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.
2019/09/10 16:40:17
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
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.
I doubt that is intended and will be two week FAQ'd to non vehical charictors.
2019/09/10 16:56:18
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
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.
And we're talking about people playing only IH. Why does it matter if your aim is to have the most cutting edge stuff? These are the factions that can't move and fire with all their heavy weapons: SW, BA, DA, UM, RG, BT, CF, WS, SL.
SW can do it, but they also aren't reworked like codex marines, yet, either.
2019/09/10 17:00:10
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
What makes the RG tactic lame is that it is on tactical doctrine. Sniper Rifles, Stalker bolt rifles and Eliminators are heavy weapons. If it was during devastator doctrine, it would be stacking good. Now you have to trade +1 hit and wound for your -1AP. Really lame. Like, Icjust hope Shrike is good
2019/09/10 17:11:53
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
Also, they are the ultimate counter to knights and demon primarchs. I need to see the stratagems, but right now the ravenguard appears to me to be quite strong. Don't forget that they have the strongest trait (IH is IMHO worse).
2019/09/10 17:14:53
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
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.
And we're talking about people playing only IH. Why does it matter if your aim is to have the most cutting edge stuff? These are the factions that can't move and fire with all their heavy weapons: SW, BA, DA, UM, RG, BT, CF, WS, SL.
SW can do it, but they also aren't reworked like codex marines, yet, either.
Correction have to substract one -1 and you still are insisting that there is no chasm. Even after all of the above. Gimme abreak.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2019/09/10 17:20:30
Subject: Re:Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
Kithail wrote: What makes the RG tactic lame is that it is on tactical doctrine. Sniper Rifles, Stalker bolt rifles and Eliminators are heavy weapons. If it was during devastator doctrine, it would be stacking good. Now you have to trade +1 hit and wound for your -1AP. Really lame. Like, Icjust hope Shrike is good
I don't know, all the sniper units are pretty low shot volume. Having that hit Termies/Inceptors that are DSing in on turn two so they get the +1 Ap seems like it might be better. It also depends on what sort of anti-overwatch tech RG has outside of the one relic.
Also, they are the ultimate counter to knights and demon primarchs. I need to see the stratagems, but right now the ravenguard appears to me to be quite strong. Don't forget that they have the strongest trait (IH is IMHO worse).
LOL 6+ FNP that is always on is better than +1 armor (cover - ignores cover takes it away) within 12 ". -1 to hit is nice but vehicals can't even get it. Ignoring the other 2 free bonus iron hands get too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/10 17:26:22
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
2019/09/10 17:36:38
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah my Raptors will be ran as Stealthy + the range bonus. If Shrike is good though I might consider actual Raven Guard.
I think that is probably the best best combo for successors traits for range.
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
2019/09/10 17:53:46
Subject: Re:Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
Xenomancers wrote: LOL 6+ FNP that is always on is better than +1 armor (cover - ignores cover takes it away) within 12 ". -1 to hit is nice but vehicals can't even get it. Ignoring the other 2 free bonus iron hands get too.
ZOMG THAT 5+ OVERWATCH, OP PLZ NERF GW
So nice to see history still repeats itself around here.
2019/09/10 17:57:07
Subject: Re:Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
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.
Ah yes, the good ol "One unit in one configuration is good, so it's not a problem that tons of other stuff isn't worth using." I love that one.
Chaos terminators sort of work but only because of plasma being so crazy in 8th. Take away plasma and Chaos terminators have less use than loyalists.
I want to see these units become useful in more loadouts and more ways, like they are supposed to be, and like they were in the past.
I cannot fathom why you are against weak, unplayed units and play styles becoming useful. How does this possibly hurt you.
Always 1 on the crazed roll.
2019/09/10 18:09:32
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
Xenomancers wrote: LOL 6+ FNP that is always on is better than +1 armor (cover - ignores cover takes it away) within 12 ". -1 to hit is nice but vehicals can't even get it. Ignoring the other 2 free bonus iron hands get too.
ZOMG THAT 5+ OVERWATCH, OP PLZ NERF GW
So nice to see history still repeats itself around here.
LOL You know that 5+ overwatch rerolling all hits is about the same odds of hitting on a 4+? Yeah - totally terrible. Half their shots hit in overwatch. That's a pretty big deal when it's an executioner or even a redemptor dread. Or 10 autocannon hits from a levithan. Compared to the 3ish you'd get without those buffs.
