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.
LunarSol wrote: A pretty common problem with new features being rolled out across a game is that the first batch of them can't be too powerful or the have/have not issue becomes extreme; so they're balanced better against the generic version available to everything. As the feature matures and becomes widely available, developers are able to push it more and design in a world where everyone has options. Unfortunately, this leaves the early adopters who once enjoyed the privileged of having the best options by virtue of having the only options in the dust.
Unfortunately you have stumbled upon the core issue here.
GW does not want to make a balanced game. They intentionally make new content better than the previous content. It is a mockery from a standpoint of balance but is a brilliant strategy to sell plastic crack consistently on a quarterly basis.
Except they don't even do this.
You don't notice the progressive power shift as time goes on? DA is laughably better than codex marines. Nids/eldar/AM are much better than the first armies to be released. Tau/DE/Necrons will really be telling. Though I expect DE will not be on par with eldar - just because that's the way it has always been.
Not really. There's Eldar, IG and then everyone else in my mind.
I'm using them to space fill though. I don't really want them in pods. Scions and Jorgmandrwhatever bugs are a big thing in my meta. Next thing you know it will be Tau suits.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/26 18:50:04
Martel732 wrote: I'm using them to space fill though. I don't really want them in pods. Scions and Jorgmandrwhatever bugs are a big thing in my meta.
Yeah, that's fine. But I just meant structurally it's not so different.
Inscetum's using tacts in a pod as a cheap Sternguard, with 6/10 heavy weapon saturation, to drop in and wreak havoc. The fact that they're cheaper than Sternguard while also leaving 5-men (well, 10 total) back to "space fill" as you mention just means he can cheapen out by not bringing Sternguard. Saves him about 15 points per squad in the pod, or about 30 points, which, as you say, is crucially relevant, since it's over seven guardsmen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/26 18:51:35
Unit1126PLL wrote: *complains Marines doesn't have CPs, then doesn't get the concept of bringing 2 Battalions*
If you already have scouts, then your choices are:
1) Bring 2 Sternguard. Pay 15 more points per squad, unless they have storm bolters on the non-weapon carriers, and then it's 19 more points per squad, for a total of 38 points for 2 squads.
2) Bring 2 Tactical Marines, and instead spend those other 40 points to another 5-man scout squad. Congrats, you're only 2 of the very good SMHQ's away from fielding a second battalion for 3 more CP! Hooray! And you've built up your screens to boot.
Which means if you're playing a large enough game that Marines need two battalions you need more screening. So we are back to Scouts. So I don't see how that applies.
What are you even on about?
You literally complained earlier that Marines don't have enough CPs. 500 points is a large enough game to bring 2 battalions, if you want. For guard, you could bring like 3, lol. I'm saying that you get the same heavy weapon density, with the same chapter tactics, at the same ballistic skill, AND become damn near the whole way to a battalion, while being altogether cheaper.
If you don't understand why that's good, then I don't think you're as good at this game as you claim to be. Double battalion is fantastic, gives you more options, and if you're already doing 2-squads of pod sternguard, you could do 2-squads of pod tacticals for cheaper and with more CPs. That's... like, obviously better. I can't even conceive of why you wouldn't trade 4 Storm Bolters for like, 3 CPs and 38 points, lol.
500 for two Battalions? That's 330 minimum for the Troops, and then 200 left for HQs. So I haven't a clue what you're on about.
Also the line of logic is SUPER simple. I'll even number everything for you.
1. Every army needs screens.
2. Scouts fulfill that purpose.
3. Ergo you take a few squads for that.
4. Tax is complete for troops.
5. That's 165 points for 3 squads.
6. As games get bigger, you need even more screening.
7. This implies Scouts still need to be bought.
8. 3 more squads and you get your tax filled in this theoretical game large enough to do this.
9. So seeing that Troop taxes are filled, why am I buying Tactical Marines who have less firepower? Objective Secured is useless so that can't be it.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Unit1126PLL wrote: *complains Marines doesn't have CPs, then doesn't get the concept of bringing 2 Battalions*
If you already have scouts, then your choices are:
1) Bring 2 Sternguard. Pay 15 more points per squad, unless they have storm bolters on the non-weapon carriers, and then it's 19 more points per squad, for a total of 38 points for 2 squads.
