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.

 Mr Morden wrote:

stratigo wrote:
I'm ambivilent on most marines getting more wounds.

But I hate death guard getting another wound. It's bad for the game. Death guard were already a sleeper hit. They're pretty much number 1 now.

If Marines get a Wound -Death Guard absolutely have to have another one!

Logically, yes. It would not make sense for all marines but Death guard getting 2 wounds. The issue it that with an army wide FNP and many ways to buff it, the basic plague marine soon gets an effective 4 or more wounds a model. And this isn't taking into account their terminators. Plague marines are going to have to start costing a handful of points shy of custodes to reflect their actual value. And they won't.

It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.

If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.

stratigo wrote:
Logically, yes. It would not make sense for all marines but Death guard getting 2 wounds. The issue it that with an army wide FNP and many ways to buff it, the basic plague marine soon gets an effective 4 or more wounds a model. And this isn't taking into account their terminators. Plague marines are going to have to start costing a handful of points shy of custodes to reflect their actual value. And they won't.

There aren't "many" ways to buff their FNP, the only way they can get to an effective wound count of "4 or more" is by spending 2 CP per phase while having a specific character near them that was upgraded by a stratagem limited to a specific plague company.

And even then, they still don't do damage comparable to any other marine unit, let a lone a custodes, not to mention that they don't get an army trait that actually does anything, unlike every other loyal marine in existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.

If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.

Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

 Jidmah wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.

If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.

Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

1.33, surely?

Daedalus81 wrote:

stratigo wrote:
I'm ambivilent on most marines getting more wounds.

But I hate death guard getting another wound. It's bad for the game. Death guard were already a sleeper hit. They're pretty much number 1 now.

Points matter


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:


Oh there's always some rumor about somebody hating this faction or being a huge fanboy for this other faction or blah blah blah. Who knows how many people actually get their hands on these books now. I seriously doubt one guy not liking Orkz is likely to have much affect on the book as a whole.

I enjoy the universe where GW maliciously tweaks rules for sales, but also allows one person to singleandedly sink a whole army.

the only kind of universe we should want to live in.

 Jidmah wrote:


Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

GW makes units often pay for potential, not just raw avarges. Melee weapons for example often were costed, as if models with them always got in to melee, and got to use them. Why shouldn't GW do the same to units saves. If a unit has a, potentialy buffed, ++5 sv, then in GW eyes this very well mean they think the model just got 1/3 more resilient.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.

If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.

Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

1.33, surely?

It's very close to 1.5 because you can make multiple successful DR rolls for the same wound. 1.33 would imply that you only make one DR roll per wound, which is not the case.

 Jidmah wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Logically, yes. It would not make sense for all marines but Death guard getting 2 wounds. The issue it that with an army wide FNP and many ways to buff it, the basic plague marine soon gets an effective 4 or more wounds a model. And this isn't taking into account their terminators. Plague marines are going to have to start costing a handful of points shy of custodes to reflect their actual value. And they won't.

There aren't "many" ways to buff their FNP, the only way they can get to an effective wound count of "4 or more" is by spending 2 CP per phase while having a specific character near them that was upgraded by a stratagem limited to a specific plague company.

And even then, they still don't do damage comparable to any other marine unit, let a lone a custodes, not to mention that they don't get an army trait that actually does anything, unlike every other loyal marine in existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.

If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.

Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

That's not how unit value is determined, because that's not how the game math actually works. +1 attack on an ork boy isn't worth the same points as +1 attack on a space marine captain. Stats interact with one another.

In this case, the fact that wounds don't carry over from model to model (much less from unit to unit) has tremendous implications for how valuable a 5+++ actually is. For example, a model with a 5+++ requires a lot more 2D shots on average (I think the actual math is something like 1.75x as many) to remove as a model without the 5+++, and, almost equally importantly, it also adds further randomness to how many shots you actually need to devote to a target to remove it, requiring even further overinvestment if you absolutely must get something off an objective.

An ob-sec 2W T5 model with a 5+++ gets way more value from its second W than a T4 model without the 5+++.

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

GW makes units often pay for potential, not just raw avarges. Melee weapons for example often were costed, as if models with them always got in to melee, and got to use them. Why shouldn't GW do the same to units saves. If a unit has a, potentialy buffed, ++5 sv, then in GW eyes this very well mean they think the model just got 1/3 more resilient.

I agree with you here. 25 points would imply a 7 point increase in costs, while tactical marines were increased by 3. As explained above, a 50% higher durability should result in a 50% higher point rise, so 23 points.

