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.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not doubly wrong. I could beat grav stars and white scar bikers with wily play. Eldar and tau rolled over them. BA very much resembled marines with no formations. Eldar didn't need formations; they had undercosted units.

My point is that the base marine has been a failure for a long time now. Since 5th, imo. And gk now just exemplify the same problems, only worse.

Ah so if you aren't as good as 7th ed Eldar, you aren't a real army.



Well that's a rational standard of measure.

When playing large numbers of games against Eldar, it becomes rather true.

literally the entire game was significantly weaker than Eldar, thats just a bad unit of measure. SM was actually one of the better non Eldar dexes. Complaining about SM here is just ridiculous. You had an advantage on most of the armies in the game, but because your dex wasn't literally the strongest, most OP thing out there, it was terrible?

It's statements like this that make it really hard to defend SM players when people say they whine too much. What even is this.

I think the fact people eventually managed to counter Gladius, a list that brought in 300+ free points, speaks levels of that codex. Not only was it poorly written, it was poorly balanced being insanely stupid at first and then just being good when nobody else was getting a dumb bonus like that. War Convocation has NOTHING on that bonus. Yet the army did basically okay near the end of 7th

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not doubly wrong. I could beat grav stars and white scar bikers with wily play. Eldar and tau rolled over them. BA very much resembled marines with no formations. Eldar didn't need formations; they had undercosted units.

My point is that the base marine has been a failure for a long time now. Since 5th, imo. And gk now just exemplify the same problems, only worse.

Ah so if you aren't as good as 7th ed Eldar, you aren't a real army.



Well that's a rational standard of measure.

When playing large numbers of games against Eldar, it becomes rather true.

literally the entire game was significantly weaker than Eldar, thats just a bad unit of measure. SM was actually one of the better non Eldar dexes. Complaining about SM here is just ridiculous. You had an advantage on most of the armies in the game, but because your dex wasn't literally the strongest, most OP thing out there, it was terrible?

It's statements like this that make it really hard to defend SM players when people say they whine too much. What even is this.

I think the fact people eventually managed to counter Gladius, a list that brought in 300+ free points, speaks levels of that codex. Not only was it poorly written, it was poorly balanced being insanely stupid at first and then just being good when nobody else was getting a dumb bonus like that. War Convocation has NOTHING on that bonus. Yet the army did basically okay near the end of 7th

It was really strong before it Gladius as well, with multiple top builds, even if they weren't meta defining ones, SM was consistently placing and being one of the only dexes keeping up with Eldar and Tau, it was probably slightly above Crons, and that was the meta. Formations are just bad design, but yes SM had one of the dumbest ones, which also meant follow up ones were dumber to keep up. But yeah, seems we all except Martel agree on an answer to the question that was asked "when was the last time Marines were actually strong" yeah literally a single edition ago

Fine. They were "strong" in 7th. Excluding DA and BA. And non-super friends SW. Doesn't help a lick now, really.

Martel732 wrote:
Fine. They were "strong" in 7th. Excluding DA and BA. And non-super friends SW. Doesn't help a lick now, really.

The question was about the SM dex though, the second you start including every single power armor dex in there you won't be able to make a statement on anything. They are designed to be different.

Anyway, as has been said this isn't even the topic of the thread, lets move it on

Do you agree that the bolter goon is probably not worth 13 ppm in 8th?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Just be under the assumption that Strike Squads and Interceptors will always have Falcions. Then it isn't so bad

Yea but it also sucks to be basically forced into that, too.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Just be under the assumption that Strike Squads and Interceptors will always have Falcions. Then it isn't so bad

Yea but it also sucks to be basically forced into that, too.

While true, nobody will care about a few Counts As if you just want variety. You pay 20 points for a Storm Bolter and 2 AP-2 attacks. They're really not terribly with offense. They could just stand to be a point cheaper and gain a type of Shrouding where anyone shooting outside 18" suffers a -1 To Hit.

I'll sell you a troop choice that is 10 points per model, has 10 AP4 attacks. The thing is they move only 1 inch.

See the problem?

 Quickjager wrote:
I'll sell you a troop choice that is 10 points per model, has 10 AP4 attacks. The thing is they move only 1 inch.

See the problem?

exactly, you can look at a units strengths all day, but you have to look at how much their weaknesses offset them. You have to apply that damage at the end of the day, it needs to be taken into consideration. Sometimes its not all about math as well.

No, it's still about math. Sometimes it's the math of movement.

Martel732 wrote:
No, it's still about math. Sometimes it's the math of movement.

whats the math of being able to shoot from out of line of sight, can you please give me an equation that accurately reflects this durability buff? You have no way of accurately knowing how many or which models will be affected by something like that in any given game, or how relevant movespeed will be, you can only create likely scenarios, and then use math to iron out the numbers in these scenarios. Firm math is important - but it's not literally all about math, there is factors in this game that do not translate easily in a numbered result, and for evaluating the impact of these, you have to use the power of critical thinking that you have (hopefully) been blessed with, instead of a calculator.

