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.

retrion wrote:
As a blood angels player I am disappointed. GW killed Sanguinary Guard and Death Company by dropping points for vanguard vets + jumpacks while keeping SG and DC the same. There is absolutely no reason as to why you would take SG and DC over VV. Dante dropping to 175 points is also not great, 0 special unique rules and we pay 175 just to get chapter master special rule and jumpack while Valoris or Azrael that does so much more for an army and as a single model for just 10 points more. Dreadnought point drops and their wargear is nice , mephiston going up 15 points was expected but not its much better to take Librarian Dreadnought over Mephiston lol.Sanguinor dropping to 150 from 170 is ok, would prefer to have him at 135 when looking at what characters from other codexes do around his points cost. Very disappointed that a generic space marine unit is better than 2 unique dedicated blood angels units are suppose to be doing.

Lemartes dropped by 29 points, which is equivalent to 2 points per model drop for a maxed DC unit. Astorath also dropped by 38. Both are characters strongly tied to DC.

So while DC didn't get a direct buff they still got one.

Just going to say, really pleased with the balance changes on the whole. They certainly aren't perfect, but evryones idea of perfect is a bit different so I'm happy enough.

I think 5pt guardsmen and 650-700pt castellans would have been reasonable, plus a decrease for tacs and regular CSM, but perhaps they'll cone with time. 90% of these changes are really good for getting some little used options back in play.

Chapter approved and the big FAQs are the main reasons I'm loving 8th. They keep things fresh

 Daedalus81 wrote:

retrion wrote:
As a blood angels player I am disappointed. GW killed Sanguinary Guard and Death Company by dropping points for vanguard vets + jumpacks while keeping SG and DC the same. There is absolutely no reason as to why you would take SG and DC over VV. Dante dropping to 175 points is also not great, 0 special unique rules and we pay 175 just to get chapter master special rule and jumpack while Valoris or Azrael that does so much more for an army and as a single model for just 10 points more. Dreadnought point drops and their wargear is nice , mephiston going up 15 points was expected but not its much better to take Librarian Dreadnought over Mephiston lol.Sanguinor dropping to 150 from 170 is ok, would prefer to have him at 135 when looking at what characters from other codexes do around his points cost. Very disappointed that a generic space marine unit is better than 2 unique dedicated blood angels units are suppose to be doing.

Lemartes dropped by 29 points, which is equivalent to 2 points per model drop for a maxed DC unit. Astorath also dropped by 38. Both are characters strongly tied to DC.

So while DC didn't get a direct buff they still got one.

Same with Vanguard Veterans which got their base points dropped, wargear options were dropped, astorath got also massive points dropped meaning Vanguard vets with astorath are much better than dc with lemartes

retrion wrote:


Same with Vanguard Veterans which got their base points dropped, wargear options were dropped, astorath got also massive points dropped meaning Vanguard vets with astorath are much better than dc with lemartes

I mean I can't deny how awesome 2 point storm shields are. I still think DC are a bit stronger if you can get them there in one piece.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

retrion wrote:


Same with Vanguard Veterans which got their base points dropped, wargear options were dropped, astorath got also massive points dropped meaning Vanguard vets with astorath are much better than dc with lemartes

I mean I can't deny how awesome 2 point storm shields are. I still think DC are a bit stronger if you can get them there in one piece.

10 Death Company with Power fists jumpacks= 290 points. 3+ 6+++ 1W 2A +1 on charge 20 Attacks(30 Attacks on charge)
10 Vanguard Vets with all power fists and all stormshields and jumpacks 280 points. 3+ 3++ 1W 2A (3A Sergant) 21 Attacks
10 Sanguard all power fists angelus boltgun: 320 points. 2+ 2W 2A 20 Attacks

Lemartes with DC re rolls failed charge and failed hits in CC but oonly for DC units.
Astorath re rolls failed hits for ALL blood angels models, units use his leadership of 9, is better in close combat, once per game has mass of doom ability for a unit.

Also worth noting the relic blade dropped in price. I think it's 6 or 8 now.

I think you're just seeing the result of how stupid it is to give a model a 3+ invulnerable save for 2 points. Outside of that, I'd say those three options look more or less on par with eachother.

 Elbows wrote:
I think you're just seeing the result of how stupid it is to give a model a 3+ invulnerable save for 2 points. Outside of that, I'd say those three options look more or less on par with eachother.

320 points for models with no invul save, 280 points for all 10 models with 3+invul save or 290 points for unit with no invul save 6fnp. All unit make the charge and kill the model then they have to surivive one turn of concentrated firepower of enemy force. Which unit has the best chance of surviving, SG and VV both have 5fnp aura from ancinet relic banner.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Also worth noting the relic blade dropped in price. I think it's 6 or 8 now.

