Switch Theme:

New marine abilities  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant






Can we not rehash the "Gladius was OP in 7th edition" argument. I mean we're playing 8th edition after all and formations from 7th have no baring on the present edition. It goes nowhere.

Anyway for what it's worth I hope Angel's of death is the rework I've been preaching about for atsknf (roll 2 take the lowest for morale) plus something else since I assume additional rules would be needed to warrant a name change
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




As much as I wish it weren't the case, my money is on ATSKNF bolted on to bolter discipline. GW has been staring at the data for months and months and done very little meaningful for marines.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/18 18:51:44


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 fraser1191 wrote:
Can we not rehash the "Gladius was OP in 7th edition" argument. I mean we're playing 8th edition after all and formations from 7th have no baring on the present edition. It goes nowhere.

Anyway for what it's worth I hope Angel's of death is the rework I've been preaching about for atsknf (roll 2 take the lowest for morale) plus something else since I assume additional rules would be needed to warrant a name change

The relevance is what we want Marines to be.

I miss Marines being a threat-in-being to light vehicles that loiter too close. I'd argue that their rules in 6th were more than strong enough to make that a thing. And a single Tac Squad Lascannon having a ~4% chance of oneshotting or ~6-8% of rendering useless the largest uber-tank of the day certainly would be "small but not unreasonable". Higher than that would be silly.

The question is "What do we *want* Marines to do", and since my answer is "Generally, what they did in 6th/8th, outside the cheesier games", it's hard to discuss when a handful of people foam at the mouth at the idea that Marines were anything above absolute-trash. When discussing what they should be in the future, it's really hard to have a reasonable conversation when people shout down any reference to their past abilities not being worthless.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




My play group wasn't putting heavies in tacs because of the lack of splitfire. Eventually, tacs just disappeared until gladius.

In my group, marines were being gunned down before any vehicle had a chance to loiter too close. That's kind of the point of ranged weapons, right?

I think marines need to be end of 3rd edition competent to be useful. Not beginning, as they were actually too good. That's my answer. Tacs were too weak for sure starting in the firepower fest of 5th and onward. In fact, to make tacs scary in 5th, they had to give them an extra attack base, and give them an extra attack when charged and call them grey hunters, and then give them cheapo drop pods.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/18 18:59:46


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Bharring wrote:
Are we really going to spend pages arguing whether:
A) The game isn't so bad that it's unplayable,
or
B) The game is bad, but it's playable
?

I mean, it sounds like Ishagu and Klickor are making the same claim.

It sounds like any disagreement is over how easy it is to design a replacement. On that, I'll have to side with "Not as easy as most people think". Just cruise through any players' suggestions for how to balance the game. I don't think there's any one poster I'd trust to be able to do it better/faster than GW. Most would be much, much worse.


This.

People speak like designing a game with this level of complexity is easy, but every time they try their hand at fixing even a small detail of it, they fail spectacularly.

This board needs to learn humility. They are the professionals with experience and numbers, you are the amateur.

When you disagree with something GW did, accept that you are by definition wrong until proven otherwise. And you will be proven wrong 95% of the times.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/18 18:59:32


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Spoletta wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Are we really going to spend pages arguing whether:
A) The game isn't so bad that it's unplayable,
or
B) The game is bad, but it's playable
?

I mean, it sounds like Ishagu and Klickor are making the same claim.

It sounds like any disagreement is over how easy it is to design a replacement. On that, I'll have to side with "Not as easy as most people think". Just cruise through any players' suggestions for how to balance the game. I don't think there's any one poster I'd trust to be able to do it better/faster than GW. Most would be much, much worse.


This.

People speak like designing a game with this level of complexity is easy, but every time they try their hand at fixing even a small detail of it, they fail spectacularly.

This board needs to learn humility. They are the professionals with experience and numbers, you are the amateur.

When you disagree with something GW did, accept that you are by definition wrong until proven otherwise. And you will be proven wrong 95% of the times.


