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.

Guilliman breaking the codex is a joke when in fact he is one of the really good things in a rather lame codex. Looking at the cost of say Intercessors across all codices it is the same which shows GW does not cost them accounting for any buffs.

Reemule wrote:
The Newman, he is speaking on a point per point basis. A Cap and LT provide roughly 1/2 as much use, but cost far less than 1/2 of Gman's points.

Right - if you're expecting your weapons to wound on 3s then Bobby only offers one extra pip. Marines already hit on 3s, so there is no variable gain there. If your strategy otherwise revolved around weapons that will wounds on 4s then Bobby might be better.

But I've hardly seen people pushing him forward like they should and most would be better served with an additional 270 points in some other unit(s).

He breaks it in the way you note, GW won’t reprice or buff units for lists that can’t run him. So anytime he isn’t around everything is overcosted.
...well, overcosted even worse since it’s not like Gman lists are dominating either. But I mean even if they were to do a whole new competitive marine dex, unless they give his buff to other chapters or change his, the best marine list will still almost certainly be a Gman list at 2000 pts.

bort wrote:

The Newman wrote:
A Captain and Lieutenant cannot be mathematically as useful as rowboat since rerolling failed to-wounds is inherently better than rerolling 1s and rerolling misses is better than rerolling 1s (or getting three CPs is better than spending CPs for Master of the Chapter).

Is that and being beastly in melee worth 200+ more points? Got me there. Throw in losing the Ravenguard trait and strats to get the full use out of him and I'd say no.

Yes, Gman being better is just common sense. As to the value of the increase you need to look at what he is buffing. If I recall, the rough numbers are capt+lt buffs by 35% and Gman by 70% (depends on weapon, but let’s go with this 2x for 2x cost). So the question is what is 35% of what you will have in his bubble? In a 2000 pt list, this is likely to be more than 200pts, so Gman is worth the cost difference. If you were to keep all 1600pts inside, he’s worth it for buffs alone and the beatstick portion totally free.

That’s why he breaks marine pricing, with him everything is essentially 35% better than for chapters without him at a fixed rate tax that is too high in small games and too low at medium and larger.


And back to the tank, well, the nerf gets me off the fence of maybe getting any. Just not worth the cost in points or dollars now.

You won't ever win games with your whole army within 6" of Bobby.

The perception problem starts here where everyone goes, "Oh look how much better bolters are with Bobby!" when that isn't the use case on the table.

Additionally he's a LOW, which means a whole other detachment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't know a single player that doesn't care about the point costs of their models. Like literally no one I know is like - oh this model went up 30 points - I think I'll go buy it. New player old player? Don't matter. This nerf is a legit mistake that will only serve to cost them money and nerfs the weakest faction in the game short of GK. It's a joke. Someone needs to admit to their mistake and fix it. Now.

Why should a model get double tap for free? This is the paradox of the LRBT is it not?

I’m not saying you’d get to keep 1600pts in his bubble, the point is to illustrate how the bonus you’re getting scales with your army size and clumping so you can’t just compare a capt+lt body vs gmans statline and ask if you want to pay 200pts or 400pts.

And why are you assuming all your wounds will be on 3s so his bonus halts at 2x a lts? Lots wound on 4s and 5s and sniper rifles are tremendously better in his reroll.

bort wrote:
I’m not saying you’d get to keep 1600pts in his bubble, the point is to illustrate how the bonus you’re getting scales with your army size and clumping so you can’t just compare a capt+lt body vs gmans statline and ask if you want to pay 200pts or 400pts.

And why are you assuming all your wounds will be on 3s so his bonus halts at 2x a lts? Lots wound on 4s and 5s and sniper rifles are tremendously better in his reroll.

That's just not how it bears out on the table. Units in his aura will die and when they die the pain is more apparent as you have less on the table and its nearly impossible to shift more units to the bubble, because you need to cover objectives.

If your use case for Bobby is stuff that wounds on 4s and up - he's going to do SOLID work, but when people come around and say how terrible a tank is (especially without bobby) that is almost exclusively wounding on 3s or better is just not a valid assessment.

I think the fact he is taking 1/5th your points, a detachment, and in general your warlord spot, and warlord trait makes him a break even proposition.

Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?

Hot garbage.

 Kirasu wrote:
Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?

Hot garbage.

I don't think the argument is that he's too strong. I think the argument is that GW seem scared to give Marines anything that is in itself an efficient unit because it would hypothetically be too strong with Guilliman.

I think that's flawed logic though, and that power levels are more random than that.

 Kirasu wrote:
Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?

Hot garbage.

I think that he breaks the codex in a way meaning where he alone makes the codex difficult to balance. Do you balance things for him thus meaning it is a strong, but no OP codex in tourny play? Do you balance things to be strong, but not OP at tourney play without him? If you do the former then everything other than builds using him suffer. If you do the latter then builds with him are too good. He is such a force multiplier that it throws off the balance of the codex.

I think if you put him with the majority of other armies and made his buffs work on them he'd be an absolute juggernaut. He is held back by being in the marine book. He breaks the codex not in terms of raw power, but rather balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?

