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.
Galas wrote: Now Devastators can still be up to 10 with 4 heavy weapons,
For now, Muahahahaha
Galas wrote: Havocs having special rules to represent their sturdier armour (Thats why they have T5, look at the armor, is heavier with that plate thing in front) and their hability to shoot stabiliced is good, it helps making them their own thing. Removing the hability to go up to 10 or taking special weapons isn't.
But seriously, I highly expect Devs to fall in line with these changes Devs will still have the Signum and Cherub (because they're included in the kit) and I doubt they would get "move-n-shoot' with no penalty (so Havocs can stay unique), but I would not be surprised if Devs were updated to T5 (they also have reinforced armour), capped at 5 models and start with HB as the default weapon
It just makes sense. Havocs and Devs should be a mirror for each other, with slightly different abilities and weapons options, but stat-wise and compositionally the same
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/27 21:51:34
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
To me it seems like both those units have one special rule too many. But I guess that is how GW fixs stuff.
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.
Galas wrote: Why should they be the same composition wise? Loyalist follow the Codex, traitors don't.
Thats why CSM can go up to 20 in one unit.
Chaos follows the codex in rules, but not fluff, weapon options of 1 heavy and special, dev squads of 4 weapons and a sarge etc.
when the legions list was created they should have ported over a couple of units to show the old legion fighting style vs the new codex fighting style, specialists vs generalists, I feel like they missed an opertunity here.
In addition to that they could have easily fleshed out every legion through forge world, if not the codex, red butchers, tyrants etc. could have all been added in limited numbers to the chaos army list, they did it with most of the vehicles, which is cool.
Galas wrote: Why should they be the same composition wise? Loyalist follow the Codex, traitors don't.
Thats why CSM can go up to 20 in one unit.
Chaos follows the codex in rules, but not fluff, weapon options of 1 heavy and special, dev squads of 4 weapons and a sarge etc.
when the legions list was created they should have ported over a couple of units to show the old legion fighting style vs the new codex fighting style, specialists vs generalists, I feel like they missed an opertunity here.
In addition to that they could have easily fleshed out every legion through forge world, if not the codex, red butchers, tyrants etc. could have all been added in limited numbers to the chaos army list, they did it with most of the vehicles, which is cool.
except that those lists reflect the legions as they where when they where orginized legions, now the legions are mostly warbands, somewhat disorginized, there's eneugh room for some orginization in them still, but at the same time, hyper specialist squads would begin to break apart as the various memebrs of them went and did their own thing etc
also the basic troops, havoks and raptors is something that has existed for ages, the fault is this doesn't reflect legions is more on FW then GW
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/28 01:02:01
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Obliterators are Devs that go full-on-Demon-crazy in the CSM book. Havoks are Devs that drink blood or get into sex/drugs/rock'n'roll or want to change things or are touched by His gifts.
Nope Obliterators are Centurions based on the model they were corrupted from.
I'm not allowed to address your core unit because you care about legacy. For instance, I did a small proposal for Tactical Marines, and you immediately said no to it because taking ANYTHING above the single special and single heavy in a 10 man squad was "against the fluff". That's not even counting your whole spiel of "nah everything is fine" when it clearly isn't.
Also the fix addressed a few different issues, actually:
1. What's the non-absurd point of fixing durability for a squad carrying mostly heavy weapons, in which the weapons can cost more than the model itself!
2. Lost offense when moving said heavy weapons
3. Why use them to tote Special Weapons when other units do that so much better?
Now point 3 isn't even an issue, and the first two points are fixed.
If you're referring to the suggestion that Tactical marines be allowed to trade their heavy for another special, that doesn't do anything to help other marine units, which is the core of what you seemed to be looking to address. All that would do is address tactical squads.
Furthermore, there's other changes that could be suggested that wouldn't be against "legacy", such as the beta-bolters rile that GW actually implemented. When you say "I'm not allowed to address your core unit because you care about legacy" you're practically giving up before you've even started. You could increase the number of grenades that could be thrown per unit, further increase the number of bolter shots/remove the movement restriction on beta-bolters, make adjustments to ATSKNF, change the aura mechanics, etc. All of which could improve every basic marine unit without changing the makeup of the units themselves.
Even then, you can already field Tac marines in squads of five and generate four specials per 10 guys, and you continually say that one should never use more than min squad sizes for morale purposes. So your suggestion isn't even applicable to what you usually recommend. Your proposed solution doesn't appear to fix your issue to begin with.