 Jidmah wrote:

Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

I think its more complex than that.

Without buffs a W1 model has an 11% chance to survive D2.
That same model with W2 has a 55% chance to survive.

27 Dissie shots kills 10 W2 marines. Against DG its under 6, roughly. A T4 W2 model dies almost twice as often.

yukishiro1 wrote:
That's not how unit value is determined, because that's not how the game math actually works. +1 attack on an ork boy isn't worth the same points as +1 attack on a space marine captain. Stats interact with one another.

In this case, the fact that wounds don't carry over from model to model (much less from unit to unit) has tremendous implications for how valuable a 5+++ actually is. For example, a model with a 5+++ requires a lot more 2D shots on average (I think the actual math is something like 1.75x as many) to remove as a model without the 5+++, and, almost equally importantly, it also adds further randomness to how many shots you actually need to devote to a target to remove it, requiring even further overinvestment if you absolutely must get something off an objective.

An ob-sec 2W T5 model with a 5+++ gets way more value from its second W than a T4 model without the 5+++.

Please show your math, because currently you're just making up numbers.

Second, your claim is that an extra wound on a plague marine is worth 2.3 times as much as on a tactical marine so even if the 1.75 you pulled out of nowhere were valid, you are wrong no matter how you put it. I suggested a 1.66 points increase, by the way.

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.

If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.

Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

1.33, surely?

It's very close to 1.5 because you can make multiple successful DR rolls for the same wound. 1.33 would imply that you only make one DR roll per wound, which is not the case.

...How, exactly, are you making multiple DR rolls for the same wound? And how does two successful DR rolls make you less dead than one successful DR rolls? Are you pulling a GW and using "wound" for "unsaved wound against a multi-damage attack" here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
...In this case, the fact that wounds don't carry over from model to model (much less from unit to unit) has tremendous implications for how valuable a 5+++ actually is. For example, a model with a 5+++ requires a lot more 2D shots on average (I think the actual math is something like 1.75x as many) to remove as a model without the 5+++, and, almost equally importantly, it also adds further randomness to how many shots you actually need to devote to a target to remove it, requiring even further overinvestment if you absolutely must get something off an objective...

When we're talking about exactly D2 attacks, yes, it matters a lot, but there are a lot of weapons in the game that don't have exactly D1.

 Jidmah wrote:


Please show your math, because currently you're just making up numbers.

Second, your claim is that an extra wound on a plague marine is worth 2.3 times as much as on a plague marine so even if the 1.75 you pulled out of nowhere were valid, you are wrong no matter how you put it. I suggested a 1.66 points increase, by the way.

40k dice roller seems to say it's 1.66x as many 2D shots, so there we go.

I said it was worth at least double. So I dunno where you get the idea that I said a wound on a PM is worth precisely 2.3 times a wound on a tactical. I said 25ish, there's a reason for the ish.

Is +1W on a guardsmen worth the same as +1W on a daemon prince? Presumably everyone agrees it isn't, right? So we need to take into account other statistics when considering value. +1W on a T5 unit is worth more than +1W on a T4 unit, just as +1W on a 5+++ is worth more than +1W without the 5+++. When you combine those two factors, it certainly seems arguable to value an additional wound on a PM at double what it's valued on a tactical, even without getting into more precise nuanced issues like the fact that adding the amount of RNG required to remove a unit is valuable even if the average remains the same, or considering the impact of the possibility of rerolling 1s or even 1s and 2s on DR rules, etc etc.

The whole point of what I wrote is that it's more difficult to value just what 1W on a 5+++ is worth, particularly on an ob-sec unit in a game about holding objectives. I mean if you want to say maybe it should be 5 points, not 6 or 7 as I suggested, maybe it should, I'm not saying that's definitively wrong. The point is it's hard to say; the only thing you can say for sure is it's far more valuable than on a T4 model without the 5+++.

It would help if you could tone down the hostility a bit, it's honestly unpleasant to interact with.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

I think its more complex than that.

Without buffs a W1 model has an 11% chance to survive D2.
That same model with W2 has a 55% chance to survive.

27 Dissie shots kills 10 W2 marines. Against DG its under 6, roughly. A T4 W2 model dies almost twice as often.

Sorry - I should show the old, too, to frame this.

27 disintegrator shots kills 10 T4 W1/2, 6 T5 5++ W2, and 6.7 T5 5++ W1.

So unless i've done the math wrong it seems like DG get no massive increase versus D2.

D1 is where the wounds are twice as good. So, yea, I concede to a smaller increase than initially thought reasonable.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Spoiler:

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.

If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.

Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

1.33, surely?

It's very close to 1.5 because you can make multiple successful DR rolls for the same wound. 1.33 would imply that you only make one DR roll per wound, which is not the case.

...How, exactly, are you making multiple DR rolls for the same wound? And how does two successful DR rolls make you less dead than one successful DR rolls? Are you pulling a GW and using "wound" for "unsaved wound against a multi-damage attack" here?

I'm using wound for wounds on the statline. Let me explain.

A plague marine as he is today has a ~33% chance to ignore a 1 damage unsaved wound. If he survives, he has another 33% percent chance to ignore the next one damage unsaved wound, after that he has another chance of 33% of ignoring a one damage unsaved wound, and so on.

So the effective number of addition wounds would be calculated by adding all those possible chains of successful saves up, so .33 + .33^2 + .33^3 + .33^4 + ... + .33^n. Eventually the chance of those chains are really close to zero and can just be ignored. The result is somewhere near 0.5

In the end if plague marines go up to 2 wounds, you could have these chains for both of them. You would effectively end up with 2+(2x0.5) wounds. Obviously the actual result on the tabletop gets muddied by overkill and dice luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

I think its more complex than that.

Without buffs a W1 model has an 11% chance to survive D2.
That same model with W2 has a 55% chance to survive.

27 Dissie shots kills 10 W2 marines. Against DG its under 6, roughly. A T4 W2 model dies almost twice as often.

Sorry - I should show the old, too, to frame this.

27 disintegrator shots kills 10 T4 W1/2, 6 T5 5++ W2, and 6.7 T5 5++ W1.

So unless i've done the math wrong it seems like DG get no massive increase versus D2.

D1 is where the wounds are twice as good. So, yea, I concede to a smaller increase than initially thought reasonable.

Thanks for doing the math on this


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It would help if you could tone down the hostility a bit, it's honestly unpleasant to interact with.

If you feel like asking you to show your math and calling you out on contradictory numbers in your own argument is "hostility", I don't know what to tell you.

The dissie maths doesn't look right to me.

Right now,
27 Dissie shots into plague marines.

27*2/3*1/2*5/6=7.5. You've then got a 1/9 chance to make two 5+++ saves and keep the model alive. So we can sort of treat it as another 8/9 modifier. Giving you 6.666 dead plague marines.

Going to to two wounds it gets more complicated, because you've still got your 1/9 chance to save all damage but now you have an additional 4/9 chance to only take 1 damage. And having taken 1 damage, you eat the 2 damage shot even if both subsequently go through.

If damage wasn't wasted, I think you'd expect to lose 5 plague marines, which in turn means its probably more like 4.5~ or something.

 Jidmah wrote:


Please show your math, because currently you're just making up numbers.

Second, your claim is that an extra wound on a plague marine is worth 2.3 times as much as on a plague marine so even if the 1.75 you pulled out of nowhere were valid, you are wrong no matter how you put it. I suggested a 1.66 points increase, by the way.

If you can't see what's hostile about this (or what was hostile about the original post, for that matter), I don't know what to tell you, to borrow your phrase. But I don't want to get sidetracked onto that. It was just a request, you don't have to be more pleasant if you don't want to be.

I explained where my numbers came from. It wasn't from nowhere. You're welcome to disagree with it if you want, though it seems you chose not to respond to it at all instead (which is also fine and up to you).

I like the change overall. I am glad that space marines are moving from the Jack-of-all-Trades faction to more of a heavy infantry style faction. My hope will be that space marines play a more kill to make up for their small numbers to control the board type faction being inherently weak at initial objective control. If that's the case, I do see some players having a bad time trying to say use static gunlines of lasguns to remove marines rather than just outnumbering them on objectives and feeding the woodchipper so to speak. Even if GW gets everything right, I can see some not being happy their armies X amount of points don't remove the like amount of marines when they should be uses all those bodies to steal points away from them.

I also think their is something to be say for the scissors (marines) vs. rock (D2 weapons) vs. 1w models (paper) game. Done right, this could further help horde armies have the numbers to win via objective attrition since any D2 weapon is overkill. I have my doubts it work out that way epscially since some of the smaller factions just don't have the options to play that rock/paper/scissors game. That, and chances are 9th is going to be at least as lethal as 8th.

