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.
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 have considered this and I honestly think this would solve a lot of balance problems 40k has right now. Points have been squished so far down that there is no where left to go. There was a time in this game when an infantry squad costed 60pts base and you had to bring mandatory platoon command squads, and average games were only 1k-1.5k pts. Double the cost of every single unit in the game, and then balance from there for better point margins.
Honestly that idea that guardsmen should be as expensive as guardians makes me laugh.
This a reason the game should have a dodge save. Eldar should be better at not getting shot than necrons. Why is it as easy to kill a guardsman as it is to kill a guardian, why is it as easy to kill a guard vet as it is to kill a conscript? Also, I’d like to buff the hell out of guardians and aspect warriors because even if they get harder to kill they’ll still be a lot easier for marines to kill than wave serpents are. I mean yeah, guardsmen everywhere if they are being used as key offensive units and not just as bubble wrap.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There’s this persistent problem that sternguard used to be 25 pts, and before that marine vets were just tactical squads that could buy terminator honors for more points and in elites. They could both be killed just as easily as a marine, and so could PA grey knights. There should just be a dodge save.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/03 06:45:32
Honestly that idea that guardsmen should be as expensive as guardians makes me laugh.
This a reason the game should have a dodge save. Eldar should be better at not getting shot than necrons. Why is it as easy to kill a guardsman as it is to kill a guardian, why is it as easy to kill a guard vet as it is to kill a conscript? Also, I’d like to buff the hell out of guardians and aspect warriors because even if they get harder to kill they’ll still be a lot easier for marines to kill than wave serpents are. I mean yeah, guardsmen everywhere if they are being used as key offensive units and not just as bubble wrap.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There’s this persistent problem that sternguard used to be 25 pts, and before that marine vets were just tactical squads that could buy terminator honors for more points and in elites. They could both be killed just as easily as a marine, and so could PA grey knights. There should just be a dodge save.
It's almost like you're suggesting a...
To hit penalty?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Elbows wrote: I wouldn't mind at all seeing points doubled....revert back to days of second edition, where a Tactical Squad was 300 points + additional gear.
Well, like it or not, gradual escalation in model counts and fall in point costs is completely logical move from GW, it's not an accident.
On the topic of Power Armor: Warp Talons base cost is currently 12 pts (!!!!!!) with MEQ statline, deep strike, 12" move, 5++, and some non-factor rule.
Why is this? The unit has to buy pair of lightning claws for every model, essentially they pay +12 to get +1A and AP -2 attacks.
This unit is perfect example how GW has dropped the ball in current edition with some units and refuses to make stuff playable even with CA and faqs. It's so blatant intentional profiteering and outright lying with 'balance' it's disgusting.
Honestly that idea that guardsmen should be as expensive as guardians makes me laugh.
This a reason the game should have a dodge save. Eldar should be better at not getting shot than necrons. Why is it as easy to kill a guardsman as it is to kill a guardian, why is it as easy to kill a guard vet as it is to kill a conscript?
Because the differences are minute enough to be irrelevant at the scale 40k is played at, and while being graceful and possessing lightning-fast reflexes is great and all, automatic weapons and high explosives shells don't really care unless they're truly exceptional.
That sort of thing can be expressed well in RPG's. An Eldar Guardian does indeed find it easier to dodge than a guardsman at that scale under the various 40kRPG rulesets. These rulesets also dramatically simplify rules when dealing with combats at the scale of the 40k game for the same reason 40k doesn't portray such things.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Elbows wrote: I wouldn't mind at all seeing points doubled....revert back to days of second edition, where a Tactical Squad was 300 points + additional gear.
Well, like it or not, gradual escalation in model counts and fall in point costs is completely logical move from GW, it's not an accident.
On the topic of Power Armor: Warp Talons base cost is currently 12 pts (!!!!!!) with MEQ statline, deep strike, 12" move, 5++, and some non-factor rule.
Why is this? The unit has to buy pair of lightning claws for every model, essentially they pay +12 to get +1A and AP -2 attacks.