Actually, if you'll recall, my fix was:
1. Proc rule for Bolt weapons; this varies on what it should be from person to person, but this is part of the core issue as everyone uses it
2. Reworked Chapter Tactics
3. An extra Special or Heavy in addition to the Special/Heavy at 10 men for better weapon saturation, ergo helping promote 10 man squads
4. Combat Squad needs to be more flexible in not having to split the squads exactly in half, 6/4 could promote different loadouts based on the previous idea.
In the instance of point 3, you threw a fit and said it didn't fit the fluff. You care too much about legacy. Then you disagreed on a proc rule in the first place, once again not fixing the core unit.
Plus your other ideas don't make sense. Beta Bolter is honestly a terrible idea because it only helps units that needed it the least compared to units that want to already be mobile, aura mechanics cannot be priced until units can already function by themselves (units should not be priced around buffers and Strategems, but buffers and Strategems should be priced around units), and your grenade comment doesn't make sense because it's under the assumption they forget how to throw more grenades once they're promoted. That's the issue with all the units being based around the same couple of units, isn't it?
And that's why CSM, forgetting internal/external balance for a moment, is a better written codex in terms of inspiration, especially with the new Havocs, because a LOT of units are differentiated in stats and roles.
Also I said min squads to ignore Morale AND get more special weapons with the Combi.
SHUPPET wrote: Only this community could complain for 11 pages about what is essentially a flat improvement to a bad unit
Improvements that remove options are rarely "flat".
If it's an option that doesn't make sense (like Chosen already doing special weapons better), it doesn't really matter if it's removed. Multi-Meltas are always bad in any infantry squad carrying them. Removing them as an option would make no difference at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/28 06:36:17
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.
I'm not allowed to address your core unit because you care about legacy. For instance, I did a small proposal for Tactical Marines, and you immediately said no to it because taking ANYTHING above the single special and single heavy in a 10 man squad was "against the fluff". That's not even counting your whole spiel of "nah everything is fine" when it clearly isn't.
Also the fix addressed a few different issues, actually:
1. What's the non-absurd point of fixing durability for a squad carrying mostly heavy weapons, in which the weapons can cost more than the model itself!
2. Lost offense when moving said heavy weapons
3. Why use them to tote Special Weapons when other units do that so much better?
Now point 3 isn't even an issue, and the first two points are fixed.
If you're referring to the suggestion that Tactical marines be allowed to trade their heavy for another special, that doesn't do anything to help other marine units, which is the core of what you seemed to be looking to address. All that would do is address tactical squads.
Furthermore, there's other changes that could be suggested that wouldn't be against "legacy", such as the beta-bolters rile that GW actually implemented. When you say "I'm not allowed to address your core unit because you care about legacy" you're practically giving up before you've even started. You could increase the number of grenades that could be thrown per unit, further increase the number of bolter shots/remove the movement restriction on beta-bolters, make adjustments to ATSKNF, change the aura mechanics, etc. All of which could improve every basic marine unit without changing the makeup of the units themselves.
Even then, you can already field Tac marines in squads of five and generate four specials per 10 guys, and you continually say that one should never use more than min squad sizes for morale purposes. So your suggestion isn't even applicable to what you usually recommend. Your proposed solution doesn't appear to fix your issue to begin with.
Actually, if you'll recall, my fix was:
1. Proc rule for Bolt weapons; this varies on what it should be from person to person, but this is part of the core issue as everyone uses it
2. Reworked Chapter Tactics
3. An extra Special or Heavy in addition to the Special/Heavy at 10 men for better weapon saturation, ergo helping promote 10 man squads
4. Combat Squad needs to be more flexible in not having to split the squads exactly in half, 6/4 could promote different loadouts based on the previous idea.
In the instance of point 3, you threw a fit and said it didn't fit the fluff. You care too much about legacy. Then you disagreed on a proc rule in the first place, once again not fixing the core unit.
Plus your other ideas don't make sense. Beta Bolter is honestly a terrible idea because it only helps units that needed it the least compared to units that want to already be mobile, aura mechanics cannot be priced until units can already function by themselves (units should not be priced around buffers and Strategems, but buffers and Strategems should be priced around units), and your grenade comment doesn't make sense because it's under the assumption they forget how to throw more grenades once they're promoted. That's the issue with all the units being based around the same couple of units, isn't it?
