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.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
What do Nids care about core? No worthwhile aura's except Synapse and that's obviously gonna stay army wide... Maybe Maleceptor strat? Most people aren't really playing that anyway though I will say it's pretty good. Can't think of much else that even matters. Malanthropes are gak now, and the only thing Venoms are taken for is buffing troops, so I can't see core really mattering.

honestly some armies may well not have the core distinction because it doesn't really fit with them.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
What do Nids care about core? No worthwhile aura's except Synapse and that's obviously gonna stay army wide... Maybe Maleceptor strat? Most people aren't really playing that anyway though I will say it's pretty good. Can't think of much else that even matters. Malanthropes are gak now, and the only thing Venoms are taken for is buffing troops, so I can't see core really mattering.

Possibly for psychic powers and strats. Some of the SM psychic powers in the new Codex will have limitations based around the Core keyword according to what some people have been able to decipher from the blurry preview images. I wouldn't be surprised to see some strats only work with Core units in an attempt to rein in potential abuses.

Going back a bit, but the rumoured Aggressor nerfs are probably the removal of double shoot. That ability on that unit makes it a nightmare to design and balance around and it is the #1 culprit for long games. Forget 120 Ork Boyz, 6 Aggressors with full re-rolls is what grinds the game to a halt. And since GW wants to speed games up in 9th, I'd put good money on double shoot Aggressors seeing the chopping block.

And it's not like the unit lacks any special rules. It's already capable of advancing and firing without penalty so from a design standpoint giving it an ability that rewards it for not moving is completely ass-backwards. And that's not even taking into account the myriad of ways you can bypass it anyway.

I agree and hope they get rid of it.

All potential balance issues aside, just the time it takes to resolve the average amount of shots including re-rolls is a pain.

Seems sensible - do the same with the Eradicators rule and we are getting somewhere

 fraser1191 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Place bets, if Eradicators aren't core, no rerolls any more.

You mean no more Shoot Twice? We already know if they aren't CORE rerolls will be few and far between if not entirely absent.

I think it's more likely they are CORE than not CORE though. If Terminators are CORE - and that was one of the example units that would be - then I can't see how Aggressors and Eradicators wouldn't be. If they're the Primaris analog to Terminators they'd need to be CORE, if they're just regular Devs and such in upgraded Armor, they'd still be Core?

Hellblasters are intercessors with plasma guns. I'd say they are more core than eradicators. My guess is that core is going to be for themes. All terminators, bikes, dreads, etc with a couple offshoot units. Eradicators imo are too specialized to be core

Hate to break it to you but the White Dwarf battle report mentions Eradicators are core, so your theory is already debunked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Going back a bit, but the rumoured Aggressor nerfs are probably the removal of double shoot. That ability on that unit makes it a nightmare to design and balance around and it is the #1 culprit for long games. Forget 120 Ork Boyz, 6 Aggressors with full re-rolls is what grinds the game to a halt. And since GW wants to speed games up in 9th, I'd put good money on double shoot Aggressors seeing the chopping block.

And it's not like the unit lacks any special rules. It's already capable of advancing and firing without penalty so from a design standpoint giving it an ability that rewards it for not moving is completely ass-backwards. And that's not even taking into account the myriad of ways you can bypass it anyway.

If they decided double shots were a mistake they wouldn't have given them to Eradicators.

Double shooting itself is not a problem - time wise - if you have only 1-3 shots as a base, like a full Eradicator squad.

It gets tedious if you double 50+ shots.

Yeah designwise it's not so much of an issue on Erad's because you're talking 6 shots.

The sheer number of dice on Aggressors slows games down to an unacceptable degree but also dilutes the identity of the unit and steps on the toes of others as with that many shots they're easily capable of bringing down a Knight in one round of shooting (Chapter reliant).

Eradicators having double shoot is fine in theory but the way the rule has been written just removes all tactical thought and choice from the equation. If it was re-worded and worked differently the unit wouldn't be so problematic.

Plus as I said in my original post, there's an inherent contradiction in Aggressors rules. They get a rule that encourages them to advance and be mobile, but also another rule that incentivises standing still.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Double shooting itself is not a problem - time wise - if you have only 1-3 shots as a base, like a full Eradicator squad.

It gets tedious if you double 50+ shots.