This unit is perfect example how GW has dropped the ball in current edition with some units and refuses to make stuff playable even with CA and faqs. It's so blatant intentional profiteering and outright lying with 'balance' it's disgusting.
Oh no, the company wants to make money! The horror!
Yeah balance could be WAY better than it is now, but let's not pretend that GW is that good at knowing what they're doing. There have been several new kits where the unit wasn't any good, like the Warp Talons/Raptors in question.
Honestly that idea that guardsmen should be as expensive as guardians makes me laugh.
This a reason the game should have a dodge save. Eldar should be better at not getting shot than necrons. Why is it as easy to kill a guardsman as it is to kill a guardian, why is it as easy to kill a guard vet as it is to kill a conscript?
Because the differences are minute enough to be irrelevant at the scale 40k is played at, and while being graceful and possessing lightning-fast reflexes is great and all, automatic weapons and high explosives shells don't really care unless they're truly exceptional.
That sort of thing can be expressed well in RPG's. An Eldar Guardian does indeed find it easier to dodge than a guardsman at that scale under the various 40kRPG rulesets. These rulesets also dramatically simplify rules when dealing with combats at the scale of the 40k game for the same reason 40k doesn't portray such things.
For small nuances like that we really would need to scale up in dice. D8 is my favorite.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/03 07:01:58
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Vaktathi wrote: at the scale 40k is played at, and while being graceful and possessing lightning-fast reflexes is great and all,.
Flames of War is 15mm and the primary difference between elite basic and conscript units is how hard they are to hit. It’s not from some kind of superhuman ability to see bullets and duck out of the way. It’s just that they don’t stick their heads out of cover and spend 50 seconds standing stock still to take a shot.
*from
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/03 07:38:08
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.
Sure. But it's rather strange that you bring up 3 troop choices rather than the Knights or other units that actually do the real work in lists.
Yeah knights are overpowered but I was referring to "the power armor problem". I think SM suffer more from cheap troops that outperform them than the fact that there are overpowered and undercosted superheroes. The knight doesn't compete with tacticals, guardsmen do.
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.
That doesn't even make sense.
Didn't you suggest to double every units' cost in the game? This way you'd keep the same proportions and you'll actually end up playing 1000 points instead of 2000.
So "basically guardsmen" equates to having:
- Worse WS - Worse BS - Drastically worse Morale
- Fail Orders on a 4+
- No Sergeant
- Can't take Special Weapons
- Can't take Heavy Weapons
Your definition of what should cost 3-4pts seems designed to arbitrarily exclude Conscripts, despite them being a really awful unit.
They don't look awful at all, not for the purpose they should serve, aka unlocking CPs and screening shooty unit. Just not overpowered. The issue with AM troops is that they are cheap like any other useless troop that just serves tactical purposes but they're also quite deadly against anti infantries and quite resilient. 10 guardsmen at 70 points would cost more than 5 stock tacticals and the same of 10 ork boyz by they would still overperform both of them because they can work on their own while SM and boyz still need lots of other points invested on them (weapons, transport, more models, etc...).
My definition of what should cost 3-4 points is something that would be wiped out against 10 bolter shots. Like T2 no save. Not T3 5+ save.
IMHO one of the main issues with power armor dudes is the competition with (too) cheap troops.
Demonstrably untrue. Being cheap is no guarantee that a unit will see play. Remind me - how many competitive lists are running 6pt Kabalites?
Well if you can spam 5 overpowered/undercosted units and litterally everything have 4++ or 5++, 6+++ and or -1 (or even better) to hit you don't need cheap troops. In fact aeldari can work amazingly even without lots of CPs and their best performing units are all cheap for what they do. So they actually playing with a full list of cheap dudes, they just aren't troops, because they don't need them. If you are forced to go monocodex however you'd need 3 troops and between 9ppm wracks, 8ppm wyches and 7pts kabalites I'd still take the kabalites unless you really want to go heavy with the coven stuff, which is legit but not auto-take.
