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.

 EVIL INC wrote:
now THIS I can agree with. Many of the old, no brainers have simply become obsolete with the new 6th edition and newer editions of the codexes. I might be wrong, but I suspect this is on purpose to force us to buy more models. lol

I see a lot of comments along these lines, suggesting that Games Workshop switches up the most powerful units with every release in order to persuade their customers to buy new models.

My dad suggested that maybe something else was happening. Maybe the models that everyone already has, are popular because they're powerful. Similarly, the models that no one has, might be unpopular because they underperform. And maybe the game devs see the imbalance and try to correct it with the next release, since they can't easily fiddle with imbalances in-between major releases like they could if WH40k was an online video game..

 Pouncey wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
now THIS I can agree with. Many of the old, no brainers have simply become obsolete with the new 6th edition and newer editions of the codexes. I might be wrong, but I suspect this is on purpose to force us to buy more models. lol

I see a lot of comments along these lines, suggesting that Games Workshop switches up the most powerful units with every release in order to persuade their customers to buy new models.

My dad suggested that maybe something else was happening. Maybe the models that everyone already has, are popular because they're powerful. Similarly, the models that no one has, might be unpopular because they underperform. And maybe the game devs see the imbalance and try to correct it with the next release, since they can't easily fiddle with imbalances in-between major releases like they could if WH40k was an online video game..

I think this is closer to the truth, because GW will leave units suck for multiple editions, and those models never sell.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

So how much would you like to pay for ASM, then? If Tacticals are 14, and ASM come with jetpacks (immediately worth more points because of increased mobility), would you pay 16?

Not sure. The bolt pistol/CC combo is not as good as a bolter in 6th. Not even close, really. Maybe the same as tacticals. Maybe even 13. They really, really stink.

Sisters are 12, and have -1WS, -1Str, -1T, -1Ld, no jump capability. All of that loss for only a one point decrease?

good god man

EDIT: Also no ATSKNF

Sisters are scoring and have an effective range of 30", whereas the Assault Marines have an effective range of 19" (which can fail, leaving them standing around like buffoons) and can't choose to ignore blocking units.

IDK where you're getting your numbers from, but my ASM can assault 24" if they choose. And Sisters have an effective range of 30"? 10 Bolter shots from sisters only kills ~2 guardsmen in cover.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

Grey Hunters are also currently 1 pt more than existing Tactical Marines, and their special rules are a wash, with maybe a slight advantage to the tacticals for having two useful ones. Additionally, Grey Hunters were once considered so overpowered that they were the standard by which all other marines were measured.

They aren't anymore, with the decrease of value of 3+ saves in 6th. Heldrakes, shurikens, Riptides and general volume of fire has "fixed" Grey Hunters.

My point still stands, if you're going to make a generalist unit statline specialized you're going to have to pay for stuff you don't need, which is the issue with Marines. It's one of the good things about the new C:SM: being able to choose whether you want a Veteran Sergeant or not, even if a squad with a Vet Sergeant is as expensive as before, means that you have the option of not paying for it if you don't want/need it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

So how much would you like to pay for ASM, then? If Tacticals are 14, and ASM come with jetpacks (immediately worth more points because of increased mobility), would you pay 16?

Not sure. The bolt pistol/CC combo is not as good as a bolter in 6th. Not even close, really. Maybe the same as tacticals. Maybe even 13. They really, really stink.

Sisters are 12, and have -1WS, -1Str, -1T, -1Ld, no jump capability. All of that loss for only a one point decrease?

good god man

EDIT: Also no ATSKNF

Sisters are scoring and have an effective range of 30", whereas the Assault Marines have an effective range of 19" (which can fail, leaving them standing around like buffoons) and can't choose to ignore blocking units.

IDK where you're getting your numbers from, but my ASM can assault 24" if they choose. And Sisters have an effective range of 30"? 10 Bolter shots from sisters only kills ~2 guardsmen in cover.

Sorry, I was being sloppy, I'm assuming a 7" charge range as any more starts getting really shaky. I shouldn't have called the Sisters threat range "effective".

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

Grey Hunters are also currently 1 pt more than existing Tactical Marines, and their special rules are a wash, with maybe a slight advantage to the tacticals for having two useful ones. Additionally, Grey Hunters were once considered so overpowered that they were the standard by which all other marines were measured.

