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.
2020/10/20 20:59:18
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
if you want to feel "overwhelmed" by horde factions than guess what? units like Eradicators/aggressors and intercessors all need HEAVY nerfs. That or you need to make those horde armies significantly cheaper. If you want to get that feeling of being overwhelmed but still keep those units as is than my 110pt buggies need to be closer to 50pts. My Ork boyz need to be back down to 6ppm not 8ppm, and even then they would probably need a durability increase thanks to aggressors even existing.
Orks already have lists that win by camping objectives and running a horde, you want them to have even more models, and at the same time intercessors being worse at shoting then tau and orks at melee, so every skew army would beat them? that is madness.
yes karol a skew list should beat a Tac list, that is kind of the point of a skew list. You take a TAC list to have a better shot at winning vs a number of factions/armies/builds you take a skew list to screw up the meta and mess with the TAC list, especially when Tac lists are currently more heavily geared towards killing elite infantry (Hi 3W basic troops/elites/heavies)
And yet again, if any of those "Tac" Marine lists invested more points into intercessors and aggressors than they do speshul units that kill vehicles and elites really well than they wouldn't have a problem dealing with Ork hordes.
And I do not believe there has been any tournament winning Ork lists since SM's codex dropped.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: Going to be interesting to see if proved wrong - but I don't think anyone is going to take Tacs over Intercessors. At least as I see it, one special weapon isn't worth a significantly worse gun and 1 attack, for a fairly trivial amount of points.
Completely agree, especially when anything the Tac Marines can do, can be done better by Intercessors or by taking a specialist squad like a dev squad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/20 21:00:27
if you want to feel "overwhelmed" by horde factions than guess what? units like Eradicators/aggressors and intercessors all need HEAVY nerfs. That or you need to make those horde armies significantly cheaper. If you want to get that feeling of being overwhelmed but still keep those units as is than my 110pt buggies need to be closer to 50pts. My Ork boyz need to be back down to 6ppm not 8ppm, and even then they would probably need a durability increase thanks to aggressors even existing.
Orks already have lists that win by camping objectives and running a horde, you want them to have even more models, and at the same time intercessors being worse at shoting then tau and orks at melee, so every skew army would beat them? that is madness.
So what do you propose, Karol? What's your fix for this?
Also, you may have missed the "or" in that quoted post. Not "Nerf the crap out of Marines AND make their competition cheaper," it was or.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/10/20 21:30:07
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Tyel wrote: Going to be interesting to see if proved wrong - but I don't think anyone is going to take Tacs over Intercessors. At least as I see it, one special weapon isn't worth a significantly worse gun and 1 attack, for a fairly trivial amount of points.
I think people might avoid Tacticals if they're dedicated Primaris players. Otherwise Tacticals have a huge damage-output advantage over Intercesors against higher value targets.
Dudeface wrote: They have reduced rerolls now and they already had 2 wound troops, intercessors didn't get cheaper and tac marines are still worse stats wise, they're fairly even now.
Nothing you list is new or additional from this codex, they had access to all that before.
10 necron immortals will kill 1.5 tac marines outside of bolter range, better yet 10 marines in rapid fire range, in tactical doctrine drop a little over 1 immortal.
Problem is, everything that used to target those 8th edition Intercessors is now more expensive and is having to target Tac Marines which are almost as good as Intercessors.
10 Necron immortals are a bit cheaper than 10 Intercessors and just about the same price as Tac Marines. 10 Immortals get 10 shots, 6.66 hits 4.44 wounds and basically 3 unsaved wounds for 1.5 dead Tac Marines. 10 Tac Marines under tac doctrine get 20 shots, 13.33 hits, against T5 that is 4.44 wounds and 2.22 unsaved wounds which is 2.22 dead Immortals. They have the same range, and Tac Marines no longer need to get into "Rapid Fire" range. So your basic Tac Marine outperforms immortals at ranged combat. Those intercessors though, they are doing 3 dmg at 30' range to those Immortals. And if not in TAC doctrine its 1.5 dead immortals and 2.2 respectively.
