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.

Regarding the comment of slowness in 8th edition games there is on factor I don't see mentioned often: split-fire.

During early 8th my friend played a lot of AM vs. my Asuryani, and I started to hate those games because shooting for AM took forever. Mostly because when given the option to split fire your opponent now has a gazillion weapons to aim and decide upon. This, in my opinion tends to slow the game a lot. This was of course not a factor in earlier editions as you had to commit your firepower in an either or manner.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Regarding the comment of slowness in 8th edition games there is on factor I don't see mentioned often: split-fire.

During early 8th my friend played a lot of AM vs. my Asuryani, and I started to hate those games because shooting for AM took forever. Mostly because when given the option to split fire your opponent now has a gazillion weapons to aim and decide upon. This, in my opinion tends to slow the game a lot. This was of course not a factor in earlier editions as you had to commit your firepower in an either or manner.

Eh. Honestly, I like split fire being a standard thing. So many units GW designs have varied weaponry and having that rule made certain units with specialized weaponry just the best for many, many editions.

Split-fire is a good thing, it's just mentally exhausting to watch the resolution on large models like Castellan knights or Primaris tanks, where you have to listen to a long shopping list of dumb and forgettable(TM) names, targets assignments, and then go over everything again, this time with actual rolling.

Bonus points for each random shot weapon on the shopping list.

For large point units its perfectly fine to watch them do it IMO b.c its 250-500pts, its the same firing if it was MSU units.

But when you have units like Kabals with 6 units 4 rifles and 1 blaster, its very annoying for both players. B.c the 4-8 poison shots does almost nothing and the blaster has a 50/50 chance of doing nothing too. Its so underwhelming on both sides.

I played a 12 venom list once and it was stupidly long to play and stupidly annoying for both sides.

My favorite thing is the split targets with forgettable names indeed.

"So I'm firing the ironstorm hailstubber at *this* squad, the talonbolt ironhail at this other squad, the lastalon ironbreaker at this tank, and the ironhail stormgun at the last squad."

later:

"Wait, didn't you shoot that at this other squad?"
"No, I fired the hailstorm irontalon at the other squad, while the talonbreaker ironbolter fired at this OTHER squad."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My favorite thing is the split targets with forgettable names indeed.

"So I'm firing the ironstorm hailstubber at *this* squad, the talonbolt ironhail at this other squad, the lastalon ironbreaker at this tank, and the ironhail stormgun at the last squad."

later:

"Wait, didn't you shoot that at this other squad?"
"No, I fired the hailstorm irontalon at the other squad, while the talonbreaker ironbolter fired at this OTHER squad."

It's also kind of impossibly bizarre to me that GW seems to think creating new weapons with unique rules that they then have to keep track of is better than having a consistent wargear list that means units with nearly identical looking weaponry act differently in game.

We actually have a single faction with boltguns, boltguns with a little handle toward the front, slightly longer boltguns, boltguns with a scope, boltguns with THREE scopes, and boltguns with a scope and silencer and those guns do WILDLY different stuff, ranging from hitting you with S4 AP- D1 rapid fire 1 24" range to 36" range S4 AP-2 D3 damage with a mortal wound on a 6.

And they even decide to make them uniquely named and statted weapons even when the difference between them is basically negligible and could be handled with an ability on the datasheet. Do we really need bolt carbines, oculus bolt carbines and marksman bolt carbines to have 3 different stat blocks? Really?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Regarding the comment of slowness in 8th edition games there is on factor I don't see mentioned often: split-fire.

During early 8th my friend played a lot of AM vs. my Asuryani, and I started to hate those games because shooting for AM took forever. Mostly because when given the option to split fire your opponent now has a gazillion weapons to aim and decide upon. This, in my opinion tends to slow the game a lot. This was of course not a factor in earlier editions as you had to commit your firepower in an either or manner.

Eh. Honestly, I like split fire being a standard thing. So many units GW designs have varied weaponry and having that rule made certain units with specialized weaponry just the best for many, many editions.

Don't get me wrong, I love split-fire. It's just a thing I noticed slowed down shooty horde armies a lot.

the_scotsman wrote:
It's also kind of impossibly bizarre to me that GW seems to think creating new weapons with unique rules that they then have to keep track of is better than having a consistent wargear list that means units with nearly identical looking weaponry act differently in game.

