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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd rather have more predictable charge distances. Failing a 4" charge suuuuucks. D6+3 or 3D3 or something would be preferable.

Or they could just do movement + D3.
Or half movement +d6.

You know, have the movement stat actually mean something in the charge phase.

I like the idea in theory but I think that'd be out of control when you start dealing with Jetbikes and things. Especially with units with short ranged weapons like Shining Spears or Assault troopers with Flamers. You wind up is a space where assault units are almost expected charge well beyond their weapons range, which feels weird.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

And the Heavy Destroyers are durable? I think not. Heavy multi-damage weapons knock out the Destroyers nice and quick, while a 10 man Havoc Squad you couldn't just get lucky with a few Lascannons and bring them down. Also, different armies, different factors going into pricing in general because of context.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

And the Heavy Destroyers are durable? I think not. Heavy multi-damage weapons knock out the Destroyers nice and quick, while a 10 man Havoc Squad you couldn't just get lucky with a few Lascannons and bring them down. Also, different armies, different factors going into pricing in general because of context.

the destroyers don't die to bolter fire.... the havocs do

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

And the Heavy Destroyers are durable? I think not. Heavy multi-damage weapons knock out the Destroyers nice and quick, while a 10 man Havoc Squad you couldn't just get lucky with a few Lascannons and bring them down. Also, different armies, different factors going into pricing in general because of context.

the destroyers don't die to bolter fire.... the havocs do

Different units have different optimum weapons of engagement. That's ok.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

And the Heavy Destroyers are durable? I think not. Heavy multi-damage weapons knock out the Destroyers nice and quick, while a 10 man Havoc Squad you couldn't just get lucky with a few Lascannons and bring them down. Also, different armies, different factors going into pricing in general because of context.

the destroyers don't die to bolter fire.... the havocs do

Different units have different optimum weapons of engagement. That's ok.

agreed, but every list should have varied types of weapons. The fact that the basic gun that comes with most troops in the games can one shot a havoc yet can't one shot a destroyer means that the destroyer are more resilient. If i pay the same cost for both models but one can get one shot by a 0pts weapon while the other one requires a 20pts weapon, isnt this a difference in resilience?

Destroyers are way harder to remove. Thats the point.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

And the Heavy Destroyers are durable? I think not. Heavy multi-damage weapons knock out the Destroyers nice and quick, while a 10 man Havoc Squad you couldn't just get lucky with a few Lascannons and bring them down. Also, different armies, different factors going into pricing in general because of context.

the destroyers don't die to bolter fire.... the havocs do

Different units have different optimum weapons of engagement. That's ok.

agreed, but every list should have varied types of weapons. The fact that the basic gun that comes with most troops in the games can one shot a havoc yet can't one shot a destroyer means that the destroyer are more resilient. If i pay the same cost for both models but one can get one shot by a 0pts weapon while the other one requires a 20pts weapon, isnt this a difference in resilience?

Now wait a minute, are we talking about the same thing here? Because I'm not talking about current Havocs, I'm talking about the old 10 body squad of Havocs, which would be 10 wounds vs. the 3 Destroyers 9, and four heavy weapons to the Destroyers three.

If your point is that the current Havocs are less durable than Destroyers, I'd heartily agree. But that's not the subject matter of the post you replied to.

well havocs can't take ablative wounds anymore.
A space marine dev unit can. 220 points for 10 wounds and 4 lascannons...Holy crap for 222 points you get 6 heavy destroyers.
Not only are their weapons better than lascannons due to ap-4 - they also ignore move penalties
can fall back and shoot
free reroll 1's
Also a 10" move.
has 8 more total wounds with +1 toughness.

This is a clear and outrageous balance discrepancy. It's kinda gross actually. The Destroyers are WAY more durable than havocs and WAY more durable than dev marines.

 Xenomancers wrote:
well havocs can't take ablative wounds anymore.
A space marine dev unit can. 220 points for 10 wounds and 4 lascannons...Holy crap for 222 points you get 6 heavy destroyers.
Not only are their weapons better than lascannons due to ap-4 - they also ignore move penalties
can fall back and shoot
free reroll 1's
Also a 10" move.
has 8 more total wounds with +1 toughness.

