Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?

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**

Thats a very well reasoned argument as to why GK don't work and won't work without a fundamental change.
However even making that fundamental change is even more complicated now by the existence of Deathwatch as a standalone codex, which are the true TAC marine +1 faction. Custodes are Marines +2 GK's no longer have a marine + area to play in. They have to go back to being either the loyalist Thousand sons (mass protection focused Pshycic powers or dedicated anti choas.
Before someone suggest making them anti psycher that's SoS thing so you anti doing that either as a specialisation.

**Earth127**

I think most GK players would be fine with them being "TS loyalists" gameplay Wise. Lean into the psychics.

**SHUPPET**

BoomWolf wrote:
Karol wrote:

Quick question. If GW struggles with having enough people doing the rules testing, why don't they do an open beta test and a more limited alfa? The number of people playing the game goes , probably tens of thousends, and with that many people there is no chance people would miss stuff like malific lords or the old soulburst&dark reaper combos. They would save money and time, people would see the rules and could adjust their buying to the armies they like the game play. It would be a nice PR move too, because no one could be able to say that GW is doing some shady stuff with buffing one faction over and over again. Errors would be picked up, before people buy models or the books go to printers. And all for free, because people would love to play with beta rules for GW.

That's a horrible idea because the 40k playerbase consists of just too many crybabies who are either never ever happy, or completely blind to any actual balance (see point where I argued people all through 6th and 7th that the riptide wasn't nearly as broken as they thought at the only issue was specifically the ion accelerator blast profile, and later the riptide wing-backed by mathematical proof that the HBC variant, or the IA without the non-NOVA blast was actually a pretty bad dakka platform)
And GW knows it. they know that any "beta" they could do will be muddied by people who just CANNOT BE PLEASED. they will whine about things in their favorite faction being under-powered even when its mathematically just fine or even slightly above curve, and will whine about things being outright OP even when math proves they are in the lower end of the curve if they come from a faction they dislike.

Its impossible to please everyone and trying to do so only makes things worse.

NOW, back to the question of GK-yes, they are having a serious issue.
But the issue is NOT in power level, or point costs, or unit variety or any of these. these are the symptoms and not the actual issue.
The issue-the real issue-is that they have an identity crisis.

On one hand, its supposed to be an anti-daemon specialist taskforce.
On the other, they are trying to make it a TAC "standard" army (because people demand it)

And the two just CANNOT co-exist. they can be either anti-daemon specialists, or a "TAC magic marine" army. any attempt to do both will result in disaster, either its just WAY too good against daemons and fine against all else, or fine (with a decent yet not overwhelming advantage) against daemons yet utterly underpowered anywhere else.
TAC wants to be "fair against everyone", but then you threw the flavor of anti-daemon specialists out the window.
Specialists wants to be the best at one thing and not good at others.
Both is impossible.

On my opinion? the only way GK are getting "fixed", is if they decide to either throw away the fluff and make them generic "magic marines", or embrace the long-standing age of IoM being the army rather than individual codex and give them true specialist abilities-GREAT against daemons, but weak otherwise. let them be the specialists they are meant to be.
No IoM "codex" has to be stand-alone viable these days. it just needs a reason to exist by having teamups that makes it viable. even if GK are only viable as a secondary force to a bigger IoM army-they are still a thing. a tool in the IoM toolbox.

As for the rest of the rant.
Yes, there IS a lot of unreasonable hate.
GW are not gods, and making a perfectly balanced game is not hard, its outright impossible.
CA2018 fixed a LOT, and improved MUCH. claiming it fixed nothing is being dishoest.
And yes, it didn't fix everything. heck it barely changed anything from the codcies and was mostly index changes-BECUASE IT WAS PRINTED LONG BEFORE MOST CODCIES WERE RELEASED.
If anyone thought, for a second, that CA17 is going to fix GK, he was a fool. there was barely any time, if any, from the release of the GK codex to the printing of CA. and the GK codex-when standing alone in front of the "first four", was totally fine-its the later codcies that showed just how troubled the GK codex was, and by THAT point, it was FAR too late. and CA17 had a lot of ground to cover anyway.
And no, they wont FAQ fix it. you don't do sweeping changes in an FAQ unless something is inherently broken. being weak is not breaking the game. even on the strong scale of things they only made small adjustments because doing otherwise is insane.
The general FAQ did not "nerf" the GK. they were adversely effected by changes that were overall very healthy to the game. the fact they got weaker from it was an unintended side effect of fixing glaring issues that GK happened to be using, but heck other armies made FAR more use of these anyway. comparatively speaking, GK got improved by others taking bigger blows.