And that's why CSM, forgetting internal/external balance for a moment, is a better written codex in terms of inspiration, especially with the new Havocs, because a LOT of units are differentiated in stats and roles.
Also I said min squads to ignore Morale AND get more special weapons with the Combi.
Define "Proc". As in "proc rule for bolt weapons".
SHUPPET wrote: Only this community could complain for 11 pages about what is essentially a flat improvement to a bad unit
Improvements that remove options are rarely "flat".
If it's an option that doesn't make sense (like Chosen already doing special weapons better), it doesn't really matter if it's removed. Multi-Meltas are always bad in any infantry squad carrying them. Removing them as an option would make no difference at all.
Multimeltas are perfectly valid on infantry, especially Salamanders. Now cheaper than a Lascannon, with a -4AP and increased damage within 12. Not usually the most competitive option, but so what?
And again you're using the "redundant unit" logic with Chosen. It's a non-issue, as Illustrated by Commad Squads, Sternguard, Hellblasters etc. Or Banshees and Striking Scorpions. Or any number of the ridiculous amount of space marine FW units that are all "armored thing with big guns". How many types of Dreadnoughts are there nowadays?
SHUPPET wrote: Only this community could complain for 11 pages about what is essentially a flat improvement to a bad unit
It's an improvement I don't like, because it makes and infantry team better in every way than a tank. It is my opinion that a weapons team should not offer more firepower and/or better on-the-move firepower than a tank unit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/28 14:21:17
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
"Actually, if you'll recall, my fix was:
1. Proc rule for Bolt weapons; this varies on what it should be from person to person, but this is part of the core issue as everyone uses it "
It's also moar bloat for the bloat gods.
"2. Reworked Chapter Tactics "
Not sure I've ever seen anyone disagree with reworking Chapter Tactics. The disagreement is what to rework them to.
"3. An extra Special or Heavy in addition to the Special/Heavy at 10 men for better weapon saturation, ergo helping promote 10 man squads "
Which is another symptom of not caring about the fluff or legacy. Some of us would rather the single Melta + Combi were more impactful, instead of allowing 2 Meltas + Combi.
"4. Combat Squad needs to be more flexible in not having to split the squads exactly in half, 6/4 could promote different loadouts based on the previous idea.
In the instance of point 3, you threw a fit and said it didn't fit the fluff. You care too much about legacy. Then you disagreed on a proc rule in the first place, once again not fixing the core unit. "
Doesn't this kinda eviscerate the idea that SM are trained to split a squad into two 5-man fireteams? While just shuffling around a single bolter dood when you do use it?
"Plus your other ideas don't make sense."
How is that different from these ideas?
"Beta Bolter is honestly a terrible idea because it only helps units that needed it the least compared to units that want to already be mobile,"
I'm not sure I agree with who it helps. That 5-man Tac squad with a single heavy camping a midfield objective is a fan of the change, for instance.
"aura mechanics cannot be priced until units can already function by themselves (units should not be priced around buffers and Strategems, but buffers and Strategems should be priced around units)"
This represents a pigeonholding problem if you actually follow through on this; you can't have a set unit price list, then a set upgrade/enhancement price list, have upgrades/enhancements that don't scale linearly with price list points, and have both lists be fair.
Not just infeasible, but provably impossible.
"and your grenade comment doesn't make sense because it's under the assumption they forget how to throw more grenades once they're promoted."
Take any profession/skillset.
Teach a reasonbly-capable worker/craftsman a new skill that he'll then leverage in the task with a marginal ROI over the low end of his current duties.
Promote him to management/lead.
Note as he stops doing that new task, as the new duties have much higher ROI - he's doing more important things.
It's very common in the real world for someone promoted or happening into a leadership role to stop doing some things he did before promotion. A leader has other jobs. It's why the Sarge/CM not getting a special/heavy has been looked at so favorably.
"There's a very reasonable chance That's the issue with all the units being based around the same couple of units, isn't it?"
Does not follow.
What we do see, instead, is that almost all the units based on the Basic Marine suck at about the same rate in about the same way. This suggests that the problem is less to do with the Basic Marine being the template for so many units and more to do with the Basic Marine sucking. The fix isn't to throw out one of the major pillars of consistency in the game; the fix is to fix the Basic Marine.
