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.

I don't think Devastators need to be cheaper than Tactical Marines to be viable. 10-man Tac units aren't viable either and their excess bodies also need a pts cut. I don't think 75 pts for 10 ablative wounds on your Devastators is a no-brainer choice, if you think so we can discuss whether it should be 17 or 16 pts/model instead. I don't think Insectum has made a sober analysis of whether 18 pts/model was actually worth it, I think Insectum was biased towards taking the fluffy choice and enjoying that choice despite its slight pts-inefficiency and is now getting slapped in the face with a fish by GW for having the gall of not taking min-size Devastator units.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
There is a cost at which both 5 Devastators and 10 Devastators is viable. That cost isn't 23 pts per model + 10 for MM. That's kind of obvious since I don't think anyone other than Insectum was taking the extra 5 dudes for 18 PPM, so the extra 5 dudes needed to be far less points, not far more points. Maybe something like 15 PPM, that's even if you believe in free wargear.

What does 'viable' mean here? What are the extra 5 bolter devs doing? If the extra 5 devs were 18 points thereby saving you 25 points how would they become more viable?

All I can see here is a complaint around a fluffy gamer edge case and not really an issue that needs attention.

Not clearly degrading your chance of scoring VP compared to nearly all other options you can spend pts on. By lowering their points their inclusion wouldn't negatively affect your list's ability to score VP.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
If you want to leave your expensive Heavy Weapons as easy pickings, sure. . . I didn't.

How were your tournament results with that setup?

1: Only played local tourneys and this is back in 8th pre pandemic, but the results were solid. Fantastic units. Had I gone to larger tournies I would have absolutely brought them along.

2: Don't get sidetracked. Are you going to defend the heavy-weapon-premium for models that can't take heavy weapons?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
I don't think Insectum has made a sober analysis of whether 18 pts/model was actually worth it, I think Insectum was biased towards taking the fluffy choice

My reasoning has little to do with fluff tbh, it's primarily a defensive measure. Spamming Devs historically puts a lot of value into a few Heavy Weapon toting models. Killing 15 Marines (3×5man squads) is reasonably easy. Killing 30 is not only twice as hard, but even if you're focussing firepower ideally, killing the same first 15 only removes 5 of the Heavy Weapons. If the squads are acting cagey, the return on casualty removal can be even less ideal for the opponent.

There are secondary benefits in the option of combat squadding as well, where you have the choice of either concentrating your Heavy Weapons into a deployment option like a Drop Pod (common move), or further diffusing the Heavies into 6 5 man squads with 2 heavies each. The 10 man squads plus Combat Squads essentially let me list tailor a bit based on opponent, which can be a very useful utility.

 Insectum7 wrote:
1: Only played local tourneys and this is back in 8th pre pandemic, but the results were solid. Fantastic units. Had I gone to larger tournies I would have absolutely brought them along.

So a different meta and played entirely against the local yokels and by solid, I think we can understand that you were exactly stacking trophies even at that level.

2: Don't get sidetracked. Are you going to defend the heavy-weapon-premium for models that can't take heavy weapons?

It almost doesn't matter how cheap you make the 6th through 10th model as MSU Devastators are going to be the correct choice 99% of the time regardless.

My reasoning has little to do with fluff tbh, it's primarily a defensive measure. Spamming Devs historically puts a lot of value into a few Heavy Weapon toting models. Killing 15 Marines (3×5man squads) is reasonably easy. Killing 30 is not only twice as hard, but even if you're focussing firepower ideally, killing the same first 15 only removes 5 of the Heavy Weapons. If the squads are acting cagey, the return on casualty removal can be even less ideal for the opponent.

There are secondary benefits in the option of combat squadding as well, where you have the choice of either concentrating your Heavy Weapons into a deployment option like a Drop Pod (common move), or further diffusing the Heavies into 6 5 man squads with 2 heavies each. The 10 man squads plus Combat Squads essentially let me list tailor a bit based on opponent, which can be a very useful utility.

