Selym wrote:
And of course, codex power levels have absolutely no effect on a player's ability to win.

Clearly you're not forging the narrative hard enough.

Dark Eldar and Eldar are the pinnacle of good balance. Because, as we all know, every single DE player is a tactical genius worthy of Sun Tzu, whilst every Eldar player is mentally handicapped.

So, even though it might look like Eldar is hideously OP and DE aren't fit to combat a blind kitten, it all works out fine. As above, the DE players can simply use their tactical genius to manoeuvre units flawlessly, and use their deep knowledge of probability to roll nothing but 6s. Meanwhile, the Eldar players just stand around drooling or bashing their heads against the nearest wall, their random flails nudging models around the table and knocking dice around.

The only problem comes when a person who isn't the greatest strategist on the planet accidentally picks up Dark Eldar by mistake. Or when someone who isn't mentally handicapped commits the unforgivable crime of buying an Eldar army.

Thus proving, once again, that players are the source of all the game's problems.

 Gangrel767 wrote:
I never really understood why so many GW hater linger and troll the boards just hating all over the game. If you don't like it, don't play it... and let the rest of us enjoy it!

I've never really understood why people seem to be continually surprised that threads asking for people's opinions of something result in people sharing their opinions...


So now that's out of the way, can we get back to discussing the game, rather than complaining that some people don't like something you like?

Well, you can always play 30k. All Marines all day, no filthy xenos to "unbalance" the game.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, you can always play 30k. All Marines all day, no filthy xenos to "unbalance" the game.

SJ

Yay! SM v SM- 3+, 4+, 3+ then HTH 4+, 4+, 3+

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 Grimtuff wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, you can always play 30k. All Marines all day, no filthy xenos to "unbalance" the game.

SJ

Yay! SM v SM- 3+, 4+, 3+ then HTH 4+, 4+, 3+

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Have an exalt.

It's an interesting point. My view is that I could get all the variety I needed and more from other games, better and cheaper, with less complication and spoilation of the core of 40K.

But I do appreciate that a lot of people don't want to play other games, and want all their wargaming to be contained in the one ruleset.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
Oh man, all this GW hate is getting so old. We get it - you think the game sucks, so move along people. Don't try to ruin it for other people who enjoy the game. 40k is what it has always been - an amazingly rich, interesting fluff combined with cool models. If you are having a problem with balance, it is because of your gaming community, not the game. It was never meant to be competitive, so if people are trying to max/min units, trying to break the game at every turn, then that is what is going to happen. From the very beginning, GW was interested in making cool models and writing fluff, not produce a tournament game. It is what has always happened with that type of player. It really isn't complex. Just agree what type of game you want to have, then play it. Don't like playing against Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures - cool, just speak up. Someone shows up with all Imperial Knights and you have a Nid swarm list? Then don't play against the person. Done. Blaming GW for the choices made by players is just ludicrous. If you are looking for an internally balanced tournament game, then, seriously, you need to go elsewhere. 40k has never been that way. The core rule book has always favored one style of play over another, which has always either boosted or hurt more specialized armies.

If you are looking to have fun with some friends, then the game has never been better. It has far more options, models, combinations than ever. 7th is my favorite edition since I started playing 20 years ago.

There is some truth to this or I would be unable to have fun playing 40k with my friends.
The part I will most lament / complain / whine is pickup games are extremely difficult to pull off.
Part of the point of playing these games is the social aspect.

<edit for further clarity, dyslexic writing>If it makes things difficult to play strangers, isn't the point of having fun and getting new players into the game being missed? If you need to stick to your exclusive friends to have a good game isn't it only a matter of time for the game to die?

I want more players and not to have the great dissatisfied to stop complaining and move-on... it would be a ghost town in short order.
I have WAY too many GW armies, I feel entitled to the right of "constructive criticism" of how things have turned: walking away is not an option.
Shut-up and put up with it is not an option either, so I play with friends 40k and play other games like X-wing and watch the player base shift away.

As long as they're having fun in their insulated groups they don't care about how the game is for others. I rely on pickup games and I found 40k an exercise in frustration to get a balanced pick up game.

And yes, in a thread asking about opinions im free to give mine.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, you can always play 30k. All Marines all day, no filthy xenos to "unbalance" the game.

SJ

Marines vs. Marines. A much more balanced game. This is what we are doing atm.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
All I can say is that most likely your problems with the game are due to your lack of thought in playing it.

SJ

Yep, yep.

I'm a fething moron. Should have realised sooner.

Can't be an informed opinion from a quarter century of wargaming and experience playing other games.

Nope.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yep, yep.
I'm a fething moron. Should have realised sooner.
Can't be an informed opinion from a quarter century of wargaming and experience playing other games.
Nope.

I dunno, all those years filing and sanding all those lead miniatures have had an impact on the IQ.
Pretty lucky anyone over 35 as a gamer does not drool or wet themselves... but there are adult diapers for that.

The argument I find is that we CAN adapt to these new rule sets, just like in the early years of computers the USER had to adapt to the interface not the other way around.
We are in the age where you question why do "I" have to adapt to "your" laziness?
Make a better user interface! Or get left in the dust, I think this aptly applies to games as well.

I can adapt to the most painful rule sets and complicated interfaces (it could be looked at as an amusing challenge) but there is a point where you reach diminishing returns or payback for those efforts, I think many players have reached that point with 40k.

And that's before you take price into consideration.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
Oh man, all this GW hate is getting so old. We get it - you think the game sucks, so move along people. Don't try to ruin it for other people who enjoy the game.

To be fair, You don't need to actually like, or even play the game to have a valid opinion on 40k though. For some, 40k is the game. For others, it's painting and modelling and gaming is an aspect that happens once in a blue moon- so thry might as well not be classed as gamers. For others, it's the lore that they're into. Basically, you don't need to like, or even play the game (because there are a lot of other ways other than playing the ttg to enjoy 40k), and their opinion is still arguably just as valid (just different) to someone who does.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

40k is what it has always been - an amazingly rich, interesting fluff combined with cool models. If you are having a problem with balance, it is because of your gaming community, not the game.It was never meant to be competitive, so if people are trying to max/min units, trying to break the game at every turn, then that is what is going to happen.

It's fifty/fifty if you ask me. I believe Players are responsible for their own enjoyment and should be more proactive in making things work, whether that means modifying the game/rules, playing different games, and playing different people. But this only goes to a certain point. Because as much as it's nice to just blame tfg players for ruining everyone else's fun, gw are equally to blame. Simply put, If the rules weren't so unbalanced, vague, wooly and loosely written in the first place, would those people you speak of be able to abuse/break or min max the game to the extent that they currently do? Right there is a whole host of problems simply nipped in the bud.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
From the very beginning, GW was interested in making cool models and writing fluff, not produce a tournament game.

And yet, they ran tournaments, and if I remember, fifth was touted as being a more tournament friendly direction.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
It is what has always happened with that type of player. It really isn't complex. Just agree what type of game you want to have, then play it. Don't like playing against Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures - cool, just speak up. Someone shows up with all Imperial Knights and you have a Nid swarm list? Then don't play against the person. Done.

True. But To an extent. This approach can work, but it's far from cast iron. It's all fine with a small group if like minded players, but this approach is very unfriendly to pick up games with potential strangers (or at least, not-friends). And it's not like there is a never ending stream of potential players thst we can sift through and pick at our leisure - often it's getting games against whoever is available. If my choice is play the gargantuan monstrous creature guy, or go else home without a game, I wonder what was the point in coming all the way in in the first place. What goes through my mind is 'fair enough, I'm not gonna bother with a game I'm not going to enjoy', but really, I'm also thinking 'it's a missed opportunity to make this game so potentially user unfriendly and hazardous.' Sometimes, I just want a game, not a negotiation for what's acceptable. And what happens if he plays some breed of tau or eldar and I have blood Angels? 'But don't play against him' is a valid approach some of the time, but it's also akin to sticking your head in the sand not necessarily a solution and it doesn't invalidate criticisms or genuine issues.

This approach also implies the other guy is a gent and is equally willing or able to swap/change to enable you. That you can magically find this 'common ground'. Sometimes it's simply not that simple. Well, for example, what happens when he wants to play gargantuan monstrous creatures or all imperial Knights? He's not necessarily wrong for wanting that either. You are you to say he isn't entitled to it? Because right now, he's going home without a game just like you, and he's not even the villain in the story. He's not some tfg with a broken army. He's probably just a guy with toys that he likes. Which goes back to the point about gw making a game that is more user friendly and doesn't require tedious social contract to fix holes that shouldn't have been there in the first place, which is a formula that very quickly leads to social exclusion and bullying as weapons to define the 'right' way of playing. Which goes back to the point that no, it's not always 'the players fault'. They're not necessarily the bad guys here.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

Blaming GW for the choices made by players is just ludicrous.

Not really. Gw were the ones who wrote the rules that are so open to abuse in the first place. And often, 'abuse' isn't necessarily malicious, but what you end up with is players who picked blood Angels, or whatever the current crap codex is suffering arbitrarily against those that picked tau. Is it tau players fault or blood Angels players 'fault' that gw wrote such appallingly balanced codices? Please, let's not be so dishonest and skewed in our narratives and in our arguments here. Gw shoulders a huge amount of the blame too. You can't just whitewash it I'm afraid.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
If you are looking for an internally balanced tournament game, then, seriously, you need to go elsewhere. 40k has never been that way. The core rule book has always favored one style of play over another, which has always either boosted or hurt more specialized armies.

Agreed. 40k can be a lot of fun, but it really has to be approached with the right attitude and like minded people and it does have to potential to require a huge input of effort to get value out of it. Whether it is worth it or not though is up to each individual.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

If you are looking to have fun with some friends, then the game has never been better. It has far more options, models, combinations than ever. 7th is my favorite edition since I started playing 20 years ago.

