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.

Marines weren't good before they where one of the worst army's outside with nearly zero impact of the meta.
They needed a good buff, but gw just made Tam a bit too good.
And I rly just mean a bit.
It's just ih and if the rest like ultras or so are problay good balanced

Karol wrote:
With SW am not even sure what units are run in their armies, because no one seems to be playing them.

Again, cut down the hyperbole. 40k isn't just the most crowded GT in US an UK. Are you really saying that no one plays SW? There are thousands of SW players at the very least I'm doing ok with my SW against anyone that plays a real army (because things like 5 stormravens or 18 smasha guns ain't real). I tipycally play in a semi-competitve meta, with and against optimized lists, but realistic ones and full WYSIWYG.

If you see no SW at tournaments is because they are imperium and imperium can have a bazillion of good or overpowered units. You don't see ork koptas, nobz, KMK or buggies at tournaments, and probably not even the nauts but it doesn't mean that those units are bad. For the same reason SW aren't bad either. But in a WAAC environment players just bring the most powerful combos available.

Stop referring only to the ITC ultra competitive results, that's just a tiny part of 40k around the world. In casual games SM were quite balanced, trash armies are other ones. Even competitive factions like eldar, drukhari or orks can be absolute trash outside the few competitive builds they have while typical casual SM armies are rarely to be trash. Those data are also affected by the tournaments house rules like times limitations that can change everything: orks competitive lists for example are very good in 3 turns games but not so in 5-7 ones as they're able to score fast but they're also easy to wipe out and from turns 4+ they just struggle to avoid getting tabled.

But even if you look at the tournament datas, it doesn't seem that SM (all of them) were doing that terrible, and considering that pretty much everyone has a SM army, to let them be average tier is actually very healthy for the meta. People will play marines regardless of their competitiveness, but if they are overpowered too many people will play them and suddenly 8th edition becomes the new 30k.

The problem with the new SM is that they are overpowered even without spamming a few broken combos, like other competitive armies must do instead, and an average collection is already a competitive built. That's the issue, other factions have to chase the flavor of the month to be top tier and that helps balance since it's not easy to adjust quickly and many players are not willing to re-buy their army over and over again.

I see this way, if threads on forums that deal with lists aren't poping up with , how do I beat SW in multiple topics, and people durning list anayls don't ask stuff like, how do you plan beat SW, then the faction is not being played.

Also, look at my flag. I am not from the US. We don't play ITC here, and still SW are not a thing in Poland. And it isn't just a flavour of the month thing, because eldar are not the flavour now, but people still ask about them, same with tau or marines like the CF or BT.



the combo comment seems to be strange. I have not paid multiple editions, but all of 8th, and people claim this to be the ebst edition, the good lists about game breaking combos, undercosted units and breaking or ignoring the core rules of the game. It seems to me, that to be good, you have to have rules and units with rules that do just that.

If you don't, well then you get something like SW or GK.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
You guys are frickin' hilarious at times.

For months/years we saw post after post about how to make marines great again, what can be done, they need new rules, not point changes so they actually feel elite. Well guess what, GW also seemed to agree with that sentiment, they heard you, and set the marine level up to 11.....happy? do they feel like frickin' super soldiers now? This is the marine army you asked for.

But sure, it's all about the money.....like people weren't buying marines before, lol. You can't say that GW only produces marines because that's what sells and then on the other hand say that they intentionally made them OP so they can sell marines. lol. Which one is it?

The truth is they over played their hand and maybe took them a little too far, but I'm going to say probably not as far as many of you are claiming. A few tweaks and they probably will be sitting about right. Other factions need some tweaks to bring them up to the same level, but Eldar are just fine after infusing some simple bonuses in PA:1. The next few months are going to be very interesting IMHO.

Marines have been giving some serious boosts....a bolter is now a very dangerous weapon (which people wanted), basic marines no longer suck in melee (which people wanted), seeing a trend here.

The new marines are exactly what people have been asking for in 8th edition, an elite army that feels like an elite army. Sure, there are some outliers that need to be addressed and toned down, for sure. Then you bring up some of the other low hanging fruit in other armies and things get fun again.

Marines are back, they are exactly what you asked for, and now people are scrambling how to deal with them. This is the game.

