail on the head. Or close enough. What you have are players bringing up legitimate concerns and complaints about certain Marine units which are/were over powered. "Aggressors are too good at what they do, here are statistics from tournaments, here are comparison to other SM units, here are comparison to similar Xeno's equivalents". This is usually met by a handful of Space Marine players who think any comment saying a Marine unit is OP is similar to an attack on their mother and possibly we kicked their dog.

When you give valid concerns/commentary and are met with ridiculous things like "We deserve to be OP because we only got to be OP for a little bit of 8th" or "Well they need to be OP because they don't have a transport" or "Well we are supposed to be better than your units" it goes from a debate back and forth between 2 players on a game to a debate between 1 person and another going "Nuh ugh, you just hate marines!"

The fact that these players then scream that this is ONLY AGAINST MARINES! when in fact its literally been against any broken unit in the game whose faction decided it needed to stay. Most of us were making the same commentary in 7th against Riptide wings AND against the SM demi-company free vehicle bonanza, we were commenting that Eldar flying circus is ridiculous etc.

In this and other threads you have literally had players saying aggressors are garbage because they went from making back their value in 1 turn to now taking less than 2, you have had players saying Eradicators aren't that bad because Devastators with Melta will be just as bad, you have had them defending the fact that intercessors out perform dedicated CC troop units in CC and also dedicated ranged combat troops at ranged combat, and we aren't talking model for model, but point for point.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

As someone who plays virtually every army in the game I'm tired of people trying to make it out like Marine players are the bad guy, and that we deserve every nerf we get. I said it a few weeks ago that the attitude of people enjoying any Marine nerf because it's "deserved" is appalling. It's a game, stop being actively excited by the idea of an army you don't play losing something*.

And you're right - we can't know everything about the new units, and it is far too early in this book's life cycle to immediately judge everything as "broken" or whatever. Mathhammer isn't foolproof, and posting pages of long-winded equations whilst going "See???" isn't going to help anyone.


I've not seen anyone saying Marine players are the bad guys nor saying they deserve every nerf they get. I have seen players saying Marines deserve to be put down a peg from where they were at the end of 8th...the most broken OP army in the game. And I have seen players saying certain Marine units need nerfs to bring them down from being OP. Aggressors as an example didn't deserve a nerf they REQUIRED it, being able to earn back your points in 1 turn, especially in the context of 9th editions scoring rules...yeah not realistic. I honestly think they didn't move Aggressors down far enough.

I've played enough of 9th to see the issue with the Marine codex and the only valid defense I see right now for how OP the Marine Codex is currently is the hope that all other 9th edition codex bring up their army to similar power level, and based on GW's history on this matter, i think it unlikely.

If at first you don't succeed then Sky Diving isn't for you. 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






The Salt Mine wrote:
Also DG have been able to bring back blight haulers since the begining of 8th and that has never really taken off.

There are multiple reasons for that, none of which apply to the ATV
1) Two codices required
2) The MBH has been a terribly over-costed unit until 9th and only with the change to its multi-melta it can finally be considered "good"
3) Great unclean ones were even worse units and are still bad, and taking the bell removes their anti-tank abilities.
4) A great unclean costs three times as much as an apothecary and can't be hidden by units or obscuring terrain
5) Should someone actually kill one or more MBH without killing third one as well or killing the GUO first, the ability still has a 50% chance to fail

In any case, resurrecting MBH was clearly an oversight, but it's such a fragile and easily disrupted combo that no one would miss it should it be removed.
An apothecary healing, buffing and resurrecting ATVs though? That's pretty good investment of points.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Jidmah wrote:
The Salt Mine wrote:
Also DG have been able to bring back blight haulers since the begining of 8th and that has never really taken off.

