You're incorrect, but even if you were, at least my imbalance would be more newbie friendly than the current imbalance. I'm pretty sure if someone new walked into your group and played a list that was built around one of the starter sets - Assault on Black Reach or Dark Vengeance - they'd get tabled in a couple turns and wind up having a terrible experience. The same player could walk into my group with the same army, and they probably wouldn't win, but they could at least make a game of it.
I'm just going to focus on this one piece (and I agree with your sentiment, a newb that buys a starter box and then tries to field it will get tabled in quick order... what happens next is the details of my response).
There are generally two modes of thought that dominate most gaming store communities when it comes to this event.
The first is that we want players to have fun, and that by fielding tournament style lists, we are smashing newbs and driving them out of the store and hobby because aint no one got time for that. That to avoid this, we should strive to field softer lists and tailor build for our opponents so that new players and casuals can have good games too, and competitive style players can have fun by you bringing a competitive list.
The second is that it is desirable to be as competitive as you can be 100% of the time and to smash newbs because it teaches newbs how to play in the meta. Destroying them shows them that they need to look at creating a stronger list and teaches them proper list building, and that if a newb quits because they get destroyed then they weren't really good for the game or the community anyway because they weren't going to offer up any real competition. That you won't learn if your opponents are fielding soft lists so that you can "have fun", because fielding soft lists is not "having fun" because when you come up against a real player fielding a real tournament powered list you will get pwned in short order and neither player will have fun.
Now for the follow up question... are either of these right or wrong?
I'd say no, they are neither right nor wrong, this is a culture thing and every store seems to have its own gamer culture within. The group and store I play in follow the first directive. There is another store nearby that does the same, and we have a tournament-dominated store that strongly follows the second directive in my city.
To the thread in general, my preference would be for list building to not be as heavily dominant as it is now. That every army in general should have tools to handle anything, and that the blatantly undercosted yet overpowered units should have their points adjusted. If you can open up a codex and in ten minutes figure out something is grotesquely busted, that is not a good game to me.
If I brought a CAD with devastators, tactical marines and assault marines, but no grav, why should I even bother unpacking my models to play a game with someone who brought wraithknights and scatter bikes?
Three Tactical Squads w/Plasma+Combi Plasma in Drop Pods can Combat Squad and force Jink and Morale Checks for six of those 3-man Jetbike Squads. You've got a decent chance to chase some of those Jetbikes off the board before they even fire.
Martel732 wrote: Then the Eldar start doing reserve shenanigans. Most Eldar players I know are well-versed in anti-alpha strike tactics.
Response A for Traditio: Good, we're playing the game!
Response B for Martel: The first round of Drop Tacticals set up near objectives roughly 15" from Eldar deployment line and prep for counter-attack. The second group of Drop Tacticals react to his reserve shenanigans. Assaults and Devastators supporting, obviously.
Traditio wrote: If I bring a cultist spam list and you bring an army of wyverns, what should my chances of winning be? I'll admit that that it should be less than 50 percent.
But if it's 0 or anywhere near 0, why should I even bother playing?
You shouldn't - but there's no reason for you to bring such a list, and if you choose to then on your own head be it.
The game system is balanced. The fact you can't kill tanks with Cultists doesn't change that.
Martel732 wrote: Then the Eldar start doing reserve shenanigans. Most Eldar players I know are well-versed in anti-alpha strike tactics.
Response A for Traditio: Good, we're playing the game!
Response B for Martel: The first round of Drop Tacticals set up near objectives roughly 15" from Eldar deployment line and prep for counter-attack. The second group of Drop Tacticals react to his reserve shenanigans. Assaults and Devastators supporting, obviously.
It doesn't work. I've seen Eldar beat marines trying that over and over and over. The nature of exactly what grab bag of insanity the Eldar are running determines the exact counter play, though. Tactical marines are a liability vs Eldar unless they are in free transports that they can hide in.
Traditio wrote: If I bring a cultist spam list and you bring an army of wyverns, what should my chances of winning be? I'll admit that that it should be less than 50 percent.
But if it's 0 or anywhere near 0, why should I even bother playing?
You shouldn't - but there's no reason for you to bring such a list, and if you choose to then on your own head be it.
The game system is balanced. The fact you can't kill tanks with Cultists doesn't change that.
The game system is not balanced because you can bring unit A that has the same job as B that does said job twice as good for half the points.
Martel732 wrote: The game system is not balanced because you can bring unit A that has the same job as B that does said job twice as good for half the points.
That's a problem with unit design, not core rules. We've been over this. Game system is balanced.
Martel732 wrote: The game system is not balanced because you can bring unit A that has the same job as B that does said job twice as good for half the points.
That's a problem with unit design, not core rules. We've been over this. Game system is balanced.
The core rules are meaningless without the context of the units, though. And I think a unit activation system would be a lot more fair.
It doesn't work. I've seen Eldar beat marines trying that over and over and over. The nature of exactly what grab bag of insanity the Eldar are running determines the exact counter play, though. Tactical marines are a liability vs Eldar unless they are in free transports that they can hide in.
It doesn't matter, you've already proven the point for me that the game can still be played. A Nub net-listing Eldar player not comprehending the importance of reserve shennanigans can get a nasty surprise from a good player with a suboptimal list.
It doesn't work. I've seen Eldar beat marines trying that over and over and over. The nature of exactly what grab bag of insanity the Eldar are running determines the exact counter play, though. Tactical marines are a liability vs Eldar unless they are in free transports that they can hide in.
It doesn't matter, you've already proven the point for me that the game can still be played. A Nub net-listing Eldar player not comprehending the importance of reserve shennanigans can get a nasty surprise from a good player with a suboptimal list.
If that's your bar, then I can't argue with that. My bar is much higher.
If that's your bar, then I can't argue with that. My bar is much higher.
Heh, don't look at me, the bar was artificially set by Traditio in the first place. "Tacticals, Assaults and Devastators (no grav) vs. Scatterbikes and WKs", and you and I have shown that generalship is still relevant.
We might disagree about the ideal importance of listbuilding, that's fine.
Martel732 wrote: The game system is not balanced because you can bring unit A that has the same job as B that does said job twice as good for half the points.
That's a problem with unit design, not core rules. We've been over this. Game system is balanced.
No it isn't. The game system offers three key methods of unit removal - shooting, assault and psychic.
While I'd agree that access to psychic offence and defence is a unit/faction design element, the core rules are inherently biased against assault. This could be resolved via unit design (chiefly discounting assault heavy units) but it stems from the core rules.
Martel732 wrote: We can agree to disagree about that. Every core rule set to me has been more or less okay until the codices get rolled out.
Right - so it's the Codexes, like I said, and not even all of those are bad.
They're pretty bad as a whole, because of the stratification. I will point out that the devil is in the details. BA are 90% identical to vanilla marines, and yet are far, far inferior because of a handful of differences.
If that's your bar, then I can't argue with that. My bar is much higher.
