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.
If a single, ordinary Marine is 100, where should other models lie?
As what should be an entirely uncontroversial example, a Questoris Knight. If a Marine is 100, they should be in the thousands, easily.
Likewise, another should be uncontroversial, if a Marine is 100, an ordinary Cultist shouldn't be more than 30.
But let's get to some things where opinions will differ. Though before I do so, few notes and reminders:
1) Be polite. Respect other people's thoughts, even if they don't align with your own.
2) This is based off lore and feelings, not in-game stats. So even if a Marine is 20 points on the tabletop and a Sister of Battle is 10, it's not relevant to this thread. Feel free to use game mechanics as a base, since the game and lore are related, but it's not the end-all.
3) Feel free to include caveats, breakdowns of different metrics, or anything else you want to properly explain your point.
Lesser Daemon Infantry They should have one aspect to be superior than a Marine, but in general should be not quite worth a Marine. Probably around 80.
Herald They should stomp an individual Marine. At least 400.
Daemon Prince At least 1,000. A Daemon Prince is massively empowered by their patron god.
CSM
Legionnaire A baseline CSM troop should be better than a Marine by a small but significant margin. 120.
But, there should be an option for a much newer, less disciplined and trained CSM. 80.
Cultist 20-30. They're chaff.
Chosen At least 180, with the option to upgrade themselves a whole heck load, up to 250 or more.
Eldar
Guardian Probably in the 60-75 range. I don't know Eldar as well, but they should have some advantages (better guns, for instance) but because they're militia, should be overall worse by a noticeable degree.
Aspect Warrior Overall, probably around 200, but with noted specialization. Really really good, WAY better than a Marine in their area of expertise, but not very good outside it.
Dark Eldar
Warrior and Wych 80-90. They're raiders, pirates, and well-versed in the arts of war. They should feel dangerous. Notably, their offense should exceed their defense.
Wrack Same as other DEldar troops, but more durable and tricky than glass cannon.
Incubus 200, same as Eldar Aspect Warriors, and subject to the same caveats.
Necrons
Warrior 75. They should be comparable or even better than Marines in aspects like durability and shooting, but weaker in melee and speed.
Immortal 120-140. They could still be weaker than Marines in melee, but should overall be more powerful.
Lychguard 250ish. Better than an Aspect Warrior, thanks to being much more durable and less specialized, and overall pretty damn effective.
Orks
Boy 75. They should crump a Marine in melee, but their shooting is worse and their durability is worse.
Nob 150+. They should not only best a Marine in melee, they should be around as durable, with plenty of options (from better melee to better dakka to better armor) to make them even more potent.
Tau
Warrior 50-60. Better gear, mostly in shooting, and should probably have some neat tricks they can do, but worse durability and greatly worse melee.
Stealth Suit 100-120. Equal or better than a Marine overall, with the obvious lacking in melee, but greatly better shooting and modestly better durability through stealth.
Crisis Suit 300+. Even with basic guns, they should be well worth several Marines, and with the option to go ham on powerful weapons.
Tyranids
Gaunts and Gants 35-45. Chaff, basically.
Warriors 200. They're better than a Marine in basically every way.
Genestealer 140-160. They're faster than a Marine and MUCH deadlier in melee, along with a few tricks.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
I don't really mind GW moving Marines quite a bit further up the food chain than they were pre-8th, and certainly more so than in your list.
"Lore-wise" I'd probably have tiers which I don't feel we are a million miles away from. To avoid having to argue over exact specifics.
Tier 1 - "Light infantry/chaff." All of these units are relatively poor and should 1 on 1 lose to everything else. A unit of 5 would seem ludicrously small. A unit of 10 is about the minimum you can get way with. Blobs of 30 don't seem unreasonable.
Guardsmen, Gants/Gaunts, Grots, Cultists, probably Fire Warriors. I'd probably even demote Guardians back to WS/BS 4+ and put them back here on pure fluff rather than mechanical concerns.
Tier 2 - "regular infantry". These are models which aren't anything special really - but seem like they should be a step up from the above. Units of 5 seem a bit small, but units of 30 start to feel a bit much. Kabalites, Wracks and Wyches, Boyz, Necron Warriors, Sisters of Battle, Skitarri and Lesser Daemon Infantry. Most Squats. GSC Acolytes.
Tier 3 - "elite infantry". This is again a step up on the above. Units of 5 seem quite reasonable with blocks of 10 being a significant force on the table and in the fluff (if at suitable scale). They should be better than the above and a lot better than the light infantry.
Regular Marines and basic CSM of all types. Aspect Warriors. Incubi. Immortals and Lychguard/Praetorians. Nobz. Genestealers. Stealth Suits. Your heavier Skitarii. Sacresancts.
