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.

The new AP system is an improvement, though they should be more conservative in handing out the AP. A big part of the issue that most of the weapons and statlines were just converted in the new system (including the new wound chart) without taking in the account the effects of the altered mechanics. For example, perhaps cheap chaff infantry like guard should have only 6+ save. Low saves such as 5´+ and even 6+ are much better in this edition than in previous ones, where they were just completely ignored most of the time. So an average 6+ save in the 8th is worth about as much as 5+ save in the old system.

 Crimson wrote:
The new AP system is an improvement, though they should be more conservative in handing out the AP. A big part of the issue that most of the weapons and statlines were just converted in the new system (including the new wound chart) without taking in the account the effects of the altered mechanics. For example, perhaps cheap chaff infantry like guard should have only 6+ save. Low saves such as 5´+ and even 6+ are much better in this edition than in previous ones, where they were just completely ignored most of the time. So an average 6+ save in the 8th is worth about as much as 5+ save in the old system.

Surely the save system benefitted Marines more than IG?

I bet we could go back in time and find threads where Marine players incessantly whined complained that the amount of AP3 weapons armies could take in the game was TOO DAMN HIGH! Now, you get a 5+ at least against those weapons, a 4+ in cover.

In fact, if you really want me to, I'll go back and look myself. I distinctly remember Marines complaining about the number of AP3 weapons back before 8th edition was a twinkle GW's eye.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Zid wrote:
They just need to bring back the old AP system... Invun saves weren't as prevalent on everything, and things giving invun saves weren't as common; the 3+ save was great as only heavy weapons or specialized weapons negated your save.

The new AP system is a load of crap; especially when they started giving everything a way to get a 5++.

The current AP system adds a lot more flexibility to weapons and all those weapons that were flat out ignoring a 3+ entirely before are now typically offering a 5+ or 6+ instead (plasma, battlecannons, lascannons, starcannons, lances, disintegrators, krak missiles, etc). The only place Marines are worse off than before against weapons is against AP-1/formerly AP4 stuff.

epronovost wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Zid wrote:
They just need to bring back the old AP system... Invun saves weren't as prevalent on everything, and things giving invun saves weren't as common; the 3+ save was great as only heavy weapons or specialized weapons negated your save.

The new AP system is a load of crap; especially when they started giving everything a way to get a 5++.

But with the new system, many of those heavy and specialized weapons don't negate your armour, they still give you a 5+ or 6+.

It's true that the new AP system has improved a little bit the durability of power armors and other 3+ saves, but the new AP system is even more generous with 5+ saves. These saves used to be canceled by pretty much everything, especially by basic weapons like bolters, pulse rifle or shuriken catapult to name just a few. They allowed elite infantry to counter more efficently light infantry, while light infantry was preferable when faced with heavy and special weapons besides flamers and grenade launchers. Now, light infantry is more resilient to heavy infantry firepower and both of them are still similarly affected by heavy weapons. Thinking about it, maybe we would need two AP modifier and a new key word <light armor> and <heavy armor>. Depending on which key word your unit as, you use a different AP profile. But that would require an entire new edition of the game or some very extensive house rules.

In all fairness, lets not forget that previous editions had lots of cover that acted as a save instead of a save enhancement, and many were notorious for "4+ cover everywhere all the time!", where bolters would seemingly always be hitting up against 4+ cover instead of punching through 5+ or 6+ armor, but would only benefit themselves against heavy weapons.

Now, the flame weapons ignoring cover had a lot of use there that doesn't exist in 8E, which is a fair point, but hard to measure the impact of.

I understand the idea behind it, that "things with heavier armor will always get a save!"

But at the same point, they buffed weapons that didn't need it (Plasma) within this new system, which now sees them being used for opposite of what they were for.

Same thing, an overcharged plasma means your marine has a 6+, but it deletes a guardsman just the same. On the flip side, my Terminator already had a 5++ to begin with, which means that -3 AP really didn't do much... oh, except now if I fail the save, my terminator dies just like the Marine.

The new AP system penalizes things that pay a premium for better saves, while ignoring the impact of AP on those saves; AP 0 weapons that once deleted light infantry (ALA Bolters), now allow the weakest infantry a save. Not to mention they hand out 5++ saves like candy this edition... I really didn't mind the old AP system; it allowed each weapon its niche, and made lower saves far more important. A plasma gun you KNEW was for Elite infantry, and a melta was for tanks; now people just take Plasma because it gets more shots, reroll 1's takes away the risk, oh and its a flat 2 Damage at one less AP than a melta... plus not to mention its the same strength now!

