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.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 davou wrote:
what if tactical squads stayed the same points themselves, but received a rule that allowed certain upgrade costs to be cut in half.

Anything they carry themselves, bam cut in half. Any pure dedicated transports, half price (so that people couldn't load up on cheap gunships, assbacks etc)

Why would you want to do this?

Like, is it actually a problem that, given a tactical squad, nobody thinks it's worth upgrading them? That seems like the opposite of what we see. You only see tactical squads with upgrades -- it's the regular bolter Marines that people are reluctant to take. The heavy and special weapons are if anything underpriced given how rarely people choose not to take one. And then I'm not sure what "pure dedicated transports" means. Also there's no provision for transports being tied to specific units in the 8th edition rules, so it seems like an unlikely way to go.

I mean pods/rhinos. No land raiders or razorbacks or anything cheeky like that. Just the box that shuttles them to and fro.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by the rest of that frankly. I'm not advocating for cheap devastator squad upgrades. Tactical squads are quite limited already with what sort of upgrades they can take. Halving the cost of a missile launcher if someone is willing to spend 150 points on naked bolter marines seems like a fair deal. Certainly halving the cost on 5+ of them would be absurd, but one seems within reason. Similarly, letting them take a rhino for 40 points. And yes, you are right, there are no provisions for rhinos carrying the unit that bought it... But do you really think it would be so broken to let some other unit ride around in a discounted rhino? When is the last time you saw a 10 man marine squad riding around in a rhino? What unit in the SM codex is suddenly absurd when it has a 30 ish point discount on transports PROVIDED there's a tactical squad somewhere else on the table?

Can even call the rule 'Tactical armory access' and put a table out with what is and isn't available on discount for full tactical squads.

My idea is awesome and you're just jealous

 Formosa wrote:
Couldnt agree more, I mentioned in a previous post that a good designer looks at at unit both in a vacuum and in the wider context, Tac marines suffer from legacy issues which are

1: points cost
2: durability
3: weapons loadout

1: Marines have always cost around 13-17pts (with grenades), so they still do, with little to no thought on IF they should cost that much.

2: the 3+ save have always been overvalued, this edition especially, a 3+ save in the current meta is actually a 6+ save and marines should be costed as such, 10pts would be a good spot for them, problem is that then affects other units. Personally I would have power armour ignore 1 AP, so AP-3 would be AP -2.

3: bolters have always been "meh" in both game and fluff to game terms, they really really need a buff, back when Eldar got the bladestorm rules and guard got FRFSRF and all the other armies got some rule for their main weapon, marines got nothing and still have nothing, thankfully now the heavy and special can choose different targets to suit them but it still leaves the basic bolter in a bad place, personally I would have the bolter as a short range high output weapon that shreds enemy infantry, something like these.

Range 18" Str4 Ap 0 Rapid fire 2
OR
Range 18" str4 Ap 0 Rapid fire 1 "mass Reactive" for every roll to wound of 6+ bolters deals an additional automatic hit using its profile, these hits do not generate more hits.

Neither of those are perfect but it really needs something.

Nice write up. Some good points.

Bladestorm ironically represents bolters well, on a roll of a 6+ to wound) the mass reactive shell detonates in the target causing -3AP.

 Formosa wrote:
Couldnt agree more, I mentioned in a previous post that a good designer looks at at unit both in a vacuum and in the wider context, Tac marines suffer from legacy issues which are

1: points cost
2: durability
3: weapons loadout

1: Marines have always cost around 13-17pts (with grenades), so they still do, with little to no thought on IF they should cost that much.

2: the 3+ save have always been overvalued, this edition especially, a 3+ save in the current meta is actually a 6+ save and marines should be costed as such, 10pts would be a good spot for them, problem is that then affects other units. Personally I would have power armour ignore 1 AP, so AP-3 would be AP -2.

3: bolters have always been "meh" in both game and fluff to game terms, they really really need a buff, back when Eldar got the bladestorm rules and guard got FRFSRF and all the other armies got some rule for their main weapon, marines got nothing and still have nothing, thankfully now the heavy and special can choose different targets to suit them but it still leaves the basic bolter in a bad place, personally I would have the bolter as a short range high output weapon that shreds enemy infantry, something like these.

Range 18" Str4 Ap 0 Rapid fire 2
OR
Range 18" str4 Ap 0 Rapid fire 1 "mass Reactive" for every roll to wound of 6+ bolters deals an additional automatic hit using its profile, these hits do not generate more hits.

Neither of those are perfect but it really needs something.

