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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry you are miss understanding me. Talking about 8.0 marine codex - not 8.5. 8.5 they are top teir - no doubt about it. They aren't the only top teir army though.

They are an A army no matter what faction you play too. Some of them are A+ though - like Iron hands and Salamanders. There are other A armies though. Custdians/DE/CWE/CSM are all A armies too. Orks Tau and Admech are armies that can place highly too and win lots of games. Any one of these armies can win a 25-50 man tornament and it's not a surpise. It is actually a sign of a healthy balance between these armies. Basically the marine complaining should have stopped by now. Complain about individual units at this point...if you must complain.

Ahh ok, then I apologise, I had assumed you were talking about the current meta. I agree the 8.5 dex was a big uplift. Shame nobody else got one.

DE and CWE are not A armies right now though, neither are Tau. Xenos are occasionally doing well with gimmick or skew lists but that's about it. The only exception is Harlequins, though you could argue that their only list option -is- a gimmick skew list by default.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

I guess 7th didn't happen where Eldar could pick almost any unit in the codex and over power most other lists.

You are correct. This did not happen.

 Alwrath wrote:
This Ork GT second place winner is my hero, it proves half the whiners on Dakka are just internet trolls who dont actually play the game, and just cry " Space Marines are OP cause they get all the shiny new stuff ", meanwhile, in some 28 year olds dark mother's basement, another guy runs home with all his space marine models crying after losing to an Ork list. Cause you know, Orks are OP in 8th apparently...

One win isn't enough. Don't be disingenuous.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I love these comments from people who have clearly never attended a tournament in their life. Seriously, actually go to one - just once - before making implications like the one you just did. There's ALWAYS a ton of players who are extremely casual or outright new. Tournaments are a great experience and great atmosphere for people of all skill levels. People go just to SPECTATE, this idea that players on their first army or new to their army aren't attending tourneys is a myth. That goes for most games. It's how I learned MTG, I knew I was gonna get the mop, I still went down every Friday and Saturday, interacted with the community, built up my collection, and learned the deeper aspects of the game and what I needed to do to improve. Even though it took months for me just to break the top half we all kept attending. I met players on a similar level to me, we became friends, practiced amongst each other and discussed what we needed to do to reach that dream of 1st place finish. Having tournament's available weekly is a newer phenomena for 40k, and it seems some players still sitting at home have a completely misguided idea of who is actually attending these things. Go to a major event, take a look at the lower tables, not just the top ones, and have a look at which army is most prevalent. Space Marines have the more entry level players than any other faction at every event, to dispute this is to completely misunderstand the amount of work GW has dedicated to achieving this goal over the years, the last 2 especially. Win rate as a statistic is an unreliable balance measure at the BEST of times (and just thinking about it for more than 10 seconds should tell you why), but even more so for SM.

You are also wrong about winrate. With enough data collected it is literally the best metric to determine army power lvl. Top tournament placements is the other.
Low win rate with high tournament placements suggests an army is random or difficult to play.
High winrate but low torny placements suggest the army has a bad matchup with another strong meta contender.
Low win rate and low tournament placements suggest they army is underpowered.
Obviously high winrate and high tournament placements suggest the army is overpowered.

Which category do marines fall in here in 8th?
Clearly the low/low category.

At the start of 8th, for about the first 5-6 months, Space Marines were the best in the game thanks to girlyman being OP as all hell, and thanks to Stormravens.

When SMs were at their lowest point (mid 8th) they were still doing average.

And then at the end of 8th? Or as you call it 8.5, Yeah....SM's were OP borderline unbeatable.

So I would say that they were high/high or at worst high/mid at the absolute worst, no way were they low win rate and low placement. As far as being dragged down by newbies and fluffy lists? yeah, i've seen it at major events and in local events. I've watched a kid (18-20ish) play his first ever event at a GT with a SM smurf list which contained no less than 40 tactical Marines and a host of Predators. Why? because it was his fluffy list and he liked his army. He got steam rolled at the event but still had fun.

I've seen other factions do that as well, but never as often as SM players. You literally have guys playing who bring the closest approximation to a SM company as the event will allow, because they would never play anything besides X company of X Chapter. I personally love their enthusiasm even if they do have no real chance at winning.

Dudeface wrote:


Maybe just remove rerolls and repoint aggressors? Or remove fire twice? Or reduce their shot count? All are better than messing everyones profiles around against the fluff.