This is a clear and outrageous balance discrepancy. It's kinda gross actually. The Destroyers are WAY more durable than havocs and WAY more durable than dev marines.

And have 12" less range, benefit from fewer and worse support abilities, have basically no relevant Dynasty benefits. Also don't come whining about Heavy Destroyers being gross, they used to be 100 pts and haven't gotten better rules basically all edition, Havocs have gotten more toughness, Stratagem support and can benefit from the best type of Chapter Tactic (-1 to hit at more than 12"). It took several years before Heavy Destroyers became good, if Havocs are slightly behind the power curve March 2020 then it's nowhere near how far back Heavy Destroyers were at the start of the edition. You don't need Lascannon Havocs to be 12 pts with wargear before they start seeing competitive play, which is the relative buff Heavy Destroyers have seen since the Indexes. Cry me an absolute. Freaking. River. Damn.

Havocs also get a strat that allows them to shoot twice, iirc.
Heavy Destroyers do not have that same kind of force multiplier.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Havocs are priced like they can still take big squads when they can't.

Which isn't something done to begin with. Even considering you can do that with the old squad, (which is 200 points for 10 dudes with 4 Lascannons), they require too much external factors to do the same as three Heavy Destroyers at 111. Even with Mult-Damage weapons into consideration, those Havocs are NOT durable with the extra wounds.

And the Heavy Destroyers are durable? I think not. Heavy multi-damage weapons knock out the Destroyers nice and quick, while a 10 man Havoc Squad you couldn't just get lucky with a few Lascannons and bring them down. Also, different armies, different factors going into pricing in general because of context.

That 10 man Havoc squad was also almost twice the price of the three Heavy destroyers I listed there.

 Xenomancers wrote:
well havocs can't take ablative wounds anymore.
A space marine dev unit can. 220 points for 10 wounds and 4 lascannons...Holy crap for 222 points you get 6 heavy destroyers.
Not only are their weapons better than lascannons due to ap-4 - they also ignore move penalties
can fall back and shoot
free reroll 1's
Also a 10" move.
has 8 more total wounds with +1 toughness.

This is a clear and outrageous balance discrepancy. It's kinda gross actually. The Destroyers are WAY more durable than havocs and WAY more durable than dev marines.

I know Havocs can't take ablative wounds anymore. That was the start of this conversation.

For Devastators, it depends. As UM I get an additional -1 AP in Devastator, ignore move penalties in Tactical, and can fall back and shoot as UM.
I have access to better rerolls, have more attacks and have 12 additional bolter shots. For 5 more points I can fire one Heavy Weapon twice. One model gets a +1 to hit while the Sergeant is alive. It takes five casualties to begin degrading my heavy weapon fire, while Destroyers lose a Heavy shot with each casualty. Not to mention that Devastators have many choices of weapon, while Heavy Destroyers only have the one. Iirc, the Lascannons outrange the Heavy Gauss Cannon, too.


While vs. matches are far from the whole story, here's one anyways:
If the six Destroyers fire at the Devastators they kill 4.5 ablative bodies.

If the Devastators fire at the Destroyers under Devastator Doctrine and inevitable re-rolls because you're a smart marine player (right?) they manage 13.8 wounds with Bolters, or 12.46 without. So in this vs. match, even if the Destroyers go first, the Devastators return fire takes out four of the six Destroyers (ish, because wound rolls are wonky). Conversely, if the Marine player goes first, the Destroyers don't have a chance at retaliation because they can easily lose 50%+ of their return fire capability. And arguably, Plasma Cannons will get more reliable results, are more multirole than Lascannons, and also 9 points cheaper per gun. (so only 5 Destroyers for the cost of the squad?)

It's EASY to kill Destroyers. And there's no "gross imbalance" here.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That 10 man Havoc squad was also almost twice the price of the three Heavy destroyers I listed there.

Are lower profile, could use a Transport, have other heavy weapon options, have bolters and more attacks in the squad, could kill that Destroyer Squad in one turn, and can fire twice. (could potentially kill two of those Destroyer squads in one turn)

You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
well havocs can't take ablative wounds anymore.
A space marine dev unit can. 220 points for 10 wounds and 4 lascannons...Holy crap for 222 points you get 6 heavy destroyers.
Not only are their weapons better than lascannons due to ap-4 - they also ignore move penalties
can fall back and shoot
free reroll 1's
Also a 10" move.
has 8 more total wounds with +1 toughness.

