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.

Range is pretty huge though. In my view.

Gitdakka wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So people are opposed to having a separate Codex with unique rules but fine with unique rules in a unified book? What's the difference other than making the Vanilla book less easy to navigate?

Because when you put everything in one book you no longer need unique rules. At most you might have a single line for chapter tactics, but TBH even that isn't really needed. Marines are marines, their paint scheme shouldn't matter.

I don't feel the need for special rules for every paint scheme either. Why does ultras need to be different from imperial fist marines or salamanders? Unique story or favourite colour should help us choose the way we paint our minis, not arbitrary rules additions.

I love posts like this. Depending on the month it's either

"Why does <Faction> have so many unique rules and codex's to represent different chapters/legions. Keep the fluff out and give the same rules to everyone"

or

"Why is everyone the same? There is no variation or flavour to any of the armies. They need to introduce special rules for my chapter/legion to represent their play style on the table"


GW can never win.

I’d much rather burn 1 CP for plasma Inceptors than pay points for a jump captain to baby sit them.

 Primark G wrote:
I’d much rather burn 1 CP for plasma Inceptors than pay points for a jump captain to baby sit them.

What about non-ultras?

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So people are opposed to having a separate Codex with unique rules but fine with unique rules in a unified book? What's the difference other than making the Vanilla book less easy to navigate?

Because when you put everything in one book you no longer need unique rules. At most you might have a single line for chapter tactics, but TBH even that isn't really needed. Marines are marines, their paint scheme shouldn't matter.

I don't feel the need for special rules for every paint scheme either. Why does ultras need to be different from imperial fist marines or salamanders? Unique story or favourite colour should help us choose the way we paint our minis, not arbitrary rules additions.

I love posts like this. Depending on the month it's either

"Why does <Faction> have so many unique rules and codex's to represent different chapters/legions. Keep the fluff out and give the same rules to everyone"

or

"Why is everyone the same? There is no variation or flavour to any of the armies. They need to introduce special rules for my chapter/legion to represent their play style on the table"


GW can never win.

Well I have my oppinion and I have never complained on lack of variation. To me the multitude of good units avilable is variation enough. I liked the indexes, because they were less rule cluttered. I know lots of people might love their chapter tactics or other subfaction rules but I'm still entitled to think and say otherwise.

GW allways win btw. We buy the models regardless if we are happy with the new rules or not.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

You also have yet to really show how the 1 Special 1 Heavy is anything but outdated and just saying "but fluff" isn't an excuse I buy, when we had the ability to ignore it in the past in the first place.

Why is 'but fluff' not good enough? Tactical Marines are well established in the Codex Astartes as using 1 special and 1 heavy in a ten man squad. Why should they not on tabletop? By what standards do you declare something to be "outdated" rather than "in need of balance adjustments"?

In other words "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

It isn't good enough because:
1. There are Chapters that deviate, but you can't show that
2. You literally used to have the option with the 4th edition codex
3. It sucks in terms of crunch and ALWAYS has

Which of my points is incorrect?

a) yes there are deviators but also those who follow it. Both needs to be valid
b) doesn't mean current option needs to be removed
c) tacticals in HH dont' suck so if they work there they can work in 40k if game developers are good. If you are bad enough you can't use them succesfully in HH too bad but just because they don't work for you doesn't mean they dont' work for others.

What we need is GW designers who are good at...you know? Their job? You can fix the game rules rather than have to change fluff. There's no reason to change existing fluff to remove part of fluff that has always been WHEN YOU CAN SIMPLY FIX THE RULES!

But that would require GW hiring competent designers who actually require shock horror salary rather than get bunch of hobby fans throw in cheaply rules that are crap just for pleasure of being able to say they got to design codex for GW.

greatbigtree wrote: Tacs [don't] need to do more damage... that removes them from the "chaff" designation. Their unique role in the codex should be analogous to pawns in chess. Marines of all flavours need to have access to a board control unit.

Infantry Squads are good because they take up space, and are cheap enough to be expendable. Tacs could, and should, be able to perform a similar role.

Yes, all armies need board control units. That means Custodes, Deathwing, Bully Boyz nob formations, and all-Immortal royal guard companies for Overlords. Those armies can't get cheap enough to put down bodies for board control.

