Unless I'm counting something wrong or don't see all the options, it's as follows;
1) 10 man Assault Squad costs 160pts and gets 21 attacks
2) 10 man Vanguard Veteran Squad costs 180pts and gets 41 attacks
It's not really a "preference" choice. Unless you're in a dire need of a Fast Attack slot, the Veterans are just better. Since their Sergeant has 1 more attack, he's also a much better platform for some special weapons. And there's that +1 Ld thing. All that just for 20pts.
macexor wrote: Unless I'm counting something wrong or don't see all the options, it's as follows;
1) 10 man Assault Squad costs 160pts and gets 21 attacks
2) 10 man Vanguard Veteran Squad costs 180pts and gets 41 attacks
It's not really a "preference" choice. Unless you're in a dire need of a Fast Attack slot, the Veterans are just better. Since their Sergeant has 1 more attack, he's also a much better platform for some special weapons. And there's that +1 Ld thing. All that just for 20pts.
Land Speeders and Tarantula Turrets exist. SOOOOO there ya go.
The comparison was a 5-man ASM squad versus whatever CC threat is doing 10-15 wounds in a single round of CC.
So 80 pts of ASM vs 180 pts of VV. Sometimes you'll want that VV squad, other times you'll want that ASM squad (or just a 90pt min VV squad).
The point is that, if you're always seeing a lot of overkill, use something smaller. the point was *not* that ASM somehow outperform VV specifically. Only that, if you're seeing a ton of overkill, use smaller/cheaper units.
(Min squads are 5, not 10. The original post could have specified a 5-man unkitted VV squad instead of specifying an ASM squad, but the point was to be minimalistic.)
Tyran wrote: On the other hand, it would be a pain to roll 180 D10.
I mean, it is already a pain to roll 180 D6.
I don't know if it'd be any more pain than rolling 180 D6s. The dice aren't that much bigger.
Even in Dakkaland you rarely roll more than 20 anyway and the mechanic ends up being the same. Declaring a target number, rolling your dice, and then removing everything under that number.
Purchasing 180 D10s would be annoying, and I suspect that would be the real cause for the resulting nerd riots.
D10s don't tesselate like D6s. They also have facets beyond the flat edges of the "3 dimensions" they exist in.
I like the granularity of larger dice sizes, but if you start rolling lots of bigger dice, anything above d6 becomes unweildy. Lots of things you wouldn't think of, at first.
Also, Orkz still often roll far more than 20, if fhey include a bunch of Boyz.
That's why I'd propose doing a new system under D12. D10 totally have great benefits though, like the quicker Mathhammer that comes with it, but D12 is on a more even dice.
D8 would be interesting as it wouldn't actually be major but still allows two more steps.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's why I'd propose doing a new system under D12. D10 totally have great benefits though, like the quicker Mathhammer that comes with it, but D12 is on a more even dice.
D8 would be interesting as it wouldn't actually be major but still allows two more steps.
To be fair, while changing the base die has a lot of appeal as far as smoothing the probability curves in the game, it's completely infeasible from any kind of business perspective.
The sheer number of already produced products which would be cleared from the shelves as a result of such a change is a non-starter to say the least.
So, feasible in a homebrew league with custom rules, not so much for the game at large.
Bharring wrote: The comparison was a 5-man ASM squad versus whatever CC threat is doing 10-15 wounds in a single round of CC.
So 80 pts of ASM vs 180 pts of VV. Sometimes you'll want that VV squad, other times you'll want that ASM squad (or just a 90pt min VV squad).
The point is that, if you're always seeing a lot of overkill, use something smaller. the point was *not* that ASM somehow outperform VV specifically. Only that, if you're seeing a ton of overkill, use smaller/cheaper units.
(Min squads are 5, not 10. The original post could have specified a 5-man unkitted VV squad instead of specifying an ASM squad, but the point was to be minimalistic.)
IMO the missions of the squads are different. Vanguard are meant to do damage, while Assualt Squads are meant to run interference.
Bharring wrote: The comparison was a 5-man ASM squad versus whatever CC threat is doing 10-15 wounds in a single round of CC.
So 80 pts of ASM vs 180 pts of VV. Sometimes you'll want that VV squad, other times you'll want that ASM squad (or just a 90pt min VV squad).
The point is that, if you're always seeing a lot of overkill, use something smaller. the point was *not* that ASM somehow outperform VV specifically. Only that, if you're seeing a ton of overkill, use smaller/cheaper units.
(Min squads are 5, not 10. The original post could have specified a 5-man unkitted VV squad instead of specifying an ASM squad, but the point was to be minimalistic.)
IMO the missions of the squads are different. Vanguard are meant to do damage, while Assualt Squads are meant to run interference.
Except the Vanguard can do all that. What are Assault Squads interfering with that Vanguard won't?
I still maintain that the Marines having so many choices that it is starting to circle back on itself and make itself irrelevant. Like, sure you can choose between Devastator Centurions, Devastator Squads, Predator Tanks, Whirlwinds, 5-man Tacts with a Heavy Weapon, etc. for Fire Support, but once one has been found to be 0.2% more efficient than another, why pick anything else? It just makes the other options irrelevant.
This is a perfect example of "marines have so many tools that they're even outclassing themselves."
Assault Marines are in a Fast Attack slot, and if I'm looking to fill Elites I'm going to go with Apothecaries and Banners, or Sternguard.
For Fast Attack I'd prefer the bodies and just putting them in the way of things. Land Speeders are ok and cheapish, but I'd rather deny the opponent a target for multi-wound weapons.
Who cares if they're in different slots? Have you seen how detachments work?
You need to fill the Fast Attack slot? Use Land Speeders (who cares if they will attract Multi Wound weapons? That stops them from hitting Razorbacks and Predators and Whirlwinds and they're better for charging crap and falling back) and Taratula Turrets (which gets you more weapons for cheap).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Who cares if they're in different slots? Have you seen how detachments work?.
If you're aiming for a Brigade. Duh.
Soooooooooo Land Speeders and Tarantula Turrets...
Already stated why I might not go that route. Power Armor swarm is more my style. Not keen on FW as I'd rather not upkeep with another set of books. Land Speeders can only have a Heavy Bolter in the cost of a 5 man Assault Squad with Packs, and would otherwise be one of the only multi-wound targetable models that I would bring to a power-armor-spam brigade. I'd rather have the bodies. More importantly, Land Speeders don't deep strike.
It's literally one book for FW. One book. If one book bothers more than already having bought the Index + Codex + Chapter Approved I don't know what to tell you.
Also who cares if Assault Marines Deep Strike? They can't do anything with it!
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's literally one book for FW. One book. If one book bothers more than already having bought the Index + Codex + Chapter Approved I don't know what to tell you.
Also who cares if Assault Marines Deep Strike? They can't do anything with it!
One book each for four past editions or whatever, and one more thing to carry around. Besides, Space Marines are already flush with options. I haven't had the need for FW, and the Assault Marines look better anyways.
If you can connect with a charge, even if you don't kill anything, most units can't shoot or charge in the following turn. Good positioning or enemy errors can get you to tag more than one unit, too.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's literally one book for FW. One book. If one book bothers more than already having bought the Index + Codex + Chapter Approved I don't know what to tell you.
Also who cares if Assault Marines Deep Strike? They can't do anything with it!
One book each for four past editions or whatever, and one more thing to carry around. Besides, Space Marines are already flush with options. I haven't had the need for FW, and the Assault Marines look better anyways.
If you can connect with a charge, even if you don't kill anything, most units can't shoot or charge in the following turn. Good positioning or enemy errors can get you to tag more than one unit, too.
1. You can scan the pages you need. I do that JUST for codex armies. It's only an issue if you make it an issue, like saying it's a pain to use Dreadnoughts because you gotta lug them around and gotta create extra space in your case.
Non argument you made was so bad you should feel bad.
2. I couldn't care less about which models you think look good or don't. Models are as good as you make them. I don't like the Shrike model, so I made one of my own.
3. Without Black Templars that's a 28% chance to make the charge. With Black Templars that's ~50%, but that's once again better with Vanguard because of the price difference being so negligible it doesn't matter.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's literally one book for FW. One book. If one book bothers more than already having bought the Index + Codex + Chapter Approved I don't know what to tell you.
Also who cares if Assault Marines Deep Strike? They can't do anything with it!
One book each for four past editions or whatever, and one more thing to carry around. Besides, Space Marines are already flush with options. I haven't had the need for FW, and the Assault Marines look better anyways.
If you can connect with a charge, even if you don't kill anything, most units can't shoot or charge in the following turn. Good positioning or enemy errors can get you to tag more than one unit, too.
1. You can scan the pages you need. I do that JUST for codex armies. It's only an issue if you make it an issue, like saying it's a pain to use Dreadnoughts because you gotta lug them around and gotta create extra space in your case.
Non argument you made was so bad you should feel bad.
2. I couldn't care less about which models you think look good or don't. Models are as good as you make them. I don't like the Shrike model, so I made one of my own.
3. Without Black Templars that's a 28% chance to make the charge. With Black Templars that's ~50%, but that's once again better with Vanguard because of the price difference being so negligible it doesn't matter.
1. I like Dreadnought models, so I'll carry em. The FW book isn't worth it to me, so I won't buy it. Not feeling bad about it.
2. As cool as a gun turret might look, it's not as cool as a marine with a rocket pack.
3. If you had any capacity to put multiple posts together you might recall that I'd take assault marine units to fill the brigade, that would be three units, and thus would have a greater chance to connect with something, plus a CP reroll.
Just let the man take his Assault Marines. He's not saying they're better than Vanguard Vets (or at least not anymore) he's saying they lend to the type of army that HE wants to play and that HE wants to run. Let him hobby his way, you hobby your way, simple as that. Linking back to the topic at hand not everyone wants to run a WAAC 180 model Greentide army because it's not their style, and you shouldn't force it on them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's literally one book for FW. One book. If one book bothers more than already having bought the Index + Codex + Chapter Approved I don't know what to tell you.
Also who cares if Assault Marines Deep Strike? They can't do anything with it!
One book each for four past editions or whatever, and one more thing to carry around. Besides, Space Marines are already flush with options. I haven't had the need for FW, and the Assault Marines look better anyways.
If you can connect with a charge, even if you don't kill anything, most units can't shoot or charge in the following turn. Good positioning or enemy errors can get you to tag more than one unit, too.