If you factor in Reanimation protocols they get a 5+ per wound to come back to life so if you kill 3, likely 1 comes back. Problem I see with this is 1: if you do 1 damage to those Immortals the likelihood is they lose 1 model, where as it takes 2 damage to inflict the same loss in damage output to those Marines, so if you manage 10 dmg vs immortals you wipe the unit, if you manage 10 damage against those Marines? Well you still have 5 Marines standing to get through. So yeah, they have similar damage output but those Marines are still more durable thanks to having 2 wounds each.
Tac marines have 24" range, they can't kill the immortals from 30" but do take losses, as a gauss blaster is 30" now. But you just proved they trade favourably.
Grav Cannon is 30" range now, iirc.
I think so off top of my head but then the immortals outnumber the tac squad, not sure which way it swings it. Tac squad still needs to move into bolter range butting the grav cannon at -1 for a turn regardless.
Napkin maths the tac marines win purely due to the slow speed of the immortals and bolter discipline. But it's not a landslide overly.
Right. Imo that's kind of an issue in my eyes. Points notwithstanding, Imo 10 Immortals should handily win over 10 Tacticals from a model-to-model perspective. The fact that they're sorta on-par point-for-point is close to reasonable balance from a game perspective, though I'd prefer Immortals be better either at shooting or taking hits.
Tyel wrote: Going to be interesting to see if proved wrong - but I don't think anyone is going to take Tacs over Intercessors. At least as I see it, one special weapon isn't worth a significantly worse gun and 1 attack, for a fairly trivial amount of points.
Completely agree, especially when anything the Tac Marines can do, can be done better by Intercessors or by taking a specialist squad like a dev squad.
Why bother taking a Dev Squad when your Tacticals can do the same task? That's the thing. Tacticals are a Troops choice that can far out-pace Intercessors against elites and vehicles. Intercessors simply can not do everything that Tacticals can.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/20 21:38:00
if you want to feel "overwhelmed" by horde factions than guess what? units like Eradicators/aggressors and intercessors all need HEAVY nerfs. That or you need to make those horde armies significantly cheaper. If you want to get that feeling of being overwhelmed but still keep those units as is than my 110pt buggies need to be closer to 50pts. My Ork boyz need to be back down to 6ppm not 8ppm, and even then they would probably need a durability increase thanks to aggressors even existing.
Orks already have lists that win by camping objectives and running a horde, you want them to have even more models, and at the same time intercessors being worse at shoting then tau and orks at melee, so every skew army would beat them? that is madness.
Intercessors should absolutely be worse at CC than Orks and shooting than firewarriors at their price point.
Tyel wrote: I'm sort of finding the whole thread weird because as people say, intercessors have been around a long time.
Do you mean 'Intercessors existed before, so why are people complaining about 2-wound Marines only now?'
If so, I think the issues are twofold: 1) Prevalence. 2) Fluff/Lore.
In the case of #1, Intercessors existed before but they were hardly the norm. In contrast, with the prevalence/dominance of Marine factions means that 2-wound infantry has now become the standard for troops. So rather than fighting primarily 1-wound troops with occasional exceptions, most people will now be looking at fighting 2-wound troops with occasional exceptions. Or, to put it another way, the vast majority of anti-infantry weapons have just had their effectiveness halved against the most ubiquitous infantry in the game.
As for #2, Primaris were a new thing so, whilst people might have disliked them for a variety of reasons, they nevertheless weren't trampling on any existing lore by being 2-wounds apiece and strong in general. In contrast, the improvements to basic Marines have now put them ahead of the elite units from a myriad of other armies which had previously been as good or even stronger than they were. Necrons have already been discussed considerably, but this extends far beyond them and also to units like Ork Nobz, Eldar/DE elites, and various others which are being increasingly left in the dirt by endless buffs to Marines.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2020/10/20 21:42:51
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Tyel wrote: Going to be interesting to see if proved wrong - but I don't think anyone is going to take Tacs over Intercessors. At least as I see it, one special weapon isn't worth a significantly worse gun and 1 attack, for a fairly trivial amount of points.
I think people might avoid Tacticals if they're dedicated Primaris players. Otherwise Tacticals have a huge damage-output advantage over Intercesors against higher value targets.
Dudeface wrote: They have reduced rerolls now and they already had 2 wound troops, intercessors didn't get cheaper and tac marines are still worse stats wise, they're fairly even now.
Nothing you list is new or additional from this codex, they had access to all that before.
