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.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

Jinsuk wrote:

3) People keep talking about drop pods, except whatever you can take in drop pods kinda suck.

The same can be said of DE open-topped vehicles. It doesn't stop people bleating endlessly about them.

I really want to be nice today. This is straight up nonsense. I play DE. I feel like I am molesting my opponent when I bring 6 venoms with khabs inside as flayed skull. The army is so strong I only bring it against people I really don't like very much.

 Xenomancers wrote:

[...] Anyone who is invested in this game and keeps playing it plays at least semi competitive lists. Or at least are trying out combos they think will be powerful. No one is taking units because they think they'll perform worse and no one is trying to lose.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No one is taking units because they think they'll perform worse and no one is trying to lose.

A lot of people take units they know are bad because they like them for aesthetic or thematic reasons.

If they were doing that I wasn't playing gman against them. I'm not a freaking donkey cave.

 Xenomancers wrote:

[...] The army is so strong I only bring it against people I really don't like very much.

So nobody plays units that will perform worse.

But you do when play lists weaker than yours, you do. Because, otherwise, you'd be a "freaking donkey cave".

But when playing someone you dislike, you don't.

Forgetting whether that makes you a "freaking donkey cave", isn't that a *triple* standard?

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, you don't understand! Getting a bunch of benefits to shooting units in a Codex where the shooting units are much better than the melee ones is CLEARLY worse than rerolling charge distances!

No, I'm not annoyed at all the poor, martyred Ultramarine players at all...

They have been sub optimal for literally every edition in the game except for what we might as well call the first stage of 8th edition. Where they got a codex first and had a way around chapter tactics not applying to vehicles. By taking units that got a better version of their chapter tactic (fly repuslors) [and using the best damage ramp in the game.

I didn't realize Razorbacks had Fly. Or Tac Squads.

Realistically - the list struggled mightily against any competitive army that wasn't spamming infantry.

Which was, at the time... maybe morty/maggy lists? Other Chaos, IG, and CWE lists were infantry lists.

I realize not all the Codexes were out. So it was only on an even playingfield with such lackluster codexes as *IG* and *CWE*... And this was before a large number of CWE nerfs.

Yet - it has received a nerf on the level of ynnari that is extremely unjustified based on the performance of said armies.

Ynnari nerfs:
-Not really an army anymore
-Can only move/shoot/fight twice once a turn
-Can't move/shoot/fight twice anymore
-Lost Doom use
-Lost other-subfaction keyword
-Character costs more
-Powers went up in points

The Gman nerf is nowhere near as strong as any one of the *three* biggest nerfs Ynnari have had (and deserved).

The core weakness of marines is poor defense (easily ignored defenses) so getting your damage in while you are still standing is extremely important. On the whole defense hasn't been increased at all except through tiny point drops and added wounds to a few units which were severely underperforming defensively.

IH repulsor/other vehicle spam just went up 16%, and halved their degredation on top. That's neither a tiny points drop nor simply adding wounds.
You can pod in Turn 1, for less than previously (albeit for likely too high a cost). That's something else.
Basic Marines went down 1ppm, and Grav went down up to 8ppm. 1ppm on a 14ppm unit is ~7%. That's not tiny. And 20pt Grav Cannons is a meaningful points drop.
A number of Primaris went from 2W to 3W. That's a big change.

I don't think Marines are a ton more durable than they were, but they did get some real improvements in that category.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(I should again clarify my stance, because it seems certain people always strawman me:
-Marines were improved, notably, overall.
-It's not clear yet to me (nobody has convinced me and reading the rules hasn't made it obvious to me) if the new rules will make Marines a contender again. It's certainly been a while since they were top-tier.
)

All I can say is you are flat out wrong about all of this. Gman has been the best marine army for the entire eddition of 2 years. Aint no one played a razorback since around the time of the index before EVERY codex power level went WELL ABOVE marine power level. Repuslors went up in price 15% - it is a net nerf. It's basic math.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

[...] Anyone who is invested in this game and keeps playing it plays at least semi competitive lists. Or at least are trying out combos they think will be powerful. No one is taking units because they think they'll perform worse and no one is trying to lose.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No one is taking units because they think they'll perform worse and no one is trying to lose.

