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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
"Unreasonable requirements"
"Amazing Stratagem"
Pick one, dude

Game winner is the key. It has amazing damage potential but it's difficult to pull off unless you go first. This is also true of killshot but killshot is a lot easier to shut down. Heck you just need to touch one of the preds in cc and youll never use the strat. Vindis can use their ability even after being charged. So you have to kill it and they are harder to kill too.

 Xenomancers wrote:

That's stupid and fits under the logic that Killshot was fine.

In reality these Stratagems don't get used and the fact you tried to defend the Vindicator Stratagem as any good is pretty fething laughable to be honest and just makes you look bad.
Preds are more expensive and less durable then vindis. Plus they also average 2 str 10 d6 damage shots per turn after that and tend to get ignored. It's probably going to be a game changer with d6 shots now. Not sure why you would take any other tank than a vindi now with d6 shots automatic. It would be great if we still had the stragem though.

Found an image they are Heavy D6 but they no londer scale in any way.

If the requirements are too unreasonable, even if it's a game-winner, it's not worth it. If the requirements aren't too unreasonable, if it's a game-winner, it's OP.

Relying on a too-unreasonable game-winner is basically accepting that you can't actually win half of your games, so you'll go for a gimmick win when you can. Basically, a defeated player before they show up.

You're basically saying that your ability to win games should hinge on this "one little trick" actually working. If we want Marines to be capable of wining without relying on such a game-winner, the game-winner needs to be toned down while the rest of the army gets toned up.

Which seems to be what they're trying to do.

To make matters worse, your chosen hero game-winner has nothing to do, thematically, with the army. You're playing Marines so you can have an armored spearhead obliterate the enemy without any Marines involved?

The swing of "Marines are going to be so OP with all the new rules" to "Marines have gotten worse/still terrible and the codex is crap" is both amusing and worrying.

Worrying in the sense that the certainty which this is all said without playing a single game or the codex even being out is stunning.

Drop pods, grav devs, doctrines, massive boosts to chapter tactics, points drops for tacs and ASM... the list goes on.

Marines might have lost the Gman crutch, but they've gained fantastic versatility from what I can see, and going by Lawrence's first game on Tabletop Tactics he seems incredibly impressed with them.

I'm excited for the changes. But I guess the usual doomsayers will still claim the sky is falling.

It was nice to finally see a marine army preview batrep that didn’t result in the marines getting tabled.

Marines could be a Top Tier dex, and you'll still see threads about how they're unplayable trash. It's happened before, it'll happen again.

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL if space marines were top teir when the eddition came out and I called them falling to the bottom. I am very proud of having that amount of foresight.


Gmans rerolls were so OP he had to be nerfed into the 400pt range to be "fair" - even when taking otherwise-halfdecent options.

If you need "reroll all wounds" auras to be considered a non-failure, your idea of balance is out of whack.

What you fail to understand. Is he was overpointed at 400.

Dude, you read like trumps twitter account when you're talking about your own army; Could you please talk about how you'd buff guilliman and make CWE pay for it?

 davou wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL if space marines were top teir when the eddition came out and I called them falling to the bottom. I am very proud of having that amount of foresight.


Gmans rerolls were so OP he had to be nerfed into the 400pt range to be "fair" - even when taking otherwise-halfdecent options.

If you need "reroll all wounds" auras to be considered a non-failure, your idea of balance is out of whack.

What you fail to understand. Is he was overpointed at 400.

Dude, you read like trumps twitter account when you're talking about your own army; Could you please talk about how you'd buff guilliman and make CWE pay for it?

Not to get political. If someone is right about something. They are right whether you like them or not. Space marines have been a bottom tier army for a long time. Nerfing their best units in an attempt to fix the codex is a pretty idiotic way of doing that. I am also right. Gman and repuslors were our best units and they have both been heavily nerfed. GW seems to have the opposite Idea of how to fix things. For example - not nerfing infantry and buffing LR commanders does nothing to fix guard being OP. Agressors are a pretty okay unit and they buffed them to be a good unit. Then made a new transport that would make them fantastic but aggressors cant ride in them and they nerfed respulsors and executioners who can carry them....GREAT. They buff stalker bolt rifles (good) then they take away their best stratagem. The don't fix hellbalsters (plasma slays you when you roll a 1 - when lots of other armies plasma does 1 mortal wound only) so they are still unplayable because of -1 to hits. The make drop pods deep strike turn 1 but don't fix their real problem - they aren't worth points - deep striking in other armies cost command points (which aren't equal to points). Tactical go down 1 point and get access to these new abilities as well - great - now they are a relatively average unit.

