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.

Bharring wrote:
"because they shot twice for free, and doom exists?"
You do realize that a Dev can shoot twice, too? And can reroll wounds with support too?

You want to explain how a devestator squad can shoot twice for multiple turns?
GW missed that strategum out of my marine codex

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"because they shot twice for free, and doom exists?"
You do realize that a Dev can shoot twice, too? And can reroll wounds with support too?

You want to explain how a devestator squad can shoot twice for multiple turns?
GW missed that strategum out of my marine codex

I do believe he's referring to the armorium cherub allowing 1 model to fire again. Not really the same thing...at all.

I think it would lead to more CP issues as folks wangle the cost reductions in uplifting detachments to the next one up, yep your army might have some chaff but being able to burn 2-3 CP strats with merry abandon will just increase the alpha

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
I think it would lead to more CP issues as folks wangle the cost reductions in uplifting detachments to the next one up, yep your army might have some chaff but being able to burn 2-3 CP strats with merry abandon will just increase the alpha

Would maybe be a concern if
1 Marines didn already have access to the 32 scum bags 5 CP for the cost of 3 msu tac squads with botlers or 2 msu intercessor squads.

2 Marines had 3CP strategums worth playing again and again, Vanilla Marine strategums are laughable poorly writen compaired to even Tau strategums and they don't have the OP strategums like Aledari or Choas or Orks.

 iGuy91 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"because they shot twice for free, and doom exists?"
You do realize that a Dev can shoot twice, too? And can reroll wounds with support too?

You want to explain how a devestator squad can shoot twice for multiple turns?
GW missed that strategum out of my marine codex

I do believe he's referring to the armorium cherub allowing 1 model to fire again. Not really the same thing...at all.

I think he's referring to the Plasma Cannon with it's D3 shots.

Edit. Nm

I was referring to the Cherub. It really isn't the same thing, though.

That said, we're comparing letting one of your guys fire twice for a couple points vs 1 squad fire twice at the cost of:
-Chapter Tactics
-Relics
-Warlord Traits
-Expensive character
-Consuming SfD after having killed something/let something die within 7"

That's even less "free" than a Cherub.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Ice_can
GW missed that stratagem out of my CWE book, too.

Nevermind, apparently several people beat me to it.

I think it's good if EVERYTHING gets -20% cheaper for EVERYONE. SMs get +20% more stuff, but so do Eldars and Guard. Good.

I should clarify:
I'm not saying the Cherub is as powerful as Ynnari.

I'm saying that Ynnari shoot-twice is no more free than the Cherub - which is certainly true. Ynnari is better, but is even less free than the Cherub (although still more OP).

It just bugs me when people say stuff like that.

Bharring wrote:
I should clarify:
I'm not saying the Cherub is as powerful as Ynnari.

I'm saying that Ynnari shoot-twice is no more free than the Cherub - which is certainly true. Ynnari is better, but is even less free than the Cherub (although still more OP).

It just bugs me when people say stuff like that.

To be fair to you there probably is a point in that Slaneshi oblits at -20% with their strategum maybe a broken
As would probably be bezerkers at -20% but thats hard to tell with testing as without AL infiltration they kinda suck. But I'm not 100% sure where you balance them as the valuenof 1 unit of them is probably totally different than if you have multiple units that people have to focus down before they hit CC.

I think the idea is Marine units get a 20% cost reduction - so the Devs go down 20%, but Reapers stay the same. This means the Dev - whether LC or PG - costs notably less than the Reaper.

Funnily enough, everything in the Marine book costing 20% less would be roughly the same as getting Bobby G for free.

Bharring wrote:
I think the idea is Marine units get a 20% cost reduction - so the Devs go down 20%, but Reapers stay the same. This means the Dev - whether LC or PG - costs notably less than the Reaper.

Funnily enough, everything in the Marine book costing 20% less would be roughly the same as getting Bobby G for free.

Depends if its 20% flat 20% avarage or minimum 20%(probably OP) or Maximum 20% (More what I expect).

Thought I'm not sure that even 20 % off some units like Dev Cents is enough to make them work.

Do you think they will include FW stuff in this points cut aswell?
20% of a Leviathan

Bharring wrote:
Funnily enough, everything in the Marine book costing 20% less would be roughly the same as getting Bobby G for free.

Coincidence? I think not

-

20% off Dev Cents would be like 20% Chapter Tactics. Net 0 change in almost every list.

The short answer is that depending on the unit points reductions ""help"" but not in the sense that the unit becomes good.

Like tactical marines. If tactical marines went down to 11ppm, that wouldn't make them "good". You'd just be spending less points on a unit that's bad, which is still a net gain for the player since they have more points to spend on something that's actually good, but still isn't fixing the root issue.

This is the issue I have with points reductions. Its a good solution for things that are genuinely good but overcosted, like crisis suits, but for a lot of units they need to be overhauled altogether. This race to the bottom with points doesn't work in the long term.

Hell, if Necrons got a 20% point reductions across the board, allowing me to take ~400 points of other stuff, I could field like 3 Annihilation Barges, or a couple of C'tan, 40x Warriors, Another squad of destroyers, basically, just MORE. 118 Point Barges would be pretty sweet, as well as being able to drop true blobs of Infantry, fit in a ghost ark to support, and STILL bring worthwhile AT would do so much for the army already.