Define 'fun with some friends'? I have fun with my friends with games like infinity and warmachine. And home brewed flames of war and historicals. I've not had 'fun with some friends' with 40k in years, so I think the point that the game has 'never been better' is questionable at best. Take for example your above monstrous creature or imperial knight army player that you refuse to play because of reasons. There's two people 'not having fun with friends'. You might indeed have fun with it, and you might be having an absolute blast with it. And for what it's worth - more power to you. But not everyone is. People like different things. Please don't be so arrogant (probably not your intention I'm guessing- Internet and tone and all that) to dismiss other people's probably very real and very legitimate grievances and issues so readily. You do them s disservice. Because they very much may not be having 'fun with some friends' with 40k...

 vipoid wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And of course, codex power levels have absolutely no effect on a player's ability to win.

Clearly you're not forging the narrative hard enough.

Dark Eldar and Eldar are the pinnacle of good balance. Because, as we all know, every single DE player is a tactical genius worthy of Sun Tzu, whilst every Eldar player is mentally handicapped.

So, even though it might look like Eldar is hideously OP and DE aren't fit to combat a blind kitten, it all works out fine. As above, the DE players can simply use their tactical genius to manoeuvre units flawlessly, and use their deep knowledge of probability to roll nothing but 6s. Meanwhile, the Eldar players just stand around drooling or bashing their heads against the nearest wall, their random flails nudging models around the table and knocking dice around.

The only problem comes when a person who isn't the greatest strategist on the planet accidentally picks up Dark Eldar by mistake. Or when someone who isn't mentally handicapped commits the unforgivable crime of buying an Eldar army.

Thus proving, once again, that players are the source of all the game's problems.

Exalted so hard.

Nice to see that the crappy aspects of 7th ed (specifically formations) have only gotten worse in my absence.

My group of friends and I have come up with a way to play the game using g bolt action style turns and it has been excellent.

5 player free for all's are actually an option and work very well.

The only difficulty we have right now is how to make it fit with the whole Tau focused fire thingy.

 Selym wrote:
And of course, codex power levels have absolutely no effect on a player's ability to win.

They don't have much of an effect. CSM and IG are constantly being complained about as the worst codexes, and I've seen them beating Eldar. The difference is not that much.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And of course, codex power levels have absolutely no effect on a player's ability to win.

They don't have much of an effect. CSM and IG are constantly being complained about as the worst codexes, and I've seen them beating Eldar. The difference is not that much.

I play csm and have had many people tell me I run a very tough and unconventional list for them, but eldar and Necrons are very much an uphill battle.

I can win against them but only if the dice gods are very much on my side.

If you're relying on "dice gods" to win, you're doing it wrong.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
If you're relying on "dice gods" to win, you're doing it wrong.

Then please tell us how the blob is expected to survive against any of the, again, commonly seen, units detailed above.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And of course, codex power levels have absolutely no effect on a player's ability to win.

They don't have much of an effect. CSM and IG are constantly being complained about as the worst codexes, and I've seen them beating Eldar. The difference is not that much.

I may win the lottery, but the odds aren't in my favour.

The gulf between the top tier codexes and the poor/old ones is huge. Because of the rock/paper/scissors nature of the game, plus the large amount of random in the current incarnation, you'll get the odd clash of lists or plain lucky win, that doesn't make your statement closer to true.

You're effectively saying an armour heavy list (for example) isn't strong because you've seen it lose against a highly mobile, melta heavy list, when that armour heavy list steamrolls nearly every other list archetype available. One specific instance does not disprove a general trend.

CSM has IA13, which helps paper over the cracks, assuming you're in a position to buy the models and an environment where playing them is accepted, but that doesn't mean that taken in its entirety, the whole faction doesn't have real, tangible issues in the context of the wider game.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And of course, codex power levels have absolutely no effect on a player's ability to win.

They don't have much of an effect. CSM and IG are constantly being complained about as the worst codexes, and I've seen them beating Eldar. The difference is not that much.

Oh, our mistake, CSM and IG must be good Codices then if they managed to win a game!

Don't, just stop. He is a troll:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/669705.page

The talk about Maelstrom:
Aren't the tactical objectives bringing more dynamic to the game which then gives the impression that it's a tactical game because you have to switch between so many objectives?

Other play modes makes you design a rough strategy from start which you more or less have to follow but which could use the dynamics of Maelstrom to add more "life" to the game?

Chaospling wrote:
The talk about Maelstrom:
Aren't the tactical objectives bringing more dynamic to the game which then gives the impression that it's a tactical game because you have to switch between so many objectives?

Other play modes makes you design a rough strategy from start which you more or less have to follow but which could use the dynamics of Maelstrom to add more "life" to the game?

No because the objectives are completely random.

If the overall missions were well designed then you could devise a general strategy and utilise tactics to accomplish your goal. For example lets say your mission for the battle was to hold objectives 2 and 6 but you don't know your opponents mission (like the mission cards in the board game Risk). You are currently holding 2, 3 and 5 and your opponent is holding 1, 4 and 6. You are now faced with some choices. Do you:
1) Pull your units off of 3 and 5 in order to reinforce 2 and assault 6 with overwhelming force.
2) Pull some of your units off 5 to make a feint towards 4, hoping to lure some of the enemy off 6 and so be able to take it with less resistance with some units off 3.
3) Sit tight on your 3 objectives and hope that the opponent needs one of them to complete their own mission, in which case they attack and then you can counter-attack at a point where they are now weaker.

Each of those choices is a viable tactic but also has elements of risk. With the first choice you sacrifice control of objectives 3 and 5, which your opponent might need for their own mission. With number 2 the opponent might take the bait but with a unit off of 4, rather than 6. Their mission might require control of objective 5 in which case you have made it easier for them. With the third choice your opponent might already have the objectives they need for their mission, in which case they are less likely to be lured out.

This would allow you to formulate a strategy and then utilise tactics in order to carry it out, rather than the current system, even with maelstrom, where the main strategy is still basically "kill the other guy" and the "tactical objectives" can be stuff like "use a psychic power" when your army has no access to psychic powers.

What might have been interesting is if maelstrom had random missions, but you only got 3 of them at the beginning of the game (no new ones are drawn) and had the entire game to complete them. Neither player sees his opponent's cards until the end of the game.

Of course, this would also require that the missions have a certain level of difficulty (so 'cast a psychic power' and such are out), are possible (so, no killing a flier your opponent doesn't have), and all of similar difficulty and reward.

Hell, it might work to just give each player 3 cards with different numbers on them - which represent the objectives they have to hold at the end of the game. Neither player sees his opponent's cards, so they don't know what objectives the other needs to win.

Anything like that would, I think, be a lot better.

I think that style is how one of the other skirmish style games work. Off the top of my head I think it's infinity. I remember it working really well, though it did end up giving experienced players a bigger advantage since they were more aware of the different missions and strategies that players would employ to pursue them.

Which is fine. I think experienced players should have a significant advantage in these types of games honestly.

 vipoid wrote:
What might have been interesting is if maelstrom had random missions, but you only got 3 of them at the beginning of the game (no new ones are drawn) and had the entire game to complete them. Neither player sees his opponent's cards until the end of the game.

Sounds a little like Malifaux's stategies and schemes. Revealing the latter at the start of the game is purely optional, though some contain VP bonuses if you do (mainly as certain ones are far easier to complete if kept in secret.).

What about the added dynamics which come from objectives changing through the battle to another which you can't foresee 100 %? Is that a big loss or wouldn't they be missed?

Chaospling wrote:
What about the added dynamics which come from objectives changing through the battle to another which you can't foresee 100 %? Is that a big loss or wouldn't they be missed?

Well, I certainly wouldn't miss it. To me, it doesn't come across as dynamic so much as schizophrenic.

 vipoid wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
What about the added dynamics which come from objectives changing through the battle to another which you can't foresee 100 %? Is that a big loss or wouldn't they be missed?

Well, I certainly wouldn't miss it. To me, it doesn't come across as dynamic so much as schizophrenic.

I find it incredibly narrative/immersion breaking when in the space of a battle that, in real time, is only supposed to last minutes your orders might change significantly 6 times.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
What about the added dynamics which come from objectives changing through the battle to another which you can't foresee 100 %? Is that a big loss or wouldn't they be missed?

Well, I certainly wouldn't miss it. To me, it doesn't come across as dynamic so much as schizophrenic.

I find it incredibly narrative/immersion breaking when in the space of a battle that, in real time, is only supposed to last minutes your orders might change significantly 6 times.

Yeah, one moment it is of vital importance to capture that hill in front of you. Then, once you've spent ammunition and lives securing it, your orders come in telling you that holding the ruins at the bottom of the hill which you were just in is the most important thing to do.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
What about the added dynamics which come from objectives changing through the battle to another which you can't foresee 100 %? Is that a big loss or wouldn't they be missed?

Well, I certainly wouldn't miss it. To me, it doesn't come across as dynamic so much as schizophrenic.

I find it incredibly narrative/immersion breaking when in the space of a battle that, in real time, is only supposed to last minutes your orders might change significantly 6 times.

Yeah, one moment it is of vital importance to capture that hill in front of you. Then, once you've spent ammunition and lives securing it, your orders come in telling you that holding the ruins at the bottom of the hill which you were just in is the most important thing to do.

It also seems weird that you get points for walking to the important hill, but not for capturing it. As it, you're clearly not capturing it because your opponent can also get points for walking to that very same hill later in the game. Hell, you can get points for walking to that hill again.

Are we battling over the best location for a photo-shoot?

 vipoid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
What about the added dynamics which come from objectives changing through the battle to another which you can't foresee 100 %? Is that a big loss or wouldn't they be missed?

Well, I certainly wouldn't miss it. To me, it doesn't come across as dynamic so much as schizophrenic.

