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.

 Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also possible BA just gets replaced with something else. Wonder if custodian bike captains will get resurface. They should be bit less CP intensive though also generate less so maybe not,.

They don't need CP to be really good, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Issue is though they don't bring more than 1 CP either. So compared to BA bat they might not eat up as CP but they bring 4 CP less to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also possible BA just gets replaced with something else. Wonder if custodian bike captains will get resurface. They should be bit less CP intensive though also generate less so maybe not,.

They don't need CP to be really good, so I wouldn't be surprised.

I'm not entirely sure why you would go with dawn eagles over just straight up more guard as they can bring the CP, firepower and the cheap bodies which with the fly nerf shut down CC hard.

You still can benefit from fast moving hard to shoot(character) hard hitting stuff to hit enemy backlines and take objectives. Static gunline isn't going to win games on their own.

Lemondish wrote:

That will resolve CP batteries, but not soup.

To be fair, CP batteries are a big part of Soup. So resolving them would at least be a step forward in terms of resolving Soup as a whole.

In terms of a broader solution to Soup, what if all units lost their Chapter Tactics (or equivalent) bonuses if the army contains units from two or more factions?

tneva82 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also possible BA just gets replaced with something else. Wonder if custodian bike captains will get resurface. They should be bit less CP intensive though also generate less so maybe not,.

They don't need CP to be really good, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Issue is though they don't bring more than 1 CP either. So compared to BA bat they might not eat up as CP but they bring 4 CP less to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also possible BA just gets replaced with something else. Wonder if custodian bike captains will get resurface. They should be bit less CP intensive though also generate less so maybe not,.

They don't need CP to be really good, so I wouldn't be surprised.

I'm not entirely sure why you would go with dawn eagles over just straight up more guard as they can bring the CP, firepower and the cheap bodies which with the fly nerf shut down CC hard.

You still can benefit from fast moving hard to shoot(character) hard hitting stuff to hit enemy backlines and take objectives. Static gunline isn't going to win games on their own.

Yeah fair points all.

I don't think the fly nerf is a death knell for Custodes bikes, they're still super strong.

Whether the lack of CP is a killer for them, it's really difficult to say. Totally depends how the rest of the tournament lists shake out.

Why do people Soup? Because other armies have better units for job X and there is no real downside to soup.

So add downside to soup.
Invert the CP system. Everyone starts with X CP and every detachment you want to pick costs you Y CP. (cost depending upon the detachment, big is cheaper then small).

Soup loses power and mono armies have access to more CP cause they only run 1 (big) detachment.

Lemondish wrote:

 Stux wrote:


Ok, so the main issue there isn't soup imo, it's the mechanics of 8e and their bias against elite infantry.

That is also something that needs dealing with absolutely!

Absolutely. You want to see mono-armies? Then all armies need the same basic tools in their toolbox to build a decent foundation. Or the foundation needs to change.

The good thing is that the Fly change on charge is conceivably a decent first step. Don't need as many bodies to bubble wrap if the enemy is forced to engage the wrap anyway. Just need your army's flavour of screen to be as durable as the guard battalion for the points. Perhaps even more so, because they're giving up board control and screen replenishment opportunities that the guard gain from superior numbers.

So you're saying that a decent first step in countering the fact that chaff units are currently stronger than elite units... is to make the chaff units even better at their job, while making an entire subset of elite units significantly worse?

Units with fly weren't even that good before the FAQ, now they're just shelved entirely apart from a very few units that are still vaguely worth taking. Chaff units like IG infantry are now even better, to the point where you can counter an entire elite army with half as many human bodies as you could before.

 Ordana wrote:
Why do people Soup? Because other armies have better units for job X and there is no real downside to soup.

So add downside to soup.
Invert the CP system. Everyone starts with X CP and every detachment you want to pick costs you Y CP. (cost depending upon the detachment, big is cheaper then small).

Soup loses power and mono armies have access to more CP cause they only run 1 (big) detachment.

I think that would work well. It also makes MSU spam vs big unts a real choice.

 Ordana wrote:
Why do people Soup? Because other armies have better units for job X and there is no real downside to soup.

So add downside to soup.
Invert the CP system. Everyone starts with X CP and every detachment you want to pick costs you Y CP. (cost depending upon the detachment, big is cheaper then small).

Soup loses power and mono armies have access to more CP cause they only run 1 (big) detachment.