2) Bring 2 Tactical Marines, and instead spend those other 40 points to another 5-man scout squad. Congrats, you're only 2 of the very good SMHQ's away from fielding a second battalion for 3 more CP! Hooray! And you've built up your screens to boot.
Which means if you're playing a large enough game that Marines need two battalions you need more screening. So we are back to Scouts. So I don't see how that applies.
What are you even on about?
You literally complained earlier that Marines don't have enough CPs. 500 points is a large enough game to bring 2 battalions, if you want. For guard, you could bring like 3, lol. I'm saying that you get the same heavy weapon density, with the same chapter tactics, at the same ballistic skill, AND become damn near the whole way to a battalion, while being altogether cheaper.
If you don't understand why that's good, then I don't think you're as good at this game as you claim to be. Double battalion is fantastic, gives you more options, and if you're already doing 2-squads of pod sternguard, you could do 2-squads of pod tacticals for cheaper and with more CPs. That's... like, obviously better. I can't even conceive of why you wouldn't trade 4 Storm Bolters for like, 3 CPs and 38 points, lol.
500 for two Battalions? That's 330 minimum for the Troops, and then 200 left for HQs. So I haven't a clue what you're on about.
Also the line of logic is SUPER simple. I'll even number everything for you. 1. Every army needs screens. 2. Scouts fulfill that purpose. 3. Ergo you take a few squads for that. 4. Tax is complete for troops. 5. That's 165 points for 3 squads. 6. As games get bigger, you need even more screening. 7. This implies Scouts still need to be bought. 8. 3 more squads and you get your tax filled in this theoretical game large enough to do this. 9. So seeing that Troop taxes are filled, why am I buying Tactical Marines who have less firepower? Objective Secured is useless so that can't be it.
Martel732 wrote:My only issue with that is that it only fills 2 troops slots, right?
Yes, so you'd bring more Scouts.
Now, Slayerfan, to reply to your post:
1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Yes. 4) For one battalion. Why not take two for more CP? 5) Yes. 6) Yes. 7) I guess? I mean, you can bring 2 battalions to a tiny game of less than 1k. Surely not all 6 troops need to be scouts. 8) "Theoretical game?" I can write a 2k point list for you right now that uses 2 Space Marine battalions. 9) You're buying "tactical marines who have less firepower" because they have essentially the same firepower where it counts (i.e. the 6/10 heavy weapons concentration), while being cheaper and meaning you only have to bring 4 scouts for a two battalion list, and not 6 and two Sternguard.
If you don't understand why bringing 6 scouts and two Sternguard (which nets you fewer CP for more points) is worse than bringing 4 scouts and 2 Tactical Squads (who have essentially equivalent firepower, only a few % different at best), then I don't know what to tell you. No wonder you think Marines are bad, you're overoptimizing them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/26 19:01:53
Space marines don't have usable strategems - so there is that...people talking about flakk missle or hellfire round like they are even worth the inclusion of a ML or a HB on an infantry unit. They aren't. I'd much rather reroll a failed las cannon damage result than d3 mortals.
by comparison "weapons of the dark age can deal a flat 20 additional damage on a unit of hellblasters for 1 CP.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/26 19:09:21
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
I would argue against needing more than three units of Scouts. Scouts are anti-alpha strike. After turn one, you should be moving around the board and the flow of the game changes. You need three of them to give yourself a nice bubble outside your deployment zone so you can effectively move out of your deployment zone and units can start doing their job. The three tactical squads are then perfect for your backfield either sitting on objectives or screening other units. In cover, they'll take ENOUGH dedicated firepower to move off of objectives. Even out of cover you are forcing your opponent to deal with them if they want to flank you or get the objective you are on. Give one of them in the unit a Laz or Missile Launcher and now you've got a unit that can also contribute to the rest of the battle while doing the above job.
This all depends on your meta and if you even need backfield units screening or on objectives or what have you. But they have a purpose, no matter how much you think they don't.
Rerolling lascannon damage happens about twice a game for me. I'd rather use CP for that than flakk missile.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
andysonic1 wrote: I would argue against needing more than three units of Scouts. Scouts are anti-alpha strike. After turn one, you should be moving around the board and the flow of the game changes. You need three of them to give yourself a nice bubble outside your deployment zone so you can effectively move out of your deployment zone and units can start doing their job. The three tactical squads are then perfect for your backfield either sitting on objectives or screening other units. In cover, they'll take ENOUGH dedicated firepower to move off of objectives. Even out of cover you are forcing your opponent to deal with them if they want to flank you or get the objective you are on. Give one of them in the unit a Laz or Missile Launcher and now you've got a unit that can also contribute to the rest of the battle while doing the above job.
