Also, above all else I wish that I'd just remembered to Forlorn Fury my captain forward! Completely forgot because we had an hours break between deployment and turn one! Would have made a hell of a better turn one :(
Innes wrote: Also, above all else I wish that I'd just remembered to Forlorn Fury my captain forward! Completely forgot because we had an hours break between deployment and turn one! Would have made a hell of a better turn one :(
You did quite well with all those outside influences messing with playing the game.
That is a lot of plates to be spinning right up untill you start the game, writing a list based of points you've just been shown, with what model the studio has available.
Then what I assume was presumably lots of interruption or disruption to the normal flow of the game of explaining why and pictures etc.
I'm sure I would have gotten totally wrong footed by that and probably wrecked the game with some shockingly bad misplay.
Innes wrote: Also, above all else I wish that I'd just remembered to Forlorn Fury my captain forward! Completely forgot because we had an hours break between deployment and turn one! Would have made a hell of a better turn one :(
You did quite well with all those outside influences messing with playing the game.
That is a lot of plates to be spinning right up untill you start the game, writing a list based of points you've just been shown, with what model the studio has available.
Then what I assume was presumably lots of interruption or disruption to the normal flow of the game of explaining why and pictures etc.
I'm sure I would have gotten totally wrong footed by that and probably wrecked the game with some shockingly bad misplay.
Cards on the table....
I was probably fortunate to win. Innes tends to play more competitive events than me these days, and certainly takes better lists. I had a super lucky turn 1, which I think carried me to the win.
I'll add as well that I think the mission greatly favoured me (although I can't remember how we decided we'd play this particular game) so that was against him too.
What would be preferred is the 2nd edition restrictions on powerful stuff.
So you want to take that independent OP Exarch character? Well you need to have at least 1 unit of Aspects before you can do that. You want 2 of those super exarchs....now you need 2 units of exarchs.
Many HQs were 0-1 per army.
We always played 2nd ed that you could take champion HQ at 500 points.Hero HQ level dudes at 1000 points Mighty Champion at 1500 points and the top tier HQ 1 per 2000.
I think the super heavies could not be over 25% of the battleforce.
It would be easy to extrapolate this to Marine Lt, Captains, Commanders, Chapter Masters.
x number of squads and you unlock Lt, captains,,,,more to unlock Commanders and finally special characters and such when you have a flavorful enough force.
admironheart wrote: What would be preferred is the 2nd edition restrictions on powerful stuff.
So you want to take that independent OP Exarch character? Well you need to have at least 1 unit of Aspects before you can do that. You want 2 of those super exarchs....now you need 2 units of exarchs.
Many HQs were 0-1 per army.
We always played 2nd ed that you could take champion HQ at 500 points.Hero HQ level dudes at 1000 points Mighty Champion at 1500 points and the top tier HQ 1 per 2000.
I think the super heavies could not be over 25% of the battleforce.
It would be easy to extrapolate this to Marine Lt, Captains, Commanders, Chapter Masters.
x number of squads and you unlock Lt, captains,,,,more to unlock Commanders and finally special characters and such when you have a flavorful enough force.
25% actually would make sense. for 2000pts, 500pts could be a super heavy. Would also prevent 1k games from having a super powerful super heavy.
I was probably fortunate to win. Innes tends to play more competitive events than me these days, and certainly takes better lists. I had a super lucky turn 1, which I think carried me to the win.
I'll add as well that I think the mission greatly favoured me (although I can't remember how we decided we'd play this particular game) so that was against him too.
admironheart wrote: What would be preferred is the 2nd edition restrictions on powerful stuff.
So you want to take that independent OP Exarch character? Well you need to have at least 1 unit of Aspects before you can do that. You want 2 of those super exarchs....now you need 2 units of exarchs.
Many HQs were 0-1 per army.
We always played 2nd ed that you could take champion HQ at 500 points.Hero HQ level dudes at 1000 points Mighty Champion at 1500 points and the top tier HQ 1 per 2000.
I think the super heavies could not be over 25% of the battleforce.
It would be easy to extrapolate this to Marine Lt, Captains, Commanders, Chapter Masters.
x number of squads and you unlock Lt, captains,,,,more to unlock Commanders and finally special characters and such when you have a flavorful enough force.
How would you apply this to forces that don't have that kind of structure, like Drukhari, Orks, Tau, Necrons, etc even AM would be effected.
Kdash wrote: In regards to a composition of the forces in a game of 40k, you can only determine how “fluffy” a list is, based off your current game narrative.
Sure, 32 Guardsmen, a Chief Librarian, 2 Captains and some Knights might be a really really really really really rea…. Rare occasion on some backwater planet in a minor 1 off skirmish, but, it’d actually probably be extremely likely on a battlefield such as Cadia.
Taking a list to a competitive event (unless it is a narrative event) has nothing to do with fluff I’m afraid. Such, you can create your own narrative, but at the event people would likely be interested in reading it and hearing about it, but, it’d ultimately be a cool sidenote. You could also say that a big tournament is nothing more than a massive crucible of war with all random forces thrown together in one massive maelstrom.
The point is, the setting makes anything and everything possible in a fluffy way. How you determine your casual game’s narrative is what will determine whether a list “fits or not” in your own section of the setting.
A single 2000-point game of 40k might not represent the entire battle. Scale is important to take into account. Just because something doesn’t “fit” at first glance, doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit.
Okay, let's look at this another way. We've all played players who have named their characters, giving them elaborate backstories and being able to tell tales of their conquests in previous games, frequently from previous editions. To me, that's a pretty solid indicator of somebody who is playing something for fluff reasons, not just post-hoc fluffiness. How frequently do we run into Loyal32+Knight+Cap players who have done that? I've yet to meet somebody who runs that sort of list who has done that sort of thing. Sure, maybe coming up with cheesy names or whatever isn't for everybody, so maybe that's not a good metric.
Okay, how many people played a Loyal32+Knight+Cap list at any point when it wasn't OP? Surely, if the list was fluffy in 8th, it was fluffy in 7th too, right? Okay, you'd have to replace the Castellan with a regular knight, but that's not a problem, oh, and you'd have to take a platoon. Okay, not a big deal. And I guess the BA guys would have to take an allied detachment, so maybe that part falls apart a little, but whatever. Did anybody play this sort of list in 7th? I'm guessing not... what was the big difference? Oh wait, this list would've been pretty garbage in 7th.
I get what people are saying. You can't immediately judge somebody with a very strong soup list as not caring about the fluff. But I don't think it's very hard to demarcate the fluffy (and fluffy as intended) lists from the wolves in fluffy clothing.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Pretty much as long as I could remember the GW design team has been very upfront that they don't really play the game in a competitive manner and Are often surprised by what the player base come up with.
I remember back when Lash of Slannesh was a thing people asked the design team why would GW put something that would let people put your opponents models in a perfect circle and then drop a pie plate on them, the answer was we didn't think people would do that, let alone take two princess who could do that. They just don't think like that.
Yes, and still, one has to ask, how many fething times does the design team need to learn this lesson before we call them idiots? It's been 18 months, really, as you pointed out, this has been going on for 20+ years. There are truckloads of data out there, there are numerous venues online to find this information that don't involve them having to interact with their playerbase at all (which seems to be the real goal).
It is lazy. It is insulting. They should be called out for it at every opportunity until they fix it or admit that balance is simply of no concern to them. Then we can stop having 30 page discussions about the lack of competitive balance in the game.
The design team isn't the one that needs to learn a lesson.
The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
If you can easily break a system, it is a bad system.
If someone had bought a lock they didn't know was of poor quality and someone breaks it to steal their bike, the lock company can't say "Well don't go to an poor neighborhood where people use bolt cutters! That's not what it's meant for!"
Crimson wrote: I think it is good that they play these sort of lists. If there are (Ok, not really if...) balance issues which such builds, they're far more likely to be addressed if the GW guys actually play them.
Yeah, I was thinking along those lines myself.