Or you make it so those units in the codex don't suck at their jobs.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Why do people Soup? Because other armies have better units for job X and there is no real downside to soup.

So add downside to soup.
Invert the CP system. Everyone starts with X CP and every detachment you want to pick costs you Y CP. (cost depending upon the detachment, big is cheaper then small).

Soup loses power and mono armies have access to more CP cause they only run 1 (big) detachment.

Or you make it so those units in the codex don't suck at their jobs.

This misses the point.

A game like 40k can never be totally balanced. Therefore having access to choices from multiple armies will always be stronger than only having access to the units from one army (unless that army is brokenly strong of course!).

 vipoid wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

That will resolve CP batteries, but not soup.

To be fair, CP batteries are a big part of Soup. So resolving them would at least be a step forward in terms of resolving Soup as a whole.

In terms of a broader solution to Soup, what if all units lost their Chapter Tactics (or equivalent) bonuses if the army contains units from two or more factions?

That would resolve only one actual 'soup' issue - the crazy Eldar supreme command detachment. Didn't Reece's Ultra list at Nova rely on that, too?

But here's where I ask why soup is even considered an issue so big that we want to hurt both allies. Why should we want mono-armies to be superior in all ways over allied armies? It's clear that some armies are built around the idea that allying in another force is part of their identity. There's no conceivable way to really make Knights or Custodes a mono-force at the highest levels - yes, they're extreme example, but they stand. Also, do you really want your local scene to force that due that likes Knights to bring a full Knight list? That'd be a nightmare for both you and them.

Ideally, I think the best way forward is to ensure that guard isn't the default choice, but still a competitive and compelling choice. That requires a ton of smaller changes rather than a single bandaid.

Niiru wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Stux wrote:


Ok, so the main issue there isn't soup imo, it's the mechanics of 8e and their bias against elite infantry.

That is also something that needs dealing with absolutely!

Absolutely. You want to see mono-armies? Then all armies need the same basic tools in their toolbox to build a decent foundation. Or the foundation needs to change.

The good thing is that the Fly change on charge is conceivably a decent first step. Don't need as many bodies to bubble wrap if the enemy is forced to engage the wrap anyway. Just need your army's flavour of screen to be as durable as the guard battalion for the points. Perhaps even more so, because they're giving up board control and screen replenishment opportunities that the guard gain from superior numbers.

So you're saying that a decent first step in countering the fact that chaff units are currently stronger than elite units... is to make the chaff units even better at their job, while making an entire subset of elite units significantly worse?

Units with fly weren't even that good before the FAQ, now they're just shelved entirely apart from a very few units that are still vaguely worth taking. Chaff units like IG infantry are now even better, to the point where you can counter an entire elite army with half as many human bodies as you could before.

Yes, as a first step it made both better at the same job. Doesn't mean elites won't benefit more once the other shoe falls.

Now the next step comes - probably by making units like Infantry Squads cost more to do that job, or making elite units more durable so they do that job much longer. If the first step was instead to gak all over Guardsmen, then everybody turns to another cheap body to replace it, so on and so forth. Now you can mostly achieve the same effect with less bodies and superior positioning rather than just swarming the board. It's a small, subtle change that can have a much bigger impact once additional factors are tweaked.

But here's where I ask why soup is even considered an issue so big that we want to hurt both allies. Why should we want mono-armies to be superior in all ways over allied armies? It's clear that some armies are built around the idea that allying in another force is part of their identity. There's no conceivable way to really make Knights or Custodes a mono-force at the highest levels - yes, they're extreme example, but they stand. Also, do you really want your local scene to force that due that likes Knights to bring a full Knight list? That'd be a nightmare for both you and them.

throwing the argument aside that some people may want to play BA or DA, and not some quad detachment imperium patch work, I would say that it is also a thing, because some armies that are bad as mono in a system where ally exist are also less valid, if one tries to supplement them with ally. Because if ally exist for the majority of people, there is no sense to play an army like GK, with or without ally.

While if the mono list was the norm, and brought the back the inherit problems all mono lists face, playing with weaker armies would be more barable. Right now if someone plays a weaker army, the player can't just decide to shot the choppy, because through ally the opposing army even if it is not the top of the top will be both shoty and choppy at the same time. A GK player can't decide to try to weather the shoting of an eldar list and try to win some points in melee, because he is going to be facing those s spears or d eldar along side those reapers etc.

 mew28 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Why do people Soup? Because other armies have better units for job X and there is no real downside to soup.