Tier 4 - "Heavy infantry." This is basically where I'd put the 3 wound models. A step up in power again. Units above 5 start to feel excessive. Units of 3 don't seem unreasonable.
Chosen and yes CSM Terminators. Loyalist Terminators and "more Elite Marines" (Gravis, Bladeguard etc). Custodes. Tyranid Warriors. Wraithguard. Grotesques. Ogryn. Wraiths and Destroyers. Meganobz and Killa Kanz. Crisis Suits. Abberants. Heathguard etc etc.
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
I think this is an over simplification.
In terms of what we’d currently term Troop Choices, you bog standard Marine, with perhaps the odd exception, should be somewhat superior in direct comparison to any other Troop choice.
Now, that can be simple “one for one” comparison. As in the Marine should be stronger, tougher, shootier, fightier or better armoured.
But also, squad for squad, because nothing is price in a vacuum. A Tactical Squad is a flexible tool not just on the board, but at the point of list selection. For instance, if the other things you’re thinking of taking are on the anti-tank end of the scale, your Tactical squad can be kitted out to compliment or contrast that.
Other Troops choices don’t have that tailoring. Necron Warriors and Immortals, Tau Fire Warriors and Breachers, Ork Boyz.
Not to say others don’t have some options, but not to the degree Tacticals have thanks to the whole of the thing.
I think we can also argue that your bog standard Tactical Marine should be something even Elite units need be wary of to some degree. For instance, pretty much anyone can feel confident when they charge Guardsmen that the Guardsmen are going to fold like a cheap suit. But your Tactical Squad, whilst not great at melee have the T, W and Sv to prove problematic should your rolls not go well - and the WS and S to have at least some chance of getting some licks in for themselves, to the point you need to consider “if this goes wrong, am I going to get my head kicked in”.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Lesser Daemon Infantry They should have one aspect to be superior than a Marine, but in general should be not quite worth a Marine. Probably around 80.
Herald They should stomp an individual Marine. At least 400.
Daemon Prince At least 1,000. A Daemon Prince is massively empowered by their patron god.
CSM
Legionnaire A baseline CSM troop should be better than a Marine by a small but significant margin. 120.
But, there should be an option for a much newer, less disciplined and trained CSM. 80.
Cultist 20-30. They're chaff.
Chosen At least 180, with the option to upgrade themselves a whole heck load, up to 250 or more.
Eldar
Guardian Probably in the 60-75 range. I don't know Eldar as well, but they should have some advantages (better guns, for instance) but because they're militia, should be overall worse by a noticeable degree.
Aspect Warrior Overall, probably around 200, but with noted specialization. Really really good, WAY better than a Marine in their area of expertise, but not very good outside it.
Dark Eldar
Warrior and Wych 80-90. They're raiders, pirates, and well-versed in the arts of war. They should feel dangerous. Notably, their offense should exceed their defense.
Wrack Same as other DEldar troops, but more durable and tricky than glass cannon.
Incubus 200, same as Eldar Aspect Warriors, and subject to the same caveats.
Necrons
Warrior 75. They should be comparable or even better than Marines in aspects like durability and shooting, but weaker in melee and speed.
Immortal 120-140. They could still be weaker than Marines in melee, but should overall be more powerful.
Lychguard 250ish. Better than an Aspect Warrior, thanks to being much more durable and less specialized, and overall pretty damn effective.
Orks
Boy 75. They should crump a Marine in melee, but their shooting is worse and their durability is worse.
Nob 150+. They should not only best a Marine in melee, they should be around as durable, with plenty of options (from better melee to better dakka to better armor) to make them even more potent.
Tau
Warrior 50-60. Better gear, mostly in shooting, and should probably have some neat tricks they can do, but worse durability and greatly worse melee.
Stealth Suit 100-120. Equal or better than a Marine overall, with the obvious lacking in melee, but greatly better shooting and modestly better durability through stealth.
Crisis Suit 300+. Even with basic guns, they should be well worth several Marines, and with the option to go ham on powerful weapons.
Tyranids
Gaunts and Gants 35-45. Chaff, basically.
Warriors 200. They're better than a Marine in basically every way.
Genestealer 140-160. They're faster than a Marine and MUCH deadlier in melee, along with a few tricks.
I think your list is pretty reasonable, honestly.
Though, it might be more useful to break it down a little more statwise.
For example, I would expect Fire Warriors to have worst S, T, Sv etc to Marines, but still have stronger standard guns.
Similarly, I'd expect Guardians to have be markedly faster.
