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.

Ice_can wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Still disingenuous, the Riptide's survivability comes from all the drones swarming around it. Not that those don't cost points too, but there's disproportionate value in adding ablative wounds to something like that.

It's wasn't ment to be a direct comparison it was only provided as once again someone's making up base stats that units just dont have again.

The origonal post was just about the irony of the "All my new units (which compair pretty well to everyone else units) are unplayable trash and these units that haven't been anywhere in 9th edition events are OP and deserve to be nerfed" sums up the issue with a subsect of Marine posters.

So you are ignoring 3++ it can and tend to have?

You ignore aura's marines have where they would have them anyway too? "let's manipulate conditions to my taste to suit my argument"

Dishonest argument.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Because the more that your ability to win hinges on your army construction, and the more they change what units are viable, the more you think about and buy models.

It's literally what the entire game is fundamentally designed around.

You're statement is correct, but for the wrong reasons, imho.

They're not picking winners or losers. They're certainly disturbing the meta and that's not always a bad thing, because stale lists make for a stale game. Should GW ever achieve excellent balance then all units are equally viable. The meta will still shake as GW is essentially required to continue to produce new models every year. New armies will appear as well as new tools and people will naturally gravitate to them.

In a fictionally perfectly balanced game, the meta will change itself as people get bored with this list, and buy a couple kits to turn it into that list. In this fictional perfectly balanced game there won't be a meta because Bob will be playing Assaulty Ultramarines because he likes blue and chainswords, while Joe will be playing Greenwing because he likes robes and plasma.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Mind numbing reading all this. GW is obviously just playing the hype train game, since this is now a competitive games in the eyes of most players "trash" is anything that isnt "OP lul please nerf".

Lol. Competive game That term and 40k works together only as in "40k isn't competive game". It's logical impossibility. You have better success making competive lottery.

tneva82 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Still disingenuous, the Riptide's survivability comes from all the drones swarming around it. Not that those don't cost points too, but there's disproportionate value in adding ablative wounds to something like that.

It's wasn't ment to be a direct comparison it was only provided as once again someone's making up base stats that units just dont have again.

The origonal post was just about the irony of the "All my new units (which compair pretty well to everyone else units) are unplayable trash and these units that haven't been anywhere in 9th edition events are OP and deserve to be nerfed" sums up the issue with a subsect of Marine posters.

So you are ignoring 3++ it can and tend to have?

You ignore aura's marines have where they would have them anyway too? "let's manipulate conditions to my taste to suit my argument"

Dishonest argument.

Which it takes it's own wounds for per turn and also isn't getting any benifit from, it's a bit like how drones magically cost 0 points.


But you still haven't addressed the point
Why are marine players screaming OMG GW this Unit is WTAF OP MUST NERF about a unit that's been nowhere near a top placement in any 9th edition event while screaming that they're new codex has been nerfed to unplayable trash?

Ice_can wrote:

Which it takes it's own wounds for per turn and also isn't getting any benifit from, it's a bit like how drones magically cost 0 points.


But you still haven't addressed the point
Why are marine players screaming OMG GW this Unit is WTAF OP MUST NERF about a unit that's been nowhere near a top placement in any 9th edition event while screaming that they're new codex has been nerfed to unplayable trash?

Haven't seen a single post about this in the recent threads in 40k General Discussion, definitely not the opinion of the perceived majority. But keep spinning your false narrative and antagonise people.

 Bosskelot wrote:
The Monolith itself is actually pretty alright ruleswise. No Invun hurts, but it's still a 2+ save and a Chronomancer can give it a 5++ anyway.

What kills it is the LoW slot because GW seems to be wanting people to move away from using LoW's in 9th. And conceptually I'm actually fine with that idea, but I think at this point it would never work. People have too many big boy monsters and vehicles that they like using and don't want to them to relegated to apocalypse games only.

This is something that I could see being changed in an FAQ down the line, like how they changed the CP benefits for detachments halfway through 8th. If nobody is taking any LoW's or SHA detachments whatsoever, that's the kind of thing that gets noticed and acted upon.