I just feel like they should have really looked at how it impacted the game as a whole; changing everything to wounds and implementing a new AP system at the same time seemed like reinventing the wheel completely. The new system punishes elite armies with high saves because the saves are mean't to make them having less bodies equal; now people take more bodies because in the end its actually sturdier. Besides the issue with CP, thats why we see Guardsmen as so great, and Cultists, but basic marines are seen as too expensive for what they do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The new AP system is an improvement, though they should be more conservative in handing out the AP. A big part of the issue that most of the weapons and statlines were just converted in the new system (including the new wound chart) without taking in the account the effects of the altered mechanics. For example, perhaps cheap chaff infantry like guard should have only 6+ save. Low saves such as 5´+ and even 6+ are much better in this edition than in previous ones, where they were just completely ignored most of the time. So an average 6+ save in the 8th is worth about as much as 5+ save in the old system.

Surely the save system benefitted Marines more than IG?

I bet we could go back in time and find threads where Marine players incessantly whined complained that the amount of AP3 weapons armies could take in the game was TOO DAMN HIGH! Now, you get a 5+ at least against those weapons, a 4+ in cover.

In fact, if you really want me to, I'll go back and look myself. I distinctly remember Marines complaining about the number of AP3 weapons back before 8th edition was a twinkle GW's eye.

You'll always have those gripes... theres a LOT of different weapons in this game. Usually, though, if you saw those weapons you were hiding in Rhinos or in Cover.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The new AP system is an improvement, though they should be more conservative in handing out the AP. A big part of the issue that most of the weapons and statlines were just converted in the new system (including the new wound chart) without taking in the account the effects of the altered mechanics. For example, perhaps cheap chaff infantry like guard should have only 6+ save. Low saves such as 5´+ and even 6+ are much better in this edition than in previous ones, where they were just completely ignored most of the time. So an average 6+ save in the 8th is worth about as much as 5+ save in the old system.

Surely the save system benefitted Marines more than IG?

I bet we could go back in time and find threads where Marine players incessantly whined complained that the amount of AP3 weapons armies could take in the game was TOO DAMN HIGH! Now, you get a 5+ at least against those weapons, a 4+ in cover.

In fact, if you really want me to, I'll go back and look myself. I distinctly remember Marines complaining about the number of AP3 weapons back before 8th edition was a twinkle GW's eye.

It was constant AP2 rather than AP3.

Also yeah the new AP system benefited Marines a lot, and I will constantly argue, as you know, this is the most durable Marines AND Terminators have been ever (as much as some ignorant will argue against the latter).

The issue is that it benefitted anything with a worse save moreso. Termagaunts now basically have the equivalent of a 6++ to any of the usual weapons you'd point at them, even if they had cover.

^plus the loss of true templates and large blasts makes hordes more durable against traditionally anti-horde weapons.

Fix Flamers!

 Insectum7 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
What you call babysitting I call improving their damage output.

I have mixed feelings about the predator, but it does have the sort of thing you're looking for. Dakka Pred is pretty cheap, and if it's made of paper a Leman russ is a light cardstock.

Otherwise you have Stalkers and Whirlwinds for Autocannon equivalents.

Actually that does bring up another point; a lot of the good guns that Marines have access to are on platforms that don't get the Chapter Trait bonuses. Some of those traits are fairly significant.

Maybe not, but they do benefit from potentially immense buff auras that other factions don't get. Seems like a fairly common subfaction trait is reroll 1s to hit if you don't move, which Space Marines get a better version of anyways for just buying fairly mandatory HQs.

Plasma Cannons are on platforms that get the Chapter Traits. Dreadnoughts are cheap now. Iirc the Leviathan came down in cost, too.

Honestly, between Assault Cannons, Autocannon equivalents like the Icarus Stormcannon or Vengeance Launcher, the Leviathan Cannon-things, Predator Autocannons, Grav Cannons and oh-so-so-much-Plasma, it's not like Marines don't have options.

They don't "benefit enourmously" from those buffs, they're designed around them. Huge difference between those two. Space Marine shooting is awful without those buffs. It's not great with them.