If the quality for board control is having the most models, Guard platoons and shoota boyz will always be better at it. There have to be rules for an elite unit to sit in midfield, and stop or slow down units without having to have lots of models for a big footprint.

The strong units in the game have to be able to use their good stats to march block enemies and control the board,, not just be bodies that get in the way,

Crimson wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:

I don't feel the need for special rules for every paint scheme either. Why does ultras need to be different from imperial fist marines or salamanders? Unique story or favourite colour should help us choose the way we paint our minis, not arbitrary rules additions.

Indeed. Most of the subfaction rules are just a pointless complications. And it always happens that some trait is just drastically better than the others and everyone has to use it or gimp themselves for the sake of the fluff. And unlike gear and units. these traits do not cost points, so there cannot even be an attempt to address balance via point fixes.

Yeah I hate that CT mean some chapters are the weak chapters, and also that even with strong traits the army is weak if it takes units outside the ones that can use the chapter tactic.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitdakka wrote:

I don't feel the need for special rules for every paint scheme either. Why does ultras need to be different from imperial fist marines or salamanders? Unique story or favourite colour should help us choose the way we paint our minis, not arbitrary rules additions.

That said, what's stopping you from painting your Salamanders any color you feel like?

At that point traits have no purpose. You want to do Imperial Fist bike army and Raven Guard tank army, so you use yellow White Scars and bird-themed Iron Hands, so there had might as well be no traits at all.

I read the whole thing. All 22 pages.

I have for some time now thought that the basic Marine profile was too expensive. You pay too much for a statline and that you can rarely capitalize on. WS3+ and Str 4 looks great...until you realize you can still only make a single D1, no AP attack for most of your guys.

I'm the camp of just making the basic Marine profile (Tacs, Assault and Devs*) 2 points cheaper. Tacs and Scouts then have a tradeoff of deployment vs. durability, each having their own respective purpose. Scouts go forward to gobble up board space and put early pressure on objectives, while Tacs babysit backfield objectives with more resiliency. Gun loadouts are a trickier issue, but at the very least, both troops have a couple good options to pick from.

Personally, I think this is the best compromise. I realize fluff purists want Marines to be "Elite" but I've just never seen them function in that capacity, and I don't expect them to start now. I'm also the kind of guy that likes fielding a lot of dewds, so if I can put out another 10-20 Marines, all things considered, that makes me very happy :-)


*if for no other reason than consistency. I think Devs are in a perfectly fine place when considering the entire holistic package, but I have a hard time reconciling more points for the same model.

Rocmistro wrote:
I read the whole thing. All 22 pages.

I have for some time now thought that the basic Marine profile was too expensive. You pay too much for a statline and that you can rarely capitalize on. WS3+ and Str 4 looks great...until you realize you can still only make a single D1, no AP attack for most of your guys.

I'm the camp of just making the basic Marine profile (Tacs, Assault and Devs*) 2 points cheaper. Tacs and Scouts then have a tradeoff of deployment vs. durability, each having their own respective purpose. Scouts go forward to gobble up board space and put early pressure on objectives, while Tacs babysit backfield objectives with more resiliency. Gun loadouts are a trickier issue, but at the very least, both troops have a couple good options to pick from.

Personally, I think this is the best compromise. I realize fluff purists want Marines to be "Elite" but I've just never seen them function in that capacity, and I don't expect them to start now. I'm also the kind of guy that likes fielding a lot of dewds, so if I can put out another 10-20 Marines, all things considered, that makes me very happy :-)


*if for no other reason than consistency. I think Devs are in a perfectly fine place when considering the entire holistic package, but I have a hard time reconciling more points for the same model.

+1

I have the view that is same to you.

It also worth note that the footslogging marines are very slow, and their guns usually need to be in short range to br powerful, except those heavy weapons on Dev squads. So an alternative choice maybe decrease the points of their transports, that give them enough support making them good, especially in resolving their mobility issue, and then 13ppm-14ppm MEQ might be acceptable. I know there will be someone gonna scream at me "Marine player have edition lag", "you want the old "free transport" back so can bring 300pts over your opponent" but the fact is in past editions I rarely take the "Too OP" Gladius formation but my marines still do good when their 35pts transport take them to wherever they needed to be and protect them before they unleash their own fire power. But now these stuff are much more expensive.

