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.

Ice_can wrote:

Strategums need CP usually the best way to generate CP is via Battalions. Usually 2 off as a starting target for sufficient CP post Regen nerf(Thankyou Astra Millicheese)

Just so we're clear here, I'm talking about replacing auras with IG style orders. So stratagems aren't really what I'm looking at.

Dandelion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Strategums need CP usually the best way to generate CP is via Battalions. Usually 2 off as a starting target for sufficient CP post Regen nerf(Thankyou Astra Millicheese)

Just so we're clear here, I'm talking about replacing auras with IG style orders. So stratagems aren't really what I'm looking at.

But your not looking at how the current CP system forces you to structure units. This was my point, marines will never be in units of 10 they are too expensive to build CP at 10 model units.

1 battalion would be 390 points in troops plus 200 points in HQ's just to qualify as a battalion I can get 2 Guard battalions and change from those points.

Also 10 marines are more points than 20 Guardsmen even at 5ppm guard.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:


Points efficiency is beside the point since we are looking at orders on a squad by squad basis (besides, it's disingenuous and muddies the water since we know that guardsmen are already more point efficient than marines).
A single captain with 2 orders can buff 20 marines, those 20 marines have twice the firepower of 20 guardsmen. Assuming the orders are the same, a single captain will have the same multiplicative effect as 2 IG commanders. So no, the Captain does not need 4 orders to be roughly equivalent to the effect of an IG commander.

Look at it this way: (assuming 12 pt marines and 5 pt guard because other wise the efficiency of Guard will render this moot)

1 Captain + 20 marines = 320ish pts
2 IG commanders + 40 Guard = 260 pts

Assuming the use of the same order (in this case reroll ones to hit) and shooting GEQ:
- Marines: 40*(2/3+1/6*2/3)*2/3*2/3= 14 W (70 pts)
- Guard: 80*(1/2+1/6*1/2)*1/2*2/3= 15.5 W (77.5 pts)
Now against MEQ:
- Marines: 40*(2/3+1/6*2/3)*1/2*1/3= 6 W (72 pts)
- Guard: 80*(1/2+1/6*1/2)*1/3*1/3= 5.2 W (62.4 pts)

Well, look at that, offensive output is pretty similar. Maybe adjust the points on the HQs a bit to better match but even so, the marine captain is more combat effective than the IG commanders so that still needs to be considered. And no, we can't compare FRFSRF to reroll 1s because you're not comparing like things together, and then we aren't considering any unique orders the marines could get.

You've missed the mark again. First. that IG force is almost 80% the points of the marine one.

320 points of marines do 14 wounds. That means it took 22.9 points to score a wound. The IG took 16.8 points to do that same - even in your uneven imaginary scenario they are markedly more efficient.

I'm starting to think we aren't on the same page. You claimed that a Marine Captain would need 4 Orders to be equivalent (in buffs) to an IG commander. That's what I'm disputing. According to my math, the multiplicative effect of 1 Captain is equal to the multiplicative effect 2 IG commanders (roughly speaking). Why? Because a marine squad has 2x the firepower of a guard squad, so each marine order is worth 2 guard orders, because they are simply multiplying a larger base value.

And, yes, you HAVE TO compare FRFSRF to reroll 1s, because that is what is in the game.

Now you're assuming that marines don't get their own unique order. Since it hasn't been specified, we can't compare it to FRFSRF. But let's suppose that Marines don't get a unique order, then that should be reflected in the point cost of both the IG and Marines. We're talking about changing fundamental game mechanics anyway, so adjusting point costs to accommodate a better mechanic is worth it.

Watch this: IG commander cost up 10 pts
Marine captain down 10 pts:

Now the spread is:
310 pts of marines vs 280 pts of guard.

Is it ideal? IDK because I haven't tested it. But at least in the scenario given above, the marines were actually more efficient at killing guard than guard were at killing marines.

Dandelion wrote:

I'm starting to think we aren't on the same page. You claimed that a Marine Captain would need 4 Orders to be equivalent (in buffs) to an IG commander. That's what I'm disputing. According to my math, the multiplicative effect of 1 Captain is equal to the multiplicative effect 2 IG commanders (roughly speaking). Why? Because a marine squad has 2x the firepower of a guard squad, so each marine order is worth 2 guard orders, because they are simply multiplying a larger base value.

A marine squad is 3 times the cost (and also not double the firepower). We're not on the same page, because you're randomly applying different measures to get the result you want at each stage.

