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.

Lemondish wrote:

Hopefully Primaris is the answer, eventually. Probably need a 40k version of the Transhuman Physiology rule in Kill Team before that realistically starts to happen, though.

My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:

While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Nids are not balanced if you are considering tournaments. They have a win percentage on par with Space Marines. Knights and Custodes have really shut them out.

Most people run Kronos or Jormungandr now as the best Nid lists are shooting lists. Kraken is great for genestealers but paying marine prices for a 5+ save is a recipe for getting tabled.

Well the problem is that Tournaments themselves are extremely biased, having limited time and almost never going full 5+ rounds and having no or very little long term objectives completely hurts many armies and army types, then you have scored like what ITC does where killing characters is worth a point, killing large units is worth a point, etc... making people want to build lists to ignore those extra VP's.

You can not and should not say an army is or isnt balanced based on tournament standings, you can calculated some fairness and see if some units are extremely unbalanced, but over all its impossible.

And you shoudnt look at win percent without some type of curve base on number of armies taken. The win/lost rate might be worst only b.c more players are moving away from tyranids and we dont have a real sample size, with less players 1 bad player will skew it heavily compare to 100 imperial players.


Why do i think Tyranids is the more balanced codex? B.c out of all the codex's Tyranids has the most playable Traits, you see players using Jorm, Behemoth, Leviathan, Kronos, Kraken, you see Horde lists, you see Nidzilia lists, you see Shooting and Melee ones, what other MONO Codex do you see with that much diversity?

All of my games end in a tabling /concession or go to turn 6. This is the norm for players at this point, as people have adapted to chess clocks.

The sample size is all ITC games in tournaments for the past 3 months. It's a huge sample size.

And honestly Nids aren't a late game army due to lack in durability. If games ended on turn 4 then Nids would be god mode. Ending early helps them, should you end early.

I never said Nids are a late game army, i said other armies are not meta due to there is no late game.

And you didnt answer me, what other armies has the diversity as nids? You dont see 10 different SM list, or IG ones, its all the same 3-4 lists with 1-2 units that are different.

Balance also doesnt mean OP and win every game, if every army was actually balanced then all armies has the same win ratio, clearly you dont know what balance means since you are looking at tournaments where luck is the biggest factor in a GT... "Did you take Meta A list? Did your 1st opponent take Anti-Meta A list? No? Good you win, yes? Oh look you lost" Or "Did you and your opponent both take the same list? Oh he went first? GG you lost"

You don't see more than 2 different competitive Tyranids lists. It's kraken double bat and ranged dakka (carnifex + hg).

You are one of those posters who states his opinion as fact, when in reality what you're saying is factually untrue. I'm not going to waste time replying to things that are false. For instance, if i make the claim, "every single unit in the space marines codex is top tier," there is no point in spending energy disproving that statement because it's idiotic. Your claim that Tyranids have more viable builds is laughably false, so why bother refuting what can only be classified as a bold lie?

 Marmatag wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Nids are not balanced if you are considering tournaments. They have a win percentage on par with Space Marines. Knights and Custodes have really shut them out.

Most people run Kronos or Jormungandr now as the best Nid lists are shooting lists. Kraken is great for genestealers but paying marine prices for a 5+ save is a recipe for getting tabled.

Well the problem is that Tournaments themselves are extremely biased, having limited time and almost never going full 5+ rounds and having no or very little long term objectives completely hurts many armies and army types, then you have scored like what ITC does where killing characters is worth a point, killing large units is worth a point, etc... making people want to build lists to ignore those extra VP's.

You can not and should not say an army is or isnt balanced based on tournament standings, you can calculated some fairness and see if some units are extremely unbalanced, but over all its impossible.

And you shoudnt look at win percent without some type of curve base on number of armies taken. The win/lost rate might be worst only b.c more players are moving away from tyranids and we dont have a real sample size, with less players 1 bad player will skew it heavily compare to 100 imperial players.


Why do i think Tyranids is the more balanced codex? B.c out of all the codex's Tyranids has the most playable Traits, you see players using Jorm, Behemoth, Leviathan, Kronos, Kraken, you see Horde lists, you see Nidzilia lists, you see Shooting and Melee ones, what other MONO Codex do you see with that much diversity?