"And that's why CSM, forgetting internal/external balance for a moment, is a better written codex in terms of inspiration, especially with the new Havocs, because a LOT of units are differentiated in stats and roles."
CSM have always had lots of units that differ from "I'm a Traitor Marine". Much of the awesome inspiration has been the contrasts between standard Traitor Marines and off-the-deepend was-once-Marines, and how the Standard Traitor Marines are mirrors of Loyalist Marines.
Bharring wrote: "To me it seems like both those units have one special rule too many. But I guess that is how GW fixs stuff."
Seconded.
This game needs fewer special rules, not more.
Agreed. I think moving back to Indexes might make for a better game tbh.
The thing is that while you might well be right in terms of what would make a balanced game, people in general seem to really love it when they get more rules to play with.
"If it's an option that doesn't make sense (like Chosen already doing special weapons better), it doesn't really matter if it's removed. Multi-Meltas are always bad in any infantry squad carrying them. Removing them as an option would make no difference at all."
Assuming you meant "doesn't make sense" as "not a competitive choice". It may not matter to you. It certainly matters tons to a huge segment of the player base.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Or Banshees and Striking Scorpions."
Just a nitpick - those two actually have very different roles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "The thing is that while you might well be right in terms of what would make a balanced game, people in general seem to really love it when they get more rules to play with."
Bob generally loves when his Green Marines get new special rules.
Sally generally loves when her Orange Marines get new special rules.
Tim generally loves when his Random Xenos get new special rules.
Bob and Sally hate when Xenos get new special rules.
Sally and Tim hate when Green Marines get new special rules.
Bob and Tim hate when Orange Marines get new special rules.
It's a balancing act.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/28 15:53:05
Bob and Sally hate when Xenos get new special rules.
Sally and Tim hate when Green Marines get new special rules.
Bob and Tim hate when Orange Marines get new special rules.
Bob, Sally, and Tim need to get a life and realize things aren't always about them.
I'm not allowed to address your core unit because you care about legacy. For instance, I did a small proposal for Tactical Marines, and you immediately said no to it because taking ANYTHING above the single special and single heavy in a 10 man squad was "against the fluff". That's not even counting your whole spiel of "nah everything is fine" when it clearly isn't.
Also the fix addressed a few different issues, actually:
1. What's the non-absurd point of fixing durability for a squad carrying mostly heavy weapons, in which the weapons can cost more than the model itself!
2. Lost offense when moving said heavy weapons
3. Why use them to tote Special Weapons when other units do that so much better?
Now point 3 isn't even an issue, and the first two points are fixed.
If you're referring to the suggestion that Tactical marines be allowed to trade their heavy for another special, that doesn't do anything to help other marine units, which is the core of what you seemed to be looking to address. All that would do is address tactical squads.
Furthermore, there's other changes that could be suggested that wouldn't be against "legacy", such as the beta-bolters rile that GW actually implemented. When you say "I'm not allowed to address your core unit because you care about legacy" you're practically giving up before you've even started. You could increase the number of grenades that could be thrown per unit, further increase the number of bolter shots/remove the movement restriction on beta-bolters, make adjustments to ATSKNF, change the aura mechanics, etc. All of which could improve every basic marine unit without changing the makeup of the units themselves.
Even then, you can already field Tac marines in squads of five and generate four specials per 10 guys, and you continually say that one should never use more than min squad sizes for morale purposes. So your suggestion isn't even applicable to what you usually recommend. Your proposed solution doesn't appear to fix your issue to begin with.
Actually, if you'll recall, my fix was:
1. Proc rule for Bolt weapons; this varies on what it should be from person to person, but this is part of the core issue as everyone uses it
2. Reworked Chapter Tactics
3. An extra Special or Heavy in addition to the Special/Heavy at 10 men for better weapon saturation, ergo helping promote 10 man squads
4. Combat Squad needs to be more flexible in not having to split the squads exactly in half, 6/4 could promote different loadouts based on the previous idea.
In the instance of point 3, you threw a fit and said it didn't fit the fluff. You care too much about legacy. Then you disagreed on a proc rule in the first place, once again not fixing the core unit.
Plus your other ideas don't make sense. Beta Bolter is honestly a terrible idea because it only helps units that needed it the least compared to units that want to already be mobile, aura mechanics cannot be priced until units can already function by themselves (units should not be priced around buffers and Strategems, but buffers and Strategems should be priced around units), and your grenade comment doesn't make sense because it's under the assumption they forget how to throw more grenades once they're promoted. That's the issue with all the units being based around the same couple of units, isn't it?