Heh, don't look at me, the bar was artificially set by Traditio in the first place. "Tacticals, Assaults and Devastators (no grav) vs. Scatterbikes and WKs", and you and I have shown that generalship is still relevant.
We might disagree about the ideal importance of listbuilding, that's fine.
I think your tacs, assaults and devs will get mercilessly stomped nearly every time. A gladius of said units might be able to win via objective spamming, but without gladius, I don't think that approach has any hope. You can make so bikes jink, but they're so crazy cheap that the Eldar player has plenty of other units to vaporize your marines with.
This is a pretty artificial question because it assumes that foolproof method exists for working out exact points equivalences when clearly that is a very difficult thing to pull off, especially for a game as complex and laden with detail as 40K. I challenge anyone to come up with a workable algorithm I bet it would be a horrendous nightmare. A much better question would be should all in-game options be as close to points efficient and playable as possible.
Isengard wrote: This is a pretty artificial question because it assumes that foolproof method exists for working out exact points equivalences when clearly that is a very difficult thing to pull off, especially for a game as complex and laden with detail as 40K. I challenge anyone to come up with a workable algorithm I bet it would be a horrendous nightmare. A much better question would be should all in-game options be as close to points efficient and playable as possible.
No, points have to be determined empirically, which is why GW doesn't do it.
Martel732 wrote: They're pretty bad as a whole, because of the stratification. I will point out that the devil is in the details. BA are 90% identical to vanilla marines, and yet are far, far inferior because of a handful of differences.
The Vanilla Marines Codex is gak, though. Thorough-going, no-holds-barred trash. Deathstars, Grav weapons and free transports keep it afloat, in the same way Vulkan Bikers did in 5th Edition. It's a book full of spam and gimmicks, relying on supplements to keep it from disappearing below the surface entirely. I don't own the BA book, but I'd suggest the reason BA are inferior to even this cacky book is because they don't get to use the same crutches. The books beyond Marines are better, albeit with a tendency towards monobuild-itis.
The fact sucky Codexes exist is not good, but it's not a strike against the fundamental balance of the game.
Martel732 wrote: They're pretty bad as a whole, because of the stratification. I will point out that the devil is in the details. BA are 90% identical to vanilla marines, and yet are far, far inferior because of a handful of differences.
The Vanilla Marines Codex is gak, though. Thorough-going, no-holds-barred trash. Deathstars, Grav weapons and free transports keep it afloat, in the same way Vulkan Bikers did in 5th Edition. It's a book full of spam and gimmicks, relying on supplements to keep it from disappearing below the surface entirely. I don't own the BA book, but I'd suggest the reason BA are inferior to even this cacky book is because they don't get to use the same crutches. The books beyond Marines are better, albeit with a tendency towards monobuild-itis.
The fact sucky Codexes exist is not good, but it's not a strike against the fundamental balance of the game.
Don't sucky codexes by definition upset the balance of the game?
Isengard wrote: This is a pretty artificial question because it assumes that foolproof method exists for working out exact points equivalences when clearly that is a very difficult thing to pull off, especially for a game as complex and laden with detail as 40K. I challenge anyone to come up with a workable algorithm I bet it would be a horrendous nightmare. A much better question would be should all in-game options be as close to points efficient and playable as possible.
No, points have to be determined empirically, which is why GW doesn't do it.
Part of the problem though is how to price hard counters. My Ordinatus Ulator will annihilate a Wraithknight in 1 shot easily (I have done 35 wounds to a WK in the past with a single shot), but a squad of Tau Firewarriors can one-shot an Ordinatus in one assault phase (though not since the FAQ).
Does that mean a squad of 12 Firewarriors should be more than 1075 points?
What about the Falchion Tank Hunter against a Warlord Titan? The Falchion will win every time, because it can outrun the Titan (on an infinite size board of course; should board size be priced into the units?) and will always keep it from firing its guns because all of the Warlord Titan's guns are blast while the Falchion has a Neutron Wave Capacitor which will force the TItan to snapfire if it hits with a blast, which it won't miss because the Titan is so large it is impossible to scatter off of even with a full 8" scatter, and the Titan cannot be hidden.
But without point values conferred by the codices, how can you make any balance judgments? I myself can't tell much about a system until I see the units for said system in context. Assault in 7th ed would be fine if most assault units were cheap. But they're not, which makes them trash because the core rules favor shooting.
Isengard wrote: This is a pretty artificial question because it assumes that foolproof method exists for working out exact points equivalences when clearly that is a very difficult thing to pull off, especially for a game as complex and laden with detail as 40K. I challenge anyone to come up with a workable algorithm I bet it would be a horrendous nightmare. A much better question would be should all in-game options be as close to points efficient and playable as possible.
No, points have to be determined empirically, which is why GW doesn't do it.
Part of the problem though is how to price hard counters. My Ordinatus Ulator will annihilate a Wraithknight in 1 shot easily (I have done 35 wounds to a WK in the past with a single shot), but a squad of Tau Firewarriors can one-shot an Ordinatus in one assault phase (though not since the FAQ).
Does that mean a squad of 12 Firewarriors should be more than 1075 points?
What about the Falchion Tank Hunter against a Warlord Titan? The Falchion will win every time, because it can outrun the Titan (on an infinite size board of course; should board size be priced into the units?) and will always keep it from firing its guns because all of the Warlord Titan's guns are blast while the Falchion has a Neutron Wave Capacitor which will force the TItan to snapfire if it hits with a blast, which it won't miss because the Titan is so large it is impossible to scatter off of even with a full 8" scatter, and the Titan cannot be hidden.
Should Falchions cost more than 3000 points?
It means the scale of the game is out of whack and more or less incompatible with any semblance of good balance.
And quite frankly, there comes a point when you look at the rules and seriously ask if its reasonable to have rules where individual models are moved and jump in front of each one at a time in a game with giant 2000+pts models.
If you want balance with models that small all the way to models that large, you'd need a streamlined, simplified rule set geared towards the larger models, like what Epic was. If you want to play what 40k more or less is right now, you just can't balance those massive units effectively.
It's the scale of things, trying to encompass details at the infantry model level, where none should exist in the context of such large scale units. When a Knight is individually worth the better part of an IG Platoon [35 to 40 models] then what's the point of a single heavy weapon in the unit, that can't move while everyone else can?
FNP could honestly be represented with a Toughness boost. Death Company are more resilient to injury than a normal Marine. T5 it is!
So many piddly details on 10 point models, engaging 450 point models. It doesn't make sense, and you can't properly balance it.
The real fix isn't to eliminate Knights, or Wraithknights, or anything like that. The cat's out of the bag. The real answer to balance the game as unit vs unit. Or more realistically, in 200 point chunks. Something like that. Get away from throwaway units that can overwatch with 10 shots that never do anything anyhow. Any system that relies on "roll a 6, regardless of how good you are normally" is garbage.
