XT-1984 wrote: I'd like to see the rule of 3 removed. It was added at a time before Castellans, Assassins, and the new missions.
Three Castellans is ok, nine Talos is ok. But you mustn't take four Death Company Dreadnoughts because that would be broken. Typical ham fisted response to a few bad eggs that ruined it for the rest of us and hurt more armies than it healed.
While this is a fair point, there MUST be some kind a limit on duplicate units. Otherwise you get stupid stuff like 9 Hive Tyrants.
You could give every single unit a set limit, but there would be too much salt if unit A is limited to 2, while unit B is limited to 4, yet both units are relatively simiar Really, the only way to "fairly" do this is either as it currently is (Ro3 under 2K pts) Or have the limits per slot. Something like:
Three Castellans is ok, nine Talos is ok. But you mustn't take four Death Company Dreadnoughts because that would be broken. Typical ham fisted response to a few bad eggs that ruined it for the rest of us and hurt more armies than it healed.
It's not that 4 DC Dreads wouldn't be broken. It's that 5+ flyrants WOULD be or 6 Tzeentch DPs or many other potentially strong units. You can call it ham fisted all you want, but it's silly to write a rule that says "only three of anything except this this this this this this and this super melee focused dreadnought that has a hard time getting across the table versus the castellan meta".
Points can't solve everything. Maybe at some point they can 0-3 specific entries, but that would have taken way more time and it's far easier to set a baseline and work it back than to figure out each individual problematic unit.
A rule that simultaneously bans 4 dreadnoughts but does nothing to stop 12 Russes is dumb (I'm not bitter, honest!), but at this point it's a stop-gap fix that isn't doing anything anymore. If someone wants to run 7 Hive Tyrants, at this point I think I'd find it hilarious.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: A rule that simultaneously bans 4 dreadnoughts but does nothing to stop 12 Russes is dumb (I'm not bitter, honest!), but at this point it's a stop-gap fix that isn't doing anything anymore. If someone wants to run 7 Hive Tyrants, at this point I think I'd find it hilarious.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: A rule that simultaneously bans 4 dreadnoughts but does nothing to stop 12 Russes is dumb (I'm not bitter, honest!), but at this point it's a stop-gap fix that isn't doing anything anymore. If someone wants to run 7 Hive Tyrants, at this point I think I'd find it hilarious.
And who is running 12 russes?
Nobody outside of narrative games I would suggest. It really isn't a problem.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: No-one, but I don't recall anyone running 7 Hive Tyrants outside of some tourney grinders either.
Flyrants were absolutely dominating and got squashed within a couple of months.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Exactly. My point is that I have no idea what the rule of 3 (in an already bloated rule-set) is even "saving" us from.
Because dreadnoughts and russes are not hyper competitive in large numbers. You need CP. You need obsec. 5 melee attacks doesn't do gak to GEQ so unless you have a Gallant running at you it's really not useful without screen clearing and delivery.
Rule of 3 is a release valve for balancing mistakes; if/when they make something too good, you're still only seeing 3 of them. It doesn't solve any problem, but it does mitigate problems between when they pop up and when they get solved.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Exactly. My point is that I have no idea what the rule of 3 (in an already bloated rule-set) is even "saving" us from.
In addition to some one-off power combos, like 5+ Tyrants, what the Ro3 really "saves" us from is boring lists.
Outside of some VERY specific narratives (like 8 Bloodthristers attacking Terra) the vast majority of fluff showcases diverse armies. The table should reflect that when possible.
Facing 12+ DC Dreads might not be hard to defeat, but good gods it would be boring.
It‘s not an actual rule and not in effect, unless a TO say he wants to use rule of 3 (or rule of 4 or whatever)
Oh god let's not start this argument again....
Point is many of us play with it as though it was always in effect. It's in effect unless explicitly stated that it isn't in most cases I've seen, or unless your play group doesn't use it. If it's an "official rule" or an "event rule" or an "event suggestion" has no bearing on this, because it's played as though it was a standard rule by many (probably most, but I cannot prove that) people.
It‘s not an actual rule and not in effect, unless a TO say he wants to use rule of 3 (or rule of 4 or whatever)
Oh god let's not start this argument again....
Point is many of us play with it as though it was always in effect. It's in effect unless explicitly stated that it isn't in most cases I've seen, or unless your play group doesn't use it. If it's an "official rule" or an "event rule" or an "event suggestion" has no bearing on this, because it's played as though it was a standard rule by many (probably most, but I cannot prove that) people.
But what do you want GW to do? Remove helpful tips and recommendations for people organizing events?
The paragraph also explicitly says people should tinker and modify event recommendations to suit their needs. Doesn’t get more freeform than that. They literally tell you white on black that if you don’t like that recommendation, change or ignore it!
Xenomancers wrote: I mean....Does anyone really want to face 9 Ravagers?
Or 9 Alaitoc Hemlock Wraithfighers?
Ro3 may be "just a suggestion for organized play" but enough players recognize it as a GOOD suggestion, that it is more than fair to assume it's "in affect" unless otherwise stated.
Galef wrote: ...what the Ro3 really "saves" us from is boring lists.
On the one hand you're absolutely right, and the rules should have some ability to slap people for spamming a single unit.
But Codex: IK exists so it's not like I can avoid the kind of "person" who runs these "lists" without just telling people to push off anyway.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.
I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?
Galef wrote: ...what the Ro3 really "saves" us from is boring lists.
On the one hand you're absolutely right, and the rules should have some ability to slap people for spamming a single unit. But Codex: IK exists so it's not like I can avoid the kind of "person" who runs these "lists" without just telling people to push off anyway.
Yeah, I kinda wish the Ro3 would "close the gap" on situations where you can STILL take 9 Daemon Princes (3 from CSM codex, 3 from TS codex, 3 from DG codex) Or 9 of the same Russ Tank because "technically" each datasheet splits into 3 separate units
Those kind of units should get a cap too. Which is why I am starting to be more and more in favor of a slot-by-slot breakdown, rather than all non-Troops are capped a 3 datasheets. It should be UNITS and the breakdown could allow 4 duplicates for Elites, Fast or Heavy units. But than only 2 duplicates for Flyer units and Lords of War.
Would 2 duplicates for HQs be too restrictive? Every faction has plenty of HQs to choose from (save maybe Dark Eldar)
That might be a bit better as an "all Matched play" rule, not just an event suggestion
Trajann, -1 vexilla, termycaptain +7 calidus grav tanks will poon just about anything honestly if we are getting rid of rule of 3.
If it goes first it gets 56 shots at str8 -3 ap hitting on 2's rerolling 1's to hit and wound that do D3 dmg (50 dmg to T8 on average not accounting saves) and another 42 shots at str6 -2 ap (about 15 more wounds againgst T8 not accounting saves).
So even with a 3++ a knight would take about 28 dmg or so without any CP spent. Will kill a lot more than that of anything else.
Also a very small chance of killing more than 2 of them a turn with the -1 to hit and 14 wounds each with a 2+/5++ on turn one.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: A rule that simultaneously bans 4 dreadnoughts but does nothing to stop 12 Russes is dumb (I'm not bitter, honest!), but at this point it's a stop-gap fix that isn't doing anything anymore. If someone wants to run 7 Hive Tyrants, at this point I think I'd find it hilarious.
You need to make your arguments differently and thinking about them some more.
You don't want to remove the rule of 3, because that would cause a gakload of abuse.
You want to change or remove how vehicle squadrons interact with the rule of 3.
Make better thought out arguments and people will agree with you more.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.
I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?
I am including not just major events here since orks came out. They did really well at ITC too. I mean...the best player in the game is playing them nonstop right now - it's a pretty good indicator.
Ordana wrote: You want to change or remove how vehicle squadrons interact with the rule of 3.
Easiest way to do this is for the Ro3 to limit UNITS that share the same Datasheet, rather than duplicate Datasheets.
So for Russ tanks, you can still take 3 of a particular datasheet in a single Heavy support slot, but as they will be separate units, they cap at 3. (or 4 with my previous suggestion) This wouldn't even be that big a change since GW is increasingly releasing separate datasheets over just alternate options. Armigers are a good example of this. They really could have shared a single datasheet with weapons swaps, but instead, each loadout has it's own datasheet.
So even with the current Ro3, you can have 12 Armigers (3x 2 Warglaives and 3x 2 Helverins) If the restriction was on UNITS, you could only have 6 (3 of each), which isn't bad and leaves points for other stuff.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.
I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?
This is DakkaDakka. Where the evidence is made up and the logic doesn't matter.
Galef wrote: And considering Orks haven't had this kind of success since 5E biker Nob lists (that I can tell) speaks volumes of how decent Orks finally are.
-
I did see on reddit someone rumor mongering about Orks in a FB chat with Pampreen on it. Someone mentioned the SAG taking a hit and Mob Up working only on Boyz, which would be painful to the popular lists with Lootas. There will be howling from the general Ork community at how badly they've been nerfed if it happens, but they'll pull through just fine, I think.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.
I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?
I am including not just major events here since orks came out. They did really well at ITC too. I mean...the best player in the game is playing them nonstop right now - it's a pretty good indicator.
So your argument is:
-Top players aren't running the best DE trait, because they're not as smart as you
-The best DE trait is the best because the army gets *4* traits!
-The Ork army trait with *5* traits is obviously OP - you can tell because Orkz using other traits are doing reasonably well.
-Top players are running Orkz, proving they're good.
I'm not sure where to start. Let's go with:
-Top players play CWE with traits that give *one* bonus, and almost never with either of the traits that give *two*.
-Throw in that CWE consistently does well at tournies - but almost exclusively with the one-benefit traits, almost never with the two-benefit traits.
I don't get how you can claim all this stuff at the same time with a straight face.
Xenomancers wrote: I mean....Does anyone really want to face 9 Ravagers?
You know, back in the bad old days, we used to have this mystical thing called a "Force Organisation Chart".
Yep, I remember well. For you young whipper-snappers, the "FOC" was a single detachment that not only limited you to 3 of any unit, but 3 of any SLOT. So 3 Heavy Supports MAX. And this was the only "detachment" available to several editions and you had to fit your ENTIRE army into it.
The madness of multiple factions and multiple detachments didn't start until 6E with the Allie Detachment. It got REALLY crazy in 7E with Formations. 8E was better...at first....because it removed Formations, but with the amount of detachments available and a the Codex shenanigans, we may as well be back to 7E Formations.
Xenomancers wrote: I mean....Does anyone really want to face 9 Ravagers?
You know, back in the bad old days, we used to have this mystical thing called a "Force Organisation Chart".
Yep, I remember well. For you young whipper-snappers, the "FOC" was a single detachment that not only limited you to 3 of any unit, but 3 of any SLOT. So 3 Heavy Supports MAX.
And this was the only "detachment" available to several editions and you had to fit your ENTIRE army into it.
The madness of multiple factions and multiple detachments didn't start until 6E with the Allie Detachment.
It got REALLY crazy in 7E with Formations. 8E was better...at first....because it removed Formations, but with the amount of detachments available and a the Codex shenanigans, we may as well be back to 7E Formations.
-
Except back in the FOC days yoy also had biker troops, tanks as troops and other weird and wonderful special rules to basically throw it in the bin.
Also if you wanted to go to really interesting, who remembers max 50 percent HQ, 25% troops min, 50 percent support mac and allies counted as support.
Yeah, I recall the FOC ending up as more of a suggestion by the time it was retired. Nor do I miss the days when lists built themselves because of the lack of room (codex to codex problem admittedly).
Wayniac wrote: FOC was way better than what we have now. FOC with Rites of War from 30k would be the best approach.
Disagree entirely, detachments are good the issue as usual is GW had an idea and implimented it poorly.
Returning to the force org chart would instantly result in well if you take x charictors Y becomes troops enjoy fighting that massed russ list headed by pask, or well whitescars can't field an all bike list DA can.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.
I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?
I am including not just major events here since orks came out. They did really well at ITC too. I mean...the best player in the game is playing them nonstop right now - it's a pretty good indicator.
So your argument is:
-Top players aren't running the best DE trait, because they're not as smart as you
-The best DE trait is the best because the army gets *4* traits!
-The Ork army trait with *5* traits is obviously OP - you can tell because Orkz using other traits are doing reasonably well.
-Top players are running Orkz, proving they're good.
I'm not sure where to start. Let's go with:
-Top players play CWE with traits that give *one* bonus, and almost never with either of the traits that give *two*.
-Throw in that CWE consistently does well at tournies - but almost exclusively with the one-benefit traits, almost never with the two-benefit traits.
I don't get how you can claim all this stuff at the same time with a straight face.
You are obviously wrong. 5 traits is better than 1 (some traits are just OP -1 to hits and sometimes when you combine 5 traits its OP too). That is my argument. Sometimes on dakka I feel like 2+2 really does equal 5. Flayed skull is obviously superior to black heart but stratagems and warlord traits make it competitive with it. In short - this game is very unbalanced.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.
I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?
I am including not just major events here since orks came out. They did really well at ITC too. I mean...the best player in the game is playing them nonstop right now - it's a pretty good indicator.
So your argument is:
-Top players aren't running the best DE trait, because they're not as smart as you
-The best DE trait is the best because the army gets *4* traits!
-The Ork army trait with *5* traits is obviously OP - you can tell because Orkz using other traits are doing reasonably well.
-Top players are running Orkz, proving they're good.
I'm not sure where to start. Let's go with:
-Top players play CWE with traits that give *one* bonus, and almost never with either of the traits that give *two*.
-Throw in that CWE consistently does well at tournies - but almost exclusively with the one-benefit traits, almost never with the two-benefit traits.
I don't get how you can claim all this stuff at the same time with a straight face.
You are obviously wrong. 5 traits is better than 1 (some traits are just OP -1 to hits and sometimes when you combine 5 traits its OP too). That is my argument. Sometimes on dakka I feel like 2+2 really does equal 5. Flayed skull is obviously superior to black heart but stratagems and warlord traits make it competitive with it. In short - this game is very unbalanced.
2+2 equals five if you see a three and persist in pointing your finger at it and screaming "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU THAT IS A TWO".
So 5 traits is better than 1,
unless that 1 trait is better
like how this one trait is superior to another trait
but this other trait comes with a better stratagem and warlord trait, so it's competitive
therefore the game is...IMbalanced?
Maybe, just maybe, the problem here is, you are evaluating a tiny, narrow factor as your evidence for relative balance because it confirms your preconceived conclusions and ignoring evidence that conflicts by the same criteria.
I demonstrated earlier that by the same logic you proved Dark Eldar get "five army wide special rules", Ultramarines also get five army wide special rules. You chose to ignore that, because "Marines are OP" is not the conclusion you chose to start with when you went on your hunt to collect evidence to back that up.
By your own admission "one rule" is a stupid standard of measurement, because all rules are obviously not made equal. Reroll Hit Rolls of 1 with Rapid Fire weapons while you're embarked on a transport with Fly, is not an equivalent rule to "everything in your army gets a 4++ instead of a 5++." It's just not good enough to stand on its own as a trait rule, so Ignores Cover is added on and +3" to movement for flying transports is added on.
And evidently, all that isn't even enough to make it matter much, because I rarely see drukhari detachments in competitive lists that aren't black heart.
2+2 equals five if you see a three and persist in pointing your finger at it and screaming "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU THAT IS A TWO".
So 5 traits is better than 1,
unless that 1 trait is better
like how this one trait is superior to another trait
but this other trait comes with a better stratagem and warlord trait, so it's competitive
therefore the game is...IMbalanced?
Maybe, just maybe, the problem here is, you are evaluating a tiny, narrow factor as your evidence for relative balance because it confirms your preconceived conclusions and ignoring evidence that conflicts by the same criteria.
I demonstrated earlier that by the same logic you proved Dark Eldar get "five army wide special rules", Ultramarines also get five army wide special rules. You chose to ignore that, because "Marines are OP" is not the conclusion you chose to start with when you went on your hunt to collect evidence to back that up.
By your own admission "one rule" is a stupid standard of measurement, because all rules are obviously not made equal. Reroll Hit Rolls of 1 with Rapid Fire weapons while you're embarked on a transport with Fly, is not an equivalent rule to "everything in your army gets a 4++ instead of a 5++." It's just not good enough to stand on its own as a trait rule, so Ignores Cover is added on and +3" to movement for flying transports is added on.
And evidently, all that isn't even enough to make it matter much, because I rarely see drukhari detachments in competitive lists that aren't black heart.
Right.
For me I use Black Legion often. The trait NEVER comes up.
But I want access to Abaddon and now +1A to outnumber and extra WL traits stratagems.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.
I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?
I am including not just major events here since orks came out. They did really well at ITC too. I mean...the best player in the game is playing them nonstop right now - it's a pretty good indicator.
So your argument is:
-Top players aren't running the best DE trait, because they're not as smart as you
-The best DE trait is the best because the army gets *4* traits!
-The Ork army trait with *5* traits is obviously OP - you can tell because Orkz using other traits are doing reasonably well.
-Top players are running Orkz, proving they're good.
I'm not sure where to start. Let's go with:
-Top players play CWE with traits that give *one* bonus, and almost never with either of the traits that give *two*.
-Throw in that CWE consistently does well at tournies - but almost exclusively with the one-benefit traits, almost never with the two-benefit traits.
I don't get how you can claim all this stuff at the same time with a straight face.
You are obviously wrong. 5 traits is better than 1 (some traits are just OP -1 to hits and sometimes when you combine 5 traits its OP too). That is my argument. Sometimes on dakka I feel like 2+2 really does equal 5. Flayed skull is obviously superior to black heart but stratagems and warlord traits make it competitive with it. In short - this game is very unbalanced.
2+2 equals five if you see a three and persist in pointing your finger at it and screaming "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU THAT IS A TWO".
So 5 traits is better than 1,
unless that 1 trait is better
like how this one trait is superior to another trait
but this other trait comes with a better stratagem and warlord trait, so it's competitive
therefore the game is...IMbalanced?
Maybe, just maybe, the problem here is, you are evaluating a tiny, narrow factor as your evidence for relative balance because it confirms your preconceived conclusions and ignoring evidence that conflicts by the same criteria.
I demonstrated earlier that by the same logic you proved Dark Eldar get "five army wide special rules", Ultramarines also get five army wide special rules. You chose to ignore that, because "Marines are OP" is not the conclusion you chose to start with when you went on your hunt to collect evidence to back that up.
By your own admission "one rule" is a stupid standard of measurement, because all rules are obviously not made equal. Reroll Hit Rolls of 1 with Rapid Fire weapons while you're embarked on a transport with Fly, is not an equivalent rule to "everything in your army gets a 4++ instead of a 5++." It's just not good enough to stand on its own as a trait rule, so Ignores Cover is added on and +3" to movement for flying transports is added on.
And evidently, all that isn't even enough to make it matter much, because I rarely see drukhari detachments in competitive lists that aren't black heart.
I think you are misunderstanding where I am coming from. Theres too many have nots. There shouldn't be an army that has 3 trait abilities. There shouldn't be a -1 to hit trait. They should be very basic or they will never be balanced. We are to the point now where things are so insane. I ahve legit pointed out an army that gets 5 army traits compared to most getting 1 and you are defending it. That is how you make frog soup.
Also - THe ultramarines trait is probably the worst trait in the whole game...maybe black legion is worse. I mean...I can fall back with a redemptor dread and hit on 5's and not use my d6 damage power fist. Or I can fall back hitting on 4's not rerolling 3'swith a unit of intercessor vet when I could have stayed locked in and shot a bolt pistol and made 3 str 4 attacks hitting on 3's rerolling everything. The minus 1 ruins the trait. +1 LD is meaningless because I have ancient banner which makes me fearless. Ultramarines army trait is guilliman.
Darkstrider is 45 points and gives an aura that makes all tau sept ultramarines without -1 to hit. Not to mention a 2+ to hit marker light. The value of such an ability is pretty freaking low. It's so worthless no one takes dark strider.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.
I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?
I am including not just major events here since orks came out. They did really well at ITC too. I mean...the best player in the game is playing them nonstop right now - it's a pretty good indicator.
So your argument is:
-Top players aren't running the best DE trait, because they're not as smart as you
-The best DE trait is the best because the army gets *4* traits!
-The Ork army trait with *5* traits is obviously OP - you can tell because Orkz using other traits are doing reasonably well.
-Top players are running Orkz, proving they're good.
I'm not sure where to start. Let's go with:
-Top players play CWE with traits that give *one* bonus, and almost never with either of the traits that give *two*.
-Throw in that CWE consistently does well at tournies - but almost exclusively with the one-benefit traits, almost never with the two-benefit traits.
I don't get how you can claim all this stuff at the same time with a straight face.
You are obviously wrong. 5 traits is better than 1 (some traits are just OP -1 to hits and sometimes when you combine 5 traits its OP too). That is my argument.
The problem with that is that not all traits are equal. And not all units who receive traits are equal.
Consider Iyanden's trait compared to Uthwe's trait. You're arguing that Iyanden's must be better, because it's more. But it's clearly inferior to Uthwe's. Of the CWE traits, the two that provide 2 benefits are worse than the 3 that provide 1 benefit - and that's not debated. So, clearly, number of buffs isn't all-important.
Sometimes on dakka I feel like 2+2 really does equal 5.
Two items weighing 3/2lbs and 2 units weighing 2lbs equals 5lbs.
You're arguing 5 items of varying units is worth more than one item of another unit. Go ahead and see how 1mm, 1cm, 1m, 1 decimeter and 1 micrometer add up compared to a mile; turns out 5 of some things can be less than one of something else.
Flayed skull is obviously superior to black heart but stratagems and warlord traits make it competitive with it. In short - this game is very unbalanced.
First, your argument is that one subfaction is clearly more OP than what most people use, but nobody is smart enough to realize it - coupled with another faction is proven to be good because it gets used; two arguments that directly conflict with eachother.
Now, you're saying the better traits are counterbalanced by other elements, such that they're about equal - that's a change, but not an unreasonable view.
But you finish it off with pointing out that, because those are balanced against eachother, " In short - this game is very unbalanced."
2+2 equals five if you see a three and persist in pointing your finger at it and screaming "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU THAT IS A TWO".
So 5 traits is better than 1,
unless that 1 trait is better
like how this one trait is superior to another trait
but this other trait comes with a better stratagem and warlord trait, so it's competitive
therefore the game is...IMbalanced?
Maybe, just maybe, the problem here is, you are evaluating a tiny, narrow factor as your evidence for relative balance because it confirms your preconceived conclusions and ignoring evidence that conflicts by the same criteria.
I demonstrated earlier that by the same logic you proved Dark Eldar get "five army wide special rules", Ultramarines also get five army wide special rules. You chose to ignore that, because "Marines are OP" is not the conclusion you chose to start with when you went on your hunt to collect evidence to back that up.
