Have they "jumped the shark" with the Marine Dex(s) power?

[Panzer]

 

 

Yeah for sure. It started with Primaris being more durable, more punch in melee and having better punch on their bolters and is continued with the layered rules in the new codex+supplements. GW is definitely improving on how Marines feel on the table. ^^

 

 

Primaris were complete garbage until the first Chapter Approved while marines were top tier that whole time.

 

 

Yeah but they FELT better on the board with their W2 A2 and AP-1 Bolters.

[mughi3]

trevak-

 

Still got that tickle to do a 30k army using Intecessors as a base....

Well at least the primaris models kinda look like MKIV maximus pattern armor used during the heresy- I have a bunch I use for my 30K list. it's still my favorite mark of armor.

 

Back on topic-

 

Sadly unlike battlefleet gothic (circa the 2010 update), which is the best game GW has ever made for the 40K universe IMHO, that was choc full of fluff rules that didn't break the game. GW has never really gotten the standard game right. some of the editions has it pretty close while others put in some gems to make the game better while throwing out things the previous editions did right.

 

this has led to certain codexes, not specific editons, that really got the feel of the fluff VS gameplay right.

 

4th ed dark angels was an example of the wrong way to go, a brief idea GW had to streamline and weaken everything while tossing out the long held fluff, that lasted for 3 codexes and was promptly abandoned via the matt ward effect. leaving the DA codex hopelessly weak(and not updated...it took 2 years for DA to officially get the 3++ storm shield update) when everything later got huge boosts.

 

by comparison if you were a khorn player the 3rd ed codex was everything a berserker army was supposed to be by lore(blood frenzy, spiky bits, chain axes etc...) but not game breaking.

 

As noted by some of the newer blood angel players who missed out on 5th edition (the best BA dex) where fluff and performance melded well. they seem lackluster now,

 

Of course this is true across all the armies in the game. the tau lost most of the good effects of their upgrades in exchange for mandatory drone spam in 8th.

 

the untargetable characters is a glaring example-before you put them in a squad(or retinue) or they got the &*@! shot out of them and the abilities they conferred went to the squad they joined. they were not beacons of re-roll zones.

 

The reason the force org was a problem before was that basic troops were the tax on building an army, you had to take them to get to the good stuff-that's a design flaw. as a core of the force they should be worth taking. pleasantly FW fixed it via 30K by greatly expanding troop options to include things that not only were worth taking but were very good in their own right, while maintaining the original FOC. thus GW gets sales and the compulsary units don't feel forced on you.

 

 

Even though I play 8th, as well as HH, there is a reason why our group likes modified 5th-it allows all the best rules from those 5 similar editions to be played with the best codexes to represent the faction you play most correctly.

 

In the end as long as people are willing to play this game system we will never be truly satisfied with what GW does. as they try to balance the demands of fluff/casual players/ power+tourney players etc...at the same time they are trying to boost sales while making everything work right together has become a monumental task I'm not sure they can write their way out of with a rules set.

 

Don't get 40K burnout(I did with 6th ed) play what you like with like minded players and like a DM you can always agree to change up the rules a bit to make the game more fun for everybody involved. this is supposed to be recreation afterall nobody should be feeling forced to enjoy it or specific aspects of it.

Edited September 25, 2019 by mughi3

[Wulf Vengis]

@Stonks: Theres no reason why detachments and the standard FOC can't coexist. Detachments are just ways of manipulating the FOC to escape the standard 1hq 2 troops mandatory minimum. They were designed to give people a reason to build a specific force. I think the only problematic issue with detachments and FOC coexistence is when detachments give a pile of free units or rules to the player controlling it.

This was never an issue when the FOC was stand alone. The way to manage a coexistence between the two is to have detachments allow you to build an army that "breaks" the FOC by changing the FOC slot that a unit falls under. For example: a Deathwing detachment would change DA terminators units to troops or allow you to take DA terminator units as troops and/or elites. And of course this detachment would restrict certain choices within the Codex as well. Again a Deathwing detachment would require you take an hq unit in terminator armor or Belial. (I'm aware I'm kind of glossing over how this would work for simplicitys sake.)

 

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that detachments would work with the old FOC system so long as they aren't giving their controller a pile of free transports/extra units or a pile of extra rules.

