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.

Spoletta wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.

Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.

highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.

People thought that about allies as well. Things change. GW changes their policies and eventually GW will decide this limits their sales too much.

Also that it's a stupid lazy band-aid rule that fails utterly to do any of the things it's intended to do while also creating ADDITIONAL issues.

Considering that i don't see 12x PBC lists or crap like that around means that the rule is working wonderfully.

The game as it is now would be broken for many many reasons if it wasn't for that rule. Without it, the existence of just one single overpowered model breaks the game. Can you imagine DE with more than 3 ravagers? There are some models right now that are clearly undercosted, and the game would be unplayable without the rule of 3, it's one of the best rules we have been given.

In one of my local GW stores, the tournaments are 1500 points and ignore the rule of 3. An army fielding 6 PBC has been taking home all the prices for weeks now.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
People thought that about allies as well. Things change. GW changes their policies and eventually GW will decide this limits their sales too much.

GW already introduced ways of getting around it by making different data sheets for the same unit.
In the ork codex there are 3 variations of battlewagons. They all use the battlewagon kit, but as they are different datasheets you aren't really restricted by the rule of 3.
You can legally field 9 battlewagons, as long as they are 3 of each variant.

Rule of 3 is not going anywhere.

The datasheet issue doesn't matter. Most of the times, there's no sense in taking more than 3 of the same unit. Who wants 9 battlewagons? It's the 7 Flyrants that were the issue.

The one exception I can think of is Daemon Princes. 9 of them are tough. But not at the level of Ye Olde Flying Circus, there's no way to buff each one to create a juggernaut. It's a problem, but it's not a huge problem.

Only one of those battlewagon is worth spamming though, the bonebreaka. The regular battlewagon is basically a big rhino (you can spam those!), and the gunwagon is for when you feel like spending 155 points on a gun that's outperformed by one you can get for 31.

 Jidmah wrote:
Only one of those battlewagon is worth spamming though, the bonebreaka. The regular battlewagon is basically a big rhino (you can spam those!), and the gunwagon is for when you feel like spending 155 points on a gun that's outperformed by one you can get for 31.

BUT BUT BUT durability?
Sometimes i am surprised by how much it costs for anyone.

For 155 you can get 5 of those guns which have 30 wounds with 5+, compared to 16 wounds on 4+.

Gunwagon is just strictly worse in every way.

 Jidmah wrote:
Only one of those battlewagon is worth spamming though, the bonebreaka. The regular battlewagon is basically a big rhino (you can spam those!), and the gunwagon is for when you feel like spending 155 points on a gun that's outperformed by one you can get for 31.

The standard battlewagon can be built the same way as a bonebreaker for cheaper, iirc, you just don't have the special ramming effect.
The gunwagon isn't great, but its still a T8 vehicle with a lot of wounds and can lay down some fire. Its not as good at the others, but it still has its uses and a trio of them would still be hard to remove.

That's besides the point though, the point is that GW has already introduced ways to circumvent the rule of 3 and to sell more of the same kit. Its still 9 battlewagon kits being sold, if one is so inclined to field them.
Those vehicles may have different names with slight differences in rules and loadout, but they are basically the same unit.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
People thought that about allies as well. Things change. GW changes their policies and eventually GW will decide this limits their sales too much.

GW already introduced ways of getting around it by making different data sheets for the same unit.
In the ork codex there are 3 variations of battlewagons. They all use the battlewagon kit, but as they are different datasheets you aren't really restricted by the rule of 3.
You can legally field 9 battlewagons, as long as they are 3 of each variant.

Rule of 3 is not going anywhere.

The datasheet issue doesn't matter. Most of the times, there's no sense in taking more than 3 of the same unit. Who wants 9 battlewagons? It's the 7 Flyrants that were the issue.

The one exception I can think of is Daemon Princes. 9 of them are tough. But not at the level of Ye Olde Flying Circus, there's no way to buff each one to create a juggernaut. It's a problem, but it's not a huge problem.

Nothing stays permanent. How you can be sure rule of 3 doesn't go away in 9th ed? 10? 11? 12?

