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.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The detachment pricing.

What initially Battalions and brigades gave you comparatively too low benefits for fielding them due to the ammount of tax units, special detachments additonal cost now too few CP to not consider over tax heavier "core" detachments like brigades and battalions.

You get the refund on your first detachment. Okay, so due to the higher obligations you are unlikely to see a double battalion versus a battalion+spearhead. But I'm not sure why that matters beyond some sort of aesthetic desire.

Tyel wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The detachment pricing.

What initially Battalions and brigades gave you comparatively too low benefits for fielding them due to the ammount of tax units, special detachments additonal cost now too few CP to not consider over tax heavier "core" detachments like brigades and battalions.

You get the refund on your first detachment. Okay, so due to the higher obligations you are unlikely to see a double battalion versus a battalion+spearhead. But I'm not sure why that matters beyond some sort of aesthetic desire.

Fairly simple, the Aesthetic is counting for GW.
Why else is a cultist 6 ppm when a guardsmen is 5 or a grot 5.

GW very much cares about the aesthetic identity of factions, to the point that they decide to feth over balance.
It also is an issue in regards to what is fielded, whilest battalions and brigades ensured a "healthier" mix (soup bypassed it to a degree but .......) of units in an army, there's now rather no reason to not just go all out on, say Aggressors, eliminators and eradicators, with some token intercissors.

Beardedragon wrote:
Because GW has adopted a policy that is, if anything can threaten space marine players it must be nerfed.

No.
They have shown some units or weapons that are able to combat Marines effectively.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/01/the-top-9-space-marine-killers/

Indeed, heavy bolters are now D2 and can kill 2W models outright.
But they are also doubly effective to kill say lowly-armored tanks.

Necron Praetorians are also listed with there new D2 weapons.
But who fields Praetorians these days?

 wuestenfux wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
Because GW has adopted a policy that is, if anything can threaten space marine players it must be nerfed.

No.
They have shown some units or weapons that are able to combat Marines effectively.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/01/the-top-9-space-marine-killers/

Indeed, heavy bolters are now D2 and can kill 2W models outright.
But they are also doubly effective to kill say lowly-armored tanks.

Necron Praetorians are also listed with there new D2 weapons.
But who fields Praetorians these days?

I like how they state that the Helldrake , of all things, is an effective marine slayer, with any loadout...

 Dolnikan wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:


Absolutely. But the way they did it now is a brand new level of dumbness.

It’s the same level. They made the exact same mistake, they just made it the other direction. They didn’t learn from the mistake, they didn’t even understand the mistake.

Well, the old idea at least made some sort of sense where you would get more command points for larger detachments that take more units to fill. Of course, that completely underestimated the power of soup which is why lots of people are still upset about guard because cheap bodies are amazing to support elites, especially if they also give extra command points to help boost the elites even further.

Their new mistake is that they don't really understand what different kinds of detachments are worth to buy. In fact, it stuns me that for instance the big detachments cost more, which, punishes taking more troops over taking detachments that take more of the juicy stuff. I understand that they want to limit soup in some way, but this doesn't achieve that. This actually gives the reverse incentive where it's best to go more and more into points-expensive elites.

Incidentally, that is a bad financial idea because those units tend to cost less [£ $ €]/point than cheaper troops. I also don't think that it's actually meant to promote marines. Historically, they really haven't been good at developing their rules to make them best-sellers. That status is based on completely different things than their rules.

More radio traffic on fewer radio nets further distracting your warlord? They should just make it X CP per points size army. I can't say CP has proven to be an especially effective stick and carrot for making players create the armies GW thinks we're supposed to make. People are far more willing to game the system to get more, than they are unwilling to ignore the system to make the army they want. I've already seen someone point out a Cap/Lt/Bubble Char giving two rerolls just earned back his entire Det's CP cost. By that I mean they were much happier to bring along a Loyal 32 than they were afraid of chucking any concern for CP and skewing a list. They need to quit trying to use CP to coerce it and return to the drawing board.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Fairly simple, the Aesthetic is counting for GW.
Why else is a cultist 6 ppm when a guardsmen is 5 or a grot 5.

GW very much cares about the aesthetic identity of factions, to the point that they decide to feth over balance.
It also is an issue in regards to what is fielded, whilest battalions and brigades ensured a "healthier" mix (soup bypassed it to a degree but .......) of units in an army, there's now rather no reason to not just go all out on, say Aggressors, eliminators and eradicators, with some token intercissors.