Actually the time consuming part is not the ammount of shots bt the ammount of rerolls, leading to a double in search time for the die to reroll.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Yeah designwise it's not so much of an issue on Erad's because you're talking 6 shots.

The sheer number of dice on Aggressors slows games down to an unacceptable degree but also dilutes the identity of the unit and steps on the toes of others as with that many shots they're easily capable of bringing down a Knight in one round of shooting (Chapter reliant).

Eradicators having double shoot is fine in theory but the way the rule has been written just removes all tactical thought and choice from the equation. If it was re-worded and worked differently the unit wouldn't be so problematic.

Plus as I said in my original post, there's an inherent contradiction in Aggressors rules. They get a rule that encourages them to advance and be mobile, but also another rule that incentivises standing still.

dude exp[ecting agressors to have shoots twice removed is setting yourself up for dissappointment. why are we assuming the rumor about agressors being "massivly debuffed" is true anyway? I thought I heard the source on that was Reece?

thing is it's likely the source is simply "my copy of the play test had aggressors pointed really high" thing is points costs are pretty easy to change and I'd not trust a Playtester on that given that the 9th edition rules apparently had 9 seperate drafts (source this months white dwarf)

BrianDavion wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Yeah designwise it's not so much of an issue on Erad's because you're talking 6 shots.

The sheer number of dice on Aggressors slows games down to an unacceptable degree but also dilutes the identity of the unit and steps on the toes of others as with that many shots they're easily capable of bringing down a Knight in one round of shooting (Chapter reliant).

Eradicators having double shoot is fine in theory but the way the rule has been written just removes all tactical thought and choice from the equation. If it was re-worded and worked differently the unit wouldn't be so problematic.

Plus as I said in my original post, there's an inherent contradiction in Aggressors rules. They get a rule that encourages them to advance and be mobile, but also another rule that incentivises standing still.

dude exp[ecting agressors to have shoots twice removed is setting yourself up for dissappointment. why are we assuming the rumor about agressors being "massivly debuffed" is true anyway? I thought I heard the source on that was Reece?

thing is it's likely the source is simply "my copy of the play test had aggressors pointed really high" thing is points costs are pretty easy to change and I'd not trust a Playtester on that given that the 9th edition rules apparently had 9 seperate drafts (source this months white dwarf)

Because we've heard it from two separate playtester sources at this point and they wouldn't base their statements on non-final points values as, y'know, they're non-final. Behaviour and statements from all the playtesters about the place of units comes from new rules and new rules only which are practically confirmed and immutable. That's why the MFM was such a shock to all of them. For comparison all of the revealed and leaked stuff has been information the playtesters have been sitting on for months now and has changed very little, if at all. There has been zero instances of some playtester going "Oh wow, this is completely different to what we playtested!" to any of the new rules stuff we've seen.

Plus as I mentioned previously, GW wants to speed 9th up and from the information we can glean from the leaks and info, they're actually very aware of design issues arising from the Marine Codex and its Supplements. That's why you have Core keyword, 2W Marines, Aura changes, Character upgrade changes etc*. What is one of the most glaring problems in the Codex? Aggressors double firing, for all of the reasons I've given previously.

I'm not saying it's absolutely going to happen, but with 9th and the new Codex being an opportunity to fix issues with the army and game I would be unsurprised to see Aggressors unchanged in any significant way. Splitting their boltstorms into two separate weapons doesn't do it and they'll likely have the Core keyword too. Increasing their points doesn't solve the design and gameplay conundrum they present either. Points rebalancing is a stopgap, band-aid measure, but this is an entirely new edition with new rules and new statlines.

*And guess which of those new things have been known to the playtesters for months now and which they aren't surprised about? All of them. They've known all of them and playtested them.

I'd not have my heart set on it. if it happens so be it (they're still a solid unit without it so I'd not be too crushed so long as they don't jack the points up at the same time) but you're setting yourself up for dissappointment

 Bosskelot wrote:


Because we've heard it from two separate playtester sources at this point and they wouldn't base their statements on non-final points values as, y'know, they're non-final. Behaviour and statements from all the playtesters about the place of units comes from new rules and new rules only which are practically confirmed and immutable. That's why the MFM was such a shock to all of them. For comparison all of the revealed and leaked stuff has been information the playtesters have been sitting on for months now and has changed very little, if at all. There has been zero instances of some playtester going "Oh wow, this is completely different to what we playtested!" to any of the new rules stuff we've seen.