Dreads did get more cost effective though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The new AP system is an improvement, though they should be more conservative in handing out the AP. A big part of the issue that most of the weapons and statlines were just converted in the new system (including the new wound chart) without taking in the account the effects of the altered mechanics. For example, perhaps cheap chaff infantry like guard should have only 6+ save. Low saves such as 5´+ and even 6+ are much better in this edition than in previous ones, where they were just completely ignored most of the time. So an average 6+ save in the 8th is worth about as much as 5+ save in the old system.

Surely the save system benefitted Marines more than IG?

I bet we could go back in time and find threads where Marine players incessantly whined complained that the amount of AP3 weapons armies could take in the game was TOO DAMN HIGH! Now, you get a 5+ at least against those weapons, a 4+ in cover.

In fact, if you really want me to, I'll go back and look myself. I distinctly remember Marines complaining about the number of AP3 weapons back before 8th edition was a twinkle GW's eye.

It was constant AP2 rather than AP3.

Also yeah the new AP system benefited Marines a lot, and I will constantly argue, as you know, this is the most durable Marines AND Terminators have been ever (as much as some ignorant will argue against the latter).

The issue is that it benefitted anything with a worse save moreso. Termagaunts now basically have the equivalent of a 6++ to any of the usual weapons you'd point at them, even if they had cover.

Huh, that's odd, Last I checked heavy bolters do ignore the gaunts armor save? Weird.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The new AP system is an improvement, though they should be more conservative in handing out the AP. A big part of the issue that most of the weapons and statlines were just converted in the new system (including the new wound chart) without taking in the account the effects of the altered mechanics. For example, perhaps cheap chaff infantry like guard should have only 6+ save. Low saves such as 5´+ and even 6+ are much better in this edition than in previous ones, where they were just completely ignored most of the time. So an average 6+ save in the 8th is worth about as much as 5+ save in the old system.

Surely the save system benefitted Marines more than IG?

I bet we could go back in time and find threads where Marine players incessantly whined complained that the amount of AP3 weapons armies could take in the game was TOO DAMN HIGH! Now, you get a 5+ at least against those weapons, a 4+ in cover.

In fact, if you really want me to, I'll go back and look myself. I distinctly remember Marines complaining about the number of AP3 weapons back before 8th edition was a twinkle GW's eye.

It was constant AP2 rather than AP3.

Also yeah the new AP system benefited Marines a lot, and I will constantly argue, as you know, this is the most durable Marines AND Terminators have been ever (as much as some ignorant will argue against the latter).

The issue is that it benefitted anything with a worse save moreso. Termagaunts now basically have the equivalent of a 6++ to any of the usual weapons you'd point at them, even if they had cover.

Huh, that's odd, Last I checked heavy bolters do ignore the gaunts armor save? Weird.

To bad it is still worse at killing them then before because of the new T system.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The new AP system is an improvement, though they should be more conservative in handing out the AP. A big part of the issue that most of the weapons and statlines were just converted in the new system (including the new wound chart) without taking in the account the effects of the altered mechanics. For example, perhaps cheap chaff infantry like guard should have only 6+ save. Low saves such as 5´+ and even 6+ are much better in this edition than in previous ones, where they were just completely ignored most of the time. So an average 6+ save in the 8th is worth about as much as 5+ save in the old system.

Surely the save system benefitted Marines more than IG?

I bet we could go back in time and find threads where Marine players incessantly whined complained that the amount of AP3 weapons armies could take in the game was TOO DAMN HIGH! Now, you get a 5+ at least against those weapons, a 4+ in cover.

In fact, if you really want me to, I'll go back and look myself. I distinctly remember Marines complaining about the number of AP3 weapons back before 8th edition was a twinkle GW's eye.

It was constant AP2 rather than AP3.

Also yeah the new AP system benefited Marines a lot, and I will constantly argue, as you know, this is the most durable Marines AND Terminators have been ever (as much as some ignorant will argue against the latter).

The issue is that it benefitted anything with a worse save moreso. Termagaunts now basically have the equivalent of a 6++ to any of the usual weapons you'd point at them, even if they had cover.

Huh, that's odd, Last I checked heavy bolters do ignore the gaunts armor save? Weird.

And amazingly not only are both wounded at the same rate (3+) but while the Gaunt had the same survivability, the Marine ends up with a 4+.

Also if you recall even a little bit correctly you will remember how bad Heavy Bolters were for anti-horde duty. Just think back a little. Just a little.