Then shift to a d10 based system. And give a UNIT optional attack profiles against other UNITS. Forget model by model wounds. Each infantry unit gets a number of wounds, like a Monstrous Creature, and is full effect until all models are dead. Or create a rule that reduces them in effectiveness after 1/2 wounds... something like that. Model by model in a 50 model unit vs a single Giant is just never going to work out.
Although it's ironic to me that there are even more miscosting problems amongst the regular units than super heavies. Every super heavy walker I'm aware is perfectly fair (I'd argue many are even overcosted), and many of the GMCs I'm told are as well. The usual suspects cause all the problems. (Supremacy armor!)
The miscostings are all interconnected, however. The cheap scatterbike makes the IK far less valuable because of the AV 12 sides.
Traditio wrote:
1. Dreadnoughts are AV 12. Missile launchers should be able to take down dreadnoughts. As a boltgun is to a T4, 3 wound, AP - infantry, so too is a missile launcher to a standard dreadnought.
Missile launchers should be able to take down dreads? Says who? It doesn't matter what the fluff says, crunch is crunch and missile launchers are not effective against vehicles.
To kill vehicles you need to allow for getting three pens or glances, even with AP1, so multishot weapons are highly preferred.
Missile launchers are inferior to weapons that fire multiple shots, to weapons with armourbane, to weapons with a higher strength and to grav.
The only tac squad weapons (besides bolters) that are worse against AV12 are flamers, plasma cannons and heavy bolters. Against AV10 heavy bolters are superior.
The only worse anti-vehicle weapon you could choose is the plasma cannon and that gives additional versatility because it threatens elite infantry.
This is why you have problems with your army - you've selected the weapons options that provides no additional utility to a tactical squad - flamers and missile launchers merely make them better at killing the same things they could already kill with bolters. All of the other options expand their utility.
You can argue that the crunch should match the fluff better but that's a completely different discussion.
If I brought a CAD with devastators, tactical marines and assault marines, but no grav, why should I even bother unpacking my models to play a game with someone who brought wraithknights and scatter bikes?
Three Tactical Squads w/Plasma+Combi Plasma in Drop Pods can Combat Squad and force Jink and Morale Checks for six of those 3-man Jetbike Squads. You've got a decent chance to chase some of those Jetbikes off the board before they even fire.
So anyways, I'd start with that.
You mean select more effective choices? He's told us repeatedly that he shouldn't have to do this.
Martel732 wrote: The missile launcher's ineffectiveness is a direct consequence of the mathematical wells GW has inadvertently created in the game.
Yes. The current state of vehicle rules has rendered many of the "traditional" anti-vehicle weapons inferior against vehicles.
This is just one of those things that happens - as the core rules change the role of a particular weapon may change.
But Traditio has lots of options - he could be taking loads of assault cannon or las-plas razorbacks, he could be taking grav or plasma, he could be enhancing his tac squads with combi weapons, etc. Instead he's choosing the only tac squad loadout that adds zero additional utility.
Supremacy is not that bad. Honestly Storm Surges are better for their cost.
Anyways - the core rules problems are the reason the game is unbalanced.
Tanks vs MC is laughable in terms of balance.
Flyer vs FMC is laughable in terms of balance.
Super Heavy vs GMC is laughable in terms of balance.
Psychic Defense vs ALL OTHER DEFENSE is laughable in terms of balance (except maybe crons but they don't have psychic so kind the same issue).
These are the issues that need fixing IMO. They are core rules problems if you ask me.
But it has run its course I think. Is there anything more to "discuss" besides the strong minority/basically putting words in people's mouths/trolls ruining the poll?
Wolfblade wrote: But it has run its course I think. Is there anything more to "discuss" besides the strong minority/basically putting words in people's mouths/trolls ruining the poll?
Okay, I want to try something. I played a three-way game of 'The Relic' yesterday. It was 1750 points. One player had Orks, one player had Thousand Sons, and one player had Tau. Here were are lists: (I'm reconstructing two of these from memory, so a few upgrades might be left off, but it's as close as I can get them Orks:
Spoiler:
Ork Great Waaagh!-Band
Aux:
4 Warbikers, 1 Warbiker Nob with a Power Klaw
Core:
Waaagh!-Band
Warboss, Power Klaw, Warbikes
10 Gretchin, Runtherd
Mek Boy
5 Meganobz, 2 with Killsaws, Trukk
10 Ork Boyz
10 Ork Boyz
10 Ork Boyz
10 Ork Boyz
10 Ork Boyz
10 Ork Boyz (Yeah, it takes a LOT of Ork Boyz units)
Command:
Council of the Waaagh!
Ghazkull Thraka
Warboss w/ Mega Armor, The Lukky Stikk
Warbos w// Da Dead Shiny Shoota, Power Klaw
Mad Dok Grotsnik
3 Nobz, 1 Waagh! Banner - Trukk Dedicated Transport
Big Mek w/ Mega Armor, Mega Force Field
Thousand Sons:
Spoiler:
Grand Coven
Core:
War Cabal
Sorcerer, Sigil of Corruption, Astral Grimoire
Sorcerer, Sigil of Corruption
10 Rubric Marines, Soulreaper Cannon
10 Rubric Marines, Soulreaper Cannon
5 Occult Terminators, Soulreaper Cannon
Aux:
War Coven
Sorcerer, ML3, Sigil of Corruption, Bike, Seer's Bane
Sorcerer, ML3, Sigil of Corruption, Bike
Sorcerer, ML2, Sigil of Corruption, Bike
Sorcerer, ML2, Sigil of Corruption, Bike
We had no idea what anyone else was bringing before the game started. We knew what the mission type would be (The Relic) and what armies the other players had.
So... Who won? Or, for bonus points, what was the actual outcome? Was it close? Was it a roflstomp? A landslide victory? A near, barely-got-it-done scrape? Which army came out on top? Since you can look at a list and easily see who's going to win... Who was it?
This was the result of going in blind, writing TAC lists, and seeing what happened. Maybe it's an isolated incident, but seeing as one of the armies were close-to-top-tier and another was lower-middle tier, I don't think that it can all be chocked up to coincidence.
Wolfblade wrote: But it has run its course I think. Is there anything more to "discuss" besides the strong minority/basically putting words in people's mouths/trolls ruining the poll?
Who is doing that?
Who do you think was, and has since basically abandoned the thread?
Xenomancers wrote: Supremacy is not that bad. Honestly Storm Surges are better for their cost.
Anyways - the core rules problems are the reason the game is unbalanced.
Tanks vs MC is laughable in terms of balance.
Flyer vs FMC is laughable in terms of balance.
Super Heavy vs GMC is laughable in terms of balance.
Psychic Defense vs ALL OTHER DEFENSE is laughable in terms of balance (except maybe crons but they don't have psychic so kind the same issue).
These are the issues that need fixing IMO. They are core rules problems if you ask me.
