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.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.

It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?

Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.

It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?

Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?

Yes, ? Scourged are literally psychic nutjobs.
Admech are more machine and the Parade soldiers have that only if they are in formation.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.

It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?

Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?

People want special snowflake rules that only they get I guess?

Tbf the traits copying each other is boring.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tbf the traits copying each other is boring.

With poor morale and melee rules, how much variety can someone really create? Some overlap is fine but sometimes the more "creative" attempts are just plan frickin bad. You know anyone using Biel Tan or whatever for the extra LD on their Aspect Warriors. Hell no LOL

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.

It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?

Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?

Are you really asked why we shouldn't be giving factions a random pile of special rules?
Less is more.

And IH's don't get 1 sub faction rule. They get 3.
If all IH's got was 5+ overwatch there wouldn't be the same amount of complaining.
But they also get 6+++ and double wounds for brackets.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tbf the traits copying each other is boring.

With poor morale and melee rules, how much variety can someone really create? Some overlap is fine but sometimes the more "creative" attempts are just plan frickin bad. You know anyone using Biel Tan or whatever for the extra LD on their Aspect Warriors. Hell no LOL

WB says hello, getting a trait equal but cheaper units get for free...

No, traits should cost per model.
An AL legionaire should cost 13 pts, a WB /BL one maybee 11.

Heck it isn't that difficult and gw knew this before which makes the whole situation as agrivating as it is atm.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tbf the traits copying each other is boring.

Do we need unique traits per sub-faction, then? There are fifteen books in the game big enough to have sub-factions right now, if you want all of them to have sort of 8-ish unique rules that's an extra 120 unique special rules you want the designers to try and work into the game. And that's independent of the whole supplement business, do we need just one unique trait per sub-faction or do we need 2-3 traits, a full table of six Warlord Traits and psychic powers, 8+ relics, and a dozen stratagems for each of the 120 sub-factions? 4,200 "unique" little paragraphs of rule to make sure everyone's sufficiently characterful and distinct?

Or does it just become bloat at some point?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tbf the traits copying each other is boring.

Do we need unique traits per sub-faction, then? There are fifteen books in the game big enough to have sub-factions right now, if you want all of them to have sort of 8-ish unique rules that's an extra 120 unique special rules you want the designers to try and work into the game. And that's independent of the whole supplement business, do we need just one unique trait per sub-faction or do we need 2-3 traits, a full table of six Warlord Traits and psychic powers, 8+ relics, and a dozen stratagems for each of the 120 sub-factions? 4,200 "unique" little paragraphs of rule to make sure everyone's sufficiently characterful and distinct?

Or does it just become bloat at some point?

Quite frankly traits for free as they are now are just bad designed.
See above.

But that is my opinion.

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.

It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?

Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?

Are you really asked why we shouldn't be giving factions a random pile of special rules?
Less is more.

And IH's don't get 1 sub faction rule. They get 3.
If all IH's got was 5+ overwatch there wouldn't be the same amount of complaining.
But they also get 6+++ and double wounds for brackets.

Two parters are fine as is though. So maybe that's where the problem is? Remove the double bracket bonus or the Overwatch and your problem is solved?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tbf the traits copying each other is boring.

With poor morale and melee rules, how much variety can someone really create? Some overlap is fine but sometimes the more "creative" attempts are just plan frickin bad. You know anyone using Biel Tan or whatever for the extra LD on their Aspect Warriors. Hell no LOL

WB says hello, getting a trait equal but cheaper units get for free...

No, traits should cost per model.
An AL legionaire should cost 13 pts, a WB /BL one maybee 11.

Heck it isn't that difficult and gw knew this before which makes the whole situation as agrivating as it is atm.

Nobody would take Word Bearers dudes at 11 points anyway so that's not a good argument.

The rework of the Space Marine Chapter Tactics was good. The issue is the supplements cranking everything to an unbearable level.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.

It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?

Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?

People want special snowflake rules that only they get I guess?

No we want rules that reflect each factions lore and different play style. Not just stacks of special rules given out randomly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.

It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?

Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?

Are you really asked why we shouldn't be giving factions a random pile of special rules?
Less is more.

And IH's don't get 1 sub faction rule. They get 3.
If all IH's got was 5+ overwatch there wouldn't be the same amount of complaining.
But they also get 6+++ and double wounds for brackets.

Two parters are fine as is though. So maybe that's where the problem is? Remove the double bracket bonus or the Overwatch and your problem is solved?

It would fix 'a' problem. But the SM codex and supplements are full of em.