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
2019/09/10 18:12:56
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
Xenomancers wrote: LOL You know that 5+ overwatch rerolling all hits is about the same odds of hitting on a 4+? Yeah - totally terrible. Half their shots hit in overwatch. That's a pretty big deal when it's an executioner or even a redemptor dread. Or 10 autocannon hits from a levithan. Compared to the 3ish you'd get without those buffs.
You think you're getting overwatch against players who know what they're doing. That's adorable.
2019/09/10 18:13:50
Subject: Re:Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
Kithail wrote: What makes the RG tactic lame is that it is on tactical doctrine. Sniper Rifles, Stalker bolt rifles and Eliminators are heavy weapons. If it was during devastator doctrine, it would be stacking good. Now you have to trade +1 hit and wound for your -1AP. Really lame. Like, Icjust hope Shrike is good
I don't know, all the sniper units are pretty low shot volume. Having that hit Termies/Inceptors that are DSing in on turn two so they get the +1 Ap seems like it might be better. It also depends on what sort of anti-overwatch tech RG has outside of the one relic.
Ah yes, the good ol "One unit in one configuration is good, so it's not a problem that tons of other stuff isn't worth using." I love that one.
Chaos terminators sort of work but only because of plasma being so crazy in 8th. Take away plasma and Chaos terminators have less use than loyalists.
I want to see these units become useful in more loadouts and more ways, like they are supposed to be, and like they were in the past.
I cannot fathom why you are against weak, unplayed units and play styles becoming useful. How does this possibly hurt you.
I'm not against changes at all. Clearly its a bum deal for traits to apply to marine vehicles and not to CSM and it's quite clear 2.0 was rushed out the door using a pretty old rules design.
I'm against the concept that if something isn't tip-top efficiency then it isn't worth it and the expression envy of other armies without introspection of one's own army.
2019/09/10 18:29:19
Subject: Re:Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
The Newman wrote:[I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. I said Marines still have an issue with durability and you seem to be countering with an argument about how Marines aren't very durable.
Not Online!!! wrote: Oh noes the bolter doesn't negate the armor of guard automatically anymore. Schock and horror.
Imagine for one edition basic guard infantry be good.
Altough i still wonder why cultists got the hike and removal of traits.
either one or the other would've been fairer.
Yes, why should an Assault rifle that fires RPGs be able to shoot through a basic flak vest? Why indeed...
Because a flak vest will save you in case of indirect fire.
Sure, if you are hit straight on you are fine red mist, but the shrapnel of something being hit by that near you will be stopped by the vest, so a 5+ is a correct representation.
Also, the fact that guards outshoot marines point by point is old math now heavily wrong.
Nowadays a tac marine costs 12 ponts and has shock attack and bolter drill. It will shred guards point per point, and let's not talk about intercessors.
Sure, if you just put them standing still at 12" you will lose (with tacs, not with intercessors) but why would you ever do that???
It's like saying that a kabalite with a blaster pistol outshoots a leman russ command tank point per point, so the tank is underpowered. Range matters.
If you pit 10 tacs against 3 infantry squads (equal points), the math easilly shows that the 10 tacs kill 24 points of guards (plus morale), while the guards kill 18 points of marines. If you factor in cover, this becomes hugely skewed in favor of the marines. This is balanced by the fact that marines are more susceptible to bigger weapons, so after all this buffs, marines are absolutely on the same level of guards when it comes to shoot outs between basic troops (which is a useless analysis, but since it was thrown in here i wanted to rectify the mistakes).
I would like to see your math on that. I get that 40 points of dead marines, not 18. Do get me wrong, in an open shooting match guard should beat marines. Marines should only outshoot guard when cover, doctrines, bolter discipline, etc. come into play. But marines barely outshoot guard when ones of those is active, and not at all when you trade 1 guard squad for a company commander to get FRFSRF, as all guard players do. Say doctrines alone put marines almost equal to guard with no orders, this means marines need to be 4/3rds more survivable to equalize them against guard. Something like a one-time FNP on a 5+ would balance them, maybe while putting them back to 13 ppm.
There's CSM, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Sisters of Battle, vehicle units as a broad category, some Eldar units, etc. And even then, the mirror match matters a lot.