Okay, I'll agree with you on the first two, (One-shotting Land Raiders is a real problem,) but I draw the line at the last two. Super Heavy vs GMC is not anywhere near as unbalanced as regular Tanks versus Regular GMCs. Super Heavies cannot be one-shotted, they can't be shut down by destroying their weapons or immobilizing them, and while non-walkers are vulnerable in close combat, they absolutely should be! They're tanks! (And unlike GMCs, they can't be *locked* in close combat unless they're walkers, meaning that you can't just bog them down and prevent their shooting.) The reason that tanks are super vulnerable is because the potential to immobilize, weapon destroyed, or just straight kill them, not to mention that a single Crew Shaken result can prevent any damage from most shooty tanks for a turn. Super Heavies are immune to all of this. Yes, it's possible for AP1 and 2 weapons to chip off extra hull points if they get an Explodes! result, but weapons with Instant Death (Like Force Weapons) can do the same to GMCs, so it all pans out.
And when you say Psychic Defense, do you mean the defensive buffs granted by Psychic Powers, or the defense against Psychic Powers? I'm assuming it's the former, in which case I have to point out: Unlike any other form of defense, Psychic Defense can be shut down if you use good tactics or have the units to counter it. (Just for an example, if I'm playing against a CSM/Daemons player with a psychicy deathstar, and I don't have the Warp Charges to shut his deathstar down, then my goal is to kill all of his non-deathstar Psychic units so that he can't reliably get off all the powers he needs. If I HAVE psykers, I just Deny the Witch at a critical moment. Or I just bring Sisters of Silence or an Assassin and cancel out his buffs.)
Compare that to, say, Iron Hands, who have several ways to get a 2+3++ 2+ FNP character with 4w and IWND sitting at the front of a command squad with four Grav Guns. (Or hey, 4 Meltaguns works too. 4 of any special weapon is great on bikes, because they can close to effective range really quickly.) No Psychic Powers needed, and the only way to kill him is to hope for a lucky D weapon shot. (And hope that he doesn't LOS that D-weapon shot, or you'll need another one.) Yes, it's true that Psychic Powers can buff him up even more (Maybe make that a 2++, or give him re-rolls on his saves, or the ever-hated Invisibility,) but you don't need Psychic Powers to get crazy durability.
(For one other quick example, Ghazzy and a Warboss with Mega Armor and the Lukky Stikk is an occasionally hilarious combo until your opponent just flanks the unit and kills everyone from behind.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: It's much harder to predict 3-way, because 2 can gang up on 1. There are a few builds/lists that can take on double points, but I don't see any here.
Xenomancers wrote: Supremacy is not that bad. Honestly Storm Surges are better for their cost.
Anyways - the core rules problems are the reason the game is unbalanced.
Tanks vs MC is laughable in terms of balance.
Flyer vs FMC is laughable in terms of balance.
Super Heavy vs GMC is laughable in terms of balance.
Psychic Defense vs ALL OTHER DEFENSE is laughable in terms of balance (except maybe crons but they don't have psychic so kind the same issue).
These are the issues that need fixing IMO. They are core rules problems if you ask me.
Okay, I'll agree with you on the first two, (One-shotting Land Raiders is a real problem,) but I draw the line at the last two. Super Heavy vs GMC is not anywhere near as unbalanced as regular Tanks versus Regular GMCs. Super Heavies cannot be one-shotted, they can't be shut down by destroying their weapons or immobilizing them, and while non-walkers are vulnerable in close combat, they absolutely should be! They're tanks! (And unlike GMCs, they can't be *locked* in close combat unless they're walkers, meaning that you can't just bog them down and prevent their shooting.) The reason that tanks are super vulnerable is because the potential to immobilize, weapon destroyed, or just straight kill them, not to mention that a single Crew Shaken result can prevent any damage from most shooty tanks for a turn. Super Heavies are immune to all of this. Yes, it's possible for AP1 and 2 weapons to chip off extra hull points if they get an Explodes! result, but weapons with Instant Death (Like Force Weapons) can do the same to GMCs, so it all pans out.
And when you say Psychic Defense, do you mean the defensive buffs granted by Psychic Powers, or the defense against Psychic Powers? I'm assuming it's the former, in which case I have to point out: Unlike any other form of defense, Psychic Defense can be shut down if you use good tactics or have the units to counter it. (Just for an example, if I'm playing against a CSM/Daemons player with a psychicy deathstar, and I don't have the Warp Charges to shut his deathstar down, then my goal is to kill all of his non-deathstar Psychic units so that he can't reliably get off all the powers he needs. If I HAVE psykers, I just Deny the Witch at a critical moment. Or I just bring Sisters of Silence or an Assassin and cancel out his buffs.)
Compare that to, say, Iron Hands, who have several ways to get a 2+3++ 2+ FNP character with 4w and IWND sitting at the front of a command squad with four Grav Guns. (Or hey, 4 Meltaguns works too. 4 of any special weapon is great on bikes, because they can close to effective range really quickly.) No Psychic Powers needed, and the only way to kill him is to hope for a lucky D weapon shot. (And hope that he doesn't LOS that D-weapon shot, or you'll need another one.) Yes, it's true that Psychic Powers can buff him up even more (Maybe make that a 2++, or give him re-rolls on his saves, or the ever-hated Invisibility,) but you don't need Psychic Powers to get crazy durability.
(For one other quick example, Ghazzy and a Warboss with Mega Armor and the Lukky Stikk is an occasionally hilarious combo until your opponent just flanks the unit and kills everyone from behind.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: It's much harder to predict 3-way, because 2 can gang up on 1. There are a few builds/lists that can take on double points, but I don't see any here.
Okay, fair point.
Deny the witch is far too weak - rolling to cancel spells on 6's is a huge joke...its even more of a joke if the critcal spell they are trying to cast comes from two different sources. Cancle the spell twice? LOL - no chance.
Martel732 wrote: That Tau list would massacre either of the other two lists in a 1 vs 1.
SHVs are still a joke compared to GMCs, who have layered saves for free.
Would it, though? Would it really?
Because the Ork player (Me!) wiped him off the board with half his (my!) army. If I hadn't needed to send the other half of my army to tie up the TSons player, I don't know if he would have lasted through turn 3.
Blacksails wrote: Hurray for one off anecdotes about totally abnormal situations!
Hooray for literally the sum of player experiences in playing 40k, your cynacism and his optimism both come from anecdotal evidence! Mathhammer exists in a void, gameplay in anecdotes.
Quite surprised at the result, would not have expected Orks to perform so well. A theory is 3-way means everyone starts net closer together
Yeah, but I imagine his point is that Tau aren't some sort of unbeatable monster, but the example is so out of the ordinary (how many people can say they've played more than one game of a three person free for all?) and we know literally nothing about the setup or how much everyone focused on who that all we have is an Ork player saying he won a game against Tau.
That's great, we have dozens of examples of that. No one's arguing they can't be beat, the points being made are that Tau are generally far more points efficient in their power than, say, Orks. Or in general, balance is whack yo.
I just fail to see what the example is trying to prove.