All of my games end in a tabling /concession or go to turn 6. This is the norm for players at this point, as people have adapted to chess clocks.

The sample size is all ITC games in tournaments for the past 3 months. It's a huge sample size.

And honestly Nids aren't a late game army due to lack in durability. If games ended on turn 4 then Nids would be god mode. Ending early helps them, should you end early.

I never said Nids are a late game army, i said other armies are not meta due to there is no late game.

And you didnt answer me, what other armies has the diversity as nids? You dont see 10 different SM list, or IG ones, its all the same 3-4 lists with 1-2 units that are different.

Balance also doesnt mean OP and win every game, if every army was actually balanced then all armies has the same win ratio, clearly you dont know what balance means since you are looking at tournaments where luck is the biggest factor in a GT... "Did you take Meta A list? Did your 1st opponent take Anti-Meta A list? No? Good you win, yes? Oh look you lost" Or "Did you and your opponent both take the same list? Oh he went first? GG you lost"

You don't see more than 2 different competitive Tyranids lists. It's kraken double bat and ranged dakka (carnifex + hg).

You are one of those posters who states his opinion as fact, when in reality what you're saying is factually untrue. I'm not going to waste time replying to things that are false. For instance, if i make the claim, "every single unit in the space marines codex is top tier," there is no point in spending energy disproving that statement because it's idiotic. Your claim that Tyranids have more viable builds is laughably false, so why bother refuting what can only be classified as a bold lie?

Again you are stating tournaments top results = balance, we have seen nids in tournaments with 40% win rates, yes that is low (lower mid tier), but we have seen equal play from players with Kronos Horde, Kracken horde, Jormungandr Nidzilia, and Mix with Behemoth at times. Thats 3 distinct play styles and <traits>.

Look at DE its always Kabal Black Heart with Coven, and its always the same units, look at CWE its almost always the same units and <traits> How is it not a well balanced book when you have diversity that are all equal to each other?

My point isnt Tyranids are good and they win 60% of their games, my point is you see equal win rates with diverse lists. Hence making them a balanced book. Sadly Tyranids are allying in GSC (well its cool also) to stay mid tier, but its the Soup Edition, if you dont soup you are left behind.

Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Hopefully Primaris is the answer, eventually. Probably need a 40k version of the Transhuman Physiology rule in Kill Team before that realistically starts to happen, though.

My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:

While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.

I assume this would only happen once, since marines functionally immune to 1 damage weaponry is a correction too far the opposite direction. I would be more likely to lean towards a rule that reduces all damage taken by 1 to a minimum of 1. I fear that keeping track of the wound state on individual models would be cumbersome.

Your idea definitely means old marines get to come out and play with more durability though, which should absolutely not be discounted. I think Primaris are the future and the faster we pare down some of the redundant old marine nonsense, the better.

Don't want to make this thread another marine salt party, though (even though I really want to complain about some gak)

 Marmatag wrote:


You don't see more than 2 different competitive Tyranids lists. It's kraken double bat and ranged dakka (carnifex + hg).

You are one of those posters who states his opinion as fact, when in reality what you're saying is factually untrue. I'm not going to waste time replying to things that are false. For instance, if i make the claim, "every single unit in the space marines codex is top tier," there is no point in spending energy disproving that statement because it's idiotic. Your claim that Tyranids have more viable builds is laughably false, so why bother refuting what can only be classified as a bold lie?

I'm afraid you guys aren't even talking about the same thing at this point. In Amishprn86Made defense, I think he's been pretty clear he's talking about internal balance.

Lemondish wrote:


My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:

While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.

I'd say the fluff indicates that a single lucky shot from massed guardsman fire should have a hard time felling a space marine.

to that end I'd look at a reverse of the stratagems for +1 wounding ... Space marines are wounded on -1 from single damage weapons of equal or lower strength.

it's horribly wordy, but there's gotta be a way outside of making all marines T6 of reducing the risk they die to flashlights.

Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Hopefully Primaris is the answer, eventually. Probably need a 40k version of the Transhuman Physiology rule in Kill Team before that realistically starts to happen, though.