We actually have a single faction with boltguns, boltguns with a little handle toward the front, slightly longer boltguns, boltguns with a scope, boltguns with THREE scopes, and boltguns with a scope and silencer and those guns do WILDLY different stuff, ranging from hitting you with S4 AP- D1 rapid fire 1 24" range to 36" range S4 AP-2 D3 damage with a mortal wound on a 6.

And they even decide to make them uniquely named and statted weapons even when the difference between them is basically negligible and could be handled with an ability on the datasheet. Do we really need bolt carbines, oculus bolt carbines and marksman bolt carbines to have 3 different stat blocks? Really?

I can't work out if its just "will towards creep" on the part of the designers (whether its putting together models or rules), or just a severe lack of faith that anyone using old weapons will be cool and therefore sell.

Maybe they think its easier to grasp than everyone just having a boltgun and a bunch of special rules to represent they use it differently, have special ammo or whatever.
Although we saw seemingly endless sadness when they did that with the Kelermorph.
(Tbh Marines are the worst but everyone is going the same way. Doesn't look like the new Necrons are going to use a lot of old weapon profiles barring the old gauss flayer.)

Tyel wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
It's also kind of impossibly bizarre to me that GW seems to think creating new weapons with unique rules that they then have to keep track of is better than having a consistent wargear list that means units with nearly identical looking weaponry act differently in game.

We actually have a single faction with boltguns, boltguns with a little handle toward the front, slightly longer boltguns, boltguns with a scope, boltguns with THREE scopes, and boltguns with a scope and silencer and those guns do WILDLY different stuff, ranging from hitting you with S4 AP- D1 rapid fire 1 24" range to 36" range S4 AP-2 D3 damage with a mortal wound on a 6.

And they even decide to make them uniquely named and statted weapons even when the difference between them is basically negligible and could be handled with an ability on the datasheet. Do we really need bolt carbines, oculus bolt carbines and marksman bolt carbines to have 3 different stat blocks? Really?

I can't work out if its just "will towards creep" on the part of the designers (whether its putting together models or rules), or just a severe lack of faith that anyone using old weapons will be cool and therefore sell.

Maybe they think its easier to grasp than everyone just having a boltgun and a bunch of special rules to represent they use it differently, have special ammo or whatever.
Although we saw seemingly endless sadness when they did that with the Kelermorph.
(Tbh Marines are the worst but everyone is going the same way. Doesn't look like the new Necrons are going to use a lot of old weapon profiles barring the old gauss flayer.)

I mean, all the sisters use standard wargear for their units, even the fancy new gals and the new configuration of the penitent engine. They gave it standard heavy bolters and gave the model itself a rule that allowed it to move and fire heavy - because GW has been playing 5d chess and designing all the recent codexes with 9th in mind don'tchaknow.

But yeah, new admech, mostly new weapons (save for power maul and the blast pistol on the sergeant that basic skitarii can take). New marines, eveyrthing's gotta have a fancy new adjective-noun variant of a basic weapon.

LONG RANGE MELTA RIFLES on the space marine fire dragons.

ASSAULT HEAVY LIGHT PLASMA ERADICINAZORS on the primaris hellbuttdamns (you know they're cool and edgy because their name does a swear)

is that a twin autocannon on the new dreadnought? No, it's a TWIN IRONHAIL autocannon, which means it gets...2 more shots for some reason? So does Ironhail mean more shots? It means more AP when you make a stubber Ironhail....

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not to mention you're neglecting the cost of the units and CP getting them full reroll hits and reroll 1s to wound.

Yeah I actually think we are glossing over this, and how bonkers it is that space marines can get a full reroll to hit and reroll 1s to wound for 118pts+2cp. To my knowledge, nobody else can do that outside of using what are generally 200+ point named characters. And it's certainly relevant given that we are going into an edition where gw has capped -1 to hit at 1 AND tried to solve many problems with lethality by throwing around more -1 to hits. If "Dense Terrain" is -1 to hit, which from their description it really seems to be, that will make your typical space marine go from 88% to hit down alllll the way to 75% to hit, while an ork will have his shooting chance cut from 39% to hit down to 19%.

This is why people are pointing at the new cover systems, the new blast rules, etc, and saying they're looking to make the currently best army in the game even stronger. Marines indirectly or directly benefit from nearly every rule previewed so far, and yet we know from the designers talking about points adjustments that marines are not seeing much of a price hike at all - 1 squad of dudes in a full 2k army.