I know you've hinted at this a little, but it might make things clearer than just a point cost comparison.
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.
Stormtrooopers/Scions at around 50 or so. Their main weapon being able to bypass Power Armor accounts for much. (In fact, pre 8th, a basic Scion vs a basic Marine resulted in a an equal change for each unit to kill eachother at range. Less so in melee)
Necron Warriors and Harlequin Players should be about at parity with Astartes, though outmatched at CQC and firefighting respectively.
Honestly lesser demons should be about on par with Astartes as well; there's a reason they should be terrifying to most entities in the galaxy, and why having Chaos on the side of the Heresy actually gave them an edge. Getting charged by Bloodletters should be Bad with a capital B for anything short of Vanguard Vets.
I think you nailed it more or less. Especially the chaos marines. I have never understood how a 10000 or even 1000 year old marine enfused with power from the dark gods has been weaker or equal to normal asartes.
I think it really shows a bias twords loyalists that makes no sense and really needs to change.
If a single, ordinary Marine is 100, where should other models lie?
As what should be an entirely uncontroversial example, a Questoris Knight. If a Marine is 100, they should be in the thousands, easily.
Likewise, another should be uncontroversial, if a Marine is 100, an ordinary Cultist shouldn't be more than 30.
But let's get to some things where opinions will differ. Though before I do so, few notes and reminders:
1) Be polite. Respect other people's thoughts, even if they don't align with your own.
2) This is based off lore and feelings, not in-game stats. So even if a Marine is 20 points on the tabletop and a Sister of Battle is 10, it's not relevant to this thread. Feel free to use game mechanics as a base, since the game and lore are related, but it's not the end-all.
3) Feel free to include caveats, breakdowns of different metrics, or anything else you want to properly explain your point.
The trick isn't going to be vs Marine but vs each other. Guardsmen should be slightly better than cultists - both for balance and logical reasons. Guardians should be similar to just barely better than guardsmen. You called them militia, but I'd put them closer to the Israeli/Korean/Swiss model. GW tends to pick a real world civilization/culture to form the theme for a faction's military and Eldar are one (I'm not sure which one) of the Everyone is drafted and trained even in peacetime systems.
Likewise, I wouldn't put a Legionary over or under a Loyalist marine. The Loyalist marine has more teamwork/friends, while the Legionary (likely) has more experience/initiative/whatever - and there's already a "balance issue" with CSM being a semi Marine-Guard soup option. The difference between a Daemon Prince and Marine is too large.
Boys should End Result tie melee and shooting output (5 shots to get two hits vs 3 shots to get two hits or similar averages) probably win on Toughness and lose on armor save - or some sort of Feel No Pain (with FNP not working on Critical Wounds for example to represent their different physiology and organ locations etc)
I still believe we need another Contested Roll on the To Hit aspect so that EVERYTHING isn't on the Wound/Save rolls - opening up a harder-to-hit mechanic allows more factions to have a semi-unique strength - harder to hit Aeldari/Little-ish Bugs instead of chaff or invulns handed out like candy.
Overall I think most of the troops should be lower than a Marine - but not egregiously so. Grots/Guardsmen/Cultists etc should be 25-35%. More should be somewhat even - not necessarily in raw stats but also including some bespoke rules (like that FNP idea for Orks) that take a different path to the same-ish averages.
The elephant in the room from the other thread is the necron warrior, it's safe to say they're likely an 80-90 now, they come back from the dead, the gauss rifle is a bit better separated from a bolter these days but largely comparable still. They're less skilled and worse save however.
Compared to their modern inception in 3rd onwards (although as other point out this doesn't represent the bulk of their time now), they were a 115, identical stats as a marine but lower initiative, they had a bolter with a good special rule, wbb, balanced out by the phase out mechanic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/07 07:44:54
People really need to divorce themselves from the militia classification for Guardians as being some indicator for their lack of effectiveness. The Roman Legions were citizen militia for hundreds of years and conquered the Mediterranean; all citizen militia means is that being a soldier isn't your full-time job and it says nothing about training, equipment, experience, technology level and in 40k's case biological and genetic make up.
