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.

Martel732 wrote:
Guardsmen morale is very inefficient, though. You need to kill 7 to reliably wipe the squad.

Yeah but needing to wipe 100% is still a lot more annoying.

Martel732 wrote:


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.

So you take IS with no CC and they're a problem for your opponent? That seems more silly than 5 point cultists to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:


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

And they can now be jumped over, no?

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.

OK, but surely if theyre like the most OP model in the game, there should be a gulf of some size between seeing them 100% of the time in imperial lists and 0% of the time in GSC lists.

It seems like you're saying "4ppm for that staline is criminal, that's a fact, no way no how" but then also saying that some small edge like...I don't know, +1S instead of +1Ld and the ability to tank for characters is enough to go from "best thing in the whole game" to "not worth taking compared to a glass cannon, fly-less melee troop.

Acolyte hybrids are glass cannon (same statline as a guardsman, nearly twice the cost) fly-less pure melee deep strikers. By martel logic, they should be lower-than-dirt tier, and their faction has guardsmen, with no strings attached, access to MORE auras and all the resources of the guard codex, at the same cost, with the added ability to tank wounds like Tau drones.

This is a legitimate line of reasoning. As a GSC player myself I saw that in my codex and thought "well, that's it, we're just Imperial Soup 2 now, we're going to have basically pure guard lists with Kelermorphs and Patriarchs slapped on and GSC is gonna get nerfed for the guard's bs" but we've seen multiple GSC lists topping tournaments now and nobody's bothered to bring even one BB squad. Not one.

We'll see how much fly helps. You can arrange them like people did before to make it very hard.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"So you take IS with no CC and they're a problem for your opponent? That seems more silly than 5 point cultists to me"

Not everything has to be a problem. They just have to stand there and give up 4 points at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

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.

OK, but surely if theyre like the most OP model in the game, there should be a gulf of some size between seeing them 100% of the time in imperial lists and 0% of the time in GSC lists.

It seems like you're saying "4ppm for that staline is criminal, that's a fact, no way no how" but then also saying that some small edge like...I don't know, +1S instead of +1Ld and the ability to tank for characters is enough to go from "best thing in the whole game" to "not worth taking compared to a glass cannon, fly-less melee troop.

Acolyte hybrids are glass cannon (same statline as a guardsman, nearly twice the cost) fly-less pure melee deep strikers. By martel logic, they should be lower-than-dirt tier, and their faction has guardsmen, with no strings attached, access to MORE auras and all the resources of the guard codex, at the same cost, with the added ability to tank wounds like Tau drones.

This is a legitimate line of reasoning. As a GSC player myself I saw that in my codex and thought "well, that's it, we're just Imperial Soup 2 now, we're going to have basically pure guard lists with Kelermorphs and Patriarchs slapped on and GSC is gonna get nerfed for the guard's bs" but we've seen multiple GSC lists topping tournaments now and nobody's bothered to bring even one BB squad. Not one.

I guess they know something I don't. I don't understand how anyone does anything with acolyte hybrids. I guess its the strats. Melee is pretty much crap in 8th.

 Crimson wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Now I wonder if Marines would feel less imbalanced (both internally and externally) if the standard Captain & Lieutenant auras were "reroll failed to-hit" and "reroll failed to-wound" instead of rerolling 1s.

It would obviously make them better, but I wouldn't like that change. It would make standing in the aura bubble even more mandatory than it already is. That is the exact opposite of the direction I want.

I totally agree. I remember when a 2000 point Marine army might be 18 models, that same army today is under 800 points. They don't feel like Space Marines.

But I'm realistic enough to realize that 18-model armies means smaller collections and less profit for GW, so here we are. And also, if I want an army that plays like Space Marines ought to I should have gone with Custodes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Now I wonder if Marines would feel less imbalanced (both internally and externally) if the standard Captain & Lieutenant auras were "reroll failed to-hit" and "reroll failed to-wound" instead of rerolling 1s.

It would obviously make them better, but I wouldn't like that change. It would make standing in the aura bubble even more mandatory than it already is. That is the exact opposite of the direction I want.

I totally agree. I remember when a 2000 point Marine army might be 18 models, that same army today is under 800 points. They don't feel like Space Marines.

But I'm realistic enough to realize that 18-model armies means smaller collections and less profit for GW, so here we are. And also, if I want an army that plays like Space Marines ought to I should have gone with Custodes.

You could always counts as, it's not like anyone other than myself plays by the rules anyway.

