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.

 bullyboy wrote:

Because it doesn't solve the problem!! How hard is THAT to understand?

It solves this problem. Now it doesn't solve some other , completely different problem, but I really don't think that anyone thinks that Ynnari and Castellan+IG are not problems.

Who cares about internal marine balance?

Apparently a lot of people.

We want balance. Deathwatch right now can compete to some degree vs the upper tier lists (especially when souped), you don't improve the game by dragging them down. You improve it by figuring out how to raise the regular marines.

Then you need to give the regular marines something DW do not get, or DW becomes broken! What you think you can give to regular marines that is worth as much as SIA?

Also, please do understand that when I say that DW need to pay relatively more for SIA, it doesn't necessarily mean they need to cost absolutely more. It may mean that marines without SIA get cheaper.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I am really surprised to see so much focus on nerfing the deathwatch which at this point I have not seen win anything major or perform exceptionally well. There has been countless topics and posts about people wanting marines to be good and when we get it with DW now there is an outcry to nerf them because they are actually good, but not even good enough to be a wrecking ball in the competitive scene.

Because it is an internal marine balancing issue. DW are heads and shoulders better than other marines for negligible cost. How the hell can this be so hard to understand?.

Because it doesn't solve the problem!! How hard is THAT to understand?
Who cares about internal marine balance? We want balance. Deathwatch right now can compete to some degree vs the upper tier lists (especially when souped), you don't improve the game by dragging them down. You improve it by figuring out how to raise the regular marines.

And when you go to raise regular marines up, then you either need to do it in such a way that doesn't change DW, or you're going to break DW...which is what the whole thread is about can we please stop doing this twice a page .

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I am really surprised to see so much focus on nerfing the deathwatch which at this point I have not seen win anything major or perform exceptionally well. There has been countless topics and posts about people wanting marines to be good and when we get it with DW now there is an outcry to nerf them because they are actually good, but not even good enough to be a wrecking ball in the competitive scene.

Because it is an internal marine balancing issue. DW are heads and shoulders better than other marines for negligible cost. How the hell can this be so hard to understand?.

Because it doesn't solve the problem!! How hard is THAT to understand?
Who cares about internal marine balance? We want balance. Deathwatch right now can compete to some degree vs the upper tier lists (especially when souped), you don't improve the game by dragging them down. You improve it by figuring out how to raise the regular marines.

And when you go to raise regular marines up, then you either need to do it in such a way that doesn't change DW, or you're going to break DW...which is what the whole thread is about can we please stop doing this twice a page .

That's what he said though? The conversation might be going in circles, because people aren't properly processing each others arguments.

At this point DW won't be losing the bolter rule.

If feels like people are enamored with the math of Deathwatch rather than the potential reality.

And in context the DW chapter tactic is rather limited - reroll 1s to wound for a specific part of an army is not incredibly strong when a Lieutenant can cover that for 60 points. And to change that type you either need the limited relic, the WL trait or 1 to 2 CP. Their other stratagems are also CP hungry, which means they'd have little room to support a Castellan without gimping themselves.

A Cadian tank commander with PGC and HB is 170. He kills 15 GEQ and 8 MEQ from 24".
That's the same points for a bit more than 9 DW SS/SB Vets who kill 18 GEQ and 9 MEQ from 18" *IF* they stand still - otherwise cut that in half.

So, yes, internal balance for marines need to be addressed, but DW are not any more powerful than many other severely deadly soup options out there.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I am really surprised to see so much focus on nerfing the deathwatch which at this point I have not seen win anything major or perform exceptionally well. There has been countless topics and posts about people wanting marines to be good and when we get it with DW now there is an outcry to nerf them because they are actually good, but not even good enough to be a wrecking ball in the competitive scene.

Because it is an internal marine balancing issue. DW are heads and shoulders better than other marines for negligible cost. How the hell can this be so hard to understand?.

