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.

Grey40k wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
I have been beating Marines the majority of the games I've played against them since their rework (although I took a short hiatus before the first IH nerf).

I am sorry, but what we as individuals accomplish in some specific tables is irrelevant. IH win rates are there for everyone to check and l2p is not a valid answer. Those win rates indicate that the rules are not good; in fact they are really bad. Besides win rates, marines are super prevalent and IH do extremely well (almost never finish last positions of tourney). So thisis not just a few players getting a lot of victories.

How is it irrelevant that I have more success against nu-Marines than with them? The ITC win-rates? Has somebody started compiling proper stats for CA events yet and seperated out the paint and sportsmanship scores? I didn't say gitgud and I didn't say IH are fair, in fact I took a break from 40k for a couple of weeks because IH was so unfair at launch. I also suggested a small nerf to Intercessors, was the suggestion outrageously small? Are Intercessors still boogiemen at +1 pt? How much do you feel they should cost? Should the cost of doctrines and super doctrines never be taken into account? For BA it seems to for some people that the super doctrine isn't worth the cost. What exactly is it that you think the stats say and what do you think would fix the issues the stats highlight?

Edit: the update is right up my alley. Assault SM lost nothing which is interesting. The designers commentary made me laugh out loud, where were the playtesters?

 vict0988 wrote:
What exactly is it that you think the stats say and what do you think would fix the issues the stats highlight?

Bring back the old initiative, and the old weapon skill checks for melee.
Tone down charge mechanics.
Remove 1 attack from intercessors.
Remove 1 D and 1 AP from the stalker rifle.
Bring back rapid fire instead of assault for small arms (e.g. for the autobolt rifle).
Worsen the save from shield dome to 5++ or 6++ for impulsors.
Tone down the thunderfire cannon slow.

And that's just a start

you realise marines just got a nerfbat to the head right?

And an actual decent one imo.

Grey40k wrote:
Remove 1 D and 1 AP from the stalker rifle.

Makes it pretty irrelevant then, really? One shot less than the regular bolt rifle, less mobility, but slight better range? No thank you.
I'm fine with removing the extra Damage or AP, but not both.

Bring back rapid fire instead of assault for small arms (e.g. for the autobolt rifle).

You'd want the auto at Rapid Fire 3? Yikes. Even Rapid Fire 2 would feel like a lot. And it certainly shouldn't be Rapid Fire 1, because then the regular BR is superior in every way.

Grey40k wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
What exactly is it that you think the stats say and what do you think would fix the issues the stats highlight?

Bring back the old initiative, and the old weapon skill checks for melee.
Tone down charge mechanics.
Remove 1 attack from intercessors.
Remove 1 D and 1 AP from the stalker rifle.
Bring back rapid fire instead of assault for small arms (e.g. for the autobolt rifle).
Worsen the save from shield dome to 5++ or 6++ for impulsors.
Tone down the thunderfire cannon slow.

And that's just a start

This reeks of someone that's butthurt that they lost to Intercessors like holy cow

Not Online!!! wrote:
you realise marines just got a nerfbat to the head right?

And an actual decent one imo.

Hit them hard, in all the right places, IMO. The main offending things (camping in Devastator Doctrine, Infiltrating Centurions, etc) have been mitigated now, and Ultramarines feel more like Ultramarines, being more tactical versatile (although, I still think their Doctrine ability is a bit too strong).

Not Online!!! wrote:
you realise marines just got a nerfbat to the head right?

And an actual decent one imo.

That and Tau got some major buffs in their PA. Tau already had a better game against the new marines than some and with the nerfs to marines plus Tau buffs they probably are back to having the advantage in that match up.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:
Remove 1 D and 1 AP from the stalker rifle.

Makes it pretty irrelevant then, really? One shot less than the regular bolt rifle, less mobility, but slight better range? No thank you.
I'm fine with removing the extra Damage or AP, but not both.

Bring back rapid fire instead of assault for small arms (e.g. for the autobolt rifle).

You'd want the auto at Rapid Fire 3? Yikes. Even Rapid Fire 2 would feel like a lot. And it certainly shouldn't be Rapid Fire 1, because then the regular BR is superior in every way.

I don't think intercessors needed a whole new bolter class, to be honest. I'd remove the cost but make them only slightly better than the good old marine bolter, the specifics could be discussed (it is not like I am designing this myself).

Grey40k wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
What exactly is it that you think the stats say and what do you think would fix the issues the stats highlight?

Bring back the old initiative, and the old weapon skill checks for melee.
Tone down charge mechanics.
Remove 1 attack from intercessors.
Remove 1 D and 1 AP from the stalker rifle.
Bring back rapid fire instead of assault for small arms (e.g. for the autobolt rifle).
Worsen the save from shield dome to 5++ or 6++ for impulsors.
Tone down the thunderfire cannon slow.

And that's just a start

The old WS was a waste of text and boxes, the new is much improved. I think it'd be really cool if all Craftworld and Harlequin melee units were -1 to hit in melee. Initiative was a useless stat most of the time, Movement is much more important.
Charge mechanics?
And give them +1 S? I could agree to removing angels of death from them so they just get the +1 attack all the time while firstborn get it in first round of combat. They're bigger I think it makes sense they hit harder somehow.
Way too much of a nerf for the stalker, it'd be complete trash. You do know that it's heavy 1 and has to compete with a weapon that fires 2 shots at 30" right? Devastator Doctrine also just got nerfed and they're probably going to be pretty bad without additional nerfs.
Why can't Space Marines have weapons they can use after advancing?
Why not just increase the price?
TFC slow is unfair, especially since it can be double-dipped with shoot twice.

You made that pretty clear you didn't think out any of those ideas, you're right.