I do think 2 wounds may actually hurt Thousands Sons. Certainly the D2 weapon meta is going to increase even if there aren't more D2 weapons made in 9th. Rubrics are probably going to pay extra points for that wound only be more likely to be targeted by weapons that remove All Is Dust. They may have to take Cultists and/or Gors just to have the bodies to have some ability to control a portion of the table. All the while making excellent targets for D1 weapons.

As for Death Guard. I have to agree that between the low numbers and slow speed, it's probably best to just intercept them before they can get where they want to be and tarpit them in melee. Conversely, any faction that can't be more than a speed bump is probably going to have try and outnumber/obsec them on objectives where they can.

I think for some players there is going to have to be a fundamental change in the way they view how to play 40k moving away from how to quickly do I remove my opponent's forces off the table to how do I control more of the objectives while also working toward collecting my secondaries. Especially in 9th ed, I think the one/two dimension(s) math-hammer of whose more lethal/resilient is a flawed way of assessing any given unit's value. Even though lethality has gone up, I think the ability score/deny objective points is more important than ever in 40k.

But it is still very early days of the edition and very little of the important information make these decisions is simply not available.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I like the change overall. I am glad that space marines are moving from the Jack-of-all-Trades faction to more of a heavy infantry style faction. My hope will be that space marines play a more kill to make up for their small numbers to control the board type faction being inherently weak at initial objective control. If that's the case, I do see some players having a bad time trying to say use static gunlines of lasguns to remove marines rather than just outnumbering them on objectives and feeding the woodchipper so to speak. Even if GW gets everything right, I can see some not being happy their armies X amount of points don't remove the like amount of marines when they should be uses all those bodies to steal points away from them.

If that's the case, I do see some players having a bad time trying to say use static gunlines of lasguns to remove marines rather than just outnumbering them on objectives and feeding the woodchipper so to speak.

lol. Imperal gurd bad 4 using guns haha

 Jidmah wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Logically, yes. It would not make sense for all marines but Death guard getting 2 wounds. The issue it that with an army wide FNP and many ways to buff it, the basic plague marine soon gets an effective 4 or more wounds a model. And this isn't taking into account their terminators. Plague marines are going to have to start costing a handful of points shy of custodes to reflect their actual value. And they won't.

There aren't "many" ways to buff their FNP, the only way they can get to an effective wound count of "4 or more" is by spending 2 CP per phase while having a specific character near them that was upgraded by a stratagem limited to a specific plague company.

And even then, they still don't do damage comparable to any other marine unit, let a lone a custodes, not to mention that they don't get an army trait that actually does anything, unlike every other loyal marine in existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.

If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.

Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

In my estimation, death guard are, as of this change, the best army in the game bar none. No loyalist marines beat them. Not iron hands, not salamanders.

Also a squad of combat plague marines trounces custodes guard with these changes.

I'm just saying there's more involved in a unit's utility than its ability to kill.

In Aos, I play a Slaves to Darkness Chaos Undivided Warrior and Knight heavy army. It hits like a wet noodle. At the same time, it does take a bit of effort to shift. If I play to remove my opponent's forces, I will never win a game. Shifting to playing the mission and controlling the table though has me doing much better than what is regarded as a low tier faction.

If players want to try and play 9th edition like they played previous editions, I think a lot of them are going to have a bad time. I don't think it should come to much of a surprise that lasguns/autorifle don't do much to tough/well armored opponents.

Imperial Guard, like my Genestealer Cult, is going to have to prepare to use their Troop slots to hold objectives/ground maybe causing the occasional opportunity wound. I do think trying force Troop vs. Troop killing the same amount per point is the wrong way to go about things.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.

If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.

Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

1.33, surely?

Going from one wound to 2 wounds for a 5+++ is effectively getting 3 (very slightly more than),

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah it is absolutely true that the old, single-author books would have definite tones and agendas that varied based on how much the author cared about the faction.

They don't do that any more, the 8th edition releases are much more professional in not letting the biases of the writers show. Though the quality itself was still all over the place, particularly for the PA releases and, obviously, the SM 2.0 + supplement debacle.

it's clear even now when the folks managing a codex have a vision and passion for the army.

Let's just hope that there's someone with some passion/vision when it comes to the Tyranids.

I don't want Cruddace 4: Revenge of the Bland.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Let's just hope that there's someone with some passion/vision when it comes to the Tyranids.

I don't want Cruddace 4: Revenge of the Bland.

