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.
Marmatag wrote: I do find it ironic that Guard players were eager to tell Space Marine players that they should be souping to be effective. I have seen numerous replies to Grey Knights from Guard players on this forum telling them that GK are not designed as a standalone army, and therefore it is OK for Guard to be WAY stronger than GK. But, when Guard are nerfed partly as a byproduct of souping, it suddenly becomes an existential crisis.
"Partly"?
It's solely because of souping. I'd rather they fix the frigging problems with souping than nerf the army I play...but hey, apparently I'm not a supercompetitive player.
One side of mouth: "Let's fix the problems with souping."
Other side of mouth: "Space Marines are weak but that's intended & because they can soup in Guard."
Find anywhere in my posting history where I've suggested that.
Marmatag wrote: I do find it ironic that Guard players were eager to tell Space Marine players that they should be souping to be effective. I have seen numerous replies to Grey Knights from Guard players on this forum telling them that GK are not designed as a standalone army, and therefore it is OK for Guard to be WAY stronger than GK. But, when Guard are nerfed partly as a byproduct of souping, it suddenly becomes an existential crisis.
My ears started burning.
I suggested that GK shouldn't be considered a standalone army because they had the stuff they need to be functional (screening units, antitank) basically ripped out of the codex. You're playing with half the codex that they had in 3rd-6th and wondering why you're getting poor results. Whether it was intentionally done or how it should be have never been things I've bothered myself with. My arguments on the matter have always been from a "how it's going to have to be to get by" perspective.
IG need nerfed even without souping. Cheaper is always better in 8th, and they take it to extremes. They get too much of a general discount for BS 4+. What the GW don't realize is that marines are also BS 4+ on heavies when they move, and IG aren't moving so they keep their BS 4+, but have double the shots.
LVO is tainted data because of how absurdly crazy altioc dark reapers are vs IG. After march, we'll see the IG bounce back a lot unless they get meaningful nerfs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 21:50:04
The only internal balance that really matters these days is the internal balance of whatever faction you're playing. AM armies with assault elements like BA Death Company and Captains is something GW has to think about when balancing. Thanks to how permissive Soup detachment rules are. I don't know the best way to balance this sort of thing because obviously a solid majority of players aren't running those Soup lists, but for competitive games, there's a whole lot of obvious benefits for picking the best units from each codex and just running those.
IG are better off not using anything from BA because their shooting is already better than any assault army in the game. Other Imperials are souping FROM IG because IG have more undercosted units than the other Imperial factions. If you made BA Death Company 10ppm, you'd see a lot of BA soup lists. But they're not. They're 20 ppm and die easily. So they don't get souped in. Even with the point bump, GW is saying that one BADC is worth 4 guardsmen, which is absurd in 8th ed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/06 21:54:21
Martel732 wrote: IG need nerfed even without souping. Cheaper is always better in 8th, and they take it to extremes. They get too much of a general discount for BS 4+. What the GW don't realize is that marines are also BS 4+ on heavies when they move, and IG aren't moving so they keep their BS 4+, but have double the shots.
Martel732 wrote: IG need nerfed even without souping. Cheaper is always better in 8th, and they take it to extremes. They get too much of a general discount for BS 4+.
BS4+ is costed at 1ppm on Infantry.
What the GW don't realize is that marines are also BS 4+ on heavies when they move, and IG aren't moving so they keep their BS 4+, but have double the shots.
So...don't move the Marine stuff when you want to be reliably firing it?
You have basically the same heavy weapon options we do for Infantry. Our tanks are BS4+ natively, including the Baneblade hulls, with only Baneblades and Leman Russes able to move & fire with no penalties(with LRBTs only being able to do that with the turret weapons).
Martel732 wrote: IG are better off not using anything from BA because their shooting is already better than any assault army in the game. Other Imperials are souping FROM IG because IG have more undercosted units than the other Imperial factions. If you made BA Death Company 10ppm, you'd see a lot of BA soup lists. But they're not. They're 20 ppm and die easily. So they don't get souped in. Even with the point bump, GW is saying that one BADC is worth 4 guardsmen, which is absurd in 8th ed.