 

I mean why do we even have HQ, elite, troops, fast attack and heavy support (lord of war and super heavy) differentiation if it doesn't impact the rules or how you build your army/list?

Someone mentioned somewhere (may have been this topic not sure) that those unit type indicators had something to do with power level i think. Not sure how that works exactly beyond "x unit is elite therefore worth more power level than y unit of troops". Which again i see as kind of a bastardization of detachment meets FOC.

 

Honestly for most marine chapters the troops choices should be objective scoring and fire/combat support. Yes you'll find specialty troops in some chapters (blood claws for the SW for instance) but really you're heavy hitting elites should be clearing objectives which your troops would move in to hold. The scouts (regardless FOC slot) should be either picking off infantry our surprise missiling enemy armor, and your fast attack units should be running flanking, harrying and interception while your heavy support is throwing massed heavy fire at anything people sized and massed anti-armor at anything the size of a Volkswagen or larger.

 

Again I'm glossing over things a bit for ease of discussion but there's no reason detachments can't simply unlock extra elite slots or move elites into the troops category. I wouldn't make it locked to the HQ as in previous editions where you took Belial to make your DA terminators into troops. I would just make that the outline of the detachment.

Ex: Deathwing Detachment: A Deathwing detachment is lead by a chapter master or chaplain in terminator armor. All terminator squads and terminator assault squads in a Deathwing detachment count as troops choices.

Heck if done right you could even take multiple detachments and get ravenwing in there to give that Deathwing some rapid support.

 

Basically i see no reason detachments and standard FOC couldn't coexist. It could be fluffy and competitive without breaking things. GW would still get their money out of it because the best way to do this (and the way they failed in 6th/7th editions imho*) would be to give us our Codecies with our army fluff and rules. Then release supplements/campaigns/expansions/WD/etc (like they are currently doing) which contain the detachments.

This would all work out very well especially now dice marines (as a whole) have finally received the fluffy rules they've needed since 3rd edition.

 

EDIT: *In previous editions what broke detachments was the distribution of free transports or other units and a pile of rules that just left detachments as another source of power creep. Honestly i understand the transports being given to a detachment for free (don't agree with it but i understand it) but why the rules? It really just pushed detachments into the broken end of the spectrum.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Wulf Vengis

[Closet Skeleton]

Free rules aren't what broke detachments, it was that some detachments were broken. The big Decurion style detachments were power creep but they also gated the really nasty stuff in the codex behind very specific list building limitations that generally led to more fluffy high tier armies than 8th ed. The Genestealer Cult big formation is the only one I had any experience with and it really wasn't broken, it just hamstrung your list building and gave you some interesting choices. Then you had things like Riptide Wing that took something that was already good when spammed and threw in extra bonuses for spamming. On one hand you had a reward system for balanced lists that sometimes went crazy and boosted stuff that didn't need it.

 

I've played at events that house rule stricter detachment limitations and it works. The rules writers kept things open because they didn't want to dictate game modes to the players, its on the community to make choices about how it wants to play not to let anything go as though that was being dictated to them.

[Wulf Vengis]

Hm, well said Skeleton. I can't argue as i didn't intend to imply that ALL were broken. But i agree that it got out of hand and muddied an already dirty pond.

I was simply positing ways to handle detachments in a standard FOC system.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

Free rules aren't what broke detachments, it was that some detachments were broken. The big Decurion style detachments were power creep but they also gated the really nasty stuff in the codex behind very specific list building limitations that generally led to more fluffy high tier armies than 8th ed. The Genestealer Cult big formation is the only one I had any experience with and it really wasn't broken, it just hamstrung your list building and gave you some interesting choices. Then you had things like Riptide Wing that took something that was already good when spammed and threw in extra bonuses for spamming. On one hand you had a reward system for balanced lists that sometimes went crazy and boosted stuff that didn't need it.

 

I've played at events that house rule stricter detachment limitations and it works. The rules writers kept things open because they didn't want to dictate game modes to the players, its on the community to make choices about how it wants to play not to let anything go as though that was being dictated to them.

I mean... it's not like it's impossible to run a fluffy army in 8th. They just... suck. Word Bearers with heavy Chosen and Cult Marines, for example. Good component elements, but used poorly.

[kombatwombat]

I think faction-specific Detachments, when done well, are the way to go. Look at 30k’s Rites of War - they’re not perfect, but they do a damned good job.