I may be wrong but I remember a drukhari Black Heart brigade as a top tier list a couple of months ago, that had 30 kabalite warriors. It was posted in an article that listed the most effective armies in 40k, maybe on reddit??
Blackie wrote: 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.
So . . . are you arguing against yourself now? Because you seem to be proving that your previous statement was untrue.
I was arguing that no cheap troops should be both cheap and effective on their own. Orks can be cheap at 70 points but they won't be effective at all. Guardsmen are extremely effective at 40 points.
Blackie wrote: No HQs should cost less than 50ppm either.
Why? Why should a HQ that's not worth 50pts have to cost 50pts anyway?
I really don't understand what you want at this point. Unless you just really like sh*tting on IG and IG players?
I was right, then. You want nothing more than to sh*t on IG players. I guess you're one of those people who thinks that IG should be an NPC faction that only exists to get curb-stomped by other armies.
Because no one advocating for balance would be deliberately trying to make units "trash". If you really wanted balance, you'd be trying to make sure that *no* unit was trash.
Being an HQ and giving some auras already worths 50ish points. I also think that AM should be hit more than anyone else, they're the most overpowered stand alone army IMHO.
Also drukhari are, but only for 5ish units, AM have tons of undercosted stuff.
I don't want them to be nerfed into the ground of course, but I do think that they need some significant hit. They will still be performing against any other stand alone army if forced to play with 300 less points, due to new appropriate points costs. Just cut a tank and a few guardsmen. AM will definitely perform even with -5/7 CPs, -1 tank and -20/30 guardsmen.
Honestly that idea that guardsmen should be as expensive as guardians makes me laugh.
This a reason the game should have a dodge save. Eldar should be better at not getting shot than necrons. Why is it as easy to kill a guardsman as it is to kill a guardian, why is it as easy to kill a guard vet as it is to kill a conscript?
Because the differences are minute enough to be irrelevant at the scale 40k is played at, and while being graceful and possessing lightning-fast reflexes is great and all, automatic weapons and high explosives shells don't really care unless they're truly exceptional.
That sort of thing can be expressed well in RPG's. An Eldar Guardian does indeed find it easier to dodge than a guardsman at that scale under the various 40kRPG rulesets. These rulesets also dramatically simplify rules when dealing with combats at the scale of the 40k game for the same reason 40k doesn't portray such things.
For small nuances like that we really would need to scale up in dice. D8 is my favorite.
From a rules perspective I'd really like D10's personally.
but man, rolling anything other than D6's en-masse gets really awkward
Vaktathi wrote: at the scale 40k is played at, and while being graceful and possessing lightning-fast reflexes is great and all,.
Flames of War is 15mm and the primary difference between elite basic and conscript units is how hard they are to hit. It’s not from some kind of superhuman ability to see bullets and duck out of the way. It’s just that they don’t stick their heads out of cover and spend 50 seconds standing stock still to take a shot.
*from
Sure, but they don't have Toughness or Ballistic Skill or Weapons Skill either. It's also a game where the relative differences between units are much smaller, we're talking humans with broadly similar characteristics and weapons. Experience and Training is the differentiator there. 40k uses other mechanics for that or has such a dramatically more broad scale that such aspects aren't relevant. What in Flames of War separates a Veteran and a Conscript is a dramatically larger difference than that represented in 40k for instance, because Flames of War isn't also having to deal with genetically engineered super soldiers, literal demons, space elves, everything bad from the Alien and Terminator franchise x1000, and now we're getting into small Godzilla scale with Knights, all on the same D6.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Ghorgul wrote: On the topic of Power Armor: Warp Talons base cost is currently 12 pts (!!!!!!) with MEQ statline, deep strike, 12" move, 5++, and some non-factor rule.
Why is this? The unit has to buy pair of lightning claws for every model, essentially they pay +12 to get +1A and AP -2 attacks.
This unit is perfect example how GW has dropped the ball in current edition with some units and refuses to make stuff playable even with CA and faqs. It's so blatant intentional profiteering and outright lying with 'balance' it's disgusting.
