We've had the rules for 9th Ed for almost six months now - as this strange year draws to a close how is your 40K game scene?
I live in a fairly small Canadian city that has a decent gaming community thanks in part to three post-secondary institutions and a military base. Before COVID hit we had a busy Saturday pick-up game community and a tourney every three months with between 30 and 40 participants. Things shut down between March and June, but since July we've had pre-arranged games at our FLGS following sound health and safety protocols. Capacity in the FLGS is half of what it was before, but the Saturday gaming community is healthy. We've had two tournaments that sold out with another one in two weeks that has also sold out.
I feel that 9th Ed has been successful so far. I've played roughly three dozen games of matched play (FLGS and Basement Hammer) and seven tournament games. I have certainly had to adapt my list-building and playstyle from 8th to 9th, due in large part to the changes to terrain, mission scoring and the buff/aura mechanics.
The terrain rules have cut down on Turn 1 crippling alpha-strikes. They can still happen, but if you place obscuring terrain in the way that the MRB suggests you can't just sit back and shoot each other. You need to manoeuvre to get your shots - I like that!
Mission scoring requires a different play style from 8th Edition. Placing well at a tourney is not just about winning all your games. You need to maximize your score - this might sound like a "Thanks Captain Obvious" moment, but I've seen folks overly focus on "winning" their game at the detriment of scoring. Based on our results, you want at least 70 points a game (we don't use the 10 points for painting). I've been thinking about Secondary scoring when list-building. Not just in terms of minimizing my opponent's chances to score Secondaries, but in terms of being able to score Secondaries myself through things like Deploy Scramblers/Oaths of Moment etc. Little units that can perform Actions and get board control/presence are great.
The changes rolling out for auras combined with the missions and terrain rules mean that making a Death Star is not as effective as in 8th Edition. I've seem some colleagues with Marine lists that would have been quite successful in 8th struggle greatly in 9th. You have to be making a play for the mid-field in Turn 1 and 2 and dominate the midfield Turn 3 to 5. Sitting back in a corner won't achieve that.
Strong lists in our small meta have been Harlies, Triple-Keeper Daemons and Dark Angels. The Harlies have the mobility and firepower to succeed in 9th, while the Triple-Keepers simply dominate the mid-field from the start of the game. Dark Angels started with Ravenwing but now rely on Deathwing. Early days of course, and our Meta is quite small...
All in all I am enjoying 9th, but I am interested in the thoughts from the much wider Dakka community on how your gaming is going!
My personal 40K game scene is nonexistent. I have an ork army, but my main focus for the last few years has been Horus Heresy. As such, I've gotten probably less than 20 games of 8th ed in since launch. Last year I picked up the Chapter Approved 2019 for updated points values. I used them in one game, and then covid hit. Six months later GW announces 9th edition and my $40 purchase is effectively rendered useless. Needless to say I'm a bit soured on the new edition, and won't be buying anything for it anytime soon. I'm really tired of what at this point feels like a 2.5 year refresh cycle on editions.
Just posted this in a different thread, but here's my 9th ed experience so far:
I've been fortunate to play a lot of socially distanced garage hammer. We have a group of about 20 people and have broken in to groups of 4 and each play regular games and have a semi-regular Zoom session with everyone to talk about it. We've had literally several hundred games so far, so my two cents is at least coming from someone who's really played it.
Pros:
1. Terrain is much better than it was in 8th. It is still a little sloppy and needs some clean-up and a few more FAQs, but they 100% did a much better job of making the terrain mean something in this edition.
2. The missions are generally much better than they used to be. I would recommend the Grand Tournament missions over those in the BRB, but over-all they are more fun to play, and they did a good job of shifting the emphasis away from just "kill everything". If you're a narrative player especially, some of the missions really lend themselves well to that style of play.
3. Crusade (admittedly some will have this in the cons, but the nice thing is, if you aren't into it, it can be completely ignored). They have given us a pretty cool way to build an army and experience it as it gets better and bigger. It's a lot of book keeping, and there are things that can make for unfun games if you aren't in the right mind set, but it's over all a pretty cool system.
4. Some will disagree with me here, but I at least feel like CC is in better shape now than it was in 8th., and if you like mid-board action, 9th has that in excellent supply.
Cons:
1. The missions have a strong first turn bias. The tournament stats we have back this up, as do the win rates in my own group. Going first gives you an advantage in turn 1 and turn 5, and you can actually completely eliminate player 2's chance to score on turn 5 with no ability for them to counter play. This needs fixed.
2. The missions do get old after a bit. The mission design is much better, but it's still just mostly some variation of "get your dudes to the spot" which can lead to a lot of fairly predictable "samey" games. Mosh-pitting is also a thing.
3. Game length - Similar to when they said "8th was the fastest playing version of 40k ever" and it turned out not to be - they also promised us a more streamlined "even faster than 8th" game for 9th. This has also not panned out. The key things causing games to take longer were stuck in the core mechanics, and they've only doubled down on those, so games of 9th generally take about the same amount of time. Sometimes slightly faster, sometimes slightly longer, but over-all, it is 100% NOT the "faster game" we were promised.
4. Still a pretty glaring difference in design approach between Marines and Necrons. Crons got a lot better but that's only by virtue of having been so amazingly bad in 8th, and this edition has essentially outright broken Tau, GSC and DE. The promise that "8th ed books would be 100% compatible" really didn't pan out (not that I expected it to), as these armies are all borderline unplayable.
Neither good nor bad:
1.Some will tell you that "movement really matters now". It doesn't. Not like those people think it does. With the smaller board size and the speed of most units, there's no longer really a question of "can I get to the right spot". Pretty much every unit in almost every army can get where it needs to be without question, and the pre-set objectives means you generally know which units are going where, so there's not really a lot of in-depth maneuver like you might be led to believe. I think a lot of folks here are just used to playing gunlines and aren't used to seeing things move at all. What really matters is timing. They've done a somewhat decent job of making you time things correctly.
2. The game feels really good at 1000-1250pts. It feels really bad at anything much bigger than that, and 500pts is still a total crap shoot. You have to have a conversation before playing a 500pt game as there's a wild amount of variance in what certain armies can bring.
It is much better then 8th, incomperably in my opinion. 9th ed factions are fun to play. Harlis are the dominant factions as are demons, which is a bummer, but I guess one can't get everything.
Game feels unplayable for some faction at all, and for some faction the point limits are really rough. Playing normal sized games can be really fun, but playing something like 1000pts is just an NPE for some factions with the core rules given.
I've been lucking that during the recent time out of lockdown I was able to get about a dozen social distanced cross table games played. Probably more games than anyone else in my club has managed to do though.
I really like the 8th ed rules although I feel the terrain rules have become a bit awkward. From one extreme to another, but at least they work. I'm also not so much of a fan of the new mission style. I preferred the old 8th ed missions and tactical objective missions. The new mission just feels like go forward, grab an objective or two and then spend the rest of the game in a big hand to hand mosh. Why can't objectives be in terrain though (although being ground floor makes sense)? You hold fortified defensible positions not open ground and empty streets. I hope they bring back tactical objective cards at some point. Those were the missions/games I always found far more enjoyable.
Some of my friends agree that the new objective token placement seems a bit silly. For those who have a fixed or semi-fixed table it's just awkward, and pick up games will now be slightly longer you have to measure out all the awkward positions and then set/define terrain. Objectives should have remained where players alternate setting them more than X from a table edge or another objective. Simples. I know it is a minor bugbear but it does irk me slightly.
As for secondary objectives, they feel too much like the old ITC format which I was never a fan of. The secondaries are a nice idea but either most aren't worth taking IMO or they are too tough to get a decent score from. I really want to like them but they need to be better.
Several members of my club have chatted about how much they like Crusade. I have yet to play it but reading through I just feel it's too complicated for what is supposed to be a fun and simple style of play. I could do with being a little lighter as I read it. My opinion may change once I get to play it. One day.
I'm enjoying 9th a lot. It's a good rules set but not a fan of the new mission format.
My club loves 9th, and it's really invigorated our community. I get maybe one or two games in a week. It's pushed aside the other games we play for sure.
We only play amongst each other though, and have avoided playing outside our group for the most part.
Things I like: obscuring terrain, dense cover, movement penalties for craters and forests, the changes to how detachments work, the changes to how cp and stratagems works, and the fact that objectives are beginning of turn, instead of the end.
Things I dont: the focus on cqc for taking and holding objectives and devolution of the game into charging into contact for a melee in the middle. Guardsmen Timmy's bayonet can fight up as much as 2 floors. Tank guns still suck because gw can't math that 1 shot for 1d6 isn't as good as 1d6 shots for 2, and also seems to think that a tank gun is the same as a man portable heavy weapon. T is capped at 8, so tanks and at weapon all feel the same. Blast rule. Eradicators. Codex supplements. Balance.
I've gotten a few games in, and it's pushed me personally to take up my oldhammer projects again. Everything I disliked about 8e (death of options, slow dropping of support for all my FW models, damage creep, uncounterable perfectly-reliable reserves alpha-strikes, mission design that pushes very specific army builds, card-game combos used to patch datasheets because GW made bad stat decisions back in the 8e Indexes and can't be bothered to fix them, refusal to update 20-year-old minis because there aren't enough Primaris Marines yet...) is still here, and GW is busy making all of it worse.
First turn bias is still there, but about 10-12% less than in 8th Ed. (ITC version), so that seems like an improvement.
Smaller tables / objective grabbing priority seem to make it more "action filled", at least in my experience.
Secondaries (ITC 8th, now 9th from GW) always seemed a bad idea to me, pushing people to exclude certain army-builds (e.g. now vehicles, hordes, psyker-heavy-armies) and I generally prefer the tactical depth (not to mention meta-variety) of missions you cannot "build to deny/score points for".
Honestly, other than the Crusade chapter, & a slight improvement concerning terrain, I don't find it much different than 8th.
Everything i disliked in 8th? It's still here - as well as some new bits I dont like.
Crusade + terrain counterbalance the new stuff i dislike, so my opinion of the game remains about the same as in 8th.
And despite that, and a pandemic? I've played almost as many games of 9th Aug - present as I did of 8th in 2019/pre-9th 2020. (this is because our local focus on games drifts back & forth. 2018/19 was alot more AoS)
It is better than 8th in my opinion (the only other edition I've played) but I have some niggles with it. I don't like the first Turn bias it seems to have and connected to that I preferred the end of 8th complete deployment per player. Drop for drop isn't terrible in theory but since there is absolutely no advantage for the one with less drops I dislike it. Secondly, and this is more of a preemptive complaint, it seems by the new Codexes that GW is doubling down on making the game even more killy. I don't really enjoy how most armies are just limping along from generally turn 3 onward. Overall though the new mission structure is very enjoyable and my local scene is doing fine. Covid makes it so we have less attendees at any one time but in general we have 8 or so regular players all playing different armies, making for a very enjoyable local meta. Although the last one admittedly has nothing to do with 9th specifically.
I mean, if you liked 8th, you'll like 9th, because it's basically a set of bugfixes for the glaring bugs in 8th. 9th shows us the fundamental vision and essence of what 8th was supposed to be.
If you already figured out that vision and essence during 8th and didn't like 'em, 9th won't do much to make you happy.
I would say that overall, 9th seems to be a slight improvement over 8th. The biggest improvement for me (at the moment anyway) is certainly the terrain rules. At my local game store, a lot of the terrain is pre-8th GW stuff, meaning lots of big open windows. So in previous editions, building a board with enough line-of-sight-blocking terrain was quite difficult and required the use of quite a bit of extras, such as crates and barrels and really anything that could block many of the windows. Nowadays, it's so much easier to have a couple large ruins in the middle that "block" line of sight.
Other things that I like:
1. Negative and positive hit modifiers capped at -/+1
2. New missions and the way primary objectives work
3. Relative balance (from what I've seen) between melee and shooting. Armies really seem to need some of both to thrive.
4. Addition of more universal stratagems, especially the ones that help prevent certain "gotcha" moments, such as surrounding a transport and killing it, thus killing all the models inside, or surrounding a single model in combat, thus preventing falling back. Although admittedly I used both regularly in 8th (dems da rules), it's nice that there's a get-around now.
Things I dislike about 9th:
1. The current deployment method. Deploying unit-by-unit allows for significantly less counter-deployment. I agree with what someone said earlier; the end of 8th had a better deployment system. I would very much like to see it something like this:
A) Players roll off. Winner chooses attack or defender.
B) Defending player chooses their deployment zone and places their entire army (minus reserves and whatnot).
C) Attacking player deploys their entire army in opposite deployment zone, having the opportunity to fully counter-deploy the defender.
D) Defending player chooses to go first or second. No need for a seize roll.
I believe that would help cut down on the current first turn advantage that we're seeing. With the system right now, there's no real counter-deployment to be had (unless you have significantly more drops than your opponent), and deployment doesn't have anything to do with who gets first turn. Not having any clue who is going to go first really limits your deployment options and basically makes everyone want to go first to bring as much damage to bear as possible before the inevitable retaliation. Which leads us to the next problem...
2. Even more lethality. 8th edition was bad enough in terms of lethality, but 9th is just as bad or worse. While the changes to terrain help a bit, I don't think they currently outweigh the overall increases in damage that we're seeing from some of the new unit and weapon profiles.
3. The secondary missions - sort of. I like the idea of secondary missions, but there's really no reason that any of the "kill a bunch of stuff" should be in separate categories. This strongly benefits some armies over others, OR on the other hand leads to crazy skew lists. For example, it seems like the current Tyranid and Ork competitive lists are really just bringing as many bodies as possible, and ignoring their support vehicles and units. After all, you're already basically guaranteeing your opponent is going to get max points for "Thing Their Ranks," so why give them max points for "Bring it Down" as well? In some of the tactics videos I've been listening to for Imperial Guard and Tyranids, I'm hearing suggestions of just dumping all vehicles/monsters and bringing 300-400 infantry instead, so as not to award more than 15 easy secondary victory points. I don't think that's healthy for the game in the long run. Additionally, more elite armies obviously strongly benefit from their lack of weakness to those same kill-stuff secondary objectives. A Space Marine list with 30-40 infantry and 2-3 vehicles is just not going to give up nearly as many points for dying. In a game that is still heavily based on killing your opponents' armies, it seems silly to be able to take more than one secondary objective with the goal of... killing your opponents' armies. All kill-stuff secondary objectives should be under one category.
4. Some armies are really just screwed so far this edition. Hopefully this will be covered with new rulebooks in the near(ish) future, but armies like T'au, Astra Militarum, and Thousand Sons seem to be on crazy hard mode just due to the game's core rules.
In my area 9th has certainly reinvigorated 40k, when we aren't in lockdown at least. How long that continues for will be interesting to see though.
Towards the end of the edition pre-covid, Marines 2.0 did irreparable damage to the game by basically demolishing enthusiasm and interest in local tournaments and it severely cut down on regular games being played at the various clubs. People were refusing to play versus Marines and the Marine players themselves were either getting bored of playing Loyalist mirror matches or had their only other options being competitive practice games. There was hope with the pre-9th FAQ's and the new Codex that some of the worst stuff in that book was going to reigned in, but any hopefulness sort of lasted a week as the reality of the 9th Dex became apparent. People were back to grumbling and being annoyed with Marines again during late October, however lockdown hit again so opportunities to play have also dried up.
There is also dissatisfaction with GW's release schedule. Even amongst veteran players, this slow drip-feed of Codex updates is starting to be seen as unacceptable and I've seen numerous discussions about the necessity of having more simultaneous rules updates. Plus, people are annoyed at the book bloat that's already happening with the announcement of the Charadon campaign stuff.
It's interesting because I think everyone prefers 9th to 8th and outside of a small few things like removal of stacking modifiers, it's a much better game system. It's some of the stuff happening around the game that might be slowly draining enthusiasm from it though. Some of this is Covid-related, sure, but a lot of it is GW business decisions.
I don't understand the comments regarding the increased lethality in 9th... it simply isn't there.
9th is surely less lethal than 8th, thanks to a bigger focus on mission, more terrain rules and a general decrease of firepower in the new codici (counteracted by an increase in melee power).
8th was less lethal than the end of 7th by a landslide.
The game is becoming less and less lethal every iteration, so I really don't understand why some players perceive an increase in lethality.
We went from:
- Turn 1 tabling the opponent in 7th being the norm unless you were playing some sort of broken deathstar.
- Calling the game on turn 2 because not much was left being fairly common in 8th.
- Most games being decided in turn 3 in 9th.
I mean, I can understand that overall it is still too lethal, but we have had some huge improvements in that area.
I think its too early to say the game is less lethal. We also have less full codex releases because marines need all their books first. Once everyone gets them, then it'll be the test.
Honestly that is about the worst part of 9th edition, its marines on marines with marines to drink. It's so out of control you can't even try and say " It's not all marines. " It's pretty much all marines, and your guest star necrons currently. It's out of control and at this rate unless we see nothing marine for a year or so, it'll end up feeling too soon. That said and I love marines ! but really, enough is enough.
As a side note, the more I play the new edition, the more I want to go back to older ones.
The missions are the highlight of the new edition, and are both good in some ways and bad in some ways.
They're good because it's fundamentally critical to play to the mission and all phases of the game. Army composition is very strategic, more so than just filling your list with good stuff or a strong unit combination, and you plan out exactly how you're going to achieve victory and deny the enemy. A player who's just like here to kill some stuff with an arbitrary collection of good stuff will lose badly without a coherent strategy and playing to it. Definitely a plus.
In addition, they favor taking and holding objectives, meaning they're interactable, something that previous crap like maelstrom and other attempts at progressive scoring never were.
However, they're super first player favoring, more so than they've basically every been. Unfortunately, part of this is inextricably linked to what makes the new scoring good. The second player's last turn effectively doesn't matter. Couple this with the awful new deployment they still have from 8e and the math of lanchesters square law, it's super bad to be the second player.
In addition, they're decided really fast. The more I play progressive missions in 8e and now in 9e, the more I'm disillusioned with progressive scoring and would like to see a return to end-of-game scoring. The progressive scoring favors rapid CQC aggression far too much, and even a couple of turns of containment and build a lead that just cannot be overturned because there aren't enough available points. Too much is dependent upon doing a thing every turn that if you can deny it for the early turns to the enemy, you can create a situation where even though both armies are only moderately damaged there's just no way for the losing player to make up the difference.
I don't see tablings often any more, but I think I've seen more games end early by proportion than ever before. I think I've only had like 2 games have the score tallied on turn 5 instead of having a mid-game concession based on inability to recoup the score difference.
Played 31 games of 9th so far. Love it though I do think the missions need another look, particularly reworking the secondaries, and I hope a CA2021 pack will make these significantly different.
Spoletta wrote: I don't understand the comments regarding the increased lethality in 9th... it simply isn't there...
I suspect most of the people complaining about "increased lethality" play vehicles/monsters. The decision to represent blasts as random-shot weapons in 8th and the decision to represent most basic 3HP vehicles as 8W-10W in 8th, plus the massive price hikes, have combined to make playing vehicles against almost anything in 8th/9th feel very like playing against Eldar loaded with scatterbikes/D-weapons in 7th. Any time someone can see the vehicle it goes away.
Spoletta wrote: I don't understand the comments regarding the increased lethality in 9th... it simply isn't there...
I suspect most of the people complaining about "increased lethality" play vehicles/monsters. The decision to represent blasts as random-shot weapons in 8th and the decision to represent most basic 3HP vehicles as 8W-10W in 8th, plus the massive price hikes, have combined to make playing vehicles against almost anything in 8th/9th feel very like playing against Eldar loaded with scatterbikes/D-weapons in 7th. Any time someone can see the vehicle it goes away.
It depends on the vehicles/monsters. Drukhari for example are far more resilient in 8th/9th than in previous editions, both monsters and vehicles. My ork vehicles didn't last a turn in 7th, and light vehicles had high chances to get instant killed by a single heavy bolter or any other S5-6 weapon. A single power klaw dude was enough to reliably blow up a Leman Russ, now it barely scratches it. Not to mention haywyre, gauss, grav, etc that could easily glance to death to most resilient vehicles.
In my experience vehicles are extremely more resilient now, barring a few exceptions like land raiders or other full AV14 vehicles.
I imagine that Secondaries will get refreshed each year along with the Primaries/Missions. I like the effect that the scoring system had on our the two tourneys I have played in. The Secondaries give a way to scrape some respectable points out of a defeat. As long as you play to the Primary in some way you can come out of a defeat with a respectable total (assuming you care). Progressive scoring does favour those armies not afraid to get onto the middle of the board early in the game. Resilient units with some mobility are great right now. Despite having played a few gunline armies through my 24 years of 40K, I like a game that encourages some movement.
Some armies are in a tough spot right now and really need an update.
Our game scene has suffered from starts and stops thanks to the lockdowns...
So it went like so-normal up until late march, no games from late march to late June, partial open in June/July 5 hour limit. moved to private invitation only game sessions with attendance limits from July to the end of November, now we are sitting through 4 weeks of (projected) lockdown part II.
If you have followed my other topics you know i have had my fill of 9th. having read all the rules and watched many games played by other regulars at the FLGS for the past many months. to me it isn't 40K any more than AOS is WHFBs, so the only 40K i play is with our FLGS group(some of whom also play 9th) that does hybrid 5th ed with 15 house rules from other editions put into 5th.
My overall impressions with a background in more casual lore based play is that as a 40K game it's garbage.
As a generic different game system it is on par with things like star wars legion, with a bit more focus on competitive play.
if you want those kinds of game mechanics knock yourself out. i already actively play 10 different miniature game systems so i have no interest in it aside from keeping up with the lore.
Corrode wrote: Played 31 games of 9th so far. Love it though I do think the missions need another look, particularly reworking the secondaries, and I hope a CA2021 pack will make these significantly different.
Some missions and over half the secondaries definitely need another look NOW and not in another year of so; we have the data and aside from things related to 8th codices not being fit to play in 9th (which can only be fixed with the 9th codices if GW didn't purposefully release them in such a slow way that is considered unacceptable by today's standards) most obvious imbalances come from points (not as much as in the past edition) and the aforementioned missions/secondaries (the latter being badly designed with completely worthless ones, few overpowered ones and some overlaying that shouldn't happen like the KILL secondaries in multiple categories)
I dropped out of playing 40k back in the summer of 2019, and haven't really had the opportunity to get back into it. I hear good things about 9th, but what with COVID and my own projects it's hard to find the time let alone want to spend it on 40k.
Our garage-hammer group that's still meeting while our LGS is in lock down has had a good time with 9th. Terrain rules and the new missions are a huge improvement, overwatch mostly going away has helped a few armies that were struggling.
There does seem to be a clear gap between armies with and without a 9th ed book, but there's a few notable exceptions. Pure Slannesh and Harlequins, but also Drukhari, and Deathguard are doing well, that probably is down as much to player skill as anything else.
The Newman wrote: Our garage-hammer group that's still meeting while our LGS is in lock down has had a good time with 9th. Terrain rules and the new missions are a huge improvement, overwatch mostly going away has helped a few armies that were struggling.
There does seem to be a clear gap between armies with and without a 9th ed book, but there's a few notable exceptions. Pure Slannesh and Harlequins, but also Drukhari, and Deathguard are doing well, that probably is down as much to player skill as anything else.
Besides the firstborn marines going to W2 and the weapon buffs, most of the marine book seems like a slight toning down in some areas. ATM I feel like most of the really crazy stuff is still in the legacy rules from the existing supplements. Double shooting, double or triple attacking, crazy relic combos etc mostly got trimmed a bit.
Karol wrote: It is much better then 8th, incomperably in my opinion. 9th ed factions are fun to play. Harlis are the dominant factions as are demons, which is a bummer, but I guess one can't get everything.
Game feels unplayable for some faction at all, and for some faction the point limits are really rough. Playing normal sized games can be really fun, but playing something like 1000pts is just an NPE for some factions with the core rules given.
why is it a bummer that demons and quins are dominant right now? They spent most of 8th being nonexistant mono-armies.
They are both very good against GK, which makes playing my army less fun. Also good harlis mean that there is a chance that CWE will get good rules, and I don't think they should after what they had in 8th.
Karol wrote: They are both very good against GK, which makes playing my army less fun. Also good harlis mean that there is a chance that CWE will get good rules, and I don't think they should after what they had in 8th.
Dude. Just full stop.
If you can't deal with good rules for factions other then yours, you are in the wrong hobby.
balance isn't a fething 0 sum issue and neither is winning the only thing relevant in this hobby beyond the comparatively small tournament circuit, and even in that one balance and improved balance would be welcomed if only to put the onus back on actually "playing the game" instead of FOTM list spam.
Tough to see how they would be tbh. I thought the main things GK were bringing to the table was mortal wound spam and low-S low-AP high volume firepower and they really struggled to bring down targets with lots of wounds.
Karol wrote: They are both very good against GK, which makes playing my army less fun. Also good harlis mean that there is a chance that CWE will get good rules, and I don't think they should after what they had in 8th.
Isnt the GK-Demon matchup pretty even (considering the current demon builds)? They can't really spam their "bring back killed demons strats" because they spend so many CPs pregame, and your smites hit like a truck. And your bolters dont care about a 5++
And saying that harlies shouldnt be good because CWE were good in 8th is some intense mental gymnastics. Thats the same as if i was saying that GK being terrible for most of 8th was warranted because Ultramarines were OP in 7th.
Demon soup lists are in the top of best armies right now. GK are a for fun army that gives up secondaries for free.
And I have been told that GK have to be bad because of a codex I never played under. I seen a ton of eldar player use harli units when Inari were a thing, why shouldn't I see the similarity.
Ah and durning 8th ed, my GK were nerf on a regular basis, because this or that power lists was a problem. And my dudes had no access to 5 hive tyrants with wings or Primarchs giving re-rolls to everything. So yeah my dudes were nerfed because of other armies, I seen no reason why other armies should be exempt from being treated the same.
Karol wrote: Demon soup lists are in the top of best armies right now. GK are a for fun army that gives up secondaries for free.
And I have been told that GK have to be bad because of a codex I never played under. I seen a ton of eldar player use harli units when Inari were a thing, why shouldn't I see the similarity.
Ah and durning 8th ed, my GK were nerf on a regular basis, because this or that power lists was a problem. And my dudes had no access to 5 hive tyrants with wings or Primarchs giving re-rolls to everything. So yeah my dudes were nerfed because of other armies, I seen no reason why other armies should be exempt from being treated the same.
Other armies should be exempt for the same reason your army should be exempt. The fact that it wasn't is a travesty, not that it should happen to everyone else.
The fact that some people died in a nuclear inferno in Hiroshima does not mean everyone should die in a nuclear inferno.
If you can't deal with good rules for factions other then yours, you are in the wrong hobby.
balance isn't a fething 0 sum issue and neither is winning the only thing relevant in this hobby beyond the comparatively small tournament circuit, and even in that one balance and improved balance would be welcomed if only to put the onus back on actually "playing the game" instead of FOTM list spam.
Oh I started at the very start of 8th and had to deal with the difference all edition. GK had a rules set writen as if they were playing a different game, and the constants errata and FAQ nerfs didn't help either. But I don't see why I should be happy that other armies get treated better then my army is.
I wouldn't mind to have an eldar/Inari like codex through out 2-2,5 years of 9th ed, even if this ment that this or that army were to be really bad. I just want to get my good time for the money I spent on my army, and the time I spent playing when it was very unfun to play. And 8th was very un fun to me. 9th comparing to this is nice, and I say this with GK hardly being good or powerful in 9th, in fact they are probably one of the bottom tier armies if they go second.