1. You can scan the pages you need. I do that JUST for codex armies. It's only an issue if you make it an issue, like saying it's a pain to use Dreadnoughts because you gotta lug them around and gotta create extra space in your case.
Non argument you made was so bad you should feel bad.
2. I couldn't care less about which models you think look good or don't. Models are as good as you make them. I don't like the Shrike model, so I made one of my own.
3. Without Black Templars that's a 28% chance to make the charge. With Black Templars that's ~50%, but that's once again better with Vanguard because of the price difference being so negligible it doesn't matter.
1. I like Dreadnought models, so I'll carry em. The FW book isn't worth it to me, so I won't buy it. Not feeling bad about it.
2. As cool as a gun turret might look, it's not as cool as a marine with a rocket pack.
3. If you had any capacity to put multiple posts together you might recall that I'd take assault marine units to fill the brigade, that would be three units, and thus would have a greater chance to connect with something, plus a CP reroll.
1. Point is that I don't care. It's easy to make space. After last edition there's no excuse about how someone needs to carry one extra book. Sorry. It's a bad argument and you know it.
2. Once again...I don't care. Use your Assault Marines as Vanguard then; I personally hate bling so I don't use The Sternguard and Vanguard kits for the most part. The Turrets are so cheap they DO what you're claiming you need for the Brigade. 27 points, or 81 in your Brigade with slots to spare.
3. And I covered that in Point 2. Your argument doesn't work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MalfunctBot wrote: Just let the man take his Assault Marines. He's not saying they're better than Vanguard Vets (or at least not anymore) he's saying they lend to the type of army that HE wants to play and that HE wants to run. Let him hobby his way, you hobby your way, simple as that. Linking back to the topic at hand not everyone wants to run a WAAC 180 model Greentide army because it's not their style, and you shouldn't force it on them.
Now I'll get off my soapbox.
IOW: I can't argue against the fact you pointed out the balance issues that exist, so let them do whatever and forget about anything.
If these things didn't matter, there would be no point to the Tactics and Proposed Rules Subforums.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's literally one book for FW. One book. If one book bothers more than already having bought the Index + Codex + Chapter Approved I don't know what to tell you.
Also who cares if Assault Marines Deep Strike? They can't do anything with it!
One book each for four past editions or whatever, and one more thing to carry around. Besides, Space Marines are already flush with options. I haven't had the need for FW, and the Assault Marines look better anyways.
If you can connect with a charge, even if you don't kill anything, most units can't shoot or charge in the following turn. Good positioning or enemy errors can get you to tag more than one unit, too.
1. You can scan the pages you need. I do that JUST for codex armies. It's only an issue if you make it an issue, like saying it's a pain to use Dreadnoughts because you gotta lug them around and gotta create extra space in your case.
Non argument you made was so bad you should feel bad.
2. I couldn't care less about which models you think look good or don't. Models are as good as you make them. I don't like the Shrike model, so I made one of my own.
3. Without Black Templars that's a 28% chance to make the charge. With Black Templars that's ~50%, but that's once again better with Vanguard because of the price difference being so negligible it doesn't matter.
1. I like Dreadnought models, so I'll carry em. The FW book isn't worth it to me, so I won't buy it. Not feeling bad about it.
2. As cool as a gun turret might look, it's not as cool as a marine with a rocket pack.
3. If you had any capacity to put multiple posts together you might recall that I'd take assault marine units to fill the brigade, that would be three units, and thus would have a greater chance to connect with something, plus a CP reroll.
1. Point is that I don't care. It's easy to make space. After last edition there's no excuse about how someone needs to carry one extra book. Sorry. It's a bad argument and you know it.
2. Once again...I don't care. Use your Assault Marines as Vanguard then; I personally hate bling so I don't use The Sternguard and Vanguard kits for the most part. The Turrets are so cheap they DO what you're claiming you need for the Brigade. 27 points, or 81 in your Brigade with slots to spare.
3. And I covered that in Point 2. Your argument doesn't work.
The level you're getting involved trying to sell me on a product I don't need for a problem I don't have is mystifying.
Bharring wrote: For the argument "Are VV almost always better than ASM, from a balance perspective", with the caveat that FW is available, is "Almost always yes".
There are corner cases where you just need those 10 points, but those are going to be rare. ASMs do 80% of what non-blinged VV do for 90% of the cost.
Without FW being an option, they're still usually outshined by ASM, but there are more corner cases - such as PA spam needing FA choices.
Those points aren't being heavily debated. This guy is just a corner case.
It is a corner case, absolutely.
I would say that if your purchasing VV over ASM, you're mostly looking to deal damage. If you actually want to deliver meaningful damage, cost goes up more because you want to bring some fancier gear. A couple power weapons doesn't cost much, but the moment you give them a power axe is the moment you could get another body in the ASM squad. Another body is possibly another turn of being obnoxious, so if you're just looking to run interference I think the cheaper guys are better.
Imo, it's really splitting hairs depending on how tight you are on points. For exactly the cost of minimum VV you can get ASM with a Power Axe and a Melta Bomb. Too lazy to do the math on that, but the fact that a Meltabomb does D6 damage probably shifts in favor of the ASM for some situations.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's because you don't care about actual balance in the game.
Back on the main topic, what about when it's not an army trait. You have things like Lictors that have a -1 baked in and other units that can give them another -1 for -2. Pre-nerf the lictor could pop in with a unit of Venomthrops and a bunch of psychers and stand there with -2 to hit shielding the characters. Got to be other examples too. Is this ok?
Bharring wrote: For the argument "Are VV almost always better than ASM, from a balance perspective", with the caveat that FW is available, is "Almost always yes".
There are corner cases where you just need those 10 points, but those are going to be rare. ASMs do 80% of what non-blinged VV do for 90% of the cost.
Without FW being an option, they're still usually outshined by ASM, but there are more corner cases - such as PA spam needing FA choices.
Those points aren't being heavily debated. This guy is just a corner case.
It is a corner case, absolutely.
I would say that if your purchasing VV over ASM, you're mostly looking to deal damage. If you actually want to deliver meaningful damage, cost goes up more because you want to bring some fancier gear. A couple power weapons doesn't cost much, but the moment you give them a power axe is the moment you could get another body in the ASM squad. Another body is possibly another turn of being obnoxious, so if you're just looking to run interference I think the cheaper guys are better.
Imo, it's really splitting hairs depending on how tight you are on points. For exactly the cost of minimum VV you can get ASM with a Power Axe and a Melta Bomb. Too lazy to do the math on that, but the fact that a Meltabomb does D6 damage probably shifts in favor of the ASM for some situations.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That's because you don't care about actual balance in the game.
Now that's just incoherent.
It isn't incoherent. You refuse to acknowledge how unbalanced units in the game really are. The real incoherence is your thoughts on how Assault Marines are useful in any way, shape, or form.
Drager wrote: Back on the main topic, what about when it's not an army trait. You have things like Lictors that have a -1 baked in and other units that can give them another -1 for -2. Pre-nerf the lictor could pop in with a unit of Venomthrops and a bunch of psychers and stand there with -2 to hit shielding the characters. Got to be other examples too. Is this ok?
Jorm can still pop Venonthropes up alongside other tunneling units, and Lictors can pop in next to them. That'll be a -2. Put Deathleaper in there and he's got a -3. Which sounds nasty, except A: They're not particularly dangerous units. and B: Target priority will probably be the Venomthropes, which aren't particularly tough either.
It isn't incoherent. You refuse to acknowledge how unbalanced units in the game really are. The real incoherence is your thoughts on how Assault Marines are useful in any way, shape, or form.
They're not. Stop defending them.
It's incoherent when you tell me I don't care about balance because I don't want to buy gun turrets for my power armor spam army.
I've outlined my argument and feel I've made my point enough for others who may be reading. I'm sorry you disagree with it, but you are free to do so. It's pretty clear this branch of conversation has long run it's course, however. Unless you have something specific other than "stop defending them", I think we're done.
Drager wrote: Back on the main topic, what about when it's not an army trait. You have things like Lictors that have a -1 baked in and other units that can give them another -1 for -2. Pre-nerf the lictor could pop in with a unit of Venomthrops and a bunch of psychers and stand there with -2 to hit shielding the characters. Got to be other examples too. Is this ok?
Jorm can still pop Venonthropes up alongside other tunneling units, and Lictors can pop in next to them. That'll be a -2. Put Deathleaper in there and he's got a -3. Which sounds nasty, except A: They're not particularly dangerous units. and B: Target priority will probably be the Venomthropes, which aren't particularly tough either.
It isn't incoherent. You refuse to acknowledge how unbalanced units in the game really are. The real incoherence is your thoughts on how Assault Marines are useful in any way, shape, or form.
They're not. Stop defending them.
It's incoherent when you tell me I don't care about balance because I don't want to buy gun turrets for my power armor spam army.
I've outlined my argument and feel I've made my point enough for others who may be reading. I'm sorry you disagree with it, but you are free to do so. It's pretty clear this branch of conversation has long run it's course, however. Unless you have something specific other than "stop defending them", I think we're done.
Which is why you miss the entire point.
You want to run what you want. Fantastic, as I almost finished my stand-in Anton Narvaez. Own up to it though when a unit is bad. You want a Brigade? Tarantula Turrets are 81 points to do that and fulfill a role that's necessary. You miss the entirety of unbalanced units when you defend their use to the death. I don't care whether it fits your "theme" or not. If the unit that's being defended is bad, it's bad.
"It's a corner case" isn't defending them to their death.
"I don't use ForgeWorld" isn't defending them to their death.
"I don't want to offer up ideal targets that my list otherwise wouldn't have" isn't just a "theme". If you look at a lot of good lists, it's quite common to see similar profiles across their choices to make the game harder for their opponent. It's a very valid part of strategy.
If a unit is bad, except all other options are worse for the particular case at hand, the unit is the appropriate choice. Anything else is fanaticism.
Apparently some BA units lost the ability to take jump packs, so that's kind of addition by subtraction for me. And I can hump meltas which hopefully get a price cut some day.
Martel732 wrote: Apparently some BA units lost the ability to take jump packs, so that's kind of addition by subtraction for me. And I can hump meltas which hopefully get a price cut some day.
I haven't read the BA codex, but if you can always take the index version of something instead of the codex, per GW's ruling for the same on Astra Militarum. I still have shotgun wielding company commanders and I still see rough riders on the table, despite them being only in the index.
