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.
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
Few armies can take both. They were usually contemporaries of each other with similar roles and stat lines.
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
Just speaking IRL effectiveness of weapons. These weapons typically fire about the same caliber rounds (between 20-40mm) and are effective against the same targets. Typically aircraft and light vehicles. Essentially all vulcan/gatling cannons are autocannons if they are 20mm or higher (which the onslaught and assault cannons certainly are).
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
Just speaking IRL effectiveness of weapons. These weapons typically fire about the same caliber rounds (between 20-40mm) and are effective against the same targets. Typically aircraft and light vehicles. Essentially all vulcan/gatling cannons are autocannons if they are 20mm or higher (which the onslaught and assault cannons certainly are).
IRL carries only limted over into 40k.
and secondly one is agattling with obviously smaller calibre then the other which is basically just a dual layoug of an AC, so no again.
there is no need to water this weapon down.
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.
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
Just speaking IRL effectiveness of weapons. These weapons typically fire about the same caliber rounds (between 20-40mm) and are effective against the same targets. Typically aircraft and light vehicles. Essentially all vulcan/gatling cannons are autocannons if they are 20mm or higher (which the onslaught and assault cannons certainly are).
IRL carries only limted over into 40k.
and secondly one is agattling with obviously smaller calibre then the other which is basically just a dual layoug of an AC, so no again.
there is no need to water this weapon down.
The autocannon already feels watered down to me. Maybe with 3 shots becoming the average it will perform better (ala suppressors).
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
Autocannons and Assault Cannons share little overlap in armies and its fine for both to be roughly the same area of stats.
Autocannons having str 6 is fine to take down its anti-vehicle use and it can have a bit less shots but more AP then an Assault Cannon. Tho I don't see why they would need 3 damage. 2 is plenty.
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
Autocannons and Assault Cannons share little overlap in armies and its fine for both to be roughly the same area of stats.
Autocannons having str 6 is fine to take down its anti-vehicle use and it can have a bit less shots but more AP then an Assault Cannon. Tho I don't see why they would need 3 damage. 2 is plenty.
Just because the HB already has 2 damage now. 2 is fine or d3.
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
Just because the HB already has 2 damage now. 2 is fine or d3.
Just make HB D1 against vehicles/monsters. Fixed.
antitank keyword, might aswell use the stupid keyword system propperly ....
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.
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)
And that is the problem. And this isn't meant as an attack against you, because if you read the forums its a large number of Marine players with a similar mindset. "If you nerf eradicators than Devestators will be better, so why take eradicators!". Exactly. So instead of nerfing 1, nerf them all. because 1 unit being able to hose a heavy vehicle 2 or 3x its cost in 1 shooting phase is...stupid.
When people are saying a certain marine unit is OP, the go to response shouldn't be, well if you nerf it even a bit, then this other unit becomes the easy choice. to put it bluntly, the Marine codex having multiple OP units in the same job is ridiculous in and of itself.
What weakness do aggressors have? The only one I can think of is mobility, but at the same time, those meganobz are even slower.
No easy transport, limited access to invuln/FNP, and limited deepstrike options.
The supplements that favor Aggressors of a type (UM,SL) don't have infiltrate (WS,RG). The supplements handing out 5++ or 5+++ usually prefer other units. Salamanders have a 6+++ available, but realistically you're not putting all you're Aggressors in that bubble.
MANZ otherwise can get a 5++ (ranged), 6+++, easy access to a transport, deepstrike, swipe from a transport, the best version of reroll charges, still (at present) have fight twice, access to run & charge, and D3 killsaws (which when previously discussed makes 3 of them kill just about 4 aggressors).
Now I'm not excluding transhuman and other stuff available to Aggressors for the purpose of deceit. You asked about Aggressor weaknesses and I put them up against MANZ strengths. We agree that Aggressors are good. We don't agree that MANZ are bad by comparison.
No easy transport? Can they not use Primaris Transports? Pretty sure they can, you might not like the transport but it exists and is not that bad an option, i mean, for xenos armies its not bad.