Point remains that while a lot of space marine units have improved - they havn't improved to the point where they have surpassed gman ultras earlier in the edition - which is a basic fact of 40k - was not a very good army. Might they shake up the meta a bit - sure. If there is a lot of MEQ out there - everyone is just going to spam AP-3/4 weapons because they get amazing return on it. For this? Space marines have almost no defense. This has basically always been the problem - not fixed. These are casual type fixes that don't help the army competitively for the most part. Which is all I care about. Marines could already do pretty okay in a casual setting because -1 to hits and t8 spam aren't really a thing in casual games.

you know Xenomancers, you don't HAVE to over charge your plasma.

BrianDavion wrote:
you know Xenomancers, you don't HAVE to over charge your plasma.

Not overcharged a plasma is a very subpar weapon. It is what you have to end up doing - but doing 50% less damage so you don't slay yourself is actually pretty absurd in a game of 17% dice pips. Typically moving a pip is a pretty big deal. Not overcharging your plasma is like a 2 or 3 dice pip negative on you. Vs t8 mutli wound. Or if it means you wound on 3's instead of 2's - it is also a big deal. It is absurd that plasma is still doing a complete slaying of 2 wound models. It is actually absurd that plasma overheat isn't just on an unmodified 1 to hit at this point. Those are the kinds of changes marines need. Not bonus AP on their bolt guns (while I'll take it) plasma really needs fixing for marines to be competitive.

BrianDavion wrote:
you know Xenomancers, you don't HAVE to over charge your plasma.

But that would require doing something tactically advantageous rather than only adhering to mathematical optimal choices.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
you know Xenomancers, you don't HAVE to over charge your plasma.

But that would require doing something tactically advantageous rather than only adhering to mathematical optimal choices.

Competitive 40k is all about mathematical optimal choices.

 davou wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL if space marines were top teir when the eddition came out and I called them falling to the bottom. I am very proud of having that amount of foresight.


Gmans rerolls were so OP he had to be nerfed into the 400pt range to be "fair" - even when taking otherwise-halfdecent options.

If you need "reroll all wounds" auras to be considered a non-failure, your idea of balance is out of whack.

What you fail to understand. Is he was overpointed at 400.

Dude, you read like trumps twitter account when you're talking about your own army; Could you please talk about how you'd buff guilliman and make CWE pay for it?

ROFL

Bharring wrote:
If the requirements are too unreasonable, even if it's a game-winner, it's not worth it. If the requirements aren't too unreasonable, if it's a game-winner, it's OP.

Relying on a too-unreasonable game-winner is basically accepting that you can't actually win half of your games, so you'll go for a gimmick win when you can. Basically, a defeated player before they show up.

You're basically saying that your ability to win games should hinge on this "one little trick" actually working. If we want Marines to be capable of wining without relying on such a game-winner, the game-winner needs to be toned down while the rest of the army gets toned up.

Which seems to be what they're trying to do.

To make matters worse, your chosen hero game-winner has nothing to do, thematically, with the army. You're playing Marines so you can have an armored spearhead obliterate the enemy without any Marines involved?

Don't get me wrong - the buff to the vindi is pretty nice. I will be using them. As you can see from slayers reaction to my comment about the stratagem being good - it's really only because vindis were "that bad" to even consider taking them. Id say now they are a toppish teir unit. d6 d6 damage shots is swingy - but powerful for a unit that cheap. I'll be taking 3 every game.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL if space marines were top teir when the eddition came out and I called them falling to the bottom. I am very proud of having that amount of foresight.


Gmans rerolls were so OP he had to be nerfed into the 400pt range to be "fair" - even when taking otherwise-halfdecent options.

If you need "reroll all wounds" auras to be considered a non-failure, your idea of balance is out of whack.

What you fail to understand. Is he was overpointed at 400.

Dude, you read like trumps twitter account when you're talking about your own army; Could you please talk about how you'd buff guilliman and make CWE pay for it?

Not to get political. If someone is right about something. They are right whether you like them or not.

Conversely, when they are wrong about something, claiming to be right doesnt make it so.