Are they looking to do that or is that just the popular interpretation on incomplete info? They recently handed marines a bunch of nerfs and dropped the points on every other army (which created a race to the bottom that they're attempting to fix). GW isn't stupid or malicious. It would be unfortunate if a strong personality drove some of the changes even if they're unintentionally marine focused, but I'm betting there is more to the picture here. I mean when in the history of ever would you have expected GW to raise points across the board?

Lots of people keep saying it's a drive to sell elite models, but what exactly has been dominating the game? Not hordes, certainly. Previously you could stick Cents in a building and not be able to see them as they charged through the walls (ITC). That isn't a thing any longer. What about marines? In cover they're certainly strong, but this is the same cover they got before. Nothing changed. What did change is detachments - marines often took a lot of characters of late - all these chapter masters, lts, chaplains, character dreads...those spots are some level of a premium now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not to mention you're neglecting the cost of the units and CP getting them full reroll hits and reroll 1s to wound.

Yeah I actually think we are glossing over this, and how bonkers it is that space marines can get a full reroll to hit and reroll 1s to wound for 118pts+2cp. To my knowledge, nobody else can do that outside of using what are generally 200+ point named characters. And it's certainly relevant given that we are going into an edition where gw has capped -1 to hit at 1 AND tried to solve many problems with lethality by throwing around more -1 to hits. If "Dense Terrain" is -1 to hit, which from their description it really seems to be, that will make your typical space marine go from 88% to hit down alllll the way to 75% to hit, while an ork will have his shooting chance cut from 39% to hit down to 19%.

This is why people are pointing at the new cover systems, the new blast rules, etc, and saying they're looking to make the currently best army in the game even stronger. Marines indirectly or directly benefit from nearly every rule previewed so far, and yet we know from the designers talking about points adjustments that marines are not seeing much of a price hike at all - 1 squad of dudes in a full 2k army.

Are they looking to do that or is that just the popular interpretation on incomplete info? They recently handed marines a bunch of nerfs and dropped the points on every other army (which created a race to the bottom that they're attempting to fix). GW isn't stupid or malicious. It would be unfortunate if a strong personality drove some of the changes even if they're unintentionally marine focused, but I'm betting there is more to the picture here. I mean when in the history of ever would you have expected GW to raise points across the board?

Lots of people keep saying it's a drive to sell elite models, but what exactly has been dominating the game? Not hordes, certainly. Previously you could stick Cents in a building and not be able to see them as they charged through the walls (ITC). That isn't a thing any longer. What about marines? In cover they're certainly strong, but this is the same cover they got before. Nothing changed. What did change is detachments - marines often took a lot of characters of late - all these chapter masters, lts, chaplains, character dreads...those spots are some level of a premium now.

What's stopping you from taking 2 detachments?

You take the standard 2 batallions, or say... if Supreme detachment is cheaper, 1 bat, 1 sup, if you really just need HQs.

You're now at 15 or 16 CP overall in the game, as opposed to 13 form double bat.

New detachment rules are a BUFF to space marine armies, even if they have to take a second detachment.

tulun wrote:


What's stopping you from taking 2 detachments?

You take the standard 2 batallions, or say... if Supreme detachment is cheaper, 1 bat, 1 sup, if you really just need HQs.

You're now at 15 or 16 CP overall in the game, as opposed to 13 form double bat.

New detachment rules are a BUFF to space marine armies, even if they have to take a second detachment.

You start at 12. SupCom will not likely be cheaper than Bat. A double bat will start you at 9 CP. Chapter Master puts you at 7. Then 8 for your first turn. Now I imagine you'll want to get your stuff closer - deepstrike, relics, extra traits, and other shenanigans. Where does that land you? 5 or 6 CP or even less? It isn't so simple.

Overall more yes, but you start with a lot less.

If as we expect those detachments come at a 2CP cost, you start with 10. Half of those get burned in pre-match stratagems.

This means that in the first two turns you can use around 3 stratagems in total.

13 versus 9/10/11/12/13.

Your alpha strike is going to be down 3 CP, but I'm not sure that's the end of the world.

Tyel wrote:
13 versus 9/10/11/12/13.

Your alpha strike is going to be down 3 CP, but I'm not sure that's the end of the world.

Depends on unit costs and if you need strats to get the same performance. Aggressors will likely go up just like Intercessors. Will characters go up, too? What is the new cost of the Agressor/Cpt/Lt combo? And how do all other units relate to that in cost?