Not asking for free transport. I think it might be good for Rhino / Droppod / Razorback to be around 45-55pts for the hull (not include guns). Either that or drop each of the marine model down to around 11pts would make marines better.

Neophyte2012 wrote:

Rocmistro wrote:
I read the whole thing. All 22 pages.

I have for some time now thought that the basic Marine profile was too expensive. You pay too much for a statline and that you can rarely capitalize on. WS3+ and Str 4 looks great...until you realize you can still only make a single D1, no AP attack for most of your guys.

I'm the camp of just making the basic Marine profile (Tacs, Assault and Devs*) 2 points cheaper. Tacs and Scouts then have a tradeoff of deployment vs. durability, each having their own respective purpose. Scouts go forward to gobble up board space and put early pressure on objectives, while Tacs babysit backfield objectives with more resiliency. Gun loadouts are a trickier issue, but at the very least, both troops have a couple good options to pick from.

Personally, I think this is the best compromise. I realize fluff purists want Marines to be "Elite" but I've just never seen them function in that capacity, and I don't expect them to start now. I'm also the kind of guy that likes fielding a lot of dewds, so if I can put out another 10-20 Marines, all things considered, that makes me very happy :-)


*if for no other reason than consistency. I think Devs are in a perfectly fine place when considering the entire holistic package, but I have a hard time reconciling more points for the same model.

+1

I have the view that is same to you.

It also worth note that the footslogging marines are very slow, and their guns usually need to be in short range to br powerful, except those heavy weapons on Dev squads. So an alternative choice maybe decrease the points of their transports, that give them enough support making them good, especially in resolving their mobility issue, and then 13ppm-14ppm MEQ might be acceptable. I know there will be someone gonna scream at me "Marine player have edition lag", "you want the old "free transport" back so can bring 300pts over your opponent" but the fact is in past editions I rarely take the "Too OP" Gladius formation but my marines still do good when their 35pts transport take them to wherever they needed to be and protect them before they unleash their own fire power. But now these stuff are much more expensive.

Not asking for free transport. I think it might be good for Rhino / Droppod / Razorback to be around 45-55pts for the hull (not include guns). Either that or drop each of the marine model down to around 11pts would make marines better.

Although I think you are right about cheaper transports, maybe they would have to nerf the amount of wounds on them. T7 10 wounds are hard to remove, so if they were too cheap rhino walls could be spammed just to lock down the opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though that would bring them in the awkward position that they have less than 10 wounds for degrading stat profile

11 ppm for a minimarine and 16 ppm for a numarine seems okay to me.

Regular Marine being underpowered was a problem in earlier editions as well, and it has much to do with power creep and stat inflation. Everybody else kept going cheaper and/or more powerful while regular Marine stayed same.
Personally, I think Necron Warriors and Ork Boyz should be nerfed. Possibly some others too. WS4 (3+ in modern parlance) is WAY too common. Same problem hindered Terminators, when you have expensive model with just 2 attacks, hitting just 50% of the time is not going to cut it.

Gitdakka wrote:


Not asking for free transport. I think it might be good for Rhino / Droppod / Razorback to be around 45-55pts for the hull (not include guns). Either that or drop each of the marine model down to around 11pts would make marines better.

You do realize that Grey Hunters are better than other MEQ, right?

Backfire wrote:
Regular Marine being underpowered was a problem in earlier editions as well, and it has much to do with power creep and stat inflation. Everybody else kept going cheaper and/or more powerful while regular Marine stayed same.
Personally, I think Necron Warriors and Ork Boyz should be nerfed. Possibly some others too. WS4 (3+ in modern parlance) is WAY too common. Same problem hindered Terminators, when you have expensive model with just 2 attacks, hitting just 50% of the time is not going to cut it.

While I don't disagree, Ork Boyz are their own category of problem at the moment, and Necrons...let's see what the release gives them before I make a judgment call on that. In regards to past editions, though, I do agree that a 4+/5+++ is better than a 3+, added to their basic gun being better, leadership being better, and being a pt. cheaper than Marines.