They still are. It's just that their OPness with respect to other meqs doesn't matter because the Taudar just kill them with S6 shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Sisters are overcosted as well. There's no denying that for me. A sister should not cost more than a fire warrior I think. Because of the way 6th ed rolls.

ATSKNF has actually lost a lot of its efficacy in my experience. Between marines dying wholesale instead of getting morale rolls and WANTING to be swept by daemons, I actually don't much care for this rule.

Your opinion on ATSKNF is wrong, imo. But to each his own.

So a sister should be what, 11 points?

that's only one point more than carapace armored vets, who are 10 pts but have -1 save and a lasgun

And now we're back around to making shooting units cheaper again.

As I said, keep making things cheaper until they are actually used by the community. That's the best test. My opinion on ATSKNF is not wrong. It's just not that useful anymore. I live it every time I plunk down meqs.

I play marines too, my friend.

And you are seriously advocating making veterans cheaper because no one uses them?! WHAT?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

Grey Hunters are also currently 1 pt more than existing Tactical Marines, and their special rules are a wash, with maybe a slight advantage to the tacticals for having two useful ones. Additionally, Grey Hunters were once considered so overpowered that they were the standard by which all other marines were measured.

They aren't anymore, with the decrease of value of 3+ saves in 6th. Heldrakes, shurikens, Riptides and general volume of fire has "fixed" Grey Hunters.

My point still stands, if you're going to make a generalist unit statline specialized you're going to have to pay for stuff you don't need, which is the issue with Marines. It's one of the good things about the new C:SM: being able to choose whether you want a Veteran Sergeant or not, even if a squad with a Vet Sergeant is as expensive as before, means that you have the option of not paying for it if you don't want/need it.

This is true, and supports my point quite well except for one thing:

What you see as an issue I see as an attribute. The Marines' "shtick" is generalists. That's how they've always been, that's their thing. If you want an army where each unit has a designated purpose and is objectively terrible at anything else, play Armored Battlegroup.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

Grey Hunters are also currently 1 pt more than existing Tactical Marines, and their special rules are a wash, with maybe a slight advantage to the tacticals for having two useful ones. Additionally, Grey Hunters were once considered so overpowered that they were the standard by which all other marines were measured.

They aren't anymore, with the decrease of value of 3+ saves in 6th. Heldrakes, shurikens, Riptides and general volume of fire has "fixed" Grey Hunters.

My point still stands, if you're going to make a generalist unit statline specialized you're going to have to pay for stuff you don't need, which is the issue with Marines. It's one of the good things about the new C:SM: being able to choose whether you want a Veteran Sergeant or not, even if a squad with a Vet Sergeant is as expensive as before, means that you have the option of not paying for it if you don't want/need it.

Agreed, but its still not good enough to compete with the merciless efficiency of Tau/Eldar/Daemons. Specialists rule the day because they don't pay for useless capabilities. Throw in some undercosted capabilities, and there you go.

FWIW, grey hunters still aren't "fixed" with respect to other meqs. They are still broken compared to even a 14 pt marine with no counter attack, no CC weapon. Meqs, btw, don't have the firepower to keep grey hunters from getting into CC, so this is very relevant to us.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sorry, I was being sloppy, I'm assuming a 7" charge range as any more starts getting really shaky. I shouldn't have called the Sisters threat range "effective".

Well, if we look at it, sisters have a 18" threat range with rapid-fire bolters, and ASM have a 19" threat range assuming average rolls. So... what was your point again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

FWIW, grey hunters still aren't "fixed" with respect to other meqs. They are still broken compared to even a 14 pt marine with no counter attack, no CC weapon. Meqs, btw, don't have the firepower to keep grey hunters from getting into CC, so this is very relevant to us.

The Marine is one point cheaper, has Chapter Tactics (which can be anything from scout to 6+ FNP to preferred enemy with bolters) and ATSKNF. In trade for +1 point, the GH has a CC weapon (worth +1 pt each imo) and Counter attack (a wash with both special rules, imo).

 Wilytank wrote:
You don't take tactical marines for assault purposes.

What? Tactical Marines shouldn't assault? How are they tactical then? Tactical means versatile, a tactical asset which can perform multiple roles. Not tactical, all I can do is shoot my gun tactical.