 

In a similar vein, you could include in a Codex - or even a distinct book with a compilation - a couple of Detachments for each army that are variations on the old 1+2 Force Org Chart. (This would have to entirely replace the current Detachment system - perhaps as an optional expansion to the game.) So each faction would have access to:

 

‘Core’ FOC for each faction (+5 CP) - so Marines might get an extra Elites and HQ slot but have to take at least one each Elites/FA/HS, Eldar might have an extra FA and Elites slot at the cost of a HS slot, Custodes only have one mandatory Troops, Guard get an extra HS slot and an extra 6 Troops slots, but have 6 mandatory Troops.

 

A couple of ‘Special’ thematic FOCs (+1 CP) - so DAngels get one that has no Troops and 6 Elites slots of which 3 are mandatory, and another one which is the same but FA instead of Elites (so Deathwing and Ravenwing), Guard get one that has 3 mandatory HS slots and a requirement that there must be one dedicated transport for each Troops slot, and so on.

[Wulf Vengis]

Brilliant

[Closet Skeleton]

 

I mean... it's not like it's impossible to run a fluffy army in 8th. They just... suck. Word Bearers with heavy Chosen and Cult Marines, for example. Good component elements, but used poorly.

 

 

Unoptimised lists aren't that imbalanced against each other in general. But the new marine book boosts fluffy lists just as much as super optimised ones so makes it hard for players to self balance.

 

I think faction-specific Detachments, when done well, are the way to go. Look at 30k’s Rites of War - they’re not perfect, but they do a damned good job.

30k's rules are about differentiating marines vs marines, in 40k the more varied the rules each faction gets the more space there is for those factions to fall into divergent tiers where some factions are just garbage.

[TrawlingCleaner]

I think that in a few months, marines won't look so broken to a lot of people. Sure the Ultras and IH are strong but they're not unbeatable especially by top to mid tier armies. Dreadnoughts aren't made to be unkillable, sure they're way tougher for IH but again they're not broken. Each supplement is fluffy and has viable, cool rules which I really hope sets a precedent for  future codexes.

I personally don't think that they should include faction-specific detachments and I can see them not including anymore CP bought detachments in future campaign books. Everyone starting on an equal playing field is exactly how it should be IMO, let the fluff come from the Codex and it's rules.

[Morticon]

 Dreadnoughts aren't made to be unkillable, sure they're way tougher for IH but again they're not broken. 

Don't want to turn this into yet another IH moan, because I'm more interested in the army as a whole and the direction the game is going rather than certain specific units, but, the statement above simply isn't accurate. 

 

The combination afforded to IH makes unkillable dreads (at least by all conventional methods). 

 

Its been touted online many times, but just in case you haven't seen it -  Assuming the WL trait "All flesh" on a Leviathan, combined with the Iron Stone nearby and the dread strat, you're looking at a 14W unit that is T8, 2+/4++/5+++ - easily buffable to to T9, 1+/4++/4+++ ...... taking -1damage, then half damage. 

 

To put this into context 360 bolter shots elicit 4 wounds.  

90 Overcharged plasma with weapons of the dark age (base damage 3) does 7.5 wounds. 

Even if you're a DE player and you use agents of Vect on the Half Damage strat, 90 disintegrater shots is only between 5 and 7 wounds done.  :/ 

Then, you're getting double wound profile movement, and 6 wounds (+d3 in psychic) restored next turn. 

They're unkillable.  It's all been said before.  You dont bother shooting them, you work around them...this much is known.   But, I'm not so interested in debating whether  there are unkillable dreadnoughts (Spoiler Alert: there are)- im more interested in what it means for the direction. 

 

*****

 

On a related note, the "new codex cycle" argument is a really good consideration and is something I hadnt considered.  Usually new marines comes with a new edition, so having new marines mid edition made me overlook this. 

 

If this is the start /baseline from which creep will happen, though, that's almost more scary!! I can only hope things will be dealt with as fairly as possible and balanced /nerfed accordingly in future FAQs and CAs. 

[Gederas]

 Dreadnoughts aren't made to be unkillable, sure they're way tougher for IH but again they're not broken. 

Don't want to turn this into yet another IH moan, because I'm more interested in the army as a whole and the direction the game is going rather than certain specific units, but, the statement above simply isn't accurate. 

 

The combination afforded to IH makes unkillable dreads (at least by all conventional methods). 