Allies were removed from game. Stayed same. Ork shooting has been crappy for 5 editions straight yet can one shot Magnus now with one unit with nothing Tzeentch can do about that if orks go first.

Even if GW was aiming for balance things would change. And since they actively don't WANT balance and just change rules to sell models...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Only one of those battlewagon is worth spamming though, the bonebreaka. The regular battlewagon is basically a big rhino (you can spam those!), and the gunwagon is for when you feel like spending 155 points on a gun that's outperformed by one you can get for 31.

The standard battlewagon can be built the same way as a bonebreaker, you just lose the special ramming effect.

The special ramming effect is what makes it good, as opposed to the battlewagon who only gets d6 attacks after degrading once.

The gunwagon isn't great, but its still a T8 vehicle with a lot of wounds and can lay down some fire. Its not as good at the others, but it still has its uses and a trio of them would still be hard to remove.

The same thing can be said for vindicators, which also have stratagem to support them and a better gun and armor save. Vindicators see zero play.

That's besides the point though, the point is that GW has already introduced ways to circumvent the rule of 3 and to sell more of the same kit. Its still 9 battlewagon kits being sold, if one is so inclined to field them.

I'm sure you can find plenty of instances where units are circumvention other rules as well. Circumvention rules by itself is not a problem in general.
GW also required ork players to buy 5 wagons for their Great Waagh! formations in 7th, forcing all those player to trash two 60+ EUR models would probably have some publicity backlash.

I did a poll recently where I asked whether battlewagons should be dedicated transports. The result was 98% of the people on dakkadakka voting "yes". I fail to see how having three datasheets for them is any different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Those vehicles may have different names with slight differences in rules and loadout, but they are basically the same unit.

They are as much "basically the same unit" as all MEQ are.

ITT: Marines should only be able to field 3 infantry units because they are circumventing the rule of 3.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Yes, that's bad, but if they did do their job they would still be bad as most of their specialization would be wasted against everything that wasn't a demon.

Exactly, specialized units have a place in the game. But they only have a place if they actually can do it for a low cost which GK cannot do. On top of that most people in this hobby agree one faction utterly stomping one other faction is foolish from a gameplay perspective, which is why they should transition GK to generalist. This has already been discussed to death.

@jidmah
That’d be doing a favor to those marine players that don’t grasp how much the basic marine infantry is bringing down their list power!

 Quickjager wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Yes, that's bad, but if they did do their job they would still be bad as most of their specialization would be wasted against everything that wasn't a demon.

Exactly, specialized units have a place in the game. But they only have a place if they actually can do it for a low cost which GK cannot do. On top of that most people in this hobby agree one faction utterly stomping one other faction is foolish from a gameplay perspective, which is why they should transition GK to generalist. This has already been discussed to death.

But if they were generalists, they wouldn't be demon hunters now would they? They'd just be marines with different gear.
From a practical stand point, yes, becoming true generalists would be overall healthier.
From a flavor, fluff and identity standpoint though? Not sure that would be wise, as they risk becoming bland and no different from vanilla marines.
And if they were better than vanilla marines, that would be overall unhealthy for the game, as why would you ever take marines when you could take grey knights instead?

Its why I'm in favor of bringing back Daemonhunters. That way you can make the grey knights strong specialists, and leave the generalist work to other elements, such as inquisitorial stormtroopers.
That way you get a healthy army that's still fair against most matchups whilst still retaining its identity.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
@jidmah
That’d be doing a favor to those marine players that don’t grasp how much the basic marine infantry is bringing down their list power!

I thought they already did that by not fielding eldar?

BTW, aspect warriors should also be limited to 3. Striking Scorpions, Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers are basically the same unit.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
There's a difference between Eldar being effective and Grey Knights being a canned counter. Eldar are not deliberately designed with the intent of kicking a specific faction in the balls, they just have effective units with effective weaponry. Eldar having a weapon that is effective against T4 3+ armor saves is not the same as Eldar having a rule that says "if a unit with the <Adeptus Astartes> keyword is on the battlefield, remove it at the end of your psychic phase".