This all depends on your meta and if you even need backfield units screening or on objectives or what have you. But they have a purpose, no matter how much you think they don't.
I'm not losing because I only have three scout squads. It's because they're being ignored by Eldar and IG.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/26 19:12:58
Unit1126PLL wrote: *complains Marines doesn't have CPs, then doesn't get the concept of bringing 2 Battalions*
If you already have scouts, then your choices are:
1) Bring 2 Sternguard. Pay 15 more points per squad, unless they have storm bolters on the non-weapon carriers, and then it's 19 more points per squad, for a total of 38 points for 2 squads.
2) Bring 2 Tactical Marines, and instead spend those other 40 points to another 5-man scout squad. Congrats, you're only 2 of the very good SMHQ's away from fielding a second battalion for 3 more CP! Hooray! And you've built up your screens to boot.
Which means if you're playing a large enough game that Marines need two battalions you need more screening. So we are back to Scouts. So I don't see how that applies.
What are you even on about?
You literally complained earlier that Marines don't have enough CPs. 500 points is a large enough game to bring 2 battalions, if you want. For guard, you could bring like 3, lol. I'm saying that you get the same heavy weapon density, with the same chapter tactics, at the same ballistic skill, AND become damn near the whole way to a battalion, while being altogether cheaper.
If you don't understand why that's good, then I don't think you're as good at this game as you claim to be. Double battalion is fantastic, gives you more options, and if you're already doing 2-squads of pod sternguard, you could do 2-squads of pod tacticals for cheaper and with more CPs. That's... like, obviously better. I can't even conceive of why you wouldn't trade 4 Storm Bolters for like, 3 CPs and 38 points, lol.
500 for two Battalions? That's 330 minimum for the Troops, and then 200 left for HQs. So I haven't a clue what you're on about.
Also the line of logic is SUPER simple. I'll even number everything for you.
1. Every army needs screens.
2. Scouts fulfill that purpose.
3. Ergo you take a few squads for that.
4. Tax is complete for troops.
5. That's 165 points for 3 squads.
6. As games get bigger, you need even more screening.
7. This implies Scouts still need to be bought.
8. 3 more squads and you get your tax filled in this theoretical game large enough to do this.
9. So seeing that Troop taxes are filled, why am I buying Tactical Marines who have less firepower? Objective Secured is useless so that can't be it.
Martel732 wrote:My only issue with that is that it only fills 2 troops slots, right?
Yes, so you'd bring more Scouts.
Now, Slayerfan, to reply to your post:
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
4) For one battalion. Why not take two for more CP?
5) Yes.
6) Yes.
7) I guess? I mean, you can bring 2 battalions to a tiny game of less than 1k. Surely not all 6 troops need to be scouts.
8) "Theoretical game?" I can write a 2k point list for you right now that uses 2 Space Marine battalions.
9) You're buying "tactical marines who have less firepower" because they have essentially the same firepower where it counts (i.e. the 6/10 heavy weapons concentration), while being cheaper and meaning you only have to bring 4 scouts for a two battalion list, and not 6 and two Sternguard.
If you don't understand why bringing 6 scouts and two Sternguard (which nets you fewer CP for more points) is worse than bringing 4 scouts and 2 Tactical Squads (who have essentially equivalent firepower, only a few % different at best), then I don't know what to tell you. No wonder you think Marines are bad, you're overoptimizing them.
4. I take only what's necessary for the point level. I'm typically doing 2000, in which case I can usually either go Battalion + Specific Chart or a Brigade. It'll depend on the goal of the list (I've posted several here) of course, but two Battalions is usually too clunky if I can do a brigade instead.
7. Which means considerably less firepower in a 1000 point list. Once you paid for those Scouts and Tactical Marines, you have to pay for the latter's transports too and that doesn't work in a small game. As a primary Necron player I can tell you that.
8. I've already done a Battalion for 2000 points that I'm slowly adjusting.
And NO it isn't "essentially equivalent firepower".