Guardians are frequently stated to be far superior to any other races basic line troops (with humans this means taking the species as a whole and not separating Marines into their own thing, so they are inferior to the Astartes basic line troop, but Astartes here are classed as elite human special forces) and effectively being on the same or higher level than their elite baseline troops. Obviously they won't be Marine level, but a Guardian is basically stated to be better than peak-performance baseline human elites like Kasrkin, Scions, Sisters etc. This comes from superior tech, superior doctrine and the Aeldari species just being flat-out better than humans at several biological things (like for instance being able to dodge bullets and run faster than Usain Bolt over gigantic distances even when they're out of shape). Not to mention they're supremely long lived. It's really not unreasonable to expect a lot of Guardians to have more combat experience than a lot of Space Marines by virtue of their long life and the Asuryani doctrine of war not wanting to throw lives away. On top of this it says nothing about the various Paths the Guardian has gone down; many are in fact former Aspect Warriors and so can draw on that experience.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/05/07 08:26:50
Dudeface wrote: The elephant in the room from the other thread is the necron warrior, it's safe to say they're likely an 80-90 now, they come back from the dead, the gauss rifle is a bit better separated from a bolter these days but largely comparable still. They're less skilled and worse save however.
The 10th edition Necron Warriors are 50-60 at most.
They have a worse save, worse WS, worse BS, and worse movement. Their guns are marginally stronger at close range but worse long-range, so that's a wash.
Coming back from the dead seems good on paper, but it's trivial to negate as you just focus down the squad. Then it never even gets to make a roll.
What are Marines good at again? Oh right, focussing down squads.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/07 10:10:41
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.
I realise "show your sources" is a cruel thing to ask anyone on the internet - but where, beyond 40k's usual hyperbole (which makes every faction sound the best) - are Guardians described as being superior to other races basic line troops?
Many codexes have the phrase "It is a testament to the skill and technology of the Eldar that even their civilians are capable of engaging an enemy army and emerging victorious" - but that's somewhat meaningless. As far as I'm aware no codex says "these forces are terrible, if they are on the battlefield they are as good as dead." Every force is capable of beating everyone else.
If we go all the way back to 2nd edition it states that Guardian Squads are led by former aspect warriors rather than many of them having been so. For the most part it seems guardians have had military training - but have spent their lives doing other things. In terms of the vagaries of 40k, which runs between grots at one end and Knights and Daemon Primarchs at the other, it seems a bit of a reach to have these guys materially better than Guardsmen - who are also trained soldiers.
The Black Guardians of Ulthwe are probably superior, but they are described as an active standing army - serving because Ulthwe doesn't have as many Aspect Warriors. But clearly there are certain mechanical issues bringing that to the game. (Similar with say Saim-Hann Wild Rider bikers).
Long ago Kabalites were stronger and faster than Guardians as the quid pro quo for their atrophied psychic potential. But I feel that lore has died a death/been superseded. Today it feels more like Eldar are just Eldar - wherever they are in the galaxy (i.e. it seems increasingly accepted that you can be on a Craftworld for a few years, then wander as a ranger, then party in Commoragh, then head back to the Craftworld etc). So its a question of whether Eldar who spent most of their time as pirates should be meaningfully more powerful than those who spend most of their time as poets and painters. They probably aren't better "physically" but they should have more training - hence say WS/BS 3+ vs 4+. Or you just make them the same, because of the grot/knight problem mentioned above.
Coming back from the dead seems good on paper, but it's trivial to negate as you just focus down the squad.
I'm not convinced of that - in the first place that means the other squads are scoring and winning. In the second, we're assuming unlimited target prioritization is still a thing - given Oath of Moment it probably is but we can hope. It probably is, but that was one of the main reasons lethality ratched up and they're trying to tamp it back down. The easiest way to do that is to reduce which units can shoot at which units. I'm hoping someday they try and find the middle ground of closest only, and everyone on the board can slap THAT squad around when ever they want. Most infantry should be generally limited to closest Infantry or Vehicle/Monster - Artillery should be free fire anywhere - other tanks/vehicles Monsters should have something similar to infantry - with a modified LD check to go outside of that maybe. i.e. Necrons or little bugs might have a low LD but a high mod to represent the Hivemind, etc. While Orks may have a high LD for being a big ol mob of Boyz, but also a high negative mod based on their psychology of shooting whats right in front of ya.
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
You say Ressurection Protocols are trivial, but I disagree with your conclusion.
Sure, you wipe out the unit and, outside of army interactions and exclusions (thinking Res Orb) “there ain’t no comin’ back, man”.
But think on that. What does that mean for my opponent? Not just that wiping out my squads is desirable (doing such a thing is always desirable) but now necessary. Especially if they’re camping on an Objective, where I’ll get a minimum of 4 back in the game.
That creates a certain pressure on my opponent. That to some degree begins to dictate what they can realistically shoot at. Against any other opponent, you have the choice to spread your firepower somewhat, going for a more gradual erosion. Necrons need properly concentrated fire. If there’s even one left? You have to take it out.
Right now, it’s hard to say how irritating that might be for your opponent, as I don’t recall we’ve seen whether a squad can freely split fire anymore.