As far as limited access to Invuln/FNP/Deep strike....you mean like basically everyone else? I have painboys for FNP and a KFF Big mek that can give them a 5++ but only if they stay really close to him. You have apothocaries that do the same thing as far as Invuln,
Vilehydra wrote: 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
it appears you have just as much access as me. And for deepstrike, well i have to pay CP to put them in a "tellyporta" which is a defacto deep strike, I don't know but I assume SM have some way to deep strike them if they really want to.
From the rest of your comments you make a bunch of excuses why they wouldn't use other buffs, which is fine, but then you go on to mention absurd things manz would take, like the swipe from transport stratagem..nobody uses it because its both stupid and ineffectual. Every model may make 1 attack with a weapon. So 3 manz get 3 attacks at WS4, not worth paying CP for.
They do have access to run and charge...but so do aggressors don't they? I mean, depends on the chapter you choose to take but White scars can do that, Black Templars get full rerolls like orkz.
BrianDavion wrote: 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
Why were melta guns not effective at their task? i'll give you a hint, they were, they just weren't the BEST option because cheap plasma became a thing, so instead of nerfing cheap plasma or whatever the other new hotness was the right answer is to buff Multi-meltas with 2 shots and give theme extra damage, and to create a unit that gets all that but also gets to shoot twice.... ridiculous honestly, and this is where powercreep comes from.
Same thing for Heavy bolters, why weren't they being taken? Because you had easy access to a host of cheap upgrades and weapons that put out a bunch of firepower and replaced the HB, i'll give you they needed a new target preference because you can't feasibly strip all those other weapons without a major rework of the entire faction but doubling their damage put them in contest with Auto-cannons. So now you fix 1 weapon and have to fix another, and i'll bet they either don't or they ham fist it like they did HBs so you have to fix another weapon type.
Of course, its more likely they just leave Auto-cannons to languish because who cares? you guys don't even use them, so my lootas will take the hit because they are the most common form of Auto-cannon in the game.
as far as power weapons and Chainswords....yeah, why? Because SM's weren't as good at assault as assault oriented armies so they had to increase their CC damage output. I'll wait for my choppas to get -1AP, but I think it will be a long wait, just a guess. We are quickly going from SM's being the jack of all trades army to the master of all trades army. What unit outperforms aggressors for that point value? What unit out performs eradicators for that point value? What faction has standard infantry as 2W 3+ saves, 2 shot weapon that is -1AP on a regular basis and all of that for what? 18pts a model?
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.
I really want to highlight Karol here. The argument isn't "Wait and see" or "Marines aren't OP" the argument he makes is that he didn't get enough time being utterly bonkers broken OP at the end of 8th so its only fair that SM's continue to be head and shoulders better than anyone in 9th.
As far as fixing codexs in a timely manner....unless you are SMs that is. Completely ignoring sub factions and supplements like SW/BA/DA index and psychic awakening etc. SM's got a dex this month, they last got a codex August of 2019, before that it was July of 2017, June 2015, September 2013, october of 2008, November of 2004, october of 1998 and finally, "ultramarines" of 1995. So thats 8 editions (1st was rogue trader) and 9 codexs over a span of 25 years, or roughly 1 codex every 2.6ish years. For comparison, Orkz got codexs in November 2018, June 2014, January 2008, July 1999 and 1994. 8 Editions, 5 Codex or 1 codex every 5 years. Orkz were also the last major faction to receive a codex in 8th, we had the worst codex in 7th, didn't get one in 6th or 5th and we enjoyed a beautifully written codex in 4th.
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.
No one should ever take the basic melta rifle. The -1 to hit is not a huge hindrance given the +2 damage. This is the point where I wish stacking negatives were back, but I'd honestly prefer they tweak Eradicators more and the Chatpers they thrive in.
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.
No one should ever take the basic melta rifle. The -1 to hit is not a huge hindrance given the +2 damage. This is the point where I wish stacking negatives were back, but I'd honestly prefer they tweak Eradicators more and the Chatpers they thrive in.
So does this mean we have finally got to a point where every reasonable poster is agreeing that Eradicators are totally OP and need to be nerfed?
No easy transport? Can they not use Primaris Transports? Pretty sure they can, you might not like the transport but it exists and is not that bad an option, i mean, for xenos armies its not bad.
