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.

the_scotsman wrote:
Every marine player where I play is playing a supplement-tier dex at this point. We have no GK, DA, or SW players, and only I play DW (though even they feel stupidly easy at this point so I've shelved them temporarily. The worst part is they're only likely to get more OP once they get their PA book.)

No, I literally meant don't use the supplement book at all, just the new codex.

But yeah, I see how people interested in hopping on the bandwagon won't do that.

The BA supplement is pretty tame, imo. Compared to the others at least.

Martel732 wrote:
The BA supplement is pretty tame, imo. Compared to the others at least.

Well yeah. They're stuck in the Assault Doctrine crap, but at least White Scars have TONS of Strat shenanigans and their Relics/Warlord traits are good.

Punching with power armor is still pretty hard. I think BA are in a good place vis a vis xenos. They get spanked by other marines though.

 Jidmah wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Every marine player where I play is playing a supplement-tier dex at this point. We have no GK, DA, or SW players, and only I play DW (though even they feel stupidly easy at this point so I've shelved them temporarily. The worst part is they're only likely to get more OP once they get their PA book.)

No, I literally meant don't use the supplement book at all, just the new codex.

But yeah, I see how people interested in hopping on the bandwagon won't do that.

That is how I play my Primaris only space marine army. I find it hilarious when the more competitively minded players ask which supplement am I using or if I am using the Raven Guard supplement since my Primaris look very much like Raptor chapter marines. I just tell them neither. Then they inform me that I have the option to use one. I just tell them I am aware. Then they kinda walk away confused. I like the strength of my army without it. Heck, I could go one step further and have the combat doctrine rules locked that I have to progress through them each round. Which is what I typically do anyways even if staying in Tactical Doctrine is usually the best for me. My Primaris army still feel much stronger than my Black Legion one regardless.

I don`t get it, GW just did what most players wanted.
Players cryed all edition against Allaitoc and Tao, instead of wanting their army to be more survivable they demanded that they are able to destroy any number of units for few turns.
GW created marines who negate most armies natural defense, so its normal that the edition became more deadly.
IH nerf was removing the faction defense and not decreasing the biggest SM problem, aka their insane damage output.

We just got what we wanted, be happy.

Marin wrote:
I don`t get it, GW just did what most players wanted.
Players cryed all edition against Allaitoc and Tao, instead of wanting their army to be more survivable they demanded that they are able to destroy any number of units for few turns.
GW created marines who negate most armies natural defense, so its normal that the edition became more deadly.
IH nerf was removing the faction defense and not decreasing the biggest SM problem, aka their insane damage output.

We just got what we wanted, be happy.

... and that's why should always listen to your customers, but not do everything they want.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Every marine player where I play is playing a supplement-tier dex at this point. We have no GK, DA, or SW players, and only I play DW (though even they feel stupidly easy at this point so I've shelved them temporarily. The worst part is they're only likely to get more OP once they get their PA book.)

No, I literally meant don't use the supplement book at all, just the new codex.

But yeah, I see how people interested in hopping on the bandwagon won't do that.

That is how I play my Primaris only space marine army. I find it hilarious when the more competitively minded players ask which supplement am I using or if I am using the Raven Guard supplement since my Primaris look very much like Raptor chapter marines. I just tell them neither. Then they inform me that I have the option to use one. I just tell them I am aware. Then they kinda walk away confused. I like the strength of my army without it. Heck, I could go one step further and have the combat doctrine rules locked that I have to progress through them each round. Which is what I typically do anyways even if staying in Tactical Doctrine is usually the best for me. My Primaris army still feel much stronger than my Black Legion one regardless.

We had a diehard IH player here, that stuck with them through 8th and the gakfest that was dex SM 1.0
He took one look at the IH supplement, laughed, put it back on a shelf and just made custom traits and uses the dex 2.0.

his words:
"Anyone not out for a cheap powerspike of his sm army can see that the supplements themselves are on top of an now really good dex 2.0 too much."


is that true, i mean, kinda, some of the supplements are ok fluffy rules for a specific army, noone would complain about BT f.e. but what certain other suplements bring to the table, especially IF, IH and RG is just too over the top imo


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

Marin wrote:
I don`t get it, GW just did what most players wanted.
Players cryed all edition against Allaitoc and Tao, instead of wanting their army to be more survivable they demanded that they are able to destroy any number of units for few turns.
GW created marines who negate most armies natural defense, so its normal that the edition became more deadly.
IH nerf was removing the faction defense and not decreasing the biggest SM problem, aka their insane damage output.

We just got what we wanted, be happy.

... and that's why should always listen to your customers, but not do everything they want.

TBF: those that wanted cheaper marines instead also got what they wanted with CSM regulars at 11 pts. And it doesn't really work out that well. Of course that also has to do with the surounding book aswell but the race to the bottom that is atm facilitated is also not the solution.

Let's be honest here. GW implemented a new wounding table and then didn't take advantage by spreading out the T and S values.

Martel732 wrote:
Let's be honest here. GW implemented a new wounding table and then didn't take advantage by spreading out the T and S values.

