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.

That and the Doom beat Asuraman in melee, without wounding with his power.

Granted that's just an example of my dice hating me, but stil.

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW seems to assign point values at random.
A Penitent Engine is 85 points, but a Predator is 75?

Huh?

Also, compare a SM to a lot of troops and see the difference in stats and points.

e.g. A Tactical Squad 2pts per model more than a Battle Sister squad.

The Battle Sister squad gets a 6+ invulnerable save, an act of faith (which gives preferred enemy for a turn), and access to a Heavy Flamer.

For 2pts more, the Tactical Squad gets +1WS, +1S, +1T, +1I, ATSKNF, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads, and access to Plasmaguns, Plasma Cannons, Grav Guns and Drop pods. Oh, and Sisters pay an extra 5pts for their Rhino.

I think it's fair to say that SMs are getting a good deal on that one.

 Galorian wrote:
Annihilation Barges are undercosted (to what degree is debatable).

Flayed ones, Lychguard, Praetorians and C'tan shards are all badly overcosted.

This. A thousand times this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Markerlights are obnoxious.
-Wave Serpants are just way too good for anyone to not take.
-C'tan Shards usually end up being MORE expensive than a Riptide, yet nowhere near as survivable
-Scatterlasers need to not exist. I mean seriously, I don't know what GW was thinking with those...
-Grav guns are obnoxious
-TL Devourers are too good NOT to take on everything that can have one (Carnifexes/Hive Tyrants) I actually feel BAD that I use them, since they're really the only good option.
-I personally think the Swarmlord is rather TOO pricey, especially since he lost some stuff from the last codex.
-I don't care what people say, a 3++ on a Dreadnaught is dumb.
-CCB are too good. Like, WAY too good. I feel like "that guy" whenever I use one.

That's all I got for the moment.

A lot of things in the nid codex is pretty bad - not necessarily because the model is bad but the rules don't really support them or how they're supposed to operate. For example, you pay 105 points for raveners with claws that you deepstrike hoping to do some damage, but first they get to endure a round of shooting with a flak armor save. That is, assuming that there is something in synapse range because otherwise 50/50 on failing your IB and could end up wounding yourself.

There's other things too, like loss of eternal warrior on synapse means your 30 point warriors die on a 2+ from cheap krak or other high-strength weapons but that's for another thread (not that it hasn't been said several times before since the 5th-ed book (?) came out)

 vipoid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW seems to assign point values at random.
A Penitent Engine is 85 points, but a Predator is 75?

Huh?

Also, compare a SM to a lot of troops and see the difference in stats and points.

e.g. A Tactical Squad 2pts per model more than a Battle Sister squad.

The Battle Sister squad gets a 6+ invulnerable save, an act of faith (which gives preferred enemy for a turn), and access to a Heavy Flamer.

For 2pts more, the Tactical Squad gets +1WS, +1S, +1T, +1I, ATSKNF, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads, and access to Plasmaguns, Plasma Cannons, Grav Guns and Drop pods. Oh, and Sisters pay an extra 5pts for their Rhino.

I think it's fair to say that SMs are getting a good deal on that one.

Both are overcosted in the current meta but that the SoB are more overcosted than the Tacticals, yes, that is certainly possible.

Of course, 'overcosted' here just means 'not top-tier', but hey, why would you take any unit if there is a better one available?

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned it, but what about a certain 100 point i've been expecting you?

 Ashiraya wrote:

Both are overcosted in the current meta but that the SoB are more overcosted than the Tacticals, yes, that is certainly possible.

Really? You think tacticals are overcosted?

Could you elaborate on that?

 Ashiraya wrote:

Of course, 'overcosted' here just means 'not top-tier', but hey, why would you take any unit if there is a better one available?

Not necessarily. Many of the 'top tier' units are top tier because they're overpowered/undercosted, and thus a terrible measurement for balance.

 vipoid wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

Both are overcosted in the current meta but that the SoB are more overcosted than the Tacticals, yes, that is certainly possible.

Really? You think tacticals are overcosted?

Could you elaborate on that?

 Ashiraya wrote:

Of course, 'overcosted' here just means 'not top-tier', but hey, why would you take any unit if there is a better one available?

Not necessarily. Many of the 'top tier' units are top tier because they're overpowered/undercosted, and thus a terrible measurement for balance.

In order to achieve balance, units must be equally overpowered/undercosted.

This can be done by bringing all units down to Pyrovore level, down/up to Tactical Marine level, or up to Wave Serpent level. No matter the choice, balance is achieved.

For one choosing the latter, Tactical Marines are indeed overcosted, and they do appear such compared to the units that usually hit the table.

It is all very relative.

 Ashiraya wrote:


In order to achieve balance, units must be equally overpowered/undercosted.