Because it doesn't solve the problem!! How hard is THAT to understand?
Who cares about internal marine balance? We want balance. Deathwatch right now can compete to some degree vs the upper tier lists (especially when souped), you don't improve the game by dragging them down. You improve it by figuring out how to raise the regular marines.

And when you go to raise regular marines up, then you either need to do it in such a way that doesn't change DW, or you're going to break DW...which is what the whole thread is about can we please stop doing this twice a page .

That's what he said though? The conversation might be going in circles, because people aren't properly processing each others arguments.

At this point DW won't be losing the bolter rule.

If feels like people are enamored with the math of Deathwatch rather than the potential reality.

And in context the DW chapter tactic is rather limited - reroll 1s to wound for a specific part of an army is not incredibly strong when a Lieutenant can cover that for 60 points. And to change that type you either need the limited relic, the WL trait or 1 to 2 CP. Their other stratagems are also CP hungry, which means they'd have little room to support a Castellan without gimping themselves.

A Cadian tank commander with PGC and HB is 170. He kills 15 GEQ and 8 MEQ from 24".
That's the same points for a bit more than 9 DW SS/SB Vets who kill 18 GEQ and 9 MEQ from 18" *IF* they stand still - otherwise cut that in half.

So, yes, internal balance for marines need to be addressed, but DW are not any more powerful than many other severely deadly soup options out there.

Okay, let me restate the argument from the beginning then so we can all be on the same page.

1) Marine infantry is not good for its cost.
2) DW is mostly okay for it's cost because of the strength of SIA and other wargear options.
3) If Marine infantry goes down in cost to make it good for its cost, then DW don't need to change.
4) Both Marines and DW don't feel much like marines should, so instead of making the existing units cheaper, it'd be nice if marines got stronger
5) If regular marines get stronger in a way that DW does not, then DW don't need to change. But this limits options and leaves DW not feeling much like marines still.
6) If all marines get stronger, including DW, and regular marines are good for their points, then DW will most likely be too strong for their points because it only costs a few more.
7) If 6 is the case, then SIA or other DW wargear may need to go up by a point or two.
8) If 7 is the case, this will NOT hurt DW in the overall meta because it already got other buffs.

The frustration and misunderstanding is coming because some of us are talking about 7 and 8, and then newcomers to the thread miss that it is within the context of 6. They think we just want to nerf DW for now reason. But we're only talking about that in the context of all marines getting buffed first.

Are we all on the same page now? I am of course open to arguments that these points are not correct. But this seems to be the model that a bunch of people in this thread have of the issue.

If Deathwatch do in fact need to be changed, it's a simple addition of a line right after Stormbolter in the Veteran weapon options "Watch Sergeant only"

The only real reason I see this is a way forward is because stormbolters are not in the Deathwatch kit, but lots of regular bolters are.

Personally though, I'd rather see other marines improved rather than bringing Deathwatch down.

 bullyboy wrote:
If Deathwatch do in fact need to be changed, it's a simple addition of a line right after Stormbolter in the Veteran weapon options "Watch Sergeant only"

The only real reason I see this is a way forward is because stormbolters are not in the Deathwatch kit, but lots of regular bolters are.

That would probably be unlikely at this point due to the internet rage of having to remove all those storm bolters from models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:


Okay, let me restate the argument from the beginning then so we can all be on the same page.

1) Marine infantry is not good for its cost.
2) DW is mostly okay for it's cost because of the strength of SIA and other wargear options.
3) If Marine infantry goes down in cost to make it good for its cost, then DW don't need to change.
4) Both Marines and DW don't feel much like marines should, so instead of making the existing units cheaper, it'd be nice if marines got stronger
5) If regular marines get stronger in a way that DW does not, then DW don't need to change. But this limits options and leaves DW not feeling much like marines still.
6) If all marines get stronger, including DW, and regular marines are good for their points, then DW will most likely be too strong for their points because it only costs a few more.
7) If 6 is the case, then SIA or other DW wargear may need to go up by a point or two.
8) If 7 is the case, this will NOT hurt DW in the overall meta because it already got other buffs.

