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.

That might be the case. If you look at the codex there are no strats for Primaris units, limited unit roles, limited wargear etc.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. They've already mapped out the next 10 years of releases, as per comments from the design studio. Wave 2 and 3 will evolve them. Look at how Stormcast Eternals developed.

I imagine we'll get fast assault elements and additional vehicles. Chapter Tactics will also have additional effects on units that don't benefit currently.

 Xenomancers wrote:

IDK about that. This edition is almost 2 years old. I wouldn't be surprised if 9th eddition came out before a new primaris codex.

I think that a new Marine dex soon is somewhat likely. Chaos got full kits for their Shadowspear easybuilds and then some, accompanied by an updated codex. I expect and hope that the same will happen with the marines.

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

IDK about that. This edition is almost 2 years old. I wouldn't be surprised if 9th eddition came out before a new primaris codex.

I think that a new Marine dex soon is somewhat likely. Chaos got full kits for their Shadowspear easybuilds and then some, accompanied by an updated codex. I expect and hope that the same will happen with the marines.

Put money on it before year's end.

GW are giving marines point cuts - just not in the manner you expect.

Plasma/Pistol -2
Melta -3
Grav -3
Eviscerator -11
Relic Blade -12
Sniper Rifle -2
Storm Shield -3

They're literally telling us - use marines as elite well equipped units and stop comparing them as plain bolter whores to IS.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GW are giving marines point cuts - just not in the manner you expect.

Plasma/Pistol -2
Melta -3
Grav -3
Eviscerator -11
Relic Blade -12
Sniper Rifle -2
Storm Shield -3

They're literally telling us - use marines as elite well equipped units and stop comparing them as plain bolter whores to IS.

Yeah, that doesn't really work. You are paying elite prices, but dying at the same rate, so you are bleeding points VERY fast, enough with equipment cuts. Those cuts are just the tip of the iceberg of what's needed. That, or take the dissy cannon out of the game. There is no combination of that equipment that makes them beat guardsmen. In fact, they lose faster.

Martel732 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GW are giving marines point cuts - just not in the manner you expect.

Plasma/Pistol -2
Melta -3
Grav -3
Eviscerator -11
Relic Blade -12
Sniper Rifle -2
Storm Shield -3

They're literally telling us - use marines as elite well equipped units and stop comparing them as plain bolter whores to IS.

Yeah, that doesn't really work. You are paying elite prices, but dying at the same rate, so you are bleeding points VERY fast, enough with equipment cuts. Those cuts are just the tip of the iceberg of what's needed. That, or take the dissy cannon out of the game. There is no combination of that equipment that makes them beat guardsmen. In fact, they lose faster.

Dissy is going to see less time now that they can't dual role as anti-tank. Give it time.

Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.

A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.

Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.

What if they redid the way detachments work for guard? Min/max the troops slot. 3/5 per BN, 5-7 per brigade?

They just need to cost more to reflect the value delivered to the table. That's all. If grots are 3, cultists are 5, guardsmen can NOT be 4.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GW are giving marines point cuts - just not in the manner you expect.

Plasma/Pistol -2
Melta -3
Grav -3
Eviscerator -11
Relic Blade -12
Sniper Rifle -2
Storm Shield -3

They're literally telling us - use marines as elite well equipped units and stop comparing them as plain bolter whores to IS.

Yeah, that doesn't really work. You are paying elite prices, but dying at the same rate, so you are bleeding points VERY fast, enough with equipment cuts. Those cuts are just the tip of the iceberg of what's needed. That, or take the dissy cannon out of the game. There is no combination of that equipment that makes them beat guardsmen. In fact, they lose faster.

Dissy is going to see less time now that they can't dual role as anti-tank. Give it time.

They're still similar to Dark Lances against most tanks, they're not going anywhere. It's absurd that they're 5 points less than a Lance.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GW are giving marines point cuts - just not in the manner you expect.

Plasma/Pistol -2
Melta -3
Grav -3
Eviscerator -11
Relic Blade -12
Sniper Rifle -2
Storm Shield -3

They're literally telling us - use marines as elite well equipped units and stop comparing them as plain bolter whores to IS.

Yeah, that doesn't really work. You are paying elite prices, but dying at the same rate, so you are bleeding points VERY fast, enough with equipment cuts. Those cuts are just the tip of the iceberg of what's needed. That, or take the dissy cannon out of the game. There is no combination of that equipment that makes them beat guardsmen. In fact, they lose faster.

