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.

Splinter weapons are a bit odd as their guns always wound on 4+ so they are weaker against T3 opponents than Bolters which wound on a 3+.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Splinter weapons are a bit odd as their guns always wound on 4+ so they are weaker against T3 opponents than Bolters which wound on a 3+.

Right but a lasgun wounds t3 on 4+ too. That is the only place a splinter rifle is not a great weapon - witch the exception of vehials....but that's why you have shreders and blasters - both respectively wreck what splinters are weak against. When you are wounding a hive tyrant on 4+ with splinters though - you really start to see how good of a weapon it is.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Elite Eldar infatry lost something that they always had on marines. High inititive. Initiaive has been removed from the game. They didn't revice any compensation for that - aspect warriors need increased ablity also - no one takes the close combat aspects.

Did anyone ever?

Banshees were good in 2nd.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Splinter weapons are a bit odd as their guns always wound on 4+ so they are weaker against T3 opponents than Bolters which wound on a 3+.

Right but a lasgun wounds t3 on 4+ too. That is the only place a splinter rifle is not a great weapon - witch the exception of vehials....but that's why you have shreders and blasters - both respectively wreck what splinters are weak against. When you are wounding a hive tyrant on 4+ with splinters though - you really start to see how good of a weapon it is.

Yeah the Spinter weapon is the opposite of a bolter against other basic infantry - its the same when firing at Marines, Stealers etc but weaker against Guard, Cultists, Sisters, Gaunts, etc but as you say great against non vehicle big things.

Although Dark Eldar also do have their photon grenades which are Strength 4 IIRC from Thursdays game.

Kabalites are so cheap that drukhari can afford other units to stab the t3 stuff.

Martel732 wrote:
Kabalites are so cheap that drukhari can afford other units to stab the t3 stuff.

Except that we don't really have much in the way of anti-T3 stuff. Most of our anti-infantry stuff is just more poison of one sort or another.

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Kabalites are so cheap that drukhari can afford other units to stab the t3 stuff.

Except that we don't really have much in the way of anti-T3 stuff. Most of our anti-infantry stuff is just more poison of one sort or another.

The thing is Kabalites are so cheap they are fine against toughness 3.

Before buffs they are better than Fire Warriors and dramatically better than Marines.

Dark Eldar are in a good place right now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galas wrote:
To be honest I also dislike the idea of making space marines cheaper, just because I think one of the biggest problem of the game is that theres so much cheap infantry that you don't have enough room for balance.

Plus, cheaper models means more expensive armies, moneywise.

You can't let your personal feeling get in the way of balance - this obviously seems to be a problem with GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Well, yes, but at least point values serve a purpose.Not so much in the case of making Marines have 1W, not anymore. The fluff certainly doesn't depict them that way, and it's becoming pretty clear that there's no niche for them as 1W models in 8th edition. Keeping them the same just because they've had 1W in previous editions serves no purpose.

Which fluff are you reading? IMO Marines and Aspect Warriors are roughly equal opponents, and 2W marines would skew that heavily.

Elite Eldar infatry lost something that they always had on marines. High inititive. Initiaive has been removed from the game. They didn't revice any compensation for that - aspect warriors need increased ablity also - no one takes the close combat aspects.

They got that extra inch of movement

I do miss initiative. I'm really not a fan of the current system.

I think we need to give up this fight. This ship sailed a long time ago. The only simple way forward is to make (old) space marines basically a pseudo horde army which doesn’t seem right. The design space to make them worth their points is already taken by Primaris marines. The cost cutting, and inevitable rise of models on the table, is already out of control.

Pity when GW rebooted the game they didn't take the time to re-base it as well.

Make a bog standard marine say S6, T6, 3W, 3A or something - then scale from there, specifically to provide space to go down.

GW have always had a serious problem in that they like to make things bigger, then when things get smaller it distorts the game and the basic marine gets left in the dust as unable to do enough damage against the small stuff and likewise against the bigger stuff

But that wouldn't fit in with GW's sell you more stuff goal.
It has got out of hand though when they have cornered themselfs into just pricing everything cheaper and cheaper rather than fixing the underpriced unit. Because if they make everything else as silly people will need twice the models.

