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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
And I don't because that only represents warbands of former legion members, not the legions themselves.

You're gonna have to expand on the post because I don't get the point you're making.

WB, IW, bl and al fight not as individuals f.e
Ergo they are not warriors + hangers on?

Ah okay.

I more meant the spirit of the statement of course rather than the literal interpretation. Those Legions might be more unified in purpose, but the truth of the statement is still there. They're very much about individuals and the powerful henchmen they got.

Breton wrote:

The Newman wrote:
It just occured to me that a Marine thread went five whole pages before someone complained about Guard outshooting Marines. That's got to be a new record for 8th ed.

It just occured to me, we almost went a whole page without a guard player misconstruing the point into whining about Guard, not the generic horde vs elite balance issues. PS, I'm a guard player too. Its one of the reasons I use them for an example. I know them better than Orks. I play a little bit of everything. I want everything to be relatively equally good.

And someone also popped up pretty quickly to point out that the math doesn't work out in the Guard's favor anymore base-squad to base-squad. And someone also pointed out (just now) that a single 37 point Aggressor will fairly reliably wipe a Guard squad off the table by itself if you can deliver it.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:


I do not believe that you do not know that I'm talking about Chaos Marine squads and Terminators. And duh they don't do doctrines, which is why I said 'something like'. CSM and Tacs are supposed to be similar and equivalent units. Basic marines have been garbage all of 8th. Now they've fixed some of them, and they need to fix the rest.

And I'm not responding to the rest of this because we do this in every thread and I think you're just baiting at this point.

CSM terminators are absurdly more flexible than loyalists. Come on.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
And I don't because that only represents warbands of former legion members, not the legions themselves.

You're gonna have to expand on the post because I don't get the point you're making.

WB, IW, bl and al fight not as individuals f.e
Ergo they are not warriors + hangers on?

Ah okay.

I more meant the spirit of the statement of course rather than the literal interpretation. Those Legions might be more unified in purpose, but the truth of the statement is still there. They're very much about individuals and the powerful henchmen they got.

WB, more about erecting massive pyres for their gods.
IW, Wiping out Iron hands since 30000 +. (so yes individualism plays a role there)
BL. Abbadaons crusaders, more loyal to him then to outsiders.
Al. We simply don't know, thanks for your great writing GW:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:


I do not believe that you do not know that I'm talking about Chaos Marine squads and Terminators. And duh they don't do doctrines, which is why I said 'something like'. CSM and Tacs are supposed to be similar and equivalent units. Basic marines have been garbage all of 8th. Now they've fixed some of them, and they need to fix the rest.

And I'm not responding to the rest of this because we do this in every thread and I think you're just baiting at this point.

CSM terminators are absurdly more flexible than loyalists. Come on.

until you realise that excactly one loadouts is played?
Involving combiplas, slaanesh and chainaxes?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:


I do not believe that you do not know that I'm talking about Chaos Marine squads and Terminators. And duh they don't do doctrines, which is why I said 'something like'. CSM and Tacs are supposed to be similar and equivalent units. Basic marines have been garbage all of 8th. Now they've fixed some of them, and they need to fix the rest.

And I'm not responding to the rest of this because we do this in every thread and I think you're just baiting at this point.

CSM terminators are absurdly more flexible than loyalists. Come on.

Tons of options =/= flexible. The moment you want to add Power Fists you're paying much more than Loyalists until you go into Chainaxes to make up for that absurd cost. They also only get played as a Combi-Plasma suicide squad because of the Chainaxe taking away from the total cost. No "power weapon" tax, basically.

Oh but Space Wolves can do that better so who cares? Throw Storm Shields on everyone!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
And I don't because that only represents warbands of former legion members, not the legions themselves.

You're gonna have to expand on the post because I don't get the point you're making.

WB, IW, bl and al fight not as individuals f.e
Ergo they are not warriors + hangers on?

Ah okay.

I more meant the spirit of the statement of course rather than the literal interpretation. Those Legions might be more unified in purpose, but the truth of the statement is still there. They're very much about individuals and the powerful henchmen they got.

WB, more about erecting massive pyres for their gods.
IW, Wiping out Iron hands since 30000 +. (so yes individualism plays a role there)
BL. Abbadaons crusaders, more loyal to him then to outsiders.
Al. We simply don't know, thanks for your great writing GW

There's still a TON of infighting in their purpose though. Iron Warriors especially, but the infighting for Black Legion to be more in power and close to Abigail? Alpha Legion you don't actually know who's in charge?
I'd grant you Word Bearers but that's it. The whole thing with Chaos Marines is they should be more about the power HQ units and their powerful lackeys. That's why in my mind everyone should be laid out as:
Tactical Marine stats stay the same as is, and consolidate the Angels and ways to use Renegades with it
Grey Hunters keep the Chainsword, and their Scouts naturally have two attacks, and Long Fangs are at Vet stats
Grey Knights get two attacks at minimum starting
Deathwatch make sense as is for the starting point of stats
Then we have Chosen as the base Troop choice for the CSM codex, with everyone having Vet stats at minimum.

Not Online!!! wrote:


until you realise that excactly one loadouts is played?
Involving combiplas, slaanesh and chainaxes?

Right, a balance cheapest and most effective for all scenarios. Loyalists can't do that and that's the point - CSM lamenting they have nothing. Could they use more? Sure, but there isn't this giant chasm where nothing works in CSM's favor.

Combi-plas terminators that can deepstrike and offload are precisely the thing primaris are going to worry about.

Honestly I just want my Noise Marines to become as useful as the Intercessors with autorifles which are both more durable, and still output the same shots as one with a Sonic Blaster.. Yeah sure they don't get cover, but with Doctrines you ignore the basic cover save anyways!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Honestly I just want my Noise Marines to become as useful as the Intercessors with autorifles which are both more durable, and still output the same shots as one with a Sonic Blaster.. Yeah sure they don't get cover, but with Doctrines you ignore the basic cover save anyways!

Sonic Blasters should only be two points max.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


until you realise that excactly one loadouts is played?
Involving combiplas, slaanesh and chainaxes?

Right, a balance cheapest and most effective for all scenarios. Loyalists can't do that and that's the point - CSM lamenting they have nothing. Could they use more? Sure, but there isn't this giant chasm where nothing works in CSM's favor.

Combi-plas terminators that can deepstrike and offload are precisely the thing primaris are going to worry about.

Space Wolves can do that though.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I wonder if the optimal Intercessor Build for Iron Hands is going to be Stalker Bolt Rifles now. Spamming Heavy weapons (most vehicle weapons are Heavy) could lead to a very strong Turn 1 alpha strike.

In my personal opinion it's the best option overall. Though it might average overall the least damage - it is good against the most amount of targets. It's even a big threat to 2+saves in cover. Been playing against tau a lot recently. Broadsides in cover really don't like taking these shots. Not really worth tanking with a drone but if 3 get through that is a dead broadside. It's the most versatile and also the longest range. I've been running 25 as Ultramarines. Working really well.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I wonder if the optimal Intercessor Build for Iron Hands is going to be Stalker Bolt Rifles now. Spamming Heavy weapons (most vehicle weapons are Heavy) could lead to a very strong Turn 1 alpha strike.

In my personal opinion it's the best option overall. Though it might average overall the least damage - it is good against the most amount of targets. It's even a big threat to 2+saves in cover. Been playing against tau a lot recently. Broadsides in cover really don't like taking these shots. Not really worth tanking with a drone but if 3 get through that is a dead broadside. It's the most versatile and also the longest range. I've been running 25 as Ultramarines. Working really well.

Pretty much all of this is wrong. It is the worst option overall. It should be pretty damn obvious that Damage 2 is wasted against a huge selection of targets, and that in a tactical doctrine two shot from a regular bolt rifle are just as good versus multiwound target than one shot from the stalker. (And three auto shots are even better in most cases.)

Now, IH want stay in devastator and gain additional benefits in it, so for them stalkers are worth considering. For others, not so much.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Honestly I just want my Noise Marines to become as useful as the Intercessors with autorifles which are both more durable, and still output the same shots as one with a Sonic Blaster.. Yeah sure they don't get cover, but with Doctrines you ignore the basic cover save anyways!

Sonic Blasters should only be two points max.

Given the Intercessor benefits, it should just be either free or one point. Currently they cost more then said Intercessor.. Either that or buff the Sonics.

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I wonder if the optimal Intercessor Build for Iron Hands is going to be Stalker Bolt Rifles now. Spamming Heavy weapons (most vehicle weapons are Heavy) could lead to a very strong Turn 1 alpha strike.

In my personal opinion it's the best option overall. Though it might average overall the least damage - it is good against the most amount of targets. It's even a big threat to 2+saves in cover. Been playing against tau a lot recently. Broadsides in cover really don't like taking these shots. Not really worth tanking with a drone but if 3 get through that is a dead broadside. It's the most versatile and also the longest range. I've been running 25 as Ultramarines. Working really well.

Pretty much all of this is wrong. It is the worst option overall. It should be pretty damn obvious that Damage 2 is wasted against a huge selection of targets, and that in a tactical doctrine two shot from a regular bolt rifle are just as good versus multiwound target than one shot from the stalker. (And three auto shots are even better in most cases.)

Now, IH want stay in devastator and gain additional benefits in it, so for them stalkers are worth considering. For others, not so much.

What game are you playing where 2 damage is wasted on most targets? LOL. You don't really play this game do you?

Lets just ignore the fact it starts the game in range and at AP-3 compared to barely in range and AP-1.

Less also ignore the "In my personal opinion"

 Xenomancers wrote:

What game are you playing where 2 damage is wasted on most targets? LOL. You don't really play this game do you?

Lets just ignore the fact it starts the game in range and at AP-3 compared to barely in range and AP-1.

Less also ignore the "In my personal opinion"

Probably the same one I'm playing. There aren't a lot of multiwound infantry out there, and most of the multiwound infantry are 3W custodes which D2 is inefficient again. There are a healthy amount of Primaris and Wulfen in the like 5 different Space Wolf players, but mostly there's W1 models like Guardsmen, Boyz, Death Company, Genestealers, etc.


That said, AP-3 D2 infantry-carried weapons are what I didn't want to see and why I dislike all these changes. AP-3 against basic infantry isn't super useful, since you were at the point of effectively eliminating armor saves already at AP-2. An AP-3 D2 infantry-carried sniper rifle is quickly approaching the realm where infantry can fight tanks without having squad light antitank weapons, which is one of the things I just don't think should be an option.

Like, I don't really want basic infantry buffed to the point of tank hunting with assault rifles. Doctrines should have given +1BS to the weapon category or something

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Fundamentally, if you have 2 shots for 1 damage, or 1 shot with 2 damage, and their profiles are otherwise identical, then you essentially always want the 2 for 1.

This. Barring edge cases with auto-wounding rules (looking at you Deathwatch), volume of fire wins out due to the highly fickle nature of the wounding system.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


CSM terminators are absurdly more flexible than loyalists. Come on.

Aren't they all plastic? I mean, I can't imagine anyone making recasts of any termintors that aren't FW, and all non FW resin end up not very flexible. FW stuff can sometimes feel like rubber.

Fundamentally, if you have 2 shots for 1 damage, or 1 shot with 2 damage, and their profiles are otherwise identical, then you essentially always want the 2 for 1.

extra damage has to be 3 or more, to really matter, because at 3D per weapon and with 5-10 weapons per unit, you can start to plink vehicles or monsters.

Can we take a step back from discussing CSM and Guard in the IH thread to ask for a show of hands as to who is becoming concerned that it's been a couple of days and there still isn't a preview for Ravenguard on the community page yet?

The Newman wrote:
Can we take a step back from discussing CSM and Guard in the IH thread to ask for a show of hands as to who is becoming concerned that it's been a couple of days and there still isn't a preview for Ravenguard on the community page yet?

It hasn't been a couple of days. The Iron Hands were posted yesterday.

They're also fully on-schedule to match the timeline set with the first pair of supplements.

...oh yeah, the first set of spoilers was third-hand "hey I heard this from a guy who's usually reliable" stuff on the 7th. The actual official spoilers did drop yesterday.

Funny how memory works.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

What game are you playing where 2 damage is wasted on most targets? LOL. You don't really play this game do you?

