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.

I think on a game design level the system and mechanics are stressed in a specific way that isn't easily remedied. It has to do with point and dice granularity.

The point system is straight forward enough you have a number of points that in theory have a direct and proportional relationship to the unit or option they represent. The problem is a case of what exactly is a point worth. While fractional numbers are the tiniest part of it they make it easy to understand the issue. These points have to be whole numbers and when on some level they aren't they're rounded up or down. It creates an ever growing inaccuracy in the relationship between cost and representation. As long as there is enough consistency though they can all average out, but they aren't. At a different level this is similar to what's happening when you have an ever growing number of units that are similar, but distinct and different being funneled into small number of distinct point costs. Marines and MEQ's being the example of this, where what 12-25 pts represent so many different things that are all underpinned to certain fundamental stats, but the volume of those little things and their tiny inaccuracies add up. Its made worse when certain abilities simply go unaccounted. The greater the number of things represented in a narrow band of points, the greater the likelihood that the proportionality of point costs lose the necessary consistency.

Think of that as a downward force that's squeezing the system. The equal and opposite upward force comes from the bottom most units pushing up. The system only allows units to be so bad, where once you reach a point each increment of getting worse means very little. Inversely anything that improves those units have a disproportionately positive effect. A lot of that comes down to the dice mechanics where the weakest units always have a 1/6 chance for a successful rolls, 1/36 chance for a successful sequence of rolls, and at worst a 1/216 chance killing something. What is this worst unit worth? -There is some point value that in theory should be the absolute lowest per model point cost. Things like IG and cultists are running up against that and so circumstantially whether through buffs or another mechanic end up quickly becoming better relative to their point costs.

The addition of Primaris only worsen these issues. To be worthwhile they had to be point efficient, but point efficiency is the opposite of point proportionality in representing units. Overpriced, underpriced, and efficient are euphemisms for inconsistent cost scaling, and they only further stress the ability of the system to represent all these different units with some sort of proportionality to what they do.

Its my opinion that a large part of fixing the game and the issue with marines is rescaling the point system relative to worse unit of the game, instead of pegging it to marines. Likely you'd see your current 2000pts army end up at 2500pts... where you'd see current 2000pts MEQ armies end up at 2100-2300pts.

Ice_can wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't agree with the assertion that SM's are "over costed" because it's based off the assumption that Guard are "under costed". Without dredging up every tired argument here, you cannot make the fallacy that if X is true, then Y must be true, if you haven't demonstrated X to be true.

If anything, Intercessors do bring 17 ppm to the table. Oldboys don't bring their cost however. The extra wound essentially makes Primaris into termie light. If you want to argue to lower the cost of the oldboys now that the Primaris are being finally given options and updated, sure. But I think GW has pretty conclusively come out to put the argument to bed, that Oldboys are still being pushed. GW is done with them. And while not yet squatted, they aren't getting anymore focus/new toys.

Intercessors finally after 2 rounds of points reductions are just about starting to see some play at competitive levels.
However marines have so few worthwhile strategums that paying a troops tax for CP your struggling to use effectively makes them appear worse than they are.
If marine strategums were better we might see more intercessors.
Tactical marines are vastly overcosted when compaired to intercessors but I suspect that GW is fixed on a tac is 13 points of model(regardless of what results show).

If numbers included in placing lists is an indication of the level of balance of a unit, IG are one of the most efficent/OP codex's out there.
If your going to say that guard is balanced then marines and a number of other codex's need points reductions or rules improvement to be able to compete with staples of lists such as the 32. Tripple comander spam double battalions.

Knights are a very different codex that has become esentially the new blood angles codex, terrible mono due to nerfs to fix soup lists and still good enough to cherry pick units from.

Marines need to be able to offer enough depth of good units to make the advantage of being mono marines worth more than just souping in the IG option for the task you have.

Nah dude they are still too expensive. They should really be 15 points. With tacs being 10 or 11. This ofc is taking into account the status of troops providing CP and all aspects of gameplay. Intercessors bring 15ppm worth of ability to the table.5 intercessors does nothing - you really need to take them in 10 man squads to maximize their abilities and use stratagems on them. Even with a point drop to 15 - 10 intercessors costs more than 30 gaurdsmen. You still don't have a batallion yet - you cover 1/3 of the board space they do and you are at risk from being removed by any kind of multi damage weapon efficiently. What you do get is a pretty well rounded unit that is tough against small arms. Plus. Where gaurdsmen act as a screen for important models. Interecessors are important models and you really can't afford to screen your troops....This is why they aren't worth what you pay. Heck at the end of the day you are only getting 20 str 4 ap-1 shots at 30" for 170 points. That is pretty good but not amazing. At 17 points they are still playable but they really need to be 15 to be competitive with other troops.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't agree with the assertion that SM's are "over costed" because it's based off the assumption that Guard are "under costed". Without dredging up every tired argument here, you cannot make the fallacy that if X is true, then Y must be true, if you haven't demonstrated X to be true.

If anything, Intercessors do bring 17 ppm to the table. Oldboys don't bring their cost however. The extra wound essentially makes Primaris into termie light. If you want to argue to lower the cost of the oldboys now that the Primaris are being finally given options and updated, sure. But I think GW has pretty conclusively come out to put the argument to bed, that Oldboys are still being pushed. GW is done with them. And while not yet squatted, they aren't getting anymore focus/new toys.

Intercessors finally after 2 rounds of points reductions are just about starting to see some play at competitive levels.
However marines have so few worthwhile strategums that paying a troops tax for CP your struggling to use effectively makes them appear worse than they are.
If marine strategums were better we might see more intercessors.
Tactical marines are vastly overcosted when compaired to intercessors but I suspect that GW is fixed on a tac is 13 points of model(regardless of what results show).