This isn't history though. Devs were bad as things stood and this change has fixed that in a way that most players will understand and thus be able to interact with. When the choice is between making Devs unplayable by shifting more points up front or keeping them on the table, I think we know which option most players will favor.

Gonna go on a random tirade about something you stuck onto even though its totally not the point being made?

Devastators without heavy weapons SHOULD be cheaper than devastators with heavy weapons, end of story, theres no "Um ACKCHUALLY" there.

 Insectum7 wrote:

It might be an edge case for certain competitive types, although a lot of people DO try to engage in the game for fluff reasons, I'm sure you're aware. Personally I found it quite competitive prior to this nonsensical "free upgrades" paradigm. The lists I settled on for most of 8th ran 28-30 Devastators, and it was the s***.

As for "not really an issue that needs attention" I also disagree. It's just one example highlighting the total idiocy of the current pointing system.

Sorry - I definitely came across as a huge dick there and didn't intend to.

I remember taking full dev squads ages ago and enjoyed it.

I think just there's too much crossover between people wanting efficiency and fluff. Those two things don't always mix and sometimes it just isn't big enough to be on the radar with other issues.

 vict0988 wrote:
I'm not seeing anything worrying like the 62% win rates or 75% top 4 placements we've seen previously when an army was OP. The job for GW now is to look at internal balance it seems.

ccs wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

ccs wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I remember seeing that for the first time and thinking the designers decided that 230 points for a 10-model Devestator Squad was right. So they divided it by to 10 get 23 points a model, totally forgetting all the upgrades go in the first 5 models

Think of the second 5 models as also being upgrades to the original 5.
You're paying +23 pts to essentially double the original fives wounds. You also get extra bolter fire & occasionally an increase in CC ability.

Which isn't worth the points and you know it.

Isn't worth it to you.

Are you going to try to sell me on not taking the free upgrade from S6 AP-3 D1 to S7 AP-4 D2 on my Overlords next?

No. I don't care what you do/don't take. Or why you do so. You're the one presuming to tell me what I know to be worth taking.....

 vict0988 wrote:
Why do you even take Devastators? If you like the basic bolters so much just take Tacs and get ObSec.

1) Why I take Devs:
Because in my most oft played SM force, built long ago (likely before you were playing this game) & still in use today, I have 3 full Dev squads fully painted, based, finished etc. I built them because at the time there really wasn't any other heavy support choice besides the AC armed predator kit available. Yes, the Landraider technically existed but the kit was impossible to actually find at the time.... The Lascannon turret Pred variant model, the Whirlwind, & the Vindicator would all come along a bit later. Razorbacks weren't even a thing yet. So I built according to what was available.
The force was HQ characters, Tac Squads, a pair of super derpy looking RT era dreads, some termies, an assault squad with jump packs, & 3 Dev squads. + a number of Rhinos. I built ALL my infantry as 10 man teams.
Over the years some additions have been made to this force. Notably modular magnetized bitz to turn several of those Rhinos into 1 whirlwind/1 Vindicator/1 Las-turret Pred/& several Razorbacks.
But I'm not a player who's in the habit of discarding finished units that have worked well for me. I'm also not concerned with optimizing stuff to fit the tourney metas or conform to whatever the group-think on a subject is.
So when I play this force, very often at least 2 of those Dev squads see battle. The question is: How many in each squad? And am I including a transport? Often depends upon pts & what I'm expecting to face.

2) On why not take Tacs & get Obsec: Who said I don't? I already have plenty of tacs with ObSec. I've got that covered. I take Devs #6+ specifically to absorb a bit of damage before I start losing the heavy weapons. That's their job. To die 1st. Any shooting/fighting they do is just a bonus.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
1: Only played local tourneys and this is back in 8th pre pandemic, but the results were solid. Fantastic units. Had I gone to larger tournies I would have absolutely brought them along.

So a different meta and played entirely against the local yokels and by solid, I think we can understand that you were exactly stacking trophies even at that level.

By "solid", I mean I've been at the top of whatever local meta I've played in for about 25 years.

And before you go on the "Oh that's just locally so it doesn't count, blah blah blah" road. I'll tell you that the vast majority of players are playing in their local metas. The amount of people who are chasing 100+ person tournament events is miniscule. They say politics is local, and I'd say 40K is the same.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

2: Don't get sidetracked. Are you going to defend the heavy-weapon-premium for models that can't take heavy weapons?

It almost doesn't matter how cheap you make the 6th through 10th model as MSU Devastators are going to be the correct choice 99% of the time regardless.

That's poor logic combined with bad data. Where do you draw the 99% figure from, exactly? And all of it in support of a bad position to begin with.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

My reasoning has little to do with fluff tbh, it's primarily a defensive measure. Spamming Devs historically puts a lot of value into a few Heavy Weapon toting models. Killing 15 Marines (3×5man squads) is reasonably easy. Killing 30 is not only twice as hard, but even if you're focussing firepower ideally, killing the same first 15 only removes 5 of the Heavy Weapons. If the squads are acting cagey, the return on casualty removal can be even less ideal for the opponent.

There are secondary benefits in the option of combat squadding as well, where you have the choice of either concentrating your Heavy Weapons into a deployment option like a Drop Pod (common move), or further diffusing the Heavies into 6 5 man squads with 2 heavies each. The 10 man squads plus Combat Squads essentially let me list tailor a bit based on opponent, which can be a very useful utility.

This isn't history though. Devs were bad as things stood and this change has fixed that in a way that most players will understand and thus be able to interact with. When the choice is between making Devs unplayable by shifting more points up front or keeping them on the table, I think we know which option most players will favor.

"Devs were bad as thing stood" also doesn't hold up. I've seen people lauding the firepower of Devastators throughout 9th edition, even though Real/True/firstborn Marines have slipped in popularity for Primaris. Now maybe you play Marines and you weren't able to get value out of Devsastators. . . . to which I would respond: "git gud"

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I think just there's too much crossover between people wanting efficiency and fluff. Those two things don't always mix and sometimes it just isn't big enough to be on the radar with other issues.

I want balance. I think ObSec being Troops instead of INFANTRY (or what have you) is silly. I think Marines should encouraged (not forced) into x10 squads to open up BLAST, I think "max" squads should provide a benefit beyond being killed faster by said BLAST. I think there's too much push into MSU.

I don't play standard marines, and my Deathwatch lean so heavily on Kill Teams that I have no Devatators.

But 10 man squads in Crusade are a bit different than 10 man squads in matched. Are the extra five bodies making it easier to hit an agenda, thereby making the unit level up faster?

And everytime the unit does level up, who would rather have 5 guys get a battle honour than 10?

Of course, being points changes, the dataslate doesn't affect Crusade at all, and we've been getting weapons "for free" since the edition began.

But the extra value of the 10 man unit is still greater in Crusade than Matched.

Breton wrote:

The Infiltrators have no weapon swaps, and took no optional options. Edit to add: Whoops I missed it - they did take Helix Gauntlets. 20 Points. Most of the characters also aren't really getting "free wargear" and just got points drops. You're not including base points drops that everybody got in the "free wargear" are you? I mean we get it, its hard to be honest about the faction you hate. But its also hard not to see it when it happens.

I'm not including base points drops? Weird...I feel like I said

SemperMortis wrote:
With the insane amount of points reductions that Marines got, they can now take about 20% more units, and those new units will be fully kitted out with free upgrades.

...oh wait...I did...it was the premise of the entire thread.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Another really obnoxious thing about the pricing method of Devastators now is that when filling the squad out to ten models, the extra basic-bolter guys are 23 ppm. The more models you take the more expensive those four Heavy Weapons get, I guess? So dumb.

From a competitive standpoint, nobody ever took the extra bodies on devastators because they are just ablative wounds at best and realistically you were better off just chunking your devs in terrain and using the saved points on other threats.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Another really obnoxious thing about the pricing method of Devastators now is that when filling the squad out to ten models, the extra basic-bolter guys are 23 ppm. The more models you take the more expensive those four Heavy Weapons get, I guess? So dumb.

From a competitive standpoint, nobody ever took the extra bodies on devastators because they are just ablative wounds at best and realistically you were better off just chunking your devs in terrain and using the saved points on other threats.

Having played competetively and taken 10 man Devastator squads, I heartily disagree!

SemperMortis wrote:


I'm not including base points drops? Weird...I feel like I said

SemperMortis wrote:
With the insane amount of points reductions that Marines got, they can now take about 20% more units, and those new units will be fully kitted out with free upgrades.

...oh wait...I did...it was the premise of the entire thread.

Whats amazing is that the underperforming SM that got 20% Fewer units before the points drops and now perform as they should with the points drops still leads to people complaining about SM.

Oh wait. No it's not.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Another really obnoxious thing about the pricing method of Devastators now is that when filling the squad out to ten models, the extra basic-bolter guys are 23 ppm. The more models you take the more expensive those four Heavy Weapons get, I guess? So dumb.

From a competitive standpoint, nobody ever took the extra bodies on devastators because they are just ablative wounds at best and realistically you were better off just chunking your devs in terrain and using the saved points on other threats.

Yeah, that's one of the problems that still hasn't been fixed, not justification for complaining about SM.

 Insectum7 wrote:
And before you go on the "Oh that's just locally so it doesn't count, blah blah blah" road. I'll tell you that the vast majority of players are playing in their local metas. The amount of people who are chasing 100+ person tournament events is miniscule. They say politics is local, and I'd say 40K is the same.

If we balance around what works for you it will likely screw things up and kill the competitive scene without moving the needle for casual fans who don't tend to be sensitive to the game's balance. So why should we focus on a target that doesn't gain GW anything?

That's poor logic combined with bad data. Where do you draw the 99% figure from, exactly? And all of it in support of a bad position to begin with.

Let's look at a system with what you want implemented and see what's more likely to see play:

5-Devs with whatever weapons cost 115 points - 23ppm)
10-Devs with whatever weapons cost 190 points - 23ppm for the first 5 and 15ppm for the ablative wounds

You could take 3 units of 10 models for 570 points or 5 units of 5 models for 575 points.

The 3x10 mix has 10 more wounds while the 5x5 mix has 8 more heavy weapons. Which setup is more likely to see play in highly competitive environments?

"Devs were bad as thing stood" also doesn't hold up. I've seen people lauding the firepower of Devastators throughout 9th edition, even though Real/True/firstborn Marines have slipped in popularity for Primaris. Now maybe you play Marines and you weren't able to get value out of Devsastators. . . . to which I would respond: "git gud"

Who was lauding Devs and what events were they pulling top-8s in? The data suggests that pre-buff marines were pretty bad and that none of their units had sufficient power to get tournament wins. So Devs could have been the best of a bad lot but that doesn't say much.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

5-Devs with whatever weapons cost 115 points - 23ppm)
10-Devs with whatever weapons cost 190 points - 23ppm for the first 5 and 15ppm for the ablative wounds

Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.

You could take 3 units of 10 models for 570 points or 5 units of 5 models for 575 points.

The 3x10 mix has 10 more wounds while the 5x5 mix has 8 more heavy weapons. Which setup is more likely to see play in highly competitive environments?

Depends - How fast do 5x5 die, vs how many rounds of 3x10 shooting do you get?

SemperMortis wrote:

Breton wrote:

The Infiltrators have no weapon swaps, and took no optional options. Edit to add: Whoops I missed it - they did take Helix Gauntlets. 20 Points. Most of the characters also aren't really getting "free wargear" and just got points drops. You're not including base points drops that everybody got in the "free wargear" are you? I mean we get it, its hard to be honest about the faction you hate. But its also hard not to see it when it happens.

I'm not including base points drops? Weird...I feel like I said

SemperMortis wrote:
With the insane amount of points reductions that Marines got, they can now take about 20% more units, and those new units will be fully kitted out with free upgrades.

...oh wait...I did...it was the premise of the entire thread.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Another really obnoxious thing about the pricing method of Devastators now is that when filling the squad out to ten models, the extra basic-bolter guys are 23 ppm. The more models you take the more expensive those four Heavy Weapons get, I guess? So dumb.

From a competitive standpoint, nobody ever took the extra bodies on devastators because they are just ablative wounds at best and realistically you were better off just chunking your devs in terrain and using the saved points on other threats.

Back when I played in tourneys I regularly took 6 man dev squads mounted in Razorbacks.
Sometimes more + Rhino.

Breton wrote:
Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.

I made them very cheap on purpose to illustrate the point. Even if you're saving 8ppm it's still unlikely that the extra bodies will be a large factor in optimized list building. Which I suppose means there's not that much reason not to do it even if there is some risk that it makes combat squad too good in very specific metas.

Depends - How fast do 5x5 die, vs how many rounds of 3x10 shooting do you get?

The 5x5 dies exactly 10 wounds faster than the 3x10 squad, though they probably draw more attention due to having vastly more offensive output.

In terms of raw stats, you get 20% more wounds and 6 disposable models per unit before you start losing weapons but give up 8 heavy weapons which are likely to improve survivability by killing threats before they get more rounds of fire. Marines with AoC just aren't tough enough to be tanky so I highly suspect that tuned lists would lean very heavily into more firepower over 5 more 15-point bodies with bolters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
Back when I played in tourneys I regularly took 6 man dev squads mounted in Razorbacks.
Sometimes more + Rhino.

Most people who did that were doing it for the Razorback which was a good value. You could also have considered 5-man units with an attached IC if we're thinking of the same time period.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Breton wrote:
Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.

I made them very cheap on purpose to illustrate the point. Even if you're saving 8ppm it's still unlikely that the extra bodies will be a large factor in optimized list building. Which I suppose means there's not that much reason not to do it even if there is some risk that it makes combat squad too good in very specific metas.

We're already being pushed into MSU instead of taking the full 10+. Regardless of faction - and the extra five guys shouldn't be a cheaper slightly worse Tac MSU. Even the so called "horde" armies are being pushed MSU. They need to make it just as viable to do 3x10 (or 3x20 or 3x30 etc) as they do 6x5.

Breton wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Breton wrote:
Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.

I made them very cheap on purpose to illustrate the point. Even if you're saving 8ppm it's still unlikely that the extra bodies will be a large factor in optimized list building. Which I suppose means there's not that much reason not to do it even if there is some risk that it makes combat squad too good in very specific metas.

We're already being pushed into MSU instead of taking the full 10+. Regardless of faction - and the extra five guys shouldn't be a cheaper slightly worse Tac MSU. Even the so called "horde" armies are being pushed MSU. They need to make it just as viable to do 3x10 (or 3x20 or 3x30 etc) as they do 6x5.

I'm not advocating for this change. I'm pointing out that even with an absurd points cut people likely wouldn't want 5 extra bodies unless having them breaks something.

There likely isn't a good solution for fixing this in the current 40k ruleset. Blast is stupid, doesn't fix what it tries to fix, and punishes certain armies just for daring to show up. Even with objectives being more important than ever killing the other guy's dudes as fast as possible is still a very good strategy and you can hold the objective better with two units of 5 than with one unit of 10. I could go on...

Breton wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Breton wrote:
Too low - certainly if they fix ObSec - the basic First Born body is 18ish points.

I made them very cheap on purpose to illustrate the point. Even if you're saving 8ppm it's still unlikely that the extra bodies will be a large factor in optimized list building. Which I suppose means there's not that much reason not to do it even if there is some risk that it makes combat squad too good in very specific metas.

We're already being pushed into MSU instead of taking the full 10+. Regardless of faction - and the extra five guys shouldn't be a cheaper slightly worse Tac MSU. Even the so called "horde" armies are being pushed MSU. They need to make it just as viable to do 3x10 (or 3x20 or 3x30 etc) as they do 6x5.

Morale being an issue for bigger units instead of smaller units doesn't really make sense, but Stratagems and single-target HQ buffs are two ways of fixing the issue. The problem with Tacticals is that if you make a buff worth using on Tacticals, it'll be an auto-include for Terminators and Sternguard, so for 10-man Tacs to be viable they need something unique to them. The simplest answer is as I mentioned, lowering the points cost of taking additional models, but I guess people are afraid of going back to 7th's Marine hordes.

Or you could just remove "buffs", and strategems, entirely.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or you could just remove "buffs", and strategems, entirely.

And we could all play Space Marines and pretend GW knows what they're doing and that the ruleset you play isn't trash.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or you could just remove "buffs", and strategems, entirely.

And we could all play Space Marines and pretend GW knows what they're doing and that the ruleset you play isn't trash.

Why is it "trash"?

 Blndmage wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or you could just remove "buffs", and strategems, entirely.

And we could all play Space Marines and pretend GW knows what they're doing and that the ruleset you play isn't trash.

Why is it "trash"?

Because it's not what I like.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
And before you go on the "Oh that's just locally so it doesn't count, blah blah blah" road. I'll tell you that the vast majority of players are playing in their local metas. The amount of people who are chasing 100+ person tournament events is miniscule. They say politics is local, and I'd say 40K is the same.

If we balance around what works for you it will likely screw things up and kill the competitive scene . . .

You be smokin something now, brah.

"What works for me" is literally just pricing the Marine "body" at the same price as the other Marine bodies (18 ppm), and thinking that's going to kill the competitive scene is just delusional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Let's look at a system with what you want implemented and see what's more likely to see play:

5-Devs with whatever weapons cost 115 points - 23ppm)
10-Devs with whatever weapons cost 190 points - 23ppm for the first 5 and 15ppm for the ablative wounds

You could take 3 units of 10 models for 570 points or 5 units of 5 models for 575 points.

The 3x10 mix has 10 more wounds while the 5x5 mix has 8 more heavy weapons. Which setup is more likely to see play in highly competitive environments?

Except . . . you can't take 5 Devastator Squads . . . and you're isolating the units rather than looking at them in the entirety of army composition.

vict0988 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or you could just remove "buffs", and strategems, entirely.

And we could all play Space Marines and pretend GW knows what they're doing and that the ruleset you play isn't trash.

I'll tell all of the Mechanicum, Solar Auxilia, Custodes, Sisters of Silence, Cults and Militia, and Daemons of the Ruinstorm players that they don't exist (at least on your planet). As for your "trash" comment, I can't really figure out how to respond when your entire explanation is simply:

vict0988 wrote:Because it's not what I like.

I guess you're so attached to the board game/CCG amalgam that is 8th/9th edition that you dislike everything else to the point that you don't even understand what you dislike, or why?

 Canadian 5th wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
Back when I played in tourneys I regularly took 6 man dev squads mounted in Razorbacks.
Sometimes more + Rhino.

Most people who did that were doing it for the Razorback which was a good value. You could also have considered 5-man units with an attached IC if we're thinking of the same time period.

Your not wrong about the RB being a good value, BUT....
The debate is why some of us choose to run extra bodies in our Dev squads. And that reason is to have extra wounds to shield the 4 heavy weapons.

So no, since my intent was to have at least +1 meat-shield, I could not have (and still dont) considered running a 5 man Dev squad.
And then or now, why the would I consider attaching an IC to them? Those characters have their own jobs to do (often many many inches away) - wich is NOT serving as ablative wounds for a Dev squad. That is the job of boltrr guy #6+.

The irony of this post is now apparent The first of the major GTs that people track has results come in and Marines swept 1st - 3rd and people are still trying to argue that this is the correct amount of wins Marines should have Again, i'll happily admit we are still very early into AoO but the initial results from the larger GTs and now one of the biggest of the year is indicating that they were over tuned to the point where they are the top faction. Apparently me stating an opinion which is now corroborated by evidence is me "hating Space Marines".

SemperMortis wrote:
The irony of this post is now apparent The first of the major GTs that people track has results come in and Marines swept 1st - 3rd and people are still trying to argue that this is the correct amount of wins Marines should have Again, i'll happily admit we are still very early into AoO but the initial results from the larger GTs and now one of the biggest of the year is indicating that they were over tuned to the point where they are the top faction. Apparently me stating an opinion which is now corroborated by evidence is me "hating Space Marines".

You didn't address the other events where marines didn't perform, or the fact the only place they're regularly being dominant to any degree is the US.

personally I think the big issues are the secondary objectives and stratagems. It should be way simpler: Each mission should have a primary and say 2 secondaries, that's it. Per mission, not "put more around list building". If you wanted to add some player agency, allow one secondary to be selected from the relevant codex (i.e. no generic secondaries) to make 3 in total. But none of this "building your list around secondaries" crap that we have today.

Any argument I've seen against that ignores the fact that missions were 1 primary + 1 secondary for 20+ years and worked just fine, until ITC came up with their secondary objectives garbage to focus on listbuilding instead of actual gameplay and claim it made the game better when it really just convoluted things more.

I'd also prefer to see streamlining of terrain. The current terrain rules are a bad joke overly complicated with needless keyword junk when it should be concise and simple and intuitive, like worked for 20 years. On top of that, the whole "mirror image" terrain junk you see in tournaments is an even bigger joke, as it literally makes choice of deployment zone meaningless when that is supposed to be an actual tactical decision. That's not to say you should have one side be wide open and one with terrain, but instead of 100% identical sides it should be like one side may have more cover than another, while the other has less cover but more of something else, such that it actually becomes a choice what side you pick.

Troops are a weird subject because they haven't been able to make troops desireable in years, despite things like ObSec and others. The only time it was relevant is when they actually had restrictions in everything else.

Nobody is forcing anyone to play AoO, if you prefer Only War then play that. Old missions are also forward-compatible for the most part, exploring new design space is awesome for games with forwards compatibility. MtG would be really boring if they kept using Phasing and Banding instead of expanding the game to include new concepts like Planeswalkers and Sagas.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

vict0988 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or you could just remove "buffs", and strategems, entirely.

And we could all play Space Marines and pretend GW knows what they're doing and that the ruleset you play isn't trash.

I'll tell all of the Mechanicum, Solar Auxilia, Custodes, Sisters of Silence, Cults and Militia, and Daemons of the Ruinstorm players that they don't exist (at least on your planet). As for your "trash" comment, I can't really figure out how to respond when your entire explanation is simply:

vict0988 wrote:Because it's not what I like.

I guess you're so attached to the board game/CCG amalgam that is 8th/9th edition that you dislike everything else to the point that you don't even understand what you dislike, or why?

I don't like units being immune to damage from most units like what the old Toughness and Armour Value systems do. I hate the old assault rules with a passion that will continue burning until the heat death of the universe. I like CP re-rolls and Necrons. I like plenty of games, I've recently gotten really into Spirit Island, it has a wonderful mix of board game and deck-building elements.

8th/9th don't have CCG elements, they have a resource system and play aides. Scary-scary play aides, too bad you don't get as much support as 40k because 30k is trash and you have to rely entirely on books.