Remember, Nercron Warriors are 4+/5+++ only exists some of the time. The best way to kill Crons is to wipe them out one squad at a time, rather than leaving a bunch of crippled units around. That denies them their precious 5+++, and is why they're one of the weakest armies in the game atm.

 Blackie wrote:


SM already have the most undercosted transports in the game.

If they drop to 45-55 points how much shoul orks trukks or drukhari venoms cost? 20-25 points?

As a SW player I'm 100% fine with the MeQ profile for my troops and footslogging/jump pack elites.

You have to be kidding. The Wave Serpent is, point-for-point, far better than anything Space Marines have.
For a few points more than a Razorback you get a much faster, much more durable, more versatile, and more transport-y vehicle, that can't be locked down in close combat by the way, and gets to benefit from it's craftworld chapter tactic.

I don't know enough about Orks' vehicles to make a proper comparison, but my understanding is that just about everything they have, besides Boyz, are overpriced at the moment.

He's not kidding, but he's also dead wrong.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Remember, Nercron Warriors are 4+/5+++ only exists some of the time. The best way to kill Crons is to wipe them out one squad at a time, rather than leaving a bunch of crippled units around. That denies them their precious 5+++, and is why they're one of the weakest armies in the game atm.

That's why the comparison I made specifcilly referred to the past editions of warriors. We will see what their Codex brings, but all the historical data suggests that GW is not going to leave Necron Warriors out to dry.

That being said, I'm still not convinced there is anything wrong with the basic Necron warrior as it stands right now, just that some of the other elements of their army are missing the things they need to fill in the gaps, as it were.

Perhaps we can take a functional unit and work backwards?

What makes Grey Hunters work? Is it the weapons/wargear access? Or what?

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Tactical Marines are well established in the Codex Astartes as using 1 special and 1 heavy in a ten man squad. Why should they not on tabletop? By what standards do you declare something to be "outdated" rather than "in need of balance adjustments"?

It isn't good enough because:
1. There are Chapters that deviate, but you can't show that
2. You literally used to have the option with the 4th edition codex

a) yes there are deviators but also those who follow it. Both needs to be valid
b) doesn't mean current option needs to be removed

You can fix the game rules rather than have to change fluff. There's no reason to change existing fluff to remove part of fluff that has always been WHEN YOU CAN SIMPLY FIX THE RULES!

Heavy / special is what works for marines in the fluff, and the rules can be changed to make it work and make it powerful on the table. That's what rules are for. And it can be done, with the right rules you can make one heavy weapon and one special in a squad full of bolters better, situationally, than a squad full of plasma guns.

They don't have to be grey hunters, a small "a" assault unit, that has to move in to do damage with its two and a half plasma guns and then use its middling cc to stay positioned. Given the option, we know this will happen, because chaos marines had the option to be heavy/special or double special and have always taken the double special option. Having the option for double special doesn't fix heavy/special, it just eliminates it, it doesn't fix the problem for the vast majority of squads out there that are heavy/special. Becoming double plus combi squads also doesn't fix the rest of the marines in the unit just being expensive bullet catchers. The game can be improved so that 1) a single heavy weapon can be powerful and 2) having extra bolter marines actually improves the performance of the squad / of the heavy weapon.

The game has to support infantry fire teams by: 1) under specific in-game circumstances, an upgrade weapon carried by infantry should count every successful to wound roll as two successful wounds, causing two saves and potentially twice as much damage if they both fail. 2) That ability is dependent on the amount of wounds that small arms like the bolter can do, so the more bolters you have and the more accurate they are from bs3+, bs2+, or re-rolls, the better chance you have of making the heavy weapon cause double saves.

Or just make the Heavy weapon cost less if taken in a 10-man squad, and you could call it a day. They actually used to do this, too. Heavies for Devastators cost more than Heavies for Tacticals, because of the battlefield role. It should be noted though, that that was also back when a unit could only target a single enemy unit.

-5 points for a Heavy in a 10 man Tac Squad would be nice. -10 would be awesome, and the Heavy Bolter becomes free at that point. You get your 10-man incentive and you're paying less for a pseudo-special.

Rocmistro wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


SM already have the most undercosted transports in the game.

If they drop to 45-55 points how much shoul orks trukks or drukhari venoms cost? 20-25 points?