By your own admission "one rule" is a stupid standard of measurement, because all rules are obviously not made equal. Reroll Hit Rolls of 1 with Rapid Fire weapons while you're embarked on a transport with Fly, is not an equivalent rule to "everything in your army gets a 4++ instead of a 5++." It's just not good enough to stand on its own as a trait rule, so Ignores Cover is added on and +3" to movement for flying transports is added on.
And evidently, all that isn't even enough to make it matter much, because I rarely see drukhari detachments in competitive lists that aren't black heart.
Right.
For me I use Black Legion often. The trait NEVER comes up.
But I want access to Abaddon and now +1A to outnumber and extra WL traits stratagems.
I got the abadon model and built it jsut because its sweet. I have no idea how to use it. The army trait is so garbage I have no idea what to do with this army. Seems like Alpha legion or red corsairs is your only options.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.
I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?
I am including not just major events here since orks came out. They did really well at ITC too. I mean...the best player in the game is playing them nonstop right now - it's a pretty good indicator.
So your argument is:
-Top players aren't running the best DE trait, because they're not as smart as you
-The best DE trait is the best because the army gets *4* traits!
-The Ork army trait with *5* traits is obviously OP - you can tell because Orkz using other traits are doing reasonably well.
-Top players are running Orkz, proving they're good.
I'm not sure where to start. Let's go with:
-Top players play CWE with traits that give *one* bonus, and almost never with either of the traits that give *two*.
-Throw in that CWE consistently does well at tournies - but almost exclusively with the one-benefit traits, almost never with the two-benefit traits.
I don't get how you can claim all this stuff at the same time with a straight face.
You are obviously wrong. 5 traits is better than 1 (some traits are just OP -1 to hits and sometimes when you combine 5 traits its OP too). That is my argument.
The problem with that is that not all traits are equal. And not all units who receive traits are equal.
Consider Iyanden's trait compared to Uthwe's trait. You're arguing that Iyanden's must be better, because it's more. But it's clearly inferior to Uthwe's. Of the CWE traits, the two that provide 2 benefits are worse than the 3 that provide 1 benefit - and that's not debated. So, clearly, number of buffs isn't all-important.
Sometimes on dakka I feel like 2+2 really does equal 5.
Two items weighing 3/2lbs and 2 units weighing 2lbs equals 5lbs.
You're arguing 5 items of varying units is worth more than one item of another unit. Go ahead and see how 1mm, 1cm, 1m, 1 decimeter and 1 micrometer add up compared to a mile; turns out 5 of some things can be less than one of something else.
Flayed skull is obviously superior to black heart but stratagems and warlord traits make it competitive with it. In short - this game is very unbalanced.
First, your argument is that one subfaction is clearly more OP than what most people use, but nobody is smart enough to realize it - coupled with another faction is proven to be good because it gets used; two arguments that directly conflict with eachother.
Now, you're saying the better traits are counterbalanced by other elements, such that they're about equal - that's a change, but not an unreasonable view.
But you finish it off with pointing out that, because those are balanced against eachother, " In short - this game is very unbalanced."
How does that argument reach that conclusion?
Why are you being so obtuse? Clearly some traits are better than others. Not disputing that. However we have clear examples of some armies getting the exact same trait...plus more or worse.
Levithan nids have 6+ FNP IF they are within 6 inches of a synapse creature. Ulthwe just gets it all the time with no conditions. WTF? Why? Its the exact same trait. One doesn't need a condition if the other doesn't. If i cared enough to list examples just like this there would probably be 20 examples. NOT BALANCED.
What I want to see in this FAQ is a rebalancing of army traits.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.
I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?
I am including not just major events here since orks came out. They did really well at ITC too. I mean...the best player in the game is playing them nonstop right now - it's a pretty good indicator.
So your argument is:
-Top players aren't running the best DE trait, because they're not as smart as you
-The best DE trait is the best because the army gets *4* traits!
-The Ork army trait with *5* traits is obviously OP - you can tell because Orkz using other traits are doing reasonably well.
-Top players are running Orkz, proving they're good.
I'm not sure where to start. Let's go with:
-Top players play CWE with traits that give *one* bonus, and almost never with either of the traits that give *two*.
-Throw in that CWE consistently does well at tournies - but almost exclusively with the one-benefit traits, almost never with the two-benefit traits.
I don't get how you can claim all this stuff at the same time with a straight face.
You are obviously wrong. 5 traits is better than 1 (some traits are just OP -1 to hits and sometimes when you combine 5 traits its OP too). That is my argument. Sometimes on dakka I feel like 2+2 really does equal 5. Flayed skull is obviously superior to black heart but stratagems and warlord traits make it competitive with it. In short - this game is very unbalanced.
2+2 equals five if you see a three and persist in pointing your finger at it and screaming "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU THAT IS A TWO".
So 5 traits is better than 1,
unless that 1 trait is better
like how this one trait is superior to another trait
but this other trait comes with a better stratagem and warlord trait, so it's competitive
therefore the game is...IMbalanced?
Maybe, just maybe, the problem here is, you are evaluating a tiny, narrow factor as your evidence for relative balance because it confirms your preconceived conclusions and ignoring evidence that conflicts by the same criteria.
I demonstrated earlier that by the same logic you proved Dark Eldar get "five army wide special rules", Ultramarines also get five army wide special rules. You chose to ignore that, because "Marines are OP" is not the conclusion you chose to start with when you went on your hunt to collect evidence to back that up.
By your own admission "one rule" is a stupid standard of measurement, because all rules are obviously not made equal. Reroll Hit Rolls of 1 with Rapid Fire weapons while you're embarked on a transport with Fly, is not an equivalent rule to "everything in your army gets a 4++ instead of a 5++." It's just not good enough to stand on its own as a trait rule, so Ignores Cover is added on and +3" to movement for flying transports is added on.
And evidently, all that isn't even enough to make it matter much, because I rarely see drukhari detachments in competitive lists that aren't black heart.
I think you are misunderstanding where I am coming from.
Please see if you can elaborate. You make very many questionable claims, and believing several of them *at the same time* is insane.
Theres too many have nots.
Sure. Fewer than there ever have been before. Far fewer than 6th or 7th. There will always be imbalance, but it could certainly be better
There shouldn't be an army that has 3 trait abilities. There shouldn't be a -1 to hit trait. They should be very basic or they will never be balanced. We are to the point now where things are so insane. I ahve legit pointed out an army that gets 5 army traits compared to most getting 1 and you are defending it. That is how you make frog soup.
He's speaking against the idea that we need to nerf stuff like Ultramarines, Iyanden and Saim-Hann to bring them *down* to the level of Alaitoc or Uthwe. Because that's what your argument is saying.
Also - THe ultramarines trait is probably the worst trait in the whole game...maybe black legion is worse. I mean...I can fall back with a redemptor dread and hit on 5's and not use my d6 damage power fist. Or I can fall back hitting on 4's not rerolling 3'swith a unit of intercessor vet when I could have stayed locked in and shot a bolt pistol and made 3 str 4 attacks hitting on 3's rerolling everything. The minus 1 ruins the trait. +1 LD is meaningless because I have ancient banner which makes me fearless. Ultramarines army trait is guilliman.
Here's the problem; you're claiming that *more* benefits is always better. Now you're claiming that something with more benefits is actually worse. Clearly, one of these isn't true.
Darkstrider is 45 points and gives an aura that makes all tau sept ultramarines without -1 to hit. Not to mention a 2+ to hit marker light. The value of such an ability is pretty freaking low. It's so worthless no one takes dark strider.
UltraMarines' basic HQ - the Captain - has an aura that makes all Marines Biel-Tan, but better. Biel-Tan isn't worthless.
I got the abadon model and built it jsut because its sweet. I have no idea how to use it. The army trait is so garbage I have no idea what to do with this army. Seems like Alpha legion or red corsairs is your only options.
That's because you overvalue -1 to hit and absolute CP. I'll still have a detachment of corsairs, but they're not the core of the army.
An autarch does the same thing as a captain. Yes...the Beiltan trait does suck.
More benefits is better...A conditional trait (requires you survive a round of combat) then gives a a shooting debuff and a +1 LD (worthless) is useless
I am saying that every trait should be balanced against every trait. They clearly aren't - you are arguing in bad faith. How exactly when I say there shouldnt be a -1 to hit trait am I arguing for traits to be brought down to it's level if I don't even think it should exist and is clearly the most busted trait in the game.
How are there fewer have nots right now? That seems like an unprovable statement.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.
I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?
I am including not just major events here since orks came out. They did really well at ITC too. I mean...the best player in the game is playing them nonstop right now - it's a pretty good indicator.
So your argument is:
-Top players aren't running the best DE trait, because they're not as smart as you
-The best DE trait is the best because the army gets *4* traits!
-The Ork army trait with *5* traits is obviously OP - you can tell because Orkz using other traits are doing reasonably well.
-Top players are running Orkz, proving they're good.
I'm not sure where to start. Let's go with:
-Top players play CWE with traits that give *one* bonus, and almost never with either of the traits that give *two*.
-Throw in that CWE consistently does well at tournies - but almost exclusively with the one-benefit traits, almost never with the two-benefit traits.
I don't get how you can claim all this stuff at the same time with a straight face.
You are obviously wrong. 5 traits is better than 1 (some traits are just OP -1 to hits and sometimes when you combine 5 traits its OP too). That is my argument.
The problem with that is that not all traits are equal. And not all units who receive traits are equal.
Consider Iyanden's trait compared to Uthwe's trait. You're arguing that Iyanden's must be better, because it's more. But it's clearly inferior to Uthwe's. Of the CWE traits, the two that provide 2 benefits are worse than the 3 that provide 1 benefit - and that's not debated. So, clearly, number of buffs isn't all-important.
Sometimes on dakka I feel like 2+2 really does equal 5.
Two items weighing 3/2lbs and 2 units weighing 2lbs equals 5lbs.
You're arguing 5 items of varying units is worth more than one item of another unit. Go ahead and see how 1mm, 1cm, 1m, 1 decimeter and 1 micrometer add up compared to a mile; turns out 5 of some things can be less than one of something else.
Flayed skull is obviously superior to black heart but stratagems and warlord traits make it competitive with it. In short - this game is very unbalanced.
First, your argument is that one subfaction is clearly more OP than what most people use, but nobody is smart enough to realize it - coupled with another faction is proven to be good because it gets used; two arguments that directly conflict with eachother.
Now, you're saying the better traits are counterbalanced by other elements, such that they're about equal - that's a change, but not an unreasonable view.
But you finish it off with pointing out that, because those are balanced against eachother, " In short - this game is very unbalanced."
How does that argument reach that conclusion?
Why are you being so obtuse? Clearly some traits are better than others. Not disputing that.
What you're disputing is the idea that fewer, better traits could be better than more, worse traits.
However we have clear examples of some armies getting the exact same trait...plus more or worse.
In some cases it's poor balance. In other cases, different buffs on different armies have different impacts.
Imagine if Guard got Iyanden's trait - it'd be OP. But that trait is worthless for Iyanden.
I think that the tournament scene still undervalues ignore cover. I have no way to try to exploit ignore cover given my collection, though. I think people are a bit addicted to Vect and undervalue the benefits of flayed skull.
Xenomancers wrote: Dude....Orks have a 5++ invo save bubble that can be extended to 18" bubble with command points....Why would you take a 6++ save trait?
Evilsuns....+1 advance and charge moves AND ignore pentalies for advancing AND FREE reroll charges AND DAKKA DAKKA.
Uhhhh - I have to seriosuly question your motives if you don't think it is flat out absurd that a model get access to all these abilities for basically free. Like...Pick 1 - or 2....you dont get all 5.
The 6++ trait also comes with a salamanders reroll to hit wound and damage and obsec on all infantry.
And yet, amazingly, orks are not dominating all tournaments all the time. You can rage and cry about abilities all you like, it doesn't change that things cost things. Properly costed, who cares if a unit gets no army wide abilities or 10.
Guardsmen have NO army wide abilities besides their regiment trait our of the box. Nothing that doesn't require purchasing models to get it. And yet they are tournament dominant. Deffskulls have no less than 6 (if you count their trait as 3) and yet we've seen them finish like fifth in one tournament.
Like, argue from incredulity all you like, you can phrase any number of stupid things the same way.
"Ultramarines get rapid fire weapons at 24" AND fall back and shoot AND combat squads AND reroll failed morale AND +1LD? Come on maybe you get one of those abilities but not all five!!!1!"
It doesn't matter. Their gak costs points. Some of those abilities don't come up that often.
Orks are topping tournaments right now. In a lot of configurations. So many I can't really name them all. Evilsuns usually make up the core of the army. Badmoons usually for the lootas. Sometimes freebootas show up. I havn't seen deathskulls but they probably do show up some too. You are right though - deathskulls is salamanders trait plus one.
I thought they only topped at Adepticon? Didnt we establish that its a different game because its not ITC?
I am including not just major events here since orks came out. They did really well at ITC too. I mean...the best player in the game is playing them nonstop right now - it's a pretty good indicator.
So your argument is:
-Top players aren't running the best DE trait, because they're not as smart as you
-The best DE trait is the best because the army gets *4* traits!
-The Ork army trait with *5* traits is obviously OP - you can tell because Orkz using other traits are doing reasonably well.
-Top players are running Orkz, proving they're good.
I'm not sure where to start. Let's go with:
-Top players play CWE with traits that give *one* bonus, and almost never with either of the traits that give *two*.
-Throw in that CWE consistently does well at tournies - but almost exclusively with the one-benefit traits, almost never with the two-benefit traits.
I don't get how you can claim all this stuff at the same time with a straight face.
You are obviously wrong. 5 traits is better than 1 (some traits are just OP -1 to hits and sometimes when you combine 5 traits its OP too). That is my argument.
The problem with that is that not all traits are equal. And not all units who receive traits are equal.
Consider Iyanden's trait compared to Uthwe's trait. You're arguing that Iyanden's must be better, because it's more. But it's clearly inferior to Uthwe's. Of the CWE traits, the two that provide 2 benefits are worse than the 3 that provide 1 benefit - and that's not debated. So, clearly, number of buffs isn't all-important.
Sometimes on dakka I feel like 2+2 really does equal 5.
Two items weighing 3/2lbs and 2 units weighing 2lbs equals 5lbs.
You're arguing 5 items of varying units is worth more than one item of another unit. Go ahead and see how 1mm, 1cm, 1m, 1 decimeter and 1 micrometer add up compared to a mile; turns out 5 of some things can be less than one of something else.
Flayed skull is obviously superior to black heart but stratagems and warlord traits make it competitive with it. In short - this game is very unbalanced.
First, your argument is that one subfaction is clearly more OP than what most people use, but nobody is smart enough to realize it - coupled with another faction is proven to be good because it gets used; two arguments that directly conflict with eachother.
Now, you're saying the better traits are counterbalanced by other elements, such that they're about equal - that's a change, but not an unreasonable view.
But you finish it off with pointing out that, because those are balanced against eachother, " In short - this game is very unbalanced."
How does that argument reach that conclusion?
Why are you being so obtuse? Clearly some traits are better than others. Not disputing that. However we have clear examples of some armies getting the exact same trait...plus more or worse.
Levithan nids have 6+ FNP IF they are within 6 inches of a synapse creature. Ulthwe just gets it all the time with no conditions. WTF? Why? Its the exact same trait. One doesn't need a condition if the other doesn't. If i cared enough to list examples just like this there would probably be 20 examples. NOT BALANCED.
What I want to see in this FAQ is a rebalancing of army traits.
I have to say, I adore the little trump tweet thing you're doing here with the all caps last word, I hope you make that your thing.
Remember earlier in the thread how we talked about the black templars trait being trash on black templars and being good on khorne daemons? It's almost like different armies with different unit compositions use traits differently, and Tyranids PROBABLY have more units to take that feel no pain save than Craftworld armies.
Burnage wrote: I dunno if I agree that Troupes are that bad compared to Wyches - it depends what you're pitting them against. If I've not screwed up my math then some well equipped Players are much more effective against MEQ and TEQ than Wyches, which are in turn vastly more effective against GEQ.
They're not the best unit ever, but they're also hardly completely useless.
But thats were you are wrong, wyches deal more damage given equal points
This got me curious, so I ran the numbers. It's not as straightforward to answer as you might expect because Harlequins and Wychs have so many different bloody configurations, but I ran with approximately 100 points of each assuming a) no upgraded pistols on either squad, and b) no +1 to hit from Power from Pain. And assuming I haven't messed any math up somewhere, of course.
Against GEQ:
[spoiler]
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 15.70
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 15.70
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 15.36
Wyches + 2 A 14.67
Wyches + 1A + three Hydra 12.33
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 11.85
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 11.85
Wyches + 1 S 11.85
Wyches + 2 S 11.85
Wyches + 1 A 11.78
Frozen Stars (Caress) 11.11
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 11.11
Wyches + three Hydra 9.31
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 9.26
Harlequins (Caress) 8.89
Harlequins (Embrace) 8.89
Frozen Stars (Blade) 8.89
Wyches 8.89
Harlequins (Kiss) 7.41
Harlequins (Blade) 7.11
Against MEQ:
Spoiler:
Frozen Stars (Caress) 7.41
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 6.94
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 6.67
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 6.37
Harlequins (Caress) 5.93
Wyches + 2 S 5.93
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 5.89
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 5.81
Harlequins (Embrace) 5.56
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 5.03
Wyches + 2 A 4.89
Wyches + 1 A + three Hydra 4.67
Wyches + 1 S 4.44
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 4.17
Wyches + 1 A 3.93
Wyches + three Hydra 3.52
Harlequins (Kiss) 3.33
Frozen Stars (Blade) 2.96
Wyches 2.96
Harlequins (Blade) 2.37
Against TEQ:
Spoiler:
Frozen Stars (Caress) 5.56
Frozen Stars (Embrace) 5.56
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A + three Hydra 4.83
Frozen Stars (Kiss) 4.64
Wyches + 2 S + three Hydra 4.52
Harlequins (Caress) 4.44
Harlequins (Embrace) 4.44
Wyches + 2 A + three Hydra 4.30
Harlequins (Kiss) 3.71
Wyches + 1 S + three Hydra 3.64
Wyches + 1A + three Hydra 3.44
Wyches + 2 S 2.96
Wyches + 1 S + 1 A 2.94
Wyches + three Hydra 2.59
Wyches + 2 A 2.44
Wyches + 1 S 2.22
Wyches + 1 A 1.96
Frozen Stars (Blade) 1.48
Wyches 1.48
Harlequins (Blade) 1.19
So basic Harlequins definitely kind of suck in all scenarios, and against GEQ Wychs are the clearly dominant option... but Players with Caresses or Embraces don't seem that bad relatively against MEQ or TEQ? With that said, I'm still hoping that they get buffed from the FAQ with at least a revert to the flip belt change.
Thanks for running the math - that is obviously not a small task when considering all the different variations in potential loadouts for those squads! One other thing to keep in mind is that the Shardnet + Impaler loadout (which I consider to be pretty much mandatory to take at least one of in each squad) deals a flat 2 damage. That should actually help quite a bit when dealing with Primaris and TEQ type targets, which also typically have 2 wounds. Not sure exactly how easy it is to model that, but it's another small advantage to keep in mind when considering wyches over Harlequins.
When I have been running quins lately, it is typically either as an outrider with Shadowseer plus three units of haywire skyweavers alongside my DE or CWE, or a Patrol with a single unit of fusion quins in a Starweaver and a single large unit of skyweavers. I can kind of justify a single skyweaver full of players, especially as I tend to play more casually and thus can afford to waste about 100 points on a unit I like. Some opponents who are unfamiliar with the army still fall for the old Twilight Pathways double-move trick to get the Starweaver up field and blow up a vehicle on the first turn, too, so it can be a nice distraction carnifex that lets my fragile Kabal vehicles hang back unharmed, and Raiders full of Wyches move up unchalleged for a turn, while my opponent freaks out trying to blow up the Harlequins who just showed up in their lines on the first turn.
I agree that Harlequins need the old flip belt rules back, too. The "no fly in the assault phase" rule was intended to nerf things like smash captains and flying hive tyrants that had a relatively small footprint and have huge potential damage output. Harlequins were pretty much an unintended casualty of that rules change, and it hurt them a lot more than it hurt those other models, and they didn't deserve it because they weren't exactly dominating to begin with.
i feel like you also need to factor in somehow the fact that Harlequins have access to better buffs as well. Put wyches near their basic HQ and they're rerolling 1 to hit. Put harlequins near their basic HQ that costs the same amount and they're getting a full reroll to wound (and reroll 1 to hit if you used a stratagem on the troupe master at the beginning of the game)
They also have psykers that provide some much needed durability buffs as well as turn 1 charge capability, they advance and charge out of the box (if you set the wyches to Red Grief to make the mobility equal the wyches perform far worse in the comparison) and they have fall back and shoot+fight.
No Escape is a super great ability but its impact does scale down with the skill of the person playing the melee army, because you do have access to kidnapping an enemy model to prevent a fall back.
Dont forget a Troupe Master is 70pts base, and a Succubus is 20pts base, thats 2 more Wyches, Wyches also "can'' get better buffs +1 PFP chart, double Drugs, so they are hitting on 2+ and re-rolling 1's, they most likely wont miss (I think its /36 chance to miss), giving the 2 extra Wyches as well, Wyches still comes out on top.
Shadowseer and a TM next to Troupes can be strong, but paying that many points (125+80pts ish) can make 1-2 units -1/-2 to hit with 4++ and effective T4/T5 and yet still no one takes them its to many points for to few buffs to to few units.
Troupes needs Flip belts to work over other units in charge phase and 4pts cheaper (1pt more than Wyches)
Xenomancers wrote: [
Also - THe ultramarines trait is probably the worst trait in the whole game...maybe black legion is worse. I mean...I can fall back with a redemptor dread and hit on 5's and not use my d6 damage power fist. Or I can fall back hitting on 4's not rerolling 3'swith a unit of intercessor vet when I could have stayed locked in and shot a bolt pistol and made 3 str 4 attacks hitting on 3's rerolling everything. The minus 1 ruins the trait. +1 LD is meaningless because I have ancient banner which makes me fearless. Ultramarines army trait is guilliman.
Darkstrider is 45 points and gives an aura that makes all tau sept ultramarines without -1 to hit. Not to mention a 2+ to hit marker light. The value of such an ability is pretty freaking low. It's so worthless no one takes dark strider.
I see your ultramarines trait claim and raise you word bearers.
I didn't think I needed to specify on this but...All the rules flayed skull + power from pain get are good or at the very least - they are other army traits.
Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions (just like my Levi/ulthwe comparison) only prove my point. Traits aren't balanced. Its the first place to start when balancing this game IMO. Because they are included in the base cost of everything.
I despise the current detachment rules. No... what I really despise is this dependency to maximize the CP via detachment so that you can pay for strategems, relics, field commanders, specialist detachments.
I actually miss the old formations in the previous editions and I didn't think they were broken. At least it was straightforward.
Xenomancers wrote: I didn't think I needed to specify on this but...All the rules flayed skull + power from pain get are good or at the very least - they are other army traits.
Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions (just like my Levi/ulthwe comparison) only prove my point. Traits aren't balanced. Its the first place to start when balancing this game IMO. Because they are included in the base cost of everything.
I agree with your broad point that there's an imbalance between subfactions, but it's not due to traits alone. You need to look at the whole package - Ultramarines might have a weak Chapter Trait, but getting access to Gulliman is a huge advantage. Black Heart have a pretty lackluster trait but their relic and stratagem are both incredible.
It's not as simple as "this trait is stronger than this other trait, therefore this subfaction is better".
Xenomancers wrote: I didn't think I needed to specify on this but...All the rules flayed skull + power from pain get are good or at the very least - they are other army traits.
Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions (just like my Levi/ulthwe comparison) only prove my point. Traits aren't balanced. Its the first place to start when balancing this game IMO. Because they are included in the base cost of everything.
I agree with your broad point that there's an imbalance between subfactions, but it's not due to traits alone. You need to look at the whole package - Ultramarines might have a weak Chapter Trait, but getting access to Gulliman is a huge advantage. Black Heart have a pretty lackluster trait but their relic and stratagem are both incredible.
It's not as simple as "this trait is stronger than this other trait, therefore this subfaction is better".
Xenomancers wrote: I didn't think I needed to specify on this but...All the rules flayed skull + power from pain get are good or at the very least - they are other army traits.
Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions (just like my Levi/ulthwe comparison) only prove my point. Traits aren't balanced. Its the first place to start when balancing this game IMO. Because they are included in the base cost of everything.
I'm sorry, I don't know all the faction traits of all the armies - but which one was it that has "Fearless only on the last few turns" as their one and only trait again?
I mean, you're saying "Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions [...]" as the exact next sentence after complaining about something with "Fearless" with a "But only on the last couple turns" condition to make it worse.
whembly wrote: I despise the current detachment rules. No... what I really despise is this dependency to maximize the CP via detachment so that you can pay for strategems, relics, field commanders, specialist detachments.
I actually miss the old formations in the previous editions and I didn't think they were broken. At least it was straightforward.
Some of the old formations were utterly dumb (Riptide Wing) and are not missed at all in any way. I say that as a mostly T'au player.
As for the need to have huge amounts of CP, I think a lot of us jumped on that bandwagon especially when our codexes dropped but I for one have rather got past that now. I won my last tournament with a list that had 5CP, it was honestly a lot more fun and having a focus on the models on the table having the special rules was better to play. I might play that list again in the next tournament or maybe one of my others with more CP but whatever my choice it will be because that is the list I fancy playing that day rather than because I think one approach is inherently better than another.
Obviously having more CP is better if all else is equal but all else will not be equal and I think a high CP list is just one valid choice among many. If you despise the need to maximise CP then see if you can come up with a list that does not need all those CP.
whembly wrote: I actually miss the old formations in the previous editions and I didn't think they were broken. At least it was straightforward.
I disagree about them not being broken. Most of the ones in the second half of 7th were utterly ridiculous.
That said, I did like the structure of the 7.5 detachments (like the Necron Decurion). I thought they encouraged quite a good mix of units.
Of course, the downside is that you often couldn't include specific units on their own. e.g. if you wanted to add Destroyers, you couldn't just add a single unit - you had to add an entire Destroyer Wing. Or if you wanted Triarch Praetorians, you had to include (IIRC) 2 units of them *and* a Triarch Stalker.
whembly wrote: I despise the current detachment rules. No... what I really despise is this dependency to maximize the CP via detachment so that you can pay for strategems, relics, field commanders, specialist detachments.
I actually miss the old formations in the previous editions and I didn't think they were broken. At least it was straightforward.
Formations killed 7th Edition and almost buried 40k under a mountain of ridicule and opprobrium. Ridiculous system that promoted the use of armies that looked nothing like armies.
At least the Castellan and Guard Battery is genuinely a fluffy force. And it'd be perfectly fine if Knights were costed appropriately and the Super Heavy Aux slot was disallowed relics etc.
The issue is not the Detachment Mechanic, the issue is the CP Mechanic.
davou wrote: man, when was last aprils FAQ released? its getting late in the month now
3 weeks after Adepticon.
For those of us not in the know, when was Adepticon?
-
Regarding 7E Formations: I always thought the structure for them was a great concept as it made you take certain units that were 'usually' fluffy and you got a bonus for doing so. The issue was that those "tax" units became less and less common and the bonuses were disproportionate to what you got, i.e already good units getting more bonuses
8E detachments feel like the same structure, but instead of having to take units X,y and Z, you get slot options instead. The bonus is still there, in the form of CPs and Strats, though So arguably, what made 7E a big mess if back in force for 8E, but in a different form. Remove CPs from detachments and you can still have that structure without the abuse. Giving CPs based on army size would be far better.
Heck, what if CPs could be purchased? like 50pts per CP? Now you can have a 2000pt army with the exact number of CPs you want, but have to give up units to pay for them Just a thought, admittedly not fully baked if anyone sees holes in the suggestion
@Galef That is how they've set up AoS. They also have a FoC which scales with Game size. They have the older style Formations from 7th but you still have to adhere to the FoC and have made them cost points.
CPs can also be purchased at 50 points per point as you alluded to.
1. 30 transport cap.... but can't take more than 1 squad.
2. A degrading stat-line starting at 5+ BS meaning that at 1/3rd of its health and below, it has 7+ to hit with the silo, 8+ against ground targets (with the Icarus).
3. A pathetic missile *silo*.
4. Costs more than a Land Raider.
5. Armour 3+ on a fortress meaning that against what the enemy fires at it, it'll have at best a 6+ save.
davou wrote: man, when was last aprils FAQ released? its getting late in the month now
3 weeks after Adepticon.
For those of us not in the know, when was Adepticon?
3 weeks ago.
Given that Monday is a public holiday in the UK and that they will want the social media well staffed when they put the FAQ out I would think Tuesday is the first possible day it will come out. Also I would not really expect it to come out while the survey is still open, from their point of view they are unlikely to want those to overlap.
whembly wrote: I actually miss the old formations in the previous editions and I didn't think they were broken. At least it was straightforward.
I disagree about them not being broken. Most of the ones in the second half of 7th were utterly ridiculous.
That said, I did like the structure of the 7.5 detachments (like the Necron Decurion). I thought they encouraged quite a good mix of units.
Of course, the downside is that you often couldn't include specific units on their own. e.g. if you wanted to add Destroyers, you couldn't just add a single unit - you had to add an entire Destroyer Wing. Or if you wanted Triarch Praetorians, you had to include (IIRC) 2 units of them *and* a Triarch Stalker.
The biggest issue I had with Formations was the complete lack of balance in them. Necrons with Decurion were good, SM with 400pts of free transports was really good, Riptide wing was ridiculous, Eldars were just ridiculous before formations and formations just enhanced how broken they were.
But what about IG, what about Chaos and what about Orkz? I remember the Ork super formation was around 1100pts naked basically and the benefit? You can Waaagh every turn, which was kind of nice but mostly useless. Compare that with the Space Marines, Orkz who can advance and charge in the same turn vs 400pts of free razorbacks, which sounds better to you? Or hell the weakest of the good formations the Decurion, orkz able to charge every turn or a 4+ RP? I would say a 50% chance to bring back your models is a bit better then being able to charge on the same turn you ran, especially when the formation requirements were so heavy that it made the formation basically useless.
I like the detachment system, the problem is it gives a clear advantage to books with good HQ and Troop options.
With that said I agree with posters saying you don't "need" as many CP as some people think you do. There are definitely certain armies that don't have good/auto-use stratagems, so front loading isn't possible. If you are into turn 4 and still have say 5 CP left because there was nothing to spend it on, I'd question whether that was the most efficient way to build a list. By contrast if you have burned through 15 CP by the end of turn 2, that's probably had a major impact on the game.
Tyel wrote: I like the detachment system, the problem is it gives a clear advantage to books with good HQ and Troop options.
With that said I agree with posters saying you don't "need" as many CP as some people think you do. There are definitely certain armies that don't have good/auto-use stratagems, so front loading isn't possible. If you are into turn 4 and still have say 5 CP left because there was nothing to spend it on, I'd question whether that was the most efficient way to build a list. By contrast if you have burned through 15 CP by the end of turn 2, that's probably had a major impact on the game.
If you build a list that relies on stratagems to get its job done you need to fear Vect and the 4-armed emperor, in addition to list-building for sufficient CP to pop that probably expensive stratagem on multiple turns. Even a Callidus could ruin your strategy, and she is available to something like half the armies in a typical tournament and they only have to pick her at game-time. Between Aeldari, GSC and Imperium you should expect a stratagem-dependent list to face obstacles in the current game.
The other side to this is that if you do not build your list around needing to use expensive stratagems you have no fear of Vect, or the GSC. If you build a list that does not rely on CP then stratagem-denial is pretty much wasted on you, so your opponent probably ends up with a sub-optimal list having squeezed in the ability to hinder something that is peripheral to you. It does feel a little more like playing in the Index era but that is OK once you adjust. If you care little for CP you can then choose your units based on what will work best on the table rather than having to go with massed troops and HQ because that is what generates CP.
If your army is well suited to high-CP builds to fuel great stratagems then by all means go for it and build that way. Some other armies really do not seem to benefit so much from that approach so I would say look around for other ways to build those armies that works to their strengths. Nearly all the armies[1] in the game do have strength somewhere you need to either play to that strength or decide the army just does not fit your playstyle preference.
Tyel wrote: I like the detachment system, the problem is it gives a clear advantage to books with good HQ and Troop options.
With that said I agree with posters saying you don't "need" as many CP as some people think you do. There are definitely certain armies that don't have good/auto-use stratagems, so front loading isn't possible. If you are into turn 4 and still have say 5 CP left because there was nothing to spend it on, I'd question whether that was the most efficient way to build a list. By contrast if you have burned through 15 CP by the end of turn 2, that's probably had a major impact on the game.
If you build a list that relies on stratagems to get its job done you need to fear Vect and the 4-armed emperor, in addition to list-building for sufficient CP to pop that probably expensive stratagem on multiple turns. Even a Callidus could ruin your strategy, and she is available to something like half the armies in a typical tournament and they only have to pick her at game-time. Between Aeldari, GSC and Imperium you should expect a stratagem-dependent list to face obstacles in the current game.
The other side to this is that if you do not build your list around needing to use expensive stratagems you have no fear of Vect, or the GSC. If you build a list that does not rely on CP then stratagem-denial is pretty much wasted on you, so your opponent probably ends up with a sub-optimal list having squeezed in the ability to hinder something that is peripheral to you. It does feel a little more like playing in the Index era but that is OK once you adjust. If you care little for CP you can then choose your units based on what will work best on the table rather than having to go with massed troops and HQ because that is what generates CP.
If your army is well suited to high-CP builds to fuel great stratagems then by all means go for it and build that way. Some other armies really do not seem to benefit so much from that approach so I would say look around for other ways to build those armies that works to their strengths. Nearly all the armies[1] in the game do have strength somewhere you need to either play to that strength or decide the army just does not fit your playstyle preference.
[1] Mandatory moment of sympathy for GK.players
This is the thing that really shouldn't be a problem, however some units are clearly points costed, as if they have unlimited access to strategums, while others are given discounts for poor strategums.
As you say you can buils lists that really don't care about CP or lists that hing on it. The problem is the power balance is way out for some of these builds.
But this also translates into a number of feel bad moments when say marines do take a infantry heavy army and gain nothing like the boost for the points investment compaired to other codex's.
Tyel wrote: I like the detachment system, the problem is it gives a clear advantage to books with good HQ and Troop options.
With that said I agree with posters saying you don't "need" as many CP as some people think you do. There are definitely certain armies that don't have good/auto-use stratagems, so front loading isn't possible. If you are into turn 4 and still have say 5 CP left because there was nothing to spend it on, I'd question whether that was the most efficient way to build a list. By contrast if you have burned through 15 CP by the end of turn 2, that's probably had a major impact on the game.
If you build a list that relies on stratagems to get its job done you need to fear Vect and the 4-armed emperor, in addition to list-building for sufficient CP to pop that probably expensive stratagem on multiple turns. Even a Callidus could ruin your strategy, and she is available to something like half the armies in a typical tournament and they only have to pick her at game-time. Between Aeldari, GSC and Imperium you should expect a stratagem-dependent list to face obstacles in the current game.
The other side to this is that if you do not build your list around needing to use expensive stratagems you have no fear of Vect, or the GSC. If you build a list that does not rely on CP then stratagem-denial is pretty much wasted on you, so your opponent probably ends up with a sub-optimal list having squeezed in the ability to hinder something that is peripheral to you. It does feel a little more like playing in the Index era but that is OK once you adjust. If you care little for CP you can then choose your units based on what will work best on the table rather than having to go with massed troops and HQ because that is what generates CP.
If your army is well suited to high-CP builds to fuel great stratagems then by all means go for it and build that way. Some other armies really do not seem to benefit so much from that approach so I would say look around for other ways to build those armies that works to their strengths. Nearly all the armies[1] in the game do have strength somewhere you need to either play to that strength or decide the army just does not fit your playstyle preference.
[1] Mandatory moment of sympathy for GK.players
This is the thing that really shouldn't be a problem, however some units are clearly points costed, as if they have unlimited access to strategums, while others are given discounts for poor strategums.
As you say you can buils lists that really don't care about CP or lists that hing on it. The problem is the power balance is way out for some of these builds.
But this also translates into a number of feel bad moments when say marines do take a infantry heavy army and gain nothing like the boost for the points investment compaired to other codex's.
Well Chaos Renegades now can with the RC trait reach Guard levels of CP and get a usefull trait out of it. That is atleast something, but frankly bit ridicoulus that chaos can pull that whilest regular SM can go die in a hole comparatively....
The biggest issue I had with Formations was the complete lack of balance in them. Necrons with Decurion were good, SM with 400pts of free transports was really good, Riptide wing was ridiculous, Eldars were just ridiculous before formations and formations just enhanced how broken they were.
But what about IG, what about Chaos and what about Orkz? I remember the Ork super formation was around 1100pts naked basically and the benefit? You can Waaagh every turn, which was kind of nice but mostly useless. Compare that with the Space Marines, Orkz who can advance and charge in the same turn vs 400pts of free razorbacks, which sounds better to you? Or hell the weakest of the good formations the Decurion, orkz able to charge every turn or a 4+ RP? I would say a 50% chance to bring back your models is a bit better then being able to charge on the same turn you ran, especially when the formation requirements were so heavy that it made the formation basically useless.
I think the main problem was that they completely changed Formations half way through 7th. So all the armies released prior to that (DE, Orks, Chaos etc.) had piddling bonuses, whilst Necrons, SMs etc. had amazing bonuses.
Whilst the bonuses were probably too strong, I at least liked the format of the super-formations that Necrons and such had.
The biggest issue I had with Formations was the complete lack of balance in them. Necrons with Decurion were good, SM with 400pts of free transports was really good, Riptide wing was ridiculous, Eldars were just ridiculous before formations and formations just enhanced how broken they were.
But what about IG, what about Chaos and what about Orkz? I remember the Ork super formation was around 1100pts naked basically and the benefit? You can Waaagh every turn, which was kind of nice but mostly useless. Compare that with the Space Marines, Orkz who can advance and charge in the same turn vs 400pts of free razorbacks, which sounds better to you? Or hell the weakest of the good formations the Decurion, orkz able to charge every turn or a 4+ RP? I would say a 50% chance to bring back your models is a bit better then being able to charge on the same turn you ran, especially when the formation requirements were so heavy that it made the formation basically useless.
I think the main problem was that they completely changed Formations half way through 7th. So all the armies released prior to that (DE, Orks, Chaos etc.) had piddling bonuses, whilst Necrons, SMs etc. had amazing bonuses.
Whilst the bonuses were probably too strong, I at least liked the format of the super-formations that Necrons and such had.
Except orkz got not 1 but 2 additional books to give them more formations because of how bad the original ones were. The ork super formation was in these which were released AFTER Necrons, SM, Tau and such. They were unarguably the worst formations in the game. And I can prove they were terrible because nobody can remember them but everyone remembers most other factions big formation.
Tyel wrote: I like the detachment system, the problem is it gives a clear advantage to books with good HQ and Troop options.
With that said I agree with posters saying you don't "need" as many CP as some people think you do. There are definitely certain armies that don't have good/auto-use stratagems, so front loading isn't possible. If you are into turn 4 and still have say 5 CP left because there was nothing to spend it on, I'd question whether that was the most efficient way to build a list. By contrast if you have burned through 15 CP by the end of turn 2, that's probably had a major impact on the game.
Unless you play an army that requires CP to function. Orkz without stratagems are bottom tier. Take away the loota bomb because it requires 5 CP a turn to function and 1 CP at the start of turn 1 to combine 2 mobz together and its crap. Get rid of the SSAG because that requires 2 CP as well and 2CP a turn to shoot twice, get rid of Deep striking units like Battlewagonz and Nautz. Really quickly the ork codex is left with a bunch of highly over priced units that can't damage things very well and have a significantly smaller chance to actually reach combat. Generally speaking I take 3 Battalions to tournaments. so 18CP, I spend 2 CP right off the bat to get the SSAG, I spend 4 more CP to put 2 units in reserve to deep strike,so before the game begins I am down to 12CP. Turn 1 I mob up lootas, give them Dakka on 5s and shoot twice, now I am down to 7CP. the SSAG shoots twice as well and either he or the lootas need a CP reroll so thats 3 more CP gone. Turn 2 I am down to 4 CP, and thats only if my opponents doesn't require me to use grot shields to save my loota bomb from getting killed. I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.
Xenomancers wrote: I didn't think I needed to specify on this but...All the rules flayed skull + power from pain get are good or at the very least - they are other army traits.
Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions (just like my Levi/ulthwe comparison) only prove my point. Traits aren't balanced. Its the first place to start when balancing this game IMO. Because they are included in the base cost of everything.
I'm sorry, I don't know all the faction traits of all the armies - but which one was it that has "Fearless only on the last few turns" as their one and only trait again?
I mean, you're saying "Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions [...]" as the exact next sentence after complaining about something with "Fearless" with a "But only on the last couple turns" condition to make it worse.
You do realize DE start with FNP from PFP on turn 1. This is an army trait for several armies (It is actually one of the better ones). Yeah sure they don't get a rule like ATSKNF or battle focus but these traits are not equal to a trait like flayed skull. In addition PFP grants you even more stuff as turns pass. When in fact - they already had more than what another army had starting turn 1. It doesn't matter if the next 4 turns of free buffs aren't great - it's just more free stuff. Plus - the buffs are actually pretty dang good from power from pain.
whembly wrote: I actually miss the old formations in the previous editions and I didn't think they were broken. At least it was straightforward.
I disagree about them not being broken. Most of the ones in the second half of 7th were utterly ridiculous.
That said, I did like the structure of the 7.5 detachments (like the Necron Decurion). I thought they encouraged quite a good mix of units.
Of course, the downside is that you often couldn't include specific units on their own. e.g. if you wanted to add Destroyers, you couldn't just add a single unit - you had to add an entire Destroyer Wing. Or if you wanted Triarch Praetorians, you had to include (IIRC) 2 units of them *and* a Triarch Stalker.
The biggest issue I had with Formations was the complete lack of balance in them. Necrons with Decurion were good, SM with 400pts of free transports was really good, Riptide wing was ridiculous, Eldars were just ridiculous before formations and formations just enhanced how broken they were.
But what about IG, what about Chaos and what about Orkz? I remember the Ork super formation was around 1100pts naked basically and the benefit? You can Waaagh every turn, which was kind of nice but mostly useless. Compare that with the Space Marines, Orkz who can advance and charge in the same turn vs 400pts of free razorbacks, which sounds better to you? Or hell the weakest of the good formations the Decurion, orkz able to charge every turn or a 4+ RP? I would say a 50% chance to bring back your models is a bit better then being able to charge on the same turn you ran, especially when the formation requirements were so heavy that it made the formation basically useless.
I like the spend CP for formation bonus concept. Heres the thing. You first have to balance CP to do that.
I see your ultramarines trait claim and raise you word bearers.
Speakong of Word Bearers, I want to see them get the ability to take Possessed as troops. It'd make the Daemonkin detachment actually playable in their hands while not breaking the game.
I liked the concept of formations, but felt like it wasn't executed right (and I played Necrons and SM in 7th, so it's not bias). I feel like Age of Sigmar has done them better by requiring you to maintain HQ/Troop minimums (Leader/Battleline in AoS terms) and costing points. If those two things had been true in 40k, formations would have been a better mechanic.
Xenomancers wrote: I didn't think I needed to specify on this but...All the rules flayed skull + power from pain get are good or at the very least - they are other army traits.
Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions (just like my Levi/ulthwe comparison) only prove my point. Traits aren't balanced. Its the first place to start when balancing this game IMO. Because they are included in the base cost of everything.
I'm sorry, I don't know all the faction traits of all the armies - but which one was it that has "Fearless only on the last few turns" as their one and only trait again?
I mean, you're saying "Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions [...]" as the exact next sentence after complaining about something with "Fearless" with a "But only on the last couple turns" condition to make it worse.
You do realize DE start with FNP from PFP on turn 1. This is an army trait for several armies (It is actually one of the better ones). Yeah sure they don't get a rule like ATSKNF or battle focus but these traits are not equal to a trait like flayed skull. In addition PFP grants you even more stuff as turns pass. When in fact - they already had more than what another army had starting turn 1. It doesn't matter if the next 4 turns of free buffs aren't great - it's just more free stuff. Plus - the buffs are actually pretty dang good from power from pain.
PfP is pretty worthless for Flayed Skull. Again, there's my previous argument that since any unit with PfP has to be off the table to get the bonus from Flayed Skull, it's less about having both at once and more about trading one for the other.
Second, the turn 2 and 3 bonuses are by and large melee focused. Why would I ever want GEQ infantry in combat? A fully roided up kabalite squad doesn't even kill a single marine in combat, on average.
Finally, the bonuses themselves matter less than the unit the bonuses go to. There is a difference between a T3 5+ W1 model getting a 6+++ and a Marine or Ork.