It's actually quite weird that you have to pay 3CP per LOW in a SHA detachment, 1CP or less per LOW in a SH detachment (as long as they aren't TITANIC units) and it's free in a Supreme Command detachment if your LOW is a Primarch/Supreme Commander...
Doesn't make sense and could be re written, I agree.

dhallnet wrote:
.

It's actually quite weird that you have to pay 3CP per LOW in a SHA detachment, 1CP or less per LOW in a SH detachment (as long as they aren't TITANIC units) and it's free in a Supreme Command detachment if your LOW is a Primarch/Supreme Commander...
Doesn't make sense and could be re written, I agree.

Breton wrote:

dhallnet wrote:
.

It's actually quite weird that you have to pay 3CP per LOW in a SHA detachment, 1CP or less per LOW in a SH detachment (as long as they aren't TITANIC units) and it's free in a Supreme Command detachment if your LOW is a Primarch/Supreme Commander...
Doesn't make sense and could be re written, I agree.

They’re trying to keep people in “fluffy” detachment armies, forgetting the LOWs showing up every so often is fluffy. They should just stop using CP as the carrot/stick on Army creation, just keep the detachment keyword buff stuff, and find another way to prevent 20 1HQ 5 HS/FA/Elite whatever dets.

Making Monolith's LoW isn't even fluffy, that's the really stupid part. Monolith's are a mainstay of any Necron invasion force and are not rare, relatively speaking. The artwork depicts dozens of them supporting troops

The T. Vault on the other hand is rare, and deserves its LoW classification.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Still disingenuous, the Riptide's survivability comes from all the drones swarming around it. Not that those don't cost points too, but there's disproportionate value in adding ablative wounds to something like that.

It's wasn't ment to be a direct comparison it was only provided as once again someone's making up base stats that units just dont have again.

The origonal post was just about the irony of the "All my new units (which compair pretty well to everyone else units) are unplayable trash and these units that haven't been anywhere in 9th edition events are OP and deserve to be nerfed" sums up the issue with a subsect of Marine posters.

The riptide compares really really well with the gladiator even without drones. Even with the (inflated) weapon stats you used for the gladiator, the difference of being able to shoot for more than a turn, is simply too great. And no one dare start the usual "But marines have lots of buffs!", because those tanks have close to none now. Riptides win the buff game by a landslide.

What inflated weapon stats? Those were lifted from the datasheet, go check the preview videos with pictures of gladiator datasheets.

Yeah, because that tank is going to be in tactical and devastation doctrine at the same time, right?

Spoletta wrote:
Yeah, because that tank is going to be in tactical and devastation doctrine at the same time, right?

Hence why I stated them as both their non doctorine and doctrine values.

But GW already has you covered as the New Marine codex has a strategum to answer your prayers.

1 unit can get the benifit of all 3 doctorines in the same turn.

I think the reaper gladiator has a shot. It is T8 with a boatload of shots. The main reason I would want to take it though isn't to kill hordes but to kill custodians. Now that custodians can ignore ap-1/2 it is useless. The gladiator with 2 MM and 2 lastalons breaks the cost to durability ratio (something GW just doesn't get) way too expensive.

Cynista wrote:
Making Monolith's LoW isn't even fluffy,

It’s not unfluffy either. In the past the monolith has had some LOW survivability. But I was talking about the SHA det in general - as the post I was replying to and quoted was also about.

that's the really stupid part. Monolith's are a mainstay of any Necron invasion force and are not rare, relatively speaking. The artwork depicts dozens of them supporting troops

The T. Vault on the other hand is rare, and deserves its LoW classification.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Yeah, because that tank is going to be in tactical and devastation doctrine at the same time, right?

Hence why I stated them as both their non doctorine and doctrine values.

But GW already has you covered as the New Marine codex has a strategum to answer your prayers.

1 unit can get the benifit of all 3 doctorines in the same turn.

2CP and CORE only, so no, you can't.