Now, will CA18 "fix" GK?
I doubt it. its just not the place to make sweeping changes, and as said point costs CANNOT fix the inherit problem of GK. there simply isn't a point level that could make them fair.
The next iritation of their codex, who I expect to hit at least a year away from now if not two, THAT could fix. because by that point GW had a lot of time to learn how 8th works in the actual field, and experiment with other marine variants to have a better idea what sticks, what doesn't and how to work the numbers and playstyles. at that point GW might be able to give GK a new outlook that might work.
But they are probably afraid to do so, because if you shift towards TAC, you anger the fluff faction that like their GK to be anti-daemon, and if you go the specialists route you anger the "everything must TAC!" crowd. there is just no way to please everyone and they WILL be faced with backlash either way they go, quite possibly more backlash than simply doing nothing (and doing nothing is CHEAP)

sounds like you are one of those people. Riptide was so much more than just a gun. Even with the IAC he was better than most every other MC out there. Such a slanted view to say this variation had less firepower so it's fine. Nope, it's just broken in one less category.

**Cephalobeard**

If we're making psychic adjustments, can we let Tzeentch be a psychic army again?

As fun as it is watching Tsons have all the fun, I'd sure love for my MAGIC DAEMONS to have magic powers again. :^)

**Eldarsif**

Quick question. If GW struggles with having enough people doing the rules testing, why don't they do an open beta test and a more limited alfa?

Alpha is limited to a certain circle of people outside GW, and now they are going to hand us a beta codex in CA2018 so they are technically doing everything you are asking for.

I think the more apparent reason for slipups is that they have been releasing codexes at an unprecedented rate and for me that is one of the big reason things are as they are. The release schedule has been crazy and I imagine that both internal testers and outside "alpha" testers don't have enough time to fully test out things. I even wonder if some of the alpha testers have enough models to test out the extremes(although the rule of 3 should reign that in a bit). I mean, you've just started testing the Necron codex when the Drukhari codex hits, and since alpha testers are often free labor they are not going to find as much time testing as people who get paid to do so 8-10 hours five days a week.

Which brings me to the point I am very excited about. When they've finished releasing the big update to the entire line they can start to tweak things and that's when we'll see how serious they are about balance. CA2018 is the first Chapter Approved that comes out when a lot of units are in a place where they are no longer in an index(except for GSC and SoB).

**nurgle5**

tneva82 wrote:Only thing happened is that GW realized they can accelerate that process from codex to codex to FAQ to FAQ. End result is still same. No balance. It's not in their goal. They don't WANT balance as it hurts the balance of their checkbooks. Less profits for the big bosses.

I'm going to ask again where the Rule of 3 fits in with this theory? Because it effectively limits how many of any given kit a competitive player is likely to buy.

**Reemule**

I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.

**Galef**

nurgle5 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:Only thing happened is that GW realized they can accelerate that process from codex to codex to FAQ to FAQ. End result is still same. No balance. It's not in their goal. They don't WANT balance as it hurts the balance of their checkbooks. Less profits for the big bosses.

I'm going to ask again where the Rule of 3 fits in with this theory? Because it effectively limits how many of any given kit a competitive player is likely to buy.

I'm not saying I agree with the theory the GW is just out to make people keep buying stuff to by making X worthless in the game, so you have to buy Y, BUUUUUUT...

...I could see the rule of 3 limiting how many of X a player buys so that they HAVE to buy Y to fill out their army. And If X is really good right now, in a few months an FAQ might make it not so good and you'll have to got out and buy 3 of Z to replace it.

Again, not saying I agree, but that's how it fits into the theory

Reemule wrote:
I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.

That would certainly help Tacs and Termies, but if they don't also apply it to Chaos Marines, it would not go over well.

-

**Eldarsif**

The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again. For somebody like me who spends too much money on plastic dolls this rule was a god send.

**Reemule**

Galef wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
That would certainly help Tacs and Termies, but if they don't also apply it to Chaos Marines, it would not go over well.

-

I don't feel that its a problem for it to be on heretic astartes. I realize that its REALLY good on Deathguard, and Rubric, but perhaps they get some point adjustment.