 Blackie wrote:

Well, I'm also advocating to ban the soups which is IMHO the main issue of 40k. I'm only interested in stand alone armies at competitive levels since many soups look like "legal cheating" for the amount of cheese with no drawbacks that they can have.

But that still doesn't answer the question. You claimed that Kabalites weren't taken because other Eldar troops were better/more efficient. Yet you're still proposing to nerf Kabalites while those better troops remain unchanged.

I simply don't understand this logic.

 Blackie wrote:

You say that more expensive guardsmen, cultists, etc would be unplayable but I don't think it's true. AM seems to play with 150+ points thanks to all their undercosted stuff, that's a fact. .

No, that's your opinion.

Just like it's your opinion that Guardsmen and Cultists are not merely undercosted but should cost 75% more than what they currently cost.

 Blackie wrote:

Ork boyz may be T4 S4 but also 6+ save and BS5+.

And WS3+ with 3 attacks apiece, plus an additional attack if the squad is large enough.

 Blackie wrote:
They work fine only in huge numbers.

Unlike Guardsmen and Cultists...?

 Blackie wrote:

which make them expensive units, not cheap sources of CPs, you take boyz because you focus some tactics, involving CPs and/or buffing characters, around them. Melee troops are not even remotely as effective as shooty ones.

I agree that shooting > melee. But boyz are also better at melee than guardsmen are at shooting. Hell, they can also be pretty decent at shooting (worse BS than guardsmen, but 2 S4 shots at 18", whilst still having at least 2 WS3+ S4 attacks each.

 Blackie wrote:

I think 6-7 points of difference are fair between the cheap troops I listed and tacs.

And I think you're completely wrong.

More than that, though, I simply wouldn't use Tactical Marines as a yardstick for this. Hell, this entire thread (29 pages and countin) is about how to make Tactical Marines less garbage.

 Blackie wrote:
But I wouldn't make tacs 10ppm, they'd be undercosted.

I just wouldn't fix them with a price-drop. They're supposed to be on the elite end of basic troops, so I think something to make their damage output more meaningful would work a lot better in making them useful while still preserving their flavour.

 Blackie wrote:
7ppm cultists and guardsmen wouldn't be unplayable

Yes they would.

 Blackie wrote:
they'd be mediocre, which is what cheap troops are supposed to be.

Infantry Squads at 7pts per model are not mediocre, they're hot garbage.

Is the goal to just make guardsmen into punching-bags for Marines? Because that's what this change will accomplish.

Or do you simply believe that no one who plays Infantry-Guard should be allowed to win games? I guess all this time I've been having fun wrong. Apparently the only way I'm allowed to play guard is to use minimum Conscript squads and then just spam tanks and artillery. Leafblower being well-known as the most fun list to emerge from 5th edition.

 Blackie wrote:
Yet mandatory for screening more valuable units and to get more CPs.

Nope. Literally no reason to not just take Conscripts instead.

 Blackie wrote:

Those competitive drukhari/aeldari lists should be nerfed quite badly to be honest. 3x flyers + 3 ravagers + 20 grots are insane, that's not even 40k IMHO.

So, once again, why is your priority to nerf the basic troops that - even at 6ppm - are so awful that most lists don't include them at all?

Why aren't you instead focusing on nerfing the Ravagers, Razorwings and Grots?

 Blackie wrote:

There are several units that are undercosted, considering all factions, not just 3. Don't you agree?

I agree that many units are indeed overcosted. However, you seem to be focusing on 3 units of which two is a mild offender at best and one that doens't even see play in competitive formats. Not to mention that your proposed "solution" is to increase their cost beyond all reason.

 Blackie wrote:
Think about super cheap HQs, with orks and drukhari I can't go under 62 (ok 55 with a stock big mek but it would be a plain tax with no use in the game) and 50 points and 50 is just the cost of the succubus, if I want a coven or kabal detachment I can't invest less than 72-75 points on an HQ. Same with SW. Those AM super cheap HQs should get price hikes or become elites.

But why are you using Dark Eldar HQs as a yardstick for balance?

They're among the absolute worst HQs in the entire game. The Archon is drastically worse than a Cannoness, yet costs 25pts more. The Succubus and Drazhar are melee HQs that are abysmal in melee. The Haemonculus's aura is okay but his entire armoury is a festering pile of dung. And not a single one of our sodding HQs has access to a mobility option.

Surely, if anything, we should be looking to improve DE HQs? Rather than saying "IOr HQs are poorly-designed crap, therefore no other army should be allowed good HQs either."