Well, Rapid Fire was a Space Marine special rule back in 2nd edition, which got rolled out to most basic weapons in 3rd ed. One could argue that that is the root of your problem here.

 davou wrote:

I mean pods/rhinos. No land raiders or razorbacks or anything cheeky like that. Just the box that shuttles them to and fro.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by the rest of that frankly. I'm not advocating for cheap devastator squad upgrades. Tactical squads are quite limited already with what sort of upgrades they can take. Halving the cost of a missile launcher if someone is willing to spend 150 points on naked bolter marines seems like a fair deal. Certainly halving the cost on 5+ of them would be absurd, but one seems within reason. Similarly, letting them take a rhino for 40 points. And yes, you are right, there are no provisions for rhinos carrying the unit that bought it... But do you really think it would be so broken to let some other unit ride around in a discounted rhino? When is the last time you saw a 10 man marine squad riding around in a rhino? What unit in the SM codex is suddenly absurd when it has a 30 ish point discount on transports PROVIDED there's a tactical squad somewhere else on the table?

I'm just saying that this seems like a weird way to address bolter marines being too expensive -- you're buffing some of the stuff that everyone already knows is underpriced as-is. Again, when you do see tactical squads on the table, they always have upgrades. I'm not talking about Devastators. You never see a squad of naked bolter marines. When the game gives you a choice and people always pick the same thing, that's a strong signal that that option is overpowered relative to others. Actually, chopping their wargear in half also worsens the imbalance within tactical wargear -- people already prefer the expensive weapons to the cheap weapons, and this saves more points for the more expensive weapons. It's true that you would overall make a tactical squad with a lascannon more appealing, which would by itself be a good thing because that squad is not great as-is, but it just seems strange to me to try to address that by reducing the amount of real choice presented by the army list option. Like, everyone knows that the problem is that 13 points is too much for a Marine body with a bolter; why try to address that by changing the cost of things that are already good options given that you've already got a Marine body with a bolter?

The obvious response to "What unit in the SM codex is suddenly absurd when it has a 30 ish point discount on transports PROVIDED there's a tactical squad somewhere else on the table?" is: Rhinos. Nobody's going to actually put anything in them, or they might but that's beside the point. You've just created a 37 point unit that shoots 41% more efficiently than bolter Marines and pays less per T7 3+ wound than Guardsmen pay for T3 5+. That Rhino is more durable per point in the face of lascannon fire than are lots of single-wound infantry. Maybe you think tacticals are so bad that they need an effective price drop to 3 points (this is what the savings on a 5-man squad work out to with a lascannon and a Rhino) and so this balances out. But then why not just argue that tacticals should be way cheaper instead of proposing giving people a bunch of no-brainer choices such that every tactical squad always comes with a lascannon and a Rhino?

Guys and gals we already have a thread on MEQ and what it would take to improve Tac Squads. Why don't you take your conversation over to that thread?

So is it true gw is focusing solely on things being spammed at tournaments?

They also improved things that never show up, or do show up and get skunked. That's what was in CA, at any rate.

Martel732 wrote:
They also improved things that never show up, or do show up and get skunked. That's what was in CA, at any rate.

I'm hoping they do something for Wraithknights. Right now WKs are being punished for how disgusting they were in 7th edition, but as is, they are just too many points to field. I'd imagine that considering the sheer number sold in 7th, they have to be vastly underrepresented at present.

IKs, WKs and even Stormsurges are all kind of in the dumps atm.

Martel732 wrote:
IKs, WKs and even Stormsurges are all kind of in the dumps atm.

Most Lords of War are. I'm even unimpressed with the Armiger.

It seems the only one they've gotten "right" (read: competitive without dominating things) is the Baneblade and her sisters.

Baneblade is slightly undercosted imo, especially the sponsons. I think its weapons should cost more than other IG weapons, because they can't be turned off by assault, or by any means, really.

Martel732 wrote:
Baneblade is slightly undercosted imo, especially the sponsons. I think its weapons should cost more than other IG weapons, because they can't be turned off by assault, or by any means, really.

I'd agree if there was any evidence in performance. As it stands, they can be turned off by exploding, which is disturbingly common (3 Russes for 456 is better durability and firepower than 1 Baneblade w/o sponsons for 456, with the only difference being a weakness to assault). You don't generally see "baneblade spam" at the top tables, but you do see one at times in competitive lists that place fairly highly.

That's the hallmark of a balanced Lord of War: One is merely adequate, but you're not shooting yourself in the foot (competitively speaking) taking it, like you are with Knights or most other LOWs.

