Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 16:46:47
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM
|
Xenomancers wrote:DE get +1 damage on poison weapons on a 6...it's garbage - to get that they would have to give up flayed skull or blackheart traits which are way better. +1 to would? I don't recal it but it must be for witches or something and they don't shoot well.
Kabals get it and its thrash.
Coven have a variant where you can "Overcharge" any weapons when firing, but if you get any 1's (per weapon) you suffer a mortal wound. in exchange you get +1 wound and +1 dmg
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 16:48:34
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
Xenomancers wrote: Ishagu wrote:For all we know flyers will soon be adjusted. If they change the airwing detachment to 1 - 3 flyers, and be a single detachment per army in matched play there is nothing more to worry about.
It would fix the Eldar spam, IH spam and anything else that might abuse flyers.
The problem is obviously the army rules. Not the units or detachments.
Nah. CP generation working like AoS would mean less CP on turn 1 to go nuts with while averaging the same ampunt for everyone over the course of a game. That specifically ties into detachments.
And the abuse of flyers for some rather nutty combos is another detachment based issue.
I feel like you have a strong bias against the new Marine book as a whole and are using this as an excuse to soapbox about it instead of treating it as what it most likely is: the first in a series up army updates designed to increase the flavor and depth of individual army builds while supporting players to be able to run their own unique sub-factions. Marines are only strong because they got it first, but we saw expanded rules for the Eldar in a similar vein in PA and the official announcement said every faction gets something which means more of this is coming.
Sure this may not be making the tournament scene the happiest of campers, but for anyone with a strong narrative focus this is a fantastic update and it looks like more updates will be following. Automatically Appended Next Post: VladimirHerzog wrote: Xenomancers wrote:DE get +1 damage on poison weapons on a 6...it's garbage - to get that they would have to give up flayed skull or blackheart traits which are way better. +1 to would? I don't recal it but it must be for witches or something and they don't shoot well.
Kabals get it and its thrash.
Coven have a variant where you can "Overcharge" any weapons when firing, but if you get any 1's (per weapon) you suffer a mortal wound. in exchange you get +1 wound and +1 dmg
Coven can also shrug off mortal wounds as well, meaning you shouldn't lose that many models to that downside.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 16:49:42
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 16:50:08
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
Ishagu wrote: Xenomancers wrote: Ishagu wrote:For all we know flyers will soon be adjusted. If they change the airwing detachment to 1 - 3 flyers, and be a single detachment per army in matched play there is nothing more to worry about.
It would fix the Eldar spam, IH spam and anything else that might abuse flyers.
The problem is obviously the army rules. Not the units or detachments.
No, it's arguably detachment issue. It's why Eldar and Dark Eldar are spamming flyers as well. This isn't just an Astartes problem.
I always find that the people who worry the most and make a big deal out of things are the ones who don't actually play that many games. You can't have played many or any games with or against the IF supplement?
I play more than most people. 3 game stores in range of my house to game and and basically every weekend I play a game or 2. I have no desire to play against IF though. Literally CAN NOT win against them without heavily counter building and not including vehicles. Which pretty much makes me not want to play at all. If you don't understand why you can't win against an army that is doing double damage against you for free...I just don't know what to say. I am not trying to be rude but I do play this game. You can't lose games if you are dealing double damage lol.
|
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 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 16:50:35
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
Karol wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: Ishagu wrote:Xenomancers, you need to relax. The sky isn't falling. Take a deep breath, enjoy your army and play some games.
No one on the interner actually plays games. [/s]
That is very condescending to say to be honest. So everyone who has problems with w40k, isn't playing the game ? What else, they are all children, don't know what the game is REALLY about, and don't spend 99% of their time painting and writing lore for each model in their army. While everyone who does have fun in 8th ed, is not only having fun, but is also a better kind of human, or did I miss something?
I was being sarcastic, hence the /s tag.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 16:55:12
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
VladimirHerzog wrote: Xenomancers wrote:DE get +1 damage on poison weapons on a 6...it's garbage - to get that they would have to give up flayed skull or blackheart traits which are way better. +1 to would? I don't recal it but it must be for witches or something and they don't shoot well.
Kabals get it and its thrash.
Coven have a variant where you can "Overcharge" any weapons when firing, but if you get any 1's (per weapon) you suffer a mortal wound. in exchange you get +1 wound and +1 dmg
Seems like a good rule for covens but they are giving up PotF to get it...That does seem pretty good but then your realize...they only have poison weapons mainly and those wound on 6's regardless of +1 to wound vs vehicles. It affects very few weapons and it is a close combat force. Does not seem practical. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also - the sky literally is falling with a super doct like IF. I was right about ironhands. I'm probably even more right now. Not sure which is more busted though. Pre nerf ironstone or IF super doctrine.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 16:59:27
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 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:00:57
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Vaktathi wrote:Who knows, it's not like GW are consistent about anything, but a lot of these power issues are obvious at a passing glance to even super casual readings (as has often been the case in the past too) that makes it hard to see as anything but intentional on at least some level.