If you want Grey Knights to be generally effective like Eldar are you're going to need to accept that Grey Knights being designed with the specific intent of being too strong against daemons is an undesirable game state.

Well, I'm not sure anyone wants Grey Knights to be "generally effective."

I think the consensus is they need to be the best psychic chapter in the Imperium. The fact they kick daemon butt is just part and parcel.

Why can't GK be both specialist and good vs everything at the same time.

You ask for the moon. It would be nice to get it, but I would settle for a flashlight at this point.

That was a quote from Karol, the person I was arguing with in the first place

You can tell because I put it in a quote box that indicates "Karol wrote"

Please at least try to read the arguments before you attempt a counterpoint

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Yes, that's bad, but if they did do their job they would still be bad as most of their specialization would be wasted against everything that wasn't a demon.

Exactly, specialized units have a place in the game. But they only have a place if they actually can do it for a low cost which GK cannot do. On top of that most people in this hobby agree one faction utterly stomping one other faction is foolish from a gameplay perspective, which is why they should transition GK to generalist. This has already been discussed to death.

But if they were generalists, they wouldn't be demon hunters now would they? They'd just be marines with different gear.
From a practical stand point, yes, becoming true generalists would be overall healthier.
From a flavor, fluff and identity standpoint though? Not sure that would be wise, as they risk becoming bland and no different from vanilla marines.
And if they were better than vanilla marines, that would be overall unhealthy for the game, as why would you ever take marines when you could take grey knights instead?

Its why I'm in favor of bringing back Daemonhunters. That way you can make the grey knights strong specialists, and leave the generalist work to other elements, such as inquisitorial stormtroopers.
That way you get a healthy army that's still fair against most matchups whilst still retaining its identity.

If you actually care about living the faction's fantasy out then come talk to me after SM of all varieties have been given S5 T5 W4 A4 and Rapid-Fire 4 Bolters with an AP value.

This is a game, there is no argument good enough that will convince any large portion of the player base that a faction is better off in the dumps. We have Deathwatch, we have Sisters of Battle, we have the bananas of Terra themselves CUSTODES, saying they wouldn't be Daemonhunters at this point is being willingly ignorant to a degree on a point easily dismissed. You can argue one way all you want that is fine and its possible to see merit to your ideas. But you ignore the key point, that at their core GK are simply SM with better equipment and therefore should be directly better. Which is exactly what the current TT does in regards to their basic troops, but fails because the SM stat/point ratio is still screwed up.

Spoletta wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Power armour has two issues.

The basic Marine in power armour is okay defensively (I think it should be 12 points but ymmv) - but he has the shooting of a unit which costs half as much. So he is crap. The more marines with bolters in your army, the worse it is.

A marine carrying a plasma gun or something similar actually has okay (still not great due to codex creep, but okay) damage - but now he is 25-40 points per wound in a game where there are countless things that will mow him down with ease. You get the GK issue. A strike marine's offensive output is probably worth 21 points - but he has the defensive abilities of a 12 point unit. Consequently they are far too fragile.

Boosting power armour may help the above - but it will not make basic tacticals/CSM/assault marines etc who have crap offensive abilities any more viable.

Exactly, this is the real problem. Durability is fine on marines, it's just that bolters are a terrible weapons for a 13 point model! I made many suggestions about this, but they were always submerged by comments about marines being too fragile.

GW should just make a basic formula with BS, WS, Wounds, Save, Invul save, S, T,... then they can just adjust the "weight" of a certain Stat if they feel the game is too meele-centric, or to shooty and all points costs for all models changes automatically and are perfectly balanced

Then you make another formula for weapons, how much AP/S/Range is worth and add that to the cost and congratulations you just fixed balance in a basic way.

Then of course you have speed, stratagems, special rules which you use to make the game exiting and make units unique.

knuppe wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Power armour has two issues.

The basic Marine in power armour is okay defensively (I think it should be 12 points but ymmv) - but he has the shooting of a unit which costs half as much. So he is crap. The more marines with bolters in your army, the worse it is.