My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:

While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.

I think giving Terminators and bikers one extra wound would help balance them against the plethora of 2 wound weapons that are scattered around the battlefield. Plasma and Dissies et al would continue to wipe out standard marines, but would require a bit more focus fire on Terminators and Bikers. It also means that for every 2 x 2 wound weapon shot at a Term/Biker 1 wound would be wasted meaning greater survivability for the remainder of the squad. This would also mean that meltas, brightlances, and anti-tank weapons in general would still be able to penetrate their armor on a good roll. Having a 100% kill rate for an unsaved 2 wound weapon compared to the 83% chance of an unsaved melta is just weird. In these cases I feel meltas should have a higher chance than plasma.

Could also give it the serpent shield makeover. Similar to what you suggest but would allow meltas and brightlances a chance to kill a terminator while plasmas and dissies won't.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

Lemondish wrote:


My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:

While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.

I'd say the fluff indicates that a single lucky shot from massed guardsman fire should have a hard time felling a space marine.

to that end I'd look at a reverse of the stratagems for +1 wounding ... Space marines are wounded on -1 from single damage weapons of equal or lower strength.

it's horribly wordy, but there's gotta be a way outside of making all marines T6 of reducing the risk they die to flashlights.

Space Marines on the tabletop aren't anywhere near where they are in the fluff, which has been an issue for, oh, always.

Why not just change ATSKNF to make morale checks only fail on a natural 6?
That way it would still be effective even if the squad takes too many casualties without it being the same as fearless.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Why not just change ATSKNF to make morale checks only fail on a natural 6?
That way it would still be effective even if the squad takes too many casualties without it being the same as fearless.

I think a better option would be to make ATSKNF only ever lose 1 model when failed, rather it be a reroll.
That would better represent a Marine "taking the wounded off the battle field"
It would also make Morale worth rolling for Marines rather than being an almost auto-pass waste of time.

-

 Galef wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Why not just change ATSKNF to make morale checks only fail on a natural 6?
That way it would still be effective even if the squad takes too many casualties without it being the same as fearless.

I think a better option would be to make ATSKNF only ever lose 1 model when failed, rather it be a reroll.
That would better represent a Marine "taking the wounded off the battle field"
It would also make Morale worth rolling for Marines rather than being an almost auto-pass waste of time.

-

I'd be ok with that if Dark Angels could please get something decent instead, as they already have this ability, thank you.

(Deathwing actually technically get ATSKNF, can only lose 1 model to a failed morale test, AND are immune to morale :p maximum redundancy!)

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:


I'd say the fluff indicates that a single lucky shot from massed guardsman fire should have a hard time felling a space marine.

to that end I'd look at a reverse of the stratagems for +1 wounding ... Space marines are wounded on -1 from single damage weapons of equal or lower strength.

it's horribly wordy, but there's gotta be a way outside of making all marines T6 of reducing the risk they die to flashlights.

That is unnecessarily complicated. Non-legacy marines are already unkillable by a single lasgun shot.

Eldarsif wrote:

Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Hopefully Primaris is the answer, eventually. Probably need a 40k version of the Transhuman Physiology rule in Kill Team before that realistically starts to happen, though.

My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:

While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.

I think giving Terminators and bikers one extra wound would help balance them against the plethora of 2 wound weapons that are scattered around the battlefield. Plasma and Dissies et al would continue to wipe out standard marines, but would require a bit more focus fire on Terminators and Bikers. It also means that for every 2 x 2 wound weapon shot at a Term/Biker 1 wound would be wasted meaning greater survivability for the remainder of the squad. This would also mean that meltas, brightlances, and anti-tank weapons in general would still be able to penetrate their armor on a good roll. Having a 100% kill rate for an unsaved 2 wound weapon compared to the 83% chance of an unsaved melta is just weird. In these cases I feel meltas should have a higher chance than plasma.

Could also give it the serpent shield makeover. Similar to what you suggest but would allow meltas and brightlances a chance to kill a terminator while plasmas and dissies won't.

zerosignal wrote:

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

Lemondish wrote:


My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:

While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.