A lot of marine lists also relied on 3 detachments to fit Eliminators or some other specialized spam and many of them employed that through allies, which presumably costs even more CP. It even sounds like successors and mainline chapters will count as allies.

Marine lists will change - a lot.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not to mention you're neglecting the cost of the units and CP getting them full reroll hits and reroll 1s to wound.

Yeah I actually think we are glossing over this, and how bonkers it is that space marines can get a full reroll to hit and reroll 1s to wound for 118pts+2cp. To my knowledge, nobody else can do that outside of using what are generally 200+ point named characters. And it's certainly relevant given that we are going into an edition where gw has capped -1 to hit at 1 AND tried to solve many problems with lethality by throwing around more -1 to hits. If "Dense Terrain" is -1 to hit, which from their description it really seems to be, that will make your typical space marine go from 88% to hit down alllll the way to 75% to hit, while an ork will have his shooting chance cut from 39% to hit down to 19%.

This is why people are pointing at the new cover systems, the new blast rules, etc, and saying they're looking to make the currently best army in the game even stronger. Marines indirectly or directly benefit from nearly every rule previewed so far, and yet we know from the designers talking about points adjustments that marines are not seeing much of a price hike at all - 1 squad of dudes in a full 2k army.

Are they looking to do that or is that just the popular interpretation on incomplete info? They recently handed marines a bunch of nerfs and dropped the points on every other army (which created a race to the bottom that they're attempting to fix). GW isn't stupid or malicious. It would be unfortunate if a strong personality drove some of the changes even if they're unintentionally marine focused, but I'm betting there is more to the picture here. I mean when in the history of ever would you have expected GW to raise points across the board?

Lots of people keep saying it's a drive to sell elite models, but what exactly has been dominating the game? Not hordes, certainly. Previously you could stick Cents in a building and not be able to see them as they charged through the walls (ITC). That isn't a thing any longer. What about marines? In cover they're certainly strong, but this is the same cover they got before. Nothing changed. What did change is detachments - marines often took a lot of characters of late - all these chapter masters, lts, chaplains, character dreads...those spots are some level of a premium now.

mhmm, mhmm, counterpoint, 15 minutes ago they were just laughing about how a min squad of the new primaris bikers are throwing 19 S4 AP-1 attacks on the charge and have 4W.

Say how do we sell these new bikes that look almost exactly the same as the old bikes with a microscopic scale increase?

Hmm I know what if we just took what they do and kind of double all the numbers? How many attacks does an intercessor on a bike make, 2 more than a custode bike right? Probably sounds about right?

 Blackie wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:


No, horde armies aren't bad. What is bad in a game where you have armies with model counts of 200+ fighting armies with model counts of 30 or 40. At least when that system uses GW's basic rules interface. The rules just can't cope with skew that extreme.

There's nothing bad in playing with armies with different model counts, what's really bad is the power creep that one faction can have, horde or elite it doesn't matter.

Fighting hordes is actually a lot of fun, everyone loves killing enemy models and removing 50 dudes is more satisfying that removing 5 or 10; what it isn't fun at all are those unkillable models like knights that soak an entire 1 or even 2 turns of firepower from the full list. Even at a lower scale, those models that have too many layers of saves for their points cost and simply refuse to die are also very annoying.

too many layers of saves is no fun AND it really slows the game down to no end. I remeber 7th ed smash captain iron hands, it took for ever (and in the end he lost like 2-3 wounds if you were lucky)

Yeah, everyone hates playing against factions where they're able to kill stuff, it's why nobody ever asks why more people aren't playing non-marine factions and knights are the most popular army for people to go up against.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
The problem with hordes is, imo, largely a result of scale and abstraction. Even with hordey armies: orks/nids etc... there aren't enough models they can bring to really function as a "horde" relative to the amount of shots/firepower Space Marines can bring.

As usual with GW, the problem lies in having every xeno faction being largely a foil for Space Marines to annihilate in epic lore stories.

With the points increase in 9th, I think this will only get worse. What will happen with less models over all is that hordes would feel even less of a horde, largely because of the very relevant housekeeping issues (takes a lot of time to move and arrange hundreds of models on a board).

So it seems that unless the horde keyword confers some very gamey effects, 40k is spinning its wheels in exactly the same place it has always been: way too many space marines making for boring and tactically uninspired play styles.

Ultimately, because GW is a business, I don't fault them. They supply people's demand for fantasy juice. At some point the cycle has to be broken.