Now you're assuming that marines don't get their own unique order.

They wouldn't, because the problem stated was that auras cause units to be costed improperly to which my reply was that "marine orders" would have to cover about the same number of units that orders do just by way of marine HQs being so expensive.

But we've drifted too far from the original point of the discussion so i'll disengage from this piece of it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

I'm starting to think we aren't on the same page. You claimed that a Marine Captain would need 4 Orders to be equivalent (in buffs) to an IG commander. That's what I'm disputing. According to my math, the multiplicative effect of 1 Captain is equal to the multiplicative effect 2 IG commanders (roughly speaking). Why? Because a marine squad has 2x the firepower of a guard squad, so each marine order is worth 2 guard orders, because they are simply multiplying a larger base value.

A marine squad is 3 times the cost (and also not double the firepower). We're not on the same page, because you're randomly applying different measures to get the result you want at each stage.

um, on a model by model basis, a marine kills twice as much as a guardsman (just under actually). Therefore, the 10 man marine squad has twice the firepower of a 10 man guard squad. So let's say I have a stratagem that lets a single unit shoot twice, and it can be given to either a guard squad or a marine squad: who do I give it to?
Obviously I'd give it to the marines because I get more output for my single use stratagem. It doesn't really matter that guard are overall more efficient than marines in this case because 40 pts of guard doesn't output as much as 130 pts of marines in absolute terms even though it's more point efficient.

So because a 10 man marine squad has twice the damage output as a 10 man infantry squad, any order given to the marines will be twice as effective as the same order given to the guard.
Example: shoot twice order
10 marines go from killing 6 GEQ to killing 12
10 Guard go from killing 3.3 GEQ to killing 6.6 GEQ.

In absolute terms, the Marines killed an additional 6 GEQ, while the Guard only killed an additional 3.3 due to the order. This means that the order itself is almost twice as effective on the marine squad regardless of the point cost, because you only have the one order and because the 10 marines have almost twice the firepower. You're just multiplying a larger base number with marines.

Therefore, a single Captain's order is worth more than a single IG commander's order provided that the orders are the same. Which means that a Captain does not need 4 orders to match the effect of a single IG commander. And by effect I mean the actual absolute increase from the original value.
If; however, the orders were different then this would not be the case and could be reflected in the point cost or by adjusting the number of orders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Strategums need CP usually the best way to generate CP is via Battalions. Usually 2 off as a starting target for sufficient CP post Regen nerf(Thankyou Astra Millicheese)

Just so we're clear here, I'm talking about replacing auras with IG style orders. So stratagems aren't really what I'm looking at.

But your not looking at how the current CP system forces you to structure units. This was my point, marines will never be in units of 10 they are too expensive to build CP at 10 model units.

1 battalion would be 390 points in troops plus 200 points in HQ's just to qualify as a battalion I can get 2 Guard battalions and change from those points.

Also 10 marines are more points than 20 Guardsmen even at 5ppm guard.

But why would you need to have full marine squads all the time? A mix of min and max squads would be more flexible while also allowing you to get more effect from your stratagems (assuming they were good). So long as there is some incentive to bring some max squads it's fine, right? So, for the double battalion, you only bring 1-2 10-man teams while the rest are 5-man, that way your hypothetical good stratagem can be used to more effect on the larger squads.

First, I don't think that the CA 2018 is going to improve any unit stats (i.e. increase St or T or # of shots) as GW has not done that in any FAQ or the previous CA 2017 and only made those kind of changes with new Codex changes (correct me if I am wrong as I don't play every army). So really the only change to existing units (not Sisters who are getting a codex in it) will probably only be point changes. Of course there will be Ork looted wagon rules, they will codify some of the FAQ beta rules etc., Sister Codex, probably missions, and I think I read that some only 7th edition special units (the Tau unit of characters) is coming, but the points is the only thing I really care about.

My hopes for the CA 2018 really are simple.

1. I want Terminators to get the price decrease that they need badly. Then I can bring my SoT and not feel like I am handcuffing myself. Everyone can argue about the amount they need to decrease, but I don't think anyway thinks that they should stay the same price. If they don't fix terminator costs again in this CA, then I will be angry.

2. I would really like Rubric Marines to go down a point or two and this this may happen. If it does not happen I would not be really mad about it, but I think it would help make Rubrics more viable in the Meta, and maybe let Thousand Sons armies field, you know, thousand sons in their lists and not feel like you are gimping yourself (for competitive, I always field one unit in my Thousand Sons list for pick up games etc.)

3. It would be nice to get a point or two off the Enlightened, as I use them all the time, and their survival rate is really low and damage output mediocre for how much they are, but I really don't expect GW to fix this.

4. There are other units that are not popular that I like that could use a small point decrease like Screamers, the Tzeentch Chariot, Warp Talons and some others. I really don't think we will see a whole lot change for most units.

And if CA 2017 is any indicator I think everyone should expect price increases on everything that is popular right now. I am not arguing for or against any of these but I would expect to see the new Knight Variants go up, Jump pack characters go up, TS daemon princes and Ahriman go up (sucks for me), Dark Eldar units and Eldar can probably expect an increase on a lot of stuff, and anything else that is popular. In CA 2017 they increased assault cannons, Storm Ravens, Gully all things that were the hotness the summer and fall before. I would expect the same.

I do guarantee one thing though, even after CA 2018, with what ever rule changes it makes, there will be broken units that are under costed, units that will be over costed, competitive list builds that will dominate competitive events, and certain rules or stratagems that can and will be abused. Why do I make this prediction? Well I have been Warhammer since 1995 and these things were true of every point in every edition ever. So I doubt it will change now.

But hey, hopefully they fix terminators right.

Base marines need fixed before terminators.

To some extent you can solve a problem by making a unit very tough - but I suspect basic tacticals would have to have crazy defensive stats to justify having about half the offensive capability for their points when compared with comparable units. We are talking Terminator stats - 5++, 2W. You would say that's crazy (and what would intercessors get, 5++, 3W?) but this is the road you go down.

I think it is much easier to buff the damage output of marines. I realise this increases 40ks "everything's a glass hammer, you go or you a dead" but thats kind of the game. Otherwise you need as above crazy increases in resilience, or to nerf the shooting of almost every codex in the game.

Martel732 wrote:
Base marines need fixed before terminators.

A Terminator is basically two normal Marines with a power fist and combat shield between them, bolted together. Oddly, the cost of a Terminator almost exactly matches the cost of two Marines with a power fist and combat shield between them. And yet, how often do you see a squad of termies replacing two Tac squads in a list?

To be fair, everything in the entire marine book needs to be 15%-30% cheaper, and quite a few vanilla marine strategems and psychic powers are junk compared to what is available in later books.

The Newman wrote:

To be fair, everything in the entire marine book needs to be 15%-30% cheaper

That is a very strong overstatement, I think.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

To be fair, everything in the entire marine book needs to be 15%-30% cheaper

That is a very strong overstatement, I think.

It's really not.

I can think of a few exceptions. Scout bikes are probably properly costed. Stalkers are about right. Some characters are about right but most are overcosted.

You got any examples other than what I listed that aren't at least 15% over?

The problem with terminators over marines is two wounds is not as good as two models due to damage in 8th. Two wounds for basically all units is so over priced.

 SHUPPET wrote:

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.

My statement will become wrong if 40k, as a product, ended before they changed the rule again. I'll even count that as happening should GW pull an AoS stunt.

 SHUPPET 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.

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

Asks the man arguing that the Rule of Three won't change in the future....

Yes, thats literally the comparison being made in the last two responses in that chain, try to keep up.

Rule of 3 has been changed once in the lifetime of the game, to an overwhelmingly positive response and seems very unlikely to be changed anytime. Not impossible. But at the very least, nowhere near as certain as you claim it is.

Allies is a complex set of interactions that change literally every edition.

The logic that "because one thing changed that means Rule of 3 is going to be removed" is so unbelievably elementary I'm even sure how to respond like that.

Youve made an incredible declaration that cannot be falsified, one of the definitive signs of pseudoscience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability, and you are claiming that some point between now and the heat death of the universe, Rule of 3 will be removed. I mean... Maybe? You have nothing at all to substantiate that and are just waving around the fact that it cant be disproved, which is the best indicator that your point is kinda empty and doesn't really have any relevance to any sort of productive discussion.

Rule of 3 could change for any number of reasons. I think the idea is that declaring it'll never change when the game has changed so much over the years is silly.

I agree, maybe it will change, maybe it won't. Declaring that it DEFINITELY is going to be removed, as ccs did, or that it DEFINITELY isn't going to be removed (as nobody has yet), is where you cross into nonsense. Thats far from certain. Very good chance it never changes.