 

Its been touted online many times, but just in case you haven't seen it -  Assuming the WL trait "All flesh" on a Leviathan, combined with the Iron Stone nearby and the dread strat, you're looking at a 14W unit that is T8, 2+/4++/5+++ - easily buffable to to T9, 1+/4++/4+++ ...... taking -1damage, then half damage. 

 

To put this into context 360 bolter shots elicit 4 wounds.  

90 Overcharged plasma with weapons of the dark age (base damage 3) does 7.5 wounds. 

Even if you're a DE player and you use agents of Vect on the Half Damage strat, 90 disintegrater shots is only between 5 and 7 wounds done.  :/ 

Then, you're getting double wound profile movement, and 6 wounds (+d3 in psychic) restored next turn. 

They're unkillable.  It's all been said before.  You dont bother shooting them, you work around them...this much is known.   But, I'm not so interested in debating whether  there are unkillable dreadnoughts (Spoiler Alert: there are)- im more interested in what it means for the direction. 

*****

 

On a related note, the "new codex cycle" argument is a really good consideration and is something I hadnt considered.  Usually new marines comes with a new edition, so having new marines mid edition made me overlook this. 

 

If this is the start /baseline from which creep will happen, though, that's almost more scary!! I can only hope things will be dealt with as fairly as possible and balanced /nerfed accordingly in future FAQs and CAs.

I mean regarding the 'unkillable Dreadnought' shenanigans:

 

Bray'arth Ashmantle says "Hello". How's a Toughness 9, 8 Wound, 2+/5++/4+++ Dreadnought that's a Character sound?

 

It simply seems Iron Hands saw Bray'arth and thought "Huh... We need this."

Edited September 27, 2019 by Gederas

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Will have to play around the dreads. They can be killed in melee.

[Lord_Caerolion]

 

 Dreadnoughts aren't made to be unkillable, sure they're way tougher for IH but again they're not broken. 

/snip

I mean regarding the 'unkillable Dreadnought' shenanigans:

 

Bray'arth Ashmantle says "Hello". How's a Toughness 9, 8 Wound, 2+/5++/4+++ Dreadnought that's a Character sound?

 

It simply seems Iron Hands saw Bray'arth and thought "Huh... We need this."

 

 

It's not the Dreadnought stats that are the problem, although the Leviathan is nearly double the Wounds of Ashmantle. The issue is the reduction in Damage through assorted Stratagems, Relics, and Traits, so that lascannon that does D6 wounds now does 1 less (to a minimum of 1) and then halves the remaining damage that it would have received, so now instead of taking a potential 6 wounds, is taking 3 at most. Combine that with the sheer amount of repairing the Iron Hands can do, and it gets a bit crazy.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

 

 

 Dreadnoughts aren't made to be unkillable, sure they're way tougher for IH but again they're not broken. 

/snip

I mean regarding the 'unkillable Dreadnought' shenanigans:

 

Bray'arth Ashmantle says "Hello". How's a Toughness 9, 8 Wound, 2+/5++/4+++ Dreadnought that's a Character sound?

 

It simply seems Iron Hands saw Bray'arth and thought "Huh... We need this."

 

 

It's not the Dreadnought stats that are the problem, although the Leviathan is nearly double the Wounds of Ashmantle. The issue is the reduction in Damage through assorted Stratagems, Relics, and Traits, so that lascannon that does D6 wounds now does 1 less (to a minimum of 1) and then halves the remaining damage that it would have received, so now instead of taking a potential 6 wounds, is taking 3 at most. Combine that with the sheer amount of repairing the Iron Hands can do, and it gets a bit crazy.

 

Three Leviathans and a Feirros. I need this, but I have no money.

[The Unseen]

I see a FAQ that stops you from giving a warlord trait to vehicles.

That stops any of the shenanigans from being too crazy.

 

Also probably needs to not let the shadowstep raven guard psychic power from working on them as well.

 

But also, you don't shoot Str8 2 damage stuff into a T8 dread that halves wounds and expect to do much, Morticon.

You gotta pack Str9.

Just like killing the old 3+++ Castellans

Lascannons, assuming no buffs at all, take 3 shots to land 1 hit though.

-1 damage, then halving rounding up, means that a D6 damage roll is actually

1,1,1,2,2,3.

