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.

Slipspace wrote:


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.

Oh I think I'm seeing the point. And it's not the rerolls. Go back and look, how many posts are just like yours? Rerolls are bad, so nerf marines because they're broken.

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.

They're already hitting ~67% of the time, wounding ~50% of the time, and frequently negating saves.

10 Intercessors gets 10-20 shots for about 200 points. 200 points of Orks is 25 Boys, 26 wounds. To get 26 Damage on a 6+ with a S4 -1 1D you need 26 wounds. to get 26 wounds, you need 52 hits. To get 52 his, you need about 70 shots. Turn 1 is 10 shots, Turn 2 is 20 (30 total) Turn 3 is 20 (50 total) Turn 4 is 20, 70 Total.

Now that's probably not too bad. Given how much quicker attrition will hit the Intercessors it's probably not good, but its not bad and that's close to the sweet spot to aim for. The problem is to get the other roles filled something is going to have to be better at ranged infantry killing to make up for the lost volume from the anti-tank etc shooting. 60 intercessors probably does well against 150 Orks or guardsmen. It doesn't work well against a boat load of Leman Russes. So the TAC list has to be able to take an infantry killer to be able to take the tank killer, and the transports, etc on that well rounded non-skew list.

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.

It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators

 Mr Morden wrote:


It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators

This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.

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.

I'm assuming the removal of the double shoot would come with an appropriate pts change. If any other army had the same number of shots with the same number of rerolls on a similar unit, i would be advocating for that unit to lose something to make it less tedious.

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?

So your equating Reroll 1's to hit on a BS 4 model as equal to full rerolls on a BS 3 model and Reroll 1's to wound

Also WTAF are you on with your firewarrior maths.

270 points gets you 30 Fire warriors thats at most 60 shots in rapid fire range.
That 130 is actually an 85 point Captain who can buff everything in a 14 inch diameter circle and only gets you 28 additional shots in rapid fire range.
Marketlight is 5 points and realistically you need 2 due to needing to hit with it on a 4+, but the due shooting the markerlight can't shoot anything else.so your back down to 84 shots. At 1 target.

But please continue with your Example that Firewarriors out shoot Agressors

So 424 points of FW gets you 88 S5 Ap0 15 inch shots rerolling 1's to hit.
420 points gets you Captain +Lt plus 6 Agressors who get 114 S4 Ap-1 shots on avarage. Reolling 1's to hit and 1's to wound. (Not including the Captain or LT shooting.

That's not exactly going to workout in anyway but in favour of marines but lets shoot Orks to make it as favourable to the marines as possible.

FW 44 hits plus 7.33 after rerolling 1's.
33.2 wounds and 28.51 Failed Saves.

Agressors only 76 hits plus 12.67 after reroll 1's
44.3 wounds plus 7.39 after reroll 1's with no saves allowed is 51.72 wounds

51.72/28.51 aka Agressors are 1.81 times as efficent as FW but sure please explain how they would be useless if they were nerfed.

Breton wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators

This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.

Is it a bandwagon though?
Other factions pay alot more in ressources for double firerate.
Including but not limited to : Subfaction restriction, limited to one use, CP, specific further add ons, pts as if a unit allways would shoot double etc on top of the other stuff..

Breton wrote:
The same as Aggressors, they have the same range.

Er, 30 models needing to all be in range is a very different prospect from 6. And even then, it's still less shots, with no hit re-rolls and less wound rolls being made because of worse BS. So it's still an invalid comparison.

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.

30 Fire Warriors is only 60 shots, hitting at worse BS (unless full ML hits), either only re-rolling ones or only re-rolling failed hit rolls and only once per game. So where are these 100+ fully re-rollable shots coming from? They are also not re-rolling any wound rolls.

And if you're going to spread the comparison to only be based on relative points values, will every single one of those Fire Warriors have LOS and be able to shoot? What about ones that are doing actions?

Just completely ignoring re-rolls, to even get the same level of dice numbers as Aggressors using Fire Warriors you're talking about taking a full 6 units of 12 at the very least. This is practically never, ever seen and it's also over double the points of a single unit of Aggressors and also assumes that every single one of those 72 Fire Warriors has full unobstructed LoS and is also not performing an action in any given turn. Like another poster said, we're talking about actual situations and problems that exist in the game, not theoretical bs.

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

Taking a good unit and spending CP on a unit that benefits from it? How is this a downside? This is is how 40k works. You spend points and spend CP to amplify the effectiveness of those points spent. Maybe try playing the game sometime dude idk

(2 full units of Aggressors is also barely over a quarter of your points and because of their hyper efficiency when it comes to doubleshooting re-roll firepower, they're capable of wiping out anything in the game many times over so it's 100% worth it to invest in them)

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.

Like I said, even without doubleshoot they'll be getting 72 shots a turn. When you add in good BS, AP in tac doctrine, super doctrines, CM/cap/LT re-rolls, Litanies and stratagems, there is no way that's still a bad unit. What are you smoking when you think that isn't capable of still putting hurt out onto high model count armies? It's still incredibly capable of blowing up most vehicles in one round of shots too.

 Mr Morden wrote:

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.

It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators

Can we stop complaining about Eradicators being too strong. The codex is not even out yet. It is index 40k. Yes - they cost too little at present. It is undeniable. 2 melta shots for 40 points is insane. 1 for 40 points is pretty bad though. This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?

People will complain as long as they exist as they currently are.

I agree that "wait and see" is the correct move right now. the codex is almost here and i really hope that the balance will be better than it is right now. I want to enjoy playing against marines.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

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.

It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators

Can we stop complaining about Eradicators being too strong. The codex is not even out yet. It is index 40k. Yes - they cost too little at present. It is undeniable. 2 melta shots for 40 points is insane. 1 for 40 points is pretty bad though. This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?

Basically every thread?

Remember? Karol? Martel?

Heck, you?

You don't remember stuff like

Thread name: Hey I have a question about using liquid greenstuff
First comment: MY GREY KNIGHTS CANT EVEN WIN A GAME AGAINST LIQUID GREENSTUFF!!!!

the_scotsman wrote:
=

Basically every thread?

Remember? Karol? Martel?

Heck, you?

You don't remember stuff like

Thread name: Hey I have a question about using liquid greenstuff
First comment: MY GREY KNIGHTS CANT EVEN WIN A GAME AGAINST LIQUID GREENSTUFF!!!!

yeah, also this.

And lets not forget that Guilliman and AssBack was THE top tier list to beat at the beginning of 8th.

And yes, i remember many times seeing people wish marines were better (in the time period where they sucked).

Same is happening now with Tyranids, they suck and people wish they didnt.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators

This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.

Is it a bandwagon though?
Other factions pay alot more in ressources for double firerate.
Including but not limited to : Subfaction restriction, limited to one use, CP, specific further add ons, pts as if a unit allways would shoot double etc on top of the other stuff..

How much do berzerkers pay for double fighting?
Actually better comparison...
How much does an exocrine pay to shoot twice if it stays still? 0? Oh yeah. 0.
How much does a LR pay to shoot it's maingun twice if it moves less than half? Oh Yeah...0.

It is absolutely band wagon. They are literally just giving marines rules that other factions have had for the entirety of an edition. FFS Marine vehicles did not even get army traits until this codex....for 2 years!!!! Did GW maybe give marines too much at once? The only thing that really puts marines over the top is the stratagems which are just following the trend for stratagems getting better and better all edition. How good is a RG army without the auto charge turn 1 warlord trait? How good is a relic levi without the character stratagem? How good are salamanders aggressors thought the counts as stationary stratagem? The answer to all these questions is...worth their points.

Stratagems are the real issue and they are all about the change.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
=

Basically every thread?

Remember? Karol? Martel?

Heck, you?

You don't remember stuff like

Thread name: Hey I have a question about using liquid greenstuff
First comment: MY GREY KNIGHTS CANT EVEN WIN A GAME AGAINST LIQUID GREENSTUFF!!!!

yeah, also this.

And lets not forget that Guilliman and AssBack was THE top tier list to beat at the beginning of 8th.

And yes, i remember many times seeing people wish marines were better (in the time period where they sucked).

Same is happening now with Tyranids, they suck and people wish they didnt.

Oh dear god please give nids the new big scary codex that sits utterly dominating for 12 months. I'd love to see people complain about how npc races were the best in the game.

Ahhhh tyranids were wonderfully good for a chunk of 8th. I sorta don't even wanna unpack mine right now...

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators

This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.

Is it a bandwagon though?
Other factions pay alot more in ressources for double firerate.
Including but not limited to : Subfaction restriction, limited to one use, CP, specific further add ons, pts as if a unit allways would shoot double etc on top of the other stuff..

How much do berzerkers pay for double fighting?
Actually better comparison...
How much does an exocrine pay to shoot twice if it stays still? 0? Oh yeah. 0.
How much does a LR pay to shoot it's maingun twice if it moves less than half? Oh Yeah...0.

It is absolutely band wagon. They are literally just giving marines rules that other factions have had for the entirety of an edition. FFS Marine vehicles did not even get army traits until this codex....for 2 years!!!! Did GW maybe give marines too much at once? The only thing that really puts marines over the top is the stratagems which are just following the trend for stratagems getting better and better all edition. How good is a RG army without the auto charge turn 1 warlord trait? How good is a relic levi without the character stratagem? How good are salamanders aggressors thought the counts as stationary stratagem? The answer to all these questions is...worth their points.

Stratagems are the real issue and they are all about the change.

None of these double shooting units take nearly as long as agressors to resolve a shooting phase.
And yes, the double shooting is included in the base cost of the units.

Its not specifically anti-marine. it just happens that marines are the ones that get a single unit to shoot 200 shots with full rerolls.

You keep thinking that we're complaining about the power-level of aggressors when in reality its the tediousness that we're complaining about.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators

This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.

Is it a bandwagon though?
Other factions pay alot more in ressources for double firerate.
Including but not limited to : Subfaction restriction, limited to one use, CP, specific further add ons, pts as if a unit allways would shoot double etc on top of the other stuff..

How much do berzerkers pay for double fighting?
Actually better comparison...
How much does an exocrine pay to shoot twice if it stays still? 0? Oh yeah. 0.
How much does a LR pay to shoot it's maingun twice if it moves less than half? Oh Yeah...0.

It is absolutely band wagon. They are literally just giving marines rules that other factions have had for the entirety of an edition. FFS Marine vehicles did not even get army traits until this codex....for 2 years!!!! Did GW maybe give marines too much at once? The only thing that really puts marines over the top is the stratagems which are just following the trend for stratagems getting better and better all edition. How good is a RG army without the auto charge turn 1 warlord trait? How good is a relic levi without the character stratagem? How good are salamanders aggressors thought the counts as stationary stratagem? The answer to all these questions is...worth their points.

Stratagems are the real issue and they are all about the change.

....No? Stratagems are not what's about to change with the new codex. We already know the supplements are going precisely nowhere, and we also know that Aggressors might be getting a core datasheet change to get 1/2 the shots, depending on how the assembly datasheet translates to the full one.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators

This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.

Is it a bandwagon though?
Other factions pay alot more in ressources for double firerate.
Including but not limited to : Subfaction restriction, limited to one use, CP, specific further add ons, pts as if a unit allways would shoot double etc on top of the other stuff..

How much do berzerkers pay for double fighting?
Actually better comparison...
How much does an exocrine pay to shoot twice if it stays still? 0? Oh yeah. 0.
How much does a LR pay to shoot it's maingun twice if it moves less than half? Oh Yeah...0.

It is absolutely band wagon. They are literally just giving marines rules that other factions have had for the entirety of an edition. FFS Marine vehicles did not even get army traits until this codex....for 2 years!!!!

CSM still don't. so what. Btw For berzerkers it's an heightened price , limited acess internally for the faction overall to them and if you intend to fight 3 x , as one might want to get rid of big scary stuff, that'd be another 3cp. Also melee, not shooting, melee by virtue of beeing interactive, unlike shooting, allows for opponents to strike back. And has the issue of range and reach.

Did GW maybe give marines too much at once? The only thing that really puts marines over the top is the stratagems which are just following the trend for stratagems getting better and better all edition.

Heavily debatable considering alot more stratagems have been nerfed for non SM factions.

How good is a RG army without the auto charge turn 1 warlord trait? How good is a relic levi without the character stratagem? How good are salamanders aggressors thought the counts as stationary stratagem? The answer to all these questions is...worth their points.

Stratagems are the real issue and they are all about the change.

Stratagems, unlike eradicators, cost CP, that is a ressource with a price and a built in once / turn limit. The condition is nonexistent comparatively, to other units, which makes them too cheap.
Aggressors have it as an inate capability,with an somewhat working conditional trigger, yet we have stratagems to bypass it.

It's by far not just Stratagems that are a balancing issue, it's the fact that unequal access internally exists to these, whilest units have a singular price. It's the fact that some subfactions have vsatly superior free buffs in form of traits then others. Codex SM is just the worst offender atm, for a design decision issue that GW itself created.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
=

Basically every thread?

Remember? Karol? Martel?

Heck, you?

You don't remember stuff like

Thread name: Hey I have a question about using liquid greenstuff
First comment: MY GREY KNIGHTS CANT EVEN WIN A GAME AGAINST LIQUID GREENSTUFF!!!!

yeah, also this.

And lets not forget that Guilliman and AssBack was THE top tier list to beat at the beginning of 8th.

And yes, i remember many times seeing people wish marines were better (in the time period where they sucked).

Same is happening now with Tyranids, they suck and people wish they didnt.

index 40k. It was irrelevant then as it is irrelevant now.

Its fun watching a marine player try to prove that marines are not broken only to grasp and fail at finding comparable scenario's.
Kinda drives home how incomparable marines currently are.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ahhhh tyranids were wonderfully good for a chunk of 8th. I sorta don't even wanna unpack mine right now...

Well - the hive tyrant was pretty good. They Nerfed it big time. Smite nerf really hurt it. Point increase really hurt it. No deep strike turn 1 really hurt it. Rest of tyranid units outside of hivegaurd are pretty bad. Mine are also on the shelf.

Breton wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators

This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.

Ahh the old - I am right - everyone else is therefore wrong is better? A group of people can be right you know.

FFS Marine vehicles did not even get army traits until this codex....for 2 years!!!!

Nor did other factions - all of which was nonsese and I was equally vocal that it was so for any of them.

Can we stop complaining about Eradicators being too strong. The codex is not even out yet. It is index 40k. Yes - they cost too little at present. It is undeniable. 2 melta shots for 40 points is insane. 1 for 40 points is pretty bad though. This antimarine sentiment is outrageous.

So we all agree - they are currently far too powerful, hence the thread fo those who for some bizare reason want such unbalcned units in the game.

Not antimarine - but anti broken units - same as I was against Cheese Serpents back in the day

 Ordana wrote:
Its fun watching a marine player try to prove that marines are not broken only to grasp and fail at finding comparable scenario's.
Kinda drives home how incomparable marines currently are.

I literally provided a handful (not all) comparable rules to aggressors shoot twice if stationary. These are literally comparable scenarios...they are the exact same scenario...pls explain your thinking?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Its fun watching a marine player try to prove that marines are not broken only to grasp and fail at finding comparable scenario's.
Kinda drives home how incomparable marines currently are.

I literally provided a handful (not all) comparable rules to aggressors shoot twice if stationary. These are literally comparable scenarios...they are the exact same scenario...pls explain your thinking?

I will admit Leman Russ's being able to move as fast as a sprinting guardsmen and hence faster than eldar skimmers is very annoying and they are not short of firepower!

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Its fun watching a marine player try to prove that marines are not broken only to grasp and fail at finding comparable scenario's.
Kinda drives home how incomparable marines currently are.

I literally provided a handful (not all) comparable rules to aggressors shoot twice if stationary. These are literally comparable scenarios...they are the exact same scenario...pls explain your thinking?

I was mainly talking people like the one trying to argue firewarriors were comparable to Aggressors.
But thanks for feeling personally attacked.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


It seems one persons "worse" is the majority's "Balanced" - again, same with Eradicators

This is called a bandwagon appeal. It's the argument that the Earth is flat because there are so many people in the Society.

Is it a bandwagon though?
Other factions pay alot more in ressources for double firerate.
Including but not limited to : Subfaction restriction, limited to one use, CP, specific further add ons, pts as if a unit allways would shoot double etc on top of the other stuff..

How much do berzerkers pay for double fighting?
Actually better comparison...
How much does an exocrine pay to shoot twice if it stays still? 0? Oh yeah. 0.
How much does a LR pay to shoot it's maingun twice if it moves less than half? Oh Yeah...0.

It is absolutely band wagon. They are literally just giving marines rules that other factions have had for the entirety of an edition. FFS Marine vehicles did not even get army traits until this codex....for 2 years!!!!

CSM still don't. so what. Btw For berzerkers it's an heightened price , limited acess internally for the faction overall to them and if you intend to fight 3 x , as one might want to get rid of big scary stuff, that'd be another 3cp. Also melee, not shooting, melee by virtue of beeing interactive, unlike shooting, allows for opponents to strike back. And has the issue of range and reach.

Did GW maybe give marines too much at once? The only thing that really puts marines over the top is the stratagems which are just following the trend for stratagems getting better and better all edition.

Heavily debatable considering alot more stratagems have been nerfed for non SM factions.

How good is a RG army without the auto charge turn 1 warlord trait? How good is a relic levi without the character stratagem? How good are salamanders aggressors thought the counts as stationary stratagem? The answer to all these questions is...worth their points.

Stratagems are the real issue and they are all about the change.

Stratagems, unlike eradicators, cost CP, that is a ressource with a price and a built in once / turn limit. The condition is nonexistent comparatively, to other units, which makes them too cheap.
Aggressors have it as an inate capability,with an somewhat working conditional trigger, yet we have stratagems to bypass it.

It's by far not just Stratagems that are a balancing issue, it's the fact that unequal access internally exists to these, whilest units have a singular price. It's the fact that some subfactions have vsatly superior free buffs in form of traits then others. Codex SM is just the worst offender atm, for a design decision issue that GW itself created.

Bezerkers fight twice for free. Their point cost might be too high and agressors might be too low (it actually not - they got increased in price)
LR shoots twice for free
Exocrine shoots twice for free

Marines really needed those special buffs in order to compete. They were trash teir. In some situations they got a little or a lot too much. Mostly in ironhands supplement and doctrines being chosen rather than changing. Marines are still in the top teir...but...some of you need to realize - marines being top tier is okay. At some point any army can be top tier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Its fun watching a marine player try to prove that marines are not broken only to grasp and fail at finding comparable scenario's.
Kinda drives home how incomparable marines currently are.

I literally provided a handful (not all) comparable rules to aggressors shoot twice if stationary. These are literally comparable scenarios...they are the exact same scenario...pls explain your thinking?

I was mainly talking people like the one trying to argue firewarriors were comparable to Aggressors.
But thanks for feeling personally attacked.

It seemed kinda targeted as I literally just provided examples and it directly proceeded me.

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.

Bad faith argument. Aggressors come in 3-6 man units, its a hell of a lot easier to stack a bunch of aggressors into range than it is to get 30 models into range.

Breton wrote:
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.

I am glad you brought that up. Marines SHOULD NOT be shooting more than 200 orkz/bugs/fish/etc. At least for Orkz this is true. The original design concept was Marines shoot 1 shot but have a likely chance to hit 1 time, orkz on the other hand have to shoot twice in order to get roughly the same hit ratio. There were memes and jokes floating around about Orkz rolling buckets of dice, it was literally a part of the games humor. But right now is that true? well lets look at your own example.

Breton wrote:
10 Intercessors gets 10-20 shots for about 200 points. 200 points of Orks is 25 Boys, 26 wounds. To get 26 Damage on a 6+ with a S4 -1 1D you need 26 wounds. to get 26 wounds, you need 52 hits. To get 52 his, you need about 70 shots. Turn 1 is 10 shots, Turn 2 is 20 (30 total) Turn 3 is 20 (50 total) Turn 4 is 20, 70 Total.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't Intercessors get bolter discipline which means they get 20 shots turn 1?

In return, Shoota boyz specifically. In order to kill 10 Intercessors you need 20 damage, to get 20 damage you need 60 wounds to get 60 wounds orkz need 120 hits, to get 120 hits orkz need 360 shots. Hell, I'll cheat for you and give you those extra 5 shoota boyz. So 30 Boyz get 0 shots turn 1 (18' range), 70 shots turn 2, 70 shots turn 3 (140 total) 70 shots turn 4 (210 total) and 70 shots turn 5 (280 total). So in order for those Shoota boyz to kill LESS points than they are themselves worth, the game would have to go on for at least 2 more turns. Also, those intercessors have 30' range unless you gave them assault bolters so they are likely sitting their happy little butts in cover which means in order to get 20 damage orkz actually need 120 wounds and 240 hits which is 720 shots So when you sit here complaining that it takes 4 turns for intercessors to kill an ork boyz unit of similar points value, remember it takes 7 turns to make it back, and only then if the orkz sneak in an extra 5 models.

Into your next argument

Breton wrote:
Now that's probably not too bad. Given how much quicker attrition will hit the Intercessors it's probably not good, but its not bad and that's close to the sweet spot to aim for. The problem is to get the other roles filled something is going to have to be better at ranged infantry killing to make up for the lost volume from the anti-tank etc shooting. 60 intercessors probably does well against 150 Orks or guardsmen. It doesn't work well against a boat load of Leman Russes. So the TAC list has to be able to take an infantry killer to be able to take the tank killer, and the transports, etc on that well rounded non-skew list.

10 intercessors turn 1 will hit 6.6 times and inflict 3.3 wounds which kill 3.3 boyz, orkz can't shoot back, turn 2 intercessors hit 13.2 times and inflict 6.6 wounds killing 6.6 boyz, those orkz are now down to 15 models, who then return fire with 35 shots for 11 hits and 5.5 wounds which inflicts....1.83 wounds, lets cheat and round up and say 1 dead intercessor. Turn 3 12 hits, 6 wounds and 6 more dead orkz. Boyz return with 21 shots, 7 hits and 3.5 wounds for 1 more wound. Intercessors shoot, 12 more hits, 6 more wounds and 6 more dead boyz. Orkz are now down to 3 models while the SM Intercessors are down to 9 with 1 wound left on another model. Congrats you win the attrition games. So yep, Intercessors are significantly better in regards to attrition vs similar units. (unless I was right and Intercessors get Bolter discipline which means those Intercessors were dishing out 6.6 wounds turn 1 which in turn means the boyz are completely wiped out by turn 4 and have inflicted even less damage in return)

As far as anti-vehicle....ummm, what is going to do more damage vs those Russes you mention, the SM Intercessors with -1 AP Bolters or the 18' S4 shootas from the boyz? or do you want to swap in some heavy weapons? Orkz can take 2 Rokkits in a 25 boy unit for 20pts, since intercessors don't have access to the heavy weapons others do, i'll give you 1 extra Marine.

23 shootas = 54ish shots for 18ish hits and 3 wounds which works out to 1 damage. The 2 rokkits fire for .88 (including ddd) chance to hit, .44 chance to wound and .29 chance to go through the armor and inflict 3 damage, or .88 dmg a turn on average, total? 1.88 dmg inflicted per turn.

Those 11 Intercessors get 22 shots, 14 hits and 7 wounds for 3.5 dmg. Almost DOUBLE the dmg those shoota boyz armed with rokkitz are going to get. So again, significantly better than those shoota boyz.

Breton wrote:
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.

All of the above math was done without re-rolls factored in, in no scenario were shoota boyz nearly as good at shooting or durability as those intercessors, even when given 20% more pts. If you want to compare aggressors to those shoota boyz the results are significantly worse for orkz. 180pts of aggressors, without re-rolls AND without shoot twice get 48 shots, 32 hits and 16 wounds for over 13 dead orkz per turn, or 104pts. With shoot twice, they are killing MORE than their point value per turn...read that again, PER TURN. Add in rerolls and its even worse.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
the codex is almost here

Time lately has been blazing by so fast, but for some damn reason it feels like an eternity for these damn books to come out.

So if Exocrines and LR shoot twice for free, so do Agressors?

And which of these takes the longest to resolve a shooting phase?

Is it the exocrines with its 12 shots, hitting on 3, rerolling 1's (i'll even add adaptations to make it seem like there are more rerolls happening)
Is it the Tank commander (lets upgrade the basic LR) with its 40 shots, hitting on 2's, rerolling 1's (adding cadian trait + stratagem)
Is it the min-size aggressor squad with 36+6D6 (21 average) shots, hitting on 3's, rerolling ALL hits and 1's to wound? (notice how i don't add chapter tactics and stratagems here, only the support characters that marines always have anyway).

Again, this isnt even a powerlevel problem for me, its a tediousness problem.
Either remove the access to rerolls so the 60-ish shots take faster to resolve or remove the double shoot so you actually get 30-ish shots with rerolls.

And this would come with a pts change in my eyes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
the codex is almost here

Time lately has been blazing by so fast, but for some damn reason it feels like an eternity for these damn books to come out.

It really does. I won't care for it anyway, im a Legion player through and through. I just want it to be over so i can start learning about the new Deathguard stuff after.

Ice_can wrote:

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?

So your equating Reroll 1's to hit on a BS 4 model as equal to full rerolls on a BS 3 model and Reroll 1's to wound

The issue as raised was 110 shots getting rerolls, not how good the shots were. Of course I suspect it's actually about SM getting a good unit more than the re-rolls and the inability for people to do so without "But Aggressors" or "But Eradicators" or both don't exactly prove that guess wrong. But as I said the issue as raised was 100+ shots allowing rerolls.

Also WTAF are you on with your firewarrior maths.

270 points gets you 30 Fire warriors thats at most 60 shots in rapid fire range.
That 130 is actually an 85 point Captain who can buff everything in a 14 inch diameter circle and only gets you 28 additional shots in rapid fire range.

Marketlight is 5 points and realistically you need 2 due to needing to hit with it on a 4+, but the due shooting the markerlight can't shoot anything else.so your back down to 84 shots. At 1 target.

But please continue with your Example that Firewarriors out shoot Agressors

So we're tailoring this only one way? Or would that Captain get some Beat Stick Upgrades? Especially while he's running around with Fist Aggressors? Now from what I understand Fire Warriors are about 7ppm. 400/7 = 57.14 57x2 =114. 56x2=112. 55 if you want your two marker lights when only one has to hit to give the rerolls and we're talking about CAN happen AS INITIALLY RAISED is still 110. Assuming you're right and they're closer to 9, 5 Firewarriors and a Smart Missle Drone is about 60 points for 14 shots, you'll get 6.667 for 400, and hit 93 which is pretty close to that 100+ And once again the issue AS RAISED was NUMBER OF POTENTIALLY REROLLED SHOTS not whether Unit A can outshoot Unit B.

So 424 points of FW gets you 88 S5 Ap0 15 inch shots rerolling 1's to hit.

Compared to the 110 18" shots?

420 points gets you Captain +Lt plus 6 Agressors who get 114 S4 Ap-1 shots on avarage. Reolling 1's to hit and 1's to wound. (Not including the Captain or LT shooting.

That's not exactly going to workout in anyway but in favour of marines but lets shoot Orks to make it as favourable to the marines as possible.

FW 44 hits plus 7.33 after rerolling 1's.
33.2 wounds and 28.51 Failed Saves.

Agressors only 76 hits plus 12.67 after reroll 1's
44.3 wounds plus 7.39 after reroll 1's with no saves allowed is 51.72 wounds

51.72/28.51 aka Agressors are 1.81 times as efficent as FW but sure please explain how they would be useless if they were nerfed.

How many of those Firewarrior shots are rerollable? Because again, the issue as raised isn't nerf Aggressors because I hate marines, it's nerf rerolls because they slow the game down. For 5 points the entire Tau Army gets to reroll 1's at that unit. For 10 points they get to do it pretty reliably.

I just grabbed my typical list from 8E which sadly needs to get reworked with the new points costs as it's now 60points too much - I've got 55 non character bodies, 3 character bodies in 7 non-character units. 14 marker lights for 70 points lets you reroll 1's against my entire non-character army with the entirely Tau army reliably. Obviously it would be better to focus fire only some of those units with more marker-light bonuses but that isn't the point. The point is how many attacks can be rerolled or add-rolled.

Just stop, Breton.

Rerolling 1's on a BS4 model is worse than rerolling everything on a BS3 model.

Its not about the power level of the specific units, its about the number of dice rolled.

100 shots of markerlight supported Fire Warrior is : 100 dice + 17 rerolls, netting you 58 hits. Total dice rolled : (100 + 17 +58) 175

100 shots of CM + lieutenant aggressors is : 100 dice + 33 rerolls, netting you 88 hits. Then you have 14 more dice to roll for the lieutenant reroll. Total dice rolled : (100 + 33 + 88 + 14) 235

And the rerolls from the Fire Warrior isnt "always on".