Dissy is going to see less time now that they can't dual role as anti-tank. Give it time.

It still does more damage without doom than dark lances... to t8. Its 5 points more than a heavy bolter to do about 3x the damage. Plus it can be taken on better platforms. If a D cannon is worth 15 - then a HB is worth 5. Seems pretty simple to me. Take a look at a grav cannon.
Hv 4 str 5 ap-3 d1-3 damage (vs + 3 save or better) 24" (26 points)
D cannon
Heavy 3 (but is assault on every platform it can be taken) str 5 ap-3 D2 @ 36" (15 points)

Dude - there is a legit argument to be made that the Gravcannon should cost less than a Dessie cannon.

Martel732 wrote:
Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.

A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.

Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.

IS are 5.5. If you're going to mentally assign all the abilities of the CC in your assessment of IS then you should add those points in, too. And if you really want to do it right then the sarge doesn't really come into play often making them 55 / 9 = 6.1 ppm. Some lists don't get full command command coverage, because of this factor - more CC = more dead weight at the end of the game. But that also means you have 2 or 3 blocks running without orders bar CP spend for 1 order.

Are they still really good? You bet. Are they unbeatable by marines? Not by a long shot.

Martel732 wrote:
Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.

A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.

Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.

Here's something I'm a little curious about.

Genestealer Cultists can bring, quite frankly, just a more efficient guard list to the table. Take a GSC detachment with 20-man 4ppm Brood Brothers squads as troops, Patriarch who grants a fearless aura to all those 20-man guard squads and pair it with a supreme command with a Shadowsword, Company Commanders (to FRFSRF the 20-man blob units), Tank Commanders, and a primaris psyker to cast Nightshroud. Take Aberrant bombs, kelermorph, and whatever other GSC stuff to taste.

To me, that just seems to be a better pure guard list than guard can bring. So, why has that style of list not shown up in any of the competitive GSC lists we've seen? Why have no brood brothers at all shown up - GSC is literally a faction where your choices for troops are a glass cannon deep striking melee unit, and "the most OP troop choice in the game, but with twice the unit size cap". Surely if melee is unmitigated garbage and guardsmen are the most OP thing since sliced bread we should see at least SOME brood brothers.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Why not wait for the next dex? Primaris are still in very, very early stages.
I wouldn't judge or be upset about things now. They'll change and evolve greatly in the future.

Some of us have been waiting since the beginning of 6th to not a have dog gak army.

6th edition?

Get in line mate.

Every marine has a built in VOX in his helmet, so I never understood why being next to their Captain would really help them.

I agree that it'd be better for the game if all the marine auras were switched to target a unit (or more than one, just cost balance it) for the buff. Then we wouldn't have the silly marine balls that we do in games.

And while we're at it, a VOX on a IG unit should make their orders unlimited range imo.

But it should be the same for everyone. Auras are hard to balance and make the battles look weird.

 Xenomancers wrote:

It still does more damage without doom than dark lances... to t8. Its 5 points more than a heavy bolter to do about 3x the damage. Plus it can be taken on better platforms. If a D cannon is worth 15 - then a HB is worth 5. Seems pretty simple to me. Take a look at a grav cannon.
Hv 4 str 5 ap-3 d1-3 damage (vs + 3 save or better) 24" (26 points)
D cannon
Heavy 3 (but is assault on every platform it can be taken) str 5 ap-3 D2 @ 36" (15 points)

Dude - there is a legit argument to be made that the Gravcannon should cost less than a Dessie cannon.

Internal balance is an issue. Externally I'm ok waiting for things to settle before a points nerf.

I was thinking more talos, but time will tell.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GW are giving marines point cuts - just not in the manner you expect.

Plasma/Pistol -2
Melta -3
Grav -3
Eviscerator -11
Relic Blade -12
Sniper Rifle -2
Storm Shield -3

They're literally telling us - use marines as elite well equipped units and stop comparing them as plain bolter whores to IS.

Yeah, that doesn't really work. You are paying elite prices, but dying at the same rate, so you are bleeding points VERY fast, enough with equipment cuts. Those cuts are just the tip of the iceberg of what's needed. That, or take the dissy cannon out of the game. There is no combination of that equipment that makes them beat guardsmen. In fact, they lose faster.

Dissy is going to see less time now that they can't dual role as anti-tank. Give it time.