A lot of people take units they know are bad because they like them for aesthetic or thematic reasons.

If they were doing that I wasn't playing gman against them. I'm not a freaking donkey cave.

 Xenomancers wrote:

[...] The army is so strong I only bring it against people I really don't like very much.

So nobody plays units that will perform worse.

But you do when play lists weaker than yours, you do. Because, otherwise, you'd be a "freaking donkey cave".

But when playing someone you dislike, you don't.

Forgetting whether that makes you a "freaking donkey cave", isn't that a *triple* standard?

This game is an agreement. If you are agreeing to use weak units on both sides it's obviously a different situation. You are being intentionally obtuse. Everyone can see it to. Try harder to mask it.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I really want to be nice today.

:doubt:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This is straight up nonsense. I play DE.

So do I.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I feel like I am molesting my opponent when I bring 6 venoms with khabs inside as flayed skull.

I feel like I'm bringing a transport armed with water pistols and with a crew who are also armed with water pistols.

What's more, you claim that you were using 6 Venoms . . and yet every single one of them had Kabalites in. No Mandrakes? No Incubi? No Wracks? No Wyches? No Lhamaeans? No Medusae? No Ur-Ghuls? etc.

Could it just be that a rule that only helps shooty units isn't actually much use when you've only got maybe 1-2 units in the entire army that can meaningfully benefit from it?

 Xenomancers wrote:
The army is so strong I only bring it against people I really don't like very much.

Feel free to regale me with tales of how your army of poison and more poison took down Imperial Knights or other spammed vehicles.

 bullyboy wrote:
The GMan nerf is the absolute best thing to happen to the codex. It will encourage players to look at other options, playstyles etc and if these don't match up competitively (which no one is in a position to say currently) then they can be adjusted with FAQ/CA since there isn't the GMan crutch to skew the results. Huge thumbs up from me with the direction of this codex.
What's absolute crazy talk is that the SM line hasn't been given a massive boost. For them to be still non-competitive after this it would mean that they would have to had been absolute bottom tier, even way lower than GKs and that's just not true.

And technically, soup is not completely out of the question, you will just be souping different Astartes which to maximize the playstyle of each.

Gman nerf is good for the book.

Repulsor nerf is not. Some of the stuff is weird - costed too high in points or cp.

Poison is very good vs most meta lists. Vehicle spam is uncommon and usually weak.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, you don't understand! Getting a bunch of benefits to shooting units in a Codex where the shooting units are much better than the melee ones is CLEARLY worse than rerolling charge distances!

No, I'm not annoyed at all the poor, martyred Ultramarine players at all...

They have been sub optimal for literally every edition in the game except for what we might as well call the first stage of 8th edition. Where they got a codex first and had a way around chapter tactics not applying to vehicles. By taking units that got a better version of their chapter tactic (fly repuslors) [and using the best damage ramp in the game.

I didn't realize Razorbacks had Fly. Or Tac Squads.

Realistically - the list struggled mightily against any competitive army that wasn't spamming infantry.

Which was, at the time... maybe morty/maggy lists? Other Chaos, IG, and CWE lists were infantry lists.

I realize not all the Codexes were out. So it was only on an even playingfield with such lackluster codexes as *IG* and *CWE*... And this was before a large number of CWE nerfs.

Yet - it has received a nerf on the level of ynnari that is extremely unjustified based on the performance of said armies.

Ynnari nerfs:
-Not really an army anymore
-Can only move/shoot/fight twice once a turn
-Can't move/shoot/fight twice anymore
-Lost Doom use
-Lost other-subfaction keyword
-Character costs more
-Powers went up in points

The Gman nerf is nowhere near as strong as any one of the *three* biggest nerfs Ynnari have had (and deserved).