Because Marines shouldn't be able to handle hordes? Can you make a TAC list without Aggressors, Eradicators, and/or Inceptors? Can it actually TAC? A few posts up you just made half the point I've been making. Does it matter if they roll X dice because of their shots or because of their rerolls? Does it matter if it's one unit doing X shots, or the whole army doing those X shots in addition to their own? A low model count TAC army needs to have some number Y (I don't know what that is, and it depends on other factors) of attacks and dice rolls to be balanced against a high model count army. Taking away the dice SM need isn't (necessarily?) balance. If you want to double (or so) the dice Non-rerolling Non-double tapping Aggressors, Dreads, Terminators, Intercessors and Tactical Marines throw out to maintain that Y number of shots per game I can get behind that. At that point it's not all the anti-infantry eggs in one or two baskets but almost the entire army is able to do the job which is probably a better design.

Niiru wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

I guess 7th didn't happen where Eldar could pick almost any unit in the codex and over power most other lists.

You are correct. This did not happen.

Yeah. From what I recall, 7th edition craftworlder cheese was mostly...
*Scatbikes
* Wraith knights
* Warp spiders
* Maybe wraithguard (but they were mostly an anti-knight unit)
* I guess farseers making invisible deathstars, but that was really more of an issue with invisibility.

1 LoW, 2 fast attacks, maybe 1 elite, and a psychic power that was a problem in every army that could utilize the telepathy discipline is a farcry from "any unit in the codex."

Most 7th edition craftworld units were good enough to work in a casual environment; there weren't a lot of stinkers, but every competitive list I remember spammed the above units in some combination. If you were getting wrecked by dire avengers and striking scorpions and vypers, it wasn't because of their amazing stats.

And some decent formations as I recall. Yeah Eldar had some pain in the arse units. But also had a fair few units that felt weak without having repeated buffs slapped on them. If you gave any unit pre 8th re-roll hits and wounds they'd be a killer.

cody.d. wrote:
And some decent formations as I recall. Yeah Eldar had some pain in the arse units. But also had a fair few units that felt weak without having repeated buffs slapped on them. If you gave any unit pre 8th re-roll hits and wounds they'd be a killer.

I might be misremembering, but I feel like most eldar lists primarily just used the CAD (the default pseudo-batallion) detachment. The Aspect Host formation was good (take 3 aspect squads; give them all 1 better WS or BS), but that generally didn't make a reasonable unit OP. Dire Avengers hitting on 2s just wasn't that big a deal. Fire dragons were generally already blowing up whatever tank they shot at (I kind of miss that), so the extra BS was usually just icing on the cake. 7th was weird in that there was such a huge disparity between competitive and non-competitive units that even a powerful boost like the aspect host could seem relatively reasonable if you put it on a non-competitive unit. So aspect host warp spiders were really good because warp spiders were already really good. But aspect host striking scorpions and howling banshees could be seen as a friendly pick for casual games.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Maybe just remove rerolls and repoint aggressors? Or remove fire twice? Or reduce their shot count? All are better than messing everyones profiles around against the fluff.

Because Marines shouldn't be able to handle hordes? Can you make a TAC list without Aggressors, Eradicators, and/or Inceptors? Can it actually TAC? A few posts up you just made half the point I've been making. Does it matter if they roll X dice because of their shots or because of their rerolls? Does it matter if it's one unit doing X shots, or the whole army doing those X shots in addition to their own? A low model count TAC army needs to have some number Y (I don't know what that is, and it depends on other factors) of attacks and dice rolls to be balanced against a high model count army. Taking away the dice SM need isn't (necessarily?) balance. If you want to double (or so) the dice Non-rerolling Non-double tapping Aggressors, Dreads, Terminators, Intercessors and Tactical Marines throw out to maintain that Y number of shots per game I can get behind that. At that point it's not all the anti-infantry eggs in one or two baskets but almost the entire army is able to do the job which is probably a better design.

Marines can handle hordes without a unit firing nearly 200 shots. Simply put it's beyond excessive.

Orks historically have high shot output to offset their horrendous ballistic skill. 30 boyz is 60 ranged shots for chaff clearing. Wyverns are a premier horde killer with 4d6 shots, as are traditional missile launcher squads. Mortar units, even maxing heavy support slots do 9d6 shots or 54 against a horde.

Those are horde/chaff clearing units. Auto bolt rifles are assault 3, a unit of 10 throws out 30 shots, thats an anti infantry weapon.

Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.

With that knowledge, you could limit them to units of 3, make them only get the double shots against 1 target ala eradicators and they might begin to be OK, but 3 aggressors at 135 points doing as many shots at 3 wyverns is excessive.

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Maybe just remove rerolls and repoint aggressors? Or remove fire twice? Or reduce their shot count? All are better than messing everyones profiles around against the fluff.