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Disagree with basic premise. Screens exist to protect soft or important targets. If you're not deploying any, then you don't need screens. If I only deploy Tacticals, then all an alpha can hit is Tacticals, which is fine, because I have lots. I can deploy with the higher ppm targets (Devastators) in Pods, and do a beta strike instead.
Or I can deploy the Devs deeper in the deployment zone and screen with Tacs. Occasionally I can put the Devs out of LOS and against some armies that works too.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 4. I take only what's necessary for the point level. I'm typically doing 2000, in which case I can usually either go Battalion + Specific Chart or a Brigade. It'll depend on the goal of the list (I've posted several here) of course, but two Battalions is usually too clunky if I can do a brigade instead.
7. Which means considerably less firepower in a 1000 point list. Once you paid for those Scouts and Tactical Marines, you have to pay for the latter's transports too and that doesn't work in a small game. As a primary Necron player I can tell you that.
8. I've already done a Battalion for 2000 points that I'm slowly adjusting.
And NO it isn't "essentially equivalent firepower".
4) Who determines what is "necessary?" I myself find that 9CP is "necessary" for 2000, 12 is fine. Your brigade list is neato I bet.
7) Yes, that's true, but I'm trying to point out the flaw in your argument: that there is some kind of "minimum points" at which 2 battalions is forbidden. It can happen whenever, depending on how the person playing the army wants it to be.
8) Yes, so do two battalions.
And yes, yes it is. The heavy lifting of the pod squads are the 6 heavy/special weapons, not the bolters. The heavy weapons are equivalent across Sternguard and Tactical Squads. The only difference is in the bolters, which are:
1) primarily ablative wounds
2) Not doing the heavy lifting.
Honestly, if the unupgraded tactical marines in these squads were 9ppm and had 0 gun at all, I'd probably take them over 16ppm tactical marines with a neato gun. The real meat and potatoes of the squads are the big guns, and whether your Bolter is AP-1 or not is comparatively irrelevant when he's going to be the first mook to die.
Martel732 wrote: Rerolling lascannon damage happens about twice a game for me. I'd rather use CP for that than flakk missile. Automatically Appended Next Post:
andysonic1 wrote: I would argue against needing more than three units of Scouts. Scouts are anti-alpha strike. After turn one, you should be moving around the board and the flow of the game changes. You need three of them to give yourself a nice bubble outside your deployment zone so you can effectively move out of your deployment zone and units can start doing their job. The three tactical squads are then perfect for your backfield either sitting on objectives or screening other units. In cover, they'll take ENOUGH dedicated firepower to move off of objectives. Even out of cover you are forcing your opponent to deal with them if they want to flank you or get the objective you are on. Give one of them in the unit a Laz or Missile Launcher and now you've got a unit that can also contribute to the rest of the battle while doing the above job.
This all depends on your meta and if you even need backfield units screening or on objectives or what have you. But they have a purpose, no matter how much you think they don't.
I'm not losing because I only have three scout squads. It's because they're being ignored by Eldar and IG.
My reply was to Slayer not you, but again your results may vary. If your only two problems are those two armies ignoring your scout squads than you may be in a better spot than you think.
But the writing is on the wall for Eldar and IG, so who knows what's going to happen next month.
Disagree with basic premise. Screens exist to protect soft or important targets. If you're not deploying any, then you don't need screens. If I only deploy Tacticals, then all an alpha can hit is Tacticals, which is fine, because I have lots. I can deploy with the higher ppm targets (Devastators) in Pods, and do a beta strike instead.
Or I can deploy the Devs deeper in the deployment zone and screen with Tacs. Occasionally I can put the Devs out of LOS and against some armies that works too.
EVERYONE has important targets. Your Warlord is an important target. Your Rhinos might be important targets. You need to screen to protect from precise Obliterator drops or Alpha Legion Berserker Marines or Genestealers.
Targets might not be as important as someone that put all their eggs in one basket but the important targets do exist.
I'm also not sure why my inital reply isn't there, but I'm not going to bump the thread so expect a PM at some point today.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 4. I take only what's necessary for the point level. I'm typically doing 2000, in which case I can usually either go Battalion + Specific Chart or a Brigade. It'll depend on the goal of the list (I've posted several here) of course, but two Battalions is usually too clunky if I can do a brigade instead.
7. Which means considerably less firepower in a 1000 point list. Once you paid for those Scouts and Tactical Marines, you have to pay for the latter's transports too and that doesn't work in a small game. As a primary Necron player I can tell you that.