It still does more damage without doom than dark lances... to t8. Its 5 points more than a heavy bolter to do about 3x the damage. Plus it can be taken on better platforms. If a D cannon is worth 15 - then a HB is worth 5. Seems pretty simple to me. Take a look at a grav cannon.
Hv 4 str 5 ap-3 d1-3 damage (vs + 3 save or better) 24" (26 points)
D cannon
Heavy 3 (but is assault on every platform it can be taken) str 5 ap-3 D2 @ 36" (15 points)

Dude - there is a legit argument to be made that the Gravcannon should cost less than a Dessie cannon.

It's closer to "embarrassingly obvious" than it is to "you could make the argument" territory just on the profile.

The Newman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GW are giving marines point cuts - just not in the manner you expect.

Plasma/Pistol -2
Melta -3
Grav -3
Eviscerator -11
Relic Blade -12
Sniper Rifle -2
Storm Shield -3

They're literally telling us - use marines as elite well equipped units and stop comparing them as plain bolter whores to IS.

Yeah, that doesn't really work. You are paying elite prices, but dying at the same rate, so you are bleeding points VERY fast, enough with equipment cuts. Those cuts are just the tip of the iceberg of what's needed. That, or take the dissy cannon out of the game. There is no combination of that equipment that makes them beat guardsmen. In fact, they lose faster.

Dissy is going to see less time now that they can't dual role as anti-tank. Give it time.

It still does more damage without doom than dark lances... to t8. Its 5 points more than a heavy bolter to do about 3x the damage. Plus it can be taken on better platforms. If a D cannon is worth 15 - then a HB is worth 5. Seems pretty simple to me. Take a look at a grav cannon.
Hv 4 str 5 ap-3 d1-3 damage (vs + 3 save or better) 24" (26 points)
D cannon
Heavy 3 (but is assault on every platform it can be taken) str 5 ap-3 D2 @ 36" (15 points)

Dude - there is a legit argument to be made that the Gravcannon should cost less than a Dessie cannon.

It's closer to "embarrassingly obvious" than it is to "you could make the argument" territory just on the profile.

Perhaps - I am doing my best to no exaggerate these days. I have been accused to exaggerating a lot on this site.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It still does more damage without doom than dark lances... to t8. Its 5 points more than a heavy bolter to do about 3x the damage. Plus it can be taken on better platforms. If a D cannon is worth 15 - then a HB is worth 5. Seems pretty simple to me. Take a look at a grav cannon.
Hv 4 str 5 ap-3 d1-3 damage (vs + 3 save or better) 24" (26 points)
D cannon
Heavy 3 (but is assault on every platform it can be taken) str 5 ap-3 D2 @ 36" (15 points)

Dude - there is a legit argument to be made that the Gravcannon should cost less than a Dessie cannon.

Internal balance is an issue. Externally I'm ok waiting for things to settle before a points nerf.

I was thinking more talos, but time will tell.

I mean yeah...we are waiting. We've been waiting a long time already. The marine arsenal is overpriced and there isn't really any room for denying it. Twin las going to 40 is helpful. But then why would I ever take lastalon? These are bonehead fixes on their best selling product line. Personally I am fine with DE having really efficient weapons. I'm not fine with the imperium (mainly marines) not having efficient weapons.

Drager wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Drager wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?

How?

‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’

This still applies.

Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.

If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?

in last design commentary, go there and read, now everyone can move through aircraft bases like if they were not there

You can move through enemy aircraft bases, but I can't find the permission to move through friendly ones. The designer's commentary is quoted above by tnev82 and reading that is what led to me asking the question. If you can point out the permission I'm missing, I'd be grateful. Have another read yourself, I'm sure it's there and I'm just not seeing it.

sigh i give up....so if they dont say you must use d6 dice you use d8? just an example, if a model base is not there, is not there period anyway really i give up... no worth

That's a rabbit hole right there.

Multimeltas are cheaper that Lascannons, but twin-linked Multimeltas are the same price as twin-linked Lascannons. (And LasTalons.)

A Hurricane Bolter is just six bolt guns strapped together. Why is it more expensive than three Stormbolters?

Those are just what I remember of the top of my head, I know there are several more.

 blackmage wrote:

Spoiler:

Drager wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Drager wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?

How?

‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’

This still applies.

Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.