Because Marines shouldn't be able to handle hordes? Can you make a TAC list without Aggressors, Eradicators, and/or Inceptors? Can it actually TAC? A few posts up you just made half the point I've been making. Does it matter if they roll X dice because of their shots or because of their rerolls? Does it matter if it's one unit doing X shots, or the whole army doing those X shots in addition to their own? A low model count TAC army needs to have some number Y (I don't know what that is, and it depends on other factors) of attacks and dice rolls to be balanced against a high model count army. Taking away the dice SM need isn't (necessarily?) balance. If you want to double (or so) the dice Non-rerolling Non-double tapping Aggressors, Dreads, Terminators, Intercessors and Tactical Marines throw out to maintain that Y number of shots per game I can get behind that. At that point it's not all the anti-infantry eggs in one or two baskets but almost the entire army is able to do the job which is probably a better design.

Marines can handle hordes without a unit firing nearly 200 shots. Simply put it's beyond excessive.

Orks historically have high shot output to offset their horrendous ballistic skill. 30 boyz is 60 ranged shots for chaff clearing. Wyverns are a premier horde killer with 4d6 shots, as are traditional missile launcher squads. Mortar units, even maxing heavy support slots do 9d6 shots or 54 against a horde.

Those are horde/chaff clearing units. Auto bolt rifles are assault 3, a unit of 10 throws out 30 shots, thats an anti infantry weapon.

Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.

With that knowledge, you could limit them to units of 3, make them only get the double shots against 1 target ala eradicators and they might begin to be OK, but 3 aggressors at 135 points doing as many shots at 3 wyverns is excessive.

Especially as, for the points, and taking into account the widespread access to rerolls and doctrines and other buffs, means those "overkill anti-horde" shots also absolutely murder expensive elite units like Harlequins and ... well pretty much anything really.

120pts of aggressors can wipe out 160-180 points of harlequins in a single shooting phase. This is with zero rerolls, add in rerolls and you get it up to 220-240 points dead.

Or, once the 12" flamers come out, a Salamander unit can walk in from a table edge and kill... around 500 points of harlequins in a single shooting phase. (I use Harlequins for these, but its no better for any other units)

Upping the toughness to a Wraithguard (T6, 3W, 3+/4++) on the normal boltstorm guys, still gets you 2 dead wraiths (so 80 points, still a respectable return on a 120pt unit for one turn of shooting against their worst target). The Salamander unit puts that up to 4 dead Wraiths, so that's... 160 points of return. (Again, this is with no rerolls).

So yeh, even without rerolls these guys murder hordes, elite infantry, and heavy infantry. And as T6 is also the toughness of a lot of Eldar (and other) light vehicles, they can do a fair chunk of damage to them too if need be.

Weight of dice does damage. And they just throw too many dice. They don't really need the double-shoot, especially not for free. At best, it should be a stratagem (like it is for most other people, except Eldar who don't get one for... reasons).

Dudeface wrote:


Marines can handle hordes without a unit firing nearly 200 shots. Simply put it's beyond excessive.

How? What's the list?

Orks historically have high shot output to offset their horrendous ballistic skill. 30 boyz is 60 ranged shots for chaff clearing. Wyverns are a premier horde killer with 4d6 shots, as are traditional missile launcher squads. Mortar units, even maxing heavy support slots do 9d6 shots or 54 against a horde.

Those are horde/chaff clearing units. Auto bolt rifles are assault 3, a unit of 10 throws out 30 shots, thats an anti infantry weapon.

with 3/4 the range, and no armor pen. 8.4 damage vs T4 6+ vs 6.7 vs T4 6+
11 vs Gaunts vs 9 vs gaunts.
Grey Knights Strike Squads with Rapid Firing Storm Bolters for ~60% of Terminators will get 15.
Your Infantry squad is going to... 16*.5*.5*.84 3.36 + 3 *.5*.67= 1 +3.36 = 4.36 per 60 points which is .7 and change per 10 points, and 14.5 per 200 points
Two of those Tempestus Squads is going to do 24*.67*.67 = 7.184 14 just off the Volleys with another 3.35x2 if you want to decide the 18" Hot Shots are in range or out. As that's actually about 110% of the points costs.. about 12.6 and 3.01 per 200 points
In your defense, and something I've already pointed out, Guard got screwed by the CP/Detachment changes making the exact same mistake they made in 8th, just going the other direction. Because you can't take multiple troop choices per slot, or take larger troop choices per slot, you have to take more slots which costs you CP. But that's GW being stupid with CP generation/list building not an issue with table balance.

Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.

So the new tank that's going to throw out 40? What difference does it make if it's one model, one unit, or an aggregate across the army?

With that knowledge, you could limit them to units of 3, make them only get the double shots against 1 target ala eradicators and they might begin to be OK, but 3 aggressors at 135 points doing as many shots at 3 wyverns is excessive.

