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:

 p5freak wrote:
Wraith had 3 attacks hitting on 3s before, thats 2 hits, now they have 4 attacks, hitting on 4s, thats 2 hits, the same as before. And Monolith still suck. GW has the ridiculous ability to create great looking models, and the give them crap rules.

Except when GW makes a new model with good rules, then GW always uses rules to push you to buy the new models :^)

Monolith is a new model

 Bosskelot wrote:
Normal Lokhusts are in the trash as far as I'm concerned. They got strictly worse for a multitude of reasons but are still 55 ppm which even before the Codex was far too many points.

dOn'T wOrRy ThEy'Re BaLaNcEd FoR nEw ReSuRrEcTiOn PrOtOcOlS.

 IHateNids wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
Is MWBD Core only?

I'm assuming so, because god forbid our tanks and heavy weapons are accurate.

Yes indeed. Core only.

Figures

I mean, I guess we havent shifted in relative power as far as that was concerned,if anything slightly improved given that Executioners dont reroll everything

But hey, I'm still mildly miffed.....

I don't think there is any reason to be too miffed. Not a perfect codex but massive improvement. You can play games against marines they are just going to be able to field larger variety of lists.

Even though erradicators are OP. You could take Immortal and deathmark spam with Multiple ctans and just walk over them. For 1 wound units new Reanimation protcols is quite strong.

Has anyone figured out how the new Resurrection Protocols is supposed to work?

 vipoid wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Normal Lokhusts are in the trash as far as I'm concerned. They got strictly worse for a multitude of reasons but are still 55 ppm which even before the Codex was far too many points.

dOn'T wOrRy ThEy'Re BaLaNcEd FoR nEw ReSuRrEcTiOn PrOtOcOlS.

I don't think a single person has stated the current Lokhusts are balanced for RP or costed well.

Nurglitch wrote:
Has anyone figured out how the new Resurrection Protocols is supposed to work?

Yes, its actually explained quite clearly in the book.
A unit gets shot at. You roll for RP afterwards. For each lost wound you roll a die. On a 5+ you get a wound back, and apply it to models. If you get enough successes to restore a model to full health it avoids death. If you don't have enough successes it stays dead. Unlike in 8th ed, dead models do not have a chance to come back later. That I admit they could have been clearer on, but if you look at the other abilities that buff / supplement RP it becomes clearer.

Regular destroyers are just bad right now IMO, sadly.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Regular destroyers are just bad right now IMO, sadly.

Very Bad.
Heavy Destroyers are in the wouldn't be that bad in single units as Szarekhan with the reroll wounds ability but they are in heavy support and doing that is just crazy - too many other good HS options.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 IHateNids wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
Is MWBD Core only?

I'm assuming so, because god forbid our tanks and heavy weapons are accurate.

Yes indeed. Core only.

Figures

I mean, I guess we havent shifted in relative power as far as that was concerned,if anything slightly improved given that Executioners dont reroll everything

But hey, I'm still mildly miffed.....

I don't think there is any reason to be too miffed. Not a perfect codex but massive improvement. You can play games against marines they are just going to be able to field larger variety of lists.

Even though erradicators are OP. You could take Immortal and deathmark spam with Multiple ctans and just walk over them. For 1 wound units new Reanimation protcols is quite strong.

Oh, I'm not too miffed at all, I'm just mildly miffed, mostly about this whoe "Core" thing. Seeing how frugal it is for Marines, and how tight it is for us, I am really worried about what will be Core for other things.

Russes? Broadsides? Anything Wraithbone?

All could be considered core in a generic definition.... I just dont know what to expect.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.

 Sasori wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Normal Lokhusts are in the trash as far as I'm concerned. They got strictly worse for a multitude of reasons but are still 55 ppm which even before the Codex was far too many points.

dOn'T wOrRy ThEy'Re BaLaNcEd FoR nEw ReSuRrEcTiOn PrOtOcOlS.

I don't think a single person has stated the current Lokhusts are balanced for RP or costed well.

That was *exactly* what people were saying when everyone started pointing out how worthless the new RP rules are for multi-wound units.

