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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
At least the Reaper Launcher does 2W.

I'm going to await judgement of anything until the whole picture is clearer.

2W Sternguard are gonna compete against Tacticals and Intercessors really hard though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, marines being 3x as good as a normal human wasn't nearly enough. In 2020 we're used to super hero movies where one super hero is worth 10,000 normal dudes. Space marines should have Imperial Knight level statlines, otherwise you don't feel like you're playing the hero faction.

Utter garbage. F comic book movies.

Aren't Reaper Launchers D3? I thought I remembered they were able to kill Custardes in one hit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Aren't Reaper Launchers D3? I thought I remembered they were able to kill Custardes in one hit.

They have multiple profiles.

Wolf Lord/Guard on TWC, TWC and Wulfen will a extra wound right?

 buddha wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 buddha wrote:

Niiru wrote:
All xenos armies are now completely irrelevant, until they get a codex release.

Overstating it?

I pay 15-20 points for a T3 5+ guy, that is completely destroyed in every stat compared to a 24pt veteran. That is now 100% harder to kill than it used to be.

Far as I can see, even the new necron buffs are nowhere near this good

It depends if points remain the same or near same. If we are now dealing with 2W marines at 15pts, then Xenos have nothing that can compete at that price range. If they go up proportionally, along with primaries, then large cheap Xenos units could still be viable.

Yeah, and everyone can have all the fun of their 400 year old eldar aspect warriors, the last 0.1% of a near-extinct race obsessed with survival being suicidal chaff getting mowed down in droves by space marines.

Umm ya isn't that the proverbial joke about storm guardians?

Eldar need a rework as well for this new edition so we'll see what direction GW takes with them.

Quite frankly Storm Guardians shouldn't exist to begin with. They don't fulfill any role correctly, are garbage in terms of crunch, and they're REALLY bad in terms of fluff. That's a triple whammy.

I wouldn't hold your breath on Marine points going up. It's fairly obvious that points, stat changes, etc were set for the new codex at the same time as developing 9th including all the new units.
I would be surprised if the codex includes different points costs to the Munitorum Field Manual.

A prime example is the Multimelta vs Lascannon. The MFM has the MM 5ppm more than the LC. That makes no sense...unless it's accounting for the new 2shot profile.
It's very possible that Flamers become 12" which would explain being the same cost as Plasma or Melta.
Ditto for Heavy Bolters if they become Damage 2. 15ppm from non-Infantry is lame if it stays at Damage 1. But D:2 makes more sense

If Tactical Marines go to 2Ws, Intercessors will still have better bolters and more Atx. I'm not sure that's worth 5ppm more, but if Tacs stay at 1W, than 5ppm more is a bargain by comparison. So who knows.

Point being, there is far more reason to believe that all these changes have ALREADY been accounted for with the current 9th ed points

Sterling191 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Aren't Reaper Launchers D3? I thought I remembered they were able to kill Custardes in one hit.

They have multiple profiles.

I'm not worried about Eldar coming up with decent counters to Multiwound Marines. Dark Reapers, Shining spears, Star cannons and loads of other multi damage weapons are plentiful. It just means taking specific units more often

-

Sterling191 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

A S5 powersword VV with 2 attacks doesn't kill any more Eldar than the one that was only S4 with 2A.

Only if you're up against a foot elf. This significantly increases lethality against T4 targets for power swords and T5 and T3 targets for axes, which is a *significant* portion of the playspace.

Sure, but then you're also going up in points. And then I presume people would prefer jump packs, so, even fewer models still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

A unit of S8 VV with 4 damage thunderhammers sure as hell kills more Eldar vehicles in 11 attacks than a S8 VV with 3 damage thunderhammers does in 11 attacks.

What you're getting is additional overkill and not likely additional vehicles dead unless you park them really close together. The end result is melee is more decisive and people don't have to take all thunderhammers.

I would also assume TH cost going up.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Quite frankly Storm Guardians shouldn't exist to begin with. They don't fulfill any role correctly, are garbage in terms of crunch, and they're REALLY bad in terms of fluff. That's a triple whammy.

I'm glad you're not designing the game.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Quite frankly Storm Guardians shouldn't exist to begin with. They don't fulfill any role correctly, are garbage in terms of crunch, and they're REALLY bad in terms of fluff. That's a triple whammy.

I'm glad you're not designing the game.

And I'm glad you can be contrarian for the sake of it and somehow defend a unit that's always been bad for role fulfilling, crunch, and fluff.