Don't wyverns have +1T, +8W, more than double the range, and indirect fire? How many shots per point is a guard army getting? Militarum Tempestus with 4 Hot Shot volleys will get 20-25 for just over 100 points. 10 Intercessors get 10-20 shots for 200. SM are getting one shot per 10 points or so out of their troop slots, Guard are getting closer to 1 shot per 5. And yes, those shots are less effective. They are not half as effective. A regular Infantry Squad with a Heavy Bolter will get 11-18 shots per 60 or so points. Almost 1 shot per 3 points on your basic troop type.

Dudeface 791574 10937260 wrote:



Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.

With that knowledge, you could limit them to units of 3, make them only get the double shots against 1 target ala eradicators and they might begin to be OK, but 3 aggressors at 135 points doing as many shots at 3 wyverns is excessive.

But isn't the difference the point costs of units? orks or IG can afford to have a separate option for anti tank, anti horde, that does nothing to something else, because their basic troops cost a few points. SM either need a unit like erdictors, which kills tanks and HQ by looking at them, or they need units that are great vs horde , but still have the number of shots to kill heavy infantry or light vehicles. Otherwise if a marine players goes second and loses his specific units, then they may as well stop playing the game at all, because the disadventage is too big if your army is specilised. Isn't just a SM thing either. If someone kills the HQs in a GK army turn 1, or in a custodes army the same thing happens.

"Dear Games workshop. Rock is Op. Paper is fine - Sincerly scissors"

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 791574 10937260 wrote:



Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.

With that knowledge, you could limit them to units of 3, make them only get the double shots against 1 target ala eradicators and they might begin to be OK, but 3 aggressors at 135 points doing as many shots at 3 wyverns is excessive.

But isn't the difference the point costs of units? orks or IG can afford to have a separate option for anti tank, anti horde, that does nothing to something else, because their basic troops cost a few points. SM either need a unit like erdictors, which kills tanks and HQ by looking at them, or they need units that are great vs horde , but still have the number of shots to kill heavy infantry or light vehicles. Otherwise if a marine players goes second and loses his specific units, then they may as well stop playing the game at all, because the disadventage is too big if your army is specilised. Isn't just a SM thing either. If someone kills the HQs in a GK army turn 1, or in a custodes army the same thing happens.

How is this unique to Marines?

In fact Marines are the most resistant to this problem because they are the easiest army to build an effective list. You can quite happily have anti-horde, anti-tank and anti-elite equally and strongly represented in a Marine army without many real issues or having to make any real sacrifices. This is in complete contrast to almost every other army, including ones which are considered powerful, that have to make serious concessions somewhere. A Craftworld army cannot have all 3 of those anti-things represented in their army without all of them being diluted down and becoming completely ineffective. A CWE list can kind of keep up with an 8.5 Marine army by building heavily into anti-MEQ weaponry, but they have to do that at the expense of any sort of anti-horde. It's why throughout 8th, even when Aeldari were at their scariest vs some of the tougher types of army lists, just putting down an Ork or GSC horde could cause them to automatically lose. You either go for anti-vehicle/elite or you go for anti-horde. You absolutely cannot do all 3 and so you always face a tough balancing act in list construction.

Marines, by design and throughout many editions, do not and have never had this problem. Disregarding the current Codex and whatever power level it might be at, this is not something Marines ever struggle with.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.

So the new tank that's going to throw out 40? What difference does it make if it's one model, one unit, or an aggregate across the army?

In general, the problem most people are complaining about is the sheer number of dice being rolled. Aggressors are simply the most egregious example of it. I think most people feel the same way about something like the attacks from a horde of Ork Boyz as well, but at least you have to work a bit harder to achieve that and it happens less often in the real world.

There is a fundamental problem if it's concentrated in one unit, though, and that comes down to buffs. If one unit is getting nearly 150 shots before re-rolls any buffs applied to that unit are going to be multiplied much more than if you have the same aggregate number of shots but spread across a whole army. It's not difficult to get most of your army covered by a CM and Lt buff, but any stratagems become extremely difficult to balance when it could apply to a unit pumping out 144 shots or one firing 30.

Incidentally, as a Necron and DE player that 30-shot number is close to the highest number of shots I can ever get from a single unit, while Aggressors can get 24 from a single model, and you think that's absolutely fine? In fact, I just counted up the total number of shots in my Necron army and it barely totals more than a single unit of Aggressors pumps out in 1 turn. And that Aggressor is more accurate and gets more buffs than my shots get.