Understandable, but we need to force GW to acknowledge the rules they've made for previous units. I will throw a fit if they permentantly got rid of Biker and Steed HQ's, and there's still a duty to remind them that Steed HQ and Rough Riders don't have access to army traits.
macexor wrote: Unless I'm counting something wrong or don't see all the options, it's as follows;
1) 10 man Assault Squad costs 160pts and gets 21 attacks
2) 10 man Vanguard Veteran Squad costs 180pts and gets 41 attacks
It's not really a "preference" choice. Unless you're in a dire need of a Fast Attack slot, the Veterans are just better. Since their Sergeant has 1 more attack, he's also a much better platform for some special weapons. And there's that +1 Ld thing. All that just for 20pts.
Huh? Is that just a math mistake on the VV? How are you getting 4 attacks each?
2 base +1 chainsword = 30 +1 for champ = 31
VV are Elite
Assault are FA
10 VV with CS = 160 or 5.2 points per attack.
10 AM are 130 or 6.2 points per attack.
I feel l ike you'd be wasting VV on chainswords though.
So either you really need the 10 pts (5man), you really need FA, or you only have ASM models and not VV models. Any of which is a corner case. But they do happen.
Nobody is saying VV aren't better in most situations. Some people are saying they're always better, others are saying there are corner cases.
Bharring wrote: "It's a corner case" isn't defending them to their death.
"I don't use ForgeWorld" isn't defending them to their death.
"I don't want to offer up ideal targets that my list otherwise wouldn't have" isn't just a "theme". If you look at a lot of good lists, it's quite common to see similar profiles across their choices to make the game harder for their opponent. It's a very valid part of strategy.
If a unit is bad, except all other options are worse for the particular case at hand, the unit is the appropriate choice. Anything else is fanaticism.
1. There IS no corner case. Vanguard have more LD and attacks for 2 points. Melta Bombs are worthless now and a Power Weapon on the Sergeant is not gonna propel them anywhere.
2. Actually it's part of it, as FW is part of the game. When you say "I don't want to use it because FW", it's literally saying "I know the option exists and I refuse to acknowledge it".
3. Deny ideal targets? Tarantula Turrets are 37 points each! Who cares if a Lascannon fires at it? They've got 4 wounds. That's like saying you won't use the Primaris entries to deny multi-wound weapons.
That's 111 points for 12 wounds and 18 BS4+ Heavy Bolter shots. It's only a good strategy if you are Guard or Tyranids as you have bodies to make the strategy work. Marines do not, so the strategy is pretty lousy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Asm need to cost 13 ppm. That fixes the issue. Tacticals of the sky.
They technically are without the Jump Packs. At that point why bother with them though?
1. There IS no corner case. Vanguard have more LD and attacks for 2 points. Melta Bombs are worthless now and a Power Weapon on the Sergeant is not gonna propel them anywhere.
5 ASM with a Power weapon on the sarge average 1.5 wounds against MEQ. If the ASM Sargent lives he can jump away and land a S 8 AP -4 D6 wound shot on something. I'd argue that could be more important than:
5 Vanguard with Chainswords average 1.77 against MEQ.
It's not a big gap. But to make a worthwhile difference you gotta start spending points on specials, which is fine, but then relative cost starts going up pretty quick.
So fun story: yesterday I rolled the night fighting maelstrom mission against an Alaitoc army. Dealing with -3 to hit on all of his most important units, you can imagine how that one turned out.
Arachnofiend wrote: So fun story: yesterday I rolled the night fighting maelstrom mission against an Alaitoc army. Dealing with -3 to hit on all of his most important units, you can imagine how that one turned out.
Penalties to hit should not stack, ever.
Oooh. I mean, that's flavorful and kind of cool in concept, but also obviously problematic for fun play.
Arachnofiend wrote: So fun story: yesterday I rolled the night fighting maelstrom mission against an Alaitoc army. Dealing with -3 to hit on all of his most important units, you can imagine how that one turned out.
Penalties to hit should not stack, ever.
There must be a misunderstanding here.
You can get -1 outside of 12" for being Alaitoc, no problem.
You can get -1 for being a Flyer or a Shadow Specter or an advancing bike, that makes sense. -2 for an Alaitoc Flyer outside of 12" still seems ok.
You can get -1 for being in Conceal, which also makes sense, so -2 outside of 12" for any Alaitoc unit, or -3 outside of 12" for an Alaitoc Flyer within 3" of a Warlock or Spiritseer.
So he likely had that one blob within Conceal range that would be hit on -2 outside of 12" and -1 inside of 12", totally vulnerable to assault and dependent on not failing to cast and not being denied one single power that can't be cast twice.
Make that Maelstrom and suddenly, that one "hard to kill" blob really doesn't make much difference since it can't hold that many objectives.
At least that's how I read those rules.
I'm not saying it's not really good, but I don't think it's a no contest and I don't believe there's such a thing as "-3 to hit on all of his most important units"
I am fully persuaded that the proliferation of -1 hit is/will be a major issue in regard to game balance. It's a huge thing in a d6-based game, and it has been implemented very poorly.
This rule alone is quickly forcing the game to focus almost exclusively on short-range engagements, which is not bad per se, but certainly it severely limits gameplay and is a pain for a good part of shooty armies.
The -1 hit should have been kept as an ultra-rare bonus, and certainly neither army wide nor stackable. Currently we've hit the bottom with the recent nonsense of C:Craftworlds - it does not help that out of 5 CW, 3 are poor/situational, 1 is half-ok, and the last is...Alaitoc. But even when it's just a plain -1 it's very concerning, as it screws BS 4+ armies, still hits hard all the rest, and severely limits tactical choices.
Now in a theoretical tournament/event environment things *should* be balanced by the fact that the -1 hit bonus is useless against some close-combat armies. But in fact it is still useful 90% of the time, because pure close-combat is rare. Above all - and this is a paradox really - this rule badly screws 1v1 casual play, because *anybody* who has access to -1 hit will take it whenever he knows he'll face a shooty army. And yes, while even factions like AM or Tau in theory can focus on close-combat and short-range builds, but that's far from common and most players out there have an 'average' collection which reflects the style of their army. And now a huge part of those armies is effectively being cut out of the game.
I play AdMech and I am extremely pissed off by a codex that only offers 2 viable FW options, and 1 (Mars) would not even be so if it wasn't for Cawl (who should have been *nerfed* by CA, not improved). Taking Stygies is a no-brainer 90% of my games, and it's sad. I also have some AM, but all my long-range units are quickly disappearing from the field as in many cases they are just worthless.
I think GW did a huge mistake here. And it's already too late to fix it now.
feral_80 wrote: I am fully persuaded that the proliferation of -1 hit is/will be a major issue in regard to game balance. It's a huge thing in a d6-based game, and it has been implemented very poorly.
This rule alone is quickly forcing the game to focus almost exclusively on short-range engagements, which is not bad per se, but certainly it severely limits gameplay and is a pain for a good part of shooty armies.
The -1 hit should have been kept as an ultra-rare bonus, and certainly neither army wide nor stackable. Currently we've hit the bottom with the recent nonsense of C:Craftworlds - it does not help that out of 5 CW, 3 are poor/situational, 1 is half-ok, and the last is...Alaitoc. But even when it's just a plain -1 it's very concerning, as it screws BS 4+ armies, still hits hard all the rest, and severely limits tactical choices.
Now in a theoretical tournament/event environment things *should* be balanced by the fact that the -1 hit bonus is useless against some close-combat armies. But in fact it is still useful 90% of the time, because pure close-combat is rare. Above all - and this is a paradox really - this rule badly screws 1v1 casual play, because *anybody* who has access to -1 hit will take it whenever he knows he'll face a shooty army. And yes, while even factions like AM or Tau in theory can focus on close-combat and short-range builds, but that's far from common and most players out there have an 'average' collection which reflects the style of their army. And now a huge part of those armies is effectively being cut out of the game.
I play AdMech and I am extremely pissed off by a codex that only offers 2 viable FW options, and 1 (Mars) would not even be so if it wasn't for Cawl (who should have been *nerfed* by CA, not improved). Taking Stygies is a no-brainer 90% of my games, and it's sad. I also have some AM, but all my long-range units are quickly disappearing from the field as in many cases they are just worthless.
I think GW did a huge mistake here. And it's already too late to fix it now.
I disagree with the notion that -1 to hit is a bad thing. Stacking is bad, but if -1 to hit forces armies to include some close range/close combat units rather than playing gunline I think that is a good thing. Based on the new missions it is clear GW wants armies to engage with each other at close range. I do agree that it is often the best choice for a faction, which is really the problem (other than Ultra marines and Mars because special characters).
As for casual play, if people are "trait tailoring" I would argue that what you are playing is anything but casual. As for AM or Tau, those armies can bring elements that are close range while still having longer range units. I think that for the Marine factions (CSM, Marines) who don't have it army wide you will have targets. So admech and Aeldari are the only factions with army wide -1 (AM doesn't have it, nor do nids, though they can take an HQ to get bubbles of -1). Dark Angels and BA don't have the trait (DA if nothing changes can take a unit that gives the buff). So if as more books come out they don't all get -1 to hit, it will create an environment where not having options is a bad thing, which will be good for the game.
Trait tailoring vs casual game is a no argument. Trait tailoring is only normal when planning your list - what's the point in agreeing on a game with a friend and not taking into consideration what you are probably facing? Hell, it's actually part of the fun when you design a list (which, NB, still has to be balanced and can perfectly be friendly; it's just good to have a concept in mind when you design it).
Forcing armies to take close-combat and close-range units, and generally focusing on mobility, is certainly a good thing. Making half of the models in an average collection pretty much useless is not, however. If I'm making a good part of your army useless because you cannot mathematically hit me, it simply means GW is not adopting the correct way of addressing an issue.
macexor wrote: Unless I'm counting something wrong or don't see all the options, it's as follows;
1) 10 man Assault Squad costs 160pts and gets 21 attacks
2) 10 man Vanguard Veteran Squad costs 180pts and gets 41 attacks
It's not really a "preference" choice. Unless you're in a dire need of a Fast Attack slot, the Veterans are just better. Since their Sergeant has 1 more attack, he's also a much better platform for some special weapons. And there's that +1 Ld thing. All that just for 20pts.