Other armies should be exempt for the same reason your army should be exempt. The fact that it wasn't is a travesty, not that it should happen to everyone else.
The fact that some people died in a nuclear inferno in Hiroshima does not mean everyone should die in a nuclear inferno.
Well yeah in a perfect world. But world isn't perfect. GW has a limit on how lucky they can get with writing a good set of rules. And this to me means that the more bad rules sets they write for other armies the bigger the chance, that my army will get a good rules set, or failing that there is going to be enough other bad armies to have a quasi even game.
If you can't deal with good rules for factions other then yours, you are in the wrong hobby.
balance isn't a fething 0 sum issue and neither is winning the only thing relevant in this hobby beyond the comparatively small tournament circuit, and even in that one balance and improved balance would be welcomed if only to put the onus back on actually "playing the game" instead of FOTM list spam.
Oh I started at the very start of 8th and had to deal with the difference all edition. GK had a rules set writen as if they were playing a different game, and the constants errata and FAQ nerfs didn't help either. But I don't see why I should be happy that other armies get treated better then my army is.
I wouldn't mind to have an eldar/Inari like codex through out 2-2,5 years of 9th ed, even if this ment that this or that army were to be really bad. I just want to get my good time for the money I spent on my army, and the time I spent playing when it was very unfun to play. And 8th was very un fun to me. 9th comparing to this is nice, and I say this with GK hardly being good or powerful in 9th, in fact they are probably one of the bottom tier armies if they go second.
Once you realize the problem and root cause of your lack of enjoyment is GW and not other players, you'll finally get it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Well yeah in a perfect world. But world isn't perfect. GW has a limit on how lucky they can get with writing a good set of rules. And this to me means that the more bad rules sets they write for other armies the bigger the chance, that my army will get a good rules set, or failing that there is going to be enough other bad armies to have a quasi even game.
The world could be more perfect if that was the goal, rather than spiting one another for problems that aren't even each other's fault.
Karol wrote: Demon soup lists are in the top of best armies right now. GK are a for fun army that gives up secondaries for free.
And I have been told that GK have to be bad because of a codex I never played under. I seen a ton of eldar player use harli units when Inari were a thing, why shouldn't I see the similarity.
Ah and durning 8th ed, my GK were nerf on a regular basis, because this or that power lists was a problem. And my dudes had no access to 5 hive tyrants with wings or Primarchs giving re-rolls to everything. So yeah my dudes were nerfed because of other armies, I seen no reason why other armies should be exempt from being treated the same.
Yes demons is top tier and GK isnt, you can still do something in this matchup because of the special rules you have against the faction.
Ynnari, Craftworld, Drukhari and Harlequins are all different armies.
Your dudes werent nerfed because of other armies, they got hit with collateral damage.
I doubt that people said you deserved to get nerfed for a past codex, it was probably people explaining a possible cause for the low power of GKs in 8th coupled with your poor readign comprehension that gave you that impression.
You don't have to play a top tier army to have fun.
After seeing you bitch and moan during all of 8th, seeing you happy that other armies are getting shafted is super hypocritical. Lay off the schadenfreude.
Oh and for the 10th time, its Ynnari. And Gw reacted properly and removed the abuse from it, now its a subpar army but its still fun to play.
@Karol
I can understand your points.
Especially with the marine changes, that didn't do anything for the GKs...
take a look at some of the tabletop tactics videos for example. Lawrence (the spider) has some decent matches playing GK lists.
My 9th Ed Game is nonexistant because nobody in my circle of friends have seen another of our households in real life since lockdown began. COVID is killing literally thousands every day in this country, and as consciencious human beings we are doing our part to stop the spread.
Imagine if everyone was cavalier enough to risk the spread for something as silly as toy soldiers. How many more of us would be dead? Millions in my country already believe in insane conspiracy theories, the least I can do is not be responsible for adding more bodies to the death toll.
ph34r wrote: My 9th Ed Game is nonexistant because nobody in my circle of friends have seen another of our households in real life since lockdown began. COVID is killing literally thousands every day in this country, and as consciencious human beings we are doing our part to stop the spread.
Imagine if everyone was cavalier enough to risk the spread for something as silly as toy soldiers. How many more of us would be dead? Millions in my country already believe in insane conspiracy theories, the least I can do is not be responsible for adding more bodies to the death toll.
While I am on the side of self-isolation, I just have to cheekily inform you:
So there's a thing called Tabletop Simulator that many people use...
ph34r wrote: My 9th Ed Game is nonexistant because nobody in my circle of friends have seen another of our households in real life since lockdown began. COVID is killing literally thousands every day in this country, and as consciencious human beings we are doing our part to stop the spread.
Imagine if everyone was cavalier enough to risk the spread for something as silly as toy soldiers. How many more of us would be dead? Millions in my country already believe in insane conspiracy theories, the least I can do is not be responsible for adding more bodies to the death toll.
Around these parts, Public Health authorities issue rules that people and businesses follow. My FLGS has sound protocols to include greatly reduced density in the gaming area, mandatory mask wearing, contact tracing, no spectators, the terrain is left on the table and the staff the move it a separate space for a week to disinfect. If our Region has a worsening COVID count then gaming will shut down. All that to say, there is nothing cavalier about it.
Occasionally get the spark to play a game of 7th but still have zero interest in playing 9th. The changes in 8th completely gutted all the gameplay elements that I liked about 40k and 9th didn't do nearly enough to correct course (due in large part to it's bare bones core ruleset not having a proper foundation for meaningful gameplay options). It sucks because my drive to build and paint models dried up because of GW's incompetence (just like how half of my paint dried up due to their garbage paint pots).
Ah and durning 8th ed, my GK were nerf on a regular basis, because this or that power lists was a problem. And my dudes had no access to 5 hive tyrants with wings or Primarchs giving re-rolls to everything. So yeah my dudes were nerfed because of other armies, I seen no reason why other armies should be exempt from being treated the same.
Daily reminder that were you to start the hobby the way you did with literally any other army you would have had the exact same experience.
If you buy secondhand an ancient collection of mismatched ancient miniatures with 3 random pewter characters, 7 heavy infantry with random wargear, 3 primaris models your army can't use, 1 dreadnought, and a transport your heavy infantry can't go in, and then you pay the person MORE than MSRP for those miniatures, your collection would be gak.
If you'd started the edition with whatever Baharroth, Illic Nightspear, Fuegan, 6 guardians with no platform, a wraithlord with double AML and flamers, 2 wraithguard, and a falcon grav tank and you paid 400$ for that, you would have an equivalently gak time throughout 8th and into 9th.
Karol wrote: It is much better then 8th, incomperably in my opinion. 9th ed factions are fun to play. Harlis are the dominant factions as are demons, which is a bummer, but I guess one can't get everything.
Game feels unplayable for some faction at all, and for some faction the point limits are really rough. Playing normal sized games can be really fun, but playing something like 1000pts is just an NPE for some factions with the core rules given.
why is it a bummer that demons and quins are dominant right now? They spent most of 8th being nonexistant mono-armies.
That really isn't true. A lot less people own these armies for sure but they were never bad in 8th. Quinns are now obnoxious.
Karol wrote: It is much better then 8th, incomperably in my opinion. 9th ed factions are fun to play. Harlis are the dominant factions as are demons, which is a bummer, but I guess one can't get everything.
Game feels unplayable for some faction at all, and for some faction the point limits are really rough. Playing normal sized games can be really fun, but playing something like 1000pts is just an NPE for some factions with the core rules given.
why is it a bummer that demons and quins are dominant right now? They spent most of 8th being nonexistant mono-armies.
That really isn't true. A lot less people own these armies for sure but they were never bad in 8th. Quinns are now obnoxious.
I never said they were bad, i said they were basically nonexistant. Skyweavers were always good and you would most often see them in soup lists. Nurgle demons and bloodletter bombs were decent and also played in soup lists. I'm saying that mono Quins or mono Demons were a minuscule part of the metagame.
Now that they have missions that work perfectly with their playstyle, of course theyre seeing more play.
And just to make it clear : i would much rather all armies be as playable as these ones, its just refreshing to me to see more people interested in these armies that were more niche in 8th
Karol wrote: It is much better then 8th, incomperably in my opinion. 9th ed factions are fun to play. Harlis are the dominant factions as are demons, which is a bummer, but I guess one can't get everything.
Game feels unplayable for some faction at all, and for some faction the point limits are really rough. Playing normal sized games can be really fun, but playing something like 1000pts is just an NPE for some factions with the core rules given.
why is it a bummer that demons and quins are dominant right now? They spent most of 8th being nonexistant mono-armies.
That really isn't true. A lot less people own these armies for sure but they were never bad in 8th. Quinns are now obnoxious.
I haven't played against Quinns in a tournament-hammer environment, my usual Harlequin opponent has a slightly different list than the current 'competitive standard' but does have many elements of the standard list, and I don't play against him with a list I'd be bringing to a 9th ed tournament, but instead a strong competitive TAC list.
How much of the obnoxiousness of Quinns is caused by the fact that, in a current competitive 40k setting, you MUST tailor your whole list to beat multiwound low-T-high-SvMEQs or you WILL LOSE?
Because I look at a tournament winning, say, Admech list, and I see a high AP electropriest bomb, breachers for troops, dakkabots and the rifle rider guys and I'm like...yeah, quins are gonna eat that for lunch, that's totally tailored against marines because marines+custodes are still like 55% of the competitive list pool. And when I play against Quinns with an actual TAC list that includes anti light infantry stuff, I don't really seem to have that many issues.
Karol wrote: It is much better then 8th, incomperably in my opinion. 9th ed factions are fun to play. Harlis are the dominant factions as are demons, which is a bummer, but I guess one can't get everything.
Game feels unplayable for some faction at all, and for some faction the point limits are really rough. Playing normal sized games can be really fun, but playing something like 1000pts is just an NPE for some factions with the core rules given.
why is it a bummer that demons and quins are dominant right now? They spent most of 8th being nonexistant mono-armies.
That really isn't true. A lot less people own these armies for sure but they were never bad in 8th. Quinns are now obnoxious.
I never said they were bad, i said they were basically nonexistant. Skyweavers were always good and you would most often see them in soup lists. Nurgle demons and bloodletter bombs were decent and also played in soup lists. I'm saying that mono Quins or mono Demons were a minuscule part of the metagame.
Now that they have missions that work perfectly with their playstyle, of course theyre seeing more play.
And just to make it clear : i would much rather all armies be as playable as these ones, its just refreshing to me to see more people interested in these armies that were more niche in 8th
People just souped because there was no disadvantage to it and it opened doors and gave you access to more stratagems and relics and such. That was only at the hyper competitive level anyways. Locally my group 90% of players were running mono armies. Harlies imo were always really boring to play against because the game was so predictable. Go first against them you win. They go first you pretty much have no chance unless you started way back in your deployment zone/ they fail a lot of 4++ on their transports. Now with all the mandatory terrain in games and the fact they pretty much ignore it - unless you have a complete tailored list you can't compete. They ignore way too many of the games rules.
Karol wrote: It is much better then 8th, incomperably in my opinion. 9th ed factions are fun to play. Harlis are the dominant factions as are demons, which is a bummer, but I guess one can't get everything.
Game feels unplayable for some faction at all, and for some faction the point limits are really rough. Playing normal sized games can be really fun, but playing something like 1000pts is just an NPE for some factions with the core rules given.
why is it a bummer that demons and quins are dominant right now? They spent most of 8th being nonexistant mono-armies.
That really isn't true. A lot less people own these armies for sure but they were never bad in 8th. Quinns are now obnoxious.
I haven't played against Quinns in a tournament-hammer environment, my usual Harlequin opponent has a slightly different list than the current 'competitive standard' but does have many elements of the standard list, and I don't play against him with a list I'd be bringing to a 9th ed tournament, but instead a strong competitive TAC list.
How much of the obnoxiousness of Quinns is caused by the fact that, in a current competitive 40k setting, you MUST tailor your whole list to beat multiwound low-T-high-SvMEQs or you WILL LOSE?
Because I look at a tournament winning, say, Admech list, and I see a high AP electropriest bomb, breachers for troops, dakkabots and the rifle rider guys and I'm like...yeah, quins are gonna eat that for lunch, that's totally tailored against marines because marines+custodes are still like 55% of the competitive list pool. And when I play against Quinns with an actual TAC list that includes anti light infantry stuff, I don't really seem to have that many issues.
I see issues with an army completely ignoring the AP statistic. At least in a custodian army you can remove some of their durability. Quinn's completely ignore. Just like they completely ignore terrain. All the limitations on assault removed (after fall back and advance). As it works even in 8th you had 1 turn to shoot up the quins before they rolled you with 5 attacks each with reroll wounds. Now you probably wont even get that. You literally have to fight that crap in CC now - which you can't - so you lose.
I have fought 9th Ed Harlies in casual and tourney games - they certainly have a great toolbox for this edition. They eat vehicles with their Skyweavers while their troops have mobility, durability, firepower and melee against both hordes and hard targets. Hanging back to survive gives up the midfield which is the path to defeat. I’ve relied on volume of shots and Inner Circle.
The Triple Keeper list are also a great fit with 9th. They can run out and dominate the midfield, and hanging back leads to defeat on Primaries. At least they give up Secondaries.
I'm not really inspired to play much. Covid hit, the game has become bloated, and it has not been as fun as it was when the indexes dropped and every army was balanced (for the most part)
Now it's a rock, paper, scissor, flamethrower cycle of new space marine releases that lacks any kind of incentive to play again.....
We have been playing more and more as the State locks down harder and harder. With so much showing how to slow it down and to recover from it we are trying to be Critical Thinkers instead of emotional "Virtuous" bandwagoners.
Folks, let's keep the Covid discussion out of the thread, please.
Mentioning it as something that is having an effect on your game is ok, as it's rather obviously a thing that is happening. Debating the way that various governments are choosing to tackle it and the merits of those approaches is not on topic for this thread.
I've been throuhgly enjoying my games of 9th so far, more than I did in 8th edition by a pretty significant margin.
That being said, I am hoping they can tune up the secondary's and missions in the 2021 GT pack. I'd really like to see secondary's like Abhor the Witch go away OR make the Psychic secondary's much easier to achieve. I think the best thing would just be remove both though.
I'd also like to see something done to help improve the first/second turn win disparity. I'm not sure what the answer is to that though.
How much of the obnoxiousness of Quinns is caused by the fact that, in a current competitive 40k setting, you MUST tailor your whole list to beat multiwound low-T-high-SvMEQs or you WILL LOSE?
Because I look at a tournament winning, say, Admech list, and I see a high AP electropriest bomb, breachers for troops, dakkabots and the rifle rider guys and I'm like...yeah, quins are gonna eat that for lunch, that's totally tailored against marines because marines+custodes are still like 55% of the competitive list pool. And when I play against Quinns with an actual TAC list that includes anti light infantry stuff, I don't really seem to have that many issues.
I haven't played in a tourney either, but I kind of have the same question. When my group first started playing 9th, most of our lists were very general TAC lists and our 'Quins player wasn't doing as well. Now that we have started shaping the lists to be more reflective of what you might see in a tournament, he's doing better. It does seem that the rise of Marines is having a side effect of making Harlies a lot better. Strictly anecdotal of course, but it's an interesting thing to consider.
I think for us the biggest issue is still that the game is tactically very shallow. It's like AnomanderRake alluded to earlier, you don't really have as many choices as you would like. The game often boils down to "Do I take that objective and try to resist your attempt to kill me, or do I let YOU take it, then try to kill you ...". And even that isn't much of a choice given the large first turn win skew.
Add to that things like movement not truly mattering, smaller board sizes, etc. and you have a game that fixes some of the parts of 8th but shifts other issues.
sfshilo wrote: I'm not really inspired to play much. Covid hit, the game has become bloated, and it has not been as fun as it was when the indexes dropped and every army was balanced (for the most part)
Now it's a rock, paper, scissor, flamethrower cycle of new space marine releases that lacks any kind of incentive to play again.....
sfshilo wrote: I'm not really inspired to play much. Covid hit, the game has become bloated, and it has not been as fun as it was when the indexes dropped and every army was balanced (for the most part)
Now it's a rock, paper, scissor, flamethrower cycle of new space marine releases that lacks any kind of incentive to play again.....
Indexhammer wasn't even close to "balanced"
More than what we have right now where armies have outdated stats and weapons just because they didnt get a codex release yet. CSM having only 1 wound, fusion guns not getting the new melta rule, plaguespitters not getting 12", not having faction-specific secondaries, etc. At the moment the division is obvious between 8th ed codexes and 9th ed codexes.
sfshilo wrote: I'm not really inspired to play much. Covid hit, the game has become bloated, and it has not been as fun as it was when the indexes dropped and every army was balanced (for the most part)
Now it's a rock, paper, scissor, flamethrower cycle of new space marine releases that lacks any kind of incentive to play again.....
Indexhammer wasn't even close to "balanced"
More than what we have right now where armies have outdated stats and weapons just because they didnt get a codex release yet. CSM having only 1 wound, fusion guns not getting the new melta rule, plaguespitters not getting 12", not having faction-specific secondaries, etc. At the moment the division is obvious between 8th ed codexes and 9th ed codexes.
Absolute nonsense. The Index era was catastrophically unbalanced and it was immediately observable how index vs. codex armies stacked up.
sfshilo wrote: I'm not really inspired to play much. Covid hit, the game has become bloated, and it has not been as fun as it was when the indexes dropped and every army was balanced (for the most part)
Now it's a rock, paper, scissor, flamethrower cycle of new space marine releases that lacks any kind of incentive to play again.....
Indexhammer wasn't even close to "balanced"
More than what we have right now where armies have outdated stats and weapons just because they didnt get a codex release yet. CSM having only 1 wound, fusion guns not getting the new melta rule, plaguespitters not getting 12", not having faction-specific secondaries, etc. At the moment the division is obvious between 8th ed codexes and 9th ed codexes.
It really depends on what you played back then, for my armies it wasn't a good time. Orks had the worst set of rules in history for example with litterally EVERYTHING unplayable (AKA utterly overcosted) except for boyz and 3-4 supporting characters. Dark Eldar became even worse than they were in 7th, and cherry on top GW also changed their name. SW were so overcosted that their lists looked like custodes ones.
AM had some builds that were flat out impossible to defeat for the majority of other armies.
So yeah, index 8th only worked for a few chaos and imperium armies. Other than that it was a total garbage, I remember at that time I really missed 7th edition which was something I could have never said during 7th. Too bad that even playing 3 armies (and proxing a 4th one) I saw my first codex 10 months after the released of 8th edition.
Not to mention that index vs codex was extremely more unbalanced than 8th codex vs 9th codex.
Harlquins ignoring many rules, including the most important ones (AP and those related to terrain) as well as, basically, distances is IMO not great game design.
But if GW wants to stay on that orad, OK fine, but at least cost the clowns appropriately. They always were a very elite army. Now they they should be to Eldar what Custodes are to SM.
addnid wrote: Harlquins ignoring many rules, including the most important ones (AP and those related to terrain) as well as, basically, distances is IMO not great game design.
But if GW wants to stay on that orad, OK fine, but at least cost the clowns appropriately. They always were a very elite army. Now they they should be to Eldar what Custodes are to SM.
People keep bringing up flip belts but do they actually do anything? The whole army is either infantry or flying, they already ignore most terrain.
sfshilo wrote: I'm not really inspired to play much. Covid hit, the game has become bloated, and it has not been as fun as it was when the indexes dropped and every army was balanced (for the most part)
Now it's a rock, paper, scissor, flamethrower cycle of new space marine releases that lacks any kind of incentive to play again.....
Indexhammer wasn't even close to "balanced"
More than what we have right now where armies have outdated stats and weapons just because they didnt get a codex release yet. CSM having only 1 wound, fusion guns not getting the new melta rule, plaguespitters not getting 12", not having faction-specific secondaries, etc. At the moment the division is obvious between 8th ed codexes and 9th ed codexes.
Absolute nonsense. The Index era was catastrophically unbalanced and it was immediately observable how index vs. codex armies stacked up.
Try this: take the 8th Index rules but use the points from Chapter Approved 2019. Makes for a more streamlined game when you use the more balanced points and remove all of the bloated layers of stratagems, chapter/faction/subfaction traits, relics, warlord traits, etc. that the 8th and 9th codexes add. But even then, I'd still likely recommend the new Apocalypse rules over any of the 8th/9th rulesets when given a choice.
Index 40K was extremely unbalanced AND bland - why would anyone want to play that? If I was tired of the layers of special rules I'd rather play 1page40K instead of an Alpha Version of the 40K rules.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Index 40K was extremely unbalanced AND bland - why would anyone want to play that? If I was tired of the layers of special rules I'd rather play 1page40K instead of an Alpha Version of the 40K rules.
One player's bland is another player's streamlined. Some of us don't like to have to memorize dozens of stratagems, subfaction bonuses, warlord traits and relic abilities to play a fun beer and pretzels game - and that's just from one codex, not including the 20+ other codexes that you may be playing against. I enjoyed earlier editions of 40k just fine without such additional layers of rules, and the fact that we have them now is simply to disguise the bare-bones nature of the current core rules.
Tyran wrote: Personally I prefer that the core rules are bare-bones, while the actual meat is in the codex.
That's a valid preference; different strokes for different folks. It definitely does play into GW's marketing strategy, requiring players to purchase more codexes to learn how other armies operate.
I happen to prefer a bit more substance in the core rules, including one or two pages of true universal special rules (USRs) with terminology that is shared across all codexes and units that utilize those rules (ex. Deep Strike; Infiltrate; Fearless; Fleet; Feel No Pain; etc.), instead of each unit having a different term for the same rule. That way if you mention your unit has "x" USRs, I know immediately how they operate and what they are capable of. Less rules to memorize that are easily applied to all armies. I personally would also do away with the card game mechanics of stratagems and give units back their abilities they once had that have now been turned into stratagems (ex. Smoke Launchers; True Grit; Ork Bikers' Smoke Clouds; etc.). Relics and Warlord traits are fun for adding fluff but are easily forgettable, and often vary significantly in effectiveness. I'd just include them as wargear options like many used to be, and price them in points accordingly (ex. Necron's Veil of Darkness).
Regarding USRs, a page or two would be fine with a condition that they are true USRs, something that is shared by all, and I mean all, factions.
During 6th and 7th editions, USRs were so inflated with rules like Rage, Zealot, Vector Dance and who knows what else.
Rules that I personally never used and I cannot even recall if I played against something that used them. That is not a USRs.
It also got kinda ridiculous with rules referencing rules referencing rules.
E.G. This unit is has X wargear, so you go to the wargear page on the codex to see what X does, and X wargear turns the unit into Y unit type, so you a have to go the rulebook to see what Y unit type does, and you see Y unit type has Z special rule, so you go to the USRs page to see what Z does.
I totally agree with your views on USRs. I found 4th/5th editions' USRs to work quite well, as well as the similar amount and types of USRs in the new Apocalypse.
Tyran wrote: Regarding USRs, a page or two would be fine with a condition that they are true USRs, something that is shared by all, and I mean all, factions.
During 6th and 7th editions, USRs were so inflated with rules like Rage, Zealot, Vector Dance and who knows what else.
Rules that I personally never used and I cannot even recall if I played against something that used them. That is not a USRs.
It also got kinda ridiculous with rules referencing rules referencing rules.
E.G. This unit is has X wargear, so you go to the wargear page on the codex to see what X does, and X wargear turns the unit into Y unit type, so you a have to go the rulebook to see what Y unit type does, and you see Y unit type has Z special rule, so you go to the USRs page to see what Z does.
In my opinion the biggest failing of both 8e/9e 40k and Sigmar, on the USR front at least, is that it's no longer possible to read the core rules and get a good sense of how the game works. The core rules describe a set of basic interactions and say "and then go read all the Codexes!", and if you don't read the right Codexes you may have no idea that people can move or charge out of sequence, or ignore line of sight, or charge easily out of deep strike, or stack bonuses to move-run-charge something 40" away, or a whole bunch of other random "gotcha" moments that make the game feel random, arbitrary, and unstructured. 9e 40k is feeling increasingly like Warmachine to me; you need to have read in detail every army list you come across or you'll get blindsided by some trick you had no idea what was coming.
I agree that GW went too far with irrelevant/self-referential USRs shared by too few books in 7th, but in the course of rebuilding USRs for my own oldhammer project I don't think "is in every Codex" is a feasible bar for what should be a USR. Tyranids have no melta weapons, for instance; does that mean melta shouldn't be a USR when it appears on a whole bunch of weapons across eleven Codexes (SM, Sisters, Guard, Knights, CSM, Chaos Knights, Death Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, Tau)? I tried to go the other approach and ask "is this a signature rule that defines this one army/unit and appears only on it?" before writing bespoke rules for anyone, and then tried to apply the USRs I had more broadly (ex. laser lock on the 6e/7e Scatter Laser does the same thing as the co-axial rule on a few Guard tanks, so why not make it the same USR?).
As to the problem of the chain of referencing rulebooks that'd be easily solved by the implementation of MTG-style reminder text (write down the name of the rule on the datasheet, and then write down exactly what the rule does, so people who know all the USRs can look at the name of the rule and move on while people who don't can see what it does right there).
In my opinion the biggest failing of both 8e/9e 40k and Sigmar, on the USR front at least, is that it's no longer possible to read the core rules and get a good sense of how the game works. The core rules describe a set of basic interactions and say "and then go read all the Codexes!", and if you don't read the right Codexes you may have no idea that people can move or charge out of sequence, or ignore line of sight, or charge easily out of deep strike, or stack bonuses to move-run-charge something 40" away, or a whole bunch of other random "gotcha" moments that make the game feel random, arbitrary, and unstructured. 9e 40k is feeling increasingly like Warmachine to me; you need to have read in detail every army list you come across or you'll get blindsided by some trick you had no idea what was coming.
That is an inherent part of having such asymmetric game. Each faction, specially ones like Genestealer Cults, are meant to operate in completely different ways.
It means you will get blindsided a lot each time you fight a faction for the first time, but it is arguably one of the reason 40k has been successful.
I agree that GW went too far with irrelevant/self-referential USRs shared by too few books in 7th, but in the course of rebuilding USRs for my ow oldhammer project I don't think "is in every Codex" is a feasible bar for what should be a USR. Tyranids have no melta weapons, for instance; does that mean melta shouldn't be a USR when it appears on a whole bunch of weapons across eleven Codexes (SM, Sisters, Guard, Knights, CSM, Chaos Knights, Death Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, Tau)? I tried to go the other approach and ask "is this a signature rule that defines this one army/unit and appears only on it?" before writing bespoke rules for anyone, and then tried to apply the USRs I had more broadly (ex. laser lock on the 6e/7e Scatter Laser does the same thing as the co-axial rule on a few Guard tanks, so why not make it the same USR?).
That is lowering the bar too much. Two units having the same rule in the game, even if they are from different factions, should not make a USRs.
Sure maybe "every codex" is unfeasible, but somewhere between 50% to 80% of codexes, something you are almost guaranteed to fight or have in your arsenal.
As to the problem of the chain of referencing rulebooks that'd be easily solved by the implementation of MTG-style reminder text (write down the name of the rule on the datasheet, and then write down exactly what the rule does, so people who know all the USRs can look at the name of the rule and move on while people who don't can see what it does right there).
It doesn't have to be bland vs streamlined. GW has proved with games like Adeptus Titanicus, Blood Bowl, and Epic Armageddon that it can do streamlined and interesting.