I'd say the fluff indicates that a single lucky shot from massed guardsman fire should have a hard time felling a space marine.

to that end I'd look at a reverse of the stratagems for +1 wounding ... Space marines are wounded on -1 from single damage weapons of equal or lower strength.

it's horribly wordy, but there's gotta be a way outside of making all marines T6 of reducing the risk they die to flashlights.

Space Marines on the tabletop aren't anywhere near where they are in the fluff, which has been an issue for, oh, always.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Why not just change ATSKNF to make morale checks only fail on a natural 6?
That way it would still be effective even if the squad takes too many casualties without it being the same as fearless.

Galef wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Why not just change ATSKNF to make morale checks only fail on a natural 6?
That way it would still be effective even if the squad takes too many casualties without it being the same as fearless.

I think a better option would be to make ATSKNF only ever lose 1 model when failed, rather it be a reroll.
That would better represent a Marine "taking the wounded off the battle field"
It would also make Morale worth rolling for Marines rather than being an almost auto-pass waste of time.

-

Stux wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Why not just change ATSKNF to make morale checks only fail on a natural 6?
That way it would still be effective even if the squad takes too many casualties without it being the same as fearless.

I think a better option would be to make ATSKNF only ever lose 1 model when failed, rather it be a reroll.
That would better represent a Marine "taking the wounded off the battle field"
It would also make Morale worth rolling for Marines rather than being an almost auto-pass waste of time.

-

I'd be ok with that if Dark Angels could please get something decent instead, as they already have this ability, thank you.

(Deathwing actually technically get ATSKNF, can only lose 1 model to a failed morale test, AND are immune to morale :p maximum redundancy!)

All great points!

Redundancy is an issue for marines, not just in special rules, but in their data sheets as well. I'd personally love to see a culling of sorts in a new codex but until then I'm pretty sure the number of adjustments will be low. Doesn't mean they can't be big...I wouldn't even use precedence as a guide here as I'm not even sure they've ever updated an entire statline across multiple data sheets in multiple books at once in an FAQ before. Doesn't meant they won't, though.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Stux wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Hopefully Primaris is the answer, eventually. Probably need a 40k version of the Transhuman Physiology rule in Kill Team before that realistically starts to happen, though.

My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:

While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.

I think giving Terminators and bikers one extra wound would help balance them against the plethora of 2 wound weapons that are scattered around the battlefield. Plasma and Dissies et al would continue to wipe out standard marines, but would require a bit more focus fire on Terminators and Bikers. It also means that for every 2 x 2 wound weapon shot at a Term/Biker 1 wound would be wasted meaning greater survivability for the remainder of the squad. This would also mean that meltas, brightlances, and anti-tank weapons in general would still be able to penetrate their armor on a good roll. Having a 100% kill rate for an unsaved 2 wound weapon compared to the 83% chance of an unsaved melta is just weird. In these cases I feel meltas should have a higher chance than plasma.

Could also give it the serpent shield makeover. Similar to what you suggest but would allow meltas and brightlances a chance to kill a terminator while plasmas and dissies won't.

Wouldn't it be simpler to give them a 0+ save?

Marines don't have problems with durability, they are an elite unit, they shouldn't "tank" hits efficently like chaff does.

What they lack is offensive power, a standard bolter is a terrible weapon for an elite model and the melee stats aren't better.

Spoletta wrote:
Marines don't have problems with durability, they are an elite unit, they shouldn't "tank" hits efficently like chaff does.

What they lack is offensive power, a standard bolter is a terrible weapon for an elite model and the melee stats aren't better.

Wait. Why shouldn't they tank as well as Chaff does? Why shouldn't they be more durable? Where did that idea from from?

Spoletta wrote:
Marines don't have problems with durability, they are an elite unit, they shouldn't "tank" hits efficently like chaff does.

What they lack is offensive power, a standard bolter is a terrible weapon for an elite model and the melee stats aren't better.

I thought that was the whole point of power armor. It should be good vs AP 0. It isn't.

Spoletta wrote:
Marines don't have problems with durability, they are an elite unit, they shouldn't "tank" hits efficently like chaff does.

What they lack is offensive power, a standard bolter is a terrible weapon for an elite model and the melee stats aren't better.

