40k September & Marine Stats Update

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

keeping in mind that chaos marines have been one of the worst performing armies since 11e dropped (only astra militarum, imperial knights, blood angels and imperial agents doing worse)... they maybe didnt see as much of a price hike as perhaps they were deemed a little over costed originally.

 

On one hand there are 11 armies worse than CSM in the last week, some of them are largely left alone. Beyond that they're bottom quarter sure.

 

But the other lower armies aren't being touched and this is about the "big marine increase in eliteness" - they aren't flatly and GW needed to better manage that message. I think it's safe to say that they wanted to put up the T value, it's mostly being used as a hype point for sales and interest in space marines. Other marines got a bit of a secondary increase, but only enough to avoid complaints and the rest of the field get nothing but it's ultimately been hollow advertisement and false promises it feels safe to say.

 

By contrast interestingly, Custodes are showing how you actually make an army feel more elite - vastly increased stats (notably wounds) and reduced headcount to make it make sense.

[Blindhamster]

58 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

By contrast interestingly, Custodes are showing how you actually make an army feel more elite - vastly increased stats (notably wounds) and reduced headcount to make it make sense.

my all infantry lists consistently went up by about 10% points wise as already noted. Is that not exactly what you’re saying here? The individual models got slightly tougher and slightly better at hitting (actually, as a blood angel, typically worse at hitting) but my army also got smaller. 10% is a 10 man intercessor squad and a an enhancement at 2k. 
 

which incidentally also is a solid chunk fewer bodies on the table 

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

my all infantry lists consistently went up by about 10% points wise as already noted. Is that not exactly what you’re saying here? The individual models got slightly tougher and slightly better at hitting (actually, as a blood angel, typically worse at hitting) but my army also got smaller. 10% is a 10 man intercessor squad and a an enhancement at 2k. 
 

which incidentally also is a solid chunk fewer bodies on the table 

Is 10 bodies really a "solid chunk" to make that decision we'd need to understand what else is in the force, but it evidently isn't even and some people are seemingly working around the points increases to get benefits for next to no cost. If you'd be willing to share an example I'm happy to be corrected, but when a good chunk of many forces are now 17% less effective offensively, and their saves often 17% lower, is your force being 10% larger a fair trade off really?

[jaxom]

36 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Is 10 bodies really a "solid chunk" to make that decision we'd need to understand what else is in the force, but it evidently isn't even and some people are seemingly working around the points increases to get benefits for next to no cost. If you'd be willing to share an example I'm happy to be corrected, but when a good chunk of many forces are now 17% less effective offensively, and their saves often 17% lower, is your force being 10% larger a fair trade off really?

200 points of a Marine army is roughly one or two units. The lesser action economy (action in the general sense) and board presence is noticeable. The effectiveness of lethality changes is much more dependent on what one is fighting and the broader rock, paper, scissors of weapon vs target. I can’t remember the last time I fought an army with more than 2 units impacted (Dark Eldar). Most of my opponents armies either will kill my Marines on the same numbers, or get killed on the same numbers. Huh, just realized I haven’t played against Orks all of 10th edition.

[Spagunk]

Regarding Custodes power creep: my mind immediately went to this.

[Blindhamster]

4 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Is 10 bodies really a "solid chunk" to make that decision we'd need to understand what else is in the force, but it evidently isn't even and some people are seemingly working around the points increases to get benefits for next to no cost. If you'd be willing to share an example I'm happy to be corrected, but when a good chunk of many forces are now 17% less effective offensively, and their saves often 17% lower, is your force being 10% larger a fair trade off really?

apologies, it was actually my 1000 point demi company list that lost a full 10 man squad.

 

yes, it’s substantial

[Mogger351]

7 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

apologies, it was actually my 1000 point demi company list that lost a full 10 man squad.

 

yes, it’s substantial

So what's in the list that your army went up 20%?

[Mogger351]

FYI they've just adjusted marine points again on the sly - you might need to update the app again.

 

Edited 22 hours ago by Mogger351

[Orange Knight]

Keep in mind that the codex isn't out until tomorrow. I'm expecting some more updates and fixes in the near future.

[Karhedron]

Those are some random points changes. Some I can understand such as the RepEx coming down as there was no reason for the listed price jump. Glad to see Intercessors getting a slight trim as I am not convinced that free actions makes up for the loss of ObjSec.

 

Some I cannot understand though. Why are Heavy Intercessors going up? BGVs? Their weapons didn't get the extra point of strength that most of the range did. Some just feel arbitary.

[Mogger351]

30 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

Those are some random points changes. Some I can understand such as the RepEx coming down as there was no reason for the listed price jump. Glad to see Intercessors getting a slight trim as I am not convinced that free actions makes up for the loss of ObjSec.

 

Some I cannot understand though. Why are Heavy Intercessors going up? BGVs? Their weapons didn't get the extra point of strength that most of the range did. Some just feel arbitary.

I've kinda come to the conclusion I don't thonk GW really quite know how or why to price things at this point. I am questioning if the foundations of 40ks systems actually allow this to be pointed meaningfully now.

[Rhavien]

43 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I've kinda come to the conclusion I don't thonk GW really quite know how or why to price things at this point. I am questioning if the foundations of 40ks systems actually allow this to be pointed meaningfully now.

