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.

Vilehydra wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

except those 1D weapons, of which 95%+ of troops are armed with, either at range or CC, just became 50% as effective. Not to mention, GW can't seem to invent any new ork models without throwing on a plethora of Big shootas, which are garbage to say the least, but I still have to pay for the damn thing.

I feel like the point I was trying to make was missed

From a mathhammer perspective - you're completely correct. The firstborn marines just got 100% more wounds for a 38% increase in cost (13 -> 18) which seems like a good deal (and when it comes to dealing with MW's it is)

The point is that in my experience the effect of those 1D weapons we're talking about was already negligible. They didn't alter my planning or tactics and while there was some attrition from 1D weapons - and even some squad wipes caused by mass. Sometimes I spent a CP to mitigate a little bit of damage here or there, but outside of edge cases likes mortifiers or mass intercessors they didn't affect the gameplan. This change made them more negligible - but if the effect they had was already negligible to begin with then so what? This wound wasn't free either - If I keep running into what I've been running into (mass -2 2D weapons or better) then the durability increase essentially doesn't matter whilst the price increase does. Hence why I call it a meta-dependent nerf because the interactions are reliant on what other armies are bringing. And pretty much every army has a way to bring massed 2D weapons into play now.

I would like to point out they didn't.

They actually only went up 3pts from 15 at the CA2020 -->18 C:SM 2020.

Everyone's infantry and troops got a hefty price hike with the field manual 9th pts madness debacle..
By this token according to GW an extra wound on your basic troop is worth 3pts by this standard..

They have zero idea what they are doing with pts costs and balances.

I think gak tonne of the would have been avoided if the armies that don't get new codex rules/weapon updates would have remained at their end of 8th pts costs. That way you can make up the rules shortfall with a 20% pts bonus which would allow some armies to compete.

Alas everyone got price hiked and nobody got the rules (apart from Sm...) and then pile on the buffs, core, new units (heavy intercessors, eradicators, ATV, Master apoth etc.) and its a pretty one sided ruleset.. Hence.. salt.. a lot... of … salt...

pothocboots wrote:
If T4 wasn't enough to represent the toughness of marines then that can be adjusted in the core rules and faction design.

A universe where a marine is more deadly than an eldar warrior and more durable than an ork is not a grimdark universe.

But they are. Guardians are not apex infantry. And they are more durable than an ork. The grim dark comes in with the fact that there are 50000x the amount of orcs per space marine. For eldar, they never really have a thorn for most factions seeing as they have a very very light population and do not offer much in the way of a challenge to anyone in the grand scheme. On the battle level, sure, Eldar can kick butt. But on a galactic level they are the smallest of road bumps.

I dont play marines. I do play chaos.

Table wrote:

pothocboots wrote:
If T4 wasn't enough to represent the toughness of marines then that can be adjusted in the core rules and faction design.

A universe where a marine is more deadly than an eldar warrior and more durable than an ork is not a grimdark universe.

But they are. Guardians are not apex infantry. And they are more durable than an ork. The grim dark comes in with the fact that there are 50000x the amount of orcs per space marine. For eldar, they never really have a thorn for most factions seeing as they have a very very light population and do not offer much in the way of a challenge to anyone in the grand scheme. On the battle level, sure, Eldar can kick butt. But on a galactic level they are the smallest of road bumps.

I dont play marines. I do play chaos.

What you just said about Eldar could also be said about Space Marines, except even more so. Tiny population, road bump, etc.

 Argive wrote:


I would like to point out they didn't.

They actually only went up 3pts from 15 at the CA2020 -->18 C:SM 2020.

Everyone's infantry and troops got a hefty price hike with the field manual 9th pts madness debacle..
By this token according to GW an extra wound on your basic troop is worth 3pts by this standard..

They have zero idea what they are doing with pts costs and balances.

I think gak tonne of the would have been avoided if the armies that don't get new codex rules/weapon updates would have remained at their end of 8th pts costs. That way you can make up the rules shortfall with a 20% pts bonus which would allow some armies to compete.

Alas everyone got price hiked and nobody got the rules (apart from Sm...) and then pile on the buffs, core, new units (heavy intercessors, eradicators, ATV, Master apoth etc.) and its a pretty one sided ruleset.. Hence.. salt.. a lot... of … salt...

This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.

But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?

Wyldhunt 792731 10958911 wrote:

My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?

A 9th ed rule set design pardigma for example. Plus it could be worse, you could have points rised higher, just like marines, but not get the extra wound. And then made to play an edition that assumes anything marine does have 2W base. CSM players are not happy people, because of that.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Argive wrote:


I would like to point out they didn't.

They actually only went up 3pts from 15 at the CA2020 -->18 C:SM 2020.