The response I heard over and over was "No, no, it'll be fine, because the points for Destroyers and such will definitely take that into account."

 vipoid wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Normal Lokhusts are in the trash as far as I'm concerned. They got strictly worse for a multitude of reasons but are still 55 ppm which even before the Codex was far too many points.

dOn'T wOrRy ThEy'Re BaLaNcEd FoR nEw ReSuRrEcTiOn PrOtOcOlS.

I don't think a single person has stated the current Lokhusts are balanced for RP or costed well.

That was *exactly* what people were saying when everyone started pointing out how worthless the new RP rules are for multi-wound units.

The response I heard over and over was "No, no, it'll be fine, because the points for Destroyers and such will definitely take that into account."

Regular Lokhuts are horribly overpriced, and no one has defended and said that their price was balanced for RP.

Most destroyers however are priced in without paying a serious tax on RP. Skorpekhs, Ophydians and LHD do not appear to be paying much, if at all. The LHD looks to be a over costed, but it's clearly paying for the gun and not RP.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.

dude, people where, ACCURATELY, guessing what would be core and what wouldn't over a month ago.

BrianDavion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.

dude, people where, ACCURATELY, guessing what would be core and what wouldn't over a month ago.

I mean, all of us were *joking* when we were saying everything muhreen would be core, whereas every other faction struggles.
We. Were. Joking.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.

dude, people where, ACCURATELY, guessing what would be core and what wouldn't over a month ago.

I mean, all of us were *joking* when we were saying everything muhreen would be core, whereas every other faction struggles.
We. Were. Joking.

Eonfuzz, I specificly noted that marine core units would be most infantry bikes and dreads. why? because Marines ahve dealt with "core restructions" before. codex 8.0 restricted our chapter tactics to infantry, bikes and dreads. it was a safe bet thats what GW sees as the "marine core"

Tell me I'm crazy but 5 Praetorians surrounded by a full unit of Scarabs with rad-wreathed would be a cheeky little melee deathstar

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.

dude, people where, ACCURATELY, guessing what would be core and what wouldn't over a month ago.

I mean, all of us were *joking* when we were saying everything muhreen would be core, whereas every other faction struggles.
We. Were. Joking.

Eonfuzz, I specificly noted that marine core units would be most infantry bikes and dreads. why? because Marines ahve dealt with "core restructions" before. codex 8.0 restricted our chapter tactics to infantry, bikes and dreads. it was a safe bet thats what GW sees as the "marine core"

Which doesn't feel great when Terminators and Bikes are Core when Destroyers and Praetorians are not.

Well, except that they can just shoot the praetorians dead quite easily. They're a fantastically deadly unit, but a real glass cannon too. The sort of unit that needs a careful plan to get the best out of them, so they don't end up just being killed before they can do anything.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.

The only inconsistency concerning CORE for Marines and CORE for Necrons is that the Centurion by the standards they're obviously operating with should have it.

All the Marines that are CORE are so because they are all some variation of dudes in the open field. Infantry, bikers, and dreadnoughts whose metal frame essentially is their body. They are core because all can be directly coordinated by a Spess Mehreen commander.

The Necron units that are CORE are all of the units the Necron nobility can directly coordinate. So just warriors, immortal, deathmark, tomb blades, and lych guard. Destroyers and Flayed Ones are insane, and Canoptek are mindless and working within the pre-set parameters of their design.

It makes perfect sense that Eradicators are CORE, even if it's bad for game balance, just like it makes perfect sense that flayed ones aren't core, even if it would be fine for balance.

The mistake is in assuming that GW designated units as core according to game balance; with the exception of Centurions they didn't, it was a narrative decision. What "feels" right. Because 40k is a narrative game.

I don't like it very much myself, but there isn't any double standard that benefits Marines. The one time they went against that obvious design philosophy was in a hamfisted attempt to gut the Centurion.

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.

dude, people where, ACCURATELY, guessing what would be core and what wouldn't over a month ago.

I mean, all of us were *joking* when we were saying everything muhreen would be core, whereas every other faction struggles.
We. Were. Joking.

Eonfuzz, I specificly noted that marine core units would be most infantry bikes and dreads. why? because Marines ahve dealt with "core restructions" before. codex 8.0 restricted our chapter tactics to infantry, bikes and dreads. it was a safe bet thats what GW sees as the "marine core"

Which doesn't feel great when Terminators and Bikes are Core when Destroyers and Praetorians are not.