If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?

in last design commentary, go there and read, now everyone can move through aircraft bases like if they were not there

You can move through enemy aircraft bases, but I can't find the permission to move through friendly ones. The designer's commentary is quoted above by tnev82 and reading that is what led to me asking the question. If you can point out the permission I'm missing, I'd be grateful. Have another read yourself, I'm sure it's there and I'm just not seeing it.

sigh i give up....so if they dont say you must use d6 dice you use d8? just an example, if a model base is not there, is not there period anyway really i give up... no worth

Not at all, that;s not an analogous scenario, I am simply trying to follow the rules and to do that I need to work out if I am reading them correctly. As far as I can tell I am, and all I have received in response is exasperated sighs and people telling me to read the rule that caused me to ask the question in the first place. I'll lay it out as an argument, just point to what part I have got wrong.

Premise 1: There is a rule saying you cannot move through other models (including bases)
Premise 2: There is a rule giving permission to move through Enemy Aircraft bases

Conclusion: You may move through enemy Aircraft bases, but not the bases of other models, including friendly Aircraft.

Drager wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Drager wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?

How?

‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’

This still applies.

Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.

If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?

in last design commentary, go there and read, now everyone can move through aircraft bases like if they were not there

You can move through enemy aircraft bases, but I can't find the permission to move through friendly ones. The designer's commentary is quoted above by tnev82 and reading that is what led to me asking the question. If you can point out the permission I'm missing, I'd be grateful. Have another read yourself, I'm sure it's there and I'm just not seeing it.

I believe the line is "and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there."

I'm currently reading the above text as:
A: Models that have a minimum move characteristic are AIRCRAFT
B: When a unit is moving, it may be moved within 1" of enemy AIRCRAFT
C: When a unit it moving, it may move across AIRCRAFT and their bases as if they were not there, but it cannot end on top of it, or end within 1" of enemy units.

The issue seems to be the interpretation of the phrase "such models", and whether it refers to AIRCRAFT or enemy AIRCRAFT. This seems to be a matter of poor choice of words [in the vein of "The Johnsons have cats. They like them a lot." Who do the pronouns They and Them refer to?], I interpret the pronoun "such models" as referring to the models that were previous defined as aircraft, but I can see the opposite argument has validity. That said, they specified enemy at all other times when referring to enemy models, so I think the lack of such phrasing is indicative that the former interpretation is probably correct.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

Drager wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

Drager wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Drager wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?

How?

‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’

This still applies.

Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.

If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?

in last design commentary, go there and read, now everyone can move through aircraft bases like if they were not there

You can move through enemy aircraft bases, but I can't find the permission to move through friendly ones. The designer's commentary is quoted above by tnev82 and reading that is what led to me asking the question. If you can point out the permission I'm missing, I'd be grateful. Have another read yourself, I'm sure it's there and I'm just not seeing it.

I believe the line is "and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there."

I'm currently reading the above text as:
A: Models that have a minimum move characteristic are AIRCRAFT
B: When a unit is moving, it may be moved within 1" of enemy AIRCRAFT
C: When a unit it moving, it may move across AIRCRAFT and their bases as if they were not there, but it cannot end on top of it, or end within 1" of enemy units.

The issue seems to be the interpretation of the phrase "such models", and whether it refers to AIRCRAFT or enemy AIRCRAFT. This seems to be a matter of poor choice of words [in the vein of "The Johnsons have cats. They like them a lot." Who do the pronouns They and Them refer to?], I interpret the pronoun "such models" as referring to the models that were previous defined as aircraft, but I can see the opposite argument has validity. That said, they specified enemy at all other times when referring to enemy models, so I think the lack of such phrasing is indicative that the former interpretation is probably correct.

I think the fact that enemy Aircraft are the only models referred to in the sentence containing the phrase such models, in the preceding clause, indicates that they are using the pronoun to indicate the prior named models in that sentence. If those were two separate sentences I might agree with you, but they are not. And to hopefully get out ahead of any aspersions being cast, I'm an Aeldari player who owns many planes, my interpretation is bad for my army.

Requote for clarity:

Big FAQ wrote:Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).

Here is a link to the YMDC thread for those who missed it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.

A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.

Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.

IS are 5.5. If you're going to mentally assign all the abilities of the CC in your assessment of IS then you should add those points in, too. And if you really want to do it right then the sarge doesn't really come into play often making them 55 / 9 = 6.1 ppm. Some lists don't get full command command coverage, because of this factor - more CC = more dead weight at the end of the game. But that also means you have 2 or 3 blocks running without orders bar CP spend for 1 order.