The frustration and misunderstanding is coming because some of us are talking about 7 and 8, and then newcomers to the thread miss that it is within the context of 6. They think we just want to nerf DW for now reason. But we're only talking about that in the context of all marines getting buffed first.

Are we all on the same page now? I am of course open to arguments that these points are not correct. But this seems to be the model that a bunch of people in this thread have of the issue.

I think marine infantry is ok-ish.

There are minor reasons to take chapters other than Deathwatch, but I think any changes would come from making marine stratagems, WL traits, and relics more interesting.

GW has already taken steps toward doing this --

Indomitus Crusade (usable by DW, but still)
UM Victrix Guard
IF Siegebreaker
CF Liberator
BT Sword Bretheren
Ravenwing Attack Squadron
SW Stalker Pack

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I think marine infantry is ok-ish.

There are minor reasons to take chapters other than Deathwatch, but I think any changes would come from making marine stratagems, WL traits, and relics more interesting.

GW has already taken steps toward doing this --

Indomitus Crusade (usable by DW, but still)
UM Victrix Guard
IF Siegebreaker
CF Liberator
BT Sword Bretheren
Ravenwing Attack Squadron
SW Stalker Pack

None of those have really been enough to get Marines infantry back on the field, with the exception of like Death Company in some lists. The Marine statline has fundamental problems and is just not good or efficient, and marines lost lots of game system rules that made them viable (like sweeping advance, powerfist instant death and anti armor, special weapon av potential, and old AP5.)

Perhaps enough special rules stacked together will do it, but I doubt it. And they shouldn't have to spend their CP to make up for bad stats.

Also, non-marine factions are getting Specialist Detachments too, so it's not gonna mean much overall.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:


Okay, let me restate the argument from the beginning then so we can all be on the same page.

1) Marine infantry is not good for its cost.
2) DW is mostly okay for it's cost because of the strength of SIA and other wargear options.
3) If Marine infantry goes down in cost to make it good for its cost, then DW don't need to change.
4) Both Marines and DW don't feel much like marines should, so instead of making the existing units cheaper, it'd be nice if marines got stronger
5) If regular marines get stronger in a way that DW does not, then DW don't need to change. But this limits options and leaves DW not feeling much like marines still.
6) If all marines get stronger, including DW, and regular marines are good for their points, then DW will most likely be too strong for their points because it only costs a few more.
7) If 6 is the case, then SIA or other DW wargear may need to go up by a point or two.
8) If 7 is the case, this will NOT hurt DW in the overall meta because it already got other buffs.

The frustration and misunderstanding is coming because some of us are talking about 7 and 8, and then newcomers to the thread miss that it is within the context of 6. They think we just want to nerf DW for now reason. But we're only talking about that in the context of all marines getting buffed first.

Are we all on the same page now? I am of course open to arguments that these points are not correct. But this seems to be the model that a bunch of people in this thread have of the issue.

Seems pretty straightforward. However you haven't considered that they might just exclude DW from the rule. Same way they excluded TS and GK from the smite rule.

Personally I think TS and DW will both be excluded from the rule "due to balance issues".

 BoomWolf wrote:
Errr, what's PEQ? first time I encounter that one.

The better question is "What exactly is meant to be being shown by that table?", as no context was given in the post.

 Irbis wrote:
Completely wrong. They are NOT a chapter, they are equivalent of first company. They should NOT be equal to some mooks, DW was always super-elite force that was scalpel to other SM hammer. Trying to level them downward would not only be laughably wrong from fluff perspective, it would also make yet another boring SM army that plays the same as others instead of something at least slightly unique.