If numbers included in placing lists is an indication of the level of balance of a unit, IG are one of the most efficent/OP codex's out there.
If your going to say that guard is balanced then marines and a number of other codex's need points reductions or rules improvement to be able to compete with staples of lists such as the 32. Tripple comander spam double battalions.

Knights are a very different codex that has become esentially the new blood angles codex, terrible mono due to nerfs to fix soup lists and still good enough to cherry pick units from.

Marines need to be able to offer enough depth of good units to make the advantage of being mono marines worth more than just souping in the IG option for the task you have.

Nah dude they are still too expensive. They should really be 15 points. With tacs being 10 or 11. This ofc is taking into account the status of troops providing CP and all aspects of gameplay. Intercessors bring 15ppm worth of ability to the table.5 intercessors does nothing - you really need to take them in 10 man squads to maximize their abilities and use stratagems on them. Even with a point drop to 15 - 10 intercessors costs more than 30 gaurdsmen. You still don't have a batallion yet - you cover 1/3 of the board space they do and you are at risk from being removed by any kind of multi damage weapon efficiently. What you do get is a pretty well rounded unit that is tough against small arms. Plus. Where gaurdsmen act as a screen for important models. Interecessors are important models and you really can't afford to screen your troops....This is why they aren't worth what you pay. Heck at the end of the day you are only getting 20 str 4 ap-1 shots at 30" for 170 points. That is pretty good but not amazing. At 17 points they are still playable but they really need to be 15 to be competitive with other troops.

This is where I both do and don't agree with you.
At 17ppm intercessors are actually IMHO a good base line for the game to be able to balanced around 20ppm intercessors would have been a great baseline, but at this point marine points costs are more outliers than baselines so either a lot of units need repointed in some cases entire codex's to be even on the same power curve as 20ppm intercessors.

So we're stuck with the race to the bottom and if we stick with the race to the bottom your right almost everything in Power armour needs to be costed for the actual 8th edition value of their stats.
But so do a number of other 3+Sv units.

Yes, "elite" infantry in general.

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't agree with the assertion that SM's are "over costed" because it's based off the assumption that Guard are "under costed". Without dredging up every tired argument here, you cannot make the fallacy that if X is true, then Y must be true, if you haven't demonstrated X to be true.

If anything, Intercessors do bring 17 ppm to the table. Oldboys don't bring their cost however. The extra wound essentially makes Primaris into termie light. If you want to argue to lower the cost of the oldboys now that the Primaris are being finally given options and updated, sure. But I think GW has pretty conclusively come out to put the argument to bed, that Oldboys are still being pushed. GW is done with them. And while not yet squatted, they aren't getting anymore focus/new toys.

Intercessors finally after 2 rounds of points reductions are just about starting to see some play at competitive levels.
However marines have so few worthwhile strategums that paying a troops tax for CP your struggling to use effectively makes them appear worse than they are.
If marine strategums were better we might see more intercessors.
Tactical marines are vastly overcosted when compaired to intercessors but I suspect that GW is fixed on a tac is 13 points of model(regardless of what results show).

If numbers included in placing lists is an indication of the level of balance of a unit, IG are one of the most efficent/OP codex's out there.
If your going to say that guard is balanced then marines and a number of other codex's need points reductions or rules improvement to be able to compete with staples of lists such as the 32. Tripple comander spam double battalions.

Knights are a very different codex that has become esentially the new blood angles codex, terrible mono due to nerfs to fix soup lists and still good enough to cherry pick units from.

Marines need to be able to offer enough depth of good units to make the advantage of being mono marines worth more than just souping in the IG option for the task you have.

Nah dude they are still too expensive. They should really be 15 points. With tacs being 10 or 11. This ofc is taking into account the status of troops providing CP and all aspects of gameplay. Intercessors bring 15ppm worth of ability to the table.5 intercessors does nothing - you really need to take them in 10 man squads to maximize their abilities and use stratagems on them. Even with a point drop to 15 - 10 intercessors costs more than 30 gaurdsmen. You still don't have a batallion yet - you cover 1/3 of the board space they do and you are at risk from being removed by any kind of multi damage weapon efficiently. What you do get is a pretty well rounded unit that is tough against small arms. Plus. Where gaurdsmen act as a screen for important models. Interecessors are important models and you really can't afford to screen your troops....This is why they aren't worth what you pay. Heck at the end of the day you are only getting 20 str 4 ap-1 shots at 30" for 170 points. That is pretty good but not amazing. At 17 points they are still playable but they really need to be 15 to be competitive with other troops.

This is where I both do and don't agree with you.
At 17ppm intercessors are actually IMHO a good base line for the game to be able to balanced around 20ppm intercessors would have been a great baseline, but at this point marine points costs are more outliers than baselines so either a lot of units need repointed in some cases entire codex's to be even on the same power curve as 20ppm intercessors.

So we're stuck with the race to the bottom and if we stick with the race to the bottom your right almost everything in Power armour needs to be costed for the actual 8th edition value of their stats.
But so do a number of other 3+Sv units.

Lots of elite infantry need to go down. Like...Incubi? What the heck are those guys? Terrible.

I agree with you about price points being funky with a primaris going down to 15. Though a 17 point intercessor might be fine if some of these SM rumors turn out to be true.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 cole1114 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, honest fluff consideration:

Blood ravens are the new hot thing from GW. That being said, they are a dying chapter, because they lost their geneseed progenitor. They don't have a place to make new ones. Their fluff specifically states they are dying out.

HOW ARE THEY MAKING PRIMARIS BRs? Honestly, I think this is how GW plans on NOT mothballing the Oldboys. Because technically, their hot new toy can't be re-made into Primaris. They don't even know who their founder is.

