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.
2020/10/19 16:35:15
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: More to the point, the gulf that GW has created between Necron units and marine units is far too large.
Mind to elaborate on that point?
I had my first game against Newcrons yesterday and it was pretty close with me being only 3 points ahead in secondaries (tied for primaries) when we ended.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
2020/10/19 16:36:52
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
I mean on a model by model basis. Necrons are sufficiently advanced in the lore (to my understanding) that their troops should be at least as powerful as Astartes on a model by model basis. Probably more powerful. It doesn't make any sense for a tactical marine to have 2W and an immortal to only have 1W. This holds true for lots of models in the game, really. But Necrons are on my mind because of batreps and such.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/19 16:39:29
2020/10/19 16:38:13
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
I got tired of looking, but I wasn't able to find any Ork Buggy lists winning in the entire month of October. There was 1 possible where he placed 3rd I think, Darren Jac from Northern Front Open YYC. But it doesn't say what kind of Orkz he was playing. Buggies were good in 8th once we got a codex and supplement but against the new SM lists...they die ridiculously quickly.
I was unaware that orks had their damage output refuced with the change to 9th edition. Can you show me the faq that did it? Also, if orks can win even in the face of doing little damage, and evidence suggests that they can, it seems that they still have agency.
Really? you were unaware that Ork fire power got nerfed? the SSAG is dead...the normal SAG is nerfed beyond using in anything except a fluffy for fun game, Lootas lost their ability to mob up and create a Loota Bomb, Flashgitz got beat with the nerf hammer(looks surprisingly like a SM Thunder hammer), As far as regular run of the mill Ork boyz? We got hit with ANOTHER points increase this edition. 7th we were 6ppm and in 9th we are now 8ppm. 33% increase over 2 editions. So now I can field fewer boyz to deal with those tac Marines who got insane buffs across the board.
Also, yet again, as a reminder. Orkz are not winning because the army itself is good. Orkz can win events which are currently like 30-50% some color of Marine because they are a SKEW list. Most lists are built with the assumption that they will need 2D weapons and lots of anti-elite weaponry to counter the meta dominant SM lists. So when a 120-180 Ork boyz show up, backed by a painboy and maybe some KFFs? well suddenly you are wasting Eradicator/fusion shots shooting into a horde of boyz because there are no juicy vehicles or elite units to kill. If any of those lists built in a bit more Anti-horde, it wouldn't happen, but if they do they lose to SM lists running elite heavy.
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.
Can you find me these Tournament winning lists from any of the last 30 or 40 tournaments? Pretty much since Codex SMOP V2.0 dropped those buggies have disappeared. Probably has something to do with Eradicators being able to 1 shot them for almost a 100% return on investment in 1 turn.
Karol wrote: You mean most or all ork players, because I doubt that anyone who doesn't own or plans to play them wants orks to get a tier 1 army.
They are already problematic just sitting on objectives. If they could also move and engage stuff in melee or shoting, they would be horrible to play against. Specialy now with all the nerfs GW does to marines and marine gear.
Wow.... So my army has to be weak because you can't be bothered to spend a few more points on Anti-horde weapons as opposed to taking the extra 3 Eradicators. Your argument is that Orkz are in a good place because so long as they are counter-meta they have a small chance to actually place in a tournament....by dying slowly enough to hold objectives.
I've already done the math for you, Intercessors out perform Tau Firewarriors at ranged combat while also out performing Genestealers in the CC phase...Point for Point AND model for model. The funniest part is that SM players literally have access to better troops than anyone in the game basically and they instead choose to use min squads of whatever is cheapest because they want those Eradicators and attack bikes instead.
If boys were a valid melee or shoting unit, and orks could spam them in number they can use now. No one would be winning against orks, unless they had an army that could spam a comperable number of units with comperable shoting and melee abilities. Or be immune to melee and shoting, while being dishing out large amount of damage of their own.
You mean like...Space Marines? Your "garbage" nerfed aggressors still gun down there points value in boyz by turn 2. They can still stand toe to toe with Ork boyz or even meganobz. Your basic infantry are better at both shooting and close combat point for point than basically anyone else's. But that isn't good enough because you can't fathom a world where you might have to actually use.....Tactics *Gasp*.