For the most part, COVID is killing the gaming scene pretty badly, but the games I have gotten in haven't been that bad. I do have to note though that 2.0 and Spacemarines on steroids (9th edition Marines) is just a giant detriment to the gaming community, both in friendly and tournament games.
I played one game against a particularly talented SM UM player and only won because he took eradicators instead of aggressors since he didn't know what army I was playing. Changing out that 1 unit would have won him the game.
The difference in power between 9th edition Marines and Orkz is almost insurmountable unless I revert to a tournament style skew list and take Ghaz and his boyz. And even then it will only work if my opponent doesn't list tailor since SM currently have more than enough tools in their kit to deal with horde.
Personally I am hoping we get some better balance and soon because once the events start opening up again its going to get nasty.
So the marines who have multiple builds and multiple ways to play are the ones that are making 9th ed worse, and not armies that have one build, like orks with their 1 goff/ghaz build?
Karol wrote: So the marines who have multiple builds and multiple ways to play are the ones that are making 9th ed worse, and not armies that have one build, like orks with their 1 goff/ghaz build?
Lets flip this on its head Karol and you can take a peak at it from the other side.
How would you feel if SM's as a faction were so incredibly over powered by everything ork that the only way you stood a chance against them was to take a rather boring list/playstyle and really only have a chance to win if the Ork didn't list tailor against you that much.
On the flipside, how would you feel if every single build you tried against Orkz failed and the ork player had units that were better than yours in basically every way possible?
SemperMortis wrote: For the most part, COVID is killing the gaming scene pretty badly, but the games I have gotten in haven't been that bad. I do have to note though that 2.0 and Spacemarines on steroids (9th edition Marines) is just a giant detriment to the gaming community, both in friendly and tournament games.
I played one game against a particularly talented SM UM player and only won because he took eradicators instead of aggressors since he didn't know what army I was playing. Changing out that 1 unit would have won him the game.
The difference in power between 9th edition Marines and Orkz is almost insurmountable unless I revert to a tournament style skew list and take Ghaz and his boyz. And even then it will only work if my opponent doesn't list tailor since SM currently have more than enough tools in their kit to deal with horde.
Personally I am hoping we get some better balance and soon because once the events start opening up again its going to get nasty.
I guess it can always be a bad game if it is a tourney list against a fellow looking for a “narrative” experience. Your point about your opponent being beat by you because he took one unit instead of another could mean that the game is working as designed. We shouldn’t list tailor. If you are in a competitive tourney game then it makes sense to bring a competitive tourney list, unless I am completely misreading your post?
If what you are saying is that each Codex should have several paths to victory then I suppose I cannot disagree. Still, Space Marines in 9th are toned down. We will see what comes for Orks, who can indeed do quite well in 9th.
Karol wrote: So the marines who have multiple builds and multiple ways to play are the ones that are making 9th ed worse, and not armies that have one build, like orks with their 1 goff/ghaz build?
Lets flip this on its head Karol and you can take a peak at it from the other side.
How would you feel if SM's as a faction were so incredibly over powered by everything ork that the only way you stood a chance against them was to take a rather boring list/playstyle and really only have a chance to win if the Ork didn't list tailor against you that much.
On the flipside, how would you feel if every single build you tried against Orkz failed and the ork player had units that were better than yours in basically every way possible?
They don't care. They've shown multiple times that they're incapable of empathy.
SemperMortis wrote: For the most part, COVID is killing the gaming scene pretty badly, but the games I have gotten in haven't been that bad. I do have to note though that 2.0 and Spacemarines on steroids (9th edition Marines) is just a giant detriment to the gaming community, both in friendly and tournament games.
I played one game against a particularly talented SM UM player and only won because he took eradicators instead of aggressors since he didn't know what army I was playing. Changing out that 1 unit would have won him the game.
The difference in power between 9th edition Marines and Orkz is almost insurmountable unless I revert to a tournament style skew list and take Ghaz and his boyz. And even then it will only work if my opponent doesn't list tailor since SM currently have more than enough tools in their kit to deal with horde.
Personally I am hoping we get some better balance and soon because once the events start opening up again its going to get nasty.
I guess it can always be a bad game if it is a tourney list against a fellow looking for a “narrative” experience. Your point about your opponent being beat by you because he took one unit instead of another could mean that the game is working as designed. We shouldn’t list tailor. If you are in a competitive tourney game then it makes sense to bring a competitive tourney list, unless I am completely misreading your post?
If what you are saying is that each Codex should have several paths to victory then I suppose I cannot disagree. Still, Space Marines in 9th are toned down. We will see what comes for Orks, who can indeed do quite well in 9th.
The game against the UM player was set up as tournament prep, as in, we both brought our best lists we could manage. I had a Horde army backed by KFF big mek, painboy, warboss on warbike etc (Of note, I was playing as deathskullz not goff)
He brought a comp list filled with lots of primaris infantry and gravis infantry. He had 2 units of eradicators and 1 unit of the plasma versions. Had he given even a fraction of those points over to anti-horde he would have won. And from what I have seen from tournaments, that sums up how orkz are winning perfectly. We win because nobody brings enough anti-infantry weapons to the game and instead builds a list to deal with T4 and T5 3+ infantry. And as I have previously mentioned, My orkz don't really notice a difference between getting hit by a Bolt round at AP-1 and a Melta shot.
SemperMortis wrote: For the most part, COVID is killing the gaming scene pretty badly, but the games I have gotten in haven't been that bad. I do have to note though that 2.0 and Spacemarines on steroids (9th edition Marines) is just a giant detriment to the gaming community, both in friendly and tournament games.
I played one game against a particularly talented SM UM player and only won because he took eradicators instead of aggressors since he didn't know what army I was playing. Changing out that 1 unit would have won him the game.
The difference in power between 9th edition Marines and Orkz is almost insurmountable unless I revert to a tournament style skew list and take Ghaz and his boyz. And even then it will only work if my opponent doesn't list tailor since SM currently have more than enough tools in their kit to deal with horde.
Personally I am hoping we get some better balance and soon because once the events start opening up again its going to get nasty.
I guess it can always be a bad game if it is a tourney list against a fellow looking for a “narrative” experience. Your point about your opponent being beat by you because he took one unit instead of another could mean that the game is working as designed. We shouldn’t list tailor. If you are in a competitive tourney game then it makes sense to bring a competitive tourney list, unless I am completely misreading your post?
If what you are saying is that each Codex should have several paths to victory then I suppose I cannot disagree. Still, Space Marines in 9th are toned down. We will see what comes for Orks, who can indeed do quite well in 9th.
The game against the UM player was set up as tournament prep, as in, we both brought our best lists we could manage. I had a Horde army backed by KFF big mek, painboy, warboss on warbike etc (Of note, I was playing as deathskullz not goff)
He brought a comp list filled with lots of primaris infantry and gravis infantry. He had 2 units of eradicators and 1 unit of the plasma versions. Had he given even a fraction of those points over to anti-horde he would have won. And from what I have seen from tournaments, that sums up how orkz are winning perfectly. We win because nobody brings enough anti-infantry weapons to the game and instead builds a list to deal with T4 and T5 3+ infantry. And as I have previously mentioned, My orkz don't really notice a difference between getting hit by a Bolt round at AP-1 and a Melta shot.
Lol. In editions past it used to be that people tended not to bring enough AT - to an environment where they could reasonably expect to have to face armour. And then they'd bitch & sob about their losses to those of us who always brought more/heavier armour than what the common group-think said to expect
Sad to see that nowdays it's expanded to include being unprepaired for basic infantry. In editions where you'll surely be seeing infantry.
Lol. In editions past it used to be that people tended not to bring enough AT - to an environment where they could reasonably expect to have to face armour. And then they'd bitch & sob about their losses to those of us who always brought more/heavier armour than what the common group-think said to expect
Sad to see that nowdays it's expanded to include being unprepaired for basic infantry. In editions where you'll surely be seeing infantry.
Ohh he and most SM tournament players are more than prepared for infantry. What they aren't prepared for though is CHEAP infantry.
I posted the lists for the last 4 SM winning lists a few days ago, and it was like 90%+ T4 and T5 3+ save infantry. But as I previously mentioned, my orkz don't really notice much of a difference between getting drilled by an AP-1 Bolter and a Plasma gun Both reliably kill my ork in 1 or 2 shots at most. Marines, Primaris and especially Gravis absolutely notice the difference. And since SM make up like 20-30% of the entire game, most lists are built to deal with them which ignores my little green menaces
SemperMortis wrote: For the most part, COVID is killing the gaming scene pretty badly, but the games I have gotten in haven't been that bad. I do have to note though that 2.0 and Spacemarines on steroids (9th edition Marines) is just a giant detriment to the gaming community, both in friendly and tournament games.
I played one game against a particularly talented SM UM player and only won because he took eradicators instead of aggressors since he didn't know what army I was playing. Changing out that 1 unit would have won him the game.
The difference in power between 9th edition Marines and Orkz is almost insurmountable unless I revert to a tournament style skew list and take Ghaz and his boyz. And even then it will only work if my opponent doesn't list tailor since SM currently have more than enough tools in their kit to deal with horde.
Personally I am hoping we get some better balance and soon because once the events start opening up again its going to get nasty.
I guess it can always be a bad game if it is a tourney list against a fellow looking for a “narrative” experience. Your point about your opponent being beat by you because he took one unit instead of another could mean that the game is working as designed. We shouldn’t list tailor. If you are in a competitive tourney game then it makes sense to bring a competitive tourney list, unless I am completely misreading your post?
If what you are saying is that each Codex should have several paths to victory then I suppose I cannot disagree. Still, Space Marines in 9th are toned down. We will see what comes for Orks, who can indeed do quite well in 9th.
The game against the UM player was set up as tournament prep, as in, we both brought our best lists we could manage. I had a Horde army backed by KFF big mek, painboy, warboss on warbike etc (Of note, I was playing as deathskullz not goff)
He brought a comp list filled with lots of primaris infantry and gravis infantry. He had 2 units of eradicators and 1 unit of the plasma versions. Had he given even a fraction of those points over to anti-horde he would have won. And from what I have seen from tournaments, that sums up how orkz are winning perfectly. We win because nobody brings enough anti-infantry weapons to the game and instead builds a list to deal with T4 and T5 3+ infantry. And as I have previously mentioned, My orkz don't really notice a difference between getting hit by a Bolt round at AP-1 and a Melta shot.
Lol. In editions past it used to be that people tended not to bring enough AT - to an environment where they could reasonably expect to have to face armour. And then they'd bitch & sob about their losses to those of us who always brought more/heavier armour than what the common group-think said to expect
Sad to see that nowdays it's expanded to include being unprepaired for basic infantry. In editions where you'll surely be seeing infantry.
At a certain point it's just a numbers game. These spammy horde lists account for like 5% of all lists total. That gives you a roughly 40% chance of running into an infantry spam list in a three round tournament. Meanwhile, heavy infantry makes up 57% of the current game if you just combine astartes, custodes, and death guard (not counting armies like csm since I feel like their competitive lists are probably more like spamming vehicles)
If you prep for hordes, and end up taking a tac list against top-tier competitive marines, you're dead meat. And you WILL, you WILL face competitive marines.
It's a basic metagame pick to skew hard vs power armor and strip away all your antihorde defenses.
SemperMortis wrote: For the most part, COVID is killing the gaming scene pretty badly, but the games I have gotten in haven't been that bad. I do have to note though that 2.0 and Spacemarines on steroids (9th edition Marines) is just a giant detriment to the gaming community, both in friendly and tournament games.
I played one game against a particularly talented SM UM player and only won because he took eradicators instead of aggressors since he didn't know what army I was playing. Changing out that 1 unit would have won him the game.
The difference in power between 9th edition Marines and Orkz is almost insurmountable unless I revert to a tournament style skew list and take Ghaz and his boyz. And even then it will only work if my opponent doesn't list tailor since SM currently have more than enough tools in their kit to deal with horde.
Personally I am hoping we get some better balance and soon because once the events start opening up again its going to get nasty.
I guess it can always be a bad game if it is a tourney list against a fellow looking for a “narrative” experience. Your point about your opponent being beat by you because he took one unit instead of another could mean that the game is working as designed. We shouldn’t list tailor. If you are in a competitive tourney game then it makes sense to bring a competitive tourney list, unless I am completely misreading your post?
If what you are saying is that each Codex should have several paths to victory then I suppose I cannot disagree. Still, Space Marines in 9th are toned down. We will see what comes for Orks, who can indeed do quite well in 9th.
The game against the UM player was set up as tournament prep, as in, we both brought our best lists we could manage. I had a Horde army backed by KFF big mek, painboy, warboss on warbike etc (Of note, I was playing as deathskullz not goff)
He brought a comp list filled with lots of primaris infantry and gravis infantry. He had 2 units of eradicators and 1 unit of the plasma versions. Had he given even a fraction of those points over to anti-horde he would have won. And from what I have seen from tournaments, that sums up how orkz are winning perfectly. We win because nobody brings enough anti-infantry weapons to the game and instead builds a list to deal with T4 and T5 3+ infantry. And as I have previously mentioned, My orkz don't really notice a difference between getting hit by a Bolt round at AP-1 and a Melta shot.
Lol. In editions past it used to be that people tended not to bring enough AT - to an environment where they could reasonably expect to have to face armour. And then they'd bitch & sob about their losses to those of us who always brought more/heavier armour than what the common group-think said to expect
Sad to see that nowdays it's expanded to include being unprepaired for basic infantry. In editions where you'll surely be seeing infantry.
At a certain point it's just a numbers game. These spammy horde lists account for like 5% of all lists total. That gives you a roughly 40% chance of running into an infantry spam list in a three round tournament. Meanwhile, heavy infantry makes up 57% of the current game if you just combine astartes, custodes, and death guard (not counting armies like csm since I feel like their competitive lists are probably more like spamming vehicles)
If you prep for hordes, and end up taking a tac list against top-tier competitive marines, you're dead meat. And you WILL, you WILL face competitive marines.
It's a basic metagame pick to skew hard vs power armor and strip away all your antihorde defenses.
It's always been the case to expect to have to kill Marines. You can kill a Marine? Then you can kill anything else. (it's like that line from Dodgeball: "If you can dodge a wrench....")
But that's never been a good excuse to not also bring a healthy dose of AT/AH to deal with those types.
Currently? If there's Ork players about, then you KNOW someone's bringing the Green Horde. Assume you're going to be the unlucky guy who draws that match-up & plan for it. That doesn't mean you have to give up all you're anti-marine capability btw.
I've been taking a break from 40k and surprised myself by actually getting into and enjoying AoS, something I thought would never happen. I still find the overarching lore and setup lame, but I've come to appreciate the creativity inherent in a lot of the more small-scale world-building and army design.
In most ways it feels like a more exciting game to be playing, precisely because the frontiers are still so open and they are taking a lot more risks with it than they are with 40k.
I have even learned not to hate the double turn mechanic - while it undoubtedly injects a lot more variance into the game than 40k has, I've come to appreciate the way that it shakes things up too, forcing you to plan for multiple contingencies and make hard choices about which course of action to take. 40k feels a lot more predictable and "solved" in the sense that the ideal course of action is usually pretty clear if you're an experienced player, and it's mainly just a matter of execution.
The same reason Orks and Daemons are doing well in tournaments is the same reason Harlequins are doing so well. People are hyper-skewing to kill Marines to the exclusion of everything else that armies like these face a giant advantage.
Now obviously harlequins are still good and Orks and Daemons have powerful stuff in them too, and nothing should take away from the achievement that those players managed. But it doesn't change the facts, or that Marine players have looked at several of the changes in the Codex and completely overreacted to them. Aggressors are still, point for point, the single most cost efficient and effective anti-horde unit that exists in the game currently. All the change to them did was stop them from doing absurd gak like one-shotting a Knight or being your best source of anti-tank. I've had numerous Ork and Harlequin players tell me that in practice TTS games when someone does actually decide to bring some of the excellent anti-horde units that Marines have, their games become incredibly difficult.
Bosskelot wrote: The same reason Orks and Daemons are doing well in tournaments is the same reason Harlequins are doing so well. People are hyper-skewing to kill Marines to the exclusion of everything else that armies like these face a giant advantage.
Now obviously harlequins are still good and Orks and Daemons have powerful stuff in them too, and nothing should take away from the achievement that those players managed. But it doesn't change the facts, or that Marine players have looked at several of the changes in the Codex and completely overreacted to them. Aggressors are still, point for point, the single most cost efficient and effective anti-horde unit that exists in the game currently. All the change to them did was stop them from doing absurd gak like one-shotting a Knight or being your best source of anti-tank. I've had numerous Ork and Harlequin players tell me that in practice TTS games when someone does actually decide to bring some of the excellent anti-horde units that Marines have, their games become incredibly difficult.
It's exactly this. In a meta that isn't dominated by competitive marines, like mine, armies like orks and daemons work very differently from their tournament top builds because what they're going to face is extremely different. The Harlequins I face here don't bring 18 bikes.
For me mechanized ork list performs much better than greentides, both to meta (killing infantries offs objectives seems to be top priority here) and player's skills (I never enjoyed footslogging hordes, so I've not much experience to play them competitively).
Sure I can face strong primaris lists, but I can also face old marines armies, tyranids, necrons, mech, other orks, eldar, AM, etc... people who can play competitive primaris lists tend to bring their second army if they have one or tone down their list if they only have marines. The tournament scene is almost a whole different game.
This is part of the inherent problem with balancing 40k - armies are so assymetrical.
If you use a 'takes-all-comers' list you will be overwhelmed by any army that goes heavily in one direction.
If you skew your list towards a particular threat, any other threat will roll you.
That's where the 'rock, paper, scissors' comes from, and there's just no realistic solution to have to reconcile that with the sheer variety of what 40k brings.
Well that wouldn't be a problem if all armies could skew. If all armies had some sort of OP build, then yeah we would lose against some opponents really bad, while win against others easily. The problem is that there is not much one can do if your army is just straight up bad.
If a tau player goes second in 9th, then his opponent doesn't have to be some master WAAC cheater with a GT winning list for him to have a really bad time. He can be playing against his buds casual list, and it will be not much fun either.
asymetry is design or even in who win vs whom isn't bad. Bad is having armies with under 40% win rates under best circumstances. And I say this as someone with an army that has a 27% difference between win % going first and second.
Karol wrote: Well that wouldn't be a problem if all armies could skew. If all armies had some sort of OP build, then yeah we would lose against some opponents really bad, while win against others easily.
I think that's a problem in and of itself - that's a textbook example of "rock, paper, scissors".
Ideally, as long as you take a 'sensible' list (for which there should be several options to taste, and allowing every unit a reasonable place) you could have a reasonable game against anyone else doing the same.
Imagine a situation in which army A is just an inherent counter to army B. I want to play A, and my friend wants to play B. We're never going to have a fun game in that sort of game.
It might work for a video game, in which you can change choices at the click of a button. It doesn't work for a miniatures game.
If I wanted to play Rock, Paper, Scissors, I'd like to do so without having to throw multiple hundreds of £££ and as many hours into making my choice.
I agree that asymetry isn't bad, it's the extent to the variance and the possible permutations that causes the problem. There's full Imperial Knights on one side of the scale, and Imperial Guard infantry spam on the other, and *everything* else in between that you could reasonably face with no ability to adjust your list to suit (unless you're specifically fore-warned).
All armies can skew, although they won't always be effective. Tau can bring lots of high T models, marines (or your GK) can go full elites with only T4/5 high save models, etc...
It's kinda the opposite the real problem: some armies can only skew. Imperial knights are the obvious example but also Harlequins or Custodes are basically skew armies with no alternatives. These are all armies that are really hard to balance at competitive levels and typically they are either overpowered or trash due to having just one build.
Blackie wrote: All armies can skew, although they won't always be effective. Tau can bring lots of high T models, marines (or your GK) can go full elites with only T4/5 high save models, etc...
It's kinda the opposite the real problem: some armies can only skew. Imperial knights are the obvious example but also Harlequins or Custodes are basically skew armies with no alternatives. These are all armies that are really hard to balance at competitive levels and typically they are either overpowered or trash due to having just one build.
exactly, harlequins skew not by choice but by design. A Tac list of Quins is basically the same as a skew list.
Theyre in desperate need of additionnal units
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Well that wouldn't be a problem if all armies could skew. If all armies had some sort of OP build, then yeah we would lose against some opponents really bad, while win against others easily. The problem is that there is not much one can do if your army is just straight up bad.
If a tau player goes second in 9th, then his opponent doesn't have to be some master WAAC cheater with a GT winning list for him to have a really bad time. He can be playing against his buds casual list, and it will be not much fun either.
asymetry is design or even in who win vs whom isn't bad. Bad is having armies with under 40% win rates under best circumstances. And I say this as someone with an army that has a 27% difference between win % going first and second.
no, skew lists are a bad thing. In an ideal world, everyone would bring TAC lists and be on an even footing while bringing a skew list should penalize you somehow.
no, skew lists are a bad thing. In an ideal world, everyone would bring TAC lists and be on an even footing while bringing a skew list should penalize you somehow.
To also add on to what I said, Harlequins are by their very nature a very good anti-Marine army, so with the vast majority of people still playing Marines they'll seem a lot stronger than they actually are.
Those Orks and Daemons lists that are also placing really high? They're actually very strong versus Harlies.
no, skew lists are a bad thing. In an ideal world, everyone would bring TAC lists and be on an even footing while bringing a skew list should penalize you somehow.
Problem is skew and TAC are different concepts, not mutually exclusive. A skew list can definitely be TAC, it just need to be able to deal against every possible opponent. Most of the skew lists are actually TAC in that sense. A Goff greentide or a full footslogging/biker primaris army can both deal with hordes, vehicles/monsters spam lists or elite oriented armies.
IMHO the only way to avoid skew armies is to cap 0-1 all units that aren't troops or transports, and/or to force using something from each section (Fast Attacks, Heavy Support, Flyer, etc...) but some armies don't have enough datasheets to do so, or even if they could they'd still need more options to work properly.
And sometimes it wouldn't be enough, some skew lists have 0-1 for each specialist unit anyway.
no, skew lists are a bad thing. In an ideal world, everyone would bring TAC lists and be on an even footing while bringing a skew list should penalize you somehow.
Problem is skew and TAC are different concepts, not mutually exclusive. A skew list can definitely be TAC, it just need to be able to deal against every possible opponent. Most of the skew lists are actually TAC in that sense. A Goff greentide or a full footslogging/biker primaris army can both deal with hordes, vehicles/monsters spam lists or elite oriented armies.
IMHO the only way to avoid skew armies is to cap 0-1 all units that aren't troops or transports, and/or to force using something from each section (Fast Attacks, Heavy Support, Flyer, etc...) but some armies don't have enough datasheets to do so, or even if they could they'd still need more options to work properly.
And sometimes it wouldn't be enough, some skew lists have 0-1 for each specialist unit anyway.
The problem with that approach is that entire armies are skewed. An Imperial Knights army will only ever be incredibly skewed as a heavy-armour force, that's just what they are.
I don't think this skewing can every be resolved in 40k, as armies are too varied - both internally (see Guard horde vs tanksmash) and externally.
In fact, I'd say that the game encourages you to skew your defensive capabilities, more so in 9th. In 9th taking a varied list of infantry and tanks just gives away two different secondaries instead of one, and taking just infantry would mean any enemy anti-tank was wasted points (and vice-versa for tanks).
I don't think this skewing can ever be resolved in 40k, as armies are too varied - both internally (see Guard horde vs tanksmash) and externally.
In fact, I'd say that the game encourages you to skew your defensive capabilities, more so in 9th. In 9th taking a varied list of infantry and tanks just gives away two different secondaries instead of one, and taking just infantry would mean any enemy anti-tank was wasted points (and vice-versa for tanks).
I don't think it needs to be or even should be resolved rules-wise. I don't even think the Rule of Three should exist.
If you want to play heavily into some style? Go for it.
Playwise it'll either work often enough for you or not. Or, if you've skewed too far & what your doing makes playing you no fun, the people you play with will provide the course correction & you just won't get very many games....
ccs wrote: the people you play with will provide the course correction & you just won't get very many games....
This is a theory that only works in a relatively small group.
If you're talking about a couple of individuals, they're left with the choice of playing vs skew or not playing at all. That's really lame.
If it's a large or disjointed group, they just play other people. Whoever plays them has a wasted game but moves on. That's also lame.
Plus, either way it ends in the person not being able to play the skewed list they like, when that skewed list might be a general army like Knights. That's really lame.
no, skew lists are a bad thing. In an ideal world, everyone would bring TAC lists and be on an even footing while bringing a skew list should penalize you somehow.
The ideal world is a construct. We live in the real world. And in the real world I would rather have the option to play with a skew list, then have a balanced codex which is just another word for being having a bad set of rules. Tau are perfectly balanced right now. It doesn't matter who they play against, what list they take. They are also the only army that doesn't go up in win rates if it goes second. Perfect balance achive. It is also the worse army to play right now. I ain't going to put out claims on what ever it is fun or not, because I don't play tau. But if they are as fun as GK were in mid 8th, then my condolances to the player.
Or to make it simple. I would rather play in a world where every army has super OP stuff to do, then hope for an ideal to become reality and not have 3-4 balanced books followed by something mind blowlingly powerful.
This is a theory that only works in a relatively small group.
yep. all it takes for the store to have 20+ people. 3 bigger play groups and some random people looking for pick up games. 1 game per 1-2 weeks. And before someone gets to play half the store a year has passed and a few people droped out and new came. It maybe matter in small stores or if someone plays 3 games a day,
no, skew lists are a bad thing. In an ideal world, everyone would bring TAC lists and be on an even footing while bringing a skew list should penalize you somehow.
The ideal world is a construct. We live in the real world. And in the real world I would rather have the option to play with a skew list, then have a balanced codex which is just another word for being having a bad set of rules. Tau are perfectly balanced right now. It doesn't matter who they play against, what list they take. They are also the only army that doesn't go up in win rates if it goes second. Perfect balance achive. It is also the worse army to play right now. I ain't going to put out claims on what ever it is fun or not, because I don't play tau. But if they are as fun as GK were in mid 8th, then my condolances to the player.
Or to make it simple. I would rather play in a world where every army has super OP stuff to do, then hope for an ideal to become reality and not have 3-4 balanced books followed by something mind blowlingly powerful.
This is a theory that only works in a relatively small group.
yep. all it takes for the store to have 20+ people. 3 bigger play groups and some random people looking for pick up games. 1 game per 1-2 weeks. And before someone gets to play half the store a year has passed and a few people droped out and new came. It maybe matter in small stores or if someone plays 3 games a day,
Its posts like this that show you have zero imagination and you keep accepting your fate. The whole point of the discussion we're having is theoretical, how we would each like the game to play out. Perfect world IS something we can aspire to even if the possibility of GW making it reality is super low.
And no, in the real world i would much rather be able to play fluff accurate list with no spamming/deathstar units and still be able to perform properly. Do Tau have a 50% (+- 4%) winrate right now? then no, theyre not balanced. Having the same winrate when going first and second doesnt make an army balanced.
Having "OP" gak in our armies is purely a feels bad thing. First because it sucks for your opponent to get his army blasted off with stuff like eradicators and second because its boring as feth to have a point and click unit that requires no tought whatsoever to carry your game.