Plus as I mentioned previously, GW wants to speed 9th up and from the information we can glean from the leaks and info, they're actually very aware of design issues arising from the Marine Codex and its Supplements. That's why you have Core keyword, 2W Marines, Aura changes, Character upgrade changes etc*. What is one of the most glaring problems in the Codex? Aggressors double firing, for all of the reasons I've given previously.

I'm not saying it's absolutely going to happen, but with 9th and the new Codex being an opportunity to fix issues with the army and game I would be unsurprised to see Aggressors unchanged in any significant way. Splitting their boltstorms into two separate weapons doesn't do it and they'll likely have the Core keyword too. Increasing their points doesn't solve the design and gameplay conundrum they present either. Points rebalancing is a stopgap, band-aid measure, but this is an entirely new edition with new rules and new statlines.

*And guess which of those new things have been known to the playtesters for months now and which they aren't surprised about? All of them. They've known all of them and playtested them.

Are they getting rid of DDD too? It doesn't take any longer to sift through some dice for 1's than it does to sift through them for 6's? Hail of Living Ammunition? Hungering Swarm? There are a lot of Reroll 1's/Extra Bonus Roll with 6's out there, on some potentially large units rolling a lot of dice that then get to reroll/add roll 16% of them for it to only be Aggressors that are the problem.

No other army or unit in the game can get 144 dice rolls and re-roll all of them. Even 30 Ork Boyz are incapable of that, especially as you'll never have all 30 in range to attack. Your examples are also laughable in comparison to Aggressors with 90 Termagaunt shots only capable of re-rolling wound rolls of 1 in comparison to 144 re-rolling every hit AND re-rolling wound rolls of 1. Even outside of the re-rolls they'll get more hits, which then leads directly into more wound rolls needing to be made.

There's absolutely no real comparison there. Even assuming non-max shots you're still looking at 110+ re-rollable dice which will still lead to like 80-90 wound rolls. And like the Ork Boyz, the unit size of the Gaunts makes it difficult to get everything in range, so even in optimal conditions you're looking at 90 hit rolls and 45 wound rolls, of which 7-8 can be re-rolled.

This is also assuming that those units wouldn't also be changed somehow, but even then, 30 devourer termagaunts is not as much of an issue as Aggressors. Mathhammer and actual game experience holds up.

 Bosskelot wrote:
No other army or unit in the game can get 144 dice rolls and re-roll all of them. Even 30 Ork Boyz are incapable of that, especially as you'll never have all 30 in range to attack. Your examples are also laughable in comparison to Aggressors with 90 Termagaunt shots only capable of re-rolling wound rolls of 1 in comparison to 144 re-rolling every hit AND re-rolling wound rolls of 1. Even outside of the re-rolls they'll get more hits, which then leads directly into more wound rolls needing to be made.

There's absolutely no real comparison there. Even assuming non-max shots you're still looking at 110+ re-rollable dice which will still lead to like 80-90 wound rolls. And like the Ork Boyz, the unit size of the Gaunts makes it difficult to get everything in range, so even in optimal conditions you're looking at 90 hit rolls and 45 wound rolls, of which 7-8 can be re-rolled.

This is also assuming that those units wouldn't also be changed somehow, but even then, 30 devourer termagaunts is not as much of an issue as Aggressors. Mathhammer and actual game experience holds up.

So is your problem with rerolls, or with Aggressors/Marines? Because one unit of Guants etc might not have the same number of rerolls, but there will be more units of them won't there? Nor do we reroll the successful hits, so you're only rerolling 1/6th to 1/3 of those 110 dice. And Only when a Captain/ChapterMaster is in range which means we're not just talking about one unit with the Aggressors either.. I'm guessing your 110+ rerollable means 6 Aggressors with Boltstorm and Frag Launcher and that's about 270 points? That's 74 Rapid Fire Pulse Rifles with a Rerolling 1's Marker Light. Plus the points spent on the HQ's to let the Aggressors reroll. 130ish for the captain gets you another 37ish pulse rifle shots = 111 that reroll 1's?