And that's why CSM, forgetting internal/external balance for a moment, is a better written codex in terms of inspiration, especially with the new Havocs, because a LOT of units are differentiated in stats and roles.
Also I said min squads to ignore Morale AND get more special weapons with the Combi.
Define "Proc". As in "proc rule for bolt weapons".
SHUPPET wrote: Only this community could complain for 11 pages about what is essentially a flat improvement to a bad unit
Improvements that remove options are rarely "flat".
If it's an option that doesn't make sense (like Chosen already doing special weapons better), it doesn't really matter if it's removed. Multi-Meltas are always bad in any infantry squad carrying them. Removing them as an option would make no difference at all.
Multimeltas are perfectly valid on infantry, especially Salamanders. Now cheaper than a Lascannon, with a -4AP and increased damage within 12. Not usually the most competitive option, but so what?
And again you're using the "redundant unit" logic with Chosen. It's a non-issue, as Illustrated by Commad Squads, Sternguard, Hellblasters etc. Or Banshees and Striking Scorpions. Or any number of the ridiculous amount of space marine FW units that are all "armored thing with big guns". How many types of Dreadnoughts are there nowadays?
SHUPPET wrote: Only this community could complain for 11 pages about what is essentially a flat improvement to a bad unit
Improvements that remove options are rarely "flat".
Except there are other avenues to those loadouts, which made them almost entirely redundant in that regard.
If we want to talk game design principles - it was a bit stupid and barely ever used.
Redundant is hardly an issue. Flavor is more important to 40K than tight design.
Also, removing of extra bodies in the squad doesn't fall under that category.
A proc rule would be a rule activating on a certain roll value. This would be to make up for the lost AP the original Bolter was paying for but is still paying for anyway.
No the Multi-Melta isn't worth a darn on Salamanders because a 24" weapon requires you to move to get it into position, which means it now hits on a 4+. 1 shot at 22 points hitting on a 4+ is bad, even with the Salamanders reroll.
Also yes I'm for removing redundant options. There doesn't need to be 8+ Dreads and it's hard to argue otherwise, especially when most don't even have special rules and are just with variant weapons.
Regarding the point with Scorpions and Banshees, they're both for different roles of melee. Main difference is Scorpions are just super bad at it and Banshees mediocre. Were there a 3rd infantry melee unit in the Eldar codex that was basically Striking Scorpions, I would want to remove them too.
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.
" This would be to make up for the lost AP the original Bolter was paying for but is still paying for anyway. "
The Boltgun hasn't lost AP - it was AP5, and AP5 became AP- under ASMs (which is *really* good for Marines, otherwise any Pulse/Bolt/Shuriken/etc weapon in the game brings them down to a 4+).
"Bolter was paying for but is still paying for anyway. "
Isn't a Boltgun a 1pt upgrade from a Lasgun - going from S3 to S4 is certainly worth a point.
There's no convincing reason I know of to say the Boltgun is why Marines are overpriced.
"Main difference is Scorpions are just super bad at it and Banshees mediocre"
Hardly. Scorpions are much better at melee than Banshees. They hit at S4, which almost always makes a difference. They have a 1/6 chance for a MW. They have a 3+ and mostly face things without AP.
The main differences are in mobility, placement, and the particulars of what they kill better. My Banshees and Scorpions both underperform, but to get the most out of them requires using them very differently.
Bharring wrote: "Actually, if you'll recall, my fix was:
1. Proc rule for Bolt weapons; this varies on what it should be from person to person, but this is part of the core issue as everyone uses it "
It's also moar bloat for the bloat gods.
"2. Reworked Chapter Tactics "
Not sure I've ever seen anyone disagree with reworking Chapter Tactics. The disagreement is what to rework them to.
"3. An extra Special or Heavy in addition to the Special/Heavy at 10 men for better weapon saturation, ergo helping promote 10 man squads "
Which is another symptom of not caring about the fluff or legacy. Some of us would rather the single Melta + Combi were more impactful, instead of allowing 2 Meltas + Combi.
"4. Combat Squad needs to be more flexible in not having to split the squads exactly in half, 6/4 could promote different loadouts based on the previous idea.