As for playgroups regulating the strength of your lists, its absolutely possible, you just have to be close to your playgroup and talk to them outside of the games. Have a facebook group to chat on, learn what powerlevel they want to play at. Adapt your armies accordingly.
ccs wrote: the people you play with will provide the course correction & you just won't get very many games....
This is a theory that only works in a relatively small group.
If you're talking about a couple of individuals, they're left with the choice of playing vs skew or not playing at all. That's really lame.
If it's a large or disjointed group, they just play other people. Whoever plays them has a wasted game but moves on. That's also lame.
Plus, either way it ends in the person not being able to play the skewed list they like, when that skewed list might be a general army like Knights. That's really lame.
It works. If you insist on playing x, and most of your potential opponents don't enjoy playing against that, then you won't get many games in.
It's not lame for others to decline games they won't enjoy playing.
Also applies to certain styles/ways of playing. For example; Are you one of those people who shoot with your antenna? Guess who's not getting many games around here....
Eventually these players do one of the following:
1) adapt to the environment/group their aiming to play with. Yes, sometimes that means you play certain things/ways at one shop & something different with another group.
2) just go play with others who's playstyles they're compatable with.
Its posts like this that show you have zero imagination and you keep accepting your fate. The whole point of the discussion we're having is theoretical, how we would each like the game to play out. Perfect world IS something we can aspire to even if the possibility of GW making it reality is super low.
Yes problems with imaginations are part of the disorder I have. I mainly try to understand things that exist in real life, or which I can base on real life actions. Thinking about potentials that aren't real, just makes my head hurt. They also have very little impact on my hobby life.
Do Tau have a 50% (+- 4%) winrate right now?
I think they don't even breach 30% according to the data from events if they go second and don't pass 50%, by a no small margin if they go first. They aren't the army with the biggest difference between wins/loses depending on them going first or second. That place belongs to a different army.
Having the same winrate when going first and second doesnt make an army balanced.
GK have a 27% difference between wining going first and going second. And that is from expiriance players with optimised lists in a closed tournament enviroment. The gap gets even bigger outside of those players. It is not very fun to have games being decided by a large margine on a single roll you can't modify, re-roll or impact in anyway. So while I am not a tournament player, I think, from my personaly expiriance playing my army in 9th, that having a big difference between win/lose ratios as going first and second as a very important thing.
First because it sucks for your opponent to get his army blasted off with stuff like eradicators and second because its boring as feth to have a point and click unit that requires no tought whatsoever to carry your game.
But you have your OP stuff to, as you said it, blast his stuff. So where is the problem.? Is it better the way it is now or the way it was in 8th, and I assume in prior editions too, that only some armies had access to OP builds ? I don't think so. If everyone has access to the OP, then no one is OP.
As for playgroups regulating the strength of your lists, its absolutely possible, you just have to be close to your playgroup and talk to them outside of the games. Have a facebook group to chat on, learn what powerlevel they want to play at. Adapt your armies accordingly.
And this works only in small groups in places where people are rich. I can tell you that telling a person that struggled to buy a 2000pts army, that you don't like how powerful their army are, and that yeht dluohs yub worse units or a even a whole weaker army, is going to get the same kind of response every time and I think you can imagine what it would be.
So far the things I like from 9th:
* New missions
* Secondary Objectives instead of cards
* Trend of moving upgrades from CP to Points
* Balanced CP pool
* Terrain Rules(not perfect but way better than 8th)
Things I didn't like:
* Game speed not increased as advertised
Its posts like this that show you have zero imagination and you keep accepting your fate. The whole point of the discussion we're having is theoretical, how we would each like the game to play out. Perfect world IS something we can aspire to even if the possibility of GW making it reality is super low.
Yes problems with imaginations are part of the disorder I have. I mainly try to understand things that exist in real life, or which I can base on real life actions. Thinking about potentials that aren't real, just makes my head hurt. They also have very little impact on my hobby life.
Without trying to understand potentials, there is no way for anything, game or not to develop and grow. Everything 40k is today was a potential some point in the past.
GK have a 27% difference between wining going first and going second. And that is from expiriance players with optimised lists in a closed tournament enviroment. The gap gets even bigger outside of those players. It is not very fun to have games being decided by a large margine on a single roll you can't modify, re-roll or impact in anyway. So while I am not a tournament player, I think, from my personaly expiriance playing my army in 9th, that having a big difference between win/lose ratios as going first and second as a very important thing.
Yeah, it should be a consideration among other aspects. Tau having an even winrate on the first and second turn doesnt make them balanced.
But you have your OP stuff to, as you said it, blast his stuff. So where is the problem.? Is it better the way it is now or the way it was in 8th, and I assume in prior editions too, that only some armies had access to OP builds ? I don't think so. If everyone has access to the OP, then no one is OP.
Having OP stuff is whats causing all the problems right now and part of the reason why the first turn advantage is so real. When everything is OP, getting first turn means your OP stuff can wipe my OP stuff and make it a non-game. Ideally every unit should be middle powered. No bs like wiping 200% of your points in one shooting phase or stuff like that. Then the game becomes an actual strategy instead of "me shoot your strong unit, boom boom, gg"
And this works only in small groups in places where people are rich. I can tell you that telling a person that struggled to buy a 2000pts army, that you don't like how powerful their army are, and that yeht dluohs yub worse units or a even a whole weaker army, is going to get the same kind of response every time and I think you can imagine what it would be.
You dont need to be rich to play 40k but you do need to have disposable income. This is something you shouldve researched before buying into the hobby.
If you dont have the money to afford the full game, you should instead stick to lower pts level (instead of the stupid 2250pts limit you currently play with) or play killteam.
You can also simply ask your opponent to not use their full potential on you. something as simple as "can you not use endless cacophony + votlw when we play against each other, it destroys my list and i can't really recover from that" is an alternative that costs nothing more than basic human decency from your opponent.
I always advice to play with 50-75% of an existing collection, to max 2000 points. I mean if you have 10k points of models 2000 points games are fine, I wouldn't suggest playing huge games unless you really want that kind of scenario.
This way you could always change your list and you're not forced to buy something else if at some point the inevitable nerf comes down to 1+ of your units.
It's flat out impossibile to play balanced (and fun) games if all the people in your group are using the same exact armies forever.
And this works only in small groups in places where people are rich. I can tell you that telling a person that struggled to buy a 2000pts army, that you don't like how powerful their army are, and that yeht dluohs yub worse units or a even a whole weaker army, is going to get the same kind of response every time and I think you can imagine what it would be.
You dont need to be rich to play 40k but you do need to have disposable income. This is something you shouldve researched before buying into the hobby.
If you dont have the money to afford the full game, you should instead stick to lower pts level (instead of the stupid 2250pts limit you currently play with) or play killteam.
You can also simply ask your opponent to not use their full potential on you. something as simple as "can you not use endless cacophony + votlw when we play against each other, it destroys my list and i can't really recover from that" is an alternative that costs nothing more than basic human decency from your opponent.
I strongly disagree that a requirement to play 40k should be a willingness to throw several hundred pounds at an army, and rben rapidly abandon it because the winds of balance blow in their favour.
It sounds very privileged and gate-keepy to be advocating for that.
You've also dodged the issue of larger groups. It was pointed out by someone else that it doesn't take that large of a group before this sort of relationship becomes unachievable.
If we've never played eachother before, you don't know if I'm being cheesy or not. I don't necessarily trust that you genuinely do have a problem with being wiped out, or just want to be the only one bringing cheese.
If there's six months between each time we play one another, you're not going to remember and everything is going to have changed anyway.
Its only impossible to play balanced games because the rules arent balanced. If they were, there would be no need for a group to find a equilibrium level of OP for everyone to play at.
I expressed myself poorly. I don't mean abandoning whole lists as the meta evolves, i'm talking about buying a predator to replace your Eradicators while they are overpowered for example. Tweaking the army, not completely ditching it.
I still think that 40k requires a certain amount of disposable income to be fully enjoyed in its current state. No need to be rich like they originally mentionned, but if youre lioving paycheck to paycheck, its probably not the best move to do.
As for randoms that you don't play often against, i think these aren't part of the original equation. Its the people that you commonly play with that you can discuss what powerlevel you are looking for. If the rando that you play against once per 6 months always brings cheesy lists and the rest of your playgroup doesnt, the solution is pretty simple : have a talk with the rando after the game (you know, we try and play a bit lower power around here, i'd recommend you only bring 3 eradicators instead of 9), or if the rando refuses to adapt, just dont play him again.
Perhaps we're talking about slightly different things.
It seems to me that you're simply describing the way balancing the game currently is. And I agree, the only way you're going to get a balanced game is if people work together to establish a middle ground.
However, my point is that's a really gakky way for the game to work.
I started the hobby at about 14, saving my pocket money (and perhaps siphoning off a little lunch money) to buy a kit every month or two.
If I turned up to a game with my Predator I had spent 3-4 months saving up for, then spent about a money building and painting all nice, and it turns out I can't use it because it's too good, how do you think I would feel? That's a really gakky way for the game to work.
And "well you're too poor to be playing the hobby anyways* is ridiculous, at no point in this hobby is it ever advertised that you should only buy a small section of what's on offer, because anything else is either too weak or too powerful for your local group.
kirotheavenger wrote: Perhaps we're talking about slightly different things.
It seems to me that you're simply describing the way balancing the game currently is. And I agree, the only way you're going to get a balanced game is if people work together to establish a middle ground.
However, my point is that's a really gakky way for the game to work.
I started the hobby at about 14, saving my pocket money (and perhaps siphoning off a little lunch money) to buy a kit every month or two.
If I turned up to a game with my Predator I had spent 3-4 months saving up for, then spent about a money building and painting all nice, and it turns out I can't use it because it's too good, how do you think I would feel? That's a really gakky way for the game to work.
And "well you're too poor to be playing the hobby anyways* is ridiculous, at no point in this hobby is it ever advertised that you should only buy a small section of what's on offer, because anything else is either too weak or too powerful for your local group.
Oh, i agree with you that its a flawed system. In a perfect worlds every single list possible would have a perfect 50% against everything else.
As for the monetary aspect. You can't really tell me that the game is cheap. Sure you CAN play it and you CAN make smart purchases of used stuff to get a cheap army. The problem is that as it stands, the only way to have a balanced, enjoyable game is to change your list so that it matches the expected power level of your opponent's. Or to play lower pts level/killteam, something like a group of friends each buying a start collecting and sticking to it is an example of a cheap way to play the game. Playing 2250pts games isnt.
I'm not saying the game is cheap.
I'm saying expecting people to willing and able to cut out and change large chunks of their list on the whims of other people in unfair.
The crux of the matter we started to discuss is whether or not agreeing with your opponents is an effective way to balance the game.
And it's not, because not everyone is in the position to do that, and they shouldn't have to do that anyway.
kirotheavenger wrote: I'm not saying the game is cheap.
I'm saying expecting people to willing and able to cut out and change large chunks of their list on the whims of other people in unfair.
The crux of the matter we started to discuss is whether or not agreeing with your opponents is an effective way to balance the game.
And it's not, because not everyone is in the position to do that, and they shouldn't have to do that anyway.
Yeah, its more of a patch that players have to use to enjoy the game more. Absolute shame that the balance isnt better
The crux of the matter we started to discuss is whether or not agreeing with your opponents is an effective way to balance the game.
And it's not, because not everyone is in the position to do that, and they shouldn't have to do that anyway.
Yeah, its more of a patch that players have to use to enjoy the game more. Absolute shame that the balance isnt better
First up, you guys are not wrong. But I do think there is a bigger picture out there.
Take this From the perspective of someone who is actually into 'that kind of thing' and plays with a group that wants the same.
Saying not everyone is in the position to do it kind of misses the point for me. It should always be a consideration. Maybe you can't do it now for whatever reason (new to the game, collection is small, only brought one small army with you when you moved countries etc) but it should be a consideration at least, maybe not now but at least for the future and for the community building and relationship building in the greater community.
Yes, you are correct. it is a patch, but it's also a based on a realistic and 'hands-on' approach and a realistic understanding of the limitations of these kinds of games - ttg's can't hold much weight. They need us to front-end some of the burden. From the perspective of someone who values his opponents enjoyment of a game as much as his own and regards it as of equal importance to 'trying to win', I have no problem with accomodating someone else's wishes for a game and saying no one should have to do it also misses the point.we all want something different. It's good to give, even if it costs me somewhat or isnt exactly what I want (worst case scenario I accomodate you this time, next time it goes the other way). Few things in life are without compromise and accomodation or understanding of someone else's wishes. It's as true for my relationship with my wife as it is with my relationships with other gamers. (As with anything, there are limits)
So, at the end of the day it's about as effective as anything else. We can't do much worse than the folks that write the ttg rulebooks.
As you say, Balance could be better, rules could be cleaner and less clunky, but in fairness too, I don't think the balance people want, or insist as their due is realistically feasible either. I certainly don't think the majority of folks who want better balance will.actually be happy to pay the price or deal with the sacrifices or consequences of the actions necessary for any kind of improvement. And let's be honest, even with said improvements, there will be still be flaws and enough exploitable gaps that it will be 'broken'.
Perfect balance is a unicorn. The 'better balance' people speak about is often little better. It's a myth. Best you'll get it 'good enough, at least some of the time' and with the caveat that 'you might have to have a chat with the other guy'.
I don't think it's unfair to consider cutting out chunks of your list, depending on circumstances to be a part of the social contract.weve been playing this way for years. I mean, as an extreme scenario, would you take a list on the bleeding edge of competitiveness against a twelve year olds first terrible list made from a few starting sets and weird selection of random things?
Is cutting out chunks or asking for changes something to insist on, all of the time? Not necessarily. Too many tfgs and competitive at all cost douches will weaponize it for their advantage and too many casual scrubs will use it to virtue signal and punish everyone else. Then again, blind match ups based on list building for advantage, and just accepting the broken edges, falls so far short of the mark that holding them as any kind of metric of quality is ridiculous.
It's a spectrum.I think it's fair to rock up, and get to know people first (you know, get to know, develop and grow your social circle rather than treat them as disposable NPC's), and let people know ahead of time what your into and what kind of a game you're into and looking for. Is it fair to ask for, to expect and to be willing to give accomodations? Yes, at least sometimes. I think it is if it's what you're into. I think it's fair to look for other folks wanting the same. Then again, most important thing is play with like minded folks. If it's something I'd ask for, rest assured I will accomodate back. Talk to me. Far more important...
Game building, at least to me, is a far more valued skill and far more important aspect of the game than list building for advantage'. At least to me and my group. I find it a far more intriguing test of skill than just 'who can make the most powerful list' and a more rewarding approach.
Balance is not that hard.
GW deliberately makes it hard by restarting the edition every couple of years in order to sell players new rulebooks.
They then make it worse by intentionally buffing up new units so that players buy the new rules and units.
Better balanced just requires the writer to actually care, rather than seemingly doing everything in their power to avoid balance.
And they're only aided by their customers saying it's not GW's responsibility, it's other player's to go out and buy more stuff until they have the right stuff!
The concept of balance is also subjective. For me the game IS reasonably balanced now, both competitive and casual metas.
We're not playing chess, armies are very different and with a huge set of rules/combinations. With that in mind it's flat out impossibile to have perfect balance, we can only have reasonable balance.
Blackie wrote: ...We're not playing chess, armies are very different and with a huge set of rules/combinations. With that in mind it's flat out impossibile to have perfect balance, we can only have reasonable balance.
This is an awful argument. Balance doesn't require symmetry, balance requires you write army lists such that there are no trap options that are always pointless in every circumstance (e.g. SM Scouts), units that are always taken in every list (e.g. Eradicators). That can always be improved without making anything more symmetrical by fixing statlines, costs, and rules.
Blackie wrote: ...We're not playing chess, armies are very different and with a huge set of rules/combinations. With that in mind it's flat out impossibile to have perfect balance, we can only have reasonable balance.
This is an awful argument. Balance doesn't require symmetry, balance requires you write army lists such that there are no trap options that are always pointless in every circumstance (e.g. SM Scouts), units that are always taken in every list (e.g. Eradicators). That can always be improved without making anything more symmetrical by fixing statlines, costs, and rules.
You're right, but what I'm arguing is that if a handful of units, among the thousands of available choices, are actually broken and taken in every list the game IS balanced. Everything can also be improved, and I agree with that, I just don't think current 40k is the mess some guys think it is. Having all units equally useful would be absolute perfection, but I'd settle with cycling the effectiveness of the units: scouts for example had their moment of glory not long ago when they were absolutely useful. Shuffling the meta by enhancing and nerfing IMHO is a good thing, it adds variety and prevents chasing the flavour of the month. It's hard (impossible?) to write a full internally balanced codex with 50+ (if not 100+) datasheets.
Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.
Blackie wrote: ...We're not playing chess, armies are very different and with a huge set of rules/combinations. With that in mind it's flat out impossibile to have perfect balance, we can only have reasonable balance.
This is an awful argument. Balance doesn't require symmetry, balance requires you write army lists such that there are no trap options that are always pointless in every circumstance (e.g. SM Scouts), units that are always taken in every list (e.g. Eradicators). That can always be improved without making anything more symmetrical by fixing statlines, costs, and rules.
You're right, but what I'm arguing is that if a handful of units, among the thousands of available choices, are actually broken and taken in every list the game IS balanced. Everything can also be improved, and I agree with that, I just don't think current 40k is the mess some guys think it is. Having all units equally useful would be absolute perfection, but I'd settle with cycling the effectiveness of the units: scouts for example had their moment of glory not long ago when they were absolutely useful. Shuffling the meta by enhancing and nerfing IMHO is a good thing, it adds variety and prevents chasing the flavour of the month. It's hard (impossible?) to write a full internally balanced codex with 50+ (if not 100+) datasheets.
Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.
How does "shuffling the meta" by nerfing and buffing units constantly prevent chasing the flavor of the month? That's exactly what fuels the meta chasers. Constantly nerfing previously solid units while simultaneously buffing weak ones is merely a way to sell more models to the meta chasers.
Blackie wrote: ...Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.
In my experience if you're not playing the cheesy combo tournament lists you're entirely at the mercy of a bunch of really bad decisions GW made when writing the Indexes in 8th (badly-assigned Damage stats, badly-assigned Wounds stats, hugely generous AP stats, hugely generous move rates/ranges and trivial move-and-fire, blasts-as-rapid-fire) that they've never bothered to fix, and if you happen to be a unit that was unlucky when the stats were getting handed out (ex. any Eldar infantry) you're at a huge disadvantage. 9th works great in a tournament setting with optimized lists, and the tournament stats definitely prove it, but I think it's the worst 40k has ever been in terms of the bring-minis-you-like pick-up game.
Blackie wrote: ...We're not playing chess, armies are very different and with a huge set of rules/combinations. With that in mind it's flat out impossibile to have perfect balance, we can only have reasonable balance.
This is an awful argument. Balance doesn't require symmetry, balance requires you write army lists such that there are no trap options that are always pointless in every circumstance (e.g. SM Scouts), units that are always taken in every list (e.g. Eradicators). That can always be improved without making anything more symmetrical by fixing statlines, costs, and rules.
You're right, but what I'm arguing is that if a handful of units, among the thousands of available choices, are actually broken and taken in every list the game IS balanced. Everything can also be improved, and I agree with that, I just don't think current 40k is the mess some guys think it is. Having all units equally useful would be absolute perfection, but I'd settle with cycling the effectiveness of the units: scouts for example had their moment of glory not long ago when they were absolutely useful. Shuffling the meta by enhancing and nerfing IMHO is a good thing, it adds variety and prevents chasing the flavour of the month. It's hard (impossible?) to write a full internally balanced codex with 50+ (if not 100+) datasheets.
Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.
I agree, the current balance is acceptably good. I would obviously like to see a general nerf to Eradicators and Multi meltas, but that is because you can always do better.
Personally, this "good balance" that is being spoken of so many times, I've yet to see it.
Past editions of 40K didn't have it.
Past editions of WHFB didn't have it.
First edition of AoS didn't have it (didn't play second edition yet).
Warmachine/Hordes didn't have it.
X-Wing didn't have it.
MtG didn't have it.
I've never played Infinity or Malifaux, but the ones that did tell me that you still have cookie cutter builds.
How does "shuffling the meta" by nerfing and buffing units constantly prevent chasing the flavor of the month? That's exactly what fuels the meta chasers. Constantly nerfing previously solid units while simultaneously buffing weak ones is merely a way to sell more models to the meta chasers.
But this way only a very few people will chase the meta. Only WAAC dudes are willing to constantly invest money to buff their army. The majority of people doesn't put hundreds every 3-4 months to improve their army, and if a unit is good now they'll think twice about buying multiple boxes of it because they know they won't last forever.
If meta doesn't change frequently more people will be tempted to improve their army with buying in large amounts whatever is more powerful at the moment, because it would be a safe investment for a long period.
Take eradicators, without FAQs or Chapter Approved released every 6-12 months they'll saturate the meta. They already are common but lots of players are settling with 3-6 of them, not 12-18 because they know that skew lists don't last forever. Thankfully.
GW deliberately makes it hard by restarting the edition every couple of years in order to sell players new rulebooks.
They then make it worse by intentionally buffing up new units so that players buy the new rules and units.
I don't think keeping the same edition alive necessarily solves anything either or represents any kind of improvement. I've never seen a set of rules from any company that didn't have flaws and couldn't be manipulated or broken.
New editions are a requirement and every company in the game does this. It's just business.
Better balanced just requires the writer to actually care, rather than seemingly doing everything in their power to avoid balance.
Wrong. Firstly most of the folks at gw care greatly about the game. And unfortunately 'caring' about things doesn't solve the unsolvable equation that is balance. And balance requires a lot more than 'caring'.
And they're only aided by their customers saying it's not GW's responsibility, it's other player's to go out and buy more stuff until they have the right stuff!
Im.not aiding them. I'm being a realist and acknowledging the reality on the ground. What I'll say is it's also our responsibility, both to ourselves and our peers.gw unfortunately can't do everything. They're not gaming Jesus capable of miracles. The game you want can't be made.
AnomanderRake wrote:
Blackie wrote: ...We're not playing chess, armies are very different and with a huge set of rules/combinations. With that in mind it's flat out impossibile to have perfect balance, we can only have reasonable balance.
This is an awful argument. Balance doesn't require symmetry, balance requires you write army lists such that there are no trap options that are always pointless in every circumstance (e.g. SM Scouts), units that are always taken in every list (e.g. Eradicators). That can always be improved without making anything more symmetrical by fixing statlines, costs, and rules.
He's not wrong though. Perfect balance is impossible, better balance can be done, but there is a price to be paid and better will never be good enough for a lot of people.
Fixing statlines, costs and rules only goes so far. They're numbers and words on a page. Context matters. Things might be balanced in one scenario and utterly broken in another. Unless you can have an algorithm that can correct for context and account for game content (what's fielded, what's fielded against it, synnnergies and force multipliers), game size, mission type, terrain (amount, placement, type etc), player skill and list familiarity, then any discussion about how easy balance is doing less than scratching the surface.
Tldr it's a lot more complex and complicated than you state - it's not as simple as 'for solution pull this lever'.
Gadzilla666 wrote:
How does "shuffling the meta" by nerfing and buffing units constantly prevent chasing the flavor of the month? That's exactly what fuels the meta chasers. Constantly nerfing previously solid units while simultaneously buffing weak ones is merely a way to sell more models to the meta chasers.
Probably not the same thing, but look at wmh. MK2 is what I was most familiar with. Multiple lists, multiple win conditions, circular balance (things were good in some scenarios, easily countered in others). Having a game state where things cycle in and out of usefulness can be done and it can make for an interesting game.
How does "shuffling the meta" by nerfing and buffing units constantly prevent chasing the flavor of the month? That's exactly what fuels the meta chasers. Constantly nerfing previously solid units while simultaneously buffing weak ones is merely a way to sell more models to the meta chasers.
But this way only a very few people will chase the meta. Only WAAC dudes are willing to constantly invest money to buff their army. The majority of people doesn't put hundreds every 3-4 months to improve their army, and if a unit is good now they'll think twice about buying multiple boxes of it because they know they won't last forever.
If meta doesn't change frequently more people will be tempted to improve their army with buying in large amounts whatever is more powerful at the moment, because it would be a safe investment for a long period.
Take eradicators, without FAQs or Chapter Approved released every 6-12 months they'll saturate the meta. They already are common but lots of players are settling with 3-6 of them, not 12-18 because they know that skew lists don't last forever. Thankfully.
But wouldn't it just make more sense to make units more balanced to start with? Nobody can look at the stats and abilities of Eradicators compared to the new loyalist vehicles and think that the two are correctly balanced internally, much less externally. And nerfing large swathes of units at a time can have the side effect of making large percentages of people's collections suddenly weak. If you've been playing for a long time and have a large collection of models it doesn't hurt as much, but it can hurt newer players. Gw's pendulum has a tendency to swing too far.
Is perfect balance realistic? Not really.
Is better balance than we have now realistic? Easily.
You don't need to completely upend the entire ruleset every two years to create a fun ruleset.
Bolt Action and Flames of War have both had 2 editions in the time 40k has had 4.
Getting better balance is as trivial as sticking with the same core rules, and amending points/abilities closer to the middle each time, whilst refraining from deliberately releasing new content outside that median.
kirotheavenger wrote: Is perfect balance realistic? Not really.
Is better balance than we have now realistic? Easily.
You don't need to completely upend the entire ruleset every two years to create a fun ruleset.
Bolt Action and Flames of War have both had 2 editions in the time 40k has had 4.
Getting better balance is as trivial as sticking with the same core rules, and amending points/abilities closer to the middle each time, whilst refraining from deliberately releasing new content outside that median.
That would be true if points were the sole factor in balance.
They are not.
Sometimes, you need to completely rework some interactions.
Spoletta wrote: Sometimes, you need to completely rework some interactions.
A complete overhaul is never necessary, although minor rules changes can be better.
You balance things within the context of your ruleset.
In fact, completely reworking interactions means you have to throw out anything you learnt about relative performances within the scope of the last ruleset. That's why changing editions and adding more codexes and supplements is detrimental.
Regarding balance, I am certainly finding 9th to be an improvement in that area. Its early days in terms of Codexes, but Space Marines went down a little and Necrons have certainly moved up. I certainly don't see tabling on a regular basis, and nothing like the Turn 1 or 2 tablings that happened in 8th Ed Index Hammer. I've had terrible matchups in every edition. At least with 9th I get the feeling they will continue to adjust when they see stuff way out of whack.
I reviewed the pamphlet GW published just before 9th dropped with Nine things that are Great about the New Edition. I think the promise about Terrain has certainly come to be. The changes to CP certainly leveled the playing field for Stratagems and has effectively killed Soup. Blast Weapons are much better than before, but I am not seeing them as the game changer some feared. Tanks being back on Track is a bit of a mixed bag. They now behave more like tanks, manoeuvering around and not hugging their foot-borne leadership. The Harlequin Meta, though, is tough on vehicles...Crusade is a bit of a non-event in my community but maybe this a local phenomenon. Strategic Reserves and the changes to Flyers are fine, but their effect on the game is not huge. I do think, though that the number 1 promise of Clear and Concise Rules has been primarily achieved. Folks will always find loopholes, but the rules language is indeed tighter and we should see it continue as Codexes roll out.
As someone who started in 2nd, disliked 6th, walked away for 7th and came back for 8th this new edition is certainly enjoyable. Is it the most? Nostalgia for gaming days past hampers my objectivity, but its a fun edition. I will say its better than 8th, and way way better than 6th/7th Ed.
Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.