Oh no, the company wants to make money! The horror!
Yeah balance could be WAY better than it is now, but let's not pretend that GW is that good at knowing what they're doing. There have been several new kits where the unit wasn't any good, like the Warp Talons/Raptors in question.
I have accepted many units are on kind of 'legacy'-support (Which is still in disconnect with the purpose of CA, but whatever, I'm beating a dead horse here) even when they are in Codex and are updated on the CA, although on GW's part it would have been more honest toward everyone to leave Warp Talons as Index unit if no real effort is made to keep them playable.
Vaktathi wrote: At that point I suspect you'll start to run into issues where it's just more cost effective to bring more basic dudes to achieve the same killing power in many instances. We've seen this with IG and Grenade Launchers for instance.
Definitely don't mean it as a real fix, just saying more expensive weapons means things feel more durable since you can't offhandedly turn things into tissue paper.
That said, the broad scope of the game could use some revision downward. We're basically playing mini-epic at 2k and have been for a few editions now. Playing at 750pts is a whole different ballgame to 2k. Playing with less stuff, fewer or no super units like Knights and Primarchs, no tank companies or custodes jetbike captains and the like, and suddenly more classic units start to feel a whole lot tougher and more meaningful.
I'd be fine with apoc or something else coming back to give separate senses of scale again.
How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/03 14:34:03
Blackie wrote: Termies durability is already fine now that they have a 3++ for 2pts. It's their damage output that should be buffed.
Only not all termintors have access to stormshields.
Sure. But it's rather strange that you bring up 3 troop choices rather than the Knights or other units that actually do the real work in lists.
If it wasn't for troops of the chaff kind, the castellans would be getting charged by s spears and smash cpts. the whole triple soup works exactly because IG do two things. They give CP and they give chaff. It doesn't matter that the loyal 32 cost less then a knight in points, for list effectivness they are just as crucial. Same way w serpents are important for eldar, even if they aren't blowing up the opposing army.
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.
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Why do you say all the weapons. When it is hardly the thing that happens while playing the game. Most of the weapons that do get used or get spamed in 8th ed kill terminators well or kill them very well for a lot less points then what a termintor costs.
Also all the weapons that didn't ignore termintor saves before 8th ed, and I must admit I don't know how many of those are being used in 8th right now, now very well modify the termintor save.
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.
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
Plasma guns, star cannons, all ap3 weapons were ignored by termies Now they have to use their +5
Lascannons force them to use their invulnerable save like before...
So no. Its a bit worse because of plasma.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
Plasma guns, star cannons, all ap3 weapons were ignored by termies Now they have to use their +5
Lascannons force them to use their invulnerable save like before...
So no. Its a bit worse because of plasma.
Plasma Guns were AP2. They ignored terminator save.
Terminators are pretty much the same against formerly AP2 weapons, but are relatively worse because they're paying for a 5+ invuln that doesn't actually matter against those AP2 weapons anymore. (Since they'd have a 5+ save anyways.)
What Terminators are worse against are formerly AP3 and AP4 weapons, which they did blatantly ignore but now treat normally. Power Swords and Mauls used to bounce off Terminators but now kill them handily, Heavy Bolters and Autocannons are a reliable way to kill them (especially Storm Shield variants), Missile Launchers and other AP-2 weapons are especially good when they used to be crap.
Plasma guns and Starcannons were all AP2 in previous editions and definitely ignored Terminator armor saves.
Termi's are worse against AP -1 D2+ and AP -2 weapons than they were to previously AP4 and AP3 weapons. They should be equally good or superior in 8E relative to all other weapons in previous editions due to the second wound.
Even against stuff like Lascannons, they're very slightly better as the Lascannon even on a successful wound that fails a save a 1/6 chance on the Damage roll can fail to kill the Termi, whereas in 7E or earlier there would have been no such chance.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Regarding Terminators, I think part of the issue is that GW keeps giving durability upgrades to models that pay for speed.
e.g. SM Bikes now get +1T and +1W (as do any characters riding them).