8. I've already done a Battalion for 2000 points that I'm slowly adjusting.
And NO it isn't "essentially equivalent firepower".
4) Who determines what is "necessary?" I myself find that 9CP is "necessary" for 2000, 12 is fine. Your brigade list is neato I bet.
7) Yes, that's true, but I'm trying to point out the flaw in your argument: that there is some kind of "minimum points" at which 2 battalions is forbidden. It can happen whenever, depending on how the person playing the army wants it to be.
8) Yes, so do two battalions.
And yes, yes it is. The heavy lifting of the pod squads are the 6 heavy/special weapons, not the bolters. The heavy weapons are equivalent across Sternguard and Tactical Squads. The only difference is in the bolters, which are:
1) primarily ablative wounds
2) Not doing the heavy lifting.
Honestly, if the unupgraded tactical marines in these squads were 9ppm and had 0 gun at all, I'd probably take them over 16ppm tactical marines with a neato gun. The real meat and potatoes of the squads are the big guns, and whether your Bolter is AP-1 or not is comparatively irrelevant when he's going to be the first mook to die.
4. You play Guard. You get better use of CP as you have less terrible strategems.
7. There's a minimum if you don't want the army to suck. Remember that thread about the minimum Brigades for each army?
8. Except that's less CP and honestly less flexibility (the minimum Fast attack can be as simple as the three Sentry Turrets and I was running artillery in the first place, so it was simple matter of finding just two Elites I wanted to run).
1. Ablative wounds only matter when the wounds are cheap. The cheapest model in the army is currently the 11 point Scout. Ergo I need to make sure I get the points the model is worth. 13 points for a Bolter or 18 points for two Bolters? It isn't hard to kill a Marine, so if they really want the weapon gone it'll be gone.
2. Basically the special weapons are doing the heavy lifting and there's only expensive meat shields. I might as well have a slightly more expensive meat shield that has more firepower.
So if you want those 9 point Tactical Marines with no weapons, at that point just buy Tarantula Sentry Turrets. 37 points for a TL Heavy Bolter at BS4+, and 4 T5 wounds, and the TL Lascannon version is only 70 points.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/26 21:42:29
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Unit1126PLL wrote: SNIP.... I dunno. There actually are quite a few good stratagems, but the bad ones are REALLY bad.
The same could be said for all codexes released so far. If you approach it from a competitive or efficient mindset then of course there will be some that you look at and think "why would you ever use this?"
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
If marines are 8-10ft tall. Have their move speed be not 6" and make it 8". This is more to be a bit interesting.
Make them T5, they are meant to be tough as nails, you can wreck their armour and they are still good to go.
I dunno, I think marines as a whole should be far more expensive, like alot more and
S5, T5 2-3 wounds, 3+ save. They are meant to be tough and few, make them tough and not nearly as numerous. Veterans and all the different flavours would just be different wargear and rules with the same general statline. But this would result in GW selling less models and require alot more other armies be reworked as the shift happens. Yeah probably wouldnt work.
Disagree with basic premise. Screens exist to protect soft or important targets. If you're not deploying any, then you don't need screens. If I only deploy Tacticals, then all an alpha can hit is Tacticals, which is fine, because I have lots. I can deploy with the higher ppm targets (Devastators) in Pods, and do a beta strike instead.
Or I can deploy the Devs deeper in the deployment zone and screen with Tacs. Occasionally I can put the Devs out of LOS and against some armies that works too.
EVERYONE has important targets. Your Warlord is an important target. Your Rhinos might be important targets. You need to screen to protect from precise Obliterator drops or Alpha Legion Berserker Marines or Genestealers.
Targets might not be as important as someone that put all their eggs in one basket but the important targets do exist.
I'm also not sure why my inital reply isn't there, but I'm not going to bump the thread so expect a PM at some point today.
If you build a decentralized army, you can deny the enemy good targets. My Devs and Characters can all start in reserve. I can deploy only Tacticals and Sternguard, and before you say Sternguard are valuable, the total squad is cheaper than the Tacticals. Also, characters are pretty easy to shield if you need to.
If marines are 8-10ft tall. Have their move speed be not 6" and make it 8". This is more to be a bit interesting.
Make them T5, they are meant to be tough as nails, you can wreck their armour and they are still good to go.