SecondTime wrote: Khan-led White Scar grav cannon spam rhino armies were pretty obnoxious. But that's at least specific. Late 8th marines were just obnoxious across the board.
Maybe gravis is indeed a bigger deal. I know eradicators are a bigger deal than any oldboi units. 2W oldbois is just jarring and seems like a giant middle finger to all other armies.
It is. With the introduction of heavy intercessors loyalists can now field entire armies of 3W T5 infantry, from troops to heavy support and even jump troops, with the only major drawback being a lack of efficient transport options. But then, strategic reserves can help with that. It definitely takes the edge off of 2W csm.
2020/10/19 16:52:53
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: Gladius was an indictment of just how miserable marines were, actually.
And here it is. An actaul smart person.
An army so bad on the table...they have to give you free units to go with your bad units...
Tell yah what...If Eldar got free wave serpants for all their gardian squads....you think they would EVER lose a game in 7? Still lost plenty of games with that miserable formation. It was a horde build in an eddition dominated by deathstars and wraithknights. Plus - like no one likes to remember. It forced you to take a host of terrible crap...like a captain/chaplain. The reality is - the razorback was not really worth much more than the weapons you were paying to put on it. Any savings you were getting were basically balanced out by paying actual points for useless power armor marines. It was probably the best way to run a 3+ horde in the history of the game BUT - it's not like a 3+ horde is actually hard to beat.
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
2020/10/19 16:56:37
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: I mean on a model by model basis. Necrons are sufficiently advanced in the lore (to my understanding) that their troops should be at least as powerful as Astartes on a model by model basis. Probably more powerful. It doesn't make any sense for a tactical marine to have 2W and an immortal to only have 1W. This holds true for lots of models in the game, really. But Necrons are on my mind because of batreps and such.
Necron Warriors are relatively slow in thought and deed as has been in the stats since the start - they are neither robots or living beings - but the mere remnants of a mind in a increadably resiliant body.
What they are are is very hard to put down for good.
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
SecondTime wrote: Gladius was an indictment of just how miserable marines were, actually.
And here it is. An actaul smart person.
An army so bad on the table...they have to give you free units to go with your bad units...
Tell yah what...If Eldar got free wave serpants for all their gardian squads....you think they would EVER lose a game in 7? Still lost plenty of games with that miserable formation. It was a horde build in an eddition dominated by deathstars and wraithknights. Plus - like no one likes to remember. It forced you to take a host of terrible crap...like a captain/chaplain. The reality is - the razorback was not really worth much more than the weapons you were paying to put on it. Any savings you were getting were basically balanced out by paying actual points for useless power armor marines. It was probably the best way to run a 3+ horde in the history of the game BUT - it's not like a 3+ horde is actually hard to beat.
The White Scar grav cannon army was pretty hard to beat. But that's about it really.
SecondTime wrote: I mean on a model by model basis. Necrons are sufficiently advanced in the lore (to my understanding) that their troops should be at least as powerful as Astartes on a model by model basis. Probably more powerful. It doesn't make any sense for a tactical marine to have 2W and an immortal to only have 1W. This holds true for lots of models in the game, really. But Necrons are on my mind because of batreps and such.
Necron Warriors are relatively slow in thought and deed as has been in the stats since the start - they are neither robots or living beings - but the mere remnants of a mind in a increadably resiliant body.
What they are are is very hard to put down for good.
I get that, but technology should matter. And looking at the stats, you'd think that the Necrons were the scientifically backwards faction, not the Imperium. Necrons should have much better guns and defenses than the Imperium across the board. But I know, we gotta sell those Mary Sue Astartes. On a model for model basis, the Imperium should be a massive disadvantage vs Necrons and Eldar. Even marines, because the technology is so inferior. But if I'm not getting that, I don't think equal is too much to ask. Like it used to be.
I suppose it doesn't sell models if a fire prism can smoke 10 russes.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/10/19 17:03:28
2020/10/19 17:11:40
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: Gladius was an indictment of just how miserable marines were, actually.
And here it is. An actaul smart person.
An army so bad on the table...they have to give you free units to go with your bad units...