Everyone's infantry and troops got a hefty price hike with the field manual 9th pts madness debacle..
By this token according to GW an extra wound on your basic troop is worth 3pts by this standard..

They have zero idea what they are doing with pts costs and balances.

I think gak tonne of the would have been avoided if the armies that don't get new codex rules/weapon updates would have remained at their end of 8th pts costs. That way you can make up the rules shortfall with a 20% pts bonus which would allow some armies to compete.

Alas everyone got price hiked and nobody got the rules (apart from Sm...) and then pile on the buffs, core, new units (heavy intercessors, eradicators, ATV, Master apoth etc.) and its a pretty one sided ruleset.. Hence.. salt.. a lot... of … salt...

This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.

But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?

simple really, intercessors are 20 PPM, tac marines with an extra wound are good, but still surrender a few notable advantages to intercessors.

Also keep in mind Kalabites would probably get a point decrease with their codex. GW screws up rules all the time but wait to see how much the Dark Eldar codex screws you compared to the Index.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also keep in mind Kalabites would probably get a point decrease with their codex. GW screws up rules all the time but wait to see how much the Dark Eldar codex screws you compared to the Index.

I think the big question is if chapter approved will be in the summer from now on, or if the next one'll come out around christmas. if so we could see GW adjust some points down for over costed things.

BrianDavion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also keep in mind Kalabites would probably get a point decrease with their codex. GW screws up rules all the time but wait to see how much the Dark Eldar codex screws you compared to the Index.

I think the big question is if chapter approved will be in the summer from now on, or if the next one'll come out around christmas. if so we could see GW adjust some points down for over costed things.

And granted the codex doesn't ALWAYS help. Look at Genestealer Cults as an example.
So instead of being one of the people that says "wait and see what GW fixes" I say simply say "wait and see what GW screws up less".

Wyldhunt wrote:


This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.

But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?

The reasoning is "screw you, buy Astartes."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.

Compared to a Tactical Marine - no, they were often their match in CC, low Initiative nonwithstanding. The point is that there should be some factions where the basic infantry outmatches Astartes, and Necrons is one of them. New lore/paradigm is trash.

Hecaton wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:


This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.

But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?

The reasoning is "screw you, buy Astartes."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.

Compared to a Tactical Marine - no, they were often their match in CC, low Initiative nonwithstanding. The point is that there should be some factions where the basic infantry outmatches Astartes, and Necrons is one of them. New lore/paradigm is trash.

Except Warriors themselves haven't been a match for a Marine since 5th. You're complaining about it now? Also Immortals are easily better than any Tactical Marine now and an even match-up for Intercessors.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:


This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.

But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?

The reasoning is "screw you, buy Astartes."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.

Compared to a Tactical Marine - no, they were often their match in CC, low Initiative nonwithstanding. The point is that there should be some factions where the basic infantry outmatches Astartes, and Necrons is one of them. New lore/paradigm is trash.

Except Warriors themselves haven't been a match for a Marine since 5th.

I think you might be getting your editions mixed up because Warriors were a match for Marines in 7th (they still only had a 4+ save but they had a 5+++ on top of it from RPs). Early 8th, RPs weren't reliable but their weapon was slightly better than the bolter, so it was still about even.

It's only since late 8th (when the Marines got their 2nd edition codex) that Marines suddenly shot ahead of Warriors.

And perhaps you didn't notice at the time but that particular Marine codex actually did receive a fair bit of criticism at the time - and for far more than Marines exceeding necron warriors.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're complaining about it now?

When they're widening the gulf yet again? Yeah.

Vilehydra wrote:
Your making assumptions that are not necessarily true - or relevant to the point but I feel its necessary to refute them anyways.
- The meta I played in when there wasn't a pandemic going on was pretty health, and in fact had a fluctuation between a 20-25% marine players (although this number went up markedly during the IH fiasco) with a healthy mix of both xenos and non-marine imperium players. We'd commonly max out at 36 players during league nights with most codices seeing play. 2D weapons were common in the meta not because it was primaris heavy - but because it was an effective all-rounder damage type.

What other factions required you to face 2W troops or troops with enough access to FNP to justify 2D weapons as a norm? I can think of maybe Death Guard and that is about it, everything else..including Death Guard, are Marines of some kind, even Custodes are basically Marines

Vilehydra wrote:
- Do remember that at the beginning of 8th the tactical marine was considered pretty garbage by most people. Two shots at AP0 and 1 attack in CC just didn't really cut it. Until SM2.0 I struggled to make Tacs work. It was an uphill fight against pretty much every codex. Shock Assault made them much more viable, and honest question - when was the last time you got hit by bolter disciplined firstborn? It's a great rule for intercessors, not for firstborn who need to be much closer anyways and generally tend towards more aggressive play.