That's the James Workshop uncertainty principle. You can get the points right, or the rules. But not both at the same time.

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

Why are Heavy Intercessors going up? BGVs? Their weapons didn't get the extra point of strength that most of the range did. Some just feel arbitary.

I have no thoughts on BGV; thought for HI maybe they saw them having the 2+ save in cover more often then expected?

[Mogger351]

10 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

That's the James Workshop uncertainty principle. You can get the points right, or the rules. But not both at the same time.

I just can't see how a fundamental shift in balance based on the toughness, is meant to point out, especially at 1ppm in places.

 

But then when you consider that GW openly encourages spamming S5/6+ ap-2 d2-4 weapons by design, whilst also handing out lethal hits or anti-whatever, it literally is impossible to point beyond a "well best guess, we tried" and hope it shakes out.

 

 

[phandaal]

57 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I am questioning if the foundations of 40ks systems actually allow this to be pointed meaningfully now.

 

Getting closer to "objective" points would require much more than a single unchanging points value for a unit. People who are more into modern rules than me may find minor errors here, but at a quick scan here is what I see that affects an Intercessor's value in 11th edition:

 

datasheet stats
× weapon rules
× unit ability
× Combat Doctrine
× Detachment A
× possibly Detachment B
× Stratagem from A/B
× Leader ability
× Support ability
× Enhancement
× possibly unit Upgrade
× CP availability
× mission/Force Disposition context

 

And then they have to do this for however many other units across all the codexes.

[Indy Techwisp]

17 hours ago, jaxom said:

200 points of a Marine army is roughly one or two units. The lesser action economy (action in the general sense) and board presence is noticeable. The effectiveness of lethality changes is much more dependent on what one is fighting and the broader rock, paper, scissors of weapon vs target. I can’t remember the last time I fought an army with more than 2 units impacted (Dark Eldar). Most of my opponents armies either will kill my Marines on the same numbers, or get killed on the same numbers. Huh, just realized I haven’t played against Orks all of 10th edition.

 

200 points of a TSons army is 1 unit, maybe half of one.

Which doesn't really sound like it's a good chunk gone until you realise a full TSons list now likely maxes out at like 5-6 units total unless you're skewing hard.

[Karhedron]

55 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

That's the James Workshop uncertainty principle. You can get the points right, or the rules. But not both at the same time.

 

As a physicist, I approve of this post! 

 

 

[Mogger351]

37 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Getting closer to "objective" points would require much more than a single unchanging points value for a unit. People who are more into modern rules than me may find minor errors here, but at a quick scan here is what I see that affects an Intercessor's value in 11th edition:

 

datasheet stats
× weapon rules
× unit ability
× Combat Doctrine
× Detachment A
× possibly Detachment B
× Stratagem from A/B
× Leader ability
× Support ability
× Enhancement
× possibly unit Upgrade
× CP availability
× mission/Force Disposition context

 

And then they have to do this for however many other units across all the codexes.

Yeah but they also seem to be pricing regards a units relative vulnerabilities as well odd as that sounds. Like in a world where there was less lethals/anti-infantry out there I feel the points would be higher, but that's nothing to do with any of the above.

[Karhedron]

51 minutes ago, jaxom said:

I have no thoughts on BGV; thought for HI maybe they saw them having the 2+ save in cover more often then expected?

 

Except they had the same rule in 10th edition. If no one took them at 100 points, why would anyone take them at 115 points just because they gained RF1? 

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Those are some random points changes. Some I can understand such as the RepEx coming down as there was no reason for the listed price jump. Glad to see Intercessors getting a slight trim as I am not convinced that free actions makes up for the loss of ObjSec.

 

Some I cannot understand though. Why are Heavy Intercessors going up? BGVs? Their weapons didn't get the extra point of strength that most of the range did. Some just feel arbitary.

Because people are complaining so much about the T5 that GW didn't bother to wait for results. 

[Mogger351]

3 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Because people are complaining so much about the T5 that GW didn't bother to wait for results. 

Which is why they've dropped more points than they raised?

[Focslain]

29 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Except they had the same rule in 10th edition. If no one took them at 100 points, why would anyone take them at 115 points just because they gained RF1? 

Also the HB gained RF2, but to be fair I have a 10 man unit in the Gravis Siege Force detachment that cost 245, but also has transhuman, +1 sv, OC 3 and can sticky for 1 CP at the end of the movement phase. Add in a captain for 90 and I have perma-doctrines. 

additional option add a biologis with the narthecis (75 total) for Lethal: Non-vehicle and he can revive 1-2 HI a turn.  Or just spend a CP in shooting for full lethals. 

 

Just some of the options.

 

[jaxom]

42 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Except they had the same rule in 10th edition. If no one took them at 100 points, why would anyone take them at 115 points just because they gained RF1? 

10th Ed was restricted to 1D attacks.

[Karhedron]

8 minutes ago, jaxom said:

10th Ed was restricted to 1D attacks.

 

 

That is a good point and a genuine improvement.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

14 minutes ago, jaxom said:

10th Ed was restricted to 1D attacks.

Heavy Intercessors? Their guns were patched to D2 ages ago, at the same time they gave the normal Intercessors the double shoot.