I mean, you're not wrong - the clue is in the name of the unit entry (Deathwatch Veterans), yet people are concerned about their performance relative to Tactical Marines, when the Kill Team should be looked at and balanced against Sternguard instead.

The Primaris Kill Team comparison is trickier, but it is as ham-fisted as anything else involving the "P" word...

 bullyboy wrote:
Also, can we stop comparing the GK to the DW vet (Karol)? Is there anyone left who doesn't realize by now how poor GKs are? Does it need to be reiterated so often. I think GW are going to address this at some point, I just don't know when.

Thank you!

I mean, you're not wrong - the clue is in the name of the unit entry (Deathwatch Veterans), yet people are concerned about their performance relative to Tactical Marines, when the Kill Team should be looked at and balanced against Sternguard instead.

If DW Vets were elites, they would. But they are troops.

The issue is a codex marine is priced at X points
Deathwatch are priced at Z points, Z=X+Y
The issue is Z is around about balanced, X isn't really balanced and needs to be less.
As Z is X+Y if Y is constant Z is directly related to X so if X is reduced to balance Codex marines deathwatch become undercosted.
For X to be reduced and Z to remain the same Y has to increase by the amount X is resuced by.

IE if you make a marine 2 points cheaper SIA should increase by 2 point so the codex marine gets cheaper but Deathwatch stay where they are.

Deathwatch are balanced in soup atleast because they are undercosted special rules on an overcosted model, which cancel each other out and ends up balanced overall. Removing either one without the other imbalances the unit.

 bullyboy wrote:


Also, can we stop comparing the GK to the DW vet (Karol)? Is there anyone left who doesn't realize by now how poor GKs are? Does it need to be reiterated so often. I think GW are going to address this at some point, I just don't know when.

Not until one of two happens, everything else gets nerfed to GK level or GW fixs GK. The moment there is no talk about GK being bad, GW will say they are ok and no change is needed. Plus when I see a post about DW being ok, I can't think of anything else. And If I can't think about anything else I can sleep and I need to sleep before school.

Ice_can wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
So, we throw fits when GW removes things from the codex that aren't in the kits.

Dakka's solution to DW actually being halfway decent (as if it's even a problem): remove things from the codex that aren't in the kits.

Again the issue isn't DW being half decent, it's them automatically benifiting from any PA buffs while being 5-10% better win rate means that by the time marines make 50% DW are at 60% and are the new Yannari. It's about bringing them into line so all PA can be buffed to balanced, not just become want to win with PA play DW. Thats not chocie thats imbalance.

DW don't get ALOT of things normal marine chapters get access too. DW are not top tier, or honestly close to overthrowing castellan or ynnari, arguing for nerfing them is silly. I believe mono marine w/ Guilliman made top 8 at LVO even. Other than Bobby G, a lot of the units in that list DW have no access to. If anything all that needs to happen for some parity is improving the things DW don't get. Though a top 8 finish would imply they don't need THAT much of a buff to achieve parity.

Never understood the concept of trying to tear down a middle tier faction to try to build another up, just absurd.

Ice_can wrote:
The issue is a codex marine is priced at X points
Deathwatch are priced at Z points, Z=X+Y
The issue is Z is around about balanced, X isn't really balanced and needs to be less.
As Z is X+Y if Y is constant Z is directly related to X so if X is reduced to balance Codex marines deathwatch become undercosted.
For X to be reduced and Z to remain the same Y has to increase by the amount X is resuced by.

IE if you make a marine 2 points cheaper SIA should increase by 2 point so the codex marine gets cheaper but Deathwatch stay where they are.

Yes.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Personally I think TS and DW will both be excluded from the rule "due to balance issues".

And I think TS should have it work even after they moved (All Is Dust). Even them, I'm not sure Rubrics would become competitive. Rubrics don't have SIA and Stormbolters, you can't compared them with DW.

 bullyboy wrote:
If Deathwatch do in fact need to be changed, it's a simple addition of a line right after Stormbolter in the Veteran weapon options "Watch Sergeant only"

The only real reason I see this is a way forward is because stormbolters are not in the Deathwatch kit, but lots of regular bolters are.