I find it incredibly narrative/immersion breaking when in the space of a battle that, in real time, is only supposed to last minutes your orders might change significantly 6 times.

Yeah, one moment it is of vital importance to capture that hill in front of you. Then, once you've spent ammunition and lives securing it, your orders come in telling you that holding the ruins at the bottom of the hill which you were just in is the most important thing to do.

It also seems weird that you get points for walking to the important hill, but not for capturing it. As it, you're clearly not capturing it because your opponent can also get points for walking to that very same hill later in the game. Hell, you can get points for walking to that hill again.

Are we battling over the best location for a photo-shoot?

Now have the image of Space Marines posing on the top of a hill with selfie sticks, pulling duck faces.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
What about the added dynamics which come from objectives changing through the battle to another which you can't foresee 100 %? Is that a big loss or wouldn't they be missed?

Well, I certainly wouldn't miss it. To me, it doesn't come across as dynamic so much as schizophrenic.

I find it incredibly narrative/immersion breaking when in the space of a battle that, in real time, is only supposed to last minutes your orders might change significantly 6 times.

This is my experience as well. I play wargames for the strategy and narrative. Maelstrom fails in both.

I really like some of the Alter of War books, they are pretty fun for a more narrative feel and they can make a great base for a narrative campaign mission. In a DA/IK/Skitarii(I have to many armies) vs CSM we use the hunt the fallen mission as a nice template for an extra objective I am always working on in addition to the normal mission.

When 7th first came out, like most people posting here I found Maelstrom to be a horrible idea. It upset the plan I had in mind for dismantling my opponent. Yet, after several months of slogfests, LoS BS, and tall model shenanigans, I noticed that the game had shifted from a tabletop wargame to a tabletop boardgame. At first I was pissed, then I was curious, and finally I got it: Maelstrom lets me play with my opponent, not against my opponent.

The game for me shifted from 'Ard Boyz Evry Day, All Day' to 'let's see who's the better player'. I started to tailer my list to beating Maelstrom, not my opponent. My enjoyment of the game returned, because it was no longer a rock-paper-scissors match up, it was a master class chess match with artillery and supersoldiers. Maelstrom makes me a better player because it trains me to think on my feet as each new complication emerges. Instead of talking smack with my opponent, we actually have fun conversations about whether or not the objective is a crate of toilet paper or a case of spoiled pickles. Turns the game from Win at All Costs to Capture the Flag.

Add in tall terrain and mysterious objectives, and you now have a game where melee units can get close enough to charge, gunlines have to move, tall models can't see across the table, and flyers have predictable routes. The game goes from broke to fun, from horribly unbalanced to surprisingly playable.

On Maelstrom, I have to give it to GW for adding a good mechanic to break people out of the cancerous community mindset 40k has become over the years. To those that continue to hate change and hold on to yesteryear for dear life, all I ask is for you to take a step back, take a clear breath, and play the game against the cards and not against your oppnent. You might just have some fun.

SJ

Why to I suspect that the people who think maelstrom is more tactical are the sort of people who'd describe roulette as a complex strategy game.

Also, Maelstrom doesn't make you think on your feet. If anything, it does the exact opposite - it makes you not think at all. There's no need to think and plan over multiple turns, because you're just told what to do each turn. That's not "thinking on your feet" that's just following orders.

Also also: "Maelstrom lets me play with my opponent, not against my opponent" I don't even know how to address all the levels of absurdity in this statement, so I'll just make do with several faceplams:

 vipoid wrote:
Why to I suspect that the people who think maelstrom is more tactical are the sort of people who'd describe roulette as a complex strategy game.

Also, Maelstrom doesn't make you think on your feet. If anything, it does the exact opposite - it makes you not think at all. There's no need to think and plan over multiple turns, because you're just told what to do each turn. That's not "thinking on your feet" that's just following orders.

Also also: "Maelstrom lets me play with my opponent, not against my opponent" I don't even know how to address all the levels of absurdity in this statement, so I'll just make do with several faceplams:

Not my issue that you can't relate. As I said, it's a nuance of the game; some people are just tone def to nuance.

SJ

I'm not convinced you know what a nuance is.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Maelstrom lets me play with my opponent, not against my opponent.

It's more like you're playing separate games with no connection to each other but just happen to be on the same board. Again, no thanks. The entire point of a strategy game is to pit my army and my mind against an opponent's army and mind.

Yeah, Maelstrom is far more disconnecting from any sort of tactics or opponent interaction. "Cast a psychic power, gain VP's", ok, well, nothing my opponent can do about that, and basicallya s long as I have a psyker I can do that, if I have muiltiple psykers I gain multiple VP's. Sweet, free VP's for doing something that required zero effort and my opponent could do basically nothing about. So much of Maelstrom is like that.

It's whack-a-mole, not any sort of coherent tactical engagement.

RULE #1 here guys - debate the point, do NOT attack the user.

Another Maelstrom hater here. I used to love the old '1 to 3 objectives, capture them by the end of the game' style of mission. I could plan turns ahead and my opponent actually had to hang around there if they wanted that point, there was no grabbing the objective and then running away again but still getting the point. If they wanted it then they would have to position carefully and suffer my bombardments as I spent a few turns softening them up with my tanks before sending my infantry in to clean up.

Now I have to send everything everywhere, my opponent can grab an objective and then run off and some of the missions dont even make sense. All in all maelstrom is about as tactically and strategically deep as a game of snakes and ladders.

I dislike Maelstrom for a few reasons. As someone who plays Imperial Guard a lot we lack the mobility to take many of the objectives that are all the way across the board, so it's difficult to score those cards. It's even worse when I pull blood and guts, Kill an enemy in the assault phase? Yeah, cause that's going to happen. It's a decent concept, but poorly executed. I still prefer Eternal War missions.

I did actually pull off an assault mission with my IG. A unit of Khorne Bezerkers suffered a sudden cessation of existence when two tanks looked at them and the sole survivor was charged by my power armoured demon blade wielding Inquisitor.

I wonder how much better Maelstrom would be if GW put some thought into it and gave each race their own deck, so the IG one would be mostly hold objectives in your deployment zone and only 1 'kill a unit in assault' card that gave a tong of VPs.

Tau would have no 'cast a psychic power' BS.

Orks could have a lot less objective ones and a lot more kill in assault ones.

It would still probably hurt people who like taking an army and playing it more in line with how a specific chapter is supposed to play rather than how the faction plays, but it would be a step up imo.

So what kind of missions would you prefer instead of maelstrom?

A fixed mission like "the player securing objective 5 at the und if the game wins"
Or dynamic missions like "victory points for each destroyed enemy unit and your own unit I side the enemys deployment zone"

I'd say there was nothing terribly wrong about the old objective system, where you just count who has the most at the end. I thought that adding the killing of the enemy HQ was a good addition in 6th as a VP, but first blood is dumb in a I Go You Go game, it seems like it might as well be giving the extra VP to whoever wins the roll to go first.

I'd also say 5 objectives are too many, and that only scoring at the end might be an issue.

Something not unlike warmachine could be good with control zones, at the end of each player turn you get a VP for being in a zone without your opponent being in it, and you stack VPs until the end so that a last turn rush wont negate 5 previous turns of securing the objective.

Asymmetrical objectives are fun, as are secret objectives, but Maelstrom just gets it so wrong. Drawing a secret card at the beginning of the game that you only have 1 or 2 of and you hang on to all game could be fun, perhaps then giving you 3VPs for killing the enemy HQ or psyker (redrawing if they don't have one). These would then be secondary to the main objectives, designed so that securing all the zones ensures a win, but if you can't pull of the win that way the secondary objectives are the tiebreakers.

 kodos wrote:
So what kind of missions would you prefer instead of maelstrom?

A fixed mission like "the player securing objective 5 at the und if the game wins"
Or dynamic missions like "victory points for each destroyed enemy unit and your own unit I side the enemys deployment zone"

Well, to quote what I said earlier:

 vipoid wrote:
What might have been interesting is if maelstrom had random missions, but you only got 3 of them at the beginning of the game (no new ones are drawn) and had the entire game to complete them. Neither player sees his opponent's cards until the end of the game.

Of course, this would also require that the missions have a certain level of difficulty (so 'cast a psychic power' and such are out), are possible (so, no killing a flier your opponent doesn't have), and all of similar difficulty and reward.

Hell, it might work to just give each player 3 cards with different numbers on them - which represent the objectives they have to hold at the end of the game. Neither player sees his opponent's cards, so they don't know what objectives the other needs to win.

Anything like that would, I think, be a lot better.

One thing I'd like to add is that stuff like "victory points for each destroyed enemy unit" probably isn't a good idea when IK armies are a thing.

"Okay, so far I've destroyed 3 50pt guardsman squads and 2 65pt chimeras. That's 5 victory points for me."
"Well, I've destroyed a 400pt Imperial Knight... guess that's one victory point for me."

I thinking of a mission system with primary and secondary missions with victory points being old school (a 65 point unit gives 65 victory points) and fixed missions to determine the winner.

I am just not sure which one should be the primary mission (normally I would see victory points secondary, but I also a dynamic mission system like maelstrom would work with victory points being primary)

 vipoid wrote:

 kodos wrote:
So what kind of missions would you prefer instead of maelstrom?

A fixed mission like "the player securing objective 5 at the und if the game wins"
Or dynamic missions like "victory points for each destroyed enemy unit and your own unit I side the enemys deployment zone"

Well, to quote what I said earlier:

 vipoid wrote:
What might have been interesting is if maelstrom had random missions, but you only got 3 of them at the beginning of the game (no new ones are drawn) and had the entire game to complete them. Neither player sees his opponent's cards until the end of the game.