Huh? Is that just a math mistake on the VV? How are you getting 4 attacks each?
2 base +1 chainsword = 30 +1 for champ = 31
VV are Elite
Assault are FA
10 VV with CS = 160 or 5.2 points per attack.
10 AM are 130 or 6.2 points per attack.
I feel l ike you'd be wasting VV on chainswords though.
VV can take 2 chainswords, so each one gets 4 attacks. I see no point in taking either of them without jump packs. VV jump packs cost 2 points each, AM 3 points each. Don't really know why theirs is more expensive.
So for VV it's 4.4 points/attacks and for AM 7.6 points/attack.
Arachnofiend wrote: You're missing the mission rules, which give another -1 to hit if you're outside of 18". So -3 to hit on the hemlocks and the concealed dark reapers.
That makes sense.
So basically, you were fighting one of the best Craftworlds list, on a mission that will never be played in any tournament, with what exactly?
I would expect that you were playing a gunline and that's what made you consider this "outside of 18" ", which seems rather unlikely for a Hemlock - even 12" is impossible in most cases unless you obliterate what you target.
In other words, against an anti-gunline army, on an anti-gunline mission, your gunline was handed its ass. Makes sense to me.
Unlike 6th and 7th ed Craftworlds, this Alaitoc fad seems a lot more like a nemesis than a combo.
Slayer,
If you want to argue VV/ASM and the definitions of worthless and corner case, we should start a dedicated thread. We're really pushing others off topic, and most people seem to agree already.
For the OT, yeah, stacking -3 is brutal. I hope you weren't Tau? Not that SM would fare reasonably there.
feral_80 wrote: Trait tailoring vs casual game is a no argument. Trait tailoring is only normal when planning your list - what's the point in agreeing on a game with a friend and not taking into consideration what you are probably facing? Hell, it's actually part of the fun when you design a list (which, NB, still has to be balanced and can perfectly be friendly; it's just good to have a concept in mind when you design it).
Forcing armies to take close-combat and close-range units, and generally focusing on mobility, is certainly a good thing. Making half of the models in an average collection pretty much useless is not, however. If I'm making a good part of your army useless because you cannot mathematically hit me, it simply means GW is not adopting the correct way of addressing an issue.[/quote
feral_80 wrote: Trait tailoring vs casual game is a no argument. Trait tailoring is only normal when planning your list - what's the point in agreeing on a game with a friend and not taking into consideration what you are probably facing? Hell, it's actually part of the fun when you design a list (which, NB, still has to be balanced and can perfectly be friendly; it's just good to have a concept in mind when you design it).
Forcing armies to take close-combat and close-range units, and generally focusing on mobility, is certainly a good thing. Making half of the models in an average collection pretty much useless is not, however. If I'm making a good part of your army useless because you cannot mathematically hit me, it simply means GW is not adopting the correct way of addressing an issue.
You assume you are allowed to know your opponent's faction ahead of time. Bad assumption.
feral_80 wrote: Trait tailoring vs casual game is a no argument. Trait tailoring is only normal when planning your list - what's the point in agreeing on a game with a friend and not taking into consideration what you are probably facing? Hell, it's actually part of the fun when you design a list (which, NB, still has to be balanced and can perfectly be friendly; it's just good to have a concept in mind when you design it).
Forcing armies to take close-combat and close-range units, and generally focusing on mobility, is certainly a good thing. Making half of the models in an average collection pretty much useless is not, however. If I'm making a good part of your army useless because you cannot mathematically hit me, it simply means GW is not adopting the correct way of addressing an issue.
Because I have my Salamanders/Imperial Fists/World Eaters/etc Painted up and themed as that chapter and always use them with the corresponding trait instead of choosing the one most likely to give me a leg up on my opponent? -1 to hit in no way makes half the models in an average collection useless. That is an over statement of how good it is. You only see it that way because you trait tailor, so everyone you play against knowing you play gunline takes -1 to hit. If instead you played people with varied traits sometimes your units that are not great against -1 to hit would be great against other factions. Part of the fun when you design a list/pick a faction is choosing something that you think makes an effective list in all circumstances, not in choosing the hard counter to your expected opponent. List/Trait tailoring makes for poor games overall, and results in people taking unbalanced armies.
Again the issue is stacking, without stacking there is no occasion where units cannot hit you mathematically. Without -1 to hit, Artillery are super powerful with no real bad match-up in the game. If you want to give up range and make shooting out of LOS targets always -1 to hit regardless of opposing army we can talk about -1 to hit army traits being horrible for the game.
Bharring wrote: Slayer,
If you want to argue VV/ASM and the definitions of worthless and corner case, we should start a dedicated thread. We're really pushing others off topic, and most people seem to agree already.
For the OT, yeah, stacking -3 is brutal. I hope you weren't Tau? Not that SM would fare reasonably there.
You seem much more invested in that discussion. I'm fairly content in my impression that there's consensus that there are corner cases, but usually VV are better than ASM
I'm just trying to declutter this thread, as "Are the -1-to-hit outside 12 inches traits OP" is a very interesting topic, and I'm hoping to see more posts to further refine my understanding.
Arachnofiend wrote: So fun story: yesterday I rolled the night fighting maelstrom mission against an Alaitoc army. Dealing with -3 to hit on all of his most important units, you can imagine how that one turned out.
Penalties to hit should not stack, ever.
There must be a misunderstanding here.
You can get -1 outside of 12" for being Alaitoc, no problem.
You can get -1 for being a Flyer or a Shadow Specter or an advancing bike, that makes sense. -2 for an Alaitoc Flyer outside of 12" still seems ok.
You can get -1 for being in Conceal, which also makes sense, so -2 outside of 12" for any Alaitoc unit, or -3 outside of 12" for an Alaitoc Flyer within 3" of a Warlock or Spiritseer.
So he likely had that one blob within Conceal range that would be hit on -2 outside of 12" and -1 inside of 12", totally vulnerable to assault and dependent on not failing to cast and not being denied one single power that can't be cast twice.
Make that Maelstrom and suddenly, that one "hard to kill" blob really doesn't make much difference since it can't hold that many objectives.
At least that's how I read those rules.
I'm not saying it's not really good, but I don't think it's a no contest and I don't believe there's such a thing as "-3 to hit on all of his most important units"
Because I have my Salamanders/Imperial Fists/World Eaters/etc Painted up and themed as that chapter and always use them with the corresponding trait instead of choosing the one most likely to give me a leg up on my opponent? -1 to hit in no way makes half the models in an average collection useless. That is an over statement of how good it is. You only see it that way because you trait tailor, so everyone you play against knowing you play gunline takes -1 to hit. If instead you played people with varied traits sometimes your units that are not great against -1 to hit would be great against other factions. Part of the fun when you design a list/pick a faction is choosing something that you think makes an effective list in all circumstances, not in choosing the hard counter to your expected opponent. List/Trait tailoring makes for poor games overall, and results in people taking unbalanced armies.
Again the issue is stacking, without stacking there is no occasion where units cannot hit you mathematically. Without -1 to hit, Artillery are super powerful with no real bad match-up in the game. If you want to give up range and make shooting out of LOS targets always -1 to hit regardless of opposing army we can talk about -1 to hit army traits being horrible for the game.
So are we playing the same game anyway? Because where I play, it'a pretty NORMAL to agree on a casual match with a friend, and obviously since I know the guy since years I know his army and know what to expext. And vice versa. And in that case, list-tailoring is only normal, although you obviously try to surprise your opponent with something unexpected. And that indeed IS part of the fun. If you only play against random opponents in a super-competitive tournament-like environment then I am really sorry for you, but that is not the only way, and not nearly the most funny either. So stop considering the kind of game I refer to as something exceptional.
The point about being mathematically unable to hit was a *slight* overstatement. Since stacking is becoming more and more common, it is not that of an overstatement anyway. If you have an army that on average hits at 4+, it quickly becomes close to reality: even against a simple -1 hit a degraded vehicle or a moving heavy weapon start to hit on 6+, and yes, that *is* mathematically screwed. And even at 5+, when 25% to 50% of an average shooty army struggles to land hits, they *are* mathematically screwed, like it or not. And God forbid you were playing Orks and fielded some lootas or similar.
And I say this from the perspective of one who hates static gameplay and gunlines. Even when I (rarely) play AM, I always focus on mobility as I hate sitting and throwing dice. Yet, I consider it very unfair that some people have bought and painted long-range units, and now suddenly the meta has made those units unworthy in most cases. -1 hit IS both limiting the game and ruininig the fun because effectively it dictates tactical options and provides a mathematical advantage that has little to do with skills.
Because I have my Salamanders/Imperial Fists/World Eaters/etc Painted up and themed as that chapter and always use them with the corresponding trait instead of choosing the one most likely to give me a leg up on my opponent? -1 to hit in no way makes half the models in an average collection useless. That is an over statement of how good it is. You only see it that way because you trait tailor, so everyone you play against knowing you play gunline takes -1 to hit. If instead you played people with varied traits sometimes your units that are not great against -1 to hit would be great against other factions. Part of the fun when you design a list/pick a faction is choosing something that you think makes an effective list in all circumstances, not in choosing the hard counter to your expected opponent. List/Trait tailoring makes for poor games overall, and results in people taking unbalanced armies.
Again the issue is stacking, without stacking there is no occasion where units cannot hit you mathematically. Without -1 to hit, Artillery are super powerful with no real bad match-up in the game. If you want to give up range and make shooting out of LOS targets always -1 to hit regardless of opposing army we can talk about -1 to hit army traits being horrible for the game.
So are we playing the same game anyway? Because where I play, it'a pretty NORMAL to agree on a casual match with a friend, and obviously since I know the guy since years I know his army and know what to expext. And vice versa. And in that case, list-tailoring is only normal, although you obviously try to surprise your opponent with something unexpected. And that indeed IS part of the fun. If you only play against random opponents in a super-competitive tournament-like environment then I am really sorry for you, but that is not the only way, and not nearly the most funny either. So stop considering the kind of game I refer to as something exceptional.
The point about being mathematically unable to hit was a *slight* overstatement. Since stacking is becoming more and more common, it is not that of an overstatement anyway. If you have an army that on average hits at 4+, it quickly becomes close to reality: even against a simple -1 hit a degraded vehicle or a moving heavy weapon start to hit on 6+, and yes, that *is* mathematically screwed. And even at 5+, when 25% to 50% of an average shooty army struggles to land hits, they *are* mathematically screwed, like it or not. And God forbid you were playing Orks and fielded some lootas or similar.