I think guardsmen may be 5 points because Guard seem to be quite rubbish, and so nerfing them more would seem a bit unfair.
Obviously could be early game syndrome - but I am finding the sort of "Guard should be good, Orks are trash" takes from the experts running into reality and being quite inaccurate interesting.
As I think anyone would say, trying to see how a new meta works is incredibly difficult due to the interactions - but at some point you should be trying to explain what is happening on tables, not what should be happening.

I guess if you think everyone should take 6 troop units minimum then fair enough, but I'm not sure it should be an obligation. I don't think there's much evidence the number of troop units is materially decreasing on tables.

 Dolnikan wrote:


Well, the old idea at least made some sort of sense where you would get more command points for larger detachments that take more units to fill. Of course, that completely underestimated the power of soup which is why lots of people are still upset about guard because cheap bodies are amazing to support elites, especially if they also give extra command points to help boost the elites even further.

To be honest I prefer how detachment works now, the old mechanics could have been good but with one signficant change: CPs are faction locked. Soups are legal but the loyal32 only provides CPs for those 32 dudes unless the entire army is Astra Militarum. Imperium player can still bring them but for what they are (cheap screeners) not for what other units get (more CPs) if they are part of the list.

So in practise the old detachment system would work like the current one: you add more detachments if you want units from different books or more HQ/FA/HS slots.

ohh i agree with you, it shouldn't be an obligation and subfactions should play diffrently, but i just attempted to showcase why GW doesn't hink that way.

For gw it was not acceptable that an ORK army had more grots then boyz.
For chaos the same but with CSM to cultist ratio.

Tyel wrote:


I think guardsmen may be 5 points because Guard seem to be quite rubbish, and so nerfing them more would seem a bit unfair.

AM is extremely solid, as it was in the entire 8th edition.

Tyel wrote:


I guess if you think everyone should take 6 troop units minimum then fair enough, but I'm not sure it should be an obligation. I don't think there's much evidence the number of troop units is materially decreasing on tables.

I'm still waiting for GW to stop kicking the can down the road on armies that don't use troops as troops. I don't think I ever had more fun than when taking Belial/Samael turned DW/RW into troops. It wasn't particularly effective, but it was fun to make something completely different for a change.

I don't think the number of troops units will decline, but I think the number of troops (total and/or in those units) will. I think troops units are going to get smaller, and you may or may not have more of them. You're still going to have to sit on objectives with troops to score. But people think blast is going to make units smaller. The prices went up for a lot of armies. That's all going to combine to make troops units smaller to keep the toys in in the list.

 Blndmage wrote:
I feel like they've made the decision that having a body on the field, even a grot, is worth 5 points. There's a minimum base cost for just taking up space.

I really think that guardsmen should have gone up, if only to 6 points, if Ork Boyz are still at 7.

Which is a weird decision when scoring is entirely based on UNITS not BODIES, and I can go ahead and take a UNIT who is infinitely more effective than Grots at the job of scoring (Does other things, hides more effectively, is harder to kill, has character protection) for HALF the point cost.

People keep bringing this up and it keeps being a stupid argument, I'm sorry.

Do you really think having 10x bodies with obsec holding an objective matters at all when you can easily wipe that unit out with the boltguns from a 5-man space marine squad? You're never going to have grots holding an objective that's in any way contested.

the_scotsman wrote:


Which is a weird decision when scoring is entirely based on UNITS not BODIES

Half of another problem GW absolutely fails to see and figure out. You buy units in points, you score objectives in bodies.

Breton wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


Which is a weird decision when scoring is entirely based on UNITS not BODIES

Half of another problem GW absolutely fails to see and figure out. You buy units in points, you score objectives in bodies.

And sometimes you score for units, but then cost isn't taken into account at all.

 Blackie wrote:
AM is extremely solid, as it was in the entire 8th edition.

This isn't a windup - I'm happy to be shown wrong - but at the few tournaments that have run and published results Guard seem to be nowhere.
As said, this could be an early thing, a meta thing, but its difficult to wave away.

Tyel wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
AM is extremely solid, as it was in the entire 8th edition.

This isn't a windup - I'm happy to be shown wrong - but at the few tournaments that have run and published results Guard seem to be nowhere.
As said, this could be an early thing, a meta thing, but its difficult to wave away.

Guard tanks have no invulns, Eradicators are OP against tanks without an invul, Eradicators are an underpriced unit which a lot of armies have access to so they are everywhere which leads to lots of dead Guard tanks. It will take someone building a list around something other than tanks before they win I think.

With 5ppm guardsmen eradicators will never be in melta range though.

 Blackie wrote:
With 5ppm guardsmen eradicators will never be in melta range though.