In the long run, it's much better better than the 'forge the narrative' period or the many, many years where they just stuffed grots in their ears and pretended to have no clue how actual people played the game.
This (particularly the back and forth tweets) at least gives indications they're fully aware of where the game ends up with soup and tournament metas in effect. Even if they don't agree that they're problem areas, they might well address at least some interactions, and have a higher chance of doing so than probably any other period in their history.
Karol wrote: Ok but playing narrative is like playing golf. Technicaly there are rich enough people to take a plane to scotland and play it there, but saying that golf and street football are both games that are played would be a huge overstatment.
Also what would the difference actualy be? I never played narrative. From what I see here, people say that points, stratagems and most of the other matched played rules are used in narrative games. It is hard for me to imagine how it be better for GK. In fact if CP were not used, then demon players could just get infinite free units playing against GK, and where is the fun in that ?
Are there any GK narrative players blogs or podcasts, if there are any I would like to read those.
what I find so funny about this is that you're saying that "Narrative gaming" is somehow this rich person's pastime but the meta you constantly describe is by far a much, much more expensive game than a casual meta where everyone brings collections they've had for ages.
If everyone's playing Eldar with tons of shining spears and dark reapers, Drukhari, Custode bike spam, imperial soup with castellans and loyal 32, what that's telling me is that every single person at the place you play must have bought their entire army within the last year and a half, dropping thousands of dollars (or euros or whatever) collectively just to play their little tournament-level meta, because every single thing in all those lists was straight garbage tier or didn't exist before 8th edition.
I've played in several places where every person in attendance had started collecting their army over 5 years ago. Half your stuff inevitably becomes good, or bad, depending on the changing tides of the game edition, and it doesn't matter, you play it anyway because you spent hours painting it a decade ago and you can't be bothered to spend 60$ or whatever the kids these days are paying for a single box of dudes.
You have to have the luxury of people both willing to play and willing to not completely abuse narrative. It’s easy to accidentally break a narrative game. It is trivial to knowingly break a narrative game.
Yup. Usually, if you start with people who are
A) old, and don't have any particular need to pretend winning a game is proportional to the size of their pee-pees
B ) cheap, and not interested in rushing out and ebaying 500$ of miniatures
C) more interested in a loss that takes a solid 4 hours and a few beers to get through rather than a 90 minute turn 2 win
then you don't have a problem creating yourself a casual game meta.
The whole "but the game's so imbalanced that if people have random collections one guy will accidentally have the uber-l33t competitive eldar list and will stomp everyone" narrative that gets trotted out is, in my experience at least, incredibly rare. The guy with the super old Eldar collection that includes shining spears and Dark Reapers doesn't win any more or any less than anyone else, because his army list is usually something like
battalion
autarch on foot
farseer on foot
avatar of khaine
dire avengers on foot
guardians in a wave serpent
guardians on foot
3 shining spears
5 dark reapers with a shuriken cannon exarch
5 howling banshees on foot
2 wraithlords
Oh look, you've got two units in there that are used in competitive tournament lists on accident. well, good thing you've got 90% of the points into stuff that's not even close to tournament viable because that's the percentage of the units in the game that aren't, you're not running them as Ynnari because "what? no, they're biel tan. See, they're painted green. What even is that?" and there's not enough of them in the list for most people to even really notice them being particularly powerful.
Sure, if you ask people what they think of the game balance, they'll complain about it, but then they'll complain about things that aren't even close to a balance issue, and they're usually pretty funny complaints. "Yeah, you know what I hate? Terminators. Darn things. Why'd they make them so tough! 2+ armor saves, can you believe it? Anything but a one...jeez."
Most people when playing narrative build for a theme. I know several people who are in love with all things knights. Oops those knights just thunderstomped that random collection in two turns. But heck I have a themed list that is all custodes bikes all the time. I fudging love the things. My favorite models in 40k. I also have a mechanized victrix guard marine list with primaris Calgary leading it. But I don’t pretend my bikes aren’t a nightmare on the table and would grind my mech marines into fine paste. And under power it would be way worse, I’d have to drop several units for my marines while my bikers just don’t care.
There’s an entire forge world who is famous for its plasma weaponry.
Citation needed
Other than the Dark Angels who have ready access to it whenever its not as common as one would think, and forgeworlds are notorious for withholding resources.
Wikipedia is not a citation my friend.
And Wikipedia especially Lexi is a valuable resource that is meticulously sourced. Its not warhammer 40k wiki which is written poorly and maintained poorly. Lexi does not have that issue at all. They are just slow to update but have very harsh rules.
Obviously, it specifically refers to the Executioner, but is further supporting evidence from the current edition of the game to what has already been provided.
It can be inferred that they are general talking about plasma as well. I doubt guardsmen have nearly as much access to plasma weaponry as space marines do.
Are you.... unfamiliar with Ryza?
Anyways your source does not say what you think it says. There’s a lot of old technology in the imperium that lasts hundreds of years but are also still produced. Power armor for example. Plasma weapons aren’t forgotten tech the imperium no longer has the skills to create. You over state the rarity of plasma weaponry. It’s not as common as, say, a flamer, or a bolt gun, or a lascannon, sure, but the imperium was never at risk of running out. And importantly distribution isn’t centralized, so the concept of a guard regiment wielding plasma over grenade launchers isn’t particularly lore breaking. They could merely be near one of the manufacturing hubs of plasma weaponry. Like ryza, the forgeworldmfamous for its plasma weaponry. The admech seems to keep plasma weapons closer in house than many other weapons, but they clearly have continued to produce it throughout the imperium
Wikipedia is not a citation my friend. There’s a lot of old tech that the imperium makes new versions of regularly. There’s an entire forge world who is famous for its plasma weaponry.
Way to move the goal posts, you asked for sources and they were provided. Plasma was until recently fairly rare. Most guard squads are far more likely to have a flamer or grenade launcher than a PG.
Yes, but that wasn’t the exception I took with the statement. Plasma was never lost tech. The ad mech always had plasma production capabilities. They never lost that unlike, say, phosphex.
If GW is trying to grow 40k beyond a garage game you play with your mates they need to tighten up (balance) the rules.
Being able to play a pick-up game or a RTT at the local FLGS brings in a lot of players that don't have an established group to "forge the narrative with."
Being able to design a list, independently at home, buy and paint those models and then have a reasonable game against someone else isn't too high of a bar. A game with some drama and tension over who will win instead of me plopping down marines and my opponent putting down ravagers and both of us knowing what is going to happen.
With the game being so much decided by luck the armies don't have to be perfectly balanced and the super high end tourney lists should be better than what you see at the average table. That being said a Castellan and some guardsmen isn't OMG WAAC cheese and it's so good unless you bring some real WAAC cheese to deal with it you are going to have a bad time.
I mean the plight of Karol should be familiar to everyone on these boards. That's just not good business practice.
bananathug wrote: If GW is trying to grow 40k beyond a garage game you play with your mates they need to tighten up (balance) the rules.
Being able to play a pick-up game or a RTT at the local FLGS brings in a lot of players that don't have an established group to "forge the narrative with."
Being able to design a list, independently at home, buy and paint those models and then have a reasonable game against someone else isn't too high of a bar. A game with some drama and tension over who will win instead of me plopping down marines and my opponent putting down ravagers and both of us knowing what is going to happen.
With the game being so much decided by luck the armies don't have to be perfectly balanced and the super high end tourney lists should be better than what you see at the average table. That being said a Castellan and some guardsmen isn't OMG WAAC cheese and it's so good unless you bring some real WAAC cheese to deal with it you are going to have a bad time.
I mean the plight of Karol should be familiar to everyone on these boards. That's just not good business practice.
I think some of the problem comes down to their being no real consensus amongst the writers OR the community about what balanced even means. Does that mean I should be able to put down any combination of any 2000pts of models and have a nearly 50% chance to win against any army being piloted by a player of equal skill? Does it mean that my Dark Eldar optimized list should be able to beat my Marine player friend's optimized list around 50% of the time assuming equal skill? Does it mean that if I take the best Xenos units in the best combination, that I should win about 50% of games against the best Imperial units in the best combination? See the 'unit balance vs faction balance' thread for more on that rabbit hole.