I think something that inconsistent should give a little pause. There are new eldar models and surely they'd want to push sales on those.
When confronted with such things the simplest explanation is often the most correct - incompetence. (And I don't mean that as a personal insult to GW folks)
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 17:01:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:03:42
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
Xenomancers wrote: Ishagu wrote: Xenomancers wrote: Ishagu wrote:For all we know flyers will soon be adjusted. If they change the airwing detachment to 1 - 3 flyers, and be a single detachment per army in matched play there is nothing more to worry about.
It would fix the Eldar spam, IH spam and anything else that might abuse flyers.
The problem is obviously the army rules. Not the units or detachments.
No, it's arguably detachment issue. It's why Eldar and Dark Eldar are spamming flyers as well. This isn't just an Astartes problem.
I always find that the people who worry the most and make a big deal out of things are the ones who don't actually play that many games. You can't have played many or any games with or against the IF supplement?
I play more than most people. 3 game stores in range of my house to game and and basically every weekend I play a game or 2. I have no desire to play against IF though. Literally CAN NOT win against them without heavily counter building and not including vehicles. Which pretty much makes me not want to play at all. If you don't understand why you can't win against an army that is doing double damage against you for free...I just don't know what to say. I am not trying to be rude but I do play this game. You can't lose games if you are dealing double damage lol.
They only get increased damage against buildings and vehicles, everything else is a doctrine buff to AP thst every C: SM gets and making bolt weapons actually worth taking with exploding 6s.
Against MEQ for example a full sized unit of 10 with ABR in the tactical doctrine the IF do 1.25 more wounds on average than other chapters. Mind you, that's moving the unit from 5 to 6.25 damage against MEQ from 30 shots. If we don't go tactical that drops to to 3.33 for most chapters and 4.17 for the IF.
Against GEQ those numbers go to 8.89 for regular Marines, and 10.37 for IF outside of the tactical doctrine. This goes to 11.11 for most Marines and 12.97 for IF.
Those numbers are out of 30 shots from an 180+ point troop unit and they show the IF aren't doing "double" damage, but instead only average 1-2 extra damage. It's a definite buff, but is not a game breaker.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:05:15
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM
|
ClockworkZion wrote:
Coven can also shrug off mortal wounds as well, meaning you shouldn't lose that many models to that downside.
transports can't Automatically Appended Next Post: Xenomancers wrote:Seems like a good rule for covens but they are giving up PotF to get it...That does seem pretty good but then your realize...they only have poison weapons mainly and those wound on 6's regardless of +1 to wound vs vehicles. It affects very few weapons and it is a close combat force. Does not seem practical.
coven shooting can be decent, people are testing venom/raider spam. talos also can beenift from the +1 to wound on haywire blasters. the +1 to wound (from Dark Technomancer) does work on vehicles to woundon a 5+ with poison.
but yes, losing the 4++ is probably not going to be worth it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 17:07:37
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:18:14
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
ClockworkZion wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
Why would you ever need to go into tactical doctrine...you are spamming heavy weapons in this build. Even your troops can have heavies (though maybe they will have some bolters - AP doesn't really mater vs chaff much anyways) Like over half the armies in the game use a lot of vehicals and HB/ AC type weapons are already pretty close to LC vs units that have high invune saves. High ROF is also superior vs tau because of drone spam. It's already superior to LC againt monsters with 4++ saves. Plus - It will literally force every space marine army to play as CF after the iron hands ironstone nerf. Marines pretty much have to play with vehicals in order to get effective anti tank. So do most the imperium of man. Plus 1 army invalidating an entire type of unit is dumb enough on it's own.
Why would you stay in the devastator doctrine when your unique bonus only works on VEHICLE or BUILDING units? Even so, you have more rapid fire bolters in any given list than you can evem take heavy weapons, so it makes more sense to switch to buff those than it does to sit in the heavy doctrine and marginally increase your AP value against troop units.
You have a very skewed perspective of how Marines work, and should work, I can get my head around. IF get buffs for every doctrine (some are only in relics, but the point stands), playing a static army that only uses one doctrine and doesn't between them (or even going forward and back as needed) seems rather silly.
You do know you can take only heavy weapons except a few cc/bolters on a few scouts and characters? You will stay in devastator the whole game to always get extra ap on those heavy weapons.
You dont care if the opponent dont have any vehicles since you have a gak ton of heavy bolter weapons, heavy stalker rifles on intercessors , sniper rifles, thunderfire cannons, dreads, heavy bolter devastators etc. Against infantry you will have a ton of str 4-7 ap 2-3 ignore cover shots from your whole army and dont care that its only damage 1 or 2 since you will still wreck any non tanks.