 Blackie wrote:

Who said I don't like them? I use kabalites in most of my drukhari lists.

So do I. And they feel like a poor investment even at 6ppm.

Also, as I said, I'd be more than happy to see their cost rise beyond 7ppm if it led to them getting a decent gun.

 Blackie wrote:

Not only for the stratagem, which only shields a single unit per turn and it's not even that efficient in mechanized lists. Ork players spam gretchins because they are an area denial unit, cheap objective grabbers and, most important, they unlock CPs for dirt cheap and orks are completely dependant on CPs to work. I'd consider taking gretchins even at 4ppm to be honest.

Fair enough.

I still think 40k could really do with doubling the cost of every unit in the game. It would give them a lot more design space to work with in terms of tweaking costs.

As it stands, at the level of guardsmen, it's virtually impossible to raise or lower the points on a unit without both having a big impact (e.g. raising Conscripts to 4ppm was a 33% increase in cost) and also treading on the toes of another unit.

You've currently got Gretchin, Conscripts, Guardsmen and Termagants all in the 3-4pt range. However, if you doubled the cost of every unit in 40k and worked from there, you could have Gretchin at 5pts, Conscripts at 6-7pts, Termagants at 7-8pts, Guardsmen at 9pts. It just gives you a lot more flexibility.

Karol wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Unless, once again, you plan to increase the cost of everything else in the game by ~50%?

Wouldn't be a bad plan - the low points values are pretty crowded.

Lol you think that a 6pts guardsman would help balance when something like a strike would cost 40pts and a termintor almost 90, when both could die to 6-20pts guns en mass?

the Leviathan came down in cost, too.

Can they be legaly taken by all space marines?

They can be taken by any marine faction, yeah. Though fluff wise they shouldn't really appear outside 2nd Founding Chapters.

They do a huge amount to shore up a marine army but, then again, at 350ish points they really should.

The Newman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
What you call babysitting I call improving their damage output.

I have mixed feelings about the predator, but it does have the sort of thing you're looking for. Dakka Pred is pretty cheap, and if it's made of paper a Leman russ is a light cardstock.

Otherwise you have Stalkers and Whirlwinds for Autocannon equivalents.

Actually that does bring up another point; a lot of the good guns that Marines have access to are on platforms that don't get the Chapter Trait bonuses. Some of those traits are fairly significant.

Maybe not, but they do benefit from potentially immense buff auras that other factions don't get. Seems like a fairly common subfaction trait is reroll 1s to hit if you don't move, which Space Marines get a better version of anyways for just buying fairly mandatory HQs.

Plasma Cannons are on platforms that get the Chapter Traits. Dreadnoughts are cheap now. Iirc the Leviathan came down in cost, too.

Honestly, between Assault Cannons, Autocannon equivalents like the Icarus Stormcannon or Vengeance Launcher, the Leviathan Cannon-things, Predator Autocannons, Grav Cannons and oh-so-so-much-Plasma, it's not like Marines don't have options.

They don't "benefit enourmously" from those buffs, they're designed around them. Huge difference between those two. Space Marine shooting is awful without those buffs. It's not great with them.

Dreads did get more cost effective though.

That seems like some classic glass-half-empty thinking right there. I suppose the Guard gun stats and costs were done without considering Regimental traits, order buffs, etc. Right?

 Insectum7 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
What you call babysitting I call improving their damage output.

I have mixed feelings about the predator, but it does have the sort of thing you're looking for. Dakka Pred is pretty cheap, and if it's made of paper a Leman russ is a light cardstock.

Otherwise you have Stalkers and Whirlwinds for Autocannon equivalents.

Actually that does bring up another point; a lot of the good guns that Marines have access to are on platforms that don't get the Chapter Trait bonuses. Some of those traits are fairly significant.

Maybe not, but they do benefit from potentially immense buff auras that other factions don't get. Seems like a fairly common subfaction trait is reroll 1s to hit if you don't move, which Space Marines get a better version of anyways for just buying fairly mandatory HQs.

Plasma Cannons are on platforms that get the Chapter Traits. Dreadnoughts are cheap now. Iirc the Leviathan came down in cost, too.

Honestly, between Assault Cannons, Autocannon equivalents like the Icarus Stormcannon or Vengeance Launcher, the Leviathan Cannon-things, Predator Autocannons, Grav Cannons and oh-so-so-much-Plasma, it's not like Marines don't have options.