By your logic here, Snakebite Boyz should be pretty overpowered. They have a 6++, reroll to charge, always hit on 6's, can get Ld30, and get +1 attacks if their unit size is large enough, Turn 1 . That's better than PfP and they get those bonuses turn one! Surely, one look at the Tournament listings shows the overwhelming domination of such a powerful combo, Snakebite Boyz.
You can't look at traits and rules in a vacuum, what units they're on matter too.
SemperMortis wrote: I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.
SemperMortis wrote: I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.
That sounds like a "you" problem.
yeah, lol. I don't think I've ever played with double digits CPs, not sure what that would feel like
EnTyme wrote: I liked the concept of formations, but felt like it wasn't executed right (and I played Necrons and SM in 7th, so it's not bias). I feel like Age of Sigmar has done them better by requiring you to maintain HQ/Troop minimums (Leader/Battleline in AoS terms) and costing points. If those two things had been true in 40k, formations would have been a better mechanic.
Yep I agree with that, even heresy did the "formations" better with restrictions on what can and cannot be used to make a themed list for that army.
SemperMortis wrote: I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.
That sounds like a "you" problem.
No, that sounds like a problem with the ork army. without CP most of our competitive units are trash. Look no further then Lootas to see that point proven correct. Without CP you are spending 170pts for a unit of Boyz armed with autocannons that hit on 5s and have D3 shots, not bad right? except that they are 17pts and are still T4 with a 6+ save. I can already here people saying nonsense like "put them in cover" Cool, now its a 17pt model with a 5+ save. So if you buy 10 of them you have 170pts sunk into on average 20 Auto Cannon shots, hitting on 5s, rerolling 6s and 1s (badmoon) gives you about 8-9 hits, against a T7 vehicle you get 4 wounds, they get a 4+ save so you do 4dmg. Not exactly impressive. and on the return swing they melt as soon as you look at them.
yeah, lol. I don't think I've ever played with double digits CPs, not sure what that would feel like
it feels like not enough honestly with the Ork army. Go back to the loota bomb. Turn 1 you spend 1CP to mob up, 2 CP to dakka on 5s, 2 CP to shoot twice and 1 CP to grot shield them, you will probably need a CP reroll for shots as well. So to make our 1 unit good we just spent 7CP, our other good ranged unit is the SSAG, so 2CP just to field the stupid thing and then 2 CP to have it shoot twice. So turn 1 you just used 11 of your 18 CP. that means turn 2 you are completely out of CP.
whembly wrote: I actually miss the old formations in the previous editions and I didn't think they were broken. At least it was straightforward.
I disagree about them not being broken. Most of the ones in the second half of 7th were utterly ridiculous.
That said, I did like the structure of the 7.5 detachments (like the Necron Decurion). I thought they encouraged quite a good mix of units.
Of course, the downside is that you often couldn't include specific units on their own. e.g. if you wanted to add Destroyers, you couldn't just add a single unit - you had to add an entire Destroyer Wing. Or if you wanted Triarch Praetorians, you had to include (IIRC) 2 units of them *and* a Triarch Stalker.
The biggest issue I had with Formations was the complete lack of balance in them. Necrons with Decurion were good, SM with 400pts of free transports was really good, Riptide wing was ridiculous, Eldars were just ridiculous before formations and formations just enhanced how broken they were.
But what about IG, what about Chaos and what about Orkz? I remember the Ork super formation was around 1100pts naked basically and the benefit? You can Waaagh every turn, which was kind of nice but mostly useless. Compare that with the Space Marines, Orkz who can advance and charge in the same turn vs 400pts of free razorbacks, which sounds better to you? Or hell the weakest of the good formations the Decurion, orkz able to charge every turn or a 4+ RP? I would say a 50% chance to bring back your models is a bit better then being able to charge on the same turn you ran, especially when the formation requirements were so heavy that it made the formation basically useless.
As a Necron Player, the Decurion was the best way to really get a good Necron Army going on the Table, it was the best way to highlight the Necrons fluff where they just do not die with actual reanimation protocols. The Destroyer Cult formation was great as well.
As a Khorne Daemonkin player the Detachment that helped the Blood Tithe chart was a fun and interactive way of expressing "Khorne cares not where the blood flows." 8th Edition destroyed this style of play by dropping it completely and tried to apply it via the Stratagem system, which just does not work to emulate it at all.
SemperMortis wrote: I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.
That sounds like a "you" problem.
No, that sounds like a problem with the ork army. without CP most of our competitive units are trash. Look no further then Lootas to see that point proven correct.
I mean, it's nobody's fault but your own that you built your entire army around a crutch.
SemperMortis wrote: I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.
That sounds like a "you" problem.
No, that sounds like a problem with the ork army. without CP most of our competitive units are trash. Look no further then Lootas to see that point proven correct.
I mean, it's nobody's fault but your own that you built your entire army around a crutch.
While I don't disagree that loota bomb is a crutch, it's worth noting that an equivalent number of autocannon hits from guard only costs 112 points, and comes with 14 T3 5+ wounds. So there is validity to the complaint.
SemperMortis wrote: I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.
That sounds like a "you" problem.
No, that sounds like a problem with the ork army. without CP most of our competitive units are trash. Look no further then Lootas to see that point proven correct.
I mean, it's nobody's fault but your own that you built your entire army around a crutch.
As opposed to what? I could build my army around Warbikers...but they suck, Kommandos, but they suck, Burnas, but they suck, any of our new buggies, but they all suck, Mork/gorkanauts, but they suck. I could build my army around a Super Heavy like imperial players do, but the Stompa Sucks, I could build an elite Nobz army...but they suck.
So really what you are saying is that its my fault for picking a faction that relies on Lootas and a fethload of CP to be competitive.
The correct way to say that is "I am sorry that the game designers were lazy with your faction and instead of fixing inherently bad units they just gave you stratagems to rely on instead of balancing the army".
SemperMortis wrote: I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.
That sounds like a "you" problem.
No, that sounds like a problem with the ork army. without CP most of our competitive units are trash. Look no further then Lootas to see that point proven correct.
I mean, it's nobody's fault but your own that you built your entire army around a crutch.
As opposed to what? I could build my army around Warbikers...but they suck, Kommandos, but they suck, Burnas, but they suck, any of our new buggies, but they all suck, Mork/gorkanauts, but they suck. I could build my army around a Super Heavy like imperial players do, but the Stompa Sucks, I could build an elite Nobz army...but they suck.
So really what you are saying is that its my fault for picking a faction that relies on Lootas and a fethload of CP to be competitive.
The correct way to say that is "I am sorry that the game designers were lazy with your faction and instead of fixing inherently bad units they just gave you stratagems to rely on instead of balancing the army".
I assume you are talking about to win tournaments ? As most of the ork lists I've seen and played against don't rely on crutch tactics and focus on the basic boy with some tricks here and there and they do pretty well.
Now is that a problem for competitive lists ? Yes, it is. It's the same issue I saw coming from the beginning of this edition. It's almost absolutely all about tricks and gimmicks and crutch tactics with how heavy hitting the game is. The very burn out with command points and how little defense most units have vs the firepower available. The only reason imperial armies come out well with this is because of allies which is about as whack of a system as you could ask for. It directly helps some factions a ton and punishes those without easy access to " friends ".
It leads to most games being a huge explosion in the first couple turns and the end being a soft trickle as whats left fights and tugs for objectives. Which also is why marines feel so bad as an army they have good defense but the fire power makes it pointless. Marine based armies are like the old french knights, and the longbow has come into vogue. However unlike history, they can't just evolve without rules evolving in the system and in their design and points, etc.
At the highest levels of this game, the system is awful as it is. It almost totally invalidates mono book armies and relies near entirely on CP generation and use in conjunction with allied list building exercise. That isn't a well set up game, it is however a game to drive sales. So while everyone here screams for balance and praise GW their glory, they are operating with a clear sight. They don't want balance they want to drive sales. Do you really think they don't think these lists at tournaments are lame ? You don't think they realize the problem units and the no brainer choices and how crap most is ? Of course they do, they just don't care as their sales are huge.
They release boxes with meh rules at high price and they sell so much they can't keep it in stock ( shadowspear ) when on this very board people talk about how crap some of those units are, yet they bought 2 boxes themselves. Why should they ever really aim for balance when a perfect imbalance is just what they want. I don't think the designers don't understand things, I think they do and are following a clear plan.
I bet you they sold a crap ton of those " Sucky " ork units that are so pointless despite how bad apparently the book is ( which I disagree with at least outside the hardcore tournament scene perhaps ). They know CP generation is the name of the game and put out more and more books to use them, drive them and push that list building ideal.
Will some armies get nerfed ? Sure, just to say " Hey, we are listening ! " I would bet you the gaurd will see plenty of nerfs in time, and the outrage will go to other army builds but some imbalances will remain un touched, as they have been. The only real victims being the ones who want balance at the highest levels, you won't find it. If victory is your goal you just need to keep pressing with the soup, CP formation tango as it dances onward and will only grow more and more. The only real longevity in this game if you want to take what units you like and feel even semi balanced is to play with friends you talk to ahead of time. Who you know how they list build, what they enjoy and want to have fun games. As high balance will never be the name of this game, balance doesn't push people to expand their armies or start new ones. That, is all GW really care about. I mean just listen to them talk, each and every unit is " Amazing " in a stream, each book is full of tactical depth, I think we all know better. At least I hope we do.
That said, this is still the most balanced edition I've played outside of certain points in 5th edition. I'm still happy, but then I saw it coming at the start and do have that group of friends to have good games with.
SemperMortis wrote: I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.
That sounds like a "you" problem.
No, that sounds like a problem with the ork army. without CP most of our competitive units are trash. Look no further then Lootas to see that point proven correct.
I mean, it's nobody's fault but your own that you built your entire army around a crutch.
As opposed to what? I could build my army around Warbikers...but they suck, Kommandos, but they suck, Burnas, but they suck, any of our new buggies, but they all suck, Mork/gorkanauts, but they suck. I could build my army around a Super Heavy like imperial players do, but the Stompa Sucks, I could build an elite Nobz army...but they suck.
So really what you are saying is that its my fault for picking a faction that relies on Lootas and a fethload of CP to be competitive.
The correct way to say that is "I am sorry that the game designers were lazy with your faction and instead of fixing inherently bad units they just gave you stratagems to rely on instead of balancing the army".
Accept that you don't have the constitution to compete at top tables and commit to playing casually. When you aren't trying to power game you'll actually learn how to improve your game. Players at every level are better off focusing on making better choices in the heat of a match rather than trying to win at the list building stage with a cookie cutter crutch combo.
Also, you'll find a million more army builds are viable when you aren't shackling yourself to easy mode ITCHammer.
Lemondish wrote: I mean, it's nobody's fault but your own that you built your entire army around a crutch.
Lemondish wrote: Accept that you don't have the constitution to compete at top tables and commit to playing casually. When you aren't trying to power game you'll actually learn how to improve your game. Players at every level are better off focusing on making better choices in the heat of a match rather than trying to win at the list building stage with a cookie cutter crutch combo.
Also, you'll find a million more army builds are viable when you aren't shackling yourself to easy mode ITCHammer.
So i make a valid criticism of the game, specifically about the faction Ive played for decades and these are your responses. Your responses have been literally useless and nothing more then modified versions of Get Good Noob.
Some people LIKE competitive game play...you know, hence why games are a competition to begin with. I merely want the game to be balanced enough to the point where I am not hamstrung by 1 build that is easily countered by the META.
Also, list building is probably the most important aspect of the game right now because you could take the LVO winner and give them a crap list built for "Casual" game play and they will lose 9 times out of 10. Good Luck fielding a Stompa in any game versus a Knight Castellan and supporting loyal 32, which btw are still cheaper by a long shot then a single stompa. Actually you could take a Knight and 2 units of Loyal 32 for an extra 10 CP to make the Knight Castellan a beast and be only slightly more then a Stompa.
I Dont think its too much to ask for game balance and for people to not just to GW's defense yelling "get gud n00b"
Not to be that guy BUT gimmick builds come and go all the time. Relying to heavilly on a gimmick to win is just setting yourself up to be screwed over later when they change something to nerf that gimmick.
Took much emphasis is put on gimmicky builds these days and not on trying to ensure you have your bases covered for playing the mission or generally running a TAC that can flexibly respond to nearly any list, even if it's not the strongest list on paper.
Player skill is more important than the list (yes, a strong list helps but it doesn't make you a better player on its own). Identify how your opponent seeks to win and deny them those opportunities. Make them put their weaknesses against tour strengths.
Basically, I'm saying if you want to win morenfames you need to stop blaming your list (or how GW nerfed it) and focus on actively seeking to improve.
None of your criticisms were valid. You complained about the difficulties you personally have in a competitive tournament setting. Since Ork armies are doing fantastic without your Loota CP sink crutch, I called you out. Get better at playing your chosen faction and you'll quickly see it's not a problem with the faction, it's a problem with the player.
specifically about the faction Ive played for decades and these are your responses. Your responses have been literally useless and nothing more then modified versions of Get Good Noob.
If telling you in no uncertain terms that every player, no matter how skilled and no matter the list, can and should improve the fundamentals of their game is what you call useless, then I suggest you continue your tantrum because that will certainly work this time.
Having played it for decades does not make you an expert in a new edition.
Some people LIKE competitive game play
And some people aren't good at it and rely on crutches to compete while blaming everyone else but themselves for their losses.
I merely want the game to be balanced enough to the point where I am not hamstrung by 1 build that is easily countered by the META.
Again, that's a "you" problem. Nobody else playing Orks at the top level feel hamstrung.
Also, list building is probably the most important aspect of the game right now because you could take the LVO winner and give them a crap list built for "Casual" game play and they will lose 9 times out of 10.
Patently absurd statement.
We wouldn't see the same generals in the top ITC rankings if list building was the only skill. Second, you would be winning more often if you were a better general regardless of the list.
I Dont think its too much to ask for game balance and for people to not just to GW's defense yelling "get gud n00b
It isn't, but your supporting arguments are nonsensical, hyperbolic, and originate from your own inadequacy as a general and a hopelessly flawed viewpoint that there's some formula you follow for an autowin at the list building stage.
Check your expectations because the FAQ will not make you a better player - you need to do that yourself.
ClockworkZion wrote: Not to be that guy BUT gimmick builds come and go all the time. Relying to heavilly on a gimmick to win is just setting yourself up to be screwed over later when they change something to nerf that gimmick.
Took much emphasis is put on gimmicky builds these days and not on trying to ensure you have your bases covered for playing the mission or generally running a TAC that can flexibly respond to nearly any list, even if it's not the strongest list on paper.
Player skill is more important than the list (yes, a strong list helps but it doesn't make you a better player on its own). Identify how your opponent seeks to win and deny them those opportunities. Make them put their weaknesses against tour strengths.
Basically, I'm saying if you want to win morenfames you need to stop blaming your list (or how GW nerfed it) and focus on actively seeking to improve.
I agree completely on gimmicky builds being in the spot light. But unfortunately, that is how you win tournaments these days. As far as setting myself up to be screwed over later....well not so much, I only play Orkz, I am not a meta chaser who buys the new hotness and then switches as soon as the meta changes, I have been collecting orkz for a very long time and I have enough models to play any playstyle possible with orkz, except the Stompa, I refuse to buy that POS. 1: It is in my opinion an ugly model and 2: I don't like super heavies in general.
As for player skill, I disagree strongly here. Player skill is vital, but as I said in my last post, if you took the LVO winner and gave him an Ork army of KillaKanz and Deff Dreadz and you gave me the net list that orkz have to use to be competitive (Loota Bomb and SSAG Big Mek) I would crush him in short order. List building is the foundation of the game and player skill comes in after the fact to determine the winner between two armies on an equal playing field. So if Nick showed up with the same list he would probably kick my butt because I am under no illusions that I am a better player then he is, but if you gave him a Kan Wall, the game would probably be over turn 2.
Seriously?
There is a way to make a point with constructive criticism then there's just little short of berating someone unnecessarily.
You're not doing the first and it's getting close to the second.
Some codex's have far better international balance and don't have units that have been points costed on the assumption of stratageum buffs being permanently available.
Unfortunately some other codex's do have balance issues that limits which units are actually competatively viable.
Loota bomb might be a crutch, but funnily enough it's what most of the top players gravitated towards aswell, they have started trying other builds and some are having successful events, but that doesn't mean you get to just call people noobs because they're a little bit behind (probably because they can't play 24/7) on trying to figure out other ways to build a list from a codex.
Too many codex contain units that really do play like a certain stacking of buffs has been assumed in their points costs, which really does limit the possible ways to play then competatively.
ClockworkZion wrote: Not to be that guy BUT gimmick builds come and go all the time. Relying to heavilly on a gimmick to win is just setting yourself up to be screwed over later when they change something to nerf that gimmick.
Took much emphasis is put on gimmicky builds these days and not on trying to ensure you have your bases covered for playing the mission or generally running a TAC that can flexibly respond to nearly any list, even if it's not the strongest list on paper.
Player skill is more important than the list (yes, a strong list helps but it doesn't make you a better player on its own). Identify how your opponent seeks to win and deny them those opportunities. Make them put their weaknesses against tour strengths.
Basically, I'm saying if you want to win morenfames you need to stop blaming your list (or how GW nerfed it) and focus on actively seeking to improve.
I agree completely on gimmicky builds being in the spot light. But unfortunately, that is how you win tournaments these days. As far as setting myself up to be screwed over later....well not so much, I only play Orkz, I am not a meta chaser who buys the new hotness and then switches as soon as the meta changes, I have been collecting orkz for a very long time and I have enough models to play any playstyle possible with orkz, except the Stompa, I refuse to buy that POS. 1: It is in my opinion an ugly model and 2: I don't like super heavies in general.
As for player skill, I disagree strongly here. Player skill is vital, but as I said in my last post, if you took the LVO winner and gave him an Ork army of KillaKanz and Deff Dreadz and you gave me the net list that orkz have to use to be competitive (Loota Bomb and SSAG Big Mek) I would crush him in short order. List building is the foundation of the game and player skill comes in after the fact to determine the winner between two armies on an equal playing field. So if Nick showed up with the same list he would probably kick my butt because I am under no illusions that I am a better player then he is, but if you gave him a Kan Wall, the game would probably be over turn 2.
I disagree and want to reference the Forge the Narrative guys from their episode on the new CSM stuff because they talk about performance floors and ceilings pretty well there.
Basically, assuming all lists are designed to tackle that event's missions, a good player is going to win 67% of their games, while a mediocre player with a gimmick list at the same tournament is only going to win around 50%.
We have enough statistics to see that even the bests lists being played by a massive percentage of the player base doesn't lead to them being every spot in the top 8. So there is definitely room for player skill to overcome the gimmick lists's strengths.
Start by identifying how your opponent can win the game. Deny them that and you're going to increase your chances of winning by a lot.
None of your criticisms were valid. You complained about the difficulties you personally have in a competitive tournament setting. Since Ork armies are doing fantastic without your Loota CP sink crutch, I called you out. Get better at playing your chosen faction and you'll quickly see it's not a problem with the faction, it's a problem with the player.
Criticisms were the reliance on some factions (Specifically mine) to CP farming and spamming, the lack of balance in the game and the internal balance of my codex. I actually won my last tournament with my loota bomb but that doesn't mean I can't criticize the inherent weakness of my codex nor does it mean that I can't wish that Stratagems and CP weren't a HUGE part of any army and for me specifically, my ork army being competitive. You just wanted to randomly insult and attack people because they don't share your view and/or you didn't understand the points I was making.
Lemondish wrote: If telling you in no uncertain terms that every player, no matter how skilled and no matter the list, can and should improve the fundamentals of their game is what you call useless, then I suggest you continue your tantrum because that will certainly work this time. Having played it for decades does not make you an expert in a new edition.
Everyone can improve their fundamentals, but that wasn't the gist of your comment and you know it. As for saying someone is having a tantrum, let me refer you to rule #1. Playing for decades assuredly does not make you an expert, but since we are getting close to the 2 year mark of this edition, I wouldn't call it new, and since the ork codex is now 6 months old I wouldn't call it new either and most of us have figured out the tricks and tactics of the army by now.
Lemondish wrote: And some people aren't good at it and rely on crutches to compete while blaming everyone else but themselves for their losses.
Crutches like the Loota bomb.....which was used by every ork player who placed in both LVO and Adepticon....not to mention the winning lists which are Crutch lists built around a Castellan and the loyal 32. And where was I blaming any of my losses on my crutch list? I'll give ya a hint, I wasn't. I was commenting on my desire to have a more balanced codex with MORE competitive options that didn't rely on strats and CP farming.
Lemondish wrote: Again, that's a "you" problem. Nobody else playing Orks at the top level feel hamstrung.
Every ork player in the competitive scene is in fact stuck into 1 list or a modified version of 1 list. Some of us are Speed Freak players who would love to bring out the Warbikers and Deff Koptas, some of us are Dread Waaagh players who have Kanz and Dreadz collecting dust, some of us are Blood axe freakz who want to bring out Kommando hordes and Stormboyz. We are unfortunately HAMSTRUNG into playing Loota bomb in competitive games because there are no other builds that stand a chance against the tournament meta like the Loyal 32 or Eldar Shenanigans. If you really think its bad for people to want options on how to play then I don't know how to even relate to you at this point.
We wouldn't see the same generals in the top ITC rankings if list building was the only skill. Second, you would be winning more often if you were a better general regardless of the list.
Cool, so, go take a friendly list with non competitive units and try to win a truly competitive tournament. i'll wait. Also, find me 1 ITC Tournament winner who doesn't think list building is incredibly important. Skill comes during the game, list building allows that skill to shine. And again a personal attack against my W/L ratio, funny, I hadn't mentioned in that last post how many games I had won or lost. Maybe you should stop projecting.
Lemondish wrote: It isn't, but your supporting arguments are nonsensical, hyperbolic, and originate from your own inadequacy as a general and a hopelessly flawed viewpoint that there's some formula you follow for an autowin at the list building stage. Check your expectations because the FAQ will not make you a better player - you need to do that yourself.
More ad hominem based on no facts, stats or figures, relying exclusively on your imagination and belief that only players who are losing would dare criticize the game. As for the FAQ, FAQ's don't make people a better player, they do increase/decrease the inherent power of armies though, but.....LMAO I am well aware there is basically no chance GW will address any problems in the ork codex, GW generally speaking doesn't know what it is doing with the Ork army. i'll cite 5th, 6th and 7th editions as proof of that
Okay, clearly you're committed to being upset about being called out for putting too many eggs in one basket and failing. That's fine. We've said our peace, let's stop letting your wishlisting based on gimmicks derail the thread any longer.
For the record, it's on you to support your claims, not me to prove them wrong.
Cheers, kid.