Also, the people who make 40k don't seem to understand it very well. I always get the sense that they're confused by what makes a unit strong vs weak(which is why I don't really buy the 'they just made it good to sell more' thing for 40k.). In Age of Sigmar, the guys who make the game are also some of the better players in the world, with a bunch of tournament podiums under their belts(not that it seems to help much). In 40k they're...not that.
Finally, balancing a game like 40k is REALLY REALLY hard. Just look at all the terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE ideas that make up the majority of threads like these and you'll see that pretty clearly.
Innes wrote: Also, above all else I wish that I'd just remembered to Forlorn Fury my captain forward! Completely forgot because we had an hours break between deployment and turn one! Would have made a hell of a better turn one :(
You did quite well with all those outside influences messing with playing the game.
That is a lot of plates to be spinning right up untill you start the game, writing a list based of points you've just been shown, with what model the studio has available.
Then what I assume was presumably lots of interruption or disruption to the normal flow of the game of explaining why and pictures etc.
I'm sure I would have gotten totally wrong footed by that and probably wrecked the game with some shockingly bad misplay.
Cards on the table....
I was probably fortunate to win. Innes tends to play more competitive events than me these days, and certainly takes better lists. I had a super lucky turn 1, which I think carried me to the win.
I'll add as well that I think the mission greatly favoured me (although I can't remember how we decided we'd play this particular game) so that was against him too.
All i remember is he absolutely destroyed me in the last game of the NWO last summer
That said, his list for the LCO next weekend looks interesting!
If someone had bought a lock they didn't know was of poor quality and someone breaks it to steal their bike, the lock company can't say "Well don't go to an poor neighborhood where people use bolt cutters! That's not what it's meant for!"
This right here, above and beyond anything else that has been said in the entire existence of this website, is the single ...least informed... thing that has ever been said by anyone on it.
Firstly, not only does the fact that someone can break a lock not make it a bad lock, the company absolutely CAN say that. Locks of all shapes and sizes are a deterrent, not a guarantee. If someone wants your gak bad enough, they CAN find a way to take it.
Second, Humans are better at breaking systems than they are at ANYTHING. The human ability to create will NEVER be able to compete with our ability to break something once it's been made. Look at the entire breadth of human accomplishment: Law, Government, economics, technology, philosophy, all of it doesn't compare to the beautiful insanity of loophole abusing. Governmental Policy is constantly abused for the gain of a few individuals who see the holes in it. Marketplaces basically can't exist without some form of regulation because of how easy it is for someone to eventually dominate them, Technology gets broken into and destroyed all the time and every time they build a new defense, someone writes a way around it. Every major philosophical reasoning ever created has a firm rebuttal out there somewhere.
Breaking systems is what humans DO, there are entire industries dedicated to stopping people from breaking systems(like the Government, for example) and they fail at it constantly. Why do you think every basically every business contract ever written is ridiculously long and stupidly in depth? I just recently went through my 10 page Gym membership contract and all of that together boils down to 'give us money, you use gym, no give money, no get use gym' but it has to be that long because if it wasn't people would break the crap out of it. Even with that 10 page document, I bet I could find a loophole somewhere if I really wanted to.
The best you can hope for is that your system takes just a little bit more effort to break than the person most interested in breaking it is willing to exert.
Also, the people who make 40k don't seem to understand it very well. I always get the sense that they're confused by what makes a unit strong vs weak(which is why I don't really buy the 'they just made it good to sell more' thing for 40k.). In Age of Sigmar, the guys who make the game are also some of the better players in the world, with a bunch of tournament podiums under their belts(not that it seems to help much). In 40k they're...not that.
The difference I experience in AoS is that when I end a game in AoS I can see what I did wrong. I find less faction differences in AoS compared to 40k where faction books can vary wildly in power level comparatively. Hell, I am still enjoying and doing okay with my Blades of Khorne and that was released in March 2017. On the flip side I find AoS much heavier on synergies.
Ultimately I think the problem 40k faces is that they are trying to support a huge legacy of models while also trying to keep their stats and flavor somewhat consistent with previous editions. AoS had none of that baggage and was allowed to grow from its completely new ruleset.
The design team isn't the one that needs to learn a lesson.
The players are.How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots? wrote:
For a non competitive game the design spends a hell lot of time making some factions very good or write armies in a such a way they require 3-4 books to just be run.
If GW though that 8th ed Inari rules or something like castellans are ment for casual gaming, then it would speak a lot about their ability to write rules. The problem is not that w40k has a very good armies, or good synergies, it isn't even the fact that there are very bad armies in the same game, at the same time. The problem is that the difference between a good army and a bad army are huge. Bad stuff in w40k is not just a bit weaker good stuff, unless you play eldar. This makes it so that a bad codex army has to use a tournament list to play against a non competitive army from a good codex, and it still often loses.
Just ask anyone who had a group of friends start the game with some picking eldar and others picking GK, and ask them what the expiriance of playing against each other was for them.
These are laws that have been worked on and worked on and tweaked for years, if not centuries. And there are still vagaries of interpretation.
You really expect a games company to do better? Really really?
But it is not a question of exploits. Everything good in w40k is good because of rule interaction, raw stats and combination of those two with a low point cost. Taking some IG, a castellan and some smash captins is not an exploit. The thing is that the game should not be played that, or Inari soup, or some hard orc counter to imperial soup.
GW has people with what 30 or 40 years epxiriance in writing rules ? they really can't see that over costed stuff is not going to work, no matter if it is tournaments or some guys playing at a store? What is worse, GW maybe says that they are more in to the casual gaming side of stuff, but the game they make is better for tournament people. Sure it aint perfect, but you can buy a good tournament list and have fun with it. Now trying to have fun with a casual list, is only theoreticaly a thing, because it comes with a bucket load of ifs. You can play casual lists, if your army is good. You can play casual, if your opponents make their lists bad enough to play against you. you can play casual, but if your army is really bad you have to either use a tournament list or your army is only technically the one you want to play, because 2/3 of it may end up being a different army etc.
You can have a great, but not perfect working rule system like the US one. Or you can have a rule system of the Iran or Afganistan type. Neither are perfect, but some are clearly much better to live under. w40k is good only for tournament players or those that own multiple armies, maybe even multiple games and can just switch at anytime, so they never get stuck with an unfun collection of models.
These are laws that have been worked on and worked on and tweaked for years, if not centuries. And there are still vagaries of interpretation.
You really expect a games company to do better? Really really?
I agree with your argument up to a point. However, the difference here is that we have a game company that hypothetically has the ability to react much quicker than lawmakers. Changing laws is a monumental task requiring ton of people to vote and argue and judge. Changing rules for a game is more just dependent on what the company wants.
Now, that doesn't mean we can expect the perfect ruleset or balance. Even games like Blizzard games are always tweaking and balancing things, but even then, their(Blizzard) reaction time exploits are much faster than those of lawmakers.
These are laws that have been worked on and worked on and tweaked for years, if not centuries. And there are still vagaries of interpretation.
You really expect a games company to do better? Really really?
Better than law? Probably not.
But I would like to see them hire a proper technical writer/editor, someone who can instigate some clarity in the verbiage they use to eliminate some of the ambiguity.
Hell, at a bare minimum, make sure flavour text and rules text isn't included in the same darned paragraph!
Karol wrote: Monumental task? In Poland or Hungary the law makers can pass a law within a single day, all 3 readings in both higher and lower chamber of parlament.
Fair enough, politics in some countries can be relatively one-sided. However, to compare rule writing and law writing is still a large False Equivalence.
These are laws that have been worked on and worked on and tweaked for years, if not centuries. And there are still vagaries of interpretation.
You really expect a games company to do better? Really really?