ERJAK wrote:
How does that work for an 11 point battle sister? You'd have double the wounds, double the attacks on the charge, +1S, +1 Toughness, +1WS, bolter drill, and much better special weapon options. Even with the 6+ invul, extra special weapon in a min squad, and 1d6 deny the witch on the other side, there's no possible way you could justify a 2W tac at 15 if a battle sister stays at 11. They very nearly ARE twice as good now.

Battle Sisters are, IMO, overpriced as it stands. Most basic infantry is overpriced for its capabilities, for that matter- CSMs, Guardians, Kabalites, Fire Warriors are all expensive enough to only be taken as taxes. If we set Guardsmen as the exemplars for light infantry and Intercessors as the exemplars for heavy infantry, there's a lot of rebalancing to be done.

Is a Battle Sister worth over twice as much as a Guardsman? I don't think so- they're twice as hard to kill with AP0 weapons, but much more vulnerable to higher-AP weapons, and have identical output in melee. Let's say a Sister is worth 9pts.

So putting 9pt Sisters against 16pt W2 Tacticals, for a given points level the Sisters have 78% more shooting, and against bolter fire the Tacticals are 50% more durable. The Tacticals inflict 50% more hits in the first round of melee, and at S4 instead of S3, but the Sisters inflict 33% more hits in subsequent rounds. When hit by Autocannons, the Tacticals take 42% more damage, and when hit by overcharged plasma, the Tacticals take a full 78% more damage.

Does that seem unreasonable? The Tacticals would have significantly lower raw shooting (even with doctrines) and be considerably more vulnerable to multi-damage weapons, but be tougher against basic rifle fire and (at least initially) better in melee. Even if we keep Tacticals at 15pts, the margins don't change much.

I mean, we certainly could go the opposite way and say that Guardsmen and Intercessors are overperformant, and rebalance with 11pt Sisters as a baseline. But at the moment that seems less likely to me than Tacticals getting an extra wound and Sisters hopefully getting cost adjustments.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Quite frankly Storm Guardians shouldn't exist to begin with. They don't fulfill any role correctly, are garbage in terms of crunch, and they're REALLY bad in terms of fluff. That's a triple whammy.

I'm glad you're not designing the game.

And I'm glad you can be contrarian for the sake of it and somehow defend a unit that's always been bad for role fulfilling, crunch, and fluff.

Yeah...I kinda felt that Storm Guardians should have been basically just rolled into the normal Guardian datasheet and just give them the options they had there. I'm pretty sure even in previous editions where Eldar were in their competitive heyday that no one ever really bothered with SG when you had Aspects/Wraithknights/Wraithguard to do the real damage in CC. The kit upgrades being finecast is an even bigger sin.

I have to question anyone's view on balance if they think the game would be *fine* if Marines were 15 ppm and just got 2 wounds because, eh, its only a wound right?

I have nothing in principle against turning a Terminator into a Custodes. But they should pay Custodes points. Given what was in Indomitus, and the past 12 months, I have very little faith GW will do it. So I think we are in for 12 months of broken Marine domination, until they eventually get nerfed, or we get utterly ludicrous rules somewhere else. (See: Ynnari 2.0, this time Eldar units can shoot 5 times in a single phase - it'll be fine, honest)

I've got very little faith.

Oh well. At least the Necron models are great. I might actually get them painted in time for a February big FAQ.

 Galef wrote:
I'm not worried about Eldar coming up with decent counters to Multiwound Marines. Dark Reapers, Shining spears, Star cannons and loads of other multi damage weapons are plentiful. It just means taking specific units more often

-

Not that plentiful, and not that cheap, and all of those require craftworlds.

Most competitive lists already require spamming those units in order to be even vaguely competitive. You can't spam more spam. Unless the points costs of all those units goes down significantly.

And if you don't want to run 9x war walkers and 3x falcons in every list? Well then screw you, you aren't allowed to play.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

A S5 powersword VV with 2 attacks doesn't kill any more Eldar than the one that was only S4 with 2A.

Only if you're up against a foot elf. This significantly increases lethality against T4 targets for power swords and T5 and T3 targets for axes, which is a *significant* portion of the playspace.

Sure, but then you're also going up in points. And then I presume people would prefer jump packs, so, even fewer models still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

A unit of S8 VV with 4 damage thunderhammers sure as hell kills more Eldar vehicles in 11 attacks than a S8 VV with 3 damage thunderhammers does in 11 attacks.

What you're getting is additional overkill and not likely additional vehicles dead unless you park them really close together. The end result is melee is more decisive and people don't have to take all thunderhammers.

I would also assume TH cost going up.

