Ice_can wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."

Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"

Now:
Why is GW buffing the stats on Marines who are already very dominant.

The issue isn't changes, its buffs to marines who have been S tier for the past year.

Because as usual people are short-sightedly applying the new stuff from rumours/leaks to the 8th ed codex. If marines lost bolter discipline, shock assault and doctrines stopped adding free ap, suddenly are these changes adding to an op book?

Ofc I doubt they stripped all those off but the point that we don't know they haven't, shows people are jumping the gun using predetermined opinions based in what they know currently, rather than trying to draw a picture of what could be.

Well so far when the shoe fits which when it comes to GW and Marines is very much over buff and then spend the next year gently tickling aroudn the edges to slowely reduce them from WTAF tier to OP tier to just S tier. It's called reasonable assumptions based upon precedence.

Not to mention all of this being released after many of the previously A tier armies having just been demoted because of the shoddy work in CA2020 isnt helping consumer confidence in the design team.

Then follwing up with a press release of "oh you've seen these new stat sheets, oh yeah Marines are being buffed but not to worry they are taking minimal points increases to balance their increasing durability aswell as being the first to get all new extra damage weapons.

Oh yeah you'll be rebalanced when we get arround to your codex at a TBD time in the future."

That's like a master class on how to destroy your customer relations in the name of outrage marketing.

 MinscS2 wrote:
Incursor datasheet, courtesy of Joe at B&C:

Spoiler:

They gain -1 AP on their Paired Combat Knifes, but otherwise no visible changes on the sheet itself. This bodes kinda well for Reivers to get -1 AP as well, because it'll just be weird if Incursors get -1 AP but Reivers don't.

Also, the Incursors Carbines reimain 24" range, so hopefully this puts a lid on the "regular bolters will become 30"!!!"-hyperbole.

Dudeface wrote:


As you point out, they don't have bolters, so doesn't stop anything being assumed about the standard boltgun.

Dudeface wrote:

Yes, because the 1st book in 8th was a complete wet fart overall, they did OK with a couple of niche builds at tourneys but were considered overall below average for the best part of 2 years. If anything the precedent is "release early edition where they set a baseline, become obsolete in 3 months, provide them with stupid buffs 2 years later to try and get them back up".

BrianDavion wrote:


Scouts confirmed to be remaining at 1 wound

ERJAK wrote:
So my two cents with these changes is that we're going to see a pretty significant reduction in the number of rerolls available to all armies.

The thing is there are 2 main problems they COULD be solving here by improving weapon profiles, if they do it correctly. One is the reroll issue, the other is what I call 'the multimelta problem'.

The reroll issue has been discussed ad nauseum but basically the consensus is that there are too many ways to mitigate bad rolling in the game. If they increase weapon stats while also removing a fair whack of the methods players use to insulate themselves from probability, they can keep the game at roughly the same overall level of lethality (which they seem more or less comfortable with) while also increasing the swingy-ness. That seems to go with GW's general design paradigm of "drama is good", though whether you agree with that philosophy or not is obviously debateable.

The 'Multimelta Problem' is the idea that some weapon profiles/units are so inherently flawed that in their current state they can't be fixed by points changes. This is most commonly seen in terrible weapons like the multimelta. Multimeltas, as they existed before the change, were unusable garbage at 20/25. They were actively detrimental to any model that HAD to bring them over something more reasonable than a lascannon. At 15/20 they would still never see play over a lascannon and wouldn't offer a significant enough benefit to be taken over a standard meltagun for armies like SoB that don't really have the option of running better weapons like plasma. At 10/15 they're now way better than standard meltaguns, but end up in this weird place where they're simultaneously being crammed onto everything in armies that use melta and still not being taken on armies that have better bespoke weaponry (ala eradicators). Basically no matter what points cost they end up at, it never makes sense for the weapon.