I think the OP brings up a another great point. CCWs should NOT cost 3 points per model. Likewise I'm pretty sure Khorne wants all his beloved Zerkers to wield chainaxes. In fact I'm pretty sure every Khorne Berzerker out there would rather have a chainaxe. Pretty sure Butchers Nails come with a chainaxe, it's like a promotional deal or something! Not that it matters anyways because like OP says, they are just a 19 point meat shield. 22 with the axe... Which I ought to point out is the same cost as a regular old combat knife. Oh and why is a chainsword no better than a combat knife?

And there is no way around having to use Termies, if you're a loyalist or a traitor anyways. I mean yes you can load up whatever you want into a Land Raider but those aren't exactly cheap either. Chaos not having drop pods means we're even more reliant on transports. Not like you could use DS as a viable means to get into CC anyway. You pretty much need the 2+ to get into CC.

OR... we just have to start building more balanced lists if we want to use CC?

Note: Unless I'm fighting my SW pal, then he's more than happy to mix it up!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

davethepak wrote:

Assault was OP in 5th, and no longer is.

See my sig.

I did. Seems like we both agree on thing;
Rhinos and Razorbacks were just way too good for the points.

However, that was a function of a unit being too good for the points, which happens to be a shooty unit (similar to the current wave serpent, the old version of the tetra, etc.) not the shooty vs. assault situation in 5th.

I do agree there are more shots on the table - a lot more. I also feel that low AP shots are too common (plasma guns were bad enough once hullpoints removed the need for melta, grav guns just make it even worse) - this is really nasty for armies that dont have easy access to invul saves.

How about this - I feel that the mechanics of assault vs. shooting are now balanced - and were not in 5th (again, as a player who played both types in 5th).
BUT...
I do agree that recent codexes have increased the volume of shots in the game, and this can make it feel even more overwhelming than before.

Back to the OP: Its that the baseline marine is really good balanced unit - and you specialize from there.
Sounds like you would be happier with an army that has a less balanced (i.e. well rounded and strong) baseline, and have the ability to specialize.

Thats fine, thats just not marines.

Not really, I just want balanced units to not be a disadvantage.

Rhinos and razors were too good because of the vehicle damage rules.

Assault and shooting are not even close to balanced anymore. We'll have to agree to disagree there. In 5th assault was fine; in fact, it was a bit underpowered in that edition as well I think. But 5th was the beginning of what we see now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sorry, I was being sloppy, I'm assuming a 7" charge range as any more starts getting really shaky. I shouldn't have called the Sisters threat range "effective".

Well, if we look at it, sisters have a 18" threat range with rapid-fire bolters, and ASM have a 19" threat range assuming average rolls. So... what was your point again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

FWIW, grey hunters still aren't "fixed" with respect to other meqs. They are still broken compared to even a 14 pt marine with no counter attack, no CC weapon. Meqs, btw, don't have the firepower to keep grey hunters from getting into CC, so this is very relevant to us.

The Marine is one point cheaper, has Chapter Tactics (which can be anything from scout to 6+ FNP to preferred enemy with bolters) and ATSKNF. In trade for +1 point, the GH has a CC weapon (worth +1 pt each imo) and Counter attack (a wash with both special rules, imo).

GH have ATSKNF as well. But that's not much of an advantage anymore.

I only have three data points, but I've voluntarily played without ATSKNF in effect as a test. I never missed it in those three games.

Martel732 wrote:
Not really, I just want balanced units to not be a disadvantage.

Rhinos and razors were too good because of the vehicle damage rules.

Assault and shooting are not even close to balanced anymore. We'll have to agree to disagree there. In 5th assault was fine; in fact, it was a bit underpowered in that edition as well I think. But 5th was the beginning of what we see now.

Balanced units will always be at a disadvantage against specialists. Something that is a "jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none" should always lose to a "master" in a specific aspect. What you're paying for is the ability to sort-of-address every problem, rather than having several different units dedicated to absolutely solving a single problem each.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

GH have ATSKNF as well. But that's not much of an advantage anymore.

I only have three data points, but I've voluntarily played without ATSKNF in effect as a test. I never missed it in those three games.

Ah, in that case, I suppose Chapter Tactics isn't as powerful as Counter-Attack. Depending on which one you pick (Iron Hands, for example), however, it doesn't warrant the cost of an additional point more per GH.

As for your claims about ATSKNF, you're probably right. But what it does do, on those rare times when you can use it, is so spectacular that you should pay a bit for it. You literally give no feths about morale checks without the disadvantages that Fearless brings.

davethepak wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

davethepak wrote:

Assault was OP in 5th, and no longer is.