Try building a harlequin army and not end up with something that looks like a tournament list. You don't even have to try that much. Same with custodes or orks. And all those are solid lists. IH in 8th could be made out of a few starter sets of infantry, and while lacking the FW stuff, were still almost the same in efficiency. there is also the flip side of thinks to it too. Because it is one thing to play an almost tournament list with a good army, it is another to try to play a non tournament list with an army which is bad. What gaming expiriance do you think a tau player would have if he didn't pick the best of the best units tau have? Sometimes a combo is the only thing that hold a codex a float.
Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.
Try building a harlequin army and not end up with something that looks like a tournament list. You don't even have to try that much. Same with custodes or orks. And all those are solid lists. IH in 8th could be made out of a few starter sets of infantry, and while lacking the FW stuff, were still almost the same in efficiency. there is also the flip side of thinks to it too. Because it is one thing to play an almost tournament list with a good army, it is another to try to play a non tournament list with an army which is bad. What gaming expiriance do you think a tau player would have if he didn't pick the best of the best units tau have? Sometimes a combo is the only thing that hold a codex a float.
You have a point about harlequins and Custodes because these codex have like 3 options each.
Orks on the other hand have probably the most variety of possible lists after marines. Saying they can only build one thing is ridiculous.
Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.
Try building a harlequin army and not end up with something that looks like a tournament list. You don't even have to try that much. Same with custodes or orks. And all those are solid lists. IH in 8th could be made out of a few starter sets of infantry, and while lacking the FW stuff, were still almost the same in efficiency. there is also the flip side of thinks to it too. Because it is one thing to play an almost tournament list with a good army, it is another to try to play a non tournament list with an army which is bad. What gaming expiriance do you think a tau player would have if he didn't pick the best of the best units tau have? Sometimes a combo is the only thing that hold a codex a float.
You have a point about harlequins and Custodes because these codex have like 3 options each.
Orks on the other hand have probably the most variety of possible lists after marines. Saying they can only build one thing is ridiculous.
Orkz do have a lot of options on how to build lists...almost none are competitive or even casually competitive but yes. We do have a lot of different ways to build lists.
Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.
Try building a harlequin army and not end up with something that looks like a tournament list. You don't even have to try that much. Same with custodes or orks. And all those are solid lists. IH in 8th could be made out of a few starter sets of infantry, and while lacking the FW stuff, were still almost the same in efficiency. there is also the flip side of thinks to it too. Because it is one thing to play an almost tournament list with a good army, it is another to try to play a non tournament list with an army which is bad. What gaming expiriance do you think a tau player would have if he didn't pick the best of the best units tau have? Sometimes a combo is the only thing that hold a codex a float.
It's very easy with all three factions you mentioned. With orks it's actually harder to field a competitive army than an absolute trash one. Custodes and harlies can definitely be played at casual levels without bullying people: the former just need to avoid FW stuff, which is something you typically don't see outside tournaments, and the latter just need to avoid some of the cheesiest combos the army can bring. WYSIWYG troups will unlikely have the most effective loadout due to the available bitz in their kit for example and you also don't see 12-18 bikes outside tournaments.
Our harlequins player has always owned two units of bikes, and the only real way to tune down his army is by chucking in random characters or bringing those void reavers which are just the same as bikes but less efficient.
The notion that orks can't build in a way that isn't competitive is just hilarious.
Orkz do have a lot of options on how to build lists...almost none are competitive or even casually competitive but yes. We do have a lot of different ways to build lists.
Yeah, but they worded their comment in a way that said that Orks have only one build and that this build is the competitive one. Basically that you cant not build a competitive list due to the lack of options.
Its really hard for harlequin to not take troupes in transports with bike support because these are literally the only options they have. The most creativity you can have at the listbuilding stage is what masque youre gonna play and what pivotal roles youre gonna give your Characters.
ccs wrote: Although I don't play Orkz, I refuse to believe that wether tourney or casual, they lack at least one competitive build.
Thats not what i meant. Orks do have competitive lists for sure
Karol seemed to think that its Impossible to build orks as anything else than competitive right now, saying Ghazkull and boys is the literal only possible list, comparing Orks to Clowns and Bananas.
You can also easily make "Thrakka and the boyz" a decent casual army for playing with friends by just not bringing kommadoz/stormboyz and spending those points on a Gorkanaut or something.
9th has been mostly great for me. In the least it's made me more active on the painting table. Loving Crusade and my only issues with it are that army specific ones aren't widely available. This will be addressed over time and we'll probably have to restart our Crusade Games a few times. Still looking forward to the Maelstrom Mission pack and secretly hoping it's removed most of the CA19 crap. The Open War mission pack has been quite fun in the meantime.
My only disappointment with 9th is end of Competitive 40k. Kudos to those who can play the same Matched Play mission over and over. Looks like we're going to have to wait another edition for it to come back, maybe even several editions until we get a functional one.
It's very easy with all three factions you mentioned. With orks it's actually harder to field a competitive army than an absolute trash one. Custodes and harlies can definitely be played at casual levels without bullying people: the former just need to avoid FW stuff, which is something you typically don't see outside tournaments, and the latter just need to avoid some of the cheesiest combos the army can bring. WYSIWYG troups will unlikely have the most effective loadout due to the available bitz in their kit for example and you also don't see 12-18 bikes outside tournaments.
okey, but then you are just building a bad army. And I am not saying that people never play bad armies, I played a termintor based army all 8th ed. But in reality why would someone build a non 24" move harlis, or non goff orks. Maybe you don't always can or want to take ghaz, specialy before you could get his model as a separate one. But max fusion gun, always mounted all the time for harlis, jet custodes is as basic as tanking melta weapons in marine armies or running nurglings and slanesh stuff in chaos soups.
You have a point about harlequins and Custodes because these codex have like 3 options each.
Orks on the other hand have probably the most variety of possible lists after marines. Saying they can only build one thing is ridiculous.
My entire army is build around 4 kits, termintors, NDK, strikes and dreadnought. Termintors can make all GK characters, and paladins, the strikes can make everything else. So I could be biased that is true.
Also, not everyone buys stuff because it's competitive, or can afford to revamp their list every time the winds of meta change direction.
You may well have started a Speed Freeks army because they're cool and you like them.
Too bad I guess? You should just buy Ghaz and his Boys or you're not welcome?
But in reality why would someone build a non 24" move harlis, or non goff orks.
I started collecting orks more than 20 years ago, at some point I had over 10k points of models, they're by far my favorite faction and yet I'd never play goffs or a green tide. I simply dislike both the clan rules and the list archetype. And I have lots of other combinations that work equally, if not even better.
Do you want reasons why not to play goffs greentides? Because they're good now, they weren't before. So unless you belong to those meta chasers that constantly burn a lot of money into miniatures you may not have the exact models to play such lists, even if you dispose of a collection that worths thousands of points.
If you start now you may consider boring painting 100+ infantry models, that's another reason to build another kind of list. Or you may simply dislike that style of playing, like I do.
But I kinda wish that the "Primaris" had been a completely new and separate codex from "Space Marines" - and that new a new assortment of 20 chapters (or however many) had been founded with their own emerging lore.
Something about the cross-pollination of old and new style marines just rubs me the wrong way. And granted the stats are more equalized now, but in lore terms, I can't see most chapters being all happy to welcome in these totally different (larger, stronger, better?) "brothers" into their chapter and traditions.
It just feels wrong to me. Granted, this isn't a 9th edition gampelay thing, but still....
Seems like it was a lost opportunity to make them female marines. There's a local guy that put female heads (where they don't have helmets) on his and they're fantastic.
@Karol, you should really try and learn to view the game from the other person's perspective.
I've played plenty against suboptimal lists of all armies in the game, and i personally never build cheesy lists. I've found this to be a much more enjoyable approach to the game than when i was building cheesy comp lists. And so do my opponents.
Everytime the "for the greater good" argument is brought up in a thread, you come along and say that you not destroying your opponent by playing the most optimal list isnt fun. Thats not how the game works, the game if at tis funnest when both sides are evenly matched, which is why so many people downpower their lists or add houserules to make it more balanced.
but I think it's the worst 40k has ever been in terms of the bring-minis-you-like pick-up game.
It is nowhere near as bad as it was in 7th. Pick-up games were almost impossible then. That was the worst the game has ever been. Fateweaver and his un-killable Screamer Star, Imperial Knights that, if you brought the wrong army you literally could not hurt at all while they rained down D weapons every turn, Eldar being an "I deploy I win" army ... THAT was the worst.
8th is definitely better than that as long as you aren't playing one of the armies the edition completely broke. I think it's funny - one of the more "famous" high-level tournament players early on said Tau were going to be one of the best armies in 9th, and they've turned out to be borderline unplayable. GSC are in a similarly tough spot and Tsons, while nowhere near as bad as the other two, have really been smacked by the edition. These are temporary things fortunately (provided GW does right by their books) but this edition isn't that bad over-all imo.
Nurglitch wrote: Playing random pick-up games against random strangers hanging around game shops is the worst way to play 40k. Heck, to play any game really.
yeah, agreed. I never understood how pickup games exist anywhere. Im my area we have at the very least a facebook group to ask for games at the shop so we don't just randomly show up with a list to maybe find someone else to play.
So for us its super easy to setup even games because we go :
A:Anyone for a game tonight?
B:Sure, what pts lvl/powerlevel
A:1k, low power
B:Alright, i'll bring my NightLords
A:I'll play my Tzeentch demons then
And then we can even exchange lists if we want to make sure its as balanced as possible. Or sometimes if we feel like going all-in we prep for it so the other player doesnt get suprised with their pants down by a 9 eradicator list
I've found 40k to be one of the worst games in existence to play against random strangers.
The only games which are even more likely to go south when played with random strangers are RPGs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: yeah, agreed. I never understood how pickup games exist anywhere. Im my area we have at the very least a facebook group to ask for games at the shop so we don't just randomly show up with a list to maybe find someone else to play.
Well, that's how it has always worked for MtG - you pack four to five decks for the most popular game modes and a couple of bucks for drafting and go to the store, find random person, play them. Same thing for the munchkin card game or just board game nights.
One of the biggest mistakes I made when starting 40k was assuming that it worked the same way for this game.
Jidmah wrote: I've found 40k to be one of the worst games in existence to play against random strangers.
The only games which are even more likely to go south when played with random strangers are RPGs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: yeah, agreed. I never understood how pickup games exist anywhere. Im my area we have at the very least a facebook group to ask for games at the shop so we don't just randomly show up with a list to maybe find someone else to play.
Well, that's how it has always worked for MtG - you pack four to five decks for the most popular game modes and a couple of bucks for drafting and go to the store, find random person, play them. Same thing for the munchkin card game or just board game nights.
One of the biggest mistakes I made when starting 40k was assuming that it worked the same way for this game.
yeah but MTG games are like 15 minutes long, 40k more like 2 hours. And as you said, for MTG you carry multiple decks so if your opponent opens a saltmine when he sees you drop an island, you can always swap to something else after.
My comment was 100% about 40k tho, other games work much better with the "pick-up" style of play. Although at my store, we used to hit people up on facebook before going to play MTG back when i played it.
Ah right, the stories are missing context - I started playing 40k when one of my kitchen-table MtG group begun picking up 40k. I was playing everything MtG back then, from casual EDH to competitive T2. I simply assumed 40k was the same, considering how there always was a crowd playing at stores that had tables.
I also don't think I ever experienced someone making a fuss because of a deck someone else played. Being told that my list was too powerful and that I should tone it down was also something completely new and alien to me when playing 40k.
Jidmah wrote: Ah right, the stories are missing context - I started playing 40k when one of my kitchen-table MtG group begun picking up 40k. I was playing everything MtG back then, from casual EDH to competitive T2.
I simply assumed 40k was the same, considering how there always was a crowd playing at stores that had tables.
I also don't think I ever experienced someone making a fuss because of a deck someone else played. Being told that my list was too powerful and that I should tone it down was also something completely new and alien to me when playing 40k.
I used to play MTG pretty competitively so when i swapped to 40k i kept that "winning matters" mentality, which kind of soiled my reputation. Eventually i realised that and changed my point of view on 40k/how i play it.
And you've really never seen someone lose their gak because you countered their finisher? When i was doing FNM there was always at least one guy getting triggered by his opponent interacting (most of the time it was me, grixis forever!)
Well, during Kamigawa I had a WAAC player lose his gak in his own home, throw half of his 700 card deck across the room, storm off and never host a game of MtG ever again.
In his last game I held his invincible angel tribal deck laced with circles of protection in a death lock with a daemons deck that kept destroying every creature and land he would play.
To be fair, I built that deck for the sole reason of pissing that player off, but it exceeded my expectations by far
But in general, when you go to a store and play pick up games, people can get emotional when the game doesn't go their way, but you generally wont get blamed for building a too powerful deck as long as it's legal. The percentage of idiots really is the same in any game.
Jidmah wrote: Not even semper said that, and he is the most doomsaying ork player in all of dakka
Doomsaying = called it perfectly in 7th, 8th and 9th
In fact I was one of the first to say Orkz competitiveness would be on our nerfed boyz yet again. Not because they are inherently good, but because they are counter meta. And yet again nailed it Even at 8ppm they are great because everyone is building lists to kill 20pt+ infantry models with 2 and 3 wounds each. As I have said a number of times, orkz care very little if you shoot them with a bolt rifle or a Plasma gun, they are likely dead regardless
With that said, if the meta shifts, GSC or nids getting really good horde builds, we are going to see a lot of ork players going from top 4 to bottom 4 (exaggeration for effect). The nerfed *garbage* Aggressors for example still kill 3-4 ork boyz a turn. a 24-32pt return on investment on a 45pt model, but nobody is taking them because they can instead take Eradicators for ranged combat or Bladeguard for CC who are WAY better at popping elite infantry and vehicles.
VladimirHerzog wrote: @Karol, you should really try and learn to view the game from the other person's perspective.
I've played plenty against suboptimal lists of all armies in the game, and i personally never build cheesy lists. I've found this to be a much more enjoyable approach to the game than when i was building cheesy comp lists. And so do my opponents.
Everytime the "for the greater good" argument is brought up in a thread, you come along and say that you not destroying your opponent by playing the most optimal list isnt fun. Thats not how the game works, the game if at tis funnest when both sides are evenly matched, which is why so many people downpower their lists or add houserules to make it more balanced.
I played a majority termintor GK army the entire 8th, I think I know a thing or two about playing sub optimal lists. Doesn't change the fact, that I think that playing bad lists on purpose is a stupid thing to do.
My views have nothing to do with playing the most opitmal build. But there are very few armies in the past or right now, which can just pick up random stuff and either hit powerful carry units, that support a bad list, or have above avarge rule sets with bad units far and in between.
If someone decides that they want an army with multiple units of strikes scorpions and storm guardians it is their choice. A bad one in my opinion. They can of course want their army to be fun, everyone has the right to want that. But expecting, that the okey way to play, should be building a bad army, with knowladge that the army is bad, and that opponents should go out of their ways in both their buying choices and the ways they play is loonacy.
It would be like me expecting to make it big in a 18-21y old wrestling competition at 15, without being an uzbek.
Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.
Try building a harlequin army and not end up with something that looks like a tournament list. You don't even have to try that much. Same with custodes or orks. And all those are solid lists. IH in 8th could be made out of a few starter sets of infantry, and while lacking the FW stuff, were still almost the same in efficiency. there is also the flip side of thinks to it too. Because it is one thing to play an almost tournament list with a good army, it is another to try to play a non tournament list with an army which is bad. What gaming expiriance do you think a tau player would have if he didn't pick the best of the best units tau have? Sometimes a combo is the only thing that hold a codex a float.
It's very easy with all three factions you mentioned. With orks it's actually harder to field a competitive army than an absolute trash one. Custodes and harlies can definitely be played at casual levels without bullying people: the former just need to avoid FW stuff, which is something you typically don't see outside tournaments, and the latter just need to avoid some of the cheesiest combos the army can bring. WYSIWYG troups will unlikely have the most effective loadout due to the available bitz in their kit for example and you also don't see 12-18 bikes outside tournaments.
Yes because FW is making Custodes so over the top, never mind the fact they have basically ZERO options without it and the fact various builds already thrived anyway without it.
AnomanderRake wrote: I'd love to know how my Coronus or Achillus Dread constitute "bullying people".
Because fw=OP, haven't you heard? But don't feel bad, although all fw units are OP, only Marinefw units are super OP. That's why even after their rules were either brought inline with codex units, or left at their Index levels that were already eclipsed by the rules for similar units, they had to be given a 1CP surcharge that no other fw unit has. Good thing gw did that, isn't it?
In before someone jumping in, saying their FW unit they use is damanged vehicle recovery IG APC used only in narrative games, and not an old school Leviathan trying to be a mini deathstar.
I feel Harlequins can tune down by bringing say 3 Voidweavers and maxing out characters.
But at the same time, I feel Harlequins are a high skill cap army rather than point and click. If you are being repeatedly destroyed by a Harlequins player, odds are they are very good/better than you and they could do the same with many other factions. Admittedly though its a dice game, so if they are just being lucky it may not feel like it.
I think this probably is the most balanced the game's been, because there is a significant skill component to the objectives. How you position matters a lot more than "I'm going to nuke your army over 3 turns and then I guess I'll throw something on to an objective". But unfortunately some armies are still at a clear disadvantage - and the first turn issue remains.
I also think "Faction Secondary Objectives" is a creeping timebomb that will do nothing good for the game, but I guess we wait and see.
I also think the melta-meta will invariably end up being nerfed, probably in CA21, because GW will want someone somewhere to buy their shiny new (and expensive) vehicles/monsters. That aspect of meta is just going to get worse as the Xenos get their own anti-vehicle weapon buffs, while vehicles seemingly remain made of paper.
Denegaar wrote: I agree that Harlequins are high skill cap, but they also have crazy strong synergies and rules.
DE are also high skill cap but we are lacking in rules and weaponry.
To be fair I think Harlequins are a bit undercosted to *the whole of 40k* but less so to the competitive factions.
By contrast most DE stuff is overcosted. Getting more interesting synergies/rules may be desirable - but really, a double splinter cannon venom for instance is just never worth 90 points in a world where the Starweaver, which is better in just about every way imaginable, only costs 80. Taking one cannon for a 75 point venom doesn't change this.
Cross faction comparisons can be misleading - but sometimes its obvious. One of these things is not like the other.
but I think it's the worst 40k has ever been in terms of the bring-minis-you-like pick-up game.
It is nowhere near as bad as it was in 7th. Pick-up games were almost impossible then. That was the worst the game has ever been. Fateweaver and his un-killable Screamer Star, Imperial Knights that, if you brought the wrong army you literally could not hurt at all while they rained down D weapons every turn, Eldar being an "I deploy I win" army ... THAT was the worst.
Yes 7th had a lot of OP as feth stuff but honestly it's not really all that different than any other edition where you bring a tournament net list vs somebody running something fluffy. Good games of 40k come from talking with your opponent to gauge what sort of game both parties are looking to have, roughly how powerful an army they are going to field, and fielding an army that is within the same ballpark in terms of power. The game has always had terrible codex balance (internal and external) and a level of mutual agreement has been needed to hammer out a good matchup and avoid one sided stomps.
Akar wrote: 9th has been mostly great for me. In the least it's made me more active on the painting table. Loving Crusade and my only issues with it are that army specific ones aren't widely available. This will be addressed over time and we'll probably have to restart our Crusade Games a few times. Still looking forward to the Maelstrom Mission pack and secretly hoping it's removed most of the CA19 crap. The Open War mission pack has been quite fun in the meantime.
My only disappointment with 9th is end of Competitive 40k. Kudos to those who can play the same Matched Play mission over and over. Looks like we're going to have to wait another edition for it to come back, maybe even several editions until we get a functional one.
Thanks for your perspective! It’s very different from mine, and it shows the diversity in gaming communities. Crusade has been a dud around here, while the competitive Matched Play format is thriving (as much as it can under there conditions). My play group is not hyper-competitive, but our bi-monthly tournaments are the anchors of our gaming. We veered away from the GW missions in 8th, but the 9th Ed ones have been good for us. Time will tell when things get more normal if the wider tournament community will get behind the GW mission pack - I think it would be a good thing.
I would like to get a Crusade going - maybe over the holidays with my son.
Vankraken wrote: Yes 7th had a lot of OP as feth stuff but honestly it's not really all that different than any other edition where you bring a tournament net list vs somebody running something fluffy. Good games of 40k come from talking with your opponent to gauge what sort of game both parties are looking to have, roughly how powerful an army they are going to field, and fielding an army that is within the same ballpark in terms of power. The game has always had terrible codex balance (internal and external) and a level of mutual agreement has been needed to hammer out a good matchup and avoid one sided stomps.
The problem with 7th wasn't the OP stuff, it was that balance was so out of whack that some codices could bring their top competitive lists and had no chance of beating other codices who just brought a random coherent list from their collection.
It's also worth noting that "netlists" aren't really a thing in 9th any more...
Jidmah wrote: It's also worth noting that "netlists" aren't really a thing in 9th any more...
That might be more to do with the Pandemic cancelling tournaments than with the specific edition. Mind you, every time I'd tried to dig in to 9th my will to write a list is found wanting.
Not every country is in the same situation as US/UK. Down under is having regular tournaments again, and large parts of Europe also had events during summer - and then there is TTS. In addition, coverage and data of competitive gaming is more available than ever, so if anything, there should be more people copying lists from tournament winners.
Much more of a factor seems to be the massively increased internal balance in many codices compared to older editions. While top competitive lists tend to roughly follow the same game plan, the actual units used vary wildly. Obviously, this doesn't apply to armies that didn't have more than one list to begin with, like Harlequins or Custodes.
Karol wrote: In before someone jumping in, saying their FW unit they use is damanged vehicle recovery IG APC used only in narrative games, and not an old school Leviathan trying to be a mini deathstar.
You're actually right even if youre trying to be ironic.
It's very easy with all three factions you mentioned. With orks it's actually harder to field a competitive army than an absolute trash one. Custodes and harlies can definitely be played at casual levels without bullying people: the former just need to avoid FW stuff, which is something you typically don't see outside tournaments, and the latter just need to avoid some of the cheesiest combos the army can bring. WYSIWYG troups will unlikely have the most effective loadout due to the available bitz in their kit for example and you also don't see 12-18 bikes outside tournaments.
okey, but then you are just building a bad army. And I am not saying that people never play bad armies, I played a termintor based army all 8th ed. But in reality why would someone build a non 24" move harlis, or non goff orks. Maybe you don't always can or want to take ghaz, specialy before you could get his model as a separate one. But max fusion gun, always mounted all the time for harlis, jet custodes is as basic as tanking melta weapons in marine armies or running nurglings and slanesh stuff in chaos soups.
You have a point about harlequins and Custodes because these codex have like 3 options each.
Orks on the other hand have probably the most variety of possible lists after marines. Saying they can only build one thing is ridiculous.
My entire army is build around 4 kits, termintors, NDK, strikes and dreadnought. Termintors can make all GK characters, and paladins, the strikes can make everything else. So I could be biased that is true.
I mean, my Harlequin army is from 7th edition, when several weapons did COMPLETELY different stuff than they did now. So - as an example - I have a unit of Skyweaver Jetbikes with every model equipped with a star bola. Back in 7th, when those were single use blast weapons, that made some sense. Now, when they are the GRENADE type and you would need to have a railroad spike through your brain to field more than 1 model in a unit equipped with them, that unit is less competitive. I also have a Voidweaver from when GW basically made that unit mandatory to play clowns in 7th - basically every formation had 1 voidweaver in it IIRC.
Good thing that box comes with the option to build both models with Star Bolas!
Or, heck, when it comes to weaponry I have a large mix of stuff - troupes I bought when the army came out in 7th, old rogue trader harlequin models equipped with all manner of crazy crap, and models I already had of the 5th ed era metal troupe box and characters. All of it is 2 editions out of date now, so my Harlequin collection is out of date.
You don't build an army that's bad on purpose, you choose to either build an army that has a variety of equipment so that meta changes dont screw you over, or you choose to build an army that's meta for a particular edition/moment,and GW changes the rules on you like they do every 5 seconds.
Jidmah wrote: The problem with 7th wasn't the OP stuff, it was that balance was so out of whack that some codices could bring their top competitive lists and had no chance of beating other codices who just brought a random coherent list from their collection.
It's also worth noting that "netlists" aren't really a thing in 9th any more...
I wouldn't say netlists are gone. You clearly see "options" that slot into armies. See for example "vanguard with lightning claws+storm shield" as an example being slotted into a lot of Marine lists.
But yeah, the issue with 7th was the very explicit tier list.
I mean arguably it was *healthy*.
You could play Wraithknight+Scatbikes+Warpsiders, Riptide Wing, (or why not both), Superfriends, Free Razorback spam, Magnus and Invisible Screamer Stars or Knights and have a decent shot at winning games. I think arguably who got the first turn for that 5+ selection of lists was the biggest determinant of winning like now.
Which is why tournaments evolved to the point where those above lists were making up about 80% of attendees or so. (Not counting end of term Ynnari madness).
If you didn't then bad luck. Necrons crushed everyone else, but couldn't cope with the above. Then you had Hive Tyrant Spam and Reaver Jetbike Spam. Then... whatever the other factions were running.
I feel Harlequins/Marines/Sisters/Custodes/Daemons maybe have an edge right now - but not so much to the point where its an auto-win versus the other factions in the game. Arguably though this is because going first is too impactful (except for Tau, who seem to be toast.)
the_scotsman 794304 11003575 wrote:
You don't build an army that's bad on purpose, you choose to either build an army that has a variety of equipment so that meta changes dont screw you over, or you choose to build an army that's meta for a particular edition/moment,and GW changes the rules on you like they do every 5 seconds.
my dudes came with a mix of halabards and swords, and no "options" to build them different in a time when running anything other then a falchion strikes was a very bad idea, and that is on top of playing GK being a bad idea in the first place.
I think people have different view points, I know I do, depending on how their factions did over the years. It is a different thing to think about buying and spreading around different options, when someones faction is good most of the time or good ever 2-3 years. I played GK only in 8th and now in 9th, but if I played them the last time they were good, I would have to have waited for the PA book since 5th ed. 3 editions of waiting that, maybe GW is going to fix something, is almost as long as I live and I really struggle with the idea of just wait maybe in 15 years option X is going to be good, specialy as from time to time GW seems to phase out factions or kill whole games. I can't think what guys, that waited 6-8 years for GW to fix WFB, felt when they woke up one day and AoS became a thing. So yeah for some factions it is 5 sec, for others it is longer then people stay in the hobby. And what is worries some is that no one tells this to you when you are starting. The seller wants to get a rid of a unsellable models, people online tell you either horror stories or fairy tales about playing what you want, and stuff live love of painting models fixing everything.
the_scotsman wrote: You don't build an army that's bad on purpose, you choose to either build an army that has a variety of equipment so that meta changes dont screw you over, or you choose to build an army that's meta for a particular edition/moment,and GW changes the rules on you like they do every 5 seconds.
I was looking over what I have for Chaos Terminators last night. All my old ones were largely built for termicide (3-marine squad, deep strikes, hits something and gets destroyed for those who don't know) use, and new ones I added I wanted to give powerful weapon options since the sculpt looks a little better. Combine that with me liking the look and concept of a power fist and can barely field minimum sized squad with even close to similar weapons load out.