This can be done by bringing all units down to Pyrovore level, down/up to Tactical Marine level, or up to Wave Serpent level. No matter the choice, balance is achieved.

Except that the most logical approach is to bring the outliers into line with the more average units.

The thing is, there really isn't much room for making Tactical Marines better - especially since the main way would be to lower their cost.

The thing is, look at all the units that cost less than tactical marines:

Guardsmen, veterans, gaunts, homogaunts, gargoyles, sisters of battle, DE warriors, wyches, trueborn, Necron Warriors, Dire Avengers - and this is far from an exhaustive list.

There are already problems with costing these units, because the costing of tactical marines has left so little room on manoeuvre.

Aside from the fact that the game has already suffered more than enough power-creep, adding more at this level is becoming completely impractical.

If anything, we should be looking to make a lot of units *more* expensive - so that there's more room for fine-tuning point costs.

.

Some tak marines are overcosted, DA for example cost the same but dant get chapter tactics, just stubborn. Seriously, stubborn as well as atsknf. And no grav guns. The standard tac squad needs to be measuring stick for all other infantry, and not all tac squads are created equal.

I feel daemonettes are a bit much as well.

stopcallingmechief wrote:
This is the first time ive ever seen anybody complain that tactical marines are overcosted. Didnt a Tactical marine list just finish second at the BAO? Could not disagree more.

Tactical Marines in the base SM dex survive, since they have access to plasma and grav, combi-weapons, drop pods, chapter tactics and so on stacking up. The pods especially is what makes them persevere in the tournament scene.

They are not good in basis but the above serves as the crutch. For now.

Other equivalents like CSM tacticals pretty much lose the above toys, making them fall apart like a house of cards.

Wasn't 2nd place Eldar, but 5 of the top 10 Marines? With at least one of them fielding 6x10man Tac squads?

 Ashiraya wrote:

Tactical Marines in the base SM dex survive, since they have access to plasma and grav, combi-weapons, drop pods, chapter tactics and so on stacking up. The pods especially is what makes them persevere in the tournament scene.

They are not good in basis but the above serves as the crutch. For now.

So, what exactly do you think is wrong with tactical squads?

 vipoid wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

Tactical Marines in the base SM dex survive, since they have access to plasma and grav, combi-weapons, drop pods, chapter tactics and so on stacking up. The pods especially is what makes them persevere in the tournament scene.

They are not good in basis but the above serves as the crutch. For now.

So, what exactly do you think is wrong with tactical squads?

That they are entirely reliant on options and toys to stay useful at all.

Take away the drop pods and you won't see any Tac Marine lists winning tournaments.

They should be able to stand on their own feet, even if this means their toys need nerfing.

 Ashiraya wrote:


That they are entirely reliant on options and toys to stay useful at all.

Take away the drop pods and you won't see any Tac Marine lists winning tournaments.

Whether you're talking about special weapons or vehicles, it seems like the same could be said for a lot of units.

With regard to special weapons, we're at a rather depressing state whereby most basic weapons are pretty worthless - with their wielders often being little better than ablative wounds for the squad members carrying special/heavy weapons. Hell, at the moment, it's possible (and arguably even encouraged by the rules) to build armies that are completely immune to small-arms fire. And, even if that isn't the case, many armies can still be virtually immune to most weapons (most races can spam vehicles of one kind or another). And, because of the changes to scoring, you don't even need infantry in your army to capture objectives - let alone troops. This, to me, seems like an absolutely terrible state of affairs.

Anyway, moving on to vehicles, it seems like a lot of strong troop choices get their strength from vehicles. Outside of their transports, DE are basically guardsmen but twice as expensive, Eldar have their Wave Serpents for both resilience and firepower, Necrons have Ghost Arks and Night Scythes.

Maybe it's just how I look at things, but to me it seems very depressing. I think infantry (especially troops) should have an important role in games - rather than something you reluctantly take so that you can add another vehicle to your army.

Vespid....

Unless they were so cheap they'd basically be free there is literally no reason to bring them. Theyre uber squishy, short range, crap BS with a gun thats designed to kill marines even though damn near the entire army kills marines and it does a far worse job than the rest of the dex lol.
Only unit in the dex outside Farsight with "respectable" melee, but no weapons and crap strength so the WS and Init means nothing.

I have tried to find a valid use for them, but even within the FA slot theres units that are cheaper and do a better job at killing marines than vespid. I just dont get that unit.

Sigh...where do I start.

Rough Riders - Price is ok, their stat line is garbage, there's no inherent bonus for being on a mount (aside from increased movement), unlike every other army that can put guys on 'mounts'. It's cool they get access to special weapons now, but their weapon profile is stupid in that it's a one use (and yes, I understand how lances work.)

Ogryns - Jesus THESE fething guys. Standard Ogryns are comically bad and their Wilfred Brimly cousins are even worse. gakky invuln and an ap4 power weapon for a higher price than a GK players pays for a Paladin. Right, never fielding these.