The core weakness of marines is poor defense (easily ignored defenses) so getting your damage in while you are still standing is extremely important. On the whole defense hasn't been increased at all except through tiny point drops and added wounds to a few units which were severely underperforming defensively.

IH repulsor/other vehicle spam just went up 16%, and halved their degredation on top. That's neither a tiny points drop nor simply adding wounds.
You can pod in Turn 1, for less than previously (albeit for likely too high a cost). That's something else.
Basic Marines went down 1ppm, and Grav went down up to 8ppm. 1ppm on a 14ppm unit is ~7%. That's not tiny. And 20pt Grav Cannons is a meaningful points drop.
A number of Primaris went from 2W to 3W. That's a big change.

I don't think Marines are a ton more durable than they were, but they did get some real improvements in that category.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(I should again clarify my stance, because it seems certain people always strawman me:
-Marines were improved, notably, overall.
-It's not clear yet to me (nobody has convinced me and reading the rules hasn't made it obvious to me) if the new rules will make Marines a contender again. It's certainly been a while since they were top-tier.
)

All I can say is you are flat out wrong about all of this. Gman has been the best marine army for the entire eddition of 2 years.

Not sure how talking about Gman lists can be "flat out wrong about all of this" simply because Gman lists were best. Completely lost there.

Aint no one played a razorback since around the time of the index before EVERY codex power level went WELL ABOVE marine power level.

I'm not sure how Razorback Spam being a thing pre-CA2017 is "flat out wrong" due to things that happened *after* CA2017.

Repuslors went up in price 15% - it is a net nerf. It's basic math.

Ermagerds, a single unit is 15% more costly! Sure, that's a nerf. But it's one of very, very many options that Marines have.

Further, as for a net nerf - a 15% nerf in cost for a 16% buff in durability and a halving of degradation and overwatch, plus a bunch of other buffs (Doctrines, better stratagems, etc) - it might be a net nerf, but showing it to be so isn't basic math.

The Gman change also pushes in on that, but that's still countered by all the other buffs. Not to mention, didn't the cost of Gman + 2xRepulsors + 3xPreds go down overall?

I think that specific *list* is worse off, because it leaned in heavily on Gman's aura. But there are many, many other lists possible with the book. And almost any list aside from that got better.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

[...] Anyone who is invested in this game and keeps playing it plays at least semi competitive lists. Or at least are trying out combos they think will be powerful. No one is taking units because they think they'll perform worse and no one is trying to lose.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No one is taking units because they think they'll perform worse and no one is trying to lose.

A lot of people take units they know are bad because they like them for aesthetic or thematic reasons.

If they were doing that I wasn't playing gman against them. I'm not a freaking donkey cave.

 Xenomancers wrote:

[...] The army is so strong I only bring it against people I really don't like very much.

So nobody plays units that will perform worse.

But you do when play lists weaker than yours, you do. Because, otherwise, you'd be a "freaking donkey cave".

But when playing someone you dislike, you don't.

Forgetting whether that makes you a "freaking donkey cave", isn't that a *triple* standard?

This game is an agreement. If you are agreeing to use weak units on both sides it's obviously a different situation. You are being intentionally obtuse. Everyone can see it to. Try harder to mask it.

Yes, obviously three different situations:
The first is "No other situation exists", so those of us who care about anything but powergaming don't exist and our opinions don't matter.

The second is "Obviously I never powergame against players who can't handle it. That'd just be being a dick".

The third is "I powergame against players who can't handle it if I don't like them".

I'm not being intentionally obtuse. I'm calling a triple-standard. These "situations" are contradictory. You have long strings of hyperbole, condescension, inconsistency, and Trumptastic postings. It's hard to have a constructive conversation when every post is "Y'all are morons, have no right to play the way you want, and I'm always right. I'm the greatest. Everyone knows.".

Martel732 wrote:
Poison is very good vs most meta lists. Vehicle spam is uncommon and usually weak.