And I say this from the perspective of one who hates static gameplay and gunlines. Even when I (rarely) play AM, I always focus on mobility as I hate sitting and throwing dice. Yet, I consider it very unfair that some people have bought and painted long-range units, and now suddenly the meta has made those units unworthy in most cases. -1 hit IS both limiting the game and ruininig the fun because effectively it dictates tactical options and provides a mathematical advantage that has little to do with skills.
I could say the same about all the effects in the game that halve the movement of a unit, or reduce assault distance. Why isn't there a 13 page thread about this?
-1 to hit traits are fine and intended to offer protection from long range shooting. Play against something that wants to smash your face and you'll have no trait. Play Ultramarines against a shooting list and you'll have no trait.
I really don't see the issue with these kind of traits. they are intended to improve the meta by making sure that if a kind of build becomes too common, then the players can react by taking a more fitting trait.
Right now long range shooting is dominant, so the -1 to hit traits get picked more. Working as intended.
Yes, an Aeldari list tailored against shooting will have a -2 on some units, or even a -3. This means that if you build your list around the concept of long range shooting you need to include some support for situations like these.
If you want to tailor against your friend list, then that is fine as long as he knows this and you play a fitting scenario. It's not a mistery that in this game you can efficenctly tailor your list against a known list, the -1 trait isn't even the worst offender in this.
Yeah, the game is terribly affected by effects that halve the movement of units army-wide. I'm so surprised there is no 13-page thread about this.
Your concept of 'relevant comparison' is far beyond my understanding. I won't repeat myself about the rest.
feral_80 wrote: Yeah, the game is terribly affected by effects that halve the movement of units army-wide. I'm so surprised there is no 13-page thread about this.
Your concept of 'relevant comparison' is far beyond my understanding. I won't repeat myself about the rest.
feral_80 wrote: Yeah, nice try I'm overwhelmed by the weight of your adamantine arguments.
Ok, i'll try to explain where my argument is.
In this game melee and shooting have the same weight by design, that is something that is universally understood. Depending on the edition the meta skews this balance in one direction or the other, but the weight they carry in the game is always shared 50/50. Easy proof of this is that there are around the same number of melee specialists (or short ranged specialsts) and ranged specialists models in the game.
I presented you an equivalent case to the one you presented, where some widely available stratagems/powers/rules can make some melee units useless, and asked why you didn't think that those were a problem. Your answer was perfect "Your concept of 'relevant comparison' is far beyond my understanding", meaning that for you something that threatens shooting is on a completely different level than something that threatens melee, which makes it obvious that your reading of the game is skewed by the actual (and quickly transient) state of the meta.
-1 to hit traits are bad for the game only in the light of the actual meta, because they hit a greater number of units than intended, while math wise they are balanced. Here is a simple mathematical demonstration that they are balanced with other traits:
Against 4+ a -1 causes a reduction in firepower of 2/6. If we assume that a list has a 50% of lists invested in units that shoot above 12" range (which is the intended ratio), then this means that your lists suffered a -1/6 in output.
The tipical trait that ignores wounds on 6+, does more than that (because it effects Mortal wounds).
So to sum it up, the trait is correctly balanced with other traits, but is made unbalanced by the current meta.
Suggesting changes to a rule to offest something that is caused by meta is bad game design.
We should instead discuss changes that move the game more towards it's intended balance of 50/50.
Your argument does not stand for the simple reason that - I repeat that part - your comparison is not reasonable.
The reason is not that I 'do not care' or I am not sensible to the needs of a close-combat army. There is currently absolutely *no* way to severely impact charge ranges or move distances *army-wide*. There is the occasional weapon, stratagem, or spell, that can do so to one single unit at a time. If any faction had the ability to do so on an army-wide scale, affecting all enemy units, just like the -1 hit does in the case of SM, CSM, CWE, AdMech, (Tyranids) sub-factions, I'd certainly be just as concerned - also because I *do* often play assault armies.
But the fact is, this is not the status of the game at the moment, simply put. So, your comparison is irrelevant. The current tendency is to severely limit long-range firepower army-wide, that's the only fact.
Is it? It was. I am not so sure at the moment - it might be a bit too early to state that.
And in any case, why give only certain armies a brutal advantage over long-range? If long-range was an overall problem, then it would be only fair to give all armies a way to mitigate it. Grey Knights are people too - and even the dreaded AM, after all. Not sure why some armies with excellent firepower (Marines, CSM and esp. the latest Tyranids and Eldar) can screw enemy fire, but others that also are good at shooting cannot.
feral_80 wrote: I am fully persuaded that the proliferation of -1 hit is/will be a major issue in regard to game balance. It's a huge thing in a d6-based game, and it has been implemented very poorly.
This rule alone is quickly forcing the game to focus almost exclusively on short-range engagements, which is not bad per se, but certainly it severely limits gameplay and is a pain for a good part of shooty armies.
The -1 hit should have been kept as an ultra-rare bonus, and certainly neither army wide nor stackable. Currently we've hit the bottom with the recent nonsense of C:Craftworlds - it does not help that out of 5 CW, 3 are poor/situational, 1 is half-ok, and the last is...Alaitoc. But even when it's just a plain -1 it's very concerning, as it screws BS 4+ armies, still hits hard all the rest, and severely limits tactical choices.
Ah how ironic this is when <8th ed people were clamouring for return of to hit modifiers
I rather like the to hit penalties, to be honest, gives armies a fighting chance against AM. Stacked to hit penalties tilt things, but are much harder to achieve and are not army wide. Tyrandis can get a -3 to hit on one unit and -2 to hit on... some rather poor quality choices.
Eldar can put -2 to hit on their planes and on another selected unit a turn via Conceal. They can situationally get a -3 on 1 unit at a time, sometimes.
Marine and CSM are mostly just -1, though they might have something to get a -2 somewhere, not armies I really play.
Majority of units are -1 in both cases and there are ways to work around it (kill the thing granting the -1 for Nids or get close for Eldar).
Why should some armies not to have access to this? Same reason some armies don't get access to reroll auras and some armies don't get access to multishot LoS ignoring guns and some armies don't get a way to regain command points. Armies are different with different strengths and weaknesses.
Grey Knights being weak hardly means that -1 to hit is a massive problem, it just means grey knights are weak as a mono build army. Although there have been high placing lists with solid grey knights components in tournaments (souped with guard).
My primary army for about 20 years has been Dark Eldar, they don't have a codex and have massive issues, they are weaker than Grey Knights, but I don't think everything should be dragged down to that level or that we should be given everyone else's special rules (even though most of what used to make us unique are now generic to everyone).
I am not saying that all armies should have the same abilities. What I am saying is that if somebody argues that long-rage shooting is a game-wide issue, than *all* armies should be given ways to mitigate it. Not only a few.
Otherwise, you only end up creating more imbalance, not reducing it.
And by the way, just to clarify, some (surprisingly eh?) rather popular Eldar Alaitoc builds regularly get -2 hit on a lot of units that they tend to spam, not just on flyers: planes, Spiders, Rangers, advancing Wave serpents, (nerfed) Spectres. This can amount to pretty much half of their stuff on the field. Units that <fly> can situationally get to -3 (stratagem) or -4 (add Conceal), or two different units can get -3 this way. Totally not abusive.
Whether or not -1 to hit is game breakingly good, it certainly is the best trait available. This is poor internal balance. In absence of faction tied special characters such as Cawl and Guilliman, the -1 to hit trait just surpasses all other traits. Either it should be nerfed, or the other traits should be made better.
I absolutely agree. As said, as an AdMech player I'm pissed of by the internal balance of my codex. I'd rather give away both Cawl and Stygies' trait in exchange for 5 balanced and viable FWs. It would be good if most players of other factions in similar conditions felt the same, but I have the impression that abusing the best thing around is just the most common attitude.
No, it only does that in shooting dominant meta.
In a melee dominant meta, it would be considered pure trash.
In a hybrid meta its a hint-and-miss.
Just like IF/IW trait is currently considered trash, but HAD the meta been "artificial terrain" dominant, it would have been very good.
Good traits in a multi-trait book are ones that they are CONDITIONALLY better.
The -1 to hit fits the bill. its amazing against a gunline, useful against hybrid, and utterly useless against point-blank/assault armies.
feral_80 wrote: Your argument does not stand for the simple reason that - I repeat that part - your comparison is not reasonable.
The reason is not that I 'do not care' or I am not sensible to the needs of a close-combat army. There is currently absolutely *no* way to severely impact charge ranges or move distances *army-wide*. There is the occasional weapon, stratagem, or spell, that can do so to one single unit at a time. If any faction had the ability to do so on an army-wide scale, affecting all enemy units, just like the -1 hit does in the case of SM, CSM, CWE, AdMech, (Tyranids) sub-factions, I'd certainly be just as concerned - also because I *do* often play assault armies.
But the fact is, this is not the status of the game at the moment, simply put. So, your comparison is irrelevant. The current tendency is to severely limit long-range firepower army-wide, that's the only fact.
Just to be clear, i DON'T think that those anti assault rules are a problem in the game, i referenced those just for argument sake and to explain why i also don't consider anti ranged rules to be a problem.
BoomWolf wrote: No, it only does that in shooting dominant meta.
In a melee dominant meta, it would be considered pure trash.
In a hybrid meta its a hint-and-miss.
Just like IF/IW trait is currently considered trash, but HAD the meta been "artificial terrain" dominant, it would have been very good.
Good traits in a multi-trait book are ones that they are CONDITIONALLY better.
The -1 to hit fits the bill. its amazing against a gunline, useful against hybrid, and utterly useless against point-blank/assault armies.
But there is no melee dominated meta!
In tournaments these traits clearly used the most, and usually when not, it is because incompatible special character. It is clear that this is the best trait, and such imaginary meta where this would not be the case does not exist. Furthermore, it is ironic that the best counter for this trait - an ability to deploy units close to the enemy - is often paired with this trait.
I think the point is that this is only the best choice because of a shooting dominated meta, if the trait is as punishing to that meta as claimed we will see a shift to a close assault meta (short range or assault based) or a hybrid meta. This will naturally hurt shooting armies, which, at the moment are dominant. As such the trait itself encourages a meta in which it is weaker. If counter lists like this do not become prevalent that indicates that the trait, if anything, is a little weak (I don't think this is the case). I suspect we will see shifts to the inclusion of more close range elements.