Spoletta wrote:
2CP and CORE only, so no, you can't.

Didn't know it was core only as it wasn't mentioned in the games and the mentions of it during reviews.
But that said most of the people with the codex seem to believe competitive marines will be 100% core unit's anyway.

Breton wrote:
They’re trying to keep people in “fluffy” detachment armies, forgetting the LOWs showing up every so often is fluffy. They should just stop using CP as the carrot/stick on Army creation, just keep the detachment keyword buff stuff, and find another way to prevent 20 1HQ 5 HS/FA/Elite whatever dets.

They are doing a bad job at it because with these rules it's "fluffier" to bring 3 LOWs rather than just one.
They are just afraid of everyone and their mother including the next broken LOW they can ally into their army if the SHA doesn't have a steep price. That's all.

Just add a second price to the SHA so that if it shares your army's keyword (CHAPTER/DINASTY/WHATEVER) it cost 1 point for non titanic and 2 for titanic (and so 3CP for an allied LOW with or without titanic) or whatever and it will be roughly in line with the super heavy det.
Right now it's just a bad detachment.

That is true, and one more reason why this thread is about marine vehicles being in a bad situation.

The grav pulse stratagem though is nice. The smoke one too.

Actually they would be decent if the game didn't decide that infantry based AT should be able to slug everything at will. And I'm not talking only about eradicators.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
2CP and CORE only, so no, you can't.

Didn't know it was core only as it wasn't mentioned in the games and the mentions of it during reviews.
But that said most of the people with the codex seem to believe competitive marines will be 100% core unit's anyway.

Weird way to type "I was wrong" but you do you.

Space marine vehicles, and vehicles in general, have been bad all edition. "GW is trying to shake up the meta" is an extremely weird claim to make around 9th when we've had:

-Late 8th: Space Marines are meta. Whether or not you think they're problematically OP at ANY point in all of this, you gotta admit they're the dominant meta force making up the largest single chunk of any part of the competitive scene. Lists are primarily heavy infantry based + Dreadnoughts.

-9th core rules "index era": Space Marines are still meta. Lists are still primarily heavy infantry based +Dreadnoughts.

-9th ed codex comes out. Buffs dreadnoughts, nerfs some heavy infantry but buffs others, nerfs tanks.

Wow, such meta shift, such sales driven balance strategy. Now competitive lists will go from Eradicators and Inceptors and Intercessors and Invictors to...

....I mean probably that, right? I'm no nostradamus but it does seem like it's gonna be those units still mostly.

It is also BUCK WILD to me how you can be the same guy, and when you make a thread or comment complaining about some aspect of the currently meta marine army being annoying to play against, people call you a biased marine hater, and if you make some other thread about how some aspect of marines being underpowered, people call you a biased marine apologist.

Marines have enough units to be like, four to five other armies. Parts of marines are gonna be busted OP while other parts are gonna be in need of buffs.

dhallnet wrote:

Breton wrote:
They’re trying to keep people in “fluffy” detachment armies, forgetting the LOWs showing up every so often is fluffy. They should just stop using CP as the carrot/stick on Army creation, just keep the detachment keyword buff stuff, and find another way to prevent 20 1HQ 5 HS/FA/Elite whatever dets.

They are doing a bad job at it because with these rules it's "fluffier" to bring 3 LOWs rather than just one.
They are just afraid of everyone and their mother including the next broken LOW they can ally into their army if the SHA doesn't have a steep price. That's all.

Just add a second price to the SHA so that if it shares your army's keyword (CHAPTER/DINASTY/WHATEVER) it cost 1 point for non titanic and 2 for titanic or whatever and it will be roughly in line with the super heavy det.
Right now it's just a bad detachment.

Or just get rid of the CP cost entirely. You get 12 CP +/- whatever you gain/spend on List building buffs no matter how many Dets you have. Guard are kinda screwed if they want to get “enough” infantry squads in one Det.