Of course, this would also require that the missions have a certain level of difficulty (so 'cast a psychic power' and such are out), are possible (so, no killing a flier your opponent doesn't have), and all of similar difficulty and reward.

Hell, it might work to just give each player 3 cards with different numbers on them - which represent the objectives they have to hold at the end of the game. Neither player sees his opponent's cards, so they don't know what objectives the other needs to win.

Anything like that would, I think, be a lot better.

One thing I'd like to add is that stuff like "victory points for each destroyed enemy unit" probably isn't a good idea when IK armies are a thing.

"Okay, so far I've destroyed 3 50pt guardsman squads and 2 65pt chimeras. That's 5 victory points for me."
"Well, I've destroyed a 400pt Imperial Knight... guess that's one victory point for me."

It's the same fundamental problem KP's have always had. Treating each element of maneuver as though it's just as valuable as any other element of maneuver is terrible game design, it's there to be simple, nothing more

I can attest to disliking kill point games with a passion. It encourages a very specific playstyles, and my main army of Nurgle daemons w/summons tend to lose even when there is only a single unit on the enemy side at game end. There's a reason I avoid playing the two impguard players at the store here: they play purge the alien every time and both use all tanks and baneblades. Fun for them, but is it boring to just watch them crawl forward and blast units off the board

autumnlotus wrote:
I can attest to disliking kill point games with a passion. It encourages a very specific playstyles, and my main army of Nurgle daemons w/summons tend to lose even when there is only a single unit on the enemy side at game end. There's a reason I avoid playing the two impguard players at the store here: they play purge the alien every time and both use all tanks and baneblades. Fun for them, but is it boring to just watch them crawl forward and blast units off the board

That's odd, IG armies typically are amongst the worst when it comes to playing KP games, as their units typically tend to be cheap, numerous, and easily destroyed.

Kill Points tend to be an auto-lose for my DE.

If you get a chance, have a look at how BattleRider from GDW handled missions, in effect you are not playing your opponent, you have a mission to carry out and are playing that. The enemy is just in the way.

Perfectly possible for both players to win, or be defeated.

10 missions for each side - 20 in total, 10 aggressive and 10 defensive. Each has three levels of victory, you game point value is determined and you design a force - the mission will tell you what percentage of this force you can bring.

Victory depends on the ratio of your force to the enemy, so if outnumbered heavily you may only have to observe the enemy for a few turns then pull back

I like how Maelstrom introduces the idea of doing something other than spending six turns annihilating your opponent. Its brought life into my Tau gunline by forcing me to do more than sit at the edge of the table and shoot, and I've actually had my Nid horde win over overpowering gunfire by taking objectives my opponent didn't.

But, in the end, like many things GW, I think it's a good idea poorly executed.

At the least, all objectives should be pulled at the start of the game. Any "secure objectives" should swing both ways. Maybe around turn 3 or so one or more objectives can be changed out.

But that is the problem. What imporatance does it have what GW wanted to do, if they left armies without the ability to actualy play the game. They could have just not updated IG, with cheaper flyers the codex would be a lot better. But they nefed it for 6th ed, and made it unplayable in 7th, before 7th even started. I love dynamic games with different objectives. But what GW did only helped armies that were already on the top and nerf my army even harder.

 vipoid wrote:

 kodos wrote:
So what kind of missions would you prefer instead of maelstrom?

A fixed mission like "the player securing objective 5 at the und if the game wins"
Or dynamic missions like "victory points for each destroyed enemy unit and your own unit I side the enemys deployment zone"

Well, to quote what I said earlier:

 vipoid wrote:
What might have been interesting is if maelstrom had random missions, but you only got 3 of them at the beginning of the game (no new ones are drawn) and had the entire game to complete them. Neither player sees his opponent's cards until the end of the game.

Of course, this would also require that the missions have a certain level of difficulty (so 'cast a psychic power' and such are out), are possible (so, no killing a flier your opponent doesn't have), and all of similar difficulty and reward.

Hell, it might work to just give each player 3 cards with different numbers on them - which represent the objectives they have to hold at the end of the game. Neither player sees his opponent's cards, so they don't know what objectives the other needs to win.

Anything like that would, I think, be a lot better.

One thing I'd like to add is that stuff like "victory points for each destroyed enemy unit" probably isn't a good idea when IK armies are a thing.

"Okay, so far I've destroyed 3 50pt guardsman squads and 2 65pt chimeras. That's 5 victory points for me."
"Well, I've destroyed a 400pt Imperial Knight... guess that's one victory point for me."

You can blame 7th edition for including all the pros of LoW but not their cons (ie +1 to Seize, 1 VP for every three HP/wounds inflicted). Because, you know, reasons.

Maelstrom is the best thing that has happened to 40K since I picked up this game. It turned static games of gunline play and fly the skimmer on top of the objective turn 5, into a dynamic, rewarding game.

Now of course you can't play Maelstrom as is, it needs a few tweaks. Most of our games use a nice mix of Maelstrom (3-4 cards per turn, discard all impossible cards immediately and one of your chosing at the end of your turn, tactical Warlord traits forbidden), Eternal War and secondaries (First blood, Warlord, Linebreaker). Mission-wise, 7th ed is the best 40K has ever been.

On the flip side, GW has completely given up on their attempts to produce balanced rules. They have basically said 'sod it and let the players sort it out between them'. Play testing is gone. A game of 40K has never required as much social contracting as it currently does. To not waste hours of your life you're forced to agree upon a lot of things before a game.

Allies, Flyers, Free Stuff (summoning and formation special rules), the death of the FOC slot and introduction of Apocalypse rules (Superheavies, GMCs, D-weapons) are breaking the game and needs to be reigned in. As per usual, this is done by tournament organizers.

 vipoid wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
What about the added dynamics which come from objectives changing through the battle to another which you can't foresee 100 %? Is that a big loss or wouldn't they be missed?

Well, I certainly wouldn't miss it. To me, it doesn't come across as dynamic so much as schizophrenic.

As someone who was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2004, I take offense at that remark.

Wikipedia wrote:Schizophrenia is a mental disorder often characterized by abnormal social behavior and failure to recognize what is real.

It should be noted that schizophrenia is not dissociative identity disorder, and I believe that the latter was meant.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I wonder how much better Maelstrom would be if GW put some thought into it and gave each race their own deck, so the IG one would be mostly hold objectives in your deployment zone and only 1 'kill a unit in assault' card that gave a tong of VPs.

...

I agree. The basic idea of Maelstrom is not inherently bad, but GW as so often happens did a half-arsed job of thinking it through so the in-game implementation is pretty crappy.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:Schizophrenia is a mental disorder often characterized by abnormal social behavior and failure to recognize what is real.

It should be noted that schizophrenia is not dissociative identity disorder, and I believe that the latter was meant.

I meant it in more of the sense where someone calls a group of people idiots, and then someone else pipes up with, "That's offensive to idiots."

Except instead of idiocy, it's schizophrenia.

But your way was good too. : D

 Pouncey wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
What about the added dynamics which come from objectives changing through the battle to another which you can't foresee 100 %? Is that a big loss or wouldn't they be missed?

Well, I certainly wouldn't miss it. To me, it doesn't come across as dynamic so much as schizophrenic.

As someone who was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2004, I take offense at that remark.

I'm sorry if you found it offensive, but I believe my usage was accurate:

"(in general use) a mentality or approach characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements."

7th is doing really well where I am. My LFGS is really busy and we're running out of space and terrains some days. Monday game night sees almost 20 players each week, considerably more than before. However, for us I think the upswing is due to better organisation.

I'm a big Maelstrom fan. Sure it's flawed, but it's a darn sight more interesting then castle in your deployment zone and flat out the skimmer/bike to an objective turn 5.

I guess maelstrom was only an improvement who did not use their own missions which forced the players to move, before.

For me those were a step back but we were playing NovaOpen style missions still the end of 4th edition.

What if only Infantry and maybe Jump Infantry were Scoring units. Wouldn't this reduce much of the negativity from taking an objective in the last turn by a very fast unit?

We could even go back to only allowing troops to score.

 vipoid wrote:
We could even go back to only allowing troops to score.

Wouldn't affect Eldar too much.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
We could even go back to only allowing troops to score.

Wouldn't affect Eldar too much.

Few rules do...

Maelstrom and the old scoring on the last turn aren't the only two ways to do things...

There is a middle ground. For example scoring each turn and just tallying the VPs at the end so someone holding them for 4 turns straight ends up with 4 VPs vs the 1 VP the guy who steals the objectives at the last minute gets.

 ChazSexington wrote:
7th is doing really well where I am. My LFGS is really busy and we're running out of space and terrains some days. Monday game night sees almost 20 players each week, considerably more than before. However, for us I think the upswing is due to better organisation.

Monday game nights what kind of monsters play games on the evilest day of the week.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Maelstrom and the old scoring on the last turn aren't the only two ways to do things...

There is a middle ground. For example scoring each turn and just tallying the VPs at the end so someone holding them for 4 turns straight ends up with 4 VPs vs the 1 VP the guy who steals the objectives at the last minute gets.

Depends what type of game your after

Eternal War promotes static shooty castles, with small mobile units that hide until turn 5
Maelstrom promotes highly mobile lists
Your method promotes durable ob sec lists

Bartali wrote:

Eternal War promotes static shooty castles, with small mobile units that hide until turn 5
Maelstrom promotes highly mobile lists

I've yet to see any evidence of this.

I see at least as much movement - if not more - in EW missions.

Agreed, shooty castles are a player preference. Those players that like them will apply them to any game, regardless of mission rules.

Maelstrom promotes speed over anything else. So you get this bizarre situation of two armies largely ignoring each other while running in circles.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Maelstrom promotes speed over anything else. So you get this bizarre situation of two armies largely ignoring each other while running in circles.

The thing is, I don't actually see much movement in maelstrom games. Or, if I do, it's very one-sided.