Some vehicles come in units

Also, aren't you sort of killing your own point in the middle of it? "Marines aren't getting more killy for seriously guys!!! Oh also marines are killing stuff so fast in melee now they don't even need to specialize their units! That would be overkill!"

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Quite frankly Storm Guardians shouldn't exist to begin with. They don't fulfill any role correctly, are garbage in terms of crunch, and they're REALLY bad in terms of fluff. That's a triple whammy.

I'm glad you're not designing the game.

And I'm glad you can be contrarian for the sake of it and somehow defend a unit that's always been bad for role fulfilling, crunch, and fluff.

Nothin contrarian about it. Storm Guardians meant to fight in the confines of a vessel or structure makes plenty of sense. There's even lore backing up the idea that CC weapons are more effective against Daemons, a la the Battle of Calth novel.

 catbarf wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
How does that work for an 11 point battle sister? You'd have double the wounds, double the attacks on the charge, +1S, +1 Toughness, +1WS, bolter drill, and much better special weapon options. Even with the 6+ invul, extra special weapon in a min squad, and 1d6 deny the witch on the other side, there's no possible way you could justify a 2W tac at 15 if a battle sister stays at 11. They very nearly ARE twice as good now.

Battle Sisters are, IMO, overpriced as it stands. Most basic infantry is overpriced for its capabilities, for that matter- CSMs, Guardians, Kabalites, Fire Warriors are all expensive enough to only be taken as taxes. If we set Guardsmen as the exemplars for light infantry and Intercessors as the exemplars for heavy infantry, there's a lot of rebalancing to be done.

Is a Battle Sister worth over twice as much as a Guardsman? I don't think so- they're twice as hard to kill with AP0 weapons, but much more vulnerable to higher-AP weapons, and have identical output in melee. Let's say a Sister is worth 9pts.

So putting 9pt Sisters against 16pt W2 Tacticals, for a given points level the Sisters have 78% more shooting, and against bolter fire the Tacticals are 50% more durable. The Tacticals inflict 50% more hits in the first round of melee, and at S4 instead of S3, but the Sisters inflict 33% more hits in subsequent rounds. When hit by Autocannons, the Tacticals take 42% more damage, and when hit by overcharged plasma, the Tacticals take a full 78% more damage.

Does that seem unreasonable? The Tacticals would have significantly lower raw shooting (even with doctrines) and be considerably more vulnerable to multi-damage weapons, but be tougher against basic rifle fire and (at least initially) better in melee. Even if we keep Tacticals at 15pts, the margins don't change much.

I mean, we certainly could go the opposite way and say that Guardsmen and Intercessors are overperformant, and rebalance with 11pt Sisters as a baseline. But at the moment that seems less likely to me than Tacticals getting an extra wound and Sisters hopefully getting cost adjustments.

The one glaring flaw in all of this is that sisters went up from 9 to 11 points TWO WEEKS AGO. Why move sisters to 11 just to move them right back down to 9? That doesn't make any gorram sense.

None of the options presented make any sense given that we had a cost rebalancing less than a twitter-meme lifecycle ago. Our best option for parity, out of a strange, strange situation GW created, is to bump two wound tacs up to 17-19ppm depending on what other space marine rules get rebalanced and accept that infantry squads are really, really good for their points.

Nothing about the way they rolled out these changes makes any sense. Trying to make sense out of it is just as silly as the people who were trying to make sense out of the last LOS change, only to be made to look like fools when a couple of days later GW came out and said "ok, yeah, that change was stupid and didn't make any sense, sorry."

When you see a company operating in a way that doesn't seem to make any sense, 9 times out of 10 that is exactly what is happening. There's no subtle and cunning plan here, it's just exactly what it looks like: a company flying by the seat of its pants with nobody talking to anybody else.

Releasing a points update at the start of 9th that reflects Codex changes that could easily be two years away from release is mind-bogglingly stupid. That's "GW gonna GW" on a whole new level.

ERJAK wrote:
The one glaring flaw in all of this is that sisters went up from 9 to 11 points TWO WEEKS AGO. Why move sisters to 11 just to move them right back down to 9? That doesn't make any gorram sense.

I'm not saying I think they're going to do it. I'm saying I think that's what should be done, whether Tacs go up to W2 or not. Tacs staying at W1 does not make Sisters better compared to Guardsmen or compared to the other options in their own codex. It doesn't make 10pt Guardians or 9pt Kabalites better, either.

The points are a complete mess, and I don't buy the idea that they're all based on upcoming rules changes that have yet to materialize.