So add downside to soup.
Invert the CP system. Everyone starts with X CP and every detachment you want to pick costs you Y CP. (cost depending upon the detachment, big is cheaper then small).

Soup loses power and mono armies have access to more CP cause they only run 1 (big) detachment.

I think that would work well. It also makes MSU spam vs big unts a real choice.

The T'au codex needs a total rewrite then to remove the commander limitations as they are forced into multiple detachments. Same for Dark eldar.

Lemondish wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

That will resolve CP batteries, but not soup.

To be fair, CP batteries are a big part of Soup. So resolving them would at least be a step forward in terms of resolving Soup as a whole.

In terms of a broader solution to Soup, what if all units lost their Chapter Tactics (or equivalent) bonuses if the army contains units from two or more factions?

That would resolve only one actual 'soup' issue - the crazy Eldar supreme command detachment. Didn't Reece's Ultra list at Nova rely on that, too?

But here's where I ask why soup is even considered an issue so big that we want to hurt both allies. Why should we want mono-armies to be superior in all ways over allied armies? It's clear that some armies are built around the idea that allying in another force is part of their identity. There's no conceivable way to really make Knights or Custodes a mono-force at the highest levels - yes, they're extreme example, but they stand. Also, do you really want your local scene to force that due that likes Knights to bring a full Knight list? That'd be a nightmare for both you and them.

Ideally, I think the best way forward is to ensure that guard isn't the default choice, but still a competitive and compelling choice. That requires a ton of smaller changes rather than a single bandaid.

Its not about making Mono always superior. its about adding a cost to cherry picking the best unit out of X books where there currently is none so that Mono is better able to match up against Soup.

Well I guess if I played a soup list, I wouldn't want for GW to add any costs to the way my army works. It does make sense.

Lemondish wrote:

That would resolve only one actual 'soup' issue - the crazy Eldar supreme command detachment.

I'm struggling to grasp what you mean here.

I wasn't talking about resolving a specific issue with Soup, I was talking about giving Soup armies an actual downside over mono-armies.

Lemondish wrote:

But here's where I ask why soup is even considered an issue so big that we want to hurt both allies.

Because it is objectively better than mono-armies. Hence why the top lists in tournament armies are all Soup.

Lemondish wrote:
Why should we want mono-armies to be superior in all ways over allied armies?

Why is it fine for Soup armies to be outright better than mono-armies, but any attempt to make them more balanced against one another somehow equates to 'making mono-armies better in every way?

Lemondish wrote:
It's clear that some armies are built around the idea that allying in another force is part of their identity.

Which is terrible game design, but something that can be accounted for by giving certain factions (e.g. Inquisition) exceptions to the rule under certain circumstances.

Lemondish wrote:
There's no conceivable way to really make Knights or Custodes a mono-force at the highest levels - yes, they're extreme example, but they stand.

Okay, so use them with allies and take whatever drawbacks come with it.

Why is that an issue?

Unless what people really want is for their ally armies to just be straight-up overpowered.

Lemondish wrote:
Also, do you really want your local scene to force that due that likes Knights to bring a full Knight list? That'd be a nightmare for both you and them.

Outside of tournaments (and other competitive games/events), I suspect that whether someone in my group brings a full knight list will depend on whether or not he wants to bring a full knight list. I might be able to suggest tweaks to allies and power level, but I can't control what people want to play.

Also, for about the third time, I haven't suggested removing allies - I merely said that cherry-picking the best units from among all available codices should come with an actual drawback over just using units from a single faction.

Karol wrote:
Well I guess if I played a soup list, I wouldn't want for GW to add any costs to the way my army works. It does make sense.

And 90% of the people jumping to the defense of the IG codex balance in the other threads all have a Guardsman as their profile picture. Funny that!

Spartacus wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well I guess if I played a soup list, I wouldn't want for GW to add any costs to the way my army works. It does make sense.

And 90% of the people jumping to the defense of the IG codex balance in the other threads all have a Guardsman as their profile picture. Funny that!

For that codex i'm on a wait and see approach.

It showed contradictory results before the FAQ, and there was no way to understand if it was really as good as it looked on paper or it did struggle with a few fundamental concepts. It was always mixed with so many comboes from other codici that understanding the true performance of the AM part was impossible.

Now that it is no longer a uber CP battery, but just a good CP support, we are going to see indeed if the AM lists really are strong or not. Lists are either going to be pure AM, or double brigade AM + knight.