In the instance of point 3, you threw a fit and said it didn't fit the fluff. You care too much about legacy. Then you disagreed on a proc rule in the first place, once again not fixing the core unit. "
Doesn't this kinda eviscerate the idea that SM are trained to split a squad into two 5-man fireteams? While just shuffling around a single bolter dood when you do use it?
"Plus your other ideas don't make sense."
How is that different from these ideas?
"Beta Bolter is honestly a terrible idea because it only helps units that needed it the least compared to units that want to already be mobile,"
I'm not sure I agree with who it helps. That 5-man Tac squad with a single heavy camping a midfield objective is a fan of the change, for instance.
"aura mechanics cannot be priced until units can already function by themselves (units should not be priced around buffers and Strategems, but buffers and Strategems should be priced around units)"
This represents a pigeonholding problem if you actually follow through on this; you can't have a set unit price list, then a set upgrade/enhancement price list, have upgrades/enhancements that don't scale linearly with price list points, and have both lists be fair.
Not just infeasible, but provably impossible.
"and your grenade comment doesn't make sense because it's under the assumption they forget how to throw more grenades once they're promoted."
Take any profession/skillset.
Teach a reasonbly-capable worker/craftsman a new skill that he'll then leverage in the task with a marginal ROI over the low end of his current duties.
Promote him to management/lead.
Note as he stops doing that new task, as the new duties have much higher ROI - he's doing more important things.
It's very common in the real world for someone promoted or happening into a leadership role to stop doing some things he did before promotion. A leader has other jobs. It's why the Sarge/CM not getting a special/heavy has been looked at so favorably.
"There's a very reasonable chance That's the issue with all the units being based around the same couple of units, isn't it?"
Does not follow.
What we do see, instead, is that almost all the units based on the Basic Marine suck at about the same rate in about the same way. This suggests that the problem is less to do with the Basic Marine being the template for so many units and more to do with the Basic Marine sucking. The fix isn't to throw out one of the major pillars of consistency in the game; the fix is to fix the Basic Marine.
"And that's why CSM, forgetting internal/external balance for a moment, is a better written codex in terms of inspiration, especially with the new Havocs, because a LOT of units are differentiated in stats and roles."
CSM have always had lots of units that differ from "I'm a Traitor Marine". Much of the awesome inspiration has been the contrasts between standard Traitor Marines and off-the-deepend was-once-Marines, and how the Standard Traitor Marines are mirrors of Loyalist Marines.
1. Yes, a sentence on the weapon entry is super bloat.
Give me a frickin break, dude. Seriously? That's like saying the Beta Bolter rule is super bloat.
2. Some people disagree, though. Some people are also convinced that Marines shouldn't be given Chapter Tactics on their vehicles!
3. That single 5 man squad can't be impactful like you want because of new core mechanics. Point 1 I made helps alleviate that issue.
4. Clearly 5/5 isn't worth splitting. Honestly they could get rid of the rule entirely and only fluffbunnies would notice.
5. Until the squad needs to move, compared to something else holding the objective and popping off a lot more shots like Bikers. You can't possibly argue it doesn't actually benefit certain units a LOT more. Like, a LOT more.
6. If you really don't think we can price Endless Cacophony like it was used in a full squad of Cultists or Obliterators, compared to pricing those units like they're Slaanesh and able to use the Strategem at all times, you're just not thinking hard enough. It isn't really hard thinking though.
7. That's part of the design issue with Loyalist Marines though. They're all "Marine, but better because they're older". Sternguard still carry all the same grenades and just carry fancier Bolters. No special rules or anything. It's unreasonable to say they forgot how to throw more grenades that he is still carrying, which is why your workplace example doesn't work, and rather that's the Eldar design philosophy. If you wanted to create a special unit that focused on grenades and carrying them and using grenade launchers as a base weapon, sure I'm down for that. Seems like an Elite unit would be doing that.
8. And you guys don't want to fix the basic Marine because you're obsessed with legacy!
9. Which was dumbed down since 3rd. With changes like the new Havocs, they're more and more a different army, which is GOOD design, rather than the same army with some units switched out.
That's also why I'm for having the main Vanilla codex handling Renegade Chapters, since they'll be closer in organization. Switching of keywords, losing the main Chapter specific units, and then adding a couple of entries like Possessed, Warp Talons, and Spawn helps with fluff around REALLY bad mutations or some daemonic corruption.
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.
"1. Yes, a sentence on the weapon entry is super bloat.