It is a good argument if you'd understood the idea behind it.
It would give actual margin to balance either buff the rules or implement cheaper prices for units.
Heck you could fix problem unit +trait interactions that way waaay better then now.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Do we need unique traits per sub-faction, then? There are fifteen books in the game big enough to have sub-factions right now, if you want all of them to have sort of 8-ish unique rules that's an extra 120 unique special rules you want the designers to try and work into the game. And that's independent of the whole supplement business, do we need just one unique trait per sub-faction or do we need 2-3 traits, a full table of six Warlord Traits and psychic powers, 8+ relics, and a dozen stratagems for each of the 120 sub-factions? 4,200 "unique" little paragraphs of rule to make sure everyone's sufficiently characterful and distinct?

Or does it just become bloat at some point?

Want to know how a codex looks, that has a lot of it stratagems being copy pasted from old codex marines and its own being mostly bad?

I would love to have 8 relics, heck I would love to have 3-4 relics that could be taken by heroes used as characters. more then one warlord would be great too.

Less is more.

No, less is not more. It really isn't.

 nintura wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I disagree with any of these wider problems...

Drop pods cost 65 points where several armies can deploy much more powerful units for the cost of a relic turn 1. Drop pods are in fact pretty garbage. Without several stratagems going off and spending a ton on the units to go inside the pod you are at best looking at a really expensive suicide unit.

Impuslors are pretty good but can only hold intercessors/hellblasters and you can't charge after. So basically if just gets you in range to shoot with short range guns...hardly an issue in a game with first turn charges being a common thing.

The issue with marines is doctrine are very powerful and every marine just got +1 attack across the board. This puts marines at top tier currently. With certain busted super doctrines like Imperial fist and Iron hands - they are clearly the best option in the game right now BUT every army is going to be getting updated rules most likely...so we have no idea what the power level of this 8.5 edition is going to be like.

I mean, my drop pods (tyrannocytes) cost 110+ points and cant drop turn 1..... id kill for 65


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd also like to know where all the outrage was when Orks got the Black Templars Chapter Tactic except strictly better across their entire army on top of getting clan tactics or where the anger was when Slaanesh Marines got a strictly better version of the Black Helm, since having better versions of someone else's rules is apparently now a deadly sin.

This whole gnashing and wailing about how Marines are always overpowered is conflating having a disproportionate amount of model releases with having too powerful rules.

The problem here is you are mentioning one army and one rules. Marines are getting MASS new rules and rules breaks, buffs and everything else.

I'd kill for a 170 point beast with 7 d6 damage attacks that can charge on an 8 that can deploy ANY troop unit. Tyranocyte is garbage but Trygons are pretty great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It only applies to Flamers and Melta weapons in Tactical Doctrine. But it's still pretty potent.

With the ammunt of flamers posible and T1 delivery systems that are guaranteed, think it is still preety bonkers.
And they should've known such effects are strong allready, they had their fieldstudy so to speak.

The only way to do that with flamers is to take a successor chapter. So no special characters. In case you haven't noticed. Space marines special characters are quite good. That is a big trade off. drop pods would be really good at like 25 points but at 65 they are just too much. Taking 65 more points in units is basically always better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tbf the traits copying each other is boring.

Do we need unique traits per sub-faction, then? There are fifteen books in the game big enough to have sub-factions right now, if you want all of them to have sort of 8-ish unique rules that's an extra 120 unique special rules you want the designers to try and work into the game. And that's independent of the whole supplement business, do we need just one unique trait per sub-faction or do we need 2-3 traits, a full table of six Warlord Traits and psychic powers, 8+ relics, and a dozen stratagems for each of the 120 sub-factions? 4,200 "unique" little paragraphs of rule to make sure everyone's sufficiently characterful and distinct?

Or does it just become bloat at some point?

It could really just be a marine thing because unique chapters are kinda a big deal for a lot of space marine players. The way you fix it to where it's not a problem is successor chapters should only get space marine codex warlord traits and relics AND they should not get access to the bonus doctrines. That way there wouldn't really be any chance that a random successor combo that works really well would significantly increase the power of the army - because at a very minimum they would not be getting the extra bonus.

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Do we need unique traits per sub-faction, then? There are fifteen books in the game big enough to have sub-factions right now, if you want all of them to have sort of 8-ish unique rules that's an extra 120 unique special rules you want the designers to try and work into the game. And that's independent of the whole supplement business, do we need just one unique trait per sub-faction or do we need 2-3 traits, a full table of six Warlord Traits and psychic powers, 8+ relics, and a dozen stratagems for each of the 120 sub-factions? 4,200 "unique" little paragraphs of rule to make sure everyone's sufficiently characterful and distinct?