Agreed on the LoS thing, but that wasn't the example given.

Terrain set up is one of the biggest factors in any given game for sure.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
I'll sell you a troop choice that is 10 points per model, has 10 AP4 attacks. The thing is they move only 1 inch.

See the problem?

exactly, you can look at a units strengths all day, but you have to look at how much their weaknesses offset them. You have to apply that damage at the end of the day, it needs to be taken into consideration. Sometimes its not all about math as well.

A generalist unit is not supposed to have a weakness or a strength.

A expensive generalist unit is not supposed to have a weakness full stop.

If a generalist unit has weaknesses that literally stops them from ever actually using 3/4s of their skills they are overcosted grots.

-Psychic phase nerfs
-Deepstrike nerfs
-Assault being crappy full stop
-The best shooting being a STORMBOLTER

This is not called a strength.

 Quickjager wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
I'll sell you a troop choice that is 10 points per model, has 10 AP4 attacks. The thing is they move only 1 inch.

See the problem?

exactly, you can look at a units strengths all day, but you have to look at how much their weaknesses offset them. You have to apply that damage at the end of the day, it needs to be taken into consideration. Sometimes its not all about math as well.

A generalist unit is not supposed to have a weakness or a strength.

A expensive generalist unit is not supposed to have a weakness full stop.

If a generalist unit has weaknesses that literally stops them from ever actually using 3/4s of their skills they are overcosted grots.

-Psychic phase nerfs
-Deepstrike nerfs
-Assault being crappy full stop
-The best shooting being a STORMBOLTER

This is not called a strength.

I'm agreeing with you. Every unit has something that could do, that's it strength. It's weaknesses are anything that it stop it from doing this.

 Quickjager wrote:
-The best shooting being a STORMBOLTER

Lets not get too carried away. Stormbolters are great for the points.

A.T. wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
-The best shooting being a STORMBOLTER

Lets not get too carried away. Stormbolters are great for the points.

Very, but it's pretty damn boring.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
-The best shooting being a STORMBOLTER

Lets not get too carried away. Stormbolters are great for the points.

Very, but it's pretty damn boring.

Yes and no. If all a grey Knight gets to use offensively is a stormbolter then it is a weak unit.

Best use of storm bolters, imo, are sisters. They mass them easily enough for much cheaper and have ways to get them into position with scout moves and acts of faith.

Grey knights have the potential to be good... But their durability is trash. Their ability to get into combat is meh. They tend to deep strike near a unit, unload their bolts, fail their charge, then die

Part of the issue is that being a generalist unit is usually not worth it.

A unit with average movement, melee abilities, shooting power, and durability is not going to be as useful as a unit that is focused on 1-2 of those things unless the generalist unit is heavily discounted.

The other issue is that durability is a farce this edition, where the only truly durable stats are a cheap single wound, 4+ or better invuls, or FNP, while armor saves and most toughness stats are largely irrelevant and over costed.

jcd386 wrote:
Part of the issue is that being a generalist unit is usually not worth it.

A unit with average movement, melee abilities, shooting power, and durability is not going to be as useful as a unit that is focused on 1-2 of those things unless the generalist unit is heavily discounted.

The other issue is that durability is a farce this edition, where the only truly durable stats are a cheap single wound, 4+ or better invuls, or FNP, while armor saves and most toughness stats are largely irrelevant and over costed.

This.

 Porphyrius wrote:
What units do you already have? Perhaps consider soup, and mix in elements from other factions to make your units work better (at least to an acceptable level) for you.

I have 15 plastic terminators, 1 nemezis dreadnought, caldor draigo, 5 grey knight strike squad members with halabards and psycannon and 2 rhinos.

Karol wrote:

 Porphyrius wrote:
What units do you already have? Perhaps consider soup, and mix in elements from other factions to make your units work better (at least to an acceptable level) for you.

I have 15 plastic terminators, 1 nemezis dreadnought, caldor draigo, 5 grey knight strike squad members with halabards and psycannon and 2 rhinos.

I'm so sorry mate.

jcd386 wrote:
Part of the issue is that being a generalist unit is usually not worth it.

A unit with average movement, melee abilities, shooting power, and durability is not going to be as useful as a unit that is focused on 1-2 of those things unless the generalist unit is heavily discounted.

The other issue is that durability is a farce this edition, where the only truly durable stats are a cheap single wound, 4+ or better invuls, or FNP, while armor saves and most toughness stats are largely irrelevant and over costed.

It’s possible to be a good generalist, as long as you are actually GOOD at all the things. For example, Custodes jetbikes are durable, fast, shoot and melee well. They pay for it, but realistically that’s the way GK need to go: an increase in some capabilities (mainly defense and a bit of varied shooting) that would make them worth their cost, or even an increase.