Breton wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
No other army or unit in the game can get 144 dice rolls and re-roll all of them. Even 30 Ork Boyz are incapable of that, especially as you'll never have all 30 in range to attack. Your examples are also laughable in comparison to Aggressors with 90 Termagaunt shots only capable of re-rolling wound rolls of 1 in comparison to 144 re-rolling every hit AND re-rolling wound rolls of 1. Even outside of the re-rolls they'll get more hits, which then leads directly into more wound rolls needing to be made.

There's absolutely no real comparison there. Even assuming non-max shots you're still looking at 110+ re-rollable dice which will still lead to like 80-90 wound rolls. And like the Ork Boyz, the unit size of the Gaunts makes it difficult to get everything in range, so even in optimal conditions you're looking at 90 hit rolls and 45 wound rolls, of which 7-8 can be re-rolled.

This is also assuming that those units wouldn't also be changed somehow, but even then, 30 devourer termagaunts is not as much of an issue as Aggressors. Mathhammer and actual game experience holds up.

So is your problem with rerolls, or with Aggressors/Marines? Because one unit of Guants etc might not have the same number of rerolls, but there will be more units of them won't there? Nor do we reroll the successful hits, so you're only rerolling 1/6th to 1/3 of those 110 dice. And Only when a Captain/ChapterMaster is in range which means we're not just talking about one unit with the Aggressors either.. I'm guessing your 110+ rerollable means 6 Aggressors with Boltstorm and Frag Launcher and that's about 270 points? That's 74 Rapid Fire Pulse Rifles with a Rerolling 1's Marker Light. Plus the points spent on the HQ's to let the Aggressors reroll. 130ish for the captain gets you another 37ish pulse rifle shots = 111 that reroll 1's?

I wont speak for them but to me, the rerolls are the worst part of aggressors. You get them in all 3 phases (shooting, overwatch, melee). Lets say im running wyches to try and tie them down because god knows i wont get to kill them. thats 3 tedious reroll sessions that i have to wait through.

Chapter master rerolls are a problem when units have that many shots, and not just for balancing purposes. I can't believe it when marine players complain about hordes' movement phase take too long.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


I wont speak for them but to me, the rerolls are the worst part of aggressors. You get them in all 3 phases (shooting, overwatch, melee). Lets say im running wyches to try and tie them down because god knows i wont get to kill them. thats 3 tedious reroll sessions that i have to wait through.

Chapter master rerolls are a problem when units have that many shots, and not just for balancing purposes. I can't believe it when marine players complain about hordes' movement phase take too long.

Would you prefer to see all the Marine attacks go up a notch? Assault 6 goes to Assault 7 or 8 to make up for the lost rerolls? Rapid Fire 1 to Rapid Fire 2, and so on?

Breton wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


I wont speak for them but to me, the rerolls are the worst part of aggressors. You get them in all 3 phases (shooting, overwatch, melee). Lets say im running wyches to try and tie them down because god knows i wont get to kill them. thats 3 tedious reroll sessions that i have to wait through.

Chapter master rerolls are a problem when units have that many shots, and not just for balancing purposes. I can't believe it when marine players complain about hordes' movement phase take too long.

Would you prefer to see all the Marine attacks go up a notch? Assault 6 goes to Assault 7 or 8 to make up for the lost rerolls? Rapid Fire 1 to Rapid Fire 2, and so on?

No, i'd like them to not have as many rerolls. Theyre already good even without them because of their higher rate of fire, strength and AP.

Breton wrote:

Voss wrote:
It's a keyword, though. It doesn't have to be assigned by any sort of category in any way at all.

If Warriors ought to be Core (and yes, I'd say so), they just... get the keyword.

But it's going to have to make sense. There has to be some logical consistency so players won't feel its arbitrary and rigged for or against specific armies.

There is a logical consistency- Warriors are common tyranid organisms that are typically seen in the battleline of tyranid armies, they're central to how the swarm deploys and behaves.
That's what Core is for- warriors are going to be one of the least controversial units when it comes to Core designation.

The stuff people will argue about is Zoanthropes, Hive Guard, Biovores and etc. The specialists that are common enough and useful enough (especially the first two), but not necessarily a vital strategic part of tyranid armies in general.
And some of it is sadly going to depend on how Core is implemented in the first two books, especially marines. If GW is... 'overly generous' with the designation, folks will expect that to continue.