But IK's at least have a stock 5++ (from shooting) to give them some survivability. Sure the WK can get a 5++ against melee and shooting, but it comes at the cost of a weapon slot, which means the Heavy Wraithcannon load out is off the table. The Ghostglaive is only real option though with the Scattershield, as the Suncannon is complete and utter garbage for its cost. Were it a straight Heavy 12 instead of Heavy 2d6, perhaps it might be palatable.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Baneblade is slightly undercosted imo, especially the sponsons. I think its weapons should cost more than other IG weapons, because they can't be turned off by assault, or by any means, really.

I'd agree if there was any evidence in performance. As it stands, they can be turned off by exploding, which is disturbingly common (3 Russes for 456 is better durability and firepower than 1 Baneblade w/o sponsons for 456, with the only difference being a weakness to assault). You don't generally see "baneblade spam" at the top tables, but you do see one at times in competitive lists that place fairly highly.

That's the hallmark of a balanced Lord of War: One is merely adequate, but you're not shooting yourself in the foot (competitively speaking) taking it, like you are with Knights or most other LOWs.

I did say slightly. Which is a big shift from my previous position of "massively".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mokoshkana wrote:
But IK's at least have a stock 5++ (from shooting) to give them some survivability. Sure the WK can get a 5++ against melee and shooting, but it comes at the cost of a weapon slot, which means the Heavy Wraithcannon load out is off the table. The Ghostglaive is only real option though with the Scattershield, as the Suncannon is complete and utter garbage for its cost. Were it a straight Heavy 12 instead of Heavy 2d6, perhaps it might be palatable.

IK weapons are a joke, which means the WK must be seriously hurting.

Comparing a Baneblade to 3 Russ tanks of equivalent cost, the Russ tanks have notably more wounds, are harder to focus fire on, are putting out roughly equivalent firepower (depending on variant and target) and are easier to fit into lists and make benefit from doctrines and orders and stratagems.

One will notice Baneblades arent spectacularly popular in competitive circles, particularly when just taking more Russ tanks is an option.

A Baneblade with a single set of sponsons sporting bolters is 518pts for a BB cannon, and Autocannon, a Demolisher cannon, two Lascannons and 6 Heavy Bolters on 26 wounds. 528pts gets you 3 LRBT's, with 3 Battlecannons, 8 Heavy Bolters and 2 Lascannons on 36 wounds. That doesnt seem out of whack to me.

About the only real issue is the Shadowsword. It is difficult to see where the other superheavies are any sort of issue.

Do remember your _One_ Baneblade is much easier to give Buffs to with your handy psyker and Sergeant Harker, etc, than your _Three_ Leman Russes. Just because there are more of you, doesn't mean it's better...

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Do remember your _One_ Baneblade is much easier to give Buffs to with your handy psyker and Sergeant Harker, etc, than your _Three_ Leman Russes. Just because there are more of you, doesn't mean it's better...

Sergeant Harker can easily have 3 Russes in his 6" bubble, that's not even hard.

But you're right...

... except that Leman Russes can get orders, and Baneblade's can't. So while the Baneblade may be easier to buff with once-per-turn abilities like Stratagems and Psykers, the Leman Russes have access to more buffs, which are much more powerful and much more flexible.

A Baneblade being able to move 6" after firing (Tallarn) or blow its smoke launchers while shooting (generic) or re-roll the dice for number of shots while re-rolling 1s (Cadian) or simply re-rolling 1s in general (generic) is fantastic.

Heck, even Full Throttle is useful on Baneblades if you're using it as a Distraction Carnifex... but it's also a Leman-Russ only buff.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Do remember your _One_ Baneblade is much easier to give Buffs to with your handy psyker and Sergeant Harker, etc, than your _Three_ Leman Russes. Just because there are more of you, doesn't mean it's better...

In some circumstances sure, but the BB on balance has a lot fewer abilities, builds, and buffs that can be applied to it or made to fit in the first place that such is a much less serious concern. Even getting Regimental bonuses for a BB requires building a list around doing simply that, whereas you can stick any Russ in any list and have it benefit instantly from a much wider array of options.

I said slightly, because I still think GW is undervaluing the ability to fall back from CC and act like nothing happened. If those 3 russes get based, it's GG. Said ability if far less useful for IKs and WKs because their guns are woefully inadequate.

Martel732 wrote:
I said slightly, because I still think GW is undervaluing the ability to fall back from CC and act like nothing happened. If those 3 russes get based, it's GG. Said ability if far less useful for IKs and WKs because their guns are woefully inadequate.

Yes, though it's much easier to keep 3 Russes from getting based than one BB, since the 3 Russes have a smaller footprint even if deployed in a big block, and can be spread across the entire table (a bit hard to base all 3 if one is in each corner of a 4x6 and one is in the middle).

