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.
fraser1191 wrote: I'm ready for the bandaid to be ripped off, Primaris everything! Drop intercessors to 15, release the other kits to finish the line then move on to other armies.
After reading the Rubicon Primaris it seems like Primaris are going to be the norm with classic marines as vets and an excuse to resculpt old resin characters or kill them off with its 38.4% survival rate.
That page seemed like a reflection of the marine community on Primaris marines
Well Pedro Kantor will probably die at the end of Vigilius.
I'd rather chapters with only one character model not die. I'm not gonna lose any sleep if Sgt. Chronus dies and fingers crossed that if they kill off sicarius they write in captain Titus as his successor
It would be great if Sicarius stayed a normal marine, out of pride.
The character ark of Sicarius is of him stopping being such a jerk and learning to be a composed leader instead of a glory seeking champion. He can't make the shift to Primaris yet if at all because that story ark. He needs to learn humility.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Honestly I love Sicarius is a total glorywhore even when he's not the single best Captain ever. Not sure why bother people don't like that.
I love sicarius too, his model is why I play Ultramarines. Though I'll admit I'm kinda salty he lost his battle forged heroes ability and I doubt he'll get a new data sheet this edition.
(mostly upset about his new ability since I mostly play DE and Tau so melee is almost non existent)
I find it pretty funny how marine armour is supposedly modified to uselessness by every gun in the game but the same people claim guard armour saves have gotten so much better in the new edition.
Also I'm probably having a stroke because I agree with Peregrine's original response 100%.
MarsNZ wrote: I find it pretty funny how marine armour is supposedly modified to uselessness by every gun in the game but the same people claim guard armour saves have gotten so much better in the new edition.
Also I'm probably having a stroke because I agree with Peregrine's original response 100%.
If you don’t think too much about things, a lot comes off funny
MarsNZ wrote: I find it pretty funny how marine armour is supposedly modified to uselessness by every gun in the game but the same people claim guard armour saves have gotten so much better in the new edition.
Also I'm probably having a stroke because I agree with Peregrine's original response 100%.
How is it funny? Power Armor used to get a 3+ save against most things that are now AP-1 and AP -2, now it's a gakky 4+ or 5+ you're paying a premium from, and a 6+ is worthless and nothing to write home about. Guardsmen getting a 5+ save under the current system breaks it because guardsmen are dirt cheap and the new AP system gutted the weapons that commonly scythed them down. Before you could count on Tactical Marines, Fire Warriors, Guardians, etc just mowing down guardsmen like the dirt cheap fodder they're priced at. Now however they get 5+ saves rather consistently in infantry firefights, increased greatly in durability - all of which has not been accounted for in points. Thus the dirt cheap blob of guardsmen which previously was just screening in prior editions has suddenly become a durable meatshield that yet hovers at around the same cost. It's another example of GW's incompetence regarding point pricing and the terrible nature of the new save system in its full realization; it's not easier to calculate and it nerfs elite armies into the ground.
(Not to mention that in the case of game brevity - saves should cease to exist entirely and everything should just have a base armor/penetration value to remove the entire save phase)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/24 09:00:23
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
I still think letting marine armor ignore like 1 point of save mod, due both to the armor and the biomods made to the wearer.
Just make it clear this is due to both the ck structuin of the armor amd the interface between the augmented user and the armor.
Fixes both imperial and chaos marines...
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
MarsNZ wrote: I find it pretty funny how marine armour is supposedly modified to uselessness by every gun in the game but the same people claim guard armour saves have gotten so much better in the new edition.
Also I'm probably having a stroke because I agree with Peregrine's original response 100%.
How is it funny? Power Armor used to get a 3+ save against most things that are now AP-1 and AP -2, now it's a gakky 4+ or 5+ you're paying a premium from, and a 6+ is worthless and nothing to write home about. Guardsmen getting a 5+ save under the current system breaks it because guardsmen are dirt cheap and the new AP system gutted the weapons that commonly scythed them down. Before you could count on Tactical Marines, Fire Warriors, Guardians, etc just mowing down guardsmen like the dirt cheap fodder they're priced at. Now however they get 5+ saves rather consistently in infantry firefights, increased greatly in durability - all of which has not been accounted for in points. Thus the dirt cheap blob of guardsmen which previously was just screening in prior editions has suddenly become a durable meatshield that yet hovers at around the same cost. It's another example of GW's incompetence regarding point pricing and the terrible nature of the new save system in its full realization; it's not easier to calculate and it nerfs elite armies into the ground.