I dunno, I think marines as a whole should be far more expensive, like alot more and
S5, T5 2-3 wounds, 3+ save. They are meant to be tough and few, make them tough and not nearly as numerous. Veterans and all the different flavours would just be different wargear and rules with the same general statline. But this would result in GW selling less models and require alot more other armies be reworked as the shift happens. Yeah probably wouldnt work.
You basically said to run them as Custodes. I'm not sure you meant that to be a joke or not, but what do we do with Custodes and even certain vehicles after that? Marines shouldn't have just just 2T below a Rhino!
Disagree with basic premise. Screens exist to protect soft or important targets. If you're not deploying any, then you don't need screens. If I only deploy Tacticals, then all an alpha can hit is Tacticals, which is fine, because I have lots. I can deploy with the higher ppm targets (Devastators) in Pods, and do a beta strike instead.
Or I can deploy the Devs deeper in the deployment zone and screen with Tacs. Occasionally I can put the Devs out of LOS and against some armies that works too.
EVERYONE has important targets. Your Warlord is an important target. Your Rhinos might be important targets. You need to screen to protect from precise Obliterator drops or Alpha Legion Berserker Marines or Genestealers.
Targets might not be as important as someone that put all their eggs in one basket but the important targets do exist.
I'm also not sure why my inital reply isn't there, but I'm not going to bump the thread so expect a PM at some point today.
If you build a decentralized army, you can deny the enemy good targets. My Devs and Characters can all start in reserve. I can deploy only Tacticals and Sternguard, and before you say Sternguard are valuable, the total squad is cheaper than the Tacticals. Also, characters are pretty easy to shield if you need to.
No matter what, you're still going to have targets more valuable compared to the rest of the army on board. It isn't just characters that are valuable ya know. It could be just a single piece of artillery you're using or just those couple of Rhinos that might get encircled to deny dudes getting out of them, etc.
Screens are necessary in EVERY army. Your play area is just so casual you hadn't realized it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/27 03:28:53
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Really, it's pretty easy to not put fancy stuff on the board, or just screen it with non infiltrators. Guardsmen screen without infiltrating. Scouts are key for some, but imo not necessary. Obliterators and the like have enough range to make such screening difficult anyways.
Keep claiming "casual", like it helps your argument though.
GW does not want to make a balanced game. They intentionally make new content better than the previous content. It is a mockery from a standpoint of balance but is a brilliant strategy to sell plastic crack consistently on a quarterly basis.
I thought this statement was debunked as 'false' years ago.
GW has showed on multiple occasions that new models/units don't always get good rules. Mutilators are a prime example of this: new kit, new unit, craptastic rules. (And still are, several editions later.)
Same with Necron Triarch Praetorians when they where released; new kit, new unit, highly questionable rules.
I'm sure I can think of many other units given time, but I don't think that's necessary.
The only consistent thing about GW when it comes to rules for new units is the inconsistency of it all.
Sometimes a new unit will be absolutely amazeballs, perhaps outright broken.
Sometimes a new unit will be horribly bad or overpriced, leaving the community wondering what the point of said unit is.
Basically new units follow the same formula as all other units: They can be useless, pointless, underwhelming, OK, good, amazing or overpowered.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/27 05:41:51
When GW said they would do away with D strength and strength would go above 10, I expected to see this extend to toughness too. But no they kept the same statline for what 30 years?
Is there a reason marines are S4 T4 other than it's always been that way?
fraser1191 wrote: When GW said they would do away with D strength and strength would go above 10, I expected to see this extend to toughness too. But no they kept the same statline for what 30 years?
Is there a reason marines are S4 T4 other than it's always been that way?
Think of it from GW's point of view. 40k players hate change, we all know this. 8th edition was already going to be a big shakeup, the largest since 3rd. There is not one unit that went unchanged in some way. Keep in mind that a solid 90% of the player as does not have an encyclopedic knowledge of their codex or the rules, aka the "casual" playerbase. One of the few things I've never seen a marine player struggle with is learning their statbase. Lots of 4's and 3+'s. Not only that, but other players as well. Space Marines are the known constant in 40k. Doesn't matter what codex you play, you'll usually have basic marine rules and stats memorized within a few months.
