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.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
I just hope some of the reviewers who get these advance copies of the CA will upload their videos tomorrow, going very slowly through pages well in focus so you can clearly read all the points.
The first reviewer to do that gets many views just from me.

Or you could wait a week, and legally acquire the information.

Watching a video of somebody whom GW has given a copy of the book to review is perfectly legal lol

ERJAK wrote:Which would be true if the primaris units were actually good. Most of them aren't. Only intercessors are good and they're only okay.

There's a reason people take Assault Centurions over aggressors.

It's mostly only morons who accredit marines strength to primarily primaris units.

Intercessors out-shoot Guardsmen (the usual go-to underpriced Troop unit) by a considerable margin (even greater if morale is taken into account), even within 12". Outside 12" they beat the living hell out of every other Troops unit in the game. And that's without taking chapter tactics into account.

If that's 'only okay' I'd like to hear what Troops units are considered good in your book.

Dysartes wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
I just hope some of the reviewers who get these advance copies of the CA will upload their videos tomorrow, going very slowly through pages well in focus so you can clearly read all the points.
The first reviewer to do that gets many views just from me.

Or you could wait a week, and legally acquire the information.

There's literally nothing illegal about a reviewer talking about the contents of a small section of the book before the official release date. GW's release dates have no legal basis and discussing a small part of a book for review purposes is textbook fair use.

Maybe Tau stuff
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/cJoqzqg

 Dysartes wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
I just hope some of the reviewers who get these advance copies of the CA will upload their videos tomorrow, going very slowly through pages well in focus so you can clearly read all the points.
The first reviewer to do that gets many views just from me.

Or you could wait a week, and legally acquire the information.

I will almost certainly get the CA once it is released, I’d just like to know which changes to expect since the leaks covered only a few armies.

 Crimson wrote:
That's not what I meant. Marines are currently too good, no question. But that is not a Primaris issue, it is overtuning the free bonus rules issue. I was responding to Scotsman's silly gripe about marines Primaris marines being good both at shooting and melee. Current OPness issues aside, that's what marines fundamentally should be.

They should be perfectly average (for their points) at shooting, melee, movement, durability, etc if they're supposed to be equally capable in all regards.

If they're actually good (for their cost) at more than one of those, without a corresponding drawback, then that makes them simply better than their more specialized competition.

 catbarf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
That's not what I meant. Marines are currently too good, no question. But that is not a Primaris issue, it is overtuning the free bonus rules issue. I was responding to Scotsman's silly gripe about marines Primaris marines being good both at shooting and melee. Current OPness issues aside, that's what marines fundamentally should be.

They should be perfectly average (for their points) at shooting, melee, movement, durability, etc if they're supposed to be equally capable in all regards.

If they're actually good (for their cost) at more than one of those, without a corresponding drawback, then that makes them simply better than their more specialized competition.

Honestly, I think the simple fix for marines is to enforce moving through doctrines. Heavy turn 1, Tactical turn 2, Assault turn 3 onwards. I don't even think they should get a stratagem to hold off on moving, because two turns of Iron Hands is enough to end a game. It's that, or some serious points hikes on their marquis units.

 catbarf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
That's not what I meant. Marines are currently too good, no question. But that is not a Primaris issue, it is overtuning the free bonus rules issue. I was responding to Scotsman's silly gripe about marines Primaris marines being good both at shooting and melee. Current OPness issues aside, that's what marines fundamentally should be.

They should be perfectly average (for their points) at shooting, melee, movement, durability, etc if they're supposed to be equally capable in all regards.

If they're actually good (for their cost) at more than one of those, without a corresponding drawback, then that makes them simply better than their more specialized competition.

There are many other aspects to consider, such as board control and CP generation. Though I'm not disagreeing with your overall point: currently many marine units get too much for the points they pay. Ultimately marines should be individually powerful but few in number. Primaris finally achieve that and make marines feel like proper marines. But I'm not opposed of point bumps assuming the faction rules are not nerfed.