Ice_can wrote:
But that wouldn't fit in with GW's sell you more stuff goal.
It had gotnout of hand though when they have cornered themselfs into just pricing everything cheaper and cheaper rather than fixing the underpriced unit. Becuase if they make verything else as silly people will need twice the models.

it would however allow them to make horde stuff even cheaper so you could have even more of it...

leopard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
But that wouldn't fit in with GW's sell you more stuff goal.
It had gotnout of hand though when they have cornered themselfs into just pricing everything cheaper and cheaper rather than fixing the underpriced unit. Becuase if they make verything else as silly people will need twice the models.

it would however allow them to make horde stuff even cheaper so you could have even more of it...

Welcome to 28mm Epic 40k

 Fafnir wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I think the whole game needs to be re-priced rather than just tactical marines more like ten thousand points to play with and a basic guardsman starting out at ten points.
But scale has never been a particularly great part of 40k.

That would be cutting the relative cost of a guardsman by more than half, assuming a 2000 point standard for the game as it is.

Yes it would, but if the entire game gets re-priced off that ten point guardsman in a ten thousand point game rather than a thirteen point Space Marine in a two thousand point game that you'll wind up with room to modify points costs, there is probably a better model to do this with but if you start with the lowest statted model, I mean the model at the bottom and give it wriggle room it is easier to find balance than starting with something nearish the bottom and running out of room for models below that.

Ice_can wrote:
But that wouldn't fit in with GW's sell you more stuff goal.
It has got out of hand though when they have cornered themselfs into just pricing everything cheaper and cheaper rather than fixing the underpriced unit. Because if they make everything else as silly people will need twice the models.

Of course, that's the same attitude that caused WHFB to become a massive, esoteric wall of infantry that became unapproachable to the point of its inglorious death. AoS ended up making an impressive comeback, but it took considerable time and was not without cost. One of the main features that contributed to its survival and later thriving is the fact that the system became much more approachable without needing legions of models just to start playing.

 Fafnir wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
But that wouldn't fit in with GW's sell you more stuff goal.
It has got out of hand though when they have cornered themselfs into just pricing everything cheaper and cheaper rather than fixing the underpriced unit. Because if they make everything else as silly people will need twice the models.

Of course, that's the same attitude that caused WHFB to become a massive, esoteric wall of infantry that became unapproachable to the point of its inglorious death. AoS ended up making an impressive comeback, but it took considerable time and was not without cost. One of the main features that contributed to its survival and later thriving is the fact that the system became much more approachable without needing legions of models just to start playing.

I don't think this is true. Nothing forces you to play WHFB at 2000 points or nothing. You didn't "need" more units to play a game just because the general points reduction made it possible.
Only the internet had the view that if say you collected Empire the first thing you had to do, had tot do was go and buy 40~ halberdiers.

And even then a massive wall of infantry is cool. I'll never get why people like cavalryhammer.

I think the real problem with WHFB was that the rules created a bad game. It wasn't gamey - which I think AoS is - but it also wasn't an interesting ruleset to simulate fantasy battles.
It became an annoying mix of "Can you manoeuvre so as to avoid charge arcs, so you can't be charged even if you are right next to the enemy" and "Can I cast my game winning spell?"
Which means the moment someone moves beyond beer and pretzels and trying to make the game work (rather than trying to win) it kind of sucks.

Anyway with that said I struggle to see how Marines would become a horde army if the base for MEQ became say 11 points.

Points accross the board need to be looked at again.

Riptide HBC is 35 pts, S6 Ap-1 2D 12 shots

Heavy onslaught gattling cannon is 36 pts, S5 Ap-1 1D 12 shots

Um okay?

This is just one of the many glaring issues I think Marines as a whole have

 fraser1191 wrote:
Points accross the board need to be looked at again.

Riptide HBC is 35 pts, S6 Ap-1 2D 12 shots

Heavy onslaught gattling cannon is 36 pts, S5 Ap-1 1D 12 shots

Um okay?