Ice_can wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Why do people Soup? Because other armies have better units for job X and there is no real downside to soup.

So add downside to soup.
Invert the CP system. Everyone starts with X CP and every detachment you want to pick costs you Y CP. (cost depending upon the detachment, big is cheaper then small).

Soup loses power and mono armies have access to more CP cause they only run 1 (big) detachment.

I think that would work well. It also makes MSU spam vs big unts a real choice.

The T'au codex needs a total rewrite then to remove the commander limitations as they are forced into multiple detachments. Same for Dark eldar.

The Commander restriction is already outdated with the Rule of Three becoming a general rule; the Drukhari could just get a unique exception where multiple detachments only count as one so long as they're all some form of <Drukhari>.

Lemondish wrote:

Why should we want mono-armies to be superior in all ways over allied armies?

Literally nobody is saying this. We just don't want soup to be a logically better option in all scenarios.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

The Commander restriction is already outdated with the Rule of Three becoming a general rule;

Not really. If the restriction were lifted Tau players could run 3 coldstars + 3 Enforcers + 3 Crisis commanders and maybe farsight or shadowsun.

Dandelion wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

The Commander restriction is already outdated with the Rule of Three becoming a general rule;

Not really. If the restriction were lifted Tau players could run 3 coldstars + 3 Enforcers + 3 Crisis commanders and maybe farsight or shadowsun.

That is correct, but GW dug their grave on that issue by saying that the various Daemon Princes are considered to be different datasheets and may be spammed at your leisure.

 Stux wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Why do people Soup? Because other armies have better units for job X and there is no real downside to soup.

So add downside to soup.
Invert the CP system. Everyone starts with X CP and every detachment you want to pick costs you Y CP. (cost depending upon the detachment, big is cheaper then small).

Soup loses power and mono armies have access to more CP cause they only run 1 (big) detachment.

Or you make it so those units in the codex don't suck at their jobs.

This misses the point.

A game like 40k can never be totally balanced. Therefore having access to choices from multiple armies will always be stronger than only having access to the units from one army (unless that army is brokenly strong of course!).

What a fething copout. You can at least get closer than it is now and you know that.

glados wrote:
I think the big winners in this FAQ is melee horde armies like Orks & Nids. Often going 2nd anyway due to having larger amount of units and units being too big to be placed in cover, +1 save will mean you can just deploy your swarms right up against the front of your deployment zone in the open and get the benefit of cover. Massive. your large squads now being a more effective screen to protect your buff characters or support units etc is also pretty big.

Increase CP costs for select stratagems is a great move however the "only generate 1CP per round" is yet another nerf for mono guard that they did not need.

Am I also the only one intensely frustrated that the Battle Brothers rule completely breaks Inquisition units? Moving half their stuff to the Ministorium faction was one thing, but when you cant take those units any more in the same detachment as an inquisitor that was sold in the same damn box, that's a bit much.

more or less what happen with mono nurgle (or almost mono nurgle) demons builds, deploy straight in face to the enemy and dont care about 1st turn, -1 to hit with 90-120 Pb's 5++ and 5+++ move 7 plus d6+1 advance and can still charge thanks to gnarlmaw..

SemperMortis wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:
So Soup is a Ton of Guard and 1 IK now ? ...jeeze people

Up until this FAQ (not sure if it will change it) It was a single Guard battalion or a guard Brigade which functioned almost exclusively as a CP battery and Objective holder/chaff, a 600+pt IK and Blood Angels with their captains shenanigans. Add in details to boot. So yeah that would be soup.

used to be... now its Guard with an Allied Knight.. sounds like any army from 6th onward

2nd big faq in and again it won’t change how I do things at all. These faqs are clearly aimed at fixing the competitive scene but the problems the way people build armies and play, not the rules. For casual play the rules work well.

My opinions only. Me and my group won’t be affected at all really.

Kdash wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Kdash wrote:
So,

Couple of questions to take away from the FAQ.

Is CP farming during deployment still on? I'm guessing so, as it's not a "turn" per say.

If a Raven Guard Assault Marine unit with jumppacks uses the stratagem. Are they allowed to use their jumppacks for the 9" move? I'm currently inclined to say that they can't, due to it not being the "movement phase".