As in:

For the love of the Warp:

Stop
Buying
Space
Marines

I have a small Dark Angels faction, which I never, ever use, largely because...It is just enough with the space marines.

Cheers!

Its a funny thing cause almost everyone who starts the hobby starts with space marines and as they get more involved in the lore move onto other armies that appeal to them more. Happens many times. Many such cases. Good!

the_scotsman wrote:

mhmm, mhmm, counterpoint, 15 minutes ago they were just laughing about how a min squad of the new primaris bikers are throwing 19 S4 AP-1 attacks on the charge and have 4W.

Say how do we sell these new bikes that look almost exactly the same as the old bikes with a microscopic scale increase?

Hmm I know what if we just took what they do and kind of double all the numbers? How many attacks does an intercessor on a bike make, 2 more than a custode bike right? Probably sounds about right?

Was that on the hobby stream? Primaris are also 'slightly larger' so I fail to see the issue there.

And in what way does any of this matter? Do we know their point cost is? What is the max unit size? (Dollars to donuts they'll max at 6 models) What are the wargear options?

2A, +1A for charging (also on mini-marines), +1A for CS (also on mini-marines), AP1 from the new CS (seems like this would also be on mini-marines based on how they've talked about CS). So unless the bikes are granting some extra attacks ("improved suspension") on the charge they're at 4A a piece plus a sarge bonus.

A bike was previously 21 points. This thing will easily be 40 before considering point increases. 250 to 350 points for firepower nowhere near the level of Aggressors and then a moderate pile of S4 melee.

The only horde army worth playing is going to be IG because GW is going to maintain their stance on 4 ppm guardsmen.

 skchsan wrote:
The only horde army worth playing is going to be IG because GW is going to maintain their stance on 4 ppm guardsmen.

Keep dreaming. Guardsmen will be 6ppm, just like cultists. Wait and see.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The only horde army worth playing is going to be IG because GW is going to maintain their stance on 4 ppm guardsmen.

Keep dreaming. Guardsmen will be 6ppm, just like cultists. Wait and see.

I could envision 4/5ppm IS *IF* there is some horde rule that cultists benefit from that IS cannot achieve. IS, after all, require a CC to get full potential.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

mhmm, mhmm, counterpoint, 15 minutes ago they were just laughing about how a min squad of the new primaris bikers are throwing 19 S4 AP-1 attacks on the charge and have 4W.

Say how do we sell these new bikes that look almost exactly the same as the old bikes with a microscopic scale increase?

Hmm I know what if we just took what they do and kind of double all the numbers? How many attacks does an intercessor on a bike make, 2 more than a custode bike right? Probably sounds about right?

Was that on the hobby stream? Primaris are also 'slightly larger' so I fail to see the issue there.

And in what way does any of this matter? Do we know their point cost is? What is the max unit size? (Dollars to donuts they'll max at 6 models) What are the wargear options?

2A, +1A for charging (also on mini-marines), +1A for CS (also on mini-marines), AP1 from the new CS (seems like this would also be on mini-marines based on how they've talked about CS). So unless the bikes are granting some extra attacks ("improved suspension") on the charge they're at 4A a piece plus a sarge bonus.

A bike was previously 21 points. This thing will easily be 40 before considering point increases. 250 to 350 points for firepower nowhere near the level of Aggressors and then a moderate pile of S4 melee.

Their bikes grant them an additional +2A on the charge for reasons.

it matters because it is hilariously, patently obvious that GW is simply pushing every single new thing as "the biggest and the best" and then the new thing after that as "The bigestest and the besterest" and it immediately leads to extremely comical results.

marine bike 1A
OK that means the fancy-pantsy ravenwing bike needs 2A
Hmm not enough attack better give them all a bonus so 3A
Custode bikes come out gotta make sure those are 4A
New primaris special snowflake outriders gotta bump that bad boy up to 6A!

Say, how are we comparing to other factions now? How about I don't know Harlequins? oh, two of them on a bike throw 1/2 the attacks of the new primaris extra special big boy bikers?

This is the unrelenting escalating stupidity of primaris marines. GW spent 4 editions making marines, then special marines (BA And SW), then specialer marines (GK), then secret super all-veteran batman marines (DW), then marines so mariney they've got shiny golden codpieces and shoulderpads on their shoulderpads (Custodes) and now we have to one up THOSE fething guys with the new-new-new-new-NEW marines, or else nobody would think they're the biggest or the best anymore! It's gotten to the point where the comparison of the stats of the models in the very same box is just absolutely comical - they previewed the new necron warrior gun option and the shiny new PISTOL that the primaris lieutenant had was a stronger statline. Because of course he can't have a regular plasma pistol, we've made 18 primaris lieutenant models with plasma pistols so he's got to have a neo-volkite schmatulator.