Tactical Marines were considered garbage because there were better options easily available. Same thing happened with Ork boyz, why spend 7ppm (now 8) on a boy when the meta at the time said 3ppm grotz were a better tax unit and provided a benefit to your loota bomb. Just because you had better internal options didn't make the unit bad. You could still spend a points for a 5 man squad with a Las cannon or Missile launcher. Not a bad "poor mans" devastator squad for a troops choice. As far as "aggressive" styles of play. No, Tac marines were rarely if ever found outside of cover because they didn't need to hold objectives very much in 8th and the fact is, intercessors only have 6' more range than Tac marines and intercessors are even better in CC than those Tac Marines, P4P.

Vilehydra wrote:
- I can see the delineation between 13 - 15 - 18 points. But I feel it disingenuous to say that they went from 15 to 18 for the second wound when there were so many points being juggled around in the interim. In fact there was some evidence (the MM cost) to support that there was some possible overarching plan to shift Marines to 2 wounds, but they wanted to increase the price slowly to instead of a singular jump.

In 7th I believe they were 14 or 15pts, they only dropped to 13 for a bit in 8th. Beginning of 9th, they bumped them to 15, and realistically with all the buffs they had already gotten that wasn't enough, and then they got their 2nd wound, thereby doubling their durability vs D1 weapons....or most of the game.

Vilehydra wrote:
Remember the specific scope of the statement - This is not directly about Primaris - because I agree that the SM codex has way too many options and some poor rules. Primaris have some particularly egregious design decisions (hence why I stick to pure firstborn). Heavy intercessors just shouldn't exists. Intercessors themselves shouldn't be able to doubletap at 30" out, and eradicators shouldn't be able to one-round a knight ~50% of the time. But that isn't the topic being discussed here

I agree.

Vilehydra wrote:
This is specifically about the implications of firstborn getting an additional wound for the current cost. To which I'm currently thinking is a nerf, again more input will be required before a final judgement but we've waited a long enough time.
If your army was capable of dealing with Primaris beforehand, they should be capable of dealing with firstborn now. If your army wasn't capable of dealing with Primaris before hand, It didn't threaten my firstborn either.

There is no situation I can think of in which doubling of wounds at 20% increase in price is anything other than a massive buff. The problem with your argument about dealing with Primaris though is flawed because everything in my army that used to deal with Primaris (badly) is now more expensive, where as the Intercessor at 2W is now basically a Tac Marines with no real increase in price between 8th intercessors and 9th Tac Marines.

Vilehydra wrote:
lets talk about the options Orks have available to them - because its not just lootas

Off the top of my head they have:
Battletruck w/ Deffrollaz
Flashgitz
Killsawz/Powerklaws
Tankbustas
Scrapjet? (one of the buggies but I can't remember the name - it just throws out D2 shots and moves pretty quickly)
Lootaz still work with gretchin shield right?

Battlewagon w/Deff Rolla is DOA thanks to Eradicators and the fact it was always over priced to begin with. The better version is the "Bone Breaker" variant and at Full health it averages 4 Dead tac Marines a turn...but only in CC. And I don't really see a bonebreaker making it into CC with Marines at full strength.

FlashGitz: Massive over priced. 32ppm T4 4+ save with 2 wounds. Basically a worse version of Hellblasters of which Marine players continue to tell me are garbage. There 4+ to hit BS is great for orkz...but if they move its 5+. 5 of them, if they don't move manage to kill 3 tac Marines 2 if they have to move. They in return are getting gunned down by a similar value of Intercessors at longer range.

Killsawz/PKs: over priced, melee only, only spamable on Meganobz who are Movement 4. Whats the complaint about Aggressors? too slow at M5?

Tankbustas: 85pts of T4 6+ save anti-tank models kill....1 Space Marine a turn on average. Those 5 Tac Marines sitting at the same max range are 3 a turn.

Scrapjet: Kills .37 with the Kannon, .1 with the Missile, .51 with the Normal TL BS, and .77 with the Grot gunner TL BS. So the Missiles do .47 which is equivalent to .96 dmg a turn and the Big Shootas do 1.28 dmg a turn. So on average the 110pt Scrapjet kills 1 Marine a turn.

And finally Lootas: Lootas are now 20ppm, D3 shots at S7 -1AP 2 Dmg. They are T4 with a 6+ save so they die to a stiff breeze.
5 Lootas kills 1.29 Tac Marines a turn at the low price of 100pts. As far as the Grot shield still being a thing, You are correct. it is also 66% more expensive to use now, 30pts of grotz used to eat 10 wounds for those Lootas, who were pretty much forced to be Bad Moonz to get the shoot twice strat to make them competitive. Those same 10 wounds are now 50ppm. And in no world is a T2 S2 1W model with a 12' pistol and a 6+ save worth 5ppm.

So the best option you provided to kill standard INFANTRY troops is an elite 32ppm Flashgit that is incredibly hard to use and in a meta that is brimmed with D2 weapons with -1 and -2AP is going to be giving the enemy an easy return on investment.

Vilehydra wrote:
Each of those unit encompasses different strengths in how they deliver the damage - I'm pretty sure an ork player like yourself could supplement a list with these to mitigate any shortcomings.
Or you could design a list that doesn't need to kill much to win, because with 9thed it is a completely viable tactic to just own the board and just focus on gumming up the works.

DING DING DING! Winner. You are correct in your 2nd statement, I can design a list to beat SM's that doesn't require me to kill much, and a lot of competitive Ork players have already done so. And you want to know why? Because its about the only way to win with orkz right now. Who cares if you lose 90% of your army and kill very little of theirs, you still win because you held the capture points for 3 turns before basically getting tabled.

I don't know if you've ever played attrition hammer, but its not much fun after the first few times. Being forced to take a list designed to die by turn 4 without killing much of anything is rather 1 dimensional and boring. But that is what Orkz are being forced to do to win or even compete at tournaments right now. And as a fan of the faction that literally coined the phrase DAKKA its kind of sad that we can't gun down a basic damn tac marines with anything approaching a good return on investment.

Vilehydra wrote:
Because honestly the part that really irritates me is how everyone is already shouting "Muhriinez OP" when really the codex actually plays far healthier than 8th barring two aberrations (eradicators and reviving ATV's)
My old lists don't work at all - and that's perfectly fine. Expecting old tactics to work exactly the same in the new edition is silly. If throwing 60-90 CC attacks doesn't work, start thinking about other potential tactics that can achieve the same desired effect, because I can assure you they exists.

Well I am sorry the truth irritates you, but you just proved the point by trying to show me how the ork list is capable of killing a basic tac marine and failing basically everytime except with Flashgitz who are regarded as garbage due to price and lack of durability/synergy with the rest of the army.

And again, saying "change your tactics" is not a valid defense of units being OP. We have already developed the tactic that beats them, and it only works if the Marine player brings a relatively elite focused army that can't kill hordes quick enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Table wrote:

pothocboots wrote:
If T4 wasn't enough to represent the toughness of marines then that can be adjusted in the core rules and faction design.

A universe where a marine is more deadly than an eldar warrior and more durable than an ork is not a grimdark universe.

But they are. Guardians are not apex infantry. And they are more durable than an ork. The grim dark comes in with the fact that there are 50000x the amount of orcs per space marine. For eldar, they never really have a thorn for most factions seeing as they have a very very light population and do not offer much in the way of a challenge to anyone in the grand scheme. On the battle level, sure, Eldar can kick butt. But on a galactic level they are the smallest of road bumps.

I dont play marines. I do play chaos.

This is an issue I see frequently, people using lore to justify bad rules in the game, but then having cognitive dissonance when it comes to the return.

Marines need to be more durable than Orkz, at a current rate of about 6x. Takes 1.16 bolter wounds to kill 1 Ork, takes 6 Bolter wounds to kill a Tac Marine. Ok fine, that is good to go, Orkz are currently 44% the price of a Tac Marine. So since fluff justifies bad rules, that means Orkz need to actually be 3ppm. right? I mean we want to reflect the fluff and if Orkz are less resilient than Marines but 50,000x more of them, then 3PPM sounds about right. Obviously I am joking, I do not want Ork boyz to be 3ppm.

Do not argue fluff to make rules balanced EVER. If you do your argument is basically safely ignored. All rules should be written from a balance perspective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:


simple really, intercessors are 20 PPM, tac marines with an extra wound are good, but still surrender a few notable advantages to intercessors.

Which is great internal balance and absolutely craptastic External balanced.

Intercessors are out shooting fire warriors and out fighting Genestealers Point for Point. I.E. Intercessors are OP, and saying Tacticals are balanced internally against them means Tac Marines are OP.

 vipoid wrote:

 Denegaar wrote:
I understand the Marines VS Marines point of view, the changes are not a big deal for them. And they have a point indeed.

When you are a Xenos player though, it forces you to play tailored/skew lists or just resign and lose, as the rest of your "common weaponry" just became twice as bad.

If your army wasn't specially killy in 8th... Now you are even in a worse spot. I have to bring 6-10 Disintegrators or just play DT Venom spam if I want to compete vs Primaris lists... If I don't I'll probably have a hard time. And it's not going to be even fun.