9 for those now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
I think you're just seeing the result of how stupid it is to give a model a 3+ invulnerable save for 2 points. Outside of that, I'd say those three options look more or less on par with eachother.

I think it has less of an impact, because of the way marines fit into the meta. Marine melee is very light and several weapons counter them strongly. SS mitigates those things, but still does nothing to help against small arms.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.

According to that particular poster, Marines should only be, at best, middle of the road. He defends the codices and then turns around and says he knows they're bad

You quote my words out of context.

I've always said that in the perfect world all factions should be equally competitive. This is not possible when one faction is actually an alliance of 10ish factions that can choose from 10000 entries with no handicap. That specific faction is already too powerful, hence the necessity of keeping some of the underforming units of the imperium at the current level. As long as the imperium faction is so powerful there's no need of other imperium tools that are improved at top tier levels. If that means that pure SM are not competitive at all, I'll take it. And I'm saying that even if I own a large SW army and I know I can't win a tournament with them, even a local one. I'd love more effective marines, as long as the most broken imperium units are toned down like they deserve. With the current quality of AM, IK and maybe a few custodes units SM are fine as they are. Asking more competitive marines is like complaining about the cronos or the court of the archon being bland while the faction they belong is already solid top tier and it doesn't need other top units on the table.

And to be honest I don't even think SM are that bad. The faction they belong just has tons of overpowered stuff, that's all.

Unless you can build your list to counter the opponent - having "lots of options" is about as useful as your best options....

Pretty moderate changes across the board which is okay in my book. I know some players want more radical changes but frankly don't trust GW to swing the proverbial pendulum well. GKs are still awful but no point changes will fix them as they need a whole codex re-work. Same with Necrons. Wishes some DE units like ravagers got a points bump but oh well.

The one off I'm happy about is the 60pt drop in the lancer which I can now sub my errant for. Is it worse? Probably. Is it cooler model? Hell ya.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Unless you can build your list to counter the opponent - having "lots of options" is about as useful as your best options....

Bingo. This ain't a video game where you buy your equipment as you play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.

According to that particular poster, Marines should only be, at best, middle of the road. He defends the codices and then turns around and says he knows they're bad

You quote my words out of context.

I've always said that in the perfect world all factions should be equally competitive. This is not possible when one faction is actually an alliance of 10ish factions that can choose from 10000 entries with no handicap. That specific faction is already too powerful, hence the necessity of keeping some of the underforming units of the imperium at the current level. As long as the imperium faction is so powerful there's no need of other imperium tools that are improved at top tier levels. If that means that pure SM are not competitive at all, I'll take it. And I'm saying that even if I own a large SW army and I know I can't win a tournament with them, even a local one. I'd love more effective marines, as long as the most broken imperium units are toned down like they deserve. With the current quality of AM, IK and maybe a few custodes units SM are fine as they are. Asking more competitive marines is like complaining about the cronos or the court of the archon being bland while the faction they belong is already solid top tier and it doesn't need other top units on the table.

And to be honest I don't even think SM are that bad. The faction they belong just has tons of overpowered stuff, that's all.

I love the line of logic. Marines can't be good because of all their allies being good. Bull. gak.

And yes I can quote you as having said Marines are bad and it's okay. Itll take digging but I have your direct quotes at one point.

Marines are bad. Full stop. Their allies are irrelevant. They are, however, a little less bad after ca.

There is an easy solution to make all concerned happy. Simply Buff Marines and make them a better standalone army. AND FETHING BAN ALLIES IN MATCHED PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Suddenly having good units in 30 different imperial factions doesn't mean feth all because you can only take 1 faction to a matched play event or game. Ban soup in competitive play and you can easily make the game more balanced for each individual faction.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I love the line of logic. Marines can't be good because of all their allies being good. Bull. gak.

And yes I can quote you as having said Marines are bad and it's okay. Itll take digging but I have your direct quotes at one point.

It's not bull, it's GW politics. GW decided that your faction is the imperium by allowing soups, period. Complaining that SM are out of competitive gaming is like complaining that Bubblechukkas will never see a tournament table, because we have 3 other mek gunz that do work and who cares if the 4th option is trash. I think allies are an abomination outside pure open play, but as long as they are so rewarded I also think that buffing the most competitive faction with other effective tools would be bad for the game.

So yes in competitive games SM are bad. But also some units in the aeldari soup, chaos soup, tau, orks, etc are bad. An army of pure gretchins or a dread mob sucks, like a pure wych cult list. So what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
There is an easy solution to make all concerned happy. Simply Buff Marines and make them a better standalone army. AND FETHING BAN ALLIES IN MATCHED PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Suddenly having good units in 30 different imperial factions doesn't mean feth all because you can only take 1 faction to a matched play event or game. Ban soup in competitive play and you can easily make the game more balanced for each individual faction.