If we can’t? It’s a major, major pain in the arse, as you’ll have to overcommit if your initial salvos leave just one or two standing. If we can, it’s still yet more firepower you’ll need to dedicate. And if that doesn’t do the job, more and more and more.
That’s….that’s pretty damned useful.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Dudeface wrote: The elephant in the room from the other thread is the necron warrior, it's safe to say they're likely an 80-90 now, they come back from the dead, the gauss rifle is a bit better separated from a bolter these days but largely comparable still. They're less skilled and worse save however.
The 10th edition Necron Warriors are 50-60 at most.
They have a worse save, worse WS, worse BS, and worse movement. Their guns are marginally stronger at close range but worse long-range, so that's a wash.
Coming back from the dead seems good on paper, but it's trivial to negate as you just focus down the squad. Then it never even gets to make a roll.
What are Marines good at again? Oh right, focussing down squads.
If you put a necron warrior at 55, where are you placing baseline humans? Do you honestly consider 2:1 a good ratio between a necron warrior ans a bog standard marine?
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
I think a more interesting comparison in terms of Unit Role would be Immortals Vs Marines.
Typically, the Immortal is approximately as tough as the Marine (but is single wound?), but carries noticably superior firepower.
The difference being the Immortals can come to the party with Warriors. Whilst the Immortals tear up the Dancefloor, the Warriors make a nuisance by hogging the Punch Bowl and eating all the sausage rolls.
Mmm. Sausage Rolls. I have some in the freezer, I guess that’s lunch sorted!
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
If you put a necron warrior at 55, where are you placing baseline humans? Do you honestly consider 2:1 a good ratio between a necron warrior ans a bog standard marine?
I think that's where he put the released statline, not the optimal "If I were doing it" answer.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think a more interesting comparison in terms of Unit Role would be Immortals Vs Marines.
That just highlights the point though - Warriors used to be the equivalent of Marines, but they've been steadily degrading towards fodder tier, while Marines have been getting better over time.
Immortals would be more akin to something like Sternguard.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think a more interesting comparison in terms of Unit Role would be Immortals Vs Marines.
That just highlights the point though - Warriors used to be the equivalent of Marines, but they've been steadily degrading towards fodder tier, while Marines have been getting better over time.
Immortals would be more akin to something like Sternguard.
No, its right to keep it Warriors vs Marines - the premise is the iconic troop vs troop - though I suspect Immortals will stay a "troop" vs Sternguard staying not a "troop" the iconic one is the warrior. The drop to 4+ to hit is an issue - especially confusing as the Land Raider now hits in melee on a 4+ while the Monolith hits with its portal on a 2+ it looks like - looking at it roughly it looks like Warriors lost about 20% of their offense - -1to Hit, in addition to the almost universal loss of -1 to save. It will be interesting to see Sisters Orks and Tau. Sisters and Necrons were about on par with some ups and downs that felt like they averaged out. Warriors got a little worse to hit, but the abysmal vehicles are now much much better. Orks and/or Tau might give us some insight into if that was a balance choice, or if they're reducing the swing. It would also be really helpful if these datasheets had some Powerlevel or Points costs on them for a little insight into that side of the paradigm. How much is a Tac Squad? How much is 10/20 Warriors? How much is Bobby G, Screamer Killers, and Abby by comparison given their still beefy offense vs the more blunted units.
That's a big piece that we're missing - not necessarily what the costs are - but what they're expecting us to do with the rules they're giving us. What their idea of our armies look like, and how they think its all supposed to work together. The first step to winning is figuring out what they expect, what they didn't expect and what you can do with that.
That feeds into another Marines vs Warriors point. Warriors used to be a lot closer to Marines on a per model basis yes. But they had a different picture they wanted to paint - and as points costs have plummeted the per-model-power has fluctuated accordingly. Turning Marine armies from 35 models to closer to 60 means keeping the same "outnumbered" ratio puts Ork armies at somewhere around 90 - ork and Grot mix closer to 120. If they would have kept the same power ratio they'd table the Marines early and often - or the image GW wants to project for the faction would have had to change.
If you put a necron warrior at 55, where are you placing baseline humans? Do you honestly consider 2:1 a good ratio between a necron warrior ans a bog standard marine?
I didn't say Necron Warriors should be 55, I said that they currently are a 55.
IMO they should be higher. I don't find the overall number useful (though I'd aim for ~90-100), so here is what I would suggest:
- They should be tougher than Marines. Same armour, toughness and wounds but with RPs (can maybe fiddle with this a bit, but the point is that it shouldn't be easier to kill a Necron Warrior compared with a Marine).