Hush now.. wait and see.. nothing wrong.. its a all totaly balnced. We dont know enough.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.

The only inconsistency concerning CORE for Marines and CORE for Necrons is that the Centurion by the standards they're obviously operating with should have it.

All the Marines that are CORE are so because they are all some variation of dudes in the open field. Infantry, bikers, and dreadnoughts whose metal frame essentially is their body. They are core because all can be directly coordinated by a Spess Mehreen commander.

The Necron units that are CORE are all of the units the Necron nobility can directly coordinate. So just warriors, immortal, deathmark, tomb blades, and lych guard. Destroyers and Flayed Ones are insane, and Canoptek are mindless and working within the pre-set parameters of their design.

It makes perfect sense that Eradicators are CORE, even if it's bad for game balance, just like it makes perfect sense that flayed ones aren't core, even if it would be fine for balance.

The mistake is in assuming that GW designated units as core according to game balance; with the exception of Centurions they didn't, it was a narrative decision. What "feels" right. Because 40k is a narrative game.

I don't like it very much myself, but there isn't any double standard that benefits Marines. The one time they went against that obvious design philosophy was in a hamfisted attempt to gut the Centurion.

couldn't have said it better myself.

 Void__Dragon wrote:


The mistake is in assuming that GW designated units as core according to game balance; with the exception of Centurions they didn't, it was a narrative decision. What "feels" right. Because 40k is a narrative game.

But that's just silly, like saying "it's not inconsistent that Space Marines stomp everybody else competitively because that fits the narrative and 40k is a narrative game! Space Marines are supposed to win most of the time! It's not a problem if they're overpowered relative to everyone else!"

<CORE> is a gameplay restriction. It needs to be pointed for, just like anything else is. If GW wants to put <CORE> on some whole armies and then use it super restrictively on others that's fine in principle, but it needs to be accounted for in the game balance, and it's a problem that it isn't. If GW really has slapped <CORE> onto things without regard to game balance just because it's fluffy, that's a huge indictment of their design philosophy, not an explanation for it.

yukishiro1 wrote:


But that's just silly, like saying "it's not inconsistent that Space Marines stomp everybody else competitively because that fits the narrative and 40k is a narrative game! Space Marines are supposed to win most of the time! It's not a problem if they're overpowered relative to everyone else!"

So what? You argued they were ignoring the "rules" for CORE when they applied it to Space Marines but that isn't the case. Whether or not how they applied CORE to both armies is good for the game (it isn't) is irrelevant to that point. I've just seen this misconception that there were two different design philosophies at work in each codex and that simply is not the case.

<CORE> is a gameplay restriction. It needs to be pointed for, just like anything else is. If GW wants to put <CORE> on some whole armies and then use it super restrictively on others that's fine in principle, but it needs to be accounted for in the game balance, and it's a problem that it isn't. If GW really has slapped <CORE> onto things without regard to game balance just because it's fluffy, that's a huge indictment of their design philosophy, not an explanation for it.

Go on.

There *are* two different design philosophies at work in the two codexes. You can try to explain that by saying it's fluffy for them to be designed totally differently, but that doesn't mean they aren't designed in two different ways from a gameplay point of view.

In fact saying "they're designed differently from a gameplay point of view because that fits the fluff" only reinforces that point. Just like the fact that it's "fluffy" for space marines to ignore the restrictions that other factions face again only reinforces the point that they are singing to a different hymn sheet as the protagonist faction.

I don't think we actually really disagree here, it's more a case of how high-up you're looking at things from. It's not a coincidence that the fluffy new mechanic they've decided to put into the game balance just happens to impact Marines less than other factions, because that's what happens when you have a protagonist faction. It may not even be a conscious thing. It kinda just happens when one faction has such an outsized game presence - everything tends to kind-of work out in its favor unless you go out of your way for it not to, because the fundamental contours of the game are shaped by that prominence.

yukishiro1 wrote:
There *are* two different design philosophies at work in the two codexes.