Oh yeah, there definitely weren't any BA soup lists thriving in the Dark Reaper Hellscape that was LVO.
Take away Dark Reapers and BA assault still isn't that great, but it gets better for sure. But it puts IG right back in business. Because then Eldar are back to not being able to hit IG back hard enough to matter. 36" lances struggle against all the cheap T8 targets.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/06 22:05:05
Galas wrote: Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.
Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.
As bait-tastic as this post seems, it's basially not wrong. Primaris DO fix basically everything about Marines. Mainly by giving the units focus. Focusing on shooting OR assault goes a looooong way towards making Marines more playable, especially in the current edition. They need more melee units though.
I find this "generalists can't exist from a design perspective" really weird.
Martel732 wrote: Take away Dark Reapers and BA assault still isn't that great, but it gets better for sure. But it puts IG right back in business. Because then Eldar are back to not being able to hit IG back hard enough to matter.
Which just circles back to the idea of "People still aren't actually trying to adapt to the new mechanics of the game".
Guard don't possess native negative hit modifiers. If you're shooting at us, you're probably going to be hitting us. The only negative hit modifiers we have are cast by a Psyker.
Galas wrote: Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.
Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.
As bait-tastic as this post seems, it's basially not wrong. Primaris DO fix basically everything about Marines. Mainly by giving the units focus. Focusing on shooting OR assault goes a looooong way towards making Marines more playable, especially in the current edition. They need more melee units though.
I find this "generalists can't exist from a design perspective" really weird.
No no. Generalists can totally exist from a design perspective. Primaris Marines are a good generalist. Capable of doing things in shooting, capable of doing things in meele, good resistance vs low quality shooting, etc...
In the other hand, the basic space marine statline is how to do a bad generalist. They are bad at shooting, they are bad at meele, and they aren't all that resilient agaisn't any kind of shooting in the game.
Thats the problem with Assault Squads, Devastator Squads, Tactical Marines, Chaos Space Marines, etc... they don't have design space to be fixed. They can't become cheaper because they have a ton of stats that they need to pay for, because otherwise they enter the design space of cheaper infantry (Even if those stats are useless like WS3+ and S4 with 1A and no meele weapons), and you can't give them better rules because then they stop being basic troops. Thats why the only units that are good with a space marine statline are space marines with a ton of extra rules, or a different stat line like veterans with 2A, or Sternguard with special weapon saturation and better bolters.
The Primaris Statline fixes that problem with the basic space marine infantry.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/06 22:09:12
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Martel732 wrote: Take away Dark Reapers and BA assault still isn't that great, but it gets better for sure. But it puts IG right back in business. Because then Eldar are back to not being able to hit IG back hard enough to matter.
Which just circles back to the idea of "People still aren't actually trying to adapt to the new mechanics of the game".
The chief mechanic of which, imo, is that you aren't playing Guard/AM/BA. You're playing Imperial Soup.
Generalists can exist, but they need significant discounts on their stats, as they almost never leverage them all at the same time. Eldar, with their specialists, have dominated edition after edition by not paying for capabilities they don't need.
Scatbikes were miserable in melee; didn't matter
Warp spiders, also miserable in melee; didn't matter
Did you not read the Dark Reaper nerf thread that Galef had running?
Someone literally brought up Alaitoc Rangers as an example and then further went to compare Marine Scouts with them, assuming that Marine Scouts also get -1 to Hits when they have Camo Cloaks because of the fact that Alaitoc Rangers do.
Dark Reapers can serve that same role with a flat +1 to Hit rolls, they don't need to be neutering Raven Guard or Mechanicus or <Insert Army Here>.
Martel732 wrote: Take away Dark Reapers and BA assault still isn't that great, but it gets better for sure. But it puts IG right back in business. Because then Eldar are back to not being able to hit IG back hard enough to matter.
Which just circles back to the idea of "People still aren't actually trying to adapt to the new mechanics of the game".
The chief mechanic of which, imo, is that you aren't playing Guard/AM/BA. You're playing Imperial Soup.
Some codices have to the tools to adapt. Some do not. Generally, the codices with cheaper units adapt more easily, because even when things go wrong, they have little investment at risk. They can also spam the meta counters better, too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 22:11:05
Galas wrote: Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.
Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.
As bait-tastic as this post seems, it's basially not wrong. Primaris DO fix basically everything about Marines. Mainly by giving the units focus. Focusing on shooting OR assault goes a looooong way towards making Marines more playable, especially in the current edition. They need more melee units though.
I find this "generalists can't exist from a design perspective" really weird.
No no. Generalists can totally exist from a design perspective. Primaris Marines are a good generalist. Capable of doing things in shooting, capable of doing things in meele, good resistance vs low quality shooting, etc...
In the other hand, the basic space marine statline is how to do a bad generalist. They are bad at shooting, they are bad at meele, and they aren't all that resilient agaisn't any kind of shooting in the game.
Thats the problem with Assault Squads, Devastator Squads, Tactical Marines, Chaos Space Marines, etc... they don't have design space to be fixed. They can't become cheaper because they have a ton of stats that they need to pay for, because otherwise they enter the design space of cheaper infantry (Even if those stats are useless like WS3+ and S4 with 1A and no meele weapons), and you can't give them better rules because then they stop being basic troops. Thats why the only units that are good with a space marine statline are space marines with a ton of extra rules, or a different stat line like veterans with 2A, or Sternguard with special weapon saturation and better bolters.
The Primaris Statline fixes that problem with the basic space marine infantry.
Tacticals outshoot Primaris because Tacticals can buy specials and heavies. As a result, Tacticals have better damage output than the other troop choices in the dex. Each option has it's niche of "generalist". Primaris are more tanky, Scout's have their deployment options, and Tacticals outshoot the other two.
You could easily improve generalists by giving them selective bonuses before the game. Suddenly your TAC squads are a bit less general in any given game, but in the scope of your list are a solid generalist unit.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Galas wrote: Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.
Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.
As bait-tastic as this post seems, it's basially not wrong. Primaris DO fix basically everything about Marines. Mainly by giving the units focus. Focusing on shooting OR assault goes a looooong way towards making Marines more playable, especially in the current edition. They need more melee units though.
I find this "generalists can't exist from a design perspective" really weird.
No no. Generalists can totally exist from a design perspective. Primaris Marines are a good generalist. Capable of doing things in shooting, capable of doing things in meele, good resistance vs low quality shooting, etc...
In the other hand, the basic space marine statline is how to do a bad generalist. They are bad at shooting, they are bad at meele, and they aren't all that resilient agaisn't any kind of shooting in the game.
Thats the problem with Assault Squads, Devastator Squads, Tactical Marines, Chaos Space Marines, etc... they don't have design space to be fixed. They can't become cheaper because they have a ton of stats that they need to pay for, because otherwise they enter the design space of cheaper infantry (Even if those stats are useless like WS3+ and S4 with 1A and no meele weapons), and you can't give them better rules because then they stop being basic troops. Thats why the only units that are good with a space marine statline are space marines with a ton of extra rules, or a different stat line like veterans with 2A, or Sternguard with special weapon saturation and better bolters.
The Primaris Statline fixes that problem with the basic space marine infantry.
Tacticals outshoot Primaris because Tacticals can buy specials and heavies. As a result, Tacticals have better damage output than the other troop choices in the dex. Each option has it's niche of "generalist". Primaris are more tanky, Scout's have their deployment options, and Tacticals outshoot the other two.
The 1heavy 5 man tactical squad is less a generalist troop that can do a good job in the table for what you need it and enters more the "Cheap heavy weapon" territory. A lasscanon squad with +4 ablative wounds is not a generalistic unit. You aren't gonna move it or use it for anything in all of the game, just to shoot things in the distance.
5 man tactical squads with special weapons are only competent in the context of Plasma and rerrolls. And then you need to factor that captain in the cost.
A 5-man Intercessor squad with Auxiliary Grenade Launcher is a competent unit that can have a flexible role on the battlefield and not just in your list-building.
But sorry I don't want to derrail the thread. I won't coment more in the space marine basic troops.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/02/06 22:18:54
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
That's one way to do it. But it still leaves undercosted and overcosted units out there. Souping just lets players vacuum up the undercosted units from multiple codices. If we eliminate undercosted units, souping will lose most its power. People are grabbing guardsmen with mortars because the are undercosted, not just because they can.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/06 22:27:47
Backspacehacker wrote: Unpopular opinion, it should go back to, you get your codex and nothing else.