You are thinking about the super doctrine wrongly. Its not just a buff against vehicle. It lets you completely ignore normal anti tank weapons like lascannons and load up on anti infantry weapon like heavy bolters. You change the whole way you build your list. You dont have a few boosted lascannons and the rest normal rapid fire weapons. That is just wasting the doctrine ability and you would be better off playing anything else.
Intercessors with 36" str 4 ap3 d2-3 ignore cover and exploding 6s with CM and lt is a threat against everything. Why bother changing to tactical doctrine? Exploding 6s,quality of each shot and number of heavy bolter shots from the rest of the army will be enough against any infantry horde.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/23 17:23:12
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:31:00
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
Heavy stalkers are still trash for IF, even with the extra AP. And frankly since IF don't igbore move and shoot penalties for heavies, don't get increased range or extra shots on most heavy weapons (the only exception being heavy stalkers and heavy bolters) it's a trap to sit in the heavy doctrine to buff AP on those versuses troop units instead of the more plentiful rapid fire and assault weapons the army has access to.
Heavy bolters versues tanks are also a trap since you're only wounding a third of the shots you hit with and you only have 36" of range.
I'm biased as a Primaris only player but ultimately I feel I'd rather make stuff like Heavy plasma weapins better versuses tanks since they're also good against elite infantry over buffing heavy bolters and rather buff the basic bolter later in the game since it buffs the ABR which benefits the most (save for the storm bolter) from the CT.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:31:49
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
Daedalus81 wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Who knows, it's not like GW are consistent about anything, but a lot of these power issues are obvious at a passing glance to even super casual readings (as has often been the case in the past too) that makes it hard to see as anything but intentional on at least some level.
I think something that inconsistent should give a little pause. There are new eldar models and surely they'd want to push sales on those.
When confronted with such things the simplest explanation is often the most correct - incompetence. (And I don't mean that as a personal insult to GW folks)
In many cases I'd agree, and for most stuff that's usually what I chalk it up to, but it's hard to see where there wasnt an intent to provide overly powerful rules next to what Eldar get in PA and what CSM's got just a couple of months ago, at least on some level.
ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel like you have a strong bias against the new Marine book as a whole and are using this as an excuse to soapbox about it instead of treating it as what it most likely is: the first in a series up army updates designed to increase the flavor and depth of individual army builds while supporting players to be able to run their own unique sub-factions. Marines are only strong because they got it first, but we saw expanded rules for the Eldar in a similar vein in PA and the official announcement said every faction gets something which means more of this is coming.
The problem here, at least as I see it, is that what Eldar got in PA is substantially less powerful, other recent books such as CSM's didn't get nearly as much attention, we have no guarantee others will get such, and a lot of what went into these supplements basically reads like someone grabbing the best traits and abilities from 3 or 4 other books and slapping it onto their pet favorite for its own sake like a bad internet fandex.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 17:36:08
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:41:24
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles
|
Karol wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: Ishagu wrote:Xenomancers, you need to relax. The sky isn't falling. Take a deep breath, enjoy your army and play some games.
No one on the interner actually plays games. [/s]
That is very condescending to say to be honest. So everyone who has problems with w40k, isn't playing the game ? What else, they are all children, don't know what the game is REALLY about, and don't spend 99% of their time painting and writing lore for each model in their army. While everyone who does have fun in 8th ed, is not only having fun, but is also a better kind of human, or did I miss something?
He's just calling out Ishagu's No True Scotsman argument without flat out calling it a fallacy. It's a classic argument style on dakka. "I don't like your opinion so instead of addressing it with arguments or empirical data, I will just say you clearly don't play the game." Not to be confused with a genuine accusation of someone not playing the game.which is usually verified with some very simple obvious evidence to support their claim. Notice the lack of empirical evidence that space marines aren't the top faction regardless of what color they are, no evidence whatsoever that any other factions are going to get a 2.0 update, and the flat out assumption that Eldar Flyers are a detachment issue without ANY arguments as to why.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:42:07
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
ClockworkZion wrote:Heavy stalkers are still trash for IF, even with the extra AP. And frankly since IF don't igbore move and shoot penalties for heavies, don't get increased range or extra shots on most heavy weapons (the only exception being heavy stalkers and heavy bolters) it's a trap to sit in the heavy doctrine to buff AP on those versuses troop units instead of the more plentiful rapid fire and assault weapons the army has access to.
Heavy bolters versues tanks are also a trap since you're only wounding a third of the shots you hit with and you only have 36" of range.
I'm biased as a Primaris only player but ultimately I feel I'd rather make stuff like Heavy plasma weapins better versuses tanks since they're also good against elite infantry over buffing heavy bolters and rather buff the basic bolter later in the game since it buffs the ABR which benefits the most (save for the storm bolter) from the CT.