But hay, maybe GW will just say feth the lore, and now we have Primaris BRs, GKs, and Custodes.

We know for a fact blood ravens can make new primaris, it's in their white dwarf stuff. Also they've been able to make marines this whole time even without knowing who their primarch is, I think they'll be fine.

Right, I think maybe you missed my point. Since they were "un-founded" and all records of them were wiped out, where are they getting NEW Gene-seed? Honestly asking.

vaults of mars. keep in mind,m the Blood ravens orgins aren't completely unknown, just unknown to them and under a inqusitional seal. the blood ravens where damned excited about this delivery and took to studying ti closely. what they've learned.. they've kept tight lipped about

Klickor wrote:


I like cosmetic options but not everything needs rules. What I tried to tell with the example was that we have so many different detailed options vs how many different target statlines we have that in many cases it doesnt really matter. Most antitank wounds on a 4+ and then the knight gets his 4++ save and then we roll a d6 for damage. Most anti infantry kills an orc on a 3+ or a 4+ so we don't need 20 different weapons that do that. Especially in an edition where everything can wound everything. Load of dice means more than the actual stats anyway.

You can't assume that how this edition works is how the next edition works. Also many of the weapons had identical or overlapping stat-lines. This doesn't mean we should get rid of the Lasgun, Shuriken Catapults or the Ironhail Heavy Stubber and give everyone one of the two bolters.

I don't think the amount of data sheets and options helps GW in balancing units and making them feel different from each other. Especially when they are obviously gonna replace them slowly over time. Lets take Sanguinary Guard for example. Right now the powerfist is the best choice since the other choices are way overpriced. If I removed all the axes and swords on the unit for powerfist to make them good and GW then swaps the price for the 2 weapons and make the axe the best weapon instead and the fist overpriced I am forced to either retire my unit, play with a bad unit or change all the weapons again. If Sanguinary Guard instead just had 1 weapon profile and the axes and swords were just cosmetic I wouldnt have to change the load out and GW just have to balance 1 statline. As it is now I don't see them keeping all 3 choices as a viable option and there is no inclination that they will start either. Having fewer actual rules would benefit both me and GW in this case and I don't see what I would gain from having it like it is now. Would also make it easier to distinguish the different JP units if they all had fewer options and have them balanced around that. It's hard to balance lets say DC as anti horde/chaff/infantry if they have access to thunder hammers which is a better elite/tank weapon than what the Sanguinary Guard has. Now GW has to price DC around them having Thunderhammers that can kill knights and elite infantry which leaves them less options for how to make them good and cheap enough for infantry duty.

I don't think the number of options hurts them either. Figuring out the mathematical difference between minor variations in S, T, and Save isn't that hard. At least it shouldn't be. As for weapons changing from bad to good from one edition to the next... that's how GW works. Why do you think there are so many articles/videos about magnetizing models? My Termies are Magnetized to swap weapons - both CCW and Heavies. I still have more terminators than I'll ever field because I bought extras rather than magnetize the Cyclone Missile Launcher. I have a TON more Devastators than I need for my Second Company display because I've bought more Dev boxes when they added Grav Cannon With Amp, and when they changed the legs in the kit. And when they added the Cherub. And the Signum Sgt Backpack. I don't even need to magnetize the Devs. Again, we can make every army 2 Barebones Guard Commanders, and 3 Infantry Squads. There's zero variation, 100% balance in the armies. And it doesn't help us or GW stay interested in the hobby. I can play a couple hundred games of Stratego vs the computer on my phone for that kind of depth. Everyone keeps pointing to a symptom, or an example of the symptom, not the disease. There is no baseline for the balance. GW has not come out and said - "This is our starting point" and then balanced everything else in the game against that point. A bolter is 0 points. A Storm Bolter - two bolters - is 2 points. A Heavy Bolter 2.5 slightly bigger bolters with a drawback to boot - is 10 points. If the Bolter is the baseline at 0 points.. how can they adjust any other bolter off of it? That's not a problem of numbers of options, its a problem of setting their baseline. Maybe they baked a 1 point bolter in all the marines that can carry one. But that then throws off the comparison of scouts to normal marines, normal marines to Primaris, etc.


A common saying is indeed "Less is More" but less items for them to do the balancing work they already don't do isn't going to result in more balance. It's going to result in even fewer things they can balance wrong - in your favor for once - from edition to edition you can use to field an army you like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
As for costing of Space Marines units being set with a Roboute bubble, I think that you are really reaching (never mind that the Azrael aura effect is what lets DA hang in there). Even if it were true, a few points does not make a difference. Space Marines have some structural issues when they face most non-Space Marine opponents (or when considered for inclusion in an Imperium army). Those issues need to be addressed (cost/effectiveness of AM infantry, plethora of Xenos weapons that make a mockery of Space Marines and Primaris, etc).

A few point? No. A few points over 60+ models? Absolutely.

If a basic Marine were 10 points and a basic Primaris were 13 we would be having a different discussion right now.

This only "proves" the basic Marine is overcosted, not that it's overcosted because of a single model that may or may not be taken in any given Marine army. Technically it doesn't even prove Marines are overcosted, but I think most of us will concede that point in the current paradigm. If CP Generation worked on the average model cost, we might also be having a different conversation right now as people run Double Wing, 20 Smash Captain Soup, Imperial Fist Lysander/First Company and Full Knight No Soup armies with specialist detachments and stratagems all over the place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't agree with the assertion that SM's are "over costed" because it's based off the assumption that Guard are "under costed". Without dredging up every tired argument here, you cannot make the fallacy that if X is true, then Y must be true, if you haven't demonstrated X to be true.