Breton wrote:


Are they getting rid of DDD too? It doesn't take any longer to sift through some dice for 1's than it does to sift through them for 6's? Hail of Living Ammunition? Hungering Swarm? There are a lot of Reroll 1's/Extra Bonus Roll with 6's out there, on some potentially large units rolling a lot of dice that then get to reroll/add roll 16% of them for it to only be Aggressors that are the problem.

I would 100% be on board with getting rid of DDD if you just made Orkz bog standard 4+ to hit and grotz 3+ we actually might get some damn hits for a change. And it would make upgrading weapons to a Rokkit at 10pts per a bit more reasonable.

Karol wrote:

SemperMortis 791574 10933725 wrote:
If you go out and say a Unit is awesome and going to do well and it turns out to be complete crap? well your reputation as an expert might suffer a bit.

Wasn't the only thing he said that was weird. Claimed that GK were too powerful, then that GK players don't know how to play, and then proposed to use units every compatitive GK player was already using as the golden way to play GK in 8th. Didn't make himself trusted with statements like that either. I have a feeling he probably said stuff like that about more armies too.

Correct, he also was wrong about GK, Tau, Eldar etc etc. He tends to be more wrong than right. Later into 8th he also said Grotz are the most amazing unit in the Ork codex, winning matches almost by themselves. In reality, they were taken as meat shields for units that could actually accomplish things. Let me quote him

"However, if you build your list and plan your tactics around them, you will find that they are the most points efficient and the most versatile unit that the Orks have."

So it wasn't just him saying the Stompa and Killa Kanz would be amazing, it was also basically anything else he ever said about the ork faction and even other factions as well.

Breton wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
No other army or unit in the game can get 144 dice rolls and re-roll all of them. Even 30 Ork Boyz are incapable of that, especially as you'll never have all 30 in range to attack. Your examples are also laughable in comparison to Aggressors with 90 Termagaunt shots only capable of re-rolling wound rolls of 1 in comparison to 144 re-rolling every hit AND re-rolling wound rolls of 1. Even outside of the re-rolls they'll get more hits, which then leads directly into more wound rolls needing to be made.

There's absolutely no real comparison there. Even assuming non-max shots you're still looking at 110+ re-rollable dice which will still lead to like 80-90 wound rolls. And like the Ork Boyz, the unit size of the Gaunts makes it difficult to get everything in range, so even in optimal conditions you're looking at 90 hit rolls and 45 wound rolls, of which 7-8 can be re-rolled.

This is also assuming that those units wouldn't also be changed somehow, but even then, 30 devourer termagaunts is not as much of an issue as Aggressors. Mathhammer and actual game experience holds up.

So is your problem with rerolls, or with Aggressors/Marines? Because one unit of Guants etc might not have the same number of rerolls, but there will be more units of them won't there? Nor do we reroll the successful hits, so you're only rerolling 1/6th to 1/3 of those 110 dice. And Only when a Captain/ChapterMaster is in range which means we're not just talking about one unit with the Aggressors either.. I'm guessing your 110+ rerollable means 6 Aggressors with Boltstorm and Frag Launcher and that's about 270 points? That's 74 Rapid Fire Pulse Rifles with a Rerolling 1's Marker Light. Plus the points spent on the HQ's to let the Aggressors reroll. 130ish for the captain gets you another 37ish pulse rifle shots = 111 that reroll 1's?

And how often are all of those Gaunts going to be in firing range? How many of them will hit which then translates to wound rolls being made? It's still substantially lower and quicker than Aggressors, even without re-rolls. And again you keep bringing up examples that don't help your point, with units that get substantially fewer shots and make significantly less dice rolls. Is bringing up 30-ish Fire Warriors with a Markerlight really meant to help your point? I'm honestly confused.

Even discounting re-rolls Aggressors slow the game down to a crawl. But they do have easy access to re-rolls. And on-hit effects that can allow for extra dice to be rolled. And they're cheap enough to easily fit 2 units of them into a 2k list.

The double shoot mechanic on a unit like that is not defensible in any way shape or form.