IanVanCheese wrote:
Honestly, I think the simple fix for marines is to enforce moving through doctrines. Heavy turn 1, Tactical turn 2, Assault turn 3 onwards. I don't even think they should get a stratagem to hold off on moving, because two turns of Iron Hands is enough to end a game.

That's not a bad idea and it would:
A) encourage melee options which could positively affect the meta and
B) make the Chapters that get a bonus during the Assault doctrine not feel so gimped, since (in theory) they'd be the only Chapters to get to use their super doctrine for more than 1 turn.

-

IanVanCheese wrote:

Honestly, I think the simple fix for marines is to enforce moving through doctrines. Heavy turn 1, Tactical turn 2, Assault turn 3 onwards. I don't even think they should get a stratagem to hold off on moving, because two turns of Iron Hands is enough to end a game. It's that, or some serious points hikes on their marquis units.

Not a bad idea.

IanVanCheese wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
That's not what I meant. Marines are currently too good, no question. But that is not a Primaris issue, it is overtuning the free bonus rules issue. I was responding to Scotsman's silly gripe about marines Primaris marines being good both at shooting and melee. Current OPness issues aside, that's what marines fundamentally should be.

They should be perfectly average (for their points) at shooting, melee, movement, durability, etc if they're supposed to be equally capable in all regards.

If they're actually good (for their cost) at more than one of those, without a corresponding drawback, then that makes them simply better than their more specialized competition.

Honestly, I think the simple fix for marines is to enforce moving through doctrines. Heavy turn 1, Tactical turn 2, Assault turn 3 onwards. I don't even think they should get a stratagem to hold off on moving, because two turns of Iron Hands is enough to end a game. It's that, or some serious points hikes on their marquis units.

OR we can instead just toss the Super Doctrines instead of pretending they're a good idea and that we should be looking for ways to somehow keep them. Just an option.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

OR we can instead just toss the Super Doctrines instead of pretending they're a good idea and that we should be looking for ways to somehow keep them. Just an option.

+1
Playing casual games with marines with just the new codex and without any supplement books, I find them to be balanced nicely against most factions. The supplements’ super doctrines should be removed from the game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
That's not what I meant. Marines are currently too good, no question. But that is not a Primaris issue, it is overtuning the free bonus rules issue. I was responding to Scotsman's silly gripe about marines Primaris marines being good both at shooting and melee. Current OPness issues aside, that's what marines fundamentally should be.

They should be perfectly average (for their points) at shooting, melee, movement, durability, etc if they're supposed to be equally capable in all regards.

If they're actually good (for their cost) at more than one of those, without a corresponding drawback, then that makes them simply better than their more specialized competition.

Honestly, I think the simple fix for marines is to enforce moving through doctrines. Heavy turn 1, Tactical turn 2, Assault turn 3 onwards. I don't even think they should get a stratagem to hold off on moving, because two turns of Iron Hands is enough to end a game. It's that, or some serious points hikes on their marquis units.

OR we can instead just toss the Super Doctrines instead of pretending they're a good idea and that we should be looking for ways to somehow keep them. Just an option.

The extra AP is one of the biggest issues. The specific super traits are fine. To fix iron hands they just need to make their chapter trait kick in during the tactical doctrine phase vs devastator doctrine.

Honestly, Super Doctrines are good, it encourages people to play mono faction over souping.

The problem is that everyone doesn't have one.

The other problem (which is more of a GW think-space problem) is that factions that are inherently mono faction (Orks, Tyranids, Necrons), and GW might decide that those factions don't need mono-klan/Hive Fleet/Tomb world super doctrine esque rules, and GW might not give them anything like that.

Darsath wrote:
Yeah, I'm not seeing any big changes that will push Necrons to be able to compete with any of the other books. Especially since a lot of their core units didn't see any changes. Another miss.

There's only so much that you can do to fix a unit with points cost, unfortunately. Necrons need datasheet changes like Space Marines got. 3+ armor warriors and T5 immortals would be a good start.

Unfortunately there are not nearly enough Necron players to manage the amount of squeaky wheeling the Space Marines did.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Honestly, Super Doctrines are good, it encourages people to play mono faction over souping.

