Switch Theme:

The new primaris  [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 fr
Been Around the Block




The Newman wrote:
 Trimarius wrote:
Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.

That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.

This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.


No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.

The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.

It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Well then it is a unsolvable problem. Because less wounds means fewer models, and GW is never ever going to want people to buy fewer models.

1W marines with inferior or the same weapons as other armies also do not work, And its seems like GW is slowly understanding the fact that keeping the majority of their player base in general state of happines is a good idea.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Part of the fun of playing non-marines factions in 40k is feeling like you're winning despite the odds being stacked against you.

The other part is not having to replace your models every edition because GW decides to milk you again for the same army all over again by releasing new units that are like the old units you had but just better.

The downside is you hardly ever get new models and you have to be good at playing the game or you just get brushed off the table by space marines that are just better than you for the same points.

None of this changes the fact that primaris were a big mistake from a gameplay point of view, another case of $$$ considerations trumping everything else.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/20 19:06:09


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Siegfriedfr wrote:
Spoiler:
The Newman wrote:
 Trimarius wrote:
Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.

That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.

This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.


No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.

The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.

It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.

Not sure where you're getting that last bit, Marines generally pay a premium for any given weapon.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




The Newman wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
Spoiler:
The Newman wrote:
 Trimarius wrote:
Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.

That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.

This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.


No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.

The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.

It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.

Not sure where you're getting that last bit, Marines generally pay a premium for any given weapon.

That was true up untill flandarisation Marines 2.0 arrived who have
Free weapons that totally out power pointed upgrade weapons evwm for actual marines, Because Hi diddle hoo marinearineo
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Ice_can wrote:
The Newman wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
Spoiler:
The Newman wrote:
 Trimarius wrote:
Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.

That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.

This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.


No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.

The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.

It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.

Not sure where you're getting that last bit, Marines generally pay a premium for any given weapon.

That was true up untill flandarisation Marines 2.0 arrived who have
Free weapons that totally out power pointed upgrade weapons evwm for actual marines, Because Hi diddle hoo marinearineo

Zero-point weapons are always built into the cost of the carrying unit. Everyone knows this.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




The Newman wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
The Newman wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
Spoiler:
The Newman wrote:
 Trimarius wrote:
Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.

That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.

This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.


No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.

The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.

It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.

Not sure where you're getting that last bit, Marines generally pay a premium for any given weapon.

That was true up untill flandarisation Marines 2.0 arrived who have
Free weapons that totally out power pointed upgrade weapons evwm for actual marines, Because Hi diddle hoo marinearineo

Zero-point weapons are always built into the cost of the carrying unit. Everyone knows this.

Which leads back to the point if those uber weapons are in the models points the model is under costed. Free weapon and underpointing the model or the model being fair and being given and undercosted weapon still make either option balance breaking.
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






Siegfriedfr wrote:
The Newman wrote:
 Trimarius wrote:
Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.

That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.

This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.


No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.

The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.

It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.


Recently played a game where my opponent and I outlawed any rerolls. Normally when he and I play at 2K (Marines vs Orks) we spend around an 1:45 minutes of total play time, not including set up and takedown. This time without the rerolls we concluded out game in about 1 hour 20 minutes.

Let's just get rid of die rerolls!
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Togusa wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
The Newman wrote:
 Trimarius wrote:
Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.

That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.

This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.


No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.

The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.

It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.


Recently played a game where my opponent and I outlawed any rerolls. Normally when he and I play at 2K (Marines vs Orks) we spend around an 1:45 minutes of total play time, not including set up and takedown. This time without the rerolls we concluded out game in about 1 hour 20 minutes.

Let's just get rid of die rerolls!

So basically Captains and Warbosses do nothing. How EXCITING.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Auras are trash, though.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
The Newman wrote:
 Trimarius wrote:
Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.

That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.

This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.


No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.

The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.

It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.


Recently played a game where my opponent and I outlawed any rerolls. Normally when he and I play at 2K (Marines vs Orks) we spend around an 1:45 minutes of total play time, not including set up and takedown. This time without the rerolls we concluded out game in about 1 hour 20 minutes.

Let's just get rid of die rerolls!

So basically Captains and Warbosses do nothing. How EXCITING.

Yeah I've totally NEVER seen ANYONE kit a Captain for combat, that NEVER happens in 40k......
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Yeah I've totally NEVER seen ANYONE kit a Captain for combat, that NEVER happens in 40k......

Primaris Cpts and Lt suck at melee though, they are there to be buff bots. Same with GK brother captins, you take them to extend ranger of spells and not to try doing melee with a slow, low A, low inv character.
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






Btw, have we heard anything about that unit mentioned in codex 2: Hellfurries or something like that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
Siegfriedfr wrote:
The Newman wrote:
 Trimarius wrote:
Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.