See my sig.

I did. Seems like we both agree on thing;
Rhinos and Razorbacks were just way too good for the points.

However, that was a function of a unit being too good for the points, which happens to be a shooty unit (similar to the current wave serpent, the old version of the tetra, etc.) not the shooty vs. assault situation in 5th.

I do agree there are more shots on the table - a lot more. I also feel that low AP shots are too common (plasma guns were bad enough once hullpoints removed the need for melta, grav guns just make it even worse) - this is really nasty for armies that dont have easy access to invul saves.

How about this - I feel that the mechanics of assault vs. shooting are now balanced - and were not in 5th (again, as a player who played both types in 5th).
BUT...
I do agree that recent codexes have increased the volume of shots in the game, and this can make it feel even more overwhelming than before.

Back to the OP: Its that the baseline marine is really good balanced unit - and you specialize from there.
Sounds like you would be happier with an army that has a less balanced (i.e. well rounded and strong) baseline, and have the ability to specialize.

Thats fine, thats just not marines.

Razorbacks, Rhinoes, Venoms, Battlewagons, Ghost Arks and so on. The poster-child OP complaint units of 5th edition were Long Fangs, Vendettas, Purifiers and Psyflemen, none of which are melee units. The claim that CC is somehow "equal" with shooting in 6th edition is just insane. It is completely separated from reality to claim that CC was OP or even dominant in 5th edition top-end competetive play (i.e. players that are better than I'll ever be).

I agree that shooting is better than assault in this edition.

I just don't think it needs fixing. Melee units should never be as good as bullet-hoses in a sci-fi setting. To prevent off-topic discussion, however, I will leave it at that and say that is merely my opinion.

I think that if you WERE going to fix it (which I am not really opposed to), cheapening assault units isn't going to help as much as revamping the way assault WORKS. It has several innate advantages to play over shooting, and these should be played up in the rules, rather than remaining unchanged while the rest of the phase is nerfed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I agree that shooting is better than assault in this edition.

I just don't think it needs fixing. Melee units should never be as good as bullet-hoses in a sci-fi setting. To prevent off-topic discussion, however, I will leave it at that and say that is merely my opinion.

I think that if you WERE going to fix it (which I am not really opposed to), cheapening assault units isn't going to help as much as revamping the way assault WORKS. It has several innate advantages to play over shooting, and these should be played up in the rules, rather than remaining unchanged while the rest of the phase is nerfed.

I just don't think it needs fixing. Melee units should never be as good as bullet-hoses in a sci-fi setting.

Then. They. Should. Be. Cheaper. A lot cheaper.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I agree that shooting is better than assault in this edition.

I just don't think it needs fixing. Melee units should never be as good as bullet-hoses in a sci-fi setting. To prevent off-topic discussion, however, I will leave it at that and say that is merely my opinion.

I think that if you WERE going to fix it (which I am not really opposed to), cheapening assault units isn't going to help as much as revamping the way assault WORKS. It has several innate advantages to play over shooting, and these should be played up in the rules, rather than remaining unchanged while the rest of the phase is nerfed.

I just don't think it needs fixing. Melee units should never be as good as bullet-hoses in a sci-fi setting.

Then. They. Should. Be. Cheaper. A lot cheaper.

That doesn't solve the problems, because if you make them cheap enough to be effective, then people will take them out of survivability. An ASM that is 10PPM is practically unkillable if spammed at 2000 points, because you would get 200 of them, and they would retain their T4 and 3+ save.

A lot of what a unit costs (ESPECIALLY space marines) comes from durability, not from offensive power. Cheapening them because of lackluster offensive power would make their durability skyrocket to the point where it's just silly.

Good thing ASM aren't troops.

Now we are getting down to the real problem Marines are paying for durability they no longer have. So, to keep their point value relative to Xenos, they need something else.

Martel732 wrote:
Good thing ASM aren't troops.

Now we are getting down to the real problem Marines are paying for durability they no longer have. So, to keep their point value relative to Xenos, they need something else.

The problem I see here is the Eldar and Tau codecies. They could deal with 200 ASM. No one else could. Should you really be asking for a points adjustment because of the two most OP codecies? What do the poor Orks do?

Yes, the bar has been raised. The Orks do what the marines do right now. Lose. Except they have a book coming, and the marines don't.

Daemons can thrash 200 meqs as well.