- Their basic ranged weapons should be slightly better than those of Marines.
- They should be as accurate with said weapons as Marines.
However:
- They have (and should have) no options for heavy, specialist or melee weapons.
- They should be slightly slower than Marines.
- They should be worse in melee (I know stats are on weapons now, but for simplicity I'd have them as WS4+/BS3+).
As it stands, however, they have all the above downsides but none of the above upsides. Hence why I place them at ~55.
I'm not convinced of that - in the first place that means the other squads are scoring and winning.
What.
Breton wrote: In the second, we're assuming unlimited target prioritization is still a thing - given Oath of Moment it probably is but we can hope. It probably is, but that was one of the main reasons lethality ratched up and they're trying to tamp it back down. The easiest way to do that is to reduce which units can shoot at which units. I'm hoping someday they try and find the middle ground of closest only, and everyone on the board can slap THAT squad around when ever they want. Most infantry should be generally limited to closest Infantry or Vehicle/Monster - Artillery should be free fire anywhere - other tanks/vehicles Monsters should have something similar to infantry - with a modified LD check to go outside of that maybe. i.e. Necrons or little bugs might have a low LD but a high mod to represent the Hivemind, etc. While Orks may have a high LD for being a big ol mob of Boyz, but also a high negative mod based on their psychology of shooting whats right in front of ya.
You seem to be reaching really far with this one. Certainly the lethality hasn't been reduced anywhere near enough to suggest that a T4 W1 Sv4+ unit is going to be hard to take down, even without Oath of Moment.
The rest seems to be hoping for stuff that hasn't even been hinted at thus far. I don't believe we've seen anything (including on the leaks/rumours side) to suggest that we'll be going all the way back to 3rd edition's target priorities.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You say Ressurection Protocols are trivial, but I disagree with your conclusion.
Sure, you wipe out the unit and, outside of army interactions and exclusions (thinking Res Orb) “there ain’t no comin’ back, man”.
But think on that. What does that mean for my opponent? Not just that wiping out my squads is desirable (doing such a thing is always desirable) but now necessary. Especially if they’re camping on an Objective, where I’ll get a minimum of 4 back in the game.
That creates a certain pressure on my opponent. That to some degree begins to dictate what they can realistically shoot at. Against any other opponent, you have the choice to spread your firepower somewhat, going for a more gradual erosion. Necrons need properly concentrated fire. If there’s even one left? You have to take it out.
Except, as you just said, wiping out squads is already desirable. Since at least 8th (and arguably even before then) there has never been any great advantage to leaving depleted units alive, and nothing in 10th looks set to change that.
Possibly you're confusing 40k for a game that actually has suppression mechanics? Or one like AoW Planetfall, where units can be staggered etc. to reduce their performance the next turn, thus creating incentives to leave wounded units alive? 40k doesn't have any such rules. Especially since units can no longer be Pinned and never run away,
Thus, it really isn't forcing any great conundrum on your opponent. It's just extra incentive to do what they'd want to do already.
Bear in mind, too, that Warriors are likely the only unit that actually get a meaningful number of models back with RPs. For other units, the standard d3 wounds is a piddling number. In many cases, that won't even translate to a single model revived.
Right now, it’s hard to say how irritating that might be for your opponent, as I don’t recall we’ve seen whether a squad can freely split fire anymore.
If we can’t? It’s a major, major pain in the arse, as you’ll have to overcommit if your initial salvos leave just one or two standing. If we can, it’s still yet more firepower you’ll need to dedicate. And if that doesn’t do the job, more and more and more.
That’s….that’s pretty damned useful.
I'll grant that if split-fire is removed then RPs become more of a nuisance for your opponent.
However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if GW were removing (or severely limiting split-fire), it would have been mentioned already as a core change in 10th.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/07 11:25:08
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.
If you put a necron warrior at 55, where are you placing baseline humans? Do you honestly consider 2:1 a good ratio between a necron warrior ans a bog standard marine?
I didn't say Necron Warriors should be 55, I said that they currently are a 55.
IMO they should be higher. I don't find the overall number useful (though I'd aim for ~90-100), so here is what I would suggest:
- They should be tougher than Marines. Same armour, toughness and wounds but with RPs (can maybe fiddle with this a bit, but the point is that it shouldn't be easier to kill a Necron Warrior compared with a Marine).
- Their basic ranged weapons should be slightly better than those of Marines.
- They should be as accurate with said weapons as Marines.
However:
- They have (and should have) no options for heavy, specialist or melee weapons.
- They should be slightly slower than Marines.
- They should be worse in melee (I know stats are on weapons now, but for simplicity I'd have them as WS4+/BS3+).