If anything, Intercessors do bring 17 ppm to the table. Oldboys don't bring their cost however. The extra wound essentially makes Primaris into termie light. If you want to argue to lower the cost of the oldboys now that the Primaris are being finally given options and updated, sure. But I think GW has pretty conclusively come out to put the argument to bed, that Oldboys are still being pushed. GW is done with them. And while not yet squatted, they aren't getting anymore focus/new toys.

Most of the time, I use that as one of the controls in a hypothesis. IF Guard are costed CORRECTLY - then 1.0 Marines and Primaris are overcosted. If 1.0 Marines and Primaris are costed correctly, then Guard are undercosted. If Guard are costed incorrectly and 1.0/Primaris are costed incorrectly, we're lost in the fog and we don't know what anything should cost.

If Guard are costed correctly - and can field 10CP (5+5) ~60 24" Rapid Fire 1 S3 attacks and ~60 6 inch moving T3 5+ Objective Securing wounds for 360 points and some fluffy commanders and infantry, then ANY fluffy army - Space Marine or otherwise - without upgrades should be able to field 10CP (And all the stratagems, Specialist Detachments, and rerolls that entails), and the equivalent of 60 24" Rapid Fire1 S3 attacks, and ~60 6" moving T3 5+ Objective Securing wounds for 360 points.

I don't play BA, but I want to see a BA army that's 50% Death From Above units. I don't play White Scars, but I want to see a White Scars army that's ~50% bikes, and ~50% outflanking troops in Transports I sort of play DA, and I want to see a 50% RavenWing 50% Death Wing and 33% Death 33% Raven 33% Green Wing armies. I don't play Space Wolves, and I don't know what I want to see from them. Maybe 6 Dread armies, maybe something different. I don't know. But I do know I don't want to see iteration after iteration of One Captain, One Lieutenant, 1 Scout, 1 Intercessor, 1 Infiltrator - or worse 3 min size Scout/Cheapest Troop Equivalent cookie cutter cores.

I dont see your point at all. Ofc we shouldnt have every army have the same name and exact stats on their weapons even if they are functionaly the same. That would be a loss of immersion.

And I dont see how articles for how to magnetize models is a good reason to keep so many options. I use magnets myself but I wouldnt mind if units had less options so I dont have to magnetize them all. If there is only a few extra options I would rather just build a few extra models with those weapons and swap the whole model as needed depending on what I wanted in my list. As I used to do with my tactical and devastator squads. Keeping more options purely cosmetical would allow me to field better looking units while still being wysiwyg. It wouldnt change how the units played in 99% of the cases anyway so what is this illusion of choice actually doing for us?

And I'm not really advocating for a reduction of bloat just due to balance issues. More from identity issues of the units and the hobby aspects of it. I just dont see how it could make the balance worse and in the best case it would make it easier to balance. Too much choice in individual units reduces your choice of what unit to bring.

If unit X can do the exact same thing as unit Y for cheaper why would I ever use unit Y? Take a 10 man assault marine squad for example in a BA list. They are fluffy and sadly thats the only reason you would really take them if you want a JP melee unit. You could take them just for having a cheap unit that can score objectives or secondaries(if playing ITC) but you would never take them for the assault aspect since you have other units that can do everything better. For the same points you get more str4 attacks from DC and same durability. Vanguard veterans can also take special pistols but they can take more while also be more durable and hit harder in CC. And if you want special weapons like melta or plasma guns the company veterans are just way better since they can have a combi weapon each and still keep their chainswords. And company veterans can be made even cheaper than the assault squad if that is what you are after. Too many options just relegated an iconic unit in a BA list to the bench. Even if they balanced each unit better the assault squad still wouldnt have a real place since each other unit can do the same and more.

Making a vanguard veteran be unable to use a plasma pistol for example wouldnt make that model unplayable since I could still use it as a assault marine or another unit. Not that I think they shouldnt be able to use plasma pistols, it was just an example. I have magnetized the arms of my JP veterans so I can put dual plasma pistols on them since it looks really nice.

Having primaris added to this mix will just make this even worse. Since the old units doesnt feel as iconic any more it will be even easier to shift to the new marines. Less variable but more identity is something I feel would make them stay for longer before getting completely replaced by a Primaris unit that also have 100 options that can do everything an old unit can do but better. Bloat will only lead to loss of identity and faster replacement.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I think on a game design level the system and mechanics are stressed in a specific way that isn't easily remedied.

I'd say there are two main problems. They want a world with a range of horde (a couple hundred little Nid bugs) to extremely powerful low model count (4 Knight models) armies which they service with a sliding scale of Points/Power Level, but their subsystems don't maintain that abstract sliding scale - CP Generation based on detachment filling instead of points spending, Securing Objectives is done by model count not points in range, volume of fire per point spent Give a knight T300, 700Wounds and a 2+ invuln even usable vs Mortal Wounds, but one 6" S3 Pistol that hits on 7's and it's not equivalent - (They're getting better here at least). If points are the unifying measurement mechanic for list building, points should be the unifying mechanic for victory point scoring and unit design.

And the D6. I think we're stuck with the D6. But they do need more room. In the long long run, I could see a free app that lets you input your army list - you get a a Game ID from the GW server, you tell your opponent the Game ID, they input theirs into their phone. The phones talk to each other over a GW server and do the rolling for you on the GW server then tell you the result. No more dice. Its even easier now that they got rid of Scatter. But I doubt they're moving off the D6 until they move onto an app.

Breton wrote:


And the D6. I think we're stuck with the D6. But they do need more room. In the long long run, I could see a free app that lets you input your army list - you get a a Game ID from the GW server, you tell your opponent the Game ID, they input theirs into their phone. The phones talk to each other over a GW server and do the rolling for you on the GW server then tell you the result. No more dice. Its even easier now that they got rid of Scatter. But I doubt they're moving off the D6 until they move onto an app.