It's not a trap - they average more damage than a lascannon in the doctrine - if an invune save comes in to play its even worse.
|
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 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:43:56
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
Vaktathi wrote:The problem here, at least as I see it, is that what Eldar got in PA is substantially less powerful, other recent books such as CSM's didn't get nearly as much attention, we have no guarantee others will get such, and a lot of what went into these supplements basically reads like someone grabbing the best traits and abilities from 3 or 4 other books and slapping it onto their pet favorite for its own sake like a bad internet fandex.
Marines haven't been the studio's pet favorite in terms of power at any point in the past. They have been mid-tier at best, and any time they pulled ahead they tend to get smacked back down by the shifting power curve. If they actually managed to sit on the top of the power curve for any length of time I'd be rather shocked honestly. Automatically Appended Next Post: Xenomancers wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Heavy stalkers are still trash for IF, even with the extra AP. And frankly since IF don't igbore move and shoot penalties for heavies, don't get increased range or extra shots on most heavy weapons (the only exception being heavy stalkers and heavy bolters) it's a trap to sit in the heavy doctrine to buff AP on those versuses troop units instead of the more plentiful rapid fire and assault weapons the army has access to.
Heavy bolters versues tanks are also a trap since you're only wounding a third of the shots you hit with and you only have 36" of range.
I'm biased as a Primaris only player but ultimately I feel I'd rather make stuff like Heavy plasma weapins better versuses tanks since they're also good against elite infantry over buffing heavy bolters and rather buff the basic bolter later in the game since it buffs the ABR which benefits the most (save for the storm bolter) from the CT.
It's not a trap - they average more damage than a lascannon in the doctrine - if an invune save comes in to play its even worse.
Lascannons have been trash since the edition started. Averaging more damage than a single shot heavy weapon is hardly a surprise. The issue there isn't the HB or even the Stalker, it's how pathetic dedicated anti-tank weapons are on average. I don't know how GW can fix them, but something needs to be done to lascannons and other similar weapons.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 17:45:19
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:45:41
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
ClockworkZion wrote:Heavy stalkers are still trash for IF, even with the extra AP. And frankly since IF don't igbore move and shoot penalties for heavies, don't get increased range or extra shots on most heavy weapons (the only exception being heavy stalkers and heavy bolters) it's a trap to sit in the heavy doctrine to buff AP on those versuses troop units instead of the more plentiful rapid fire and assault weapons the army has access to.
Heavy bolters versues tanks are also a trap since you're only wounding a third of the shots you hit with and you only have 36" of range.
I'm biased as a Primaris only player but ultimately I feel I'd rather make stuff like Heavy plasma weapins better versuses tanks since they're also good against elite infantry over buffing heavy bolters and rather buff the basic bolter later in the game since it buffs the ABR which benefits the most (save for the storm bolter) from the CT.
Wait until someone tells you that even by wounding a third of the time the heavy bolter is better than the lascannon for its cost because an heavy bolter costs 10 points and a lascannon costs 25 points, not realizing that it is quite a dumb argument which makes the bolter the strongest weapon in the game, so OP that is infinite times better than the OP IF heavy bolters.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:47:29
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
ClockworkZion wrote:Heavy stalkers are still trash for IF, even with the extra AP. And frankly since IF don't igbore move and shoot penalties for heavies, don't get increased range or extra shots on most heavy weapons (the only exception being heavy stalkers and heavy bolters) it's a trap to sit in the heavy doctrine to buff AP on those versuses troop units instead of the more plentiful rapid fire and assault weapons the army has access to.
Heavy bolters versues tanks are also a trap since you're only wounding a third of the shots you hit with and you only have 36" of range.
I'm biased as a Primaris only player but ultimately I feel I'd rather make stuff like Heavy plasma weapins better versuses tanks since they're also good against elite infantry over buffing heavy bolters and rather buff the basic bolter later in the game since it buffs the ABR which benefits the most (save for the storm bolter) from the CT.
Against T8 4++ a IF heavy bolter averages 0,77 wounds. Guess how many a non IF lascannon deals against the same profile? 0,77!!
The lascannon is more random than the HB actually and it costs a lot more. Having 3,5 shots makes a HB more likely to wound than a lascannon.
Sure if you are playing pure primaris it will be a little bit harder to get full use of the doctrine since you wont have heavy bolter devastators and thunderfire cannons that are insanely good in IF. But that is more you not playing to its strengths than the doctrine being insane.
4 heavy bolter devastators costs 105pts only. Thats dirt cheap and good against both tanks and infantry.
I would build around the heavy doctrine. Invictors with flamers get really nasty. They do about the same damage to vehicles with their shooting as a normal lascannon devastator unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Heavy stalkers are still trash for IF, even with the extra AP. And frankly since IF don't igbore move and shoot penalties for heavies, don't get increased range or extra shots on most heavy weapons (the only exception being heavy stalkers and heavy bolters) it's a trap to sit in the heavy doctrine to buff AP on those versuses troop units instead of the more plentiful rapid fire and assault weapons the army has access to.