Don't lie, you don't actually play this game.

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.

The thing is that this is a kinda frustrating army to play against but its not really that overwhelmingly good. Maybe its good in some missions but if you play the CA18 missions (which we would all hope is what they balance against) not so much. Despite all the theoryhammer of CA18 missions being horde focussed the top tables of the last GT finals were pretty darned elite (mech Eldar vs mech Tau) and no hordes really got close. Horde armies are - and should be - viable but they are just not that dominating and the nearest thing to a dominant horde army is not guard anyway, its Daemons. If guard hordes are proving to be a major problem in ITC missions then I guess you need to look at the missions and rebalancing those with a few tweaks.

I would be far from upset if guardsmen went to 5ppm in CA19 but I also don't thing the game desperately needs it - so long as the game goes to 5 or 6 turns I am pretty confident that either of my armies (T'au and Crimson Fist Marines) could clear them out and grab the objectives I want to grab. Armies like that are unbeatable if you only play 3 turns but slow play is the problem there.

Lemondish wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Now I wonder if Marines would feel less imbalanced (both internally and externally) if the standard Captain & Lieutenant auras were "reroll failed to-hit" and "reroll failed to-wound" instead of rerolling 1s.

It would obviously make them better, but I wouldn't like that change. It would make standing in the aura bubble even more mandatory than it already is. That is the exact opposite of the direction I want.

I totally agree. I remember when a 2000 point Marine army might be 18 models, that same army today is under 800 points. They don't feel like Space Marines.

But I'm realistic enough to realize that 18-model armies means smaller collections and less profit for GW, so here we are. And also, if I want an army that plays like Space Marines ought to I should have gone with Custodes.

You could always counts as, it's not like anyone other than myself plays by the rules anyway.

Don't lie, you don't actually play this game.

Oh he does. He's just still stuck in the first game since you can't actually play game through RAW without running into situation rules don't tell how to play so you are forced to play RAI which he doesn't do so either he's lying there or he's still stuck in his first game of 8th ed waiting for GW to fix the game.

The Newman wrote:


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

Grav Cannon is still being punished for its 7th edition sins. That is a job for a new codex or Chapter Approved to fix rather than the FAQ. Its rules are just fine.

Dissy cannon is a bit too good for its points - usually if one choice is such an auto-take you know that choice is not point costed correctly. Again its a job for CA19, I don't think it was breaking the game so badly it needed an emergency fix in the FAQ.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

The Newman wrote:


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

Grav Cannon is still being punished for its 7th edition sins. That is a job for a new codex or Chapter Approved to fix rather than the FAQ. Its rules are just fine.

Dissy cannon is a bit too good for its points - usually if one choice is such an auto-take you know that choice is not point costed correctly. Again its a job for CA19, I don't think it was breaking the game so badly it needed an emergency fix in the FAQ.

It's quite different to Marines where something being an auto-take is an indication it's broken. When a codex only has 1 'tank' and that vehicle has the choice of 2 weapons, it doesn't need to be too cheap to be the only thing people take, it could be that the other option is too expensive. In this case, the Disintegrator Cannon is a better weapon than the Dark Lance and 5 points cheaper, this is obviously not correct, but I'd argue that swapping the costs, or reducing the dark lance 3 points (to 17) and upping the Dissie 3 (to 18) would make a difference. Disintegrators are great against Marines and always have been, but they are not so wonderful against other targets without access to doom. So much so that I (and several others) are now dropping Ravagers as they simply underperform compared to bringing some Craftworld stuff. Nerfing the Disintegrator without buffing the Dark Lance would remove Ravagers and Razorwings in large part, which would mean removing mono DE as we, unlike other codexes, don't have other options.

happy_inquisitor 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.

The thing is that this is a kinda frustrating army to play against but its not really that overwhelmingly good. Maybe its good in some missions but if you play the CA18 missions (which we would all hope is what they balance against) not so much. Despite all the theoryhammer of CA18 missions being horde focussed the top tables of the last GT finals were pretty darned elite (mech Eldar vs mech Tau) and no hordes really got close. Horde armies are - and should be - viable but they are just not that dominating and the nearest thing to a dominant horde army is not guard anyway, its Daemons. If guard hordes are proving to be a major problem in ITC missions then I guess you need to look at the missions and rebalancing those with a few tweaks.