I'd imagine GW thought about that for all of 5 seconds and then decided that with all the other changes coming in 8th edition, shaking up the most well known profile in the game could be the straw that broke the camel's back. This would explain the primaris being rolled out as a soft reboot of space marine stats as well. GW figured it'd be easier for the average player to accept a new profile for a new marine than explain that every model in their army got more expensive and had their profiles radically changed, even if it was for the better. Space marine players already complain about army size and point costs, imagine the reaction they'd have if you told them their whole army was running on primaris costs, even if they werent crap. That's not a dig at space marine players either, IG players would be pretty annoyed if guard squad went up to 8ppm, even if they were completely worth it, because the amount of models you could play with would shrink.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
True but I'll counter with this: marines are made from humans, eldar are similar, tau fire caste are apparently slightly weaker than normal humans and orks can go to to toe with a marine along with necrons.
So yes a benchmark is nessacery, I just think it would be easier to use a statline that many more factions can share/improve upon
fraser1191 wrote: When GW said they would do away with D strength and strength would go above 10, I expected to see this extend to toughness too. But no they kept the same statline for what 30 years?
Is there a reason marines are S4 T4 other than it's always been that way?
Think of it from GW's point of view. 40k players hate change, we all know this. 8th edition was already going to be a big shakeup, the largest since 3rd. There is not one unit that went unchanged in some way. Keep in mind that a solid 90% of the player as does not have an encyclopedic knowledge of their codex or the rules, aka the "casual" playerbase. One of the few things I've never seen a marine player struggle with is learning their statbase. Lots of 4's and 3+'s. Not only that, but other players as well. Space Marines are the known constant in 40k. Doesn't matter what codex you play, you'll usually have basic marine rules and stats memorized within a few months.
I'd imagine GW thought about that for all of 5 seconds and then decided that with all the other changes coming in 8th edition, shaking up the most well known profile in the game could be the straw that broke the camel's back. This would explain the primaris being rolled out as a soft reboot of space marine stats as well. GW figured it'd be easier for the average player to accept a new profile for a new marine than explain that every model in their army got more expensive and had their profiles radically changed, even if it was for the better. Space marine players already complain about army size and point costs, imagine the reaction they'd have if you told them their whole army was running on primaris costs, even if they werent crap. That's not a dig at space marine players either, IG players would be pretty annoyed if guard squad went up to 8ppm, even if they were completely worth it, because the amount of models you could play with would shrink.
Lol there's an entire thread that's over 40 pages basically complaining about infantry going from 4 to 5.
Yes I know my marines well based on their easy to learn statline. But I'd sacrifice that for more fleshed out stats. On the "plus" side with the overly simple wound chart I'm sure not a lot would change. I'm sure that whatever value they use for marines they would make tau wound them on 3s and so on...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/27 06:28:03
So the basic marine statline needs to be take more damage before dropping, to give those points more time on the board to earn something back?
They are just too weak in CC, and either need A2 or S5?
And really, 4/0/D1 is hardly a weapon profile to strike fear into an opponent. At the least they need a little AP to help clear chaf?
So basically Intercessors. At some point we will see the game start to transition towards them, and this pivot will leave a lot of people salty. I think that right now, at this stage of the game, it makes sense that marines are a bit unwieldy to balance - when Primaris start to take up their battlefield roles, i.e. can take heavy weapons, have greater transport options, etc., the statline will have been be 'saved'.
It seems this argument has been all about the model that is going to be slowly phased out, rather than the new line that will be the new benchmark for marine statlines in the coming years.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/27 08:32:27
grouchoben wrote: So the basic marine statline needs to be take more damage before dropping, to give those points more time on the board to earn something back?
They are just too weak in CC, and either need A2 or S5?
And really, 4/0/D1 is hardly a weapon profile to strike fear into an opponent. At the least they need a little AP to help clear chaf?
So basically Intercessors. At some point we will see the game start to transition towards them, and this pivot will leave a lot of people salty. I think that right now, at this stage of the game, it makes sense that marines are a bit unwieldy to balance - when Primaris start to take up their battlefield roles, i.e. can take heavy weapons, have greater transport options, etc., the statline will have been be 'saved'.
It seems this argument has been all about the model that is going to be slowly phased out, rather than the new line that will be the new benchmark for marine statlines in the coming years.
Deathwatch called, kill teams aren't going away any time soon and are suffering the most.
5300 | 
2800 | 
3600 | 
1600 | 
5500 pts 
6500 pts 
7000 pts 
9000 pts 
13.000 pts 