Heavy bolters versues tanks are also a trap since you're only wounding a third of the shots you hit with and you only have 36" of range.
I'm biased as a Primaris only player but ultimately I feel I'd rather make stuff like Heavy plasma weapins better versuses tanks since they're also good against elite infantry over buffing heavy bolters and rather buff the basic bolter later in the game since it buffs the ABR which benefits the most (save for the storm bolter) from the CT.
Wait until someone tells you that even by wounding a third of the time the heavy bolter is better than the lascannon for its cost because an heavy bolter costs 10 points and a lascannon costs 25 points, not realizing that it is quite a dumb argument which makes the bolter the strongest weapon in the game, so OP that is infinite times better than the OP IF heavy bolters.
How is it a dumb argument? What weapon for its cost in a marine army deals more damage to a tank than an IF heavy bolter at range and can be taken multiple of? And are also useful against non tanks. And by cost you can include the price of the unit carrying it. It makes the comparison bit bettee for the non HB options but they will still not be as well rounded.
Str 5 shooting is cheap and plentiful in marines not just the Heavy Bolter. Eliminators and TFC are great anti character and anti Infantry units that for their price are actually very good even against vehicles if IF.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/23 17:53:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:52:21
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
Spoletta wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Heavy stalkers are still trash for IF, even with the extra AP. And frankly since IF don't igbore move and shoot penalties for heavies, don't get increased range or extra shots on most heavy weapons (the only exception being heavy stalkers and heavy bolters) it's a trap to sit in the heavy doctrine to buff AP on those versuses troop units instead of the more plentiful rapid fire and assault weapons the army has access to.
Heavy bolters versues tanks are also a trap since you're only wounding a third of the shots you hit with and you only have 36" of range.
I'm biased as a Primaris only player but ultimately I feel I'd rather make stuff like Heavy plasma weapins better versuses tanks since they're also good against elite infantry over buffing heavy bolters and rather buff the basic bolter later in the game since it buffs the ABR which benefits the most (save for the storm bolter) from the CT.
Wait until someone tells you that even by wounding a third of the time the heavy bolter is better than the lascannon for its cost because an heavy bolter costs 10 points and a lascannon costs 25 points, not realizing that it is quite a dumb argument which makes the bolter the strongest weapon in the game, so OP that is infinite times better than the OP IF heavy bolters.
Too late.
The issue is that they point at the lascannon as being worse while ignoring we have plenty of weapons better than lascannons even without the buff. Plasma Cannons are a more flexible and better weapon for example, and I feel are the better more flexible than heavy bolters and they average better wounds than a Lascannon. Likewise the Heavy Plasma Incinerator is way better than the Stalker Bolter too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klickor wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Heavy stalkers are still trash for IF, even with the extra AP. And frankly since IF don't igbore move and shoot penalties for heavies, don't get increased range or extra shots on most heavy weapons (the only exception being heavy stalkers and heavy bolters) it's a trap to sit in the heavy doctrine to buff AP on those versuses troop units instead of the more plentiful rapid fire and assault weapons the army has access to.
Heavy bolters versues tanks are also a trap since you're only wounding a third of the shots you hit with and you only have 36" of range.
I'm biased as a Primaris only player but ultimately I feel I'd rather make stuff like Heavy plasma weapins better versuses tanks since they're also good against elite infantry over buffing heavy bolters and rather buff the basic bolter later in the game since it buffs the ABR which benefits the most (save for the storm bolter) from the CT.
Against T8 4++ a IF heavy bolter averages 0,77 wounds. Guess how many a non IF lascannon deals against the same profile? 0,77!!
The lascannon is more random than the HB actually and it costs a lot more. Having 3,5 shots makes a HB more likely to wound than a lascannon.
Sure if you are playing pure primaris it will be a little bit harder to get full use of the doctrine since you wont have heavy bolter devastators and thunderfire cannons that are insanely good in IF. But that is more you not playing to its strengths than the doctrine being insane.
4 heavy bolter devastators costs 105pts only. Thats dirt cheap and good against both tanks and infantry.
I would build around the heavy doctrine. Invictors with flamers get really nasty. They do about the same damage to vehicles with their shooting as a normal lascannon devastator unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Heavy stalkers are still trash for IF, even with the extra AP. And frankly since IF don't igbore move and shoot penalties for heavies, don't get increased range or extra shots on most heavy weapons (the only exception being heavy stalkers and heavy bolters) it's a trap to sit in the heavy doctrine to buff AP on those versuses troop units instead of the more plentiful rapid fire and assault weapons the army has access to.
Heavy bolters versues tanks are also a trap since you're only wounding a third of the shots you hit with and you only have 36" of range.