A marine carrying a plasma gun or something similar actually has okay (still not great due to codex creep, but okay) damage - but now he is 25-40 points per wound in a game where there are countless things that will mow him down with ease. You get the GK issue. A strike marine's offensive output is probably worth 21 points - but he has the defensive abilities of a 12 point unit. Consequently they are far too fragile.

Boosting power armour may help the above - but it will not make basic tacticals/CSM/assault marines etc who have crap offensive abilities any more viable.

Exactly, this is the real problem. Durability is fine on marines, it's just that bolters are a terrible weapons for a 13 point model! I made many suggestions about this, but they were always submerged by comments about marines being too fragile.

GW should just make a basic formula with BS, WS, Wounds, Save, Invul save, S, T,... then they can just adjust the "weight" of a certain Stat if they feel the game is too meele-centric, or to shooty and all points costs for all models changes automatically and are perfectly balanced

Then you make another formula for weapons, how much AP/S/Range is worth and add that to the cost and congratulations you just fixed balance in a basic way.

Then of course you have speed, stratagems, special rules which you use to make the game exiting and make units unique.

Yeah, except this doesn't work. Some stats are worth more based on other stats. A unit with more mobility is more likely to get in melee, making the WS and A attacks worth more, but if the unit is shooting it gives less benefits.

ccs wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.

Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.

highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.

We'll see. BTW, I don't have to be right on this only in the context of 8th. The rule can change come 9th+ Like I said, there WILL be a next time.

Well, at what point does your statement become wrong? Because you're suggesting something extremely unlikely and just saying "one day" and saying that your statement can never be proven wrong. Sure but that doesn't mean it should be listened to.

tneva82 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
The thing about the Rule of 3 is that it sets a hard limit on how much you need of any unit before you don't have to ever buy more of those ever again.

Well, until the next time the rules change. And there WILL be a next time.

highly unlikely that Rule of 3 ever goes anywhere. Certainly not as certain as you imply.

People thought that about allies as well. Things change. GW changes their policies and eventually GW will decide this limits their sales too much.

Lol which idiot thought that the allies ruleset which changes every edition was never going to change again?

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
There's a difference between Eldar being effective and Grey Knights being a canned counter. Eldar are not deliberately designed with the intent of kicking a specific faction in the balls, they just have effective units with effective weaponry. Eldar having a weapon that is effective against T4 3+ armor saves is not the same as Eldar having a rule that says "if a unit with the <Adeptus Astartes> keyword is on the battlefield, remove it at the end of your psychic phase".

If you want Grey Knights to be generally effective like Eldar are you're going to need to accept that Grey Knights being designed with the specific intent of being too strong against daemons is an undesirable game state.

Well, I'm not sure anyone wants Grey Knights to be "generally effective."

I think the consensus is they need to be the best psychic chapter in the Imperium. The fact they kick daemon butt is just part and parcel.

Why can't GK be both specialist and good vs everything at the same time.

You ask for the moon. It would be nice to get it, but I would settle for a flashlight at this point.

That was a quote from Karol, the person I was arguing with in the first place

You can tell because I put it in a quote box that indicates "Karol wrote"

Please at least try to read the arguments before you attempt a counterpoint

Oh, I've already argued with Karol. Not sure if my other points bear repeating.

That makes this exchange hostile agreement.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


But if they were generalists, they wouldn't be demon hunters now would they? They'd just be marines with different gear.
From a practical stand point, yes, becoming true generalists would be overall healthier.
From a flavor, fluff and identity standpoint though? Not sure that would be wise, as they risk becoming bland and no different from vanilla marines.
And if they were better than vanilla marines, that would be overall unhealthy for the game, as why would you ever take marines when you could take grey knights instead?

Its why I'm in favor of bringing back Daemonhunters. That way you can make the grey knights strong specialists, and leave the generalist work to other elements, such as inquisitorial stormtroopers.
That way you get a healthy army that's still fair against most matchups whilst still retaining its identity.

A good gun or a good melee ability is always good. You don't see shining spears being good only against demons of slanesh or dark reapers being good only vs tanks.