I agree with your argument up to a point. However, the difference here is that we have a game company that hypothetically has the ability to react much quicker than lawmakers. Changing laws is a monumental task requiring ton of people to vote and argue and judge. Changing rules for a game is more just dependent on what the company wants.
Now, that doesn't mean we can expect the perfect ruleset or balance. Even games like Blizzard games are always tweaking and balancing things, but even then, their(Blizzard) reaction time exploits are much faster than those of lawmakers.
I can't even comprehend the level of complaining that would occur if rules additions/changes were issued at a faster speed than they already are!
"So I have to buy 3 codexes, BRB, CA17/18/19 37 FAQs .. designers commentary, SIaNE and update my facebook posts every 5 minutes ... just to be able to play a game ?!!!"
Lemondish wrote: This will definitely put to bed the discussion on soup being intended and supported, and I look forward to the positive, dignified acceptance of that fact from the playerbase.
Indeed, this is the confirmation that soup and power lists are intended and supported by GW.
Soup has always been intended for 8th, the problem is that soup has ZERO downsides and tremendous benefits.
If soup had some downside, like detachments only generating 1CP unless all detachments share a non-Battle Brothers keyword, then the game would be in a better position.
These are laws that have been worked on and worked on and tweaked for years, if not centuries. And there are still vagaries of interpretation.
You really expect a games company to do better? Really really?
I agree with your argument up to a point. However, the difference here is that we have a game company that hypothetically has the ability to react much quicker than lawmakers. Changing laws is a monumental task requiring ton of people to vote and argue and judge. Changing rules for a game is more just dependent on what the company wants.
Now, that doesn't mean we can expect the perfect ruleset or balance. Even games like Blizzard games are always tweaking and balancing things, but even then, their(Blizzard) reaction time exploits are much faster than those of lawmakers.
I can't even comprehend the level of complaining that would occur if rules additions/changes were issued at a faster speed than they already are!
"So I have to buy 3 codexes, BRB, CA17/18/19 37 FAQs .. designers commentary, SIaNE and update my facebook posts every 5 minutes ... just to be able to play a game ?!!!"
yeah those posts !
If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".
Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.
Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.
If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".
Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.
Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.
yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
I agree that there should be an abridged version somewhere. A part of me feels that would have been the perfect role for Chapter Approved, but GW has thought otherwise.
Personally I just find it weird they never touch up on the free documents(like the core rules). It would be such a small thing to do that would not only make it handy for people who've played the game for years, but would make it easier for newcomers to get up to speed
If someone had bought a lock they didn't know was of poor quality and someone breaks it to steal their bike, the lock company can't say "Well don't go to an poor neighborhood where people use bolt cutters! That's not what it's meant for!"
This right here, above and beyond anything else that has been said in the entire existence of this website, is the single ...least informed... thing that has ever been said by anyone on it.
Firstly, not only does the fact that someone can break a lock not make it a bad lock, the company absolutely CAN say that. Locks of all shapes and sizes are a deterrent, not a guarantee. If someone wants your gak bad enough, they CAN find a way to take it.
Second, Humans are better at breaking systems than they are at ANYTHING. The human ability to create will NEVER be able to compete with our ability to break something once it's been made. Look at the entire breadth of human accomplishment: Law, Government, economics, technology, philosophy, all of it doesn't compare to the beautiful insanity of loophole abusing. Governmental Policy is constantly abused for the gain of a few individuals who see the holes in it. Marketplaces basically can't exist without some form of regulation because of how easy it is for someone to eventually dominate them, Technology gets broken into and destroyed all the time and every time they build a new defense, someone writes a way around it. Every major philosophical reasoning ever created has a firm rebuttal out there somewhere.
Breaking systems is what humans DO, there are entire industries dedicated to stopping people from breaking systems(like the Government, for example) and they fail at it constantly. Why do you think every basically every business contract ever written is ridiculously long and stupidly in depth? I just recently went through my 10 page Gym membership contract and all of that together boils down to 'give us money, you use gym, no give money, no get use gym' but it has to be that long because if it wasn't people would break the crap out of it. Even with that 10 page document, I bet I could find a loophole somewhere if I really wanted to.
The best you can hope for is that your system takes just a little bit more effort to break than the person most interested in breaking it is willing to exert.
With today's selection of locks, a lock IS a bad lock if it can still be bested by generic bolt cutter in such a short time span, and to say it's okay for the company to blame the client for going to a bad area (where said lock should do its job) is completely asinine.
It's one thing to break a lock. It's another thing for a lock to be so easily broken and not think to yourself the company needs to improve its design. Makes sense? Another example that works (assuming you work in healthcare in the states) is when various, shady insurances refuse to pay for certain requests because the patient shouldn't have gotten that sick, or not paying because they simply weren't contracted and blame the patient for not knowing, when usually the patient had no other choice but to go to said healthcare center or hospital!
Reanimation_Protocol wrote: yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
It doesn't have to be all that complicated; it's mostly GW's hybrid reliance on printed media and online FAQs that makes things muddled.
Have a digital codex and an FAQ for each faction, and a digital rulebook and rulebook FAQ. All rules changes, points adjustments, and the like go in the codex/rulebook. All clarifications and questions go in the FAQ. Update each of the above at least once a year, no more than once a month. Give each one a big fat version number so you know if you're up to date or not.
All you then actually require is your digital codex and digital rulebook. The FAQs are just there to answer any weird rule interaction questions, and additional supplements provide add-ons like scenarios or detachments. If you want to know if a unit's ability has been edited, you look at its entry in the codex. If you want clarification for how that ability is resolved with another ability, you look at the FAQ. Simple. This is a solved problem.
Lemondish wrote: The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
Then they should stop referring to their events as tournaments, abandon all pretense of competitive balance and call them tactical role-playing conventions. Admit that the game is a tactical narrative RPG and we can all stop discussing the inherent biases in the system.
Lemondish wrote: The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
Then they should stop referring to their events as tournaments, abandon all pretense of competitive balance and call them tactical role-playing conventions. Admit that the game is a tactical narrative RPG and we can all stop discussing the inherent biases in the system.
Nah, even if they did that people would still try to twist and pervert the game into a competitive game. They already tried this in a way, remember? And it gave rise to the ITC actually changing/adjusting rules on their own; literally forking the game into "40k" and "Tournament 40k"
The design team isn't the one that needs to learn a lesson.
The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
And who are you, that proud lord said,
To play our game this way?
This game's not meant for tournaments
But that's what you want to play.
A coat of varnish, or a coat of paint
A game still has fluff
And ours are long and interesting my lord,
As long and sharp as yours
And so he spoke and so he spoke,
That lord of Games Workshop
And now the tourneys weep o'er his hall
With no fluff to be cared
Yes now the tourneys weep o'er his hall
With no fluff to be hear.
If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".
Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.
Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.
yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
How on earth is a new player supposed to navigate through this mess?
If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".
Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.
Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.
yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
How on earth is a new player supposed to navigate through this mess?
By reading the faq's?
I know, reading a text document in 2019. Perish the thought.
Lemondish wrote: The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
Then they should stop referring to their events as tournaments, abandon all pretense of competitive balance and call them tactical role-playing conventions. Admit that the game is a tactical narrative RPG and we can all stop discussing the inherent biases in the system.
If they actually wanted a competitive game, they would put out a statement stating that ITC is not the version of the game that should be played competitively to put this bs to bed.
ITC and similar mission packs are what ruins the chance of balance ever happening competitively. Until the player base gives up their safety blanket house rules, we can't ever expect a balanced game no matter what GW does about it.
If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".
Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.
Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.
yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
How on earth is a new player supposed to navigate through this mess?
By reading the faq's?
I know, reading a text document in 2019. Perish the thought.
Pease list the “text documents” that contain all of this information.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Pretty much as long as I could remember the GW design team has been very upfront that they don't really play the game in a competitive manner and Are often surprised by what the player base come up with.
I remember back when Lash of Slannesh was a thing people asked the design team why would GW put something that would let people put your opponents models in a perfect circle and then drop a pie plate on them, the answer was we didn't think people would do that, let alone take two princess who could do that. They just don't think like that.