I could see it changing before the end of 2019 honestly. Different number of datasheets for different unit types, giving certain armies more or less leeway, etc.

 cole1114 wrote:
I could see it changing before the end of 2019 honestly. Different number of datasheets for different unit types, giving certain armies more or less leeway, etc.

might happen, but my money is on minor tweaks at best, and no direct chqnge that allows for more than 3 of most models in matched play.

I'd be very surprised if the rule of 3 was gone by the end of next year.

I think the change would be going through datasheets and deciding how many "take 1-6 of this unit, they count as one datasheet, but operate as individual models" should be there, and whether there need to be some additions or removals. Mainly because it feels weird that certain factions can take squadrons of vehicles or monsters etc but others can't. Then again I don't think its breaking the game, so there is little motivation for GW to curate things that closely.

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's really not.

I can think of a few exceptions. Scout bikes are probably properly costed. Stalkers are about right. Some characters are about right but most are overcosted.

You got any examples other than what I listed that aren't at least 15% over?

I dunno - 15% seems severe as the bare minimum for the entire codex.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's really not.

I can think of a few exceptions. Scout bikes are probably properly costed. Stalkers are about right. Some characters are about right but most are overcosted.

You got any examples other than what I listed that aren't at least 15% over?

I dunno - 15% seems severe as the bare minimum for the entire codex.

Let me be a little less snarky. A 15% discount would mean that Marines would get the equivalent of 2330 points for a 2000 point list. Is another 330 points going to be enough to let a Marine list compete with 2000 points of one of the good forces?

It's not unusual for a Marine army to get tabled on turn 3 without inflicting even 50% casualties in return against one of the good forces. 330 points would help, but not enough to fix that.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

To be fair, everything in the entire marine book needs to be 15%-30% cheaper

That is a very strong overstatement, I think.

It's really not.

I can think of a few exceptions. Scout bikes are probably properly costed. Stalkers are about right. Some characters are about right but most are overcosted.

You got any examples other than what I listed that aren't at least 15% over?

As an aside - why do you rate the Stalker?
I keep thinking it should be the answer to say Ravagers - but it just isn't really. Not for that many points.

The Newman wrote:

Let me be a little less snarky. A 15% discount would mean that Marines would get the equivalent of 2330 points for a 2000 point list. Is another 330 points going to be enough to let a Marine list compete with 2000 points of one of the good forces?

It's not unusual for a Marine army to get tabled on turn 3 without inflicting even 50% casualties in return against one of the good forces. 330 points would help, but not enough to fix that.

Depends on the list. 330 points is pretty close to an entire BobbyG.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Let me be a little less snarky. A 15% discount would mean that Marines would get the equivalent of 2330 points for a 2000 point list. Is another 330 points going to be enough to let a Marine list compete with 2000 points of one of the good forces?

It's not unusual for a Marine army to get tabled on turn 3 without inflicting even 50% casualties in return against one of the good forces. 330 points would help, but not enough to fix that.

Depends on the list. 330 points is pretty close to an entire BobbyG.

Orkz got a 15% INCREASE on the price of Boyz. We went from taking 180+ in a 2,000pt game to today where I took only 60 and I honestly think I would have been better off taking 0 and just 60 grotz as a tax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
point being, 15% can be a make or break for a unit

SemperMortis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Let me be a little less snarky. A 15% discount would mean that Marines would get the equivalent of 2330 points for a 2000 point list. Is another 330 points going to be enough to let a Marine list compete with 2000 points of one of the good forces?

It's not unusual for a Marine army to get tabled on turn 3 without inflicting even 50% casualties in return against one of the good forces. 330 points would help, but not enough to fix that.

Depends on the list. 330 points is pretty close to an entire BobbyG.

Orkz got a 15% INCREASE on the price of Boyz. We went from taking 180+ in a 2,000pt game to today where I took only 60 and I honestly think I would have been better off taking 0 and just 60 grotz as a tax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
point being, 15% can be a make or break for a unit

I agree with you in principal, but entirely disagree with you about Boyz.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You can go look at GW's job openings right now, on their own website, and it will say right there in the application form that they do not hire based on skill.

Could you show me where, because I see this :

"We select candidates for interview based on what they tell us in their letter or video."

Which is very different from what you're saying.

Anecdotal - but my local GW just hired a new casual who has never played any GW based games before. When I walked in the manager was giving him a demo game of AOS. At first I thought it was just some newbie who wondered into the store but nope, new staff member and everything.