Give me a frickin break, dude. Seriously? That's like saying the Beta Bolter rule is super bloat. "
The Beta Bolter is just 2x the number of dice in additional cases - an effect that's already here.
A proc on Bolters under conditions based on the die roll adds:
-Who gets it (if it's not all Boltguns)/What conditions
-We need to count the 6s and count the successes
-For each of those 6s, we need to execute this addtional rule
--That additional rule then has it's own hit/wound/save/etc based on whatever the roll is
On it's own, it may not be a lot - but it's on top of everything else.
"That single 5 man squad can't be impactful like you want because of new core mechanics. Point 1 I made helps alleviate that issue."
Point 1 isn't going to make that 5man squad any more impactful than an equally-effective change elsewhere - such as points or profiles or whatever.
"Clearly 5/5 isn't worth splitting. Honestly they could get rid of the rule entirely and only fluffbunnies would notice."
Not currently, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be. It does help if you avoid caustic labels like fluffbunnies, though.
"You can't possibly argue it doesn't actually benefit certain units a LOT more. Like, a LOT more."
Whether it helps other units more or not doesn't mean it doesn't help this unit at all.
"[Static price lists for units and for buffs, where buffs don't apply linearly to initial price lists], you're just not thinking hard enough. It isn't really hard thinking though."
There's a difference between not coming up with a way to do it, and a formal proof that it is not possible. I put that proof in other threads, and boiling it down enough for you would take too long - the cliff notes are it's a pigeonholing problem. Note that I'm not talking about "proof" as some form of argument or evidence; I'm talking about equations and syligisms.
"[Loyalist Marines] They're all "Marine, but better because they're older""
Some Devs and ASM are less experienced than Battle Company Tacs - but Battle Company Devs and ASM are just as experienced as Tacs. In many chapters, a Marine can be one role one day, and one of the other roles the next.
"It's unreasonable to say they forgot how to throw more grenades that he is still carrying"
It's true that STernguard would have all the abilities Tacs would have. However, their doctrines may find more value in not throwing an extra grenade. And so they wouldn't. That said, not a huge fan of the two-grenade-throws, at least in a 5man unit. And, if we did let Tacs throw two, most other Marine units should be able to too.
" and rather that's the Eldar design philosophy."
Not at all. The Eldar (CWE) philosophy is to study a discipline until you've mastered it. Then, forget it and take up a new discipline. There are a few who get so obsessed that they can't forget the discipline - those are Lost on the Path (Exarchs, for paths of war). They never get "promoted" to leadership - Autarchs are a different Path, and Exarchs are exemplars, not leaders.
"And you guys don't want to fix the basic Marine because you're obsessed with legacy!"
Then why are we asking for changes to help them?
"With changes like the new Havocs, they're more and more a different army, which is GOOD design"
You keep saying that. We keep saying that it's BAD design.
"That's also why I'm for having the main Vanilla codex handling Renegade Chapters, since they'll be closer in organization."
Some will be, some wont. Some full-on-Traitors will still follow Loyalist doctrines (as some will think the doctrines make sense militarily). Some Renegades won't (as some will be renegades in part because they think the doctrines are stupid).
This is why I want renegades to be representable in the CSM book. They should be Marines with maybe-work-with-Chaos options included.
A proc rule would be a rule activating on a certain roll value. This would be to make up for the lost AP the original Bolter was paying for but is still paying for anyway.
I'm against that because it's mechanically awkward and most versions of it that I've seen put forward give so little benefit that it isn't worth it. Beta Bolters just gave more shots, and that's both more effective, and doesn't require any new "roll-phases".
Nothing about my dislike of that suggestion has anything to do with "legacy."
No the Multi-Melta isn't worth a darn on Salamanders because a 24" weapon requires you to move to get it into position, which means it now hits on a 4+. 1 shot at 22 points hitting on a 4+ is bad, even with the Salamanders reroll.
Also yes I'm for removing redundant options. There doesn't need to be 8+ Dreads and it's hard to argue otherwise, especially when most don't even have special rules and are just with variant weapons.
Regarding the point with Scorpions and Banshees, they're both for different roles of melee. Main difference is Scorpions are just super bad at it and Banshees mediocre. Were there a 3rd infantry melee unit in the Eldar codex that was basically Striking Scorpions, I would want to remove them too.
I'm glad you put these both in one post, because it makes them easy to play one off the other.
"SlayerFan 1 -Multimelta-": Entry is bad because it's bad, so lets get rid of it.