I would be far from upset if guardsmen went to 5ppm in CA19 but I also don't thing the game desperately needs it - so long as the game goes to 5 or 6 turns I am pretty confident that either of my armies (T'au and Crimson Fist Marines) could clear them out and grab the objectives I want to grab. Armies like that are unbeatable if you only play 3 turns but slow play is the problem there.

trouble

I'm having way more trouble with ig in gw missions because there is no downside to guardsmen without secondary missions. I'm usually out of marines by 5 or 6 anyway.

The Newman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Now I wonder if Marines would feel less imbalanced (both internally and externally) if the standard Captain & Lieutenant auras were "reroll failed to-hit" and "reroll failed to-wound" instead of rerolling 1s.

It would obviously make them better, but I wouldn't like that change. It would make standing in the aura bubble even more mandatory than it already is. That is the exact opposite of the direction I want.

I totally agree. I remember when a 2000 point Marine army might be 18 models, that same army today is under 800 points. They don't feel like Space Marines.

But I'm realistic enough to realize that 18-model armies means smaller collections and less profit for GW, so here we are. And also, if I want an army that plays like Space Marines ought to I should have gone with Custodes.

Was that 2nd edition? I've almost always run 50-80 marines in my marine armies, not counting transports.

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.

There is the Dallas open where GSC did it with 5 point troops, not even 4.

https://imgur.com/a/Ea1gINj

Plus you will be happy to note that since the last Faq you can no longer order GSC Brood Brothers so you know, GW actually nerfed the thing your afraid of.

Martel732 wrote:

happy_inquisitor 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.

The thing is that this is a kinda frustrating army to play against but its not really that overwhelmingly good. Maybe its good in some missions but if you play the CA18 missions (which we would all hope is what they balance against) not so much. Despite all the theoryhammer of CA18 missions being horde focussed the top tables of the last GT finals were pretty darned elite (mech Eldar vs mech Tau) and no hordes really got close. Horde armies are - and should be - viable but they are just not that dominating and the nearest thing to a dominant horde army is not guard anyway, its Daemons. If guard hordes are proving to be a major problem in ITC missions then I guess you need to look at the missions and rebalancing those with a few tweaks.

I would be far from upset if guardsmen went to 5ppm in CA19 but I also don't thing the game desperately needs it - so long as the game goes to 5 or 6 turns I am pretty confident that either of my armies (T'au and Crimson Fist Marines) could clear them out and grab the objectives I want to grab. Armies like that are unbeatable if you only play 3 turns but slow play is the problem there.

trouble

I'm having way more trouble with ig in gw missions because there is no downside to guardsmen without secondary missions. I'm usually out of marines by 5 or 6 anyway.

The trouble might be with Marines, not guard. Guard aren't running away with the tourney scene at the moment, most people can deal with them. Maybe you're not very good, or marines are not very good or both. I play against Guard in CA18 missions regularly and I've lost once due to a combination of (1) making stupid play mistakes (2) a run of extremely bad luck (my rangers didn't cause a single wound for 3 turns against a character on 1 wound left) and (3) not paying enough attention. None of those were a problem with guard I should jus tplay better and have more rest. If 1 and 3 hadn't been in play 2 wouldn't have mattered anyway. these are games at tournaments, big and small and torunament practise games alike.

Guard will never be the best because a simple hit modifier makes them highly ineffective.

I'd like Marines to get some kind of drop pod assault rule. Perhaps a stratagem? Allowing you to drop in turn 1. With a points decrease on the pod.

Also, they could compensate for the general weakness of tac squads by giving them some great stratagems and perhaps a CP bonus?

Assault Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. That squad may fight twice in the fight phase

Devastator Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. Heavy Weapons in that squad may fire twice this turn and receives +1 to hit.

Tactical Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. All bolt weapons in that squad may fire twice this turn.

Would this really be so insane? I mean, compared to some of the other general silliness in the game?

zerosignal wrote:
I'd like Marines to get some kind of drop pod assault rule. Perhaps a stratagem? Allowing you to drop in turn 1. With a points decrease on the pod.

Also, they could compensate for the general weakness of tac squads by giving them some great stratagems and perhaps a CP bonus?

Assault Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. That squad may fight twice in the fight phase

Devastator Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. Heavy Weapons in that squad may fire twice this turn and receives +1 to hit.

Tactical Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. All bolt weapons in that squad may fire twice this turn.

Would this really be so insane? I mean, compared to some of the other general silliness in the game?

I don't think any of these things are individually insane, but implementing them all at once might run the risk of over swinging the pendulum.