I've heard first hand from several GW staff over the years, especially recently, that hiring is mostly based on attitude and customer service. Everything else can be taught.

I had a former manager tell me when I was interviewing that they hire based on sales ability and attitude/enthusiasm. They don't care that I've been building, painting, playing, and teaching other people the game for 20 years. They hired a guy who used to work at CarMax and had never built/painted a model or played a GW game in his life because he had more experience than I did in commission based sales jobs. He lasted 3 months because he tried to make all kinds of crazy house rules for the events at the store, and they always made things worse because he barely understood how the core game worked. By that time, I had a job in marketing for a Fortune 500 company that I still have today. I guess I'm cut out to work in marketing for one of the largest companies in North America, but not cut out to sell models that I have 20+ years of experience with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nurgle5 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:Only thing happened is that GW realized they can accelerate that process from codex to codex to FAQ to FAQ. End result is still same. No balance. It's not in their goal. They don't WANT balance as it hurts the balance of their checkbooks. Less profits for the big bosses.

I'm going to ask again where the Rule of 3 fits in with this theory? Because it effectively limits how many of any given kit a competitive player is likely to buy.

It also forces people to buy kits they might not otherwise buy. GW spends just as much creating an infantry kit as they do with something like a riptide. It's better for them if people are buying lots of different kits instead of 2k points of 1 or 2 kits. That is not an indication that they care more about balance than selling models.

Some units need more than 15%

A redemptor dread would still be at 170. Still worse than an armiger, provided they don't give it another rule of course.

T8, or a 5++ would help but I'd rather T8 since he's a big boy.

 fraser1191 wrote:
Some units need more than 15%

A redemptor dread would still be at 170. Still worse than an armiger, provided they don't give it another rule of course.

T8, or a 5++ would help but I'd rather T8 since he's a big boy.

It is kinda weird how Ironclad gets T8 but Redemptor doesn't.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Let me be a little less snarky. A 15% discount would mean that Marines would get the equivalent of 2330 points for a 2000 point list. Is another 330 points going to be enough to let a Marine list compete with 2000 points of one of the good forces?

It's not unusual for a Marine army to get tabled on turn 3 without inflicting even 50% casualties in return against one of the good forces. 330 points would help, but not enough to fix that.

Depends on the list. 330 points is pretty close to an entire BobbyG.

Orkz got a 15% INCREASE on the price of Boyz. We went from taking 180+ in a 2,000pt game to today where I took only 60 and I honestly think I would have been better off taking 0 and just 60 grotz as a tax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
point being, 15% can be a make or break for a unit

And 15% can also be just enough to make a bad unit viable. Or it could fall short on fixing something ridiculously over-priced like Centurions. "Thing X is too much on unit A" is only meaningful to the discussion of what is too much for Marines if "unit A" is in about the same place as a basic Marine.

Not to say that an Ork Boy isn't in about the same place as a basic Marine in the contex of the Ork codex, but you'd have to make that case.

@ Daedalus81: I'm playing Raven Guard, Girlyman doesn't look like such a good investment from where I'm sitting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Some units need more than 15%

A redemptor dread would still be at 170. Still worse than an armiger, provided they don't give it another rule of course.

T8, or a 5++ would help but I'd rather T8 since he's a big boy.

It is kinda weird how Ironclad gets T8 but Redemptor doesn't.

That's why I said 15%-30%, I recognize that it's not all the same level of gak. As evidenced by my continual harping on how poorly Centurions are priced.

There are admittedly some things where it feels like the price isn't the issue though. The Redemptor is one of them, both for T7 and for having a much worse set of weapon options than an Armiger. The Vindicator also comes to mind, it feels like it needs Grinding Advance more than any points adjustment.

Tyel wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

To be fair, everything in the entire marine book needs to be 15%-30% cheaper

That is a very strong overstatement, I think.

It's really not.

I can think of a few exceptions. Scout bikes are probably properly costed. Stalkers are about right. Some characters are about right but most are overcosted.

You got any examples other than what I listed that aren't at least 15% over?

As an aside - why do you rate the Stalker?
I keep thinking it should be the answer to say Ravagers - but it just isn't really. Not for that many points.

Dono if there is a better option in the game for killing ravagers at range to be honest. So I can't claim that it's overcosted. Though it is situational and the max ap-1 really hurts it. The hunter though - it's probably more than 30% overcosted. A single reroll to hit las cannon on a tough chassie - seems like about a 65 point model to me.