Terminators at 3w with a 2+ and 5++, a 24' BS3+ 4 shot stormbolter and a Powerfist at 36pts

Vs
a Mega nob at 3w with a 2+ no invuln a 18' BS5+ 4 shot kustom shoota and a powerklaw at 38pts

If that is actually a thing please someone explain how GW balanced this even remotely.

 catbarf wrote:


15pts for a Tactical versus 5pts for a Guardsman right now is just not fair. They aren't 3x as good as a normal human. A W2 Tactical at 15-16pts feels more right, particularly in comparison to Intercessors, which they're still strictly inferior to stat-wise.

True, but they are actually twice as good as an ork boy which is 8ppm. Guardsmen are on par with ork boyz, so they should be 8 or even 9ppm. Being 5ppm (like T2 6+ gretchins with pistols) is the problem, not SM being 15. If classic SM get 2W base they'd be underpriced unless many other infantry units from different armies get their +1W as well.

Intercessors should be 24-25ppm with the current state of 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
Terminators at 3w with a 2+ and 5++, a 24' BS3+ 4 shot stormbolter and a Powerfist at 36pts

Vs
a Mega nob at 3w with a 2+ no invuln a 18' BS5+ 4 shot kustom shoota and a powerklaw at 38pts

If that is actually a thing please someone explain how GW balanced this even remotely.

Yeah, Meganobz should definitely get their +1W (if not +2W) as well. Like many other infantry units. Termies also have free deepstrike ability, we typically pay 2CPs to deliver Meganobz, or add an expensive Heavy Support transport to carry them, and it's still considered a good deal, even if the HS section is crowded with good options and we have to make some decisions.

SemperMortis wrote:
Terminators at 3w with a 2+ and 5++, a 24' BS3+ 4 shot stormbolter and a Powerfist at 36pts

Vs
a Mega nob at 3w with a 2+ no invuln a 18' BS5+ 4 shot kustom shoota and a powerklaw at 38pts

If that is actually a thing please someone explain how GW balanced this even remotely.

It doesn't look good. I really hope that get's addressed with point releases. Have Ork points been leaked yet?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Sure, but then you're also going up in points. And then I presume people would prefer jump packs, so, even fewer models still.

A 5-man VanVet team with jump packs and a Power Sword/Axe/Maul on the Sarge is exactly the same cost as an Intercessor squad. There's no "fewer models" here.

 Insectum7 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Terminators at 3w with a 2+ and 5++, a 24' BS3+ 4 shot stormbolter and a Powerfist at 36pts

Vs
a Mega nob at 3w with a 2+ no invuln a 18' BS5+ 4 shot kustom shoota and a powerklaw at 38pts

If that is actually a thing please someone explain how GW balanced this even remotely.

It doesn't look good. I really hope that get's addressed with point releases. Have Ork points been leaked yet?

Yes, they're 38ppm base, 40ppm with dual saws. Points cost is appropriate, it can't really go down more than that. The unit needs to get buffs in stats like Termies got or Termies need to be 55-60ppm.

 Blackie wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Terminators at 3w with a 2+ and 5++, a 24' BS3+ 4 shot stormbolter and a Powerfist at 36pts

Vs
a Mega nob at 3w with a 2+ no invuln a 18' BS5+ 4 shot kustom shoota and a powerklaw at 38pts

If that is actually a thing please someone explain how GW balanced this even remotely.

It doesn't look good. I really hope that get's addressed with point releases. Have Ork points been leaked yet?

Yes, they're 38ppm base, 40ppm with dual saws. Points cost is appropriate, it can't really go down more than that. The unit needs to get buffs in stats like Termies got or Termies need to be 55-60ppm.

Then yeah, that looks bad. I agree.

ERJAK wrote:


Some vehicles come in units

Also, aren't you sort of killing your own point in the middle of it? "Marines aren't getting more killy for seriously guys!!! Oh also marines are killing stuff so fast in melee now they don't even need to specialize their units! That would be overkill!"

So you've got people fielding VV at a markedly higher cost than other options. That unit is no better at killing targets outside of tanks and W4 models. Spending 50+ points over Assault Intercessors means there's A) fewer models on the table and B) fewer weapons. If those two thunderhammer VV do 10.3 damage instead of 7.8 then the tank is still crippled. You didn't vastly change the game state.

All of this is pointless. People can bluster and complain all they want but at the end of the day, Space Marines sell. they are the preferred army for the majority of new players and people that win like to play more games - therefore it makes good business sense to ensure every other release is a space marine and that said Space Marines are crazy good at what they do.

Remember it wasn’t so long ago they gained extra attacks in combat and Rapid Fire rules for bolters got buffed, then they got doctrines and enhanced chapter tactics. It’s unsurprising they get buffed further.