But I did ask around people that play longer then me about the demon hunter codex. I was told two things, first it was so unplayable, that even when there were no ally in the game and they had the ally rule no one was taking them. And that the non GK part of the demon hunters was mostly a variation on the IG theam. So if GW were to turn GK in to demon hunters two things could happen, maybe even at the same time. They could end up even worse then they are now or the GK in the demon hunter codex would be as often used as chaos space marines are in chaos space marines armies. So a person with GK models or wanting to play GK in their army would be punished twice, first by having copy past aka bad units from prior codex, and being told by everyone that either it is the role of GK to be always bad, or being told that GK may suck, but demon hunters are just fine. Just don't use GK in your GK army and are is going to be well.
And people can do that right now, take demon hunter IG and say their castellan is an upsided nemezis dreadnought or a GK psytitan that is still growing. GW wouldn't even have to put out a demon hunters codex to give people a fix like that. It is already there.

Spoletta wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Power armour has two issues.

The basic Marine in power armour is okay defensively (I think it should be 12 points but ymmv) - but he has the shooting of a unit which costs half as much. So he is crap. The more marines with bolters in your army, the worse it is.

A marine carrying a plasma gun or something similar actually has okay (still not great due to codex creep, but okay) damage - but now he is 25-40 points per wound in a game where there are countless things that will mow him down with ease. You get the GK issue. A strike marine's offensive output is probably worth 21 points - but he has the defensive abilities of a 12 point unit. Consequently they are far too fragile.

Boosting power armour may help the above - but it will not make basic tacticals/CSM/assault marines etc who have crap offensive abilities any more viable.

Exactly, this is the real problem. Durability is fine on marines, it's just that bolters are a terrible weapons for a 13 point model! I made many suggestions about this, but they were always submerged by comments about marines being too fragile.

I noticed that too. The loss of AP5 is a 33% loss of damage. Marines being effected by AP-1 is only a 16% drop in durability. Not sure how many AP-2 weapons were AP3 in 7th, but they result in a 33% loss of durability which is equal to the loss of firepower. The lack of cost effective transportation could also be why they feel more vulnerable. Reworked drop-pods could also solve problems. Allowing T1 deepstrike and/or heavily dropping their cost.

I know this has been discussed to death, so I'm sure this suggestion has come up before, but here's how I would fix marines.

I'd give them a bolter drill rule that meant they can shoot bolt weapons twice at half range, and drop cost of rhino/drop pod/LR. Applies to all astartes and chaos astartes. Cannot be used in conjunction with any other fire twice ability.

As people have mentioned, durability isn't great for the cost of the mini, but its made much worse by the lack of offensive output.

This also encourages marines to get up close, making them the shock force they are supposed to be. Boosting the normal profile of their weapons just makes it one more mathhammer calculation and castle-fest. It might be worth dropping 10 tacticals up close in a cheaper drop pod if you get 40 shots.

Would boost regular plague marines and rubrics too, and terminators. Sternguard and their stratagem become quite threatening.

Not sure how it would work with death watch, might be too much. It would also make flamers even more pointless than they currently are.

Exactly. Marine durability outside the Vets is...not garbage for the lack of a better word. They have absolutely no bite though. The old school 1 Special 1 Heavy at ten dudes needs to die and be let go for a new loadout type. That's not even to mention that we need fix the Bolter as the damage output is worse than previous editions.

Marines being affected by AP-1 is actually a 50% increase in casualties. It takes 3 AP0 wounds to average 1 kill. It takes 2 AP-1 wounds. So the shooter needs 50% more AP0 attacks than AP-1. Conversely, if you want to look at it that way, going from AP-1 to AP0 is a 33% reduction in casualties taken. Either way you look at it, reducing a better save by 1 is more impactful than reducing a worse save by 1.

Marines didn't lose 33% of their damage so much as GEQ gained 33% survivability vs AP0. Against Sv4+ or better, the Boltgun is unchanged. They did not lose AP5 - AP5 in 6E/7E translates into AP0 in 8E. A couple things actually got AP-1 that were AP5, but those were clearly buffs to those weapons, not straight conversions.

AP-1 on the boltgun hoses Marines badly.

Marines need 11ppm, +1A, and for most AP-1/-2 weapons in the game to go down an AP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For specialization: look at how CWE does it.