(Not to mention that in the case of game brevity - saves should cease to exist entirely and everything should just have a base armor/penetration value to remove the entire save phase)
I'd look at it from the other way round. I think it's a problem with Marine offensive capabilities. And I know thus would make marines better against other marines, too. I'm fine with that. A full squad of ten tactical marines at 12" should be able to pretty much delete ten other single wound, infantry models. If they then die to a counter punch by badly positioning or exposing themselves to crossfire etc, then I'm okay with that, too. This game is nowhere near chess but it should at least have the tactical "take and counter-take" of checkers.
AP -2 used to be AP 3 in most cases. So marines are weaker against autocannons and heavy bolters, but stronger against every AP <-1 weapon in the game.
Conversely, Guard and other 5+ armors got stronger, with AP 5 becoming AP 0, and AP -1, but with the changes to cover, weaker against everything else. And everyone loads up on the 'everything else' because that's what kills marines, and tanks.
Keep in mind 'stronger' means one in three doesn't die to bolter fire. Meanwhile, 1/3 marines now doesn't die to AP -2, where before they would have just been picked up.
Guard still fold in most situations. It just requires you actually concentrate on killing them, rather than just brushing them aside.
Also, I fail to see how the Loyal 32 is an example of guard durability, when they're taken specifically to generate CP, and then die. How many guard armies are there tanking all of the enemy fire, and preventing you from winning? Where are these magical lists? I don't see it when I play guard, or play against guard. They still die in droves if my opponent (or I) pay attention to them.
Have you considered it's not GW that's incompetent?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/24 09:14:29
PSGW should be brave enough to steal the Toughness and Armour save mechanic from Kings of War. Just combine them all into a single Def stat. If an attack beats the stat you lose a wound. Cut out armour saves completely.
AP -2 used to be AP 3 in most cases. So marines are weaker against autocannons and heavy bolters, but stronger against every AP <-1 weapon in the game.
Conversely, Guard and other 5+ armors got stronger, with AP 5 becoming AP 0, and AP -1, but with the changes to cover, weaker against everything else. And everyone loads up on the 'everything else' because that's what kills marines, and tanks.
Keep in mind 'stronger' means one in three doesn't die to bolter fire. Meanwhile, 1/3 marines now doesn't die to AP -2, where before they would have just been picked up.
Guard still fold in most situations. It just requires you actually concentrate on killing them, rather than just brushing them aside.
Also, I fail to see how the Loyal 32 is an example of guard durability, when they're taken specifically to generate CP, and then die. How many guard armies are there tanking all of the enemy fire, and preventing you from winning? Where are these magical lists? I don't see it when I play guard, or play against guard. They still die in droves if my opponent (or I) pay attention to them.
Have you considered it's not GW that's incompetent?
GW is grossly incompetent seeing as the game has been for every single edition, never having balance, and the game designers themselves having no interest in balance on account of greed. Previously guard used to suck arse, now it's just elite armies this edition, although elite armies have never truly been "elite" in 40k. For a proper GW game with elite being "elite" you'd need to play bloody Epic.
And you also need to cease engaging in strawmanning, I never said that they were tanking all enemy fire, merely a vastly more effective meatshield able to screen fire for a guard force. As the core issue remains that for 100 points, 100 points of marine is fething garbage compared to 100 points of guard. For 100 points of guard I can get two barebones guardsmen with lasguns and a commander compared to a single tactical squad with a cheap weapon thrown on. With Armageddon Guardsmen fighting Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, etc, the guardsmen always win. The sheer low cost of both the guard squads and the order tax is simply completely superior to all base marine infantry. A guard army can comparatively throw just a few points on infantry (even in a casual game) to get a relatively strong spine of troops. Meanwhile an Astartes army needs to spend more points on troops to simply get close to even in sheer firepower. And this ties back into what I've repeated multiple times now - Astartes are suffering right now because 40k is categorically a terribly designed game. Even if some buff comes that makes marines useful at all (it'll be a long time spent crossing those fingers) it just means that another faction is going to be on the bottom of the pyramid.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
AP -2 used to be AP 3 in most cases. So marines are weaker against autocannons and heavy bolters, but stronger against every AP <-1 weapon in the game.