Reality though keeps coming back to that the game Has to fix the value proposition of the Hordes durability issue. This basic flaw in the rules continues to screw over any real chance of fixing some models through point revamp.

**nurgle5**

Galef wrote:
I'm not saying I agree with the theory the GW is just out to make people keep buying stuff to by making X worthless in the game, so you have to buy Y, BUUUUUUT...

...I could see the rule of 3 limiting how many of X a player buys so that they HAVE to buy Y to fill out their army. And If X is really good right now, in a few months an FAQ might make it not so good and you'll have to got out and buy 3 of Z to replace it.

But you could sell more of X, Y or Z if there was no limit on how many a player could have in their army. Surely enough competitive players chasing meta would hop from X to Y to Z with every meta shift to make it worthwhile, so why effectively limit how much of each you're gonna sell to those players?

**Earth127**

Or you accept that the basic SM chassis needs a points decrease across all codices that use it.. 11 ppm for base and adjust the specials (weapons/ unit abilities ) as needed.

**WisdomLS**

I haven't read all the thread so don't know if this has been covered before but the Ork codex may give us a few pointers to some changes ahead.

Firstly Boyz have gone up a point, I'm hoping this is part of GW realising that masses of cheap bodies is really powerful and means they may raise guardsmen, cultists, Tzaangors,Zombies and maybe some of the eldar/darkeldar and daemon cheap infantry by a point.

The Orky Killsaw is the same as a chainfist (actually slightly better as they can be used in pairs for +1A) but only costs 15 points. Obviously similar things in different books may be costed differently but the powerclaw which is the same as a powerfist costs 13pts, which is 1pt higher than a fist but orks have an additional attack over marines so it is slightly more effective in their hands. I'm hoping this means a 14pt chainfist.

The basic Meganob before gear is only 20pts, obviously a little different than a terminator with no invuln, slower, worse BS but they do have an extra wound and all the orky rules like re-rolling charges so I'm hoping this may indicate a lowering of the terminators base cost.

Just a few observations, may mean nothing but hopefully.....

**Galef**

nurgle5 wrote:
Galef wrote:
I'm not saying I agree with the theory the GW is just out to make people keep buying stuff to by making X worthless in the game, so you have to buy Y, BUUUUUUT...

...I could see the rule of 3 limiting how many of X a player buys so that they HAVE to buy Y to fill out their army. And If X is really good right now, in a few months an FAQ might make it not so good and you'll have to got out and buy 3 of Z to replace it.

But you could sell more of X, Y or Z if there was no limit on how many a player could have in their army. Surely enough competitive players chasing meta would hop from X to Y to Z with every meta shift to make it worthwhile, so why effectively limit how much of each you're gonna sell to those players?

Probably because GW know "meta chasers" don't buy from them directly anyway, often going for after-market sellers. Or those same "meta-chasers" sell their old X, Y or Z meaning less players overall buy X, Y or Z directly from GW.
So by limiting those players to only want to buy 3 of anything, they have less to sell off when it gets a nerf, thereby limiting the amount of after-market models are available to players and indirectly increasing the amount of players directly buying from GW (because less of X, Y and Z are being sold second hand)

Just a guess. Alternatively, GW could genuinely care about balance and not every rule is meant to increase their bottom line. Which in the long run, increases their bottom line

-

**Xenomancers**

Reemule wrote:
I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.

Pretty sure the issue with power armor is taking a 5+ or no save in far too many situations in which reroll saves of 1 is worthless. Literally - worthless.

If you are taking a 5+ save with reroll 1's you chance of success goes up 1/24. Meanwhile - if you are taking a 2+ save in cover you only fail 1/36 wounds (basically a unit of intercessors would become immortal vs bolt guns.)

It's the wrong way to go.

**nurgle5**

Galef wrote:
Probably because GW know "meta chasers" don't buy from them directly anyway, often going for after-market sellers. Or those same "meta-chasers" sell their old X, Y or Z meaning less players overall buy X, Y or Z directly from GW.
So by limiting those players to only want to buy 3 of anything, they have less to sell off when it gets a nerf, thereby indirectly limiting the amount of after-market models are available to players.

Can you clarify what you mean by after-market sellers? Do you mean like other retailers or getting stuff second hand? Just wanna make sure I have the right end of the stick before I reply!

**Apple Peel**

Reemule wrote:
Galef wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
That would certainly help Tacs and Termies, but if they don't also apply it to Chaos Marines, it would not go over well.