Personally though, I'd rather see other marines improved rather than bringing Deathwatch down.

This, so much this. Lackluster marine options need to be brought up to DW level, not the other way around. I could also see some SB limitations imposed though, as currently SB spam is a little too effective compared to all the other weapon options for DW.

When Deathwatch vets dropped from 25pts to 20pts (the SB/SS option.....or should I say, the only option) they became a serious consideration for bulking out competitive armies. However, that's one unit. How often do you see terminators, vanguard vets, bikers taken on their own from the unit entries? There's plenty in the codex that is still not used (although Bolter Discipline might make Terms and Bikers see the table more).
The Deathwatch flyer is not good, most of the other support units are not good (although I'd state ven dreads are attractive now). Deathwatch is all about the Veteran or Intercessor Sqd.
How many other marine codexes do you see with such limited "desirable" units?
Dark Angels have more
Blood Angels....maybe not.
Ultras...more

OK, it's pretty funny that every time I post it seems like I'm a little schizophrenic in my decision making, I end up supporting both sides of the argument simultaneously. This tells me that Deathwatch are really, really close to balanced. Yes, the SB/SS vet is in a great place for the points, especially when you compare it to other armies and how it fits in the competitive meta. I don't want to see a marine army nerfed just because it is now competitive whereas it's lowly brothers are not and feel left out. It's good to be elite, right? However, I also don't like that the SB/SS vet is the only choice and is spammed incessantly. The book has many great options that are sadly passed over. If limiting the SB in a sqd doesn't remove them from competitive play, I'd be OK with that, but you can't bump the points of the SB/SS vet too much as it was not considered good at 25pts per model. Only at 20pts per model has it become attractive.
I also don't care if they don't get Bolter Discipline, it doesn't really gel with the playstyle anyway. If we want to sit still, we have stalker pattern boltguns that do it effectively anyway. The problem is (and Karol will cry into his massive pillow reading this), if DW don't get it, I can't see a fluffy reason why GK should get it either. Keep it for the codex compliant armies primarily.

edit: And honestly, I'd just give psybolt ammo to GK characters, Strike Sqds and terminator sqds as default. Drop the CP cost of the strat down to 1CP for other units. Would it really break the army for them to have that?

 bullyboy wrote:
If Deathwatch do in fact need to be changed, it's a simple addition of a line right after Stormbolter in the Veteran weapon options "Watch Sergeant only"

The only real reason I see this is a way forward is because stormbolters are not in the Deathwatch kit, but lots of regular bolters are.

Personally though, I'd rather see other marines improved rather than bringing Deathwatch down.

Ya know, I was thinking they'd outright remove the SB from the list, but I kinda like this idea more. Well, maybe "like" isn't the right word, but I feel like this could be an easy solution for GW that doesn't involve dramatically changing other rules.

And I agree regular Marines should be brought up rather than DW brought down.
A 1-2 combo of rules changes could actually be a compromise, however. If GW Erratas DW SBs to "Watch Sgt only" on the DW equipment list, but than also improved the Bolter Discipline rule to add +1 shot rather than double shots more often, that could be a good compromise.

If BD was +1 shot if stationary, at half range or on the current Keywords, in additions to x2 shots at half, both a regular Marine and DW Vet with Bolter would have 2 shots if stationary, or 3 shots at 12". A model with a SB would be 3 shots if stationary, or 5 shots at 12". In both case, you are encourage to get at half range, which Marines should be doing

So a DW unit of 5 with 4 Bolters & 1 SB (Sgt) at 12" under the proposal above would get 17 shots.
Under the current rules with 5 SBs, they are getting 20. That's only 3 less shots, but the unit is 12pts cheaper. That's almost enough to buy another Bolter Vet...for 3 more shots at 12" for the 20 we get now.
I would be just fine if this was how GW addressed the "issue" of DW being OP. But it probably won't happen this way, or really any change at all.