Conversely, Guard and other 5+ armors got stronger, with AP 5 becoming AP 0, and AP -1, but with the changes to cover, weaker against everything else. And everyone loads up on the 'everything else' because that's what kills marines, and tanks.
Keep in mind 'stronger' means one in three doesn't die to bolter fire. Meanwhile, 1/3 marines now doesn't die to AP -2, where before they would have just been picked up.
Guard still fold in most situations. It just requires you actually concentrate on killing them, rather than just brushing them aside.
Also, I fail to see how the Loyal 32 is an example of guard durability, when they're taken specifically to generate CP, and then die. How many guard armies are there tanking all of the enemy fire, and preventing you from winning? Where are these magical lists? I don't see it when I play guard, or play against guard. They still die in droves if my opponent (or I) pay attention to them.
Have you considered it's not GW that's incompetent?
A 6+ sv is not really a save, the chance of passing it doesn't matter unless your dudes run around in 200 man sized battle groups. Also that is what makes IG so good. They got better vs stuff they were weak any way, and having a few guys fold is a non issue when they cost 4pts.
And the 32 are durable for the points they cost and for what they are suppose to do. If without them a knight list won't work, and with them it gets an extra turn of shoting vs something that could engage it in melee, then it doesn't matter if it dies at the end of them. Specially if the end with the 32 users win.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
MarsNZ wrote: I find it pretty funny how marine armour is supposedly modified to uselessness by every gun in the game but the same people claim guard armour saves have gotten so much better in the new edition.
Also I'm probably having a stroke because I agree with Peregrine's original response 100%.
How is it funny? Power Armor used to get a 3+ save against most things that are now AP-1 and AP -2, now it's a gakky 4+ or 5+ you're paying a premium from, and a 6+ is worthless and nothing to write home about. Guardsmen getting a 5+ save under the current system breaks it because guardsmen are dirt cheap and the new AP system gutted the weapons that commonly scythed them down. Before you could count on Tactical Marines, Fire Warriors, Guardians, etc just mowing down guardsmen like the dirt cheap fodder they're priced at. Now however they get 5+ saves rather consistently in infantry firefights, increased greatly in durability - all of which has not been accounted for in points. Thus the dirt cheap blob of guardsmen which previously was just screening in prior editions has suddenly become a durable meatshield that yet hovers at around the same cost. It's another example of GW's incompetence regarding point pricing and the terrible nature of the new save system in its full realization; it's not easier to calculate and it nerfs elite armies into the ground.
(Not to mention that in the case of game brevity - saves should cease to exist entirely and everything should just have a base armor/penetration value to remove the entire save phase)
Hey if you're too obsessed with your super space fantasy men to see a blatant contradiction I dunno what to tell you. You're talking about the same guns in both your examples. Apparently all these -1 weapons just don't see use against guard because somehow we consistently get 5+ but you always lose your 3+. That's what's funny. You might think you've got a direct line to GW point calculation team but I'll need a citation before I buy anything you're saying about what has/hasn't been accounted for. I will admit your claim of guardsmen breaking the game by moving from a `screening` to `meatshield` role did add a little more humour to the original point.
A more salient point would be the new S vs T interactions favouring lower T models with inferior weapons but that would detract from the armour based meltdown in the OP and would make far too much sense for the daily marine fangirl tantrum.
AP -2 used to be AP 3 in most cases. So marines are weaker against autocannons and heavy bolters, but stronger against every AP <-1 weapon in the game.
Conversely, Guard and other 5+ armors got stronger, with AP 5 becoming AP 0, and AP -1, but with the changes to cover, weaker against everything else. And everyone loads up on the 'everything else' because that's what kills marines, and tanks.
Keep in mind 'stronger' means one in three doesn't die to bolter fire. Meanwhile, 1/3 marines now doesn't die to AP -2, where before they would have just been picked up.
Guard still fold in most situations. It just requires you actually concentrate on killing them, rather than just brushing them aside.
Also, I fail to see how the Loyal 32 is an example of guard durability, when they're taken specifically to generate CP, and then die. How many guard armies are there tanking all of the enemy fire, and preventing you from winning? Where are these magical lists? I don't see it when I play guard, or play against guard. They still die in droves if my opponent (or I) pay attention to them.