The other aspect is that disintegrators are generally taken as anti-vehicle weapons. So you're forced to split your anti-tank fire against marines and their tanks, because your anti-infantry weapons are such utter garbage against their infantry.

Really doesn't seem like good design.

I know this is going to come off sounding a bit "git gud" no matter how much I try to avoid it, but what Marine tanks are you talking about? The only Marine armor outside of cheap transports you're going to see in a competitive list is Dreadnoughts, and D2 weapons are horribly inefficient on them. It's created a weird situation where your AT guns should be shooting the infantry and the best use for your anti-infantry fire (DE poison not withstanding) is trying to drown Dreadnoughts in D1 fire that doesn't care about damage reduction.

SemperMortis wrote:
DING DING DING! Winner. You are correct in your 2nd statement, I can design a list to beat SM's that doesn't require me to kill much, and a lot of competitive Ork players have already done so. And you want to know why? Because its about the only way to win with orkz right now. Who cares if you lose 90% of your army and kill very little of theirs, you still win because you held the capture points for 3 turns before basically getting tabled.

I don't know if you've ever played attrition hammer, but its not much fun after the first few times. Being forced to take a list designed to die by turn 4 without killing much of anything is rather 1 dimensional and boring. But that is what Orkz are being forced to do to win or even compete at tournaments right now. And as a fan of the faction that literally coined the phrase DAKKA its kind of sad that we can't gun down a basic damn tac marines with anything approaching a good return on investment.

What makes killing units any more fun than not killing them if both outcomes lead to you winning the game? In both cases, you as a player perform the exact same actions (building a list, moving models, rolling dice) in both cases you score points based on a set of mission objectives, and determine if you've won lost or drawn. The only difference is that in the defensive case your opponent removed fewer models from the table.

What about seeing your opponent remove models from the board makes the game more fun for you to the point that performing all other actions in the same way but not doing that one step makes the game unfun?

They did damage just fine to dreads before they got Duty Eternal.

But yes, they’re now only half as good against Dreads.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
DING DING DING! Winner. You are correct in your 2nd statement, I can design a list to beat SM's that doesn't require me to kill much, and a lot of competitive Ork players have already done so. And you want to know why? Because its about the only way to win with orkz right now. Who cares if you lose 90% of your army and kill very little of theirs, you still win because you held the capture points for 3 turns before basically getting tabled.

I don't know if you've ever played attrition hammer, but its not much fun after the first few times. Being forced to take a list designed to die by turn 4 without killing much of anything is rather 1 dimensional and boring. But that is what Orkz are being forced to do to win or even compete at tournaments right now. And as a fan of the faction that literally coined the phrase DAKKA its kind of sad that we can't gun down a basic damn tac marines with anything approaching a good return on investment.

What makes killing units any more fun than not killing them if both outcomes lead to you winning the game? In both cases, you as a player perform the exact same actions (building a list, moving models, rolling dice) in both cases you score points based on a set of mission objectives, and determine if you've won lost or drawn. The only difference is that in the defensive case your opponent removed fewer models from the table.

What about seeing your opponent remove models from the board makes the game more fun for you to the point that performing all other actions in the same way but not doing that one step makes the game unfun?

Because seeing your opponent remove those models is visual feedback that your army is accomplishing something. It is more visceral than adding ticks to a tally chart on a sheet of paper.

Like, say you're playing a video game and using a sniper rifle. What feels better, hitting a headshot and seeing the head explode to the sound of HEADSHOT! or absolutely nothing happening?

This is game design 101, here.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Like, say you're playing a video game and using a sniper rifle. What feels better, hitting a headshot and seeing the head explode to the sound of HEADSHOT! or absolutely nothing happening?

The shot itself is almost anticlimax because if the game is well designed getting into position to take it is what makes sniping worthwhile. I play RPGs, the Franchise modes in sports games, 4x games; the setup, seeing your plan come together in the end, is the payoff.

If you need constant flashing lights, loud announcers, and an ever increased sense that 'u are t3h special' you might just want something other than a tabletop wargame.

EDIT: I changed the end example, bashing people for a medical condition isn't cool.

I think my personal annoyance is that the difference in guns between Marines and Necrons, in the 2 new codexes. Marines got flexibility to take options versus hordes or other elite infantry, but Necrons... didn't? Obviously other Imperial codexes are likely to inherit those weapons from Marines, but it makes me wonder how other Xenos will be.

Like, Heavy Bolters are D2 now, heavy bolt rifles are D2 - these are things Troops can take. Plasma... there's options for Marines that are clearly designed to deal with multiwound infantry but aren't at the level of anti-tank weapons. 'Crons got the Particle Beamer on the Stalker focused on anti-2W... and that was it.

I'm really surprised the Enmitic Exterminator ended up being Yet Another Redundant Anti-Light-Infantry weapon on a list absolutely bloated with them already.

I think my big wonder is: If Marines are 2 to 3 wounds, what does that imply for far more expensive elite multiwound "super infantry" infantry of other factions? Are Marines costed around losing their wounds primarily to 1 damage weapons, or losing them in bigger chunks? If it's the latter, I would have expected to see more multiwound firepower in the 'Cron codex, and it didn't happen. Marines sure got it though, and by extension many other imperials will, so perhaps that's intended to be a deliberate weakness of Necrons only. Increasing the baseline lethality in Damage of anti-infantry guns has implications for multi-wound "super infantry" of all factions though. But I would say it sure doesn't seem like Marines are costed as if they expect them to lose wounds 1 at a time, they're too cheap for that.

Also I'm with the guys that say "planning not to fight but to just endure on objectives isn't fun." When you don't expect to kill anything but have so many models you know you can just win by passing turns sitting on the objectives, that's not a game, that's a REALLY boring math problem.
Edit: To make that more clear: If you're in the situation like Orks right now, where your main "play" is to take advantage of Marines taking mostly anti-elite weapons rather than anti-horde, and thus take a big horde and park on objectives, you're not interacting in any meaningful way with your opponent. You can't kill him, and he can't kill you fast enough, so actual -combat- between units becomes irrelevant. You don't need to respond to his deployment or his movements because you don't intend to fight him. You don't have to pick out targets to kill first or threats to tar-pit because... you don't care about the actual dice going down for killing anything. You care only about "Am I on the objectives?" and nothing else. That's what I mean by "it becomes a really boring math problem."

Corseth wrote:
To make that more clear: If you're in the situation like Orks right now, where your main "play" is to take advantage of Marines taking mostly anti-elite weapons rather than anti-horde, and thus take a big horde and park on objectives, you're not interacting in any meaningful way with your opponent. You can't kill him, and he can't kill you fast enough, so actual -combat- between units becomes irrelevant. You don't need to respond to his deployment or his movements because you don't intend to fight him. You don't have to pick out targets to kill first or threats to tar-pit because... you don't care about the actual dice going down for killing anything. You care only about "Am I on the objectives?" and nothing else. That's what I mean by "it becomes a really boring math problem."

There's more to those ork lists than simply dumping boyz on objectives and calling it a day. They may lack some killing power but they use aggression as a tool to hem their opponents into their own deployment zone which in turn enables their objective control strategy.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
DING DING DING! Winner. You are correct in your 2nd statement, I can design a list to beat SM's that doesn't require me to kill much, and a lot of competitive Ork players have already done so. And you want to know why? Because its about the only way to win with orkz right now. Who cares if you lose 90% of your army and kill very little of theirs, you still win because you held the capture points for 3 turns before basically getting tabled.

I don't know if you've ever played attrition hammer, but its not much fun after the first few times. Being forced to take a list designed to die by turn 4 without killing much of anything is rather 1 dimensional and boring. But that is what Orkz are being forced to do to win or even compete at tournaments right now. And as a fan of the faction that literally coined the phrase DAKKA its kind of sad that we can't gun down a basic damn tac marines with anything approaching a good return on investment.

What makes killing units any more fun than not killing them if both outcomes lead to you winning the game? In both cases, you as a player perform the exact same actions (building a list, moving models, rolling dice) in both cases you score points based on a set of mission objectives, and determine if you've won lost or drawn. The only difference is that in the defensive case your opponent removed fewer models from the table.

What about seeing your opponent remove models from the board makes the game more fun for you to the point that performing all other actions in the same way but not doing that one step makes the game unfun?

Yes, I know I for one, when playing Domination games love sitting on an objective, not returning fire, and just focusing my energy on "not dying". The best part? You left out the part where the SM army can plaster those orkz easily if they build TAC lists. But because they are so focused on the meta of anti-SM they don't bring enough aggressors and intercessors and instead want the super sparkly units with 2D+ weapons etc.

Corseth wrote:
I think my personal annoyance is that the difference in guns between Marines and Necrons, in the 2 new codexes. Marines got flexibility to take options versus hordes or other elite infantry, but Necrons... didn't? Obviously other Imperial codexes are likely to inherit those weapons from Marines, but it makes me wonder how other Xenos will be.

Like, Heavy Bolters are D2 now, heavy bolt rifles are D2 - these are things Troops can take. Plasma... there's options for Marines that are clearly designed to deal with multiwound infantry but aren't at the level of anti-tank weapons. 'Crons got the Particle Beamer on the Stalker focused on anti-2W... and that was it.

I'm really surprised the Enmitic Exterminator ended up being Yet Another Redundant Anti-Light-Infantry weapon on a list absolutely bloated with them already.

I think my big wonder is: If Marines are 2 to 3 wounds, what does that imply for far more expensive elite multiwound "super infantry" infantry of other factions? Are Marines costed around losing their wounds primarily to 1 damage weapons, or losing them in bigger chunks? If it's the latter, I would have expected to see more multiwound firepower in the 'Cron codex, and it didn't happen. Marines sure got it though, and by extension many other imperials will, so perhaps that's intended to be a deliberate weakness of Necrons only. Increasing the baseline lethality in Damage of anti-infantry guns has implications for multi-wound "super infantry" of all factions though. But I would say it sure doesn't seem like Marines are costed as if they expect them to lose wounds 1 at a time, they're too cheap for that.

Also I'm with the guys that say "planning not to fight but to just endure on objectives isn't fun." When you don't expect to kill anything but have so many models you know you can just win by passing turns sitting on the objectives, that's not a game, that's a REALLY boring math problem.
Edit: To make that more clear: If you're in the situation like Orks right now, where your main "play" is to take advantage of Marines taking mostly anti-elite weapons rather than anti-horde, and thus take a big horde and park on objectives, you're not interacting in any meaningful way with your opponent. You can't kill him, and he can't kill you fast enough, so actual -combat- between units becomes irrelevant. You don't need to respond to his deployment or his movements because you don't intend to fight him. You don't have to pick out targets to kill first or threats to tar-pit because... you don't care about the actual dice going down for killing anything. You care only about "Am I on the objectives?" and nothing else. That's what I mean by "it becomes a really boring math problem."

40k is IOM circle jerk ... Not saying it as a bad thing but IOM is the "protagonist" as much as one might be loathe to admit it.

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:


This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.

But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?

The reasoning is "screw you, buy Astartes."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.

Compared to a Tactical Marine - no, they were often their match in CC, low Initiative nonwithstanding. The point is that there should be some factions where the basic infantry outmatches Astartes, and Necrons is one of them. New lore/paradigm is trash.

Except Warriors themselves haven't been a match for a Marine since 5th.

I think you might be getting your editions mixed up because Warriors were a match for Marines in 7th (they still only had a 4+ save but they had a 5+++ on top of it from RPs). Early 8th, RPs weren't reliable but their weapon was slightly better than the bolter, so it was still about even.

It's only since late 8th (when the Marines got their 2nd edition codex) that Marines suddenly shot ahead of Warriors.

And perhaps you didn't notice at the time but that particular Marine codex actually did receive a fair bit of criticism at the time - and for far more than Marines exceeding necron warriors.

I'm very well aware as a Necron player, thank you. What you described never applied as they were only ever taken with the 4+++, and then imagine them still being worse because the very same Tactical Marines got free transports to pay for their darn Grav Cannons they'd shoot in safety!

So yeah, no. They really weren't a match for the regular Marine. Immortals sure, but not Warriors, and it hasn't been since, you guessed it, 5th.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:


This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.

But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?

The reasoning is "screw you, buy Astartes."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.

Compared to a Tactical Marine - no, they were often their match in CC, low Initiative nonwithstanding. The point is that there should be some factions where the basic infantry outmatches Astartes, and Necrons is one of them. New lore/paradigm is trash.

Except Warriors themselves haven't been a match for a Marine since 5th.

I think you might be getting your editions mixed up because Warriors were a match for Marines in 7th (they still only had a 4+ save but they had a 5+++ on top of it from RPs). Early 8th, RPs weren't reliable but their weapon was slightly better than the bolter, so it was still about even.

It's only since late 8th (when the Marines got their 2nd edition codex) that Marines suddenly shot ahead of Warriors.

And perhaps you didn't notice at the time but that particular Marine codex actually did receive a fair bit of criticism at the time - and for far more than Marines exceeding necron warriors.

I'm very well aware as a Necron player, thank you. What you described never applied as they were only ever taken with the 4+++, and then imagine them still being worse because the very same Tactical Marines got free transports to pay for their darn Grav Cannons they'd shoot in safety!

So yeah, no. They really weren't a match for the regular Marine. Immortals sure, but not Warriors, and it hasn't been since, you guessed it, 5th.

Given that the discussion was specifically on how Necron Warriors compare with Tactical Marines, bringing Rhinos into the comparison seems like moving the goalposts quite considerably.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Like, say you're playing a video game and using a sniper rifle. What feels better, hitting a headshot and seeing the head explode to the sound of HEADSHOT! or absolutely nothing happening?

The shot itself is almost anticlimax because if the game is well designed getting into position to take it is what makes sniping worthwhile. I play RPGs, the Franchise modes in sports games, 4x games; the setup, seeing your plan come together in the end, is the payoff.

If you need constant flashing lights, loud announcers, and an ever increased sense that 'u are t3h special' you might just want something other than a tabletop wargame.

EDIT: I changed the end example, bashing people for a medical condition isn't cool.

You might be right in a hardcore simulation game. But 40k ain't that. It's identity has more in common with Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament etc. than it does with games including simulated ballistics trajectories. 40K is fast ultraviolence with hitscan weapons, not the careful positioning, ballistics calculations and breathing control of a real sniper.

How rewarding do you think 4x games would be if you had no visual marker of how well your strategy was going? So no overlay showing your controlled territory, or your cultural/religious influence etc. You just do your thing and at some arbitrary point the game ends at which point you find out whether or not you won. And how rewarding as a player would it be if your chosen faction had only one way to try and win and no way to deviate from that to counter your opponents strategy due to a massive power imbalance between your faction and that of your opponents?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Like, say you're playing a video game and using a sniper rifle. What feels better, hitting a headshot and seeing the head explode to the sound of HEADSHOT! or absolutely nothing happening?

The shot itself is almost anticlimax because if the game is well designed getting into position to take it is what makes sniping worthwhile. I play RPGs, the Franchise modes in sports games, 4x games; the setup, seeing your plan come together in the end, is the payoff.

If you need constant flashing lights, loud announcers, and an ever increased sense that 'u are t3h special' you might just want something other than a tabletop wargame.

EDIT: I changed the end example, bashing people for a medical condition isn't cool.

You might be right in a hardcore simulation game. But 40k ain't that. It's identity has more in common with Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament etc. than it does with games including simulated ballistics trajectories. 40K is fast ultraviolence with hitscan weapons, not the careful positioning, ballistics calculations and breathing control of a real sniper.

How rewarding do you think 4x games would be if you had no visual marker of how well your strategy was going? So no overlay showing your controlled territory, or your cultural/religious influence etc. You just do your thing and at some arbitrary point the game ends at which point you find out whether or not you won. And how rewarding as a player would it be if your chosen faction had only one way to try and win and no way to deviate from that to counter your opponents strategy due to a massive power imbalance between your faction and that of your opponents?

40k has a visual marker of how well your game is going - your score sheet.

You're complaining about a winning build not being interactive, killing things isn't a visual measure of success.

Of course we know orks only way to compete is with hordes of infantry sat on objectives, thats why buggy lists have been winning tournaments. It’s also clearly fact they only ever play against marines.

 Xenomancers wrote:
They should probably not be like 11 points and have ap-0 weapons then.

Yes.

 Xenomancers wrote:
If it can merk a marine in CC it should cost more than 20 points

No.
Fragile CC unit that can kill a marine in CC should not be more expensive than the marine, because they are fragile and the marine can kill them by shooting at them, which is easier.

 Xenomancers wrote:
and have lots of attacks with high AP.

Yes.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Marines are not chaff. THEY WILL NEVER BE CHAFF.

You sound stressed.

 Xenomancers wrote:
So Associating marines with other armies troops and drawing comparisons is silly.

No.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Those units are chaff.

Wyches shouldn't be chaff.

Right, but my original point was that watching the number of marks on your tally chart tick up is not engaging gameplay on its own.

Seeing your opponent removing models from the board as a result of your clever manoeuvre feels better than watching your numbers go up on a piece of paper.

Vilehydra wrote:
There are three interactions to examine that have changed due to gaining the second wound:

1 - Interactions with 1 Damage weapons - This is what everybody seems to be annoyed with, that 1 Damage weapons just didn't do well vs firstborn. The thing is, 1 damage weapons NEVER did well against marines. The most common 1D weapons had AP0/1 and they were already super inefficient against Marines. Between playing with cover, and the Salamander rules I never factored enemy 1D weapons into my play - because they didn't really matter. In fact the only times I did have to worry about it was when I was dealing with mass intercessors or the perma-heavy doctrine TFC. The second wound doesn't really change that at all.

Ok, so let's look at the weapons available to my army.
Bolters: marine infantry was the best target for them before when facing a marine army, now half as efficient as before.
Flamers: same.
Bolt pistols: same.
Hand flamers: same.
Heavy flamers: same.

D2 weapons I have access to:
Heavy bolters.

Other weapons?
Exorcist missiles, really don't want to shoot at basic marine infantry.
Inferno pistols, melta, multimelta: really don't want to shoot at basic marine infantry.

Well, that seems like twice as much durability for firstborn marines against anything that wants to shoot at them except heavy bolters, and only because heavy bolters got a sudden buff. Would be worse for xenos without a sudden buff.