I'm biased as a Primaris only player but ultimately I feel I'd rather make stuff like Heavy plasma weapins better versuses tanks since they're also good against elite infantry over buffing heavy bolters and rather buff the basic bolter later in the game since it buffs the ABR which benefits the most (save for the storm bolter) from the CT.
Wait until someone tells you that even by wounding a third of the time the heavy bolter is better than the lascannon for its cost because an heavy bolter costs 10 points and a lascannon costs 25 points, not realizing that it is quite a dumb argument which makes the bolter the strongest weapon in the game, so OP that is infinite times better than the OP IF heavy bolters.
How is it a dumb argument? What weapon for its cost in a marine army deals more damage to a tank than an IF heavy bolter at range and can be taken multiple of? And are also useful against non tanks. And by cost you can include the price of the unit carrying it. It makes the comparison bit bettee for the non HB options but they will still not be as well rounded.
Lascannons are trash and I still stand by the Plasma Cannon as a better choice over the Lascannon and Heavy Bolter. Being able to average the same number of wounds as a trash weapon with less points doesn't make an option good. Heck, Suppressors are a better choice than Lascannon Devastators as well.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/23 17:55:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:57:40
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
ClockworkZion wrote:Heavy stalkers are still trash for IF, even with the extra AP. And frankly since IF don't igbore move and shoot penalties for heavies, don't get increased range or extra shots on most heavy weapons (the only exception being heavy stalkers and heavy bolters) it's a trap to sit in the heavy doctrine to buff AP on those versuses troop units instead of the more plentiful rapid fire and assault weapons the army has access to.
Heavy bolters versues tanks are also a trap since you're only wounding a third of the shots you hit with and you only have 36" of range.
I'm biased as a Primaris only player but ultimately I feel I'd rather make stuff like Heavy plasma weapins better versuses tanks since they're also good against elite infantry over buffing heavy bolters and rather buff the basic bolter later in the game since it buffs the ABR which benefits the most (save for the storm bolter) from the CT.
Stalkers are quite good. They won't be as long range as devastators or as damaging (especailly on models with no invulnerable), but they'll tons more durable and versatile.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 17:58:56
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Plasma isnt that good against horde or - to hit units. Or units with ++ saves. Against elite Infantry or astra tanks they are better. Heavy Bolter or other weapons with the same profile are way more allrounded and cheaper.
Also harder to build your list around to take full effect of doctrines since you cant take primaris plasma troops. There really isnt much of a downside to go all in on heavy weapons as IF and never leave that doctrine. Going half and half is just a huge waste and better of playing UM at that point. They actually have a doctrine that plays into that.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 18:00:13
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
To drive the point further: 4 Devastators with Heavy Bolters do 2.67 dmg to a Predator equiv (T8, 3+). 4 Plasma Cannon Devastators average 8 dmg.
Meanwhile 4 Lascannon Devs average 6.22 wounds. EDIT: The math actually undersells this as it doesn't take the +1 damage into account, so this should be doing at least 1 more point of damage on average. So we're actually looking at 7.22 damage from 4 Lascannon Devastators.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, Heavy Bolters are trash shooting at vehicles even with the IF buff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Heavy stalkers are still trash for IF, even with the extra AP. And frankly since IF don't igbore move and shoot penalties for heavies, don't get increased range or extra shots on most heavy weapons (the only exception being heavy stalkers and heavy bolters) it's a trap to sit in the heavy doctrine to buff AP on those versuses troop units instead of the more plentiful rapid fire and assault weapons the army has access to.
Heavy bolters versues tanks are also a trap since you're only wounding a third of the shots you hit with and you only have 36" of range.
I'm biased as a Primaris only player but ultimately I feel I'd rather make stuff like Heavy plasma weapins better versuses tanks since they're also good against elite infantry over buffing heavy bolters and rather buff the basic bolter later in the game since it buffs the ABR which benefits the most (save for the storm bolter) from the CT.
Stalkers are quite good. They won't be as long range as devastators or as damaging (especailly on models with no invulnerable), but they'll tons more durable and versatile.
Problem is they're a single shot weapon that punishes you for moving and you have to take Primaris to take them. When running an elite army you want to be increasing your average number of shots to inflict more damge, not decreasing them. Going all in on Stalkers for IF is just not that great of a strategy if you want a true TAC list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klickor wrote:Plasma isnt that good against horde or - to hit units. Or units with ++ saves. Against elite Infantry or astra tanks they are better. Heavy Bolter or other weapons with the same profile are way more allrounded and cheaper.
Also harder to build your list around to take full effect of doctrines since you cant take primaris plasma troops. There really isnt much of a downside to go all in on heavy weapons as IF and never leave that doctrine. Going half and half is just a huge waste and better of playing UM at that point. They actually have a doctrine that plays into that.
You're sorely mistaken if you think an anti-horde weapon is good against vehicles.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/23 18:04:14
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 18:07:27
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
But against units with ++ saves or negative to hit modifiers the plasma gets worse fast.