Or does it just become bloat at some point?

Want to know how a codex looks, that has a lot of it stratagems being copy pasted from old codex marines and its own being mostly bad?

I would love to have 8 relics, heck I would love to have 3-4 relics that could be taken by heroes used as characters. more then one warlord would be great too...

I want a game where I don't have to read 4,200 unique relics, warlord traits, stratagems, and sub-faction tactics to avoid getting blindsided by stuff I wasn't aware was possible. But apparently that makes me weird.

Nope.
But gw can't anyways design regardless few or many rules.

Just instead of blindsided you get roffled.
Chose one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The only way to do that with flamers is to take a successor chapter. So no special characters. In case you haven't noticed. Space marines special characters are quite good. That is a big trade off. drop pods would be really good at like 25 points but at 65 they are just too much. Taking 65 more points in units is basically always better.

Remind me how much is a normal transport costing?
And how often do you see them.
And how many of them are T1 in range for anything?

Yeah, no your 25 pts suggestion is to be blunt delusional.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


I want a game where I don't have to read 4,200 unique relics, warlord traits, stratagems, and sub-faction tactics to avoid getting blindsided by stuff I wasn't aware was possible. But apparently that makes me weird.

if an armyn gets 6 relics, 6 warlord traits and 20+ stratagems, the chance of getting something good is higher, then if you get 1 warlord trait , 3 stratagems and zero relics.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Do we need unique traits per sub-faction, then? There are fifteen books in the game big enough to have sub-factions right now, if you want all of them to have sort of 8-ish unique rules that's an extra 120 unique special rules you want the designers to try and work into the game. And that's independent of the whole supplement business, do we need just one unique trait per sub-faction or do we need 2-3 traits, a full table of six Warlord Traits and psychic powers, 8+ relics, and a dozen stratagems for each of the 120 sub-factions? 4,200 "unique" little paragraphs of rule to make sure everyone's sufficiently characterful and distinct?

Or does it just become bloat at some point?

Want to know how a codex looks, that has a lot of it stratagems being copy pasted from old codex marines and its own being mostly bad?

I would love to have 8 relics, heck I would love to have 3-4 relics that could be taken by heroes used as characters. more then one warlord would be great too...

I want a game where I don't have to read 4,200 unique relics, warlord traits, stratagems, and sub-faction tactics to avoid getting blindsided by stuff I wasn't aware was possible. But apparently that makes me weird.

Relics and WL traits have to be declared before the game, stratagems don't which is why relic and trait bloat is harmless compared to Strat bloat.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.

It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?

Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?

If you're going to go fluff, then why doesnt a squad of tac marines kill an entire army. I mean they do it all the time. Let's just go there. So then I have a reason to never play against marines.

Of course while your'e at it, maybe you can have your platoon of marines and I get enough tyrannocytes and gaunts to blot out the sun and swarm the board. Something like 500 units in a 1,000 point game? Sure, let's do fluff based armies.

 nintura wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The real issue is all y'all wanted more rules and more flavor and more flavored rules instead of a simple balance check.

It's not the rules that add flavor that people are complaining about. No one is complaining about rg. Why should ih overwatch like tau? Why should salamanders be better votlw than actual votlw? Why do ih get the same defense against psykers as the psyker hating we and bt?

Why shouldn't they? Is there anything in the fluff saying that Iron Hands can't overwatch as well as AdMech or The Scourged or Mordians?

If you're going to go fluff, then why doesnt a squad of tac marines kill an entire army. I mean they do it all the time. Let's just go there. So then I have a reason to never play against marines.

Of course while your'e at it, maybe you can have your platoon of marines and I get enough tyrannocytes and gaunts to blot out the sun and swarm the board. Something like 500 units in a 1,000 point game? Sure, let's do fluff based armies.

Seeing as many have argued PA Marines needed a buff and that almost all iterations of them have had issues, that's not unreasonable.

 nintura wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I disagree with any of these wider problems...

Drop pods cost 65 points where several armies can deploy much more powerful units for the cost of a relic turn 1. Drop pods are in fact pretty garbage. Without several stratagems going off and spending a ton on the units to go inside the pod you are at best looking at a really expensive suicide unit.

Impuslors are pretty good but can only hold intercessors/hellblasters and you can't charge after. So basically if just gets you in range to shoot with short range guns...hardly an issue in a game with first turn charges being a common thing.