Blacksails wrote: Hurray for one off anecdotes about totally abnormal situations!
Hooray for literally the sum of player experiences in playing 40k, your cynacism and his optimism both come from anecdotal evidence! Mathhammer exists in a void, gameplay in anecdotes.
Quite surprised at the result, would not have expected Orks to perform so well. A theory is 3-way means everyone starts net closer together
Mostly, it was a bit of luck on my part with the deployment, and then good model placement. We all started 24" away from each other in 12x24" rectangles on two corners and the center of the board. I got first turn send my Ghazzystar towards the Tau player, WAAAGH!ing immediately. The Trukk got me 18", and then he blew it up, but thanks to Ghazzy's 2++ and the Lukky Stikk boss's 2+ rerollable (I set them both at the front of my squad,) I was able to soak up all of his shooting without taking any significant damage to the Deathstar.
(For a fun historical metaphor, I went all Nazi-Germany on the other two guys, taking the first turn and hitting as quickly as I possibly could, before any retaliation could be made. And, like WWII, pretty much nobody had anyone left to fight by the end of the game - I had three wounds left in total, between three models, and that was it.)
And the point that I'm trying to prove is that you can't look at a list and predict how it's going to go all of the time. I did get a little lucky by rolling first turn, but outside of that, the dice mostly came out pretty average - Slightly below average with the Tau player's shooting, but then he stomped half my Deathstar in one roll once I finally managed to chase down his Stormsurge, so it evened out.) I won because I was able to outmanuever the other players, pinning the Tsons guy down with hordes of useless Ork Boyz that he had to chop down before he could get to the relic, and trapping the Tau player's most valuable units in the corner while I used some lighter options to shred his troops. (The TSons guy did manage to kill all my useless Ork Boyz, but by the time he did, my Deathstar was done mopping up most of the remaining Tau, so I was able to start hoofing it back across the board and met them in the middle where we fought over the Relic.)
You're probably right that the Tau player could have won, and if we played again, he very well might! He certainly wouldn't let himself be outmaneuvered again, and chances are the Tsons player would put more effort into spreading out quickly on turn one (Before I pinned him in). Of course, I'd have to change up my strategy as well, so we can't say for sure what would happen. My point is that it is entirely possible to win a game using on-board tactics, maneuvering, and target priority. This isn't some random example I'm pulling out from ages ago, either - I played this game last night.
Right, and no one's denying that. What the point being made is that the balance is so far out of whack that you could have put money down on the Tau player and likely won more often than not, assuming of course equal player skill. When discussing balance about toy soldiers on the interwebz, its important to remember we have to assume that both theoretical players are essentially identical in skill and knowledge. Which is why in real life, you get battles like that; someone can out play someone or have fantastic (or gak) luck, which will dramatically shift the outcome.
The big point is that if balance was better, the outcome would be more often dictated by player skill/choice, and also present the players with more opportunities to make those important decisions. Let's be honest, 40k is not a particularly deep game. It amounts to 'chop the shooty stuff and shoot the choppy stuff' with some knowledge of the game to prioritize the right targets and not forgetting to play to the scenario. Everything else is decided by the power of the units you brought and in 40k, a hefty dose of luck.
Good on you for the win though. Not belittling it, just making a point that a single anecdote about a particularly abnormal scenario doesn't exactly raise a lot of relevant points to a discussion about game balance. Plus, if 40k was better balanced, we'd have much closer matches that'd be much more entertaining for all.
*Edit* On a side note to ensure people don't seriously think I'm a big old meanie and grump, I've never had the opportunity to do a 3-way battle. I always pictured it best played on a triangle though, which would be a pain to get a table for. Sounds like a good time though. Hopefully a few beers were enjoyed in the process.
Traditio wrote: If I bring a cultist spam list and you bring an army of wyverns, what should my chances of winning be? I'll admit that that it should be less than 50 percent.
Zero. You should have no hope of winning that match. You brought a one-dimensional spam army against an army designed to kill it. The Wyverns should slaughter your cultists effortlessly, and if you by some miracle manage to have any survive to claim objectives they should be tank shocked off. This should be such a one-sided match that if you somehow even come close to winning it should be considered grounds to find you guilty of cheating (somehow!) and ban you from the store/tournament/whatever.
(And, just to be clear, the Wyverns are also a one-dimensional spam army and should suffer a similar fate against an army with tanks that their light mortars can't hurt.)
But if it's 0 or anywhere near 0, why should I even bother playing?
You shouldn't! That's my whole point, the army with nothing but cultists is not something that you should be taking. If you're stubborn enough to do it you should lose every game until you stop taking a list like that. One-dimensional spam lists are bad for the game for three reasons:
1) They aren't fluffy. It's Codex: Chaos Space Marines, not Codex: Nothing But Cultists. A fluffy CSM army might have cultists, but they should be meatshields for the marines that are the focus of the codex. Same thing with other armies, I should look at your army and see something that resembles the fluff, not a bunch of copies of the same unit.
2) They aren't fun. One-dimensional spam lists tend to have very little strategy involved. For example, in the cultists vs. tanks example the game is a simple question of "can I remove cultists fast enough to clear the objectives by the end of the game". You roll dice, remove that many cultists, and repeat for 5-7 turns. At no point does either player make an interesting strategic decision. So why bother putting models on the table at all? Just quickly calculate the average cultists killed per turn and compare it to the number of cultists in the army, and declare a winner. There's no point in slogging through the masochism of actually playing the game.
3) They often aren't balanced. The one-dimensional spam lists that are successful in overcoming the fundamental weaknesses of a one-dimensional strategy and winning 50% or more against the metagame tend to be the lists that identify a single overpowered unit and exploit it as much as possible. People aren't going to spam cultists, they're going to spam scatter laser jetbikes. And if you deliberately attempt to keep the power level of one-dimensional spam lists high enough for them to succeed anywhere near 50% of the time you accept a high risk that you'll go a little too far and make the next jetbike list.
Fair enough, but here, I'm going to question what "bad lists" mean. If you tell me that it's "not optimal according to the current meta," then I'm going to disagree all day long for obvious reasons.
Not optimal according to the current meta is part of it, although the current meta does need some adjustments. But those lists should be more like 40/60 or 30/70 matches, because they do have a coherent strategy even if it isn't as well designed as the best list strategies. The zero-hope lists should be the ones that are fundamentally broken in some way: one-dimensional spam, neglecting important aspects of the game, refusing to take advantage of the available tools, etc.
Why don't you think that YOUR list should be a "bad list"? In medieval terms, in the way that you've described it, it's a list of only cavalry. Why should a cavalry only list be able to have a 50/50 chance or greater against a well-balanced list of infantry, archers and horsemen?
First of all, the medieval rock/paper/scissors example is not valid in 40k because 40k is not a medieval game. Don't attempt to draw any balance conclusions from the example, a "cavalry list" is not equivalent to a medieval list with lots of knights in any meaningful strategic way.
