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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


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.

Termies have access to free deepstrike, cheap 3++ and thunder hammers are flat 3 damage. They shoot at BS3+ and can have re-rolls quite easily. Some, like SW, also have native +1 to hit and multiple ways to get free +1A. Buffing meganobz stats is not as easy, giving them re-rolls flat out impossible outside a couple of klans.

Skorchas at 15ppm will never see the table, unless (maybe) their range become 24'', which is absurd of course and never gonna happen.

Sumilidon wrote:

 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.

Or you could, without increasing points, release a starter with a decent selection of models on the cheap.

Then, adjust rules and points semi-annually to make those units less competitive and encourage more purchases.

Either way they got a good system for churning things. I'm just glad I'm sitting on a large collection of flexible units where I can whether the changes.

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

If that were the case rules would've justified it, but here we are.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

If that were the case rules would've justified it, but here we are.

And humans can punch a tank to death, too. Lore =/= Rules, Slayer. You should know that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

Blackie already covered it fairly well, but Termies also benefit from free deep strike, access to really good gear like the aforementioned 3++, they can be buffed easily by a plethora of readily available competitive characters who are most likely already organically included in the army and that is before you mention the buffs they receive from Chapter Tactics.

While I agree we don't know what GW intends to do with Meganobz, its a better than even chance that it won't be much. As far as the Kombi-Skorcha is concerned. I mean with the Heavy Flamer getting 12' range there is hope we could get a 12' Skorcha but even that wouldn't do much do help them since the go to load out for a meganob right now is Twin Saws since they get +1 attack for 2pts more and realistically a Kustom Shoota is a waste of time/space. and the Kombi is an additional 15pts each for a fire and forget unit of meganobz which will not live past the first enemy shooting phase after they arrive on the table.

For me though the biggest imbalance is the complete lack of organic invuln save in an edition which seems geared towards multi-damage weapons. Why field expensive elite infantry that will get destroyed easily by the enemies numerous multi-damage ranged weapons?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

If that were the case rules would've justified it, but here we are.

And humans can punch a tank to death, too. Lore =/= Rules, Slayer. You should know that.

And lore had them doing it too on rare occasion. So is it justified?

 Blackie wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


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.

Termies have access to free deepstrike, cheap 3++ and thunder hammers are flat 3 damage. They shoot at BS3+ and can have re-rolls quite easily. Some, like SW, also have native +1 to hit and multiple ways to get free +1A. Buffing meganobz stats is not as easy, giving them re-rolls flat out impossible outside a couple of klans.

Skorchas at 15ppm will never see the table, unless (maybe) their range become 24'', which is absurd of course and never gonna happen.

Thunders are flat 4 damage now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

And lore had them doing it too on rare occasion. So is it justified?

I'd argue no, which cuts both ways btw, so any point you're trying to make is irrelevant.

Storm Guardians are a thing, they have a reason to exist, some people think they're cool and fluffy. It doesn't matter if they're on their own datasheet or folded into a generic Guardian one. There's no reason to drop them.

 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?

Do you mean terminator points? Because we have the current ork points (38 for the base gear he listed), and they aren't likely to change until the ork codex rolls around (and we have no ETA on that, not even a vague notion).
We don't yet have points for 3W terminators, but definitely will in October.

 AnomanderRake 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...

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.

I'm sad that no one has commented on this, because it's spot-on. Losing a close game is way more fun than winning a blow-out, regardless of whether you're playing casual or competitive.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.[/quote


Well, its the difference between the new thunderhammers killing the tank, while the old ones leave the tank alive to shoot for another turn. Kind of a big deal.

Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?

I just can't get behind the idea that GW created these points values in December 2019 at the latest (since playtesters said those points were frozen before they were brought in) based on defensive buffs that would be coming in codices 1-2 years out. GW's never planned out an entire edition's worth of codices in advance like that before.

 catbarf wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?

I just can't get behind the idea that GW created these points values in December 2019 at the latest (since playtesters said those points were frozen before they were brought in) based on defensive buffs that would be coming in codices 1-2 years out. GW's never planned out an entire edition's worth of codices in advance like that before.

It would be utterly terrible if they did, too. Imagine having an army that's number 10 in line for a codex, and for no explicable reason, its written based on the state of play and rules that were only valid 2 years previous under a different edition.
It'd be a catastrophe.