Breton wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

Breton wrote:
They’re trying to keep people in “fluffy” detachment armies, forgetting the LOWs showing up every so often is fluffy. They should just stop using CP as the carrot/stick on Army creation, just keep the detachment keyword buff stuff, and find another way to prevent 20 1HQ 5 HS/FA/Elite whatever dets.

They are doing a bad job at it because with these rules it's "fluffier" to bring 3 LOWs rather than just one.
They are just afraid of everyone and their mother including the next broken LOW they can ally into their army if the SHA doesn't have a steep price. That's all.

Just add a second price to the SHA so that if it shares your army's keyword (CHAPTER/DINASTY/WHATEVER) it cost 1 point for non titanic and 2 for titanic or whatever and it will be roughly in line with the super heavy det.
Right now it's just a bad detachment.

Or just get rid of the CP cost entirely. You get 12 CP +/- whatever you gain/spend on List building buffs no matter how many Dets you have. Guard are kinda screwed if they want to get “enough” infantry squads in one Det.

No way dude. They can include 90 infantry and vets and a battalion. In a brigade they can field 150. That is already more than enough bodies. Charging for detachments is a great way to balance slots. It's kind of nice to have to use other slots than heavy support.

They should probably just add a lord of war slot to the brigade to give you a way around the SHA.

Breton wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

Breton wrote:
They’re trying to keep people in “fluffy” detachment armies, forgetting the LOWs showing up every so often is fluffy. They should just stop using CP as the carrot/stick on Army creation, just keep the detachment keyword buff stuff, and find another way to prevent 20 1HQ 5 HS/FA/Elite whatever dets.

They are doing a bad job at it because with these rules it's "fluffier" to bring 3 LOWs rather than just one.
They are just afraid of everyone and their mother including the next broken LOW they can ally into their army if the SHA doesn't have a steep price. That's all.

Just add a second price to the SHA so that if it shares your army's keyword (CHAPTER/DINASTY/WHATEVER) it cost 1 point for non titanic and 2 for titanic or whatever and it will be roughly in line with the super heavy det.
Right now it's just a bad detachment.

Or just get rid of the CP cost entirely. You get 12 CP +/- whatever you gain/spend on List building buffs no matter how many Dets you have. Guard are kinda screwed if they want to get “enough” infantry squads in one Det.

It is obvious that GW wants soup to have a cost associated with it. Me personally, I'd rather see soup have a moderate CP cost than these cumbersome, wildly imbalanced 'army purity bonuses' that GW is pushing now.

3CP to bring an ally detachment of any kind that doesn't share all faction keywords with your primary warlord's faction, would seem to be a perfectly fine, simple framework to start from. Maybe make it 2CP if it's just a patrol, and 1CP if it's a special "imperial agents" style minor allied faction/auxiliary faction/mercenary unit dealie. And then feth doctrines, feth dynastic codes, feth sacred rites, throw that all in the trash.

I mean that's not the goal of GW, the goal of GW is to make sure games feel unfair so when you get yours you're really excited to really stick it to those dang space marines who've been giving you unfair gakky games for a year and a half, and so you don't feel bad dumping on opponents who don't have theirs yet because you did your time. That appears to get people to spend more money, so it's what they're gonna do. But a man can dream.

the_scotsman wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
2CP and CORE only, so no, you can't.

Didn't know it was core only as it wasn't mentioned in the games and the mentions of it during reviews.
But that said most of the people with the codex seem to believe competitive marines will be 100% core unit's anyway.

Weird way to type "I was wrong" but you do you.

Was only postulating a possible reason it wasn't covered in the games/reviews.
They probably don't see it as a restriction if you expect every unit in the competitive list to have the required keyword.

If the rest of your post was aimed at me I need you to break it down a bit more.

Breton wrote:
Or just get rid of the CP cost entirely. You get 12 CP +/- whatever you gain/spend on List building buffs no matter how many Dets you have. Guard are kinda screwed if they want to get “enough” infantry squads in one Det.