There's such a thing as going overboard, and the units most in need of assistance largely didn't change. Insane army-wide buffs are a really poor hamfisted way to try and fix those issues.

perhaps, but you can't argue that GW didn't address the core issue of marines not really feeling like an elite, killer army. If you go for points drops, then they become the hoard...and that doesn't make sense.
They didn't go overboard on everything, some things feel right. Others, I agree, probably too much and hopefully they will get addressed in time if shown to be repeatedly OTT. I do hope that they now start looking at the other factions in more detail. That's why I think it's going to be an interesting few months.
Chaos is a tough one, they really shouldn't have received that codex update....it didn't really do anything. They have a ton of tools at their disposal, but I haven't taken the time to really look into all the combos after Faith and Fury plus CA.

Dropping points without better rules makes an army that's supposed to be elite feel more like a horde huh?

Good thing gw doesn't seem to be doing that to any other armies compromised of power armoured transhumans.

not sure where you've been, but that was the long playing discussion before SM 2.0 dropped. If you keep dropping marine points to a level that felt fitting with the statline and level of power, they'd be too cheap and only effective run as a horde, which marines should not be in any way.
I have CA, am I missing something? I can't find 8pt Deathwatch or Grey Knights etc. I do see a few points drops on units not being utilized, but nothing that was in the earlier discussions.

Marines needed better rules, not continued points drops. They got those with the addition of improved traits, shock assault, bolter discipline and doctrines (both regular and super). The middle two worked great (and chaos get these too), the first works for all but Iron Hands. Not sure why they needed 3 bonuses instead of the usual 2. Doctrines I think missed the mark slightly although the concept was good, execution not so much. Super doctrines were unnecessary IMHO.

I wanted point drops because I didn't want GW writing more new rules. For this exact reason. GW needs to get out of the rule business.

You ever hear of sarcasm? Dropping points without improving rules is EXACTLY what they're doing with csm.

As of ca csm are officially the cheaper, inferior space marines. The fact that csm are now cheaper than tac marines proves gw isn't going to improve our rules. We just need to win through superior numbers.

In other words a horde.

 bullyboy wrote:
Marines needed better rules, not continued points drops. They got those with the addition of improved traits, shock assault, bolter discipline and doctrines (both regular and super). The middle two worked great (and chaos get these too), the first works for all but Iron Hands. Not sure why they needed 3 bonuses instead of the usual 2. Doctrines I think missed the mark slightly although the concept was good, execution not so much. Super doctrines were unnecessary IMHO.

Pretty much this. Doctrines were a bridge too far. Adding -1 AP across the board to broad categories of weapons is too much of a swing to add to a game that runs on a d6, so we'll get more invuln saves, more fnp saves, and more funky strats that say 'you can't shoot this' to compensate. Not to mention the knock on effects of lethality upgrades that will be dripped out to the non-Marine armies, so we get to look forward to a year of Marines dominating the meta or a year of whiplash-inducing balance swings while GW tries to fix this shitshow.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is clear who the overperformers are and I knew it the second I saw their rules.

I mean, you also say that Squiggoth is great and that the squigbuggy is the best 100 point unit in the game, both unironically too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
It hasn't been a week since CA19 dropped. GW nerfed IH within a month, do you mean they didn't implement a nerf within a month of implementing the first nerf?

Yes, CA19, the great white hope. Also known as the 'holy crap we've completely fethed the game let's desperately throw out a bunch of points changes that make no sense and hope it fixes the problem' codex.

It's almost like we need a living ruleset

Ahh predictable counter to strong arguement with logical fallacy and miss quoting. Classic stuff man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Marines needed better rules, not continued points drops. They got those with the addition of improved traits, shock assault, bolter discipline and doctrines (both regular and super). The middle two worked great (and chaos get these too), the first works for all but Iron Hands. Not sure why they needed 3 bonuses instead of the usual 2. Doctrines I think missed the mark slightly although the concept was good, execution not so much. Super doctrines were unnecessary IMHO.