Being someone who works with numbers a lot, I find this highly unlikely. I don't consider GW a very professional organization in the first place. They have even admitted in the past the rules are just there to sell the models and don't get much scrutiny. Designing a good game is difficult, but GW's bar is very low. I'll be humble in the face of nobel laureates, not a bunch of lazy hacks like GW.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/18 19:02:54


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Do you know what "professional" means?

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I get that they make money at this, but the rules side of gw is not conducted in a professional manner. Brilliant models, but they should really outsource the rules to a professional game studio. GW is an art studio, not a game studio.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Martel732 wrote:
I get that they make money at this, but the rules side of gw is not conducted in a professional manner. Brilliant models, but they should really outsource the rules to a professional game studio. GW is an art studio, not a game studio.

Compared to whom?

Everything is easy, if you don't actually do it.
Tax rules should just be one page!
How hard can it be to build a website?
They're just digging a ditch - why do they need all this planning and paperwork?
How could anyone think 640k aught to be enough for anyone?

I get that GW is on the looser-rulesset side of things, but you're using "Professional" to mean "High quality dispasionate simulation-focused rules-writers". Deciding to maintain a rulesset that is more streamlined, or less serious, or more campy/zany doesn't make them "not professional".

As for complexity, there really isn't much to compare them to. Starcraft, MTG, and Warmahordes are all relatively low complexity, rules-wise. Better written by many standards, sure. Cover deeper tactical games, certainly. But they cover a lot less complexity and variance than 40k.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




They make too many obvious mistakes to be considered professional. Thats my take on it. I know most will disagree. Thats fine. I consider them an art studio as i said.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/18 19:30:53


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Martel732 wrote:
I get that they make money at this, but the rules side of gw is not conducted in a professional manner. Brilliant models, but they should really outsource the rules to a professional game studio. GW is an art studio, not a game studio.


What makes what they do not professional? And don't cite math of 4 ppm Guardsmen vs. Marines.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Martel732 wrote:
They make too many obvious mistakes to be considered professional. Thats my take on it. I know most will disagree. Thats fine. I consider them an art studio as i said.

And Google doesn't?
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list

I'd still call the Chromium project professional.

Put another way, Bethesda games back in the day were known for their defects, but still loved. Top-tier, professional games. Still riddled with mistakes.

Professionals make mistakes. Some professionals make lots more mistakes than other professionals. Number of mistakes doesn't define "professional" or not. It doesn't even directly define quality.
   
Made in ca
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant






Bharring wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
Can we not rehash the "Gladius was OP in 7th edition" argument. I mean we're playing 8th edition after all and formations from 7th have no baring on the present edition. It goes nowhere.

Anyway for what it's worth I hope Angel's of death is the rework I've been preaching about for atsknf (roll 2 take the lowest for morale) plus something else since I assume additional rules would be needed to warrant a name change

The relevance is what we want Marines to be.

I miss Marines being a threat-in-being to light vehicles that loiter too close. I'd argue that their rules in 6th were more than strong enough to make that a thing. And a single Tac Squad Lascannon having a ~4% chance of oneshotting or ~6-8% of rendering useless the largest uber-tank of the day certainly would be "small but not unreasonable". Higher than that would be silly.

The question is "What do we *want* Marines to do", and since my answer is "Generally, what they did in 6th/8th, outside the cheesier games", it's hard to discuss when a handful of people foam at the mouth at the idea that Marines were anything above absolute-trash. When discussing what they should be in the future, it's really hard to have a reasonable conversation when people shout down any reference to their past abilities not being worthless.


I want marines to put up a fight

On average most infantry is about 7 points or so. Marines are generally paying double for their infantry but they aren't getting double the performance per body.

So either the the floor needs to be raised or marines need to be improved to be worth their points. Frankly I'd say intercessors are the ideal result and they are only a little overpriced imo

I won't claim to be a game designer but I'd say if you're paying double the cost you should get double the output. The start of 8th was even more laughable when intercessors were 20ppm, 5x the cost of a guardsman (granted there's other trash infantry like Necrons but that's more from a mechanic)
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






"Double the output" is highly contextual. That's a pretty difficult thing to quantify in terms of army vs. army.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Bharring wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
They make too many obvious mistakes to be considered professional. Thats my take on it. I know most will disagree. Thats fine. I consider them an art studio as i said.