I completely agree.

 Blackie wrote:
It's not bull, it's GW politics. GW decided that your faction is the imperium by allowing soups, period. Complaining that SM are out of competitive gaming is like complaining that Bubblechukkas will never see a tournament table, because we have 3 other mek gunz that do work and who cares if the 4th option is trash. I think allies are an abomination outside pure open play, but as long as they are so rewarded I also think that buffing the most competitive faction with other effective tools would be bad for the game.

So yes in competitive games SM are bad. But also some units in the aeldari soup, chaos soup, tau, orks, etc are bad. An army of pure gretchins or a dread mob sucks, like a pure wych cult list. So what?

Why have GW just sharply reduced Ad Mech's point costs then?

Marines needs +1 attack no matter what, for no extra points cost, make them +1 atk, every marine in game. Its insane they are 1atk.

Tyel wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
It's not bull, it's GW politics. GW decided that your faction is the imperium by allowing soups, period. Complaining that SM are out of competitive gaming is like complaining that Bubblechukkas will never see a tournament table, because we have 3 other mek gunz that do work and who cares if the 4th option is trash. I think allies are an abomination outside pure open play, but as long as they are so rewarded I also think that buffing the most competitive faction with other effective tools would be bad for the game.

So yes in competitive games SM are bad. But also some units in the aeldari soup, chaos soup, tau, orks, etc are bad. An army of pure gretchins or a dread mob sucks, like a pure wych cult list. So what?

Why have GW just sharply reduced Ad Mech's point costs then?

I don't know, maybe because GW wanted to sell more of their kits. Also SM got (several) points drop, maybe GW thought that the new points reductions would be ok for SM and Ad Mech collectors and encourage them to buy more stuff with the assumption that their army is better now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Marines needs +1 attack no matter what, for no extra points cost, make them +1 atk, every marine in game. Its insane they are 1atk.

I agree. It shouldn't change much and they'd probably want to stay out of combat anyway but having only 1A is absolutely silly.

 Blackie wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
It's not bull, it's GW politics. GW decided that your faction is the imperium by allowing soups, period. Complaining that SM are out of competitive gaming is like complaining that Bubblechukkas will never see a tournament table, because we have 3 other mek gunz that do work and who cares if the 4th option is trash. I think allies are an abomination outside pure open play, but as long as they are so rewarded I also think that buffing the most competitive faction with other effective tools would be bad for the game.

So yes in competitive games SM are bad. But also some units in the aeldari soup, chaos soup, tau, orks, etc are bad. An army of pure gretchins or a dread mob sucks, like a pure wych cult list. So what?

Why have GW just sharply reduced Ad Mech's point costs then?

I don't know, maybe because GW wanted to sell more of their kits. Also SM got (several) points drop, maybe GW thought that the new points reductions would be ok for SM and Ad Mech collectors and encourage them to buy more stuff with the assumption that their army is better now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Marines needs +1 attack no matter what, for no extra points cost, make them +1 atk, every marine in game. Its insane they are 1atk.

I agree. It shouldn't change much and they'd probably want to stay out of combat anyway but having only 1A is absolutely silly.

give every Ork +1 attack then

I'm finding it veeeeery suspicious that mostly all the units in their £100 box sets this year all received drops in points... it's getting weird.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
It's not bull, it's GW politics. GW decided that your faction is the imperium by allowing soups, period. Complaining that SM are out of competitive gaming is like complaining that Bubblechukkas will never see a tournament table, because we have 3 other mek gunz that do work and who cares if the 4th option is trash. I think allies are an abomination outside pure open play, but as long as they are so rewarded I also think that buffing the most competitive faction with other effective tools would be bad for the game.

So yes in competitive games SM are bad. But also some units in the aeldari soup, chaos soup, tau, orks, etc are bad. An army of pure gretchins or a dread mob sucks, like a pure wych cult list. So what?

Why have GW just sharply reduced Ad Mech's point costs then?

I don't know, maybe because GW wanted to sell more of their kits. Also SM got (several) points drop, maybe GW thought that the new points reductions would be ok for SM and Ad Mech collectors and encourage them to buy more stuff with the assumption that their army is better now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Marines needs +1 attack no matter what, for no extra points cost, make them +1 atk, every marine in game. Its insane they are 1atk.