Back into his metaphore, trump absolutely waa right that he'd build a "wall". He was wrong about it being more than piles of barbed wire, or that Mexico, and not extralegoslatively repurposed military funds. How right or wrong he is on specific points is aatter of fact, but how "right" he was overall is a judgement call (and heavily political).

Likewise, when you claimed Marines were trash tier, like they were for all of bith previous editions, and always woild be this edition, you were clearly right in one respect (Marines became trash tier soon after). But you were wrong that Marines at the time were trash tier - they held their own well until the following CA came out, even against the OP CWE book that followed. And that they were trash throughout all of 6th and 7th, but we dont need to waste pages rehashing your denials again. The always will br claim is what youre asking us to trust your judgement on.

So of 4 claims (are trash, will be trash, were always trash previously, and never in 8th wont be trash), two are flat out wrong, one is true, and one we cant know yet.

And so you carry on banding about how "right" you were.

I'd put that accuracy in "broken clock" territory. Your theories and predictions are clearly rooted in assuming Marines are always bad. So your claims anx predictions are independant of reality - they are an extension of "assuming marines are bad". Which makes it entirely worthless when looking at if Marines are bad.

And the rest of your rant shows it. You balance things by needing the best and buffing the worst. Simply buffing the best is literally (actual, non-figurative meaning) asking for terrible internal balance.

I dont know how you guys live in the world of black and white where everything is either OP or trash.

Its maddening to read.

Xeno, if you hate Marines so much, play a different army.

For a less bleak discussion, here's a picture of the unit points cost I found in the rumor thread and have added to the sheet. It's a french, but the names are in proper nouns so its still useful

Did Captains go down slightly as well? Interesting.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Xeno, if you hate Marines so much, play a different army.

I own about 10 armies. The respulsor nerf is laughable. It was already overpriced by about 40-50 points. I MEAN LAUGHABLE. You have to be senile to agree with it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Xeno, if you hate Marines so much, play a different army.

I own about 10 armies. The respulsor nerf is laughable. It was already overpriced by about 40-50 points. I MEAN LAUGHABLE. You have to be senile to agree with it.

See, it's thing like that that make your case weaker.

There's no need to insult anyone who disagrees with you.

I was wrong, it does seem that Linebreaker and Killshot are gone, which is interesting that they'd take some away.

Maybe they'll be added back to specific chapters (could see Iron Hands or Imperial Fists getting either of those, for example).

What a difference a week makes.

" Marines are the OP !!! "

This week.. " Marines are awful trash, they'll never get any better !! "

No one likes nerfs but I still say wait to actually use the rules first then see what they look like.

I'll say I don't like hearing the repulsors went up in cost. I get they did some price wiggling because of access to CT but what about armies where you don't have CT ? Like Deathwatch, or have old chapter tactics that didn't effect vehicles like SW, DA, BA ? Are they going to have their units jacked up for CTs we don't get access to ? That wouldn't make me very happy at all unless we're getting more of a rework with this new FaQ release than I was expecting.

I feel like this kind of leads to a messy set up given the other marine books and this one. Vehicles shouldn't be going up that don't have access to the CTs, will our old marines go down a point ? Chaplains gain abilities ?

I'm really hoping GW do this right and don't end up borking the non codex chapters to try and make one size fits all when it makes no sense unless they are re working things with some thought placed into them that doesn't just translate to copy paste.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
For a less bleak discussion, here's a picture of the unit points cost I found in the rumor thread and have added to the sheet. It's a french, but the names are in proper nouns so its still useful

Spoiler:

Huh, looks like the rumored drop in Dreadnaught points didn't happen after all.

we did see a drop in points for the dread CCWs so there's that

So, rather than talk about what is OP and what is trash. Should we talk about potential builds? I had an idea for an army that would be something like this:

Brigade of Black Templar

HQs:
Primaris Capt w/ Powerfist
Primaris Chap
Primaris Lnt w/ powersword

Troops:
Scouts (engineers)
Intercessor squad (no upgrades) (engineers)
Intercessor squad x 2 with thunderhammers (vets) with transports
Intercessor squad with power sword with transport
10 man Intercessor squad with power sword

Elites
3xreivers with grav shoots

Fast attack
3xinceptors with heavy bolters
or
2xinceptors 1xsuppressor

Heavy Supp
3xElims
or
2x Elims 1xHellblasters

This is around 2k pointsish (I haven't worked out the exact details).