Well, they’re Gravis, so they can’t use the Impulsor, leaving only the Repulsors all at 300+ Points, or a Thunderhawk checking in at what? 1500+ points? Which one of those is “not bad”?
No one should ever take the basic melta rifle. The -1 to hit is not a huge hindrance given the +2 damage. This is the point where I wish stacking negatives were back, but I'd honestly prefer they tweak Eradicators more and the Chatpers they thrive in.
I’m taking the basic Melta rifle so I can shoot at all. Heavy can’t shoot if you advance. Basic rifle can. I’m not worried about the +2 damage, or the -1 to hit. Heck if you advance you still get the -1, and you don’t get the +2. But you still get roughly 67% of 50% of 3-12 D6 I’m worried about hot footing it to the next target and shooting something else along the way - assuming I can’t get in range of a preferred target in one turn with an advance roll.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/07 16:55:02
The new boardsizes mean these lads can just camp in the middle and threaten the whole board.
What's even better is take the codex secondary and they can be earning 2CP per turn and killing them qith a Chief Appocothory to back them is going to be flat impossible for a lot of armies.
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.
No one should ever take the basic melta rifle. The -1 to hit is not a huge hindrance given the +2 damage. This is the point where I wish stacking negatives were back, but I'd honestly prefer they tweak Eradicators more and the Chatpers they thrive in.
So does this mean we have finally got to a point where every reasonable poster is agreeing that Eradicators are totally OP and need to be nerfed?
Yeah they need to be nerfed. The heavy version of the weapon is just more silly and that is new information. Remaining the same price is asanine.
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
Just because the HB already has 2 damage now. 2 is fine or d3.
Just make HB D1 against vehicles/monsters. Fixed.
Yeah for the HB I think more shots with d1 would have been a more proper fix. Or give shred vs infantry. D 1 vs vehicals also would work but then they would have to drop it to 10 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
Yeah for the HB I think more shots with d1 would have been a more proper fix. Or give shred vs infantry. D 1 vs vehicals also would work but then they would have to drop it to 10 points.
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.
All of which are massively powerful forces - Even the Custodes has 10,000.
Not when we have Chapters of a mere 1000 Marines somehow proclaimed and endlessly indulged as Factions (rather than Sub-Sub factions)...
We are not playing 30K where its JUST Marines no matter what some may want.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/07 17:58:16
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Yeah for the HB I think more shots with d1 would have been a more proper fix. Or give shred vs infantry. D 1 vs vehicals also would work but then they would have to drop it to 10 points.
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.
All of which are massively powerful forces - Even the Custodes has 10,000.
Not when we have Chapters of a mere 1000 Marines somehow proclaimed and endlessly indulged as Factions (rather than Sub-Sub factions)...
We are not playing 30K where its JUST Marines no matter what some may want.
The issue is more snowflake rules. More redundancy of elitism.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/07 18:25:33
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
No easy transport? Can they not use Primaris Transports? Pretty sure they can, you might not like the transport but it exists and is not that bad an option, i mean, for xenos armies its not bad.
Well, they’re Gravis, so they can’t use the Impulsor, leaving only the Repulsors all at 300+ Points, or a Thunderhawk checking in at what? 1500+ points? Which one of those is “not bad”?
So you are mad because you have to take a 300pt transport that comes standard with Heavy Onslaught Gatling Cannon, Icarus Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Krakstorm Grenade Launcher, Storm bolter, Twin heavy bolter and can upgrade basically all those to become anti-infantry, anti-heavy infantry or anti-vehicle. its also T8 w/ 16 wounds and 3+ save.
As opposed to orkz who can take a paper thin Trukk with no weapons except a single Big Shoota (ignorable) or a massive Battlewagon which is T8 16W 4+ save, but has ZERO guns for 135pts. And if you do equip it with guns you are actually hurting yourself because BS5 kind of sucks as do most of the weapons you can put on the stupid thing.
A great example of disparity between the two is Orkz have a fragstorm grenade launcher of sorts.
SM: 18' D6 shots, S4 Blast.
Ork: 12; D6 shots, S3 blast Can only be used if unit is embarked.
One assumes by scheduling their supplement for imminent release, just like the two special chapters that lost stuff and didn't get a big bump to tide them over..? Such *appalling* treatment.
Your response would make sense, if Blood Angels lost their Death Company and if Space Wolves lost all of their frost/helfrost based weapons and their wolf units in their index.
Spoletta wrote: I think that point was reached 10 minutes after the first indomitus spoilers.
And yet you still have Marine defenders in here saying its fine.
When was the last post from anyone saying they were fine?
You literally have players saying Aggressors aren't playable because they lost shoot twice, likewise you have players saying if you remove double shot from Eradicators they would be trash. What nerf is acceptable? I mean, someone a page ago or so said the best nerf would be to make them worse vs heavy infantry....
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)
And that is the problem. And this isn't meant as an attack against you, because if you read the forums its a large number of Marine players with a similar mindset. "If you nerf eradicators than Devestators will be better, so why take eradicators!". Exactly. So instead of nerfing 1, nerf them all. because 1 unit being able to hose a heavy vehicle 2 or 3x its cost in 1 shooting phase is...stupid.
When people are saying a certain marine unit is OP, the go to response shouldn't be, well if you nerf it even a bit, then this other unit becomes the easy choice. to put it bluntly, the Marine codex having multiple OP units in the same job is ridiculous in and of itself.
What weakness do aggressors have? The only one I can think of is mobility, but at the same time, those meganobz are even slower.
No easy transport, limited access to invuln/FNP, and limited deepstrike options. The supplements that favor Aggressors of a type (UM,SL) don't have infiltrate (WS,RG). The supplements handing out 5++ or 5+++ usually prefer other units. Salamanders have a 6+++ available, but realistically you're not putting all you're Aggressors in that bubble. MANZ otherwise can get a 5++ (ranged), 6+++, easy access to a transport, deepstrike, swipe from a transport, the best version of reroll charges, still (at present) have fight twice, access to run & charge, and D3 killsaws (which when previously discussed makes 3 of them kill just about 4 aggressors). Now I'm not excluding transhuman and other stuff available to Aggressors for the purpose of deceit. You asked about Aggressor weaknesses and I put them up against MANZ strengths. We agree that Aggressors are good. We don't agree that MANZ are bad by comparison.
No easy transport? Can they not use Primaris Transports? Pretty sure they can, you might not like the transport but it exists and is not that bad an option, i mean, for xenos armies its not bad.
As far as limited access to Invuln/FNP/Deep strike....you mean like basically everyone else? I have painboys for FNP and a KFF Big mek that can give them a 5++ but only if they stay really close to him. You have apothocaries that do the same thing as far as Invuln,
Vilehydra wrote: 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
it appears you have just as much access as me. And for deepstrike, well i have to pay CP to put them in a "tellyporta" which is a defacto deep strike, I don't know but I assume SM have some way to deep strike them if they really want to.
From the rest of your comments you make a bunch of excuses why they wouldn't use other buffs, which is fine, but then you go on to mention absurd things manz would take, like the swipe from transport stratagem..nobody uses it because its both stupid and ineffectual. Every model may make 1 attack with a weapon. So 3 manz get 3 attacks at WS4, not worth paying CP for.
They do have access to run and charge...but so do aggressors don't they? I mean, depends on the chapter you choose to take but White scars can do that, Black Templars get full rerolls like orkz.
BrianDavion wrote: 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
Why were melta guns not effective at their task? i'll give you a hint, they were, they just weren't the BEST option because cheap plasma became a thing, so instead of nerfing cheap plasma or whatever the other new hotness was the right answer is to buff Multi-meltas with 2 shots and give theme extra damage, and to create a unit that gets all that but also gets to shoot twice.... ridiculous honestly, and this is where powercreep comes from.
Same thing for Heavy bolters, why weren't they being taken? Because you had easy access to a host of cheap upgrades and weapons that put out a bunch of firepower and replaced the HB, i'll give you they needed a new target preference because you can't feasibly strip all those other weapons without a major rework of the entire faction but doubling their damage put them in contest with Auto-cannons. So now you fix 1 weapon and have to fix another, and i'll bet they either don't or they ham fist it like they did HBs so you have to fix another weapon type.
Of course, its more likely they just leave Auto-cannons to languish because who cares? you guys don't even use them, so my lootas will take the hit because they are the most common form of Auto-cannon in the game.
as far as power weapons and Chainswords....yeah, why? Because SM's weren't as good at assault as assault oriented armies so they had to increase their CC damage output. I'll wait for my choppas to get -1AP, but I think it will be a long wait, just a guess. We are quickly going from SM's being the jack of all trades army to the master of all trades army. What unit outperforms aggressors for that point value? What unit out performs eradicators for that point value? What faction has standard infantry as 2W 3+ saves, 2 shot weapon that is -1AP on a regular basis and all of that for what? 18pts a model?
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.
I really want to highlight Karol here. The argument isn't "Wait and see" or "Marines aren't OP" the argument he makes is that he didn't get enough time being utterly bonkers broken OP at the end of 8th so its only fair that SM's continue to be head and shoulders better than anyone in 9th.
As far as fixing codexs in a timely manner....unless you are SMs that is. Completely ignoring sub factions and supplements like SW/BA/DA index and psychic awakening etc. SM's got a dex this month, they last got a codex August of 2019, before that it was July of 2017, June 2015, September 2013, october of 2008, November of 2004, october of 1998 and finally, "ultramarines" of 1995. So thats 8 editions (1st was rogue trader) and 9 codexs over a span of 25 years, or roughly 1 codex every 2.6ish years. For comparison, Orkz got codexs in November 2018, June 2014, January 2008, July 1999 and 1994. 8 Editions, 5 Codex or 1 codex every 5 years. Orkz were also the last major faction to receive a codex in 8th, we had the worst codex in 7th, didn't get one in 6th or 5th and we enjoyed a beautifully written codex in 4th.
ok first off regarding agressors transport issues, the only transport they can take is the repulsor. which really is too expensive to be counted on as pure transport. you claim that "they'd be a fine transport via xenos standards" but I'm not sure that's true.
I mean wave serpants are about 150 points, (maybe 200 if you wanna take a buncha expensive weapons options) raiders and venoms are around the price of a rhino (maybe even less) the Ork Battlewagon is about 135 points. vs the repulsor being over 300 points. that's a LOT of points to sink into something to truck about agressors. I mean if you list includes one great, but I doubt any marine players sit back and say "Ok I'm gonna take a repulsor to transport my... anything" the only xenos transport similer to the repulsor is the monolith, whiiich is DOA being a combination of insanely expensive and a LOW choice.
Secondly the reason why Meltaguns wheren't well liked had more to do with reliability.
with Plasma you knew exactly what you where getting damage wise, you could bank on that dmg. Melta was too swingy. which, when combined with the fact that you had to get close made folks less intreasted in it. if you're sending a melta team up, chances are it's going to get one chance to do some damage (hence the concept of "sucide melta") if you're not sure that dmg'll be good then.. meh. so it was a concept of less efficant and less RELIABLE.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/07 19:23:40
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
ok first off regarding agressors transport issues, the only transport they can take is the repulsor. which really is too expensive to be counted on as pure transport. you claim that "they'd be a fine transport via xenos standards" but I'm not sure that's true.
I mean wave serpants are about 150 points, (maybe 200 if you wanna take a buncha expensive weapons options) raiders and venoms are around the price of a rhino (maybe even less) the Ork Battlewagon is about 135 points. vs the repulsor being over 300 points. that's a LOT of points to sink into something to truck about agressors. I mean if you list includes one great, but I doubt any marine players sit back and say "Ok I'm gonna take a repulsor to transport my... anything" the only xenos transport similer to the repulsor is the monolith, whiiich is DOA being a combination of insanely expensive and a LOW choice
135pts for a vehicle that serves no purpose except as transport, has no guns, and even though its T7, is pretty easy to pop since its 4+. It has 6 attacks in CC but WS5+
So you are literally paying for transport capacity and not much else, so its a good transport and that is it, where as the repulsor can shoot a couple Battlewagons to death while dropping off its payload of infantry.
I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.
The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.
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. 
as do most of the weapons you can put on the stupid thing.