The reason they gave the Baneblade the ability to shoot in combat is you'd be a complete muppet to let more than 500 points of your army get touched by enemy CC units unless the game has gone horribly wrong .... except for something the size of a Baneblade, which is fairly trivial to get within an inch of from a variety of directions and is difficult to put much of a screen in front of.

Any single "big" unit would be absolutely ridiculously bad if, say, a grot getting within an inch totally shut it down for a turn. That's why all the single, big units have some rule preventing just that.

Except land raiders, of course.

And it is still taking away the only real weakness IG vehicles have.

 Ordana wrote:
"There is a 1 in 1000 chance X happens" is not a counter argument

Funny, that's exactly the point I was making.

Baneblade is the one of the few super heavy that isn't overpriced ATM. I hope they don't nerf it.

Here is what I want to see in CA.

Dark reapers +10 points each
Shinning spears +12 points each.
Manticores +40 points
Basalisk +20 points
Mortor team +8 points
Obliterators +10 points

Psychic denial determined by the casting target - not the psyker.

Command points generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems for units in that detachment.

Space marine and CSM army traits apply to all chapter/legion units.

Space marine/csm -3 points base for every infantry based unit in PA. -5 points for every infantry based unit in Terminator armor. (includes all flvaros/ BA / DA / GK ect.)
All Grav type weapons imperial spanning - 5 points.
Rhino -20 points
Drop pod - 30 points
Repulsor/landraider -80 points base
Every space marine/CSM tank -15 points respectively if not included in any above mention.


Horma/termagant get 5+ saves.
Crisis suits dropped -10 points base
Admech destroyers varients -10 points base
Admech infantry - 2 points base

Stuff like this is what I would want to see. Nerf the stuff that is obviosuly too strong. Buff the stuff that is obviously too weak.

Martel732 wrote:
Except land raiders, of course.

And it is still taking away the only real weakness IG vehicles have.

Land Raiders are hardly 500+ points. Not even the FW ones are that overpriced.

Also, yeah, it is. But it's replacing it with other weaknesses, so it's not like it just is "better for no price." It's different, which is a good thing, without being automatically better than its points spent elsewhere, which is also a good thing.

Cultists would need love vis a vis guardsmen.

I think make indirect fire -1 to hit and make all orders on a 4+ and make conscripts not take orders at all might be a thing to try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Except land raiders, of course.

And it is still taking away the only real weakness IG vehicles have.

Land Raiders are hardly 500+ points. Not even the FW ones are that overpriced.

Also, yeah, it is. But it's replacing it with other weaknesses, so it's not like it just is "better for no price." It's different, which is a good thing, without being automatically better than its points spent elsewhere, which is also a good thing.

I think the weaknesses it gains are not as great as you think. Which is why I still think its worth slightly more points than it currently costs. Especially if we use the other lords of war as a benchmark.

Baneblades needing a price increase because they cant be locked in CC, while losing out on orders and other abilities, being harder to fit into army lists, and having dramatically less resiliency than similar points of normal Russ tanks (26 vs 36 wounds), doesn't seem terribly necessary.

Likewise, bringing Manticores up to over 180pts isn't going to do anything for balance except remove Manticores from tables. Indirect fire isn't worth *that* much (not with 8E terrain, TLoS, and most actual terrain pieces), especially not over a Russ tank thats packing an otherwise identical main gun, better resiliency, and an array of flexible secondary heavy weapons and access to Orders for the same price. Making Mortar teams 8pts more each basically returns them to their 5E price level of 60pts for a squad, which will also probably see them evaporate from the table, as nobody took them then, or really ever, until 8E. Could Mortars use a bit of a bump? Perhaps, but 8ppm is overkill.


That said im all about seeing some CP changes, anything to reduce Soup and unintended synergies.

5 point Skitarii and 6 point vanguard WTF Xenomancers do you even balance?

Just relegate super heavies back to apoc and be done with it.

And the Reaper Chainsword should do a flat damage of (24-2*Toughness) damage in mortal freaking wounds.

 Galas wrote:
5 point Skitarii and 6 point vanguard WTF Xenomancers do you even balance?

It's rangers, not skitarii.

 Galas wrote:
5 point Skitarii and 6 point vanguard WTF Xenomancers do you even balance?

Looking at that list? No, probably not.

I'd also not be expecting too much - if anything - for Tau or Necrons as part of the Big March FAQ. I imagine they'll get the usual "clean-up" FAQs that new codexes are due to get, but not be part of this balancing pass, given they will only just have been released at the point the BFAQ drops.