This is a clear and outrageous balance discrepancy. It's kinda gross actually. The Destroyers are WAY more durable than havocs and WAY more durable than dev marines.

I know Havocs can't take ablative wounds anymore. That was the start of this conversation.

For Devastators, it depends. As UM I get an additional -1 AP in Devastator, ignore move penalties in Tactical, and can fall back and shoot as UM.
I have access to better rerolls, have more attacks and have 12 additional bolter shots. For 5 more points I can fire one Heavy Weapon twice. One model gets a +1 to hit while the Sergeant is alive. It takes five casualties to begin degrading my heavy weapon fire, while Destroyers lose a Heavy shot with each casualty. Not to mention that Devastators have many choices of weapon, while Heavy Destroyers only have the one. Iirc, the Lascannons outrange the Heavy Gauss Cannon, too.


While vs. matches are far from the whole story, here's one anyways:
If the six Destroyers fire at the Devastators they kill 4.5 ablative bodies.

If the Devastators fire at the Destroyers under Devastator Doctrine and inevitable re-rolls because you're a smart marine player (right?) they manage 13.8 wounds with Bolters, or 12.46 without. So in this vs. match, even if the Destroyers go first, the Devastators return fire takes out four of the six Destroyers (ish, because wound rolls are wonky). Conversely, if the Marine player goes first, the Destroyers don't have a chance at retaliation because they can easily lose 50%+ of their return fire capability. And arguably, Plasma Cannons will get more reliable results, are more multirole than Lascannons, and also 9 points cheaper per gun. (so only 5 Destroyers for the cost of the squad?)

It's EASY to kill Destroyers. And there's no "gross imbalance" here.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That 10 man Havoc squad was also almost twice the price of the three Heavy destroyers I listed there.

Are lower profile, could use a Transport, have other heavy weapon options, have bolters and more attacks in the squad, could kill that Destroyer Squad in one turn, and can fire twice. (could potentially kill two of those Destroyer squads in one turn)

I wasn't even bringing in army traits. Crons traits aren't great which is probably the only major factor about them not being a top tier army ATM. If they had the always counts in cover and MOA trait all marines have access to they would be better than marines.

It is not easy to kill destroyers ether...T5 3W with a 2+ in cover for 37 points is extremely durable. ESP when you come back to life on a 5+ if the squad doesn't get wiped (which is hard to do)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

Chaos and Loyalists used to be mirror factions. Very dull way of designing armies, imo. This dates back to when GW couldn't design and produce as many different kits. Note how new kits aren't mirrors of loyalists, or visa versa. They tend to be more divergent and unique.

Should a chaos and a loyalist Predator have the same cost? Maybe. What benefit does a Blood Angels or Black Templar Predator get from chapter tactics?

Look at the amazing psychic powers chaos have access to, typically better and more impactful than the loyalists.

A Chaos Predator has no CT rules but has better psychic support? It can be moved in the Psychic phase, for example.

Again, compare the whole thing, not just the unit.

 Xenomancers wrote:

It is not easy to kill destroyers ether...

I just did the math in my post above, dude. A Devastator Squad can take a squad out pretty handily.

Conversely, compare Destroyers to Aggresors who also come in at 37 points at T5, 3W and a 3+. Do you feel your Aggressors are "extremely durable"? I'm guessing you don't.

They're a lot more durable than a lot of units now. 3W is magical.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

Ahh yes, but that's certainly a muuuuuch more linear comparison, as it's literally the same tank. Thee's a lot more variables going on in the other one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
They're a lot more durable than a lot of units now. 3W is magical.

And yet CSM and Tacticals beat them for PPW, the only thing they're missing is a T5. Are CSM tough?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

And if you think that's egregious, compare the Loyalist Predator to the Loyalist Vindicator, Stalker, or Invictor. The Predator is easily the worst of the four, but costs the most.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

Ahh yes, but that's certainly a muuuuuch more linear comparison, as it's literally the same tank. Thee's a lot more variables going on in the other one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
They're a lot more durable than a lot of units now. 3W is magical.

And yet CSM and Tacticals beat them for PPW, the only thing they're missing is a T5. Are CSM tough?