-

I don't feel that its a problem for it to be on heretic astartes. I realize that its REALLY good on Deathguard, and Rubric, but perhaps they get some point adjustment.

Reality though keeps coming back to that the game Has to fix the value proposition of the Hordes durability issue. This basic flaw in the rules continues to screw over any real chance of fixing some models through point revamp.

I don’t know about Rubrics, but do Deathguard really need that Armour benefit? I mean, aren’t most of the new DG plague Marine models amour’s comprised, with their intestines hanging out?

**Spoletta**

Xenomancers wrote:
Reemule wrote:
I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.

Pretty sure the issue with power armor is taking a 5+ or no save in far too many situations in which reroll saves of 1 is worthless. Literally - worthless.

If you are taking a 5+ save with reroll 1's you chance of success goes up 1/24. Meanwhile - if you are taking a 2+ save in cover you only fail 1/36 wounds (basically a unit of intercessors would become immortal vs bolt guns.)

It's the wrong way to go.

Agree and disagree.

As you say, rerolling ones makes power armour really too much hard against small arms, not to mention termies.
Disagree on the problem being the 5+ saves, that's a problem with dissies, which should be resolved on its own.
I don't have a problem when plasma fires into marines, they are supposed to die to that. I have a problem when there are vehicles at 120 points who can delete a tac squad in a single phase.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, 1 reroll one on a 5+ is a 9% increase in durability.

**Reemule**

Earth127 wrote:
Or you accept that the basic SM chassis needs a points decrease across all codices that use it.. 11 ppm for base and adjust the specials (weapons/ unit abilities ) as needed.

But the problem goes back in the race to the base is horde durability issue again comes up.

Not to mention all the problems with 11 point marines invalidate 11 point scouts, so they get repointed to 8 points, that cause scions to get repointed to 6, that cause guards to get repointed to 4, that cause conscripts to get repointed to -1 and you gain points for taking conscripts.

That last line is some snark, but it really is the problem.

GW needs to correct the hordes durability problem. Or Do a double or triple point of the game. Double pointing is where you now play 4K games, and a unit that is now 500, cost 1000 points.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple Peel wrote:
Reemule wrote:
Galef wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
That would certainly help Tacs and Termies, but if they don't also apply it to Chaos Marines, it would not go over well.

-

I don't feel that its a problem for it to be on heretic astartes. I realize that its REALLY good on Deathguard, and Rubric, but perhaps they get some point adjustment.

Reality though keeps coming back to that the game Has to fix the value proposition of the Hordes durability issue. This basic flaw in the rules continues to screw over any real chance of fixing some models through point revamp.

I don’t know about Rubrics, but do Deathguard really need that Armour benefit? I mean, aren’t most of the new DG plague Marine models amour’s comprised, with their intestines hanging out?

Deathguard don't. But the idea is that the majority of power armors do, and so your looking for a comprehensive rule that solves the issue, as well as makes sense in the universe. Its not a good idea to have "astartes Training" that affects all astartes, well except the Deathguard for some reason.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:
Reemule wrote:
I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.

Pretty sure the issue with power armor is taking a 5+ or no save in far too many situations in which reroll saves of 1 is worthless. Literally - worthless.

If you are taking a 5+ save with reroll 1's you chance of success goes up 1/24. Meanwhile - if you are taking a 2+ save in cover you only fail 1/36 wounds (basically a unit of intercessors would become immortal vs bolt guns.)

It's the wrong way to go.

For clarity, your saying Terminators would be immortal right?

And they would. You'd be losing 1 wound 1 out of 36 wounding shots onto them that didn't have an AP modifier of some kind. Intercessors would gain some survivability versus small arms, but not like terminators.

**Galef**

nurgle5 wrote:
Galef wrote:
Probably because GW know "meta chasers" don't buy from them directly anyway, often going for after-market sellers. Or those same "meta-chasers" sell their old X, Y or Z meaning less players overall buy X, Y or Z directly from GW.
So by limiting those players to only want to buy 3 of anything, they have less to sell off when it gets a nerf, thereby indirectly limiting the amount of after-market models are available to players.

Can you clarify what you mean by after-market sellers? Do you mean like other retailers or getting stuff second hand? Just wanna make sure I have the right end of the stick before I reply!