10 necron immortals will kill 1.5 tac marines outside of bolter range, better yet 10 marines in rapid fire range, in tactical doctrine drop a little over 1 immortal.
Problem is, everything that used to target those 8th edition Intercessors is now more expensive and is having to target Tac Marines which are almost as good as Intercessors.
10 Necron immortals are a bit cheaper than 10 Intercessors and just about the same price as Tac Marines. 10 Immortals get 10 shots, 6.66 hits 4.44 wounds and basically 3 unsaved wounds for 1.5 dead Tac Marines. 10 Tac Marines under tac doctrine get 20 shots, 13.33 hits, against T5 that is 4.44 wounds and 2.22 unsaved wounds which is 2.22 dead Immortals. They have the same range, and Tac Marines no longer need to get into "Rapid Fire" range. So your basic Tac Marine outperforms immortals at ranged combat. Those intercessors though, they are doing 3 dmg at 30' range to those Immortals. And if not in TAC doctrine its 1.5 dead immortals and 2.2 respectively.
If you factor in Reanimation protocols they get a 5+ per wound to come back to life so if you kill 3, likely 1 comes back. Problem I see with this is 1: if you do 1 damage to those Immortals the likelihood is they lose 1 model, where as it takes 2 damage to inflict the same loss in damage output to those Marines, so if you manage 10 dmg vs immortals you wipe the unit, if you manage 10 damage against those Marines? Well you still have 5 Marines standing to get through. So yeah, they have similar damage output but those Marines are still more durable thanks to having 2 wounds each.
Tac marines have 24" range, they can't kill the immortals from 30" but do take losses, as a gauss blaster is 30" now. But you just proved they trade favourably.
Grav Cannon is 30" range now, iirc.
I think so off top of my head but then the immortals outnumber the tac squad, not sure which way it swings it. Tac squad still needs to move into bolter range butting the grav cannon at -1 for a turn regardless.
Napkin maths the tac marines win purely due to the slow speed of the immortals and bolter discipline. But it's not a landslide overly.
Right. Imo that's kind of an issue in my eyes. Points notwithstanding, Imo 10 Immortals should handily win over 10 Tacticals from a model-to-model perspective. The fact that they're sorta on-par point-for-point is close to reasonable balance from a game perspective, though I'd prefer Immortals be better either at shooting or taking hits.
Tyel wrote: Going to be interesting to see if proved wrong - but I don't think anyone is going to take Tacs over Intercessors. At least as I see it, one special weapon isn't worth a significantly worse gun and 1 attack, for a fairly trivial amount of points.
Completely agree, especially when anything the Tac Marines can do, can be done better by Intercessors or by taking a specialist squad like a dev squad.
Why bother taking a Dev Squad when your Tacticals can do the same task? That's the thing. Tacticals are a Troops choice that can far out-pace Intercessors against elites and vehicles. Intercessors simply can not do everything that Tacticals can.
And this is where the second wound is huge. It takes tacticals from a unit where i would never consider taking because I'm not putting expensive gear on one wound models and makes putting gear on them VERY attractive. Ideally, I'd give them 1.5 W, but here we are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/20 21:46:58
2020/10/20 21:43:12
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
And I do not believe there has been any tournament winning Ork lists since SM's codex dropped.
If you mean 1st place then I'm not either, but being fair here, I'm not aware of that many tournaments in the past week and a half. I see one 40k Stats item, the Northern Front YYC, that went Custodes>White Scars>Orks>Slaanesh Soup.
"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"
-Tex Talks Battletech on GW
2020/10/20 21:51:34
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Tyel wrote: I'm sort of finding the whole thread weird because as people say, intercessors have been around a long time.
Do you mean 'Intercessors existed before, so why are people complaining about 2-wound Marines only now?'
If so, I think the issues are twofold: 1) Prevalence. 2) Fluff/Lore.
In the case of #1, Intercessors existed before but they were hardly the norm. In contrast, with the prevalence/dominance of Marine factions means that 2-wound infantry has now become the standard for troops. So rather than fighting primarily 1-wound troops with occasional exceptions, most people will now be looking at fighting 2-wound troops with occasional exceptions. Or, to put it another way, the vast majority of anti-infantry weapons have just had their effectiveness halved against the most ubiquitous infantry in the game.
TBH non-primaris space marine infantry was never used outside 3x5 scout squads. The meta has been for now roughly 2 years about killing 2 wound infantry.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/10/20 21:52:07
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
You forgot the hit roll, chief. 2/3 of the Warriors or Immortals hit, and then 1/6 after that glance. That's a 10% chance per shot to glance. So yes it IS inefficient if you bothered to do the math for it.
Ah, ok "chief" my mistake for thinking we were talking specifically hits instead of shots.
Regardless, 20 Warriors were inflicting 2.2 glances per vehicle per turn, and if they somehow got into RF range they were gutting a vehicle entirely. How many HPs did most vehicles in the game have? 3-5? so the necrons basic troops choice was killing a vehicle every 2 turns, not bad for a troops choice that used to also be one of the most durable in the game.
Riiiiight, and how many points were those Warriors again?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/10/20 21:57:08
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
I might be oblivious here - but what weapon are you putting on the Tacticals to suddenly make them massively outpace Intercessors versus elites/vehicles?
This isn't a gotcha - just a general missing something here. You get one heavy or special weapon (if my reading is right?) and I guess a combi-plas or something?
2020/10/20 22:22:05
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Karol wrote: Orks already have lists that win by camping objectives and running a horde, you want them to have even more models, and at the same time intercessors being worse at shoting then tau and orks at melee, so every skew army would beat them? that is madness.
That's not what he was suggesting, and if you were paying attention you would understand that. That or you're just blatantly misrepresenting his point.
2020/10/20 22:56:27
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Tyel wrote: I might be oblivious here - but what weapon are you putting on the Tacticals to suddenly make them massively outpace Intercessors versus elites/vehicles?
This isn't a gotcha - just a general missing something here. You get one heavy or special weapon (if my reading is right?) and I guess a combi-plas or something?
Practically any weapon, but the Grav CAnnon is my go-to. The Multimelta is going to be a popular choice too.
1 Grav Cannon vs. Marines -- 4 x .666 x .666 x .83 x 2 = 2.94
1 Grav Cannon vs. Leman Russ Equivalent -- 4 x .666 x .333 x .83 x 2 = 1.47
5 RF Bolt Rifles vs MEQ --10 x .666 x .5 x .5 = 1.66
5 RF Bolt Rifles vs. LREQ -- 10 x .666 x .17 x . 5 = .56
A single Grav Cannon does more than the entire 5 man Intercessor Squad, and the Tactical Squad still has Bolters and a potential Special/Combi to fire. Imo Tacticals make Intercessors total chumps right now.
Edit: Adding in 3 Bolters and single OC Plasma shot:
5 Tacs vs. MEQ = 4.5 (~3X Intercessor output)
5 Tacs vs. LREQ = 2.25 (~4X Intercessor output)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/20 23:12:54
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
2020/10/21 14:16:56
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/10/21 14:28:35
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
2020/10/21 14:29:52
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
You forgot the hit roll, chief. 2/3 of the Warriors or Immortals hit, and then 1/6 after that glance. That's a 10% chance per shot to glance. So yes it IS inefficient if you bothered to do the math for it.
Ah, ok "chief" my mistake for thinking we were talking specifically hits instead of shots.
Regardless, 20 Warriors were inflicting 2.2 glances per vehicle per turn, and if they somehow got into RF range they were gutting a vehicle entirely. How many HPs did most vehicles in the game have? 3-5? so the necrons basic troops choice was killing a vehicle every 2 turns, not bad for a troops choice that used to also be one of the most durable in the game.
Riiiiight, and how many points were those Warriors again?
I'm not a Necron player, but unless I am mistaken they were 12ppm in 7th, so 240pts to kill a vehicle in 2 turns, or 1 turn if in rapid fire range, not bad for a basic infantry unit. My Ork boyz in 9th are 240pts now, and they can't kill a vehicle in 4 turns at range let alone possibly 1. Even in CC they struggle to kill most vehicles in 2 turns, if its T8 than its basically safe from Ork boyz for a few turns.
Tyel wrote: I might be oblivious here - but what weapon are you putting on the Tacticals to suddenly make them massively outpace Intercessors versus elites/vehicles?
This isn't a gotcha - just a general missing something here. You get one heavy or special weapon (if my reading is right?) and I guess a combi-plas or something?
Spoiler:
Practically any weapon, but the Grav CAnnon is my go-to. The Multimelta is going to be a popular choice too.
1 Grav Cannon vs. Marines -- 4 x .666 x .666 x .83 x 2 = 2.94
1 Grav Cannon vs. Leman Russ Equivalent -- 4 x .666 x .333 x .83 x 2 = 1.47
5 RF Bolt Rifles vs MEQ --10 x .666 x .5 x .5 = 1.66
5 RF Bolt Rifles vs. LREQ -- 10 x .666 x .17 x . 5 = .56
A single Grav Cannon does more than the entire 5 man Intercessor Squad, and the Tactical Squad still has Bolters and a potential Special/Combi to fire. Imo Tacticals make Intercessors total chumps right now.
Edit: Adding in 3 Bolters and single OC Plasma shot:
5 Tacs vs. MEQ = 4.5 (~3X Intercessor output)
5 Tacs vs. LREQ = 2.25 (~4X Intercessor output)
Apologies, I don't have a SM codex and they haven't updated BS as far as I can see, so correct any numbers that are incorrect.
My understanding is that Tacs are now 18ppm and the Grav for some reason remained the same at 10pts. You won't have a Special weapon because I still don't see any Marine player taking more than minimum squads. So likely you are going to be running 5 Marines, 1 with grav cannon for 100pts. (10 more if you want to upgrade the sgt's weapon)
Against Orkz thats 4 RF Bolters, 4 Grav shots. The 4 Bolters are 8 shots (if they stand still) for 5.33 hits and 2.66 wounds for 2.22 dead Ork boyz. The Grav Cannon math is very similar, 4 shots, 2.66 hits, 1.77 wounds and dead. Tacs at 100pts = basically 4 dead Orkz. This requires them to go 2nd otherwise they have to move to get into range which removes 50% of Bolter damage and 25% of grav dmg. Likewise, if you need those "Troops" to go cap an objective they similarly lose that as well.
In CC the Tacs get 12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds and 3.3 dead Orkz.
5 Intercessors (same price) are 10 RF Bolt Rifle shots for 6.66 hits, 3.33 wounds and 3.33 dead Orkz, So .67 fewer dead Ork boyz. They are Range 30' though so they technically don't have to move, and if they go second they can easily move and get into RF half range and still get their full shots if the enemy moved forward to get the objective. For 2pts you can equip 1 of them with a grenade launcher and bang out 6 Shots instead of 2 at S3 no AP, this is an upgrade in dmg of about .44dmg against a horde unit.
In CC Those 5 intercessors get 17 attacks, 11.3 hits 5.66 wounds and 4.72 dead Orkz. (I didn't add in the -1AP for chainswords for either sgt which I think they get now?)
So intercessors are almost as good at shooting, compared to TACs with a heavy weapon upgrade, but more importantly in light of 9th play style requirements, IE. get on the objective and hold it with troops, Intercessors are significantly better than TACS at CC, roughly 31% better
So, shooting against one another the TACs will win thanks to the damage profile of the grav cannon and how its basically built to target Primaris Marines S5 -3AP and D3 dmg against 3+ saves. However, in an objective game where CC actually matters, those Intercessors pull ahead and easily win the fight thanks to their better CC profiles.
Especially in close groups , there are ways to migitate issues with factions and collections quite easy.
GK sucked hard, 100-200pts handicap.
R&H list ocmpletly fethed and half the issues still not FAQed? refer back to the older iteration adapt what pieces you can to reconstruct what should work in which manner.
Try do that with non close groups and you look at significantly longer negotiation times , well if you even can find someone willing to do so.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/10/21 14:34:54
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
Which would be a lot easier if those balance issues were smaller to begin with. If you know that 2000 points of army A = 2000 points of army B (within a small margin of error) then it becomes much easier to build interesting narrative scenarios involving stuff like imbalanced forces.
Nothing quite like taking what you intended to be a heroic last stand rearguard action against overwhelming odds akin to Thermopylae and ending up with a decisive slaughter of the attackers because that 1000 points of army A was actually more akin to 1500 points of army B and the terrain set up to simulate the defenders holding a strong defensive location made up the remaining 500 point discrepancy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/21 14:50:56
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2020/10/21 15:01:18
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
How was it fun for marines to be target practice for multiple editions and now how is it fun for them to be OP Mary Sues?
2020/10/21 15:03:39
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
I think this just shows how people are getting completely different experiences playing the same game. I go into each game with the expectation of having fun and knowing that it inherently isn't balanced. I make sure that I don't spam the best units not just because they are too good but because I want my opponent to have a good time too. Full disclosure: I have yet to win a game in 9th though the great majority have been close. I have had the best time ever playing this edition. I also refuse to play in tournaments for GW games. I came to the realization long ago that they simply cannot be balanced and it is a waste of time for me to try. I guess what I am saying is that we have vastly different expectations from our gaming experience and our degree of difference shows it.
The poster before me makes the inference that people that play the game casually do so because they aren't capable of comprehending competitive strategy. I personally am a tournament veteran having won ccg tournaments as well as gw events during 5th edition 40k and 6th edition fantasy. The biggest event I won was a 1500 player magic tournament so I take umbrage at that implication.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 15:23:54
2020/10/21 15:25:53
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote: I think this just shows how people are getting completely different experiences playing the same game. I go into each game with the expectation of having fun and knowing that it inherently isn't balanced. I make sure that I don't spam the best units not just because they are too good but because I want my opponent to have a good time too. Full disclosure: I have yet to win a game in 9th though the great majority have been close. I have had the best time ever playing this edition. I also refuse to play in tournaments for GW games. I came to the realization long ago that they simply cannot be balanced and it is a waste of time for me to try. I guess what I am saying is that we have vastly different expectations from our gaming experience and our degree of difference shows it.
I'm a little confused. So you are simultaneously not worried about marine vs necron balance, but also don't play tuned lists. So how do you know if you need to worry or not?
2020/10/21 15:45:21
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
I don't worry because after seeing how they perform on the table I can see how to handle them. I think assault hellblasters will be popular this edition for their weight of str 6 shots for example.
2020/10/21 15:56:36
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Still beats by a rather large margin not playing at all to make up an opinion.
I mean, if one can change his opinion from "i can't win with SMs, they are trash" to "SMs are grossly OP and we shouldn't play with or against them" from YT battle reports, I'm sure playing while holding blows counts in making another.
2020/10/21 15:59:04
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Tyel wrote: I might be oblivious here - but what weapon are you putting on the Tacticals to suddenly make them massively outpace Intercessors versus elites/vehicles?
This isn't a gotcha - just a general missing something here. You get one heavy or special weapon (if my reading is right?) and I guess a combi-plas or something?
Spoiler:
Practically any weapon, but the Grav CAnnon is my go-to. The Multimelta is going to be a popular choice too.
1 Grav Cannon vs. Marines -- 4 x .666 x .666 x .83 x 2 = 2.94
1 Grav Cannon vs. Leman Russ Equivalent -- 4 x .666 x .333 x .83 x 2 = 1.47
5 RF Bolt Rifles vs MEQ --10 x .666 x .5 x .5 = 1.66
5 RF Bolt Rifles vs. LREQ -- 10 x .666 x .17 x . 5 = .56
A single Grav Cannon does more than the entire 5 man Intercessor Squad, and the Tactical Squad still has Bolters and a potential Special/Combi to fire. Imo Tacticals make Intercessors total chumps right now.
Edit: Adding in 3 Bolters and single OC Plasma shot:
5 Tacs vs. MEQ = 4.5 (~3X Intercessor output)
5 Tacs vs. LREQ = 2.25 (~4X Intercessor output)
Apologies, I don't have a SM codex and they haven't updated BS as far as I can see, so correct any numbers that are incorrect.
My understanding is that Tacs are now 18ppm and the Grav for some reason remained the same at 10pts. You won't have a Special weapon because I still don't see any Marine player taking more than minimum squads. So likely you are going to be running 5 Marines, 1 with grav cannon for 100pts. (10 more if you want to upgrade the sgt's weapon)
Against Orkz thats 4 RF Bolters, 4 Grav shots. The 4 Bolters are 8 shots (if they stand still) for 5.33 hits and 2.66 wounds for 2.22 dead Ork boyz. The Grav Cannon math is very similar, 4 shots, 2.66 hits, 1.77 wounds and dead. Tacs at 100pts = basically 4 dead Orkz. This requires them to go 2nd otherwise they have to move to get into range which removes 50% of Bolter damage and 25% of grav dmg. Likewise, if you need those "Troops" to go cap an objective they similarly lose that as well.
In CC the Tacs get 12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds and 3.3 dead Orkz.
5 Intercessors (same price) are 10 RF Bolt Rifle shots for 6.66 hits, 3.33 wounds and 3.33 dead Orkz, So .67 fewer dead Ork boyz. They are Range 30' though so they technically don't have to move, and if they go second they can easily move and get into RF half range and still get their full shots if the enemy moved forward to get the objective. For 2pts you can equip 1 of them with a grenade launcher and bang out 6 Shots instead of 2 at S3 no AP, this is an upgrade in dmg of about .44dmg against a horde unit.
In CC Those 5 intercessors get 17 attacks, 11.3 hits 5.66 wounds and 4.72 dead Orkz. (I didn't add in the -1AP for chainswords for either sgt which I think they get now?)
So intercessors are almost as good at shooting, compared to TACs with a heavy weapon upgrade, but more importantly in light of 9th play style requirements, IE. get on the objective and hold it with troops, Intercessors are significantly better than TACS at CC, roughly 31% better
So, shooting against one another the TACs will win thanks to the damage profile of the grav cannon and how its basically built to target Primaris Marines S5 -3AP and D3 dmg against 3+ saves. However, in an objective game where CC actually matters, those Intercessors pull ahead and easily win the fight thanks to their better CC profiles.
The thing is, all of those Calculations are against Orks, which are targets that I'm just in no way concerned about when playing Marines. Being 31% better against Orks in CC isn't worth nearly as much as the Tacticals being 3X as good against MEQs, and 4X as good against LREQs at range. Playing Marines one has an abundance/over-abundance of ways to get more S4 attacks into the foe from either shooting or CC. When you combine that with the new Blast rules, dealing with hordes is a solved problem.
Two more things:
1. The Sergeant can get a Combi-weapon, so you can pack a Special into the squad along with the heavy with 5 guys.
2. The efficacy of the Tacticals degrades way slower because of the concentration of firepower in the Heavy/Combi/Special. Losing four Intercessors means you're at 20% the damage output at range. Losing four Tac Marines with only the Grav Cannon left means you're still putting out more firepower than the Intercessor Squad even had to begin with against MEQ+ targets.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/21 16:15:52
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
By your reasoning, I could say that narrative players are lazy/dumb/donkey caves who should stick to their fethed-up variation of the game and I will just stick to having fun.
A player's approach to the game is not a moral position. Competitive games are fun for some people. Non-tournament games can be competitive too, y'know.
A more balanced, tactical game for "competitive" play can always be adjusted by narrative players to suit their purposes. We can all play as we prefer with the same ruleset.
This is the standard argument made in opposition to balancing 40k: "Competitive players are bad people! My group makes adjustments to the rules so we all have fun, like you're s'posed to!" This argument is worthless. It's being angry towards an imagined group off players for the sake of it, without addressing anything of substance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 16:20:25
2020/10/21 16:22:18
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
A balanced game is easier to riff narrative rules off of than an imbalanced game.
If I'm building a narrative campaign, what sort of rules do I want to make:
Marine Balancing: For this campaign, tactical marines are 10 pts more expensive (or don't have doctrines or whatever)
OR
Asteroid Rain: For battles fought on the planet Chortaxus IV, each player gets one free Orbital Lance Strike (per the Inquisition stratagem) in each of their command phases.
One of those is a cool narrative rule, and the other is a balance bandaid...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 16:32:15
2020/10/21 16:32:32
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
How was it fun for marines to be target practice for multiple editions and now how is it fun for them to be OP Mary Sues?
I think you're speaking to the wrong crowd about them being target practice. Dakka tradition is marines are never worse than "good" in the entire history of 40k and other armies should be jealous.
2020/10/21 17:02:47
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
How was it fun for marines to be target practice for multiple editions and now how is it fun for them to be OP Mary Sues?
I think you're speaking to the wrong crowd about them being target practice. Dakka tradition is marines are never worse than "good" in the entire history of 40k and other armies should be jealous.