Funny enough I think I have a full 5 combi-melta with power fist or chain fist team and 5 combi-bolter and power axe team just barely out of 20 Chaos Terminators. The other 10 are a crazy assortment of combi-types or heavy weapons and power weapons and two terminators with dual lighting claws. If I decide to pick another box of Chaos Terminators I don't know if they can even do much to sort out the mish-mash. I am definitely waiting for the CSM to see if Bringers of Dispair stayed and is worth it.
I am not too bothered by meta flux. At least in terms of power. There are certainly times when changes are baffling [cough, GSC], but I found that so long as a player doesn't chase the meta dragon's tail, the game works okay in terms of balance. No one is typically bringing optimized lists which does allow for headspace for weaker factions to optimize if needed. Plus, it is really easy to see which player's favorite unit is 'the current most optimized' and not ______ unit. Not worth updating things every six months maybe, but it is what is.
To me the game became much more enjoyable when i started approaching it with a fluff for my lists.
My night lords are blessed by slaanesh even if they do not worship them because they have a maniacal need to flay their victims and create "art" out of their skins. Often Slaanesh sends a keeper and her retinue of daemonettes to assist them and a Contorted epitome to better watch their art.
My Admech are an exploratory fleet from forgeworld Lucius, teleporting onto various worlds with their heavy armor in search of a stronger metal than Luciun.
Having these stories in my mind, even if i don't necessarily tell them to my opponent makes the games more enjoyable and "my guys" are still fun to play even if theyre bad currently.
Vankraken wrote: Yes 7th had a lot of OP as feth stuff but honestly it's not really all that different than any other edition where you bring a tournament net list vs somebody running something fluffy. Good games of 40k come from talking with your opponent to gauge what sort of game both parties are looking to have, roughly how powerful an army they are going to field, and fielding an army that is within the same ballpark in terms of power. The game has always had terrible codex balance (internal and external) and a level of mutual agreement has been needed to hammer out a good matchup and avoid one sided stomps.
The problem with 7th wasn't the OP stuff, it was that balance was so out of whack that some codices could bring their top competitive lists and had no chance of beating other codices who just brought a random coherent list from their collection.
It's also worth noting that "netlists" aren't really a thing in 9th any more...
Exactly why it all comes down to talking to your opponent and coming to some common understanding of what sort of experience both parties are looking to achieve. Believe me I know full well how not all codexes where created equal as Orks and Tau where the two armies I played as the most in 7th and most often I ended up playing against a lot of Eldar or Dark Eldar lists. That being said GW has always done a horrible job of codex consistency but the real kicker in 7th was the transition in "design" from the restrained codexes in early 7th and the post Decurion power creep insanity that dominated the mid to late 7th edition releases. Even then (with the exception of maybe Craftword Eldar) every full codex had some real stinker units even if the codex was considered a top tier army. Didn't see people calling for nerfs for Kroot, Skyrays, and those God awful flyers even when Tau was a tournament winning contender codex for most of the edition.
9th probably doesn't have much in the way of netlists yet considering how thrown off everything has been due to COVID. Nothing about 9th is so inherently different that netlist won't be a thing, even if objective play was made more important.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Thanks for your perspective! It’s very different from mine, and it shows the diversity in gaming communities. Crusade has been a dud around here, while the competitive Matched Play format is thriving (as much as it can under there conditions). My play group is not hyper-competitive, but our bi-monthly tournaments are the anchors of our gaming. We veered away from the GW missions in 8th, but the 9th Ed ones have been good for us. Time will tell when things get more normal if the wider tournament community will get behind the GW mission pack - I think it would be a good thing.
I would like to get a Crusade going - maybe over the holidays with my son.
Being honest, Crusade needs to be refined. It’s still a bit too early. It’s not much of an advantage to have Codex rules when playing against someone still waiting for their Dex, but it’s much more enjoyable to have themed options. The excitement in the players is noticeable. I will say that the biggest advantage of Crusade is that your opponent doesn’t need to play Crusade. This has made it easier to include players to get games in when they don’t have the time to play regularly, are just visiting, or want to switch between armies. It also makes it easier for players to start over without forcing the rest of the group to do the same.
Tournament 40k isn’t that inclusive. I’m glad that it’s working for your group, but not everyone feels that way. The Matched Play format was built by a group of players who ignored the 7th/8th Missions and as a result, excluded 40k players. 9th is the first time that they’ll be able to say that they’re actually holding a 40k tournament, but only because the format is finally a part of the rules. In order for 40k players to attend events now, we have to play by a set of rules that drove us out in the first place.
That said, I typically play using the Open War Mission Pack. I’m still re-learning my Necrons and experimenting with different units and combinations to commit to a Crusade list at this time. This allows for some larger games to learn with, but I can still play with the Crusade players no issues. It’s a great holdover while we wait for the Maelstrom pack or a functional Tournament pack.
What is 9th edition?! Seriously, I just moved to a new place this summer and all of the LGS's are totally closed for gaming so, haven't had a single game yet. Good times.
Vankraken wrote: Yes 7th had a lot of OP as feth stuff but honestly it's not really all that different than any other edition where you bring a tournament net list vs somebody running something fluffy. Good games of 40k come from talking with your opponent to gauge what sort of game both parties are looking to have, roughly how powerful an army they are going to field, and fielding an army that is within the same ballpark in terms of power. The game has always had terrible codex balance (internal and external) and a level of mutual agreement has been needed to hammer out a good matchup and avoid one sided stomps.
The problem with 7th wasn't the OP stuff, it was that balance was so out of whack that some codices could bring their top competitive lists and had no chance of beating other codices who just brought a random coherent list from their collection.
It's also worth noting that "netlists" aren't really a thing in 9th any more...
Exactly why it all comes down to talking to your opponent and coming to some common understanding of what sort of experience both parties are looking to achieve. Believe me I know full well how not all codexes where created equal as Orks and Tau where the two armies I played as the most in 7th and most often I ended up playing against a lot of Eldar or Dark Eldar lists. That being said GW has always done a horrible job of codex consistency but the real kicker in 7th was the transition in "design" from the restrained codexes in early 7th and the post Decurion power creep insanity that dominated the mid to late 7th edition releases. Even then (with the exception of maybe Craftword Eldar) every full codex had some real stinker units even if the codex was considered a top tier army. Didn't see people calling for nerfs for Kroot, Skyrays, and those God awful flyers even when Tau was a tournament winning contender codex for most of the edition.
7th was so badly balanced, even a player with a varied collection would find himself unable to tone his lists in such a way that they could meet on equal footing with someone in the same situation. And that is already assuming people know their army well enough and own enough models to do this in the first place. One necron player that started after their codex dropped left the game for good only half a year later - half the players wouldn't play him and the other half would
There is no way to sugar-coat that.
9th probably doesn't have much in the way of netlists yet considering how thrown off everything has been due to COVID. Nothing about 9th is so inherently different that netlist won't be a thing, even if objective play was made more important.
Yeah, this is demonstrably wrong. COVID isn't as much of an issue in other parts of world and it's possible to play 40k without meeting each other in person.
Click here to find the analysis of thousands of recorded competitive games since the release of SM and Necrons alone: https://www.goonhammer.com/the-december-2020-meta-review/
My area has a healthy mix of casual, narrative and comp types but Crusade hasn't really taken off like I'd have expected it to. Maybe that's just because people are more interested in learning and getting to grips with 9th that an extra gamemode on top of it is too much to ask right now, or it could be because Crusade requires so much extra book-keeping it's turning people away. The latter is kind of what's happened with me honestly. We're at a stage where hyper-focused competitive practice feels like less work than the casual Crusade campaign stuff.
Pretty good my Ad Mech are holding strong against the marine front. Being the only Admech/DG/Custodes player in my area (theres like 100+ people) is kind of rough, but after GW fething mistake of making DR useless as a paper umbrella im now selling all my DG possible cuz that army is now 1 giant pile of mistake. Custodes are amazing and fun, currently 6 and 1 with my list and my Ad mech are like 4 and 2. I've found i can counter sisters really nicely, but some of the tankier marines list are really hard to delete.
Rahdok wrote: Pretty good my Ad Mech are holding strong against the marine front. Being the only Admech/DG/Custodes player in my area (theres like 100+ people) is kind of rough, but after GW fething mistake of making DR useless as a paper umbrella im now selling all my DG possible cuz that army is now 1 giant pile of mistake. Custodes are amazing and fun, currently 6 and 1 with my list and my Ad mech are like 4 and 2. I've found i can counter sisters really nicely, but some of the tankier marines list are really hard to delete.
My area has a healthy mix of casual, narrative and comp types but Crusade hasn't really taken off like I'd have expected it to. Maybe that's just because people are more interested in learning and getting to grips with 9th that an extra gamemode on top of it is too much to ask right now, or it could be because Crusade requires so much extra book-keeping it's turning people away. The latter is kind of what's happened with me honestly. We're at a stage where hyper-focused competitive practice feels like less work than the casual Crusade campaign stuff.
For my group it didn't take off because of the book-keeping aspect and because, while what we got wasn't bad, it wasn't what we were hoping it would be. We like the idea of leveling up your army but were hoping it would come with a more campaign based component where you're fighting over areas on a map, can control territory and get different strategic bonuses for holding different things etc.
Took part in a eighteen player local tournament yesterday. Four rounds, 1000 points with the CA20 Mission Pack. This was our third tourney for 9th Ed and it sold out (although we are at roughly 1/3 capacity in our gaming area).
All four of my games played in under 90 minutes to five turns (although the last game effectively ended on Turn 3). My games were quite bloody. One game was close and three were basically blow-outs on VPs (I went 2-2 with Necrons - my first time playing Necrons). No rules issues came up, besides me usually forgetting my Command Protocols, Dynasty benefits and Warlord Trait... Playing at 1000 points meant that some Secondary Objectives provide much less potential (killing specific units etc) as there are less Vehicles/Monsters etc. 1000 points is a challenging level - I think 1500 is my preferred level but the smaller format meant we could get one more game in.
I didn't keep fantastic notes, but my recollection of the player breakdown was: Necrons x 2, Tau x 2, Space Wolves x 1, Flesh Tearers x 2, Ultramarines x 2, Deathwatch x 1, Thousand Sons, x 1, Tau x 2, Word Bearers x 1, Daemons x 3, Harlies x 1.
Daemons, Harlies, Tau and Space Wolves were in the top group. Full disclosure - the tourney was intended to be a fun event with quirky lists encouraged and "hard" lists discouraged so take all this with more than the usual grain of salt. I will safely say, though, that Daemons with the big models backed by hordes of smaller ones are very strong in 9th as are Harlies.
Our group is enjoying 9th so far. We are looking forward to the new DE Codex (and I'm looking forward to the DA one of course!)
Given the high lethality of 9th, I'm not surprised armies like Daemons and Harlies are doing well.
The invuln save represents a flat %chance to ignore damage regardless of its character. Essentially, take the entire damage output of a list and reduce it by a flat %. That's how armywide invulns work - and both Daemons and Harlies have ways to spike the survival chance on specific vital units, giving them the flexibility to protect something critical.
The only thing that this doesn't protect against is mortal wounds, but the current most common opponent (space marines) don't output many, and Harlies/Daemons don't output many against each other (mostly psychic phase stuff). Harlies output tons against vehicles, but guess what armies care very little for their vehicles?
Honestly, either army has felt super squishy to me. They win because they get to the objectives first and can murder anything that you try to park on an objective.
The main reason why harlequins lose to my orks is because they leave 3-4 boyz+nob alive who then murder the entire troupe.
Jidmah wrote: Honestly, either army has felt super squishy to me. They win because they get to the objectives first and can murder anything that you try to park on an objective.
The main reason why harlequins lose to my orks is because they leave 3-4 boyz+nob alive who then murder the entire troupe.
They are pretty much the opposite of durable.
That's precisely the point though, isn't it?
Charging a keeper of secrets into 30 boys plus nobs is a recipe for failure. Charging a Keeper of Secrets into 10 marines is a recipe for success. They're perfect Marine mulchers with the durability to survive a few Marines hitting back. They're terrible Ork mulchers who lack the ability to endure loads of orks hitting back. I can go into detail why if you like, but suffice to say from personal experience:
A keeper of secrets is ridiculously amazing against marines, and ridiculously crap against orks, for a whole gamut of reasons.
Rahdok wrote: Pretty good my Ad Mech are holding strong against the marine front. Being the only Admech/DG/Custodes player in my area (theres like 100+ people) is kind of rough, but after GW fething mistake of making DR useless as a paper umbrella im now selling all my DG possible cuz that army is now 1 giant pile of mistake. Custodes are amazing and fun, currently 6 and 1 with my list and my Ad mech are like 4 and 2. I've found i can counter sisters really nicely, but some of the tankier marines list are really hard to delete.
Dude... I'm also a "the sky is falling" DG player,(just look at my latest posts) but nowhere near your caliber. Troops are stronger now, but daemon Engines are much weaker overall. It's still a very good army, and the new -1T aura could be amazing depending on what units gets it and how it's costed. Wait for the codex to fully drop before you commit to selling them. If you picked up DG just so you could win, you were wrong from the start.
However, if you're selling them because they don't FEEL right anymore, then that's subjective and there's no real objective arguments to be made.
I also think that the new DR doesn't FEEL right, and it's overall worse considering all the mortal wounds everywhere, but it's still not BAD. Especially not bad enough to sell your whole army.
You're bringing up Custodes and Admech as good armies because those are the ones you're winning with, so I guess you're only into armies you are favourited to win with.
If you're running "mech DG", then I completely understand why you wanna sell your DG army. However, you could adapt it to take advantage of the new rules so you increase your chance of winning, since that's the only thing you seem to deem good enough.
Tyran wrote: I wouldn't say Daemon Engines are much weaker, as they are also becoming WS/BS 3+
They are having a horizontal realignment, losing durability but gaining damage output.
Yes, they are becomming glass cannons. And that's something that feels really Nurgly: High DPS, low survivability...
The changes are not that massive. -1 to Damage may be weaker than 5+ FNP against most weapons, but it still is a considerable defensive ability.
Moreover it will be very strong in the current meta in which mid damage weapons are very common, you don't want to bring plasma and heavy bolters against -1 to damage abilities.
Tyran wrote: I wouldn't say Daemon Engines are much weaker, as they are also becoming WS/BS 3+
They are having a horizontal realignment, losing durability but gaining damage output.
Yes, they are becomming glass cannons. And that's something that feels really Nurgly: High DPS, low survivability...
theyre still tougher than most other vehicles in the game. Lets not forget how we were losing our gak a cuople of weeks back when we saw dreadnought all gain "duty eternal" and even before that with serpent shield.
-1 damage is a HUGE buff in resiliency, coupled with the 5++ it does wonders to keep your models alive.
Sure, your vehicles might be less resilient than before but theyre still more resilient than the average in the game.
Tyran wrote: I wouldn't say Daemon Engines are much weaker, as they are also becoming WS/BS 3+
They are having a horizontal realignment, losing durability but gaining damage output.
Yes, they are becomming glass cannons. And that's something that feels really Nurgly: High DPS, low survivability...
The changes are not that massive. -1 to Damage may be weaker than 5+ FNP against most weapons, but it still is a considerable defensive ability.
Moreover it will be very strong in the current meta in which mid damage weapons are very common, you don't want to bring plasma and heavy bolters against -1 to damage abilities.
The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.
Jidmah wrote: Honestly, either army has felt super squishy to me. They win because they get to the objectives first and can murder anything that you try to park on an objective.
The main reason why harlequins lose to my orks is because they leave 3-4 boyz+nob alive who then murder the entire troupe.
They are pretty much the opposite of durable.
In fact Harlequins are a glass cannon army, they're definitely not durable. 14-25 (depending on the loadout) ppm models with T3 1W aren't durable at all, even with 4++ and -1 to hit.
However against armies that spam anti tank and anti elite weapons like candies they are quite durable, just like an ork greentide, which isn't durable at all in a TAC game but can be extremely hard to deal with against an army designed to kill marines.
Tyran wrote: I wouldn't say Daemon Engines are much weaker, as they are also becoming WS/BS 3+
They are having a horizontal realignment, losing durability but gaining damage output.
Yes, they are becomming glass cannons. And that's something that feels really Nurgly: High DPS, low survivability...
theyre still tougher than most other vehicles in the game. Lets not forget how we were losing our gak a cuople of weeks back when we saw dreadnought all gain "duty eternal" and even before that with serpent shield.
-1 damage is a HUGE buff in resiliency, coupled with the 5++ it does wonders to keep your models alive.
Sure, your vehicles might be less resilient than before but theyre still more resilient than the average in the game.
Yes, we should absolutely compare a unit to other armies when wer're talking about how they are better or worse than how that same unit used to be.
Yes, unit X might be better than unit Y from a completely different army, but so what? That doesn't change the fact that they are worse than they used to be.
Milk here in Sweden costs 1 dollar for a liter. If they raise that to 1.10 dollars it might still be cheaper than in Guatemala, but it's still 10 cents more than it used to be.
-1D and losing a wound is not a HUGE buff in resilience than before. The 5+ FNP that's probably coming is probably for ONE unit, for ONE phase. Throw that on the drone and they'll just shoot the other one down.
However, if they get BOTH -1D AND FNP, then I totally agree, hands down.
Yes, but they have still been nerfed, no matter what any other army in the game has.
Compare it to itself, not to other things.
Jidmah wrote: Honestly, either army has felt super squishy to me. They win because they get to the objectives first and can murder anything that you try to park on an objective.
The main reason why harlequins lose to my orks is because they leave 3-4 boyz+nob alive who then murder the entire troupe.
They are pretty much the opposite of durable.
In fact Harlequins are a glass cannon army, they're definitely not durable. 14-25 (depending on the loadout) ppm models with T3 1W aren't durable at all, even with 4++ and -1 to hit.
However against armies that spam anti tank and anti elite weapons like candies they are quite durable, just like an ork greentide, which isn't durable at all in a TAC game but can be extremely hard to deal with against an army designed to kill marines.
Yeah. Every army and every army list have good or bad matchups. The problem is it should be a balanced enough game that every non-idiotic or non-meme list has a chance at least.
The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.
Your meta is your meta, but no army with an universal -1 to damage can be considered "glass cannon".
They may be more brittle than they were before, but they remain a very durable faction.
The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.
Your meta is your meta, but no army with an universal -1 to damage can be considered "glass cannon".
They may be more brittle than they were before, but they remain a very durable faction.
Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to DG in generall. I meant the Daemon Engines specifically.
The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.
Your meta is your meta, but no army with an universal -1 to damage can be considered "glass cannon".
They may be more brittle than they were before, but they remain a very durable faction.
Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to DG in generall. I meant the Daemon Engines specifically.
The thing is that demon engines had such unreliable damage output that from my experience they would be the last models to be targeted by my opponents. Sure with demonforge + discolord they could do something but thats not about "just" the demon engine then.
GW had two options: lower the price so that you can spam them or give them decent firepower. Out of these two, giving them a 3+ was the best move they could do to be in line with the fluff.
The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.
Your meta is your meta, but no army with an universal -1 to damage can be considered "glass cannon".
They may be more brittle than they were before, but they remain a very durable faction.
Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to DG in generall. I meant the Daemon Engines specifically.
The thing is that demon engines had such unreliable damage output that from my experience they would be the last models to be targeted by my opponents. Sure with demonforge + discolord they could do something but thats not about "just" the demon engine then.
GW had two options: lower the price so that you can spam them or give them decent firepower. Out of these two, giving them a 3+ was the best move they could do to be in line with the fluff.
Death Guard never had Demonforge nor discolord...
Making them easier to kill is the opposite of being in line with the fluff for DG.
Tyran wrote: I wouldn't say Daemon Engines are much weaker, as they are also becoming WS/BS 3+
They are having a horizontal realignment, losing durability but gaining damage output.
Yes, they are becomming glass cannons. And that's something that feels really Nurgly: High DPS, low survivability...
The changes are not that massive. -1 to Damage may be weaker than 5+ FNP against most weapons, but it still is a considerable defensive ability.
Moreover it will be very strong in the current meta in which mid damage weapons are very common, you don't want to bring plasma and heavy bolters against -1 to damage abilities.
The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.
Pray tell, what is the average wound output for a D1 weapon to typically wound one of the Nurgle Daemon Engines even without FNP?
Oh wait it's super low. The real people that should be complaining are the Baneblade players getting their models blown up by those pesky Bolters and Lasguns!
The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.
Your meta is your meta, but no army with an universal -1 to damage can be considered "glass cannon".
They may be more brittle than they were before, but they remain a very durable faction.
Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to DG in generall. I meant the Daemon Engines specifically.
Points factor into a units durability as well. The Death Guard daemon engines have gained offensive output, but lost some toughness, so they probably won't be seeing massive price increases. If they stay roughly the same, then it will take 240 points of Eradicators, currently the nastiest AT unit in the game, to just barely kill one MBH at roughly 100 PPM. That's pretty tough, especially for a unit that can be taken in squadrons.
The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.
Your meta is your meta, but no army with an universal -1 to damage can be considered "glass cannon".
They may be more brittle than they were before, but they remain a very durable faction.
Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to DG in generall. I meant the Daemon Engines specifically.
The thing is that demon engines had such unreliable damage output that from my experience they would be the last models to be targeted by my opponents. Sure with demonforge + discolord they could do something but thats not about "just" the demon engine then.
GW had two options: lower the price so that you can spam them or give them decent firepower. Out of these two, giving them a 3+ was the best move they could do to be in line with the fluff.
Death Guard never had Demonforge nor discolord...
Making them easier to kill is the opposite of being in line with the fluff for DG.
I misread, i thought you were talking about Daemon Engines in general, not specifically the DG ones.
Still, DG engines still do damage in the fluff, theyre not punching bags. Giving them bs/ws 3+ is a good change and doesnt make them any more glasscannon.
And your demon engines are still the toughest ones in the game, -1 damage is a much better DR than a simple 5++.
Tyran wrote: I wouldn't say Daemon Engines are much weaker, as they are also becoming WS/BS 3+
They are having a horizontal realignment, losing durability but gaining damage output.
Yes, they are becomming glass cannons. And that's something that feels really Nurgly: High DPS, low survivability...
The changes are not that massive. -1 to Damage may be weaker than 5+ FNP against most weapons, but it still is a considerable defensive ability.
Moreover it will be very strong in the current meta in which mid damage weapons are very common, you don't want to bring plasma and heavy bolters against -1 to damage abilities.
The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.
Pray tell, what is the average wound output for a D1 weapon to typically wound one of the Nurgle Daemon Engines even without FNP?
Oh wait it's super low. The real people that should be complaining are the Baneblade players getting their models blown up by those pesky Bolters and Lasguns!
Without buffs -which rarely ever happens: 0.074 dmg. With FNP: 0.049. That's a huge differnce.
It's still low, yes, but two things:
1. It's extremely rare to shoot a single unboosted bolter shot at a Daemon Engine.
2: FNP still makes a HUGE difference.
No, not really. Super-heavies shouldn't be a part of regular 40k at all.So, if we can get rid of them ASAP and "force" people not to take them I see it as something good.
If people are adamant to take them, they should! But expect to lose them in one round.
The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.
Your meta is your meta, but no army with an universal -1 to damage can be considered "glass cannon".
They may be more brittle than they were before, but they remain a very durable faction.
Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to DG in generall. I meant the Daemon Engines specifically.
The thing is that demon engines had such unreliable damage output that from my experience they would be the last models to be targeted by my opponents. Sure with demonforge + discolord they could do something but thats not about "just" the demon engine then.
GW had two options: lower the price so that you can spam them or give them decent firepower. Out of these two, giving them a 3+ was the best move they could do to be in line with the fluff.
Death Guard never had Demonforge nor discolord...
Making them easier to kill is the opposite of being in line with the fluff for DG.
I misread, i thought you were talking about Daemon Engines in general, not specifically the DG ones.
Still, DG engines still do damage in the fluff, theyre not punching bags. Giving them bs/ws 3+ is a good change and doesnt make them any more glasscannon.
And your demon engines are still the toughest ones in the game, -1 damage is a much better DR than a simple 5++.
Fair enough!
Yes, and 4+ still does damage. Besides, flamers were still the weapon of choice (automatic hits, so 4+ BS doesn't matter) The fact that they removed a wound and reduced their survivability while increasing thei potential damage output is EXACTLY why they're more like glass cannons now. Lower chance of survival and increased dmg potential = more of a glasscannon. You DO know what a proverbial "glass cannon" is defines as, right?
Again: YUes, they might be the toughest in the game, but that doesn't change the fact that they are worse than before. -1D being better than 5+ FNP: Sometimes yes. Most often, no.
The majority of weapons that hurts MY daemon engines are D1, D6 and MW. FNP are vastly supriour in that regard. The Bloat Drones also lost a wound. That makes them even easier to kill. It's an upgrade overall for sure, but it still makes them easier to kill. Yes, -1D is great and it's a very good defencive ability, but compared to FNP, it's worse. Yes, there's probably gonna be a strat that gives them a 5+ FNP, but that's one phase, for command points.
Your meta is your meta, but no army with an universal -1 to damage can be considered "glass cannon".
They may be more brittle than they were before, but they remain a very durable faction.
Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to DG in generall. I meant the Daemon Engines specifically.
Points factor into a units durability as well. The Death Guard daemon engines have gained offensive output, but lost some toughness, so they probably won't be seeing massive price increases. If they stay roughly the same, then it will take 240 points of Eradicators, currently the nastiest AT unit in the game, to just barely kill one MBH at roughly 100 PPM. That's pretty tough, especially for a unit that can be taken in squadrons.
No, points doesn't matter when you're talking about a vehicle's durability.
If a tank has 10 wounds, T7, 3+/5++ and costs 100p, it's still more durable than a tank with 5 wounds, T4, 4+/6++ at 10.
One dies more easily than the other, no matter the points.
What? Of course points matter, as does the ability to bring 3 per detachment slot. That's why 2 Leman Russes are considered more durable than the aforementioned Baneblade.
And super heavys have existed in 40k since 3rd edition. Want to go back to 2nd do you?
Gadzilla666 wrote: What? Of course points matter, as does the ability to bring 3 per detachment slot. That's why 2 Leman Russes are considered more durable than the aforementioned Baneblade.
And super heavys have existed in 40k since 3rd edition. Want to go back to 2nd do you?
Then please tell me how less wounds and a worse save makes a tank more durable.
When I was playing 5th, the only superheavy avalable was in Apocalypse and Epic.
(edit) No, sorry. Didn't the Stompa come in 5th, and had rules for non-Apoc games?
All big things require 2-3 less damage to kill, only Mortarion and the drone lost more, the later only because it lost an additional wound from its profile.
Jidmah wrote: All big things require 2-3 less damage to kill, only Mortarion and the drone lost more, the later only because it lost an additional wound from its profile.
That's hardly being a glass cannon.
2-3 less dmg to be killed. For a 10 wound model, that's 20-30%.
And super heavys have existed in 40k since 3rd edition. Want to go back to 2nd do you?
Point of order - technically, super heavies were in 2nd as well ...
Ah, my apologies. I started in 3rd. Which super heavys were available in 2nd?
Kall3m0n wrote:
Bosskelot wrote: High T, Invun Saves and -Damage are considered glass cannons now?
Okay T, 5+ inv, -1D.
9 non-rapid firing bolters is enough to take down a drone now.
That's assuming every shot hits, then wounds, and you fail every save. 10 could do the same previously if you failed all of your DR rolls. Either of those things happening is incredibly unlikely.
For the fun of maths, it is one in 14.89 billion, meaning you are more likely to win the lottery by a factor of 50 (1 in 300 million) than killing a blight drone with 9 bolter.