I like that other than the mini-factions that have to have some hard exception made about them. Inquisition and Assassins immediately come to mind. Traditionally, both were awkwardly reprinted between two books, along with stormtroopers. And both of those books could take IG or (IIRC) SM as allies anyway waaay back before it a rulebook thing, but it was much more limited.
I think "one codex" would make me a lot happier personally, but I'm not sure how to salvage those exceptions in a satisfactory way.
Martel732 wrote: Take away Dark Reapers and BA assault still isn't that great, but it gets better for sure. But it puts IG right back in business. Because then Eldar are back to not being able to hit IG back hard enough to matter.
Which just circles back to the idea of "People still aren't actually trying to adapt to the new mechanics of the game".
The chief mechanic of which, imo, is that you aren't playing Guard/AM/BA. You're playing Imperial Soup.
Yeah but by that same vein when I play against an Alaitoc Spearhead of a Farseer and 3x units of Dark Reapers and a few other FOCs worth of Eldar...I'm playing against monobook soup.
"Soup" is a term that gets thrown around a lot and not everyone seems to grasp that it can come from a single book as well as multiples.
Galas wrote: Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.
Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.
As bait-tastic as this post seems, it's basially not wrong. Primaris DO fix basically everything about Marines. Mainly by giving the units focus. Focusing on shooting OR assault goes a looooong way towards making Marines more playable, especially in the current edition. They need more melee units though.
I find this "generalists can't exist from a design perspective" really weird.
No no. Generalists can totally exist from a design perspective. Primaris Marines are a good generalist. Capable of doing things in shooting, capable of doing things in meele, good resistance vs low quality shooting, etc...
In the other hand, the basic space marine statline is how to do a bad generalist. They are bad at shooting, they are bad at meele, and they aren't all that resilient agaisn't any kind of shooting in the game.
Thats the problem with Assault Squads, Devastator Squads, Tactical Marines, Chaos Space Marines, etc... they don't have design space to be fixed. They can't become cheaper because they have a ton of stats that they need to pay for, because otherwise they enter the design space of cheaper infantry (Even if those stats are useless like WS3+ and S4 with 1A and no meele weapons), and you can't give them better rules because then they stop being basic troops. Thats why the only units that are good with a space marine statline are space marines with a ton of extra rules, or a different stat line like veterans with 2A, or Sternguard with special weapon saturation and better bolters.
The Primaris Statline fixes that problem with the basic space marine infantry.
Tacticals outshoot Primaris because Tacticals can buy specials and heavies. As a result, Tacticals have better damage output than the other troop choices in the dex. Each option has it's niche of "generalist". Primaris are more tanky, Scout's have their deployment options, and Tacticals outshoot the other two.
The 1heavy 5 man tactical squad is less a generalist troop that can do a good job in the table for what you need it and enters more the "Cheap heavy weapon" territory. A lasscanon squad with +4 ablative wounds is not a generalistic unit. You aren't gonna move it or use it for anything in all of the game, just to shoot things in the distance.
5 man tactical squads with special weapons are only competent in the context of Plasma and rerrolls. And then you need to factor that captain in the cost.
A 5-man Intercessor squad with Auxiliary Grenade Launcher is a competent unit that can have a flexible role on the battlefield and not just in your list-building.
But sorry I don't want to derrail the thread. I won't coment more in the space marine basic troops.
Well equipped Tacticals fare well vs. Primaris/Elites because they have access to rapid-fire, multi-wound specials and heavies. The Primaris don't get access to weapons that adequately threaten heavier, more expensive targets until you start bringing Hellblasters, which are ok but crazy expensive. Tacticals with Grav Cannon, Plasma Gun, Combi-Plasma out damage a Quad Las Predator vs. T7 3+ save targets.
Backspacehacker wrote: Unpopular opinion, it should go back to, you get your codex and nothing else.
I'd be perfectly fine with 1 codex only armies. But that wouldn't make some nerfs to IG any less needed.
If anything it would only widen the gap between the top and bottom armies.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