I agree completely. 'nids IMHO should be an insanely flexable army. 'nids (much like modern Marines) should be an army that you sit down to play against and won't know what you're fighting until you show up because there's so many differant avenues you can take with them

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Let's just hope that there's someone with some passion/vision when it comes to the Tyranids.

I don't want Cruddace 4: Revenge of the Bland.

I agree completely. 'nids IMHO should be an insanely flexable army. 'nids (much like modern Marines) should be an army that you sit down to play against and won't know what you're fighting until you show up because there's so many differant avenues you can take with them

I can't remember too well, but didn't older editions lay it on thick with purchased upgrades / adaptations?

The ethos for Tyranid design should be about adaptability, by way of the old phrase "Anything you can do I can do better!".

[EDIT]: Sort of. The 3rd Ed Tyranid 'Dex had a whole section on customised hive fleets. It didn't really work because, like any situation where you have to "give up" things you were never intending to take in the first place, you didn't lose anything for making the most of the rules. So Tyranid custom swarms ended up having as few species as possible so as to maximise the amount of Rending Claw super-Gaunts you could take (only take three species - HT, Carnifex & Gaunts = 1 in ever 3 Gaunts can have rending claws!).

4th gave us tons of biomorph options... on the Carnifex kit. The Carnifex was the star of the show, and Phil Kelly wrote that book so that the only real way to play 'Nids was to buy the new fancy Carnifex kit and play Nidzilla.

It only got worse from there. Current 'Dex is the best in a while, but has so many flaws that it needs an overhaul like Marines are getting.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Let's just hope that there's someone with some passion/vision when it comes to the Tyranids.

I don't want Cruddace 4: Revenge of the Bland.

Completely agree. The game I am looking forward to the most is my space marines vs. a friend of mines Nidzilla army. I want a brutal game with piles of dead marines heroically chipping away at those behemoths. I don't want to have take a quarter less points to maybe make it happen though.

Games Workshop is going to have to figure out a way to my Tyranids, especially the big bugs, resilient enough to be scary. I haven't clue how they could to it though. Increasing Toughness only gets so far, and more Wounds could work if their wasn't mechanics that strip terrain buffs go over a certain amount.

Edit: I wouldn't be opposed to pre-game/Command Phase evolution adaptions (kind of like Canticles) for Tyranids to quickly adjust to their opponent's army. Hopefully, GW would make the options actual options rather than these one or two adaption are worth taking, and the rest aren't outside very corner cases or at all.

stratigo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Logically, yes. It would not make sense for all marines but Death guard getting 2 wounds. The issue it that with an army wide FNP and many ways to buff it, the basic plague marine soon gets an effective 4 or more wounds a model. And this isn't taking into account their terminators. Plague marines are going to have to start costing a handful of points shy of custodes to reflect their actual value. And they won't.

There aren't "many" ways to buff their FNP, the only way they can get to an effective wound count of "4 or more" is by spending 2 CP per phase while having a specific character near them that was upgraded by a stratagem limited to a specific plague company.

And even then, they still don't do damage comparable to any other marine unit, let a lone a custodes, not to mention that they don't get an army trait that actually does anything, unlike every other loyal marine in existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It does seem problematic. It's going to be hard to tread the line between making sure they cost enough to not be overpowered, without making them so expensive that they cease to be useful as troops.

If 1W on a tactical is worth 3 points, +1W on a PM with a 5+++ has to be worth at least double that, and arguably more with the way the missions are set up right now. So you're getting up into 25ish points a model territory before any gear.

Math at it's finest. A 5+++ is the equivalent of multiplying wounds by 1.5 under perfect conditions, so the extra wound should cost more than twice as much?

In my estimation, death guard are, as of this change, the best army in the game bar none. No loyalist marines beat them. Not iron hands, not salamanders.

Also a squad of combat plague marines trounces custodes guard with these changes.

LOL imagine saying that with a straight face.

BrianDavion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah it is absolutely true that the old, single-author books would have definite tones and agendas that varied based on how much the author cared about the faction.

They don't do that any more, the 8th edition releases are much more professional in not letting the biases of the writers show. Though the quality itself was still all over the place, particularly for the PA releases and, obviously, the SM 2.0 + supplement debacle.

it's clear even now when the folks managing a codex have a vision and passion for the army.

Supplements as well. Whoever wrote the Night Lords rules in Faith and Fury must have been taking notes straight out of ADB's trilogy. I really hope they got to write whatever rules Night Lords will be getting in the new csm codex.