At 2 shots, especially with the new melta rule, they can actually balance it by increasing the points to the point where the output makes sense for the cost. My guess would be that it ends up at 25/30 or 30/35.

Now, unfortunately Multimeltas are presumably coming in pretty hot out of the gate at a very generous 20/25, but that's ultimately only going to effect a small number of armies and isn't going to be that big of a deal for anything but Sisters and Guard.

All of this relies on GW actually reducing the number of reroll mechanics and being willing to increase the point costs of the newly buffed weapons until their cost makes sense to their new profiles. So...we'll see how it goes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."

Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"

That's not the complaint and you know that. They're complaining about amped up killing potential and the fact GW is keeping us in the dark for everything.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Scouts with 24" range bolters, but Vets with 30" range bolters?
This rollout is so weird. I'm probably going to try and ignore what's going on for a while.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Scouts with 24" range bolters, but Vets with 30" range bolters?
This rollout is so weird. I'm probably going to try and ignore what's going on for a while.

I mean that seems like the most appropriate designations should they turn out to be correct. Vets might tend to have better weapons.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Yet another type of Bolter? Yeah, brilliant, that's just what the Space Marine codex needed.

dr_sarcasm wrote:
It seems as though there's been an Intercessor leak (link was up on Reddit; can't post links yet). I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but boltguns seem to be going to 30" IF this is a valid leak...(please don't shoot the messenger). Tried to post the image, but it was ridiculously huge...

P.S. The stalker is going to 36" range (again, IF this leak was in fact a verified stat line).

 Orodhen wrote:
Intercessors already had 30" bolters though?

dr_sarcasm wrote:
It seems as though there's been an Intercessor leak (link was up on Reddit; can't post links yet). I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but boltguns seem to be going to 30" IF this is a valid leak...(please don't shoot the messenger). Tried to post the image, but it was ridiculously huge...

P.S. The stalker is going to 36" range (again, IF this leak was in fact a verified stat line).

The Newman wrote:
...Intercessors don't have Boltguns. The Bolt Rifle has always been 30" and the Stalker has always been 36".

 Jidmah wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Blightlords are 43 ppm* for W2* T5 2+ 4++ 5+++.

How convenient of you to leave out 4" movement and halved advance rolls.

I can't think of anything in the Marine arsenal that can match that on a per point basis without getting some expensive characters/strats involved,

How about 35 ppm suppressors, 40 ppm inceptors, 45 ppm outrider, 40 ppm eradicators or 35 ppm bladeguard veterans, or pretty much any terminator that can get a stormshield.with your choice of defensive chapter tactics added on top.

and the Blightlords have some solid defensive buffs available too.

No, they don't, and with the sole exception of cloud of flies, vanilla marines have better variants of them available.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Blightlords are 43 ppm* for W2* T5 2+ 4++ 5+++.

How convenient of you to leave out 4" movement and halved advance rolls.

I can't think of anything in the Marine arsenal that can match that on a per point basis without getting some expensive characters/strats involved,

How about 35 ppm suppressors, 40 ppm inceptors, 45 ppm outrider, 40 ppm eradicators or 35 ppm bladeguard veterans, or pretty much any terminator that can get a stormshield.with your choice of defensive chapter tactics added on top.

and the Blightlords have some solid defensive buffs available too.

No, they don't, and with the sole exception of cloud of flies, vanilla marines have better variants of them available.

Don't forget that for 2CP any loyalist unit that isn't a vehicle or servitor can basically have a toughness equal to the strength of whatever weapon is targeting it. Your aggressors getting shot at by a volcano cannon? 2CP: it's wounding on 4s, instant T16.

dr_sarcasm wrote:

The Newman wrote:
...Intercessors don't have Boltguns. The Bolt Rifle has always been 30" and the Stalker has always been 36".