**Laughs heartily in Custodes jetbike/Russ/Bloat Drone/Elf jetbike spam**

Martel732 wrote:
Poison is very good vs most meta lists. Vehicle spam is uncommon and usually weak.

Yeah, Poison is almost as good as a Boltgun with all the T3/T4 running around! Often, it's even better than a Lasgun!

Martel732 wrote:
Poison is very good vs most meta lists. Vehicle spam is uncommon and usually weak.

Eldar Flyer Spam, Triple Knights with Guard, Disco Lords. You were saying? I've pretty much dropped my FS venoms from my competitive list recently. I'm a regular tournament player and, whilst my meta is more ETC derived than ITC, I can say that it has plenty of vehicle heavy lists.

As an example, out of the last 2 60-90 man tournaments I've played (of which I came top 10 in one (8th? 7th? somewhere there) and ~20th in the second), my opponents have been: Knight and Guard (Poison is rubbish here), Pure IG (Posion is... ok I guess), Chaos with Tzaangor Bomb demon Princes and Friends (Poison is good here), Custodes and Knights (Lol splinter), Eldar Flyers (poison is near useless), Ad Mech Dragoons plus Knight (poor poison), Ad mech Cawl Bots (poison is good against the troops, but rubbish against the majority of the list), Imperial Guard Steel Legion Chimera and LR spam (yeah.....), Cutodes in an Orion Dropship and DSing (poison! no... wait), Genestealer Cult (OK Poison was great in this one).

The rest of my list has been pulling my ass out of the fire and I won 8/10 of those games, but the venoms have not been great except in lucky matchups. Eldar Flyer Spam is everywhere, as are Knights. I don't think Venoms are bad, in fact I really like them, but in the current meta they are a bit of a liability and there isn't really anything to replace them with in DE. Dropping my Venoms and Ravagers since the nerf has led me off into bringing a Harlie patrol with Skyweavers. Only tested it in prep so far, but we'll see how well the no venom or ravager list does at LGT.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I really want to be nice today.

:doubt:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This is straight up nonsense. I play DE.

So do I.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I feel like I am molesting my opponent when I bring 6 venoms with khabs inside as flayed skull.

I feel like I'm bringing a transport armed with water pistols and with a crew who are also armed with water pistols.

What's more, you claim that you were using 6 Venoms . . and yet every single one of them had Kabalites in. No Mandrakes? No Incubi? No Wracks? No Wyches? No Lhamaeans? No Medusae? No Ur-Ghuls? etc.

Could it just be that a rule that only helps shooty units isn't actually much use when you've only got maybe 1-2 units in the entire army that can meaningfully benefit from it?

 Xenomancers wrote:
The army is so strong I only bring it against people I really don't like very much.

Feel free to regale me with tales of how your army of poison and more poison took down Imperial Knights or other spammed vehicles.

Mandrakes don't need a transport. Incubi suck - no argument here. Wracks the 9 points dudes with t5 and a 4++ and poison in CC (urine buff) - please - bordering on most OP unit for the cost. Wyches are best in 20 mans from deep strike - they show up in competitive all the time. Maybe we should nerf urine because every top DE list that was winning tournaments was using him. It is literally unreal the nonsense that is spouted on dakka. DE might have some weak choices but their strong choices are amazing. They aren't the best army vs vehicles but 3 void ravens and 3 ravager plus a ton of blasters can handle them. Without gimping you in other areas. You have massive mobility - on demand -1's to hit. 5++ or 4++ on practically every model. They are a solid army. If Mono codex was a requirement in ITC - they would probably be the top army.

Klickor wrote:


80pts for 2d6 str 6 ap-1 shots that can shoot twice from out of LOS. Even less need for souping in guard and their artillery if this is the case.

If BA also get this I will go and get 2 missile turrets for my rhinos asap so I can play 3 and have ~28 str 6 ap-1 shots for just 240pts to help clear enemy screens. Guard is still a cheaper battalion but I would rather play mono than soup

isn't it ~21 shots?