The issue with marines is doctrine are very powerful and every marine just got +1 attack across the board. This puts marines at top tier currently. With certain busted super doctrines like Imperial fist and Iron hands - they are clearly the best option in the game right now BUT every army is going to be getting updated rules most likely...so we have no idea what the power level of this 8.5 edition is going to be like.

I mean, my drop pods (tyrannocytes) cost 110+ points and cant drop turn 1..... id kill for 65

Tyrannocytes can drop Tyranid tanks or 20 Genestealers. They can move and charge, fly and have decent guns.

Trygons/Primes are big threatening units by themselves, and can truck up to 30 models with them.

Or you can play Jormungandr and deep strike additional units for a single CP each.

You got a nice variety of DS options as Tyranids. I play Jorm myself.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Nope.
But gw can't anyways design regardless few or many rules.

Just instead of blindsided you get roffled.
Chose one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The only way to do that with flamers is to take a successor chapter. So no special characters. In case you haven't noticed. Space marines special characters are quite good. That is a big trade off. drop pods would be really good at like 25 points but at 65 they are just too much. Taking 65 more points in units is basically always better.

Remind me how much is a normal transport costing?
And how often do you see them.
And how many of them are T1 in range for anything?

Yeah, no your 25 pts suggestion is to be blunt delusional.

Drop pods do approximately nothing. It is a deep strike for a unit and a storm bolter. The value of that is...wait...free - because there are an infinite number of ways to deep strike a unit for a CP and plenty can do it naturally. It's worth maybe 2 points per model. Turn 1 is great but it never needed that. It just needed a fair cost. It's hard to cost the turn 1 value because a lot of times you are better off coming in turn 2 anyways. Maybe 40 points with the turn 1. 65 is mindboggling overpriced for a drop pod in this game.

Drop pods are not transports. They are just deep strike platforms. I'd be fine with the model having 0 interaction with the game actually.

Drop Pods do not have to be 25 points. 65 points is fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
65 points to Deep Strike two Devastator Squads with Grav Cannons turn 1 is totally worth it. As UM I can get them both in Tactical Doctrine, too. The reduction in Grav Cannon cost pays for the Pod even. And now Cherubs dont take up a space in the transport anymore either.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Drop Pods do not have to be 25 points. 65 points is fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
65 points to Deep Strike two Devastator Squads with Grav Cannons turn 1 is totally worth it. As UM I can get them both in Tactical Doctrine, too. The reduction in Grav Cannon cost pays for the Pod even. And now Cherubs dont take up a space in the transport anymore either.

What does it matter? You could take 3 ravagers for the cost and do even more damage...while being about 4 times as survivable and mobile. 65 points to teleport a unit is outrageous when you can do it for 1 cp. Orks can teleport 30 models every turn for the cost of a psychic power. Several relics do it. Just because you CAN do something. Doesn't make it good. The points are off on drop pods. It is clear - they get 0 play in competitive because they are a waste of points.

How many points is a CP worth? How many factions have "Deep Strike a unit" for 1 CP, with no limits? Usually it's 1 CP for one, 3 CP for two.
How many points is that Weirdboy? How likely is he to fail his power? How often does he blow himself up? How vulnerable is he to snipers?
How many points is a Relic slot worth, when everyone but Marines caps at three from your Warlord's faction?

So everyone has to play jorm? Wow i love the options...

On another forum someone was complaining about the Iron Hands nerf because the game had some valid counter play. Raven Guard and White Scars had a high win rate against them...

So all is well if we all switch to Codex Marines lol.

 nintura wrote:
So everyone has to play jorm? Wow i love the options...

No. But you can. Otherwise you have two options compared to the Space Marine one.

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


I want a game where I don't have to read 4,200 unique relics, warlord traits, stratagems, and sub-faction tactics to avoid getting blindsided by stuff I wasn't aware was possible. But apparently that makes me weird.

if an armyn gets 6 relics, 6 warlord traits and 20+ stratagems, the chance of getting something good is higher, then if you get 1 warlord trait , 3 stratagems and zero relics.

Wouldn't it be better if everyone just got 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that were all useful instead of making us sift through 6 relics, 6 Warlord Traits, and 20+ Stratagems to find the 1 Warlord Trait and 3 Stratagems that are actually useful? I know my expectations are wildly unrealistic from GW's writing team but the ease with which everyone rolls over and says "yeah, we know they're s***, but if they write enough s*** maybe something playable will slip through the cracks" amazes me sometimes.