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.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
So I just had a thought. These new wounds and weapon profiles are in the new starter boxes ? So a new player getting into 40k will put together an army with starter boxes, point to his data sheets inside those starter box and expect to play 2W marines and 3W terminators. And then what are we supposed to tell that player? Opps, all these don't come into play until the proper codexes comes out in October?

Let's pretend that I'll be encountering that....
If it happened? I'd just play the game & not worry about it. 2W, 3W? (shrugs) I'm already used to & fully able to win vs Primaris. New weapon profiles? (again, shrugs) What's the worst that'll happen? It'll kill my stuff more dead?
So not worth worrying about.
But yes, if the new player was confused I'd explain that the new book will match his cards.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
This is confusing. And imagine knowing your old marines are going up to 2W and lots of weapons are all getting more devastating in October. Why would you even want to play your army now?

Because I play games in the here & now. And my SW/DA/all dread armies? Those are the armies I've currently got dug out of storage.
I'm already able to have fun (and win!) with these armies. So I'm going to get on with the game & not lament that it isn't October yet..

Eldenfirefly wrote:
So I just had a thought. These new wounds and weapon profiles are in the new starter boxes ? So a new player getting into 40k will put together an army with starter boxes, point to his data sheets inside those starter box and expect to play 2W marines and 3W terminators. And then what are we supposed to tell that player? Opps, all these don't come into play until the proper codexes comes out in October?

"The datasheets in the boxes are just to get you started and give you an idea for how you want to build them (weapon profiles). Full rules are in your codex, which you should not buy right now as you get a spanking new one in less than two months. Here, let me show you some ways how to get by without a codex in the meantime (Battlescribe, Wahapedia)."

Eldenfirefly wrote:
This is confusing. And imagine knowing your old marines are going up to 2W and lots of weapons are all getting more devastating in October. Why would you even want to play your army now? Speaking as a CSM player... Its like, why would I want to play my hilariously bad 1W CSM models now when I know they are due for an upgrade by October.

If you enjoy playing your army, go and play games. If not, get another army or do something else.

 alextroy wrote:

Useless? We went through a whole edition where -1 to Hit was the king of subfaction traits and now the ability is useless? I think your analysis has a strong bias in it.

-1 to hit was the king of subfaction traits, because those armies could stack to -2 / -3 / -4, which is actually enough to counter all of the rerolls / high WS/BS that various imperial armies have access to.

This was also before -1 to hit Dense Terrain was ubiquitous.

Most recent game I played, almost every unit on the table had a -1 to hit due to terrain pretty much permanently against shooting (which is all the -1 to hit trait worked for anyway).

ALSO, -1 to hit is no longer a huge issue. If you want to get somewhere fast, then you -want- your opponent to have -1 to hit already, cos it means you don't need to make any tactical decisions between advancing and shooting, or firing all profiles on you weapons or just the most powerful one. You can advance, and fire all profiles, and you have zero detriment. It's actually a net GAIN.

T5 is a fairly average Toughness? I don't know what factions you have been playing, but T5 is not that common in most factions I'm aware of.

Custodians? Death Guard? AdMech?
You know... three of the more common armies, and all are in the top-5 armies in the current meta?

I know, they're fairly unknown options, very niche, doubt anyone's ever heard of them -.0

Half their points? More hyperbole I see. And do you think that GW won't cook up some alternate bonuses for all Aeldari if -1 to be Hit becomes part of their core defense?

More? This is the first bit of hyperbole in what I said. It is, however, a significant portion of their points cost, probably in the realm of 10-20% depending on the unit. Trusting GW to actually fix this is... a big ask, considering their track record.

Really? Every Aeldari has -1 to Hit all the time? I'm finding your analysis to be quite flawed by unhappiness about Space Marines.

Um... the whole point of the comment I was replying to, was that their suggested fix for Eldar was do give them back the -1 to hit buff (which they could already get via alaitoc) but make it more universal as a base-trait. That was... literally the WHOLE POINT of the post. So yes, all Aeldari would have -1 to hit the whole time. Because that was. the. whole. point. of. his. original. post.