Yes, and still, one has to ask, how many fething times does the design team need to learn this lesson before we call them idiots? It's been 18 months, really, as you pointed out, this has been going on for 20+ years. There are truckloads of data out there, there are numerous venues online to find this information that don't involve them having to interact with their playerbase at all (which seems to be the real goal).
It is lazy. It is insulting. They should be called out for it at every opportunity until they fix it or admit that balance is simply of no concern to them. Then we can stop having 30 page discussions about the lack of competitive balance in the game.
The design team isn't the one that needs to learn a lesson.
The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
Both of your posts are pretty atrocious to be honest.
If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".
Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.
Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.
yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
How on earth is a new player supposed to navigate through this mess?
By reading the faq's?
I know, reading a text document in 2019. Perish the thought.
Pease list the “text documents” that contain all of this information.
Your codex, BRB, Big Faq 1 & 2, CA 2018 (for point changes) should cover 99% of cases.
Having to read faq's is the price you pay for GW actually updating the game, which is VASTLY superior to the situation we had before
SHUPPET wrote: What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
I think the issue is you have people going:
A) 8th edition is the most balanced edition of 40k ever - but Soup is too good and certain factions and units are overcosted. CA is a step in the right direction but there is more to do.
B) 8th edition is as bad or worse than previous editions. About half the factions in the game need total re-writes to make them vaguely playable.
C) I hate 8th edition and all it stands for, and I want a game which is entirely different (whether its scrapping IGYG, scrapping command points, going back to previous edition vehicle rules etc etc).
I guess group A and B can try to reach a consensus - but for the most part its 3 views which are mutually incomprehensible with each other.
I mean I don't like soup. I don't like it aesthetically and I think its bad for how it impacts future design decisions of the game. I'd like GW to nerf it so it wasn't essentially the best way to build an army full stop the end.
Until they do so however I can't say I have anything against players running it.
SHUPPET wrote: What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
I think the issue is you have people going:
A) 8th edition is the most balanced edition of 40k ever - but Soup is too good and certain factions and units are overcosted. CA is a step in the right direction but there is more to do.
B) 8th edition is as bad or worse than previous editions. About half the factions in the game need total re-writes to make them vaguely playable.
C) I hate 8th edition and all it stands for, and I want a game which is entirely different (whether its scrapping IGYG, scrapping command points, going back to previous edition vehicle rules etc etc).
I guess group A and B can try to reach a consensus - but for the most part its 3 views which are mutually incomprehensible with each other.
I mean I don't like soup. I don't like it aesthetically and I think its bad for how it impacts future design decisions of the game. I'd like GW to nerf it so it wasn't essentially the best way to build an army full stop the end.
Until they do so however I can't say I have anything against players running it.
I'm not sure that what this has to do with my post, it's like tangentially related at best. I was just responding to a guy posting misinformation on GW'S design goals
If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".
Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.
Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.
yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
How on earth is a new player supposed to navigate through this mess?
By reading the faq's?
I know, reading a text document in 2019. Perish the thought.
Pease list the “text documents” that contain all of this information.
Your codex, BRB, Big Faq 1 & 2, CA 2018 (for point changes) should cover 99% of cases.
Having to read faq's is the price you pay for GW actually updating the game, which is VASTLY superior to the situation we had before
I'm 100% on board with updates to the game and regular ones ... it is vastly superior to previous iterations. I was reading a batrep from 2011 last night and they mentioned having a 45 minute break to argue with TO over something in an FAQ that no -one had access to, .. the internet and mobile tech is light years better now.
the problem now lies in indexing and parsing the multiple sources of info we have .. in a competitive arena, there is not time to search EIGHT sources including their errata & FAQ to find where the answer to a question lies to prove to you opponent.
especially when multiple sources contradict each other
For example look up how terrain rules apply to non infantry ... one source says 50% obscured and another says on & in & obscured... Now I know we've hashed that out here... but consider someone that "Doesn't frequent Dakka" ...
how are they supposed to parse multiple iterations, several variants that questioned these rules ... some within the first month of release and others years later ... when there's no version numbers or validity chain.
so yes the information is there .. yes the situation is 'better' ... but damned if I'm going to call it a perfect situation and not keep calling GW out on it.
I think RE: Faq the issue is they are all over the place. There are multiple FAQs for each faction, with some rules in one but not in another. That's the issue; not that FAQs are bad but the way they are organized seems to be horrible for actually using them. Ideally, you should require two: the main rulebook FAQ and your faction FAQ. But often, there are rules that apply to your codex that aren't in your FAQ, but in another FAQ that broadly applies to multiple codexes (in which case they should be in the MAIN faq)
FAQ organisation is a bit of a mess. I think the existence of separate BIG FAQ and designers' commentary files is completely unnecessary and confusing. There should be one document for errata pertaining each book, and that's it. Also, it can be hard to know which information takes precedence. SMFAQ for example still has errata for certain point costs which were later altered in CA18. It will be super confusing for a new player to know which of these point alterations take precedence, if they're examining the documents after the both have been released a while ago.
SHUPPET wrote: What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
I think the issue is you have people going:
A) 8th edition is the most balanced edition of 40k ever - but Soup is too good and certain factions and units are overcosted. CA is a step in the right direction but there is more to do.
B) 8th edition is as bad or worse than previous editions. About half the factions in the game need total re-writes to make them vaguely playable.
C) I hate 8th edition and all it stands for, and I want a game which is entirely different (whether its scrapping IGYG, scrapping command points, going back to previous edition vehicle rules etc etc).
I guess group A and B can try to reach a consensus - but for the most part its 3 views which are mutually incomprehensible with each other.
I mean I don't like soup. I don't like it aesthetically and I think its bad for how it impacts future design decisions of the game. I'd like GW to nerf it so it wasn't essentially the best way to build an army full stop the end.
Until they do so however I can't say I have anything against players running it.
Allies aren't bad like you claim. Anyone that says this forgets that, last edition, you could have Necrons, Tyranids, and Daemons fight side by side if you wanted.
Instead of taking the best parts of each, it didn't happen that often did it?
What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
Both of your posts are pretty atrocious to be honest.
Yes, I agree this is what they've stated.
No, I don't agree this is actually what they're trying to do.
I think that's about as simply as I can possibly state my position on the subject.
What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
Both of your posts are pretty atrocious to be honest.
Yes, I agree this is what they've stated.
No, I don't agree this is actually what they're trying to do.
I think that's about as simply as I can possibly state my position on the subject.
that's the expected response from someone who doesn't have an answer to overwhelming evidence proving their position wrong but still doesn't want to let go of it.
If that's your opinion then fine, it's understood. Mine is just the opposite, and instead of leaning on the fact that everyone is entitled to an opinion, it leans on all the knowledge and information we have on the subject.
I found the army lists absolutely life changing.
Never before has anything been so dull as to help me sleep without 0.5 seconds of opening to that page.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Pretty much as long as I could remember the GW design team has been very upfront that they don't really play the game in a competitive manner and Are often surprised by what the player base come up with.
I remember back when Lash of Slannesh was a thing people asked the design team why would GW put something that would let people put your opponents models in a perfect circle and then drop a pie plate on them, the answer was we didn't think people would do that, let alone take two princess who could do that. They just don't think like that.
Yes, and still, one has to ask, how many fething times does the design team need to learn this lesson before we call them idiots? It's been 18 months, really, as you pointed out, this has been going on for 20+ years. There are truckloads of data out there, there are numerous venues online to find this information that don't involve them having to interact with their playerbase at all (which seems to be the real goal).
It is lazy. It is insulting. They should be called out for it at every opportunity until they fix it or admit that balance is simply of no concern to them. Then we can stop having 30 page discussions about the lack of competitive balance in the game.
The design team isn't the one that needs to learn a lesson.
The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
Both of your posts are pretty atrocious to be honest.
All of which is about a year old and the community expects it to be perfect now.
The only atrocious thing here is the absolute incessant whining from this playerbase when they don't get their balance instantly. It's sad, just like your attempts to hide it.