There aren't, no matter how much you wish that were so my man.

yukishiro1 wrote:
There *are* two different design philosophies at work in the two codexes. You can try to explain that by saying it's fluffy for them to be designed totally differently, but that doesn't mean they aren't designed in two different ways from a gameplay point of view.

dude the only two differant design philosophies at work here is what Core actually is, and what you WISH it was.

Core is intended as a nerf to unfluffy lists,not to, whatever faction is over or under performing

 Argive wrote:
Hush now.. wait and see.. nothing wrong.. its a all totaly balnced. We dont know enough.

Since you are still misrepresenting this, let me break it down for you one more time:

- "Wait and see" means you should stop getting your knickers twisted and panic post on Dakka about X being broken beyond comparison or DOA as it can be, based on rumours and previews. There is simply no reason for it.
- Now that both codizes are fully revealed, you are welcome to come to an informed conclusion and share your opinion on the balance of everything in those books and how it compares to the rest of the game.

I haven't seen any post refuting balance concerns with a "wait and see for [the next release]" afterwards anymore. If so, then that person refuting the points does not get "wait and see", either. In my opinion, anyway.

There are absolutely two different design philosophies at work in the Codexes. The Marine one and it's supplements are still all about easy power and lack of tough decisions in list-building. This shines through in the prevalence of the Core keyword, effects that interact with it and easy ways to run the buffs and auras that you need without really having to make sacrifices and compromises. To really buff up and make a Canoptek heavy force viable, you need to jump through a lot of hoops and run 2 different versions of the same datasheet in order to get the appropriate buffs off. With Blood Angels you just slap a jump pack on your priest, pay 20 pts for the rez upgrade and just blend the opposing army up in CC because that one character now gives a unit its super doctrine whenever they need it, which is on top of the obscene Angels of Death buffs they get anyway without having to do anything. And AoD and Savage Echoes whenever you want is ALSO far stronger than any Canoptek buffs you can pump out.

And to make myself clear, I prefer the Necron approach. It's far more interesting and healthy for the game as a whole. Decision making is crucial to how enjoyable and good 40k is as a game system. But with the way Core specifically in the Marine Codex has been implemented, a little like the over the top Centurion nerfs, it feels more like a balancing attempt that is a year out of date.

On the flipside, lack of Core in the Necron book actually makes perfect narrative sense, but what makes less and less sense is some of the abilities and strats which require it. And while a lot of these are balance related, when you see the kind of gak Marines are still capable of pulling it feels a little distasteful. I might be able to stomach Destroyers being incapable of using Night Scythes if Marines didn't have even stronger melee units that have delivery systems built in, with much more accessible power buffs that ALSO have the Core keyword and are ALSO cheaper. And this isn't a Necron problem (I think the new book is great); this is a Marine problem.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Hush now.. wait and see.. nothing wrong.. its a all totaly balnced. We dont know enough.

Since you are still misrepresenting this, let me break it down for you one more time:

- "Wait and see" means you should stop getting your knickers twisted and panic post on Dakka about X being broken beyond comparison or DOA as it can be, based on rumours and previews. There is simply no reason for it.
- Now that both codizes are fully revealed, you are welcome to come to an informed conclusion and share your opinion on the balance of everything in those books and how it compares to the rest of the game.

I haven't seen any post refuting balance concerns with a "wait and see for [the next release]" afterwards anymore. If so, then that person refuting the points does not get "wait and see", either. In my opinion, anyway.

Indeed. when people say "wait and see" what they where saying is "wait until the codex is in your hands so that you're not just talking out of your ass"
judging a 40k codex based on the WHC previews is like proclaiming you 100% know the plot of a movie based on it's trailer

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Has anyone figured out how the new Resurrection Protocols is supposed to work?

Yes, its actually explained quite clearly in the book.
A unit gets shot at. You roll for RP afterwards. For each lost wound you roll a die. On a 5+ you get a wound back, and apply it to models. If you get enough successes to restore a model to full health it avoids death. If you don't have enough successes it stays dead. Unlike in 8th ed, dead models do not have a chance to come back later. That I admit they could have been clearer on, but if you look at the other abilities that buff / supplement RP it becomes clearer.

So it's basically FNP, but doesn't work if the number of unsaved wounds is equal or greater than the number of wounds left on the unit?