Pretty much this. Doctrines were a bridge too far. Adding -1 AP across the board to broad categories of weapons is too much of a swing to add to a game that runs on a d6, so we'll get more invuln saves, more fnp saves, and more funky strats that say 'you can't shoot this' to compensate. Not to mention the knock on effects of lethality upgrades that will be dripped out to the non-Marine armies, so we get to look forward to a year of Marines dominating the meta or a year of whiplash-inducing balance swings while GW tries to fix this shitshow.

-1 ap to a certain class of weapons across the board is too much but amping a 20 man units firepower by over 1000% is okay? Just wait until these CA point drops for CSM come into play. I'd venture to say CSM are already on par with loyalist at this point. My Bl legion list went down over 200 points. They might not be ironhands but ironhands are borked and are going to get borked.

 Blackie wrote:

Karol wrote:
With SW am not even sure what units are run in their armies, because no one seems to be playing them.

Again, cut down the hyperbole. 40k isn't just the most crowded GT in US an UK. Are you really saying that no one plays SW? There are thousands of SW players at the very least I'm doing ok with my SW against anyone that plays a real army (because things like 5 stormravens or 18 smasha guns ain't real). I tipycally play in a semi-competitve meta, with and against optimized lists, but realistic ones and full WYSIWYG.

If you see no SW at tournaments is because they are imperium and imperium can have a bazillion of good or overpowered units. You don't see ork koptas, nobz, KMK or buggies at tournaments, and probably not even the nauts but it doesn't mean that those units are bad. For the same reason SW aren't bad either. But in a WAAC environment players just bring the most powerful combos available.

Stop referring only to the ITC ultra competitive results, that's just a tiny part of 40k around the world. In casual games SM were quite balanced, trash armies are other ones. Even competitive factions like eldar, drukhari or orks can be absolute trash outside the few competitive builds they have while typical casual SM armies are rarely to be trash. Those data are also affected by the tournaments house rules like times limitations that can change everything: orks competitive lists for example are very good in 3 turns games but not so in 5-7 ones as they're able to score fast but they're also easy to wipe out and from turns 4+ they just struggle to avoid getting tabled.

But even if you look at the tournament datas, it doesn't seem that SM (all of them) were doing that terrible, and considering that pretty much everyone has a SM army, to let them be average tier is actually very healthy for the meta. People will play marines regardless of their competitiveness, but if they are overpowered too many people will play them and suddenly 8th edition becomes the new 30k.

The problem with the new SM is that they are overpowered even without spamming a few broken combos, like other competitive armies must do instead, and an average collection is already a competitive built. That's the issue, other factions have to chase the flavor of the month to be top tier and that helps balance since it's not easy to adjust quickly and many players are not willing to re-buy their army over and over again.

IOW the poor balance is fine if you don't pay attention to it and build your army straight from the box with mixed weapons and everything.

Very poor argument you got there.

 Xenomancers wrote:
-1 ap to a certain class of weapons across the board is too much but amping a 20 man units firepower by over 1000% is okay?

Ahh, the whataboutism argument, speaking of 'logic'. Speaking of misrepresentation, calling it a 'certain class' of weapons definitely makes it sound much smaller than a 'broad category' of weapons, but of course a single unit becoming more powerful under very specific circumstances, let's see, what's the logical fallacy for that? Oh yeah, False Equivalence.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
-1 ap to a certain class of weapons across the board is too much but amping a 20 man units firepower by over 1000% is okay?

Ahh, the whataboutism argument, speaking of 'logic'. Speaking of misrepresentation, calling it a 'certain class' of weapons definitely makes it sound much smaller than a 'broad category' of weapons, but of course a single unit becoming more powerful under very specific circumstances, let's see, what's the logical fallacy for that? Oh yeah, False Equivalence.

I'm sorry it's not false equivalence.

It's literally - how much damage this army can do vs how much damage this army can do. SM get flat buffs - CSM have to amp up with stratagems. The result is the same. Entire armies get removed.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
-1 ap to a certain class of weapons across the board is too much but amping a 20 man units firepower by over 1000% is okay?

Ahh, the whataboutism argument, speaking of 'logic'. Speaking of misrepresentation, calling it a 'certain class' of weapons definitely makes it sound much smaller than a 'broad category' of weapons, but of course a single unit becoming more powerful under very specific circumstances, let's see, what's the logical fallacy for that? Oh yeah, False Equivalence.