You dont need more shots in an IF list if built right. Each of your shot have a chance of getting extra hits. Have ap3 and ignores cover so an enemy intercessor only survives on a 6+ since it deals 2 damage.
Since you dont need a lot of pure anti tank weapons you will have more anti Infantry options available than other TAC lists already.
If you take 3 HB devastators, 3 eliminator squads, 3 TFC, 20 stalker intercessors you will kill like 3 T8 3+ vehicles with that alone without character support. And you cant say that isnt enough shots to handle infantry units or characters if you want instead.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 18:07:57
Subject: Re:Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan
|
Predators are T7, no?
|
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 18:09:04
Subject: Re:Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
Doesn't change the math as the weapons are wounding on the same values. But you're right, I think I was thinking of the Stalker. Automatically Appended Next Post: Klickor wrote:But against units with ++ saves or negative to hit modifiers the plasma gets worse fast.
You dont need more shots in an IF list if built right. Each of your shot have a chance of getting extra hits. Have ap3 and ignores cover so an enemy intercessor only survives on a 6+ since it deals 2 damage.
Since you dont need a lot of pure anti tank weapons you will have more anti Infantry options available than other TAC lists already.
If you take 3 HB devastators, 3 eliminator squads, 3 TFC, 20 stalker intercessors you will kill like 3 T8 3+ vehicles with that alone without character support. And you cant say that isnt enough shots to handle infantry units or characters if you want instead.
You want more shots because those shots give you more chances to fish for 6s. 10 shots only average 1 extra hit, 20 shots average 3 extra hits, and 30 shots average 5 extra hits. Each extra hit is an additional chance to wound as well.
And 2dmg means nothing to chaffe. Making GEQ save on a 6+ or deny Orks a save with the ABR is more than good enough in most cases.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 18:11:16
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 18:18:53
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
More shots isnt always better. Its the same % increase anyway. Its quality or quantity. One isnt better than the other.
But having 3 invictors, 3 tfc, 3 devastator squads and Infantry isnt a problem anyway.
You dont take 4HB for anti tank. You take the equivalent of 30-40 of them and just drown everything in str 4-7 ap2-3 dmg 1-3 shots that ignores cover. Chaff or tanks doesnt matter that is the point.
Monster spam would be the worst but you could still have a smash captain or 2 for that etc
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 18:20:11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 18:22:43
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
Before someone tells me you want to use Stalkers so you can kill Marines, let's do some math:
Against MEQ (ABR/BR in Tactical, Stalker in Heavy Doctrine no move penalty):
ABR: 6.25
BR (outside of RF): 2.78
BR (inside of RF): 5.56
Stalkers: 3.47
Against Primaris (ABR/BR in Tactical, Stalker in Heavy Doctrine):
ABR: 2.88
BR (outside of RF): 1.14
BR (inside of RF): 2.53
Stalkers: 3.47
And you know what, I was wrong. Against MEQ they are better. What about GEQ?
Against GEQ (ABR/BR in Tactical, Stalker in Heavy Doctrine no move penalty):
ABR: 13.89
BR (outside of RF): 5.56
BR (inside of RF): 11.11
Stalkers: 5.56
So definitely worse against anything with worse saves than MEQ.
So what this has shown me, other than the BR being the most middle of the road/swingy choice, you want a mix of ABR and Stalkers if you want a TAC list. Automatically Appended Next Post: Klickor wrote:More shots isnt always better. Its the same % increase anyway. Its quality or quantity. One isnt better than the other.
But having 3 invictors, 3 tfc, 3 devastator squads and Infantry isnt a problem anyway.
You dont take 4HB for anti tank. You take the equivalent of 30-40 of them and just drown everything in str 4-7 ap2-3 dmg 1-3 shots that ignores cover. Chaff or tanks doesnt matter that is the point.
Monster spam would be the worst but you could still have a smash captain or 2 for that etc
I speak as a Primaris player, but 30-40 heavy bolters isn't that realistic of an option. Heck, even with Vanilla Marines that's 3 squads of Devastators (12), plus 3 squads of Devastator Centurions (18) to squeeze that into a list with the smallest amount of investment (unit wise).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 18:24:55
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 18:31:06
Subject: Re:Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
The point with non primaris marines is ypu can sprinkle those heavy weapons across the units without needing to take a massive penalty as you need you MSU squad anyway so the body is free it's simple a choice of a 10 points heavy bolter or a 25 point lascannon or a missile launcher.
Most people see it as a choice between a heavy bolter and the above as scouts can't take a plasma cannon.
Also IF still have the broken vigilous detachment of MW spam for days at the moment when you can MW any vehical out of the game who needs another anti tank option?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 18:33:31
Subject: Re:Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
Ice_can wrote:The point with non primaris marines is ypu can sprinkle those heavy weapons across the units without needing to take a massive penalty as you need you MSU squad anyway so the body is free it's simple a choice of a 10 points heavy bolter or a 25 point lascannon or a missile launcher.