One player inevitably gets cards that require him to capture objectives he's already sitting on in his deployment zone, or cast a psychic power, or shoot some enemies to death. All missions that require next to no movement on his part. Often the other player is stuck trying to capture his opponent's objectives, or capture *every* objective.

I really do like Maelstrom. Outside of the Relic, which barely changes up the normal Eternal War missions, I hate EW. Your objectives are mostly inconsequential for 90% of the game. On Turn 5 or 6 it becomes "Oh crap, run and grab that!" Other than that, it's stand back and fire at your opponent.

Maelstrom, despite it's randomness, is more enjoyable because I find myself having to think and split up my forces beyond "Okay, keep all those units over here, and shoot the other guy." I also find myself actually using the Run moves to get my guys in position or capture an objective. I've even split ICs off to try to get 2 objectives, rather than keep my IC in his bodyshield group.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:
7th is doing really well where I am. My LFGS is really busy and we're running out of space and terrains some days. Monday game night sees almost 20 players each week, considerably more than before. However, for us I think the upswing is due to better organisation.

Monday game nights what kind of monsters play games on the evilest day of the week.

My entire club does

I usually lose via tabling, so this debate is meaningless to me.

 vipoid wrote:

Bartali wrote:

Eternal War promotes static shooty castles, with small mobile units that hide until turn 5
Maelstrom promotes highly mobile lists

I've yet to see any evidence of this.

I see at least as much movement - if not more - in EW missions.

I suspect it's going to be much more down to the individual armies and the players than the mission types.

 vipoid wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
We could even go back to only allowing troops to score.

Wouldn't affect Eldar too much.

Few rules do...

Windriders should be Fast Attack really.

Windriders shouldn't exist, really. Neither should the scatterlaser.

Martel732 wrote:
Windriders shouldn't exist, really. Neither should the scatterlaser.

I don't mind the Scatterlaser existing. I do mind it existing on 27pt Jetbikes.

Or just lose Relentless on Bikes.

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Windriders shouldn't exist, really. Neither should the scatterlaser.

I don't mind the Scatterlaser existing. I do mind it existing on 27pt Jetbikes.

It's such an obnoxious weapon; especially with hull points. It's been obnoxious since it was introduced.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Or just lose Relentless on Bikes.

Well, bikes are certainly in dire need of a few wallops with the nerf-bat.

Martel732 wrote:

It's such an obnoxious weapon; especially with hull points. It's been obnoxious since it was introduced.

Isn't it just a multilaser with an extra shot?

In any case, I'd say the problem is more with Hull Points, tbh. It was a badly thought-out rule that made it trivial to glance many vehicles to death, whilst rendering a lot of specialised anti-vehicle weapons virtually worthless.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Or just lose Relentless on Bikes.

+1

Why are Bikes vehicle hybrids in the first place? Jinking 12" moves with Hammer of Wrath that give units +1 Toughness and sometimes +1 armor save isn't enough? They're already superior to Jump packs. Leave the relentless stuff for terminator types.

If they want to be able to assault while firing Rapid Fire weapons then just give them a rule that ignores the effects of Rapid Fire. They shouldn't be steady enough to fire anti-tank missiles while dodging enemy fire and navigating terrain on two-wheel suspension.

 Frozocrone wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
We could even go back to only allowing troops to score.

Wouldn't affect Eldar too much.

Few rules do...

Windriders should be Fast Attack really.

All of the yes. A whole bucket of yes. Please.

 vipoid wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
Or just lose Relentless on Bikes.

Well, bikes are certainly in dire need of a few wallops with the nerf-bat.

Martel732 wrote:

It's such an obnoxious weapon; especially with hull points. It's been obnoxious since it was introduced.

Isn't it just a multilaser with an extra shot?

In any case, I'd say the problem is more with Hull Points, tbh. It was a badly thought-out rule that made it trivial to glance many vehicles to death, whilst rendering a lot of specialised anti-vehicle weapons virtually worthless.

It's a multilaser with an extra shot that is an option on every Eldar heavy weapon slot in the army. If guard could take units with six multilasers, I'd complain about that too. Platforms matter a lot, and Imperial heavy weapon platforms suck out loud for the most part.

Honestly, a lot of the bike rules could stand to be removed. I can maybe see Jetbikes jinking, but normal bikes? Really?

Also, +1 Toughness is dubious enough without also applying to ID.

Martel732 wrote:
It's a multilaser with an extra shot that is an option on every Eldar heavy weapon slot in the army. If guard could take units with six multilasers, I'd complain about that too. Platforms matter a lot, and Imperial heavy weapon platforms suck out loud for the most part.

Ah, so your problem is more with the availability of the weapon. That makes more sense.

Yeah, if Eldar had to deploy them the way the guard did, it would be fine. But some Eldar lists have 30 or more of the damn things. Really, GW?

Imagine if every space marine could take PGs. Not every squad, but every marine could take one.

You may not see 10 per squad, maybe 6-7 per squad, but it would change the game since marines could start killing a lot more with one turn of shooting. This would be worse if we are talking heavy weapons being able to fire on a relentless platform.

That is effectively what they did with wind riders.

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's a multilaser with an extra shot that is an option on every Eldar heavy weapon slot in the army. If guard could take units with six multilasers, I'd complain about that too. Platforms matter a lot, and Imperial heavy weapon platforms suck out loud for the most part.

Ah, so your problem is more with the availability of the weapon. That makes more sense.

Makes a ton of sense too. I certainly don't have any bikes capable of bringing an entire unit of 3-shot Heavy weapons. A Havoc squad can bring 4 heavy weapons at best and doesn't benefit from the toughness, speed, jinking, or relentless. Being able to spam Heavy weapons is strong on its own. Being able to do it on a Jetbike platform is just ludicrous when most players can't even do it with their heavy weapon foot-sloggers.

Forge the narrative - they continously bunnyhop.

Akiasura wrote:
Imagine if every space marine could take PGs. Not every squad, but every marine could take one.

You may not see 10 per squad, maybe 6-7 per squad, but it would change the game since marines could start killing a lot more with one turn of shooting. This would be worse if we are talking heavy weapons being able to fire on a relentless platform.

That is effectively what they did with wind riders.

And 36" range. That's really the worst part. And why the scatterlaser is so much better than the more expensive AC. Rending is a gak rule to trade for 12" of range.

Akiasura wrote:
Imagine if every space marine could take PGs. Not every squad, but every marine could take one.

You may not see 10 per squad, maybe 6-7 per squad, but it would change the game since marines could start killing a lot more with one turn of shooting. This would be worse if we are talking heavy weapons being able to fire on a relentless platform.

That is effectively what they did with wind riders.

We can sort of do that with Chosen. Five plasma guns plus a champion with a combi-plasma. Problem is it costs 193 pts minimum to do that for a squad of 6 Chosen. They also have Toughness 4 and no Jetbikes.

Again, I think it comes down to the platform.

Even with a shorter range, can you imagine Scatterbikes with rending guns?

 Arkaine wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Imagine if every space marine could take PGs. Not every squad, but every marine could take one.

You may not see 10 per squad, maybe 6-7 per squad, but it would change the game since marines could start killing a lot more with one turn of shooting. This would be worse if we are talking heavy weapons being able to fire on a relentless platform.

That is effectively what they did with wind riders.

We can sort of do that with Chosen. Five plasma guns plus a champion with a combi-plasma. Problem is it costs 193 pts minimum to do that for a squad of 6 Chosen. They also have Toughness 4 and no Jetbikes.

Plus scatterlasers are way better than plasma guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
Again, I think it comes down to the platform.

Even with a shorter range, can you imagine Scatterbikes with rending guns?

At least they'd be taking return fire from my 24" guns. To be honest, scatterlasers generate so many wounds that rending is actually worthless to them. I guess not against Riptides. In contrast, the Imperium can field so few assault cannons that rending is also worthless for them.

 vipoid wrote:
Again, I think it comes down to the platform.

Even with a shorter range, can you imagine Scatterbikes with rending guns?

I would to point out that Eldar can make that happen.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Again, I think it comes down to the platform.

Even with a shorter range, can you imagine Scatterbikes with rending guns?

I would to point out that Eldar can make that happen.

Misfortune?

 Arkaine wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Imagine if every space marine could take PGs. Not every squad, but every marine could take one.

You may not see 10 per squad, maybe 6-7 per squad, but it would change the game since marines could start killing a lot more with one turn of shooting. This would be worse if we are talking heavy weapons being able to fire on a relentless platform.

That is effectively what they did with wind riders.

We can sort of do that with Chosen. Five plasma guns plus a champion with a combi-plasma. Problem is it costs 193 pts minimum to do that for a squad of 6 Chosen. They also have Toughness 4 and no Jetbikes.

True, though chosen are a lot more expensive to do that with when compared to marines. If Pgs were a bit cheaper, like the bikes are...I'd actually start taking infantry in swarms again.
Chosen with a cheap pod and plasma guns would be really good, I'd certainly start taking them.

Agree that relentless and the 36" range 4 shot nature of the scat laser is what hurts the most.

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Again, I think it comes down to the platform.

Even with a shorter range, can you imagine Scatterbikes with rending guns?

I would to point out that Eldar can make that happen.

Misfortune?

Yup. On top of making the squad twin-linked.

The sick part is that you could build an Eldar list with zero scatterlasers that would still be quite good.

Martel732 wrote:
The sick part is that you could build an Eldar list with almost anything in the codex that would still be quite good.

Fixed that for you.

Like how much better the Wraith LORD is than pretty much any marine vehicle, but then the Wraith KNIGHT is so much better than that that I never so Wraithlords anymore.

Martel732 wrote:
Like how much better the Wraith LORD is than pretty much any marine vehicle, but then the Wraith KNIGHT is so much better than that that I never so Wraithlords anymore.