They don't need to be, they are good enough at 24" range, I think the issue AM are facing is not taking enough Guardsmen and Company Commanders, but a 25% increase is no joke even if it pales in comparison to the hit Gretchin took.

Tyel wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
AM is extremely solid, as it was in the entire 8th edition.

This isn't a windup - I'm happy to be shown wrong - but at the few tournaments that have run and published results Guard seem to be nowhere.
As said, this could be an early thing, a meta thing, but its difficult to wave away.

Nowhere?

Atleast they still have entries, unlike most FW index armies.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
Because GW has adopted a policy that is, if anything can threaten space marine players it must be nerfed.

No.
They have shown some units or weapons that are able to combat Marines effectively.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/01/the-top-9-space-marine-killers/

Indeed, heavy bolters are now D2 and can kill 2W models outright.
But they are also doubly effective to kill say lowly-armored tanks.

Necron Praetorians are also listed with there new D2 weapons.
But who fields Praetorians these days?

Sorry, but this made me laugh. Top 9 Space Marine Killers.

Exocrine: 170pts for a 6 shot weapon that hits on 4s and wounds on 3s w/-3 AP so they still get a save (5+ if in cover). Averages 3.3 dmg vs T4 3+ models. or 1-2 dead Marines

HellChickens: 150-155pts for 4 S8 -1 D2 shots hitting on 4s wounding on 2s still allowing a 4+ save. Averages less than 1 dead Marine a turn. if you put a flamer on it its 3.5 shots wounding on 3s for 2.3 wounds against a 5+ save = 3 dmg, or 1.5 dead Marines.

Ravager: 160pts for 9 S5 -3AP D2 shots hitting on 3s. 6 hits, 4 wounds and 3.3 dead Marines, unless they are in cover than its 2.6

Demon Prince: 160pts (200 with wings). give it talons and make it Khorne and it can kill a whopping 3.3 Marines on average...in Close Combat.

Meganobz: 120pts for 12 attacks hitting on 4s wounding on 2s with 2dmg, if you can get them into close combat they can kill 5 Marines on average, but good luck getting them there intact, Movement is 4. So either Teleport them or you need a transport.

At this point I am going to stop because its a bit silly. The top 5, the best pt for pt Marine Killer is Meganobz who suffer from the fact that they are one of the slowest units in the game and when caught in the open die to the plethora of heavy weapons aimed at them, mostly because they lack any invuln save. The funniest for me was the Exocrine (Sorry Nid guys). I mean, it really depends on what kind of Marines you are shooting and you do get ranged attacks as opposed to having to be on top of the Marines but still...wow.

Which raises the question as to whether there are real answers to cost-effective 2W Marine-killing outside of Marines. Most Custodian units kill 2-3 Marines each in melee, but you need to get them into melee and your cheapest option is spear-Guard at 49pts/model. Five Stormtroopers with two plasma guns kill just under three Marines for 65pts, which isn't terrible. Five Dark Reapers kill around three Marines as well but cost 175pts to do it.

SemperMortis wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
Because GW has adopted a policy that is, if anything can threaten space marine players it must be nerfed.

No.
They have shown some units or weapons that are able to combat Marines effectively.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/01/the-top-9-space-marine-killers/

Indeed, heavy bolters are now D2 and can kill 2W models outright.
But they are also doubly effective to kill say lowly-armored tanks.

Necron Praetorians are also listed with there new D2 weapons.
But who fields Praetorians these days?

Sorry, but this made me laugh. Top 9 Space Marine Killers.

Exocrine: 170pts for a 6 shot weapon that hits on 4s and wounds on 3s w/-3 AP so they still get a save (5+ if in cover). Averages 3.3 dmg vs T4 3+ models. or 1-2 dead Marines

HellChickens: 150-155pts for 4 S8 -1 D2 shots hitting on 4s wounding on 2s still allowing a 4+ save. Averages less than 1 dead Marine a turn. if you put a flamer on it its 3.5 shots wounding on 3s for 2.3 wounds against a 5+ save = 3 dmg, or 1.5 dead Marines.

Ravager: 160pts for 9 S5 -3AP D2 shots hitting on 3s. 6 hits, 4 wounds and 3.3 dead Marines, unless they are in cover than its 2.6

Demon Prince: 160pts (200 with wings). give it talons and make it Khorne and it can kill a whopping 3.3 Marines on average...in Close Combat.

Meganobz: 120pts for 12 attacks hitting on 4s wounding on 2s with 2dmg, if you can get them into close combat they can kill 5 Marines on average, but good luck getting them there intact, Movement is 4. So either Teleport them or you need a transport.