To think of it another way, if all codices are overpowered, then it becomes the case that none are.

This thread is amusing. First we start with marines, which are average-below average. Then we compare to assault marines, which are bad, then we compare to sisters, which are bad, then we compare to vets with carapace, which are bad.

The answer you all are looking for is that everything listed is overpriced.

Vets should be elites and 7 ppm with carapace default
Sisters should be 9 ppm
SM should be 12 ppm
CSM should be 12 ppm
ASM should be 12 ppm
Grey Hunters should be 14ppm (counter attack+ pistol+2x spec wep> ATSKNF and chapter tactics by a lot)

Banshees are a different problem. The eldar codex needed an assault vehicle. I would have liked an open-topped falcon chassis (essentially a large venom). Then throw AP2 on banshees and 2 base attacks (and 2 base attacks on scorps ffs) and you have competitive units. The lack of mobility is largely due to the codex's options rather than the unit's abilities.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

You actually have to pay an extra cost for the ccw which then ruins the one slight thing that CSM had that made them better than Marines (that being said CSM are better than SM in general What I mean is giving them ccw either makes them cost equal or more than loyalists despite all the benefits they get over them)

CSM are better than marines? For 1pt per model they get ATSKNF and chapter tactics, have no compulsory sergeant and better transport options. Loyalists are far superior troops, but that's an aside.

I don't think assault units are overpriced across the board I just think that they are more prone to being the turkey (of the non Hell variety) of the dex. Do your Chosen want a power weapon and no access to an assault vehicle aside from a separate heavy purchase or a Plasma Gun?

Compare this to the prices of units you do see, Seekers and Khorne Dogs being the best examples. Much more reasonable prices for what you get. A unit capable of delivering itself to combat reliably and doing significant damage when there.

A seeker is cavalry, +6" run, rending, 3 attacks and hits marines on 3 and scores in one mission.
A banshee is infantry, +3" run, AP3, 2 attacks and hits marines on a 4.

Yet the Banshee, despite coming from the new top dog book, is more expensive.

Now, melee units don't have the monopoly on being overcosted (Oh Pyrovore why do you keep hurting me so) but I can agree with Martel that they have some of the worst examples.

*facepalm* what a mess up. What I meant was the only advantage CSM have over loyalist marines is that they are cheaper. In reality the price disparity isn't enough and SM are superior. What I meant was a CCW makes them cost the same which ruins the one tiny thing chaos had (be it as pathetic and unbalanced in the favor to SM as of already was)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zephoid wrote:
This thread is amusing. First we start with marines, which are average-below average. Then we compare to assault marines, which are bad, then we compare to sisters, which are bad, then we compare to vets with carapace, which are bad.

The answer you all are looking for is that everything listed is overpriced.

Vets should be elites and 7 ppm with carapace default
Sisters should be 9 ppm
SM should be 12 ppm
CSM should be 12 ppm
ASM should be 12 ppm
Grey Hunters should be 14ppm (counter attack+ pistol+2x spec wep> ATSKNF and chapter tactics by a lot)

Banshees are a different problem. The eldar codex needed an assault vehicle. I would have liked an open-topped falcon chassis (essentially a large venom). Then throw AP2 on banshees and 2 base attacks (and 2 base attacks on scorps ffs) and you have competitive units. The lack of mobility is largely due to the codex's options rather than the unit's abilities.

Why should CSM and SM cost the same when SM are blatantly better?

 StarTrotter wrote:


Why should CSM and SM cost the same when SM are blatantly better?

Thats more due to the failings of the whole CSM codex than an individual unit. CSM should have had overarching customizable rules similar to chapter tactics. ATSKNF is largely a wash. With the way this edition is played, getting swept in combat is sometimes a good thing, allowing the rest of the army to shoot that target. Maybe give basic CSM stubborn to mimic it while retaining a slightly different flavor. LD8 stubborn isnt exactly reliable, but it is useful.

 zephoid wrote:
This thread is amusing. First we start with marines, which are average-below average. Then we compare to assault marines, which are bad, then we compare to sisters, which are bad, then we compare to vets with carapace, which are bad.

The answer you all are looking for is that everything listed is overpriced.