Like eBay. GW gains nothing from models sold and resold on eBay. With the Rule of 3, people who trade in armies whenever the meta changes are more likely to buy a variety of models and when the sell them, it takes less away from GW, especially since eBay buyers may not want units X or Y and are only looking for Z.
If they can't find Z by itself on eBay (because meta chasers are trying to get rid of X Y and Z), they are more likely to buy from GW directly (or from an LGS that gets it from GW)

-

**Daedalus81**

Galef wrote:
Like eBay. GW gains nothing from models sold and resold on eBay. With the Rule of 3, people who trade in armies whenever the meta changes are more likely to buy a variety of models and when the sell them, it takes less away from GW, especially since eBay buyers may not want units X or Y and are only looking for Z.
If they can't find Z by itself on eBay (because meta chasers are trying to get rid of X Y and Z), they are more likely to buy from GW directly (or from an LGS that gets it from GW)

-

There's less on eBay and there is also less the other person needs to buy.

You're jumping through a bunch of silly hoops to make a post hoc justification.

Stop trying to justify nonsense.

**Galef**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Galef wrote:
Like eBay. GW gains nothing from models sold and resold on eBay. With the Rule of 3, people who trade in armies whenever the meta changes are more likely to buy a variety of models and when the sell them, it takes less away from GW, especially since eBay buyers may not want units X or Y and are only looking for Z.
If they can't find Z by itself on eBay (because meta chasers are trying to get rid of X Y and Z), they are more likely to buy from GW directly (or from an LGS that gets it from GW)

-

There's less on eBay and there is also less the other person needs to buy. Stop trying to justify nonsense.

Not trying to justify anything. Just pointing out potential (if far fetched) reasons why the Rule of 3 does not necessarily hurt GWs bottom line. Players are still gonna buy plenty of minis, just not more than 3 of any non-Troop unit.

-

**Xenomancers**

Reemule wrote:
Earth127 wrote:
Or you accept that the basic SM chassis needs a points decrease across all codices that use it.. 11 ppm for base and adjust the specials (weapons/ unit abilities ) as needed.

But the problem goes back in the race to the base is horde durability issue again comes up.

Not to mention all the problems with 11 point marines invalidate 11 point scouts, so they get repointed to 8 points, that cause scions to get repointed to 6, that cause guards to get repointed to 4, that cause conscripts to get repointed to -1 and you gain points for taking conscripts.

That last line is some snark, but it really is the problem.

GW needs to correct the hordes durability problem. Or Do a double or triple point of the game. Double pointing is where you now play 4K games, and a unit that is now 500, cost 1000 points.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple Peel wrote:
Reemule wrote:
Galef wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
That would certainly help Tacs and Termies, but if they don't also apply it to Chaos Marines, it would not go over well.

-

I don't feel that its a problem for it to be on heretic astartes. I realize that its REALLY good on Deathguard, and Rubric, but perhaps they get some point adjustment.

Reality though keeps coming back to that the game Has to fix the value proposition of the Hordes durability issue. This basic flaw in the rules continues to screw over any real chance of fixing some models through point revamp.

I don’t know about Rubrics, but do Deathguard really need that Armour benefit? I mean, aren’t most of the new DG plague Marine models amour’s comprised, with their intestines hanging out?

Deathguard don't. But the idea is that the majority of power armors do, and so your looking for a comprehensive rule that solves the issue, as well as makes sense in the universe. Its not a good idea to have "astartes Training" that affects all astartes, well except the Deathguard for some reason.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:
Reemule wrote:
I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.

Pretty sure the issue with power armor is taking a 5+ or no save in far too many situations in which reroll saves of 1 is worthless. Literally - worthless.

If you are taking a 5+ save with reroll 1's you chance of success goes up 1/24. Meanwhile - if you are taking a 2+ save in cover you only fail 1/36 wounds (basically a unit of intercessors would become immortal vs bolt guns.)

It's the wrong way to go.

For clarity, your saying Terminators would be immortal right?

And they would. You'd be losing 1 wound 1 out of 36 wounding shots onto them that didn't have an AP modifier of some kind. Intercessors would gain some survivability versus small arms, but not like terminators.

The issue with marines is not surviving small arms - they are really effective against small arms (probably a little to costly for the protection you get from it) the issue is -ap weapons. Reroll 1's of saves does not address this because it scales backwards with -ap weapons. The best thing to do is lower cost or increase wounds as this give an overall flat suriviability increase.