On topic: I actually expect a reversal of the fly change given the way a few of the new rules from the chaos codex and Vigilus Ablaze.
Lemondish wrote: On topic: I actually expect a reversal of the fly change given the way a few of the new rules from the chaos codex and Vigilus Ablaze.
It's more likely the rules in the Chaos codex and Vigilus will change, because they were most likely sent to print months before the Fly change, thus proving why you can't have both a living ruleset and dead tree carcass releases.
Lemondish, while I'm not debating your conclusions, your method of communicating them is too abrasive. Please tone it down; you can disagree with someone while not being disagreeable.
(I was trying not to use the word "rude"; although this post violated Rule #1, rude isn't quite the right word).
Okay, clearly you're committed to being upset about being called out for putting too many eggs in one basket and failing. That's fine. We've said our peace, let's stop letting your wishlisting based on gimmicks derail the thread any longer.
For the record, it's on you to support your claims, not me to prove them wrong.
Cheers, kid.
On topic: I actually expect a reversal of the fly change given the way a few of the new rules from the chaos codex and Vigilus Ablaze.
Its up to me to prove something has no proof? something something logical fallacy?
Regardless, wanting unit/army reliance on CP to be removed from the game is something that could be fixed by an update, though I doubt it, its most likely going to continue until 9th just like how the broken formations continued on until 8th dropped.
Lemondish wrote: On topic: I actually expect a reversal of the fly change given the way a few of the new rules from the chaos codex and Vigilus Ablaze.
It's more likely the rules in the Chaos codex and Vigilus will change, because they were most likely sent to print months before the Fly change, thus proving why you can't have both a living ruleset and dead tree carcass releases.
I noticed yesterday that the relic jump pack for Chaos mentions charging over enemies. I hope they reverse or otherwise make flying better.
Lemondish 773741 10421365 wrote:
Accept that you don't have the constitution to compete at top tables and commit to playing casually. When you aren't trying to power game you'll actually learn how to improve your game. Players at every level are better off focusing on making better choices in the heat of a match rather than trying to win at the list building stage with a cookie cutter crutch combo.
Also, you'll find a million more army builds are viable when you aren't shackling yourself to easy mode ITCHammer.
yeah, you should build your army around purfires led by Crow, and win with skill, and not with cheesy game mechanics or rules.
Xenomancers wrote: I didn't think I needed to specify on this but...All the rules flayed skull + power from pain get are good or at the very least - they are other army traits.
Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions (just like my Levi/ulthwe comparison) only prove my point. Traits aren't balanced. Its the first place to start when balancing this game IMO. Because they are included in the base cost of everything.
I'm sorry, I don't know all the faction traits of all the armies - but which one was it that has "Fearless only on the last few turns" as their one and only trait again?
I mean, you're saying "Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions [...]" as the exact next sentence after complaining about something with "Fearless" with a "But only on the last couple turns" condition to make it worse.
You do realize DE start with FNP from PFP on turn 1. This is an army trait for several armies (It is actually one of the better ones).
So by "All [of these] are good or at the very least - they are other army traits", you meant *at least one* of these is. That's why these arguments go in circles - clearly, not all of these are.
Yeah sure they don't get a rule like ATSKNF or battle focus but these traits are not equal to a trait like flayed skull.
I'd much rather Battle Focus on my CWE than Flayed Skull. That sounds rather useless on CWE to me. On the other hand, I'd rather Flayed Skull over Battle Focus on my DE. Two rules for two different factions don't always directly compare. Some traits are better for some factions than others.
In addition PFP grants you even more stuff as turns pass.
Having multiple PFP traits over the course of the game isn't "in addition" to having PFP grant you even more stuff as the game goes on - it's literally the same thing.
When in fact - they already had more than what another army had starting turn 1. It doesn't matter if the next 4 turns of free buffs aren't great - it's just more free stuff. Plus - the buffs are actually pretty dang good from power from pain.
As demonstrated above, *Ultramarines* - even sans Gman - have more traits than Flayed Skull have starting turn 1. Nobody here is saying *they're* a better trait. Some sub-par Ork traits have more - and while Orkz are good, those traits are not. You're still arguing "more" is "better" - both of Iyanden's traits would be awesome on Guard, and both of Saim-Hainn's traits would be awesome on other armies - yet both are worse than all 3 single-benefit traits in the same book.
The number of traits might be suggestive. But it is not conclusive that more traits = OP.
Are we discussing more traits = more chance that one will be good, or Traits with multiple affects are often better than those with only 1 affect?
I so very lost as to what is being discussed. However, I do want to add that some traits can only affect a small portion of an army, and not just because Marine & CSM tactics only work in Infantry, Bike and Dreads Many Craftworld Eldar traits do nothing for many units, and one in particular that has 2 affects can only apply BOTH of those effectively to 1 unit (and it's an Index option only)
I'm referring to Saim-Hann, of course. Its 2 affects are: Reroll charges and BIKES do not suffer -1 for moving and shooting Heavies. There are only 3 BIKE units that can even have Heavy weapons, and only 1 wants to EVER Charge: Autarch Skyrunner with Reaper Launcher (Index only) and Laser Lance.
So in that regard, multi-affect Traits do not necessarily = OP either.
Galef wrote: Are we discussing more traits = more chance that one will be good, or
Traits with multiple affects are often better than those with only 1 affect?
I so very lost as to what is being discussed.
However, I do want to add that some traits can only affect a small portion of an army, and not just because Marine & CSM tactics only work in Infantry, Bike and Dreads
Many Craftworld Eldar traits do nothing for many units, and one in particular that has 2 affects can only apply BOTH of those effectively to 1 unit (and it's an Index option only)
I'm referring to Saim-Hann, of course. Its 2 affects are: Reroll charges and BIKES do not suffer -1 for moving and shooting Heavies.
There are only 3 BIKE units that can even have Heavy weapons, and only 1 wants to EVER Charge: Autarch Skyrunner with Reaper Launcher (Index only) and Laser Lance.
So in that regard, multi-affect Traits do not necessarily = OP either.
-
I think it's just someone starting from the conclusion of "Dark Eldar must be broken OP" and, finding a competitive tournament meta where Drukhari are present but not by any means dominant, instead chooses to select "They have....more...rules" as the piece of evidence that definitively proves the conclusion that he started with.
The reality of the situation is, nearly all armies have some kind of special, army wide rules that you can frame in such a way to make them seem broken OP if you wanted to.
It's true, two of the traits you get from PFP (6+++ FNP and Re-roll failed charges) are indeed things that show up elsewhere in the game as army traits. And the drukhari do get an army trait on top of that rule! How could that possibly be balanced, an Iron Hand that has that as their trait next to a Drukhari that gets that AND a trait???!@?!?
Drukhari don't get their rapid fire weapons out to full range if they stand still (or if they are bikes.)
Drukhari also don't re-roll failed morale tests.
Drukhari also can't take 10-man squads, deploy in transports and split into two five-man squads when they disembark
Oh look - two rules that matter, and that some armies have (at least similar) rules as their Subfaction Tactics (Word Bearers and Death Guard), and one rule that is less impactful and doesn't really make much of a difference but could make a difference in some games.
Having a -1LD aura turn 4 and fearless turn 5 are both so late in the game and in the case of turn 4 so utterly unimpactful that I'd be amazed if they ever game up at all. Can you argue that those three buffs are probably a little bit better than the three marine army-wide rules? Sure. Can you also point out that marines get their rules starting turn 1, and you have to wait for 2 of those Drukhari rules? Also yep.
Can you furthermore point out that two of the factions with next to no army-wide rules are two of the strongest factions in the competitive meta right now (Guard and Knights)? Also yes.
Does all this mean that comparing army-wide rules and trying to draw balance conclusions from that comparison is a stupid fething idea?
Galef wrote: Are we discussing more traits = more chance that one will be good, or
Traits with multiple affects are often better than those with only 1 affect?
Neither. We're discussing whether having more rules that can be called individual traits are, by definition, OP. And not "chance that it will be good" or "often better than" - but rather, whether having more traits proves that the faction is OP.
I so very lost as to what is being discussed.
However, I do want to add that some traits can only affect a small portion of an army, and not just because Marine & CSM tactics only work in Infantry, Bike and Dreads
Many Craftworld Eldar traits do nothing for many units, and one in particular that has 2 affects can only apply BOTH of those effectively to 1 unit (and it's an Index option only)
I'm referring to Saim-Hann, of course. Its 2 affects are: Reroll charges and BIKES do not suffer -1 for moving and shooting Heavies.
There are only 3 BIKE units that can even have Heavy weapons, and only 1 wants to EVER Charge: Autarch Skyrunner with Reaper Launcher (Index only) and Laser Lance.
So in that regard, multi-affect Traits do not necessarily = OP either.
-
That's been brought up - but it goes further than that. Iyanden is in the same boat. I'm fairly certain that no model in the book can be affected both by not losing more than 1 model to Morale *and* using a higher tier for degrading statlines - everything CWE with degrading stat lines that I can think of comes in units of 1.
As discussed upthread, both of those traits have two rules, and both are inferior, widely, to all 3 of the single-trait factions.
As for it not mattering because most things don't get both at once; same is true of the perrenial example; no DE model can benefit both from being embarked in a transport and taking FNP rolls / LD checks / charging / etc at the same time.
Arguably, though, Traits should be "meh" as they are there only to add flavor. To loop this back to the topic of this thread, I hope the FAQ makes Traits like Alaitoc (which I play currently), AL and RG go from -1 to hit, to Cover instead. Either Cover even in the open, or +2 save if actually in Cover, or both. Outside 12', of course
Even if it's both, it wouldn't be as "abusable" as stacking -1s to hit currently, thereby putting those Traits a bit more on par with others.
Stacking minus-to-hit is much stronger than it should be, but it's not a huge factor in tournaments - Alaitoc is the only one of those we see frequently, and they're certainly not the undisputed kings of the meta. So we'd be talking about a convoluted change in an FAQ, without much impact on tournament standing. Not sure GW will see that as worth the effort.
I hope they do, but certainly won't be surprised if they don't. We should see soon either way.
Galef wrote: Ah, that makes a bit more sense, thanx.
Arguably, though, Traits should be "meh" as they are there only to add flavor. To loop this back to the topic of this thread, I hope the FAQ makes Traits like Alaitoc (which I play currently), AL and RG go from -1 to hit, to Cover instead.
Either Cover even in the open, or +2 save if actually in Cover, or both. Outside 12', of course
Even if it's both, it wouldn't be as "abusable" as stacking -1s to hit currently, thereby putting those Traits a bit more on par with others.
-
Given that Alpha Legion did not change I would find that to be pretty unlikely. We might get no stacking.
Or at the very least "always hit on natural 6s regardless of modifiers". Orks have that standard, but also general extra hits, so they would still have something "unique" even if hitting on 6s was standard for everyone.
I've got my daily dose of disappointment on this FAQ today. I check every day around this time, and if is isn't up, it isn't today. Even with it being a "bank holiday" in the UK, it could still have been set as an automated post. I'd be surprised if the FAQ wasn't ready to be posted yet
Or at the very least "always hit on natural 6s regardless of modifiers". Orks have that standard, but also general extra hits, so they would still have something "unique" even if hitting on 6s was standard for everyone.
I've got my daily dose of disappointment on this FAQ today. I check every day around this time, and if is isn't up, it isn't today.
Even with it being a "bank holiday" in the UK, it could still have been set as an automated post. I'd be surprised if the FAQ wasn't ready to be posted yet
-
Yea, they're very clearly active on social media today, so, if it's ready it should have come out (if that crew is in the office).
A bit of shame on them if they wanted to keep the Keeper of Secrets splash up instead.
Or at the very least "always hit on natural 6s regardless of modifiers". Orks have that standard, but also general extra hits, so they would still have something "unique" even if hitting on 6s was standard for everyone.
I've got my daily dose of disappointment on this FAQ today. I check every day around this time, and if is isn't up, it isn't today.
Even with it being a "bank holiday" in the UK, it could still have been set as an automated post. I'd be surprised if the FAQ wasn't ready to be posted yet
-
I get what your going for on the 6's always hit, but untill GW stop charging extra points for the same weapons in BS 3 armies over BS 4 armies, hitting on 6's is more beneficial to low BS skill armies while the armies paying a points premium for better BS skill get less from said rule.
They should just be counts as in cover if they haven't moved, additional plus 1 to cover, at the end of the day though isn't as broken as -2 to hit stacking but GW might still have issues giving out 1+ save marines, +3 in cover rangers & scouts for 1+ Sv's.
Or at the very least "always hit on natural 6s regardless of modifiers". Orks have that standard, but also general extra hits, so they would still have something "unique" even if hitting on 6s was standard for everyone.
I've got my daily dose of disappointment on this FAQ today. I check every day around this time, and if is isn't up, it isn't today.
Even with it being a "bank holiday" in the UK, it could still have been set as an automated post. I'd be surprised if the FAQ wasn't ready to be posted yet
-
I get what your going for on the 6's always hit, but untill GW stop charging extra points for the same weapons in BS 3 armies over BS 4 armies, hitting on 6's is more beneficial to low BS skill armies while the armies paying a points premium for better BS skill get less from said rule.
They should just be counts as in cover if they haven't moved, additional plus 1 to cover, at the end of the day though isn't as broken as -2 to hit stacking but GW might still have issues giving out 1+ save marines, +3 in cover rangers & scouts for 1+ Sv's.
1+ Sv isn't a problem, because if you roll a , you still die.
Well, -1, -2 armies are one of the very few armies out there that can at least attempt to survive in the super-lethal 40k we have today, outside of hordes or Knights.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, -1, -2 armies are one of the very few armies out there that can at least attempt to survive in the super-lethal 40k we have today, outside of hordes or Knights.
We need a lot more of those armies, not less.
I would prefer more of these than a continuous rise in invulns any day.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, -1, -2 armies are one of the very few armies out there that can at least attempt to survive in the super-lethal 40k we have today, outside of hordes or Knights.
We need a lot more of those armies, not less.
-1 for that army is fine. It that the ones that can do this also have ways to up that to -2 on most things and -3 on a further key unit or two.
I'd be ok with GW making stacking past -2 a no-go. But you HAVE to let some stacking happen, otherwise Heavy Weapons start to no longer have a -1
But I still think the best change is to make -1 army Traits be a cover bonus instead.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, -1, -2 armies are one of the very few armies out there that can at least attempt to survive in the super-lethal 40k we have today, outside of hordes or Knights.
We need a lot more of those armies, not less.
-1 for that army is fine. It that the ones that can do this also have ways to up that to -2 on most things and -3 on a further key unit or two.
I'd be ok with GW making stacking past -2 a no-go. But you HAVE to let some stacking happen, otherwise Heavy Weapons start to no longer have a -1
But I still think the best change is to make -1 army Traits be a cover bonus instead.
-
It's simple really. Make it so that by default negative modifiers to hit don't stack, but have certain specific ones explicitly override that rule. Heavy Weapons when moving would be such an exception, as would be relics that affect a single character and other very limited affects. Army wide rules or auras would not stack though.
It means Marines are shooting at something with a -3 to hit. Which means nothing within 24" of them has any less. Which means there is, at most, *two* enemy units within a 24" bubble. Which means there ain't a lot left for them to fight.
Unless you're fighting one of those -3-to-hit army-wide CWE builds. In which case you're playing made up rules.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, -1, -2 armies are one of the very few armies out there that can at least attempt to survive in the super-lethal 40k we have today, outside of hordes or Knights.
We need a lot more of those armies, not less.
I would prefer more of these than a continuous rise in invulns any day.
No you get rid of the broken army traits and then prove to GW that 40k 8th edition is way too lethal.
Becuase unless your playing a -1 to hit or horde list your still loosing way to much to be able to fight past turn 3.
Even knight list dies fairly quickly outside the Guard, Castellen CP , Strategum stacking combo.
It means Marines are shooting at something with a -3 to hit. Which means nothing within 24" of them has any less. Which means there is, at most, *two* enemy units within a 24" bubble. Which means there ain't a lot left for them to fight.
Unless you're fighting one of those -3-to-hit army-wide CWE builds. In which case you're playing made up rules.
Even that -2 flat is a thing, that your defensive about, is just soo wrong in a d6 system, thats already taken away 40% of your to hit rolls as being viable. That any heavy weapons take a further -1 to hit to move into range or line of sight means your now at -3.
Tau and Guard can't hit with a -3, marine's are on 6's, if you want to keep negative to hit modifiers stacking you need to change to a D12 system.
It means Marines are shooting at something with a -3 to hit. Which means nothing within 24" of them has any less. Which means there is, at most, *two* enemy units within a 24" bubble. Which means there ain't a lot left for them to fight.
Unless you're fighting one of those -3-to-hit army-wide CWE builds. In which case you're playing made up rules.
Even that -2 flat is a thing, that your defensive about, is just soo wrong in a d6 system, thats already taken away 40% of your to hit rolls as being viable. That any heavy weapons take a further -1 to hit to move into range or line of sight means your now at -3.
Tau and Guard can't hit with a -3, marine's are on 6's, if you want to keep negative to hit modifiers stacking you need to change to a D12 system.
Which armies have a flat -2? None.
Now, CWE gets to -2 too easily on many units (Rangers, Flyers, etc), and it's far too powerful. I certainly agree with those. But they're hardly dominating the meta. CWE Airwing is present, but only one of many contenders. Ranger Spam isn't as big a thing anymore, as screens aren't as important (although they rarely had -2 as screens - as they'd ususally be within 12" of the firer).
The guard being the imperiums whore, and the castellan being an absolute tumor. Aledari's doom should not be effecting Drukhari's units, and allies should be choked just like in the GSC book in terms of Brood Brothers. I do believe chapter tactics should be effecting everything in a persons army, and not be limited(Space marines, CSM, etc). They should change the fly rule back, they only messed with it to sell more Knights, and guard. Make slaanesh daemons not terrible. Make Grey Knights no longer worthless( 1 MW smites even on their characters? What a joke.). Chaos Cultists should NOT be 5 points, guard should be. Oblits should be 115 pts each when a single one has the capacity to one shot Drukhari flyers a turn. Anyway, I just hope the FAQ only further betters the hobby!
It means Marines are shooting at something with a -3 to hit. Which means nothing within 24" of them has any less. Which means there is, at most, *two* enemy units within a 24" bubble. Which means there ain't a lot left for them to fight.
Unless you're fighting one of those -3-to-hit army-wide CWE builds. In which case you're playing made up rules.
That's not what I meant and you know it. Even hitting on 5s is basically doom for marines. Marines can basically never do what you describe to Eldar in the first place.
The stacking to hit is actually pretty far down my list of peeves, actually. I mean it's bad, but is it castellan bad? Or dissy cannon bad? I don't know.
I just noticed on the Warhammer Community site that the Survey is "1 day left", which leads into my theory that they may have been waiting on that to close before dropping the FAQ.
Wouldn't want the Survey results skewed by knee-jerk reactions to the FAQ.
My fingers are so crossed for tomorrow to be the day that said fingers might snap off!
It‘d be much better to give greater Daemons a -1 to hit vs. shooting or even an inverse of Leman Russ-style double shooting rule that they only take half the hits or something like that.
Also -1 activation strats to counter the deluge of double shooting, double fighting, etc.. need to be in every army.
I prefer more wounds to buff big things, and not Invulnerable saves. More wounds make antitank weaponry with d6 damage and high AP much more usefull agaisnt their intended target, but overall they are much more resilient if you give them 30-50% more wounds.
If you just give more and more invul saves then you end with Autocannons being the best antitank weapon.
Regarding -1 to hit, there are a couple of things I would like to see before any more of it would be added to the game.
The first thing is to clean up how it interacts with rerolls. Since the rerolls happen first, there will be dice that you know will fail but can't reroll since they don't count as a fail until the -1. I want the reroll to be the dominant effect. There are some units that get around this due to the wording, but I want reroll misses and reroll 1's to take hit modifiers into account.
The other thing is to simply make 6's an auto hit. While I'm fine with limiting hit modifiers (say to -2 as said above), I would still like to make sure they cant make something essentially invincible.
-1 to hit is actually one of the things I've suggested giving to Grey knights (aegis armor), and I wouldn't mind them having it as long as the above changes are made.
6s always hitting is already baked into the Cities of Death rules and those terrain rules are way better than the core ones.
I'd agree they need to put some more thought into how modifiers and re-rolls interact though. Pretty much everything that specifies a target number outside of actual BS/WS checks and armor saves should be on an "unmodified X", it would be a lot cleaner that way.
The Newman wrote: 6s always hitting is already baked into the Cities of Death rules and those terrain rules are way better than the core ones.
I'd agree they need to put some more thought into how modifiers and re-rolls interact though. Pretty much everything that specifies a target number outside of actual BS/WS checks and armor saves should be on an "unmodified X", it would be a lot cleaner that way.
But that would also be unnecessarily limiting.
You know, sometimes synergies between units and buffs are intended
The problem with both minuses to hit and invul inflation is that you are upping the chance of you or your opponent doing nothing. This increases the importance of luck over rational decision making. Which for me at least isn't fun.
I like to look back on games and think "did I play well, or did I play badly" about the result. What can I do differently next time? Which is largely down to decisions. If the game just comes down to "did you roll a disproportionate number of 5 & 6s or a disproportionate number of 1 and 2s" then that illusion of this is gone.
Luck always matters in a dice game, but its a bit of a tightrope. Its one of the reasons I find assault armies to be cool - but also very frustrating. Those games where your opponent rolls hot on overwatch, and you can never managed more than a 5" charge, kind of suck.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, -1, -2 armies are one of the very few armies out there that can at least attempt to survive in the super-lethal 40k we have today, outside of hordes or Knights.
We need a lot more of those armies, not less.
I would prefer more of these than a continuous rise in invulns any day.
No you get rid of the broken army traits and then prove to GW that 40k 8th edition is way too lethal.
Becuase unless your playing a -1 to hit or horde list your still loosing way to much to be able to fight past turn 3.
Even knight list dies fairly quickly outside the Guard, Castellen CP , Strategum stacking combo.
It means Marines are shooting at something with a -3 to hit. Which means nothing within 24" of them has any less. Which means there is, at most, *two* enemy units within a 24" bubble. Which means there ain't a lot left for them to fight.
Unless you're fighting one of those -3-to-hit army-wide CWE builds. In which case you're playing made up rules.
Even that -2 flat is a thing, that your defensive about, is just soo wrong in a d6 system, thats already taken away 40% of your to hit rolls as being viable. That any heavy weapons take a further -1 to hit to move into range or line of sight means your now at -3.
Tau and Guard can't hit with a -3, marine's are on 6's, if you want to keep negative to hit modifiers stacking you need to change to a D12 system.