And that doesn't even address different weapon and unit profiles that didn't even exist at the time.

----
The idea that they made a mess of quick and dirty 'get-you-by' point values for the 9th edition launch is much more coherent. There are a lot of traces of old formulas and biases, and a lot of reversions of CA 2018 & 19 points updates to what GW believes things are 'supposed to' cost. An not insignificant number of units are back to their 8th edition Index costs, or close to it. (Intercessors are 20 points again, MultiMeltas are once again more expensive than Lascannons, and so on)

The Newman wrote:

 AnomanderRake 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...

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.

I'm sad that no one has commented on this, because it's spot-on. Losing a close game is way more fun than winning a blow-out, regardless of whether you're playing casual or competitive.

In the long run then yes, but during the first few months of a hobby - nobody likes to play only games which are crushing defeats - especially kids who fall under the new blood category. Imagine playing against your own child and you keep smashing their army because they picked one that was hard to play or nerfed to hell whilst you play a full-on competitive list. I doubt that child will want to keep playing - hell I doubt most adults would. Space Marines allow new players to reliably do well and as such, make it seem like a game they could be good at.

Sumilidon wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 AnomanderRake 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...

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.

I'm sad that no one has commented on this, because it's spot-on. Losing a close game is way more fun than winning a blow-out, regardless of whether you're playing casual or competitive.

In the long run then yes, but during the first few months of a hobby - nobody likes to play only games which are crushing defeats - especially kids who fall under the new blood category. Imagine playing against your own child and you keep smashing their army because they picked one that was hard to play or nerfed to hell whilst you play a full-on competitive list. I doubt that child will want to keep playing - hell I doubt most adults would. Space Marines allow new players to reliably do well and as such, make it seem like a game they could be good at.

You're being unnecessarily black-and-white here. There's a difference between making sure the newbie has an easy learning curve and can win games, and making sure the newbie army book can steamroll every other army book without effort.

Bit of a rant but.....

Custodes Terminators are currently 3 Wounds. They should be 4 wounds, why they are only 3 is just weird. If normal marine terminators go up to 3 wounds I absolutely DEMAND 4 wound Custodes Terminators, possibly even 5 wounds.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Bit of a rant but.....

Custodes Terminators are currently 3 Wounds. They should be 4 wounds, why they are only 3 is just weird. If normal marine terminators go up to 3 wounds I absolutely DEMAND 4 wound Custodes Terminators, possibly even 5 wounds.

Custodes Terminators (Allarus/Aquilon) are already 4W. Are you thinking of regular Custodian Guard/Wardens?

 cuda1179 wrote:
Bit of a rant but.....

Custodes Terminators are currently 3 Wounds. They should be 4 wounds, why they are only 3 is just weird. If normal marine terminators go up to 3 wounds I absolutely DEMAND 4 wound Custodes Terminators, possibly even 5 wounds.

Oh well if you demand it, GW will definitely get right on that. You hold your breath, they‘ll announce it any time now.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Bit of a rant but.....

Custodes Terminators are currently 3 Wounds. They should be 4 wounds, why they are only 3 is just weird. If normal marine terminators go up to 3 wounds I absolutely DEMAND 4 wound Custodes Terminators, possibly even 5 wounds.

Custodes Terminators (Allarus/Aquilon) are already 4W. Are you thinking of regular Custodian Guard/Wardens?

Okay, I'll admit I had a brain fart. Been too darn long since I've had a game.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Bit of a rant but.....

Custodes Terminators are currently 3 Wounds. They should be 4 wounds, why they are only 3 is just weird. If normal marine terminators go up to 3 wounds I absolutely DEMAND 4 wound Custodes Terminators, possibly even 5 wounds.

Custodes Terminators (Allarus/Aquilon) are already 4W. Are you thinking of regular Custodian Guard/Wardens?

Okay, I'll admit I had a brain fart. Been too darn long since I've had a game.

I mean, I'd love it if they went to 4W in 30k, but they might be a bit too good if they did.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?

Points we have now are based on 8th edition codexes, with new book they should definitely change according to how things develop in the new codex. 1W 15ppm tacs makes sense comparing to many other troops like boyz, sisters, all aeldary ones, firewarriors, necron warriors, etc...