I'd just like to see we always hit on 6.
Or if negative modifiers make you impossible to hit (like needing you to roll 7+) and you get a 6 you get to roll again and hit on 2+ if first required roll was 7+ or hit on 3+ if first required roll to hit was 8+ (those second rolls would be uneffected by any modifiers).
Because I have my Salamanders/Imperial Fists/World Eaters/etc Painted up and themed as that chapter and always use them with the corresponding trait instead of choosing the one most likely to give me a leg up on my opponent? -1 to hit in no way makes half the models in an average collection useless. That is an over statement of how good it is. You only see it that way because you trait tailor, so everyone you play against knowing you play gunline takes -1 to hit. If instead you played people with varied traits sometimes your units that are not great against -1 to hit would be great against other factions. Part of the fun when you design a list/pick a faction is choosing something that you think makes an effective list in all circumstances, not in choosing the hard counter to your expected opponent. List/Trait tailoring makes for poor games overall, and results in people taking unbalanced armies.
Again the issue is stacking, without stacking there is no occasion where units cannot hit you mathematically. Without -1 to hit, Artillery are super powerful with no real bad match-up in the game. If you want to give up range and make shooting out of LOS targets always -1 to hit regardless of opposing army we can talk about -1 to hit army traits being horrible for the game.
So are we playing the same game anyway? Because where I play, it'a pretty NORMAL to agree on a casual match with a friend, and obviously since I know the guy since years I know his army and know what to expext. And vice versa. And in that case, list-tailoring is only normal, although you obviously try to surprise your opponent with something unexpected. And that indeed IS part of the fun. If you only play against random opponents in a super-competitive tournament-like environment then I am really sorry for you, but that is not the only way, and not nearly the most funny either. So stop considering the kind of game I refer to as something exceptional.
The point about being mathematically unable to hit was a *slight* overstatement. Since stacking is becoming more and more common, it is not that of an overstatement anyway. If you have an army that on average hits at 4+, it quickly becomes close to reality: even against a simple -1 hit a degraded vehicle or a moving heavy weapon start to hit on 6+, and yes, that *is* mathematically screwed. And even at 5+, when 25% to 50% of an average shooty army struggles to land hits, they *are* mathematically screwed, like it or not. And God forbid you were playing Orks and fielded some lootas or similar.
And I say this from the perspective of one who hates static gameplay and gunlines. Even when I (rarely) play AM, I always focus on mobility as I hate sitting and throwing dice. Yet, I consider it very unfair that some people have bought and painted long-range units, and now suddenly the meta has made those units unworthy in most cases. -1 hit IS both limiting the game and ruininig the fun because effectively it dictates tactical options and provides a mathematical advantage that has little to do with skills.
Yes we very much are, I don't play random people all the time, but I never list tailor, I design lists that I want to try out that are balanced, and bring different stuff. It ceases to be fun if against the guy I know loves horde orks (or lacks a range of models to vary his list) and I bring nothing but anti-infantry units. The same is true against the guy that I know runs heavy shooty so everyone always brings the hard counter to his list. I'm not saying how you play doesn't happen, but I don't think that if you do it many people would enjoy it unless everyone has multiple builds for the faction they run, all of which are different and avoid possible counters people bring. Otherwise bringing the hard counter and list tailoring is being a jerk, whether you enjoy it or not. If you only ever play with friends, then it is super easy to say "hey how about we not stack modifiers?" or "lets not use -1 to hit factions." if the answer to those is NO. Then your group isn't about the fun of list building, it is about abusing players to win at all costs. IF you are not list tailoring, then -1 to hit is not that big a deal. Stacking is a big deal as yes that makes it mathematically impossible to hit.
You are confusing 'natural' list-tailoring with min-maxing idiocy. I'll give an example.
Let' say I play AM and agree to play vs a friend, who says will bring his Orks. He has a varied collection, not just the same units he always plays with (otherwise, his would just be a limited collection and I won't exploit the fact).
My assumption: Orkz are horde. My options:
1. Min-maxing idiocy: I'll go all Punishers, gatlings, mortars, Hellhounds, and Vultures, with little to nothing else.
2. Natural list tailoring: I'll take a good quantity of anti-infantry, because I expect horde - it's Orkz after all. I'll also have a plan for mobility, but since I know he'll reach my lines with something, I'm also taking Bullgryns and some tooled up stuff for counter-charge, like e.g. my small Deathwatch detachment, which may not be great, but certainly funny and fluffy vs xenos. My mobile option will be a Valkyrie, because Orkz would probably hit it on 6 so it should survive enough to deploy my squad on the other side of the table. And I love the model even if it's not that great pts-wise, but I just finished painting it and I want to try it. The rest will be mixed and anti-heavy stuff.
Tursn out he decides to surprise me and deploys a fully mechanized army of Killa kanz, Gorkanauts, tanks, etc.
Guess who's going to win? If I did minmax as in option 1, the way you assume I intend it, I'd just have no chance because my extreme bet was completely unsuited to his bet. If I went option 2, I certainly have a chance.
No. 2 is the only thing I refer to when I mention list tailoring. Taking what you believe will be useful while still having a balanced army, because that will work regardless. And it is only natural and obvious to do so - frankly, anybody does so whenever he can. And there is absolutely nothing wrong or weird - actually, it's part of the game and part of the fun! You are really arguing against nothing.
This trait spesifically punishes gunlines, in particular horde gunlines, and yet they are STILL dominant.
So either this trait isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be, or it is really needed to keep horde shooting from being completely overwhelming.
Either way, it's a tool to create a self regulating meta. And doing its job.
How it is doing its job if gunlines still dominate? I certainly agree that shooting is
too powerful, but this is a bad fix. It means you're just screwed if you don't have it and having it allows many powerful shooting units avoid reprisal.
This trait spesifically punishes gunlines, in particular horde gunlines, and yet they are STILL dominant.
So either this trait isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be, or it is really needed to keep horde shooting from being completely overwhelming.
Either way, it's a tool to create a self regulating meta. And doing its job.
How it is doing its job if gunlines still dominate? I certainly agree that shooting is
too powerful, but this is a bad fix. It means you're just screwed if you don't have it and having it allows many powerful shooting units avoid reprisal.r
Its doing its job by preventing it from going completely off the rail and offering SOME sort of counter, at least until the meta shifts somewhat (perhaps with more assault armies pouring in)
It grantees that at least 2 archtypes remain viable-the horde gunline, and it's natural counter the "hard to shoot at" army.
No army can really pull both off simultaneously, and if one COULD, it would be a gamebreaker. (eldar can try, but we all know its not really viable. the best "cant shoot me" units are high tier, and not very long ranged)
This trait spesifically punishes gunlines, in particular horde gunlines, and yet they are STILL dominant.
So either this trait isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be, or it is really needed to keep horde shooting from being completely overwhelming.
Either way, it's a tool to create a self regulating meta. And doing its job.
How it is doing its job if gunlines still dominate? I certainly agree that shooting is
too powerful, but this is a bad fix. It means you're just screwed if you don't have it and having it allows many powerful shooting units avoid reprisal.
I'm fairly sure it's diminishing the overall efficiency of gunlines and increasing the value of assault in the meta.
It may not "fix" the meta, but it's part of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feral_80 wrote: You are confusing 'natural' list-tailoring with min-maxing idiocy. I'll give an example.
Let' say I play AM and agree to play vs a friend, who says will bring his Orks. He has a varied collection, not just the same units he always plays with (otherwise, his would just be a limited collection and I won't exploit the fact).
My assumption: Orkz are horde. My options:
1. Min-maxing idiocy: I'll go all Punishers, gatlings, mortars, Hellhounds, and Vultures, with little to nothing else.
2. Natural list tailoring: I'll take a good quantity of anti-infantry, because I expect horde - it's Orkz after all. I'll also have a plan for mobility, but since I know he'll reach my lines with something, I'm also taking Bullgryns and some tooled up stuff for counter-charge, like e.g. my small Deathwatch detachment, which may not be great, but certainly funny and fluffy vs xenos. My mobile option will be a Valkyrie, because Orkz would probably hit it on 6 so it should survive enough to deploy my squad on the other side of the table. And I love the model even if it's not that great pts-wise, but I just finished painting it and I want to try it. The rest will be mixed and anti-heavy stuff.
Tursn out he decides to surprise me and deploys a fully mechanized army of Killa kanz, Gorkanauts, tanks, etc.
Guess who's going to win? If I did minmax as in option 1, the way you assume I intend it, I'd just have no chance because my extreme bet was completely unsuited to his bet. If I went option 2, I certainly have a chance.
No. 2 is the only thing I refer to when I mention list tailoring. Taking what you believe will be useful while still having a balanced army, because that will work regardless. And it is only natural and obvious to do so - frankly, anybody does so whenever he can. And there is absolutely nothing wrong or weird - actually, it's part of the game and part of the fun! You are really arguing against nothing.
In my book, any kind of list tailoring, considering the opponent's army or style, is weak and underhanded.
I write lists to take on anything and that's what I personally like to play and like to play against.
If you like to play differently and your playmates don't mind, that's perfect too.
feral_80 wrote: You are confusing 'natural' list-tailoring with min-maxing idiocy. I'll give an example.
Let' say I play AM and agree to play vs a friend, who says will bring his Orks. He has a varied collection, not just the same units he always plays with (otherwise, his would just be a limited collection and I won't exploit the fact).
My assumption: Orkz are horde. My options:
1. Min-maxing idiocy: I'll go all Punishers, gatlings, mortars, Hellhounds, and Vultures, with little to nothing else.
2. Natural list tailoring: I'll take a good quantity of anti-infantry, because I expect horde - it's Orkz after all. I'll also have a plan for mobility, but since I know he'll reach my lines with something, I'm also taking Bullgryns and some tooled up stuff for counter-charge, like e.g. my small Deathwatch detachment, which may not be great, but certainly funny and fluffy vs xenos. My mobile option will be a Valkyrie, because Orkz would probably hit it on 6 so it should survive enough to deploy my squad on the other side of the table. And I love the model even if it's not that great pts-wise, but I just finished painting it and I want to try it. The rest will be mixed and anti-heavy stuff.