I think they should abandon matched play - jetison the riffraff just like they did from WHFB to AoS, then reintroduce it once the crybabies are gone.
You posted misinformation, and had it corrected. There is no shades of grey there, you were wrong, and you've now admitted as much. Don't lash out at me for your mistake.
I made no further commentary or attempts to "hide" anything, I'm not even sure how my post could possibly be construed as such, especially since I condemned the poster you responded to as well in the exact same breath.
I'm sorry but posts like yours ARE equally as abysmal as his, if not more so. At least his was just an opinion.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Pretty much as long as I could remember the GW design team has been very upfront that they don't really play the game in a competitive manner and Are often surprised by what the player base come up with.
I remember back when Lash of Slannesh was a thing people asked the design team why would GW put something that would let people put your opponents models in a perfect circle and then drop a pie plate on them, the answer was we didn't think people would do that, let alone take two princess who could do that. They just don't think like that.
Yes, and still, one has to ask, how many fething times does the design team need to learn this lesson before we call them idiots? It's been 18 months, really, as you pointed out, this has been going on for 20+ years. There are truckloads of data out there, there are numerous venues online to find this information that don't involve them having to interact with their playerbase at all (which seems to be the real goal).
It is lazy. It is insulting. They should be called out for it at every opportunity until they fix it or admit that balance is simply of no concern to them. Then we can stop having 30 page discussions about the lack of competitive balance in the game.
The design team isn't the one that needs to learn a lesson.
The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
Both of your posts are pretty atrocious to be honest.
All of which is about a year old and the community expects it to be perfect now.
The only atrocious thing here is the absolute incessant whining from this playerbase when they don't get their balance instantly. It's sad, just like your attempts to hide it.
I think they should abandon matched play - jetison the riffraff just like they did from WHFB to AoS, then reintroduce it once the crybabies are gone.
And I'm very glad people like you aren't listened to Seems like you're the one crying because people don't adhere to your made up rules of "fluffy" armies.
SHUPPET wrote: What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
I think the issue is you have people going:
A) 8th edition is the most balanced edition of 40k ever - but Soup is too good and certain factions and units are overcosted. CA is a step in the right direction but there is more to do. B) 8th edition is as bad or worse than previous editions. About half the factions in the game need total re-writes to make them vaguely playable. C) I hate 8th edition and all it stands for, and I want a game which is entirely different (whether its scrapping IGYG, scrapping command points, going back to previous edition vehicle rules etc etc).
I guess group A and B can try to reach a consensus - but for the most part its 3 views which are mutually incomprehensible with each other.
I mean I don't like soup. I don't like it aesthetically and I think its bad for how it impacts future design decisions of the game. I'd like GW to nerf it so it wasn't essentially the best way to build an army full stop the end. Until they do so however I can't say I have anything against players running it.
D) This Edition has its problems, its fun, but its not great. Could be better!
^I'm D, I love what it has done with some rules, others not so much thrilled about. I miss some of the complexity of having units retreat and regrouping them. I miss having some of the rules and options i could take for my badass commander or leader. I miss having various rules for chapters. I love having multiple detachments, but i don't like having super heavy only detachments with no requirements. I am glad the old force organization chart is gone and now i can fill my army with all terminators. But I don't like facing multiple damage weapons.
I like having cheap plasma... but I don't like facing cheap plasma. Its one catch all really. There are some amazing things about 8th. And there are some really bad things about 8th. I miss some of the customization and the abilities i could take from previous editions, but i am kind of glad we have lost certain things, but sadden that we lost some really cool abilities that were base for something like terminators, sternguard, dire avengers, striking scorpions, wraith guard, and vanguard vets. I miss having the option to upgrade guardian squads with warlocks, but i like have guardians be useful.
There are so many on the fence things this edition its hard to say its bad or good edition.
I love the introduction of multiple formats, but I think certain things are posioning the well. Namely Knights and super heavies, which I think should not be as prevelant as they currently are...
I do think overall that this edition is a great introduction and has some good rules carried over from warhammer fantasy, but some of those rules were best left forgotten.
Having to read faq's is the price you pay for GW actually updating the game, which is VASTLY superior to the situation we had before
I agree! I rather have this updating than just leaving the game to dry. GW saw how it is competitive game and people seem to enjoy watching that they would be daft not to especially in this social media age.
For anyone interested, I wrote an article on our experiences at White Dwarf on our website:
If you dropped Knights to T7 with 2+ save it would fix so much it's not even funny. The main problem with 8th edition is that it's either Bring Knights or lose. Even if you tool explicitly for Knights, they just turn around and get a 3++ and block all your stuff, and even if you do manage to degrade them they just stratagem back up to full effectiveness.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you dropped Knights to T7 with 2+ save it would fix so much it's not even funny. The main problem with 8th edition is that it's either Bring Knights or lose. Even if you tool explicitly for Knights, they just turn around and get a 3++ and block all your stuff, and even if you do manage to degrade them they just stratagem back up to full effectiveness.
why do you keep saying this in multiple threads but ignoring the evidence disproving it?
Just want to respond to those folks saying "you have to bring Knights or lose" - I couldn't disagree with this more, and I'm not saying this just because of the report.
My list was far from optimal- Ynarri smashes Knights even harder, and I genuinely find that Knights struggle in any events which are using the ITC line of sight blocking rules.
Knights are more of a gatekeeper army these days I reckon- you'll find them at events, but they aren't better than Orks, Ynarri or Talos/Grots.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you dropped Knights to T7 with 2+ save it would fix so much it's not even funny. The main problem with 8th edition is that it's either Bring Knights or lose. Even if you tool explicitly for Knights, they just turn around and get a 3++ and block all your stuff, and even if you do manage to degrade them they just stratagem back up to full effectiveness.
Nah, i killed every knight at an ITC tournament last weekend without even trying, it wasnt the knights that i had trouble with, it was hordes. I was able to do 30-40 wounds to knights each turn.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you dropped Knights to T7 with 2+ save it would fix so much it's not even funny. The main problem with 8th edition is that it's either Bring Knights or lose. Even if you tool explicitly for Knights, they just turn around and get a 3++ and block all your stuff, and even if you do manage to degrade them they just stratagem back up to full effectiveness.
Nah, i killed every knight at an ITC tournament last weekend without even trying, it wasnt the knights that i had trouble with, it was hordes. I was able to do 30-40 wounds to knights each turn.
And I also once won a game with a 3000 point handicap while blind. Please share this magical secret sauce that can somehow bypass all the wounds on a 3++ castellan in a single turn.
The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.
liam0404 wrote: The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.
So you literally admit the only way to deal is to specifically tailor to deal with knights.
liam0404 wrote: The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.
So you literally admit the only way to deal is to specifically tailor to deal with knights.
Those don't seem to be tailor made to kill knights, they're just things that eldar bring anyway.
liam0404 wrote: The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.
So you literally admit the only way to deal is to specifically tailor to deal with knights.
Haywire is just the best choice on taloi. Aeldari armies are a bad match up for knights as they have the tools to kill them almost by accident. By which I mean if you ignore knights and build for fighting the rest of the competetive armies you end up good against knights anyway.
Even without going soup or Ynaari, Craftworlds has excellent tools to deal with Knights. Fire Prisms, Hemlocks, mass mortal wound output, Doom and Jinx basically make the army tailor made to deal with it without even trying. Apply those last two things on top of Ulthwe Guardians and even they start to rip apart Knights too. Tau have also become really excellent vs Knights because while they don't have a load of easy S9+ weaponry, they have plenty of ways to access +1 to wound abilities, abundant re-rolls and can shrug off so much punishment with drones. Like Guardians, the humble Fire Warrior can start to really put serious hurt on a Knight too with proper target priority and ability use/character buffs. Orks are also a no-brainer anti-Knight army, not just because 90+ boyz is a nightmare for anything to deal with, but Bad Moon Lootas will absolutely wreck them and like Tau Drones, grot shields make them incredibly resilient.