Even with always hitting on 6s, the minus to hit modifiers are pretty unfun. It slowly turns into fishing for 6s which results into weight of fire being more important. So more dice are rolled while accomplishing less. Same exact problem with invulns, but you are fishing for 1s/2s instead of 6s. Although I would rather see buffs to things so they counter -1 to hit and invulns instead of nerfs. Something like half range meltaguns ignore invuln saves instead of rolling 2 damage dice. Anything other than "just throw more dice" would be much better.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, -1, -2 armies are one of the very few armies out there that can at least attempt to survive in the super-lethal 40k we have today, outside of hordes or Knights.
We need a lot more of those armies, not less.
I would prefer more of these than a continuous rise in invulns any day.
No you get rid of the broken army traits and then prove to GW that 40k 8th edition is way too lethal.
Becuase unless your playing a -1 to hit or horde list your still loosing way to much to be able to fight past turn 3.
Even knight list dies fairly quickly outside the Guard, Castellen CP , Strategum stacking combo.
It means Marines are shooting at something with a -3 to hit. Which means nothing within 24" of them has any less. Which means there is, at most, *two* enemy units within a 24" bubble. Which means there ain't a lot left for them to fight.
Unless you're fighting one of those -3-to-hit army-wide CWE builds. In which case you're playing made up rules.
Even that -2 flat is a thing, that your defensive about, is just soo wrong in a d6 system, thats already taken away 40% of your to hit rolls as being viable. That any heavy weapons take a further -1 to hit to move into range or line of sight means your now at -3.
Tau and Guard can't hit with a -3, marine's are on 6's, if you want to keep negative to hit modifiers stacking you need to change to a D12 system.
Even with always hitting on 6s, the minus to hit modifiers are pretty unfun. It slowly turns into fishing for 6s which results into weight of fire being more important. So more dice are rolled while accomplishing less. Same exact problem with invulns, but you are fishing for 1s/2s instead of 6s. Although I would rather see buffs to things so they counter -1 to hit and invulns instead of nerfs. Something like half range meltaguns ignore invuln saves instead of rolling 2 damage dice. Anything other than "just throw more dice" would be much better.
I still think Melta should be buffed to S9 and should automatically cause a second wound to anything with the VEHICLE keyword on a 2+ to hit.
I'm actually ok with the current Meltagun profile, they're just too expensive. So is the Gravgun. ...so are the Grav Cannon, Flamer, Heavy Flamer, Hurricane Bolter, LasTalon, Autobolter, Stalker Bolt Rifle, Fragstorm Launcher, and Heavy and Assault Plasma Incinerators. And Tac Marines, Hellblasters, and Reivers, probably.
I like the Meltagun profile too and just feel like it should be cheaper than a Plasmagun. Multimelta, otoh, needs 2 shots. It has 2 friggin barrels for crying out load.
Galef wrote: I like the Meltagun profile too and just feel like it should be cheaper than a Plasmagun. Multimelta, otoh, needs 2 shots. It has 2 friggin barrels for crying out load.
-
What if both barrels are firing at the same time to make a single, combined beam? Maybe that's why it has one shot?
Galef wrote: I like the Meltagun profile too and just feel like it should be cheaper than a Plasmagun. Multimelta, otoh, needs 2 shots. It has 2 friggin barrels for crying out load.
-
What if both barrels are firing at the same time to make a single, combined beam? Maybe that's why it has one shot?
Then it should have more Str and double the damage. Adding an extra barrel for a "combined beam" to extend the ...range...doesn't make as much sense as having an Extra Shot, or Str, or guaranteed double damage.
In actuality, it has only 1 shot because it's a holdover from prior editions (which didn't make sense to have only 1 shot then either)
Galef wrote: I like the Meltagun profile too and just feel like it should be cheaper than a Plasmagun. Multimelta, otoh, needs 2 shots. It has 2 friggin barrels for crying out load.
-
What if both barrels are firing at the same time to make a single, combined beam? Maybe that's why it has one shot?
Then it should have more Str and double the damage. Adding an extra barrel for a "combined beam" to extend the ...range...doesn't make as much sense as having an Extra Shot, or Str, or guaranteed double damage. In actuality, it has only 1 shot because it's a holdover from prior editions (which didn't make sense to have only 1 shot then either)
-
Yeah, it should be more than strength 8. It is meant to be the heavier version of a melta, so it should be able to deal more damage. I understand that the extra range is meant to allow you get to the melta bonus earlier, but that was only really effective in earlier editions, due to how vehicle damage worked. Now its not as important as raw strength and damage. Maybe like 12 strength and D6+3 damage or something.
Cynista wrote: Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well
I am so passed the "oh well" stage and am full-on in "I guess I'm not playing 40k today" stage until this comes out.
So disappointing.
Usually these drop around 10am (my current local time). Does anyone remember them dropping a bit later? or should I just distance myself from 40k for a few weeks before my disappointment turns to something worse?
Cynista wrote: Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well
BaconCatBug wrote: Also, the problem with melta is that they pay for an ap-4 that never gets used because everything has a 4++ or 3++
That isn't really true. While invul saves are way too common, plenty of tanks don't have them
exactly, which is one of the reason non invuln vehicles arent played that much in competitive. Its a all related honestly, people bring anti-tank to deal with LoW , since theres a lot of -AP heavy fire on the tabletops, people dont bring invuln-less vehicles since they get collateral damage from anti-LoW weaponry.
I play mainly admech so all my units have invulns but when i started actually looking at other armies, i saw how many vehicles just weren't used and i think that the heavy weapon spam and the importance of invuln is one of the reasons why.
Galef wrote: I like the Meltagun profile too and just feel like it should be cheaper than a Plasmagun. Multimelta, otoh, needs 2 shots. It has 2 friggin barrels for crying out load.
-
That would make sense if it were basically a twin-linked Meltagun, otherwise it's point cost would go up a LOT. ...22 points base, 20% discount for twin linked ... [muttering in math] ... 35ish? That sounds fairly reasonable for a 24" Heavy 2, S8, AP 4.
Cynista wrote: Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well
I am so passed the "oh well" stage and am full-on in "I guess I'm not playing 40k today" stage until this comes out.
So disappointing.
Usually these drop around 10am (my current local time). Does anyone remember them dropping a bit later? or should I just distance myself from 40k for a few weeks before my disappointment turns to something worse?
-
They don't always make the standard cutoff. The FAQs are a lot more than just an article so it's still possible.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Wonder why they not just base it off LVO, instead of Adepticon, if big-tournament-feedback is so important to them.
That way, they'd have all February and more to do their thing, translations and all, and publish it in early-to-mid March without issues.
pretty sure GW doesnt want to use a non-GW tournament to balance their game, lets not forget that ITC is basically a houseruled tournament (even if its the most popular competitive ruleset).
Sunny Side Up wrote: Wonder why they not just base it off LVO, instead of Adepticon, if big-tournament-feedback is so important to them.
That way, they'd have all February and more to do their thing, translations and all, and publish it in early-to-mid March without issues.
pretty sure GW doesnt want to use a non-GW tournament to balance their game, lets not forget that ITC is basically a houseruled tournament (even if its the most popular competitive ruleset).
Um. So is Adepticon.
They explicitly said wanting to include feedback from Adepticon was the reason for moving the FAQ backwards.
The meltagun's problem isn't that it's bad, it's just that plasma is a better choice most of the time.
Take the Blaster, which is basically a meltagun (Trades melta rule for +6" of range, otherwise identical), but is a staple of any DE army. I'd argue that the reason the Blaster is prevalent and effective is because it's easier to get in range due to access to transports and the like. I guarantee that if Plasma was similarly costed to Melta and there was an easily avaliable way to get within 6-12" you'd see it a lot more often.
Cynista wrote: Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well
BaconCatBug wrote: Also, the problem with melta is that they pay for an ap-4 that never gets used because everything has a 4++ or 3++
That isn't really true. While invul saves are way too common, plenty of tanks don't have them
exactly, which is one of the reason non invuln vehicles arent played that much in competitive. Its a all related honestly, people bring anti-tank to deal with LoW , since theres a lot of -AP heavy fire on the tabletops, people dont bring invuln-less vehicles since they get collateral damage from anti-LoW weaponry.
I play mainly admech so all my units have invulns but when i started actually looking at other armies, i saw how many vehicles just weren't used and i think that the heavy weapon spam and the importance of invuln is one of the reasons why.
Exactly, as long as people have to take weaponry to deal with knights, other vehicles (unless cheap and en masse, or with multiple minus to hit options) just aren't survivable and become a liability.
Pretty sure the last Spring FAQ came out on a Friday, so my expectation is this coming Friday.
It was a Monday. Feels like maybe they don't want to run over the Slaanesh stuff, too? Seems a little silly if that's the case. I can't fathom why else it would be delayed.
That new daemon prince / herald has 8 Thunderhammer swings with no -1...
Cynista wrote: Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well
BaconCatBug wrote: Also, the problem with melta is that they pay for an ap-4 that never gets used because everything has a 4++ or 3++
That isn't really true. While invul saves are way too common, plenty of tanks don't have them
I think the really problem with paying for AP -4 is that a 2+ save is incredibly rare. Even in the extreme case that something has a 2+ save it probably will also have an invul save. The only example of I can think of that has a 2+ save and no invul save is that Land Raider and I don't think I need to say anything after that.
Cynista wrote: Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well
BaconCatBug wrote: Also, the problem with melta is that they pay for an ap-4 that never gets used because everything has a 4++ or 3++
That isn't really true. While invul saves are way too common, plenty of tanks don't have them
I think the really problem with paying for AP -4 is that a 2+ save is incredibly rare. Even in the extreme case that something has a 2+ save it probably will also have an invul save. The only example of I can think of that has a 2+ save and no invul save is that Land Raider and I don't think I need to say anything after that.
Cynista wrote: Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well
BaconCatBug wrote: Also, the problem with melta is that they pay for an ap-4 that never gets used because everything has a 4++ or 3++
That isn't really true. While invul saves are way too common, plenty of tanks don't have them
I think the really problem with paying for AP -4 is that a 2+ save is incredibly rare. Even in the extreme case that something has a 2+ save it probably will also have an invul save. The only example of I can think of that has a 2+ save and no invul save is that Land Raider and I don't think I need to say anything after that.
Centurions would like a word with you. So would Space Marines in cover, where they're all hiding so they don't die like flys.
Pretty sure the last Spring FAQ came out on a Friday, so my expectation is this coming Friday.
It was a Monday. Feels like maybe they don't want to run over the Slaanesh stuff, too? Seems a little silly if that's the case. I can't fathom why else it would be delayed.
That new daemon prince / herald has 8 Thunderhammer swings with no -1...
Keep seeing the word delayed and not understanding where it comes from.
They said April - as far as I'm concerned, they have until the following Wednesday before it can be considered delayed.
I wouldn't call the FAQ delayed. I would, however, criticise the length of time it has taken to complete. It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't also silence from Games Workshop's side in regards to it. I guess we'll find out soon enough why it has taken so long.
Their over a week behind on the Chaos dex FAQ. Normally I don't mind, but I'm actually starting to get out right pissed off at this point because there's no communication and this FAQ is particularly important.
Darsath wrote: I wouldn't call the FAQ delayed. I would, however, criticise the length of time it has taken to complete. It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't also silence from Games Workshop's side in regards to it. I guess we'll find out soon enough why it has taken so long.
I'm using delayed, because it's now a seemingly longer wait than last year for presumably a more gentle FAQ.
I'm not upset, but more than a little curious as to what is going on.
Darsath wrote: I wouldn't call the FAQ delayed. I would, however, criticise the length of time it has taken to complete. It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't also silence from Games Workshop's side in regards to it. I guess we'll find out soon enough why it has taken so long.
I'm using delayed, because it's now a seemingly longer wait than last year for presumably a more gentle FAQ.
I'm not upset, but more than a little curious as to what is going on.
Yeah, I'm not upset either. I've got a busy enough week ahead as is. But I am curious as to why Games Workshop has been so quiet on this front, and hope they don't disappoint with their FAQ. I'm not expecting only small-scale changes if it took this long to work on after all.
However, with one of the world’s biggest Warhammer 40,000 tournaments taking place at AdeptiCon at the end of the month, we’re going to wait until after the event has finished before unleashing it upon the world. That way we can incorporate any further feedback generated during this prestigious tournament as needed. The good news is that Warhammer 40,000 is in a pretty good place at the moment, so there won’t be any seismic changes, just a handful of balancing tweaks.
So between "a handful of balancing tweaks" and the thing allegedly done on March 19th, the waiting time appears inexplicable.
Darsath wrote: I wouldn't call the FAQ delayed. I would, however, criticise the length of time it has taken to complete. It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't also silence from Games Workshop's side in regards to it. I guess we'll find out soon enough why it has taken so long.
I'm using delayed, because it's now a seemingly longer wait than last year for presumably a more gentle FAQ.
I'm not upset, but more than a little curious as to what is going on.
Yeah, I'm not upset either. I've got a busy enough week ahead as is. But I am curious as to why Games Workshop has been so quiet on this front, and hope they don't disappoint with their FAQ. I'm not expecting only small-scale changes if it took this long to work on after all.
I'm not "upset" per-se, but I bit miffed because I've all but put any gaming on hold until this FAQ (which is my choice, of course, not GWs fault).
The 2 main things I want to see is the correct points for Oblits (because it's obvious) and what they do with Bolter Discipline
The biggest thing I want to see is if they clarify what "if your army is taken from Renegade Chapters" means in the Renegade Chapter section of Vigilus ablaze. This wording isn't used anywhere else in the game, including not in the previous page talking about Black Legion and COULD indicate that your entire army has to be Renegade Chapter (rather than just a detachment) to get access to the traits. Which, if true, would be huge since all the power gamers are already thinking of the "Heretical 17" red corsair battalion to get bonus CP.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Yeah. The CSM 2.0 Errata delay is arguably a proper delay too.
They usually get those out much quicker. 65 pts. Oblits clearing small tournaments for a month shouldn't be a thing.
Meh. TOs are perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion that they're 115 points until GW says otherwise.
And many of them do just that, especially for larger events.
Just saying that relying on the common sense of TOs shouldn't be necessary and GW should be perfectly capable of doing the normal 1-week-post-codex FAQ for that, with or without the bigger FAQ pending.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Yeah. The CSM 2.0 Errata delay is arguably a proper delay too.
They usually get those out much quicker. 65 pts. Oblits clearing small tournaments for a month shouldn't be a thing.
Meh. TOs are perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion that they're 115 points until GW says otherwise.
And many of them do just that, especially for larger events.
Just saying that relying on the common sense of TOs shouldn't be necessary and GW should be perfectly capable of doing the normal 1-week-post-codex FAQ for that, with or without the bigger FAQ pending.
Yea they seem determined to bundle them. I wonder if they want to come out as close as possible to Ynnari index.
Pretty sure the last Spring FAQ came out on a Friday, so my expectation is this coming Friday.
It was a Monday. Feels like maybe they don't want to run over the Slaanesh stuff, too? Seems a little silly if that's the case. I can't fathom why else it would be delayed.
The big FAQ tend to get a LOT of feedback, I would think they want the whole social media team ready and waiting for that when they push it out the door. That may or may not be possible in Easter week - it is one of the most popular weeks for people to take time off work. If they have enough people in some time this week they might go for it, if not then I would rather expect it early next week.
Yea they seem determined to bundle them. I wonder if they want to come out as close as possible to Ynnari index.
Unlikely. FAQ allegedly incorporates Adepticon feedback and is fairly current. White Dwarf still has a lead time of 6 months or so minimum. Those Ynnari rules were probably written even before the fall FAQ.
However, with one of the world’s biggest Warhammer 40,000 tournaments taking place at AdeptiCon at the end of the month, we’re going to wait until after the event has finished before unleashing it upon the world. That way we can incorporate any further feedback generated during this prestigious tournament as needed. The good news is that Warhammer 40,000 is in a pretty good place at the moment, so there won’t be any seismic changes, just a handful of balancing tweaks.
So between "a handful of balancing tweaks" and the thing allegedly done on March 19th, the waiting time appears inexplicable.
So we're manufacturing a reason to be angry. Got it. Not my cup of tea, carry on Dakkanauts.
If it isn't out a week today, then feel free to break out the
This. GW has shown they will wait until the last day to release stuff, so set your expectations there.
I certainly agree that some people are taking this too seriously (myself included) and that we really should set our expectations a bit more realistically. But, I will say, last year's spring FAQ came out April 16th (I think), and that was a delayed release that was supposed to be in March.
So it's a bit frustrating that the most "realistic" expectation is to expect it about 1 month after the previous year's release. But for me the only reason I'm allowing it to affect me is because we seem to KNOW it's done and GW has seemingly ghosted us about it.
Reemule wrote: My melta update was to make it like the graviton crusher off the Imperial Knight Styrix.
If the Target has a invulnerable save, increase the damage from the shot to 6. Leave the cost alone.
It's crazy talk like this that makes GW'S game designer's look a lot less bad at their job.
1 That's not even remotely anything like how the graviton crusher works
2 So melta automatically 1 shots all sub 7 wound charictors with an invulnerable but still gets random damage vrs a vehicle?
Thats just the most rediculously unbalanced idea.
Yawn. Do tell us all about how Graviton Crushers work?
*Sigh* Against targets with an armour save of 3+ or better the damage of the Graviton crusher increases from 2 to 3.
So, after making the shot a attribute of the target modifies the damage... Kind of exactly what I was sayin my dude.
No what your proposing is totally different, take a Russ for instance you proposing that it still takes D6 damage. Where as a custode/Harliquin will take Flat 6 damage.
You can't seriously think that is in anyway a balance improvement, unless your an Astra Militarum player.
Ok your rule interacting with bullgryns models with bruteshields take flat 6 damage from melta, models with slabshields take D6 damage.
Kindly refrain from making such sweeping insults - BrookM
Bharring wrote: Why should Melta be more deadly than a Lascannon to a T3 1W model with a 5++, for instance?
Shouldn't anti-tank weapons be geared to ignore armor saves, easily wound, and do massive damage, but have no edge vs Invulns?
Yes, but unfortunately a lot of vehicles have invulnerable saves that completely invalidate melta's higher AP.
Maybe make Meltas AP3, with a rule that vehicles have a -1 to all saves made against Melta weapons?
The problem is those invulns, not Melta's inability against them.
Those invluns are designed to stop things like Melta. Giving a bunch of things a protection so that Melta doesn't make it through their armor, then giving Melta a special rule to cut through that special rule, seems backwards.
Bharring wrote: Why should Melta be more deadly than a Lascannon to a T3 1W model with a 5++, for instance?
Shouldn't anti-tank weapons be geared to ignore armor saves, easily wound, and do massive damage, but have no edge vs Invulns?
Yes, but unfortunately a lot of vehicles have invulnerable saves that completely invalidate melta's higher AP.
Maybe make Meltas AP3, with a rule that vehicles have a -1 to all saves made against Melta weapons?
The problem is those invulns, not Melta's inability against them.
Those invluns are designed to stop things like Melta. Giving a bunch of things a protection so that Melta doesn't make it through their armor, then giving Melta a special rule to cut through that special rule, seems backwards.
Then melta should just be dirt cheap, because it is completely invalidated by the commonality of invulns. It's a list tailoring choice at best.
Martel732 wrote: Actually I think invulns should have limitations. Maybe melta should reduce invulns by 2 as well.
I'm just thinking of a mechanical way to make it relevant again. I don't really care about what things should be, because GW doesn't.
Maybe a rule where invulnerable saves are reduced by half the AP of the weapon, rounding down.
So AP0 and -1: No change. AP-2 and -3: Reduce Invulnerable save by 1 AP -4 and -5: Reduce Invulnerable save by 2
Also increases the maximum useful cap of AP modifiers. An AP-6 weapon not only denies all armour saves but also denies any invulnerable save of a 4++, unless the saving model has positive saving throw modifiers to counter it.
Has the side effect of making invulnerable saves better on models with bad saves, since they will be more likely to be targeted by low ap weaponry, though. Probably better off with weapons having two AP values if you want to go this route. That would also open up the possibility of weapons which can more easily penetrate invulnerable saves than normal armour, like some weird chaos stuff or psychic powers etc.
Martel732 wrote: Actually I think invulns should have limitations. Maybe melta should reduce invulns by 2 as well.
I'm just thinking of a mechanical way to make it relevant again. I don't really care about what things should be, because GW doesn't.
Maybe a rule where invulnerable saves are reduced by half the AP of the weapon, rounding down.
So AP0 and -1: No change.
AP-2 and -3: Reduce Invulnerable save by 1
AP -4 and -5: Reduce Invulnerable save by 2
Also increases the maximum useful cap of AP modifiers. An AP-6 weapon not only denies all armour saves but also denies any invulnerable save of a 4++, unless the saving model has positive saving throw modifiers to counter it.
Has the side effect of making invulnerable saves better on models with bad saves, since they will be more likely to be targeted by low ap weaponry, though.
This feels like a lot of extra book keeping in the middle of a game? I think the real solution would be for invulnerable saves to be considerably rarer than they currently are, but the cat's out of the bag on that one.
If you wanted to make a change to Invulnerable saves to make them rarer and feel better when you have them, you should make them work like Ward Saves (or the "Feel no Pain" equivalent in 8th) allowing you to take your armour save, then your invuln if you failed it. It should be rarer and more valuable, and armies like daemons and harlequins can still retain their current rules and feel. Terminators might be a lot better. However, something like this would need to be in mind when the edition was designed from the beginning to be balanced properly (thinking of 2 point stormshields on Deathwatch).
Martel732 wrote: Because then it becomes super swingy. Still struggles vs T8. Still struggles vs invuln.
Should it be ignoring (or reducing) the Storm Shield on your Captain?
Turning high-AP or weapons like Melta into things that degrade Invuln saves makes Invulns just differently-named Armor Saves. The idea that nothing modifies them - they're a flat percent - is what seperates them. Anti-armor weapons shouldn't have a bonus against non-Armor protections.
I disagree, since its the only way to make them worthwhile in Invuln-hammer 40K.
Contrary to most other BA, I don't care about my captain. I resent having to one every game with the same loadout just to have a chance to win. If he gets exposed to melta, the SS shouldn't save him, no. Because melta is expensive.
Bharring wrote: 2d6 does normalize out more than d6, in addition to typically being higher.
That said, I like the reliability of "reroll failed wounds, and always does at least 3 D" - but feel like it's a little awkward.
Could make it 3+D6 damage.
Will average at 6-7 damage (so similar to 2D6) but with less swing on the lower damage end (guaranteed 4 damage) and a lower ceiling on maximum damage (9 vs 12)
Bharring wrote: 2d6 does normalize out more than d6, in addition to typically being higher.