Shooter wrote:


isn't it ~21 shots?

New strategem allows a single whirlwind to double tap.

 Ishagu wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
The GMan nerf is the absolute best thing to happen to the codex. It will encourage players to look at other options, playstyles etc and if these don't match up competitively (which no one is in a position to say currently) then they can be adjusted with FAQ/CA since there isn't the GMan crutch to skew the results. Huge thumbs up from me with the direction of this codex.
What's absolute crazy talk is that the SM line hasn't been given a massive boost. For them to be still non-competitive after this it would mean that they would have to had been absolute bottom tier, even way lower than GKs and that's just not true.

And technically, soup is not completely out of the question, you will just be souping different Astartes which to maximize the playstyle of each.

Gman nerf is good for the book.

Repulsor nerf is not. Some of the stuff is weird - costed too high in points or cp.

I wouldn't really entertain that line of thinking. It's not good for the book because gman has nothing to do with other chapters. His ultimate power was to make weapons with low str more versatile so while a redempor dread with gatlings is better for ultramarines a plasma dread is probably better for ironhands So he can wound on 2's reroll 1's. His 400 point tax was more than enough to justify his buff. His overall effectiveness is due to the prevalence of invunes.

I'll go back to invo saves. Invo saves are the reason a gman buff is so effective in this game. Invo saves make anti vehicle weapons with 1 shot unpractical because anti vehicle weapons rely on AP to do their damage. So you have a defensive mechanic that is far too strong vs the intended weapons to counter them. This is a game design problem. If you do the math for CM LT aura vs correct intended targets. You'll find the gman buff weak in comparison (with a 400 point tax) if invo saves weren't a thing. Alas though. People are totally happy to have invo saves be a thing and have an army like marines suffer for not really having them and suck as a result. Nor should marines have access to a work around for something the can't exploit themselves (invo save spam). You really have to wonder why marines lose games? The answer is invo saves. Keep going on about how Gman was holding the army back. It's short sighted thinking. The army is heald back by relying on armor and not invos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

Shooter wrote:


isn't it ~21 shots?

New strategem allows a single whirlwind to double tap.

How many CP?

Xeno, you've said before you think a 6++ is more valuable than a 2+, or at least implied such when you said you don't think Invuln saves should EVER be able to be rerolled, while armor saves should be able to.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Xeno, you've said before you think a 6++ is more valuable than a 2+, or at least implied such when you said you don't think Invuln saves should EVER be able to be rerolled, while armor saves should be able to.

LOL a 6++ better than a 2+? That is absurd I never said that. Yes I think not being able to reroll invo would be a good fix. I'd be happier if they were maxed at 5++ though.

To be fair though a 2+ unit is going to be significantly more expensive than a 6++

Look at aggressors in the new codex, 21 before gear, then a Terminator is 23 but an aggressor has a wound and T5 and an extra attack on a Terminator. Thats just going from 2+ to 3+

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Xeno, you've said before you think a 6++ is more valuable than a 2+, or at least implied such when you said you don't think Invuln saves should EVER be able to be rerolled, while armor saves should be able to.

LOL a 6++ better than a 2+? That is absurd I never said that. Yes I think not being able to reroll invo would be a good fix. I'd be happier if they were maxed at 5++ though.

I fail to remember the thread at the moment, but you pretty much said "There's so much AP-5 that a 2+ is basically useless."

I know because I was legitimately curious about how much AP-5 or better there was in the game. The answer is a lot... But very little sees actual play, especially since a ton is on overcosted FW models.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Xeno, you've said before you think a 6++ is more valuable than a 2+, or at least implied such when you said you don't think Invuln saves should EVER be able to be rerolled, while armor saves should be able to.

LOL a 6++ better than a 2+? That is absurd I never said that. Yes I think not being able to reroll invo would be a good fix. I'd be happier if they were maxed at 5++ though.