The problem is that everyone doesn't have one.

The other problem (which is more of a GW think-space problem) is that factions that are inherently mono faction (Orks, Tyranids, Necrons), and GW might decide that those factions don't need mono-klan/Hive Fleet/Tomb world super doctrine esque rules, and GW might not give them anything like that.

Dont worry. They didnt give us nids anything.

Any further news on DE point changes?

Necron leaks:

 catbarf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
That's not what I meant. Marines are currently too good, no question. But that is not a Primaris issue, it is overtuning the free bonus rules issue. I was responding to Scotsman's silly gripe about marines Primaris marines being good both at shooting and melee. Current OPness issues aside, that's what marines fundamentally should be.

They should be perfectly average (for their points) at shooting, melee, movement, durability, etc if they're supposed to be equally capable in all regards.

If they're actually good (for their cost) at more than one of those, without a corresponding drawback, then that makes them simply better than their more specialized competition.

if they're overly average at everything though they SUCK. that's kinda the problem marines have had for ages. a second attack isn't worth much on a gunline unit.

Dudeface wrote:

So at the new points a naked sword wraith knight is 330 points. That is 80 points fewer than my kytan who has the same profile but 2 wounds less. Admittedly it has a ranged weapon and can regen 1 wound a turn, but I doubt it is worth an 80 point gap.

On no world should a 24 wound t8 model with a 3+/5++ be anything less than a lord of war.

Agreed. Also the Wraithknight gets Craftworld traits just for showing whereas IKs only get them if you field 3+ (I don't know about chaos knights). Wraithknights can be buffed by Autarchs and Seers too. The Sword'n'Board Knight gets it 5++ all the time whereas something like a Gallant only gets it vs shooting unless you take a Relic.

tneva82 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

No one was saying it would be worse, just not the type of game they'd want to play(& I'd agree).

I'm just really interested to see how/which models get put into legends.

So people prefer illogical crappy non-working rules where rather than balance we get force fed sales tactics? Well humans have never been particularly logical creatures.

The game seems to work perfectly fine for those of us @ my flgs & with friends. you can only be force fed if you allow them to.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Honestly, Super Doctrines are good, it encourages people to play mono faction over souping.

The problem is that everyone doesn't have one.

The other problem (which is more of a GW think-space problem) is that factions that are inherently mono faction (Orks, Tyranids, Necrons), and GW might decide that those factions don't need mono-klan/Hive Fleet/Tomb world super doctrine esque rules, and GW might not give them anything like that.

You want to encourage mono armies? There's an easy way to do that. Guess what it is?

BETTER INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL BALANCE

It's hard to grasp I know.

How are you going to external balance 4ppm guardsmen, or even 5ppm when you can take 30 of them and a pair of cheap HQs and get 5 CP and plenty of bodies to stand on objectives?

BrianDavion wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
That's not what I meant. Marines are currently too good, no question. But that is not a Primaris issue, it is overtuning the free bonus rules issue. I was responding to Scotsman's silly gripe about marines Primaris marines being good both at shooting and melee. Current OPness issues aside, that's what marines fundamentally should be.

They should be perfectly average (for their points) at shooting, melee, movement, durability, etc if they're supposed to be equally capable in all regards.

If they're actually good (for their cost) at more than one of those, without a corresponding drawback, then that makes them simply better than their more specialized competition.

if they're overly average at everything though they SUCK. that's kinda the problem marines have had for ages. a second attack isn't worth much on a gunline unit.

Then the problem is that they're a gun line unit, not that they have the extra melee attack.

"Ok, I line up my space marines like revolutionary war soldiers 30" away and never move from my deployment zone" is garbage game play for what a space marine is supposed to be and do.

Heavily armored midrange infantry whose ideal game play pattern is softening up an enemy infantry unit then slamming into them to finish them off and capture an objective using their obsec is the role of a tactical marine squad. If you want a gunline with elite troops, that's supposed to be Tau.

Now why in the unholy heck would I even consider looking at a fire warrior when a basic space marine gaks out double the firepower with -2ap better armor and two wounds?

