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.

Darsath wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Well if the latest roumers are correct and GW is doing a 2.0 Codex Adaptes Astartes for the back end of next year

What is the source of these rumours? Could we get a ling or something?

Was in a podcast I'll see if I can find it, but it was talking Q4 2019

Can you imagine having to wait 'till the end of 2019 for changes. That would suck.

To be honest I could see it being Codex Adaptes Astartes Primaris, I wouldn't mold much stock in it, like truck loads of salt, but it's not impossible.
Then again codex vanilla marines isn't really fun to use as it is.

Reemule wrote:
What if you approached from another direction and made Guardsmen equivalents more easy to kill?

The only way this can be done - if we're talking points killed by weapons - is something that specifically affects T3 5+.

The better solution is to increase Guardsmen to 6PPM.

Kabalite Warriors are considered good, costing 6, without access to orders, and all the imperium synergy.

Darsath wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Well if the latest roumers are correct and GW is doing a 2.0 Codex Adaptes Astartes for the back end of next year

What is the source of these rumours? Could we get a ling or something?

Was in a podcast I'll see if I can find it, but it was talking Q4 2019

Can you imagine having to wait 'till the end of 2019 for changes. That would suck.

I think there will be changes in both the FAQ (if and when it happens) and CA and they are needed and should happen ......

Although I do also recall plenty of Marine players telling everyone else to shut and wait their turn until the important (ie Marine dexes) were out.

The better solution is to increase Guardsmen to 6PPM.

Kabalite Warriors are considered good, costing 6, without access to orders, and all the imperium synergy.

err Kabalites are much better - they have Ws/BS 3+ and Power from Pain plus so much neat stuff and a decent transport option.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Darsath wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Well if the latest roumers are correct and GW is doing a 2.0 Codex Adaptes Astartes for the back end of next year

What is the source of these rumours? Could we get a ling or something?

Was in a podcast I'll see if I can find it, but it was talking Q4 2019

Can you imagine having to wait 'till the end of 2019 for changes. That would suck.

I think there will be changes in both the FAQ (if and when it happens) and CA and they are needed and should happen ......

Although I do also recall plenty of Marine players telling everyone else to shut and wait their turn until the important (ie Marine dexes) were out.

Yeah, I'm not exactly sympathetic to Marine players right now, between them putting down other armies and their constant whinging and "suggestions".

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:
What if you approached from another direction and made Guardsmen equivalents more easy to kill?

The only way this can be done - if we're talking points killed by weapons - is something that specifically affects T3 5+.

The better solution is to increase Guardsmen to 6PPM.

Kabalite Warriors are considered good, costing 6, without access to orders, and all the imperium synergy.

Ummm...So you are talking about giving same cost to guardsmen as guy with better WS, BS, weapon and IIRC LD. And you think that\s fair and balanced? Lol. Thank god you aren't in 40k game design team.

edit: Oh and 4+ save, 6" more range and +1S on guns seems to be worth only 1 pts according to you then.

Martel732 wrote:
Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.

I think that's a fake corner they've painted themselves in, and we along with them. Custodes don't actually have to be shackled to a weird arbitrary rule that their relative power against current marines is the gap in capability that must be maintained at all costs. That gap shifted between 7th and 8th. It can shift again.

Even with an improvement in durability to space marines, Custodes are STILL superior both defensively and offensively by a large margin. After all, compared to Primaris they'd still carry an extra wound, a better armour save, an invulnerable save, higher base leadership, an extra point of toughness, a FNP save against psychic powers, a two damage weapon, an extra attack, 2+ WS and BS, and a high rend multiple damage melee weapon.

I'm thinking that this offensive gap should still remain, so I don't think weapon damage is the right solution without addressing durability first. It's just the durability gap that needs to be adjusted a bit in favour of marines, and in so doing the offensive output across an entire GAME is increased. I'm a fan of any solution that abandons the legacy marine line, but I'm a deeply flawed human being that wishes to cast off the shackles of those ugly squat marines with silly frowny face masks and seeks enlightenment in the bright true scale future.

Which is why I'd like to see Primaris receive a rule that reduces the damage caused by all weapons by 1 to a minimum of 1 alongside the earlier proposed treatment of weapons with AP-1 as AP-0 (which, sure, whatever - this can apply to all the grumpy tinymarines too...)

To shreds with the fluff implications. Make Marines Great Again (on the table)!