And from your other posts you seem to think Aggressors would need their weaponry buffed to compensate if they lost double shooting or access to re-rolls which is the most ??? thing ever. If it turns out they're too pricy without that ability then shock horror, they can get their points reduced. But even then, 72 shots from a 6 man unit with plentiful re-rolls at good BS, decent strength, characters and stratagem buffs and the tactical doctrine is still perfectly fething fine and usable.

Breton wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
No other army or unit in the game can get 144 dice rolls and re-roll all of them. Even 30 Ork Boyz are incapable of that, especially as you'll never have all 30 in range to attack. Your examples are also laughable in comparison to Aggressors with 90 Termagaunt shots only capable of re-rolling wound rolls of 1 in comparison to 144 re-rolling every hit AND re-rolling wound rolls of 1. Even outside of the re-rolls they'll get more hits, which then leads directly into more wound rolls needing to be made.

There's absolutely no real comparison there. Even assuming non-max shots you're still looking at 110+ re-rollable dice which will still lead to like 80-90 wound rolls. And like the Ork Boyz, the unit size of the Gaunts makes it difficult to get everything in range, so even in optimal conditions you're looking at 90 hit rolls and 45 wound rolls, of which 7-8 can be re-rolled.

This is also assuming that those units wouldn't also be changed somehow, but even then, 30 devourer termagaunts is not as much of an issue as Aggressors. Mathhammer and actual game experience holds up.

So is your problem with rerolls, or with Aggressors/Marines? Because one unit of Guants etc might not have the same number of rerolls, but there will be more units of them won't there? Nor do we reroll the successful hits, so you're only rerolling 1/6th to 1/3 of those 110 dice. And Only when a Captain/ChapterMaster is in range which means we're not just talking about one unit with the Aggressors either.. I'm guessing your 110+ rerollable means 6 Aggressors with Boltstorm and Frag Launcher and that's about 270 points? That's 74 Rapid Fire Pulse Rifles with a Rerolling 1's Marker Light. Plus the points spent on the HQ's to let the Aggressors reroll. 130ish for the captain gets you another 37ish pulse rifle shots = 111 that reroll 1's?

The problem is more with things that actually happen in a game. The examples of Gaunts, or Ork Boyz can happen and sometimes they will, but with Aggressors they happen in pretty much every game where that unit appears so at the moment the problem is the perfect storm of Aggressors and SM buffs but that's not to say the core mechanics that allow re-rolls to be so prevalent aren't the real problem. All your comments about extra points for character support etc are pretty meaningless when the core argument is "rerolling that number of dice is time-consuming and stupid". I don't really care too much how many points my opponent has spent to get all those re-rolls when the answer is "not enough to significantly reduce the amount of firepower elsewhere in their list". I've charged Aggressors in 8th with full re-rolls to hit and re-roll 1s to wound and my God was it a stupid experience. It took my opponent longer to roll the Overwatch dice than it did for me to resolve the resulting close combat with a unit of Death Company.

74 Pulse Rifles wouldn't be as much of a problem since they only re-roll 1s and don't get wound re-rolls (as far as I recall anyway). They're also not seen very often so in practical terms they're not a problem I care about.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Breton wrote:


Would you prefer to see all the Marine attacks go up a notch? Assault 6 goes to Assault 7 or 8 to make up for the lost rerolls? Rapid Fire 1 to Rapid Fire 2, and so on?

No, i'd like them to not have as many rerolls. Theyre already good even without them because of their higher rate of fire, strength and AP.

So you want them to get worse. Again, is your problem rerolls or Marines? We get rid of the rerolls, and just give them extra shots to make up for the lost value, and you don’t like that either, so it feels like rerolls is the excuse to nerf Marines.

Breton wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Breton wrote:


Would you prefer to see all the Marine attacks go up a notch? Assault 6 goes to Assault 7 or 8 to make up for the lost rerolls? Rapid Fire 1 to Rapid Fire 2, and so on?

No, i'd like them to not have as many rerolls. Theyre already good even without them because of their higher rate of fire, strength and AP.

So you want them to get worse. Again, is your problem rerolls or Marines? We get rid of the rerolls, and just give them extra shots to make up for the lost value, and you don’t like that either, so it feels like rerolls is the excuse to nerf Marines.

Why give them anything? How about we remove the double shots and recost them appropriately? Units don't need to have special rules in order to be useful and interesting.