**Bharring**

Well, when most of the things built to withstand small arms dies too quickly to anything with AP-1/-2, because they're too common/cheap, perhaps the problem is more the AP-1/-2 and less the defensive properties of the units built to withstand small arms fire?

**Spoletta**

Reemule wrote:
Earth127 wrote:
Or you accept that the basic SM chassis needs a points decrease across all codices that use it.. 11 ppm for base and adjust the specials (weapons/ unit abilities ) as needed.

But the problem goes back in the race to the base is horde durability issue again comes up.

Not to mention all the problems with 11 point marines invalidate 11 point scouts, so they get repointed to 8 points, that cause scions to get repointed to 6, that cause guards to get repointed to 4, that cause conscripts to get repointed to -1 and you gain points for taking conscripts.

That last line is some snark, but it really is the problem.

GW needs to correct the hordes durability problem. Or Do a double or triple point of the game. Double pointing is where you now play 4K games, and a unit that is now 500, cost 1000 points.

Hordes being too durable is an old dakka meme who has been proven mathematically false times and times again.
Take guardsmen at 4 points out of the picture, and you magically discover that no one has issues killing hormagaunts in an efficent way.
A bolter is more efficent against an hormagaunt than against a tac marine, and we are talking about a model that is commonly considered overpriced for it's durability.
If you consider S3 weapons then the comparison becomes ludicrous.
Cultist fair a bit better, but are butchered by morale.

**Xenomancers**

Bharring wrote:
Well, when most of the things built to withstand small arms dies too quickly to anything with AP-1/-2, because they're too common/cheap, perhaps the problem is more the AP-1/-2 and less the defensive properties of the units built to withstand small arms fire?

Ehh - the cost of 3+ armor protection being to expensive is the main problem.

The issue is practically any weapon kills more points of MEQ than GEQ (even 5 point gaurdsmen). It only gets worse with -ap.

The way I see it -
The cost of a W needs to go up and the cost of Armor Saves needs to go down.
or
-AP needs to go up in cost or reduced in effectiveness

Really - ether would work and I don't care how it is addressed.

**Bharring**

Anyone but Space Elves.

Space Elves are actually *bad* at clearing hordes compared to Space Nazis or Space Crazies or Space Bugs. Or even Space Evil Robot Aliens. So if Hordes really were the problem, wouldn't we see less Space Elf supremacy?

**Cinderspirit**

Also think the problem arent marines themselves. They are on a pretty solid ground and where balance should go in my opinion. Just increase the cost on the units everyone plays (cheap standards, Ravagers, Neurotropes, ...) and reduce the cost on stuff no one ever plays (Grey Knights, Bloodcrushers, Tyranid Warriors, Terminators, ...) and we should get there. Maybe takes more than one iteration, but that cant be avoided anyway.

**Daedalus81**

Spoletta wrote:

Hordes being too durable is an old dakka meme who has been proven mathematically false times and times again.
Take guardsmen at 4 points out of the picture, and you magically discover that no one has issues killing hormagaunts in an efficent way.
A bolter is more efficent against an hormagaunt than against a tac marine, and we are talking about a model that is commonly considered overpriced for it's durability.
If you consider S3 weapons then the comparison becomes ludicrous.
Cultist fair a bit better, but are butchered by morale.

No one really has trouble killing models.

The issue is that the units don't flee. Cultists have terrible morale, but are almost always pinned up by Abaddon.

People can take weapons that chew through them quickly, but then those weapons go through marines even faster than that.

So, what then is the incentive for using marines?

Note that I'm not taking a stance here, but just clarifying the points.

**Xenomancers**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:

Hordes being too durable is an old dakka meme who has been proven mathematically false times and times again.
Take guardsmen at 4 points out of the picture, and you magically discover that no one has issues killing hormagaunts in an efficent way.
A bolter is more efficent against an hormagaunt than against a tac marine, and we are talking about a model that is commonly considered overpriced for it's durability.
If you consider S3 weapons then the comparison becomes ludicrous.
Cultist fair a bit better, but are butchered by morale.

No one really has trouble killing models.

The issue is that the units don't flee. Cultists have terrible morale, but are almost always pinned up by Abaddon.

People can take weapons that chew through them quickly, but then those weapons go through marines even faster than that.

So, what then is the incentive for using marines?

Note that I'm not taking a stance here, but just clarifying the points.

Yes - exactly my point.