The proliferation of AP2 is, in my opinion, terrible for the balance of toughness, armor, and wounds as metrics of resilience. A fundamental principle of AP is that the more armor you have, the more you're affected by a point of AP. Guardsmen or Orks have paper for armor, and their resilience comes from wound count in the unit, they don't really feel the additional AP. Marine units, however, feel the AP a lot more. Armor is already the weakest defense mode, and wounds is already the strongest; proliferating AP, especially AP2, further encourages massed light infantry and units that have a high wound density over units with armor.
The relative difference between the way a Space Marine and a Guardsmen felt against a Boltgun wound between this edition and last edition was a matter of a Guardsman taking 200% more wounds. Now, Guardsmen take only 100% more wounds by default, and when you start introducing AP it drop to 66% more and then 50% more.
This is also further affecting vehicle unit's relative immunity to light arms. Vehicle's armor saves are already a formality against AT systems and only really existed to neutralize the effect of infantry against them; and AP-2 infantry is also dismantling that.
I think the solution should have been a measure that improve Marine's troops' offensive and defensive capabilities against light troops without seriously affecting heavy infantry units. This is hard to actually find a special-rules based solution, because wounds and shots are the "base value" and effectively the most important factors and will almost always be less affected than systems relying on quality. Quality effects improve the value of each shot or wound, but they don't substitute for more wounds or shots.
So really all these new AP rules will only make marine armies even more fragile against each other, rip GKDABASWCSM. I have SS as a DW player, but they can only do so much. I can't think of a good rule to fix durability either. A FNP for marines is the best solution I can come up with, and that's a pretty bad solution. It only increases the quantity of wounds in a statistical manner, and that doesn't address the real problem. Unless the real problem is that marines have too few wounds to manage given the current game rules. Custodes have a baseline of 3 wounds, and that is before a good invuln and a FNP during the psychic phase.
Points cuts for marines is probably the worst solution, marines at an all-time low price (tacs used to be 15 points each) and it turns them into guardsmen who've eaten an extra protein bar. If you don't want angles of death style rules, then marines need basic statline changes.
I don't see why there's a problem with points cost reductions. Reducing the cost both improves the viability of bringing large numbers of Marine infantry [saturation] or leaves more space for toys like tanks or plasma guns or thunder hammer WGPL's. Fundamentally, if the unit is cheap, I can buy capability if it needs it in the form of sergeant power swords, plasmaguns, or WGPL's with hammers; and if I don't need the capability they can be cheap and no drag on my army when they're sitting in the back on an objective or getting blasted off the board while trying to take a forward objective. If the unit is expensive, I can't make them less capable if my plan for them doesn't require that capability, and I also can't afford the capability I really want [wolf guard pack leaders with hammers, or multiple plasmaguns], because instead a bunch of points went towards trying to enforce a 3 guardsmen to 1 marine equivalency rate when the profile's been devalued to about 2 to 2.5 guardsmen per marine.
The thing is, whenever I prep a new Space Wolves list, I wind up at 2k points and half the stuff I wanted to/was planning to have, because everything is so damn expensive. I would like less heroism, more efficiency, because I'm not expecting heroism out of cannon-fodder grade units and HQ's who won't be getting near the fight because they're buffing mostly immobile heavy weapons bearers and cheap tanks and would like to instead be able to buy and extra Long Fang squad or something so I don't have to worry about the one I have being zonked, or more cheap IFV's.
Appreciably, all of these random rules went towards making Marines killier, which IMO wasn't the problem, so much as their resilience was really poor for a troop choice and their support units were really glass cannony. All the tanks are T7 and can be fairly easily harassed or inconvenienced by infantry arms. I think fixing it would have been properly re-assessing a marine's actual worth, as opposed to trying to make him worth the cost they're charging.
Have you tried playing guard or some other hoard army, maybe even admech or eldar? I think they're the armies for you.
Marines are an elite army, you should not be taking any unit as cannon fodder. Imagine going up against a guard player and having almost as many models as they do, it would be insane. Are even playing a 40k game at that point? Custodes showed that elite armies can be durable, marines need the same treatment. They needed universal statline changes at the beginning of 8th, but it is too late for that now. If marines are going to go the angles of death route (i.e. lots of small rules instead of big statline changes), then they need a rule to increase their durability. As I've said earlier, I think the best rule would be a one-time FNP. It would not take away from IH and DG (who have a repeatable FNP), mitigate the 2 damage weapon weakness on primaris, and be most beneficial on 1 wound marines.
