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.

 Dysartes wrote:


Storm Speeders - entirely different weapon package for each variant - so not "just the sponsons"

Gladiators - entirely different weapon package for each variant - so not "just the sponsons"

Predators - different turret weapons for each, though with common sponson options

Land Speeders - I'll give you different secondary weapons, with a common primary, though I'd also include the basic Land Speeder here. Technically not sponsons, though

If Guard can do it with their vehicles and squadrons then surely Marines can as well.

There's what? 7 different variants of basic Russ tanks, with 3 different options for hull weapons, and 4 different options for sponson weapons. 3 different variants of Hellhounds, with 3 different hull weapon options.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

Following that logic, Marines shouldnt be able to do anything better than average, Tau should never be able to function outside the shooting phase, Orks should never be able to function outside the combat phase, and Thousand Suns should'nt be able to function outside the psychic phase because all the units that can do those things (shoring up the "alleged main weakspot") ought to be prohibitively priced.

We've seen that movie before. In some cases we're watching it right now. The outcome is gak.

No. But a really strong close combat unit should be a bit more pricey for Tau, as it directly plugs an overall weakness in the army. Whereas strong shooting should be cheap and plentiful. Thus players can lean into the strengths of the armies and be rewarded, or opt to plug the main weakness, but at a slightly higher cost for the same close combat punch as a close combat-focussed army (which in turn would pay more for a very strong shooting unit).

Thereby you preserve the overall character of an army. If the Tau close-combat unit was super-cheap "because" Tau need it more as a non-cc army, you'd essentially flip their "strengths/weaknesses profile and turn them into a close combat army, given they now have an undercosted cc unit.

Well by your logic the Raider is completely fine (which it is). Transports are the literally the iconic units of the Dark Eldar army, if you make raiders / venoms cost too much you basically kill the army.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

Following that logic, Marines shouldnt be able to do anything better than average, Tau should never be able to function outside the shooting phase, Orks should never be able to function outside the combat phase, and Thousand Suns should'nt be able to function outside the psychic phase because all the units that can do those things (shoring up the "alleged main weakspot") ought to be prohibitively priced.

We've seen that movie before. In some cases we're watching it right now. The outcome is gak.

No. But a really strong close combat unit should be a bit more pricey for Tau, as it directly plugs an overall weakness in the army. Whereas strong shooting should be cheap and plentiful. Thus players can lean into the strengths of the armies and be rewarded, or opt to plug the main weakness, but at a slightly higher cost for the same close combat punch as a close combat-focussed army (which in turn would pay more for a very strong shooting unit).

Thereby you preserve the overall character of an army. If the Tau close-combat unit was super-cheap "because" Tau need it more as a non-cc army, you'd essentially flip their "strengths/weaknesses profile and turn them into a close combat army, given they now have an undercosted cc unit.

That balancing factor doesn't need to be points. Blood Angels have lots of strong shooting units, but their rules promote melee.

Luthon1234 wrote:


Well by your logic the Raider is completely fine (which it is). Transports are the literally the iconic units of the Dark Eldar army, if you make raiders / venoms cost too much you basically kill the army.

Can't agree more. Infantries in venoms and raiders are the bread and butter of drukhari lorewise, so it's reasonable that those combinations actually work very well ruleswise.

The only real OP combo that I see in the drukhari codex is the DT liquifier spam, which is something that is extremely unusual to see in regular games, as very very few people own 30+ wracks in total and that many flamers. So it's something that should be addressed at some point, but it's definitely not a priority. It can last another whole year and still the majority of players won't see it in real life. Succubus is also undercosted but we're talking about a 15-20 points increase, which don't really make a difference.

Venoms should definitely be cheaper though.

You don't think that raider with all its rules and combinations of being able to transports multi cabal stuff etc at 5 pts more then a rhino, maybe a wee bit under priced?