Meaning your average damage is 1 and 2/3rds a damage, before FNP.

I mean, that's ridiculously tough, but it isn't invulnerable.

28 lascannon shots before the FNP, so 36 after.

Just for the comparison sake, a 3++ Knight (which of course no longer exists, but it did for a long time) took 54 lascannon shots to bring down.

 

But also, how many CP is that dread costing?

It's 1 for character status, 1 for the warlord trait, maybe 1 for the iron stone, or more likely whatever other relic you want, and the half damage on the dread is both unique and also costs 1 CP per phase.

So you can only ever have 1 "unkillable" dread, because halving the damage is the primary damage reduction except against D2.

Secondly, just having the setup for 1 turn costs 3-4 CP, plus of course the cost of the unit's themselves in points.

 

And nothing except the FNP matters vs mortal wounds, since they're increments of 1 damage.

So, several armies just...

Don't care.

And because it's Iron Hands, the overwatch is scary, but if you lock it in combat, it isn't shooting you, and Leviathans with a melee weapon aren't exactly common these days.

Double stormcannon is the "meta"

So it basically has no melee capability itself.

 

Also also, are we sure what order the half damage and the -1 damage go in?

Cause it matters a lot vs 4, 5, and 6 damage.

 

You can also, like, kill the guy carrying the ironstone.

Eliminators can probably do it eventually, or just the usual tactic of send a smash captain or other such melee unit in, kill the relic holder, then turn and junk the leviathan.

 

But unlike Castellans, no dreadnought kills enough stuff that its impossible to just play around.

You can lock it in combat, it doesn't have stomps, and it's got notably less firepower even with the double stormcannon.

Unless your playing primarily 2 Wound elite infantry, in which case I'm sorry.

 

But like, a guard list will just ignore that dread while outscoring you and shelling everything else to death for example.

Wave Serpents laugh at D2 weapons as well.

 

Anyway, all I'm saying is that I dont see the dreads making that huge of splash in the competitive scene.

But they are pretty disgusting in any kind of casual setting.

[Ishagu]

Preventing a Warlord trait on vehicles will only have minimal impact on the invincible Dreadnought shenanigans.

 

Some people think myself and others are overreacting, I'm afraid that's not the case. I've played games against builds trialing some of the IH combinations...

Edited September 27, 2019 by Ishagu

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

I'm just over here getting ready to start running IH for my Astartes stuff like I keep promising I'll do. Also, sometime in the relatively near future, I will build an all-Dreadnoughts list. Why? Because.

[Panzer]

 

 

 Dreadnoughts aren't made to be unkillable, sure they're way tougher for IH but again they're not broken. 

/snip

I mean regarding the 'unkillable Dreadnought' shenanigans:

 

Bray'arth Ashmantle says "Hello". How's a Toughness 9, 8 Wound, 2+/5++/4+++ Dreadnought that's a Character sound?

 

It simply seems Iron Hands saw Bray'arth and thought "Huh... We need this."

 

 

It's not the Dreadnought stats that are the problem, although the Leviathan is nearly double the Wounds of Ashmantle. The issue is the reduction in Damage through assorted Stratagems, Relics, and Traits, so that lascannon that does D6 wounds now does 1 less (to a minimum of 1) and then halves the remaining damage that it would have received, so now instead of taking a potential 6 wounds, is taking 3 at most. Combine that with the sheer amount of repairing the Iron Hands can do, and it gets a bit crazy.

 

 

If you are smart you half first and then reduce it by 1 so a Lascannon does only 2 damage at most. ;)

[TrawlingCleaner]

As others have said before, there are plenty of ways to counter all of this and to be honest it's mostly stuff that isn't in the meta that's going to be good against it.

1) Leviathans are short range on all of their weapons, easy enough to move around it as it's also pretty slow.

2) Characters can be picked off with decent placement or snipers. If they pop the shield drone-esque strat, either shoot another important character or kill the infantry unit they pop it on, after all that has to be done at the start of the shoot phase. Fusion commanders are still terrifying for dropping behind the dread ball and popping characters

3) You can't reduce mortal wounds, haywire is great for this and so is smite. Sure they might pop the armour of contempt strat but Harlequin haywire bikes, TS and GK can pump out a lot of mortal wounds

4) tying them up in combat still neuters them entirely. If you can get away with not charging the Leviathan but piling into it then you're golden and chances are, if you're playing competitively, the Levi has two storm cannons so it's really not that great in combat.