And Google doesn't?
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list

I'd still call the Chromium project professional.

Put another way, Bethesda games back in the day were known for their defects, but still loved. Top-tier, professional games. Still riddled with mistakes.

Professionals make mistakes. Some professionals make lots more mistakes than other professionals. Number of mistakes doesn't define "professional" or not. It doesn't even directly define quality.


GWs rulewriting still comes off as a half-ass attempt from a garage company. I dont want to debate the term professional. Their rules writing does not rise to the level i would expect of a professional game studio.
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




Crazy idea: What if the rules writers at GW are crunched just like Bethesda crunches their game devs? What comes out is a horrible buggy mess like 76. Same with GW. You get GK codex at the start, and SM, and a few others. Buggy crap. By all accounts the game plays relatively smoother now, and is enjoyable.
   
Made in ca
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant






 Insectum7 wrote:
"Double the output" is highly contextual. That's a pretty difficult thing to quantify in terms of army vs. army.


Yes it incredibly hard to determine value since arguably you could say the game is more about staying power since you need to hold objectives to score point. Or say value is about killing power since they can't claim objectives if they're dead

That's why I won't let myself make radical claims beyond shaving of at most 2 points of intercessors or other units/wargear. Reducing something by 10 or so points can radically change a units effectiveness
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 fraser1191 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
Can we not rehash the "Gladius was OP in 7th edition" argument. I mean we're playing 8th edition after all and formations from 7th have no baring on the present edition. It goes nowhere.

Anyway for what it's worth I hope Angel's of death is the rework I've been preaching about for atsknf (roll 2 take the lowest for morale) plus something else since I assume additional rules would be needed to warrant a name change

The relevance is what we want Marines to be.

I miss Marines being a threat-in-being to light vehicles that loiter too close. I'd argue that their rules in 6th were more than strong enough to make that a thing. And a single Tac Squad Lascannon having a ~4% chance of oneshotting or ~6-8% of rendering useless the largest uber-tank of the day certainly would be "small but not unreasonable". Higher than that would be silly.

The question is "What do we *want* Marines to do", and since my answer is "Generally, what they did in 6th/8th, outside the cheesier games", it's hard to discuss when a handful of people foam at the mouth at the idea that Marines were anything above absolute-trash. When discussing what they should be in the future, it's really hard to have a reasonable conversation when people shout down any reference to their past abilities not being worthless.


I want marines to put up a fight

On average most infantry is about 7 points or so. Marines are generally paying double for their infantry but they aren't getting double the performance per body.

So either the the floor needs to be raised or marines need to be improved to be worth their points. Frankly I'd say intercessors are the ideal result and they are only a little overpriced imo

I won't claim to be a game designer but I'd say if you're paying double the cost you should get double the output. The start of 8th was even more laughable when intercessors were 20ppm, 5x the cost of a guardsman (granted there's other trash infantry like Necrons but that's more from a mechanic)

Really no. It needs to be more than double the output. Because. 1 Wound still kills you. Often even if you have 2 wounds 1 wound still kills you. More points per wound on a body puts you at a greater risk to heavier firepower. So in essence - that risk needs to give you more than just taking 2 bodies for the same cost. Right now per point you even get more output compared to an elite type infantry. This is true on the whole but mostly true with marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I get that they make money at this, but the rules side of gw is not conducted in a professional manner. Brilliant models, but they should really outsource the rules to a professional game studio. GW is an art studio, not a game studio.

Compared to whom?

Everything is easy, if you don't actually do it.
Tax rules should just be one page!
How hard can it be to build a website?
They're just digging a ditch - why do they need all this planning and paperwork?
How could anyone think 640k aught to be enough for anyone?