2019/09/10 18:34:11
Subject: Re:Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
Ah yes, the good ol "One unit in one configuration is good, so it's not a problem that tons of other stuff isn't worth using." I love that one.
Chaos terminators sort of work but only because of plasma being so crazy in 8th. Take away plasma and Chaos terminators have less use than loyalists.
I want to see these units become useful in more loadouts and more ways, like they are supposed to be, and like they were in the past.
I cannot fathom why you are against weak, unplayed units and play styles becoming useful. How does this possibly hurt you.
I'm not against changes at all. Clearly its a bum deal for traits to apply to marine vehicles and not to CSM and it's quite clear 2.0 was rushed out the door using a pretty old rules design.
I'm against the concept that if something isn't tip-top efficiency then it isn't worth it and the expression envy of other armies without introspection of one's own army.
Then why are we even having any of this discussion? Or are you going to come back and tell me that vanilla CSM are everything they are supposed to be?
Always 1 on the crazed roll.
2019/09/10 18:35:15
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
Xenomancers wrote: LOL You know that 5+ overwatch rerolling all hits is about the same odds of hitting on a 4+? Yeah - totally terrible. Half their shots hit in overwatch. That's a pretty big deal when it's an executioner or even a redemptor dread. Or 10 autocannon hits from a levithan. Compared to the 3ish you'd get without those buffs.
You think you're getting overwatch against players who know what they're doing. That's adorable.
Outside of having a unit that can't be overwatched (rare). Or charging from behind a wall (as if that isn't the most predictable move ever). Then I have exactly no idea what you are talking about.
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
2019/09/10 18:35:24
Subject: Re:Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
Ah yes, the good ol "One unit in one configuration is good, so it's not a problem that tons of other stuff isn't worth using." I love that one.
Chaos terminators sort of work but only because of plasma being so crazy in 8th. Take away plasma and Chaos terminators have less use than loyalists.
I want to see these units become useful in more loadouts and more ways, like they are supposed to be, and like they were in the past.
I cannot fathom why you are against weak, unplayed units and play styles becoming useful. How does this possibly hurt you.
I'm not against changes at all. Clearly its a bum deal for traits to apply to marine vehicles and not to CSM and it's quite clear 2.0 was rushed out the door using a pretty old rules design.
I'm against the concept that if something isn't tip-top efficiency then it isn't worth it and the expression envy of other armies without introspection of one's own army.
Then why are we even having any of this discussion? Or are you going to come back and tell me that vanilla CSM are everything they are supposed to be?
In his eyes absolutely.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2019/09/10 19:15:56
Subject: Re:Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
The Newman wrote:[I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. I said Marines still have an issue with durability and you seem to be countering with an argument about how Marines aren't very durable.
He is making your point.
Yeah, well, he's making it in a way that sure sounds like he's disagreeing with me about something. Possibly whether Marines have pretty good chaff-clearing abilities now.
Xenomancers wrote: LOL You know that 5+ overwatch rerolling all hits is about the same odds of hitting on a 4+? Yeah - totally terrible. Half their shots hit in overwatch. That's a pretty big deal when it's an executioner or even a redemptor dread. Or 10 autocannon hits from a levithan. Compared to the 3ish you'd get without those buffs.
You think you're getting overwatch against players who know what they're doing. That's adorable.
I have yet to see a BA player not take the deny overwatch relic jump pack on their smash captain because they "know what they're doing"
2019/09/10 20:03:53
Subject: Re:Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
The Newman wrote:[I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. I said Marines still have an issue with durability and you seem to be countering with an argument about how Marines aren't very durable.
Not Online!!! wrote: Oh noes the bolter doesn't negate the armor of guard automatically anymore. Schock and horror.
Imagine for one edition basic guard infantry be good.
Altough i still wonder why cultists got the hike and removal of traits. either one or the other would've been fairer.
Yes, why should an Assault rifle that fires RPGs be able to shoot through a basic flak vest? Why indeed...
Because a flak vest will save you in case of indirect fire. Sure, if you are hit straight on you are fine red mist, but the shrapnel of something being hit by that near you will be stopped by the vest, so a 5+ is a correct representation.
Also, the fact that guards outshoot marines point by point is old math now heavily wrong. Nowadays a tac marine costs 12 ponts and has shock attack and bolter drill. It will shred guards point per point, and let's not talk about intercessors. Sure, if you just put them standing still at 12" you will lose (with tacs, not with intercessors) but why would you ever do that??? It's like saying that a kabalite with a blaster pistol outshoots a leman russ command tank point per point, so the tank is underpowered. Range matters.