-

Honestly the big problem for me is actually finding the SBs to spam. I've seen a few guides about modding a pair of bolters together, or using the GK versions, but I think both of those look bad.

I like the look of the SBs in the Cataphractii box, but those are Combi-bolters right?

Combi-bolters and SB are similar enough that I do not think anyone would complain if you used one to represent the other.

So, now what about the full squad of 3++? Do we think that needs change?

Eh, maybe? I could perhaps see 1 more point for the SS, but a SS on a 1 Wound model does jack all against mortal wounds and tends to be only a small increase in durability in most game play.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, now what about the full squad of 3++? Do we think that needs change?

No, not really. They still die to weight of fire and are points intensive.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, now what about the full squad of 3++? Do we think that needs change?

Given that storm shields do jack all against mortal wounds, and provides no protection at all against high volume fire, nope.

The need to tear down a particular army that finally has something going for it amuses me to no end.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, now what about the full squad of 3++? Do we think that needs change?

Not really. There are plenty of units that spam shots with no AP. StormVets being one of them, so in a way, they are their own counter.
As an Eldar player, for example, my general tactic for removing Marines is Doom + massed Shuriken shots. While any wound rolls of 6 won't benefit from AP-3, it's still going to be tons of saves the StormVets need to take. For every 3 wounds, 1 Vet should die, statistically. That's not hard to do for most armies if you build your list right.

All it means, is that YOUR list shouldn't be relying on just "quality" shots, but also have plenty of "quantity" shots. This has been a valid and recommended tactic for many editions.

-

Ok, so if the DW are balanced with their cost/fragility offsetting their volume of powerful shooting and strong saves, what would you say if GW gave their weapon options to the Primaris?

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Personally I think TS and DW will both be excluded from the rule "due to balance issues".

Because Thousand Sons Rubrics are just straight murdering it with this rule?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, now what about the full squad of 3++? Do we think that needs change?

There are so many weapons that don't care one bit about a 3++ on a 1 would model that you risk over extending yourself with too many of them.

And you still need to be standing still to make the most use of them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

DW do primaris better too. Like it's way worse with primaris IMO.

Yep. One point for SIA is blatantly absurd.

OR the Marines with regular ammo are just terribly miscosted?

Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.

And what price a Scout or a Storm Trooper under this model?

10 points - trades saving throw for advanced deployment.

I'll love my 6 point sisters though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
DW can keep the SIA, they just need to pay a fair price for it.

That's my opinion on this bolter rule.

A sister is about equal to a scout in both offense and defense. It loses WS Str and deployment - a 1 to 2 point drop. 8-9 point sisters. What do they cost right now? 9?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

DW do primaris better too. Like it's way worse with primaris IMO.

Yep. One point for SIA is blatantly absurd.

OR the Marines with regular ammo are just terribly miscosted?

Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.

And what price a Scout or a Storm Trooper under this model?

10 points - trades saving throw for advanced deployment.

I'll love my 6 point sisters though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
DW can keep the SIA, they just need to pay a fair price for it.

That's my opinion on this bolter rule.

A sister is about equal to a scout in both offense and defense. It loses WS Str and deployment - a 1 to 2 point drop. 8-9 point sisters. What do they cost right now? 9?

And toughness which by itself is worth a point.

So toughness -1 pt
WS -1 pt
Str -1 pt
Deployment -1 pt

WS and Str are hugely important for anyone, but particularly bloody rose.

Pleasestop wrote:

And toughness which by itself is worth a point.

So toughness -1 pt
WS -1 pt
Str -1 pt
Deployment -1 pt

WS and Str are hugely important for anyone, but particularly bloody rose.

That's not how points work.

Edit: ditched quote pyramid