I fail to remember the thread at the moment, but you pretty much said "There's so much AP-5 that a 2+ is basically useless."

I know because I was legitimately curious about how much AP-5 or better there was in the game. The answer is a lot... But very little sees actual play, especially since a ton is on overcosted FW models.

A 2++ is useless vs a knight castellan that was extremely meta at the time. Ap -4 is a lot more common. Heck even my space marines have a ton of ap-4 - that is fine if my ap is just as effective as yours. It's not though. 4++ in general makes ap higher than 2 useless and a waste of stat points. Which is in particular why these doctrines aren't going to make much a difference.

Hey peeps I have an annoying question: how many points did the Impulsor cost again?

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Hey peeps I have an annoying question: how many points did the Impulsor cost again?

Its roughly 90 points with all its gear.

Drager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Poison is very good vs most meta lists. Vehicle spam is uncommon and usually weak.

Eldar Flyer Spam, Triple Knights with Guard, Disco Lords. You were saying? I've pretty much dropped my FS venoms from my competitive list recently. I'm a regular tournament player and, whilst my meta is more ETC derived than ITC, I can say that it has plenty of vehicle heavy lists.

As an example, out of the last 2 60-90 man tournaments I've played (of which I came top 10 in one (8th? 7th? somewhere there) and ~20th in the second), my opponents have been: Knight and Guard (Poison is rubbish here), Pure IG (Posion is... ok I guess), Chaos with Tzaangor Bomb demon Princes and Friends (Poison is good here), Custodes and Knights (Lol splinter), Eldar Flyers (poison is near useless), Ad Mech Dragoons plus Knight (poor poison), Ad mech Cawl Bots (poison is good against the troops, but rubbish against the majority of the list), Imperial Guard Steel Legion Chimera and LR spam (yeah.....), Cutodes in an Orion Dropship and DSing (poison! no... wait), Genestealer Cult (OK Poison was great in this one).

The rest of my list has been pulling my ass out of the fire and I won 8/10 of those games, but the venoms have not been great except in lucky matchups. Eldar Flyer Spam is everywhere, as are Knights. I don't think Venoms are bad, in fact I really like them, but in the current meta they are a bit of a liability and there isn't really anything to replace them with in DE. Dropping my Venoms and Ravagers since the nerf has led me off into bringing a Harlie patrol with Skyweavers. Only tested it in prep so far, but we'll see how well the no venom or ravager list does at LGT.

I was under the strong impression infantry was king. Local events are ork/demin heavy, which reinforced this.

6 pt dudes with bs3+ seem amazing all the time.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Hey peeps I have an annoying question: how many points did the Impulsor cost again?

Its roughly 90 points with all its gear.

Ah awesome cheers. Is that with the missile launcher thingo on the top, instead of the Stubbers?

 bullyboy wrote:
The GMan nerf is the absolute best thing to happen to the codex. It will encourage players to look at other options, playstyles etc and if these don't match up competitively (which no one is in a position to say currently) then they can be adjusted with FAQ/CA since there isn't the GMan crutch to skew the results. Huge thumbs up from me with the direction of this codex.
What's absolute crazy talk is that the SM line hasn't been given a massive boost. For them to be still non-competitive after this it would mean that they would have to had been absolute bottom tier, even way lower than GKs and that's just not true.

And technically, soup is not completely out of the question, you will just be souping different Astartes which to maximize the playstyle of each.

And make ultramarine players sad, and from what I have learned on the internet, everyone fething hates ultramarine players because that one guy wrote a bad codex once.

Here’s the deal, space marines have right now one competitive mono marine list. Just one. And when the new codex drops, that one is gone, and nothing is replacing it from what we have seen currently, though I have some folks dropping hints that totally one of the supplements is gonna super charge marines something fierce. But as it stands, marines are no longer competitive mono faction in any list. But a lot of people are fine with this because marine players get super attached to their subfactions more than the overall faction, and the one competitive list was those scummy ultramarines that we on the internet have to fething hate for the sins of Matt Ward, and so a lot of folks are cheering because their brand of space marines is getting a bit better while the hated one is being knee capped. But a bit better doesn’t mean they will ever hang with Eldar. Until one of those supplements appears and super charges one of the chapters

 Xenomancers wrote:
.... Which is in particular why these doctrines aren't going to make much a difference.