As it stands, however, they have all the above downsides but none of the above upsides. Hence why I place them at ~55.
I'm not convinced of that - in the first place that means the other squads are scoring and winning.
What.
If all of my army is shooting up one of your units, the rest of your units aren't being shot up and get to score points. I mean even GW was smart enough to make this point in the Faction Sneak Peak.
Breton wrote: In the second, we're assuming unlimited target prioritization is still a thing - given Oath of Moment it probably is but we can hope. It probably is, but that was one of the main reasons lethality ratched up and they're trying to tamp it back down. The easiest way to do that is to reduce which units can shoot at which units. I'm hoping someday they try and find the middle ground of closest only, and everyone on the board can slap THAT squad around when ever they want. Most infantry should be generally limited to closest Infantry or Vehicle/Monster - Artillery should be free fire anywhere - other tanks/vehicles Monsters should have something similar to infantry - with a modified LD check to go outside of that maybe. i.e. Necrons or little bugs might have a low LD but a high mod to represent the Hivemind, etc. While Orks may have a high LD for being a big ol mob of Boyz, but also a high negative mod based on their psychology of shooting whats right in front of ya.
You seem to be reaching really far with this one. Certainly the lethality hasn't been reduced anywhere near enough to suggest that a T4 W1 Sv4+ unit is going to be hard to take down, even without Oath of Moment.
The rest seems to be hoping for stuff that hasn't even been hinted at thus far. I don't believe we've seen anything (including on the leaks/rumours side) to suggest that we'll be going all the way back to 3rd edition's target priorities.
Psst - I was pointing out what is likely the biggest factor in lethality creep probably isn't changing. "assuming unlimited target prioritization is still a thing - given Oath of Moment it probably is but we can hope" - And I've already done some paper napkin math on how effective Reanimation Protocols is.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You say Ressurection Protocols are trivial, but I disagree with your conclusion.
Sure, you wipe out the unit and, outside of army interactions and exclusions (thinking Res Orb) “there ain’t no comin’ back, man”.
But think on that. What does that mean for my opponent? Not just that wiping out my squads is desirable (doing such a thing is always desirable) but now necessary. Especially if they’re camping on an Objective, where I’ll get a minimum of 4 back in the game.
That creates a certain pressure on my opponent. That to some degree begins to dictate what they can realistically shoot at. Against any other opponent, you have the choice to spread your firepower somewhat, going for a more gradual erosion. Necrons need properly concentrated fire. If there’s even one left? You have to take it out.
Except, as you just said, wiping out squads is already desirable. Since at least 8th (and arguably even before then) there has never been any great advantage to leaving depleted units alive, and nothing in 10th looks set to change that.
Possibly you're confusing 40k for a game that actually has suppression mechanics? Or one like AoW Planetfall, where units can be staggered etc. to reduce their performance the next turn, thus creating incentives to leave wounded units alive? 40k doesn't have any such rules. Especially since units can no longer be Pinned and never run away,
You mean like Battleshock tests that remove stratagem and OC abilities from units?
Thus, it really isn't forcing any great conundrum on your opponent. It's just extra incentive to do what they'd want to do already.
Bear in mind, too, that Warriors are likely the only unit that actually get a meaningful number of models back with RPs. For other units, the standard d3 wounds is a piddling number. In many cases, that won't even translate to a single model revived.
Isn't that pretty much part of GW making Warriors the standard troop?
Right now, it’s hard to say how irritating that might be for your opponent, as I don’t recall we’ve seen whether a squad can freely split fire anymore.
If we can’t? It’s a major, major pain in the arse, as you’ll have to overcommit if your initial salvos leave just one or two standing. If we can, it’s still yet more firepower you’ll need to dedicate. And if that doesn’t do the job, more and more and more.
That’s….that’s pretty damned useful.
I'll grant that if split-fire is removed then RPs become more of a nuisance for your opponent.
However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if GW were removing (or severely limiting split-fire), it would have been mentioned already as a core change in 10th.
If you put a necron warrior at 55, where are you placing baseline humans? Do you honestly consider 2:1 a good ratio between a necron warrior ans a bog standard marine?
I didn't say Necron Warriors should be 55, I said that they currently are a 55.
IMO they should be higher. I don't find the overall number useful (though I'd aim for ~90-100), so here is what I would suggest:
- They should be tougher than Marines. Same armour, toughness and wounds but with RPs (can maybe fiddle with this a bit, but the point is that it shouldn't be easier to kill a Necron Warrior compared with a Marine).
- Their basic ranged weapons should be slightly better than those of Marines.
- They should be as accurate with said weapons as Marines.