Have you considered it's not GW that's incompetent?
GW is grossly incompetent seeing as the game has been for every single edition, never having balance, and the game designers themselves having no interest in balance on account of greed. Previously guard used to suck arse, now it's just elite armies this edition, although elite armies have never truly been "elite" in 40k. For a proper GW game with elite being "elite" you'd need to play bloody Epic.
And you also need to cease engaging in strawmanning, I never said that they were tanking all enemy fire, merely a vastly more effective meatshield able to screen fire for a guard force. As the core issue remains that for 100 points, 100 points of marine is fething garbage compared to 100 points of guard. For 100 points of guard I can get two barebones guardsmen with lasguns and a commander compared to a single tactical squad with a cheap weapon thrown on. With Armageddon Guardsmen fighting Imperial Fists, Ultramarines, etc, the guardsmen always win. The sheer low cost of both the guard squads and the order tax is simply completely superior to all base marine infantry. A guard army can comparatively throw just a few points on infantry (even in a casual game) to get a relatively strong spine of troops. Meanwhile an Astartes army needs to spend more points on troops to simply get close to even in sheer firepower. And this ties back into what I've repeated multiple times now - Astartes are suffering right now because 40k is categorically a terribly designed game. Even if some buff comes that makes marines useful at all (it'll be a long time spent crossing those fingers) it just means that another faction is going to be on the bottom of the pyramid.
I'm only taking your arguments to their logical conclusions. You say screen for fire, but that's really not an argument seeing as they don't block line of sight. They only prevent charging, and funnel deep strikers. Their fire power is less then a Tactical squad, and less accurate. Yes their cheaper, but they don't have that ability to save against plasma or BC's that marines do. They also shoot worse and with a weaker base weapon. A weapon they're obliged to take seven of, compared to a marine squad's 3-7.
Great, you can buy 20 guys and an officer. Ok, how do they do against raven's guard? If you're going to cherry pick the best for the 'fight' so does the SM player. Those five space marines just outkilled them by quite a bit.
If what you say about orders is true, how come we only see the Loyal 32? Why don't we see entire brigades of IG? We don't.
Have you considered that a Tactical squad's job isn't masacreing IG? How about using a land speeder squadron, or a dreadnaught, or an agressor squad, or a dakka pred? A tactical squad is there to tank hits on an objective, and add fire power to other squads, not run dick first into another army and kill everything.
Astartes are suffering because everyone who runs them thinks they should be unkillable supermen, and not what they're described as. A Tactical unit.
MarsNZ wrote: I find it pretty funny how marine armour is supposedly modified to uselessness by every gun in the game but the same people claim guard armour saves have gotten so much better in the new edition.
Also I'm probably having a stroke because I agree with Peregrine's original response 100%.
How is it funny? Power Armor used to get a 3+ save against most things that are now AP-1 and AP -2, now it's a gakky 4+ or 5+ you're paying a premium from, and a 6+ is worthless and nothing to write home about. Guardsmen getting a 5+ save under the current system breaks it because guardsmen are dirt cheap and the new AP system gutted the weapons that commonly scythed them down. Before you could count on Tactical Marines, Fire Warriors, Guardians, etc just mowing down guardsmen like the dirt cheap fodder they're priced at. Now however they get 5+ saves rather consistently in infantry firefights, increased greatly in durability - all of which has not been accounted for in points. Thus the dirt cheap blob of guardsmen which previously was just screening in prior editions has suddenly become a durable meatshield that yet hovers at around the same cost. It's another example of GW's incompetence regarding point pricing and the terrible nature of the new save system in its full realization; it's not easier to calculate and it nerfs elite armies into the ground.
(Not to mention that in the case of game brevity - saves should cease to exist entirely and everything should just have a base armor/penetration value to remove the entire save phase)
Hey if you're too obsessed with your super space fantasy men to see a blatant contradiction I dunno what to tell you. You're talking about the same guns in both your examples. Apparently all these -1 weapons just don't see use against guard because somehow we consistently get 5+ but you always lose your 3+. That's what's funny. You might think you've got a direct line to GW point calculation team but I'll need a citation before I buy anything you're saying about what has/hasn't been accounted for. I will admit your claim of guardsmen breaking the game by moving from a `screening` to `meatshield` role did add a little more humour to the original point.