I get that GW is on the looser-rulesset side of things, but you're using "Professional" to mean "High quality dispasionate simulation-focused rules-writers". Deciding to maintain a rulesset that is more streamlined, or less serious, or more campy/zany doesn't make them "not professional".

As for complexity, there really isn't much to compare them to. Starcraft, MTG, and Warmahordes are all relatively low complexity, rules-wise. Better written by many standards, sure. Cover deeper tactical games, certainly. But they cover a lot less complexity and variance than 40k.

My gosh dude. Don't compare actually complicated things like engineering and tax codex to making a competent rule set. It's not in the same ball park.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/18 20:18:09


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I get that they make money at this, but the rules side of gw is not conducted in a professional manner. Brilliant models, but they should really outsource the rules to a professional game studio. GW is an art studio, not a game studio.

Compared to whom?

Everything is easy, if you don't actually do it.
Tax rules should just be one page!
How hard can it be to build a website?
They're just digging a ditch - why do they need all this planning and paperwork?
How could anyone think 640k aught to be enough for anyone?

I get that GW is on the looser-rulesset side of things, but you're using "Professional" to mean "High quality dispasionate simulation-focused rules-writers". Deciding to maintain a rulesset that is more streamlined, or less serious, or more campy/zany doesn't make them "not professional".

As for complexity, there really isn't much to compare them to. Starcraft, MTG, and Warmahordes are all relatively low complexity, rules-wise. Better written by many standards, sure. Cover deeper tactical games, certainly. But they cover a lot less complexity and variance than 40k.

My gosh dude. Don't compare actually complicated things like engineering and tax codex to making a competent rule set. It's not in the same ball park.

Certainly not, but they're all things people think are simple, if they've never had to actually do it.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






starting from nothing is a lot more difficult than taking something that isn't perfect and perfecting it. I like in general the rule set. Except for a few interactions which I could go into detail with later. Mainly I am concerned with points costs. Points cost is not difficult. All units use the same stats and have projectable outcomes. These outcomes need to be close based on unit types.It's very easy to crunch some numbers like we do here often and use a little insight based on gaming experience to make these outcomes more equal.

In a game were a 2 damage weapon is common place and can be spammed. Is 2 wounds really that valuable? In a game where a 3+ save is often reduced to a 5+ where many even cheap units have 5++ saves...is a 3+ worth a lot compared to that 5++? Is a 5++ worth anything on a 2+ save? Ina game where you can deep strike a unit for 1 CP is 70 points a fair cost for a vehical thats only use is to deep strike a unit and then shoot a storm bolter?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/18 20:33:51


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





That sure sounds reasonable, until my troops bounce off the Sv2+ 10ppm Tac marines or whatever other fix someone thought was "obvious".

As a system gets more complex, fixes have more and more unintended consequences. Try opening up an nontrivial codebase and make an "obvious" change. Odds are, you broke something.
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator




The Void

"You're not allowed to criticize all the obvious individual issues with GW's rules because you haven't made your own system from the ground up."

This seems to be the main argument the last few pages, no? Its really easy for anyone in this thread to write a better ruleset than GW. Just copy and paste their current rules, and then fix any one of the multitude of issues, oversights, or broken units. Bam! Better ruleset. Heck, you could even fix TWO of the main issues.

Also, 5th was a much more solid rules set. The problems with 5th were mainly a lack of unit updates and by extension the meta, not problems with large sections of mechanics not fulfilling their role (8th ed morale system, etc.) 5th got boring, but the rules worked. The idea that the hobby is doing well in 8th because of the new system rules is absurd. Its doing well because of the new models, codices, events, better economy, and by virtue of not being 7th ed. 5th ed took place during a recession and mass shuttering of game stores, 8th is taking place at a time where a lot of these stores are coming back.

If we had 5th ed system rules with 8th codex and update release schedules, it'd be a far better game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/18 21:21:52


Always 1 on the crazed roll. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
"You're not allowed to criticize all the obvious individual issues with GW's rules because you haven't made your own system from the ground up."