Gws solution, conveniently, is to force the Tau player to then field 3x the models because Fire Warriors drop down to "barely better than a guardsman" level.

broxus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
That's not what I meant. Marines are currently too good, no question. But that is not a Primaris issue, it is overtuning the free bonus rules issue. I was responding to Scotsman's silly gripe about marines Primaris marines being good both at shooting and melee. Current OPness issues aside, that's what marines fundamentally should be.

They should be perfectly average (for their points) at shooting, melee, movement, durability, etc if they're supposed to be equally capable in all regards.

If they're actually good (for their cost) at more than one of those, without a corresponding drawback, then that makes them simply better than their more specialized competition.

Honestly, I think the simple fix for marines is to enforce moving through doctrines. Heavy turn 1, Tactical turn 2, Assault turn 3 onwards. I don't even think they should get a stratagem to hold off on moving, because two turns of Iron Hands is enough to end a game. It's that, or some serious points hikes on their marquis units.

OR we can instead just toss the Super Doctrines instead of pretending they're a good idea and that we should be looking for ways to somehow keep them. Just an option.

The extra AP is one of the biggest issues. The specific super traits are fine. To fix iron hands they just need to make their chapter trait kick in during the tactical doctrine phase vs devastator doctrine.

No the Super Doctrines are the problem. Rerolls on anything? Stalkers and Heavy Bolters being stupid efficient against vehicles? The moment your Knights are Characters they're a LOT easier to wound? If the game goes on long enough, even the basic Chainsword does D2?

No, they absolutely need to be deleted. They stink of formations which we already got rid of. Now they're basically back.

 catbarf wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
I just hope some of the reviewers who get these advance copies of the CA will upload their videos tomorrow, going very slowly through pages well in focus so you can clearly read all the points.
The first reviewer to do that gets many views just from me.

Or you could wait a week, and legally acquire the information.

There's literally nothing illegal about a reviewer talking about the contents of a small section of the book before the official release date. GW's release dates have no legal basis and discussing a small part of a book for review purposes is textbook fair use.

There's quite a difference between talking about the contents of a small section of the book and, as described by the person I was responding to, "going very slowly through pages well in focus so you can clearly read all the points" - the latter is pandering to the Battlescribe Generation, who seem to believe they deserve to get the content of books/expansions without paying for the product.

 nintura wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Honestly, Super Doctrines are good, it encourages people to play mono faction over souping.

The problem is that everyone doesn't have one.

The other problem (which is more of a GW think-space problem) is that factions that are inherently mono faction (Orks, Tyranids, Necrons), and GW might decide that those factions don't need mono-klan/Hive Fleet/Tomb world super doctrine esque rules, and GW might not give them anything like that.

Dont worry. They didnt give us nids anything.

You mean I imagined the WHC preview article about PA3 and what it gives for 'Nids? I'll hold my hand up to not knowing how significant the changes are, but what they aren't is nothing.

 Crazyterran wrote:
How are you going to external balance 4ppm guardsmen, or even 5ppm when you can take 30 of them and a pair of cheap HQs and get 5 CP and plenty of bodies to stand on objectives?

Make them more expensive, duh. Make Commanders 35 points and Infantry 45 points for starters.

Yeah I super enjoyed having my 2W gsc bike squad completely dismantled by a 5 man intercessor squad in my last game because the game had gone to turn 3 and their fists magically turned into plasma guns.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah I super enjoyed having my 2W gsc bike squad completely dismantled by a 5 man intercessor squad in my last game because the game had gone to turn 3 and their fists magically turned into plasma guns.

I'm sorry what?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You want to encourage mono armies? There's an easy way to do that. Guess what it is?

BETTER INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL BALANCE

It's hard to grasp I know.

I mean, if you really want to encourage mono armies you could just remove allies in Matched Play.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah I super enjoyed having my 2W gsc bike squad completely dismantled by a 5 man intercessor squad in my last game because the game had gone to turn 3 and their fists magically turned into plasma guns.

I'm sorry what?

I too want to know about the magical -3 ap space marine fists