That said, my list should be viable because it's a diverse TAC list. It's taken from a codex that is "IG tank army" but it has a variety of selections from that codex: HQ buff tanks, anti-infantry tanks, tank destroyers, fast flanking units, air support, mechanized infantry, etc. They're all vehicles (and, as a result, the army as a whole has advantages and disadvantages, much like Tau are great at shooting but suck in assault) but there isn't a target type where I look at it and say "nope, can't even try to counter that". If my opponent also brings a TAC list I will have counters to their strategies, and multiple strategic options of my own.
As much as people make fun of me and ridicule my ideas, I only ever tend to complain, at least as of the last 6 months or so, about the outliers. Ridicule me if you want for decrying the death guard rules, but from what I understand, it isn't just my opinion that the death guard received the "more favorable" end of the treatment when it comes to the new rules in the traitor legions supplement.
That's not the point. A thread like this is a poll on general balance issues, largely in a theoretical "how should a game be designed" sense. The Wraithknight is a specific balance issue. The fact that someone agrees with you that the Wraithknight should be more expensive and less spammable does NOT necessarily mean that they agree with your general theories on game design. So it's rather dishonest to quote support for your arguments about single-unit outliers as if it's support for completely unrelated things you're talking about.
Blacksails wrote: Hurray for one off anecdotes about totally abnormal situations!
Hooray for literally the sum of player experiences in playing 40k, your cynacism and his optimism both come from anecdotal evidence! Mathhammer exists in a void, gameplay in anecdotes.
Quite surprised at the result, would not have expected Orks to perform so well. A theory is 3-way means everyone starts net closer together
There's a saying in the Fire Emblem community called PEDM. It means "Personal Experience Doesn't Matter".
It gets used when gak justifications happen for bad characters that leveled well for them for like two games.
Blacksails wrote: Right, and no one's denying that. What the point being made is that the balance is so far out of whack that you could have put money down on the Tau player and likely won more often than not, assuming of course equal player skill. When discussing balance about toy soldiers on the interwebz, its important to remember we have to assume that both theoretical players are essentially identical in skill and knowledge. Which is why in real life, you get battles like that; someone can out play someone or have fantastic (or gak) luck, which will dramatically shift the outcome.
The big point is that if balance was better, the outcome would be more often dictated by player skill/choice, and also present the players with more opportunities to make those important decisions. Let's be honest, 40k is not a particularly deep game. It amounts to 'chop the shooty stuff and shoot the choppy stuff' with some knowledge of the game to prioritize the right targets and not forgetting to play to the scenario. Everything else is decided by the power of the units you brought and in 40k, a hefty dose of luck.
Good on you for the win though. Not belittling it, just making a point that a single anecdote about a particularly abnormal scenario doesn't exactly raise a lot of relevant points to a discussion about game balance. Plus, if 40k was better balanced, we'd have much closer matches that'd be much more entertaining for all.
*Edit* On a side note to ensure people don't seriously think I'm a big old meanie and grump, I've never had the opportunity to do a 3-way battle. I always pictured it best played on a triangle though, which would be a pain to get a table for. Sounds like a good time though. Hopefully a few beers were enjoyed in the process.
The thing is, I think his list *should* have won more often than not, given the conditions of the three-way. (Which is why I sent my Deathstar after him, and my other forces elsewhere.) His army was better suited to fighting against multiple forces, purely by virtue of being able to shell enemies from across the board while I had to run and the Tsons guy had to walk into range. In a 1v1, though? I don't think it would have been as one-sided as you think. The whole point of my list was target saturation, and lemme tell you, he was spoiled for choice on what unit to shoot. Yeah, a really good first turn of shooting would be pretty harmful to me, but barring an exceptional bout of good luck (Including him getting the first turn,) I just don't see how the Tau list that he brought would so overwhelmingly destroy me - I only need one turn to get close enough to pin him down.
Its not that his list was amazing, but if we has fighting only you, I imagine he'd be deploying all his big shooty stuff as far away from your super choppy stuff as possible, then simply focus fire on the one or two legitimate threats you present early (the command squad deathstar and the meganobz basically), then worry about the largely unthreatening 10-man Ork squads. If he had first turn, you'd be fethed, and if you had first turn but couldn't assault by turn 2, you'd also be fethed. Outside of your Waaagh turn for the invuln and hoping Ghazzy can roll 2+'s like his life depended on it, you don't have much in the way of durability against his firepower and outside the deathstar, you aren't much of a threat.
All depending on deployment of course, but the Tau have the range to sit as far back as possible (literally table edge if they need to) and shoot your transports, forcing you into slogging 6" + D6", all the while weathering firepower.
No. If you're done in the thread, you can stop posting here. When everyone is done with the thread, it will gracefully fall down into the bowels of the forum, fossilizing amongst the sediment of the ages.
But let's stay on topic. That's a rule, and we do enforce it.
Blacksails wrote: Its not that his list was amazing, but if we has fighting only you, I imagine he'd be deploying all his big shooty stuff as far away from your super choppy stuff as possible, then simply focus fire on the one or two legitimate threats you present early (the command squad deathstar and the meganobz basically), then worry about the largely unthreatening 10-man Ork squads. If he had first turn, you'd be fethed, and if you had first turn but couldn't assault by turn 2, you'd also be fethed. Outside of your Waaagh turn for the invuln and hoping Ghazzy can roll 2+'s like his life depended on it, you don't have much in the way of durability against his firepower and outside the deathstar, you aren't much of a threat.
All depending on deployment of course, but the Tau have the range to sit as far back as possible (literally table edge if they need to) and shoot your transports, forcing you into slogging 6" + D6", all the while weathering firepower.
Okay, if we ended up deploying lengthwise, you'd probably have a point, but for corners or standard deployment? The most he can get away from me is 35" (Assuming he's lining up models on the back edge of the board), and my Trukks can cross 24" a turn.
As for the Deathstar... You're missing something. Ghazzy only has to tank the AP2 shots. (Also, he has a 2+ invuln every turn, including the first.) The non AP2 shots are instead LoSd onto the Warboss with the Lukky Stikk, because he has a 2+ rerollable save.
If I get first turn, I cross 24" of the board with my Bikes, my Meganobz, and my Deathstar. (Everyone else starts chugging along with run movement. Best case scenario for him, he's got 24" of board left that I haven't covered, and that's assuming lengthwise board.
He has to put at least some of his shooting into popping my trukks, meaning there's that much less firepower I have to deal with. And since I don't have to place my deathstar from inside the trukk until after he blows it up, I can see how he's positioned all of his units, THEN place everyone for optimal defense. If he diverts more firepower to my Meganobz and Bikers, then great, my Deathstar is unphased. If he devotes firepower to the Deathstar then great, my other units are fine. I only have to weather one turn of shooting, which I can certainly do, and then I'm ripping up his gunline.
(Also, assuming the mission was the same, you can't win The Relic by sitting back and shooting. He'd have to send at least some of his troops forward to actually get the relic, unless he could completely wipe me off the board.)