I dont think they will move the die rolling to an app. Why not just play the game on the phone/computer then. I can see why people use it just because the ridiculous amount of die rolled but the problem isnt rolling the dice its the amount and the time it takes. Wasnt there a board game some years ago that used an app for playing but people felt they could just play a pure digital game at that point.

Klickor wrote:

If unit X can do the exact same thing as unit Y for cheaper why would I ever use unit Y? Take a 10 man assault marine squad for example in a BA list. They are fluffy and sadly thats the only reason you would really take them if you want a JP melee unit. You could take them just for having a cheap unit that can score objectives or secondaries(if playing ITC) but you would never take them for the assault aspect since you have other units that can do everything better.

Let's - for the moment - talk about assault squads in general and not their current pitifulness, or their 2nd Edition prime. The Assault Squad does not do the exact same thing as a DC or VV squad. Except for 2E, the Assault Squad did not have nearly the same access to power Weapons as VV (which only sort of existed, and only for BA once the AOD Codex came out near the middle/end) For most of their history the Assault Squad is/was a Fight Oriented version of the Tactical Squad and probably would have been better served/described as a Troop Choice. If you assume the Assault Squad can fight every other turn - while the Tactical can doulbe tap 2 out of 3 turns - The Assault Marine with 1A, +1A for two weapons, +1A for charging with their mobility advantage gets 1.5 S4 -1 attacks per turn, while the tactical marine got 1.6667 S4 -1 shots per turn. The VV are closer to the SG Drop Pod Special Ammo - they're designed for more elite targets than the Tactical/Assault Squad.

Two units that have the similar mechanics, but don't perform the same, and cost differently don't have the same job. It's like saying a pocket pair of 5's does the same job as a pocket pair of K's in Texas Hold'Em.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klickor wrote:



I dont think they will move the die rolling to an app. Why not just play the game on the phone/computer then. I can see why people use it just because the ridiculous amount of die rolled but the problem isnt rolling the dice its the amount and the time it takes. Wasnt there a board game some years ago that used an app for playing but people felt they could just play a pure digital game at that point.

Like I said, I think it's years and years into the future. I don't mind the current dice rolling- individually deviating 10 jump infantry every time you moved them was far worse - but there's a lot of complaining about it. Maybe in a generation or two they can use other dice, or maybe the Dungeons and Dragons makes kids shoot up schools thing flares up again, who knows. I think they're not moving off the D6 while that's a possibility though. Using computer randomization also gives them far far more room than any dice would. At that point they can move to percentages of percentages for the difference between a Land Raider and a Land Raider Crusader's armor value and not have to worry about how much of a pip on a die that is. Your App will also update your datasheet for wounds lost on that Land Raider variant with what it's current BS and MV is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To continue with more analogies until I find one that works for you - a CD-RW and a DVD-RW can do the same job, but they don't have the same job. A DVD-RW can do more, like the VV.

If I proritize my scouts into Snipers, I may take two Intercessor squads to go with them, and not take the Eliminators. If Eliminators get a full data sheet and can bump to 6, or even 10 models, I may take the Eliminators and switch from scouts to Infiltrators. Or switch them to Bolters because I spent the points on Eliminators and can't afford Infiltrators who overlap but don't have the same job because they do more things, and do the same things better.

The point of having 2+ options that perform similar functions to different ability levels is being able to shift the focus/theme/strength/whatever you want to call it of your army, and still cover all your bases.

Just because I don't want to pay - lets see.. 330 points or so for a kitted out 10 man VV squad doesn't mean I don't want to pay 180 for a 10 man Assault Squad to keep my opponent and his rear area honest (right now, its the dismal state of the fight phase in general that means I don't want to do that) - or vice versa, just because I don't get enough work out of a 180 point Assault Squad doesn't mean I never want to take a 330 point VV squad to smash face on a flank. Taking this Best Unit here means I have to take this less best unit there, or no model at all - especially in an army with a low model count. I much prefer taking a not-best unit to pay for a best unit than taking 2 best units and skipping four not best units.

I think you are using old rules and history to justify current units and choices existing. Like I know there were other reasons in other editions but right now we are playing 8th edition and I see no reason to believe we will ever get better designed rules for old marines than we have right now.

Yeah and when people started using DVD-RW they were much more expensive than CD-RW so you had different usages for them but right now no one is using either since a USB can do both for cheaper. Why continue using and even making the CD-RW when you have the DVD-RW for the same cost that can do the same thing and more and we also have access to something even better and cheaper.

I didn't compare 10 assault marines with 10 vanguard veterans, I compared 10 assault marines with the same points of VV or DC or CV. The other JP units are so much more efficient and durable (DC have FNP, VV and CV Stormshields etc) that for the same points they can just do more. If the other units could do less then you could balance/price/design AM for a different job and since there is no 100% overlap anymore they have a reason to exist even as a Fast attack choice instead of the troops they should have been. I'm just using assault marines as an example since I play BA and are most familiar with them. It is good to have some options but when too many units can do the exact same thing better than the assault marines why even have them? If company veterans couldnt take combi/special weapon then AM would be the only cheap unit able to drop in with 2 melta guns but right now its better to just drop company veterans that have about 50% higher output for the points and you can use them in a more flexible squad size too.

Your argument only works if we had fixed squad sizes but right now you have AM in 5-10. DC in 5-15 and Company Veterans in 2-10 so they are even outshone in that department since you can really tailor the other squads much better. There is no opportunity cost for NOT taking assault marines right now. In earlier editions you would be right but not now and I argue from how it is right now and will most likely go in the future.