Lets just ignore the fact it starts the game in range and at AP-3 compared to barely in range and AP-1.

Less also ignore the "In my personal opinion"

Probably the same one I'm playing. There aren't a lot of multiwound infantry out there, and most of the multiwound infantry are 3W custodes which D2 is inefficient again. There are a healthy amount of Primaris and Wulfen in the like 5 different Space Wolf players, but mostly there's W1 models like Guardsmen, Boyz, Death Company, Genestealers, etc.


That said, AP-3 D2 infantry-carried weapons are what I didn't want to see and why I dislike all these changes. AP-3 against basic infantry isn't super useful, since you were at the point of effectively eliminating armor saves already at AP-2. An AP-3 D2 infantry-carried sniper rifle is quickly approaching the realm where infantry can fight tanks without having squad light antitank weapons, which is one of the things I just don't think should be an option.

Like, I don't really want basic infantry buffed to the point of tank hunting with assault rifles. Doctrines should have given +1BS to the weapon category or something

D2 is not ineffective against 3 wound models. A 5 man squad is unlikely to get more than 1 wound through on a custodian guard unit. Smart players (like me) rotate and manufacture kills across the battlefeild.

Example.
5 Man stalker unit shoots at custodian gaurd - if a wound gets through and they have 1 wound left - I'll shoot it with storm bolters or other chaff nonsense until that wound falls. Then I'll start with the multi wound stuff again. Lets just say this is turn 1 also - the custodian used prepared positions and has a 1 plus save. With AP -3 you bring him to a 4+ - He's got a 2+ against both other bolter options. Vs a firewarriors you are averaging about the same damage on turn 1. Vs a primaris you are doing about twice as much damage. Vs most tanks you are averaging more damage. Vs most flyers you are averaging more damage. The only units they are less effective against are literally dirt chaf infantry. Which redemptor dreads and repulsors clear with infinite ease. Or a single intercessor squad with bolt rifles switched to the tactical doctrine and rapid fire. Been running a 10 man with BR and 5x 5mans with stalkers. The move and shoot penalty isn't really a big deal when you reroll all hits. 75% from 89% is not a massive difference - it's great that ironhands get it turn 1 though - it is in fact OP as hell and makes them hands down better than Ultras. It doesn't mean that Ultras aren't still better off being in devastator doctrine with most their units and just switching a few every turn. IMO the doctrines should work based on your battlefield roll and not the weapon you are using. It is just far to easy to stack your army to rampage all game in the dev doctrine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Fundamentally, if you have 2 shots for 1 damage, or 1 shot with 2 damage, and their profiles are otherwise identical, then you essentially always want the 2 for 1.

This. Barring edge cases with auto-wounding rules (looking at you Deathwatch), volume of fire wins out due to the highly fickle nature of the wounding system.

If the AP was equal you'd be correct. When 1 has higher AP that tips the scales in favor of the 2 damage weapon.

Raven Guard are up
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/09/10/preview-sons-of-coraxgw-homepage-post-4/

edit.

wow that doctrine is terrible for most units.

Looks like I spoke minutes too soon.

ItsPug wrote:
Raven Guard are up
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/09/10/preview-sons-of-coraxgw-homepage-post-4/

edit.

wow that doctrine is terrible for most units.

It's not as bad as it seems as a lot of really powerful units are characters. Plus this is a great trait for snipers as well. It's bad though. Not worth taking.

ItsPug wrote:
Raven Guard are up
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/09/10/preview-sons-of-coraxgw-homepage-post-4/

edit.

wow that doctrine is terrible for most units.

you weren't kidding, that's going to be brutal on some units ie sniper scouts and other things but no wonder noone was talking about ravenguard as a powerful suplement.

I foresee a lot of Iron raven chapters appearing as the power difference is comical.

Very disappointing compared to what the IH get, at least based on this preview.

Yeah; good for Eliminators, not terrible for sniper scouts, and nice for anything that can DS into potential "that character is the closest thing to me" positions. It also helps when any of your stuff winds up in melee with an enemy character, not normally somewhere your regular troops want to be.

Edit: RV get a derpy character-only version of Da' Jump. That's not great.