That said, I like the reliability of "reroll failed wounds, and always does at least 3 D" - but feel like it's a little awkward.
I know it does, but in prior editions, melta range made the gun a more reliable weapon, while now it makes it a more damaging weapon. I think that change to the fundamental nature of how melta works is what killed its role/niche - we already have a basic imperial weapon type that does more damage if you take an additonal risk, and that's plasma.
Changing melta back from additoinal risk = additional reward to additional risk = additional reliability is a way to give it its niche use case back, IMO. Also reduces the struggle vs T8.
Darsath wrote: If you wanted to make a change to Invulnerable saves to make them rarer and feel better when you have them, you should make them work like Ward Saves (or the "Feel no Pain" equivalent in 8th) allowing you to take your armour save, then your invuln if you failed it. It should be rarer and more valuable, and armies like daemons and harlequins can still retain their current rules and feel. Terminators might be a lot better. However, something like this would need to be in mind when the edition was designed from the beginning to be balanced properly (thinking of 2 point stormshields on Deathwatch).
I like "rare and valuable" - but to make it that, we just need to (1) make them rare (WTF, a 3++ on a Knight?!?), and (2) make them valuable (When everything has a ++, people take the weapons that are good against them).
So really, the best change is to drop a lot of the ++s.
Bharring wrote: 2d6 does normalize out more than d6, in addition to typically being higher.
That said, I like the reliability of "reroll failed wounds, and always does at least 3 D" - but feel like it's a little awkward.
Could make it 3+D6 damage.
Will average at 6-7 damage (so similar to 2D6) but with less swing on the lower damage end (guaranteed 4 damage) and a lower ceiling on maximum damage (9 vs 12)
I like this over the "always does at least 3 D" because it fits the rulesset better. No specail rule, just "D: 3+D6".
If you wanted to do it without upping the high end, you could do "D: 3+D3" (or just 2D3).
Darsath wrote: If you wanted to make a change to Invulnerable saves to make them rarer and feel better when you have them, you should make them work like Ward Saves (or the "Feel no Pain" equivalent in 8th) allowing you to take your armour save, then your invuln if you failed it. It should be rarer and more valuable, and armies like daemons and harlequins can still retain their current rules and feel. Terminators might be a lot better. However, something like this would need to be in mind when the edition was designed from the beginning to be balanced properly (thinking of 2 point stormshields on Deathwatch).
I like "rare and valuable" - but to make it that, we just need to (1) make them rare (WTF, a 3++ on a Knight?!?), and (2) make them valuable (When everything has a ++, people take the weapons that are good against them).
So really, the best change is to drop a lot of the ++s.
I agree completely with your take here. Invulns should be rarer, require more investment, and in general be weaker (3+ invulns in particular).
For the first two, shouldn't you expect to not find much use for a dedicated anti-tank gun when fighting squishy space-elves riding in paper-thin cars? Or facing eldrich horrors who don't rely on armor?
Now, vs IKs, Melta should be amazing.
The problem is you don't need Melta to take on heavy vehicles. Plas - and many other options - simply do it better.
Eldrich horrors should still barbecue real nice. The whole thing makes no sense. Quit trying to make it make sense. There is only something being worth its cost or not.
Meltas aren't even good vs IG tanks because the infinite horde of guardsmen ensure you'll never get close enough. The problems are many and diverse.
Eldrich horrors still do barbeque quite nice. Hit a Bloodletter with a Melta Gun, and he's more likely dead than not.
It's just that the Melta Gun is no more likely to kill that Bloodletter than an single Autocannon shot - which is reasonable, because that Autocannon shot similarly annihilates a Bloodletter, if it connects.
Reemule wrote: My melta update was to make it like the graviton crusher off the Imperial Knight Styrix.
If the Target has a invulnerable save, increase the damage from the shot to 6. Leave the cost alone.
It's crazy talk like this that makes GW'S game designer's look a lot less bad at their job.
1 That's not even remotely anything like how the graviton crusher works
2 So melta automatically 1 shots all sub 7 wound charictors with an invulnerable but still gets random damage vrs a vehicle?
Thats just the most rediculously unbalanced idea.
Yawn. Do tell us all about how Graviton Crushers work?
*Sigh* Against targets with an armour save of 3+ or better the damage of the Graviton crusher increases from 2 to 3.
So, after making the shot a attribute of the target modifies the damage... Kind of exactly what I was sayin my dude.
No what your proposing is totally different, take a Russ for instance you proposing that it still takes D6 damage. Where as a custode/Harliquin will take Flat 6 damage.
You can't seriously think that is in anyway a balance improvement, unless your an Astra Millicheese player.
Ok your rule interacting with bullgryns models with bruteshields take flat 6 damage from melta, models with slabshields take D6 damage.
I feel your outrage if coloring your perception. The mechanic is identical. Is there going to be an explosion of Bullgryn getting aced by Melta's? Doubt it. Don't think it would be bad if they did either.
This edition is already killy enough peeps. Ignoring invuns or reducing them is a big no no.
melta should be cheaper, but given that its potential damage is crazy high it cant be pennies to the dollar.
Since volume of fire is strong this edition and melta gets a low amount of shots i'd only charge 12 points for a meltagun, 8 for a melta pistol, and 15 for a multi-melta. Basically 4 points for each incremental range group with a reduction of one for the heavy on the MM.
Reemule wrote: My melta update was to make it like the graviton crusher off the Imperial Knight Styrix.
If the Target has a invulnerable save, increase the damage from the shot to 6. Leave the cost alone.
It's crazy talk like this that makes GW'S game designer's look a lot less bad at their job.
1 That's not even remotely anything like how the graviton crusher works
2 So melta automatically 1 shots all sub 7 wound charictors with an invulnerable but still gets random damage vrs a vehicle?
Thats just the most rediculously unbalanced idea.
Yawn. Do tell us all about how Graviton Crushers work?
*Sigh* Against targets with an armour save of 3+ or better the damage of the Graviton crusher increases from 2 to 3.
So, after making the shot a attribute of the target modifies the damage... Kind of exactly what I was sayin my dude.
No what your proposing is totally different, take a Russ for instance you proposing that it still takes D6 damage. Where as a custode/Harliquin will take Flat 6 damage.
You can't seriously think that is in anyway a balance improvement, unless your an Astra Millicheese player.
Ok your rule interacting with bullgryns models with bruteshields take flat 6 damage from melta, models with slabshields take D6 damage.
I feel your outrage if coloring your perception. The mechanic is identical. Is there going to be an explosion of Bullgryn getting aced by Melta's? Doubt it. Don't think it would be bad if they did either.
Every custodes player, Harliquins and all terminators etc should just suck up eating a flat damage while tanks get to roll the dice for an avarage of 3.5 damage.
That isn't a balance improvement that's just breaking anything with an invulnerable save out of spite.
Yeah bullgryns would be fine as they can mix brute and slab shields in the same unit and stack cover and psychic powers to have a 4+ armour save vrs melta anyways.
Your suggestion is just straight up worse than the current rules.
Reemule wrote: My melta update was to make it like the graviton crusher off the Imperial Knight Styrix.
If the Target has a invulnerable save, increase the damage from the shot to 6. Leave the cost alone.
It's crazy talk like this that makes GW'S game designer's look a lot less bad at their job.
1 That's not even remotely anything like how the graviton crusher works
2 So melta automatically 1 shots all sub 7 wound charictors with an invulnerable but still gets random damage vrs a vehicle?
Thats just the most rediculously unbalanced idea.
Yawn. Do tell us all about how Graviton Crushers work?
*Sigh* Against targets with an armour save of 3+ or better the damage of the Graviton crusher increases from 2 to 3.
So, after making the shot a attribute of the target modifies the damage... Kind of exactly what I was sayin my dude.
No what your proposing is totally different, take a Russ for instance you proposing that it still takes D6 damage. Where as a custode/Harliquin will take Flat 6 damage.
You can't seriously think that is in anyway a balance improvement, unless your an Astra Millicheese player.
Ok your rule interacting with bullgryns models with bruteshields take flat 6 damage from melta, models with slabshields take D6 damage.
I feel your outrage if coloring your perception. The mechanic is identical. Is there going to be an explosion of Bullgryn getting aced by Melta's? Doubt it. Don't think it would be bad if they did either.
Increase damage by 1 (from 2 to 3) and gurantee max damage are very different.
I'd like to see a + to saves that negate modifiers instead of invulnerable saves.
So something could have a 3+ save with a +1.
Regular 3+ save but -2AP would only count as -1AP against it. It could help give vehicles some toughness back while giving anti-tank weapons some more kick and some small arms fire with Ap would be useful against infantry and whatnot.
I dunno, plenty of ways to spread out the field for toughness and strength on a D6 system.
There shouldn't be invun saves. Just different kinds of saves and OFC different kinds of weapons.
Just look at starcraft.
You have mechanical targets / psionic targets / biological targets/ ect. Every weapon should have a weakness and a strength. OR the weapon is a good all a rounder and gets no bonuses or negatives vs all targets.
I understand that would require some serious game testing but man....it really is disappointing the game doesn't have a system like this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote: Its about risk versus rewards. On a model with a 3+ to hit, and a 3+ to wound, 50% of the time your never even getting to the Invulnerable save.
On something that is short ranged and expensive that isn't ever going to be a good risk.
In space marine the video game. The melta gun is basically a shotgun. It really should be an autohit weapon if it is in melta range.
Martel732 wrote: Forget 2D6. Double its strength in melta so it generates more wounds so it might be able to brute force though invulns.
Doubling it's strength wouldn't generate more wounds or help it get past invulns at all.
It'd wound T8 on 2+ instead of 4+ and T7 on 2+ instead of 3+. That's quite a jump.
Is it though? Keep in mind these are all averages and that actually plotting out all the different data points will give you a much better idea of what the actual results will be but:
1 S8 melta shot against a T8 model fired from a marine or SoB= 1*.667*.5*3.5= 1.17 Against a 4++ that's .58
1 S16 melta shot against a T8 model fired from a marine or SoB= 1*.667*.833*3.5= 1.94 Against a 4++ that's .97
So you get essentially .77 additional damage per shot or .39 against a 4++ invul. If you had an SoB dominion squad of 5 meltas that's an extra 3.85 or 1.95 wounds for the entire squad.
Obviously the D6 damage makes this super swingy and averages isn't a fantastic indicator of output in this situation, but the initial impressions seem...okayish at best.
People asking for some mechanics to Ap to affect invul saves is just a victim of invulnerable saves creep.
Invul saves should have never been better than 4++, 3++ for some niche, small characters or super elite but relatively fragile to small fire spam units.
Invul Saves should have never been used with big vehicles and monsters. Something like a small demon or a genestealer can have a invul. Thats not a problem. Something like a Knight or a giant demon Primarch shouldn't. Because those units tend to have high armour and many wounds so high AP weapons with high damage should be the weapons you use agaisnt them.
If big units need to be tougther don't give them invuls, give them more wounds.
Galas wrote: People asking for some mechanics to Ap to affect invul saves is just a victim of invulnerable saves creep.
Invul saves should have never been better than 4++, 3++ for some niche, small characters or super elite but relatively fragile to small fire spam units.
Invul Saves should have never been used with big vehicles and monsters. Something like a small demon or a genestealer can have a invul. Thats not a problem. Something like a Knight or a giant demon Primarch shouldn't. Because those units tend to have high armour and many wounds so high AP weapons with high damage should be the weapons you use agaisnt them.
If big units need to be tougther don't give them invuls, give them more wounds.
The problem is, there is to much damage in the game, we need invuls. Lookat many of the units that are large and bad, if you see what players are suggesting... Invuls. B.c with an invul they wont be shot off the table turn 1 instantly.
If damage was upped by 300% we wouldnt need to add invuls everywhere.
Galas wrote: Then give those models more wounds instead of giving them invulnerable saves. it makes them tougther without making antitank weaponry irrelevant.
But then that makes all other weapons irrelevant. If i can wound stack with big models and you only took autocannons...good luck.
But if the goal is to make AT weapons more niche at destroying heavy targets, and currently anti-infantry weapons do a better job of melting the heavy targets due to invuln saves, wouldn't increasing wounds such that anti-infantry weapons aren't as good at dropping the big stuff accomplish the goal?
If you only increased the wounds of the big stuff that you would otherwise give an invuln to, then anti-infantry weapons dont' become irrelevant; they just become more specialized against anything but the big vehicles.
I say have more terrain on the table, better terrain rules, and an ability to keep more units in reserve so they aren't starting on the table in front of the entire other army's guns.
Bharring wrote: But if the goal is to make AT weapons more niche at destroying heavy targets, and currently anti-infantry weapons do a better job of melting the heavy targets due to invuln saves, wouldn't increasing wounds such that anti-infantry weapons aren't as good at dropping the big stuff accomplish the goal?
If you only increased the wounds of the big stuff that you would otherwise give an invuln to, then anti-infantry weapons dont' become irrelevant; they just become more specialized against anything but the big vehicles.
Isn't that what we want?
Yea, I dunno. Just seems like it removes the agency of the player being shot if he loses first turn. If Magnus gets 27 wounds, but not invuln what do you think will happen when a Castellan shoots? You'd just make the biggest guns the best due to the IGOUGO system.
Bharring wrote: But if the goal is to make AT weapons more niche at destroying heavy targets, and currently anti-infantry weapons do a better job of melting the heavy targets due to invuln saves, wouldn't increasing wounds such that anti-infantry weapons aren't as good at dropping the big stuff accomplish the goal?
If you only increased the wounds of the big stuff that you would otherwise give an invuln to, then anti-infantry weapons dont' become irrelevant; they just become more specialized against anything but the big vehicles.
Isn't that what we want?
Thanks, somebody that understands and explains better my own point .
IMO the problem with invulns is that they're too binary. It doesn't matter what gun was shot, you still get your 4++. Nerfing invuns to be no better than a 5++ would be a good start and we can adjust costs and profiles as needed.
Bharring wrote: But if the goal is to make AT weapons more niche at destroying heavy targets, and currently anti-infantry weapons do a better job of melting the heavy targets due to invuln saves, wouldn't increasing wounds such that anti-infantry weapons aren't as good at dropping the big stuff accomplish the goal?
If you only increased the wounds of the big stuff that you would otherwise give an invuln to, then anti-infantry weapons dont' become irrelevant; they just become more specialized against anything but the big vehicles.
Isn't that what we want?
Yea, I dunno. Just seems like it removes the agency of the player being shot if he loses first turn. If Magnus gets 27 wounds, but not invuln what do you think will happen when a Castellan shoots? You'd just make the biggest guns the best due to the IGOUGO system.
But Magnus wouldn't get 27 wounds and no invuln. Daemons wouldn't be trading invulns for more wounds. Dark Eldar tanks and Eldar tanks and IK would be trading invulns (or at least invulns that aren't as good) for more wounds so they're less afraid of anti-infantry weapons than they are of anti-tank weapons.
Dark Eldar don't have tanks. They have 1 Attack vehicle. They've also had invuls on them since before any other vehicle had invuls. They are also low wound by design and theme as they are light vehicles with high tech defences and have been since they came out in 3rd. They should have invuls more than most. And their invuls are only 5++ with no way to boost them.
I love the idea of Inferno Pistols being the template for Meltas. You aren't stopping any chargers, but you are taking 6 wounds off any vehicle without an invuln save, per shot. Then Multi-meltas get extra range.
Galas wrote: Then give those models more wounds instead of giving them invulnerable saves. it makes them tougther without making antitank weaponry irrelevant.
But then that makes all other weapons irrelevant. If i can wound stack with big models and you only took autocannons...good luck.
Don't bring all autocannons? It's not that complex.
Galas wrote: Then give those models more wounds instead of giving them invulnerable saves. it makes them tougther without making antitank weaponry irrelevant.
But then that makes all other weapons irrelevant. If i can wound stack with big models and you only took autocannons...good luck.
Other weapons shouldn’t be tank killers. Butcher cannon/autocannons shouldn’t outperform lascannon/meltaguns for hunting T8 targets, but in a world with 3++ knights they are. Going full Oprah with invulns cause units do too much damage isn’t addressing the issue that units do too much damage. All it does is cherry pick a few units to be durable while sending “hopes and prayers” to everything else.
Galas wrote: Then give those models more wounds instead of giving them invulnerable saves. it makes them tougther without making antitank weaponry irrelevant.
But then that makes all other weapons irrelevant. If i can wound stack with big models and you only took autocannons...good luck.
Don't bring all autocannons? It's not that complex.
Galas wrote: Then give those models more wounds instead of giving them invulnerable saves. it makes them tougther without making antitank weaponry irrelevant.
But then that makes all other weapons irrelevant. If i can wound stack with big models and you only took autocannons...good luck.
Don't bring all autocannons? It's not that complex.
It's also not that simple.
Could you explain why? It seems pretty reasonable that if you bring only weapon then you shouldn't be able to comfortably take all comers.
Could you explain why? It seems pretty reasonable that if you bring only weapon then you shouldn't be able to comfortably take all comers.
IGOUGO
Do you think it's not possible to have all your "effective" anti-tank weapons degraded or removed from the table before you can take a turn?
Of course it's possible. And if that happens, my opponent should be rewarded for taking out the biggest threats to his or her vehicles, and I should be punished for allowing them to be removed.
I mean, I sort of see your point, but not having first turn doesn't mean that I have no control over what happens to my units. I can deploy them hidden, or behind a screen, or deep strike them, etc. Additionally, just because some weapons might be more effective against certain targets wouldn't make other weapons completely useless against them. I'd much prefer that instead of the current system that feels like guns with lots of shots and -1 or 2 AP are the best weapons to be taking in almost all situations.
The answer is already there, just have meltas in melta range deal mortal wounds to the target. There we go, mortal wounds for everyone, nothing is safe.
Really though I don't know if you can improve melta aside from lowering the cost. I think in melta range should double the strength of the shot and keep the roll two keep the highest for damage or even have a flat 6 damage. It doesn't deal with the invulns but I don't think there will be a fix to that without a very large system over haul or a cap to those saves depending on the unit or target.
Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list
Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list
Terrible. An effective 8 CP cap on most factions would require rewriting most of the game's stratagems.
Can see where you were going with this as it would make losing your warlord more impactful, but at the same time makes armies that have access to good sniper rifles/character targeting way better. Probably wouldn't be good for the overall game.
Hard pass. Stratagem wombo combos are what make 8th and again, you'd need to rewrite pretty much every codex in the game to take this into account without dumpstering most armies.
Your only reasonable suggestion. But really, 3++ isn't breaking the game anywhere but Knights. Nobody's complaining about the Archon's 2++.
The last one is easily the worst of a bad lot. It's not like Primaris are dominating anyway so there's not really a game balance reason to do this. Forcing people to use half mini-marines is super arbitrary and no other army in the game would have to deal with a similar restriction. Also, there are full Primaris chapters in the fluff so that would just screw anybody who picked one of those up. Like, what is even the point of this other than "PRIMARIS BAD"?
Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list
Though I don't necessarily agree with any of them, I can understand reasoning behind all but the last point. Primaris only on half models makes absolutely no sense, in-game and for background. There are primaris only chapters in the background from the ultima founding. In terms of power level, primaris aren't even remotely a problem.
Not that it matters in terms of it happening--I'm just curious why you would propose such a ridiculous mandate.
Though I don't necessarily agree with any of them, I can understand reasoning behind all but the last point. Primaris only on half models makes absolutely no sense, in-game and for background. There are primaris only chapters in the background from the ultima founding. In terms of power level, primaris aren't even remotely a problem.
Not that it matters in terms of it happening--I'm just curious why you would propose such a ridiculous mandate.
Well the question is "what do you want to see". I'm tired of all the local Primaris stuff... would like to see standard marines more. I neither think it would happen nor is it reasonable... just would want it
The rest I'm in earnest on. CPs are dumb. I'm not playing a wargame against your models, I'm playing who farms CPs and then triggers them. As far as others saying it would require a rewrite... I don't agree at all. Some strategems would fall out of use, others would start to see use. Its not a model or a unit or even a list type that's being invalidated, its silly CP dumbness. Look, I'm not losing games in the current meta, and my collection is moderately varied, so I don't care who's on top... this isn't butt-hurt whining, if anything I want to see games get harder for me. Triggering some inane CP "all in" combo after managing engagement envelopes is just making the rich richer and the poor poorer when it comes to skill levels. We don't need more roflstomps in 40k... we need lists to be a little bit more durable and a little bit more forgiving... lobotomizing the stupid CP-Strategem matrix would really solve a ton of problems, and other than making people play their units instead of lame trigger daisy chains, and can't see a downside. You're not clever with strategem management chaining... they're all pretty obvious, terribly unsporting, and make for some boring game play.
Martel732 wrote: Forget 2D6. Double its strength in melta so it generates more wounds so it might be able to brute force though invulns.
Doubling it's strength wouldn't generate more wounds or help it get past invulns at all.
It'd wound T8 on 2+ instead of 4+ and T7 on 2+ instead of 3+. That's quite a jump.
Is it though? Keep in mind these are all averages and that actually plotting out all the different data points will give you a much better idea of what the actual results will be but:
1 S8 melta shot against a T8 model fired from a marine or SoB= 1*.667*.5*3.5= 1.17 Against a 4++ that's .58
1 S16 melta shot against a T8 model fired from a marine or SoB= 1*.667*.833*3.5= 1.94 Against a 4++ that's .97
So you get essentially .77 additional damage per shot or .39 against a 4++ invul. If you had an SoB dominion squad of 5 meltas that's an extra 3.85 or 1.95 wounds for the entire squad.
Obviously the D6 damage makes this super swingy and averages isn't a fantastic indicator of output in this situation, but the initial impressions seem...okayish at best.
But it's still increase. And notice that .97 is 67% jump. Sure double shots is 100% jump but it's hardly fair so say 67% increase has no effect "because target has inv save".
Though I don't necessarily agree with any of them, I can understand reasoning behind all but the last point. Primaris only on half models makes absolutely no sense, in-game and for background. There are primaris only chapters in the background from the ultima founding. In terms of power level, primaris aren't even remotely a problem.
Not that it matters in terms of it happening--I'm just curious why you would propose such a ridiculous mandate.
Well the question is "what do you want to see". I'm tired of all the local Primaris stuff... would like to see standard marines more. I neither think it would happen nor is it reasonable... just would want it
A lot of people have just started in 8th, and most of them have nothing but primaris models since that's what's in the box sets and it's pretty much safe to assume at this point that the old marines will disappear at some point in the future.