Yep.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Let's be honest here. GW implemented a new wounding table and then didn't take advantage by spreading out the T and S values.

Yep.

counterpoint:

GW created a wounding system whereby you need exponentially increasing values of strength and toughness to take full advantage of the scale.

In order to be able to wound a T8 model on a 2, you need S16. I assume what you mean by spreading toughness values around you mean getting more T2/T1 models as well as T9/T10/T11+ whatever, since we seem to have every other value covered between 1 and 8 for touhgness and 1 and 10 for strength with the addition of melee weapons sometimes going up to S16+.

I definitely agree that certain values are overstuffed - T7 being the big one. More light vehicles should be T6/5, and more heavy vehicles T8.

T4 is really bad too. They had the chance to make Necron infantry T5; ie distinct from marines. More units need to be distinct from the popular marines. But yes, T7 is really crowded.

They also had the opportunity to properly distinguish between anti-tank weapons and anti-personnel by using the full range of S/T values. At the moment the best anti-tank weapons are often things with D2, S6-7 and a fairly large number of shots. If vehicles were tougher but anti-tank weapons like lascannons and meltaguns had higher strength too you'd see much more differentiation in weapon options. Basically, GW changed the wounding chart and opened up the possibility of stats above 10...then completely failed to adjust the game accordingly, which speaks to how half-assed the "complete overhaul" from 7th-8th really was.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Let's be honest here. GW implemented a new wounding table and then didn't take advantage by spreading out the T and S values.

Yep.

counterpoint:

GW created a wounding system whereby you need exponentially increasing values of strength and toughness to take full advantage of the scale.

In order to be able to wound a T8 model on a 2, you need S16. I assume what you mean by spreading toughness values around you mean getting more T2/T1 models as well as T9/T10/T11+ whatever, since we seem to have every other value covered between 1 and 8 for touhgness and 1 and 10 for strength with the addition of melee weapons sometimes going up to S16+.

I definitely agree that certain values are overstuffed - T7 being the big one. More light vehicles should be T6/5, and more heavy vehicles T8.

There should be a lot more str 16 guns...Like fireprisms - railguns - d cannons. More vehicals should be T 8 and 9 too. Just to add more variety to anti tank weapons.

Melta in particular got hosed by being marooned at S8.

Martel732 wrote:
Melta in particular got hosed by being marooned at S8.

It should probably be str 14.

S16 in melta range. And force rerolls on invulns.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Melta in particular got hosed by being marooned at S8.

It should probably be str 14.

Nope, S16 would've been the key point.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Melta in particular got hosed by being marooned at S8.

It should probably be str 14.

Nope, S16 would've been the key point.

Agreed the high number of t8 high wound count units currently in the game (cough, cough, knights) means we need more str16 weapons. In the case of meltas I could see them being str14 until within half range and then str16.

The problem isint with STr values so much but with damage out put and number of shots.

Theres a reason you see starcannons spammed over BL/EML for killing tanks. Would I take higher ROF at lower strenght with D3 damage or one shot with D6 damage?

Who cares if your wepon is str 16 -5 if it deals D6 damage?

Need dedicated heavy AT wepons (lascanons, prisms, those detah beam necron things) to be Like 1+2D3.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Melta in particular got hosed by being marooned at S8.

It should probably be str 14.

Nope, S16 would've been the key point.

Look at the name of the topic and what you are asking, a MSU unit of devastators can clear T7 tank for 1 turn with the rerolls and you want the some to be possible for units like IK.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
The problem isint with STr values so much but with damage out put and number of shots.

Theres a reason you see starcannons spammed over BL/EML for killing tanks. Would I take higher ROF at lower strenght with D3 damage or one shot with D6 damage?

Who cares if your wepon is str 16 -5 if it deals D6 damage?

Need dedicated heavy AT wepons (lascanons, prisms, those detah beam necron things) to be Like 1+2D3.

People are taking starcannons because of the point difference, make bright lance cheaper and most people will use it.
Lance being only 5 pts cheaper than lastcannon is showing GW don`t rate range and STR9 enough.

Marin wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Melta in particular got hosed by being marooned at S8.

It should probably be str 14.

Nope, S16 would've been the key point.

Look at the name of the topic and what you are asking, a MSU unit of devastators can clear T7 tank for 1 turn with the rerolls and you want the some to be possible for units like IK.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
The problem isint with STr values so much but with damage out put and number of shots.

Theres a reason you see starcannons spammed over BL/EML for killing tanks. Would I take higher ROF at lower strenght with D3 damage or one shot with D6 damage?

Who cares if your wepon is str 16 -5 if it deals D6 damage?

Need dedicated heavy AT wepons (lascanons, prisms, those detah beam necron things) to be Like 1+2D3.

People are taking starcannons because of the point difference, make bright lance cheaper and most people will use it.
Lance being only 5 pts cheaper than lastcannon is showing GW don`t rate range and STR9 enough.

So you're saying a group of Devastators packing S16 Multi-Meltas with points invested to a Chapter Master is a problem?Sounds like you don't know what actual problems are. But okay.