...back in 2004, we called it a boltgun in my neck of the woods (vs. the smaller side arm i.e. bolt pistol). Again, been a while, I'll go back to lurking.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah, someone else has posted it on this page: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/791028.page#10905780 i.e. intercessor data sheet with values for weapons (however those guns are called today...grumbles in old man).

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Scouts with 24" range bolters, but Vets with 30" range bolters?
This rollout is so weird. I'm probably going to try and ignore what's going on for a while.

I mean that seems like the most appropriate designations should they turn out to be correct. Vets might tend to have better weapons.

Yet another type of Bolter? Yeah, brilliant, that's just what the Space Marine codex needed.

 -Ekko- wrote:

So bolters are still 24"
But shotguns 18"? What kind of shotgun is this? My Avengers shuriken catapults with scope on them got the same range lol.

The Sarge should 2 wounds, yes. Of course, the Scouts should be WS 4+ and BS 4+, since they're rookies. Drop 'em down to 12 pts, let 'em ride.

Karol wrote:

Aren't all the new scouts that were made after the return of Gulliman primaris though?

 tauist wrote:
Speaking of the scout leak, this leads me to assume GW's stance on increasing W according to armour instead of Transhuman physiology. This doesn't bode well for the other factions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
So my two cents with these changes is that we're going to see a pretty significant reduction in the number of rerolls available to all armies.

The thing is there are 2 main problems they COULD be solving here by improving weapon profiles, if they do it correctly. One is the reroll issue, the other is what I call 'the multimelta problem'.

The reroll issue has been discussed ad nauseum but basically the consensus is that there are too many ways to mitigate bad rolling in the game. If they increase weapon stats while also removing a fair whack of the methods players use to insulate themselves from probability, they can keep the game at roughly the same overall level of lethality (which they seem more or less comfortable with) while also increasing the swingy-ness. That seems to go with GW's general design paradigm of "drama is good", though whether you agree with that philosophy or not is obviously debateable.

The 'Multimelta Problem' is the idea that some weapon profiles/units are so inherently flawed that in their current state they can't be fixed by points changes. This is most commonly seen in terrible weapons like the multimelta. Multimeltas, as they existed before the change, were unusable garbage at 20/25. They were actively detrimental to any model that HAD to bring them over something more reasonable than a lascannon. At 15/20 they would still never see play over a lascannon and wouldn't offer a significant enough benefit to be taken over a standard meltagun for armies like SoB that don't really have the option of running better weapons like plasma. At 10/15 they're now way better than standard meltaguns, but end up in this weird place where they're simultaneously being crammed onto everything in armies that use melta and still not being taken on armies that have better bespoke weaponry (ala eradicators). Basically no matter what points cost they end up at, it never makes sense for the weapon.

At 2 shots, especially with the new melta rule, they can actually balance it by increasing the points to the point where the output makes sense for the cost. My guess would be that it ends up at 25/30 or 30/35.

Now, unfortunately Multimeltas are presumably coming in pretty hot out of the gate at a very generous 20/25, but that's ultimately only going to effect a small number of armies and isn't going to be that big of a deal for anything but Sisters and Guard.

All of this relies on GW actually reducing the number of reroll mechanics and being willing to increase the point costs of the newly buffed weapons until their cost makes sense to their new profiles. So...we'll see how it goes.

I wouldn't gamble too much on this. 5 points up, maybe? Sisters would get railroaded by having super expensive meltas in terms if survivability.

Rerolls don't seem to be changing, either.

The thing that does change (in my experience) is how hard it is to cover your army with a captain/CM and still play the missions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."

Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"

That's not the complaint and you know that. They're complaining about amped up killing potential and the fact GW is keeping us in the dark for everything.

I mean they didn't really keep us in the dark. They literally told us a loose guideline for the future of the edition of which I'm sure we'll hear more about tomorrow.

People want it now, now, now, but upgrades likely come with points hikes, strat changes, and other restrictions too. Rob Peter. Pay Paul. The nice thing is hitting the parts that need hitting so far.