Karol wrote:
You don't think that raider with all its rules and combinations of being able to transports multi cabal stuff etc at 5 pts more then a rhino, maybe a wee bit under priced?

Only if you think the Rhino is fine.

For Space Marines, the Rhino is less survivable and often less mobile than the units it's supposed to be transporting. And, frankly, they have so many options that I'm perfectly fine with them having units that aren't competitively priced or overflowing with special rules that are usually rip-offs of other armies' supposedly unique playstyles.

Sisters may have a point, but they are running an out of date codex and none of their tanks are in high demand. Most SoB builds I've seen that include Rhinos only want them to live for a turn or two anyway to deliver their repentia bombs. If anything, I'd think SoB players would be more jealous of the 11 capacity of Raiders, which would allow them to play around a bit more with the numbers since repentia require a lot of back-end support with usually a priest and cannoness having to be nearby.

Let's reverse the question. If we took off, say, 20 points from the rhino, would it actually affect anyone's list regarding them? I don't think it would. People would still take the same amount of Rhinos and pray that they live long enough to do their one job (and if people did take more rhinos, I doubt it would be for their transport capacity but more for some sort of gimmick like cheap wounds).

The raider is good. Great even. Is it undercosted? It might be when compared to all the other mediocre-to-garbage transports out there. However, we have three non-toughness armies coming up soon (and I wouldn't be surprised at another SM 2.0 codex or something similar after that) so it could be that the Raider is just the new baseline for a useful vehicle. Not like the DE are a flagship race for GW--they didn't even get a new unit for this release, while the next three upcoming codexes are getting many.

The scary thing is that Drukhari may not get a nerf at all in then end... Ad mech is shaping up to be a great counter to them (from the preview we have seen, the outcome may be very different of course).

Perhaps GW have decided that for 2021, feth balance until they can restock on drukhari models, sell them all, then once all stocks have sold enough, then they balance. Perhaps same will go for ad mech. Does anyone here know if ad mech kits are as sold out (as drukhari kits currently are) ?

Altima 797783 11128608 wrote:
Only if you think the Rhino is fine.

Let's reverse the question. If we took off, say, 20 points from the rhino, would it actually affect anyone's list regarding them? I don't think it would. People would still take the same amount of Rhinos and pray that they live long enough to do their one job (and if people did take more rhinos, I doubt it would be for their transport capacity but more for some sort of gimmick like cheap wounds).

The raider is good. Great even. Is it undercosted? It might be when compared to all the other mediocre-to-garbage transports out there. However, we have three non-toughness armies coming up soon (and I wouldn't be surprised at another SM 2.0 codex or something similar after that) so it could be that the Raider is just the new baseline for a useful vehicle. Not like the DE are a flagship race for GW--they didn't even get a new unit for this release, while the next three upcoming codexes are getting many.

I think sob would be running a lot more of their rhinos, if they cost 20pts less. With regular marines the rhino problem is non existent, because the classic marines that are seeing play like Venguard veterans or attack bikes , don't use rhinos. On the other hand if you are asking if an army like GK, which I learned do not count as marines, got 20pts cheaper rhinos, then I think you would be seeing A lot of them. Specially with GK power armoured models costing full updated point costs for 1W models.

Also saying that something that is not a flagship faction is the new baseline, after the core army got updated, sounds kind of a strange. If GW knows in advance what they are suppose to put out, they should adjust stuff before and not in 18 months or more when the second sm codex drops. For all we know they could put classic stuff in legends by then . But even with primaris options, the impulsor has non of the guns and costs extra for the inv, has non of the fly, non of the soup up options and is definitly not open toped, even when the model is a pick up truck, and costs a hefty 100+pts.

I think rhinos are ok for 80 points. Their problem is that firstborn units are vastly inferior to their primaris/gravis counterparts to the point that there's no reason to field a rhino as there's no reason to field a firstborn unit. And rhinos are pure transports. If drukhari infantries were bad compared to other internal options (say bikers, jetbikes or monsters) no one would take raiders. In fact in 8th raiders were not taken very often but they weren't much different from the current profile and points cost. So no, raiders are not undercosted or if they are we're talking about 5pts maybe, something that doesn't make a real difference.