There's plenty more armies that have the tools to deal with them as-is. I'd look at improving the armies that struggle rather than nerfing Knight directly. CA2018 seemingly attempted to do this by reducing points values of a lot of anti-armour stuff from things like Marines and Necrons but it's probably still not enough for them.
I just say this because I'm a pure Craftworlds player who goes Ulthwe instead of Altaioc and I have literally never lost to an army with a Knight in it even in semi-competitive games. If you want to make me even better at killing Knights then go for it, clearly my winrate vs Imperium armies isn't high enough. Only 90% or something. It really should be 95%!
Bosskelot wrote: Even without going soup or Ynaari, Craftworlds has excellent tools to deal with Knights. Fire Prisms, Hemlocks, mass mortal wound output, Doom and Jinx basically make the army tailor made to deal with it without even trying. Apply those last two things on top of Ulthwe Guardians and even they start to rip apart Knights too. Tau have also become really excellent vs Knights because while they don't have a load of easy S9+ weaponry, they have plenty of ways to access +1 to wound abilities, abundant re-rolls and can shrug off so much punishment with drones. Like Guardians, the humble Fire Warrior can start to really put serious hurt on a Knight too with proper target priority and ability use/character buffs. Orks are also a no-brainer anti-Knight army, not just because 90+ boyz is a nightmare for anything to deal with, but Bad Moon Lootas will absolutely wreck them and like Tau Drones, grot shields make them incredibly resilient.
There's plenty more armies that have the tools to deal with them as-is. I'd look at improving the armies that struggle rather than nerfing Knight directly. CA2018 seemingly attempted to do this by reducing points values of a lot of anti-armour stuff from things like Marines and Necrons but it's probably still not enough for them.
I just say this because I'm a pure Craftworlds player who goes Ulthwe instead of Altaioc and I have literally never lost to an army with a Knight in it even in semi-competitive games. If you want to make me even better at killing Knights then go for it, clearly my winrate vs Imperium armies isn't high enough. Only 90% or something. It really should be 95%!
Even list that are designed to counter knights can fail, if you don`t play first. 3++ on over 20 wounds model is terrible balance and should not exist.
And generally in tournament players have be able to win us different kind of armies, if you are not prepared to play vs orcs you will lose with the anti-knight army.
There is reason Ynnari with DR and SP are popular and fire prism are not played so much.
After all knight can easily smash 1 fire prism and stop the combo and FP is not the way to counter hordes.
I actually expect that eldars will perform poorly in the incoming LVO, whatever people say the SS ad WS point increase will certainly lower Ynnari effectiveness.
I finally got my hand on the white dwarf and was quite amused by how the Knight army got destroyed by what was an efficient but albeit not optimal aelderi army.
I think the whine around Knights has more to do with the specific design of the unit (one huge unit that you ever kill or suffer from) and the fact that they are very popular due to their design. I got two Knights and never played them, just loved painting them.
Even list that are designed to counter knights can fail, if you don`t play first. 3++ on over 20 wounds model is terrible balance and should not exist.
And generally in tournament players have be able to win us different kind of armies, if you are not prepared to play vs orcs you will lose with the anti-knight army.
Knights ARE allowed to win games also, you know. In the scenario you give, if you go first you wipe them. Hence, gatekeeper army. Definitely one of the strongest factions out at the moment and could use a tune-down, but not something that has no place in 40k.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you dropped Knights to T7 with 2+ save it would fix so much it's not even funny. The main problem with 8th edition is that it's either Bring Knights or lose. Even if you tool explicitly for Knights, they just turn around and get a 3++ and block all your stuff, and even if you do manage to degrade them they just stratagem back up to full effectiveness.
Amazingly, they were not an issue at all until they got that 3++ save.
Hm...
What could be the problem here....
Completely disagree on knights being T7. TBH, I'd rather see WAY more vehicles in 8th falling across the T5-T8 spectrum rather than the HUGE number of T7 vehicles kicking around. It utterly skews what is otherwise a quite nice wounding system for 8th by still maintaining an artificial extra value on certain strength numbers that line up nicely to the "standard" vehicle chassis.
No, the problem with knights IMO is the crazy impact of their warlord traits and relics that were added to entice people to buy the codex for them. A warlord trait to add durability to a superheavy should be "reroll invuln saves of 1" not "add +1 to your invuln save" and it DEFINITELY should never have been allowed to stack up to a 3++.
No, the problem with knights IMO is the crazy impact of their warlord traits and relics that were added to entice people to buy the codex for them. A warlord trait to add durability to a superheavy should be "reroll invuln saves of 1" not "add +1 to your invuln save" and it DEFINITELY should never have been allowed to stack up to a 3++.
Yep. Making it so that the stratagem can ever raise the invul to 4+ would be an super easy and fair fix. It makes sense from the fluff perspective too, the warlord has a super shield that is always overcharged, but cannot be charged further than that.
liam0404 wrote: The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.
What do you think about the new Sisters Beta Dex and what would you take against a knights force with that dex (prefeably without souping (*)).
Struggling a bit with the army.
thanks
(*) unless you feel thats a essential element of the game now.
SHUPPET wrote: that's the expected response from someone who doesn't have an answer to overwhelming evidence proving their position wrong but still doesn't want to let go of it.
If that's your opinion then fine, it's understood. Mine is just the opposite, and instead of leaning on the fact that everyone is entitled to an opinion, it leans on all the knowledge and information we have on the subject.
It's my opinion based upon a number of soft metrics, which is why it will remain opinion and not fact. I will agree that they are attempting to achieve balance without significantly impacting their best selling lines of models, you can read into that what you will. Granted, I'm a cynic and skeptic, which tends to make me assume the worst potential conclusions from the available information.
liam0404 wrote: The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.
What do you think about the new Sisters Beta Dex and what would you take against a knights force with that dex (prefeably without souping (*)).
Struggling a bit with the army.
thanks
(*) unless you feel thats a essential element of the game now.
Don't sisters have tons of deep striking/highly mobile melta? Feels like they are pretty good at anti tank.
Taking Imperium and choosing to NOT soup is basically saying "I want to be strong but I choose to not be as competitive as possible". I totally understand it and do it myself but it's a bit like a racing driver refusing to fit high performance slick tyres that will take a second of their lap time because they didn't come pre-fitted to the car.
You can still race and you might do well, but you're choosing not to use all the options available to you.
Wayniac wrote:I think RE: Faq the issue is they are all over the place. There are multiple FAQs for each faction, with some rules in one but not in another. That's the issue; not that FAQs are bad but the way they are organized seems to be horrible for actually using them. Ideally, you should require two: the main rulebook FAQ and your faction FAQ. But often, there are rules that apply to your codex that aren't in your FAQ, but in another FAQ that broadly applies to multiple codexes (in which case they should be in the MAIN faq)
I just wanted to chime in; while I agree with you from a casual player perspective that the FAQs are poorly organized, from a competitive player perspective, functionally, it's fine.
Why? Because a player who is looking to place and do well in tournaments should realistically know about how all armies in the game function (otherwise that's just poor planning on their part). That means staying up to date on all the Codices and FAQs, so they will be reading them all in turn anyways. Whether all the entries are grouped into one super-PDF, or scattered across 20, a player looking to place/do well in competition will read them all anyways.
As for the Battle Report and the Army Lists, I thoroughly enjoyed it, because it helps shows an aspect of the game as it's played from a competitive perspective. As I understand, it was illuminating to the Design Team, and it gives insight to players outside of narrative circles. I really hope GW keeps doing this, providing not just more narrative battle reports, but more competitive ones as well.
Do we all agree that the game should be played in this way? Does it matter? You do you. But it's always nice to see and learn from different perspectives and I want to see GW embracing more of and providing more for its player demographics.
liam0404 wrote: The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.
What do you think about the new Sisters Beta Dex and what would you take against a knights force with that dex (prefeably without souping (*)).
Struggling a bit with the army.
thanks
(*) unless you feel thats a essential element of the game now.