All this FAQ does right now is make me nervous for CA and the points changes they are going to be making. Buying models to make my existing armies "viable" again is going to hurt when i'm 75% sure that they'll get hit with a points change in CA (and probably the wrong direction of change). For example, i'm really curious about running a Preceptor and 2 Warglaives but...

I am curious about T'au now though. They have the ability to screen exceptionally well, whilst still having a large amount of points dedicated to shooting.

Overall though, i don't see the "top lists" changing too much until CA comes along and introduces the points changes. There is still no reason not to take a Guard brigade and a Castellan. The only difference now, is you might use the points gained from dropping the BA battalion into 2 Helverins and a little extra in the Guard brigade.

For example, starting with 18 CP and getting 1 a turn (gonna happen - so 24 in total) i can still use RIS and the Raven stratagem 4 times throughout the game. The only difference to my game plan now would be that i dedicate a couple of units to ensuring nothing with fly can ever charge the Knight, unless i want it to.

To be honest you keep the IG Brigade, drop the blood angles, scouts and Slamquinius's are not worth the investment in points as no turn 1 ds for scouts to screen out, no jumping past the 90 guardsmen so slamguinius needs a clear walk in charge, not happening . It's just moved the meta from IG/BA/Catellan to IG/IG/Castellan.
While BA and Knights take it in the sack for IG's rediculous CP generation.
I also want to know when GW is going to give all the ultramarine charictors new warlord traits seing as the current one just got dumpster fired.

Dumpster firing space marines has been a common theme in these FAQ. Stealth Buffing IG - also very common.

So, i've been trying to think of ways to make the new Raven Guard strat work... What i have currently is...

Shrike, 2 units of 6 Bolter Inceptors and 1 unit of 4 Plasma Inceptors... Then 1 Knight, 2 mini Knights and a Guard battalion... It just sucks that i realised as soon as i think of ways to take advantage of the free 9" move (still hoping it allows FLY units to... Fly...), it turns into costing so so so many points and you're then left with not a lot of options in the Marine dex to cover all the big gaps - thus leading you to needing something to hit a bit harder and some for of additional CP.

Right now, the only options for the Raven Guard strat imho is Jump Pack units. You could run a couple of big squads of Vanguard Vets (or assault marines lol) down the table with it for a turn 1 charge, but, now that you can't jump screens there is no real reason for you to spend all those points on the melee Marines when another unit can just do a whole lot more for you shooting.

I've always thought the RG strat was best for melle options. Admech used it with melle and it was beast. Issue is - space marines really don't have melle options that don't suck massive dong. Probably the best thing we have is assault terms with TH/SS but they move only 5" - that alone is a big issue - costing more than a grot with half the wounds is another.

What marines need is drop pods back. With the ability to put primaris in them. They should cost under 40 points too. Or have them keep their cost but allow turn 1 strike.

Reading the comments about soup, when soup is bad is when it’s done to only gain advantage from the rules. When it is down for thematic reasons and not to cherry pick the best bits then it works fine. Again its the players not the rules. And I know “but if it’s in the rules then people will do it!”, and it’s true. But don’t encourage them by given them trophies and prizes.

Andykp wrote:
These faqs are clearly aimed at fixing the competitive scene but the problems the way people build armies and play, not the rules. For casual play the rules work well.

My opinions only. Me and my group won’t be affected at all really.

This is kind of the problem. The rules are aimed at fixing the competitive scene. They don't. From the point of a casual player you feel unaffected. That isn't exactly a great outcome that makes the patch worthwhile for anybody.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Reading the comments about soup, when soup is bad is when it’s done to only gain advantage from the rules. When it is down for thematic reasons and not to cherry pick the best bits then it works fine. Again its the players not the rules. And I know “but if it’s in the rules then people will do it!”, and it’s true. But don’t encourage them by given them trophies and prizes.

Are you saying don't have tournaments, or just saying have different rules on allies in tournaments?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Kdash wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Kdash wrote:
So,

Couple of questions to take away from the FAQ.

Is CP farming during deployment still on? I'm guessing so, as it's not a "turn" per say.

If a Raven Guard Assault Marine unit with jumppacks uses the stratagem. Are they allowed to use their jumppacks for the 9" move? I'm currently inclined to say that they can't, due to it not being the "movement phase".

All this FAQ does right now is make me nervous for CA and the points changes they are going to be making. Buying models to make my existing armies "viable" again is going to hurt when i'm 75% sure that they'll get hit with a points change in CA (and probably the wrong direction of change). For example, i'm really curious about running a Preceptor and 2 Warglaives but...