You want both a use for units but no unit to have any real role since it can only be better if we have more choices for everything. From your perspective it would almost be better to have just 1 JP unit and have them have all the options. It is the exact same thing as having 4 different units with almost the same option in practice. We could go that way too. Just have 1 profile for JP infantry and 1 profile for 1w PA foot infantry and then have a huge weapons list. Then you can choose what ever you want and then depending on load out you just choose a different fluffy name from the background.

I want there to be differences between the units so i actually have to make a choice between options. Right now I can just use 2 veteran squads with different equipment, 1 close combat squad that can smash everything and then a small squad for harassing by using either DC or VV for the CC squad and then I could use company veterans for the harassing squad. No need to use one veteran squad and one assault squad. I can even get more CP from a vanguard detachment for having more elite units in my list. I haven't even mentioned using Sanguinary guard in this role or any of the new Gravis/JP primaris units that also enchroach on this design space.

Klickor wrote:
I think you are using old rules and history to justify current units and choices existing. Like I know there were other reasons in other editions but right now we are playing 8th edition and I see no reason to believe we will ever get better designed rules for old marines than we have right now.

No I'm using the fact that There are times you want VV or whatever, and times you don't need full VV or whatever and don't want to pay for it.

Yeah and when people started using DVD-RW they were much more expensive than CD-RW so you had different usages for them but right now no one is using either since a USB can do both for cheaper. Why continue using and even making the CD-RW when you have the DVD-RW for the same cost that can do the same thing and more and we also have access to something even better and cheaper.

There are places that don't allow USB for security reasons. There are others using technology too old for USB. Optical storage still has a job, just less of one.

I didn't compare 10 assault marines with 10 vanguard veterans, I compared 10 assault marines with the same points of VV or DC or CV.

I did. I happen to like taking the full 10 member squads. I find it fluffy and enjoyable. Additionally 5TH/SS VV are more than 10 Barebones Assault Marines, and almost as much as the kitted out squad - they cannot absorb as many wounds, They can't engage as many models or units, or secure the objective as well.

Company veterans can take JP in a BA list so no need for drop pods. That is why I have used them as an example all the time.

But why would I have to kit out the veteran squad fully? I could just take a barebone squad with a relic blade on the leader and then 1-2 storm shields. Or just go pistol and chainsword like the normal assault marines. You only use examples with very narrow load out as an argument for having lots of choices to justify units having different uses. If VV only had to take expensive weapons I would agree with you but you dont have to. You say all the tiny difference is worth having their separate datasheets then why not move them all in to 1 sheet and have each rule just be 1pt and you can build them as you want. We are basically there already with all the JP units for BA.

If units had less choices we would be exactly where you want to be with VV costing 150pts more than AM. Right now its 20pts and you get 10 extra attacks and 1 LD for that and way better weapon options. That is almost 50% increase in offensive output for 13% increase in price and with a 10man unit morale actually matters so that 1LD make it so they are almost as durable as 11 AM.

I think the mortal wounds example is just bad. Sure in just that case having 10%more bodies would be better but the output of the veterans is closer to 50% higher so not enough to really make a difference. If we want that tiny difference from each choice of unit that we want overall much worse options for umits that are a tiny amount better in very narrow places. Would bloat the hell out of the game. And with VV having higher LD you have a higher chance of a 10 man squad not losing the last models due to morale anyway.

And 170pts assault marines wont take an objective from anything else that costs 170pts since they will have to slug it out in combat and die hard.

Im building a list right now with 2 battalions and a vanguard detachment. Not that uncommon to see BA using 1-2 battalions(ba or soup) and then a vanguard as third since most good units are HQs and Elite for BA.

Im not saying that GW should squat Assault Marines. But unless they narrow what each unit can do then they have practicaly already done that but in name. Just use the assault marines with your choice of veteran rules and call them assault marines if you want. Best use of that unit right now. Or do you think we need a tier0, 5 assault marines. We could have a unit that is a bit cheaper but with 8"move and fly and the veteran weapon options. More choice is always better for the game right.

You would in fact not suffer ay all from doing what I propose since you want full squads with fluffy outfits. So do I. But an unfluffy veteran squad is right now better than a fluffy assault marine squad at its job rules wise. Both you and me want to use fluffy assault marine squads for one thing and then a fluffy vanguard squad for something else. You enforce fluffy rules for your self to make it like that the units do different things. Why not make that the actual rules?

Would probably be easier to balance too boot. Right now both DC and VV can take Thunder hammers and chainswords. Both weapons are used for completly different targets but since you can use both at the same time in a unit you have to balance the unit from their bedt performance in each category which makes certain combinations of weapons quite bad. Why not have VV gets the hammers and stormshields for the hardest targets. DC bolter and chainsword and perhaps an axe or 2 for horde duty and then remove JP from company veterans and let AM be the cheap unit with only access to JP and melta guns. Cleaner by far and easier to GW to balance to make all viable.

And Sanguinary Guard can be kept mostly as it is. Just fix their melee weapons and reroll interaction with dante. They have their special usage without overlap from the other JP units.

To be honest I'll be so glad to see some consolidation.
GW clearly failed to make each basic power weapon unique, like oh, you glued a sword on your sarge? Nice, you just handicapped yourself.

Could we back to power weapon be, well, a power weapon please? Sword, axe, lance, mace, pick what is cool. It's not that matter, because, you know, we have freaking titans on the table, is it matter if there is sword or axe on the tiny marine out there?
The same with powerfist and hammer, just make one hard-hitting option, like combat blade/chainsword single anti infantry option, only a matter of look.

Some units could be merged too, there is no reason to have company squad and veteran squad the different entity, just give all veterans this look out seer and keep less pages, repeat with several others weapons and units.

Klickor wrote:
Company veterans can take JP in a BA list so no need for drop pods. That is why I have used them as an example all the time.