I'm sorry it's not false equivalence.

It's literally - how much damage this army can do vs how much damage this army can do. SM get flat buffs - CSM have to amp up with stratagems. The result is the same. Entire armies get removed.

Its not equivalent because SM don't need to spend any resources to achieve an increase in firepower, CMS do. If you had to pay to get your additionnal AP sure you could say these situations were similar, as it is, loyalists get free rules. Sure noise marines will be able to delete things in the shootnig phase when pumped full of CPs, but loyalists will do the same without CPs. In fact, the made so many buffs that shouldve cost something free that they had to add stratagems that gives even more buffs because CPs are not required for the army to perform.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
-1 ap to a certain class of weapons across the board is too much but amping a 20 man units firepower by over 1000% is okay?

Ahh, the whataboutism argument, speaking of 'logic'. Speaking of misrepresentation, calling it a 'certain class' of weapons definitely makes it sound much smaller than a 'broad category' of weapons, but of course a single unit becoming more powerful under very specific circumstances, let's see, what's the logical fallacy for that? Oh yeah, False Equivalence.

I'm sorry it's not false equivalence.

It's literally - how much damage this army can do vs how much damage this army can do. SM get flat buffs - CSM have to amp up with stratagems. The result is the same. Entire armies get removed.

Its not equivalent because SM don't need to spend any resources to achieve an increase in firepower, CMS do. If you had to pay to get your additionnal AP sure you could say these situations were similar, as it is, loyalists get free rules. Sure noise marines will be able to delete things in the shootnig phase when pumped full of CPs, but loyalists will do the same without CPs. In fact, the made so many buffs that shouldve cost something free that they had to add stratagems that gives even more buffs because CPs are not required for the army to perform.

Pretty sure every space marine player would trade every stratagem in their codex for a 2 CP stratagem that let you shoot twice with any infantry unit and they don't even have 20 man units. SM stratagems are much better than 1.0 codex BUT CSM stratagems are much better. You do have to pay for the AP too. It is included in the unit profiles. CSM is 11 and it's 12 for a tactical. Nearly every CSM unit dropped in points (not all) where almost no changes for loyalists.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
-1 ap to a certain class of weapons across the board is too much but amping a 20 man units firepower by over 1000% is okay?

Ahh, the whataboutism argument, speaking of 'logic'. Speaking of misrepresentation, calling it a 'certain class' of weapons definitely makes it sound much smaller than a 'broad category' of weapons, but of course a single unit becoming more powerful under very specific circumstances, let's see, what's the logical fallacy for that? Oh yeah, False Equivalence.

I'm sorry it's not false equivalence.

It's literally - how much damage this army can do vs how much damage this army can do. SM get flat buffs - CSM have to amp up with stratagems. The result is the same. Entire armies get removed.

Its not equivalent because SM don't need to spend any resources to achieve an increase in firepower, CMS do. If you had to pay to get your additionnal AP sure you could say these situations were similar, as it is, loyalists get free rules. Sure noise marines will be able to delete things in the shootnig phase when pumped full of CPs, but loyalists will do the same without CPs. In fact, the made so many buffs that shouldve cost something free that they had to add stratagems that gives even more buffs because CPs are not required for the army to perform.

Pretty sure every space marine player would trade every stratagem in their codex for a 2 CP stratagem that let you shoot twice with any infantry unit and they don't even have 20 man units. SM stratagems are much better than 1.0 codex BUT CSM stratagems are much better. You do have to pay for the AP too. It is included in the unit profiles. CSM is 11 and it's 12 for a tactical. Nearly every CSM unit dropped in points (not all) where almost no changes for loyalists.

All armies would love to get a 2CP shoot again strat, not jsut marines. But you missed the point again, marines got doctrines, super doctrines, better chapter tactics, chapter tactics on their vehicles, options to upgrade their characters, access to 2W troops and tons of new relics/warlord traits/psychic powers. Oh and the option to spam warlord traits.

Chaos SM got : new strats, relics and warlord traits.

Remove endless cacophony and Votlw and chaos takes a massive dive. remove any one special rule that the marines got and theyll still overperform.