As a Dark Angels player, I find that my "Greenwing," "men-of-the-line" don't often blow my mind with their performance, but I don't feel like they're terrible either. Having a brief look through this thread, I find it curious how many of the posts are about highlighting the general weakness of Space Marines when Necrons and Grey Knights seem to be in a far worse condition. I really think the majority of any balancing measures ought to focus on the ends of the spectrum while generally leaving the middle alone.

Necron really should get some sort of bolter drill type of improvment. And I don't mean the exact rule, but something that effects the army as a whole in a positive manner, and is generaly useful. No idea though what it could be.

 Ordana 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.

There is the Dallas open where GSC did it with 5 point troops, not even 4.

https://imgur.com/a/Ea1gINj

Plus you will be happy to note that since the last Faq you can no longer order GSC Brood Brothers so you know, GW actually nerfed the thing your afraid of.

...Yes you can?

Q: Are units in Brood Brothers Detachments restricted from
using Regimental Orders, or all orders?
A: They cannot use Regimental Orders, but can use other
orders. Note the errata above that further clarified which
units these orders can and cannot be issued to.

Also, that list is a whole lot closer to what I thought GSC lists would be post-codex, admittedly not with the neophytes but pretty close. Those are some super cool lists though! A Tau list with Breachers and Aunshi?

 Ginjitzu wrote:

zerosignal wrote:
I'd like Marines to get some kind of drop pod assault rule. Perhaps a stratagem? Allowing you to drop in turn 1. With a points decrease on the pod.

Also, they could compensate for the general weakness of tac squads by giving them some great stratagems and perhaps a CP bonus?

Assault Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. That squad may fight twice in the fight phase

Devastator Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. Heavy Weapons in that squad may fire twice this turn and receives +1 to hit.

Tactical Doctrine (2CP) - choose a tactical squad. All bolt weapons in that squad may fire twice this turn.

Would this really be so insane? I mean, compared to some of the other general silliness in the game?

I don't think any of these things are individually insane, but implementing them all at once might run the risk of over swinging the pendulum.

As a Dark Angels player, I find that my "Greenwing," "men-of-the-line" don't often blow my mind with their performance, but I don't feel like they're terrible either. Having a brief look through this thread, I find it curious how many of the posts are about highlighting the general weakness of Space Marines when Necrons and Grey Knights seem to be in a far worse condition. I really think the majority of any balancing measures ought to focus on the ends of the spectrum while generally leaving the middle alone.

BA primary lists are now losing more than necrons or gk at 34%. DA and SW clock in at 40%. They are close to terrible, if not already there.

Drager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

happy_inquisitor 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.

The thing is that this is a kinda frustrating army to play against but its not really that overwhelmingly good. Maybe its good in some missions but if you play the CA18 missions (which we would all hope is what they balance against) not so much. Despite all the theoryhammer of CA18 missions being horde focussed the top tables of the last GT finals were pretty darned elite (mech Eldar vs mech Tau) and no hordes really got close. Horde armies are - and should be - viable but they are just not that dominating and the nearest thing to a dominant horde army is not guard anyway, its Daemons. If guard hordes are proving to be a major problem in ITC missions then I guess you need to look at the missions and rebalancing those with a few tweaks.

I would be far from upset if guardsmen went to 5ppm in CA19 but I also don't thing the game desperately needs it - so long as the game goes to 5 or 6 turns I am pretty confident that either of my armies (T'au and Crimson Fist Marines) could clear them out and grab the objectives I want to grab. Armies like that are unbeatable if you only play 3 turns but slow play is the problem there.

trouble

I'm having way more trouble with ig in gw missions because there is no downside to guardsmen without secondary missions. I'm usually out of marines by 5 or 6 anyway.

The trouble might be with Marines, not guard. Guard aren't running away with the tourney scene at the moment, most people can deal with them. Maybe you're not very good, or marines are not very good or both. I play against Guard in CA18 missions regularly and I've lost once due to a combination of (1) making stupid play mistakes (2) a run of extremely bad luck (my rangers didn't cause a single wound for 3 turns against a character on 1 wound left) and (3) not paying enough attention. None of those were a problem with guard I should jus tplay better and have more rest. If 1 and 3 hadn't been in play 2 wouldn't have mattered anyway. these are games at tournaments, big and small and torunament practise games alike.

It's a perfect storm of a combination of both the design choices made with the Guard codex and the allies rules as they are.

With fly having been reversed the ability to actually hurt certain units via bypass the guard wall better.