Spears specialize in killing heavy infantry.
Fire Dragons specialise in melting heavy tanks.
Wraithnoun guns specialize in melting superhard targets.

Note that none of these care what *faction* the model is (except for Slanesh, to a very minor degree, which has impacted me once in the last 3 editions).

Likewise, if you want GK to specialise, it should be "Pskyer fighters" and/or "MC Hunters", instead of "Chaos-killers". Make their rules tailored to the type of enemies they want to engage, not the specific book.

Intercessors are good baseline marines. They have good durability against small arms and better bolters. They're still too expensive though and there are too many cheap damage weapons in the game. But both of those can be fixed by simple point adjustments. It is futile to try to fix tactical marines, they're just not viable elite infantry in this edition without complete overhaul, and such an overhaul would just result them gaining the stats that the Intercessors already have.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Exactly. Marine durability outside the Vets is...not garbage for the lack of a better word. They have absolutely no bite though. The old school 1 Special 1 Heavy at ten dudes needs to die and be let go for a new loadout type. That's not even to mention that we need fix the Bolter as the damage output is worse than previous editions.

I would start with making the bolter a scary weapon, and then see what happens.

Add a rule to all loyal and not astartes which gives bonuses to bolter fire depending on the number of marines in the squad. This is even fluffy, since marines in squads organize their fire in patterns to maximize the effects. The bonuses should go from reroll 1's to hit and wound to full rerolls on both (for bolters). This way they are less dependant on castling, while keeping the rerolls theme. Also, apoths techs and chaplains should be buffed. Apoths should automatically revive troops, chaplains should allow charges to be rerolled, techs should give an additional +1 save to infantry in cover.

Man...you people who say marines need damage buffs not durability buffs just have no idea what they are talking about. Literally no idea. They really need both because damage per point is often very low. Surviability against practically every weapon is poor compared to cheaper units and when special weapons start getting used (like seriously 80% of firepower in armies is at this level) it is a travesty how bad a marine is.

 Crimson wrote:
Intercessors are good baseline marines. They have good durability against small arms and better bolters. They're still too expensive though and there are too many cheap damage weapons in the game. But both of those can be fixed by simple point adjustments. It is futile to try to fix tactical marines, they're just not viable elite infantry in this edition without complete overhaul, and such an overhaul would just result them gaining the stats that the Intercessors already have.

They have terrible offense.

Martel732 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Intercessors are good baseline marines. They have good durability against small arms and better bolters. They're still too expensive though and there are too many cheap damage weapons in the game. But both of those can be fixed by simple point adjustments. It is futile to try to fix tactical marines, they're just not viable elite infantry in this edition without complete overhaul, and such an overhaul would just result them gaining the stats that the Intercessors already have.

They have terrible offense.

For their points. But they need a point cut. People were clamouring for better bolters, Intercessors already have that. They were also clamouring for more durability, Intercessors have that too. Sure, they pay too much for both, but that's fixable. I think they would be pretty decent at 15 points (and some D2 weapons getting a point increase.)

 Xenomancers wrote:
Man...you people who say marines need damage buffs not durability buffs just have no idea what they are talking about. Literally no idea.

The data I presented a page back or so sort of indicates the opposite - sort of.

Now you can drop the points of a marine which by way of math increases both their relative durability and damage output, but not likely damage to a comparable number that other models have.

BobbyG is still a thing, of course, but lots of marines do not have him as an option.

 alextroy wrote:
Whenever GW gets around to rewriting Codex Grey Knights, they need to properly use the design space they gave themselves to build a fully functional codex.

How you ask?

Step 1: While totally ignoring how effective they are against daemons, build a Psychically-based Marine Codex that has units that functions well in the game.
Step 2: Add a good mix of Stratagems that are both very effective against Daemons but still useful against other armies.

For example, a Stratagem that makes their attacks more likely to defeat Invulnerable Saves would be great against daemons but still effective against many armies.

And the beauty of that is that Stratagems you choose to not use against one army don't make your army weaker. It's only if you have no useful Stratagems that you get a lackluster codex.

This may be the most level-headed post in the last three pages.