Bosskelot wrote: High T, Invun Saves and -Damage are considered glass cannons now?
Okay T, 5+ inv, -1D.
9 non-rapid firing bolters is enough to take down a drone now.
What have you been smoking? I need it.
Of course a few bolters can kill it if they're rolling like an Irishman with a horseshoe up their arse, but that's all but irrelevant in game terms.
I remember when a squad of 10 FRFSRF infantryman removed 8 wounds from one of my Rhinos full of berserkers. We all became spechless for a couple seconds but thats like... a one time thing in 200 games played?
And super heavys have existed in 40k since 3rd edition. Want to go back to 2nd do you?
Point of order - technically, super heavies were in 2nd as well ...
Ah, my apologies. I started in 3rd. Which super heavys were available in 2nd?
Kall3m0n wrote:
Bosskelot wrote: High T, Invun Saves and -Damage are considered glass cannons now?
Okay T, 5+ inv, -1D.
9 non-rapid firing bolters is enough to take down a drone now.
That's assuming every shot hits, then wounds, and you fail every save. 10 could do the same previously if you failed all of your DR rolls. Either of those things happening is incredibly unlikely.
Yes, but let's assume every single shot hits and wounds and isn't saved Drone dead.
. And let's add an additional single bolter shot. and add the fact that every single shot has a 1/3 chance of being ignored.Drone not dead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: Like once every ten million blue moons.
For the fun of maths, it is one in 14.89 billion, meaning you are more likely to win the lottery by a factor of 50 (1 in 300 million) than killing a blight drone with 9 bolter.
Yes, it's astronomically unlikely it will ever happen. It's however possible.
It used to be impossible.
Yes, it's astronomically unlikely it will ever happen. It's however possible.
It used to be impossible.
And it is such an astronomically unlikely edge case that it doesn't deserve consideration, because it makes you look that you are complaining for the sake of complaining.
There are situations where the change to DR will hurt, mostly vs MW spammy armies and extra high damage weapons. 9 bolters is not one of those situations.
The Baneblade rules for 5th edition can be found in the Imperial Armor series of books, the first of which came out during 3rd (2001 IIRC). The 2nd edition -> 3rd edition changeover necessitated a rewrite of the Baneblade's rules, which stayed largely the same throughout 3rd-7th.
In those editions, it was roughly 3 times as durable as a Leman Russ while having thicker armor. (3 structure points -> 9 hull points in 6th) The main gun was was dramatically improved to keep pace with firepower escalation (regular battle cannon in 3rd, earned strength 9 AP2 in 4th, earned apocalyptic blast (10" when APOC came out, then persisted with that profile through 7th). The number of sponsons varied (started as mandatory 1 set. Then zero or one set, with zero giving +1 armor on the side, then zero-2 sets with no benefit other than points costs to bring 0).
The points cost varied wildly (starting at 634 in 3rd, hitting 500 in 5th, then zipping back to 600ish depending on loadout in 6th and 7th).
Otherwise the rules were consistent until 8th, when it dramatically lost durability and firepower relative to the Leman Russ.
In fact, 5th edition represents a sea change in Baneblade employment. In 3rd, it could only be taken in games larger than 2k points. In 4th, the same. In 5th, three of them could be taken in a 1500 pts army (as the army, with nothing else), though they had to play their own special mission.
Yes, it's astronomically unlikely it will ever happen. It's however possible.
It used to be impossible.
And it is such an astronomically unlikely edge case that it doesn't deserve consideration, because it makes you look that you are complaining for the sake of complaining.
There are situations where the change to DR will hurt, mostly vs MW spammy armies and extra high damage weapons. 9 bolters is not one of those situations.
That I do agree with. And my point wasn't that it is relevant. However, my point was that they have lost a lost of survivability.
The Baneblade rules for 5th edition can be found in the Imperial Armor series of books, the first of which came out during 3rd (2001 IIRC). The 2nd edition -> 3rd edition changeover necessitated a rewrite of the Baneblade's rules, which stayed largely the same throughout 3rd-7th.
In those editions, it was roughly 3 times as durable as a Leman Russ while having thicker armor. (3 structure points -> 9 hull points in 6th)
The main gun was was dramatically improved to keep pace with firepower escalation (regular battle cannon in 3rd, earned strength 9 AP2 in 4th, earned apocalyptic blast (10" when APOC came out, then persisted with that profile through 7th).
The number of sponsons varied (started as mandatory 1 set. Then zero or one set, with zero giving +1 armor on the side, then zero-2 sets with no benefit other than points costs to bring 0).
The points cost varied wildly (starting at 634 in 3rd, hitting 500 in 5th, then zipping back to 600ish depending on loadout in 6th and 7th).
Otherwise the rules were consistent until 8th, when it dramatically lost durability and firepower relative to the Leman Russ.
And the Imperial Armour stuff was legal to play with in a normal game of sub 2000p 40k?
The Baneblade rules for 5th edition can be found in the Imperial Armor series of books, the first of which came out during 3rd (2001 IIRC). The 2nd edition -> 3rd edition changeover necessitated a rewrite of the Baneblade's rules, which stayed largely the same throughout 3rd-7th.
In those editions, it was roughly 3 times as durable as a Leman Russ while having thicker armor. (3 structure points -> 9 hull points in 6th) The main gun was was dramatically improved to keep pace with firepower escalation (regular battle cannon in 3rd, earned strength 9 AP2 in 4th, earned apocalyptic blast (10" when APOC came out, then persisted with that profile through 7th). The number of sponsons varied (started as mandatory 1 set. Then zero or one set, with zero giving +1 armor on the side, then zero-2 sets with no benefit other than points costs to bring 0).
The points cost varied wildly (starting at 634 in 3rd, hitting 500 in 5th, then zipping back to 600ish depending on loadout in 6th and 7th).
Otherwise the rules were consistent until 8th, when it dramatically lost durability and firepower relative to the Leman Russ.
And the Imperial Armour stuff was legal to play with in a normal game of sub 2000p 40k?
Not in sub 2k in the case of the Baneblade from 3rd and 4th, but it was otherwise legal for normal 40k played above these levels (e.g. 2500, which was the standard for the GW-run 'ard boyz tournaments). As legal as anything in the game was - which is to say, your opponent had to agree/the event rules had to permit it.
Yes, but let's assume every single shot hits and wounds and isn't saved Drone dead.
. And let's add an additional single bolter shot. and add the fact that every single shot has a 1/3 chance of being ignored.Drone not dead.
or lets assume that the drone failed all his DR saves and show how the rule change did nothing at all.
Seems like we're in fantasy land where probability doesnt matter at that point.
Jidmah wrote: All big things require 2-3 less damage to kill, only Mortarion and the drone lost more, the later only because it lost an additional wound from its profile.
That's hardly being a glass cannon.
2-3 less dmg to be killed. For a 10 wound model, that's 20-30%.
Nonsense. The loss in durability is between 12% and 20% against common dedicated anti-tank weapons (d6, d3+3, d6+2), equal or better against allrounder weapons (1d3, 2 and 3 damage) and significantly higher against weapons that usually have low AP and wound the drone of 5s or 4s or would have killed most of the DG models anyways (4+ damage). The drone is an exception because it went down by a wound to no longer degrade, which was a rather large issue for a model that lost three relevant stats. It's also worth noting that the MBH went up by a wound and that a least defilers and possessed no longer require CP to gain DR.
Or, in more practical terms: It used to take 15 lascannons to kill a drone, no it takes "just" 14 lascannons to kill it - and this is the model that lost by far the most durability.
Kall3m0n wrote: You DO know what a proverbial "glass cannon" is defines as, right?
i do, since i play eldar aspect warriors
Glass featherdusters aren't the same thing as glass cannons.
dark reapers tho...
Str 8 AP-2 3 flat damage with 1 shot per model is the standard for not a glass cannon?
SM Devastators can manage better than that while being more durable to boot - though they hit on 4s in some situations where the DRs would hit on 3s.
? im pointing out that Dark reapers ARE a glasscannon unit. I thought you were saying that aspect warriors did no damage and therefore didnt qualify as glass "cannons" with your "featherduster" quip.
Jidmah wrote: All big things require 2-3 less damage to kill, only Mortarion and the drone lost more, the later only because it lost an additional wound from its profile.
That's hardly being a glass cannon.
2-3 less dmg to be killed. For a 10 wound model, that's 20-30%.
Nonsense. The loss in durability is between 12% and 20% against common dedicated anti-tank weapons (d6, d3+3, d6+2), equal or better against allrounder weapons (1d3, 2 and 3 damage) and significantly higher against weapons that usually have low AP and wound the drone of 5s or 4s or would have killed most of the DG models anyways (4+ damage). The drone is an exception because it went down by a wound to no longer degrade, which was a rather large issue for a model that lost three relevant stats. It's also worth noting that the MBH went up by a wound and that a least defilers and possessed no longer require CP to gain DR.
I do belive 2 of 10 is 20%, and 3 of 10 is 30%. My maths can be way off though.
The average there is 16%. I for one think 16% is very much noticable when it comes to 9-10 wounds.
How is their durability " significantly higher against weapons that usually have low AP and wound the drone of 5s or 4s or would have killed most of the DG models anyways (4+ damage)" when they lose one wound and lose 5+ FNP? What does low AP have to do with -1D and 5+ FNP?
Yes, the fact that MBH went up a wound is great!
Yeah, but nobody uses possessed anyway. Now that it seems like all DG Daemon Engines are getting WS/BS 3, the -1D is actually relevant on Defilers, because now they're actually worth fielding. Assuming the points stay.
I'm sorry , what? Possessed bomb was a top tier strat a few months ago.... The cap on minuses to hit that came with 9th nerfed them but them getting DR and more attacks will probably make them top tier again.
The Baneblade rules for 5th edition can be found in the Imperial Armor series of books, the first of which came out during 3rd (2001 IIRC). The 2nd edition -> 3rd edition changeover necessitated a rewrite of the Baneblade's rules, which stayed largely the same throughout 3rd-7th.
In those editions, it was roughly 3 times as durable as a Leman Russ while having thicker armor. (3 structure points -> 9 hull points in 6th)
The main gun was was dramatically improved to keep pace with firepower escalation (regular battle cannon in 3rd, earned strength 9 AP2 in 4th, earned apocalyptic blast (10" when APOC came out, then persisted with that profile through 7th).
The number of sponsons varied (started as mandatory 1 set. Then zero or one set, with zero giving +1 armor on the side, then zero-2 sets with no benefit other than points costs to bring 0).
The points cost varied wildly (starting at 634 in 3rd, hitting 500 in 5th, then zipping back to 600ish depending on loadout in 6th and 7th).
Otherwise the rules were consistent until 8th, when it dramatically lost durability and firepower relative to the Leman Russ.
And the Imperial Armour stuff was legal to play with in a normal game of sub 2000p 40k?
Not in sub 2k in the case of the Baneblade from 3rd and 4th, but it was otherwise legal for normal 40k played above these levels (e.g. 2500, which was the standard for the GW-run 'ard boyz tournaments). As legal as anything in the game was - which is to say, your opponent had to agree/the event rules had to permit it.
In 5th you could take 3 in 1500.
You could use them at 2000 points with your opponent's consent in 3rd/4th. Also worth noting 3rd added Scorpions and Cobras for Eldar, Battle Fortresses for Orks, and Warhound Titans. It also added Gargantuan Creatures like Gargantuan Squigoths for Orks and Heirodules for Tyranids. Super Heavys aren't a new thing.
I'm sorry , what? Possessed bomb was a top tier strat a few months ago.... The cap on minuses to hit that came with 9th nerfed them but them getting DR and more attacks will probably make them top tier again.
Aren't Possessed going to 3W as well? If so, along with their terminators, Death Guard will have infantry that drops the effectiveness of 3D weapons with DR. Sounds like a buff to me.
The Baneblade rules for 5th edition can be found in the Imperial Armor series of books, the first of which came out during 3rd (2001 IIRC). The 2nd edition -> 3rd edition changeover necessitated a rewrite of the Baneblade's rules, which stayed largely the same throughout 3rd-7th.
In those editions, it was roughly 3 times as durable as a Leman Russ while having thicker armor. (3 structure points -> 9 hull points in 6th)
The main gun was was dramatically improved to keep pace with firepower escalation (regular battle cannon in 3rd, earned strength 9 AP2 in 4th, earned apocalyptic blast (10" when APOC came out, then persisted with that profile through 7th).
The number of sponsons varied (started as mandatory 1 set. Then zero or one set, with zero giving +1 armor on the side, then zero-2 sets with no benefit other than points costs to bring 0).
The points cost varied wildly (starting at 634 in 3rd, hitting 500 in 5th, then zipping back to 600ish depending on loadout in 6th and 7th).
Otherwise the rules were consistent until 8th, when it dramatically lost durability and firepower relative to the Leman Russ.
And the Imperial Armour stuff was legal to play with in a normal game of sub 2000p 40k?
Not in sub 2k in the case of the Baneblade from 3rd and 4th, but it was otherwise legal for normal 40k played above these levels (e.g. 2500, which was the standard for the GW-run 'ard boyz tournaments). As legal as anything in the game was - which is to say, your opponent had to agree/the event rules had to permit it.
In 5th you could take 3 in 1500.
You could use them at 2000 points with your opponent's consent in 3rd/4th. Also worth noting 3rd added Scorpions and Cobras for Eldar, Battle Fortresses for Orks, and Warhound Titans. It also added Gargantuan Creatures like Gargantuan Squigoths for Orks and Heirodules for Tyranids. Super Heavys aren't a new thing.
Fair points. However, i did play some bigger tournaments (1850p) in 5th and never saw anyone, nor heard of anyone fielding a super heavy.
Aren't Possessed going to 3W as well? If so, along with their terminators, Death Guard will have infantry that drops the effectiveness of 3D weapons with DR. Sounds like a buff to me.
Huh, i legitimately thought they had only 1 wound before. Yeah, theyre going to be top tier for sure.
Kall3m0n wrote: Fair points. However, i did play some bigger tournaments (1850p) in 5th and never saw anyone, nor heard of anyone fielding a super heavy.
Sorry to hear that. I, meanwhile, played superheavies, so every event I went to had one.
They've been in 40k a while. The fact that player taboo generally kept them out isn't the same thing as them not having rules - after all, this led to most tournaments banning them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: ? im pointing out that Dark reapers ARE a glasscannon unit. I thought you were saying that aspect warriors did no damage and therefore didnt qualify as glass "cannons" with your "featherduster" quip.
I'm pointing out that they still do very little damage for the points they pay, by illustrating that a "bad" unit, i.e. SM Devastators, do comparable damage.
I'm pointing out that they still do very little damage for the points they pay, by illustrating that a "bad" unit, i.e. SM Devastators, do comparable damage.
Oh, for sure. Theyre bad but my point was to compare how ridiculous it is to say that bloat-drones and blight-haulers are glass cannons when things like dark reapers exist.
I'm pointing out that they still do very little damage for the points they pay, by illustrating that a "bad" unit, i.e. SM Devastators, do comparable damage.
Oh, for sure. Theyre bad but my point was to compare how ridiculous it is to say that bloat-drones and blight-haulers are glass cannons when things like dark reapers exist.
Well, right. I was riffing off that point to say that the Eldar units are even worse off because they don't do damage, either. They're glass feather dusters, while the Death Guard are complaining that their nuclear weapons are cased in steel rather than titanium.
Kall3m0n wrote: Fair points. However, i did play some bigger tournaments (1850p) in 5th and never saw anyone, nor heard of anyone fielding a super heavy.
Sorry to hear that. I, meanwhile, played superheavies, so every event I went to had one.
They've been in 40k a while. The fact that player taboo generally kept them out isn't the same thing as them not having rules - after all, this led to most tournaments banning them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: ? im pointing out that Dark reapers ARE a glasscannon unit. I thought you were saying that aspect warriors did no damage and therefore didnt qualify as glass "cannons" with your "featherduster" quip.
I'm pointing out that they still do very little damage for the points they pay, by illustrating that a "bad" unit, i.e. SM Devastators, do comparable damage.
I'm sorry for every other player then, I say without having any idea how they actually played. ^^
Yeah, that's fair. I wish that player taboo came back. I loath them. However, I love Mortarion, so I'm contradicting myself. But I would much rather have a Mortarion that was more like the 30k one. So if they ban super heavies, including Mortarion and Magnus, but we got the 30k versions of the primarchs instead, I'd be a happy camper.
I'm pointing out that they still do very little damage for the points they pay, by illustrating that a "bad" unit, i.e. SM Devastators, do comparable damage.
Oh, for sure. Theyre bad but my point was to compare how ridiculous it is to say that bloat-drones and blight-haulers are glass cannons when things like dark reapers exist.
Well, right. I was riffing off that point to say that the Eldar units are even worse off because they don't do damage, either. They're glass feather dusters, while the Death Guard are complaining that their nuclear weapons are cased in steel rather than titanium.
There you go, comparing units over the army boundries again.
In that case I want to complain that the Tau only hits on 4's when other armies' infantry hits on 3's and even 2's! Or that Orks only hits on 5's! Not fair!
Kall3m0n wrote: I do belive 2 of 10 is 20%, and 3 of 10 is 30%. My maths can be way off though.
It is, because both variants of DR increase the amount of damage required to kill a DG model beyond it's health. So the old drone requires 15 damage to kill, the new drone requires 11-12 damage from dedicated anti-tanks. However, this is distorted by the loss of the 10th wound, so the PBC is a much better example to evaluate the DR change: Old version takes 18 damage to kill, new takes 15-16, depending on the damage profile of the weapon used.
How is their durability " significantly higher against weapons that usually have low AP and wound the drone of 5s or 4s or would have killed most of the DG models anyways (4+ damage)" when they lose one wound and lose 5+ FNP?
The *loss* of durability is significantly higher.
What does low AP have to do with -1D and 5+ FNP?
Because it doesn't really matter whether a daemon engine can withstand 90 or 120 bolter shots - either way it doesn't care about getting shot by bolters.
Kall3m0n wrote: Fair points. However, i did play some bigger tournaments (1850p) in 5th and never saw anyone, nor heard of anyone fielding a super heavy.
Sorry to hear that. I, meanwhile, played superheavies, so every event I went to had one.
They've been in 40k a while. The fact that player taboo generally kept them out isn't the same thing as them not having rules - after all, this led to most tournaments banning them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: ? im pointing out that Dark reapers ARE a glasscannon unit. I thought you were saying that aspect warriors did no damage and therefore didnt qualify as glass "cannons" with your "featherduster" quip.
I'm pointing out that they still do very little damage for the points they pay, by illustrating that a "bad" unit, i.e. SM Devastators, do comparable damage.
I'm sorry for every other player then, I say without having any idea how they actually played. ^^
Yeah, that's fair. I wish that player taboo came back. I loath them. However, I love Mortarion, so I'm contradicting myself. But I would much rather have a Mortarion that was more like the 30k one. So if they ban super heavies, including Mortarion and Magnus, but we got the 30k versions of the primarchs instead, I'd be a happy camper.
So, you're complaining that you're super durable faction is now slightly less durable in certain specific cases (but more durable in others) while hoping for other durable units available to other factions to be banned? Yeah, that's fair.
The Baneblade rules for 5th edition can be found in the Imperial Armor series of books, the first of which came out during 3rd (2001 IIRC). The 2nd edition -> 3rd edition changeover necessitated a rewrite of the Baneblade's rules, which stayed largely the same throughout 3rd-7th.
In those editions, it was roughly 3 times as durable as a Leman Russ while having thicker armor. (3 structure points -> 9 hull points in 6th)
The main gun was was dramatically improved to keep pace with firepower escalation (regular battle cannon in 3rd, earned strength 9 AP2 in 4th, earned apocalyptic blast (10" when APOC came out, then persisted with that profile through 7th).
The number of sponsons varied (started as mandatory 1 set. Then zero or one set, with zero giving +1 armor on the side, then zero-2 sets with no benefit other than points costs to bring 0).
The points cost varied wildly (starting at 634 in 3rd, hitting 500 in 5th, then zipping back to 600ish depending on loadout in 6th and 7th).
Otherwise the rules were consistent until 8th, when it dramatically lost durability and firepower relative to the Leman Russ.
And the Imperial Armour stuff was legal to play with in a normal game of sub 2000p 40k?
Not in sub 2k in the case of the Baneblade from 3rd and 4th, but it was otherwise legal for normal 40k played above these levels (e.g. 2500, which was the standard for the GW-run 'ard boyz tournaments). As legal as anything in the game was - which is to say, your opponent had to agree/the event rules had to permit it.
In 5th you could take 3 in 1500.
You could use them at 2000 points with your opponent's consent in 3rd/4th. Also worth noting 3rd added Scorpions and Cobras for Eldar, Battle Fortresses for Orks, and Warhound Titans. It also added Gargantuan Creatures like Gargantuan Squigoths for Orks and Heirodules for Tyranids. Super Heavys aren't a new thing.
I'm sorry , what? Possessed bomb was a top tier strat a few months ago.... The cap on minuses to hit that came with 9th nerfed them but them getting DR and more attacks will probably make them top tier again.
Aren't Possessed going to 3W as well? If so, along with their terminators, Death Guard will have infantry that drops the effectiveness of 3D weapons with DR. Sounds like a buff to me.
Don't forget that Warhound titans, Reaver titans, phantom titans. An ork great gargant, Eldar knight, Eldar tempest, banblades & Shadows word were all available in 2e via Armor/Epi-casta 3pp company licensed to make such things.)
I'm sorry for every other player then, I say without having any idea how they actually played. ^^
Yeah, that's fair. I wish that player taboo came back. I loath them. However, I love Mortarion, so I'm contradicting myself. But I would much rather have a Mortarion that was more like the 30k one. So if they ban super heavies, including Mortarion and Magnus, but we got the 30k versions of the primarchs instead, I'd be a happy camper.
So, not having any idea how they actually functioned, you decide that they must've been painful to play against? I'm glad we're having reasonable, sensible discourse here!
Why do you loathe superheavies exactly? Is it because they're emblematic of scale creep? That's hating the symptom, not the cause.
EDIT: Yeah there were many more superheavies in 2nd than I am listing; I just have personal experience with the Baneblade (R.I.P. armorcast).
I'm sorry for every other player then, I say without having any idea how they actually played. ^^
Yeah, that's fair. I wish that player taboo came back. I loath them. However, I love Mortarion, so I'm contradicting myself. But I would much rather have a Mortarion that was more like the 30k one. So if they ban super heavies, including Mortarion and Magnus, but we got the 30k versions of the primarchs instead, I'd be a happy camper.
So, not having any idea how they actually functioned, you decide that they must've been painful to play against? I'm glad we're having reasonable, sensible discourse here!
Why do you loathe superheavies exactly? Is it because they're emblematic of scale creep? That's hating the symptom, not the cause.
EDIT:
Yeah there were many more superheavies in 2nd than I am listing; I just have personal experience with the Baneblade (R.I.P. armorcast).
Usually with superheavies hate its "That big tank you brought did a lot of damage to my small tank!!!" its OP please nerf!!. Lets disregard that my Cobra is more than a quarter of my army and that it only killed 200pts-ish of yours.
People also think 40k is all about killing (or play missions where killing is the only objective) and in these situation, titans are usually decent because of their high damage output vs low pts holding potential.
There you go, comparing units over the army boundries again.
In that case I want to complain that the Tau only hits on 4's when other armies' infantry hits on 3's and even 2's! Or that Orks only hits on 5's! Not fair!
Its a valid comparison when your main argument is that DG are now glass cannons when in reality they are still the most resilient army in the whole game.
Kall3m0n wrote: Fair points. However, i did play some bigger tournaments (1850p) in 5th and never saw anyone, nor heard of anyone fielding a super heavy.
Sorry to hear that. I, meanwhile, played superheavies, so every event I went to had one.
They've been in 40k a while. The fact that player taboo generally kept them out isn't the same thing as them not having rules - after all, this led to most tournaments banning them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: ? im pointing out that Dark reapers ARE a glasscannon unit. I thought you were saying that aspect warriors did no damage and therefore didnt qualify as glass "cannons" with your "featherduster" quip.
I'm pointing out that they still do very little damage for the points they pay, by illustrating that a "bad" unit, i.e. SM Devastators, do comparable damage.
I'm sorry for every other player then, I say without having any idea how they actually played. ^^
Yeah, that's fair. I wish that player taboo came back. I loath them. However, I love Mortarion, so I'm contradicting myself. But I would much rather have a Mortarion that was more like the 30k one. So if they ban super heavies, including Mortarion and Magnus, but we got the 30k versions of the primarchs instead, I'd be a happy camper.
So, you're complaining that you're super durable faction is now slightly less durable in certain specific cases (but more durable in others) while hoping for other durable units available to other factions to be banned? Yeah, that's fair.
Is DG's "thing" that they are very resiliant to damage? Yes. Is it any other army's thing? No (except for Custodes)
I am complaing that models with 14+ wounds are legal in normal 2k games, yes.I would complain even if DG got a Baneblade equivalent. Even if it had the old AND the new DR.
Is DG's "thing" that they are very resiliant to damage? Yes. Is it any other army's thing? No (except for Custodes)
I am complaing that models with 14+ wounds are legal in normal 2k games, yes.I would complain even if DG got a Baneblade equivalent. Even if it had the old AND the new DR.
Damn these AM and Knights players with their land raiders, repulsors, Keepers of secrets and tantalus!
I'm sorry for every other player then, I say without having any idea how they actually played. ^^
Yeah, that's fair. I wish that player taboo came back. I loath them. However, I love Mortarion, so I'm contradicting myself. But I would much rather have a Mortarion that was more like the 30k one. So if they ban super heavies, including Mortarion and Magnus, but we got the 30k versions of the primarchs instead, I'd be a happy camper.
So, not having any idea how they actually functioned, you decide that they must've been painful to play against? I'm glad we're having reasonable, sensible discourse here!
Why do you loathe superheavies exactly? Is it because they're emblematic of scale creep? That's hating the symptom, not the cause.
EDIT:
Yeah there were many more superheavies in 2nd than I am listing; I just have personal experience with the Baneblade (R.I.P. armorcast).
Yes.
I don't feel like they a place in the game. Super-heavies is for super big games. I don't care that most of them aren't worth their points. Big models are for bog games. Huge models are for huge games.
I'm sorry for every other player then, I say without having any idea how they actually played. ^^
Yeah, that's fair. I wish that player taboo came back. I loath them. However, I love Mortarion, so I'm contradicting myself. But I would much rather have a Mortarion that was more like the 30k one. So if they ban super heavies, including Mortarion and Magnus, but we got the 30k versions of the primarchs instead, I'd be a happy camper.
So, not having any idea how they actually functioned, you decide that they must've been painful to play against? I'm glad we're having reasonable, sensible discourse here!
Why do you loathe superheavies exactly? Is it because they're emblematic of scale creep? That's hating the symptom, not the cause.
EDIT:
Yeah there were many more superheavies in 2nd than I am listing; I just have personal experience with the Baneblade (R.I.P. armorcast).
Yes.
I don't feel like they a place in the game. Super-heavies is for super big games. I don't care that most of them aren't worth their points. Big models are for bog games. Huge models are for huge games.
So Guilliman would be fine because he's a small mode, right?
Is DG's "thing" that they are very resiliant to damage? Yes. Is it any other army's thing? No (except for Custodes)
I am complaing that models with 14+ wounds are legal in normal 2k games, yes.I would complain even if DG got a Baneblade equivalent. Even if it had the old AND the new DR.