Are they still really good? You bet. Are they unbeatable by marines? Not by a long shot.

Im not assigning them anything. The way ive been using mine is 4ppm. All they have to do is stand there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With cultists at 5, these guys are indefensible. At least to me.

Honestly, I think Marines as a whole need a major rejig. Whilst lowering the points cost of Marine units will eventually bring them up to par, I think that is just the wrong way to go for making Marines competitive- it literally cheapens Marines.

I'd much rather they do something like add a wound to every Marine unit, with only a minimal points increase. The damage output doesn't increase, but the durability goes up across the board. D2 weapons will still knock out standard Marines in one unsaved wound, but a Marine will be twice as durable against small arms, and occasionally survive a D3 or D6 weapon. Primaris and Terminators will be surviving plasma and disintegrator hits.

I feel two wounds for Marines will be a notable change. Couple this with Chapter Tactics for vehicles and maybe a further buff to bolter discipline, and I think Marines could be in a better place.


I also agree that auras just doesn't work for Marines from a fluff and playstyle perspective (except for green Dark Angels). They should make Marine characters buff a limited number of units each anywhere on the board- say one squad for a Lieutenant, 2 for a Captain, 3 for a Chapter Master. Chaplains and the like should still be close-ranged buffs. Allow these buffs to occur from inside Rhinos and Land Raiders (superior command and control equipment used by Marines, obviously) and transports get some more use too.

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.

A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.

Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.

Here's something I'm a little curious about.

Genestealer Cultists can bring, quite frankly, just a more efficient guard list to the table. Take a GSC detachment with 20-man 4ppm Brood Brothers squads as troops, Patriarch who grants a fearless aura to all those 20-man guard squads and pair it with a supreme command with a Shadowsword, Company Commanders (to FRFSRF the 20-man blob units), Tank Commanders, and a primaris psyker to cast Nightshroud. Take Aberrant bombs, kelermorph, and whatever other GSC stuff to taste.

To me, that just seems to be a better pure guard list than guard can bring. So, why has that style of list not shown up in any of the competitive GSC lists we've seen? Why have no brood brothers at all shown up - GSC is literally a faction where your choices for troops are a glass cannon deep striking melee unit, and "the most OP troop choice in the game, but with twice the unit size cap". Surely if melee is unmitigated garbage and guardsmen are the most OP thing since sliced bread we should see at least SOME brood brothers.

They're op because of how they screen to facilitate big shooting units

Martel732 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.

A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.

Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.

Here's something I'm a little curious about.

Genestealer Cultists can bring, quite frankly, just a more efficient guard list to the table. Take a GSC detachment with 20-man 4ppm Brood Brothers squads as troops, Patriarch who grants a fearless aura to all those 20-man guard squads and pair it with a supreme command with a Shadowsword, Company Commanders (to FRFSRF the 20-man blob units), Tank Commanders, and a primaris psyker to cast Nightshroud. Take Aberrant bombs, kelermorph, and whatever other GSC stuff to taste.

To me, that just seems to be a better pure guard list than guard can bring. So, why has that style of list not shown up in any of the competitive GSC lists we've seen? Why have no brood brothers at all shown up - GSC is literally a faction where your choices for troops are a glass cannon deep striking melee unit, and "the most OP troop choice in the game, but with twice the unit size cap". Surely if melee is unmitigated garbage and guardsmen are the most OP thing since sliced bread we should see at least SOME brood brothers.

They're op because of how they screen to facilitate big shooting units

But the big thing is there Martel, or is the Feared shadowsword not good enough no more?

Reading comp fail. I don't know why we don't see this. 10 man units are pretty ideal so you only lose your army in 40 pt chunks. Im not sure brood brothers are actually better than guardsmen.

Martel732 wrote:
Reading comp fail. I don't know why we don't see this. 10 man units are pretty ideal so you only lose your army in 40 pt chunks. Im not sure brood brothers are actually better than guardsmen.

Because fearless?
10 or 100 fearless is a great rule on <10 pts models.
Remember guardsmen have a morale value that makes it possible for 5 dead to wipe a squad.
Fearless models of such price need to be cleared out.
It's also one of the reasons why cultists climbed up in price i suspect and got lower max capacity per squad.

Guardsmen morale is very inefficient, though. You need to kill 7 to reliably wipe the squad.