Also, my original response to you was pointing out that all these "OP buffs" that Chaos gets costs CP, of which armeis have a finite amount of, sure chaos will blow its load and have one powerful punch, the problem is that if you want to have sustained puch, you need to keep feeding cps into units, which means you need cp farms, which means you need cultists or bad space marines, which means youre taking less threats, which means your threats will get focused down fast while your gakky units will only be killed tog et pts for the mission.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Pretty sure every space marine player would trade every stratagem in their codex for a 2 CP stratagem that let you shoot twice with any infantry unit and they don't even have 20 man units. SM stratagems are much better than 1.0 codex BUT CSM stratagems are much better. You do have to pay for the AP too. It is included in the unit profiles. CSM is 11 and it's 12 for a tactical. Nearly every CSM unit dropped in points (not all) where almost no changes for loyalists.

But we're not talking strats are we? We're talking Doctrines, so here's the deal, you can have Endless Cacophany, you can have Excruciating Frequencies (for 1 single chapter of Marines), hell, you can even have Veterans of the Long War and we'll get Doctrines and Super-Doctrines. We'll even pay the extra point for our Marines and you can have the 1 point discount. What? You're not interested in that? Color me fething flabbergasted!

I'd make that trade in a heartbeat. I can see why Iron Hands wouldn't though.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd make that trade in a heartbeat. I can see why Iron Hands wouldn't though.

Then you haven't thought it through, that is a horrible trade, even for BT.

Know whats funny? AP is not that great. Countless debates about how useless it was before space marine doctrines. Now that marines get some AP on their weapons that they should have had all along its OP to have AP on weapons..

Quins don't care/Orks don't care/ Plenty of 4++ saves out there still.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Know whats funny? AP is not that great. Countless debates about how useless it was before space marine doctrines. Now that marines get some AP on their weapons that they should have had all along its OP to have AP on weapons..

Quins don't care/Orks don't care/ Plenty of 4++ saves out there still.

Please tell me its the Xeno Hot Take after "Squigbuggies are the best unit in the game" is "just play pure harlequins to counter nu-marines"

Please please tell me that's the sweet new pro gamer move.

You do realize one of the armies that numarines suplexed out of the meta when they showed up and started being 60+% of top lists was Drukhari with venomspam and grotspam, yeah?

An army with a LOT of invulnerable saves?

the_scotsman wrote:
Please tell me its the Xeno Hot Take after "Squigbuggies are the best unit in the game" is "just play pure harlequins to counter nu-marines"

Please please tell me that's the sweet new pro gamer move.

You do realize one of the armies that numarines suplexed out of the meta when they showed up and started being 60+% of top lists was Drukhari with venomspam and grotspam, yeah?

An army with a LOT of invulnerable saves?

We can add it to the list, filled with hits like:

'KFF makes your army invulnerable yo!'
'Why you don't play Sorc smash?!'
'AP never helped anyone!'
'Squig buggies will dominate the meta!'
'Quins hard counter nu-Marines!'

Expected, or in the studio:
'Daemons are the most dominant army in the current meta!'
'EC crush all yo!'
'Warphead is the most broken strat evah!'

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait....

Squigbuggies with a 4+ dont care about AP?

Oh this will be an entertaining rambling justification screed to read.

I've already said I'm done complaining about ork buggies. When they start dominating you will eat your words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait....

Squigbuggies with a 4+ dont care about AP?

Oh this will be an entertaining rambling justification screed to read.

It will have a 5++ - basically every weapon marines would be shooting at it already brought it to a 5+.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It will have a 5++ - basically every weapon marines would be shooting at it already brought it to a 5+.

Oh damn, I forgot this hit, thanks Xeno:

'KFF covers the whole table, protects your entire army yo!'
'Orks have unlimited CP!'

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Oh damn, I forgot this hit, thanks Xeno:

'KFF covers the whole table, protects your entire army yo!'
'Orks have unlimited CP!'

Don't forget my personal favorite:

"20 noise marines are now equivalent to 10 Repulsor Executioners!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've already said I'm done complaining about ork buggies. When they start dominating you will eat your words.

And yet, here you are kvetcing about squigbuggies, and reprising your "KFFS FOR EVERYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEE" shouting.