That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.

This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.


No thanks. It doesn't solve the problem of buckets of dice rolls slowing the game down, which is the problem child of more wounds + more lethality.

The game needs less wounds AND less lethality.

It also needs to stop giving marines superior weaponry and rules at similar price points.


Recently played a game where my opponent and I outlawed any rerolls. Normally when he and I play at 2K (Marines vs Orks) we spend around an 1:45 minutes of total play time, not including set up and takedown. This time without the rerolls we concluded out game in about 1 hour 20 minutes.

Let's just get rid of die rerolls!

So basically Captains and Warbosses do nothing. How EXCITING.


Not at all. We had them charge eachother, and fight in combat. They shot guns and used stratagems. It was quite a lot of fun. My ten intercessors and their captain managed to kill the Ork Boss in melee, taking significant losses. But we did do it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/21 07:59:23


 
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought




Nottingham

Nitro Zeus wrote:Yeah I've totally NEVER seen ANYONE kit a Captain for combat, that NEVER happens in 40k......
And? Captains should be equally as capable in buffing the army around them. Captains should be good at both buffing AND combat, not just combat.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Pretty sure Hellfuries are the new Gravis Melta guys.

Karol wrote:
 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Yeah I've totally NEVER seen ANYONE kit a Captain for combat, that NEVER happens in 40k......

Primaris Cpts and Lt suck at melee though, they are there to be buff bots. Same with GK brother captins, you take them to extend ranger of spells and not to try doing melee with a slow, low A, low inv character.

Primaris Lieutenants suck in melee because of their gear options. Firstborn Lts are almost as good as Firstborn Captains, but if you're going to pay the points for the melee kit you might as well put it on the best base unit.

Primaris Captains though? They can be absolute monsters, but they don't have the mobility to really leverage it.
   
Made in it
Wild Wyrdboy with Minderz




Italy

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except it doesn't promote killyness. It makes them worth their cost.



No? Then why do SM bolters and their equivalents need their rule to bypass the rapid fire range, get -1AP thanks to the doctrine (cumulative to the -1AP that the overpowered troops already have) and allow units of 6 dudes and only 220 points to fire 140 shots? Now if all bolters, including primaris ones, were S4 ap0 with rapid fire always in play and no free re-rolls like they should be and aggressors could fire 40ish shots in total (also like they should be with their points cost), no one would argue on giving +1W to units like boyz.

A unit of 30 shoota boyz fires 70 shots and kills on average 1-2 primaris or 10 GEQ which are their appropriate target. If all the basic infantry models become tough as primaris then also basic weapons should become deadlier otherwise they'd just make you roll a hundred of dice to kill a couple of models at most. At that point enhanced basic troop weapons become effective even against tanks and we'll go back to old editions when vehicles had no durability at all. See, how this mentality escalates killyness?

Boyz don't need more wounds, their durability isn't an issue against 90%+ of the factions, in fact they've never been so tough with their 6+ that is actually rolled sometimes (as most former AP6 and AP5 weapons are now AP0) and possible free 6+++ or 6++ thanks to clans bonuses. Boyz don't worth their cost anymore for one reason and one reason only: they lost their purpose. They've always have been the ablative wounds for the lone power klaw in the squad but now klaws are a joke. In fact only 30 man squads remained somehow competitive, because in that number they can mess deepstrikers, tarpit things and add more wounds to the army to avoid getting tabled. Even if the full squad manages to strike, the ork player would roll an insane amount of dice and end up with a mediocre result so doubling their wounds will solve nothing, other than consolidating their role of tarpitters which is really sad.

Instead of buffing their T, W, save or FNP make klaws great again, like AP-5 damage D6, like they should be. Boyz (and also transports) will appreciate it.

Buffing close combat units while nerfing shooting is the way to go for a more balanced (and fun) game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:


1W marines with inferior or the same weapons as other armies also do not work.


Absolutely false. A SM army with only PA dudes instead of primaris is still quite (if not very) competitive

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/21 12:14:29


Orks 7000
Space Wolves 5000
 
   
Made in za
Regular Dakkanaut



South Africa

 Blackie wrote:

A unit of 30 shoota boyz fires 70 shots and kills on average 1-2 primaris or 10 GEQ which are their appropriate target.


That sounds about right for Orks though. The thing is you should have another 200 Shoota Boyz.