The change to the wounding chart in 8th also caused a problem by flattening the damage curve, which means volume of fire is now king in 40k. that means the moment you start handing out huge numbers of shots to units not only are they excellent at removing chaff, they become excellent at killing anything. Aggressors don't care if the target is 30 Ork Boyz, a squadron of Land Speeders or a single plane, they kill all of them just as easily because getting over 100 hits with pretty much any weapon in the game (never mind a S4 AP-1 weapon) will bring anything down. Refactoring rules to reduce the total number of shots is one way to help balance this problem.

I think at this point the problem is you seem blind to the possibility that there are other ways to balance units and make them effective without just giving them more shots. I mean, the title of this whole thread is asking what makes Eradicators so good - a unit universally acknowledged as broken by pretty much anyone with any semblance of knowledge or experience of the game (barring the usual SM defenders, of course). It seems as though that wasn't a genuine question asked in good faith.

Slipspace wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.

So the new tank that's going to throw out 40? What difference does it make if it's one model, one unit, or an aggregate across the army?

In general, the problem most people are complaining about is the sheer number of dice being rolled. Aggressors are simply the most egregious example of it. I think most people feel the same way about something like the attacks from a horde of Ork Boyz as well, but at least you have to work a bit harder to achieve that and it happens less often in the real world.

There is a fundamental problem if it's concentrated in one unit, though, and that comes down to buffs. If one unit is getting nearly 150 shots before re-rolls any buffs applied to that unit are going to be multiplied much more than if you have the same aggregate number of shots but spread across a whole army. It's not difficult to get most of your army covered by a CM and Lt buff, but any stratagems become extremely difficult to balance when it could apply to a unit pumping out 144 shots or one firing 30.

Incidentally, as a Necron and DE player that 30-shot number is close to the highest number of shots I can ever get from a single unit, while Aggressors can get 24 from a single model, and you think that's absolutely fine? In fact, I just counted up the total number of shots in my Necron army and it barely totals more than a single unit of Aggressors pumps out in 1 turn. And that Aggressor is more accurate and gets more buffs than my shots get.

And I would say that's probably an issue that needs to be fixed. And probably a reason why Necrons were doing so poorly.

The change to the wounding chart in 8th also caused a problem by flattening the damage curve, which means volume of fire is now king in 40k.

Volume of Fire was king long before that.

that means the moment you start handing out huge numbers of shots to units not only are they excellent at removing chaff, they become excellent at killing anything. Aggressors don't care if the target is 30 Ork Boyz, a squadron of Land Speeders or a single plane, they kill all of them just as easily because getting over 100 hits with pretty much any weapon in the game (never mind a S4 AP-1 weapon) will bring anything down. Refactoring rules to reduce the total number of shots is one way to help balance this problem.

And create another one.

I think at this point the problem is you seem blind to the possibility that there are other ways to balance units and make them effective without just giving them more shots.

Taking away attacks necessary for low model counts to be able to address high model counts sure isn't going to do it. And I asked if people wanted to give more shots to the rest of the SM Army to make up for these lost shots, but still keep enough shots for a TAC list to actually TAC. But sure, I'm the blind one.

I mean, the title of this whole thread is asking what makes Eradicators so good - a unit universally acknowledged as broken by pretty much anyone with any semblance of knowledge or experience of the game (barring the usual SM defenders, of course). It seems as though that wasn't a genuine question asked in good faith.

Nothing like a little out of context well poisoning. They're slow, short to mid ranged. I still didn't see it - when comparing them to a 2 shot MM speeder -until someone pointed out there's a strat to deep strike them, and I figured out they could cluster with G Man for bonus movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I also pointed out that the difference between a 50 point Custode and a 5 point Grot or an 8 point boy should probably shrink some so the low model count armies get a few more slightly less capable ones, while the high model counts get slightly fewer (but still lots of) slightly more capable ones.

Breton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.

So the new tank that's going to throw out 40? What difference does it make if it's one model, one unit, or an aggregate across the army?

In general, the problem most people are complaining about is the sheer number of dice being rolled. Aggressors are simply the most egregious example of it. I think most people feel the same way about something like the attacks from a horde of Ork Boyz as well, but at least you have to work a bit harder to achieve that and it happens less often in the real world.

There is a fundamental problem if it's concentrated in one unit, though, and that comes down to buffs. If one unit is getting nearly 150 shots before re-rolls any buffs applied to that unit are going to be multiplied much more than if you have the same aggregate number of shots but spread across a whole army. It's not difficult to get most of your army covered by a CM and Lt buff, but any stratagems become extremely difficult to balance when it could apply to a unit pumping out 144 shots or one firing 30.

Incidentally, as a Necron and DE player that 30-shot number is close to the highest number of shots I can ever get from a single unit, while Aggressors can get 24 from a single model, and you think that's absolutely fine? In fact, I just counted up the total number of shots in my Necron army and it barely totals more than a single unit of Aggressors pumps out in 1 turn. And that Aggressor is more accurate and gets more buffs than my shots get.