 

I know it all sounds rather flippant of me to say "but look at all these things", but I truly do think they're entirely counter-able in competitive play

[Closet Skeleton]

Leviathans and arguably even Contemptors are definitely in the overpowered column right now but that's Forgeworld/Supplement/Codex interaction not a codex problem.

[Beta galactosidase]

Sadly unlike battlefleet gothic (circa the 2010 update), which is the best game GW has ever made for the 40K universe IMHO, that was choc full of fluff rules that didn't break the game. GW has never really gotten the standard game right. some of the editions has it pretty close while others put in some gems to make the game better while throwing out things the previous editions did right

 

this has led to certain codexes, not specific editons, that really got the feel of the fluff VS gameplay right.

 

As noted by some of the newer blood angel players who missed out on 5th edition (the best BA dex) where fluff and performance melded well. they seem lackluster now,

 

the untargetable characters is a glaring example-before you put them in a squad(or retinue) or they got the &*@! shot out of them and the abilities they conferred went to the squad they joined. they were not beacons of re-roll zones.

 

The reason the force org was a problem before was that basic troops were the tax on building an army, you had to take them to get to the good stuff-that's a design flaw. as a core of the force they should be worth taking. pleasantly FW fixed it via 30K by greatly expanding troop options to include things that not only were worth taking but were very good in their own right, while maintaining the original FOC. thus GW gets sales and the compulsary units don't feel forced on you.

 

 

Even though I play 8th, as well as HH, there is a reason why our group likes modified 5th-it allows all the best rules from those 5 similar editions to be played with the best codexes to represent the faction you play most correctly.

GW really are missing tightness in their core rules but while there has always been potential for codexes and lists to make up for that, they usually don’t fulfill it and it would be totally unnecessary if the core rules just worked well.

 

For example, Blood Angels had a really good opportunity to build around jump pack assault squads. They always have full jump assault squads at the cost of staffing their other units, so jumpers could be troops. And then instead of having the assault squad troops limited to jump packs, there was a huge portion of people who, without that restriction, took off the locks to use Razorback spam and it was a whole thing.

 

The army list could have done a lot to correct the bad effects of sloppy core rules, but with blood angels it didn’t quite make it.

 

In Heresy lists there’s some variety and for lots of people that ameliorates the problem. However the problem seems like it’s concealed by the setting since there aren’t tidewing or other monsters. Regular old infantry are still pretty lackluster outside of that 2x human troops required environment.

 

Instead of concealing the problem by having more troops types, limited kinds of opponents, and capitalist overproduction, they could have just tightened the core rules. Monsters in 7th can do things like move 12” over obstacles and fire very large weapons at full effect. Stock infantry don’t have the same kind of natural reason to be in the board, FOC notwithstanding.

 

The core rules could just give infantry a corresponding ability, one where just like the wraithknight, they’d be taken even if they weren’t required. Large models and jet bikes can move fast and use huge weapons. The corollary would be that they, who are slow and have small weapons, can fire or even move in their opponents’ turns as well as in their own. They’d have a reason to be in the game that tanks and bikes and flyers don’t.

 

That’s just a sketch rule there’s no need to say it would unbalance horde cc armies or something else, the specific rule isn’t important. The point is that they had a few unit types in the core game, and they didn’t stack them up and try to even balance base unit concepts. They could have said atm flyers are middling, monstrous creatures with dual s8 blasts and JSJ are great, and infantry don’t have any particular qualities other than that they’re bad at fighting any of the other unit types. Instead, the left infantry as a whole being pretty unhelpful, and tried to fix it in a different way for each individual army, sometimes by just neglecting infantry entirely and then just allowing the use of a slightly wider variety

[Schlitzaf]

Until the new codex dropped, BA, DA, DW, and RG were the four strongest marine builds. If you used Girlyman, UM could also compete. In fact, BA were some of the fastest marines, with ways to allow their jump troupes to move twice, etc. They were very likely to make it into melee.

 

The weakest mono marines were BT and GK. BT because no psycher support, only 1 denial strategem in a game that has very nasty buffs and mortal wounds crammed into the psychic phase, and a chapter tactic all about getting marines into combat in an edition where marines struggled to hold their own if you didn't pay out the butt for thunder hammers. GK, on the other hand, are just too expensive. That's really the primary thing that's been holding them back. They pay a huge cost for being psychers and can't do enough damage or survive on the table long enough to earn those points back.