Depends a squad ? No , 13 diffrent msu csm squads? Yes.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It is not easy to kill destroyers ether...

I just did the math in my post above, dude. A Devastator Squad can take a squad out pretty handily.

Conversely, compare Destroyers to Aggresors who also come in at 37 points at T5, 3W and a 3+. Do you feel your Aggressors are "extremely durable"? I'm guessing you don't.

Realistically their durability isn't huge against anti tank fire. It's not supposed to be. However they have a chance at surviving a lascannon wound and lascannon fire does a lot of overkill on them that you'd rather be on other things (like terasect vault). Plus with reanimation. If I only had say 8 LC in my army and everything else wasnt in range. There is no way I am shooting at those destroyers. Could kill 2 of them and they come back to life with full wounds. T5 is a really powerful toughness value. Plus so is 3 wounds.

Aggressors have these same stats but have an additional issue destroyers don't have. Aggressors operate at short range and practically always have to start in the open if they want to do anything during the game. Being short range in this situation is basically like having a -1 armor because you won't like be in cover (at least at some point during the game) where the destroyers would be.

However - I do use aggressors often when I have always counts in cover trait. At 111 points for the unit I feel like I get their value every game while sometimes they hit huge with the chaplain +1 W litany and ultras super doctrine. Durability wise people almost always shoot the intercessors firsts. Because they would rather wound on 4's instead of 5's - esp with flat 2 damage weapons. Basically what I am saying is while they aren't indestructible - they at least have a chance to survive things a primaris marine doesn't.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It is not easy to kill destroyers ether...

I just did the math in my post above, dude. A Devastator Squad can take a squad out pretty handily.

Conversely, compare Destroyers to Aggresors who also come in at 37 points at T5, 3W and a 3+. Do you feel your Aggressors are "extremely durable"? I'm guessing you don't.

Realistically their durability isn't huge against anti tank fire. It's not supposed to be. However they have a chance at surviving a lascannon wound and lascannon fire does a lot of overkill on them that you'd rather be on other things (like terasect vault). Plus with reanimation. If I only had say 8 LC in my army and everything else wasnt in range. There is no way I am shooting at those destroyers. Could kill 2 of them and they come back to life with full wounds. T5 is a really powerful toughness value. Plus so is 3 wounds.

Aggressors have these same stats but have an additional issue destroyers don't have. Aggressors operate at short range and practically always have to start in the open if they want to do anything during the game. Being short range in this situation is basically like having a -1 armor because you won't like be in cover (at least at some point during the game) where the destroyers would be.

However - I do use aggressors often when I have always counts in cover trait. At 111 points for the unit I feel like I get their value every game while sometimes they hit huge with the chaplain +1 W litany and ultras super doctrine. Durability wise people almost always shoot the intercessors firsts. Because they would rather wound on 4's instead of 5's - esp with flat 2 damage weapons. Basically what I am saying is while they aren't indestructible - they at least have a chance to survive things a primaris marine doesn't.

I would love to live in a meta where I didn't need a third of my points in Aggressors to have any of them left on turn 2. Everyone locally treats them as the highest priority target in the room.

...of course I was stacking the UM super-doctrine and the +3" range trait on them so they were deleting huge chunks of models turn one.

The Newman wrote:
I would love to live in a meta where I didn't need a third of my points in Aggressors to have any of them left on turn 2. Everyone locally treats them as the highest priority target in the room.

...of course I was stacking the UM super-doctrine and the +3" range trait on them so they were deleting huge chunks of models turn one.

Were they being deleted through Transhuman Physiology or were they hitting you with high volume low strength shooting where it wouldn't have helped anyway?

 Ishagu wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

Chaos and Loyalists used to be mirror factions. Very dull way of designing armies, imo. This dates back to when GW couldn't design and produce as many different kits. Note how new kits aren't mirrors of loyalists, or visa versa. They tend to be more divergent and unique.

Should a chaos and a loyalist Predator have the same cost? Maybe. What benefit does a Blood Angels or Black Templar Predator get from chapter tactics?

Look at the amazing psychic powers chaos have access to, typically better and more impactful than the loyalists.

A Chaos Predator has no CT rules but has better psychic support? It can be moved in the Psychic phase, for example.