At this point I am going to stop because its a bit silly. The top 5, the best pt for pt Marine Killer is Meganobz who suffer from the fact that they are one of the slowest units in the game and when caught in the open die to the plethora of heavy weapons aimed at them, mostly because they lack any invuln save. The funniest for me was the Exocrine (Sorry Nid guys). I mean, it really depends on what kind of Marines you are shooting and you do get ranged attacks as opposed to having to be on top of the Marines but still...wow.

Exocrines can claim a +1 to hit if they do not move or if they use a Stratagem. They are a very decent unit. Anything with a range other than melee should not get 50+% of its pts back in one turn without Stratagems.

Dont exocrines like shoot twice if they dont move or something? I feel like they get a good number of shots.

Pretty sure Exocrines get to shoot twice if they don't move. Which is arguably terrible design in combination with the +1 to hit from standing still, as moving makes them 3/8 as good - which is... worse than going from BS 3+ to BS 5+ - but expecting to kill 4.44 marines doesn't seem terrible.

Given Ravagers probably single handedly heralded in Marines 2.0 (okay maybe not) its hard to see them as bad either.

Really only the Heldrake seems bad, because it is.

Tyel wrote:
Pretty sure Exocrines get to shoot twice if they don't move. Which is arguably terrible design in combination with the +1 to hit from standing still, as moving makes them 3/8 as good - which is... worse than going from BS 3+ to BS 5+ - but expecting to kill 4.44 marines doesn't seem terrible.

Given Ravagers probably single handedly heralded in Marines 2.0 (okay maybe not) its hard to see them as bad either.

Really only the Heldrake seems bad, because it is.

the heldrakes and the aberrants are pretty foolish.

Exocrene: +1 to hit for not moving. Can also fire twice if it didn't move. Hive Fleet Kronos also gets you re-roll 1s to hit if it doesn't move.

.777 x .666 x .83 x 12 = 5.15 2D hits.

Sorry, but this made me laugh. Top 9 Space Marine Killers.

Seconded.
But what worries me when you play Xenos are heavy bolters that are upgraded to 2D.
With 2D they are doubly effective to take on light tanks such as Starweavers, Raiders, and what not.

the_scotsman wrote:
the heldrakes and the aberrants are pretty foolish.

I'm sort of blanking Aberrants from existence. In a world where 35 points gets you a Bladeguard, its clearly reasonable that 52 points gets you a guy with 2 wounds and a road sign.

I suspect if they were 22-24 points with a pick they'd be a reasonable anti-marine choice. But they are not, so they are bad.

You know the problem with almost all of these? If it doesn't involve massed shots or attacks that are S4 or less loyalists can just negate them for 2CP.

Tyel wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
the heldrakes and the aberrants are pretty foolish.

I'm sort of blanking Aberrants from existence. In a world where 35 points gets you a Bladeguard, its clearly reasonable that 52 points gets you a guy with 2 wounds and a road sign.

I suspect if they were 22-24 points with a pick they'd be a reasonable anti-marine choice. But they are not, so they are bad.

It's also comical to me that in a world of bolters, bolt carbines, special issue bolters, bolt rifles, assault bolters, etc, the power pick held by the WS4+ S3 2A sergeant of a 1A GEQ infantry squad is STILL the same pts cost as the power pick held by the WS3+ S5 2A dedicated assault squad who also happens to get 2 bonus S5 AP- D1 rending attacks on top of the pick.

And the fact that that pick costs the stupid GEQ sergeant the same as a damn power fist. GSC weaponry is a bad joke.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You know the problem with almost all of these? If it doesn't involve massed shots or attacks that are S4 or less loyalists can just negate them for 2CP.

I'm not sure the math works so well on that, actually. I have Devilgaunts, and every time I do the math on them they come out a little disappointing even though they can fire 90 S4 shots. Muti-damage comes out better because D2 is twice the kill and 2CP to reduce a .666 to a .5 is only a 25ish% reduction. Top that off with a generally better AP on the higher powered weapons and there's still plenty of merit to use them. The 2W really puts a damper on the S4 spam.
90 x.5 x .6 x .333 = 8.9w (the .6 is for gant capability of rerolling 1s to wound if they're a big squad) 240 points for the squad and they only remove four marine bodies.

16x .666 x .5 x .83 x2 = 8.84w (eight overcharged plasma guns still do the work of 30 Devourers when the Strat is played)

Plus, you can bait the Strat out on one unit and then blaze away at another, in which case those plasma shots get a lot more output.