Most people see it as a choice between a heavy bolter and the above as scouts can't take a plasma cannon.
Also IF still have the broken vigilous detachment of MW spam for days at the moment when you can MW any vehical out of the game who needs another anti tank option?
I wouldn't count on that detachment making the transition unscathed since they've crippled the others with the stuff they poached from the book.
And maybe that's the difference: I don't think spamming Scouts is all that interesting of a way to play. But I'm not an ITC tournament player and I build for more TAC lists that run the GW missions over some tourney homebrew.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 18:44:17
Subject: Re:Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
ClockworkZion wrote:Ice_can wrote:The point with non primaris marines is ypu can sprinkle those heavy weapons across the units without needing to take a massive penalty as you need you MSU squad anyway so the body is free it's simple a choice of a 10 points heavy bolter or a 25 point lascannon or a missile launcher.
Most people see it as a choice between a heavy bolter and the above as scouts can't take a plasma cannon.
Also IF still have the broken vigilous detachment of MW spam for days at the moment when you can MW any vehical out of the game who needs another anti tank option?
I wouldn't count on that detachment making the transition unscathed since they've crippled the others with the stuff they poached from the book.
And maybe that's the difference: I don't think spamming Scouts is all that interesting of a way to play. But I'm not an ITC tournament player and I build for more TAC lists that run the GW missions over some tourney homebrew.
ITC ETC doesn't matter scouts still good at 65 points with a heavy bolter even better at 55 with just bolters.
That formation is still in the game currently, I agree it needs to go but untill it does you can count on that 5man centurion squad with all Bolter still being a thing.
Also the issue Is it's not just bolters that +1 works on it's autocannon it's onslaught gattling cannons FFS.
Other armies have to go anti horde anti armour or combo weapons.
IF can go anti horde and combo weapons and still smash 100% armour lists. They have a much reduced weakness made even more busted with the ability to turn all bolt weapons into pistols  take 2 heavybolter and a hurricane bolter "pistol" to the face.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 18:50:00
Subject: Re:Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
On the Internet
|
Ice_can wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Ice_can wrote:The point with non primaris marines is ypu can sprinkle those heavy weapons across the units without needing to take a massive penalty as you need you MSU squad anyway so the body is free it's simple a choice of a 10 points heavy bolter or a 25 point lascannon or a missile launcher.
Most people see it as a choice between a heavy bolter and the above as scouts can't take a plasma cannon.
Also IF still have the broken vigilous detachment of MW spam for days at the moment when you can MW any vehical out of the game who needs another anti tank option?
I wouldn't count on that detachment making the transition unscathed since they've crippled the others with the stuff they poached from the book.
And maybe that's the difference: I don't think spamming Scouts is all that interesting of a way to play. But I'm not an ITC tournament player and I build for more TAC lists that run the GW missions over some tourney homebrew.
ITC ETC doesn't matter scouts still good at 65 points with a heavy bolter even better at 55 with just bolters.
That formation is still in the game currently, I agree it needs to go but untill it does you can count on that 5man centurion squad with all Bolter still being a thing.
Also the issue Is it's not just bolters that +1 works on it's autocannon it's onslaught gattling cannons FFS.
Other armies have to go anti horde anti armour or combo weapons.
IF can go anti horde and combo weapons and still smash 100% armour lists. They have a much reduced weakness made even more busted with the ability to turn all bolt weapons into pistols  take 2 heavybolter and a hurricane bolter "pistol" to the face.
TAC has always been about trying to balance horde, tank and MEQ+ killing power. IF just have a slightly easier time balancing it over Marines, but haven't gained bonuses to the heavies like the IH did that allow them to saunter around the board un-impeded.
And that pistol strat means you have to have not disenaged with the unit, and costs 2CP (and can only be used 1 time an assault phase in matched play). It's good for when they're stuck in combat, but if you've pinned multiple units only one is getting to do it (I'd rather spend 4CP and make an ABR unit auto-hit up to 30 times with their weapons instead, but I'm dumb like that).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 18:51:44
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2019/10/23 18:58:39
Subject: Iron Hands imbalance was caused by RAI
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Lascannons are the poker players equivalent of chasing cards.
Two wounding hits from an IF lascannon has a 42% chance to put a 12 wound model onto its last bracket.
Stalkers require 3 wounding hits to do the same.
When you back into the number of shots required for that its 5 and 17 respectively when the target has no invuln and 7 and 20 against a 5++.
A set os LC and a set of Stalkers seems like it would cover the scenarios more strongly and give some edge against T8. Plasma would certainly be a viable trade-off, but suffers in some scenarios.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/23 18:59:11
|
|
 |
 |
|