And I would say that's probably an issue that needs to be fixed. And probably a reason why Necrons were doing so poorly.

Just so we're clear here, do you mean the problem is with the Necrons and not the unit that can output more firepower than an entire army?

It's realistically speaking probably both.

Slipspace wrote:

Breton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Aggressors throwing out 24 shots each against a horde is simply excessive. The problem people complain about is the time the dice take, the root cause is the volume of shots. There is no need for that many shots per model.

So the new tank that's going to throw out 40? What difference does it make if it's one model, one unit, or an aggregate across the army?

In general, the problem most people are complaining about is the sheer number of dice being rolled. Aggressors are simply the most egregious example of it. I think most people feel the same way about something like the attacks from a horde of Ork Boyz as well, but at least you have to work a bit harder to achieve that and it happens less often in the real world.

There is a fundamental problem if it's concentrated in one unit, though, and that comes down to buffs. If one unit is getting nearly 150 shots before re-rolls any buffs applied to that unit are going to be multiplied much more than if you have the same aggregate number of shots but spread across a whole army. It's not difficult to get most of your army covered by a CM and Lt buff, but any stratagems become extremely difficult to balance when it could apply to a unit pumping out 144 shots or one firing 30.

Incidentally, as a Necron and DE player that 30-shot number is close to the highest number of shots I can ever get from a single unit, while Aggressors can get 24 from a single model, and you think that's absolutely fine? In fact, I just counted up the total number of shots in my Necron army and it barely totals more than a single unit of Aggressors pumps out in 1 turn. And that Aggressor is more accurate and gets more buffs than my shots get.

And I would say that's probably an issue that needs to be fixed. And probably a reason why Necrons were doing so poorly.

Just so we're clear here, do you mean the problem is with the Necrons and not the unit that can output more firepower than an entire army?

Yes Breton is inferring that "make it shoot more" is the answer to necrons.

Edit: just to clarify as well, being able to score over 90 wounds with all the rerolls against termagants is apparently the only way marines can handle those low ranked npc races. That's a the Aggressors paying for themselves and their support vs basic gaunts, or nearly double that if they were lucky to find 90 devourer gaunts.

The fact this is impossible because they can reliably kill more light infantry than they can actually target just emphasises the issue with that volume of shots.

Make them cheaper, fire less, problem solved. The same doesn't quite work for eradicators admittedly.

Slipspace wrote:


Just so we're clear here, do you mean the problem is with the Necrons and not the unit that can output more firepower than an entire army?

I wouldn't say either are the root problem, but I'd say Necrons being underserved is a bigger symptom than Aggressors being overserved. If you take away Aggressors from Marines, Necrons aren't going to do any better, and by all accounts Necrons are bad right now, and in desperate need of this upcoming make-over.

If a Full Knight list is 4 models, and a horde list is 150+ (Just for argument's sake I'm not picking hard and fast numbers, just for a common ground for discussion)

Let's say for example's sake a Custodes list averages 30 modes, a SM list averages 50 models and the Something Else Army numbers about 150...

Well first off the Knights list is screwed. They have four models in a game that frequently has six objectives and objectives are roughly half the winning points.

A TAC Custodes List has to be able to deal with 50 marines, or 150 something elses. Now the difference between 30 Custodes and 50 marines is pretty small. Each Custode only needs 2ish "actions" for lack of a better word to at least address (not necessarily successful but at least have a chance at) each Marine. They need 5 "actions" to address each Something Else.

What is your Necron list at? 60ish? You need 2 and a half "actions" per your model, and you need what 3 actions (2/3 hit, so you need of the two one wounds) per their model for an on average positive result? Thus you need 2.5*3 7.5 actions per model over a 5 turn game to half the time kill and half the time not kill 150 "enemy" models. And that number goes up as you lose models before they get their 7.5 actions per 5 turn game even if you're only losing at the normal T4 3+ Reanimation etc rate.

Breton wrote:

I wouldn't say either are the root problem, but I'd say Necrons being underserved is a bigger symptom than Aggressors being overserved.

Disagree. Necrons being bad is bad for Necron players. Marines being OP is bad for everybody not playing Marines, which includes the Necron players.

Fixing Marines may not fix all the issues that Necrons have but it will make those problems less of an issue than they were before, which then makes it easier to fix the Necrons.

If you bring the Necrons up to Marine levels of power then congratulations! Now everyone not at that level has to deal with 2 armies who are on a completely other level in terms of capability. In other words you make the game better for Necrons, the same for Marines and worse for literally everyone else as now there's 2 armies which are crazy strong compared to them as opposed to the 1 they had to deal with before.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Breton wrote:

I wouldn't say either are the root problem, but I'd say Necrons being underserved is a bigger symptom than Aggressors being overserved.

