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.

 vipoid wrote:
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.)

Bikes always had +1T. There was never a point where Bikes weren't both more durable and faster, at least not since 4th edition - I'm not familiar with earlier editions.

 vipoid wrote:
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.)

Yeah, this has been an issue with Terminators for a while in all SM flavors There's too many things that can fill the same role or fill a much more specialized niche in a much more efficient and specialized manner. Bikes, Centurions, Oblits, etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

the problem here is that without spamming AP2 weapons, there's really no way for lots of armies to deal with stuff like Knights, Custodes, etc. We're gonna have to shrink the scale of the game really so that we're not routinely trying to hamfist heavy infantry designed for close quarters boarding operations onto the same battlespace as artillery, crew served heavy weapons, and giant robots

 Asherian Command wrote:

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?

Krak missiles, Vengeance Round SIA (which didn't see a lot of use to be fair, because the overheat on those AND the other rounds had more use overall), Warp Ammo for Rubrics, Power Swords, Basilisk rounds, and Battlecannons.

I think the Snipers that AdMech has might've been AP3, but it could've been AP2.

Those are the only ones that stick out. Most of the time, GW usually skipped AP3 and went straight to AP2 a lot of the time, as AP2 was the clincher if you could kill most of the characters and units you might want to kill. That's basically what made some relics go from what could've been a good choice to being bad. In this instance, I'm glad. I mean, the Spartean could easily be worth a few points now compared to how it operates last edition after all.

Well super heavies should be limited, just like how i think it was dumb to give knights their own codex :/

Its okay for knights to exist but they should have titan guard and shouldn't be well... all by themselves on the tabletop as the break the entire balance of the game.

I think termies, in general, need more firepower than they currently put out, while also having very little weakness to moving and shooting.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Well super heavies should be limited, just like how i think it was dumb to give knights their own codex :/

Its okay for knights to exist but they should have titan guard and shouldn't be well... all by themselves on the tabletop as the break the entire balance of the game.

That's what Armigers and Secutarii are for. However it isn't like they have a guard at ALL times though.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Well super heavies should be limited, just like how i think it was dumb to give knights their own codex :/

Its okay for knights to exist but they should have titan guard and shouldn't be well... all by themselves on the tabletop as the break the entire balance of the game.

In practice Knights are rarely fielded on their own, they're often accompanied by titan guard, 32 of them, at least. (Mine will go with less competitive but more fluffy Skitarii.)

A.T. wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
2 wounds and attacks base would be a start.

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.

Well Primaris marines are not SM's as per the OP.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Well Primaris marines are not SM's as per the OP.

But trying to fix non-primaris marines is pointless. They're legacy units that will be phased out. Even though they will probably have some sort of rule support to foreseeable future, there is no financial interest for GW to keep them particularly viable.

 Crimson wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Well Primaris marines are not SM's as per the OP.

But trying to fix non-primaris marines is pointless. They're legacy units that will be phased out. Even though they will probably have some sort of rule support to foreseeable future, there is no financial interest for GW to keep them particularly viable.

Yes balancing the most common and best selling model line GW every produced is pointless. We should all melt our old marines and pretend that they don't exist anymore. GW should make zero effort to support models that they currently sell.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Well Primaris marines are not SM's as per the OP.

But trying to fix non-primaris marines is pointless. They're legacy units that will be phased out. Even though they will probably have some sort of rule support to foreseeable future, there is no financial interest for GW to keep them particularly viable.

Yes balancing the most common and best selling model line GW every produced is pointless. We should all melt our old marines and pretend that they don't exist anymore. GW should make zero effort to support models that they currently sell.

Essentially. I think it is incredibly short sighted for people to suggest completeley get rid of marines. They have to balance them. Grey Knights, 30k, its completely pointless for them to get rid of them if they are the longest lasting miniature line GW has ever produced.

They obviously aren't best selling any more. No new player will buy minimarines when they can get much better looking Primaris. And sure, some rule support will remain, but I really doubt fixing minimarines is a priority to GW. They want people to buy the new stuff, and as you said, everybody already has loads of minimarines.

 Crimson wrote:
They obviously aren't best selling any more. No new player will buy minimarines when they can get much better looking Primaris. And sure, some rule support will remain, but I really doubt fixing minimarines is a priority to GW. They want people to buy the new stuff, and as you said, everybody already has loads of minimarines.