Vets should be elites and 7 ppm with carapace default
Sisters should be 9 ppm
SM should be 12 ppm
CSM should be 12 ppm
ASM should be 12 ppm
Grey Hunters should be 14ppm (counter attack+ pistol+2x spec wep> ATSKNF and chapter tactics by a lot)

Banshees are a different problem. The eldar codex needed an assault vehicle. I would have liked an open-topped falcon chassis (essentially a large venom). Then throw AP2 on banshees and 2 base attacks (and 2 base attacks on scorps ffs) and you have competitive units. The lack of mobility is largely due to the codex's options rather than the unit's abilities.

Actually, this is exactly what I'm saying. Units that underperform at a given price point need a different price point. Not different rules. They can be given different rules, but then they need to be repriced. Everything is relative. Units are only bad *for their price* or good *for their price*. If wave serpents cost 250 pts like a land raider, serpent spam would not be a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zephoid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Why should CSM and SM cost the same when SM are blatantly better?

Thats more due to the failings of the whole CSM codex than an individual unit. CSM should have had overarching customizable rules similar to chapter tactics. ATSKNF is largely a wash. With the way this edition is played, getting swept in combat is sometimes a good thing, allowing the rest of the army to shoot that target. Maybe give basic CSM stubborn to mimic it while retaining a slightly different flavor. LD8 stubborn isnt exactly reliable, but it is useful.

Thank you for pointing out how ATSKNF is not that great in 6th.

 zephoid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Why should CSM and SM cost the same when SM are blatantly better?

Thats more due to the failings of the whole CSM codex than an individual unit. CSM should have had overarching customizable rules similar to chapter tactics. ATSKNF is largely a wash. With the way this edition is played, getting swept in combat is sometimes a good thing, allowing the rest of the army to shoot that target. Maybe give basic CSM stubborn to mimic it while retaining a slightly different flavor. LD8 stubborn isnt exactly reliable, but it is useful.

I've always imagined For the greater good. They backstab d3 of their guys and retreat letting those individuals fight it off to their death and then turning around to shoot into the shocked enemies xD

And yeah, it's not really the ATSKNF. Now admittedly, it's obviously intended to be good (I'd be surprised if not). My gripe comes from their other abilities which are all (bar arguably DA) serperior to that of CSM's (in other words who was the dolt that decided champions of chaos was a good thing?)

I'm not denying that CSM got hosed with their codex. Or shall I call it codex: helldrakes? But again, ATSKNF is not what it was in the 5th edition meta. Too many squads dying in place. Too many times I *want* my troops swept.

In fact, I think the trend will be that *every* non-meq codex is better than the meqs codices this edition. We'll see when the next Xeno dex drops if this trend continues. So far, this is the trend.

I actually stand by the point that Grey Hunters are perfectly viable in 6ED. Their advantages in counter assault capability is still very relevant in a world of Daemons. Throwing 30 attacks back at Fleshounds rerolling 1s is a lot better than throwing 10 attacks at them. They are slightly less durable than Vanilla Marines if run barebone, but the cheaper Special Weapons help balance that out, and the sheer lethality of 1 GH compared to 1 TAC Marine if he survives to assault a Tau/Eldar Army is enough to make the difference.

The problem with Space Wolves is everything BUT Grey Hunters and Rune Priests. If the Wolves dex could take 3 Thunderfires, 3 Storm Talons, and keep GHs (with their TDA SGTs cheesing the Wolf Standard) and Rune Priests, it would be a top tier dex IMO.

I can buy that assertion anonymou5. I have a feeling the rune priests as we know them are going bye bye though.

Martel732 wrote:
I can buy that assertion anonymou5. I have a feeling the rune priests as we know them are going bye bye though.

Oh yeah, Rune Priests are definitely getting nerfed. But if they go to 6ED Librarian Pricing and keep Divination (and seeing as in the fluff that's the only psychic tree Rune Priests not named Njal ever use, I don't see why they wouldn't keep it), they'll still be good.

However Grey Hunters might actually go up in price (although maybe Blood Claws drop to 12 PPM, which would be legit), and Wolves aren't getting Storm Talons or Thunderfires. My big hope is that Fenrisian Wolves get rending and a price drop, that would be fantastic.

Makes me wonder what BA will get. Or won't get.

Martel732 wrote:
Makes me wonder what BA will get. Or won't get.

Note this is a complete guess: but I really think Mephiston is going to get changed to a FMC. It fits his abilities, and the direction of the game design in general.

I wasn't worried about him so much as which models to purchases. Are cents a C:SM only thing? What about storm talons?