I am curious about T'au now though. They have the ability to screen exceptionally well, whilst still having a large amount of points dedicated to shooting.

Overall though, i don't see the "top lists" changing too much until CA comes along and introduces the points changes. There is still no reason not to take a Guard brigade and a Castellan. The only difference now, is you might use the points gained from dropping the BA battalion into 2 Helverins and a little extra in the Guard brigade.

For example, starting with 18 CP and getting 1 a turn (gonna happen - so 24 in total) i can still use RIS and the Raven stratagem 4 times throughout the game. The only difference to my game plan now would be that i dedicate a couple of units to ensuring nothing with fly can ever charge the Knight, unless i want it to.

To be honest you keep the IG Brigade, drop the blood angles, scouts and Slamquinius's are not worth the investment in points as no turn 1 ds for scouts to screen out, no jumping past the 90 guardsmen so slamguinius needs a clear walk in charge, not happening . It's just moved the meta from IG/BA/Catellan to IG/IG/Castellan.
While BA and Knights take it in the sack for IG's rediculous CP generation.
I also want to know when GW is going to give all the ultramarine charictors new warlord traits seing as the current one just got dumpster fired.

Dumpster firing space marines has been a common theme in these FAQ. Stealth Buffing IG - also very common.

So, i've been trying to think of ways to make the new Raven Guard strat work... What i have currently is...

Shrike, 2 units of 6 Bolter Inceptors and 1 unit of 4 Plasma Inceptors... Then 1 Knight, 2 mini Knights and a Guard battalion... It just sucks that i realised as soon as i think of ways to take advantage of the free 9" move (still hoping it allows FLY units to... Fly...), it turns into costing so so so many points and you're then left with not a lot of options in the Marine dex to cover all the big gaps - thus leading you to needing something to hit a bit harder and some for of additional CP.

Right now, the only options for the Raven Guard strat imho is Jump Pack units. You could run a couple of big squads of Vanguard Vets (or assault marines lol) down the table with it for a turn 1 charge, but, now that you can't jump screens there is no real reason for you to spend all those points on the melee Marines when another unit can just do a whole lot more for you shooting.

I've always thought the RG strat was best for melle options. Admech used it with melle and it was beast. Issue is - space marines really don't have melle options that don't suck massive dong. Probably the best thing we have is assault terms with TH/SS but they move only 5" - that alone is a big issue - costing more than a grot with half the wounds is another.

What marines need is drop pods back. With the ability to put primaris in them. They should cost under 40 points too. Or have them keep their cost but allow turn 1 strike.

Where have drop pods gone? And assault terminators can surely use transports and teleport?

drop pods cost 74 points and do what a 1 point stratagem does in many armies. I assure you - a command point is not worth 74 points. It's worth maybe 20.

A land raider cost 350ish points. The same cost as a IK gallant.

These are the problems marines have.

Yes there are problems but these things still exist and can be used if you want. I dislike the idea that only certain units are “playable”. Drop pods not being worth the points only matters if you are trying to make every point count. In a battle some units will do more damage than others, some will be worth their points and others not. There are dice involved so a lot can go on. A drop pod might not be worth the same as a command point but either could win you the game in the righ circumstances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Andykp wrote:
These faqs are clearly aimed at fixing the competitive scene but the problems the way people build armies and play, not the rules. For casual play the rules work well.

My opinions only. Me and my group won’t be affected at all really.

This is kind of the problem. The rules are aimed at fixing the competitive scene. They don't. From the point of a casual player you feel unaffected. That isn't exactly a great outcome that makes the patch worthwhile for anybody.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Reading the comments about soup, when soup is bad is when it’s done to only gain advantage from the rules. When it is down for thematic reasons and not to cherry pick the best bits then it works fine. Again its the players not the rules. And I know “but if it’s in the rules then people will do it!”, and it’s true. But don’t encourage them by given them trophies and prizes.

Are you saying don't have tournaments, or just saying have different rules on allies in tournaments?

I’d would be quite happy if their were no competitive tournaments, but that’s not happening so I have always favoured having a separate rule book for competing play much more similar to epic 40000 style unit rules so it would be easier to balance. This constant quest for “balance” ends up having a negative impact on casual players when matched play becomes the norm in areas, even for casual games. The faq not affecting me is great, I like the game and don’t wont any big changes. It works pretty well.