Tell yah what...If Eldar got free wave serpants for all their gardian squads....you think they would EVER lose a game in 7? Still lost plenty of games with that miserable formation. It was a horde build in an eddition dominated by deathstars and wraithknights. Plus - like no one likes to remember. It forced you to take a host of terrible crap...like a captain/chaplain. The reality is - the razorback was not really worth much more than the weapons you were paying to put on it. Any savings you were getting were basically balanced out by paying actual points for useless power armor marines. It was probably the best way to run a 3+ horde in the history of the game BUT - it's not like a 3+ horde is actually hard to beat.
The White Scar grav cannon army was pretty hard to beat. But that's about it really.
SecondTime wrote: I mean on a model by model basis. Necrons are sufficiently advanced in the lore (to my understanding) that their troops should be at least as powerful as Astartes on a model by model basis. Probably more powerful. It doesn't make any sense for a tactical marine to have 2W and an immortal to only have 1W. This holds true for lots of models in the game, really. But Necrons are on my mind because of batreps and such.
Necron Warriors are relatively slow in thought and deed as has been in the stats since the start - they are neither robots or living beings - but the mere remnants of a mind in a increadably resiliant body.
What they are are is very hard to put down for good.
I get that, but technology should matter. And looking at the stats, you'd think that the Necrons were the scientifically backwards faction, not the Imperium. Necrons should have much better guns and defenses than the Imperium across the board. But I know, we gotta sell those Mary Sue Astartes. On a model for model basis, the Imperium should be a massive disadvantage vs Necrons and Eldar. Even marines, because the technology is so inferior. But if I'm not getting that, I don't think equal is too much to ask. Like it used to be.
I suppose it doesn't sell models if a fire prism can smoke 10 russes.
Not really - just play daemons - which at the time were also one of the strongest armies in the game. Grav was useless vs daemons. Rock paper scissors is not OP.
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
2020/10/19 17:14:31
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Said white scars list had a gakload of bolter shots too. And punching through all the free obsec rhinos with a free scout move was not trivial, even for demons. The marines really only needed to kill the demon's obsec and then vegetate the rest of the game.
Regardless, it was an absurd situation. GW's consistent inability to get even their posterboy faction correct is mindboggling. Tac marines have gone from almost worthless to better than all other troops in a fairly short time calendar-wise.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/19 17:15:35
2020/10/19 17:26:09
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
JNAProductions wrote: Rock Paper Scissors is also bad game design for something like this.
Having elements of it is fine-having entire RPS matchups is less so.
Like tanks vs anti-tank, yes. But... invulns short circuit that interaction. At least invulns get reigned in a little bit in 9th. I'm still not sure I'd pay for AP -4 or greater though. Well, other than eradicators.
2020/10/19 17:31:34
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
JNAProductions wrote: Rock Paper Scissors is also bad game design for something like this.
Having elements of it is fine-having entire RPS matchups is less so.
Like tanks vs anti-tank, yes. But... invulns short circuit that interaction. At least invulns get reigned in a little bit in 9th. I'm still not sure I'd pay for AP -4 or greater though. Well, other than eradicators.
Invulns should definitely be more limited on anything big. I've made a proposal to replace the Ion Shield (5+ Invuln) with an Ion Shield that basically functions as an extra set of wounds at a lower Toughness and Save that have to be beat down first to shoot the main Knight, since yeah-that's an issue.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/10/19 17:34:19
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Which brings up back full circle to the issue of only marines get the "good" melta. /facepalm
It was super frustrating for several editions for marine troops to be very, very weak. The marine statline degraded every edition. But this just seems like way overcompensating. 9 and 10 ppw for T4 3+ with the option to max range rapid fire or charge at +1 attack just seems wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/19 17:38:23
2020/10/19 17:39:23
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: Gladius was an indictment of just how miserable marines were, actually.
And here it is. An actaul smart person.
An army so bad on the table...they have to give you free units to go with your bad units...
Tell yah what...If Eldar got free wave serpants for all their gardian squads....you think they would EVER lose a game in 7? Still lost plenty of games with that miserable formation. It was a horde build in an eddition dominated by deathstars and wraithknights. Plus - like no one likes to remember. It forced you to take a host of terrible crap...like a captain/chaplain. The reality is - the razorback was not really worth much more than the weapons you were paying to put on it. Any savings you were getting were basically balanced out by paying actual points for useless power armor marines. It was probably the best way to run a 3+ horde in the history of the game BUT - it's not like a 3+ horde is actually hard to beat
Yes, Poor Poor SMs in 7th. You guys were suffering so badly before you got your decurion style formation.....ohh wait, no...you were average.