 

As a BT player, it feels a little silly to see BA players complaining that they've been left behind. We all know BA will get a rules update. Hell, just two months ago you were the gold standard for mono marines, with some of the best strategems and cheesiest combos we could field, not to mention the flat out strongest unit SM have access to in the form of your flying psychic dreadnought. You'll be fine. Your rules are coming. Let's chill out and let IH have their time in the sun. I'm so happy for them. If any chapter deserved a meta boost for exposure, it's them.

 

As for other books? DG are still ridiculously strong. Eldar are still ridiculously strong. Guard are still ridiculously strong. Thousand Suns can still throw out enough smite spam and daemon troupes to kick anyone off the board. Slaanesh Daemons still have access to the flat out best new daemon units that have been released. T'au can still shoot you off of the board, though the increasing number of ways to ignore overwatch should be monitored, as it's reaching a critical point passed which they're going to start struggling.

 

As of now, the armies that most need a boost are Khorne Daemons, who have nothing going for them other than DPs and Bloodletter bombs; Necrons, who need a face lift in several key areas; GK, who struggled for all of 8th and deserve priority over factions that have had a good run in 8th; and sisters, who are going to get their book in November.

 

Finally, the neglected chaos Marines need to be brought into line with the rest of their brothers. DG and TS will get updated, but BL, WE, NL, WB, etc etc etc. They need a new codex that isn't a sham, and their own mini books. I wouldn't be surprised if that comes along some time next year.

Marshal I just want to correct an implication here. One BT, have legitimately before the latest SM codex (And tbh even afterwards to some extent). One of the strongest chapters in codex space marines;

Our Chapter Strategem, Abhor, is one of the best stratagems in 2017 Codex, “Warp Time? Nah”. It has 50%-75% denial chance. Which is far better than standard denies, sense you have to pay 80 Point Libby Tax Or 25 point Astropath. Now there are other aspects here admittedly but w/o needing to dedicate points we can go “Nope”.

 

Smite is a different issue entirely but 5+++ FNP v Mortal we got fixed that. Our UU this edition, beside Grimaldus are just amazing. Helbrecht only downside extra attack only go off on charge but hopefully that be changed. EChampion is mathematically as hard hitting as Smash Captain for a 40 points cheaper.

 

Cenos are 6 points 12” shock immunity period (and no longer require Grimaldus). Crusader Squads are awesome, through they do need the point reductions for Init and Neo post SM Codex. And finally? To wrap it all together with a bow. Our Vigilus Detachment.

 

Full powered Sigislash/Marshall Law (slash more indicative hence my preference for it tbh) is literally just as good as Full powered Slamganius. Master Swordsman + Teeth + Suffer Not. And around the same net CP (3-4 CP) vs Slamganius (Deny OW Trait, Hammer Relic, Death visions and Rampage 2-3 CP).

 

They have 3d6 Charge Strategems we have 2d6 Charge but can reroll failed freely. They have redeploy Strategem, we had (and presumably will have again) 4+ Deny. I mean I dislike a lot of how I feel GW treats us. But in general 8th edition has been surprisingly kind and good for our boys in black.

[ERJAK]

No. They have not. It's good, it's not THAT good.

[Schlitzaf]

Yes it is;

Full Powered Sigislash (Hammer)

14 Attacks end up hitting 10.5 times, + 2.60 on average procs = 13.10 hits then ultimately doing 8.3 doing on average 25 damage. If you round up following rules that, (8.6) 9 wounds vs if you don’t round for 27 damage. And 12 vs MeQ

 

Full Slamganius

16 Attacks end up hitting 16 times (15.56) wounding a knight ultimately 10.66 (10.376) causing around 8.7-9 depending on how you you round equating to 27 damage. (12.75 vs MeQ for those curious and on avaragw 10.6 MeQ Dead)

 

Sigislash (teeth)

Hits on average 20 (19.5) averaging around 4 procs. 24 hits. 13.66 wounds or around 9 (18 damage) wounds vs a knight. Vs MeQ it’s 21.66 or 14.44 dead marines.

 

Basically depending on target one of the two is easily 33% better than the other. In terms of full powered versions and hammer versions are the same