Your analysis seems to be quite flawed by your inability to read/think.

15 Point Models with Guardsman Statlines? What unit is that? I'm pretty sure there aren't any Aeldari unit with 6 3+ 3+ 3 3 1 1 6 5+ statline. Or are you talking about the fact that a few Aeldari units are T3 Sv5+?

I was, quite obviously from the context, largely talking about the defensive statlines.

Rangers are 15pts each, for an S3, T3, 1W, 5+ save. And an arguably useless/niche gun. They do get a +1 to their save in cover, but that is not worth 10 points.

Avengers are 14 points each, for an S3, T3, 1W, 4+ save. They do, at least, have a somewhat respectable weapon (relatively speaking).

Guardians and storm guardians are 10 points each, for S3, T3, 1W, 5+sv. Their weapons are just bad, considering they pay 5 points each for them.

All of these units pay for their 2" more movement speed, of course. But then for half the cost, guard get orders. Which is just better, by a huge margin. It's not even close.

You seem to be distracted by something other than how to make Aeldari seem Aeldari in the rules and a solid defensive ability because Space Marines. I'm not saying it is the best idea in the world, but it certainly isn't trash tier defense. I'm pretty sure there are worst (like a 2+/6++ or a cover save bonus when you are 7+/5++).

Um... so you're saying a 2+/6++ is worse than a 5+? ... um, how? And a 5++ is, by definition, better than a 5+ as well.

Unless you're saying that the Eldar unit in your example also has a -1 to be hit, and the other units don't? Ok fine... but when does that situation come up? In a real game, on a table with properly set up terrain, the opponent will have a -1 on most of their units for a significant portion of the game. Which means its a wash, and it comes down to Toughness and Armour Saves (which eldar don't have).

I'm sure someone will respond with some pedantry, or nitpick some minor piece of hyperbole, but none of this is new information it's been well known and documented since 9th edition was released.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
...I think a race-wide "always fights first" rule would also help.

Would Howling Banshees get Firstest Strike?

Good Point..... Perhaps change the Banshees to having the ability to fight twice in any given phase, Once as a first strike and once normally.

Niiru wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Useless? We went through a whole edition where -1 to Hit was the king of subfaction traits and now the ability is useless? I think your analysis has a strong bias in it.

-1 to hit was the king of subfaction traits, because those armies could stack to -2 / -3 / -4, which is actually enough to counter all of the rerolls / high WS/BS that various imperial armies have access to.

This was also before -1 to hit Dense Terrain was ubiquitous.

Most recent game I played, almost every unit on the table had a -1 to hit due to terrain pretty much permanently against shooting (which is all the -1 to hit trait worked for anyway).

ALSO, -1 to hit is no longer a huge issue. If you want to get somewhere fast, then you -want- your opponent to have -1 to hit already, cos it means you don't need to make any tactical decisions between advancing and shooting, or firing all profiles on you weapons or just the most powerful one. You can advance, and fire all profiles, and you have zero detriment. It's actually a net GAIN.

I appears you play on tables full of Woods, Walls, and Industrial Structures. I must assume you don't have much Obsurcing Terrain on your boards or you are using lots of custom assignment of terrain traits. Either way, seems the issue was the terrain.

T5 is a fairly average Toughness? I don't know what factions you have been playing, but T5 is not that common in most factions I'm aware of.

Custodians? Death Guard? AdMech?
You know... three of the more common armies, and all are in the top-5 armies in the current meta?

I know, they're fairly unknown options, very niche, doubt anyone's ever heard of them -.0

T5 3 Wounds is not common. Custodians are a very elite army, Death Guard are known for their resilience, and AdMech has some T5 models and a whole lot of T3 models also. So 2 out of 20ish armies are mostly T5 and other armies have some infantry units that are T5. Not exactly common.

Half their points? More hyperbole I see. And do you think that GW won't cook up some alternate bonuses for all Aeldari if -1 to be Hit becomes part of their core defense?