If you want to have units that specifically pay for extra durability, then you can't go around handing out extra durability to units that are paying for speed.
(To be clear, I think the same of all bike units - I just think the SM ones are among the worst offenders because of their competing options.)
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Today I Learned:
Terminators are vulnerable to anti-Terminator weapons, and not only is that a problem, but they should be able to outright ignore them...
The problem with Terminators isn't that they're not durable. They're very durable. They get a 4+ in cover against lascannons. It's that weapons that are good against them (plasma, lascannons) are also the weapons that everyone brings for ever.
Reduce the amount of plasma and lascannons in the game, encourage people to bring anti-infantry weapons, and terminators become good again! Just like in earlier editions: people spamming AP2 is bad for 2+ save models. News at 11. The problem isn't the 2+ save model. The problem is that "spamming AP2" is a thing.
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
Plasma guns, star cannons, all ap3 weapons were ignored by termies Now they have to use their +5
Lascannons force them to use their invulnerable save like before...
So no. Its a bit worse because of plasma.
Plasma Guns were AP2. They ignored terminator save.
Terminators are pretty much the same against formerly AP2 weapons, but are relatively worse because they're paying for a 5+ invuln that doesn't actually matter against those AP2 weapons anymore. (Since they'd have a 5+ save anyways.)
What Terminators are worse against are formerly AP3 and AP4 weapons, which they did blatantly ignore but now treat normally. Power Swords and Mauls used to bounce off Terminators but now kill them handily, Heavy Bolters and Autocannons are a reliable way to kill them (especially Storm Shield variants), Missile Launchers and other AP-2 weapons are especially good when they used to be crap.
Terminators are actually the same durability vs Heavy Bolters and most other AP-1 weapons barring very specific instances like Autocannons and Gauss Blasters. Power Mauls are the same fate as well. Nobody ran Power Swords and ran Axes, so honestly vs Power Weapons it's a wash.
Ghorgul wrote: How about this, these are mostly quite blatantly copied from Eldarsif who suggested similarly in
"How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models?" thread
Every power armor unit:
Ignore first one single damage non-mortal wound every phase. (Eldarsif suggested similar for terminators)
Terminators:
Ignore first two single damage non-mortal wounds every phase.
The ignore single damage non-mortal wounds rules award MEQs and Terminators increased survivability against massed single damage attacks without making them super OP as it's still only one per phase. Basically every MEQ unit would have 1 extra ablative wound every phase, and Terminators would have 2, while both would still be affected by damage >1 attacks similarly as before, like they should.
Terminators are already durable as is compared to any previous edition.
Prove me wrong. Write a list of ALL the weapons they became weaker to and I'll provide a list greater than that to everything they're more durable to.
Plasma guns, star cannons, all ap3 weapons were ignored by termies Now they have to use their +5
Lascannons force them to use their invulnerable save like before...
So no. Its a bit worse because of plasma.
Against Plasma they're actually better off bar someone using the charged profile, so there's that.
Star Cannons wound at a worse rate (3+) and have varying damage if I recall (DD3 isn't it?)
Actually do the math for the weapons, please.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/03 17:01:54
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Asherian Command wrote: To get right off, I've been reading the forums and talking with people and friends. And I've felt this could be hopefully a constructive thread. I know from some threads that people get very hyper about what is best or what is worst. But I always felt there is time for self reflection on our power armored friends. Lately I have yet to face a single space marine opponent in months. I play regularly and even I stopped playing with my space marines as I was tired of losing every single game. So I picked up my eldar Uthwe army and wrecked most factions with my dark reaper spam.
But lets get to the crux of this thread....
Dakknauts, what do you think is wrong with Space Marines? *And Grey Knights, Chaos Space Marines, And all the other flavors of space marines
I would love to hear your thoughts. Because of this, I have spoilered my own thoughts. Read at your own risk.
2 wounds and attacks base would be a start. They are just overcost for their under powered defense and offense. They are overcost and an elite army with small units, they'll never be good in 8th unless GW drastically change them. They are probably one of the worst armies you could have thought of while creating 8th's rules.