Hot garbage.

I don't think the argument is that he's too strong. I think the argument is that GW seem scared to give Marines anything that is in itself an efficient unit because it would hypothetically be too strong with Guilliman.

I think that's flawed logic though, and that power levels are more random than that.

Yeah I think it's really just incompetence on the part of GW rather than a precise and focused pricing method based around G man.

I'm not getting worked up over anything. New codex is round the corner. I'll judge everything then


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?

Hot garbage.

I don't think the argument is that he's too strong. I think the argument is that GW seem scared to give Marines anything that is in itself an efficient unit because it would hypothetically be too strong with Guilliman.

I think that's flawed logic though, and that power levels are more random than that.

Not true. I have personally spoken with play testers and the cost is not influenced by characters. Stop spreading opinions and theories as though they are factual information.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?

Hot garbage.

I think that he breaks the codex in a way meaning where he alone makes the codex difficult to balance. Do you balance things for him thus meaning it is a strong, but no OP codex in tourny play? Do you balance things to be strong, but not OP at tourney play without him? If you do the former then everything other than builds using him suffer. If you do the latter then builds with him are too good. He is such a force multiplier that it throws off the balance of the codex.

I think if you put him with the majority of other armies and made his buffs work on them he'd be an absolute juggernaut. He is held back by being in the marine book. He breaks the codex not in terms of raw power, but rather balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Armies with bobby G aren't winning a damn thing, so the argument that he creates a broken codex is 100% false. If the codex WITH him is mediocre at best, what does it say about all the other chapters?

Hot garbage.

I don't think the argument is that he's too strong. I think the argument is that GW seem scared to give Marines anything that is in itself an efficient unit because it would hypothetically be too strong with Guilliman.

I think that's flawed logic though, and that power levels are more random than that.

Yeah I think it's really just incompetence on the part of GW rather than a precise and focused pricing method based around G man.

This is seriously muddled thinking because the codex is not competitive versus top tier armies.

If ishagu is correct, then gw is even more stupid than i thought.

Martel732 wrote:
If ishagu is correct, then gw is even more stupid than i thought.

yet you keep giving them money.. whose the stupid one?

At least he is positive.

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If ishagu is correct, then gw is even more stupid than i thought.

yet you keep giving them money.. whose the stupid one?

Depends how much money you're talking. Martel has at least refused to buy dumb purchases which is respectful.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Why should a model get double tap for free? This is the paradox of the LRBT is it not?

It didn't. It got it for one single weapon.

It paid for it by being the same cost as a Repulsor baseline but with less carrying capacity and no hull weapon options.

So either transport capacity is free, so it doesn't matter what can transport things, or it isn't. I'd be inclined to say transport capacity costs something.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If ishagu is correct, then gw is even more stupid than i thought.

yet you keep giving them money.. whose the stupid one?

Depends how much money you're talking. Martel has at least refused to buy dumb purchases which is respectful.

Im still using 3rd ed devs. As little as fething possible.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think this is actually the point where I stop playing 40k competitively in any sense and just find people to play by the rules I want to play (which are rules that don't suck complete ass). Sheer incompetent rules team. Shinning spears were literally undercosted for a year. They could have made a change like this at any point but didn't. Then we have an obviously overcosted model like the executioner...they release an in between nerf without even looking at tournament data or whatnot. I mean it's so effing baffling it is disgusting. I actually want to slap a person in the face for this. I spent 200$ and a ton of time getting 2 of these ready to play with even knowing they were going to underperform...then they nerf it? WOW.

Having had several years of reading your posts under my belt now I can say with some confidence that you never played 40k competitively in any real sense.

There is generally no need to be upset. A new Astartes release is around the corner, the next codex is probably less than a month away.

Primaris are in Beta right now and not in a strong position. This may or may not change after the next codex. Let's wait and see.

In the meantime I'll be taking a Primaris focused list to a tournament this weekend, facing off against some of Britain's, America's and Canada's top players including many stars of the ITC. Win or lose it will be a fun learning experience and a test of tactical ability against the world's best (Unlike a lot of the vocal complainers on the forum I actually play the game at the highest level regularly with multiple factions). More people need to step back and consider the hobby this way.

 Ishagu wrote:
There is generally no need to be upset. A new Astartes release is around the corner, the next codex is probably less than a month away.

Primaris are in Beta right now and not in a strong position. This may or may not change after the next codex. Let's wait and see.

In the meantime I'll be taking a Primaris focused list to a tournament this weekend, facing off against some of Britain's, America's and Canada's top players including many stars of the ITC. Win or lose it will be a fun learning experience and a test of tactical ability against the world's best (Unlike a lot of the vocal complainers on the forum I actually play the game at the highest level regularly with multiple factions). More people need to step back and consider the hobby this way.

I wish more people had your additude man. seriously, you're generally positive and upbeat. it's a ncie change,

 Ishagu wrote:
There is generally no need to be upset. A new Astartes release is around the corner, the next codex is probably less than a month away.

Primaris are in Beta right now and not in a strong position. This may or may not change after the next codex. Let's wait and see.