Damn these AM and Knights players with their land raiders, repulsors, Keepers of secrets and tantalus!
You know what I mean but choose to act like you don't because you think it's funny.
That being said, I don't think vehicles should have wounds at all. Basically, I want the templates, vehicle facing, weapon arcs and armour of 5'th ed with the current base rules.
I'm sorry for every other player then, I say without having any idea how they actually played. ^^
Yeah, that's fair. I wish that player taboo came back. I loath them. However, I love Mortarion, so I'm contradicting myself. But I would much rather have a Mortarion that was more like the 30k one. So if they ban super heavies, including Mortarion and Magnus, but we got the 30k versions of the primarchs instead, I'd be a happy camper.
So, not having any idea how they actually functioned, you decide that they must've been painful to play against? I'm glad we're having reasonable, sensible discourse here!
Why do you loathe superheavies exactly? Is it because they're emblematic of scale creep? That's hating the symptom, not the cause.
EDIT:
Yeah there were many more superheavies in 2nd than I am listing; I just have personal experience with the Baneblade (R.I.P. armorcast).
Yes.
I don't feel like they a place in the game. Super-heavies is for super big games. I don't care that most of them aren't worth their points. Big models are for bog games. Huge models are for huge games.
So Guilliman would be fine because he's a small mode, right?
Correct. And if Magnus and Mortiarion had 40k versions of their 30k profiles then they would also be fine.
Is DG's "thing" that they are very resiliant to damage? Yes. Is it any other army's thing? No (except for Custodes)
I am complaing that models with 14+ wounds are legal in normal 2k games, yes.I would complain even if DG got a Baneblade equivalent. Even if it had the old AND the new DR.
Damn these AM and Knights players with their land raiders, repulsors, Keepers of secrets and tantalus!
You know what I mean but choose to act like you don't because you think it's funny.
That being said, I don't think vehicles should have wounds at all. Basically, I want the templates, vehicle facing, weapon arcs and armour of 5'th ed with the current base rules.
I don't know what you mean because you contradict yourself with things like this :
Big models are for bog games. Huge models are for huge games.
What is your prefered metric to judge if a model should be in the game or not? Its physical size? A random tag that assigns it to Lord of War? Its efficiency?
Because you coming out and saying that LoWs dont belong in the game makes no sense. You're lumping in tons of models that are outshined by heavy support choices.
Correct. And if Magnus and Mortiarion had 40k versions of their 30k profiles then they would also be fine.
So it is purely a "physical size" kind of deal. Guilliman boosts an army way more than Morty or Maggy do. Its also got nothing to do with their profiles since profiles don't determine size.
Wait you don't like Baneblades because they're big?
That's a silly reason to not let someone enjoy themselves.
"Wanna play a game of 40k?"
"Sure."
"Mind if I bring my Baneblades?"
"Yea, I do, actually."
"Alright, I'll bring the Banehammer, it's the less powerful version that no one uses."
"Still won't."
"Why?"
"your models are too big."
Is DG's "thing" that they are very resiliant to damage? Yes. Is it any other army's thing? No (except for Custodes)
I am complaing that models with 14+ wounds are legal in normal 2k games, yes.I would complain even if DG got a Baneblade equivalent. Even if it had the old AND the new DR.
Damn these AM and Knights players with their land raiders, repulsors, Keepers of secrets and tantalus!
You know what I mean but choose to act like you don't because you think it's funny.
That being said, I don't think vehicles should have wounds at all. Basically, I want the templates, vehicle facing, weapon arcs and armour of 5'th ed with the current base rules.
I don't know what you mean because you contradict yourself with things like this :
Big models are for bog games. Huge models are for huge games.
What is your prefered metric to judge if a model should be in the game or not? Its physical size? A random tag that assigns it to Lord of War? Its efficiency?
Because you coming out and saying that LoWs dont belong in the game makes no sense. You're lumping in tons of models that are outshined by heavy support choices.
I don't contradict myself by saying "big models for big games. Huge models for huge games." (corrected my spelling)
Physical size most is usually the same as having more wounds. Yes, I know that you're gonna bring up models X, Y and Z that doesn't follow that usual standard in an attempt to undermine my point.
In what whay does my statement of Lords of War not beloning in 2k games of 40k not make sense? I know many of them are outshined by smaller stuff. So? When have I ever claimed that they are too good or OP for regular 40k? Please quote me.
Kall3m0n wrote: In what whay does my statement of Lords of War not beloning in 2k games of 40k not make sense?
How does it make sense? What logic is behind it or underpinning it? What sense is there in it?
It certainly doesn't make sense to me on face value, so you actually have to explain yourself. The reason other people keep guessing at what you mean is because you haven't managed to state it. You might as well say "In what way does my statement of glue seventy eight sky cat synergistic War of 1812 not make sense?" I can parse the words, but not the sense.
That's a silly reason to not let someone enjoy themselves.
"Wanna play a game of 40k?"
"Sure."
"Mind if I bring my Baneblades?"
"Yea, I do, actually."
"Alright, I'll bring the Banehammer, it's the less powerful version that no one uses."
"Still won't."
"Why?"
"your models are too big."
What?
And them bringing a huge model to a 2k game is a silly reason not to let ME enjoy myself.
I've played against both Knights and Banehammers and Baneblades. In some games I've ignored them, in some games I've killed them first turn. Not once has it been fun. But I can't think of more than three games without any superheavy that has been un-fun.
Kall3m0n wrote: And them bringing a huge model to a 2k game is a silly reason not to let ME enjoy myself. I've played against both Knights and Banehammers and Baneblades. In some games I've ignored them, in some games I've killed them first turn. Not once has it been fun. But I can't think of more than three games without any superheavy that has been un-fun.
So your personal experience has been that they are unfun, therefore they should be removed from the game for anyone else who has had fun both with and against them?
I've never encountered such selfishness in all my life.
I don't contradict myself by saying "big models for big games. Huge models for huge games." (corrected my spelling)
Physical size most is usually the same as having more wounds. Yes, I know that you're gonna bring up models X, Y and Z that doesn't follow that usual standard in an attempt to undermine my point.
In what whay does my statement of Lords of War not beloning in 2k games of 40k not make sense? I know many of them are outshined by smaller stuff. So? When have I ever claimed that they are too good or OP for regular 40k? Please quote me.
my problem is that youre lumping in plenty of models in with the traditional LoWs.
When you include things like Armigers, Spartans and the named greater demons in your argument it makes it nonsensical.
Kall3m0n wrote: In what whay does my statement of Lords of War not beloning in 2k games of 40k not make sense?
How does it make sense? What logic is behind it or underpinning it? What sense is there in it?
It certainly doesn't make sense to me on face value, so you actually have to explain yourself. The reason other people keep guessing at what you mean is because you haven't managed to state it. You might as well say "In what way does my statement of glue seventy eight sky cat synergistic War of 1812 not make sense?"
No, that is incorrrect. That was an extremely poor analogy.
When someone slams down a super-heavy on the table it feels like they're slamming down an Apocalypse model.
They might as well field a Warlord Titan or a Warhound.Is it a Warhammer model? Yes. Does it belong in a normal game of 40k? No.
It's like they bring a model from a completely different game system.
"Oh, cool. You brought a model from Apocalypse to this game of regular 40k. Neato!"
Kall3m0n wrote: In what whay does my statement of Lords of War not beloning in 2k games of 40k not make sense?
How does it make sense? What logic is behind it or underpinning it? What sense is there in it?
It certainly doesn't make sense to me on face value, so you actually have to explain yourself. The reason other people keep guessing at what you mean is because you haven't managed to state it. You might as well say "In what way does my statement of glue seventy eight sky cat synergistic War of 1812 not make sense?"
No, that is incorrrect. That was an extremely poor analogy.
When someone slams down a super-heavy on the table it feels like they're slamming down an Apocalypse model. They might as well field a Warlord Titan or a Warhound.Is it a Warhammer model? Yes. Does it belong in a normal game of 40k? No. It's like they bring a model from a completely different game system. "Oh, cool. You brought a model from Apocalypse to this game of regular 40k. Neato!"
A good first try at the logic, but you're missing a premise. You've omitted the assumption that you hold that that model is for a different game, i.e. "not a normal game of 40k".
Now that we've identified the missing premise, can you tell me why you make that assumption? Because if you remove that premise, your argument no longer functions.
I've been having fun with my Drukhari vs my friends Blood Angels. Now that he has a new Codex I'm having less fun, but in a couple of months suffering and pain will overcome those strawberry flavored smurfs again. For the Dark City.
About the LOW thing, I love seeing an army with a centerpiece model. Buildaround armies are my favourite, they feel narrative and make sense.
I don't contradict myself by saying "big models for big games. Huge models for huge games." (corrected my spelling)
Physical size most is usually the same as having more wounds. Yes, I know that you're gonna bring up models X, Y and Z that doesn't follow that usual standard in an attempt to undermine my point.
In what whay does my statement of Lords of War not beloning in 2k games of 40k not make sense? I know many of them are outshined by smaller stuff. So? When have I ever claimed that they are too good or OP for regular 40k? Please quote me.
my problem is that youre lumping in plenty of models in with the traditional LoWs.
When you include things like Armigers, Spartans and the named greater demons in your argument it makes it nonsensical.
Armigers is a corner case for me. I think they're small enough to be acceptable. No, yeah, they'd be fine.
Spartans are basically LandRaiders. Except good.
Greater Daemons is also a corner case for me. I could't say yay nor ney at this exact moment.
No, that is incorrrect. That was an extremely poor analogy.
When someone slams down a super-heavy on the table it feels to me like they're slamming down an Apocalypse model.
They might as well field a Warlord Titan or a Warhound.Is it a Warhammer model? Yes. Does it belong in a normal game of 40k? In my opinion ,No.
It's like they bring a model from a completely different game system.
"Oh, cool. You brought a model that i perceive as being from Apocalypse to this game of regular 40k. Neato!"
my problem is that youre lumping in plenty of models in with the traditional LoWs.
When you include things like Armigers, Spartans and the named greater demons in your argument it makes it nonsensical.
Well the thing is. When GW starts focusing on big kits to be corner stones of an army, and you and your friend decide to start playing or play, and you plop down 1000 or 1500pts. And suddenly those not so balanced big things at 2000pts start wrecking stuff left and right, or it goes the other way around the big thing is so important to make your army work that the army doesn't work without it, but it doesn't fit in to a 1500 army.
It would be nice if GW, before starting to add knights, gigantic monsters and lords, would first make the game fun and playable at the infantry level. So we don't get the AoS treatment, where you start by buying oblitgatory faction terrain, spells and then start looking what kind of a monsters your faction has.
Kall3m0n wrote: In what whay does my statement of Lords of War not beloning in 2k games of 40k not make sense?
How does it make sense? What logic is behind it or underpinning it? What sense is there in it?
It certainly doesn't make sense to me on face value, so you actually have to explain yourself. The reason other people keep guessing at what you mean is because you haven't managed to state it. You might as well say "In what way does my statement of glue seventy eight sky cat synergistic War of 1812 not make sense?"
No, that is incorrrect. That was an extremely poor analogy.
When someone slams down a super-heavy on the table it feels like they're slamming down an Apocalypse model.
They might as well field a Warlord Titan or a Warhound.Is it a Warhammer model? Yes. Does it belong in a normal game of 40k? No.
It's like they bring a model from a completely different game system.
"Oh, cool. You brought a model from Apocalypse to this game of regular 40k. Neato!"
A good first try at the logic, but you're missing a premise. You've omitted the assumption that you hold that that model is for a different game, i.e. "not a normal game of 40k".
Now that we've identified the missing premise, can you tell me why you make that assumption? Because if you remove that premise, your argument no longer functions.
Warhaounds and titans ARE made for Apoc.
My argument of feelings is still valid. I've used the word "feels".
my problem is that youre lumping in plenty of models in with the traditional LoWs.
When you include things like Armigers, Spartans and the named greater demons in your argument it makes it nonsensical.
Well the thing is. When GW starts focusing on big kits to be corner stones of an army, and you and your friend decide to start playing or play, and you plop down 1000 or 1500pts. And suddenly those not so balanced big things at 2000pts start wrecking stuff left and right, or it goes the other way around the big thing is so important to make your army work that the army doesn't work without it, but it doesn't fit in to a 1500 army.
It would be nice if GW, before starting to add knights, gigantic monsters and lords, would first make the game fun and playable at the infantry level. So we don't get the AoS treatment, where you start by buying oblitgatory faction terrain, spells and then start looking what kind of a monsters your faction has.
What makes you feel like the game isn't fun or even playable at an infantry level?
[CITATION NEEDED] Counterpoint: The kits existed before the Apocalypse rulebook and had rules in 40k before Apocalypse was ever a thing, as many other posters have pointed out.
Kall3m0n wrote: My argument of feelings is still valid. I've used the word "feels".
Not when you are seeking to then try to speak for everyone else. You're welcome to feel these things are not fun to play against.
You are not welcome to call for their banning from a game where lots of people enjoy them, just because of your feels.
Armigers is a corner case for me. I think they're small enough to be acceptable. No, yeah, they'd be fine.
Spartans are basically LandRaiders. Except good.
Greater Daemons is also a corner case for me. I could't say yay nor ney at this exact moment.
up until you look how GD are being run in some armies or AoS. And the lists go like take 2-3 bloodthirsters, take 2-3 KoS.
Playing vs 3-4+ knights is not fun, if GW didn't design your faction to easily deal with knights, and on the other side it ain't very fun for the knight player if you are deleting 2 knights per turn and the game ends on turn 2.
[CITATION NEEDED]
Counterpoint: The kits existed before the Apocalypse rulebook and had rules in 40k before Apocalypse was ever a thing, as many other posters have pointed out.
Kall3m0n wrote: My argument of feelings is still valid. I've used the word "feels".
Not when you are seeking to then try to speak for everything else. You're welcome to feel these things are not fun to play against.
You are not welcome to call for their banning from a game where lots of people enjoy them, just because of your feels.
Fair point!
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
What makes you feel like the game isn't fun or even playable at an infantry level?
Ask a tau player what he thinks about the state of his army right now. I don't think GW should focus on making it obligatory for people to start their army with a big kit as practicaly something obligatory in their lists, before they make the game enjoyable for playing with regular infantry.
Counterpoint: The kits existed before the Apocalypse rulebook and had rules in 40k before Apocalypse was ever a thing, as many other posters have pointed out.
And? If the world accepted size of a matched play games makes it impossible or practicaly impossible to fit them in to a regular sized army, then they aren't ment for it. And I don't think people want to see the bad times come back, when GW designed eldar knights and just cut 200pts of their cost and let eldar players take 3 in their for fun casual lists.
Armigers is a corner case for me. I think they're small enough to be acceptable. No, yeah, they'd be fine.
Spartans are basically LandRaiders. Except good.
Greater Daemons is also a corner case for me. I could't say yay nor ney at this exact moment.
up until you look how GD are being run in some armies or AoS. And the lists go like take 2-3 bloodthirsters, take 2-3 KoS.
Playing vs 3-4+ knights is not fun, if GW didn't design your faction to easily deal with knights, and on the other side it ain't very fun for the knight player if you are deleting 2 knights per turn and the game ends on turn 2.
That sounds like it's time for a cap on how many of those units you're allowed to field.
PLaying vs 1 knight isn't fun regardless if you kill it on turn 1 or not. I can't think of any fun games I've had against knights, no matter if I killed them turn 1 or just ignored them.
Well the thing is. When GW starts focusing on big kits to be corner stones of an army, and you and your friend decide to start playing or play, and you plop down 1000 or 1500pts. And suddenly those not so balanced big things at 2000pts start wrecking stuff left and right, or it goes the other way around the big thing is so important to make your army work that the army doesn't work without it, but it doesn't fit in to a 1500 army.
It would be nice if GW, before starting to add knights, gigantic monsters and lords, would first make the game fun and playable at the infantry level. So we don't get the AoS treatment, where you start by buying oblitgatory faction terrain, spells and then start looking what kind of a monsters your faction has.
There is always going to be balance issues when you use a single framework for multiple pts level. And the "big kits" GW is focusing on to be cornerstones aren't necessarily lords of war (Ghazghull isnt a LoW for example).
And the game works very well for lower pts, infantry based gameplay. In fact i'd argue that it works best at around 1k with mostly infantry lists.
Armigers is a corner case for me. I think they're small enough to be acceptable. No, yeah, they'd be fine.
Spartans are basically LandRaiders. Except good.
Greater Daemons is also a corner case for me. I could't say yay nor ney at this exact moment.
up until you look how GD are being run in some armies or AoS. And the lists go like take 2-3 bloodthirsters, take 2-3 KoS.
Playing vs 3-4+ knights is not fun, if GW didn't design your faction to easily deal with knights, and on the other side it ain't very fun for the knight player if you are deleting 2 knights per turn and the game ends on turn 2.
What makes you feel like the game isn't fun or even playable at an infantry level?
Ask a tau player what he thinks about the state of his army right now. I don't think GW should focus on making it obligatory for people to start their army with a big kit as practicaly something obligatory in their lists, before they make the game enjoyable for playing with regular infantry.
Counterpoint: The kits existed before the Apocalypse rulebook and had rules in 40k before Apocalypse was ever a thing, as many other posters have pointed out.
And? If the world accepted size of a matched play games makes it impossible or practicaly impossible to fit them in to a regular sized army, then they aren't ment for it. And I don't think people want to see the bad times come back, when GW designed eldar knights and just cut 200pts of their cost and let eldar players take 3 in their for fun casual lists.
Yeah, I do agree with the Tau thing, but that doesn't make the game as a whole unplayable at infantry level.
I very much agree on the big kits thing!
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Ask a tau player what he thinks about the state of his army right now. I don't think GW should focus on making it obligatory for people to start their army with a big kit as practicaly something obligatory in their lists, before they make the game enjoyable for playing with regular infantry.
this doesnt prove that 40k isnt playable at infantry level.
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Kall3m0n wrote: Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
That you have no sensible reason to call for the banning of lords of war. I recognize that you have a feeling, but there's a reason pathos and logos are two different things.
Kall3m0n wrote: Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
That's a start for a certain format, yes. I think there should also be a format where the Rule of 3 doesn't dominate, so regular tank companies can exist for armies that aren't Imperial Guard.
Kall3m0n wrote: Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
That you have no sensible reason to call for the banning of lords of war. I recognize that you have a feeling, but there's a reason pathos and logos are two different things.
Kall3m0n wrote: Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
That's a start for a certain format, yes. I think there should also be a format where the Rule of 3 doesn't dominate, so regular tank companies can exist for armies that aren't Imperial Guard.
Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I do agree on that.
Doesn't that format already exist: Apocalypse? You kknow, the format where super-heavies slot in perfectly. ;*
Kall3m0n wrote: Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
That you have no sensible reason to call for the banning of lords of war. I recognize that you have a feeling, but there's a reason pathos and logos are two different things.
Kall3m0n wrote: Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
That's a start for a certain format, yes. I think there should also be a format where the Rule of 3 doesn't dominate, so regular tank companies can exist for armies that aren't Imperial Guard.
Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I do agree on that.
Doesn't that format already exist: Apocalypse? You kknow, the format where super-heavies slot in perfectly. ;*
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Banning a model because of it's physical size, regardless of rules, is ridiculous. Right now the majority of broken units in the game are infantry. Your complaint about wounds is bizarre, as you have been complaining for days about the loss of a single wound on some of your own units. Is it that offensive that any other factions have durable units? What would you propose this "wounds cap" to be?
Kall3m0n wrote: Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
That you have no sensible reason to call for the banning of lords of war. I recognize that you have a feeling, but there's a reason pathos and logos are two different things.
Kall3m0n wrote: Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
That's a start for a certain format, yes. I think there should also be a format where the Rule of 3 doesn't dominate, so regular tank companies can exist for armies that aren't Imperial Guard.
Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I do agree on that.
Doesn't that format already exist: Apocalypse? You kknow, the format where super-heavies slot in perfectly. ;*
Kall3m0n wrote: Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
That you have no sensible reason to call for the banning of lords of war. I recognize that you have a feeling, but there's a reason pathos and logos are two different things.
Kall3m0n wrote: Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
That's a start for a certain format, yes. I think there should also be a format where the Rule of 3 doesn't dominate, so regular tank companies can exist for armies that aren't Imperial Guard.
Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I do agree on that.
Doesn't that format already exist: Apocalypse? You kknow, the format where super-heavies slot in perfectly. ;*
Super Heavys have been "slotting in" to 40k for 30 years, as has been pointed out repeatedly.
EDH bans are because of power level, not because of "fun".
Unbalanced power level lends to "unfun" moments, but I don't think there's major problems in that regard in 40k right now.
If you know your opponent is bringing Magnus to the table, you can play accordingly. If your opponent opens with Island - Mox - Mox - Recall - Time Walk you just... drop your hand and leave the tournament.
I feel that the game is cool right now, even if I play vs the fething Silent King.
Ask a tau player what he thinks about the state of his army right now. I don't think GW should focus on making it obligatory for people to start their army with a big kit as practicaly something obligatory in their lists, before they make the game enjoyable for playing with regular infantry.
this doesnt prove that 40k isnt playable at infantry level.
I really don't care about the theoretical, I care about the practical. I generaly have problems with understanding the theoretical stuff. A game, where the balance of the game is broken the very moment you roll who goes first, doesn't need the baggage of center pice kits .
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Banning a model because of it's physical size, regardless of rules, is ridiculous. Right now the majority of broken units in the game are infantry. Your complaint about wounds is bizarre, as you have been complaining for days about the loss of a single wound on some of your own units. Is it that offensive that any other factions have durable units? What would you propose this "wounds cap" to be?
That's your feelings and opinions.
AGAIN: I have never ever said that the super-heavies and equivalent are broken in any way. But I guess you're just too mathhammer to get that.
I have not compained THAT much about a single wound. What I HAVE been complaining about is the loss of FNP. The wound loss is just the icing (or salt if you wish) on the cake when it comes to survivability. Yes, it's way better that it doesn't degrade anymore, but it has lost survivability.
I have NEVER stated that it's "offensive" that other teams have durable units. If some other army gets a vehicle with 9 wounds, 3+/5++ and -1D I wouldn't care.
As a base, 15 wounds maybe?14? Unfortunately I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of every big unit in the game, but that might be a good start. No, that would not be a hard cap, but more of a standard with deviations.
Ask a tau player what he thinks about the state of his army right now. I don't think GW should focus on making it obligatory for people to start their army with a big kit as practicaly something obligatory in their lists, before they make the game enjoyable for playing with regular infantry.
this doesnt prove that 40k isnt playable at infantry level.
I really don't care about the theoretical, I care about the practical. I generaly have problems with understanding the theoretical stuff. A game, where the balance of the game is broken the very moment you roll who goes first, doesn't need the baggage of center pice kits .
what i said is practical.
Just because tau have a bad codex right now doesnt make the game bad at an infantry level.
EDH bans are because of power level, not because of "fun".
Unbalanced power level lends to "unfun" moments, but I don't think there's major problems in that regard in 40k right now.
If you know your opponent is bringing Magnus to the table, you can play accordingly. If your opponent opens with Island - Mox - Mox - Recall - Time Walk you just... drop your hand and leave the tournament.
I feel that the game is cool right now, even if I play vs the fething Silent King.
Yeah, Isochron Scepter and Dramatic Reversal agrees. So does Thassa's Oracle and Demonic Consultation.
As a whole, I totally agree with you there. I don't think super-heavies are over powered. Almost the reverse. I still don't think they are fun to play against. Ever. Unless it's Apoc.
I refuse to tailor my army lists. If someone brings Magnus (which one of my regular opponents often did) I just kill it. That still doesn't make it fun to play against.
If My opponent opens with Moxen, Island, Recall and Timewalk I wait for my turn and go infinite the next turn or stax them out of the game. Since I'm playing Vintage at that point I'm there to do broken gak too.
I agree that the game as a whole is in a good place right now and I'm excited to see what the new codices brings. I just hope they update the model ranges for some armies and give them new units.
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Banning a model because of it's physical size, regardless of rules, is ridiculous. Right now the majority of broken units in the game are infantry. Your complaint about wounds is bizarre, as you have been complaining for days about the loss of a single wound on some of your own units. Is it that offensive that any other factions have durable units? What would you propose this "wounds cap" to be?
That's your feelings and opinions.
AGAIN: I have never ever said that the super-heavies and equivalent are broken in any way. But I guess you're just too mathhammer to get that.
I have not compained THAT much about a single wound. What I HAVE been complaining about is the loss of FNP. The wound loss is just the icing (or salt if you wish) on the cake when it comes to survivability. Yes, it's way better that it doesn't degrade anymore, but it has lost survivability.
I have NEVER stated that it's "offensive" that other teams have durable units. If some other army gets a vehicle with 9 wounds, 3+/5++ and -1D I wouldn't care.
As a base, 15 wounds maybe?14? Unfortunately I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of every big unit in the game, but that might be a good start. No, that would not be a hard cap, but more of a standard with deviations.
Nice to know my Contemptor is ok with you. If durability isn't your issue with super heavys then why are you only complaining about their number of wounds and not their offensive output? If a model's physical size is the problem then how big is too big? I'm trying to wrap my head around your problem with super heavys beyond "feelings" and "opinions". Sorry if that's too "mathhammer".
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Banning a model because of it's physical size, regardless of rules, is ridiculous. Right now the majority of broken units in the game are infantry. Your complaint about wounds is bizarre, as you have been complaining for days about the loss of a single wound on some of your own units. Is it that offensive that any other factions have durable units? What would you propose this "wounds cap" to be?
That's your feelings and opinions.
AGAIN: I have never ever said that the super-heavies and equivalent are broken in any way. But I guess you're just too mathhammer to get that.
I have not compained THAT much about a single wound. What I HAVE been complaining about is the loss of FNP. The wound loss is just the icing (or salt if you wish) on the cake when it comes to survivability. Yes, it's way better that it doesn't degrade anymore, but it has lost survivability.
I have NEVER stated that it's "offensive" that other teams have durable units. If some other army gets a vehicle with 9 wounds, 3+/5++ and -1D I wouldn't care.
As a base, 15 wounds maybe?14? Unfortunately I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of every big unit in the game, but that might be a good start. No, that would not be a hard cap, but more of a standard with deviations.
Nice to know my Contemptor is ok with you. If durability isn't your issue with super heavys then why are you only complaining about their number of wounds and not their offensive output? If a model's physical size is the problem then how big is too big? I'm trying to wrap my head around your problem with super heavys beyond "feelings" and "opinions". Sorry if that's too "mathhammer".
Your Contemptor is perfectly fine.
The amount of wounds are often linked with their size.
You are focusing solely on damage output and if they are OP and such.
When it comes to size, a baneblade is too big. Morty and Magnus are too big. The knights are too big. Landraiders and their primaris versions are not too big. Monolith? Not sure. The monolith vault? Too big.
.
Both reliably kill my ork in 1 or 2 shots at most. Marines, Primaris and especially Gravis absolutely notice the difference. And since 
How does "shuffling the meta" by nerfing and buffing units constantly prevent chasing the flavor of the month? That's exactly what fuels the meta chasers. Constantly nerfing previously solid units while simultaneously buffing weak ones is merely a way to sell more models to the meta chasers.
What? Of course points matter, as does the ability to bring 3 per detachment slot. That's why 2 Leman Russes are considered more durable than the aforementioned Baneblade.