There are multiple reasons for that, none of which apply to the ATV
1) Two codices required
2) The MBH has been a terribly over-costed unit until 9th and only with the change to its multi-melta it can finally be considered "good"
3) Great unclean ones were even worse units and are still bad, and taking the bell removes their anti-tank abilities.
4) A great unclean costs three times as much as an apothecary and can't be hidden by units or obscuring terrain
5) Should someone actually kill one or more MBH without killing third one as well or killing the GUO first, the ability still has a 50% chance to fail

In any case, resurrecting MBH was clearly an oversight, but it's such a fragile and easily disrupted combo that no one would miss it should it be removed.
An apothecary healing, buffing and resurrecting ATVs though? That's pretty good investment of points.


MBH became good when war of the spider dropped. A cheap tough unit that has a 4++ and a 5+++. The new melta units just made them excellent. In the place they are now I am willing to bet you might see more people trying the combo out. Also I am in agreement the apothecary needs a nerf its just too good and its not because of the ATVs. Bladeguard are a far better target imo. I havnt even bothered to rez an atv yet in any of my games because a unit of unkillable bladeguard sitting in the center of the board is scoring me 2pts a turn.
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






You are guaranteed to lose that bet. For the reasons listed above GUO are a waste of points.
It doesn't take a mathematician to decide what's better - another unit of 3 MBH or a GUO that has a 50% chance of reviving a single one under perfect circumstances.

And it's not like going from 5++ to 4++ was a massive boost, there was no reason to play them when you were already souping.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/16 18:00:14


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Jidmah wrote:
You are guaranteed to lose that bet. For the reasons listed above GUO are a waste of points.
It doesn't take a mathematician to decide what's better - another unit of 3 MBH or a GUO that has a 50% chance of reviving a single one under perfect circumstances.

And it's not like going from 5++ to 4++ was a massive boost, there was no reason to play them when you were already souping.


Maybe we will see. Also as far as no reason to take them?

https://www.40kstats.com/sanantoniogt

This guy must know something you don't. Cause he took 6 and won first place.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

The Salt Mine wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
You are guaranteed to lose that bet. For the reasons listed above GUO are a waste of points.
It doesn't take a mathematician to decide what's better - another unit of 3 MBH or a GUO that has a 50% chance of reviving a single one under perfect circumstances.

And it's not like going from 5++ to 4++ was a massive boost, there was no reason to play them when you were already souping.


Maybe we will see. Also as far as no reason to take them?

https://www.40kstats.com/sanantoniogt

This guy must know something you don't. Cause he took 6 and won first place.
He didn't take a GUO, though, unless I'm missing something obvious.

And reading Jidmah's post, it seems like they were saying you're better off with three more Blighthaulers than a GUO to revive one.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




It seemed to me that he was saying there were no reason to play them. I may have misunderstood text isnt the best medium.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/16 20:19:22


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

The Salt Mine wrote:
It seemed to me that he was saying there were no reason to play them. I may have misunderstood text isnt the best medium.
It happens. Not a big deal when it does, so long as it's cleared up once the mistake is realized.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






The Salt Mine wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
You are guaranteed to lose that bet. For the reasons listed above GUO are a waste of points.
It doesn't take a mathematician to decide what's better - another unit of 3 MBH or a GUO that has a 50% chance of reviving a single one under perfect circumstances.

And it's not like going from 5++ to 4++ was a massive boost, there was no reason to play them when you were already souping.


Maybe we will see. Also as far as no reason to take them?

https://www.40kstats.com/sanantoniogt

This guy must know something you don't. Cause he took 6 and won first place.


Yes, after 9th dropped, just like I said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Salt Mine wrote:
It seemed to me that he was saying there were no reason to play them. I may have misunderstood text isnt the best medium.

There is no reason to play the combo which was what you were betting on. Three additional MBH are just vastly superior to a GUO in 9th.

"No reason to play them when you were souping" was referring to 8th when DG saw little play outside of nurgle soup and MBH simply weren't used, even after WotS hit.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/10/16 20:29:09


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




You said it was terribly over costed till 9th and only became good with the melta change which is what I was challenging. They became solid even in 8th with wots. We will just have to agree to disagree on the GUO I think the combo has value and I think you are underestimating the GUO. The combo saw play when it was first discovered in 8th and fell out of fashion as the game changed. With all the buffs to MBH it may see come back.
   