This seems to be the main argument the last few pages, no? Its really easy for anyone in this thread to write a better ruleset than GW. Just copy and paste their current rules, and then fix any one of the multitude of issues, oversights, or broken units. Bam! Better ruleset. Heck, you could even fix TWO of the main issues.

I'd think there are a number of "easy" fixes. But if you read half the suggestions the average poster brings up as those "easy" fixes, they sound terrible. 2+ saves for all Marines. 6ppm Guardsmen. Drop Pods cost 1CP and 0 pts. Remove Storm Guardians, Assault Marines, custom Captains and more from the game. These are all someone doing just a "fix any one of the multitude of issues, oversights, or broken units".

I do agree that criticism of GW is valid from everyone, but I disagree with people claiming they could easily make a better game, or their half-baked ideas are inescapably god-tier fixes for the game.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Crazy idea: What if the rules writers at GW are crunched just like Bethesda crunches their game devs? What comes out is a horrible buggy mess like 76. Same with GW. You get GK codex at the start, and SM, and a few others. Buggy crap. By all accounts the game plays relatively smoother now, and is enjoyable.

Probably because there are Grey Knights players who paid for their codex and don't want to be running a weak army. Crazy idea, right?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I'd argue that the earlier codexes showed more restraint, more skill. Auspex Scan seems much more situational, tactical, and fair than Forewarning, for example.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Bharring wrote:
I'd argue that the earlier codexes showed more restraint, more skill. Auspex Scan seems much more situational, tactical, and fair than Forewarning, for example.

Yeah that's not how you should design rules. You ether release all the rules at once (also not hard) or you use the same restraint on every codex.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Crazy idea: What if the rules writers at GW are crunched just like Bethesda crunches their game devs? What comes out is a horrible buggy mess like 76. Same with GW. You get GK codex at the start, and SM, and a few others. Buggy crap. By all accounts the game plays relatively smoother now, and is enjoyable.

Probably because there are Grey Knights players who paid for their codex and don't want to be running a weak army. Crazy idea, right?

Basically this. People have paid for the work that goes into the design and creativity within the rule of a codex. They're not free rules, so of course people have the right to demand better writing or better balance. They don't want to feel that they got the inferior choice.
   
Made in se
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Sweden

Bharring wrote:
I'd argue that the earlier codexes showed more restraint, more skill. Auspex Scan seems much more situational, tactical, and fair than Forewarning, for example.


Indeed. Just look at ork chapter tactics compared to marine ones.

Salamanders, reroll one hit and wound (or something like that), only on infantry, bikes and dredds.

Deff skulls: reroll one hit wound and damage, any infantry get the obsec rule, get a 6++ save. This goes on all units in the codex


It barely compares. The rules after marines and chaos codex show no restraint.

Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Gitdakka wrote:
Bharring wrote:
I'd argue that the earlier codexes showed more restraint, more skill. Auspex Scan seems much more situational, tactical, and fair than Forewarning, for example.


Indeed. Just look at ork chapter tactics compared to marine ones.

Salamanders, reroll one hit and wound (or something like that), only on infantry, bikes and dredds.

Deff skulls: reroll one hit wound and damage, any infantry get the obsec rule, get a 6++ save. This goes on all units in the codex


It barely compares. The rules after marines and chaos codex show no restraint.

Exactly. Maybe in the new SM codex that comes out right before 9th edition we will get gladius formation and chapter tactics apply. Then Marines can be OP for like 3 months before a whole new edition starts but everyone can say marines weren't that bad in 8th.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

I find it hilarious that people on this forum actually claim they can outright do better than GW, and also seem to actually misunderstand the meaning of the term "professional"

They also quote statements made in past editions as if they still apply now, even though GW playtests new units by dozens of testers over dozens of hours, and amends the game with FAQs after looking at player data over thousands of games.

The absolute lack of humility is staggering. I have many personal flaws but a distorted view of reality is not one of them. The lack of understanding of the sheer time it takes to get a book from concept to printing also shows how immature some of these "critics" are.

Please, grow up.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/18 22:38:33


-~Ishagu~- 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: