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.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
If you find the truth antagonising, maybe you should take a look at where your biases lay on this topic. He needn't stop anything. I get that you guys want a one sided echo chamber in here, but you're not gonna get that, especially when what you're saying is just so outlandishly blinkered.
Daedalus81 wrote: The supplements handing out 5++ or 5+++ usually prefer other units.
Do keep in mind that Psychic Fortress is now a 6" 5++ invuln save. So all marines have access to the 5++ if they bring a libby along. Your point still stands though
This is what annoys me most right now. GW considers that 5++ is a thing anybody should or could have and not have to pay practically any premiums for it... except for the armies that were initially designed to have an invuln save as their main trait (daemons, thousand sons etc), for which the invuln was baked into the cost of the models and still carries over until now.
There used to be a time where the only time you could find an invuln save outside HQ was rubric marines or daemons. It was their thing, and why they cost as much as they did. Especially rubrics, which had a 4++ save and an ap3 gun under the old rules (and paying points for it as they should), which ended up these days with a 5++ save and an ap-2 weapon, both of which literally everybody now can have without having to pay any premiums at all.
Side note: the very fact that most units kinda need to have an invuln save to even be around these days says a lot about the balance of offense vs defense in this game.
I think a huge culprit for what lead to this was Marines having cheap and easy access to 3++ in the form of the storm shield. No invulnerable save should be better than a 4++ without some serious drawbacks (such as only being able to be used in close combat, losing the save after a fail etc.)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/07 11:42:07
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
it's literally ALL he does. check his post history, it's 10 pages of NOTHING but whining about Marines. I can't even figure out what Faction Ice plays because he doesn't talk about anything but how aweful marines are
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Niiru wrote: Weirdly enough, I've been looking at eradicators and devastators, and... I'm actually not sure what you could do with eradicators that wouldn't make them irrelevant.
For less points per gun, you can have a unit of 4x multi-meltas. This gives you more shots, that can be split-fired, along with a signum and a cherub for bonus shots and 2+ to hit on a model.
The only advantage that eradicators have over that is T5 (the extra wounds are countered by devs being cheaper), and their rifle being assault vs heavy.
So the erads are a bit harder to kill, and are a bit more mobile (extra 6" without taking a hit penalty), which is good obviously but... I'm not sure how you'd 'fix' them.
If you dropped their double-fire ability, they'd be useless. They'd be half as good as devs, but for more points.
Someone said to raise their points to 60, but they're already more expensive than devs for less firepower. Maybe upping to 45 per model is viable...
(Sorry to drag this topic back onto... topic)
So.... in other words vs other Marine heavy weapons team options... they might be... balanced?
Maybe? I certainly don't see how they can be nerfed without also nerfing other heavy weapon options.
I suspect the end result is going to simply be that other armies have to suck, until they get their updates, and hope that GW stay on track to actually give them decent updates.
(I have been trying to build up a Deathwatch army, so I have very little faith in the GW shitshow considering how badly they completely squatted deathwatch yesterday, but still.)
The problem with buffing devastators to almost be as good as the broken Eradicators is that the game just gets more broken.
The last thing 40k needed was to become more lethal. Pretty much every change to game mechanics since the release of 8th has been to try to reduce alpha strike lethality.
And after a year of Marines being broken I don't think many Xenos players are happy to hear "wait another year and hope GW fixes you. And if they don't, guess you have another chance in 3-4 years?"
the weapons buffs are being applied to 3 areas. 1st are Meltaguns whom simply have proven not very effective at their task. no one was using melta in 8th edition, so clearly GW needed to revisit the rules for Melta. makes sense to me. the 2nd is heavy bolters. they weren't being used much when alternatives where avaliable because, yet again, they weren't all that great. with the expansion of marines to 2 wounds, the heavy bolter was changed to have a place as a "heavy infantry killer" lastly are power weapons, ultimately a lot of power weapons just wheren't working quite right, GW is hoping to get em tuned up.
Flamers where also given more range because the only people who used flamers where those able to extend their range.
we also saw astartes chainswords buffed because a lot of marine melee infantry units use chainswords but they where underperforming due to a lack of AP. the chainsword rules are an attempt to make units like assault marines etc actually usable
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
About the Invulnerable Save, you entire Dark Angel army now can have a 4+/5+ without almost even building for it.
Also, 3++ isn't a thing anymore for Storm Shield. Unless some armies forget their update, the new Index for marine subfactions list the Storm Shield as the Bladeguard (4++, +1 to Armor Save).
So, there are no more 3++ in the Marine roster in form of Storm Shield.
I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it.
But GW can't expect that all Marine weapons are used the same as they have a huuuuge amount of them.
If we get to the point that we have to buff the most basic melee weapons because they are not seeing play we are going to have problems:
- We Xenos get the same treatment and the game becomes a bloodbath. Incubi getting the +1S on their power weapons or Wyches getting AP on their knives, if I have to talk about something I know.
- We Xenos remain the same and then it's just even worse, as we can't compete anymore.
Wait and see, I guess. At least I like what they've done with the Necron Codex, Xenos have faith.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Really - some of this makes sense. Some damage profiles have been shown to be bad through 8th. The problem if GW never seems to think of things holistically. Ignore Xenos and just look at Imperium.
Imo flamers should have always been 12" range. They should probably - imo again - have auto-overwatch too. You might need to tweak their points, but that's the niche of this gun, and it doesn't tread on other toes.
Unfortunately this doesn't apply to other weapons.
Okay, the HB should be 2 damage. Well what was 2 damage before? The Autocannon. Now the difference between these weapons is incredibly blurred. The Autocannon arguably might still have a niche due to being better versus T6 - if T6 was a common sort of stat. But it isn't really. And the Autocannon is theoretically the same versus T7, and worse versus literally everything else. So... yeah.
So.. should we expect the autocannon to be buffed to say 3 damage? Or is it just obsolete this edition? Presumably though you couldn't just make the HB have more shots - because then its becoming an assault cannon, the new CSM weapon, or whatever the super duper Primaris lots of shots is called.
Similar with melta. I think the +2 damage in half range over rerolling the dice is a good change. But clearly this wasn't good enough, multi-meltas needed 2 shots. Which is crazy. Because it makes them ludicrously better than lascannons - or lastype equivalent weapons. People can try and make something out of the longer range - but when the board is smaller, more and more units can move and fire without penalty (and the penalty is capped in any case) - I feel this is quite weak. An MM in 12" is now almost as good as 4 lascannons versus a standard 3+ same target. This is faintly bonkers - and the only way to bring parity is to give lascannons 2 shots. Or up their damage to 3D3 damage like the new Necron destroyer.
So yes, maybe we'll get wyches with 8 attacks, and dark lances will fire twice etc - or by the time DE show up, GW will have realised this was a silly system, and nerf everything.
I think meltas needed the extra buff and a really good one. Meltas are now fair, not busted. Some units carrying meltas are overpowered, but that's because they are extremely undercosted. Meltas overall are now where they should have always been.
Flamers are ok at 12 but I could understand their previous 8'' range, it was design to avoid deepstrike and clear the screeners, which was a silly and overpowered combo that I was glad it was gone. 12'' are ok if only platiforms with flamers can't deepstrike; same logic with melta: their platforms shouldn't deepstrike. Some melta are overpowered because they can get in melta range in turn 1. Denying them to outflank/deepstrike would also buff and give more purpose to transports, which are in a bad state at the moment, especially for SM. Heavy flamers at 5 points and +50% range are extremely good now.
Power weapons and chainswords were ok IMHO, and I can justify their upgrade only if all their equivalents from other codexes also get an upgrade. Do I finally get AP-1 choppas?
About the autocannon issue I think weapons with S less than 6 (or even 7) should have their damage reduced against vehicles/monsters by 1. Heavy bolters should be good against infantries but not an anti tank tool and with D2 they compete with rockets and autocannons in hurting vehicles which is silly. On the other hand increasing damage and/or AP to any other weapon is just as bad as lethality is already too high, especially for the shooting phase.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/07 12:49:00
Yes, that's the one. Sorry, forget the name right now. But what does that have to do with anything? They're heavy weapons, they can't fire if they advance anyway. The point is it allows the eradicators to reposition in order for a better shot at their chosen target without suffering the -1 to hit from moving with heavy weapons. The idea that if they did that they would be less effective due to hitting on 4s instead of 3s made the heavy meltas seem a little less ridiculous to me. That strategem kills that balancing mechanism.
If you're planning on moving and shooting, I think you'd stick with the basic (assault) melta rifle not the heavy.
You always have to plan on moving and shooting. Do you expect your opponent to simply move whatever target you want to hit right in front of your eradicators? You have to expect to need to maneuver the unit into position to take the shot. You're going to have to do that eventually, and the strategem removes the penalty for doing so. It looks like it was designed just for eradicaters with the heavy meltas, or devastators with multi-meltas.
Cybtroll wrote: About the Invulnerable Save, you entire Dark Angel army now can have a 4+/5+ without almost even building for it.
Also, 3++ isn't a thing anymore for Storm Shield. Unless some armies forget their update, the new Index for marine subfactions list the Storm Shield as the Bladeguard (4++, +1 to Armor Save).
So, there are no more 3++ in the Marine roster in form of Storm Shield.
The Victrix Guard still are, and specifically called out as so in the FAQ(Ultima Storm Shields are apparently not Storm Shields), but one two model situational bodyguard unit is the exception not the rule.
And after a year of Marines being broken I don't think many Xenos players are happy to hear "wait another year and hope GW fixes you. And if they don't, guess you have another chance in 3-4 years?"
Well first of all since Feb most stores were closed, and opened a bit durning summer, and it looks like they are going to be closing back up again with the rise in people sick. So the year of OP marines isn't that comperable to eldar or castellans being powerful when people actualy got to play. And the second thing is people do get to wait years for GW to fix their codex. I was told it is the normal thing and how GW operates. 2 years to wait for an update that kind of a fixs your army doesn't sound strange to me. I played only in 8th and had to wait longer, and from what people told me If I started in 7th it could easier have been 3-4 years too.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Okay, the HB should be 2 damage. Well what was 2 damage before?
The HB should have gone to 4 shots and D2. The Grav Cannon is 4 shots, -3 and D1/D2. The HB will almost never be taken over Grav if both are an option.
The Autocannon has been in bad shape most of its life and does need some work. Autocannon with performance relatively similar to Grav or plasma should be the goal as most armies taking one can’t take Grav or heavy Plasma
You always have to plan on moving and shooting. Do you expect your opponent to simply move whatever target you want to hit right in front of your eradicators? You have to expect to need to maneuver the unit into position to take the shot. You're going to have to do that eventually, and the strategem removes the penalty for doing so. It looks like it was designed just for eradicaters with the heavy meltas, or devastators with multi-meltas.
Always planning on moving and shooting is my point - Thus the regular ones you can advance and shoot. I’m still probably doing ATVs, old bikes (and attack bikes) or most likely speeders. But when/if I do Eradicators, I’m doing them with the assault Melta rifle so they can advance and shoot with a bigger threat bubble.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/07 13:34:40
And after a year of Marines being broken I don't think many Xenos players are happy to hear "wait another year and hope GW fixes you. And if they don't, guess you have another chance in 3-4 years?"
Well first of all since Feb most stores were closed, and opened a bit durning summer, and it looks like they are going to be closing back up again with the rise in people sick. So the year of OP marines isn't that comperable to eldar or castellans being powerful when people actualy got to play. And the second thing is people do get to wait years for GW to fix their codex. I was told it is the normal thing and how GW operates. 2 years to wait for an update that kind of a fixs your army doesn't sound strange to me. I played only in 8th and had to wait longer, and from what people told me If I started in 7th it could easier have been 3-4 years too.
Yes, gaps were often longer in the past. And it was complained about a lot.
And after a year of Marines being broken I don't think many Xenos players are happy to hear "wait another year and hope GW fixes you. And if they don't, guess you have another chance in 3-4 years?"
Well first of all since Feb most stores were closed, and opened a bit durning summer, and it looks like they are going to be closing back up again with the rise in people sick. So the year of OP marines isn't that comperable to eldar or castellans being powerful when people actualy got to play. And the second thing is people do get to wait years for GW to fix their codex. I was told it is the normal thing and how GW operates. 2 years to wait for an update that kind of a fixs your army doesn't sound strange to me. I played only in 8th and had to wait longer, and from what people told me If I started in 7th it could easier have been 3-4 years too.
People have been playing through the covid situation tho. Either playing with family members or on tabletop simulator. The game didnt completely stop because stores were closed. We still had to deal with marines 2.0. And marines got better winrate AND playrate than Ynnari or Castellans got.
Sure, its how GW operates because they don't want to release all codexes at once, it doesnt mean we're not allowed to complain about it.
Oh, and just so your hatred of Eldar doesn't misunderstand what i mean, i say this with my Chaos in mind. And armies like genestealer cults and imperial guard that are pretty dated.
VladimirHerzog wrote: And armies like genestealer cults and imperial guard that are pretty dated.
There are a number of armies that probably shouldn’t be armies but instead sub factions. GSC started as a Nid subfaction and probably should have stayed there. Custodes probably should have been finagled like Agents of The Imperium. Imperial/Chaos Knights too.
The HB should have gone to 4 shots and D2. The Grav Cannon is 4 shots, -3 and D1/D2. The HB will almost never be taken over Grav if both are an option.
I cannot say if that would make sense for SM, but for other codices 4 shot, D2 heavy bolters would be kind of strange. As you already implied, it would make the Autocannon (for IG for example) even more pointless and also I personally think, buffing HB by 100% was more than enough. Keep in mind that outside of Codex SM there are some armies that can take a lot of HBs (IG for example) and I personally don't think we need even more damage but more durability in the game (but that is my personal opinion of course)
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200
Tyel wrote: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Really - some of this makes sense. Some damage profiles have been shown to be bad through 8th. The problem if GW never seems to think of things holistically. Ignore Xenos and just look at Imperium.
Imo flamers should have always been 12" range. They should probably - imo again - have auto-overwatch too. You might need to tweak their points, but that's the niche of this gun, and it doesn't tread on other toes.
Unfortunately this doesn't apply to other weapons.
Okay, the HB should be 2 damage. Well what was 2 damage before? The Autocannon. Now the difference between these weapons is incredibly blurred. The Autocannon arguably might still have a niche due to being better versus T6 - if T6 was a common sort of stat. But it isn't really. And the Autocannon is theoretically the same versus T7, and worse versus literally everything else. So... yeah.
So.. should we expect the autocannon to be buffed to say 3 damage? Or is it just obsolete this edition? Presumably though you couldn't just make the HB have more shots - because then its becoming an assault cannon, the new CSM weapon, or whatever the super duper Primaris lots of shots is called.
Similar with melta. I think the +2 damage in half range over rerolling the dice is a good change. But clearly this wasn't good enough, multi-meltas needed 2 shots. Which is crazy. Because it makes them ludicrously better than lascannons - or lastype equivalent weapons. People can try and make something out of the longer range - but when the board is smaller, more and more units can move and fire without penalty (and the penalty is capped in any case) - I feel this is quite weak. An MM in 12" is now almost as good as 4 lascannons versus a standard 3+ same target. This is faintly bonkers - and the only way to bring parity is to give lascannons 2 shots. Or up their damage to 3D3 damage like the new Necron destroyer.
So yes, maybe we'll get wyches with 8 attacks, and dark lances will fire twice etc - or by the time DE show up, GW will have realised this was a silly system, and nerf everything.
Call me crazy, but I almost think weapons should have, and stay with me on this: SPECIFIC uses.
1. Flamers should be auto-wounding anything in cover - because flamer throwers were designed to take out entrenched infantry or infantry in buildings.
2. Auto cannons or anything S7+ should be (ANTI-TANK) That would mean +1/2 damage for anything their toughness or above. So a S7 Autocannon will do 3 damage to a T6 vehicle. A S8 Lehman Russ will for +2 damage to a T6 or a +1 to a T7. Lascannons S9 should do D6+3 to anything T6+.
Grenade weapons should follow flamers and do auto-wounds to units in cover. If you are in a building and a grenade drops in at your feet, you are getting wounded.
VladimirHerzog wrote: And armies like genestealer cults and imperial guard that are pretty dated.
There are a number of armies that probably shouldn’t be armies but instead sub factions. GSC started as a Nid subfaction and probably should have stayed there. Custodes probably should have been finagled like Agents of The Imperium. Imperial/Chaos Knights too.
Why? They have enough model support to be their own standalone army with their own playstyle.
GSC is one of the more unique armies there is in the game right now. The concept is solid, theyre just lacking good rules.
Custodes are being phased out by marines but theyre still the "ultra-elite, low model count" army.
IMO all armies that are playable right now are justifiable.
@Fezzik. yeah, it really feels like weapons should have some sort of keyword that would make them more efficient against their preferred target (lore-wise).
However, unless i'm mistaken, isnt the autocannon an anti heavy-infantry weapon in the fluff?
Imagine how much simple the "melta/plasma/flamer" errata wouldve been if they were keywords instead of abilities. Instead of waiting for their own codex to come out, fusion/heat lances/plaguespitters couldve been changed in one swoop by just stating "All melta weapons now have D6+2 damage if they are within half range", "all flamers have 12" range now", etc.
The HB should have gone to 4 shots and D2. The Grav Cannon is 4 shots, -3 and D1/D2. The HB will almost never be taken over Grav if both are an option.
I cannot say if that would make sense for SM, but for other codices 4 shot, D2 heavy bolters would be kind of strange. As you already implied, it would make the Autocannon (for IG for example) even more pointless and also I personally think, buffing HB by 100% was more than enough. Keep in mind that outside of Codex SM there are some armies that can take a lot of HBs (IG for example) and I personally don't think we need even more damage but more durability in the game (but that is my personal opinion of course)
.
The Grav Gun is rapid fire 1, to Heavy 4.
The Heavy Bolter is Rapid Fire 1 to Heavy 3
And that extra shot plus extra pen makes the Grav still better enough than the HB to usually be mathematically superior point for point. Better to give guard a better HB and then retune Autocannon into a hole they’re missing... Grav or heavy plasma.
VladimirHerzog wrote: @Fezzik. yeah, it really feels like weapons should have some sort of keyword that would make them more efficient against their preferred target (lore-wise).
However, unless i'm mistaken, isnt the autocannon an anti heavy-infantry weapon in the fluff?
Imagine how much simple the "melta/plasma/flamer" errata wouldve been if they were keywords instead of abilities. Instead of waiting for their own codex to come out, fusion/heat lances/plaguespitters couldve been changed in one swoop by just stating "All melta weapons now have D6+2 damage if they are within half range", "all flamers have 12" range now", etc.
Indeed I think you are correct on that, however, the Autocannon has morphed into an anti-light vehicle killer since 7th. High Penetration, high strength, good shooting, and good damage. I remember building the Auto-cannon weapon teams for my cadian lists because they were better anti-tank than Lascannons 1 shot at S9, that had swingy damage. I'd end up earning way more points with the Cannons then anything else really.
It wasn't until 8th rolled around where T8 became almost stock standard on everything not infantry, and the Autocannon lost it's ability to do anything well. It pops heavy infantry well enough, but with the new HB changes, or the way Plasma became the golden child, who gives a toss about S7 AP2 D2 shooting anymore.
If I had my wish, I'd make autocannons the stock profile for sniper weapons. Heavy 1 48" S7 AP2 D2. Then you'd have to respect sniper units. Boy howdy, my Tanith scouts kitbash from 2016 would finally come off the shelf.
Autocannons are in a weird spot. I think they need more AP and less str.
They should be str 6 ap -3 flat 3 damage (the old index starcannon profile) - maybe with a reroll wounds vs vehicals with a t6 or less. IDK the right cost for such a weapon. Maybe 25 points?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: Autocannons are in a weird spot. I think they need more AP and less str.
They should be str 6 ap -3 flat 3 damage (the old index starcannon profile) - maybe with a reroll wounds vs vehicals with a t6 or less. IDK the right cost for such a weapon. Maybe 25 points?
no.
assault cannons are for S6 and not AC's
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
People have been playing through the covid situation tho. Either playing with family members or on tabletop simulator. The game didnt completely stop because stores were closed. We still had to deal with marines 2.0. And marines got better winrate AND playrate than Ynnari or Castellans got.
Sure, its how GW operates because they don't want to release all codexes at once, it doesnt mean we're not allowed to complain about it.
Oh, and just so your hatred of Eldar doesn't misunderstand what i mean, i say this with my Chaos in mind. And armies like genestealer cults and imperial guard that are pretty dated.
I do forget about the store thing. Still not everyone is going to go visit someone they aren't family with, in places it was down right illegal. And it looks like it is going to be illegal once the emergancy state gets called out again durning autum winter. And I am not saying tha knights or GSC are doing great, but they are with books ment for 8th ed. what do people expect that their 8th ed books are going to work well in 9th, heck my dudes weren't working in 8th with an 8th book. So I both don't get the suprise why armies with 9th ed rules are better and I don't really understand what people wanted from GW.
Did people think that GW would have done some other army at the start of the edition then marines? didn't they make marines the first codex in all editions they ever had. I would love to get a book too, specialy with my terminators not getting the buff I thought they would get in the FAQ, but I do understand that GW is going to go through all the marines first, and the AoS backlog, and then they are probably going to do something like a chaos sub faction or maybe eldar, if they really worked hard for the last 2 years on their redesign.
Plus I don't hate the eldar, they are an imaginary faction. Would be like hating a dog or rain. It would be stupid, now I can hate the designers of the rules or people that that play the army. That is natural, but my supposed hatred of them or castellans, doesn't the change the fact GW works the way it does. And I find strange that most people had the deal with it mind set , when their armies were good in 8th ed and called it the "best edition w40k ever had", and now when their armies are bad, they can't accept waiting 2-3 years to get them fixed. I mean it confuses me, because either it is a double standard for some factions. And maybe I even get it, considering the sales and all. Or people are just interested in their own fun, but then it means that all the stuff about playing the narrative, my old store being toxic, the whole WAAC tournament stuff was lie. And people actualy do care for their factions being better then those of others. They just don't say, it when the ones they have are the betters ones. And I wouldn't even be suprised if both things were true at the same time. I took 2 years to realise that when people say space marines, they don't GK, they just count all the other marines. Or when people from the west say how someone days is, they don't want to hear the litany of bad things that happened to you and your family lately, which is a customery thing to tell here.
So again. I don't play marines. Having OP marines doesn't make my faction better in anyway, in fact we just got nerfs because of marines. But I hell a lot confused considering all the talk I remember from 8th. If people play for fun, and didn't care about winning in 8th with their taus and eldar, why would they care about winning now. All of this just makes me fell more stupid. And I probably I am, in general this is how it ends for me, If I don't get something.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
People have been playing through the covid situation tho. Either playing with family members or on tabletop simulator. The game didnt completely stop because stores were closed. We still had to deal with marines 2.0. And marines got better winrate AND playrate than Ynnari or Castellans got.
Sure, its how GW operates because they don't want to release all codexes at once, it doesnt mean we're not allowed to complain about it.
Oh, and just so your hatred of Eldar doesn't misunderstand what i mean, i say this with my Chaos in mind. And armies like genestealer cults and imperial guard that are pretty dated.
I do forget about the store thing. Still not everyone is going to go visit someone they aren't family with, in places it was down right illegal. And it looks like it is going to be illegal once the emergancy state gets called out again durning autum winter. And I am not saying tha knights or GSC are doing great, but they are with books ment for 8th ed. what do people expect that their 8th ed books are going to work well in 9th, heck my dudes weren't working in 8th with an 8th book. So I both don't get the suprise why armies with 9th ed rules are better and I don't really understand what people wanted from GW.
Did people think that GW would have done some other army at the start of the edition then marines? didn't they make marines the first codex in all editions they ever had. I would love to get a book too, specialy with my terminators not getting the buff I thought they would get in the FAQ, but I do understand that GW is going to go through all the marines first, and the AoS backlog, and then they are probably going to do something like a chaos sub faction or maybe eldar, if they really worked hard for the last 2 years on their redesign.
Plus I don't hate the eldar, they are an imaginary faction. Would be like hating a dog or rain. It would be stupid, now I can hate the designers of the rules or people that that play the army. That is natural, but my supposed hatred of them or castellans, doesn't the change the fact GW works the way it does. And I find strange that most people had the deal with it mind set , when their armies were good in 8th ed and called it the "best edition w40k ever had", and now when their armies are bad, they can't accept waiting 2-3 years to get them fixed. I mean it confuses me, because either it is a double standard for some factions. And maybe I even get it, considering the sales and all. Or people are just interested in their own fun, but then it means that all the stuff about playing the narrative, my old store being toxic, the whole WAAC tournament stuff was lie. And people actualy do care for their factions being better then those of others. They just don't say, it when the ones they have are the betters ones. And I wouldn't even be suprised if both things were true at the same time. I took 2 years to realise that when people say space marines, they don't GK, they just count all the other marines. Or when people from the west say how someone days is, they don't want to hear the litany of bad things that happened to you and your family lately, which is a customery thing to tell here.
So again. I don't play marines. Having OP marines doesn't make my faction better in anyway, in fact we just got nerfs because of marines. But I hell a lot confused considering all the talk I remember from 8th. If people play for fun, and didn't care about winning in 8th with their taus and eldar, why would they care about winning now. All of this just makes me fell more stupid. And I probably I am, in general this is how it ends for me, If I don't get something.
I've been playing mostly with my significant other and online during the crisis, i had a couple games with friends before wave 2 started. I know im not the only one in that situation.
I play my armies with a 100% "fun" approach to them. I bring the models i like and that fit with how my army operates. I played an eldar wraith host, thousand sons, tzeentch demons and night lords since before psychic awakening came out. The thing that annoys me is that if i know i'm against marines, i HAVE to bring models that don't really interest me just because i need some way to deal with them. Spamming starcannons isnt fun, playing wombo combo with havocs/obliterators isnt fun. Thats what i think most people are complaining about when they say marines are too much. I truly don't want my factions to be better than others, i stopped playing admech because of that. Effectively winning the game on turn one because of the alpha strike isnt what im playing the game for.
As for people calling 8th "the best edition ever" i don't know about that. It clearly was the best in a "approachable by new players" aspect but the game lost a lot of its fun aspect and depth. You might say you don't hate eldar and that might very well be true but the amount of times your comments are something similar to "but eldar players don't complain when their army is OP" makes it seem like you do.
And yeah. When people say "marines" they dont mean GK, they mean the chapters that have access to doctrines.
People have been playing through the covid situation tho. Either playing with family members or on tabletop simulator. The game didnt completely stop because stores were closed. We still had to deal with marines 2.0. And marines got better winrate AND playrate than Ynnari or Castellans got.
Sure, its how GW operates because they don't want to release all codexes at once, it doesnt mean we're not allowed to complain about it.
Oh, and just so your hatred of Eldar doesn't misunderstand what i mean, i say this with my Chaos in mind. And armies like genestealer cults and imperial guard that are pretty dated.
I do forget about the store thing. Still not everyone is going to go visit someone they aren't family with, in places it was down right illegal. And it looks like it is going to be illegal once the emergancy state gets called out again durning autum winter. And I am not saying tha knights or GSC are doing great, but they are with books ment for 8th ed. what do people expect that their 8th ed books are going to work well in 9th, heck my dudes weren't working in 8th with an 8th book. So I both don't get the suprise why armies with 9th ed rules are better and I don't really understand what people wanted from GW.
Did people think that GW would have done some other army at the start of the edition then marines? didn't they make marines the first codex in all editions they ever had. I would love to get a book too, specialy with my terminators not getting the buff I thought they would get in the FAQ, but I do understand that GW is going to go through all the marines first, and the AoS backlog, and then they are probably going to do something like a chaos sub faction or maybe eldar, if they really worked hard for the last 2 years on their redesign.
Plus I don't hate the eldar, they are an imaginary faction. Would be like hating a dog or rain. It would be stupid, now I can hate the designers of the rules or people that that play the army. That is natural, but my supposed hatred of them or castellans, doesn't the change the fact GW works the way it does. And I find strange that most people had the deal with it mind set , when their armies were good in 8th ed and called it the "best edition w40k ever had", and now when their armies are bad, they can't accept waiting 2-3 years to get them fixed. I mean it confuses me, because either it is a double standard for some factions. And maybe I even get it, considering the sales and all. Or people are just interested in their own fun, but then it means that all the stuff about playing the narrative, my old store being toxic, the whole WAAC tournament stuff was lie. And people actualy do care for their factions being better then those of others. They just don't say, it when the ones they have are the betters ones. And I wouldn't even be suprised if both things were true at the same time. I took 2 years to realise that when people say space marines, they don't GK, they just count all the other marines. Or when people from the west say how someone days is, they don't want to hear the litany of bad things that happened to you and your family lately, which is a customery thing to tell here.
So again. I don't play marines. Having OP marines doesn't make my faction better in anyway, in fact we just got nerfs because of marines. But I hell a lot confused considering all the talk I remember from 8th. If people play for fun, and didn't care about winning in 8th with their taus and eldar, why would they care about winning now. All of this just makes me fell more stupid. And I probably I am, in general this is how it ends for me, If I don't get something.
Karol almost everyone agreed GK were bad for a lot of 8th the issue is players can't do much about it except complain to GW.
The reason people are arguing over spacemarines is because some people are saying oh they have been made weeker and that's not fair, while a lot of other factions fundamentally dont work in 9th due to the sweeping changes GW has made.
Had GW genuinely toned down the damage output of Spacemarines there would be less salt.
If Marines 2.0 hadn't been as broken there would be less salt.
If they had given somewhat reasonable points costs to non marine units in the MFM2020 there would be less salt.
If they hadn't clearly decided to ensure the earliest opportunity for anyone of the other major factions to get a power boost was febuary (more likely march) of next year there would be less salt.
*Salt means people being upset/ pissed off at decisions that feel very unfair.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/07 15:25:37
The Bloody Sails 
You always have to plan on moving and shooting. Do you expect your opponent to simply move whatever target you want to hit right in front of your eradicators? You have to expect to need to maneuver the unit into position to take the shot. You're going to have to do that eventually, and the strategem removes the penalty for doing so. It looks like it was designed just for eradicaters with the heavy meltas, or devastators with multi-meltas.
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200 