The rest I'm in earnest on. CPs are dumb. I'm not playing a wargame against your models, I'm playing who farms CPs and then triggers them. As far as others saying it would require a rewrite... I don't agree at all. Some strategems would fall out of use, others would start to see use. Its not a model or a unit or even a list type that's being invalidated, its silly CP dumbness. Look, I'm not losing games in the current meta, and my collection is moderately varied, so I don't care who's on top... this isn't butt-hurt whining, if anything I want to see games get harder for me. Triggering some inane CP "all in" combo after managing engagement envelopes is just making the rich richer and the poor poorer when it comes to skill levels. We don't need more roflstomps in 40k... we need lists to be a little bit more durable and a little bit more forgiving... lobotomizing the stupid CP-Strategem matrix would really solve a ton of problems, and other than making people play their units instead of lame trigger daisy chains, and can't see a downside. You're not clever with strategem management chaining... they're all pretty obvious, terribly unsporting, and make for some boring game play.
What would you think about keeping the amount of CP roughly the same, but spreading them over the turns? For example, instead of getting 15 CP turn one, you would generate 3 per turn.
Someone who want's to pile three or more stratagems on a unit would have to safe up for that combo, allowing counter-play from the other player by damaging/destroying the combo unit.
Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list
I also asked that they do something to change how CP work, to be more like AoS :
- Everybody starts with 3CP, that can be used on pre-game stratagems
- At the start of every turn after the 1st, you generate 1CP +1CP if your Warlord is alive +1CP if you have at least a Bataillon or Brigade.
Nym wrote: I also asked that they do something to change how CP work, to be more like AoS :
- Everybody starts with 3CP, that can be used on pre-game stratagems
- At the start of every turn after the 1st, you generate 1CP +1CP if your Warlord is alive +1CP if you have at least a Bataillon or Brigade.
Plain and simple, would solve loads of issues...
Considering how some stratagems cost 3 or 4 CP the amount of CP generated over a game kind of needs to stay the same. However, an ork army generating 4 CP per turn seems a lot more reasonable than blowing 20 CP in the first two turns.
Jidmah wrote: Considering how some stratagems cost 3 or 4 CP the amount of CP generated over a game kind of needs to stay the same. However, an ork army generating 4 CP per turn seems a lot more reasonable than blowing 20 CP in the first two turns.
With my proposition, you get 15CP over 5 turns (18/21 over 6 or 7 turns). If you lose your Warlord early or if you don't have any Battalion / Brigade, you get 13CP (if both, you get 8CP). It's rather fair don't you think ? ^^
Many armies don't have warlords that sit back and buff stuff, but strive to deal damage in close combat. You are putting an unfair disadvantage on those types of characters which already give up VP easily. In addition, you are adding more power to armies that have snipers over those who don't. Therefore connecting CP generation to warlords being alive is a horrible idea.
You also removed any reason to ever bring a brigade or even more than 3 troops.
If you just take current CP amount/5 = CP generation, many problems would be fixed, without locking armies out of their most powerful stratagems.
Jidmah wrote: Many armies don't have warlords that sit back and buff stuff, but strive to deal damage in close combat. You are putting an unfair disadvantage on those types of characters which already give up VP easily. In addition, you are adding more power to armies that have snipers over those who don't.
It's actually a feature of my proposition, not a bug. It works like this in Killteam and feels right to me. You should never throw your Warlord away as if it was just another beatstick. Without a strong leader, many countries or armies along History quickly turned to chaos. Warlords are chosen before the game starts, if you're facing snipers, choose a character that can hide easily or play smart.
In many other wargames it's even worse, if you lose your leader you lose the game (Warmachine for example).
You also removed any reason to ever bring a brigade or even more than 3 troops.
True. It should probably be "If you have at least 1 Battalion, you get +1CP each turn after the first. If you have at least 1 Brigade, you get +2CP instead".
Jidmah wrote: Considering how some stratagems cost 3 or 4 CP the amount of CP generated over a game kind of needs to stay the same. However, an ork army generating 4 CP per turn seems a lot more reasonable than blowing 20 CP in the first two turns.
With my proposition, you get 15CP over 5 turns (18/21 over 6 or 7 turns). If you lose your Warlord early or if you don't have any Battalion / Brigade, you get 13CP (if both, you get 8CP). It's rather fair don't you think ? ^^
This will then benefit armies that don't need cp that much as is vs those who do but would get alpha striked off board before they get enough cp.
Ig would love this one. Cp aren"t that needed, other armies lost their toys for most of the game. Cool
Jidmah wrote: Many armies don't have warlords that sit back and buff stuff, but strive to deal damage in close combat. You are putting an unfair disadvantage on those types of characters which already give up VP easily. In addition, you are adding more power to armies that have snipers over those who don't.
It's actually a feature of my proposition, not a bug. It works like this in Killteam and feels right to me. You should never throw your Warlord away as if it was just another beatstick. Without a strong leader, many countries or armies along History quickly turned to chaos. Warlords are chosen before the game starts, if you're facing snipers, choose a character that can hide easily or play smart.
You are using humans as measuring stick for daemons, orks or tyranids. Their fluff is different, as their leaders are leading from the front and wouldn't be a warlord at all if they dared hide in the back or they are even considered expendable since they can be reborn at later times. On top of that, there are warlord traits which only do anything on beatstick characters, therefore you assessment of what a warlord should be or do is wrong - it is neither supported by rules nor by fluff.
Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list
I like it. Personally, I'd like it so that most stratagems can only be used when the Warlord is on the table, to give the effect that the warlord themself is directing the battle strategy. Agreed with the 4+ invulns. I'd also like to see fewer ignore damage rolls better than 6+. Why the Primaris restriction though? What's the problem with that?
Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list
Well, that would a make the Grey Knights even worse then they are now. Remove the only two last good things in their codex, and make it impossible to use blessed ammo. Guess at least the primaris part ain't that bad, mostly because GK can't take primaris in the first place, but it is something I guess.
I like it. Personally, I'd like it so that most stratagems can only be used when the Warlord is on the table, to give the effect that the warlord themself is directing the battle strategy. Agreed with the 4+ invulns. I'd also like to see fewer ignore damage rolls better than 6+. Why the Primaris restriction though? What's the problem with that?
What about stratagems that represent the use of basic gear like GK blessed ammo? There is no tactic involved in it. Activation is psychic and done by the shooter, and GK like all marines bless all their weapons pre battle.
1.I would like to see a fix in the CP system.
CPs shoud be the same for all armies and not be tied to the number of detachments (cheaper armies abuse this) or warlords (melee fornt line warlords have great disadvantage because they die a lot faster). There should be one detachment with troops tax like a battalion and the others like vanguard, spearhead, outrider etc with no troops. You start with a fixed number of CP (lets say 3) and each turn you generate 1CP if you are battle forged and 1CP if you use the troop tax detachment . Elite fluff armies like ravenwing , deathwing etc can have that +1CP a turn with the appropriate fast attack or elites detachment intead of the troops tax detachment. In that way the expensive good strats can be played less times in a game and you have to save CPs to use them like a lot of people said in previous posts. The regeneration of CPs from abilities, traits etc stays as is, 1 CP each battle round max.
*If you use soup armies you get a -1CP each turn as a debuff to multi codex builds
2. Guiliman's buff reroll all failed wounds should be changed to reroll 1s to wound (so he will be like chapter master + leutenant combo in one character) because he is the reason all marines being so overcosted.
3. Regular tac marines and souts should drop to 10 pts (so scouts wont be auto include as troops, the ones get 3+ save the other get 4+ and deployment shenanigans) while intersessors go to 15 pts.This change will help marines get a few points spare to use. (deathwatch should be a little more expensive because of the ammunition buff)
4. Codexes that werent in the new Chapter approved get point tweeks to bring them up to balance.
5. Address the overcosted/undercosted stuff in general
6. Invulnerable saves caped at 3+ (4+ for knights), can never be rerolled for ay reason,cant be modified
Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list
Well, that would a make the Grey Knights even worse then they are now. Remove the only two last good things in their codex, and make it impossible to use blessed ammo. Guess at least the primaris part ain't that bad, mostly because GK can't take primaris in the first place, but it is something I guess.
I like it. Personally, I'd like it so that most stratagems can only be used when the Warlord is on the table, to give the effect that the warlord themself is directing the battle strategy. Agreed with the 4+ invulns. I'd also like to see fewer ignore damage rolls better than 6+. Why the Primaris restriction though? What's the problem with that?
What about stratagems that represent the use of basic gear like GK blessed ammo? There is no tactic involved in it. Activation is psychic and done by the shooter, and GK like all marines bless all their weapons pre battle.
I don't know the fluff behind that particular stratagem, but I envision it something like the commander giving an order like, "Purgatos squad, load daemonfire ammo and fell that foul abomination," or some such. With respect to how these things affect Grey Knights, the unfortunate truth is that with the predicament they're in, nothing short of a new codex is going to lessen their woes any time soon. On the basis of worst come, first serve, hopefully the impoverished monks of Titan will be next in line for a major rework. Personally, I'd like to see Games Workshop reach out to Lawrence Baker of Tabletop Tactics for his input. He's a hobby gem and an avid Grey Knight player.
Jidmah wrote: therefore you assessment of what a warlord should be or do is wrong - it is neither supported by rules nor by fluff.
It's supported by GW though, otherwise Slay the Warlord wouldn't exist and Killteam wouldn't award Command Points as long as your Leader is alive.
Slay the Warlord rewards killing a warlord rather than punishing you for losing him. You are basically suggesting that killing the warlord should yield -5 CP on top of giving up a VP under the current rules - which would be utterly ridiculous.
KillTeam doesn't have any 3 or 4 CP stratagems that I'm aware of. You are comparing apples to oranges.
lonewolf81 wrote: 1.I would like to see a fix in the CP system.
CPs shoud be the same for all armies and not be tied to the number of detachments (cheaper armies abuse this) or warlords (melee fornt line warlords have great disadvantage because they die a lot faster). There should be one detachment with troops tax like a battalion and the others like vanguard, spearhead, outrider etc with no troops. You start with a fixed number of CP (lets say 3) and each turn you generate 1CP if you are battle forged and 1CP if you use the troop tax detachment . Elite fluff armies like ravenwing , deathwing etc can have that +1CP a turn with the appropriate fast attack or elites detachment intead of the troops tax detachment. In that way the expensive good strats can be played less times in a game and you have to save CPs to use them like a lot of people said in previous posts. The regeneration of CPs from abilities, traits etc stays as is, 1 CP each battle round max.
*If you use soup armies you get a -1CP each turn as a debuff to multi codex builds
2. Guiliman's buff reroll all failed wounds should be changed to reroll 1s to wound (so he will be like chapter master + leutenant combo in one character) because he is the reason all marines being so overcosted.
3. Regular tac marines and souts should drop to 10 pts (so scouts wont be auto include as troops, the ones get 3+ save the other get 4+ and deployment shenanigans) while intersessors go to 15 pts.This change will help marines get a few points spare to use. (deathwatch should be a little more expensive because of the ammunition buff)
4. Codexes that werent in the new Chapter approved get point tweeks to bring them up to balance.
5. Address the overcosted/undercosted stuff in general
6. Invulnerable saves caped at 3+ (4+ for knights), can never be rerolled for ay reason,cant be modified
That first suggestion wouldn’t work for Militarum Tempestus. All Militarum Tempestus is is troops and transports with elite support.
Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list
I don't agree with the warlord death part. Some people play aggressive armies that the warlord is bound to get into the fray. Making castle style lists a much safer option. Rendering melee armies even further useless.
The single detatcment CP idea is neat though. Same with the invuln idea. The primaris thing is confusing to me, what's wrong with primaris?
Maybe instead of one strat per turn, one strategem per phase?
lonewolf81 wrote: 1.I would like to see a fix in the CP system.
CPs shoud be the same for all armies and not be tied to the number of detachments (cheaper armies abuse this) or warlords (melee fornt line warlords have great disadvantage because they die a lot faster). There should be one detachment with troops tax like a battalion and the others like vanguard, spearhead, outrider etc with no troops. You start with a fixed number of CP (lets say 3) and each turn you generate 1CP if you are battle forged and 1CP if you use the troop tax detachment . Elite fluff armies like ravenwing , deathwing etc can have that +1CP a turn with the appropriate fast attack or elites detachment intead of the troops tax detachment. In that way the expensive good strats can be played less times in a game and you have to save CPs to use them like a lot of people said in previous posts. The regeneration of CPs from abilities, traits etc stays as is, 1 CP each battle round max.
*If you use soup armies you get a -1CP each turn as a debuff to multi codex builds
2. Guiliman's buff reroll all failed wounds should be changed to reroll 1s to wound (so he will be like chapter master + leutenant combo in one character) because he is the reason all marines being so overcosted.
3. Regular tac marines and souts should drop to 10 pts (so scouts wont be auto include as troops, the ones get 3+ save the other get 4+ and deployment shenanigans) while intersessors go to 15 pts.This change will help marines get a few points spare to use. (deathwatch should be a little more expensive because of the ammunition buff)
4. Codexes that werent in the new Chapter approved get point tweeks to bring them up to balance.
5. Address the overcosted/undercosted stuff in general
6. Invulnerable saves caped at 3+ (4+ for knights), can never be rerolled for ay reason,cant be modified
That first suggestion wouldn’t work for Militarum Tempestus. All Militarum Tempestus is is troops and transports with elite support.
They cant use the battalion? I proposed that you can use any number of detachments you want but you get the +1 CP only once each turn and there would be only one detachment with troops like a battalion (no brigade and the patrol wont give you any additional CP each turn) and the other detachments as already are
I still think the solution I argued for pre-CA 2018 would work pretty well regarding CP. I had a longer explanation then, but the gist is this:
Instead of earning them from detachments let's just consider an even system based on the points you're allowed to bring. You always get your 3CP for being battleforged (assuming you actually are battleforged) and you get an additional 2CP per 500 points you're allowed to bring. So it'd look like this:
Then bringing anything other than what your warlords detachment is counts as the extra relic stratagem. Meaning you can bring 1 soup detachment for -1CP or 2 soup detachments for -3CP. In addition, only your warlords detachment can regen CPs in regards to relics.
EDIT: Forgot to say, that at games of 1001+ points need to have a battalion or brigade to unlock you battleforged CP
Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list
This started out in left field and ended up in the stands assaulting a peanut salesman. I loved every minute of it, 10/10.
How would you square your CP restrictions with the fact that essentially only 1% of stratagems in the game would ever end up getting used? With one stratagem per game turn per player, you'd essentially have each army select one single stratagem to use on their turn and one on their opponent's turn, and it'd pretty much always be the best choice. Why would I ever use, for example, Mob Up, or 'Ard Boyz, or Loot It, when I am limited to 1 strat per turn and I pretty much must use Grot Shields and either Shoot Twice or Fight Twice?
Would slaying the warlord divide your remaining CPs in half or subtract half from your starting value?
How does your 1 detachment CP restriction square with some armies being able to get to a brigade in ~650 points and other being incapable of running one at 2000? Wouldn't this create a "armies with Brigades are on this tier, armies without brgades are on that tier" situation even worse than we have now?
what makes you think people are taking the primaris keyword on any of their models, much less needing a special restriction to only half? Is there any reason for this besides "I just don't like 'em, Steve!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PiñaColada wrote: I still think the solution I argued for pre-CA 2018 would work pretty well regarding CP. I had a longer explanation then, but the gist is this:
Instead of earning them from detachments let's just consider an even system based on the points you're allowed to bring. You always get your 3CP for being battleforged (assuming you actually are battleforged) and you get an additional 2CP per 500 points you're allowed to bring. So it'd look like this:
Then bringing anything other than what your warlords detachment is counts as the extra relic stratagem. Meaning you can bring 1 soup detachment for -1CP or 2 soup detachments for -3CP. In addition, only your warlords detachment can regen CPs in regards to relics.
I think this solves some problems and exacerbates some others. For example, if you don't require imperial soup lists to bring comparatively weaker Cp-farming detachments to fuel their knights, they'd most likely end up screened by even tougher units than the wall of guardsmen that currently exists. You'd exchange out the wall of guardsmen for a wall of bullgryns supported by astropaths, because why bother bringing anything but the strongest screen for my knight if I don't need to get CP for it?
It also leaves the problem in place that it is most efficient to spend all your CP in a single shot because you can combo stratagems together (e.g. getting double use out of Red Rampage by fighting twice, or triple use by using Only in Death, allowing a 150-point character to reliably ace a 600-point superheavy)
I still think the solution I argued for pre-CA 2018 would work pretty well regarding CP. I had a longer explanation then, but the gist is this:
Instead of earning them from detachments let's just consider an even system based on the points you're allowed to bring. You always get your 3CP for being battleforged (assuming you actually are battleforged) and you get an additional 2CP per 500 points you're allowed to bring. So it'd look like this:
Then bringing anything other than what your warlords detachment is counts as the extra relic stratagem. Meaning you can bring 1 soup detachment for -1CP or 2 soup detachments for -3CP. In addition, only your warlords detachment can regen CPs in regards to relics.
I think this solves some problems and exacerbates some others. For example, if you don't require imperial soup lists to bring comparatively weaker Cp-farming detachments to fuel their knights, they'd most likely end up screened by even tougher units than the wall of guardsmen that currently exists. You'd exchange out the wall of guardsmen for a wall of bullgryns supported by astropaths, because why bother bringing anything but the strongest screen for my knight if I don't need to get CP for it?
It also leaves the problem in place that it is most efficient to spend all your CP in a single shot because you can combo stratagems together (e.g. getting double use out of Red Rampage by fighting twice, or triple use by using Only in Death, allowing a 150-point character to reliably ace a 600-point superheavy)
Okay, first off. I realised I missed something in my hasty write up of those rules. At 1001+ points you need to bring either a battalion or bigade to unlock the battleforged CP.
Well, regarding IK getting tougher "chaff" to block them, is that really an issue? Guardsmen are hyper efficient for their points and potential board control whereas slightly better troops might not be as good at those jobs. And IK with 10CP (since they lose at least 1 for having a soup detachment) are going to be broke round 1 most likely.
Regarding spending all your CP round 1 (or at least in one round) to super buff up a unit, that's the way it's currently played and I'm not sure if I feel like it's a big issue. There are usually ways of blocking that through positioning/use of your own stratagems (and if there aren't then that should probably be a separate fix). The difference here is that if you spend 7CP in a single round then that's almost your entire pool of them, in the current version it's quite possible you have another 10-15 of them.
lonewolf81 wrote: 1.I would like to see a fix in the CP system.
CPs shoud be the same for all armies and not be tied to the number of detachments (cheaper armies abuse this) or warlords (melee fornt line warlords have great disadvantage because they die a lot faster). There should be one detachment with troops tax like a battalion and the others like vanguard, spearhead, outrider etc with no troops. You start with a fixed number of CP (lets say 3) and each turn you generate 1CP if you are battle forged and 1CP if you use the troop tax detachment . Elite fluff armies like ravenwing , deathwing etc can have that +1CP a turn with the appropriate fast attack or elites detachment intead of the troops tax detachment. In that way the expensive good strats can be played less times in a game and you have to save CPs to use them like a lot of people said in previous posts. The regeneration of CPs from abilities, traits etc stays as is, 1 CP each battle round max.
*If you use soup armies you get a -1CP each turn as a debuff to multi codex builds
2. Guiliman's buff reroll all failed wounds should be changed to reroll 1s to wound (so he will be like chapter master + leutenant combo in one character) because he is the reason all marines being so overcosted.
3. Regular tac marines and souts should drop to 10 pts (so scouts wont be auto include as troops, the ones get 3+ save the other get 4+ and deployment shenanigans) while intersessors go to 15 pts.This change will help marines get a few points spare to use. (deathwatch should be a little more expensive because of the ammunition buff)
4. Codexes that werent in the new Chapter approved get point tweeks to bring them up to balance.
5. Address the overcosted/undercosted stuff in general
6. Invulnerable saves caped at 3+ (4+ for knights), can never be rerolled for ay reason,cant be modified
That first suggestion wouldn’t work for Militarum Tempestus. All Militarum Tempestus is is troops and transports with elite support.
They cant use the battalion? I proposed that you can use any number of detachments you want but you get the +1 CP only once each turn and there would be only one detachment with troops like a battalion (no brigade and the patrol wont give you any additional CP each turn) and the other detachments as already are
From what I interpreted, I figured you wanted that there be at least one detachment like and outrider or spearhead, which MT can’t do. Most of the time, full Scion armies will be two battalions.
This started out in left field and ended up in the stands assaulting a peanut salesman. I loved every minute of it, 10/10.
Love it, will steal that some day
How would you square your CP restrictions with the fact that essentially only 1% of stratagems in the game would ever end up getting used? With one stratagem per game turn per player, you'd essentially have each army select one single stratagem to use on their turn and one on their opponent's turn, and it'd pretty much always be the best choice. Why would I ever use, for example, Mob Up, or 'Ard Boyz, or Loot It, when I am limited to 1 strat per turn and I pretty much must use Grot Shields and either Shoot Twice or Fight Twice?
Well that's assuming you'd have the CP for the best strat every time and not want to choose more economic or reliable strats right when they trigger... both you and your opponent know you only get one... there's an entire bait and switch/use it or lose it opportunity cost thing here... instead of the current, unthinking, easy button, Oprah level of CP handing out and strat usage we have now.
Would slaying the warlord divide your remaining CPs in half or subtract half from your starting value?
Divide remaining...
And btw... to everyone freaking out about front line warlords getting screwed by this... this should be exactly how it works... named snowflake unicorn butterfly super boss charges into a company level engagement, he/she had better be the focus of the enemy's ire. If you don't like that... you take two HQ and have one your blender and the other your warlord (which in most melee forces is the smart play anyway)
..or spend your much smaller CP pool (if my pipe materializes) early and not sweat it... see how much people hate having to think instead of just CP button mashing... exhibit A on why this is a problem
How does your 1 detachment CP restriction square with some armies being able to get to a brigade in ~650 points and other being incapable of running one at 2000? Wouldn't this create a "armies with Brigades are on this tier, armies without brgades are on that tier" situation even worse than we have now?
no... just the opposite... you're making my point
what makes you think people are taking the primaris keyword on any of their models, much less needing a special restriction to only half? Is there any reason for this besides "I just don't like 'em, Steve!"
I think that people need to understand that this isn't a situation where a simple change makes everything work. 40K is a complex game. Any change is going to fix some things and break some others due to the overall design of the game.
Ideally, the GWdev team will continue to work on game fixing changes, and then do faction fixing changes as needed.
The idea that an idea is invalid because it doesn't fix all the problems in one go isn't reasonable, so stop saying that.
I'd love to see flamers made actually useable. Provide defense against charge regardless of range (wall of flames from 7th), unable to hit <flyer> unless hovering.
Snipers being able to target specific MODEL in a unit. So picking off sergeants and special weapons is now possible.
Capping invulnerable save at 5+ (infantry) and 4+ (vehicles), not more.
, you still die.