As a SW player I'm 100% fine with the MeQ profile for my troops and footslogging/jump pack elites.

You have to be kidding. The Wave Serpent is, point-for-point, far better than anything Space Marines have.
For a few points more than a Razorback you get a much faster, much more durable, more versatile, and more transport-y vehicle, that can't be locked down in close combat by the way, and gets to benefit from it's craftworld chapter tactic.

I don't know enough about Orks' vehicles to make a proper comparison, but my understanding is that just about everything they have, besides Boyz, are overpriced at the moment.

Ok the wave serpent (which costs twice a rhino) and then what else? Rhinos and razorbacks are indeed top 8th edition transports.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You do realize that Grey Hunters are better than other MEQ, right?

Because they have +1A? A unit of 5 dudes have 10 S4 no ap attacks, I don't really see the advantage.

Also SM tacs can have lascannons and missile launchers while grey hunters can't, that's a disadvantage. Both grey hunters and tacticals work mostly as objective campers or to screen the tanks/devs. How are grey hunters better than tac marines is a mistery to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps we can take a functional unit and work backwards?

What makes Grey Hunters work? Is it the weapons/wargear access? Or what?

They have lesser options for their wargear. They just have a free chainsword. Oh, and they can have two sargents in the same squad if you have 6+ dudes. But since no one fields units bigger than min size squads it's irrelevant. Blood claws benefit from the double sargent since they're a close combat oriented unit and they perform better in large blobs. They're overcosted though, they certainly should be a bit cheaper since they're 13 ppm like grey hunters but with a worse profile.

 Blackie wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You do realize that Grey Hunters are better than other MEQ, right?

Because they have +1A? A unit of 5 dudes have 10 S4 no ap attacks, I don't really see the advantage.

Also SM tacs can have lascannons and missile launchers while grey hunters can't, that's a disadvantage. Both grey hunters and tacticals work mostly as objective campers or to screen the tanks/devs. How are grey hunters better than tac marines is a mistery to me.

Because they can take two specials and a combi. It's a much better combination than one special and a heavy because it allows you to specialize. This has been the case since forever. The extra chainsword is just gravy on top.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You do realize that Grey Hunters are better than other MEQ, right?

Because they have +1A? A unit of 5 dudes have 10 S4 no ap attacks, I don't really see the advantage.

Also SM tacs can have lascannons and missile launchers while grey hunters can't, that's a disadvantage. Both grey hunters and tacticals work mostly as objective campers or to screen the tanks/devs. How are grey hunters better than tac marines is a mistery to me.

Because they can take two specials and a combi. It's a much better combination than one special and a heavy because it allows you to specialize. This has been the case since forever. The extra chainsword is just gravy on top.

If that's all it takes to make Tactical Marines good, then sure. Two specials + Combi, and free chainswords. Badda bing, badda boom, right? Easy.

No one is going to take two special weapons in grey hunter squads. Their typical loadout is a 5 man squad with no upgrades, eventually with a plasma gun. Note that with the current rules you can go with plasma + combi plasma only if you field at least 6 guys since the pack leader can't take a combi weapon, only the wolf guard pack leader can, which is the second sargent and he can be taken only in 6+ man units, not in min ones.

Most competitive lists don't even have a wolf lord and without it you can't overcharge plasma safely.

IMHO a single lascannon is also better than two plasma guns for a unit of SM/GH. Since you'll mostly play the unit as screener or objective camper anyway.

It wasn't a thing even in 7th edition because grey hunters mostly arrived by drop pods and usually with a character that joined them, which means, only one special weapon and eventually a combi weapon per squad. Like regular SM.

I'd argue that grey hunters are worse than tacs because you can't field min units with a lascannon if you play SW.

Wait so are grey hunters better or worse than tactical marines?

I'm getting conflicting messages from the MEQ side.

Grey Hunters are better at pushing and taking ground, Tacticals are better at sitting in a corner and firing a heavy weapon at stuff. Grey Hunters also have twice the number of melee attacks.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Grey Hunters are better at pushing and taking ground, Tacticals are better at sitting in a corner and firing a heavy weapon at stuff. Grey Hunters also have twice the number of melee attacks.

So they're better than tacts?

I don't even know what GH do anymore other than die to scatterbikes like everyone else in 7th.