However:
- They have (and should have) no options for heavy, specialist or melee weapons.
- They should be slightly slower than Marines.
- They should be worse in melee (I know stats are on weapons now, but for simplicity I'd have them as WS4+/BS3+).
As it stands, however, they have all the above downsides but none of the above upsides. Hence why I place them at ~55.
I honestly feel 55 is a bit harsh, I don't doubt most people would change them, I would, but I wouldn't say 1 warrior is worth only half a marine.
If all of my army is shooting up one of your units, the rest of your units aren't being shot up and get to score points. I mean even GW was smart enough to make this point in the Faction Sneak Peak.
Oh silly me. I forgot that every unit just starts the game camped on an objective like they're trying to incubate an egg, and never moves until they're killed.
You mean like Battleshock tests that remove stratagem and OC abilities from units?
It's not nothing but it's heavily dependant on the unit in question being in a position to score.
For many units, it won't make a whole lot of difference to what they can do.
Though I'll grant Warriors are probably hurt more than other Necron units as they're presumably intended to take and hold objectives.
EDIT:
Actually, let me elaborate on the morale aspect a little more, because there's another important point and it's the same reason why morale effects have been arse since at least 8th.
Timing.
In past editions, if you fired at a unit with a Pinning weapon, you'd know immediately after resolving the attack whether or not the unit was pinned.
Similarly, in the AoW Planetfall game I mentioned, if I try to Stagger, Panic etc. a unit, I'll know immediately after the attack is resolved whether or not I was successful.
This means that I have an opportunity to react to the result. If I successfully pin (or otherwise subdue) a unit, I know I can dedicate my firepower elsewhere with relative safety because that unit won't be a significant threat next turn. Likewise, if a unit isn't Pinned then I can dedicate more firepower to it - either trying to pin it again or else just trying to wipe it out.
Now compare this to the current morale system and that in 10th where you don't know if a unit will pass or fail it's morale check until after your turn.
Thus, by the time you know whether or not your attempt to break a unit's morale has been successful, it's already too late to react to it.
This is why I say you need to commit to wiping units out - because, even if morale can potentially take units out of the fight (or prevent them scoring/contesting objectives), you have no idea if it will actually happen until it's already too late.
I will freely admit, though, that if 40k had more mechanics that focussed on suppressing units (without the above timing issue), then RPs would be vastly more annoying.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/07 16:17:05
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.
Tyel wrote: I realise "show your sources" is a cruel thing to ask anyone on the internet - but where, beyond 40k's usual hyperbole (which makes every faction sound the best) - are Guardians described as being superior to other races basic line troops?
It doesn't. Guardians only got the WS/BS3+ because Kelly favoritism.
Tyel wrote: I realise "show your sources" is a cruel thing to ask anyone on the internet - but where, beyond 40k's usual hyperbole (which makes every faction sound the best) - are Guardians described as being superior to other races basic line troops?
It doesn't. Guardians only got the WS/BS3+ because Kelly favoritism.
Yeah not so much.
Since Rogue Trader, Eldar have been described as being superior to humans in the baseline. Better senses, better reactions, just….Extra.
And so even their Citizen Militia (where training is throughout their lives) being BS3 never made sense.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Tyel wrote: I realise "show your sources" is a cruel thing to ask anyone on the internet - but where, beyond 40k's usual hyperbole (which makes every faction sound the best) - are Guardians described as being superior to other races basic line troops?
It doesn't. Guardians only got the WS/BS3+ because Kelly favoritism.
Yeah not so much.
Since Rogue Trader, Eldar have been described as being superior to humans in the baseline. Better senses, better reactions, just….Extra.
And so even their Citizen Militia (where training is throughout their lives) being BS3 never made sense.
Out of interest (for someone less familiar with Craftworld fluff), how do they compare to Aspect Warriors?
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.
Tyel wrote: I realise "show your sources" is a cruel thing to ask anyone on the internet - but where, beyond 40k's usual hyperbole (which makes every faction sound the best) - are Guardians described as being superior to other races basic line troops?
It doesn't. Guardians only got the WS/BS3+ because Kelly favoritism.
No, they are a port over of WHF elves which had WS/BS 4 on their basic troops.
There's a little bit a problem about which equipment we are talking. For example:
Nob with Power klaw- 200
Nob with choppa/slugga vs assault Marine- 100 (nob should have a little bit more offensive power while Marine has armour)
Nob with kombi vs Bolter Marine -80/90, because even with a good gun a nob is not outshooting a Marine
Member of 
DKoK Blog:
Have a look, I guarantee you will not see greyer armies, EVER! Now with at least 4 shades of grey