Except a new player who wants to have any chance playing marines either needs a ton of allies from another book or needs to buy at least some of the older kits. A primaris only army is one of the weaker builds the marine book has. It's clear that it's going to be years before GW can uncouple the two.

I know termies are still popular, as are dreadnoughts, and devastators are really common in some lists. Space marine regular captains are still very common to use as that space wolf list showed us from ITC.

I think it is premature to call it the death of the old space marines. Like i've said dozens of times, no one has stated that they will die, and i even provided a source of GW Saying they aren't getting of regular marines. They aren't replacements but supplements.

 Crimson wrote:
They obviously aren't best selling any more. No new player will buy minimarines when they can get much better looking Primaris. And sure, some rule support will remain, but I really doubt fixing minimarines is a priority to GW. They want people to buy the new stuff, and as you said, everybody already has loads of minimarines.

If their goal is for people to buy primaris, and ditch the bad marines. Then why do they exclude them from some armies. I get giving something bad rules, but if they don't give anything in return, people won't be happy. From what I understand about eldar history in w40k, they are always good, but each edition most good stuff changes. Not sure if it is good or bad design, but it seems to work. Haven't seen many angry eldar players.

But if they nerf the old stuff of some armies, and don't give anything good in return, then their policy is either different or they just do rule changes as random.

Karol wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
They obviously aren't best selling any more. No new player will buy minimarines when they can get much better looking Primaris. And sure, some rule support will remain, but I really doubt fixing minimarines is a priority to GW. They want people to buy the new stuff, and as you said, everybody already has loads of minimarines.

If their goal is for people to buy primaris, and ditch the bad marines. Then why do they exclude them from some armies. I get giving something bad rules, but if they don't give anything in return, people won't be happy. From what I understand about eldar history in w40k, they are always good, but each edition most good stuff changes. Not sure if it is good or bad design, but it seems to work. Haven't seen many angry eldar players.

But if they nerf the old stuff of some armies, and don't give anything good in return, then their policy is either different or they just do rule changes as random.

There would be hell to pay if they made Farseers and Warlocks gak. (i mean they sorta kind of did with their nerf to toughness and strength but eh)

Supplements to complement your forces until GW can convince you to supplant your forces with them.

GW said they'd never Squat another army after Sqauts. So GW saying they won't do something doesn't mean they won't.

There's really not much to say. It's clear that 2019 is essentially going to be a repeat of the second half of 2018, post Knight codex.

Stability isn't always a bad thing. Hopefully games workshop will learn more with a full year of virtually everyone having a codex. When specific armies win continuously through 2019, and other armies are obviously absent, maybe 2020 will see some real change. Or, even better, a new edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Supplements to complement your forces until GW can convince you to supplant your forces with them.

GW said they'd never Squat another army after Sqauts. So GW saying they won't do something doesn't mean they won't.

People suggesting marine lines would be squatted need to get a clue. It is very expensive for them to create new sculpts. Think of all of the marine sculpts that would need to be remade. And, with primaris marines not selling nearly as well as they'd hoped, i doubt they'll do this.

I've even heard that Mortarian didn't sell as well as they would have hoped, which is insane because he's on every other table, but that doesn't change that i heard it.

I don't think most people think Real Marines are going to just get squatted overnight. I think most think they'll go the way of the Dodo via lack of attention and attrition. New kits won't be made often, old kits won't be promoted as much, and rules will continue to not help them out.

CA read like it was written by the rules designers with 12ppm Tacs. And Marketing took that line out at last minute.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
They obviously aren't best selling any more. No new player will buy minimarines when they can get much better looking Primaris. And sure, some rule support will remain, but I really doubt fixing minimarines is a priority to GW. They want people to buy the new stuff, and as you said, everybody already has loads of minimarines.

Except a new player who wants to have any chance playing marines either needs a ton of allies from another book or needs to buy at least some of the older kits. A primaris only army is one of the weaker builds the marine book has. It's clear that it's going to be years before GW can uncouple the two.

There will be new Primaris wave later this year. And then the third and fourth. Look at the Stormcast, they were very limited in the beginning too, but now just after few years they have a crazy amount of models. It will happen faster than you think.

People suggesting marine lines would be squatted need to get a clue. It is very expensive for them to create new sculpts. Think of all of the marine sculpts that would need to be remade. And, with primaris marines not selling nearly as well as they'd hoped, i doubt they'll do this.

I've even heard that Mortarian didn't sell as well as they would have hoped, which is insane because he's on every other table, but that doesn't change that i heard it.