My thoughts Please do not read my opinion until you are done writing your own. I want to hear your thoughts. Not mine!
Spoiler:
Intro Okay a bit of background, I've been playing this hobby since I could hold a pen. I started at the end of 3rd and even played in the black crusade campaign with my brother. Learning from him how to play. I got my first space marine army when I was 8 and then got my Eldar army when i was 10. I have been collecting and playing ever since. But I quit in 6th edition as college got in the way and I wanted to pursue my degree in Game Design, and my eventual Masters which I am preparing to look for. I have at least 4-5 years of game mechanical engineering, game design, gameplay programming, and product development. Not to gloat but system designing is one of my favorite past times finding errors in systems is a fun hobby. And returning to the 8th edition I immensely enjoy the challenge of seeing what is wrong with it. And I think the first issue is with our Power Armored Friends.
What could it be? First off, I know space marines are currently overcosted and don't perform that well. Even in the many games i've played I always felt like I was on the backfoot event when I had the advantage. The points for space marines seem to be structured entirely around having an active aura effect all the time... While AP damage systems seem to really punish space marines and normal armor saves its really hard to defend against increasingly high amounts of AP damage. It seems to be that every single unit that has power armor is paying a premium for subpar stats that make little different when they don't have a large killing potential compared to other similarly priced units.
An Old System ?
Space Marines are currently in my opinion overcosted and underperforming because they were balanced around the old AP system because of this their +3 armor save means absolutely nothing without an invulnerable save. Without it, a tactical squad or assaults squad will always underperform because there are better alternatives. They don't put out enough damage to really make a difference. Space marines have always been expensive but they always had the competitive edge of always having a +3 armor save and having very few things that could penetrate and make you lose that +3 armor save. With the new AP system, it punishes and severely limits all power armor in the entire game. Once you face something with an ap -3 or -4 that squad of marines is dead. And those have become very common in 8th edition. Every single army has one in spades except for space marines. (or they are extremely overcosted because it is a space marine list).
There is also the problem that marines have no damage output at all, their baseline bolter is horrifically bad and has a very low chance of killing most other targets in the game (except for gaunts) but even then space marines are never taken at full tactical squad capacity because there is 0 benefit.
Old Rules for an Old age
Combat Squads is a completely useless skill for 8th if you don't have the max of 10. There is no reason to combat your squad if you want CP generation. So that makes their entire 'special rule' completely moot. You don't want to have extra points in one detachment if you can get more powerful units in another. Again this is another holdover of previous editions, you had to work in the end with a very limiting system, and there was no cp generation. You were given one chart and told "Go crazy!". Because of this you wanted to have as many as you could in one squad so you combat squad it and move it into separate directions because marines were extremely durable. Especially for tactics as you got access to more specialists weapons. Space marines in previous editions were extremely durable because the AP and most systems were BALANCED around space marines. This edition I have no idea whom they balanced it around but it is obvious that space marines are in a lackluster position because most of their rules are from previous editions.
If space marines were played in any other edition except 8th they would be a great army. But they aren't causing you are punished for playing as space marines.
Conclusion
In short Space Marines have rulesets, power, and killing power issues that stem from overbalancing and just seems to be lazy design. They have rules that do absolutely nothing and cannot be activated as they are rarely beneficary to the player (Stares intently at Combat Squads). This would require an entire rework of the entire space marine collection for space marines to be considered viable. Every unit in the space marine codex needs to be looked at carefully and revevaluated in terms of roles in the space marine army.
Against Plasma they're actually better off bar someone using the charged profile, so there's that.
Star Cannons wound at a worse rate (3+) and have varying damage if I recall (DD3 isn't it?)
What the helk was ap3 then? I completely forgot its been so long was the krak missiles then?
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Almost nothing, which was a big part of why terminators suffered in the previous editions. Everything that looked like even remotely capable punching trough armour got AP2.
Aka - primaris marines. GW just needs to finish up converting all of the old options over and then they'll move to more aggressively phase out the older stuff.