Alsoi genuinely don't think anyone beside maybe 2 or 3 people have actually spent any time trying to maximise a pure guard list to win a tournament. Most people have relied on the allies crutch for guard so far.

But the amount of firepower a guard list can put down is rediculous especially when compaired to other factions, like Tau quite often loose out on raw firepower to guard. It takes a lot of shenanigans via CP and Strategums to claw back games.

Buffing Guard in anyway without buffing everything else in the game would be terrible for interfaction balance.

Martel732 wrote:


BA primary lists are now losing more than necrons or gk at 34%. DA and SW clock in at 40%. They are close to terrible, if not already there.

Is this ITC data?

All types of tournaments. I think ba do better in itc but not by much. Id have to filter the data.

If you take out ITC, BA go down to 28%. I guess that answers your question.

Only ITC, BA are 37%, a sliver above GK.

I still believe Necron Gauss weapons should do Mortal Wounds on a wound roll of a 6.

All the fluff states how terrible it must be to have molecule thick layers peeled from your body when struck by Gauss. Currently they don't even have special rules, just a -1 AP...

 Lord Clinto wrote:
I still believe Necron Gauss weapons should do Mortal Wounds on a wound roll of a 6.

All the fluff states how terrible it must be to have molecule thick layers peeled from your body when struck by Gauss. Currently they don't even have special rules, just a -1 AP...

I'm gonna say that's a hard no from me...Unless it's like specifically against vehicles/monsters, as a replacement for their previous "auto glance on a six" rule.

We don't need more ways to make weapons a million times better at killing elite infantry than basic goobers.

Martel732 wrote:
All types of tournaments. I think ba do better in itc but not by much. Id have to filter the data.

If you take out ITC, BA go down to 28%. I guess that answers your question.

Only ITC, BA are 37%, a sliver above GK.

This has me curious about various faction winrates now myself, can you link your source(s) please?

 nurgle5 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All types of tournaments. I think ba do better in itc but not by much. Id have to filter the data.

If you take out ITC, BA go down to 28%. I guess that answers your question.

Only ITC, BA are 37%, a sliver above GK.

This has me curious about various faction winrates now myself, can you link your source(s) please?

https://www.40kstats.com/



Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the record, 28% is worse than *I* thought it would be for non-ITC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
I still believe Necron Gauss weapons should do Mortal Wounds on a wound roll of a 6.

All the fluff states how terrible it must be to have molecule thick layers peeled from your body when struck by Gauss. Currently they don't even have special rules, just a -1 AP...

Yeah, the factions with mini-grenade launchers that are AP 0 aren't going to be very sympathetic.

Martel732 wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All types of tournaments. I think ba do better in itc but not by much. Id have to filter the data.

If you take out ITC, BA go down to 28%. I guess that answers your question.

Only ITC, BA are 37%, a sliver above GK.

This has me curious about various faction winrates now myself, can you link your source(s) please?

https://www.40kstats.com/

Thanks!

Martel732 wrote:
All types of tournaments. I think ba do better in itc but not by much. Id have to filter the data.

Ok, well, I think it's pretty important to keep in mind that the FAQ is 9 days old and literally no major would have adopted it for the weekend of the 4th. Working with stale data won't help us.

There is also a deeper issue of what defines a primary and what is actually being taken in them as well as the types of missions being player to truly understand whatever dynamic is at play. Just looking at a win percentage by a forced metric tells us nothing about the viability of the army. There is a point where an army slips into the "Grey Knight Syndrome" and no one tries to do anything novel with the army save for a few brave souls.

This whole meta dynamic at Majors is predicated on the thought processes of people attending tournaments. They take their points from other people nearby trying to be as hard as they can. What lists will show depends on who flinches first. If a core keeps bringing Castellans then all the surrounding lists will be adjusting to meet it.

Will Castellan lists actually go away?
What are the Ynnari players going to do?
Are assassins a thing? Will they reduce the power of character dependent armies or force more transports and bodyguards?
Is Daemon Engine spam viable? Is it scary enough to make the Castellan second guess it's existence?
...and so on...

I realize the FAQ made non-trivial changes. But I can tell you from banging my head now for a while that power armor melee just doesn't work out mathematically. You run out power armor before anyone who's any good runs out of dum dums. The dum dums are too durable per point OR the power armor isn't killy enough per point OR the power armor isn't durable enough per point.

The fly thing doesn't really address straight up losing the attrition war. Mixing in primaris can shift the numbers, but the fact that the gravis units are easily killed by lasguns is a serioius problem.