That fly's in the face of basic game logic. If your elite (higher point costs) model isn't as durable as the chaff than there's no point in taking the elite model over the cheaper one.

Even fluff wise, the Space Marines are known for being a solid defensive force - the hero's whose line doesn't break after all the guardsmen run for the hills. The Tau and Eldar often comment on the durability of their armor and gear as opposed to their own and respect it far more than they respect thier 'crude' weapons.

A basic marine should be able to tank just as much damage as three basic orks. Currently they don't.

 Jidmah wrote:
A basic marine should be able to tank just as much damage as three basic orks. Currently they don't.

Well, by cost, 3 basic guardsmen. 3 Orks cost more.

 Jidmah wrote:
A basic marine should be able to tank just as much damage as three basic orks. Currently they don't.

This is the main reason I feel MEQs & TEQs need +1W across the board. Those that also have extra durability rules after that (like Death Guard) either get a points bump of have their rule nerfed a bit (5+++ goes to only 6+++, for example)

-

Maybe. This problem is very complicated because of the way GW has treated power armor in 8th. Really, the problem is truly caused by the custodes release, capping elite infantry. Custodes should be better than grotesques. Full stop. They aren't. All other problems are a derivative of this problem. Like a marine being vastly inferior to 3 guardsmen.

The simplest fix is to recost marines and custodes around the reality of the Xenos codices. This would entail massive across the board points reductions, as marines especially lack invulns, lack meaningful chapter traits (for the most part), don't get traits on vehicles, and have equipment not suited to fighting Xenos.

Spoletta wrote:
Marines don't have problems with durability, they are an elite unit, they shouldn't "tank" hits efficently like chaff does.

What they lack is offensive power, a standard bolter is a terrible weapon for an elite model and the melee stats aren't better.

But...they should though? Elite units are supposed to be better than chaff. As in have more health and damage.

Elites should lose points faster vs heavy weapons and lose points slower vs light weapons. They currently lose points faster vs everything.

Martel732 wrote:
Elites should lose points faster vs heavy weapons and lose points slower vs light weapons. They currently lose points faster vs everything.

Yes indeed.

This is where the disconnect is with people. Elite infantry should have a significant advantage against light infantry otherwise they serve exactly 0 purpose. When they are actually at a disadvantage against light infantry. You are actively trying to lose by bringing them because we all know - quality firepower hurts elites even more than light troops.

It's actually very simple math. But huge chunks of this forum deny such math and delude themselves into thinking that cleverness or terrain can make up the difference. It can't.

My win rate has skyrocketed since souping in IG. I think IG units are even better after using them myself than merely facing them.

 Jidmah wrote:
A basic marine should be able to tank just as much damage as three basic orks. Currently they don't.

The normal Space Marine is not the super human as it should be. The Primaris come much closer. The bolter has too less impact (but in the new edition it can wound each model or tank in town). How about giving bolters some kind of rending?

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
A basic marine should be able to tank just as much damage as three basic orks. Currently they don't.

The normal Space Marine is not the super human as it should be. The Primaris come much closer. The bolter has too less impact (but in the new edition it can wound each model or tank in town). How about giving bolters some kind of rending?

Primaris do get much closer. However, primaris instantly lose to triple ravager builds. Primaris-based lists are simply a huge risk in a game with so much cheap damage 2 spam available. And bolt rifles still suck for how much the model costs.

All this being said, I expect marines to be addressed in CA, not the FAQ. FAQ will kick capt smash in the nuts somehow, though.

The point about D2 weapons is valid. However, the issue is mainly that such qeapons are too common and too cheap. This can be fixed, old marine statline however cannot be saved without rewriting the system. The Primaris statline can work though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
[. How about giving bolters some kind of rending?

Like AP -1? Already happened.

 Crimson wrote:
The point about D2 weapons is valid. However, the issue is mainly that such qeapons are too common and too cheap. This can be fixed, old marine statline however cannot be saved without rewriting the system. The Primaris statline can work though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
[. How about giving bolters some kind of rending?

Like AP -1? Already happened.

Did it ? where was that? Have I missed an update?

 Mr Morden wrote:

Did it ? where was that? Have I missed an update?

Primaris bolt rifle.