I remember back in 5th, comparing Wraithlords to Carnifex. The Wraithlord had 1 less wound and (IIRC) 1 less attack, but had better WS, BS, S, T, and I, on top of being a gun-platform.

And, as you say, that was before the WK arrived.

"I know, since it's a big Wraithlord, we'll make it like 2 Wraithlords strapped together. And then give it much better weapons. And then nerf Wraithlords. And then give the Wraithknight I5. And a 12" Jump move."

 vipoid wrote:

Bartali wrote:

Eternal War promotes static shooty castles, with small mobile units that hide until turn 5
Maelstrom promotes highly mobile lists

I've yet to see any evidence of this.

I see at least as much movement - if not more - in EW missions.

There's a bat rep on Youtube - look under Long War, IG vs BA. IG player sets up, BA player drop pods in. No movement and it is just literally each playing taking it in turns to roll buckets of dice (apologies if I missed anything, I skimmed through it).
Saw a lot of games like this in 6th, and I can see a lot of lists on here and elsewhere that are very similar, and aren't very dynamic outside of deployment.

I don't want to criticise Eternal War missions too much as it sounds as though a lot of people have fun playing them (and there's no such thing as wrong fun). I just prefer Maelstrom.

You think that if IG played maelstrom, they would play and set up differently? If an army wasn't give options for being "dynamic" it is codex, then it won't be.

Bartali wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Bartali wrote:

Eternal War promotes static shooty castles, with small mobile units that hide until turn 5
Maelstrom promotes highly mobile lists

I've yet to see any evidence of this.

I see at least as much movement - if not more - in EW missions.

There's a bat rep on Youtube - look under Long War, IG vs BA. IG player sets up, BA player drop pods in. No movement and it is just literally each playing taking it in turns to roll buckets of dice (apologies if I missed anything, I skimmed through it).
Saw a lot of games like this in 6th, and I can see a lot of lists on here and elsewhere that are very similar, and aren't very dynamic outside of deployment.

I don't want to criticise Eternal War missions too much as it sounds as though a lot of people have fun playing them (and there's no such thing as wrong fun). I just prefer Maelstrom.

I am surprised to hear that the BA did not move, usually they would assault right in after droppodding. However as a long time IG veteran I can honestly say that it is a rare sight to see us moving within a game. Our army is slow and squishy and our few mobile options vastly over priced. Even in a Maelstrom I will usually just sit back and blitz my opponent fro across the board as moving closer is kind of like running towards a honey badger butt naked and with your genitals smeared in pheromones. Your Guardsmen get shredded by enemy shooting then minced in close combat and your big expensive (read "overpriced") tanks either get flanked and blown up or are left stranded without support and get hit by DS troops and blown up.
The only times I ever move are to reposition my lines/guns and to respond to any major threats/run away from enemy troops.

Makumba wrote:
You think that if IG played maelstrom, they would play and set up differently? If an army wasn't give options for being "dynamic" it is codex, then it won't be.

All codexes are dynamic. It's only player bias that's static.

SJ

Removed by insaniak.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Bartali wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Bartali wrote:

Eternal War promotes static shooty castles, with small mobile units that hide until turn 5
Maelstrom promotes highly mobile lists

I've yet to see any evidence of this.

I see at least as much movement - if not more - in EW missions.

There's a bat rep on Youtube - look under Long War, IG vs BA. IG player sets up, BA player drop pods in. No movement and it is just literally each playing taking it in turns to roll buckets of dice (apologies if I missed anything, I skimmed through it).
Saw a lot of games like this in 6th, and I can see a lot of lists on here and elsewhere that are very similar, and aren't very dynamic outside of deployment.

I don't want to criticise Eternal War missions too much as it sounds as though a lot of people have fun playing them (and there's no such thing as wrong fun). I just prefer Maelstrom.

I am surprised to hear that the BA did not move, usually they would assault right in after droppodding. However as a long time IG veteran I can honestly say that it is a rare sight to see us moving within a game. Our army is slow and squishy and our few mobile options vastly over priced. Even in a Maelstrom I will usually just sit back and blitz my opponent fro across the board as moving closer is kind of like running towards a honey badger butt naked and with your genitals smeared in pheromones. Your Guardsmen get shredded by enemy shooting then minced in close combat and your big expensive (read "overpriced") tanks either get flanked and blown up or are left stranded without support and get hit by DS troops and blown up.
The only times I ever move are to reposition my lines/guns and to respond to any major threats/run away from enemy troops.

It's illegal to assault right after drop podding. You must mean the turn AFTER the BA army got shot to death.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
You think that if IG played maelstrom, they would play and set up differently? If an army wasn't give options for being "dynamic" it is codex, then it won't be.

All codexes are dynamic. It's only player bias that's static.

SJ

If an IG player tries to be dynamic his dudes get killed faster, then if they remain static with no garente that they will actualy reach the objective turn 1 and survive. They aren't cheaper then other units objective takers, they aren't resilient, they aren't faster or more killy. Sure can I load em up in chimeras and drive up turn one. It just means the game ends a turn or two faster. Which means less play time for me.

Makumba wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
You think that if IG played maelstrom, they would play and set up differently? If an army wasn't give options for being "dynamic" it is codex, then it won't be.

All codexes are dynamic. It's only player bias that's static.

SJ

If an IG player tries to be dynamic his dudes get killed faster, then if they remain static with no garente that they will actualy reach the objective turn 1 and survive. They aren't cheaper then other units objective takers, they aren't resilient, they aren't faster or more killy. Sure can I load em up in chimeras and drive up turn one. It just means the game ends a turn or two faster. Which means less play time for me.

Case in point.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
You think that if IG played maelstrom, they would play and set up differently? If an army wasn't give options for being "dynamic" it is codex, then it won't be.

All codexes are dynamic. It's only player bias that's static.

SJ

If an IG player tries to be dynamic his dudes get killed faster, then if they remain static with no garente that they will actualy reach the objective turn 1 and survive. They aren't cheaper then other units objective takers, they aren't resilient, they aren't faster or more killy. Sure can I load em up in chimeras and drive up turn one. It just means the game ends a turn or two faster. Which means less play time for me.

Case in point.

SJ

That's not a case in point unless you can point out good objective takers that he is choosing not to use...or use correctly.

You know I could be playing an IG list that is actual a counts as eldar or necron army, and then I wouldn't have the problems. So he may be right.

Makumba wrote:
You know I could be playing an IG list that is actual a counts as eldar or necron army, and then I wouldn't have the problems. So he may be right.

Or even a count-as SM army. Chimeras are Rhinos or Razorbacks, Leman Russ Can be Demolishers or Predators, Wyverns can be Whirlwinds, Ogryn/Bullgryn can be Terminators or Centurions, Rough Riders can be bikers etc.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
You think that if IG played maelstrom, they would play and set up differently? If an army wasn't give options for being "dynamic" it is codex, then it won't be.

All codexes are dynamic. It's only player bias that's static.

SJ

If an IG player tries to be dynamic his dudes get killed faster, then if they remain static with no garente that they will actualy reach the objective turn 1 and survive. They aren't cheaper then other units objective takers, they aren't resilient, they aren't faster or more killy. Sure can I load em up in chimeras and drive up turn one. It just means the game ends a turn or two faster. Which means less play time for me.

Case in point.

SJ

Could you respond to anything with something other than an off-the-cuff meaningless platitude that actually argues the point?

 vipoid wrote:

Makumba wrote:
You know I could be playing an IG list that is actual a counts as eldar or necron army, and then I wouldn't have the problems. So he may be right.

Or even a count-as SM army. Chimeras are Rhinos or Razorbacks, Leman Russ Can be Demolishers or Predators, Wyverns can be Whirlwinds, Ogryn/Bullgryn can be Terminators or Centurions, Rough Riders can be bikers etc.

Hrm....

My original statement was that all codexes are dynamic, it is only player bias that is static. This was followed with a response filled with biased, static thinking, which proved my point.

So, please remind me, when did the AM codex lose all of it Chimera, Taurox, Valkyries, Sentinels, Rough Riders, and common sense?

SJ

Probably about the time that every Guard player that wasn't hit in the head, repeatedly, with a heavy rubber hose, for hours on end, realized that moving towards ANYTHING that can assault is a bad idea.

They didn't lose those things. But 5 tactical marines, in the side arc of a Chimera, will often destroy a Chimera by themselves in one turn. They would also kill any GEQ unit inside that Chimera, maybe over the course of 2 more turns.

Presuming you're within assault range, in the side arc, pretty easy to do if your Chimera is plowing forwards...

4x Bolt Pistol, 1x Thrown Krak Grenade, Average of 0.7777 HP [Typically, one HP inflicted]

5x Krak Grenade attacks in CC, Average of 1.6666 HP [Typically, two HP inflicted]

So that's why Guardsmen don't move forward towards their enemies. Literally, 70 points of Marines with no upgrades can take out 170 points of Veterans in a Chimera. Agreed, that those Vets would probably wreck the 5 Tactical Marines that wrecked their Chimera. At that point, ANYTHING ELSE that the Marine player has will kill the Veterans. If 2 of those tactical Marines make combat with the Veterans, they'll win combat.

Also, moving forwards diminishes your ability to kill things by shooting them. Closer proximity = fewer turns to shoot. It's not player "option" it's game mechanics dictating that the Guard can't move if they want to output damage. They can't move forward if they want to maximise the number of turns they can shoot things. They can't move forward if they want to maximise the survivability of their units.

It's accurate assessment of game mechanics.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
My original statement was that all codexes are dynamic, it is only player bias that is static. This was followed with a response filled with biased, static thinking, which proved my point.