That would be a welcome change, hell if Lychguard or Praetorians got cheap enough I would totally run them in my army and find a GOOD role for them to play.

I feel our army has had enough issues fixed in the last FAQ, that the only real issue holding us back from being solidly mid-tier would be points reductions. Having only 2-3 DDAs, 1-2 Squads of Destroyers, and some HQs and Troops is just not enough, if I could fit 1-2 more units to fill out an army, whether its Barges, Wraiths, Lychguard, etc, I really do think Necrons would be quite strong.

In all realism though I am really hoping for a 10% reduction, and would be DAMN happy to get it.

11 ppm tacs are no longer bad.

Martel732 wrote:
11 ppm tacs are no longer bad.

They still get scooped just as fast, except now there are more to put back in your case!

Rip off the band aid and switch to all primaris sooner rather than later so we can get out of this weird nebulous zone of having to deal with the small marines. I wasn’t a fan of the whole primaris thing at first but the fat needs to be trimmed from space marines so they can actually move forward as a faction.

Nice endorsement of the power creep treadmill

 Galef wrote:
Random thought on the upcoming CA and many of the rumours that X is getting a points decrease:
Does a 20% decrease really make much difference?

For example, if enough units get reduced in the Marine codex so that most lists end up being 20% cheaper, what could you get out of that?
On the small scale, if a Tactical Marine goes from 13ppm to 11ppm, you'd only get 1 more Marine per about 5. Is that really that big a difference?

I guess what I am asking is, what would you add to a 2000pt Marine or GK list to take advantage of roughly 200-400pts that was freed up?
How would it help compete against DE, Knights, or some other common opponent that your list struggles against?

-

I tend to think of this in a different way - which is how much difference needs to be made to achieve a tolerable level of balance.

My starting point for tolerable level of balance is that averaged out over all the good and bad lists and players we should expect any major faction to have a reasonable expectation of 2 or 3 wins from a 5 game two day tournament. Looking at the growing body of stats at https://www.40kstats.com/ I would then reckon anything in the 40% - 60% win range is tolerably balanced; as in you would on average expect to win 2 or 3 games with that faction and variance outside that is probably down to you the player or your luck over the weekend.

Marines are currently sitting at 39%, a little bit below the range i would consider tolerably balanced. So would a 20% points reduction bring them within the range of what I consider tolerably balanced? As it only needs to make a small difference I am confident that it would do so, although to bring them to the middle of the range might take more than just that one change to the game. Looking a little closer at the match-ups the main reason why Astartes are currently outside that 40-60% band is that they get consistently horrible results against Aeldari of all varieties; points adjustments upwards on those factions would also be a huge fix for the weak Astartes problem. Most of the Aeldari factions are towards the top of the 40-60% range or above it (Ynnari) at the moment so some upwards points adjustments look like they are justified there to achieve my idea of acceptable balance.

I am sure other people will have other definitions of what they consider acceptably balanced, on which basis they will make their own judgement.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

I tend to think of this in a different way - which is how much difference needs to be made to achieve a tolerable level of balance.

My starting point for tolerable level of balance is that averaged out over all the good and bad lists and players we should expect any major faction to have a reasonable expectation of 2 or 3 wins from a 5 game two day tournament. Looking at the growing body of stats at https://www.40kstats.com/ I would then reckon anything in the 40% - 60% win range is tolerably balanced; as in you would on average expect to win 2 or 3 games with that faction and variance outside that is probably down to you the player or your luck over the weekend.

that is a very intersting way of looking at things. What would you do with the factions that don't generate enough data though ?

Sigh...so many people still not getting it and going off on goofy tangents about Ynnari and armorium cherubs and wasting time on 'weLl iS It 20% OveRaLl oR 20% pEr uNiT?!?!?'.

Karol wrote:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

I tend to think of this in a different way - which is how much difference needs to be made to achieve a tolerable level of balance.

My starting point for tolerable level of balance is that averaged out over all the good and bad lists and players we should expect any major faction to have a reasonable expectation of 2 or 3 wins from a 5 game two day tournament. Looking at the growing body of stats at https://www.40kstats.com/ I would then reckon anything in the 40% - 60% win range is tolerably balanced; as in you would on average expect to win 2 or 3 games with that faction and variance outside that is probably down to you the player or your luck over the weekend.

that is a very intersting way of looking at things. What would you do with the factions that don't generate enough data though ?

Some of those factions you need to use qualitative data rather than quantitative - playtest feedback for example.

Other factions are clearly never intended to be played competitively stand-alone and I would not worry about it too much so long as they are not skewing things as allies - in general I would suggest that any of the micro-factions that do not have options for several battlefield roles are not really intended to be anything but allies. That is just how I view it - I do not think a faction that lacks the absolute basics of HQ and Troops options is really a faction, its just a keyword for a few models. In terms of what I said above any main studio faction that has nearly all the battlefield roles filled is to my mind a major faction that should be adequately balanced - on the whole nearly all of them currently are.