A more salient point would be the new S vs T interactions favouring lower T models with inferior weapons but that would detract from the armour based meltdown in the OP and would make far too much sense for the daily marine fangirl tantrum.
No, because if you lose a guardsmen you've just lost a dirt cheap infantry unit that doesn't hurt you much at all to the first place. -1 kills more guardsmen, but guardsmen can easily tank losses of infantry with little fanfare on account of guardsmen being such a cheap and reliable unit. Lose a single tactical marine however and you've significantly lost a chunk of your firepower which is going to accelerate the loss of the squad (and thus a hefty investment of points). And it's a fairly significant jump in durability as guardsmen used to basically never get saves against anything, and now they get a full 5+ against all infantry weapons besides Necrons.
I'm only taking your arguments to their logical conclusions. You say screen for fire, but that's really not an argument seeing as they don't block line of sight. They only prevent charging, and funnel deep strikers. Their fire power is less then a Tactical squad, and less accurate. Yes their cheaper, but they don't have that ability to save against plasma or BC's that marines do. They also shoot worse and with a weaker base weapon. A weapon they're obliged to take seven of, compared to a marine squad's 3-7.
Great, you can buy 20 guys and an officer. Ok, how do they do against raven's guard? If you're going to cherry pick the best for the 'fight' so does the SM player. Those five space marines just outkilled them by quite a bit.
Getting saves against lascannons and plasma is worthless when it comes at a 13ppm premium that still barely saves any number of the squad, and if the enemy is using dedicated AT weapons against infantry in the first place that means one of three things. Either A) your armor support is completely wiped out and they're now focusing on infantry, in which case the game is almost certainly lost for you, B) your opponent is an idiot and focusing on infantry instead of armor support, or C) you're running a heavy amount of infantry in the first place, in which case you're probably losing. I'd take guardsmen over tactical squads any day because at the end of it, accuracy and weaker weapon means nothing compared to volume of fire. A lasgun with orders is utterly superior to a boltgun regardless of the strength difference, and the tactical squad only starts to get decent with their shots if they have re-rolls, which they probably don't unless they're standing still or have a captain nearby.
If what you say about orders is true, how come we only see the Loyal 32? Why don't we see entire brigades of IG? We don't.
Have you considered that a Tactical squad's job isn't masacreing IG? How about using a land speeder squadron, or a dreadnaught, or an agressor squad, or a dakka pred? A tactical squad is there to tank hits on an objective, and add fire power to other squads, not run dick first into another army and kill everything.
No, that's the tactical squad's function when your brain is on GW game design. A tactical squad is supposed to be a flexible shock infantry unit able to adequately provide anti-tank fire; but the explicit primary role of is supposed to be engaging and blasting out enemy infantry, making heavy use of drop pod assaults or rapid rhino charges. Just as guardsmen infantry aren't supposed to be pumping out so many damn shots that they can somehow manage to damage even tanks with small arms fire courtesy of the ridiculous "wound everything" BS of 8th edition. And I'm not just talking pure competitive either, but simply trying to tailor pickup lists to respectable 50/50 odds of victory without one side having a ridiculous advantage that sees one party blown off the table.
Astartes are suffering because everyone who runs them thinks they should be unkillable supermen, and not what they're described as. A Tactical unit.
Which is supposed to primarily engage enemy infantry and shoot them out. Space Marine are shock infantry, the counter to them mechanically is supposed to be heavy artillery or massed armor. Not light infantry spam that is more effective when massed. Because ultimately all "tactics" boil down to forming up mass pools of model and pushing them across with board, with things such as suppression, shock, and morale not even being truly present on the 40k level (even though epic successfully implemented these concepts and kill team features a shoddy version in the form of FW's)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/24 10:46:22
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
Techpriestsupport wrote: I still think letting marine armor ignore like 1 point of save mod, due both to the armor and the biomods made to the wearer.
Just make it clear this is due to both the ck structuin of the armor amd the interface between the augmented user and the armor.
Fixes both imperial and chaos marines...
No.
Aahhh, a well reasoned, eloquent and effective response!
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
MarsNZ wrote: I find it pretty funny how marine armour is supposedly modified to uselessness by every gun in the game but the same people claim guard armour saves have gotten so much better in the new edition.
Also I'm probably having a stroke because I agree with Peregrine's original response 100%.
How is it funny? Power Armor used to get a 3+ save against most things that are now AP-1 and AP -2, now it's a gakky 4+ or 5+ you're paying a premium from, and a 6+ is worthless and nothing to write home about. Guardsmen getting a 5+ save under the current system breaks it because guardsmen are dirt cheap and the new AP system gutted the weapons that commonly scythed them down. Before you could count on Tactical Marines, Fire Warriors, Guardians, etc just mowing down guardsmen like the dirt cheap fodder they're priced at. Now however they get 5+ saves rather consistently in infantry firefights, increased greatly in durability - all of which has not been accounted for in points. Thus the dirt cheap blob of guardsmen which previously was just screening in prior editions has suddenly become a durable meatshield that yet hovers at around the same cost. It's another example of GW's incompetence regarding point pricing and the terrible nature of the new save system in its full realization; it's not easier to calculate and it nerfs elite armies into the ground.
(Not to mention that in the case of game brevity - saves should cease to exist entirely and everything should just have a base armor/penetration value to remove the entire save phase)
Hey if you're too obsessed with your super space fantasy men to see a blatant contradiction I dunno what to tell you. You're talking about the same guns in both your examples. Apparently all these -1 weapons just don't see use against guard because somehow we consistently get 5+ but you always lose your 3+. That's what's funny. You might think you've got a direct line to GW point calculation team but I'll need a citation before I buy anything you're saying about what has/hasn't been accounted for. I will admit your claim of guardsmen breaking the game by moving from a `screening` to `meatshield` role did add a little more humour to the original point.
A more salient point would be the new S vs T interactions favouring lower T models with inferior weapons but that would detract from the armour based meltdown in the OP and would make far too much sense for the daily marine fangirl tantrum.
No, because if you lose a guardsmen you've just lost a dirt cheap infantry unit that doesn't hurt you much at all to the first place. -1 kills more guardsmen, but guardsmen can easily tank losses of infantry with little fanfare on account of guardsmen being such a cheap and reliable unit. Lose a single tactical marine however and you've significantly lost a chunk of your firepower which is going to accelerate the loss of the squad (and thus a hefty investment of points). And it's a fairly significant jump in durability as guardsmen used to basically never get saves against anything, and now they get a full 5+ against all infantry weapons besides Necrons.
I'm only taking your arguments to their logical conclusions. You say screen for fire, but that's really not an argument seeing as they don't block line of sight. They only prevent charging, and funnel deep strikers. Their fire power is less then a Tactical squad, and less accurate. Yes their cheaper, but they don't have that ability to save against plasma or BC's that marines do. They also shoot worse and with a weaker base weapon. A weapon they're obliged to take seven of, compared to a marine squad's 3-7.
Great, you can buy 20 guys and an officer. Ok, how do they do against raven's guard? If you're going to cherry pick the best for the 'fight' so does the SM player. Those five space marines just outkilled them by quite a bit.
Getting saves against lascannons and plasma is worthless when it comes at a 13ppm premium that still barely saves any number of the squad, and if the enemy is using dedicated AT weapons against infantry in the first place that means one of three things. Either A) your armor support is completely wiped out and they're now focusing on infantry, in which case the game is almost certainly lost for you, B) your opponent is an idiot and focusing on infantry instead of armor support, or C) you're running a heavy amount of infantry in the first place, in which case you're probably losing. I'd take guardsmen over tactical squads any day because at the end of it, accuracy and weaker weapon means nothing compared to volume of fire. A lasgun with orders is utterly superior to a boltgun regardless of the strength difference, and the tactical squad only starts to get decent with their shots if they have re-rolls, which they probably don't unless they're standing still or have a captain nearby.
If what you say about orders is true, how come we only see the Loyal 32? Why don't we see entire brigades of IG? We don't.
Have you considered that a Tactical squad's job isn't masacreing IG? How about using a land speeder squadron, or a dreadnaught, or an agressor squad, or a dakka pred? A tactical squad is there to tank hits on an objective, and add fire power to other squads, not run dick first into another army and kill everything.
No, that's the tactical squad's function when your brain is on GW game design. A tactical squad is supposed to be a flexible shock infantry unit able to adequately provide anti-tank fire; but the explicit primary role of is supposed to be engaging and blasting out enemy infantry, making heavy use of drop pod assaults or rapid rhino charges. Just as guardsmen infantry aren't supposed to be pumping out so many damn shots that they can somehow manage to damage even tanks with small arms fire courtesy of the ridiculous "wound everything" BS of 8th edition. And I'm not just talking pure competitive either, but simply trying to tailor pickup lists to respectable 50/50 odds of victory without one side having a ridiculous advantage that sees one party blown off the table.
Astartes are suffering because everyone who runs them thinks they should be unkillable supermen, and not what they're described as. A Tactical unit.
Which is supposed to primarily engage enemy infantry and shoot them out. Space Marine are shock infantry, the counter to them mechanically is supposed to be heavy artillery or massed armor. Not light infantry spam that is more effective when massed. Because ultimately all "tactics" boil down to forming up mass pools of model and pushing them across with board, with things such as suppression, shock, and morale not even being truly present on the 40k level (even though epic successfully implemented these concepts and kill team features a shoddy version in the form of FW's)
And by a significant portion, you mean a guy with a bolter.
Banville wrote:PSGW should be brave enough to steal the Toughness and Armour save mechanic from Kings of War. Just combine them all into a single Def stat. If an attack beats the stat you lose a wound. Cut out armour saves completely.
One of the primary reasons GW use armour saves and toughness as separate operations is to add depth. Or at least that's how it started anyway. One of the few design rules for the original warhammer was mandating the use of the D6, as they were so common at the time (especially among GWs target player base). The problem with the D6 is that it's a very blunt instrument compared to something like a D20, so in order to fully show the difference between elites vs regulars you need things like modifiers, but - more importantly - multiple operations. This gives you the kind of depth that in 2nd edition for example (the first "proper" 40k) sees a squad of bolter armed SM shooting at lasgun armed IG, hitting on 3s, wounding on 3s, no armour save vs the return fire of 4s, 5s, then a 3 up armour save. If they combine the toughness and armour save, you lose one of the key tools the game uses to differeniate between troops.
Now if you'll indulge me briefly in some rose tinted old school vs new school ramblings, part of the problem with GW games over the years has been the gradual proliferation of non-standard weapons and unit types, leading to the present day where we have massed alpha strikes and massed deployment rule defying deep striking, to the point where standard troops and weapons are a weird irregularity. This was one of the things that slowly killed Warhammer fantasy, as armies gradually became more and more ridiculously killy. High Elves started off as a faction that was highly skilled and quick, with decent shooting and magic, but lacked punching power and staying power. That was until the combination of white lions, swordmasters, silver helms, dragon princes, chariots and characters with strength enhancing magic items etc made it so that 90% of any high elven army had enough offensive power to comfortably scythe through most other armies core troops with ease, while their armour gave them decent damage absorption, completely turning their original army design on its head.
40k basically followed suit. Every army originally had a theory behind its design. SM were a dependable, beginner friendly army that was forgiving of mistakes, especially in the movement phase, in part because power armour was robust enough to offer a solid save even against some of the more exotic weapons that most armies could tote to the field. The ridiculous mass of high strength, armour piercing/denying firepower that now seems to accompany every 40k army has made that old advantage somewhat less useful. Armies have essentially lost their soul as modern 40k seems mainly about picking the winning combination of buffs to maximise your turn 1 firepower. Combining the armour and toughness save together is likely to just make that problem even worse.
Having three stages to resolve any attack is less of a time issue than the case of having to roll an absolute arse load of dice every time someone so much as farts on the battlefield.
If you mention second edition 40k I will find you, and I will bore you to tears talking about how "things were better in my day, let me tell ya..." Might even do it if you mention 4th/5th/6th WHFB
Mmmpi wrote: Can't speak for Tau players, but Eldar players take Guardians. Guardian bombs are a thing.
Are they taking the guardians just for the guardians, or because the guardians are a tax for a heavy weapon platform?
They already get heavy weapons on War Walkers, wave serpents, falcons, vypers, and to a limited selection, wind riders.
People are taking them because a squad of 20 will erase squads.
The cheap option are five man dire avengers.
Ok, but this means most marines stuff is just plain bad. Because they are not cheap, and most of their units, even if one ignores the point costs, do not erase squads. The only thing marines were suppose to have, is resiliance, for which they pay a lot of points. But they are not more resilient then IG or other horde armies, in fact they are less resilient in any game that uses actual points.
Having three stages to resolve any attack is less of a time issue than the case of having to roll an absolute arse load of dice every time someone so much as farts on the battlefield.
It looks more like someone trying very hard to reliable game mechanics with random rolling for cool effects every 200 games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/24 15:24:39
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Banville wrote:PSGW should be brave enough to steal the Toughness and Armour save mechanic from Kings of War. Just combine them all into a single Def stat. If an attack beats the stat you lose a wound. Cut out armour saves completely.
One of the primary reasons GW use armour saves and toughness as separate operations is to add depth. Or at least that's how it started anyway. One of the few design rules for the original warhammer was mandating the use of the D6, as they were so common at the time (especially among GWs target player base). The problem with the D6 is that it's a very blunt instrument compared to something like a D20, so in order to fully show the difference between elites vs regulars you need things like modifiers, but - more importantly - multiple operations. This gives you the kind of depth that in 2nd edition for example (the first "proper" 40k) sees a squad of bolter armed SM shooting at lasgun armed IG, hitting on 3s, wounding on 3s, no armour save vs the return fire of 4s, 5s, then a 3 up armour save. If they combine the toughness and armour save, you lose one of the key tools the game uses to differeniate between troops.
Now if you'll indulge me briefly in some rose tinted old school vs new school ramblings, part of the problem with GW games over the years has been the gradual proliferation of non-standard weapons and unit types, leading to the present day where we have massed alpha strikes and massed deployment rule defying deep striking, to the point where standard troops and weapons are a weird irregularity. This was one of the things that slowly killed Warhammer fantasy, as armies gradually became more and more ridiculously killy. High Elves started off as a faction that was highly skilled and quick, with decent shooting and magic, but lacked punching power and staying power. That was until the combination of white lions, swordmasters, silver helms, dragon princes, chariots and characters with strength enhancing magic items etc made it so that 90% of any high elven army had enough offensive power to comfortably scythe through most other armies core troops with ease, while their armour gave them decent damage absorption, completely turning their original army design on its head.
40k basically followed suit. Every army originally had a theory behind its design. SM were a dependable, beginner friendly army that was forgiving of mistakes, especially in the movement phase, in part because power armour was robust enough to offer a solid save even against some of the more exotic weapons that most armies could tote to the field. The ridiculous mass of high strength, armour piercing/denying firepower that now seems to accompany every 40k army has made that old advantage somewhat less useful. Armies have essentially lost their soul as modern 40k seems mainly about picking the winning combination of buffs to maximise your turn 1 firepower. Combining the armour and toughness save together is likely to just make that problem even worse.
Having three stages to resolve any attack is less of a time issue than the case of having to roll an absolute arse load of dice every time someone so much as farts on the battlefield
Oh, I have no problem with granular mechanics when it's a squad-level or platoon-level game. At the level 40k is pitched at nowadays, I think the KoW way is the way to go.
Mmmpi wrote: Can't speak for Tau players, but Eldar players take Guardians. Guardian bombs are a thing.
Are they taking the guardians just for the guardians, or because the guardians are a tax for a heavy weapon platform?
They already get heavy weapons on War Walkers, wave serpents, falcons, vypers, and to a limited selection, wind riders.
People are taking them because a squad of 20 will erase squads.
The cheap option are five man dire avengers.
Ok, but this means most marines stuff is just plain bad. Because they are not cheap, and most of their units, even if one ignores the point costs, do not erase squads. The only thing marines were suppose to have, is resiliance, for which they pay a lot of points. But they are not more resilient then IG or other horde armies, in fact they are less resilient in any game that uses actual points.
Except guardians arn't a cheap option. The squad is upwards of 200 points, and is horrifically vulnerable to return fire. It's also too big to fit into a transport. The cheap option are five dire avengers, which have scion saves, a crit capable bolter, and guardsman S/T. They cost almost as much as a marine at that, so it's only cheap in regards to everything else in the army. It still costs almost as much as a naked battle squad, with almost none of the upgrade options (exarch only).
5000 
for every single edition, never having balance, and the game designers themselves having no interest in balance on account of greed. Previously guard used to suck arse, now it's just elite armies this edition, although elite armies have never truly been "elite" in 