This is all hypotheticals, of course, without just playing it out we can't be sure, but using the list I had against the list he had, I can see some very plausible courses for victory for myself. Getting turn two would really hurt, but that doesn't make it impossible, and getting turn one would be a huge, huge boost.
Martel732 wrote: But without point values conferred by the codices, how can you make any balance judgments?
Because the Codexes and the core rules are seperate entities. If every Codex sucks - and not every current Codex does - the core rules can still be perfectly functional, it's just that no armies exists that are able to play them out properly.
Assault in 7th ed would be fine if most assault units were cheap. But they're not, which makes them trash because the core rules favor shooting.
Not from where I'm sitting they're not. My GSC army does almost none of its killing with shooting, even against GEQ stuff. It's so bad I don't even bother most of the time, just skip past the dakka so I can get chargin' quicker.
"But you have cheap assault units!" - That's right, I do, and Blood Angels don't. Thing is I'm not paying a premium for an MEQ statline on my dudes, and having to pay that premium is part of the reason MEQ armies suck so hard (and conversely why the Gladius makes them half-way functional) - you're paying for all-purpose resilience out of the box, adding killing power on top of that has to cost you extra otherwise your units end up undercosted.
Waaaghpower wrote: Okay, I want to try something. I played a three-way game of 'The Relic' yesterday.
How did you play combat? No (A.) shooting into combat or only (B.) no shooting into combat including friendly\allied troops? (A.) could have easily neutered any shooting in the game. . .
The way we have always done 3-way battles (which are common here!) was to say that you can shoot into a combat involving two enemy forces, declaring one unit the primary target. After rolling to hit, you roll again - on a 4+ the target is hit, otherwise it's the other unit in the combat! That number changes based on how many units are in combat, but it's basically the same idea.
Waaaghpower wrote: Okay, I want to try something. I played a three-way game of 'The Relic' yesterday.
How did you play combat? No (A.) shooting into combat or only (B.) no shooting into combat including friendly\allied troops? (A.) could have easily neutered any shooting in the game. . .
Technically, we ran with option A, but it only came up once, very near to the end up the game, with 5 surviving Pathfinders that didn't actually have the opportunity to shoot yet. (He was asking for the next turn, once he was going to be in range.)
Peregrine wrote:1) They aren't fluffy. It's Codex: Chaos Space Marines, not Codex: Nothing But Cultists. A fluffy CSM army might have cultists, but they should be meatshields for the marines that are the focus of the codex. Same thing with other armies, I should look at your army and see something that resembles the fluff, not a bunch of copies of the same unit.
1. Why does fluff matter when it comes to game mechanics?
2. Even if fluff did matter to game mechanics, how is it somehow "unfluffy" to have an army of cultists with a dark apostle as HQ?
2) They aren't fun.
You reject this argument when I make it it about SHVs and GMCs, as well as tank spam.
What gives you a pass to make it about cultist spam?
Not optimal according to the current meta is part of it, although the current meta does need some adjustments. But those lists should be more like 40/60 or 30/70 matches, because they do have a coherent strategy even if it isn't as well designed as the best list strategies. The zero-hope lists should be the ones that are fundamentally broken in some way: one-dimensional spam, neglecting important aspects of the game, refusing to take advantage of the available tools, etc.
You don't take advantage of all of the available tools. You don't use allies, as far as I'm aware: you ONLY use imperial guard. You don't even use all of the tools in your codex. You don't use rough riders, ratlings, ogryn/bullgryn, stormtroopers...do you?
...in fact, if it came right down to it, there's swaths of things in your codex that you don't use.
Does that make your army fundamentally broken? Should it be a zero-hope list?
First of all, the medieval rock/paper/scissors example is not valid in 40k because 40k is not a medieval game. Don't attempt to draw any balance conclusions from the example, a "cavalry list" is not equivalent to a medieval list with lots of knights in any meaningful strategic way.
I didn't intend for a direct one-to-one correlation. This is the only point I'm making: in that scheme, you have A counters B counters C counters A. So if you want a "good" army you'd take a blend of the three.
That said, my list should be viable because it's a diverse TAC list. It's taken from a codex that is "IG tank army" but it has a variety of selections from that codex: HQ buff tanks, anti-infantry tanks, tank destroyers, fast flanking units, air support, mechanized infantry, etc. They're all vehicles (and, as a result, the army as a whole has advantages and disadvantages, much like Tau are great at shooting but suck in assault) but there isn't a target type where I look at it and say "nope, can't even try to counter that". If my opponent also brings a TAC list I will have counters to their strategies, and multiple strategic options of my own.
You have an army of what should be fast attacks and heavy supports.
The fact that there isn't a target type where you look at it and say "nope, can't even try to counter that" is just bad game design.
OK tradito to put it another way
Why should your one dimensional army stand a chance vs a army which is geared to have a counter to most things
Let's say you brought your cultist spam vs my tau
I'd laugh while shooting you with my riptides broadside suits path finders ghost keel stealth suits and devil fishes with all the suits but the broadsides doing JSJ shenanigans. Heck as you've only brought cultists I may even charge you
Peregrine wrote:1) They aren't fluffy. It's Codex: Chaos Space Marines, not Codex: Nothing But Cultists. A fluffy CSM army might have cultists, but they should be meatshields for the marines that are the focus of the codex. Same thing with other armies, I should look at your army and see something that resembles the fluff, not a bunch of copies of the same unit.
1. Why does fluff matter when it comes to game mechanics?
2. Even if fluff did matter to game mechanics, how is it somehow "unfluffy" to have an army of cultists with a dark apostle as HQ?
Weren't you just complaining earlier than the fluffy stuff is too weak? You wanted to take a fluffy combination of a tac squad with a flamer and a missile launcher and were complaining about how it doesn't work, and now you're saying that the fluff doesn't matter? Seriously, which side are you on? As for your second point here, it's a strawman argument. No one ever said that an army of cultists with a dark apostle was unfluffy. He just said that in a codex called "Chaos Space Marines" running an army of cultists is not what the book is supposed to focus on. In the fluff, the cultists are just meat shields to soak up bullets for the evil marines behind them. Which is exactly what Peregrine said, albeit differently. Now, your cultists + dark apostle army (which actually is a thing thanks to a formation called "The Lost and the Damned") could be a niche case for a gimmick army, but don't expect to win with just that. That's the point we're all trying to get across; you will struggle with nothing but cultists unless you face a similarly unoptimized list, but you could, in theory, do it.
You reject this argument when I make it it about SHVs and GMCs, as well as tank spam.
What gives you a pass to make it about cultist spam?
Because you are complaining that taking SHVs and GMCs is unfun for the opponent. Taking nothing but cultists would be unfun for you (and likely your opponent as well since it would be way too easy for him).