Bit odd that they spoiled the RG warlord trait and the relic that we already knew about instead of some new ones, that either speaks poorly for the new content or speaks very poorly for the preview writers.

The Newman wrote:
Yeah; good for Eliminators, not terrible for sniper scouts, and nice for anything that can DS into potential "that character is the closest thing to me" positions. It also helps when any of your stuff winds up in melee with an enemy character, not normally somewhere your regular troops want to be.

RG basically gets Da' Jump, which isn't bad.

Bit odd that they spoiled the RG warlord trait and the relic that we already knew about instead of some new ones, that either speaks poorly for the new content or speaks very poorly for the preview writers.

The psychic power is good appart from 1 main issue the only unit I can think off that it really helps is captain in gravis armour as old marines have jumppacks etc. So yeah your gravis captain can now shadow step to your deepstriking old marine's and then have to hope he doesn't get left behind.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


until you realise that excactly one loadouts is played?
Involving combiplas, slaanesh and chainaxes?

Right, a balance cheapest and most effective for all scenarios. Loyalists can't do that and that's the point - CSM lamenting they have nothing. Could they use more? Sure, but there isn't this giant chasm where nothing works in CSM's favor.

Combi-plas terminators that can deepstrike and offload are precisely the thing primaris are going to worry about.

the following have not access to the required COMBO:

Purge, Brazen, WE, Scourged --> these here are just the ones that are not going to get the requirements to even use the combo.

Not to mention that CSM terminators still are more expensive baseline, which is hillarious contrasted with SW as another poster mentioned.

Additionally the following traits are also automatically discarded due to beeing bad beyond believe: WB, WE, IW.
And some of these can't rely on the warlord trait to pull them out of the gutter. Others just make no sense trait wise, because the Stratagem associated with the mark and trait are contraintuitive: EC

Additionally 4 units and 3 stratagems that work competitively whilest the rest simply does not is not what i would describe as a JOB well done. There are people out there that don't want to dabble necessarily in TS and DG. And in that regard i am happy for Marines. For once not needing a guard babysitter and a Knight Damage dealer. But to state there is NO chasm, between the two codexes that are at the Stage of 2.0 is hillariously loopsided. As was your first exemple.

Ice_can wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Yeah; good for Eliminators, not terrible for sniper scouts, and nice for anything that can DS into potential "that character is the closest thing to me" positions. It also helps when any of your stuff winds up in melee with an enemy character, not normally somewhere your regular troops want to be.

RG basically gets Da' Jump, which isn't bad.

Bit odd that they spoiled the RG warlord trait and the relic that we already knew about instead of some new ones, that either speaks poorly for the new content or speaks very poorly for the preview writers.

The psychic power is good appart from 1 main issue the only unit I can think off that it really helps is captain in gravis armour as old marines have jumppacks etc. So yeah your gravis captain can now shadow step to your deepstriking old marine's and then have to hope he doesn't get left behind.

...it would work on a Chaplain Dreadnaught. That's something.

Ice_can wrote:

ItsPug wrote:
Raven Guard are up
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/09/10/preview-sons-of-coraxgw-homepage-post-4/

edit.

wow that doctrine is terrible for most units.

you weren't kidding, that's going to be brutal on some units ie sniper scouts and other things but no wonder noone was talking about ravenguard as a powerful suplement.

Dollars to donuts there's a stratagem in there allowing for Marksman Bolt Carbines to function as Sniper weapons.

I foresee a lot of Iron raven chapters appearing as the power difference is comical.

Seeing as how the Iron Ravens are an actual Successor Chapter, I hope people don't just do that nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:
Yeah; good for Eliminators, not terrible for sniper scouts, and nice for anything that can DS into potential "that character is the closest thing to me" positions. It also helps when any of your stuff winds up in melee with an enemy character, not normally somewhere your regular troops want to be.

I didn't even think about that bit! My Reivers with BP/CCWs might have some more fun now...

Bit odd that they spoiled the RG warlord trait and the relic that we already knew about instead of some new ones, that either speaks poorly for the new content or speaks very poorly for the preview writers.

It really shouldn't be a surprise that those are the ones they spoiled though.