Generally speaking, even with cheap guardsmen, people aren't bringing gargantuan numbers of them, it's a rare guard army that sports triple digits worth of guardsmen. Typically, once there's enough to cover detachment requirements and screening needs, everything else is spent on tanks.

I suspect if they have any saving grace going forward as a "horde" unit, it'll be because they naturally operate as large numbers of medium and small units, 5-10 strong, not in unit sizes large enough for new blast weapons and the like to really dish out the hurt or because they'll be inordinately cheap.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The only horde army worth playing is going to be IG because GW is going to maintain their stance on 4 ppm guardsmen.

Keep dreaming. Guardsmen will be 6ppm, just like cultists. Wait and see.

We'll see. I would not be surprised if guardsmen survive the culling like last time GW tried to even out the horde issue.

Also, we are talking about a model throwing down 10 BS3+ S4 AP-1 attacks between its 30" range dakka and its melee attacks, and that's just A-OK on what is being speculated as a 40pt model.

I remember when land speeders had a heavy bolter on them and that was a fast antiinfantry scout vehicle. 3 shots.

the_scotsman wrote:
Also, we are talking about a model throwing down 10 BS3+ S4 AP-1 attacks between its 30" range dakka and its melee attacks, and that's just A-OK on what is being speculated as a 40pt model.

This would be OK if every unit with comparable statline & abilities across the game were costed the same, but we've seen in the past IG is somehow immune to pt increases (apart from the BS3+ plasmagun nerf).

the_scotsman wrote:


Their bikes grant them an additional +2A on the charge for reasons.

it matters because it is hilariously, patently obvious that GW is simply pushing every single new thing as "the biggest and the best" and then the new thing after that as "The bigestest and the besterest" and it immediately leads to extremely comical results.

marine bike 1A
OK that means the fancy-pantsy ravenwing bike needs 2A
Hmm not enough attack better give them all a bonus so 3A
Custode bikes come out gotta make sure those are 4A
New primaris special snowflake outriders gotta bump that bad boy up to 6A!

Say, how are we comparing to other factions now? How about I don't know Harlequins? oh, two of them on a bike throw 1/2 the attacks of the new primaris extra special big boy bikers?

This is the unrelenting escalating stupidity of primaris marines. GW spent 4 editions making marines, then special marines (BA And SW), then specialer marines (GK), then secret super all-veteran batman marines (DW), then marines so mariney they've got shiny golden codpieces and shoulderpads on their shoulderpads (Custodes) and now we have to one up THOSE fething guys with the new-new-new-new-NEW marines, or else nobody would think they're the biggest or the best anymore! It's gotten to the point where the comparison of the stats of the models in the very same box is just absolutely comical - they previewed the new necron warrior gun option and the shiny new PISTOL that the primaris lieutenant had was a stronger statline. Because of course he can't have a regular plasma pistol, we've made 18 primaris lieutenant models with plasma pistols so he's got to have a neo-volkite schmatulator.

Your whole concept falls flat on its face, because the new marine bikes do not meet the level of Custodes.

Bananas are 2+/4++ T6 with 4 attacks that are S6 AP3 D3 reroll wounds on the charge with WS2. Not to mention three times the shots with BS2. If your bar for better is a couple of S4 attacks then I dunno what to say.

What we got was a doubled up bike. Twice the wounds, twice the attacks (except in shooting), and likely twice the points. It just looks better.

the_scotsman wrote:
Also, we are talking about a model throwing down 10 BS3+ S4 AP-1 attacks between its 30" range dakka and its melee attacks, and that's just A-OK on what is being speculated as a 40pt model.

I remember when land speeders had a heavy bolter on them and that was a fast antiinfantry scout vehicle. 3 shots.

But that's a loyalist marines primaris model. They need to be powerful and costed cheaply compared to all of us mooks. The "good guys" need to look awesome next to the other factions. How else do you expect all these new models to sell? They need to mow down all those evil hordes that totally dominated 8th at their expense.

Honestly, they may be 60ppm, but I doubt it. Loyalist marines will continue to dominate until other factions get their 9th edition codexes.