Honestly, anytime a Marine codex is "Average" the usual suspects come out screaming things like the above statement. SM's were ok in 7th, when they got their Super Formation they went from good to TOP TIER. up there with Tau Triptides and Eldar Shenanigans. In fact, unless I am mistaken, while Eldar dominated with their shenanigans, SM's averaged a close 2nd as THE MOST POWERFUL army in 7th edition, at least by LVO results they did.
I didn't think I would see the day but we literally have a post from a SM player complaining that the 10-20 FREE vehicles they got to take weren't enough to justify the cost to acquire them by formation.
Maybe so, but it was in spite of awful troops, not because of them. I seem to remember invisible grav centurions being a culprit. That really has nothing to do with the effectiveness of classic marine units. This was very nicely shown by how awful armies like BA and BT were in 7th ed, because they lacked access to the appropriate gimmicks. That means dozens and dozens of marine entries were garbage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/19 17:42:18
2020/10/19 17:42:06
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: Maybe so, but it was in spite of awful troops, not because of them. I seem to remember invisible grav centurions being a culprit. That really has nothing to do with the effectiveness of classic marine units.
So you should be complaining about Dark Eldar having crap troops too, right? Or any other faction where the one or maybe two top builds that can compete in tournaments aren't fluffy, right?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/10/19 17:42:31
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: Maybe so, but it was in spite of awful troops, not because of them. I seem to remember invisible grav centurions being a culprit. That really has nothing to do with the effectiveness of classic marine units.
Yep, in an edition where a few factions have borderline invulnerable death stars, and Mecha robots capable of flattening armies, your basic tac marine isn't going to be a standout. Were any troops standouts in that edition? Even Ork boyz suffered heavily from that.
SecondTime wrote: Maybe so, but it was in spite of awful troops, not because of them. I seem to remember invisible grav centurions being a culprit. That really has nothing to do with the effectiveness of classic marine units.
So you should be complaining about Dark Eldar having crap troops too, right? Or any other faction where the one or maybe two top builds that can compete in tournaments aren't fluffy, right?
Yeah, they're all bad design. I don't understand kabalite pricing in 9th at all. They were probably too strong when they dropped in 8th, but a lot has changed. It's very tone deaf for GW to fan service the marines this much.
SecondTime wrote: Maybe so, but it was in spite of awful troops, not because of them. I seem to remember invisible grav centurions being a culprit. That really has nothing to do with the effectiveness of classic marine units.
Yep, in an edition where a few factions have borderline invulnerable death stars, and Mecha robots capable of flattening armies, your basic tac marine isn't going to be a standout. Were any troops standouts in that edition? Even Ork boyz suffered heavily from that.
But it's not about being a standout. It was about limiting the troop liability, which seems absurd. If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/19 17:47:52
2020/10/19 17:48:44
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Not at all! You'd just field it in situations where it was good. Just because Seal Team 6 couldn't stop a Russian Combined Arms Brigade on the attack doesn't mean Seal Team 6 will be disbanded.
Of course, 40k's ruleset is such that the enemy can always bring a heavy tank company to every single fight, so Seal Team 6 would be bad in this format...
2020/10/19 17:49:03
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: Gladius was an indictment of just how miserable marines were, actually.
And here it is. An actaul smart person.
An army so bad on the table...they have to give you free units to go with your bad units...
Tell yah what...If Eldar got free wave serpants for all their gardian squads....you think they would EVER lose a game in 7? Still lost plenty of games with that miserable formation. It was a horde build in an eddition dominated by deathstars and wraithknights. Plus - like no one likes to remember. It forced you to take a host of terrible crap...like a captain/chaplain. The reality is - the razorback was not really worth much more than the weapons you were paying to put on it. Any savings you were getting were basically balanced out by paying actual points for useless power armor marines. It was probably the best way to run a 3+ horde in the history of the game BUT - it's not like a 3+ horde is actually hard to beat
Yes, Poor Poor SMs in 7th. You guys were suffering so badly before you got your decurion style formation.....ohh wait, no...you were average.
Honestly, anytime a Marine codex is "Average" the usual suspects come out screaming things like the above statement. SM's were ok in 7th, when they got their Super Formation they went from good to TOP TIER. up there with Tau Triptides and Eldar Shenanigans. In fact, unless I am mistaken, while Eldar dominated with their shenanigans, SM's averaged a close 2nd as THE MOST POWERFUL army in 7th edition, at least by LVO results they did.
I didn't think I would see the day but we literally have a post from a SM player complaining that the 10-20 FREE vehicles they got to take weren't enough to justify the cost to acquire them by formation.
The majority of what you are talking about is imperial soup.
While some effective hero hammer type armies could really do well and even dominate the game. That really has nothing to do with the space marine codex. Invisibility was a spell that every army had access too and pretty much every winning army was abusing it in some way shape or form...Just some broken forge world option let you pick your power...(also...not in the space marine codex) ofc.
Bark star...thunder star...Cent star...Super friends? Space marines right? Actually no...we call that hero hammer for a reason. It was a broken game.
SecondTime wrote: If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Not at all! You'd just field it in situations where it was good. Just because Seal Team 6 couldn't stop a Russian Combined Arms Brigade on the attack doesn't mean Seal Team 6 will be disbanded.
Of course, 40k's ruleset is such that the enemy can always bring a heavy tank company to every single fight, so Seal Team 6 would be bad in this format...
Looks like seal team 6 should be introduced in the smaller squad based tactics game...whats it called? Kill team?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/19 17:50:40
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
2020/10/19 17:12:01
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
But it's not about being a standout. It was about limiting the troop liability, which seems absurd. If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Which brings us full circle in GW's design mindset. Tacs weren't very useful in this edition thanks to those invisible deathstars and Mecharobots destroying everything they touched. So what did GW do? created a plethora of formations that allowed players to basically NOT take their specific "bad" units. OR especially in the case of SMs. Incentivized the use of bad units by giving them massive buffs/points for free. IE, Take a 5 man tac squad and receive a free Razorback with TL Heavy Bolters.
In that same edition though, whose troops stood out, whose troops were useful? I really can't think of any. So its a problem of SM players complaining that their troops weren't very cost effective/good in an edition where nobody's troops were cost effective or good.
SecondTime wrote: If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Not at all! You'd just field it in situations where it was good. Just because Seal Team 6 couldn't stop a Russian Combined Arms Brigade on the attack doesn't mean Seal Team 6 will be disbanded.
Of course, 40k's ruleset is such that the enemy can always bring a heavy tank company to every single fight, so Seal Team 6 would be bad in this format...
That analogy isn't exactly appropriate here. Marines are constantly depicted in pitched battles. If they fared as poorly vs Riptide as they did in 7th, they'd be disbanded or exterminated. How many terminator suits does a chapter have? I saw 30 die in 3 battle turns vs Riptide in 7th. And no survivors to recover the damaged suits.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/19 17:53:42
2020/10/19 17:54:06
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
But it's not about being a standout. It was about limiting the troop liability, which seems absurd. If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Which brings us full circle in GW's design mindset. Tacs weren't very useful in this edition thanks to those invisible deathstars and Mecharobots destroying everything they touched. So what did GW do? created a plethora of formations that allowed players to basically NOT take their specific "bad" units. OR especially in the case of SMs. Incentivized the use of bad units by giving them massive buffs/points for free. IE, Take a 5 man tac squad and receive a free Razorback with TL Heavy Bolters.
In that same edition though, whose troops stood out, whose troops were useful? I really can't think of any. So its a problem of SM players complaining that their troops weren't very cost effective/good in an edition where nobody's troops were cost effective or good.
Bro - in this eddition...Eldar windriders were fething troops!
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
2020/10/19 17:55:56
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
But it's not about being a standout. It was about limiting the troop liability, which seems absurd. If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Which brings us full circle in GW's design mindset. Tacs weren't very useful in this edition thanks to those invisible deathstars and Mecharobots destroying everything they touched. So what did GW do? created a plethora of formations that allowed players to basically NOT take their specific "bad" units. OR especially in the case of SMs. Incentivized the use of bad units by giving them massive buffs/points for free. IE, Take a 5 man tac squad and receive a free Razorback with TL Heavy Bolters.
In that same edition though, whose troops stood out, whose troops were useful? I really can't think of any. So its a problem of SM players complaining that their troops weren't very cost effective/good in an edition where nobody's troops were cost effective or good.
But they weren't good mechanically in 6th, or 5th, and arguably 4th. That's the trend I'm talking about. And then if you factor in the lore to any degree at all, they were utter dog dodo. All this being said, they have added way too much too quickly to marines I think.
But it's not about being a standout. It was about limiting the troop liability, which seems absurd. If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Which brings us full circle in GW's design mindset. Tacs weren't very useful in this edition thanks to those invisible deathstars and Mecharobots destroying everything they touched. So what did GW do? created a plethora of formations that allowed players to basically NOT take their specific "bad" units. OR especially in the case of SMs. Incentivized the use of bad units by giving them massive buffs/points for free. IE, Take a 5 man tac squad and receive a free Razorback with TL Heavy Bolters.
In that same edition though, whose troops stood out, whose troops were useful? I really can't think of any. So its a problem of SM players complaining that their troops weren't very cost effective/good in an edition where nobody's troops were cost effective or good.
Bro - in this eddition...Eldar windriders were fething troops!
I wasn't going to bring that up, but there it is. Troops that could reliably bring down IKs from 36" away.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/19 17:58:47
2020/10/19 18:15:44
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
I got tired of looking, but I wasn't able to find any Ork Buggy lists winning in the entire month of October. There was 1 possible where he placed 3rd I think, Darren Jac from Northern Front Open YYC. But it doesn't say what kind of Orkz he was playing. Buggies were good in 8th once we got a codex and supplement but against the new SM lists...they die ridiculously quickly.
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.
Can you find me these Tournament winning lists from any of the last 30 or 40 tournaments? Pretty much since Codex SMOP V2.0 dropped those buggies have disappeared. Probably has something to do with Eradicators being able to 1 shot them for almost a 100% return on investment in 1 turn.
SecondTime wrote: If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Not at all! You'd just field it in situations where it was good. Just because Seal Team 6 couldn't stop a Russian Combined Arms Brigade on the attack doesn't mean Seal Team 6 will be disbanded.
Of course, 40k's ruleset is such that the enemy can always bring a heavy tank company to every single fight, so Seal Team 6 would be bad in this format...
That analogy isn't exactly appropriate here. Marines are constantly depicted in pitched battles. If they fared as poorly vs Riptide as they did in 7th, they'd be disbanded or exterminated. How many terminator suits does a chapter have? I saw 30 die in 3 battle turns vs Riptide in 7th. And no survivors to recover the damaged suits.
Where marines are portrayed in pitched battles, I consider that Bolter Porn rather than real fluff. The whole point of Marines is to be a mobile force that uses surprise and mobility to avoid an even, pitched fight. Their tanks were lighter and faster, they didn't have superheavy tanks (except for relics left over from the Legions)...
2020/10/19 18:26:45
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Not at all! You'd just field it in situations where it was good. Just because Seal Team 6 couldn't stop a Russian Combined Arms Brigade on the attack doesn't mean Seal Team 6 will be disbanded.
Of course, 40k's ruleset is such that the enemy can always bring a heavy tank company to every single fight, so Seal Team 6 would be bad in this format...
That analogy isn't exactly appropriate here. Marines are constantly depicted in pitched battles. If they fared as poorly vs Riptide as they did in 7th, they'd be disbanded or exterminated. How many terminator suits does a chapter have? I saw 30 die in 3 battle turns vs Riptide in 7th. And no survivors to recover the damaged suits.
Where marines are portrayed in pitched battles, I consider that Bolter Porn rather than real fluff. The whole point of Marines is to be a mobile force that uses surprise and mobility to avoid an even, pitched fight. Their tanks were lighter and faster, they didn't have superheavy tanks (except for relics left over from the Legions)...
This is a major issue with the game in general and especially Marines. Scope & Scale bloat. Marines are basically portrayed engaging in every possible form of combat and battle, from guerilla warfare to attritional sieges to commando operates, shock assaults, air to air combat, space ship boarding actions, tanks battles, and artillery duels. Likewise, the game wants to portray everything from an individual grot with tiny revolver all the way up to superheavy battle tanks and titanic war machines, and in the same battle and design-space, and armies ranging from bands of demi-gods or dancing assassin troupes to tank companies and gibbering hordes of monsters, regardless of how jarring these scales are.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2020/10/19 18:35:15
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
If you're going to bring up the 7th edition iteration you need to talk the formations both were in.
The Rhino did not make the individual Tac trooper better.
When it's free to the squad it sure does.
There are two types of balance, model balance and game balance. For model balance the Rhino is irrelevant.
Which is why Kalabites are awful in many situations. However when talking about model balance it's important to note the rules at that point. AND, with the rules at that point, five Marines get a Grav Cannon, Combi-Grav or whatever you want, and that Rhino with an extra Storm Bolter because why not. That's all for LESS than the Warriors, who just have Relentless and a 4+++ and a rule for a weapon that's hilariously inefficient vs cheap vehicles.
Doesn't matter. Free Rhinos still do not make individual Tac Marines more durable than individual Nacron Warriors. Besides, free Rhinos could only be taken if you ran double demi-co, so if you were running Skyhammer Formation, single demi-co Gladius or simply playing in a lower-points game, free Rhinos weren't available.
Seeing as it could be done potentially even at 1500 points you're basically wrong.
And 1000 points? And armies that didn't use double-demi-co? Did Tactical Squads automatically get a free Rhino for every possible build? No.
Also if you're just looking at the individual models then yes the Tactical technically did win compared to the Warrior.
Correct. That was the entire point of the original statement/premise. The metric remains: 1 Warrior vs. 1 Marine.
Warriors weren't ran in 7th outside the Decurion for a reason and I think you're entirely avoiding that reason. The free Rhino is part of the unit whether you like it or not, simply because it IS free.
The free Rhino is not an intrinsic part of the unit. First, because it's explicitly not the same unit. Second, because it was optional, and heavily caveated through army build.
SecondTime wrote: If a unit was that ineffective, it would stop being fielded I suspect.
Not at all! You'd just field it in situations where it was good. Just because Seal Team 6 couldn't stop a Russian Combined Arms Brigade on the attack doesn't mean Seal Team 6 will be disbanded.
Of course, 40k's ruleset is such that the enemy can always bring a heavy tank company to every single fight, so Seal Team 6 would be bad in this format...
That analogy isn't exactly appropriate here. Marines are constantly depicted in pitched battles. If they fared as poorly vs Riptide as they did in 7th, they'd be disbanded or exterminated. How many terminator suits does a chapter have? I saw 30 die in 3 battle turns vs Riptide in 7th. And no survivors to recover the damaged suits.
Where marines are portrayed in pitched battles, I consider that Bolter Porn rather than real fluff. The whole point of Marines is to be a mobile force that uses surprise and mobility to avoid an even, pitched fight. Their tanks were lighter and faster, they didn't have superheavy tanks (except for relics left over from the Legions)...
This is a major issue with the game in general and especially Marines. Scope & Scale bloat. Marines are basically portrayed engaging in every possible form of combat and battle, from guerilla warfare to attritional sieges to commando operates, shock assaults, air to air combat, space ship boarding actions, tanks battles, and artillery duels. Likewise, the game wants to portray everything from an individual grot with tiny revolver all the way up to superheavy battle tanks and titanic war machines, and in the same battle and design-space, and armies ranging from bands of demi-gods or dancing assassin troupes to tank companies and gibbering hordes of monsters, regardless of how jarring these scales are.
It's not like this is an impossible problem to solve though. 1W Marines could still manage to engage meaningfully with superheavies if we wanted to make that work. Make Superheavies bad at targeting infantry, and make sure that the tools that infantry have for fighting against superheavies are up to the task. Imagine a few Devastators squads hiding in wait, and being able to unleash enough Lascannon fire to alpha strike a Knight to death. Imagine Rhinos rushing a second Knight under cover of smoke, and Marines planting Meltabombs on it's legs, toppling it over. Imagine Assault Squads landing on a third, tearing open the cockpit with Powerfists and mulching the pilot.
The possibilities for engagement could be so much better than they are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/19 18:44:02
Heck, 1W marines still interface well with Superheavies in Apocalypse. Exactly those situations that Insectum points out can happen, and the Superheavies get to fight back too, because of unique and innovative activation mechanics, damage resolution mechanics, C2, and fog-of-war mechanics.
Of course, "unique and innovative" aren't hallmarks of 40k, really, but it's funny to see the design team at work in APOC and succeed generally.