"SlayerFan 2 -Scorpions-": Entry is bad but supposed to do something different, so we keep it.
So from Slayers perspective, as long as the Multimelta has a purpose that's different enough from a Lascannon, then it doesn't warrant cutting. Then a shift in how the Multimelta works should be good enough for you.
Also, for the record:
Lascannon: .666 x .666 x .83 x 3.5 = 1.28
Multimelta: .5 x .666 x 4.5 = 1.49
So a moving Multimelta within 12" gets better numbers against a number of medium-heavy targets (Carnifexes, for example) while costing less. Being close also means more supporting fire from the rest of the squad.
Taking damage out of the equasion, vs. 3+ save.
Lascannon: .666 x .666 x.83 = .368
Multimelta: .5 x .666 =.333
They're not far off. The Multimelta is cheaper and the squad's in range for supporting fire. The Salamander bonus would push the Multimelta ahead.
- - -
Here we get to a fundamental design difference between Eldar and Marines. The focus of the Eldar (Aspect) design paradigm is Units. The focus of the Marine design paradigm is Gear. Different Aspects for different roles are very different from each other, but highly specialized for their focus and highly limited options. Different marine units are more on the side of "same marine, different gear" with many more options for the individual unit. As the rules shift, or metas shift, the change made in one army is Units, and the other army is Gear. The Multimelta is a symptom of this, as it was a much more useful weapon 2 editions ago, when it still behaved like a short range Lascannon, but was only 10 points, and Rhinos and Pods were cheaper, so deploying the weapon was more cost effective within the army. If one were expecting to get their Tacticals close (as I was) it was a great weapon.
For the Eldar army however, they don't get to change the gear for their squads to weather meta-changes. They change out whole units instead. Warp Spiders and Wind Riders were all the rage in 7th, but I don't see them anymore. However you're not advocating cutting any of those units that I can see.
This plays back into Havocs, and the strength of being able to customize squads to weather meta-changes. Havocs were much more customizeable up until this last change. Now, not so much. This is more of a design argument than a legacy one. More customizeble units allow for greater survive-ability as the meta-shifts around, or as internal army synergy changes by player choice.
- - -
As for the two grenades-per-unit thing, I don't really care. It was just an easy way to boost offensive output without changing anything about the squad makeup. Additionally, Sternguard could just as easily have the option of throwing two grenades, but most of the time opt not to simply because firing with their primary weapon might still be better in most cases. A Storm Bolter or Special Issue Bolter probably beats out a Frag or Krak in most cases.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/29 18:30:15
Obliterators are Devs that go full-on-Demon-crazy in the CSM book. Havoks are Devs that drink blood or get into sex/drugs/rock'n'roll or want to change things or are touched by His gifts.
Nope Obliterators are Centurions based on the model they were corrupted from.
Nope. That can't have been corrupted from something that didn't exist.
Not just model wise, fluff wise centurions are recent and oblits are not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/29 18:24:22
Though dangerously wandering off topic, we have a different way of using the Combat Squads rule: any space marine unit with this rule may split once during a game if each component consists of at least 3 members.
This gives marines quite a bit of tactical flexibility without changing their load out, points, etc.
Havocs moving and firing without penalty as well as eliminating squad members without heavy weapons is just more of 8th Ed. reducing difficult choices for players.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/29 18:41:59
"Havocs moving and firing without penalty as well as eliminating squad members without heavy weapons is just more of 8th Ed. reducing difficult choices for players."
Feels like one more case where GW looked at the success of the design decisions of DoW3 and decided to make 40k more like it.
All across the board you have two major types, anti infantry and anti armor. If we exclude all the weird crap like Psychout and haywire, we have just two main types.
That being said, I propose the following:
Any unit that has grenades gets the change for one model to throw a grenade at another unit's model, of the throwers choice.
If it's a frag, deal as many s5 shots as there are models of that type within 3".
If it's an anti vehicle grenade, then the following: the unit picks a model to throw a grenade. The model then takes a s7 ap-3 shot, that does d3 damage if it goes off.
There. Frag grenades are INSTANTLY an option in the heat of battle. Getting charged by a squad of boys? Toss a frag in the center, and maybe 8 models get hit.
And Krak nades should be better for AP, but can only target 1 model.
Because it doesn't cost anything, it makes adeptus astartes across the galaxy better, for no major cost. .