No because they want to slightly deter you of picking what suits you best in each army you can ally, which I agree with.
So detachments needs to have a cost. Or they could create a universal strat in each codex that allows you to pick up a specific det from a list of ally for X CP. But it's too late for that. So we're stuck with tweaking existing stuff.

 Xenomancers wrote:
No way dude. They can include 90 infantry and vets and a battalion. In a brigade they can field 150. That is already more than enough bodies. Charging for detachments is a great way to balance slots. It's kind of nice to have to use other slots than heavy support.

They should probably just add a lord of war slot to the brigade to give you a way around the SHA.

They can only fit 60 infantry with ObSec. In a mission with six objectives they get stretched thin. Sure every army only gets six troop choices, but few of the others are limited to 10 squishy models per choice. Other armies either get more models or less squishy. I suppose another option is remove the upper limit on troops.

Breton wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No way dude. They can include 90 infantry and vets and a battalion. In a brigade they can field 150. That is already more than enough bodies. Charging for detachments is a great way to balance slots. It's kind of nice to have to use other slots than heavy support.

They should probably just add a lord of war slot to the brigade to give you a way around the SHA.

They can only fit 60 infantry with ObSec. In a mission with six objectives they get stretched thin. Sure every army only gets six troop choices, but few of the others are limited to 10 squishy models per choice. Other armies either get more models or less squishy. I suppose another option is remove the upper limit on troops.

You make a good point there. Maybe an argument to bring back the platoon system?

Technically you can bring 180 per battalion.

Spoletta wrote:
Technically you can bring 180 per battalion.

Conscripts?

 Xenomancers wrote:

You make a good point there. Maybe an argument to bring back the platoon system?

I’d have to play with the idea more to “exact” numbers but I think I’d go with a combination of FOC/Det with unlimited troops choices and no CP cost beyond Strats and the 2nd Edition list building rules. In 2nd Ed there were basically only 3 FOC types. Characters, Squads, and Support(basically vehicles and allies- what we call soup today). You could have up to 50% of HQ and support, minimum 25% of squads. You’d have to juggle that around some:
But a minimum of X% troop, max of Y% HQ, FA, Elite, HS. And Y% may vary from slot to slot and faction to faction. The wonky subfaction theme/armies then have to be able to play FOC games I.e. Deathwing captains make Deathwing Troops, Ravenwing Ravenwing, Wild Riders, White Scars, and so on. But this should already be a thing anyway.

Breton wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No way dude. They can include 90 infantry and vets and a battalion. In a brigade they can field 150. That is already more than enough bodies. Charging for detachments is a great way to balance slots. It's kind of nice to have to use other slots than heavy support.

They should probably just add a lord of war slot to the brigade to give you a way around the SHA.

They can only fit 60 infantry with ObSec. In a mission with six objectives they get stretched thin. Sure every army only gets six troop choices, but few of the others are limited to 10 squishy models per choice. Other armies either get more models or less squishy. I suppose another option is remove the upper limit on troops.

How exactly are you defining squishy here?

Guardsman for their points are definataly less squishy than
Kabalites
Grots
Kroot

Fairly sure arguments can be made for
Guardians
Firewarriors
Ork Boys

but but but eradicators! there see marines are evil and how dare you like Marines.

We get it. Despite the fact that the last few years have seen marines become the most abusive faction (and subfaction) the game has literally ever seen, you honestly believe there's nothing wrong. Nothing at all. Move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Still planning on fielding mine! I think they might be old enough to drink by now. The decision to move a 24-wound 360-point giant floating death brick to the Lord of War slot wasn't really a surprise - I'm pretty sure it only stuck it out in the Heavy Support slot as long as it did for legacy reasons.

Yes, the hyperbole factor makes it quite comical.

That's great you're going to try and use it, but this was a pretty big whiff on GWs part. They took an iconic unit that had been borderline useless for years ... and made it useless but in a different way, but also costed it right off the table. Then you have things like Land Raiders. One of 40k's most iconic units. They've been in the bin for ages now and this doesn't help them at all. Yeah, the thread title is a bit click-baity, but really there is a problem here.