Edit: Also, many apologies to all those who hate to hear yet another marine player complain about stuff and derailing threads and what not. I really don't want you to think I don't care about your particular army's plight. The problem being that I really don't care about your particular army's plight. LONG LIVE ASTARTES

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Darsath wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Well if the latest roumers are correct and GW is doing a 2.0 Codex Adaptes Astartes for the back end of next year

What is the source of these rumours? Could we get a ling or something?

Was in a podcast I'll see if I can find it, but it was talking Q4 2019

Can you imagine having to wait 'till the end of 2019 for changes. That would suck.

I think there will be changes in both the FAQ (if and when it happens) and CA and they are needed and should happen ......

Although I do also recall plenty of Marine players telling everyone else to shut and wait their turn until the important (ie Marine dexes) were out.

Yeah, I'm not exactly sympathetic to Marine players right now, between them putting down other armies and their constant whinging and "suggestions".

I know right - and then those same people have a go at Sisters players if they even dare to post in a thread (any thread) never seeing the irony.

What worries me is the possibility that GW won't take any corrective action to address Marines at all between the FAQ and the next CA.

What it would signal (and what I suspect is the case) is that GW doesn't actually see the various flavors of Marine as factions. They see Imperium as a faction with Guard, Knights, AdMech Sisters, and Marines as sub-components. As long as Imperial Soup is doing ok then there isn't a problem, and if you take a handicap by playing a monobuild list then you have only yourself to blame.

I hope I'm wrong.

The Newman wrote:
What worries me is the possibility that GW won't take any corrective action to address Marines at all between the FAQ and the next CA.

What it would signal (and what I suspect is the case) is that GW doesn't actually see the various flavors of Marine as factions. They see Imperium as a faction with Guard, Knights, AdMech, and Marines as sub-components. As long as Imperial Soup is doing ok then there isn't a problem, and if you want to handicap yourself by playing a monobuild list then you're doing it wrong.

I hope I'm wrong.

I think you will be but I do think that (correctly) GW see Imperium as a single faction - the problem is that they focussed way too much time and effort on it in general and in particular so many Marine subfactions.

They have done some minor adjustments re Soup and I think they will do more - likely CP can only spent on that which genrates it - hint of this in the RT rules for 40k.

The Newman wrote:
What worries me is the possibility that GW won't take any corrective action to address Marines at all between the FAQ and the next CA.

What it would signal (and what I suspect is the case) is that GW doesn't actually see the various flavors of Marine as factions. They see Imperium as a faction with Guard, Knights, AdMech, and Marines as sub-components. As long as Imperial Soup is doing ok then there isn't a problem, and if you want to handicap yourself by playing a monobuild list then you're doing it wrong.

I hope I'm wrong.

I think there's some fear that this will happen. And honestly, I think there's a very rational reason why that might happen, and why it's okay for it to happen.

I think it's possible they may try and address things slowly by first addressing the Loyal 32 and CP battery issues, then see how things shake out to really identify the best method for solving the rest of the issues.

What's important is that I think GW will actually try and make things better, it's just the speed at which this happens is (eternally) in question.

The Newman wrote:
What worries me is the possibility that GW won't take any corrective action to address Marines at all between the FAQ and the next CA.

What it would signal (and what I suspect is the case) is that GW doesn't actually see the various flavors of Marine as factions. They see Imperium as a faction with Guard, Knights, AdMech Sisters, and Marines as sub-components. As long as Imperial Soup is doing ok then there isn't a problem, and if you take a handicap by playing a monobuild list then you have only yourself to blame.

I hope I'm wrong.

I don't think we'll see the fundamental change to Marines that they need until 9e in all honesty.

I think there are many factions who are awaiting some hopeful big changes in either the new FAQ (I still think we'll see it first week of October) or in Chapter Approved. I hope that they get it, and don't leave factions or units that are clearly unsuitable or massively overpriced in their current state. I'm not sure the best fix for the current issues regarding smaller-scale Space Marine units, as I don't play Space Marines of any flavour. But I do play Necrons, and I feel there is some overlapping issues as to why both armies are currently failing to perform (or at the very least, why many units within those faction's codexes are failing to perform).

tneva82 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:
What if you approached from another direction and made Guardsmen equivalents more easy to kill?

The only way this can be done - if we're talking points killed by weapons - is something that specifically affects T3 5+.

The better solution is to increase Guardsmen to 6PPM.

Kabalite Warriors are considered good, costing 6, without access to orders, and all the imperium synergy.

Ummm...So you are talking about giving same cost to guardsmen as guy with better WS, BS, weapon and IIRC LD. And you think that\s fair and balanced? Lol. Thank god you aren't in 40k game design team.

edit: Oh and 4+ save, 6" more range and +1S on guns seems to be worth only 1 pts according to you then.

1. Kabalite Warriors have a 5+ save.
2. Kabalite Warriors weapons are 24"
3. Splinter Rifles are poisoned, not strength 4

The ability to be given orders, plus all of the synergy that Guardsmen have, overall make them a better unit. Guardsmen > Kabalite Warriors. Although Guardsmen > All Troops, so it's not a specifically new development.

Guard players on here need to stop pretending that orders aren't a given.

Martel732 wrote:
Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.

Is there any justification for a space marine captain being superior to a custodian guard? Nope. Not in the least.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.

Is there any justification for a space marine captain being superior to a custodian guard? Nope. Not in the least.

Why not? Stuff the fluff.

Or are we going to let stupid story logic get in the way of balancing again?

 Marmatag wrote:


1. Kabalite Warriors have a 5+ save.
2. Kabalite Warriors weapons are 24"
3. Splinter Rifles are poisoned, not strength 4

1: So is guardsmen
2: So is lasgun
3: Gee I take poison 4+ any day over S3 of lasgun. I'm sure you face loooooooots of T2 targets.

What kind of cheaters you play with if you think lasguns have longer range than 24" and are S4 and guardsmen have better save than 5+? Sheesh lol.

Dark eldars also have 6+++ etc. Oh and better transports. The two are HARDLY worth same points.

But Custodes should also be better than grotesques. So T6 W5 it is.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.

Is there any justification for a space marine captain being superior to a custodian guard? Nope. Not in the least.

Of course there is. The Space Marine Captain is a veteran of countless battles with various xenos and chaotic monstrosities, whereas the Custodians have just been LARPing battles with their pals.

Lemondish wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.

Is there any justification for a space marine captain being superior to a custodian guard? Nope. Not in the least.

Why not? Stuff the fluff.

Or are we going to let stupid story logic get in the way of balancing again?

Fluff is the justification for relative power level. Not the justification for point costs associated with that power level. A custode should be superior to all astartes. The are practically primarchs - all of them. The whole army should be 130-150 point heros. I guess the figured that wouldn't be fun to play against - ehh...they are wrong but okay. Only a chapter master should be able to face a custodian mono A mono.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.

Is there any justification for a space marine captain being superior to a custodian guard? Nope. Not in the least.

Of course there is. The Space Marine Captain is a veteran of countless battles with various xenos and chaotic monstrosities, whereas the Custodians have just been LARPing battles with their pals.

No - custodes are constantly battling too. Amongst themselves - in games - not to mention they have been alive a REALLY long time.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.

Is there any justification for a space marine captain being superior to a custodian guard? Nope. Not in the least.

Why not? Stuff the fluff.

Or are we going to let stupid story logic get in the way of balancing again?

Fluff is the justification for relative power level. Not the justification for point costs associated with that power level. A custode should be superior to all astartes. The are practically primarchs - all of them. The whole army should be 130-150 point heros. I guess the figured that wouldn't be fun to play against - ehh...they are wrong but okay. Only a chapter master should be able to face a custodian mono A mono.

Blah, enough of that nonsense. The fluff has been rewritten and retconed a million times over, why must it be held as gospel today?

Free this game from these draconian fluff limitations. It will never be balanced otherwise. After all, how many times have battles in the fluff been held between two suspiciously equal forces in capability and firepower? The game needs some freedom from the fluff to balance itself, and that's an issue caused by the fluff, not the game rules.

Not saying abandon it of course, that would be silly. Just...loosen that grip.

As I said, forget Astartes. Use grotesques as your measuring stick.

tneva82 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


1. Kabalite Warriors have a 5+ save.
2. Kabalite Warriors weapons are 24"
3. Splinter Rifles are poisoned, not strength 4

1: So is guardsmen
2: So is lasgun
3: Gee I take poison 4+ any day over S3 of lasgun. I'm sure you face loooooooots of T2 targets.

What kind of cheaters you play with if you think lasguns have longer range than 24" and are S4 and guardsmen have better save than 5+? Sheesh lol.

Dark eldars also have 6+++ etc. Oh and better transports. The two are HARDLY worth same points.