Slipspace wrote:


The problem is more with things that actually happen in a game. The examples of Gaunts, or Ork Boyz can happen and sometimes they will, but with Aggressors they happen in pretty much every game where that unit appears so at the moment the problem is the perfect storm of Aggressors and SM buffs but that's not to say the core mechanics that allow re-rolls to be so prevalent aren't the real problem. All your comments about extra points for character support etc are pretty meaningless when the core argument is "rerolling that number of dice is time-consuming and stupid". I don't really care too much how many points my opponent has spent to get all those re-rolls when the answer is "not enough to significantly reduce the amount of firepower elsewhere in their list". I've charged Aggressors in 8th with full re-rolls to hit and re-roll 1s to wound and my God was it a stupid experience. It took my opponent longer to roll the Overwatch dice than it did for me to resolve the resulting close combat with a unit of Death Company.

74 Pulse Rifles wouldn't be as much of a problem since they only re-roll 1s and don't get wound re-rolls (as far as I recall anyway). They're also not seen very often so in practical terms they're not a problem I care about.

The reroll for those pulse rifles comes from a single 3 point marker light, and gives it to the entire army shooting at that target. The reroll for Marines comes from a 100+ point character and is only given to the units nearby. If you want to add as many pulse rifles as a lieutenant is valued, we can add some more rerolls to that too.

And no, pointing out the points sunk in creating the rerolls bubbles, and the points sunk in the unit using the bubble isn’t pretty meaningless. Especially when you have a little apples and oranges going on by switching to units for the comparison. It’s 3 units and about 25% of a 2000 point army to get that up and running, to then complain no single unit and 10-15% points from another army can get that many shots rerolling or add rolling is a little deceptive.

I’ve seen a lot of people in here complaining about the rerolls, but what they’re really complaining about is the Aggressor.

It’s fairly straight forward, the low model count armies need higher shots per model to be able to get enough damage output to play with the high model count armies. If you yank the rerolls which gives them limited extra shots, they have to get even more of those extra shots all the time to make up for it. If they’re not complaining about marker lights, their problem isn’t rerolls, if their response is “Yeah, but Agressors” their problem isn’t rerolls.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:


Why give them anything? How about we remove the double shots and recost them appropriately? Units don't need to have special rules in order to be useful and interesting.

Right, why would marines need to shoot more often than the 200 orks/bugs/fish/etc they’re playing against? Just give them all rapid fire 1, and watch them die. And now we’re removing double shots AND rerolls. Yet again the problem isn’t rerolls, it’s nerfing Marines.

Breton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:


The problem is more with things that actually happen in a game. The examples of Gaunts, or Ork Boyz can happen and sometimes they will, but with Aggressors they happen in pretty much every game where that unit appears so at the moment the problem is the perfect storm of Aggressors and SM buffs but that's not to say the core mechanics that allow re-rolls to be so prevalent aren't the real problem. All your comments about extra points for character support etc are pretty meaningless when the core argument is "rerolling that number of dice is time-consuming and stupid". I don't really care too much how many points my opponent has spent to get all those re-rolls when the answer is "not enough to significantly reduce the amount of firepower elsewhere in their list". I've charged Aggressors in 8th with full re-rolls to hit and re-roll 1s to wound and my God was it a stupid experience. It took my opponent longer to roll the Overwatch dice than it did for me to resolve the resulting close combat with a unit of Death Company.

74 Pulse Rifles wouldn't be as much of a problem since they only re-roll 1s and don't get wound re-rolls (as far as I recall anyway). They're also not seen very often so in practical terms they're not a problem I care about.

The reroll for those pulse rifles comes from a single 3 point marker light, and gives it to the entire army shooting at that target. The reroll for Marines comes from a 100+ point character and is only given to the units nearby. If you want to add as many pulse rifles as a lieutenant is valued, we can add some more rerolls to that too.

And no, pointing out the points sunk in creating the rerolls bubbles, and the points sunk in the unit using the bubble isn’t pretty meaningless. Especially when you have a little apples and oranges going on by switching to units for the comparison. It’s 3 units and about 25% of a 2000 point army to get that up and running, to then complain no single unit and 10-15% points from another army can get that many shots rerolling or add rolling is a little deceptive.

I’ve seen a lot of people in here complaining about the rerolls, but what they’re really complaining about is the Aggressor.