Made in nl
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle





The Salt Mine wrote:
You said it was terribly over costed till 9th and only became good with the melta change which is what I was challenging. They became solid even in 8th with wots. We will just have to agree to disagree on the GUO I think the combo has value and I think you are underestimating the GUO. The combo saw play when it was first discovered in 8th and fell out of fashion as the game changed. With all the buffs to MBH it may see come back.

I'd argue they became pretty solid even before WotS with the 2020CA dropping them to slightly over 100 points. Now I personally don't play with demons and never tried the combo but I agree with Jidmah that you are probably better off just taking another squad over the GUO unless you want the demons for something else as well. As for how that combo compares to the new ATV, remember that even if somewhat powerful, DG as a whole are solid but not overbearing which is worlds apart from SM who get to have yet another trick to add to the disgusting pile of cheese that is Codex SM.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/17 02:03:53


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Indiana

You can tell someone is still in the 8th mentality when they talk about mathhammer not movement speed.

You can easily win while getting tabled in 9th if you are on top of movement and board control. Killing isn’t the primary measure of what will win you a game. It does help however.

Just built my three ATVs because I love the model, and it really isn’t that much bigger than a lot of bikes out there. Actually quite small.

I agree they should have been 6 wounds instead of 8 but they are firmly bike sized IMO.
3 man units aren’t going to be a thing while eradicators are still a thing. Also anyone keeping them close to a foot based apothecary is handicapping their ability to win the game so I don’t see that arguement lasting once people actually start playing the game.

making them vehicles makes them worthless since it’s free bring it down. I also hope a lot of the other things like vipers change to bikes to be consistent with this standard. Better to make more things viable than to make more things not viable IMO.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2020/10/17 02:34:04


People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer

My Deathwatch army project thread  
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I have never owned a Centurion kit, and until that box comes with free strippers and booze for a year- I won't get one.
When it does- I'll... kitbash it into something else or something. Centurions are like that cousin that got a full ride-scholarship and walked onto a six-figure salary right out of college, but he's absolutely repulsive to everyone and you only acknowlege him because your dad said you should go have a beer with him so he doesn't feel left out.
Alrighty then. I own 9 of the things. I think they look cool.

   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 VladimirHerzog wrote:



The complaints about the ATV mostly seems to gravitate around "it should have the vehicle keyword" and not "its too strong"


The one I’m specifically referencing was about power. The Attack Bike was also a bike not a vehicle. So again we have the new thing being complained about but not the old thing.

It should have had 6W like the attack bike with 2 2W marines on it, but it should stay a “bike”. Other things that fit in this mold should be bikes, even if the bike keyword needs to change to something more encompassing for things like Scout Sentinels. And they need a discernible pattern. These “bikes” are T5 or less, 6W or less. Vehicles start at T6, 7W+. Something like that. Vipers should be attack bikes. Scout Sentinels should be bikes. So to speak.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Breton wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:



The complaints about the ATV mostly seems to gravitate around "it should have the vehicle keyword" and not "its too strong"


The one I’m specifically referencing was about power. The Attack Bike was also a bike not a vehicle. So again we have the new thing being complained about but not the old thing.

It should have had 6W like the attack bike with 2 2W marines on it, but it should stay a “bike”. Other things that fit in this mold should be bikes, even if the bike keyword needs to change to something more encompassing for things like Scout Sentinels. And they need a discernible pattern. These “bikes” are T5 or less, 6W or less. Vehicles start at T6, 7W+. Something like that. Vipers should be attack bikes. Scout Sentinels should be bikes. So to speak.


Nah, let's keep the Astartes ones with the more bs keyword selection. Really helps to emphasize that Astartes are the superior army choice.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: