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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, as someone who plans to face a crapton of this shiny new Gravis in 10th edition, I'm really looking into options to counter them nowadays. As it turns out, stuff that counters Gravis well also happen to be Blast arty and other high-STR horde removers (Manticore, LRBT). Go figure.

A Manticore kills 2 Gravis, 1 Termies, and 4 to 5 IS in cover. A BC is 0.8, 0.4, and 3 respectively.

Gravis are 110, Termies are 200, and 20 IS are 130. Manticore is 105. It will take it almost all game for a Manticore to clear a single IS squad and less into Gravis. Termies lock them out - not enough AP.

I obviously don't plan to have just 1 unsupported Manticore go at it and wipe all ~20 Heavy Intercessors I'll likely face in the first turn. I fully embrace the Stack & Spam mentality this edition seemingly encourages tho I'm not yet certain how I will squeeze all those stacking buffs I plan to use in 2000 points.

Insectum7 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
My Genestealers are W2 so I'm not sure I can accept 'only Marines got better stats' at face value.

To be fair, a lot of stats have been shuffled around, but the seemingly inexorable crawl of Marines into higher comparative stats continues its slow march. What usually seems to happen is that adjustments will be made from edition to edition (sometimes small, but sometimes large like adding an extra wound to Marines), but whatever formerly comparable xenos unit, even if they get an upgrade, it won't be commensurate to whatever the Marines get. (Marines getting 2W while Orks get T5 a little later is an example there), or the game will change and xenos units will be left behind, (the classic example is Shuriken Catapults vs. Bolters from 3rd through the present). Little adjustments over the years that eventually result in net-benefits for Marines.

It's not "only Marines get better stats". It's more like, over time the net result of all changes favors Marines in terms of represented general power level.

I totally get where you're coming from, and it does seem like Marines get the paradigm shift before anyone else. But we are also looking at an edition where GW has finally realized that being limited to T1-T9 makes no sense for how they've reworked the core mechanics, so there's some logical expansion occurring with defensive stats. I'm not really bothered by existing units getting bumped up in W or T, because that's actually a reasonable way to increase durability without resorting to obnoxious invuln spam like GW has in the past.

Some of the abusable fancy tricks that Marines historically got have also been nerfed- Stormshields giving you +1W instead of a invuln? Yeah sure, W4 dudes will die to D2 heavy bolters just the same.

I mean, I guess I agree with your overall point, I'm just not sure that this transition in particular is more proof positive of it. I feel the real advances tend to come with the Marine codices, which come more frequently than for anyone else, and kick them to the forefront of the power creep every time.

Trickstick wrote:

leopard wrote:
...my point is that marines cannot really be both the 'baseline' against which all the rest are scaled, and also considered to be "elite"

Why not? You can totally set the baseline as an elite profile, with things being stronger or weaker than that.

Then it isn't elite, it's normal. Your baseline is the yardstick against everything else is judged; it's going to feel ordinary and mundane, and everything weaker will feel like garbage. Nobody plays Horus Heresy and walks away thinking 'man, those Tactical Marines sure are elite'.

More importantly, you start running into design issues if your 'baseline' is actually an atypical or mechanically niche profile. You can design a game around T4/W2/3+, but as we've seen that means any take-all-comers army is going to be loaded to the gills with AP and D2, so you shouldn't be surprised that that profile feels squishy and vulnerable when hard-countering it is the default option.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, as someone who plans to face a crapton of this shiny new Gravis in 10th edition, I'm really looking into options to counter them nowadays. As it turns out, stuff that counters Gravis well also happen to be Blast arty and other high-STR horde removers (Manticore, LRBT). Go figure.

A Manticore kills 2 Gravis, 1 Termies, and 4 to 5 IS in cover. A BC is 0.8, 0.4, and 3 respectively.

Gravis are 110, Termies are 200, and 20 IS are 130. Manticore is 105. It will take it almost all game for a Manticore to clear a single IS squad and less into Gravis. Termies lock them out - not enough AP.

I obviously don't plan to have just 1 unsupported Manticore go at it and wipe all ~20 Heavy Intercessors I'll likely face in the first turn. I fully embrace the Stack & Spam mentality this edition seemingly encourages tho I'm not yet certain how I will squeeze all those stacking buffs I plan to use in 2000 points.

Scout Sentinel to allow RR1s and ignore the IDF penalty is cheap, as is the Exploding Sixes Master of Ordnance. Manticore Missiles are Heavy, meaning you hit on 3s standing still without the IDF buff. Combined with RR1s and explodey sixes, I'm curious to see where it goes - add in the Fields of Fire Stratagem for +1 AP and you've got an interesting gunline. Those are the immediate standouts for me, if you want a Guard artillery line.

I'm sort of eager to see how absurd the Firing Deck rule can get. A Stormlord has a firing deck of 24, meaning 24 extra weapons can be fired by the transport, applying any buffs the Transport has (or debuffs, for that matter).

Will the people that said the SM and IG unit costs were a stopgap measure please step up to the pillory? GW game designers are lazy hacks, boo! I hope the community develops a new set of points and accepts those in favour of this trash.

 catbarf wrote:

Some of the abusable fancy tricks that Marines historically got have also been nerfed- Stormshields giving you +1W instead of a invuln? Yeah sure, W4 dudes will die to D2 heavy bolters just the same.

Agreed, I'd rather see increased Toughness rather than a proliferation of Invuls (although there's been an increase in those in 10e so far, Ramshackle on Buggys has been swapped to a 6++, tomato tomato I guess). I think the Stormshield is still giving a 4++ though just looking at the Crusader on the Sisters sheet. If you already have an Invul I believe they're giving +1W instead of the previous +1 Armor Save (1+ for Custodes).

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecate wrote:
I don't mind if Marines get stronger over time, provided their points reflect that in comparison to the weaker armies. I don't have enough data to verify that's what happens, though, as I don't play Marines myself, and have only played 2nd/3rd and 9th.

^And this is an all-too-common response.

It changes the dynamic of the setting. It's not about balance and points, but about the relationships between power level representation of the lore. It robs Marine-opposition of some of it's cool factor when Pheonix Lords, who are millenia-old immortal champions of the Eldar are only T3 compared to the Gravis Captains T6, or when Mariens are fielding battle-line troops that are nearly the size of Tyranid Warriors and starting to rock comparable stats.

Phoenix Lords die and get resurrected with ease. They're really not that powerful if they have to have built into their lore.

Tyranid Warriors are a shame though, agreed.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

leopard wrote:
I found marines worked well enough at T3 with a 4+ save, they were what they were then meant to be, humans with better training and equipment and some cybernetic enhancements of various sorts but not supermen

the move to make them both supermen and at the same time be the 'baseline' is screwing a lot of things up. when 40k started the baseline was a normal human, most stats at 3, psych stats at 7, 1w and 1 attack, 5 points with everything else scaled from them.

didn't always work but you knew the baseline

now they need to scrap the d6 system, I'd go d12 as they roll nicely, maybe put a normal human at "4", stick a marine at "5" and have space to go down in a meaningful way while still having the top end for better stuff

think also the SvT relationship needs adjusting, currently S8 is basically twice as good as S4, when actually all S8 should mean is "better than S7 by enough to matter and worse than S9 by enough to matter"

90% or more of the player base has never played a game where the baseline Marine was T4 with a 3+ save, I don't think many people would support going back to being guardsmen.

To be fair, a good number of people raging about numbers now being different numbers also haven't played any of the last editions either - according to their own posts in other threads.

I played a s*** ton of 8th. Played some 9th and will definitely have at least a few games of 10th to get a feel for it.

I just don't think I'll be spending any money on it.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecate wrote:
I don't mind if Marines get stronger over time, provided their points reflect that in comparison to the weaker armies. I don't have enough data to verify that's what happens, though, as I don't play Marines myself, and have only played 2nd/3rd and 9th.

^And this is an all-too-common response.

It changes the dynamic of the setting. It's not about balance and points, but about the relationships between power level representation of the lore. It robs Marine-opposition of some of it's cool factor when Pheonix Lords, who are millenia-old immortal champions of the Eldar are only T3 compared to the Gravis Captains T6, or when Mariens are fielding battle-line troops that are nearly the size of Tyranid Warriors and starting to rock comparable stats.

Phoenix Lords die and get resurrected with ease. They're really not that powerful if they have to have built into their lore.

Tyranid Warriors are a shame though, agreed.

Phoenix Lords die and get resurrected with ease against what? Also the Avatar dies and gets resurrected, seemingly at times with relative ease. It's got much bigger stats that a Phoenix Lord now, doesn't it?

The fact of the matter is that many years ago, and for quite a long time, Phoenix Lords were easily comparable to Space Marine Captains in terms of statline (and sometimes better). That they are only T3 compared to the Captains now capable of rocking T5 and T6 is rather conspicuous.

Dudeface wrote:

I think being angry about stuff is it's own hobby at this point. I get we can't play the game until today, but what a lot of wasted energy all round.

Critique is "wasted energy" eh?

I'm not complaining. I'm an advocate for the non-Marine, minority factions and spreading the word for better representation.

leopard wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecate wrote:
I don't mind if Marines get stronger over time, provided their points reflect that in comparison to the weaker armies. I don't have enough data to verify that's what happens, though, as I don't play Marines myself, and have only played 2nd/3rd and 9th.

^And this is an all-too-common response.

It changes the dynamic of the setting. It's not about balance and points, but about the relationships between power level representation of the lore. It robs Marine-opposition of some of it's cool factor when Pheonix Lords, who are millenia-old immortal champions of the Eldar are only T3 compared to the Gravis Captains T6, or when Mariens are fielding battle-line troops that are nearly the size of Tyranid Warriors and starting to rock comparable stats.

So should Marines go back to being T3 then? Sure, most players never played back when they had that toughness but if you're going to argue for reverting stat changes we should go back to the start.

I found marines worked well enough at T3 with a 4+ save, they were what they were then meant to be, humans with better training and equipment and some cybernetic enhancements of various sorts but not supermen

That's not a Space Marine. That's a Tempestus Scion. Oh the times, they have a changed.

What the heck is going on with points and unit construction?!?! They are ruined!

What a boring, bland, and low effort way to balance everything.

Everything is free. No adding a dude to or a unit or two, or adding in a couple more weapons to fill out points and make a list.

The made 40k unit construction the same as AoS- which is the worst part of that game!

Omg this was my worst fear based on their initial previews a few months back! At first glance everyone I play with absolutely hates these changes- this is a group of like 10 people.

Way to kill a huge part of the fun of the hobby- spending time thinking of lists and constructing your army and individualizing it as every choice came with a cost (ya know...points!). You couldn't take everything and that was the damn point. It was a challenge!

Suffice it to say I, and the group I play with, are very upset by army construction.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the lack of agency in points. When the datacard said "10-20 Necron Warriors", I assumed I could take 15 if I wanted. Nope. 10 or 20, nothing else. Like, Skorpekhs are 3 for 110 or 6 for 220. That makes them 36.666 points each. So no. It's either 3 or 6, nothing else. Very disappointing.

And wargear... Wargear and number of models in big squads were the 2 best things about list building. Fine-tuning things and so on.

*sigh*

This is the first 10th ed rules thing that disappoints me. Sure, I was already a little miffed by certain units' datacards, but this is a game-wide annoyance.

I'll get over it, but damn...

I think I'm more annoyed with it from a game design perspective than actual play impact (well, except for the stuff that looks blatantly wrong)

Its like watching a student who could do B+/A- quality work skate by with a C-.
And worse, they're probably putting in just as much work trying to be average as they would to do it properly.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, as someone who plans to face a crapton of this shiny new Gravis in 10th edition, I'm really looking into options to counter them nowadays. As it turns out, stuff that counters Gravis well also happen to be Blast arty and other high-STR horde removers (Manticore, LRBT). Go figure.

A Manticore kills 2 Gravis, 1 Termies, and 4 to 5 IS in cover. A BC is 0.8, 0.4, and 3 respectively.

Gravis are 110, Termies are 200, and 20 IS are 130. Manticore is 105. It will take it almost all game for a Manticore to clear a single IS squad and less into Gravis. Termies lock them out - not enough AP.

Chem Cannon or Melta Hellhounds, Heavy Weapon Teams, Maybe the Artillery teams, most of the Leman Russes Basilisks, most of the Super Heavies will chip away at them pretty good.

Heafstaag wrote:
What a boring, bland, and low effort way to balance everything.

thinking it is now balanced

But people will play it, give GW money and confirm that no matter what 40k is a success so GW does not need to change anything

People could now just go for a different ruleset to play with their collection
But most are already asking what to buy to adjust to 10th or demand that people do GWs work

And no there will never be a community set all people agree on
We had that with AoS when people complained that the points are too balanced and made different versions that favoured certain aspects
Same with ITC, ETC and 3 other set of houserules for 40k during 7th


If you don't like 10th, now is the best time to switch to a different game (Grimdark Future for an easy swap) or a past Edition

 kodos wrote:
We had that with AoS when people complained that the points are too balanced

Prove that 2 people complained points were too balanced in the same AoS points system.

Change to fly vs 9e is going to alter things. Big guys like magnus and greater daemons can hide behind ruins but doing so will slow them a lot. Especially as you need room to fit above and can't stop mid-wall.

Going to be weird play fly units that are barely if any more manouverable than non-fly.

tneva82 wrote:
Change to fly vs 9e is going to alter things. Big guys like magnus and greater daemons can hide behind ruins but doing so will slow them a lot. Especially as you need room to fit above and can't stop mid-wall.

Going to be weird play fly units that are barely if any more manouverable than non-fly.

I'm just looking at 95 point hydras with reroll hits vs fly, and antifly 2+ twin linked. Quite a few armies have big beefy tanks/monsters with fly.

 Trickstick wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Change to fly vs 9e is going to alter things. Big guys like magnus and greater daemons can hide behind ruins but doing so will slow them a lot. Especially as you need room to fit above and can't stop mid-wall.

Going to be weird play fly units that are barely if any more manouverable than non-fly.

I'm just looking at 95 point hydras with reroll hits vs fly, and antifly 2+ twin linked. Quite a few armies have big beefy tanks/monsters with fly.

Imagine overwatching in to an army of GK, where everything flies.

 Trickstick wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Change to fly vs 9e is going to alter things. Big guys like magnus and greater daemons can hide behind ruins but doing so will slow them a lot. Especially as you need room to fit above and can't stop mid-wall.

Going to be weird play fly units that are barely if any more manouverable than non-fly.

I'm just looking at 95 point hydras with reroll hits vs fly, and antifly 2+ twin linked. Quite a few armies have big beefy tanks/monsters with fly.

I was already looking at a dozen or so Marine units - NOT counting the Hunter/Stalker - that have an add-on anti-fly, like the Redemptors, Gladiators, Repulsors or what have you.

What the actual feth have they done?

Some units are complete points sinks unless you take every single best weapon. Lower tier weapons are useless when everything costs the same. Tank have to have sponsons or they’re wasting points?

I was ok with them dumbing down the core rules for Little Timmy, but when have the dumbed down list building for people that can’t manage basic addition…?


Also the arbitrary squad sizes are a joke. I buy a box of 5 Custodes Wardens but can only use them in groups of 3 or 6? What is wrong with 3-6? Yet Custodes Guard can’t be taken in 3s or 6s, but you can take them in 9s.

Genuinely moronic.

I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

Perhaps this is an echo of Power Level? Like, 10th doesn't have PL, but listbuilding works in a very similar way (set unit sizes, take any weapon you like)?

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

Hecate wrote:
Perhaps this is an echo of Power Level? Like, 10th doesn't have PL, but listbuilding works in a very similar way (set unit sizes, take any weapon you like)?

It is deliberately power level, but x20 (more or less) so it feels like points at a glance. There isn't really any 'perhaps' about it.

They aren't shy about saying that they feel there is no such thing as a 'best weapon,' so there isn't any point in accounting for weapons.
And, really, its all about sparing us the agonizing worry and a bunch of arithmetic.
In fact, adding leaders and enhancements is just as fun and varied!

No, seriously, that's the stance they went with:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/06/16/get-all-of-your-points-for-free-with-the-first-munitorum-field-manual-of-new40k/

I wanted context for the point values for 10th, but what I got was two men patting themselves on the back for fixing 'the community's' terrible, endless war with two and three digit numbers.
Why they did that rather than another proof-reading pass to find all the instances of units that end up without melee weapons, I will never know.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

The latest commissar model carries a bolt pistol, and does not have the option for a plasma pistol.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/astra-militarum-commissar-2023

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

The latest commissar model carries a bolt pistol, and does not have the option for a plasma pistol.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/astra-militarum-commissar-2023

Heh, good point... what are they even keeping the legacy plasma pistol option around for but chaosistency? Is it due to Severina Raine or some other unique model who is still sold but doesn't have rules?

NB, the refund I got for cancelling my order of Leviathan today was the best GW has made me feel in awhile. I hope others here vote with their wallets, but I'm not convinced GW will learn regardless.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

The latest commissar model carries a bolt pistol, and does not have the option for a plasma pistol.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/astra-militarum-commissar-2023

If only there were another Commissar model, currently sold?

Also nothing stopping them from releasing another Commissar model down the road as part of an easy build "Command Squad+Friends" set, not unlike the Overkill GSC "brood".


As an aside, I genuinely do believe that there is an "Infantry Squad" and "Command Squad" set in the works. There's too many missing options from the Cadian Shock Troops and Command Squad set to make me think otherwise.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

The latest commissar model carries a bolt pistol, and does not have the option for a plasma pistol.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/astra-militarum-commissar-2023

If only there were another Commissar model, currently sold?

Also nothing stopping them from releasing another Commissar model down the road as part of an easy build "Command Squad+Friends" set, not unlike the Overkill GSC "brood".


As an aside, I genuinely do believe that there is an "Infantry Squad" and "Command Squad" set in the works. There's too many missing options from the Cadian Shock Troops and Command Squad set to make me think otherwise.

What's the likelihood that GW keeps that guy around once they wake up and realize that they sell another newer one and they can cut out a legacy SKU? I think it's pretty low, but who knows.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

The latest commissar model carries a bolt pistol, and does not have the option for a plasma pistol.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/astra-militarum-commissar-2023

If only there were another Commissar model, currently sold?

Also nothing stopping them from releasing another Commissar model down the road as part of an easy build "Command Squad+Friends" set, not unlike the Overkill GSC "brood".


As an aside, I genuinely do believe that there is an "Infantry Squad" and "Command Squad" set in the works. There's too many missing options from the Cadian Shock Troops and Command Squad set to make me think otherwise.

"But I bought the Bolt Pistol one, because I thought it looked cooler, and it was cheaper points-wise." And now it's just a straight-up disadvantage to use it.

It'S sO bAlAnCeD

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

Or that three plasma pistols instead of 3 bolt pistols is auto-win.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I just keep circling back to the Commissar with bolt pistol being objectively a dumb choice to take over the plasma pistol. It just seems so wrong, even if it is just a tiny thing.

You make it seem like people were flocking over themselves to take Commissars with Bolt Pistols before.

Getting to choose between a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol is a decision that has an objectively right and wrong choice (and so, from a gameplay perspective, isn't a decision at all), feels bad if you have to either abandon WYSIWYG for a built model or be stuck with the strictly inferior option, and most importantly is a representative example of more substantial and impactful non-decisions that actually could affect the outcome of a game.

Pointing out that the Commissar's weapon isn't game-deciding is so blatantly missing the forest for the trees that it comes across as disingenuous.