If you pit 10 tacs against 3 infantry squads (equal points), the math easilly shows that the 10 tacs kill 24 points of guards (plus morale), while the guards kill 18 points of marines. If you factor in cover, this becomes hugely skewed in favor of the marines. This is balanced by the fact that marines are more susceptible to bigger weapons, so after all this buffs, marines are absolutely on the same level of guards when it comes to shoot outs between basic troops (which is a useless analysis, but since it was thrown in here i wanted to rectify the mistakes).
I would like to see your math on that. I get that 40 points of dead marines, not 18. Do get me wrong, in an open shooting match guard should beat marines. Marines should only outshoot guard when cover, doctrines, bolter discipline, etc. come into play. But marines barely outshoot guard when ones of those is active, and not at all when you trade 1 guard squad for a company commander to get FRFSRF, as all guard players do. Say doctrines alone put marines almost equal to guard with no orders, this means marines need to be 4/3rds more survivable to equalize them against guard. Something like a one-time FNP on a 5+ would balance them, maybe while putting them back to 13 ppm.
There's CSM, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Sisters of Battle, vehicle units as a broad category, some Eldar units, etc. And even then, the mirror match matters a lot.
The proliferation of AP2 is, in my opinion, terrible for the balance of toughness, armor, and wounds as metrics of resilience. A fundamental principle of AP is that the more armor you have, the more you're affected by a point of AP. Guardsmen or Orks have paper for armor, and their resilience comes from wound count in the unit, they don't really feel the additional AP. Marine units, however, feel the AP a lot more. Armor is already the weakest defense mode, and wounds is already the strongest; proliferating AP, especially AP2, further encourages massed light infantry and units that have a high wound density over units with armor.
The relative difference between the way a Space Marine and a Guardsmen felt against a Boltgun wound between this edition and last edition was a matter of a Guardsman taking 200% more wounds. Now, Guardsmen take only 100% more wounds by default, and when you start introducing AP it drop to 66% more and then 50% more.
This is also further affecting vehicle unit's relative immunity to light arms. Vehicle's armor saves are already a formality against AT systems and only really existed to neutralize the effect of infantry against them; and AP-2 infantry is also dismantling that.
I think the solution should have been a measure that improve Marine's troops' offensive and defensive capabilities against light troops without seriously affecting heavy infantry units. This is hard to actually find a special-rules based solution, because wounds and shots are the "base value" and effectively the most important factors and will almost always be less affected than systems relying on quality. Quality effects improve the value of each shot or wound, but they don't substitute for more wounds or shots.
So really all these new AP rules will only make marine armies even more fragile against each other, rip GKDABASWCSM. I have SS as a DW player, but they can only do so much. I can't think of a good rule to fix durability either. A FNP for marines is the best solution I can come up with, and that's a pretty bad solution. It only increases the quantity of wounds in a statistical manner, and that doesn't address the real problem. Unless the real problem is that marines have too few wounds to manage given the current game rules. Custodes have a baseline of 3 wounds, and that is before a good invuln and a FNP during the psychic phase.
Points cuts for marines is probably the worst solution, marines at an all-time low price (tacs used to be 15 points each) and it turns them into guardsmen who've eaten an extra protein bar. If you don't want angles of death style rules, then marines need basic statline changes.
I don't see why there's a problem with points cost reductions. Reducing the cost both improves the viability of bringing large numbers of Marine infantry [saturation] or leaves more space for toys like tanks or plasma guns or thunder hammer WGPL's. Fundamentally, if the unit is cheap, I can buy capability if it needs it in the form of sergeant power swords, plasmaguns, or WGPL's with hammers; and if I don't need the capability they can be cheap and no drag on my army when they're sitting in the back on an objective or getting blasted off the board while trying to take a forward objective. If the unit is expensive, I can't make them less capable if my plan for them doesn't require that capability, and I also can't afford the capability I really want [wolf guard pack leaders with hammers, or multiple plasmaguns], because instead a bunch of points went towards trying to enforce a 3 guardsmen to 1 marine equivalency rate when the profile's been devalued to about 2 to 2.5 guardsmen per marine.