So, please remind me, when did the AM codex lose all of it Chimera,

The Chimera isn't bad, but considering how easy it is to pop boxes nowadays, it's a bit overpriced for what you get.
Moving it forward, however, puts it from slightly above average to terrible. It has bad defense in assault, like most Imperial tanks, and it's firepower isn't enough to wipe out a marine squad before it gets assaulted.
It doesn't allow IG to be dynamic.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Taurox,

Has the defensive stats of a rhino while being more points and vastly weaker troops.
You can't take advantage of its superior firepower while moving forward, and it too will explode if any type of assault takes place.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Valkyries,

Guard don't have the toughness or numbers to take advantage of deepstriking tactics.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Sentinels, Rough Riders,

Come on now, sentinels have 10 armor and 2 HP. They are raiders that can't jink, they will not live past turn 2 against any opponent. They might score you objectives on turn 1, but they'll quickly die.
Rough riders also explode if anything looks at them funny. They won't be moving around after turn 2-3.
Neither of these units will be surviving long enough to claim objectives or moving at all really.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

and common sense?

SJ

In order to capture objectives, you really need to be able to do the following well;
Move quickly. The Imperial Guard have some units that are capable of this, which you did list, although t hey certainly are not the fastest in the game by any stretch.

Have good defensive stats. The units that move quickly lack defensive stats, especially when they move forward and expose their side and rear armor. The troops rely on cover to survive as well. When you play them defensively you can leave them in cover, but if you want to move them forward, you can't always get a cover save.

Do not lose firepower from movement. IG are already not the strongest shooting army in the game (times have changed indeed) and they really can't afford to lose any firepower by moving them forward quickly.

Compare what you listed to WS, Scatbikes, Drop Pods, Teleporting Cents, Wraiths. Those are units that have speed, toughness, and amazing firepower. IG don't have units that move forward effectively, and their best units perform better if they are static. That's not the fault of the player, its simply the strength of the army at present.

I am eager to see what will happen to Guards in their next codex. They indeed need more mobility and offensive options to make them more in line with the faster pace of the 7th edition. The option for having fast Taurox (outside of Taurox prime), improved Scions (maybe with stealth), cheaper Taurox prime, better heavy artillery, the return of lumbering behemoth which made the Leman Russ slow but still a good mobile platform with heavy firepower. A bone to Rough Riders and Bullgryn and maybe a new speedy flyer and they would be in goog position to join the average army. These are simple and very possible changes. We will have to keep our finger crossed.

epronovost wrote:
I am eager to see what will happen to Guards in their next codex. They indeed need more mobility and offensive options to make them more in line with the faster pace of the 7th edition. The option for having fast Taurox (outside of Taurox prime), improved Scions (maybe with stealth), cheaper Taurox prime, better heavy artillery, the return of lumbering behemoth which made the Leman Russ slow but still a good mobile platform with heavy firepower. A bone to Rough Riders and Bullgryn and maybe a new speedy flyer and they would be in goog position to join the average army. These are simple and very possible changes. We will have to keep our finger crossed.

New Rumor is that we're not getting a new codex anytime soon. Just the campaign book.

Lasguns kill Power Armor and Terminators, Multilaser kill Rhinos, and all those Lascannons kill the Land Raiders no one takes anymore. Mechanized IG is still really good in game with terrain and Maelstrom style objectives. A dynamic mind rather than a static mind. Those Marine you seem to fear struggle to kill AV12, by the way. Not every Marine totes a combi-Grav.

And why do you remotely care about Assaults? Each enemy unit stuck in combat with a platoon of Guard is a useless unit, effectively out of the game until the last Guardsman dies. And once that last guy dies, you can then dump dice into wiping them out with massed fire. Because massed, budget shooting is what the Guard does.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
My original statement was that all codexes are dynamic, it is only player bias that is static. This was followed with a response filled with biased, static thinking, which proved my point.

So, please remind me, when did the AM codex lose all of it Chimera, Taurox, Valkyries, Sentinels, Rough Riders, and common sense?

SJ

If someone lists rough riders as a viable unit then that throws up a giant question mark.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Lasguns kill Power Armor and Terminators, Multilaser kill Rhinos, and all those Lascannons kill the Land Raiders no one takes anymore. Mechanized IG is still really good in game with terrain and Maelstrom style objectives. A dynamic mind rather than a static mind. Those Marine you seem to fear struggle to kill AV12, by the way. Not every Marine totes a combi-Grav.

And why do you remotely care about Assaults? Each enemy unit stuck in combat with a platoon of Guard is a useless unit, effectively out of the game until the last Guardsman dies. And once that last guy dies, you can then dump dice into wiping them out with massed fire. Because massed, budget shooting is what the Guard does.

SJ

Please tell me. How are these magical Lascannons popping AV14? 4's to hit (most of the time) 5+ to even get a glancing hit, let alone a penetrating hit. Single Shot AT weapons are terrible, and given Guard BS it's even worse. It's been my experience that the only real thing we have that Marines have to fear is a Punisher w/Pask (which is also really easy to kill). And why do we care about assault? Because we suck at assault, all it takes is a few casualties and that blob is running (unless you decide to invest in priests, in which case the cost of the blob will start to rapidly rise). With all the str6+ firepower that exists today my Chimeras usually don't last past turn 2. Is it because I'm a "static player"? Is it because I'm a bad player? Maybe. Or just maybe, it's because vehicles aren't that good anymore. The only really good thing Guard has anymore is Wyverns, and cheap Vets loaded to the gills with Plasma.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


Lasguns kill Power Armor and Terminators,

True, to a degree.
It takes 18 shots (assuming BS 3) to kill power armor, it takes 36 shots to kill terminator armor on average (1/18 chance, 1/36 chance I believe)
It's really the special weapons that do the heavy lifting for the guard as well. Their orders certainly help, but not as much as you'd think.

You could have 10 guys fire lasguns and it will only drop ~1 marine in rapid fire range.
Plasma shots do 5/12 wounds (no cover) 10/36 (with cover), so plasma guns are doing the heavy lifting (same for terminators if you use the latter number and they lack storm shields). But you put the special weapons on the vet squads usually.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Multilaser kill Rhinos, and all those Lascannons kill the Land Raiders no one takes anymore.

A multilaser won't often kill the rhino before it does it's job. Often the rhino isn't even needed as something that holds troops...you take 3 pods, maybe some empty rhinos to pop smoke and block LoS and that's it.
Lascannons are pretty overpriced, but they certainly will get the job done. Again, you'll need 4-6 at least to kill most tanks, never mind something like a WS or Riptide, where it gets even worse.

But this is besides the point. The only thing that was mentioned is that none of the tanks you mentioned are tough once the side and rear armor is exposed, and that they lose firepower by moving too quickly forward. A multi-laser or Lascannon has nothing to do with it.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Mechanized IG is still really good in game with terrain and Maelstrom style objectives. A dynamic mind rather than a static mind. Those Marine you seem to fear struggle to kill AV12, by the way. Not every Marine totes a combi-Grav.

If it was AV 12 all around, sure. It's not though, once in assault it's carried out against the rear armor, and Marines can pop it in one round then.
Marines also usually come with melta and plasma. Plasma does struggle against AV 12 (I want to say the marines, if firing all of their weapons, will probably only do 1-2 HP) but that's why people keep the chimeras back. If you move them forward, and the marines assault, they will most likely kill the transport.

And nobody fears basic marines. I could mention Necron warriors, various units from eldar, Grey Hunters (who would love to be charged when the guardsmen pop out), tau suits or other units...most armies don't really worry about AV 12. Most armies excel at killing AV 12.
I picked marines because they are a pretty bad troop choice.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

And why do you remotely care about Assaults?

Because you are moving forward? Normally assault isn't a big deal unless you are facing a very fast unit like wraiths or TWC, but if you are going to move forward...

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Each enemy unit stuck in combat with a platoon of Guard is a useless unit, effectively out of the game until the last Guardsman dies. And once that last guy dies, you can then dump dice into wiping them out with massed fire. Because massed, budget shooting is what the Guard does.

SJ

They don't assault the guard unless they can wipe them in 2 phases or less. They assault the transport and the guard pours out, then the guard are eliminated by another unit shooting the poor guardsmen in the open.
If you want a unit that does well in CC and lasts forever, take a conscript blob with some allies in front, priest, and commissar. That unit works fine. A regular guard blob isn't nearly as big a deal in CC.

If the guardsmen want to charge my marines, that's fine. I can always charge something else in there and wipe them. It's just a few guardsmen. If you spend points upgrading them to a real threat in melee that'll stay, your firepower is reduced and I can use longer range options to pop the chimeras and rob you of your mobility.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
My original statement was that all codexes are dynamic, it is only player bias that is static. This was followed with a response filled with biased, static thinking, which proved my point.

Simply stating that their response was biased and static, without addressing any arguments, doesn't actually say anything...

So, please remind me, when did the AM codex lose all of it Chimera, Taurox, Valkyries, Sentinels, Rough Riders, and common sense?

SJ

They have all of those. The problem is they don't function terribly well.

Yes, IG have RR's. They die like normal guardsmen, but cost twice as much, being only very marginally cheaper than many other, far more effective units, and only have any sort of killing power for a single round of close combat *if* they get the charge and not the opponent. There are strong reasons why you don't see these guys on tables, ever. One *does* see Death Riders in DKoK lists, but they've got 2 wounds, 6+ FNP, a 4+ armor save, reroll dangerous terrain tests, WS4, and ignore 25% morale tests, though, even then, they're still not exactly spectacular.

Yes, the IG codex has Sentinels. Aside from Outflanking, they're no faster than anything else, and have the lifespan of gnats. AV10, HP2, and Open Topped is the vehicular equivalent of being a grot. Yes, they can give you some Scout/Outflanking gimmicks, but they they also die almost immediately .