I agree. It shouldn't change much and they'd probably want to stay out of combat anyway but having only 1A is absolutely silly.

give every Ork +1 attack then

Orks already have 2Atk base and gains +1.... thats 3, Marines used to be able to get 2 at all times basically, and somethines 3 attacks, were orks could gain 4.

this is due to old rules gave you bonus attacks in CC for XYZ, they took away XYZ rules. But Orks, Wyches, and many other units stayed the same attacks (they gave them +1 on the profile) where marines went down 1

 Amishprn86 wrote:


Orks already have 2Atk base and gains +1.... thats 3, Marines used to be able to get 2 at all times basically, and somethines 3 attacks, were orks could gain 4.

this is due to old rules gave you bonus attacks in CC for XYZ, they took away XYZ rules, Orks, Wyches, many units stayed the same attacks (they gave them +1 on the profile) where marines went down 1

Orkz have always been 2 attacks base, they didn't give us +1 when they took away +1 for charging or +1 for having 2 CC weapons, they just moved the +1 onto the actual CC weapon itself, just like a Space Marine with a Chainsword/Combat knife still gains +1 attack.

The point I was making is that this is their niche, and I honestly feel at 7ppm they are too expensive, so if every Marine gets +1 attack because "Reasons" than by that logic Orkz should all gain +1 attack because they are supposed to be better at CC than Marines but utterly inconsequential at ranged for our basic troops.

Wyches are 8ppm, you gain more Str and Toughness, where they gain Dodge in CC.

So... we can compare all day, but in general SM are terrible compare of cheaper units with more attacjs, more wounds and more attacks for 1/2 the cost.

 lolman1c wrote:
I'm finding it veeeeery suspicious that mostly all the units in their £100 box sets this year all received drops in points... it's getting weird.

Well there could be a few reasons. One is the "let's lower points to sell this stuff" reason, the other is a slightly less nefarious "we have loads of this underpowered stuff because no one is buying it, lets balance it and try to shift some" reason.

Who knows? It's not like it is always the evil reason. Companies are generally neutral.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Uh, 5th edition?

Well at least until the complex wound allocation exploiting units came along and ruined everything. Great edition with that single problem causing so much rage.

Did they? I can only recall ork nob bikers (which weren't IIRC that much of a problem, if anything they helped to lift up a bit weaker book) and GK paladins, who were so horrendously expensive (55 pts a model, before any gear, and you had to take different, more expensive options to claim wound trick...) yet still had only 3+ to hit and 2A, plus died to plasma (and especially to cheap melta) en masse thanks to lack of good ++ saves, that the wound trick if anything made them viable, not OP.

Did I missed any unit that was OP due to it?

Draigo in a unit of like 10 paladins, all different loadouts. You could tank all the wounds on Draigo, or pass them off to a big sea of Paladin wounds. Then you had a couple of dreads or dreadknights or something. I may have forgot some key part but it was basically Draigo leading a swarm of paladins.

Mymearan wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.

No, Guilty Gear is orders of magnitude easier to balance because a playtest is 5 minutes long as opposed to 3 hours, and only requires two people and a machine no matter which combination of characters and variables you're testing. I can't even begin to imagine what large scale testing of 40k would entail (obviously GW are not even attempting it). There's also the fact that Guilty Gear is completely standardized, in that the game will be exactly the same for every player in every match. There's no player-set-up terrain to account for and no dozens of optional scenarios to balance against.

Ah so you have literally no idea what you are talking about, but still decided to weigh in anyway?

fighters are notoriously hard to balance. every single FRAME of time on the screen is relevant. People are still finding new things, every single day, for each character, for a game that he been out for years and years. All these characters interact with each in a far more dynamic way than two different armies do. There is an insane amount of depth, it's hilarious that you genuinely think you can playtest it 5 minutes.


the terrain thing isn't an issue. Once the game is at a stage where terrain is the only problem and not the armies, that's balance. Historically terrain has been used to somewhat compensate for GWs loose balancing, and that will continue at least until we get there.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.

According to that particular poster, Marines should only be, at best, middle of the road. He defends the codices and then turns around and says he knows they're bad

ah so there's neither rhyme nor reason to his logic? that clears things up a little

 lolman1c wrote:
I'm finding it veeeeery suspicious that mostly all the units in their £100 box sets this year all received drops in points... it's getting weird.

And what about all the point drops for units NOT in those boxes? Occam's razor, dude.

 Irbis wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Uh, 5th edition?

Well at least until the complex wound allocation exploiting units came along and ruined everything. Great edition with that single problem causing so much rage.

Did they? I can only recall ork nob bikers (which weren't IIRC that much of a problem, if anything they helped to lift up a bit weaker book) and GK paladins, who were so horrendously expensive (55 pts a model, before any gear, and you had to take different, more expensive options to claim wound trick...) yet still had only 3+ to hit and 2A, plus died to plasma (and especially to cheap melta) en masse thanks to lack of good ++ saves, that the wound trick if anything made them viable, not OP.

Did I missed any unit that was OP due to it?

Im not gonna lie, I used to wreck face with a space marine biker command squad/w storm shields and grav + apothecary, attached to two captains (one of which iron hands, other white scars). Used to tank all incoming shooting with the Iron hands 2+/3++/4+++