Disagree. Necrons being bad is bad for Necron players. Marines being OP is bad for everybody not playing Marines, which includes the Necron players.

Will Necrons suddently become good if Aggressors get removed? Or are the reasons they're bad even more indicative of a game wide issue than Aggressors being good?

Breton wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Breton wrote:

I wouldn't say either are the root problem, but I'd say Necrons being underserved is a bigger symptom than Aggressors being overserved.

Disagree. Necrons being bad is bad for Necron players. Marines being OP is bad for everybody not playing Marines, which includes the Necron players.

Will Necrons suddently become good if Aggressors get removed? Or are the reasons they're bad even more indicative of a game wide issue than Aggressors being good?

They may not get good, but they will be better relative to the current top dog and remain the same vs everyone else (who will also now be better relative to the top dog).

Fixing Marines makes everyone better and the power discrepancy is less whilst they wait for their updates to bring them up to that level which now requires less of a jump in power, meaning that the changes will need to be less drastic and so easier to tune to prevent over or undershooting it.

If everyone gets lifted up to Marine levels, then how will it feel to be the army which gets the update last? You've had to wait months/years and during that time the armies you can get fun, competitive games against has gradually dwindled down as everyone reaches a power level you cannot match. That will surely feel great for the people who have spent hundreds of <insert currency here> on their army, countless hours assembling and painting etc.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If everyone gets lifted up to Marine levels, then how will it feel to be the army which gets the update last? You've had to wait months/years and during that time the armies you can get fun, competitive games against has gradually dwindled down as everyone reaches a power level you cannot match. That will surely feel great for the people who have spent hundreds of <insert currency here> on their army, countless hours assembling and painting etc.

I would welcome every army getting buffed to Marine 2.0 levels. The game would be in a vastly better state of balance afterwards and armies are actually interesting to play and tinker with.
If somebody has to wait 2 years for all codizes to finish the cycle, so be it.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If everyone gets lifted up to Marine levels, then how will it feel to be the army which gets the update last? You've had to wait months/years and during that time the armies you can get fun, competitive games against has gradually dwindled down as everyone reaches a power level you cannot match. That will surely feel great for the people who have spent hundreds of <insert currency here> on their army, countless hours assembling and painting etc.

I would welcome every army getting buffed to Marine 2.0 levels. The game would be in a vastly better state of balance afterwards and armies are actually interesting to play and tinker with.
If somebody has to wait 2 years for all codizes to finish the cycle, so be it.

So your pro the game being able to table entire armies in 2-3 turns?
Everyone having an answer to everything, in a 2k list.
Volume of dice being so high you need to use an app to stop rolling dice becoming a 5 minuit affair per unit.
Also you really believe that when Other armies finally get buffed to be able to compete with marines 2.0 that the salt from marine players won't be epic.

Heck i'm looking forward to seeing how salty they are when, Scatter lasers become D2, dissy cannons become 8 shoots each D3.
Burst cannons become 12 shoots each.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If everyone gets lifted up to Marine levels, then how will it feel to be the army which gets the update last? You've had to wait months/years and during that time the armies you can get fun, competitive games against has gradually dwindled down as everyone reaches a power level you cannot match. That will surely feel great for the people who have spent hundreds of <insert currency here> on their army, countless hours assembling and painting etc.

I would welcome every army getting buffed to Marine 2.0 levels. The game would be in a vastly better state of balance afterwards and armies are actually interesting to play and tinker with.
If somebody has to wait 2 years for all codizes to finish the cycle, so be it.

Yeah , Tell that to ork or gsc Players straight to the face

Just singling out the point that marines pay 20is points/shot and guard pay 5: the point is that Units are not killed by shots, but by unsaved wounds and thanks to bolter discipline the marines often enought pay more closely to 10 points per shot, as they can fire at full range.

So if we compare 10 Intersessor (BS3+ 10xRR1, 4/-1/1, 200 points) with 40 Guardsmen (BS4+, 40xRR1, 3/0/1, 200 points) we immediatly see that the Intersessors have a better chance to wound against anything outside of T1, T5, T8+ and a better chance to get this wound through against anything with a 6+ save or better.
Just some examples for "normal Intersessors (I), doubletapping with bolter disciplin (I2) and Guardsmen (G):
against GEQs (T3, 5+): I: 3.7damage, I2: 7.4 damage, G: 8.33
against Boyz: I: 3.33, I2: 6.66, G: 5.55
against Marines: I: 1.66, I2: 3.33, G: 2.22

Note that the difference is much slimmer than the numerical superiority would have you believe.
Now this was calculated in a vacuum, so of course the guardsmen might get double shots from FRFSRF, but they have to be ordered by commanders which can only buff 1-2 squads and are killed pretty easily. The only regimental doctrine that really helps their chance to hit is cadian for reroll 1s.
Simultanously the Marines can get boni for their chapter and various rerolls as well as doctrine. I'm no specialist for marines, but I assume, that these boni have a higher effect than potential boni for the guardsmen.

Also note that while the Guardsmen have indeed more shots for their points, they are also much squishier and worse in CC.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Yeah , Tell that to ork or gsc Players straight to the face

Orks seem to do fine in the current meta with diverse lists placing well in tournaments.

And yes, making it better for everyone in the end at the expense of those who have to wait longer for their update is my way to go. Play a different army, take a break from the game, come back later when it's your turn.

Whats the current alternative that we experience? Your codex update is a hit or miss. You still wait two years and then could be worse off than before.

Not a tough decision for me which way is better.

a_typical_hero wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Yeah , Tell that to ork or gsc Players straight to the face

Orks seem to do fine in the current meta with diverse lists placing well in tournaments.

And yes, making it better for everyone in the end at the expense of those who have to wait longer for their update is my way to go. Play a different army, take a break from the game, come back later when it's your turn.

Whats the current alternative that we experience? Your codex update is a hit or miss. You still wait two years and then could be worse off than before.

Not a tough decision for me which way is better.

No, actually there is a third option, the actually consumer friendly option, GW should release updated rules at once. as they could do but don't.
This makes the situation into an arms race regardless if the endproduct would be balanced. And would allow for actually acurate corrections via CA.
And we know that GW has all the rules ready. So no the waiting is unneded beancounter intervention in order to spread earnings over quartals, due to a lack of faith in the actual product.

Breton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:


Just so we're clear here, do you mean the problem is with the Necrons and not the unit that can output more firepower than an entire army?

I wouldn't say either are the root problem, but I'd say Necrons being underserved is a bigger symptom than Aggressors being overserved. If you take away Aggressors from Marines, Necrons aren't going to do any better, and by all accounts Necrons are bad right now, and in desperate need of this upcoming make-over.

If a Full Knight list is 4 models, and a horde list is 150+ (Just for argument's sake I'm not picking hard and fast numbers, just for a common ground for discussion)

Let's say for example's sake a Custodes list averages 30 modes, a SM list averages 50 models and the Something Else Army numbers about 150...

Well first off the Knights list is screwed. They have four models in a game that frequently has six objectives and objectives are roughly half the winning points.

A TAC Custodes List has to be able to deal with 50 marines, or 150 something elses. Now the difference between 30 Custodes and 50 marines is pretty small. Each Custode only needs 2ish "actions" for lack of a better word to at least address (not necessarily successful but at least have a chance at) each Marine. They need 5 "actions" to address each Something Else.

What is your Necron list at? 60ish? You need 2 and a half "actions" per your model, and you need what 3 actions (2/3 hit, so you need of the two one wounds) per their model for an on average positive result? Thus you need 2.5*3 7.5 actions per model over a 5 turn game to half the time kill and half the time not kill 150 "enemy" models. And that number goes up as you lose models before they get their 7.5 actions per 5 turn game even if you're only losing at the normal T4 3+ Reanimation etc rate.

Why should any army b3 able to just wipe 150 models of the board in 1 or 2 turns?

Breton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:


Just so we're clear here, do you mean the problem is with the Necrons and not the unit that can output more firepower than an entire army?

I wouldn't say either are the root problem, but I'd say Necrons being underserved is a bigger symptom than Aggressors being overserved. If you take away Aggressors from Marines, Necrons aren't going to do any better, and by all accounts Necrons are bad right now, and in desperate need of this upcoming make-over.

Right, so you're saying the root problem isn't that SM have a unit that outputs more firepower than entire armies? I'm not really sure how to respond to that in any sensible manner. You seem to be implying everyone should be at Aggressor levels of lethality. Or, in a broader sense, everyone should be brought up to the level of the most powerful. That's a really bad way to balance a game because it leads to the arms race we saw in 8th edition where lethality spiralled ever upwards to the point you've got people trying to defend the damage output of Aggressors with a straight face.

You also seem obsessed with this idea that Aggressors are the only way for SM to deal with hordes, which is just as absurd. Even were it not, there are plenty of ways to win the game without completely removing entire units in one turn of shooting. Most other armies have to content themselves with using multiple units to remove one enemy unit per turn. The fact SM don't (thanks to units like Aggressors and Eradicators) and think this is somehow normal is the real root of the problem.