This is just one of the many glaring issues I think Marines as a whole have

Well, there is the difference of BS. If we look at guard prices, a plasma gun is 7 pts, but it's 13 pts at BS 3+. So by that logic the HBC would be 70 or so points if it had BS 3+.

Of course that assumes there was logic in the first place...

IMO most special weapons are not costed appropriately, not just marines. A Tau plasma rifle is 11 pts but is BS 4+, S6, and has no overcharge. Missile pods are basically autocannons but at 24 pts a piece, despite high yield missile pods being 25 pts for twice the shots. A Taurox gatling cannon is 18 pts for 20 S4 shots at BS 3+, while a burst cannon is 8 pts for 4 S5 shots at BS 4+ etc..

 fraser1191 wrote:
Points accross the board need to be looked at again.

Riptide HBC is 35 pts, S6 Ap-1 2D 12 shots

Heavy onslaught gattling cannon is 36 pts, S5 Ap-1 1D 12 shots

Um okay?

This is just one of the many glaring issues I think Marines as a whole have

Duh! Their guns are better because tau. Marines have to overpay for everything because they are so awesome in all the other aspects of the game. Check out that psychic phase were you can give a single model +1 T - that's a duzzie. Then there's all the insane mobility that is factors into their cost - tanks that move 10" is pretty impressive (so impressive that space marine army traits can't possibly apply to these vehicles - it would be overpowered) - plus marines move as fast as gaurdsmen - that's pretty fast in the warhammer universe. Then there is the assault phase were even our basic trooper with 1 attack has str 4!!! Gosh golly you might kill a 4 point gaurdsmen with that if you don't get destroyed by 120 lasgun shots from an equivalent point unit before you get there. Then theres that amazing ability to reroll failed morale checks - it would be OP if marines paid fair points for their weapons.

Well, the Boltgun costs no more points than a Lasgun - both at 0. But the Boltgun has +1S.

So raw points differences aren't always that enlightening.

Bharring wrote:
Well, the Boltgun costs no more points than a Lasgun - both at 0. But the Boltgun has +1S.

So raw points differences aren't always that enlightening.

That's true - it almost seems like points are completely made up out of thin air. In general though things that cost 0 points I think are considered to be factored into the cost of the model.

Not every weapon is either fully absorbed by the model or purely A la Carte priced, though. It's quite probable that many things are in between.

I think "free" weapons in general were a mistake. Maybe it's fine for certain units that can't have the weapon swapped out like the vindicator. But by that logic a marine that gets a plasma gun is still paying for the boltgun. If a plasma gun is priced at 13 for BS 3+ a Scion gets the better end of things seeing as how his Hotshot lasgun actually cost points.

"Check out that psychic phase were you can give a single model +1 T - that's a duzzie..."

The model also gets +1A and I think +1S. It’s a lot better than you give it credit. Combine it with the ToT and you could have up to +4A and S7.

I kind of wonder if troops above GEQs need a price reduction in general. It seems like people tend to use MSUs to get as little investment in troops as possible in more elite armies. If that's the case, then people aren't finding the troops worth the points.

I still believe A la Carte is a mistake on the whole. A powerfist on a Captain should be worth more than a powerfist on a Sarge.

I think Marines are still somewhat priced with the assumption that they're taking a special and/or heavy. It's like part of those weapons is costed into the 13ppm Marine. But then they still pay full price for the specials/heavies.

I liked how, in earlier Dexes, Marines payed an extra PPM, but got a 10 point reduction on their Heavy. It didn't make 10-mans with full gear worthwhile, but did make them less bad.

Bharring wrote:
I still believe A la Carte is a mistake on the whole. A powerfist on a Captain should be worth more than a powerfist on a Sarge.

I think Marines are still somewhat priced with the assumption that they're taking a special and/or heavy. It's like part of those weapons is costed into the 13ppm Marine. But then they still pay full price for the specials/heavies.

I liked how, in earlier Dexes, Marines payed an extra PPM, but got a 10 point reduction on their Heavy. It didn't make 10-mans with full gear worthwhile, but did make them less bad.

Yeah - a la carte is trash - plus they aren't even consistent with it. If it were consistent - better weapons would cost more points like in the riptide example. It's only like that sometimes.