Tursn out he decides to surprise me and deploys a fully mechanized army of Killa kanz, Gorkanauts, tanks, etc.
Guess who's going to win? If I did minmax as in option 1, the way you assume I intend it, I'd just have no chance because my extreme bet was completely unsuited to his bet. If I went option 2, I certainly have a chance.
No. 2 is the only thing I refer to when I mention list tailoring. Taking what you believe will be useful while still having a balanced army, because that will work regardless. And it is only natural and obvious to do so - frankly, anybody does so whenever he can. And there is absolutely nothing wrong or weird - actually, it's part of the game and part of the fun! You are really arguing against nothing.
Always taking -1 to hit when facing shooty factions falls into group 1, not group 2. If your list tailoring is being done with the intent on creating a fun/fluffy game, then I would suggest that no one would ever take -1 to hit factions, unless sometimes people bring all alpha strike armies, which are neither fun nor fluffy. This is what I am saying. If your intent is to create a fun environment just house rule around -1 to hit, if the intent is that people are bringing their hardest stuff to win games, then it is perfectly fair.
To be honest you cannot on one hands say "I don't min/max list tailor." and "Above all - and this is a paradox really - this rule badly screws 1v1 casual play, because *anybody* who has access to -1 hit will take it whenever he knows he'll face a shooty army." which is MIN/MAX list tailoring or "I play AdMech and I am extremely pissed off by a codex that only offers 2 viable FW options, and 1 (Mars) would not even be so if it wasn't for Cawl (who should have been *nerfed* by CA, not improved). Taking Stygies is a no-brainer 90% of my games, and it's sad." which again is MIN/MAX list tailoring.
You cannot both say "I don't optimize" and then turn and say "well X is always optimal and that is a problem"
Optimizing vs orks isn't all punishers. It is taking the trait that buffs your army vs punishers, its making sure you have effective screening, and then maybe some wyverns or punishers or helhounds, but also Drop Plasma squads, and anti-tank. (Unless you know the other persons list, and tailor directly to it). It is leaning on knowing you will need more anti-infantry and bringing it vs, playing something with no foreknowledge at all.
Essentially if you create an environment where specific traits never have a bad match-up they are then stronger than they otherwise would be. For instance if my opponents always play admech with counts as cover saves, and nids with counts as cover saves. The imperial fist trait becomes more powerful, same if I play with a lot of cover. If I routinely face a ton Dark Reapers -1 to hit is not great, Iron Hands would be better. If I face a ton of assault ultra marines would be better. But by creating an environment where that choice (especially against some armies) has no functional downside it becomes much more powerful.
The things I would have liked to see regarding -1 to hit modifiers are
1.) DO not stack (with the potential exception of moving and firing of heavy weapons, and perhaps some very specific units)
2.) A roll of a 6 to hit always hits.
3.) A separation of these traits from the best stratagems in faction. The 1 CP infiltrate stratagem is tied to the -1 to hit factions, giving these factions a double dip on the most powerful stratagem and one of (if not the) best trait. If you took these apart I think you would also see fewer -1 to hit armies because people would want to use the infiltrate
4.) Chapter tactics only applying to entire armies composed of a single chapter (stops take 1 bonus for my close up stuff and then -1 for my long range shooting).
In either case I never build armies to face a specific opponent, but to be able to handle a variety of opponents, my area is filled with mostly people who are what you would deem limited collection. They own armies not factions. I also play a variety of people and thus don't need to vary my list all the time to enjoy the game.
Breng77, trying to recombine my own statements to argue against me is pretty silly. You perfectly understand what I mean - I hope - and I also hope that you get the difference between playing as a waac and selecting *only* the strongest stuff and playing with a friend but still put up a good fight and designing a *good* balanced army. I am referring to the latter when I mention that people select -1 hit *in this context*. And for your information, when I select it with AdMech I do it because - as you might know - the codex already sucks enough, so sadly it needs all the help it can get since I tend to play vs codex armies. There are really no viable alternatives except Mars (boring as hell) if you want to stand up against any decent opponent. When I play against an index army, I select no FW at all.
We don't house-rule, and certainly I'd never try to willingly limit the choices of an opponent from his legit codex, as poor as it may be in terms of design and internal balance. We are not wannabe game designers, and we expect to all follow the same rules we have bought and shared. We use common sense and friendly attitude when devising our lists, and that is usually enough when you play among mentally developed adults. What I am referring to is that these widespread -1 hit shenanigans are bringing the game to something bad.
You can go ahead and argue forever that everything is perfectly fine as it is. But then you look at real games and realize that if -1 hit sub-factions are vastly more popular, there must be some reason after all. It's vastly superior to anything else, that's it, and nobody who tries to argue the contrary is able to provide an alternative explanation.
feral_80 wrote: Breng77, trying to recombine my own statements to argue against me is pretty silly. You perfectly understand what I mean - I hope - and I also hope that you get the difference between playing as a waac and selecting *only* the strongest stuff and playing with a friend but still put up a good fight and designing a *good* balanced army. I am referring to the latter when I mention that people select -1 hit whenever they think it is useful. And for your information, when I select it with AdMech I do it because - as you might know - the codex already sucks enough, so sadly it needs all the help it can get since I tend to play vs codex armies. When I play against index army, I select no FW at all.
We don't house-rule, and certainly I'd never try to willingly limit the choices of an opponent from his legit codex, as poor as it may be in terms of design and internal balance. We are not wannabe game designers, and we expect to all follow the same rules we have bought and shared. We use common sense and friendly attitude when devising our lists, and that is usually enough when you play among mentally developed adults.
You can go ahead and argue forever that everything is perfectly fine as it is. But then you look at real games and realize that if -1 hit sub-factions are vastly more popular, there must be some reason after all. It's vastly superior to anything else, that's it, and nobody who tries to argue the contrary is able to provide an alternative explanation.
The explanation has been given here many times. Those traits are there to counter a shooting meta. Since we are in a shooting meta right now, those traits are always taken.
Nerfing the counter to a meta is not the correct way to address this. The absurd part is that if those traits gave -3 to hit then they would be much less used
Yea, simple answers. And I repeat: if the problem are shooting armies, either give *every* army a way to counter them, or give *every* army a solid shooting, or give each army either of the two.
On the contrary, currently armies with good and competitive shooting also get the -1 to be hit. This system only brings more imbalance to the game instead of allegedly balancing it.
feral_80 wrote: Breng77, trying to recombine my own statements to argue against me is pretty silly. You perfectly understand what I mean - I hope - and I also hope that you get the difference between playing as a waac and selecting *only* the strongest stuff and playing with a friend but still put up a good fight and designing a *good* balanced army. I am referring to the latter when I mention that people select -1 hit *in this context*. And for your information, when I select it with AdMech I do it because - as you might know - the codex already sucks enough, so sadly it needs all the help it can get since I tend to play vs codex armies. There are really no viable alternatives except Mars (boring as hell) if you want to stand up against any decent opponent. When I play against an index army, I select no FW at all.
We don't house-rule, and certainly I'd never try to willingly limit the choices of an opponent from his legit codex, as poor as it may be in terms of design and internal balance. We are not wannabe game designers, and we expect to all follow the same rules we have bought and shared. We use common sense and friendly attitude when devising our lists, and that is usually enough when you play among mentally developed adults. What I am referring to is that these widespread -1 hit shenanigans are bringing the game to something bad.
You can go ahead and argue forever that everything is perfectly fine as it is. But then you look at real games and realize that if -1 hit sub-factions are vastly more popular, there must be some reason after all. It's vastly superior to anything else, that's it, and nobody who tries to argue the contrary is able to provide an alternative explanation.
Sorry but taking -1 to hit specifically against shooty armies is WAAC, because as you said you are selecting the "strongest stuff". ADMech is just fine unless your opponents are playing the strongest stuff. This is where your argument falls apart. you say "we're casual" but want to take things that will give us an advantage against particular factions/opponents. Sorry but to me these are the same thing. Designing lists to create a good balanced game has nothing to do with selecting optimal effectiveness against an opponent. I would disagree with your friendly attitude when designing lists if you are tailoring to be effective against what you expect to see to the point that if you face Tau you take -1 to hit all the time.
-1 to hit factions are point in fact not the most popular out there unless you refuse to take special characters into account. I've also given you other reasons why they are important. As far as I know 3 of the 4 -1 to hit factions also have the infiltrate stratagem which is the most powerful faction specific stratagem that I can think of. Take that stratagem out of alpha legion and give it to say night lords and see if it makes a difference in which faction gets taken. People want to infiltrate their berserkers, now they have to give up -1 to hit to do it. Same if you did it for Ravenguard, and I think Stygies (though probably not as important there). Now you are looking at lists that are not 100% -1 to hit, I guarantee those stratagems are a significant reason why people take those factions
SO there is your alternative explanation. It is one of the strongest traits (there are others that are close), but it also comes with the strongest stratagem. Which gives it even more reason to be taken. Personally if say Imperial fists had the infiltrate stratagem I would be using them instead of Ravenguard for a majority of my lists. If I just wanted -1 to hit at range I could build my marines as Dark Angels and get it + other bonuses.
That is the real issue is that they did a poor job of balancing Trait + relic + stratagems
As for -1 to hit factions I'm not sure they are overwhelmingly more popular. Eldar is fairly new, but Alpha Legion is so far the only one of these to see a lot of play in tournaments and that is almost always for the infiltrate stratagem. I see way more ultramarines and Mars, and then AM which have no such trait. We also have only seen a few books so far. 4 of 6 have this trait, but we know BA do not, DA if dark shrouds remain unchanged they have a small amount that can be removed by killing the unit providing it. Daemons have a character (that if unchanged) does the same, as do Nids. But if not every army has it, the problem is less if those armies are also good (they may not be), unless people are list tailoring to use it when it is advantageous to them to do so.
Drager: so a rock-scissor-paper system, which is terribly rigid by definition, and rules out any choice that does not conform to the mechanism. Which is exactly what is happening now: as the game quickly shifts towards engagements at <12" range - for one reason or another - we wonder what's the use for long-range units if we get more of this trend. Answer: little to none, probably.
If you are fine with this trend, good for you. I am not, if anything because I don't like to being 'forced' in my choices and I don't like the idea that units that people have bought for their collection become unworthy. I know, there is absolutely nothing new or even surprising here knowing GW. But this had to be 'the new GW'.