I agree for things like Plasma, Lascannons, etc. Doctrines aren't going to shift the meta for those. But turning an AP-0 Bolter/Assault 3 Autobolt rifle into AP-1 is significant, and AP-1 Bolt Rifle being AP-2 is even better.
And that's what so great about this change for Marines: it makes the "small arms" stuff much more threatening, which if fitting for Marines regardless of how it translates to gameplay.
And I for one appreciate that it's a faction wide biff without making them OP. That is always how buffs should be

-

 Xenomancers wrote:


Yeah the buff is significant but drop pods were actually...THAT BAD - that they can be significantly buffed and still not be very good. I find it hard to believe that the people making the rules can't see this. Is there an error in my logic somewhere that I am missing?

Yes there is; You've been impervious to any dissent, dismiss it outright as something that's not possible, and are absolutely dead set on your victim mentality. There's literally nothing anyone here can say that will sway how you feel and no new leaks that will affect how you feel. Marines can absolutely decimate the next years worth of tournaments, and you will still find some excuse as to why its not relevant probably involving some math that isn't applicable directly in the context game unless you pretend every unit can see and hit every other unit at all times.

The questions is, do you actually care about this problem in your logic, or where you just continuing your rhetoric for vanities sake?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Poison is very good vs most meta lists. Vehicle spam is uncommon and usually weak.

**Laughs heartily in Custodes jetbike/Russ/Bloat Drone/Elf jetbike spam**

You do realize that poison wounds jetbikes on 4s, right?

And that the custodes meta is entirely different now too, yeah?

Kabalites are causing triple the damage per point to custodes than old marines, too.

 davou wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Yeah the buff is significant but drop pods were actually...THAT BAD - that they can be significantly buffed and still not be very good. I find it hard to believe that the people making the rules can't see this. Is there an error in my logic somewhere that I am missing?

Yes there is; You've been impervious to any dissent, dismiss it outright as something that's not possible, and are absolutely dead set on your victim mentality. There's literally nothing anyone here can say that will sway how you feel and no new leaks that will affect how you feel. Marines can absolutely decimate the next years worth of tournaments, and you will still find some excuse as to why its not relevant probably involving some math that isn't applicable directly in the context game unless you pretend every unit can see and hit every other unit at all times.

The questions is, do you actually care about this problem in your logic, or where you just continuing your rhetoric for vanities sake?

Victim mentality or not. Drop pods are overcosted. It is indisputable. Unless you are willing to say a 65 point model is equal to being well..freeas in the case of a free relic or 1 CP. CP are not points ether - there is no value associated with a CP but a CP. They can be generated in game /refunded / ect. It would be great if you responded with an actual argument rather than trying to defame me. Argue the comparable ability being much cheaper and why the drop pod should cost 3x more than equipping a unit with gravsutes. Or have an equal cost to a unit that can drop pod a much larger unit every turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Kabalites are causing triple the damage per point to custodes than old marines, too.

They just haven't experienced flayed skull yet.

"Why are you rerolling for these guys in transports"
"oh they all get reroll 1's and ignore cover for being in this transport" ..
"Really"
"Yup"
"That seems OP"
"It is"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stratigo wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Poison is very good vs most meta lists. Vehicle spam is uncommon and usually weak.

**Laughs heartily in Custodes jetbike/Russ/Bloat Drone/Elf jetbike spam**

You do realize that poison wounds jetbikes on 4s, right?

And that the custodes meta is entirely different now too, yeah?

Cutodes fare pretty well vs DE to be honest. 2+ saves are the best counter to poison attack. However. Void ravens and night fighters just murder custodes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Kabalites are causing triple the damage per point to custodes than old marines, too.