Blood Angel HQ's - Do I really need to rehash this pile of crap?

Rough riders should get power lances base, problem almost solved.

 vipoid wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


That they are entirely reliant on options and toys to stay useful at all.

Take away the drop pods and you won't see any Tac Marine lists winning tournaments.

Whether you're talking about special weapons or vehicles, it seems like the same could be said for a lot of units.

With regard to special weapons, we're at a rather depressing state whereby most basic weapons are pretty worthless - with their wielders often being little better than ablative wounds for the squad members carrying special/heavy weapons. Hell, at the moment, it's possible (and arguably even encouraged by the rules) to build armies that are completely immune to small-arms fire. And, even if that isn't the case, many armies can still be virtually immune to most weapons (most races can spam vehicles of one kind or another). And, because of the changes to scoring, you don't even need infantry in your army to capture objectives - let alone troops. This, to me, seems like an absolutely terrible state of affairs.

Anyway, moving on to vehicles, it seems like a lot of strong troop choices get their strength from vehicles. Outside of their transports, DE are basically guardsmen but twice as expensive, Eldar have their Wave Serpents for both resilience and firepower, Necrons have Ghost Arks and Night Scythes.

Maybe it's just how I look at things, but to me it seems very depressing. I think infantry (especially troops) should have an important role in games - rather than something you reluctantly take so that you can add another vehicle to your army.

I think Eldar are the only extreme offenders in this category. Taking 5 man DA squads is clearly min/maxing, but most Necron players take troops because the troops on their own are good. If the Eldar codex had been more balanced, I actually think 40k would be in a pretty good place right now.

Spoletta wrote:
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned it, but what about a certain 100 point i've been expecting you?

He's just been around so long that everybody is used to him. The amount of options Coteaz gives for his points value is absurd.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Rough riders should get power lances base, problem almost solved.

Funny thing is you can give the Sergeant one in addition to his hunting lance. I want to model that so bad.

Necron melee units are overcosted because necrons are not supposed to be gods in melee. They already rule everything else As for unbalanced, the Chaos Raptor models tip over a lot if you don't glue pennies to the bottom.

I feel the monolith could use a tuneup. Yeah it was must have in eariler editions but since 5th its a cheaper, slower, far less powerful landraider clowncar that takes up a HS slot. landing without error on it would be nice to see on it again. Or even the old +1 change to RP. Or a bit more of a price reduction. I'm not saying all three just one would be nice. Maybe even extend the range of it's door to 2d6.

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to special weapons, we're at a rather depressing state whereby most basic weapons are pretty worthless - with their wielders often being little better than ablative wounds for the squad members carrying special/heavy weapons.

So it's basically like modern warfare in that regard?

 Galorian wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to special weapons, we're at a rather depressing state whereby most basic weapons are pretty worthless - with their wielders often being little better than ablative wounds for the squad members carrying special/heavy weapons.

So it's basically like modern warfare in that regard?

Which I'd argue that it should not be.

I agree with Ashiraya on that. I wish bolter sisters/marines could matter too!

 Galorian wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to special weapons, we're at a rather depressing state whereby most basic weapons are pretty worthless - with their wielders often being little better than ablative wounds for the squad members carrying special/heavy weapons.

So it's basically like modern warfare in that regard?

I can't help but feel in a modern military squad the troops amount to more than just wound counters for a single special weapon

But yeah, I'm not a huge fan of how there's a large imbalance between the basic weapons and the special weapons in a squad. I blame the AP system, as using a save modifier system like we had in 2nd edition allows special weapons to have a modifier of, say, -2 or -3, so they stay better than basic weapons at taking out armoured targets but aren't completely dominating to the point where 9 out of 10 guys in a unit are just glorified wound counters.

I don't think that I agree with the assessment that basic guns are too weak versus special/heavy weapons. Since 4th edition on, rapid-fire weapons (the most common basic weapon type) have gotten significantly more destructive with nearly each edition. Craftworld and dark Eldar basic weapons are extremely potent and are better than some other armies specials. Recent editions have made the basic weapons very dangerous. I think this increase lethality of basic weapons have contributed to the current imbalance between shooting and close combat armies.

Bolters and lasguns can do some work these days.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But yeah, I'm not a huge fan of how there's a large imbalance between the basic weapons and the special weapons in a squad. I blame the AP system, as using a save modifier system like we had in 2nd edition allows special weapons to have a modifier of, say, -2 or -3, so they stay better than basic weapons at taking out armoured targets but aren't completely dominating to the point where 9 out of 10 guys in a unit are just glorified wound counters.

This... i would absolute love to go back to the old modifiers instead of AP... plus this ridiculous crap of only ap1/2 weapons being the only things that can pen and explode vehicles is irritating as hell.