Not everyone plays BA, I don't and don't feel like having my codex shrunk for it.

But why would I have to kit out the veteran squad fully? I could just take a barebone squad with a relic blade on the leader and then 1-2 storm shields. Or just go pistol and chainsword like the normal assault marines. You only use examples with very narrow load out as an argument for having lots of choices to justify units having different uses. If VV only had to take expensive weapons I would agree with you but you dont have to. You say all the tiny difference is worth having their separate datasheets then why not move them all in to 1 sheet and have each rule just be 1pt and you can build them as you want. We are basically there already with all the JP units for BA.

Because they work pretty hard and not modifying the core Stats on a datasheet like the T4 Primaris Captain and the T5 Gravis Captain or the M6 T4 Captain, and the M12 T5 Bike Captain. or the M5 and M4 Terminator captains. They also work hard at avoiding 4 page data sheets with a thousand options.

If units had less choices we would be exactly where you want to be with VV costing 150pts more than AM. Right now its 20pts and you get 10 extra attacks and 1 LD for that and way better weapon options. That is almost 50% increase in offensive output for 13% increase in price and with a 10man unit morale actually matters so that 1LD make it so they are almost as durable as 11 AM.

And 5 fewer wounds. You keep ignoring the 5 Fewer wounds. If we had fewer unit choices to be where you want us to be, we'd be playing with 18 model count armies instead of 40.

I think the mortal wounds example is just bad. Sure in just that case having 10%more bodies would be better but the output of the veterans is closer to 50% higher so not enough to really make a difference. If we want that tiny difference from each choice of unit that we want overall much worse options for umits that are a tiny amount better in very narrow places. Would bloat the hell out of the game. And with VV having higher LD you have a higher chance of a 10 man squad not losing the last models due to morale anyway.

I too think examples that expose a flaw I want to ignore are bad.

Im building a list right now with 2 battalions and a vanguard detachment. Not that uncommon to see BA using 1-2 battalions(ba or soup) and then a vanguard as third since most good units are HQs and Elite for BA.

At how many points? And Soup is not a Marine Army, Soup is a Soup army. One fluffy battalion of just a Space Marine "Loyal 32" (call it one Scout, One intercessor, One Tactical to cover all bases) is going to run about 566 points before upgrades. Run two of those and you're at 1132 - again before upgrades - After upgrades just to Box Art - that's 660 and 1320 - or about 90% of a 1500 point list. It's 2/3 of a 2000 point list.

Im not saying that GW should squat Assault Marines. But unless they narrow what each unit can do then they have practicaly already done that but in name. Just use the assault marines with your choice of veteran rules and call them assault marines if you want. Best use of that unit right now. Or do you think we need a tier0, 5 assault marines. We could have a unit that is a bit cheaper but with 8"move and fly and the veteran weapon options. More choice is always better for the game right

Again, your inability to see their niche doesn't make for a good reason to remove them from people who can. There's more than one way to play almost any given unit. For example you want to kit out the Company Veterans. I'd rather leave them bare bones, or a power sword at best. Their LOOKOUT SIR! doesn't take their equipment into account. It triggers after saves, for a Mortal Wound so I'm definitely not buying them storm shields. They're 14 point ablative wounds for your characters. Take 10 of them around Lysander with his Stormshield and watch people try and shoot off 16 2+/3++ wounds that can return fire with 20 Rapid Fire Bolter Drill Seige Master shots. It even works in close combat if you want to stick with the chain/power swords over the bolter fire. The downside is figuring out how that works with multi-wound hits. The Command Squad triggers on a wound dealt, then intecepts the hit.. does that mean a 6 wound lascannon hit all 6 cause one mortal wound on a Command Vet, or 6 mortal wounds? Does that mean after the save is failed the entire hit is transferred to the Vet before Damage is even rolled/determined? I suspect so, but It'll be a fun argument to watch. I'm already playing with the idea of Guilliman, and 3 Company Vet squads running around in his 6" bubble.

Well. Why not just have vanguard veterans get the same rule as company veterans and then choose how to use the unit? I am clearly talking about BA in my posts and in my latest I just suggested that they at least should remove the JP option from then to make so there is a difference between the units since right now company veterans far out perform assault marines for cheap and small unit with special weapons.

And I was comparing 10 man VV squad to 10 man AM squad. For the same points you get just 1,5 extra assault marines so no 5 extra wounds there. Naked VV costs just 2 extra points per model 17 vs 15.

I use 2 BA battalions and a vanguard in 1500pts. Im not gonna use tacticals or intercessors in a 1500pts list sadly since they are not worth it. 6x scouts for me. I would rather have tacticals or intercessors but then I dont have the points left for any of the good units. The same list at 1750 have 2x5 intercessors and 3x5 intercessors at 2000pts.

Do lysander take hits from the company veterans? If not why not just kill them first? They arent much of a threat anyway with that week firepower for that point cost.

If you are playing Guilliman you have access to Victrix Guard that are superior to Company Veterans. Cheaper per wound and they come with 2+/3++ and power swords.

And since both Lysander and Guilliman are characters they cant be shot first anyway. Spending hundreds of points on company veterans is a really bad idea. They are just more expensive tactical marines that protect your character from snipers. Company vetetans naked must be one of the worst unit choices in the whole codex. They have the best selection of weapons of any non captain unit in the book and should be taken for that. And that is what makes them a bad unit to have. No problem with a bodyguard unit. I like that. But they are just too flexible if used outside as honorguard/bodyguard that they fulfill other units roles too. And with that huge weapon access they cant be worth it to protect characters too since they would be too good compared to the other marine choices. With less weapon options they could be cheaper or have a 5+++ or something to make them good for what you want them for without making them superior to any other marine unit.