I play a full firstborn army (SW) and rhinos do ok in my lists. If I had the models to bring better options I'd shelve them, but I don't want anything of the "new" stuff, so rhinos and razorbacks will still see the table. SM codex is good enough to let people play with old armies and be fine against most of the other factions, unless we're talking about games at GT level of competitiveness.

Many top sisters lists runs 3-4 Rhinos though, they also bring 2-3 units in from reserves. They don't have a need to run more otherwise they would already run more, so I agree with @altima

The fact that a Rhino is more vulnerable to small arms than the squad that rides inside sort of defeats the transport of an armored battle taxi in the first place.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The fact that a Rhino is more vulnerable to small arms than the squad that rides inside sort of defeats the transport of an armored battle taxi in the first place.

This.

Half the transports would look so bad on paper if GW wouldn't have screwed up the wounding chart.
Same issue with most tanks without an invul really.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The fact that a Rhino is more vulnerable to small arms than the squad that rides inside sort of defeats the transport of an armored battle taxi in the first place.

This.

Half the transports would look so bad on paper if GW wouldn't have screwed up the wounding chart.
Same issue with most tanks without an invul really.

It is kind of mind-boggling to me that the baseline save of most vehicles isn't 2+. it would resolve so much of the problems standard vehicles have, and its not like dedicated antitank weaponry doesn't have enough AP to get thru that anyway.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The fact that a Rhino is more vulnerable to small arms than the squad that rides inside sort of defeats the transport of an armored battle taxi in the first place.

Only if your dudes have been updated to have 2W.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The fact that a Rhino is more vulnerable to small arms than the squad that rides inside sort of defeats the transport of an armored battle taxi in the first place.

This.

Half the transports would look so bad on paper if GW wouldn't have screwed up the wounding chart.
Same issue with most tanks without an invul really.

It is kind of mind-boggling to me that the baseline save of most vehicles isn't 2+. it would resolve so much of the problems standard vehicles have, and its not like dedicated antitank weaponry doesn't have enough AP to get thru that anyway.

2+ would aleviate some issues, the other half is the wounding chart being nonsense. There' s no way a boltgun should pen a Rhino frontally much less a chimera....
Yet sadly that's a non issue and happens on 5+ and 4+ if Votwl get's involved and or other wound shenanigans....

Not Online!!! wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The fact that a Rhino is more vulnerable to small arms than the squad that rides inside sort of defeats the transport of an armored battle taxi in the first place.

This.

Half the transports would look so bad on paper if GW wouldn't have screwed up the wounding chart.
Same issue with most tanks without an invul really.

It is kind of mind-boggling to me that the baseline save of most vehicles isn't 2+. it would resolve so much of the problems standard vehicles have, and its not like dedicated antitank weaponry doesn't have enough AP to get thru that anyway.

2+ would aleviate some issues, the other half is the wounding chart being nonsense. There' s no way a boltgun should pen a Rhino frontally much less a chimera....
Yet sadly that's a non issue and happens on 5+ and 4+ if Votwl get's involved and or other wound shenanigans....

I think the current wound chart is better than the old one for allowing mid-level infantry like marines to have their elevated stats matter quite a lot, so I'm more willing to suspend my disbelief for it.

making boltguns wound rhinos on 6s vs letting the rhinos save on 2s is 6 of one thing 1/2 dozen of the other - both cuts the damage in half from small arms.

but making boltguns wound rhinos on 6s (i.e. going back to the old wound chart) would make S6/7 weapon spam able to wound MEQs on 2s again. I do not want to go back to the days of midstrength supremacy.

Okey but is a huge problem for all the armies that GW updated to new higher point costs, but which didn't get the updated stats.

In a world where killing 2W marines, being a 1W marine is not very fun.

Karol wrote:
Okey but is a huge problem for all the armies that GW updated to new higher point costs, but which didn't get the updated stats.

In a world where killing 2W marines, being a 1W marine is not very fun.

Are there any units currently priced for 2W that only have 1W?

 the_scotsman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The fact that a Rhino is more vulnerable to small arms than the squad that rides inside sort of defeats the transport of an armored battle taxi in the first place.

This.

Half the transports would look so bad on paper if GW wouldn't have screwed up the wounding chart.
Same issue with most tanks without an invul really.

It is kind of mind-boggling to me that the baseline save of most vehicles isn't 2+. it would resolve so much of the problems standard vehicles have, and its not like dedicated antitank weaponry doesn't have enough AP to get thru that anyway.

2+ would aleviate some issues, the other half is the wounding chart being nonsense. There' s no way a boltgun should pen a Rhino frontally much less a chimera....
Yet sadly that's a non issue and happens on 5+ and 4+ if Votwl get's involved and or other wound shenanigans....

I think the current wound chart is better than the old one for allowing mid-level infantry like marines to have their elevated stats matter quite a lot, so I'm more willing to suspend my disbelief for it.

making boltguns wound rhinos on 6s vs letting the rhinos save on 2s is 6 of one thing 1/2 dozen of the other - both cuts the damage in half from small arms.

but making boltguns wound rhinos on 6s (i.e. going back to the old wound chart) would make S6/7 weapon spam able to wound MEQs on 2s again. I do not want to go back to the days of midstrength supremacy.

Whilest i kinda understand what you are getting at, i don't think it elevates them all that much.
See, PM's f.e. don't benefit at all really from their T5 against the standard S3 weaponry employed in many armies.
Also, marines still were SV3+ against these weapons during the old wounding chart which was and is a wash nowadays with the ap-1 those weapons tend to be no?

Karol wrote:
Okey but is a huge problem for all the armies that GW updated to new higher point costs, but which didn't get the updated stats.

In a world where killing 2W marines, being a 1W marine is not very fun.

technically they don't have higher point costs. A csm's base cost is 14 to a nearly identical tactical marine's 18 (with the second wound).

GKs and Tsons are 20, because they have weapons/rules that elevate them over a normal W1 space marine. a GK is a space marine with deep strike, twice the ranged firepower, a psychic deny and a mini-smite, and a D3 damage force weapon.

it's clear that CSM are not worth 14pts, and GK and Tsons are not worth 20pts, but GK and Tsons are obviously not 20pts based on tactical marines at 18pts - gw is just overvaluing the stuff they have over a regular W1 marine (and also overvaluing that W1 marine base value, lol)

A sister of Battle is fairly decent at 9pts, a CSM is probably worth like...12. For Bolter Discipline, T4, S4 and Shock Assault, 3pts would probably be about fair. A "Fancy W1 marine" like a strike or tson would probably be fair at about 16-17.

Another words something like a strike costs more, then a tactical or intercessor which is considered not good enough to be run in marine armies right now. And I don't even want to get in to why a 12" smite with the change to casting is a bad thing.

Deep strike is a good rule when either someone can charge out of it, is cheap and/or resilient or have some serious fire power. Droping 100+pts of GK strikes ouf of deep strike is just giving out free VP secondaries to the enemy, specially to fast moving armies that can easily relocate and trade up vs cheaper marine factions.

Karol wrote:
Another words something like a strike costs more, then a tactical or intercessor which is considered not good enough to be run in marine armies right now. And I don't even want to get in to why a 12" smite with the change to casting is a bad thing.

Deep strike is a good rule when either someone can charge out of it, is cheap and/or resilient or have some serious fire power. Droping 100+pts of GK strikes ouf of deep strike is just giving out free VP secondaries to the enemy, specially to fast moving armies that can easily relocate and trade up vs cheaper marine factions.

Buddy I play thousand sons and GSC you do not have to explain to me how Games Workshop massively overvalues both W1 space marine bodies and Deep Strike, I am there

I still don't think a unit + raider for a DE should cost the way it does. I don't know what should go up in points. I am not the game designer. But if something is run at 6, with same weapon load outs and same units inside them. And achives the same very high level efficiency it should at least be looked in to.

a dark lance raider at 85pts is better then a razorback with a lascanon, for damage, transport, resiliance etc And if DE are suppose to be the new normal. Then GW should have put out an update to all the other older books to reflect that.

Or at least for the armies that they haven't updated in 9th ed. There is no reason for a csm rhino to cost as much as it does. Not with the stuff it can carry. And even having different rules for same stuff isn't a problem, because they already have that this edition.

A lascannon razorback actually has twice the shots of a lance raider at higher S. How is a single lance better than a twin lascannon in damage output? SM also have doctrines that elevate the lascannons' AP to AP-4 in turn 1.

Karol wrote:
I still don't think a unit + raider for a DE should cost the way it does. I don't know what should go up in points. I am not the game designer. But if something is run at 6, with same weapon load outs and same units inside them. And achives the same very high level efficiency it should at least be looked in to.

a dark lance raider at 85pts is better then a razorback with a lascanon, for damage, transport, resiliance etc And if DE are suppose to be the new normal. Then GW should have put out an update to all the other older books to reflect that.

Or at least for the armies that they haven't updated in 9th ed. There is no reason for a csm rhino to cost as much as it does. Not with the stuff it can carry. And even having different rules for same stuff isn't a problem, because they already have that this edition.

....but it isn't, though. Better than a Razorback with a Lascannon for damage and resilience. Razorbacks have 2 lascannons.

It's better FOR THE POINTS, for sure. a razorback with 2 lascannons costs like 120. Luckily GW does this thing where they update everybody's points every year, so hopefully they reduce the points a razorback costs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regardless, I have a really tough time saying 'GW MUST go back and give an EMERGENCY points update to all loyalist marine stuff RIGHT NOW SOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOS" because...marines are doing just fine, compared to plenty of armies in the game.

You've got Eldar, Tau, GSC, Guard, GK, Tsons, and CSM which are all in basically "Emergency, Emergency, Army Does Not Work in Current Edition At All" status right now, and GW doesn't seem....at all concerned with getting any of them updated.

Our next three codexes are Admech, Orks, and Sisters, all of which range from average to quite good, and we wasted like 4 months putting out marine supplements for armies that had perfectly functional PDF rule updates the second the new marine codex came out.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
I still don't think a unit + raider for a DE should cost the way it does. I don't know what should go up in points. I am not the game designer. But if something is run at 6, with same weapon load outs and same units inside them. And achives the same very high level efficiency it should at least be looked in to.

a dark lance raider at 85pts is better then a razorback with a lascanon, for damage, transport, resiliance etc And if DE are suppose to be the new normal. Then GW should have put out an update to all the other older books to reflect that.

Or at least for the armies that they haven't updated in 9th ed. There is no reason for a csm rhino to cost as much as it does. Not with the stuff it can carry. And even having different rules for same stuff isn't a problem, because they already have that this edition.

....but it isn't, though. Better than a Razorback with a Lascannon for damage and resilience. Razorbacks have 2 lascannons.

It's better FOR THE POINTS, for sure. a razorback with 2 lascannons costs like 120. Luckily GW does this thing where they update everybody's points every year, so hopefully they reduce the points a razorback costs.

We are coming up on 1 year of the space marine codex being released.

Here is my review of the transport situation.

Transports should:
1) Move faster than the infantry they carry, allowing the troops to deploy more quickly.
2) Be more durable than the infantry they carry, allowing the troops to be more protected. This comes with the drawback of inhibiting said infantry from shooting or otherwise acting.

Most transports actually do:
1) Not move faster. 12" then disembark next turn is the same as just moving 6" for those two turns, except you lost that unit's shooting turn 1 (which YMMV on the value of).
2) Are not usually more durable than the squads they are transporting - or, even if they are, they are not sufficiently shooty to warrant removing the squad's participation in the battle.

Raiders, however:
1) Are actually faster than the infantry they carry.
2) Are actually more durable than the infantry they carry -AND- allow said infantry to participate.

The firepower of the raider is less relevant than the fact that it can actually fulfill its role on the tabletop. If other transports met all of those criteria, they would also be more-or-less just as useful as a Raider.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
I still don't think a unit + raider for a DE should cost the way it does. I don't know what should go up in points. I am not the game designer. But if something is run at 6, with same weapon load outs and same units inside them. And achives the same very high level efficiency it should at least be looked in to.

a dark lance raider at 85pts is better then a razorback with a lascanon, for damage, transport, resiliance etc And if DE are suppose to be the new normal. Then GW should have put out an update to all the other older books to reflect that.

Or at least for the armies that they haven't updated in 9th ed. There is no reason for a csm rhino to cost as much as it does. Not with the stuff it can carry. And even having different rules for same stuff isn't a problem, because they already have that this edition.

....but it isn't, though. Better than a Razorback with a Lascannon for damage and resilience. Razorbacks have 2 lascannons.

It's better FOR THE POINTS, for sure. a razorback with 2 lascannons costs like 120. Luckily GW does this thing where they update everybody's points every year, so hopefully they reduce the points a razorback costs.

We are coming up on 1 year of the space marine codex being released.

Oop, yep, right you are, stop everything folks we're going to need to put out Space Marine Codex 4.0 and new supplements STAT before we can get to ANYBODY else who might need a rules update.

Sit tight CSM and GK players this should only take 6-7 months.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is my review of the transport situation.

Transports should:
1) Move faster than the infantry they carry, allowing the troops to deploy more quickly.
2) Be more durable than the infantry they carry, allowing the troops to be more protected. This comes with the drawback of inhibiting said infantry from shooting or otherwise acting.

Most transports actually do:
1) Not move faster. 12" then disembark next turn is the same as just moving 6" for those two turns, except you lost that unit's shooting turn 1 (which YMMV on the value of).
2) Are not usually more durable than the squads they are transporting - or, even if they are, they are not sufficiently shooty to warrant removing the squad's participation in the battle.

Raiders, however:
1) Are actually faster than the infantry they carry.
2) Are actually more durable than the infantry they carry -AND- allow said infantry to participate.

The firepower of the raider is less relevant than the fact that it can actually fulfill its role on the tabletop. If other transports met all of those criteria, they would also be more-or-less just as useful as a Raider.

This ^, a lot of the time a raider two doesn't even fire its DL.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is my review of the transport situation.

Transports should:
1) Move faster than the infantry they carry, allowing the troops to deploy more quickly.
2) Be more durable than the infantry they carry, allowing the troops to be more protected. This comes with the drawback of inhibiting said infantry from shooting or otherwise acting.

Most transports actually do:
1) Not move faster. 12" then disembark next turn is the same as just moving 6" for those two turns, except you lost that unit's shooting turn 1 (which YMMV on the value of).
2) Are not usually more durable than the squads they are transporting - or, even if they are, they are not sufficiently shooty to warrant removing the squad's participation in the battle.

Raiders, however:
1) Are actually faster than the infantry they carry.
2) Are actually more durable than the infantry they carry -AND- allow said infantry to participate.

The firepower of the raider is less relevant than the fact that it can actually fulfill its role on the tabletop. If other transports met all of those criteria, they would also be more-or-less just as useful as a Raider.

So much this. 9th just doesnt do mechanized infantry well for all but one or two armies. I sorely wish it did.