In the meantime I'll be taking a Primaris focused list to a tournament this weekend, facing off against some of Britain's, America's and Canada's top players including many stars of the ITC. Win or lose it will be a fun learning experience and a test of tactical ability against the world's best (Unlike a lot of the vocal complainers on the forum I actually play the game at the highest level regularly with multiple factions). More people need to step back and consider the hobby this way.

Well Gen con and Warhammer fest? Day? Are both this week so I'm hoping we hear more than we did at the last event

Martel732 wrote:
If ishagu is correct, then gw is even more stupid than i thought.

Why? That's the correct position for GW to take on units. That you disagree with pricing is a different point.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Why? That's the correct position for GW to take on units.

Because its explicitly inconsistent with the way they've pointed units for all of 8th (looking at you CWE and Chaos), and implies that GW is deliberately pointing marine units to be inferior to other factions.

In other words, its dumb.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Why? That's the correct position for GW to take on units.

Because its explicitly inconsistent with the way they've pointed units for all of 8th (looking at you CWE and Chaos), and implies that GW is deliberately pointing marine units to be inferior to other factions.

In other words, its dumb.

That's the perception, yes. The actual gap between marines and other units is smaller than the forums might lead people to believe.

You're just not going to see them used heavily in top tables, because they do carry a liability against some matchups.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Why? That's the correct position for GW to take on units.

Because its explicitly inconsistent with the way they've pointed units for all of 8th (looking at you CWE and Chaos), and implies that GW is deliberately pointing marine units to be inferior to other factions.

In other words, its dumb.

And yet many units that are more efficient than the Repulsors, and much more easily "spammed" alongside Guilliman, have seen massive point reductions:

Predators
Contemptor Mortis
Sicaran Venator

Your conclusion is wrong based on these.
It's a case where we can't see the full picture yet - The pricing could be wrong, or there could be additional combos that bolster performance in the next book that we aren't aware of yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
There is generally no need to be upset. A new Astartes release is around the corner, the next codex is probably less than a month away.

Primaris are in Beta right now and not in a strong position. This may or may not change after the next codex. Let's wait and see.

In the meantime I'll be taking a Primaris focused list to a tournament this weekend, facing off against some of Britain's, America's and Canada's top players including many stars of the ITC. Win or lose it will be a fun learning experience and a test of tactical ability against the world's best (Unlike a lot of the vocal complainers on the forum I actually play the game at the highest level regularly with multiple factions). More people need to step back and consider the hobby this way.

I wish more people had your attitude man. seriously, you're generally positive and upbeat. it's a ncie change,

I appreciate that. We have to remember why we spend our money and time on this hobby, and not get carried away into spirals of negativity.

That's my outlook anyway.

 Ishagu wrote:


I appreciate that. We have to remember whey we spend our money and time on this hobby, and not get carried away into spirals of negativity.

That's my outlook anyway.

It's also pretty easy to forget that this is the most balanced the game has even been. If you told someone a year ago that literal Thousand Sons could win tournaments they would laugh at you.

Yes very true. It's why I find some of the hyperbolic comments so excessive.

There is great variation in army composition and lists at the highest level, and even though books like the Adeptus Astartes have indeed fallen behind, there are still many viable lists and combinations.

 Ishagu wrote:

Your conclusion is wrong based on these.

It must really be nice to live in a world where only the facts you like get considered. Aura pricing has been baked in the entirety of 8th, and CA2018 didnt change any of that.

If it did you wouldnt have situations where, say your beloved Predator was totally outclassed by a fake hovertank trundling about 20-30% cheaper for comparable output and significantly superior survivability.

 Ishagu wrote:

It's a case where we can't see the full picture yet - The pricing could be wrong, or there could be additional combos that bolster performance in the next book that we aren't aware of yet.

This is a completely moronic argument. You don't break things in the short term because you have a plan to fix them in the long term. This isnt a software beta test in limited release to a few groups. This is the full, live product.

And thats being generous enough to assume there is a plan to fix them in the first place, which is never a given with GW rules writers.

 Ishagu wrote:


I appreciate that. We have to remember why we spend our money and time on this hobby, and not get carried away into spirals of negativity.

That's my outlook anyway.

You're confusing negativity with incredulity at GWs stupidity. I'm playing on a weekly basis and having a great time, while running primarily a Marine army. I'm constantly (albeit slowly) growing my collections as my budget allows.

That doesn't mean im not going to take issue when GW does something blatantly dumb-fethed like raise the cost of an already overpriced unit.

You are wrong, as I said. The actual people who literally test the rules on behalf of GW are saying that the auras don't impact the cost.

It's the same way that relics, stratagems and craftworld/chapter/legion/ork clan tactics don't impact the cost of units.
Where is the additional cost piled on Eldar flyers for that Alaitoc trait?

You're angry, looking for things to point a finger at. In your mind you have exaggerated the problems. You are calling GW stupid despite the fact that they have created the most popular tabletop game and have just broken their profit records for a third year in a row.
I suggest you relax, and maybe take a break.

Wait until the next Marine book comes out at the least before calling people stupid. Let's review the army again at that point.