Again, compare the whole thing, not just the unit.

So you're saying that a chaos predator is equal to a loyalist one because a csm player can spend points on a separate unit, then make a roll, with the chance to perils, for a psychic ability. While the loyalist version gets improved rules through doctrines and chapter tactics just for existing. Doesn't sound equal to me.

And who the flying feth would ever waste warp time on a predator?

Chaos pred still has access to Killshot, right? Regular marine one does not now.

 bullyboy wrote:
Chaos pred still has access to Killshot, right? Regular marine one does not now.

LOL Killshot sucks because Rule of Three completely crippled it. Kill just one Predator (not hard to do) and the other two sit around and do nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You can't compare units in a vacuum in this game.

The Destroyers are better than Havocs, but the army as a whole is not. Overall factions lose and gain ground in different ways.

Except you totally can make these type of comparison. Lets take something even more egregious : Why does a Loyalist Predator cost the same as a Chaos predator (not the hellforged one).
Loyalists gets access to Chapter tactics and easier rerolls.
Chaos gets access to a mark of chaos.

Chaos and Loyalists used to be mirror factions. Very dull way of designing armies, imo. This dates back to when GW couldn't design and produce as many different kits. Note how new kits aren't mirrors of loyalists, or visa versa. They tend to be more divergent and unique.

Should a chaos and a loyalist Predator have the same cost? Maybe. What benefit does a Blood Angels or Black Templar Predator get from chapter tactics?

Look at the amazing psychic powers chaos have access to, typically better and more impactful than the loyalists.

A Chaos Predator has no CT rules but has better psychic support? It can be moved in the Psychic phase, for example.

Again, compare the whole thing, not just the unit.

What do the Black Templar, Blood Angel, and White Scars Predators get? The ability to charge easier and tie up something dangerous, much like you would a Rhino but obviously more expensive.

There ya go, and that ability is free.

So what I've learned from this is that Necrons need to be nerfed, and Marines need buffs.

Armies aren't meant to have units directly compared. We ready have a game where all factions have directly comparable units. It's called chess.

If an army specialises in shooting, close combat units come at a premium, and if an army specialises in close combat, shooty units come at a premium.

Tit for tat comparisons mean nothing when army composition and play styles vary so much.

I've never felt my IG were lacking Daemon Prince equivalents, or cared my Necrons were missing out on an entire phase of the game.

 Sentineil wrote:
So what I've learned from this is that Necrons need to be nerfed, and Marines need buffs.

OR both units actually suck. Big think time. That said Heavy Destroyers are absolutely better and I'd trade Devastators and Havocs for them in a heartbeat. Keeping in mind neither are worth writing home about, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sentineil wrote:

If an army specialises in shooting, close combat units come at a premium, and if an army specialises in close combat, shooty units come at a premium.

Tit for tat comparisons mean nothing when army composition and play styles vary so much.

I've never felt my IG were lacking Daemon Prince equivalents, or cared my Necrons were missing out on an entire phase of the game.

Premium pricing is absolutely the worst model of balance to use. That's why Ogryns and, less so, Bullgryns are just awful.

 Sentineil wrote:
If an army specialises in shooting, close combat units come at a premium, and if an army specialises in close combat, shooty units come at a premium.

I remember this design mentality was specifically called out as an example of what not to do in a game design class I took in college. When you make, say, Tau pay a premium for melee, what happens is that they lean harder into shooting and don't bother wasting points on melee to begin with. That's why the Tau lists you see nowadays are all Riptides, no Kroot.

A properly-balanced game defines an army as shooting-oriented or melee-oriented through design, not by artificially skewing the balance. Case in point, Bullgryns are fairly costed as melee units, but they still exist in an army otherwise specialized into shooting by how much of its roster is devoted entirely to shooting units, how many of its buffs apply to shooting, and how many necessary niches (eg anti-tank and especially anti-Knight) are only fulfilled by shooting. You could, theoretically, use lots of Bullgryns and Catachan traits to make a more melee-oriented AM army, but even the basic infantry are ranged-specialized, and your limited roster means you'd be fighting an uphill battle.

There is no reason you can't directly compare units across armies, as long as you're taking relevant supporting factors (like access to psychic support or stratagems) into account.