The thing is, whenever I prep a new Space Wolves list, I wind up at 2k points and half the stuff I wanted to/was planning to have, because everything is so damn expensive. I would like less heroism, more efficiency, because I'm not expecting heroism out of cannon-fodder grade units and HQ's who won't be getting near the fight because they're buffing mostly immobile heavy weapons bearers and cheap tanks and would like to instead be able to buy and extra Long Fang squad or something so I don't have to worry about the one I have being zonked, or more cheap IFV's.
Appreciably, all of these random rules went towards making Marines killier, which IMO wasn't the problem, so much as their resilience was really poor for a troop choice and their support units were really glass cannony. All the tanks are T7 and can be fairly easily harassed or inconvenienced by infantry arms. I think fixing it would have been properly re-assessing a marine's actual worth, as opposed to trying to make him worth the cost they're charging.
Have you tried playing guard or some other hoard army, maybe even admech or eldar? I think they're the armies for you.
Marines are an elite army, you should not be taking any unit as cannon fodder. Imagine going up against a guard player and having almost as many models as they do, it would be insane. Are even playing a 40k game at that point? Custodes showed that elite armies can be durable, marines need the same treatment. They needed universal statline changes at the beginning of 8th, but it is too late for that now. If marines are going to go the angles of death route (i.e. lots of small rules instead of big statline changes), then they need a rule to increase their durability. As I've said earlier, I think the best rule would be a one-time FNP. It would not take away from IH and DG (who have a repeatable FNP), mitigate the 2 damage weapon weakness on primaris, and be most beneficial on 1 wound marines.
Quite easy math actually. 27 laser shots from 3 squads, 13,5 hits, 4,5 wounds, 1,5 kills- Multiplied by 12 ppm that is 18 points. 2 squads with FRFSRF lose a lot of durability but raise the output to 24 points, getting on par with the tac marines. Obviously this is not within 12", which was the point i was making in the first place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/10 20:04:57
2019/09/10 20:05:52
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
Some things deny overwatch - it's true. Smash captains are a poor example though because they are exceptionally busted and require a bunch of spells and stratagems to make an nearly automatic deep strike charge and 1 shot 700 point models (no one in the world actually enjoys this things) K you got me there - 5+ overwatch is not an answer to smash captains. Outside of that there are solitaires and autarchs (haha not anymore). Beyond that Irons hands are pretty much close to unchargeable as you'll take more damage charging than you'll do in assault.
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
2019/09/10 20:16:13
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
I think the RG doctrine is way better than everyone is giving it credit for.
RG just became the best SM faction at taking out Character Knights. It will also be fantastic vs. Tank Commanders and Disco-lords.
The physic power also allows you to teleport your Chaplain around, which mitigates one of the big downsides of having to chant at the start of the round.
Think about having a chaplain on the table that uses the +2 to charge and 6' pile-in chant, and deep-striking vanguard vets who now have +1 to wound and hit thunder-hammers and 3 attacks each (sergeant 4).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/10 20:17:30
#dontbeatony
3500+
(Raven Guard) 7000+
(Scions) 1500+
2019/09/10 20:47:12
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
To be honest I'd be surprised if it actually continues to count against vehicles. However it's true. It will be great against these units. The big issue is it only takes effect turn 2.
I really wouldn't put them above Ultramarines for putting down superheavies - seal of oath is a straight up gman buff against their most powerful unit.
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
2019/09/10 20:58:18
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
Seems highly situational, their doctrine. The psychic power is interesting, in that it is a weaker gate. Ultramarine one or the IH one seems much stronger.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2019/09/10 21:27:56
Subject: Some rules sneak peaks from the Iron Hands supplament.
RG are very powerful and are meta defying as so many armies, eldar, orks, GSC, knights, Chaos, rely on characters or units with the character key word. In your local pick up game I can understand the feeling they are not up there with IH or UM but in terms of meta, you basically now have to build against them at the tournament level which is crazy good. They are also, ironically, now one of the premier marine killer armies.
Ishagu wrote: None of this is verified BTW, it's second hand info from B&C forum but I personally believe it all. The FLG guys have said that the Iron Hands supplement is one of the strongest.
- The Iron Father gives units within 6 inches of him a 5+ invulnerable save.
Oh sure, the marines get a 6" 5+ invul bubble, but necrons have to make do with a 3" bubble that doesn't even work in close combat.
Goddammit GW
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
3500+
(Raven Guard) 7000+
(Scions) 1500+ 
~4100
~1660