Sterling191 wrote:
"20 noise marines are now equivalent to 10 Repulsor Executioners!"

The classics never go out of style. I'm honestly surprised we haven't heard the rant about the EC smash captain, clearly a missed opportunity.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Know whats funny? AP is not that great. Countless debates about how useless it was before space marine doctrines. Now that marines get some AP on their weapons that they should have had all along its OP to have AP on weapons..

Quins don't care/Orks don't care/ Plenty of 4++ saves out there still.

ap doesnt matter against these armies , rate of fire does. Were comlpaining about the AP because weapons that used to be exclusively efficient against horder can now deal with elite infantry/light vehicles.
Quins still die to bolter fire, same as before.
Orks still die to bolter fire (And actually, the AP matters greatly for orks since it removes their saves completely).

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Know whats funny? AP is not that great. Countless debates about how useless it was before space marine doctrines. Now that marines get some AP on their weapons that they should have had all along its OP to have AP on weapons..

Quins don't care/Orks don't care/ Plenty of 4++ saves out there still.

ap doesnt matter against these armies , rate of fire does. Were comlpaining about the AP because weapons that used to be exclusively efficient against horder can now deal with elite infantry/light vehicles.
Quins still die to bolter fire, same as before.
Orks still die to bolter fire (And actually, the AP matters greatly for orks since it removes their saves completely).

Well no, not really.

An ork can just lose his t-shirt save, which isn't a big deal. The first -1 AP will grant the attacker a 20% bonus damage over no AP, the other points of AP are wasted.

When shooting at something like a necron warrior, the first point of AP will result in a 33% bonus damage, and AP -2 and -3 also matter.

MEQ and TEQ are much much worse.

The worse your save the less you are affected by AP.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Know whats funny? AP is not that great. Countless debates about how useless it was before space marine doctrines. Now that marines get some AP on their weapons that they should have had all along its OP to have AP on weapons..

Quins don't care/Orks don't care/ Plenty of 4++ saves out there still.

So the Brightlance is better than the Lascannon weapon-for-weapon, because going from AP-3 to AP-4 is a *huge* improvement - well beyond +1S or +12" range!

Conversely, AP is not that great. Marines going from AP0 to AP-1 and AP-1 to AP-2 doesn't matter. No big deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Know whats funny? AP is not that great. Countless debates about how useless it was before space marine doctrines. Now that marines get some AP on their weapons that they should have had all along its OP to have AP on weapons..

Quins don't care/Orks don't care/ Plenty of 4++ saves out there still.

ap doesnt matter against these armies , rate of fire does. Were comlpaining about the AP because weapons that used to be exclusively efficient against horder can now deal with elite infantry/light vehicles.
Quins still die to bolter fire, same as before.
Orks still die to bolter fire (And actually, the AP matters greatly for orks since it removes their saves completely).

Well no, not really.

An ork can just lose his t-shirt save, which isn't a big deal. The first -1 AP will grant the attacker a 20% bonus damage over no AP, the other points of AP are wasted.

When shooting at something like a necron warrior, the first point of AP will result in a 33% bonus damage, and AP -2 and -3 also matter.

MEQ and TEQ are much much worse.

The worse your save the less you are affected by AP.

Hilariously, Marines would have likely been the hardest-hit faction if AP5 had translated into AP-1 in 8th Ed. Fortunately, it translated into AP0.

I've shown you the math that noise marines kill 33 intercessors in 1 turn. For 4 CP standing next to a lord. Or kills 2 repulsors executioners in 1 turn...Both pretty close to double points return on their point cost.

That is what CSM kills with bolters.

You guys really are Hi larious.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've shown you the math that noise marines kill 33 intercessors in 1 turn. For 4 CP standing next to a lord. Or kills 2 repulsors executioners in 1 turn...Both pretty close to double points return on their point cost.

EC Noise Marines, if they get lucky. If they get first turn. If, if, if, if, if, blah, blah, blah. If you don't get first turn they get torched because unless your opponent is a drooling idiot he shoots them first. EC has no way to protect this squad unless you stack a couple hundred extra points on top of them.

This is such a bs cherry-picked argument, seriously, you should store it in that same dark place you store your head.