Wow okay, so i listed those things because you claimed that Kabalites had a 4+ save, 30" range, and strength 4 guns. It's normal to refute nonsense, which is what i was doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's you, quoted saying it. I mean WTF is going on in your head with these posts.

tneva82 wrote:

edit: Oh and 4+ save, 6" more range and +1S on guns seems to be worth only 1 pts according to you then.

Access to orders is worth MORE than 2 points per model. Sorry. It is. Orders are fan-freaking-tastic. So are all the synergies guard have.

Reemule wrote:
I really enjoy how some people are ready to cite the evil genius cunning of GW in one thread, but castigate them as potato incompetent fish washers in the next thread down.

Make up your mind.

It' almost as if Dakka; unlike both the Tyranids and Reddit, doesn't have a hive mind...

 Grimtuff wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I really enjoy how some people are ready to cite the evil genius cunning of GW in one thread, but castigate them as potato incompetent fish washers in the next thread down.

Make up your mind.

It' almost as if Dakka; unlike both the Tyranids and Reddit, doesn't have a hive mind...

No, but sometimes it is the same person to be fair.

 Marmatag wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:
What if you approached from another direction and made Guardsmen equivalents more easy to kill?

The only way this can be done - if we're talking points killed by weapons - is something that specifically affects T3 5+.

The better solution is to increase Guardsmen to 6PPM.

Kabalite Warriors are considered good, costing 6, without access to orders, and all the imperium synergy.

Ummm...So you are talking about giving same cost to guardsmen as guy with better WS, BS, weapon and IIRC LD. And you think that\s fair and balanced? Lol. Thank god you aren't in 40k game design team.

edit: Oh and 4+ save, 6" more range and +1S on guns seems to be worth only 1 pts according to you then.

1. Kabalite Warriors have a 5+ save.
2. Kabalite Warriors weapons are 24"
3. Splinter Rifles are poisoned, not strength 4

The ability to be given orders, plus all of the synergy that Guardsmen have, overall make them a better unit. Guardsmen > Kabalite Warriors. Although Guardsmen > All Troops, so it's not a specifically new development.

Guard players on here need to stop pretending that orders aren't a given.

I love my Dark Eldar - kabalites are pretty good - they get a great transport, the Kabel bonuses and the Power from Pain ones, plenty of fun Stratagems too. Thye are also 3+ WS/BS. 30" range Splinter rifles if they want.

Martel732 wrote:

 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.

Guardsmen are more survivable than orks

On top of that, points are not just for durability and you can't compare points across codices.

So, no, a marine should be as survivable as three orks, even at 12 points.

Darsath wrote:
I think there are many factions who are awaiting some hopeful big changes in either the new FAQ (I still think we'll see it first week of October) or in Chapter Approved. I hope that they get it, and don't leave factions or units that are clearly unsuitable or massively overpriced in their current state. I'm not sure the best fix for the current issues regarding smaller-scale Space Marine units, as I don't play Space Marines of any flavour. But I do play Necrons, and I feel there is some overlapping issues as to why both armies are currently failing to perform (or at the very least, why many units within those faction's codexes are failing to perform).

I play necrons as well, it isn't a secret that our AT capabilities got nerfed hard with this edition. I remember back when I last played in 6th that everyone was terrified of necron warriors peeling off hullpoints left and right. I really feel like the only thing necrons truly need is a buff to gauss vs vehicles. Gauss needs WAY more than -1 ap to even compete. Our other options for AT are either expensive, mediocre, or stuck behind random shots, all of which are not very fun to use.

This doesn't even cover the rules headaches on the interactions of the beta deep strike rules compared to our night scythe and monolith transports. There is a lot of confusion in my FLGS about whether the rule pertains to the units disembarking from these units on first turn, and I think a FAQ clarification would be great.

Some point drops of course would be nice, and maybe a retool of some of our weapon profiles to make a lot of the lagging units (ABarge, Flyers, etc) a bit more usable, preferably against large targets.

The army isn't BAD and I have fun playing it, but I'd like to do more than run a handful of units.

We have to compare points across codices.

 Galef wrote:

 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)

-

It's not like plague marines are massively over-performing right now. Unlike regular MEQ they actually work in casual settings, but they have no place in competitive gaming. Loyalist scouts are probably better troops than plague marines.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 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)

-

It's not like plague marines are massively over-performing right now. Unlike regular MEQ they actually work in casual settings, but they have no place in competitive gaming. Loyalist scouts are probably better troops than plague marines.

They aren't.