KBK 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Absolutely false. A SM army with only PA dudes instead of primaris is still quite (if not very) competitive

yeah if those PA dudes are made out of vehicles, thunderfire canons, sniper scouts ,smash hammers, teleporting centurions and stuff that is similar. .
I am talking about the normal power armoured dudes, with the rised point costs people propose here. Such an army is horrible, and I know it, because my dudes cost 20 or 40 pts per troop most of 8th ed.
As much as I dislike eldar and eldar players, what you are proposing is to nerf eldar guardians, because an army of eldar flyers works fine.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






Karol wrote:
Absolutely false. A SM army with only PA dudes instead of primaris is still quite (if not very) competitive

yeah if those PA dudes are made out of vehicles, thunderfire canons, sniper scouts ,smash hammers, teleporting centurions and stuff that is similar. .
I am talking about the normal power armoured dudes, with the rised point costs people propose here. Such an army is horrible, and I know it, because my dudes cost 20 or 40 pts per troop most of 8th ed.
As much as I dislike eldar and eldar players, what you are proposing is to nerf eldar guardians, because an army of eldar flyers works fine.
Your dudes might cost 20, but my dudes cost 12-14, and I take 70+ of them, and they work great.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Savannah

No one's yet laid out a scenario where having more wounds for "tough" stuff magically makes more dice happen. If Necron infantry, for example, gets a wound bump, how does this make more dice get rolled in a SM vs Necron game? In a Necron vs Guard (where guardsmen obviously would stay at 1w each, given that they aren't tough) match up? The necrons absorb more damage and get removed more slowly, but you aren't suddenly rolling eight shots for every guardsman who fires at a warrior.

And yukishiro, I have to assume that you're relatively new with a comment like that, but marines are not generally on top of the competitive scene. They tend to be somewhere in the middle, or slightly below, with a couple of notable high/low points (I'd say Eldar are the most consistent over performers in general). Right now is one of those high points, of course, but that's pretty clearly due to the supplements going nuts with free bonuses.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Good for you then. I still see no reason why anyone would take tacticals over scouts, specialy if the tacticals were to lose options and have them cost more points.


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






Karol wrote:
Good for you then. I still see no reason why anyone would take tacticals over scouts, specialy if the tacticals were to lose options and have them cost more points.
Tacticals can do more damage against more targets than the other troop choices in the marine book. Specifically they can do more damage against more expensive targets.

But this doesn't compare to GK. I don't know much about the GK army these days, but I do know they are expensive and lack the flexibility of gear that Tacs have.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in it
Wild Wyrdboy with Minderz




Italy

Karol wrote:
Good for you then. I still see no reason why anyone would take tacticals over scouts, specialy if the tacticals were to lose options and have them cost more points.



Not in a world where overpowered primaris exist, of course. But primaris are a problem, not the humble PA dudes. Any SM chapter could do well enough with PA infantries instead of their primaris equivalents, as their codex are really solid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kayback wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

A unit of 30 shoota boyz fires 70 shots and kills on average 1-2 primaris or 10 GEQ which are their appropriate target.


That sounds about right for Orks though. The thing is you should have another 200 Shoota Boyz.


Exactly, 70 shots and 10 kills is what that unit is supposed to achieve but if everything gets primarized 70 dice for 1-2 casualties in any possible scenario sounds insane. And the only option would be to buff shootas like SM bolters. Also insane.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/21 18:04:57


Orks 7000
Space Wolves 5000
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Blackie wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except it doesn't promote killyness. It makes them worth their cost.



No? Then why do SM bolters and their equivalents need their rule to bypass the rapid fire range, get -1AP thanks to the doctrine (cumulative to the -1AP that the overpowered troops already have) and allow units of 6 dudes and only 220 points to fire 140 shots? Now if all bolters, including primaris ones, were S4 ap0 with rapid fire always in play and no free re-rolls like they should be and aggressors could fire 40ish shots in total (also like they should be with their points cost), no one would argue on giving +1W to units like boyz.

[snip/]

Those 220 point Aggressors only gets 134 shots if someone obligingly leaves a unit within 18" of them and doesn't kill them in the shooting phase, or if their controller built their entire list around delivering them and then getting them to count as stationary. They're only 67 shots under anyone else, and anyone who knows what those things do will shoot every gun they can manage at them.

Yes, Aggressors are undercosted. Three of them should cost about as much as a unit of Terminators, but even then they're impossible to cost properly when Ultramarines and Salamanders can pretty much double their shooting effectiveness.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/21 22:02:06


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Aggressors aren't the problem, they're just the symptom of the problem. The problem is 2W primaris and then all the free bonuses and offensive inflation they had to give out to make 2W primaris worth taking.