Not optimal according to the current meta is part of it, although the current meta does need some adjustments. But those lists should be more like 40/60 or 30/70 matches, because they do have a coherent strategy even if it isn't as well designed as the best list strategies. The zero-hope lists should be the ones that are fundamentally broken in some way: one-dimensional spam, neglecting important aspects of the game, refusing to take advantage of the available tools, etc.
You don't take advantage of all of the available tools. You don't use allies, as far as I'm aware: you ONLY use imperial guard. You don't even use all of the tools in your codex. You don't use rough riders, ratlings, ogryn/bullgryn, stormtroopers...do you?
...in fact, if it came right down to it, there's swaths of things in your codex that you don't use.
Does that make your army fundamentally broken? Should it be a zero-hope list?
Another strawman argument. Peregrine didn't say that you have to use every unit type in your codex. That would be silly, and impossible in anything short of an Apocalype game for most armies. Certainly if you count everything in your possible allies' codexes too. He was only saying that you should at least CONSIDER using any of the units in your codex, not that you need to use everything. I'm sure Peregrine considers every unit (however briefly in the case of the weak units) when he makes his lists, and I do the same for my armies. So do most other 40k players. Considering all the possibilities and deciding which ones will work well together is the fundamental core of list-building, and not just in 40k, either.
Traditio wrote: The fact that there isn't a target type where you look at it and say "nope, can't even try to counter that" is just bad game design.
Are you serious with this? Really? The whole point of good TAC list design is to build a list that can handle everything in some way. Now, naturally some lists are going to be stronger against some things and weak against others, but a good TAC list has some kind of answer for everything. Lists that don't tend to lose unless the player is really good at just ignoring whatever it is and playing the mission. If you are unable to counter something in your opponent's list in some way, you've made a mistake in your list-building. You should have at least some kind of solution (however weak/bad) for everything.
As an example, you have a TAC list consisting of some tactical squads with meltaguns, some other tactical squads with flamers, some devastators with heavy bolters, and some assault squads with good weapons (maybe Vanguard Vets or something), plus a couple of tanks. If your opponent has a lot of infantry, you probably have a good chance of winning. If they have a few vehicles in there as well, you're still okay since you have meltas for that. If your opponent has three or more Imperial Knights, you're facing an uphill battle, but you at least have something (melta Tacticals) that can do some damage and perhaps kill at least one, even if the army as a whole can't kill them all, while your other units try to get the objectives and play the mission.
The point is, you absolutely should be able to affect anything your opponent brings in a TAC list, at least in a small way.
The fact that there isn't a target type where you look at it and say "nope, can't even try to counter that" is just bad game design.
Traditio wrote:
If I brought a CAD with devastators, tactical marines and assault marines, but no grav, why should I even bother unpacking my models to play a game with someone who brought wraithknights and scatter bikes?
Can you not pick an argument and stick with it?
As to your second point - a single unit should not be able to threaten all other unit types (and this is a key issue with certain problem units) but you absolutely should be able to select a combination of units in your army that can threaten all other unit types.
You don't take advantage of all of the available tools. You don't use allies, as far as I'm aware: you ONLY use imperial guard. You don't even use all of the tools in your codex. You don't use rough riders, ratlings, ogryn/bullgryn, stormtroopers...do you?
...in fact, if it came right down to it, there's swaths of things in your codex that you don't use.
Does that make your army fundamentally broken? Should it be a zero-hope list?
Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you just not understand that an army is more than a collection of units?
You don't need to use every tool in order to select a range of tools that lets you handle a broad selection of challenges.
This is in direct contrast to your army that spams a couple of the least versatile tools and, as such, can't handle a whole range of things.
take what you want. So will I, and so will everyone else. If you are unwilling to make it easy for me to beat you, WHY SHOULD WE DO YOU THE FAVOR IN REVERSE?
Traditio, you always seem to find problems with other people's armies. JSJ is broken, etc. If we Tau players don't bring JSJ, are you willing to surrender Psychic Powers? If we give up Markerlights, are others willing to give up something else? No. Take what you want, and don't complain when you face something you cannot deal with. . . it is why we change.
Traditio wrote: 1. Why does fluff matter when it comes to game mechanics?
Because the game mechanics are a representation of the fluff. This is a basic concept of game design, yet another one that you don't seem to understand.
2. Even if fluff did matter to game mechanics, how is it somehow "unfluffy" to have an army of cultists with a dark apostle as HQ?
Because it's Codex: Chaos Space Marines, not Codex: Cultists. I think it should be obvious why a fluffy chaos space marine army should actually have some chaos space marines in it. Fluff-wise the cultists exist so that your marines can have a wall of meatshields to support them, they're not supposed to be the core of your army. That's why there's a single cultist unit with very few options. If you were making a fluffy chaos cult army you'd probably do something like a core from the IG codex (including a diverse range of infantry units) for the cult itself and maybe a small allied detachment of demons or summoning psykers (I forget if IG psykers can take summoning spells) to represent the demonic forces they call upon. A TAC list build like this would be just fine, and have nothing to do with a one-dimensional spam list from the CSM codex.
You reject this argument when I make it it about SHVs and GMCs, as well as tank spam.
What gives you a pass to make it about cultist spam?
Because they have nothing to do with each other? Making the argument "X is not fun" does not mean I have an obligation to accept every other argument that something isn't fun. By your reasoning here I could turn around and ask you why you accept "LoW aren't fun and shouldn't be in the game" but reject "tactical squads with missile launchers and flamers aren't fun and shouldn't be in the game".
You don't take advantage of all of the available tools. You don't use allies, as far as I'm aware: you ONLY use imperial guard. You don't even use all of the tools in your codex. You don't use rough riders, ratlings, ogryn/bullgryn, stormtroopers...do you?
You do understand that rough riders, ratlings, etc, are not in my army list, right? The only thing on your list that I have available and don't use is allies, and I don't think either of us want to make the assumption that a viable list has to use allies. Otherwise we're going to have to start asking why you think you deserve to win any games when you don't make use of the Eldar allies you have access to and take some Wraithknights of your own.
I didn't intend for a direct one-to-one correlation. This is the only point I'm making: in that scheme, you have A counters B counters C counters A. So if you want a "good" army you'd take a blend of the three.
Rock/paper/scissors is merely one approach to balance, and not one that is well suited to 40k. You can't assume that there is something wrong with balance if the game doesn't comply to your rock/paper/scissors concept.
You have an army of what should be fast attacks and heavy supports.
The fact that there isn't a target type where you look at it and say "nope, can't even try to counter that" is just bad game design.
And that "should be" is your personal opinion, not objective truth. IG armored regiments exist (and, in fact, are pretty common) in the fluff and the army list for them is a fluffy representation of what they should be. Just like, say, Deathwing armies get to take terminators (normally elites) as troops an IG armored company list gets to take LRBTs as troops. This is balanced by their very limited access to the infantry units that make up the core of a codex IG army. What you're doing here is getting tunnel vision on the idea that the unit allocation of C:SM is the only way to do it, and anything that puts units into FOC slots in different ways must somehow be bad game design.