You're missing the point. People complain about Aggressors because they actually have to play with and against them. I couldn't care less about a theoretical problem, because it doesn't exist - I've literally never seen that number of Fire Warriors used by anyone because other things are better. If we ended up in a position where Tau armies were routinely getting 100+ shots and rerolling 50 dice between hit and wound re-rolls then yes, I'd be complaining abut Tau re-rolls as well. The problem is the prevalence of re-rolls but the main offender in this case is a SM unit. That's likely because SM in general are pretty broken so a lot of the more egregious examples of broken things are in their Codex. I'm also not a fan of the various other units in the game that show up with large numbers of re-rolls in tow.

Breton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:


Why give them anything? How about we remove the double shots and recost them appropriately? Units don't need to have special rules in order to be useful and interesting.

Right, why would marines need to shoot more often than the 200 orks/bugs/fish/etc they’re playing against? Just give them all rapid fire 1, and watch them die. And now we’re removing double shots AND rerolls. Yet again the problem isn’t rerolls, it’s nerfing Marines.

You don't need to shoot more often, you just need to shoot more effectively. There's no inherent reason that Aggressors have to be able to shoot twice. They could be just as effective without that rule if their points and/or weapon stats changed. Also, elite armies should not just be given a get out of jail free card against hordes by upping their firepower to match them. Having a unit that fires more shots than the horde it's up against, while still getting the advantages of an elite unit (better accuracy, better armour, better save, etc) is bad game design.

 Bosskelot wrote:


And how often are all of those Gaunts going to be in firing range?

The same as Aggressors, they have the same range.

How many of them will hit which then translates to wound rolls being made? It's still substantially lower and quicker than Aggressors, even without re-rolls. And again you keep bringing up examples that don't help your point, with units that get substantially fewer shots and make significantly less dice rolls. Is bringing up 30-ish Fire Warriors with a Markerlight really meant to help your point? I'm honestly confused.

Is continually trying to compare a single unit without the relative value points and slot costs as a percentage of the army list supposed to help yours? Those 30ish Firewarriors are approximately equal points, and do in fact get those reroll-able shots you said no other "unit" could get. Once you start matching point for point instead of unit for unit which isn't as uniform from codex to codex your 100+ rerollable shots can happen.

Even discounting re-rolls Aggressors slow the game down to a crawl. But they do have easy access to re-rolls. And on-hit effects that can allow for extra dice to be rolled. And they're cheap enough to easily fit 2 units of them into a 2k list.

And now you're at about a third of a 2,000 point list and eating CP in stratagems.

The double shoot mechanic on a unit like that is not defensible in any way shape or form.

And from your other posts you seem to think Aggressors would need their weaponry buffed to compensate if they lost double shooting or access to re-rolls which is the most ??? thing ever. If it turns out they're too pricy without that ability then shock horror, they can get their points reduced. But even then, 72 shots from a 6 man unit with plentiful re-rolls at good BS, decent strength, characters and stratagem buffs and the tactical doctrine is still perfectly fething fine and usable.

Well, we could make them about 20 points per model, in units of 5-10 with ~10-11 shots per model. I think the double shoot mechanic wasn't the best choice. I think taking away the volume of fire a low model count army needs to engage a high model count army probably isn't about the time involved for the low model count army. I think turning them into 3-6 Assault 4 Terminators without an invuln will make a lot of high model count armies happy, but won't do much for balance.

Slipspace 791574 10935323 wrote:

Why give them anything? How about we remove the double shots and recost them appropriately? Units don't need to have special rules in order to be useful and interesting.

The way GW recosts things, there is slim chance that after losing the shot twice ability the aggressors would still be worth it. Unless the point drop is really huge. But then people are going to claim that they cost too little.

can we all kindly shut the feth up about agressors? weather they need a nerfing or not the core rules aren't going to be what does it.

Breton wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:


And how often are all of those Gaunts going to be in firing range?

The same as Aggressors, they have the same range.

Theorycrafting gone wrong my friend. It’s a lot easier to get 6 bases in range than it is to get 30. It’s really not that practical. However to be honest, if you’re running 30 Devourers gaunts you’re probably snake-tunnelling them so you will probably get them all in range of SOMETHING at least. Not that it’s a very good strategy