Indeed. If you focus all your posion into one unit of bikers...it's probably going down.

stratigo wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
The GMan nerf is the absolute best thing to happen to the codex. It will encourage players to look at other options, playstyles etc and if these don't match up competitively (which no one is in a position to say currently) then they can be adjusted with FAQ/CA since there isn't the GMan crutch to skew the results. Huge thumbs up from me with the direction of this codex.
What's absolute crazy talk is that the SM line hasn't been given a massive boost. For them to be still non-competitive after this it would mean that they would have to had been absolute bottom tier, even way lower than GKs and that's just not true.

And technically, soup is not completely out of the question, you will just be souping different Astartes which to maximize the playstyle of each.

And make ultramarine players sad, and from what I have learned on the internet, everyone fething hates ultramarine players because that one guy wrote a bad codex once.

Here’s the deal, space marines have right now one competitive mono marine list. Just one. And when the new codex drops, that one is gone, and nothing is replacing it from what we have seen currently, though I have some folks dropping hints that totally one of the supplements is gonna super charge marines something fierce. But as it stands, marines are no longer competitive mono faction in any list. But a lot of people are fine with this because marine players get super attached to their subfactions more than the overall faction, and the one competitive list was those scummy ultramarines [...]

That "one list" is Gman, 2 Repulsors, and filler. It's *an* UM list, but not the only UM list. Non-Gman UM lists are no more competitive than IH/RG/IF/etc. And anyone who's been playing UM armies for longer than 8th Ed has an army that didn't have Gman or Repulsors.

Much of where we're talking past eachother is that, to me, an UM list is a combined-arms list. They're the scions of the Codex, and as such should be using Tacs, Devs, and ASM (or their replacements) in concert - working together to do more than any one option alone could. So the idea of replacing all my Marines with Tanks is a nonstarter for some of us.

The one competitive list did use a new UM model. But most of the list (Repulsors, Preds, and even Gman) are UM in name only - they didn't even get UM chapter tactics (until the new book)! So the "one competitive build" is looked at as scummy, even by "classical" UM players, not because they're UM, but because it's a beardy/cheesy list. Not simply a "take the best stuff" kind of cheese, but a "Take models to double dip on rules benefits on units not primarily intended for those rules" kind of cheese. A "Build a list nothing like the fluff because it's good" kind of cheese.

I love UM. I hate that that list is good. It's up there almost with CWE Air Wing for "Silly thing this game shouldn't have" in that regard. But the list is good in large part because Gman's aura is so game-changing. It's more-than-double firepower, in most cases. On an *aura*. Remember all the hate when Doom gave a conditional probable buff that maxed out in the best cases at ~80% against a single unit? How OP that was? How hard that is to balance? What do you do with an Aura that's more than 100%? Without reigning that in, you can either:
-Make units that can get the buff good enough to compete with the buff, but be trash without it
-Make units that can compete without the buff, but are OP with it

So you're stuck with a best case of either making Gman lists OP and non-Gman lists OK, or Gman lists OK, and non-Gman lists trash. Gman needed to go (much like Ynnari - good riddence).

Marines had one not-quite-competitive build. That got nerfed. That sucks for people who enjoyed playing that way (which is a legitimate way to play, just not my way). But it had to go for the good of the game. Now, it's possible to buff Marines so that other lists aren't necessarily trash - without making Gman lists OP. It's possible they failed on this regard, but there's a lot of good in the book. Almost everything got better. Lots of things got notably better. Some things got a lot better.

We'll see if the Repulsor list got too heavily nerfed. I hope when things shake out you can still play the Armored Column you want to. But I'd rather see non-Gman lists get better than continue the "Gman or bust" mentality this edition have stuck Marines with.

(I don't own a Repulsor. I like bringing a Pred or Razorback or even two, but I don't like most of my Marine list being armor - that's what IG is for, to me. To each their own.)