Drager wrote: Not everyone needs a rule to shift the meta.. That isn't how méta games work.
So it is OK for some armies to get annihilated by shooty armies and this is in no way unbalanced! Got it!
Would those same armies get annihilated by assault armies? Probably not. Would the armies that are resilient to shooting and/or good at it have more trouble with assault armies? Probably yes. So having some armies be very resistant to shooting tilts the meta, this makes assault and short range more prevalent, this makes armies that don't have the trait and are losing to shooting better because the trait exists. If everyone is very resistant to shooting you just kill shooting and have people upset about the assault meta and "why are we not allowed to play long range, why can't guard get any good games?" this is not desirable either. If all armies are resistant to both shooting and assault then games are boring because nothing dies.
In a metagame things cause shifts of what is prevalent and this changes what is powerful, -1 to hit on some clear % of the armies is clearly something capable of doing this. It might actually screw over some of the armies that have it as, if they are shooting armies themselves, they will see their output fall as all they face is things with the -1 trait. For this reason, to combat armies with the trait, armies that are powerful in assault and short-range firefights become stronger, if these also have the -1 trait this pushes the meta faster towards assault. Now there are (or should be) some armies that are very good at countering the rush lists that the -1 trait makes good. These lists also become stronger as they are able to deal with the now more prevalent assault/close range meta.
If they also had resistance to long range shooting they would be unstoppable, being good against both styles. Them being weak to shooting leaves a gap to deal with them, this pushes back towards shooting lists, but as the other counters to those are still around it causes hybrid lists to become more competitive as, although they don't dominate against the shooting armies, or the rush armies or the counter lists they can handle all three to some extent. As these hybrid lists become more prevalent, particularly if they come to dominate the meta then skew lists to counter the best hybrid lists become better.
That is what metagames are like. Right now we have heavy shooting (a predator) and we have a countermeasure -1 to hit (camoflauge) the next step is for people to start taking something to counter that countermeasure. If -1 to hit is strong enough this will inevitably happen. This doesn't mean that those armies that are vulnerable to shooting, but strong against assault should get that trait too for the reasons outlined above, they are having a rough time right now, but they should ascend as shooting drops, giving them a direct counter to shooting will unbalance the whole system.
feral_80 wrote: Drager: so a rock-scissor-paper system, which is terribly rigid by definition, and rules out any choice that does not conform to the mechanism. Which is exactly what is happening now: as the game quickly shifts towards engagements at <12" range - for one reason or another - we wonder what's the use for long-range units if we get more of this trend. Answer: little to none, probably.
If you are fine with this trend, good for you. I am not, if anything because I don't like to being 'forced' in my choices and I don't like the idea that units that people have bought for their collection become unworthy. I know, there is absolutely nothing new or even surprising here knowing GW. But this had to be 'the new GW'.
If you ahve a game with factions that are not highly similar and homogenous you get an ecosystem called a metagame, where things wax and wane in power. Having this be dynamic is a good thing, as described above. If you are wondering what is the use for long range units and other people are wondering how to contend with them that is indicating the meta is shifting. Helpin gout the long range guys or the vulnerable to long range guys at this point is not useful.
This is the opposite of rigid it is a highly fluid system, provided enough styles measures and counter measures exist. Does 8th have the legs for this sort of fluid meta? I don't know yet.
Would those same armies get annihilated by assault armies? Probably not. Would the armies that are resilient to shooting and/or good at it have more trouble with assault armies? Probably yes.
What assault armies? Where are these assault armies that can threaten Alaitoc Eldar?
Would those same armies get annihilated by assault armies? Probably not. Would the armies that are resilient to shooting and/or good at it have more trouble with assault armies? Probably yes.
What assault armies? Where are these assault armies that can threaten Alaitoc Eldar?
Good question! Assault and short-range firepower, remember. I think nids are a very good contender at the moment. We need to see a little more interaction between the two, but they certainly seem to ahve the teeth. Other than that I don't know. If they don't exist then that is a design problem, not the -1 to hit thing. Blood Angels look like they might be able to do this as well. Maybe Alpha Legion Chaos. There are certainly possibilities.
Would those same armies get annihilated by assault armies? Probably not. Would the armies that are resilient to shooting and/or good at it have more trouble with assault armies? Probably yes.
What assault armies? Where are these assault armies that can threaten Alaitoc Eldar?
Good question! Assault and short-range firepower, remember. I think nids are a very good contender at the moment. We need to see a little more interaction between the two, but they certainly seem to ahve the teeth. Other than that I don't know. If they don't exist then that is a design problem, not the -1 to hit thing. Blood Angels look like they might be able to do this as well. Maybe Alpha Legion Chaos. There are certainly possibilities.
Blood angels may have some problems with forewarned big reaper blobs since they love to deepstrike, but that can be countered and is a problem tied to a single interaction between a model and a stratagem that can be fixed. Tyranids definitely eat Alaitoc Eldars for breakfast.
Would those same armies get annihilated by assault armies? Probably not. Would the armies that are resilient to shooting and/or good at it have more trouble with assault armies? Probably yes.
What assault armies? Where are these assault armies that can threaten Alaitoc Eldar?
Good question! Assault and short-range firepower, remember. I think nids are a very good contender at the moment. We need to see a little more interaction between the two, but they certainly seem to ahve the teeth. Other than that I don't know. If they don't exist then that is a design problem, not the -1 to hit thing. Blood Angels look like they might be able to do this as well. Maybe Alpha Legion Chaos. There are certainly possibilities.
Blood angels may have some problems with forewarned big reaper blobs since they love to deepstrike, but that can be countered and is a problem tied to a single interaction between a model and a stratagem that can be fixed.
Tyranids definitely eat Alaitoc Eldars for breakfast.
Tyranids rely heavily on deep strike to...eldar > nids. Between forwarnd reapers/alaitoc army trait/and quicken combined with singing spears. Eldar are pretty much unbeatable if they go first and don't roll terrible. If they go second - they have the best chance of any army to turn it around.
Would those same armies get annihilated by assault armies? Probably not. Would the armies that are resilient to shooting and/or good at it have more trouble with assault armies? Probably yes.
What assault armies? Where are these assault armies that can threaten Alaitoc Eldar?
Good question! Assault and short-range firepower, remember. I think nids are a very good contender at the moment. We need to see a little more interaction between the two, but they certainly seem to ahve the teeth. Other than that I don't know. If they don't exist then that is a design problem, not the -1 to hit thing. Blood Angels look like they might be able to do this as well. Maybe Alpha Legion Chaos. There are certainly possibilities.
Blood angels may have some problems with forewarned big reaper blobs since they love to deepstrike, but that can be countered and is a problem tied to a single interaction between a model and a stratagem that can be fixed.
Tyranids definitely eat Alaitoc Eldars for breakfast.
Tyranids rely heavily on deep strike to...eldar > nids. Between forwarnd reapers/alaitoc army trait/and quicken combined with singing spears. Eldar are pretty much unbeatable if they go first and don't roll terrible. If they go second - they have the best chance of any army to turn it around.
Not all Nids rely that much on the deep strike, but let's assume they are and the nid player (Jormungandr) deep strikes a Trygon, 30 Devourer Gaunts, A Broodlord and 2 Neurothropes in one shot. He still has a unit of Raveners and a unit of tunnelling Genestealers iand another unit of Devilgaunts n reserve. What does the Eldar player shoot with Forewarned that matters? Does he wait for the other unit to drop? I don';t think Forewarned is scary to nids really.
Martel732 wrote: BA don't have to deepstrike. We can also just move up DC units or ride in transports. How big is the bubble?
Line of sight of Dark Reapers.
Luckily Eldars are really bad at screening, so if you deepstrike more than unit then they are easily removed. They can put them in a transport but then they are not getting forewarned.
Would those same armies get annihilated by assault armies? Probably not. Would the armies that are resilient to shooting and/or good at it have more trouble with assault armies? Probably yes.
What assault armies? Where are these assault armies that can threaten Alaitoc Eldar?
Good question! Assault and short-range firepower, remember. I think nids are a very good contender at the moment. We need to see a little more interaction between the two, but they certainly seem to ahve the teeth. Other than that I don't know. If they don't exist then that is a design problem, not the -1 to hit thing. Blood Angels look like they might be able to do this as well. Maybe Alpha Legion Chaos. There are certainly possibilities.
Blood angels may have some problems with forewarned big reaper blobs since they love to deepstrike, but that can be countered and is a problem tied to a single interaction between a model and a stratagem that can be fixed.
Tyranids definitely eat Alaitoc Eldars for breakfast.
Tyranids rely heavily on deep strike to...eldar > nids. Between forwarnd reapers/alaitoc army trait/and quicken combined with singing spears. Eldar are pretty much unbeatable if they go first and don't roll terrible. If they go second - they have the best chance of any army to turn it around.
Not all Nids rely that much on the deep strike, but let's assume they are and the nid player (Jormungandr) deep strikes a Trygon, 30 Devourer Gaunts, A Broodlord and 2 Neurothropes in one shot. He still has a unit of Raveners and a unit of tunnelling Genestealers iand another unit of Devilgaunts n reserve. What does the Eldar player shoot with Forewarned that matters? Does he wait for the other unit to drop? I don';t think Forewarned is scary to nids really.
I'd probably just shoot up the trygon in that case - (no reason no to it's free shooting). If you had a big unit of scatter bikes though (my friend takes a squad of 8) You could just wax most of the gaunts (that's what he did to me). In any case - you beat an army like that with deployment.
Martel732 wrote: BA don't have to deepstrike. We can also just move up DC units or ride in transports. How big is the bubble?
Line of sight of Dark Reapers.
Luckily Eldars are really bad at screening, so if you deepstrike more than unit then they are easily removed. They can put them in a transport but then they are not getting forewarned.
Eldar flyers are actually excellent screeners - They take up a lot of space and they can't be charged by the majority of crap in the game.
morgoth wrote: I believe that preventing army traits from stacking turns them to garbage.
E.g. who would take the 6+ fnp craftworld if it simply makes other equipment and abilities useless.
Overall, I think we demonstrated minus to hit rarely ever stack beyond 2 with range conditions and that seems fair enough.
The 6+ FNP craftworld doesn't stack, to choose between it and any other similar ability. -2 to hit is still very strong. -1 to hit should not stack except in very specific cases.
Dats a pood point, Boss! 
WAAAAAAGH!