Yes, IG have Valkyries. The problem is that Valkyries on their own cost, at best, as much as the unit they're transporting, and aside from simple transport don't offer any tremendous amount of firepower. So you're doubling or tripling the cost of an infantry unit for that mobility. In some sense that might be fine, but the problem is those infantry typically last one turn. They hop out of the Valk, shoot something with meltaguns or rapid-fire into something, and, in most cases, are usually quickly deleted soon after because IG troops die and/or break to a stiff breeze, and then you've got a worthless transport buzzing about, who's sole use then is plinking at random targets and hoping to jet into hover mode as a potential last-turn spoiler at best.

Yes, IG have Tauroxes. They're...well...bad. In a Marine army, these would be amazing. The problem is that they're not in a Marine army. The basic Taurox isn't faster than anything else is, and with its AV11, is usually the immediately identifiable weak spot in the armor-chain of otherwise AV12 & 14 vehicles, particularly when it lacks basic survival equipment like Smoke Launchers. An AV11 non-skimmer, non-Fast vehicle has relatively little value within the greater context of the IG army. It also wants to deploy infantry in the same manner as a Rhino. This would be fine if the infantry were Marines, but again, as with the Valkyrie, these are Guardsmen, and they die to a stiff breeze, which is a common thread here. Alternatively, there's also the Taurox Prime. This vehicle at least is Fast, so it's got that going for it, but is only available to Scion squads (horrifically overpriced and under-gunned Elites) and CCS's, so you're never going to have many. It also suffers from the problem of being very expensive, especially if you give it things like Smoke Launchers. If you kit these out as actual workhose units, they start to rival Russ tanks in cost.

Yes, the IG has Chimeras. These are both more expensive and less capable than in the previous codex, in an era where the core rules have really hammered this type of unit in general, particularly with the introduction of HP's. More to the point, it has the classic IG problem in that if it moves, it dies. It works great as a backfield bunker that can occasionally relocate, but if it actually has to advance and deliver troops then it runes into problems. It's a unit with respectable frontal armor, but tissue paper armor everywhere else, generally a grip of weapons that prefer firing at long ranges, and only one access point that works best at delivering infantry when by putting itself in its weakest possible position and pointing its one good armor value away from an enemy and exposing all of its very weak AV10 armor facings, in order to dump out infantry that, again, die to a stiff breeze.

Now, there are some ways to work around these things, but with the inflation in firepower, mobility, and resiliency of most other armies, coupled with the largely 5E-remnant nature of most of the IG army, trying to play "dynamic" highly mobile IG just doesn't work. We're not seeing IG armies fail to reach top tables at big tournaments just because everyone is "stuck being static", it's because the army literally just does not function that way, in large part by design as part of their character and in part because the army list was largely just a phone in slight re-hash of the 5E book.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Lasguns kill Power Armor and Terminators[/quiote] In theory they can. In practice not particularly well. An 10man squad of basic IG infantry rapid-firing lasguns will kill on average 1 single marine. Two squads will kill on average 1 single terminator. They are not effective tools in this sense, they are an afterthought of extraneous dice rolling.

[quore] Multilaser kill Rhinos

Much like Lasguns and Marines, not well. You need 6 Chimeras worth of multilaser fire to kill a Rhino on average through HP loss, assuming its not getting any cover saves.

and all those Lascannons kill the Land Raiders no one takes anymore.

IG actually are a really poor lascannon-spam army. IG don't utilize Lascannons particularly well with the singular exception of Vendettas. Their other options are largely limited to either single BS3 lascannons on things like Russ Tanks or Sentinels, or in infantry units. Within infantry units, you really have three options. One is the Vet squad, which gets you BS4, but largely fails to synergize with the 3 special weapons in terms of being able to effectively use them together. Another is Infantry Squads. These end up costing you 75pts apiece minimum for each BS3 Lascannon, not particularly stellar platforms. You last option is HWS's, which get you up to 3 Lascannons in a squad, but it's for 35pts each at BS3 on T3 5+sv Ld3 models that are forced to take a break test if even a single S6 hit gets through and can be wiped by a single assault cannon or Scatterbike.

Mechanized IG is still really good in game with terrain and Maelstrom style objectives.

I've never seen them perform particularly well, as what usually happens is that when they try to advance they open up and expose their line and get quickly cut to pieces, and still can't match the mobility of most other armies. In Maelstorm heavy tournaments, such armies routinely show very poorly.

A dynamic mind rather than a static mind. Those Marine you seem to fear struggle to kill AV12, by the way. Not every Marine totes a combi-Grav.

They don't need to. If those AV12 vehicles are running around being "dynamic", AV10 opens itself up quite easily, and likewise being able to drop-pod in with meltaguns solves a lot of those problems.

And why do you remotely care about Assaults? Each enemy unit stuck in combat with a platoon of Guard is a useless unit, effectively out of the game until the last Guardsman dies.

Only if you're talking about a blob platoon. Against just about literally any other IG unit, the IG unit auto-dies, and even with blobs, they're not the rock solid tarpits they used to be. Sure you may tie up that enemy unit, but that platoon likely costs more than that enemy unit too, so they're really keeping more of your forces tied down. That said, with things like Flayed Ones, Death Company, TWC's, or even just matching points worth of basic Assault marines thrown into them, they can absolutely be cut through, and Characters challenged-out. Hell, a trio of Thudnerfire cannons can wipe out a blob in one turn.

And once that last guy dies, you can then dump dice into wiping them out with massed fire.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


So, please remind me, when did the AM codex lose all of it Chimera, Taurox, Valkyries, Sentinels, Rough Riders, and common sense?

First turn if you play against Eldar or Tau.
Second turn against most other lists.

Common sense is lost after you get all the hold an objective cards while the Tau player only draw kill cards in maelstrom.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
My original statement was that all codexes are dynamic, it is only player bias that is static. This was followed with a response filled with biased, static thinking, which proved my point.

So, please remind me, when did the AM codex lose all of it Chimera, Taurox, Valkyries, Sentinels, Rough Riders, and common sense?

SJ

But taking those units and using them in a "dynamic" way does not help wining. Offten it ends with the IG player losing faster. What sense is there in taking something like a RR or squad in a Taurox, if those units die without achiving anything good for the IG player ? Non, and non of those units are free, they cost points, so taking and trying to be "dynamic" with those options not only doesn't help to win, but also limits the number of points one can spend on less bad units. Out of those 5 units you listed 4 are never used in IG lists, because they are so bad, and one is used because there are no other transport options for vets and those still don't help IG to win.

In a Marine army, these would be amazing. The problem is that they're not in a Marine army. The basic Taurox isn't faster than anything else is, and with its AV11, is usually the immediately identifiable weak spot in the armor-chain of otherwise AV12 & 14 vehicles, particularly when it lacks basic survival equipment like Smoke Launchers.

In marines the taurox would be good, because it would be 0pts cost in gladius lists.

20 guardsmen gunning down a Terminator. That is 100 points killing 40 points in one shooting phase. That is... really not that bad?

A tactical squad firing at guardsmen in the same situation kills 43 points, but costs ~150.

 Ashiraya wrote:
20 guardsmen gunning down a Terminator. That is 100 points killing 40 points in one shooting phase. That is... really not that bad?

20 guardsmen in rapid fire range...so next turn they are in assault range. Then they quickly lose to the terminators. I don't believe 20 guardsmen fit in a transport either.
Also, terminators are bad. Needing 2.5 turns to earn your points back (roughly half the game) against a bad unit isn't exactly great. Especially since the termies are firing at 24" and eliminating the guardsmen in greater number. Plasma does help here however.

 Ashiraya wrote:

A tactical squad firing at guardsmen in the same situation kills 43 points, but costs ~150.

Each bolter round does 4/9 outside of cover (which reduces this. So every marine will almost kill a guardsmen. If they have the right CT, re-rolling 1's, every marine will kill a guardsmen. The guardsmen will be dead in about 2 turns.
The guardsmen firing back at the marines will kill just over 2 tactical marines (barring doctrines) (so about 30 points a turn?). It will take them 4 turns to kill the tacts at rapid fire range, barring orders.
Really, the big problem of guardsmen is their point cost for special weapons combined with BS 3 and being on a fragile platform. If the special weapons guys could re-roll 1's they would be a lot better.

Though, again, tactical marines are terrible troops and really shouldn't be used as a baseline if a unit is good. I used them to compare because they are terrible, but still outperform the dynamic aspects of the IG.

If you want to see if a unit is good, compare them to the better troop choices. Fire warriors are pretty good, Necron troops, eldar wind riders, grey hunters aren't terrible (though not nearly as good as they used to be).
But the vast majority of armies have terrible troop choices. Most competitive lists take the bare minimum of troops or use FoC altering abilities to change what they have to take. Even in the guard you don't see the basic guardsmen spammed.

 Ashiraya wrote:
20 guardsmen gunning down a Terminator. That is 100 points killing 40 points in one shooting phase. That is... really not that bad?

When just looking at it like that, no (though now they're 35pts not 40 , but when we start looking at the model count, distance requirements, risk of retaliation, coordination requirements, it's really ineffective. Having to coordinate twenty models into range for that is often quite difficult, often from two different units (unless it's a blob platoon), and then they're also in perfect retaliation range as well for the other 165pts of stuff they failed to kill.

A tactical squad firing at guardsmen in the same situation kills 43 points, but costs ~150.

Sure, but that has different results as well. You're almost wiping the entire unit at that point, reducing retaliatory capability by a much greater amount, and can choose to use pistols instead and follow up with an assault, almost assuredly wiping the unit with probably zero casualties and no remnants left for retaliation. They can also utilize combat tactics to split units to better place their firepower where it best needs to be. Being able to wipe an entire unit practically will generally have a lot more value than just killing a single model, especially when the game doesn't count unit cost towards victory conditions at all anymore, but simple unit count.