2W base troops are just problematic, because they're neither elite nor non-elite and that means the inflation necessary to make their elites appear elite compared to the 2W base troops is extreme.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




yukishiro1 wrote:
Aggressors aren't the problem, they're just the symptom of the problem. The problem is 2W primaris and then all the free bonuses and offensive inflation they had to give out to make 2W primaris worth taking.

2W base troops are just problematic, because they're neither elite nor non-elite and that means the inflation necessary to make their elites appear elite compared to the 2W base troops is extreme.


I still think this analysis is not quite correct. There's nothing extreme about having some unit differentiation. I'd increase the wounds on a lot of units the way 8th ed plays, actuallly.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/21 22:02:02


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Savannah

yukishiro1 wrote:
Aggressors aren't the problem, they're just the symptom of the problem. The problem is 2W primaris and then all the free bonuses and offensive inflation they had to give out to make 2W primaris worth taking.

2W base troops are just problematic, because they're neither elite nor non-elite and that means the inflation necessary to make their elites appear elite compared to the 2W base troops is extreme.


You've still not shown how making the "tough" models have more wounds breaks the game. No one's arguing that the supplements weren't too much free stuff and hurt the game.

I'll go back to tyranid warriors, who have three(!) wounds and haven't destroyed the game. 2W marines gives the whole army (bar scouts, if they stay at 1W) an elite and durable slant, but that isn't a bad thing - it's what they're billed as.
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







yukishiro1 wrote:
Aggressors aren't the problem, they're just the symptom of the problem. The problem is 2W primaris and then all the free bonuses and offensive inflation they had to give out to make 2W primaris worth taking.

2W base troops are just problematic, because they're neither elite nor non-elite and that means the inflation necessary to make their elites appear elite compared to the 2W base troops is extreme.


I don't think 2W base Troops are that problematic. The Deathwatch felt like the right place for Space Marines to be for most of 8e, they had the 2W of Primaris Marines, mixed squads let you sort of get upgrade weapons back, and SIA let their rifle fire make more of a difference. Then the Marine books landed and took the base model of the Deathwatch (a bit of extra AP, a bit of extra mobility) and started stacking better Chapter Tactics and Chapter-specific Doctrines and the Chaplain auras and ever-fancier stratagems on top of them and they just went out of control.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade




Recently played a game where my opponent and I outlawed any rerolls. Normally when he and I play at 2K (Marines vs Orks) we spend around an 1:45 minutes of total play time, not including set up and takedown. This time without the rerolls we concluded out game in about 1 hour 20 minutes.

Let's just get rid of die rerolls!


THANK YOU! I've been saying this for months now. Play a game with no, or at least very limited strats, and ZERO rerolls and watch how much faster time goes. Worried about your Captains and Warbosses? Fair enough. Let's give them a different ability. Pretty simple. Armies would need adjusted because certain books (Orks in particular) really need strats to function, but I will be shocked if, when 9th comes out, we don't see pretty dramatic rewrites anyway. No way will they be able to make a faster game, that is more balanced while also keeping the 8th ed books truly compatible.

As it stands, 9th is looking to double down on the time wasters. My bet is - it's a longer game, with a more complex rule set. We land on different but the same. Remove or at least severley limit re-rolls and we end up with a significant time savings.

That actually makes sense to me, since these are the first veteran primaries that we get.

The primaries marines are indeed a Gman creation, and they come without all the blings that define a chapter. If you read the fluff, most chapters use them as cannon fodder initially, because they don't mesh really well with them.

Centuries have passed though since the first primaries. Now some of those really made it into the ranks of the chapters and gained enough merits on the battlefield to become veterans. Those marines have been necessarily fully accepted by the chapter and have started looking like a marine of it. They have taken up their chapter's habits and uses, bling included.

To me, a "clean" veteran primaries would have sounded weird.


That actually makes a lot of sense, and I hadn't really thought of it. But since they jumped the timeline forward so far, so quickly I'm just back to "why didn't we just call these true-scale". lol

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in it
Wild Wyrdboy with Minderz




Italy

Tycho wrote:


THANK YOU! I've been saying this for months now. Play a game with no, or at least very limited strats, and ZERO rerolls and watch how much faster time goes. Worried about your Captains and Warbosses? Fair enough. Let's give them a different ability.


Warbosses don't have re-roll auras like captains, their aura buffs morale. Actually there's only one datasheet in the entire ork codex that has a re-roll aura, it's Badrukk and only works on Flash Gitz. Oh, there's Ghaz too (re-roll 1s in melee) but Goffs locked.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/23 20:57:54


Orks 7000
Space Wolves 5000
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: