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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not saying they were. So can I sell back my assault stats and gear then to make them cheaper?

Min-maxing lists isn't enough? Now people want to min-max individual units? Oh lord...

Tyranids used to do this back in 4th edition.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not saying they were. So can I sell back my assault stats and gear then to make them cheaper?

Min-maxing lists isn't enough? Now people want to min-max individual units? Oh lord...

Not really. I'm pointing out how marines are likely charged for stats that most of them never get to use because of being on the wrong end of a pulse rifle.

But what if they find themselves on the wrong end of a Chaos bolter, or lasgun, or a splinter rifle? Then they may well get to use their assault stats. Do you really want a Marine to be about equal to a Guardsman in combat? That's what would happen if they lost Str and WS 4 and their pistol.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not saying they were. So can I sell back my assault stats and gear then to make them cheaper?

Min-maxing lists isn't enough? Now people want to min-max individual units? Oh lord...

Not really. I'm pointing out how marines are likely charged for stats that most of them never get to use because of being on the wrong end of a pulse rifle.

But what if they find themselves on the wrong end of a Chaos bolter, or lasgun, or a splinter rifle? Then they may well get to use their assault stats. Do you really want a Marine to be about equal to a Guardsman in combat? That's what would happen if they lost Str and WS 4 and their pistol.

Except they'd still have the same number of attacks if they lost their pistol. 1

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not saying they were. So can I sell back my assault stats and gear then to make them cheaper?

Min-maxing lists isn't enough? Now people want to min-max individual units? Oh lord...

Not really. I'm pointing out how marines are likely charged for stats that most of them never get to use because of being on the wrong end of a pulse rifle.

But what if they find themselves on the wrong end of a Chaos bolter, or lasgun, or a splinter rifle? Then they may well get to use their assault stats. Do you really want a Marine to be about equal to a Guardsman in combat? That's what would happen if they lost Str and WS 4 and their pistol.

Except they'd still have the same number of attacks if they lost their pistol. 1

They lose one Str 4 AP 5 swing in the shooting phase (if you want to think about it that way) before they charge.

Can someone explain to me the purpose of Close Combat Weapons in the first place? I asked around and someone said that if you didn't have a close combat weapon, you could still fight in close combat. Well most of these units (like CSM) only have 1 attack anyways AND they already have a bolt pistol too, so they're getting +1 attack.

It becomes even more insulting when you look at a unit like Havocs and you see "Combat Weapons 2pts per model." Why? Wtf for?!

My tactical marines almost always lose CC anyway, so why not pay less for the same result? They even lose to guardsmen and the like because of being outnumbered/shot up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheRedWingArmada wrote:
Can someone explain to me the purpose of Close Combat Weapons in the first place? I asked around and someone said that if you didn't have a close combat weapon, you could still fight in close combat. Well most of these units (like CSM) only have 1 attack anyways AND they already have a bolt pistol too, so they're getting +1 attack.

It becomes even more insulting when you look at a unit like Havocs and you see "Combat Weapons 2pts per model." Why? Wtf for?!

Pistols don't give +1 attack.

Martel732 wrote:
My tactical marines almost always lose CC anyway, so why not pay less for the same result? They even lose to guardsmen and the like because of being outnumbered/shot up.

Well the Guardsmen are paying lots of points for assault stuff too. Sergeants can't even have lasguns, and pay for an extra attack.

so by making units not dedicated to combat pay less for random combat stuff, you're only making shooting better (by making shooting units like tactical marines and guardsmen cheaper) and not helping the problem.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
My tactical marines almost always lose CC anyway, so why not pay less for the same result? They even lose to guardsmen and the like because of being outnumbered/shot up.

Well the Guardsmen are paying lots of points for assault stuff too. Sergeants can't even have lasguns, and pay for an extra attack.

so by making units not dedicated to combat pay less for random combat stuff, you're only making shooting better (by making shooting units like tactical marines and guardsmen better) and not helping the problem.

No, it helps my problem, because now I have more wounds to give in the shooting phase. If assault marines were even cheaper, because they don't work at their current price, then some might actually live to swing at a Tau.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
My tactical marines almost always lose CC anyway, so why not pay less for the same result? They even lose to guardsmen and the like because of being outnumbered/shot up.

Well the Guardsmen are paying lots of points for assault stuff too. Sergeants can't even have lasguns, and pay for an extra attack.

so by making units not dedicated to combat pay less for random combat stuff, you're only making shooting better (by making shooting units like tactical marines and guardsmen better) and not helping the problem.

No, it helps my problem, because now I have more wounds to give in the shooting phase. If assault marines were even cheaper, because they don't work at their current price, then some might actually live to swing at a Tau.

People will simply buy more shooting units with the points saved by WS3, STR3, no pistol tactical marines. So they will also have more guns to shoot your assault marines down with.

Martel732 wrote:


Pistols don't give +1 attack.

They do if you already have another close combat weapon.
Relevant page in BRB is 51, paragraph "Pistols as Close Combat Weapons" and "More Than One Weapon"

But yeah, iin Red Wing's example he needs to buy the ccw unless the guys have 2 pistols to get the extra attack.

You're right, Red Wing, that you can hit without a ccw, but you still only get the baseline amount of attacks for your first ccw. You need a second one. (so yeah, those two points are an extra attack. Cheap, imho)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
My tactical marines almost always lose CC anyway, so why not pay less for the same result? They even lose to guardsmen and the like because of being outnumbered/shot up.

Well the Guardsmen are paying lots of points for assault stuff too. Sergeants can't even have lasguns, and pay for an extra attack.

so by making units not dedicated to combat pay less for random combat stuff, you're only making shooting better (by making shooting units like tactical marines and guardsmen better) and not helping the problem.

No, it helps my problem, because now I have more wounds to give in the shooting phase. If assault marines were even cheaper, because they don't work at their current price, then some might actually live to swing at a Tau.

People will simply buy more shooting units with the points saved by WS3, STR3, no pistol tactical marines. So they will also have more guns to shoot your assault marines down with.

Then assault marines would have to be even cheaper I understand what you are saying. I'm primarily saying that specifically models with only 12" pistols are overcosted in this edition. Although I still think that 14 pt tactical marines don't perform like 14 pt models.

Howling Banshees are charged for everything and will never get to do any of it outside of Killteam because they are useless in the current environment. At least Space Marines have SOME role to play that is functional. No need to rant.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
Howling Banshees are charged for everything and will never get to do any of it outside of Killteam because they are useless in the current environment. At least Space Marines have SOME role to play that is functional. No need to rant.

I agree that banshees got completely hosed. There should be no units hosed like that; banshees should be very cheap in this edition.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
My tactical marines almost always lose CC anyway, so why not pay less for the same result? They even lose to guardsmen and the like because of being outnumbered/shot up.

Well the Guardsmen are paying lots of points for assault stuff too. Sergeants can't even have lasguns, and pay for an extra attack.

so by making units not dedicated to combat pay less for random combat stuff, you're only making shooting better (by making shooting units like tactical marines and guardsmen better) and not helping the problem.

No, it helps my problem, because now I have more wounds to give in the shooting phase. If assault marines were even cheaper, because they don't work at their current price, then some might actually live to swing at a Tau.

People will simply buy more shooting units with the points saved by WS3, STR3, no pistol tactical marines. So they will also have more guns to shoot your assault marines down with.

Then assault marines would have to be even cheaper I understand what you are saying. I'm primarily saying that specifically models with only 12" pistols are overcosted in this edition. Although I still think that 14 pt tactical marines don't perform like 14 pt models.

Making dedicated assault units cheaper is not as bad as making tactical squads cheaper.

That's my primary point. Tactical squads are getting shafted a *lot* less than the poor guys stuck with pistols. Tactical squads are shafted with respect to say dire avengers or fire warriors, because they pay for essentially useless stat boosts, but not nearly as bad as ASM or banshees. ASM and banshees should be very cheap, as they mostly function as target practice.

Martel732 wrote:
That's my primary point. Tactical squads are getting shafted a *lot* less than the poor guys stuck with pistols. Tactical squads are shafted with respect to say dire avengers or fire warriors, because they pay for essentially useless stat boosts, but not nearly as bad as ASM or banshees. ASM and banshees should be very cheap, as they mostly function as target practice.

The only problem with making them cheap is that they are still bad. Other fast attack options are better, cheapness aside.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's my primary point. Tactical squads are getting shafted a *lot* less than the poor guys stuck with pistols. Tactical squads are shafted with respect to say dire avengers or fire warriors, because they pay for essentially useless stat boosts, but not nearly as bad as ASM or banshees. ASM and banshees should be very cheap, as they mostly function as target practice.

The only problem with making them cheap is that they are still bad. Other fast attack options are better, cheapness aside.

Marines, due to their cost, rarely fill their FOC. I'd be grateful for some cheap non-scoring bullet catchers.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's my primary point. Tactical squads are getting shafted a *lot* less than the poor guys stuck with pistols. Tactical squads are shafted with respect to say dire avengers or fire warriors, because they pay for essentially useless stat boosts, but not nearly as bad as ASM or banshees. ASM and banshees should be very cheap, as they mostly function as target practice.

The only problem with making them cheap is that they are still bad. Other fast attack options are better, cheapness aside.

Marines, due to their cost, rarely fill their FOC. I'd be grateful for some cheap non-scoring bullet catchers.

Why not cheap scoring bullet catchers who are still cheaper? (Scouts)

They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

Martel732 wrote:
They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

So how much would you like to pay for ASM, then? If Tacticals are 14, and ASM come with jetpacks (immediately worth more points because of increased mobility), would you pay 16?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

So how much would you like to pay for ASM, then? If Tacticals are 14, and ASM come with jetpacks (immediately worth more points because of increased mobility), would you pay 16?

Not sure. The bolt pistol/CC combo is not as good as a bolter in 6th. Not even close, really. Maybe the same as tacticals. Maybe even 13. They really, really stink.

Like in games like Starcraft, ideally you keep lowering the price until people start using them. This is best done by real time point values using data from games.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

So how much would you like to pay for ASM, then? If Tacticals are 14, and ASM come with jetpacks (immediately worth more points because of increased mobility), would you pay 16?

Not sure. The bolt pistol/CC combo is not as good as a bolter in 6th. Not even close, really. Maybe the same as tacticals. Maybe even 13. They really, really stink.

Sisters are 12, and have -1WS, -1Str, -1T, -1Ld, no jump capability. All of that loss for only a one point decrease?

good god man

EDIT: Also no ATSKNF

EDIT2: Also no deepstrike

Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

So how much would you like to pay for ASM, then? If Tacticals are 14, and ASM come with jetpacks (immediately worth more points because of increased mobility), would you pay 16?

Not sure. The bolt pistol/CC combo is not as good as a bolter in 6th. Not even close, really. Maybe the same as tacticals. Maybe even 13. They really, really stink.

Sisters are 12, and have -1WS, -1Str, -1T, -1Ld, no jump capability. All of that loss for only a one point decrease?

good god man

EDIT: Also no ATSKNF

Sisters are scoring and have an effective range of 30", whereas the Assault Marines have an effective range of 19" (which can fail, leaving them standing around like buffoons) and can't choose to ignore blocking units.

As a person who played both assault strong and shooting strong armies in 5th and 6th, both casually and competitively - I disagree.

I can see how players who did not play a lot of different armies in 5th edition could disagree - I honestly do.

Assault was amazingly powerful in 5th....I loved it - once my nids or marines got into combat, enemies were just toast - they could get zero support from any other unit that was not in counter assault range - this combined with resolution rules and the amazing abilities of ATSKNF - it was the glory days of assault.

However, I also saw many players become over dependent upon it - instead of honing their tactical skill or mastering movement and deployment - (many winning competitive players still say the game is won in the movement phase) they unknowingly hampered their own game by relying upon assault.

Now, in 6th, that things are more balanced - tragically, those players who had become to rely upon it, find themselves feeling very under powered, which is not the case - its just what they have learned is no longer viable.

Assault was OP in 5th, and no longer is.
Has the pendulum swung too far the other way?
I honestly don't feel it has. Sure, a few specific units in some of the new books might make it feel this way (serpent shield, gravgun, etc.) but overall I think that assault, shooting, and more specifically, marines are just fine.

if you want to venture down the path of "paying for abilities not used" then;

* necron ctan shards should get a massive rebate - with only a 4++ save they never last more than a turn.
* Kroot, Guardsmen, termagants, raveners, pathfinders, or any model with 5 or 6 save should get a big points rebate - when the common side arm in the game is S4AP5, a 5+ save is pointless.
* six man squads of firewarriors don't want defensive grenades - their job is to die in the opponents assault - they need a refund.
* a tervigon almost never lives to assault - he could use a refund.
* drednaughts get hull pointed out very quickly due to no armor save - doe they get a refund too?

As far as "being on the wrong end of a pulse rifle" - it will take time, but just as Necrons, GK and wolves before them players will learn how to beat them - either by learning their armies better or just learning tau.

EDIT:
Maybe I am interpreting this wrong...

Marines have an amazing baseline unit, that is good at everything, and gets specialized from there (options make you better at assault, shooting, etc. from the baseline).

If you are saying you don't like the fact that the baseline is so strong, and possibly expensive - then well....sounds like you prefer something other than marines.
thats the point of marines - even their basic guy is an elite compared to other armies basic guy.

Sisters are overcosted as well. There's no denying that for me. A sister should not cost more than a fire warrior I think. Because of the way 6th ed rolls.

ATSKNF has actually lost a lot of its efficacy in my experience. Between marines dying wholesale instead of getting morale rolls and WANTING to be swept by daemons, I actually don't much care for this rule.

davethepak wrote:

Assault was OP in 5th, and no longer is.

See my sig.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

Grey Hunters are also currently 1 pt more than existing Tactical Marines, and their special rules are a wash, with maybe a slight advantage to the tacticals for having two useful ones. Additionally, Grey Hunters were once considered so overpowered that they were the standard by which all other marines were measured.

davethepak wrote:
As a person who played both assault strong and shooting strong armies in 5th and 6th, both casually and competitively - I disagree.

I can see how players who did not play a lot of different armies in 5th edition could disagree - I honestly do.

Assault was amazingly powerful in 5th....I loved it - once my nids or marines got into combat, enemies were just toast - they could get zero support from any other unit that was not in counter assault range - this combined with resolution rules and the amazing abilities of ATSKNF - it was the glory days of assault.

However, I also saw many players become over dependent upon it - instead of honing their tactical skill or mastering movement and deployment - (many winning competitive players still say the game is won in the movement phase) they unknowingly hampered their own game by relying upon assault.

Now, in 6th, that things are more balanced - tragically, those players who had become to rely upon it, find themselves feeling very under powered, which is not the case - its just what they have learned is no longer viable.

Assault was OP in 5th, and no longer is.
Has the pendulum swung too far the other way?
I honestly don't feel it has. Sure, a few specific units in some of the new books might make it feel this way (serpent shield, gravgun, etc.) but overall I think that assault, shooting, and more specifically, marines are just fine.

if you want to venture down the path of "paying for abilities not used" then;

* necron ctan shards should get a massive rebate - with only a 4++ save they never last more than a turn.
* Kroot, Guardsmen, termagants, raveners, pathfinders, or any model with 5 or 6 save should get a big points rebate - when the common side arm in the game is S4AP5, a 5+ save is pointless.
* six man squads of firewarriors don't want defensive grenades - their job is to die in the opponents assault - they need a refund.
* a tervigon almost never lives to assault - he could use a refund.
* drednaughts get hull pointed out very quickly due to no armor save - doe they get a refund too?

As far as "being on the wrong end of a pulse rifle" - it will take time, but just as Necrons, GK and wolves before them players will learn how to beat them - either by learning their armies better or just learning tau.

Assault was never OP in 5th. I never feared it with razorspam BA, nor did many other power lists in 5th.

Martel732 wrote:
Sisters are overcosted as well. There's no denying that for me. A sister should not cost more than a fire warrior I think. Because of the way 6th ed rolls.

ATSKNF has actually lost a lot of its efficacy in my experience. Between marines dying wholesale instead of getting morale rolls and WANTING to be swept by daemons, I actually don't much care for this rule.

Your opinion on ATSKNF is wrong, imo. But to each his own.

So a sister should be what, 11 points?

that's only one point more than carapace armored vets, who are 10 pts but have -1 save and a lasgun

EDIT: And no faith points.

And now we're back around to making shooting units cheaper again.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

Grey Hunters are also currently 1 pt more than existing Tactical Marines, and their special rules are a wash, with maybe a slight advantage to the tacticals for having two useful ones. Additionally, Grey Hunters were once considered so overpowered that they were the standard by which all other marines were measured.

They still are. It's just that their OPness with respect to other meqs doesn't matter because the Taudar just kill them with S6 shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Sisters are overcosted as well. There's no denying that for me. A sister should not cost more than a fire warrior I think. Because of the way 6th ed rolls.

ATSKNF has actually lost a lot of its efficacy in my experience. Between marines dying wholesale instead of getting morale rolls and WANTING to be swept by daemons, I actually don't much care for this rule.

Your opinion on ATSKNF is wrong, imo. But to each his own.

So a sister should be what, 11 points?

that's only one point more than carapace armored vets, who are 10 pts but have -1 save and a lasgun

And now we're back around to making shooting units cheaper again.

As I said, keep making things cheaper until they are actually used by the community. That's the best test. My opinion on ATSKNF is not wrong. It's just not that useful anymore. I live it every time I plunk down meqs.