 Blackie wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?

Points we have now are based on 8th edition codexes, with new book they should definitely change according to how things develop in the new codex. 1W 15ppm tacs makes sense comparing to many other troops like boyz, sisters, all aeldary ones, firewarriors, necron warriors, etc...

20 point intercessors and 5 point Guardsmen don't though.
These points arn't based on anything more than dumb luck and some idiots formula.

 Blackie wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?

Points we have now are based on 8th edition codexes, with new book they should definitely change according to how things develop in the new codex. 1W 15ppm tacs makes sense comparing to many other troops like boyz, sisters, all aeldary ones, firewarriors, necron warriors, etc...

Does it make sense though ? An eldar ranger is 15 pts without extra toughness, save, or dctrines, attacks, leadership reroll and whatever chapter traits you can pick and zeo AP. And im sure ive forgotten soem rules...

A Dire avenger is 13 pts. again less toughness worse save worse range no ap unless you roll a six.

 Argive wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?

Points we have now are based on 8th edition codexes, with new book they should definitely change according to how things develop in the new codex. 1W 15ppm tacs makes sense comparing to many other troops like boyz, sisters, all aeldary ones, firewarriors, necron warriors, etc...

Does it make sense though ?

In terms of gameplay? No.
But GW has almost always overvalued the elf stat line. And it doesn't seem to matter that the distinct elf-stats are all gone from 40k, and baseline before gear and special rules, they're not that different from guardsmen (guardians) or stormtroopers/sisters (aspects)
The only eldar fix at this point is rebuilding those armies from the ground up, and that means it ain't happening until their new codex.

... and it might end up being an absurd over-reaction. I do fear some bizarre, wack-a-doodle Ynnari suicide squad army and everything else tossed in the Legends box.

Voss wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Assuming that the points we have now aren't going to change in the codex, and observing that a lot of troops weaker than tacs went up several points, could this mean that stuff like guardians, warriors, and sisters are also going to get a second wound? Or perhaps some other sort of defensive boost?

Points we have now are based on 8th edition codexes, with new book they should definitely change according to how things develop in the new codex. 1W 15ppm tacs makes sense comparing to many other troops like boyz, sisters, all aeldary ones, firewarriors, necron warriors, etc...

Does it make sense though ?

In terms of gameplay? No.
But GW has almost always overvalued the elf stat line. And it doesn't seem to matter that the distinct elf-stats are all gone from 40k, and baseline before gear and special rules, they're not that different from guardsmen (guardians) or stormtroopers/sisters (aspects)
The only eldar fix at this point is rebuilding those armies from the ground up, and that means it ain't happening until their new codex.

... and it might end up being an absurd over-reaction. I do fear some bizarre, wack-a-doodle Ynnari suicide squad army and everything else tossed in the Legends box.

The upside would be id kick 40k for good lol.
More time for non GW models and painting for displays.

I find it funny how people keep trying to use the Lore to justify tactical marines having 2W.
In the Lore Necrons are insanely resilient and hard to put down
Tau are expert sharp shooters
Orcs outnumber you like 1000 to 1
Tyranids will take the bodies of the fallen and turn them into better predators who won't make the same mistake twice

The lore is created to get you invested in the game and not as a way to determine what stats or rules model should have all factions have crazy broken lore and if GW started trying to adhere to that then the game would be hard as hell to balance

I can get behind GK, DW and elite marines having 2 W but not all old marines

If this is rolled out for cult marines and Chosen then Chosen should be a troops choice for the undivided legions, otherwise that would mean the mono God legions would have 2W troops while the rest wouldn't. Unless basic csm go to 2W, which I doubt.

I must say that the idea of wounds/attacks and weapons changing for Chaos Marines has me actually interested in the faction again. After Primaris came out, it totally killed any interest i had at all in all marines. Primaris are the stats that all marines should have, but until Indomitus, Primaris were some of the worst looking models in the GW range. Now that we've come to our senses and created more medieval looking marines, they are actually cool looking again (I'm looking at you Blade Guard). This has piqued my interest in Black Templars again and possibly Black Legion, if the rumours are true regarding stat changes. If not, then whatever. Move on to Xenos armies.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
If not, then whatever. Move on to Xenos armies.

Why would you dot hat to yourself..