Not just good at everything, but not paying through the nose for it.

Custodes Jetbikes are literally the best unit at everything in the Codex. They have the best (and most focused) shooting, they have the best close combat, they have the best durability, they have the have the best movement, they have the best special rules (fly) and they have the best - albeit expensive - Stratagem. But what really makes them shine is that they’re only about 10% more expensive than the best specialist unit in the Codex - Terminators.

 Danarc wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Porphyrius wrote:
What units do you already have? Perhaps consider soup, and mix in elements from other factions to make your units work better (at least to an acceptable level) for you.

I have 15 plastic terminators, 1 nemezis dreadnought, caldor draigo, 5 grey knight strike squad members with halabards and psycannon and 2 rhinos.

I'm so sorry mate.

Why?

By the way anyone has an idea what to buy next, for our store event I have to expend 500pts till end of next month.

 greyknight12 wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
Part of the issue is that being a generalist unit is usually not worth it.

A unit with average movement, melee abilities, shooting power, and durability is not going to be as useful as a unit that is focused on 1-2 of those things unless the generalist unit is heavily discounted.

The other issue is that durability is a farce this edition, where the only truly durable stats are a cheap single wound, 4+ or better invuls, or FNP, while armor saves and most toughness stats are largely irrelevant and over costed.

It’s possible to be a good generalist, as long as you are actually GOOD at all the things. For example, Custodes jetbikes are durable, fast, shoot and melee well. They pay for it, but realistically that’s the way GK need to go: an increase in some capabilities (mainly defense and a bit of varied shooting) that would make them worth their cost, or even an increase.

I actually look at the Vertus Praetors as an example of a unit with a focus on durability and mobility that is arbitrarily under-priced. They have decent firepower, but it isn't much better than that of 3 SM bikes (they have BS2+ so it is a bit better) which cost about as much as they do (which is quite laughable), and although 4 attacks is good, it isn't amazing for a 90 point model. They are well rounded though in that their shooting is okay at killing hordes, and their melee is good at killing big stuff, which is good for them.

Unlike most other marine units, they have actual durability. T6 helps reduce the number of wounds they take in the first place, and a 2+4++ lets them shrug off a large percentage of those wounds, while 4 wounds means that even 1d6 weapons like las cannons aren't going to kill them half of the time. Their mobility is also amazing, having the rare for marines fly ability, as well as deep-strike stratagems, and the charge in the other person's turn stratagem. These combined mean they are likely to last a while and get where they want to go to do some damage. I'd actually argue they are a poorly designed unit in a lot of ways, since the combination of high durability and mobility is one of the stronger combinations of stats available to a unit. The fact that they are also very cheap makes them as popular as they are, but even an increase in price would still leave them effective for those reasons.

I'm coming from a ccg background mostly,so I don't know how this works in warhammer, but isn't designs goal creating powerful combinations of rules and stats for units?
It is way better to have the option to play with good and powerful options, then having lackluser or bad options? I understand from what people are writing here, is that all GK options under perform for their cost, and that they do not have anything better then other armies have, right?

Maybe it is my background of living in a country where it was tried to make everything balanced and equal, till the food run out eventually, but I don't think that unit design should be based around balance. units should be over the top and do over the top things, so people want to play with them and want to buy them. This way GW is happy, getting the sales, and gamers are happy, because they get to play with cool stuff. Balanced seems to be a different name for boring.

 greyknight12 wrote:
For example, Custodes jetbikes are durable, fast, shoot and melee well. They pay for it, but realistically that’s the way GK need to go: an increase in some capabilities (mainly defense and a bit of varied shooting) that would make them worth their cost, or even an increase.

Custodes bikes are the last thing you want to use as an example of good design. An outrider force of them is even stronger than the much maligned supreme command shield captain detachment.

Why is strong being considered bad somehow. Strong is good, and the stronger the better. If they cost more points, then I assume they wouldn't be viable to play with. Who cares if they would end up balanced then, if no one would buy or play with them .

Karol wrote:
Why is strong being considered bad somehow. Strong is good, and the stronger the better. If they cost more points, then I assume they wouldn't be viable to play with. Who cares if they would end up balanced then, if no one would buy or play with them .

wow


you're off to a roaring start

Sorry maybe am not getting something. Plus my english is below passable, but what is wrong with having an army with many strong options? You have an army that works, and that seems a worth on its own. You can try out different things, like playing under 2500pts games. You don't have to buy multiple rule books, and multiple armies till you find the one that works.

And that is just the good stuff for the people playing. Good units make people buy more stuff, so GW gets more money. And I doubt they cry, that this or that unit is selling great.

On the other hand having boaring units, that don't do anything awesome seem only to be a valid joice, if you get the army gifted by someone, or you want to play,but don't have a lot of money and the bad army is cheap to make.