More? This is the first bit of hyperbole in what I said. It is, however, a significant portion of their points cost, probably in the realm of 10-20% depending on the unit. Trusting GW to actually fix this is... a big ask, considering their track record.

We will just have to disagree about how much hyperbole you are engaging in. GW isn't as bad as you seem to think. Codex Space Marines was strong, but OK. It was the Supplements turning everything to 13 that broke the game. I have my fingers crossed that they learned a lesson and are pulling back in the new Codex. Either that or pushing up Necrons to the same level. Time will tell.

15 Point Models with Guardsman Statlines? What unit is that? I'm pretty sure there aren't any Aeldari unit with 6 3+ 3+ 3 3 1 1 6 5+ statline. Or are you talking about the fact that a few Aeldari units are T3 Sv5+?

I was, quite obviously from the context, largely talking about the defensive statlines.

Rangers are 15pts each, for an S3, T3, 1W, 5+ save. And an arguably useless/niche gun. They do get a +1 to their save in cover, but that is not worth 10 points.

Avengers are 14 points each, for an S3, T3, 1W, 4+ save. They do, at least, have a somewhat respectable weapon (relatively speaking).

Guardians and storm guardians are 10 points each, for S3, T3, 1W, 5+sv. Their weapons are just bad, considering they pay 5 points each for them.

All of these units pay for their 2" more movement speed, of course. But then for half the cost, guard get orders. Which is just better, by a huge margin. It's not even close.

You cannot point to 4 stats and the point value of a unit and say the point value is wrong. There is so much more to a unit than that. There is far more to Rangers than "defense of a Guardsmen for 3x the points". I'm not saying 5 pt Guardsmen and 15 points Rangers are correct, but those 10 points get you: +1" Mv; +1 WS; +1BS; +1 Ld; Appear Unbidden; Battle Focus; Cameleonline Cloaks; Shuriken Pistols; an 'upgrade' to a S4 Sniper Rifle ; and mostly useless Ancient Doom. So yes, I'm calling your criticism of the cost value of Guardians to Guardmen a bit of hyperbole.

You seem to be distracted by something other than how to make Aeldari seem Aeldari in the rules and a solid defensive ability because Space Marines. I'm not saying it is the best idea in the world, but it certainly isn't trash tier defense. I'm pretty sure there are worst (like a 2+/6++ or a cover save bonus when you are 7+/5++).

Um... so you're saying a 2+/6++ is worse than a 5+? ... um, how? And a 5++ is, by definition, better than a 5+ as well.

Unless you're saying that the Eldar unit in your example also has a -1 to be hit, and the other units don't? Ok fine... but when does that situation come up? In a real game, on a table with properly set up terrain, the opponent will have a -1 on most of their units for a significant portion of the game. Which means its a wash, and it comes down to Toughness and Armour Saves (which eldar don't have).

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
And going by the fluff he didn't beat a single Space Marine by himself when he was a boy.

Ref for that?

During the initial rush to claim the base, Ghazghkull was hit in the head by a Bolter shell -- a shot that pulverised a large section of his cranium and turned a sizable portion of his brain to absolute mush. It was quite possible that the young and profusely bleeding Ghazghkull might have been left for dead then and there but for two circumstances.

Ghazghkull got back to his feet -- a sign of toughness and grit that any Goff respected. Also, it was widely known that a particularly addled Deathskulls Painboy was paying those who brought him fresh material to work with. The carrion birds did not feed on Ghazghkull that day, as his own mob guided him onwards. He was a stumbling wreck and had to hold his bleeding brains in with both hands, but they eventually reached the Deathskulls' outpost of Rustspike. There, his own mob traded Ghazghkull to Mad Dok Grotsnik for the sum total of three teef and a new Choppa.

That's from the warhammer Fandom WIKI. Basically, he never killed a Marine before he at least had his body reassembled by Mad Dok Grotsnik and killed an Ork Warboss which automatically elevates him to the rank of....Warboss.