Marines just got a lot less elite :-P

Grey40k wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Grey40k wrote:
Remove 1 D and 1 AP from the stalker rifle.

Makes it pretty irrelevant then, really? One shot less than the regular bolt rifle, less mobility, but slight better range? No thank you.
I'm fine with removing the extra Damage or AP, but not both.

Bring back rapid fire instead of assault for small arms (e.g. for the autobolt rifle).

You'd want the auto at Rapid Fire 3? Yikes. Even Rapid Fire 2 would feel like a lot. And it certainly shouldn't be Rapid Fire 1, because then the regular BR is superior in every way.

I don't think intercessors needed a whole new bolter class, to be honest. I'd remove the cost but make them only slightly better than the good old marine bolter, the specifics could be discussed (it is not like I am designing this myself).

Regardless, the different classes *do* exist, and your proposals wouldn't really have a positive impact on how they function.

 vict0988 wrote:

The old WS was a waste of text and boxes, the new is much improved. I think it'd be really cool if all Craftworld and Harlequin melee units were -1 to hit in melee. Initiative was a useless stat most of the time, Movement is much more important.

When you say old, I do not think you mean the same as me. You have to understand that I just caught up to 8th with my old armies. I do not know how recent previous editions worked.

Way too much of a nerf for the stalker, it'd be complete trash. You do know that it's heavy 1 and has to compete with a weapon that fires 2 shots at 30" right?

What I meant, genarally speaking, was to distinguish the bolters between rapid fire (without AP) and precision fire (with AP). Anything equal or only slightly better to bolters with those profiles would be sufficient, IMHO.

Why can't Space Marines have weapons they can use after advancing?

That used to be a terminator thing, in terms of the theme. Assault to basic troops is too much, IMHO.

Why not just increase the price?
TFC slow is unfair, especially since it can be double-dipped with shoot twice.

I honestly don't care too much if it is cost or else, but quite clearly some primaris stuff is too cost effective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Regardless, the different classes *do* exist, and your proposals wouldn't really have a positive impact on how they function.

See my answer above. Besides the fact that we are not here to design the game, I meant it as how generally I would handle nerfing some of the primaris stuff. Keep the them, tone down the stats. The specific values are more complex to choose.

 Ishagu wrote:
Marines just got a lot less elite :-P

We'll see. I'm very skeptical.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Marines just got a lot less elite :-P

We'll see. I'm very skeptical.

Remember when you were sceptical about the Castellan being weak after the nerfs it got? I remember you saying that it was still the most powerful unit and a week later is vanished from any and all tables. I still run one for a laugh from time to time as I love the model.

This isn't quite as drastic, but it will have a tangible impact.

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Marines just got a lot less elite :-P

We'll see. I'm very skeptical.

Remember when you were sceptical about the Castellan being weak after the nerfs it got? I remember you saying that it was still the most powerful unit and a week later is vanished from any and all tables. I still run one for a laugh from time to time as I love the model.

This isn't quite as drastic, but it will have a tangible impact.

I underestimated what a knifes edge those lists were on. Also, that nerf involved pts changes if i recall. This definitely dings marines, but seems hollow without points hikes.

I can now destroy a Leviathan in one round of shooting, no problem.

You don't think that's a big deal?

Iron Hands and Raven Guard have lost some of their strongest tools.

Is it? I hate that model and think about it as little as possible. I usually go for the surround on them and shoot units that are actually mortal.

They missed IF LUL

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Marines just got a lot less elite :-P

We'll see. I'm very skeptical.

Remember when you were sceptical about the Castellan being weak after the nerfs it got? I remember you saying that it was still the most powerful unit and a week later is vanished from any and all tables. I still run one for a laugh from time to time as I love the model.

This isn't quite as drastic, but it will have a tangible impact.

Weren't you the one that was going around the forums saying that it was only Iron Hands that were the problem? If Space Marines continue doing well (mainly non-IH), it would make that look rather foolish. I wouldn't go around trying to start beef with people the way you are doing when you are as equally guilty yourself.

Iron Hands were the biggest problem. I never said they were the only problem. Let's see how it pans out now, anyways.

I actually think they are still very strong. They have the Methodical Firepower Strat, and can get infantry with a 5+++

IF and IH were crippling me in 2 turns anyway.

They got only 1 turn to do it now.

How so? Tactical doctrine rips my units to pieces too.

Well, that certainly helps out competitive play. I dont think anyone where we play was infiltrating cents anyway, but good step in the right direction, thats for sure.

Martel732 wrote:
How so? Tactical doctrine rips my units to pieces too.

Get some different units?

You run a pure infantry list, right? You don't have dedicated anti tank from what I saw last time you posted a list.

You can make an effort to adapt or can stop complaining lol
There has just been a massive meta shift. You can't complain before the effects have been measured by the community!

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
How so? Tactical doctrine rips my units to pieces too.

Get some different units?

You run a pure infantry list, right? You don't have dedicated anti tank from what I saw last time you posted a list.

You can make an effort to adapt or can stop complaining lol
There has just been a massive meta shift. You can't complain before the effects have been measured by the community!

Two words, remember them.

Librarian.

Dreadnought.

What do you consider AT in a game with so many invulns?

The very best invuls are now a 4++. If you take a good number of anti tank shots they can still do significant damage. The 3++ isn't an issue outside of a few units like Magnus if he goes 1st.

In my Ultras army if I'm looking to compete I typically have around 16 shots or more a turn Str 8 -10 D6 damage weapons.

Even If I'm firing at something with a 4++ I will do a lot of damage.

Once I complete them, my Sisters will have 9d3 S8 d6 damage weapons. So yeah. Not hard to get that level of firepower and is something you should account for.