Not surprisingly the priced themselves into a bloody corner with Primaris Prices. Which are ridiculously expensive. 60$ for a squad of ten? Yeah feth that.

Bharring wrote:
I don't think most people think Real Marines are going to just get squatted overnight. I think most think they'll go the way of the Dodo via lack of attention and attrition. New kits won't be made often, old kits won't be promoted as much, and rules will continue to not help them out.

Yes, exactly.

 Crimson wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Well Primaris marines are not SM's as per the OP.

But trying to fix non-primaris marines is pointless. They're legacy units that will be phased out. Even though they will probably have some sort of rule support to foreseeable future, there is no financial interest for GW to keep them particularly viable.

And yet VV, Chosen, and Stormshields all went down in cost.

Surely no new "old marine" kit will ever be made, but the production of them will be around for as long as they're profitable.

CSM will also not be getting Primaris. They're staying as old marines as we can see from BSF - just with bigger models.

Cmpy Vets are really powerful and very handy.

Cataprachts got their box rereleased. And Marines are getting constant support from 30k....

So yeah totally going to die out.

Bharring wrote:
I don't think most people think Real Marines are going to just get squatted overnight. I think most think they'll go the way of the Dodo via lack of attention and attrition. New kits won't be made often, old kits won't be promoted as much, and rules will continue to not help them out.

CA read like it was written by the rules designers with 12ppm Tacs. And Marketing took that line out at last minute.

People not buying or playing a model line because they suck out loud on the table doesn't mean the line has been squatted. When was the last time you saw a Space Wolves army in a tournament? For me i have to go back to November of 2017.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

And yet VV, Chosen, and Stormshields all went down in cost.

Surely no new "old marine" kit will ever be made, but the production of them will be around for as long as they're profitable.

So Tacticals, who already have their direct Primaris replacements remained bad, whilst elite units which yet do not have Primaris equivalents got buffed...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

I will bite, from the space marine list we got
In Gmans aura
Last edition a tac marine shoting them with a melta gun would have done .46 of a wound each shot now it wounds .576 and that would turn into a 56% chance of doing the two wounds needed to kill the termi now each shot or about a 22% increase in damage
How about a power fist? Would have done .34 wounds last edition now it has a .37% chance of killing a termi with it and a chance of doing one wound as well.
How about a plasma gun? Last edition it would get .92 of a wound now it has a can get 1.152 kills and has lower chance of killing the guy using it. Or about a 25% up in kills
Sure they got better vs the stuff they could tank anyways like flamers or bolters but the kind of stuff the was killing terminators is doing so better even other then grav since it got gutted.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Well Primaris marines are not SM's as per the OP.

But they could/should have been, if not for (presumed) economic implications for GW.

If 8th edition had kicked off and tactical marines were 2 wounds, 2 attacks with a 30" AP -1 boltgun for 20 points a model then that would have been that, with GW pushing a new 'truescale' marine line.

How about any IG artillery?

Manticores, basilisks, etc?

And really any weapon that was AP3 in 7th edition became way stronger against terminators in 8th. Because much of it became AP-2. And 2 wounds with a 4+ save isn't really more durable than 1 wound with a 2+ save. (Obvious math: 6 saves versus 4 saves to kill, and that's not factoring in multi-damage.)

They gained nothing but an extra wound against AP2 transitioning to AP-3. So while that is extra durability, those guns and weapons also gained the bog-standard 8th edition shot increase.

There's still design space and fluff space for them to roll Primaris and Real marines into the same statline. I hope that's the direction they go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"And really any weapon that was AP3 in 7th edition became way stronger against terminators in 8th."

Shouldn't AP3 weapons - things liked shaped-charge missiles - have been better at cracking 2+ armor than AP- stuff?

I always found it odd that the main gun of Predator tank was just as likely to pierce the armor of a Space Marine as a Lasgun was. The ASM route lets them actually model that. They can have the Autocannon have light armor piercing (AP-1) without it being as good against armor as a Lascannon.

The problem is they handed AP-1 and AP-2 out like candy.

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.

Sorry, I saw a mention of second ed and just had to stop by

With all this talk of Tactical Squads and giving them more wounds etc, might it be a bit easier to just let a 10 man tac squad take two heavy and two special weapons? That seems a reasonable way of making them tactically useful, as they can carry a mix of weaponry to deal with different threats, kind of like a tactically flexible unit might?