A lascannon can kill 6 company vetetans with 1 shot sadly. Gw writes poorly worded rules again but its after you roll for damage so its a 2+ for each wound meaning up to 6 mortal wounds. As BA I can at least get FNP on that but still isnt worth it in most cases. Helps the character not be one shot by a lucky vindicare but thats about it.

Intercessors: Get 4 Stratagems
Tactical Squads: Get 0 Stratagems
Totally not squatting oldmarines guys!

Honestly, it's hilariously obvious GW are moving hard to squat oldmarines as soon as they feel they can get away with it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Intercessors: Get 4 Stratagems
Tactical Squads: Get 0 Stratagems
Totally not squatting oldmarines guys!

Honestly, it's hilariously obvious GW are moving hard to squat oldmarines as soon as they feel they can get away with it.

Well at least they got the new rules added on so that counts for something. I just think thr strategems are a way to push the sales for their new models, no biggie.

numerous old marine unitys got strats attached to them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Intercessors: Get 4 Stratagems
Tactical Squads: Get 0 Stratagems
Totally not squatting oldmarines guys!

Honestly, it's hilariously obvious GW are moving hard to squat oldmarines as soon as they feel they can get away with it.

How many of the Strats suck? And are just reworks/reprints of what they already had in Vigilus? Plus their AuxGL's are a point again, while Tacs went down. Probably not enough, going from 10W to 20W for 30ish points isn't a tough call to make.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Intercessors: Get 4 Stratagems
Tactical Squads: Get 0 Stratagems
Totally not squatting oldmarines guys!

Honestly, it's hilariously obvious GW are moving hard to squat oldmarines as soon as they feel they can get away with it.

Grav Cannons only on Classic Marines got a great Stratagem. As did Terminators. Sternguard have a Strat. Scout Bikes have a Strat. Whirlwind and Thunderfire have a Strat. Thunderfire has a second Strat. Bikers and Land Speeders got a Strat. Flakk and Hellfire can only be used by infantry with Missile Launchers or Heavy Bolters which Primaris don't get, etc.

Intercessors need Strats because they can't get good guns.

Hunters and Stalkers got a new Strat that I think is pretty rad. It might be the answer to Alaitoc flyers.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Intercessors: Get 4 Stratagems
Tactical Squads: Get 0 Stratagems
Totally not squatting oldmarines guys!

Honestly, it's hilariously obvious GW are moving hard to squat oldmarines as soon as they feel they can get away with it.

So you had to raise from the dead a month old thread to try and troll old marine lovers ? A very good use of time.

That said, lets ignore the bonuses old marines got, and lets further ignore strats for old marine units, yeah they got nothing.

Why are some people so eager to see things fail or be destroyed ? Is someones annoyance or upset that fulfilling ? Now let me add, I'm not sure if thats why you brought this thread back or you are trying to warn people, so if I have your intentions wrong let me know. However, I say again, there are strats for old marine units, and those new strats mostly are re tooled vigilus starts yes ? So really they didn't gain anything new they didn't already have access to for awhile with them which you could say is less effort than the old marines strats which are new to my knowledge.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Hunters and Stalkers got a new Strat that I think is pretty rad. It might be the answer to Alaitoc flyers.

hup. Missed that one.

BCB are you 4 rl?

My Astartes got significantly better along with my Primaris, so I dont understand your joke? I'm actually looking forward to see how it works out on thursday.



Kinda lame at this point...wait what do I mean this point, more like any of the previous 500.

 Lance845 wrote:
I get that you want to hang onto the old stuff. I do. But Primaris is the future and they are squatting the old marines. Enjoy it while it lasts. It won't last for long. You have basically until the named characters have been primarisized. By that point you will get a closer to Terminator equivalent, a few more vehicles and some dedicated melee units and then it's over. Old marines will be gone.

Having read all of this thread, I must say I have a fairly Sweeney Todd attitude about their impending demise. "The lives of the wicked should be made brief / For the rest of us, death will be a relief." Clearly, if the arguments posited over the past few pages are anything to go by, the game is an unplayable mess anyway so having my oldest army invalidated will be a wonderful thing.

Ice_can wrote:
Intercessors finally after 2 rounds of points reductions are just about starting to see some play at competitive levels.

So, that would seem to indicate that Intercessors are now top-tier, optimal units, right? Tournament players don't regularly bring sub-optimal units to competitive play.

Tacticals might still be fine for general play, even if they're not the flavor-of-the-month meta.

Edit: My apologies, I just realized these posts were made before the new SM codex dropped.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Intercessors: Get 4 Stratagems
Tactical Squads: Get 0 Stratagems
Totally not squatting oldmarines guys!

Honestly, it's hilariously obvious GW are moving hard to squat oldmarines as soon as they feel they can get away with it.

So you had to raise from the dead a month old thread to try and troll old marine lovers ? A very good use of time.

That said, lets ignore the bonuses old marines got, and lets further ignore strats for old marine units, yeah they got nothing.

Why are some people so eager to see things fail or be destroyed ? Is someones annoyance or upset that fulfilling ? Now let me add, I'm not sure if thats why you brought this thread back or you are trying to warn people, so if I have your intentions wrong let me know. However, I say again, there are strats for old marine units, and those new strats mostly are re tooled vigilus starts yes ? So really they didn't gain anything new they didn't already have access to for awhile with them which you could say is less effort than the old marines strats which are new to my knowledge.

"Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Also, something something Grampa Nurgle something something. There's a certain fascination with watching things collapse built into the human psyche, it's just how we're wired. Paying attention to how things break had to have been a survival trait at some point in our evolution, and it's not like that ever stopped being useful.

Maybe he just wants to laugh at people in denial.