This army isn't really meant to outshoot a gunline, but sit on objectives in cover and weather the storm while getting rid of the harshest targets. That is quite a lot of 2+ wounds to get through. It's something like 140 wounds with a 2+ save in cover or better with strong counter-melee bully in the form of hard hitting characters with multiple swing/swing when killed strats/sergeants with thunderhammers, tons of attacks, and fairly reliable charges. Also, it will have a 5+ mortal wound protection army-wide which will give it death guard level durability against psy-heavy armies (with twice as many wounds).

And that's without any additional supplements. (which should be out pretty soon given that there are no chapter specific strats in the main book)

 Orodhen wrote:
Are Stratagems not found in the new codex still usable? Killshot and Linebreaker don't appear to be in the new book.

That depends, did you make your army out of the new book, or the old book? As long as everything comes out of the same book... Meh. Go to town. To answer the question I suspect you were asking without actually asking it - No, you're not using the old Linebreaker Stratagem with the New Vindicator datasheet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Interesting...no wound marine units on a 1 or 2 as a successor trait.

That seems damn good.

eh.. i mean it only matters for str 8 or above. That is what would be wounding on a 2 anyway, so not sure here how good this is. improved ~16.7% survivability vs str 8 or higher. seems like the iron hands ignore wounds on a 6 is just better for overall survivability.

You mean like Overcharged Plasma? That's what that one was aimed at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Orodhen wrote:
Are Stratagems not found in the new codex still usable? Killshot and Linebreaker don't appear to be in the new book.

No.

What is your thoughts on the vigilous strategums?

It's just an opinion but I do expect an FAQ saying everything strategums wise that came before the new codex is retried from the game, bar possibly the blood ravens strategum and some of the vigilous stuff, I do expect some of the vigilous stuff to be culled as it exists in the main codex now.
GW has been fairly consistent on shutting down loopholes that allow double use of a stratageum. But we'll have to wait for the FAQ's

I wouldn't be surprised to see them to the Rule of Three on it. You can use the stratagem(s) from either, but the one is the same as the other so you can't use it twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:
Theyre explicitly classified as failed rolls, therefore an ability that allows you to reroll failed wounds would still function.

And hit rolls of a 3+ for BS 3+ are explicitly classified as a successful hit. Then mods come in and make it not a hit, and no-rerolls. Even tho the rules explicitly called it successful. Until we figure out that breaks just about every reroll mechanic we made, so we have to modify our modification. Wait for the codex, read the wording. Stick your head in the sand, and wait for GW to fix the screw up to the fix of the original screw up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Interesting...no wound marine units on a 1 or 2 as a successor trait.

That seems damn good.

eh.. i mean it only matters for str 8 or above. That is what would be wounding on a 2 anyway, so not sure here how good this is. improved ~16.7% survivability vs str 8 or higher. seems like the iron hands ignore wounds on a 6 is just better for overall survivability.

Takes plasma off the table at least. And makes Castellans less foreboding for tanks.

oh for sure. I am not saying it is useless by any means, just comparing it to the iron hands one I think it is inferior.

A weapon that wounds on a 2 after hitting on a 3 will roll a 2 - hypothetically - more often than a weapon that hits on a 3, wounds on a 4, and is saved on a 3+, 4+, 5+ or 6+ will then roll a 6. Not wounding on a 2 is well ahead of FNP because of all the filters in front of it further chipping away at it's frequency.

I may be being naive here, but if Xenomancers likes the last book and hates the new book, can't he just continue to use the old one? I mean, I know it's presumed the old book is no longer valid, but is that actually stated anywhere? Surely, so long as you don't try to mix and match things from both books, you can choose to use either-or as you please, no?

 Ginjitzu wrote:
I may be being naive here, but if Xenomancers likes the last book and hates the new book, can't he just continue to use the old one? I mean, I know it's presumed the old book is no longer valid, but is that actually stated anywhere? Surely, so long as you don't try to mix and match things from both books, you can choose to use either-or as you please, no?

Not really, genereally GW states that the new iteration takes precedence.
However in the case of CSM they stated explicitly that you would not need dex 2.0

And we have no counter statement to their general rule in this case.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
A chaplain is 72 pts?
WTF?

I mean if his entire local player base wants to keep using the old one thats their busniess mind you.