They don't "benefit enourmously" from those buffs, they're designed around them. Huge difference between those two. Space Marine shooting is awful without those buffs. It's not great with them.

Dreads did get more cost effective though.

That seems like some classic glass-half-empty thinking right there. I suppose the Guard gun stats and costs were done without considering Regimental traits, order buffs, etc. Right?

A lot of the Codices seem to have been done by costing units outside the buffs of HQ units.

@ Mew28 and Slayer-Fan123: Hey, I'm just trying to cut down on the dishonesty some people like to throw around in these threads. If Space Marines are really that bad, then you don't need to straight up lie. Right?

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
@ Mew28 and Slayer-Fan123: Hey, I'm just trying to cut down on the dishonesty some people like to throw around in these threads. If Space Marines are really that bad, then you don't need to straight up lie. Right?

Hey I've totally pointed out inconsistency when people don't include points for their buffs.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
-

Hey I've totally pointed out inconsistency when people don't include points for their buffs.

And you're a good person for doing so. But in the case for what I quoted, there ARE dedicated anti-infantry weapons out there and expecting basic weapons (which is what the bolter is at the end of the day) to be as good as them is not reasonable.

I think the fundamental point behind pages and pages of argument is that power armor, as costed by GW, is a liability, not a boon of any kind.

Martel732 wrote:
I think the fundamental point behind pages and pages of argument is that power armor, as costed by GW, is a liability, not a boon of any kind.

Considering that no other unit but regular Space Marines (and even then, I think sternguard and vanguard are considered mostly fine) have been mentioned, I would say that's false. Unless you also consider SoB to have a problem because they also have power armors and potentially all other 3+ armor save on infantry since there is no game difference between their armor and that of Space Marines. I think the problem is mostly centered on some Space Marines units.

There's a host of Eldar units with power armor that aren't used, either.

I forgot about SoB. DG are different as well, as they have a stacked save. 9 pt power armor works. Power armor with FNP 5+++ works. But not 13+ pt models with 3+.

Tau power armor units are anything to write home about, either, imo. I just think the volume of shots in 8th ed makes 3+ armor ineffective even against AP 0. It's back to 7th ed when scatterlasers were forcing 70+ armor saves a turn, except now every army can do it.

Sternguard and vanguard aren't fine as soon as your opponent's turn rolls around. Because the 3+ is not significant protection anymore. You are just paying more points to die like a tac marine.

Martel732 wrote:

Sternguard and vanguard aren't fine as soon as your opponent's turn rolls around. Because the 3+ is not significant protection anymore. You are just paying more points to die like a tac marine.

You actually pay more for double the shots and attacks.

Durability is fine when the model isn't terribly expensive. The issue is how much more durable everyone else is, and the Elites kinda alleviate that issue.

Double shots and attacks don't help you on their turn. That's why GK are terrible.

Martel732 wrote:
Double shots and attacks don't help you on their turn. That's why GK are terrible.

There's a slight difference between a 16 point model with a Storm Bolter and a 21 point model with a Storm Bolter at the same durability and you know that. Don't be disingenuous.

That's true, but they're both really bad. Especially compared to SoB and DG. I don't want to pay 13 points for T4 3+, much less 16 or 17. Not in a game where (almost) nothing lives.

Martel732 wrote:
That's true, but they're both really bad. Especially compared to SoB and DG. I don't want to pay 13 points for T4 3+, much less 16 or 17. Not in a game where (almost) nothing lives.

Plague Marines have no bite for their cost, which is why you don't see them outside niche builds like the Grenade rush.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Double shots and attacks don't help you on their turn. That's why GK are terrible.

There's a slight difference between a 16 point model with a Storm Bolter and a 21 point model with a Storm Bolter at the same durability and you know that. Don't be disingenuous.

You have tried to debate with this guy before, right?

And I thought Sternguard with Storm Shields was meant to be worth at least testing following CA2018?

 Dysartes wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Double shots and attacks don't help you on their turn. That's why GK are terrible.

There's a slight difference between a 16 point model with a Storm Bolter and a 21 point model with a Storm Bolter at the same durability and you know that. Don't be disingenuous.

You have tried to debate with this guy before, right?

And I thought Sternguard with Storm Shields was meant to be worth at least testing following CA2018?

They are, but do you really feel that a 3++ for 2 points is remotely defenceable as a balanced points cost. It's another GW special style of fix if you over cost Spacemarines, undercost their wargear rather than admit that a spacemarine is overcosted.

Compair a tac marine to an intercessor 's hilarious
3 points for +1 wound, +1 attack, +6 inches of range, -1AP.
It's almost as rediculous as deathwatch special issue ammo.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's true, but they're both really bad. Especially compared to SoB and DG. I don't want to pay 13 points for T4 3+, much less 16 or 17. Not in a game where (almost) nothing lives.

Plague Marines have no bite for their cost, which is why you don't see them outside niche builds like the Grenade rush.

I mean, they can take 3 special weapons per 5 men, whilst also having T5 and 3+/5++/5+++ saves.

They hardly seem bad.

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's true, but they're both really bad. Especially compared to SoB and DG. I don't want to pay 13 points for T4 3+, much less 16 or 17. Not in a game where (almost) nothing lives.

Plague Marines have no bite for their cost, which is why you don't see them outside niche builds like the Grenade rush.

I mean, they can take 3 special weapons per 5 men, whilst also having T5 and 3+/5++/5+++ saves.

They hardly seem bad.

They can also rapid fire at 18", that's 6 plasma shots for 111 points at that range

They are very decent for their points

 vipoid wrote:


You claimed that Kabalites weren't taken because other Eldar troops were better/more efficient. Yet you're still proposing to nerf Kabalites while those better troops remain unchanged.

I simply don't understand this logic.

I still think 40k could really do with doubling the cost of every unit in the game. It would give them a lot more design space to work with in terms of tweaking costs.

As it stands, at the level of guardsmen, it's virtually impossible to raise or lower the points on a unit without both having a big impact (e.g. raising Conscripts to 4ppm was a 33% increase in cost) and also treading on the toes of another unit.

You've currently got Gretchin, Conscripts, Guardsmen and Termagants all in the 3-4pt range. However, if you doubled the cost of every unit in 40k and worked from there, you could have Gretchin at 5pts, Conscripts at 6-7pts, Termagants at 7-8pts, Guardsmen at 9pts. It just gives you a lot more flexibility.

I think there are several units in 40k that are undercosted, some of them extremely undercosted. I've just made a few examples, who said that other troops, if they are too cheap for what they do, should remain unchanged? The majority of the undercosted stuff also doesn't belong to the troops choices.

Doubling the cost of every unit in the game worths nothing, it would be playing at 1000 points claiming they are 2000 points instead. You can already play at 1000 points if you want to.

I'd keep 3-4 pts range only unit that really die with a stiff breeze, like T2 no save. Conscripts are basically guardsmen so they can't be chepaer than -1ppm compared to guardsmen. If I propose guardsmen at 6-7ppm, they should be 5-6ppm of course.

IMHO one of the main issues with power armor dudes is the competition with (too) cheap troops. Units like boyz are absolute trash in a 3x10 set up, which means 210 points already, worse than 3x5 tacs with no upgrades which are even 15pts cheaper, you need a lot more plus buffing characters and CPs invested on them. Other troops instead do work very good without investing many points and/or CPs on them, that's a huge issue, especially if those units can be part of the same faction as power armor dudes with no drawbacks. You can't expect troops to do the heavy work either if their faction has 250+ entries and every sort of buffed elite and unkillable superhero. Banning the soups solves a lot of problems for SM and equivalents because it cuts off the most overpowered lists, which are all soups and all hard counters to SM. Then just limit the number of CPs available since armies like SM can't have a high number of them while also bringing an effective list. I think cheap troops in the range of T3 5+ and shooting oriented should be 6-7ppm, only close combat oriented or weaker ones could be cheaper. No HQs should cost less than 50ppm either. If you want lots of CPs you must include garbage units as a tax, that's a fair trade off.

Power armor dudes in 8th edition became a bit more resilient with the new AP system, while cheap troops became way more resilient since templates/blasts could cause more hits than the D3/D6 system and the weapons that usually targeted them are now AP- when they used to bypass their saves completely. So they can't stay at the same points of previous editions, especially now that they are also needed to unlock CPs, that's what I think about the matter.

Banville 768146 10292073 wrote:

They can be taken by any marine faction, yeah. Though fluff wise they shouldn't really appear outside 2nd Founding Chapters.

They do a huge amount to shore up a marine army but, then again, at 350ish points they really should.

thanks. my friend has a few for sale and he still owes me stuff. Maybe I''ll get one or two, 350pts for something in a GK army isn't that much either.