The solution is not to ask whether standard Space Marines will go to 2 wounds, it’s instead to ask why they aren’t already at 3 wounds each and why you haven’t spend your kids’ inheritance on them.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Terminators at 3w with a 2+ and 5++, a 24' BS3+ 4 shot stormbolter and a Powerfist at 36pts

Vs
a Mega nob at 3w with a 2+ no invuln a 18' BS5+ 4 shot kustom shoota and a powerklaw at 38pts

If that is actually a thing please someone explain how GW balanced this even remotely.

It doesn't look good. I really hope that get's addressed with point releases. Have Ork points been leaked yet?

Yes, they're 38ppm base, 40ppm with dual saws. Points cost is appropriate, it can't really go down more than that. The unit needs to get buffs in stats like Termies got or Termies need to be 55-60ppm.

Then yeah, that looks bad. I agree.

If not for shock assault it'd be better...

MANZ are S5 3A base as opposed to S4 2A for termies. MANZ can also come as 3 mans, which is super flexible especially with Combis and more so if Skorchas go to 12".

While it isn't the most perfect balance we also don't know what might happen to MANZ.

Sumilidon wrote:
All of this is pointless. People can bluster and complain all they want but at the end of the day, Space Marines sell. they are the preferred army for the majority of new players and people that win like to play more games - therefore it makes good business sense to ensure every other release is a space marine and that said Space Marines are crazy good at what they do.

Remember it wasn’t so long ago they gained extra attacks in combat and Rapid Fire rules for bolters got buffed, then they got doctrines and enhanced chapter tactics. It’s unsurprising they get buffed further.

The solution is not to ask whether standard Space Marines will go to 2 wounds, it’s instead to ask why they aren’t already at 3 wounds each and why you haven’t spend your kids’ inheritance on them.

Although. . . if Space Mariens sell so well it seems like the thing to do would be to encourage larger armies of them. You'd actually want to make them cheaper, points-wise, rather than keep buffing them and adjusting points to fit.

But really GW looks like it's just churning the balance as they tend to do, so your "optimal" collection of models shifts and you expand because of that.

Sumilidon wrote:
All of this is pointless. People can bluster and complain all they want but at the end of the day, Space Marines sell. they are the preferred army for the majority of new players and people that win like to play more games - therefore it makes good business sense to ensure every other release is a space marine and that said Space Marines are crazy good at what they do...

The fallacy here is the assumption that fun is a purely binary thing based solely on whether you win or not. There are a lot of different sorts of people who buy GW minis in the world for all sorts of reasons, but I find the most common element in whether people have fun playing the game is whether the game was close. People don't like winning if they feel like there was no way they could have lost, people don't like losing if they feel like there's no way they could have won. People like coming away from the game with the impression that whether they won or lost was based on how they played rather than on who had the more broken army book.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Sumilidon wrote:
All of this is pointless. People can bluster and complain all they want but at the end of the day, Space Marines sell. they are the preferred army for the majority of new players and people that win like to play more games - therefore it makes good business sense to ensure every other release is a space marine and that said Space Marines are crazy good at what they do.

Remember it wasn’t so long ago they gained extra attacks in combat and Rapid Fire rules for bolters got buffed, then they got doctrines and enhanced chapter tactics. It’s unsurprising they get buffed further.

The solution is not to ask whether standard Space Marines will go to 2 wounds, it’s instead to ask why they aren’t already at 3 wounds each and why you haven’t spend your kids’ inheritance on them.

Although. . . if Space Mariens sell so well it seems like the thing to do would be to encourage larger armies of them. You'd actually want to make them cheaper, points-wise, rather than keep buffing them and adjusting points to fit.

But really GW looks like it's just churning the balance as they tend to do, so your "optimal" collection of models shifts and you expand because of that.

Far from it, you want to encourage smaller armies to start with. 8th edition did the same:

* You increase points to make the armies smaller. New players can get themselves an army up to scratch quicker this way And new players are the lifeblood of the business (can’t expand without new players)
* Smaller armies lead to simpler games and this makes integration to the new Rules easier. Less frustration, less complexity and as a result, you are more likely to retain new and old players
* Add new models to give your old players new things to collect to keep their armies current. Buff those units to make them sell better (a lesson learnt from 8th when Primaris were lacklustre and did not sell as well as projected)
* Finally you increase the complexity and decrease the points as the edition ages. This keeps all parties interested with new and wonderful rules, whilst also encouraging those new players to continue buying models to be able to field an army.