Don't sisters have tons of deep striking/highly mobile melta? Feels like they are pretty good at anti tank.
Taking Imperium and choosing to NOT soup is basically saying "I want to be strong but I choose to not be as competitive as possible". I totally understand it and do it myself but it's a bit like a racing driver refusing to fit high performance slick tyres that will take a second of their lap time because they didn't come pre-fitted to the car.
You can still race and you might do well, but you're choosing not to use all the options available to you.
Allies by design should be a compliment, not a crutch.
The issue is that several codices are designed to require that crutch. At least the Eldar factions don't NEED allies, but the wording of Doom makes everyone bring in Eldar.
DV8 wrote: Because a player who is looking to place and do well in tournaments should realistically know about how all armies in the game function (otherwise that's just poor planning on their part). That means staying up to date on all the Codices and FAQs, so they will be reading them all in turn anyways. Whether all the entries are grouped into one super-PDF, or scattered across 20, a player looking to place/do well in competition will read them all anyways.
I agree, but am also resentful that this is the way it is. While variety is great, there are far too many factions in 40K right now, with far too many units and each faction with its own FAQ. I used to have almost all the Codices for 40k (save for Guard and Orks at the time) and used to be "up to date" with all the rules for all the armies for all of 40K. But a combination of factions/unit counts doubling or even tripling since then and me actually having a life outside this game, I just cannot realistically keep up. I just do not have the mental stamina or disposable income to play competitively anymore.
For a brief time in 8E it looked like the game was going to be streamlined enough for this to be possible for me again. Afterall, 1 BRB and 5 Indexes was all you needed. But alas, that dream has died. On the bright side, my sons are getting more and more invested in 40K, so I am able to pass th torch as it were and just play for fun (best of both worlds).
I got off on a bit of a tangent there, but:
TL;DR If you are serious about this game competitively, it isn't a huge inconvenience to keep up. But for some, the inconvenience does indeed put up a wall to that world that shouldn't exist.
The issue is that several codices are designed to require that crutch. At least the Eldar factions don't NEED allies, but the wording of Doom makes everyone bring in Eldar.
Yep, an this is probably the main reason Aeldari Factions get hate. They don't NEED each other to be good, but together get the same level of advantage as other factions. Factions using allies as a crutch go for "meh" to "good", but Aeldari go from "good" to "great/OP" SOMETHING needs to change to limit the advantage of taking Allies without completely removing them
Honestly, limiting Doom to only working with Craftworld units would go a long way to solving one of those problems. I don't know why GW just doesn't do that.
TL;DR If you are serious about this game competitively, it isn't a huge inconvenience to keep up. But for some, the inconvenience does indeed put up a wall to that world that shouldn't exist.
*snip*
I agree. Ideally you have a gaming group with access amongst them to all the Codices, so as an individual, you don't have to buy them all.
And as a casual player, I only really care about the FAQs in passing. I'll update myself once every few months, but our group doesn't get in a twist if we don't play a rule 100% right, because it's all beer-hammer to us.
It's people who play against knights without anti vehicle weapons and lose but expect to win vs. everyone else for like the last 8 pages.
I think the biggest problem is people who play against Knights with only enough Anti-Tank to kill, say, a Baneblade.
The durability difference between most LOWs (or any vehicle/monster) and a 3++ Castellan is dramatic. To one-round a Baneblade, you need about 30 BS 4+ lascannons, which is possible but expensive. To one-round a 3++ Castellan, you need 72 BS4+ Lascannons, which is almost 250% more firepower...
It's people who play against knights without anti vehicle weapons and lose but expect to win vs. everyone else for like the last 8 pages.
I think the biggest problem is people who play against Knights with only enough Anti-Tank to kill, say, a Baneblade.
The durability difference between most LOWs (or any vehicle/monster) and a 3++ Castellan is dramatic. To one-round a Baneblade, you need about 30 BS 4+ lascannons, which is possible but expensive. To one-round a 3++ Castellan, you need 72 BS4+ Lascannons, which is almost 250% more firepower...
Yes and without allies and CP a pure knights list can pull of that buff maybe twice in a game and do nothing else strategums wise.
Also that 3++ doesn't work in Close combat run up and punch it.
Seriously instead of complaining try engaging the brain and counter playing a unit by attacking its weaknesses instead of trying to out play it at it's own game.
Is a cawl's wrath castellen undercosted yes by 50-100 points, but the strategums etc are fine in codex.
The other thing I'd add is something that not many of you are commenting on - my list was probably aggressively average in terms of truly competitive Eldar lists. You never really see Vypers or non Ynarri reapers doing well, and even I managed to win.
Knights are one of those units that may look intimidating, but they are far from invincible. Castellan has a 3++? Why are you shooting that, and not the other Knights?
If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".
Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.
Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.
yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
How on earth is a new player supposed to navigate through this mess?
By reading the faq's?
I know, reading a text document in 2019. Perish the thought.
Pease list the “text documents” that contain all of this information.
Your codex, BRB, Big Faq 1 & 2, CA 2018 (for point changes) should cover 99% of cases.
Having to read faq's is the price you pay for GW actually updating the game, which is VASTLY superior to the situation we had before
I'm 100% on board with updates to the game and regular ones ... it is vastly superior to previous iterations. I was reading a batrep from 2011 last night and they mentioned having a 45 minute break to argue with TO over something in an FAQ that no -one had access to, .. the internet and mobile tech is light years better now.
the problem now lies in indexing and parsing the multiple sources of info we have .. in a competitive arena, there is not time to search EIGHT sources including their errata & FAQ to find where the answer to a question lies to prove to you opponent.
especially when multiple sources contradict each other
For example look up how terrain rules apply to non infantry ... one source says 50% obscured and another says on & in & obscured... Now I know we've hashed that out here... but consider someone that "Doesn't frequent Dakka" ...
how are they supposed to parse multiple iterations, several variants that questioned these rules ... some within the first month of release and others years later ... when there's no version numbers or validity chain.
so yes the information is there .. yes the situation is 'better' ... but damned if I'm going to call it a perfect situation and not keep calling GW out on it.
Yes and without allies and CP a pure knights list can pull of that buff maybe twice in a game and do nothing else strategums wise.
I mean, not to add fuel to the fire, but when was the last time you saw a competitive army with Knights field a mono-knights list? There's a reason Knights are always paired with some form of CP battalion.
It's people who play against knights without anti vehicle weapons and lose but expect to win vs. everyone else for like the last 8 pages.
I think the biggest problem is people who play against Knights with only enough Anti-Tank to kill, say, a Baneblade.
The durability difference between most LOWs (or any vehicle/monster) and a 3++ Castellan is dramatic. To one-round a Baneblade, you need about 30 BS 4+ lascannons, which is possible but expensive. To one-round a 3++ Castellan, you need 72 BS4+ Lascannons, which is almost 250% more firepower...
Yes and without allies and CP a pure knights list can pull of that buff maybe twice in a game and do nothing else strategums wise.
Also that 3++ doesn't work in Close combat run up and punch it.
Seriously instead of complaining try engaging the brain and counter playing a unit by attacking its weaknesses instead of trying to out play it at it's own game.
Is a cawl's wrath castellen undercosted yes by 50-100 points, but the strategums etc are fine in codex.
A pure knights list isn't what we're talking about here, mate.
And "running it up and punching it" isn't actually that viable, as there are several armies that, even with soup, lack the combat power to kill the Knight before it kills them. And also cannot be done over screens (doubly a problem after the FLY nerf). Which is why Knights soup....
A lot of back and forth knights are OP they are average etc
The problem is knights need to be powerful.They cant be bowled over like a Lemun Russ or a Predator etc, but they cant be like a Warhound titan, so they are the mid ground. Personally (and my main army I run all infantry), I find knights fine in soup or in an army. I think they maybe a little cheap but as CA18 rolls on they are manageable. Remember CA18 just got released so lets see in a few months.
The problem is knights need to be powerful.They cant be bowled over like a Lemun Russ or a Predator etc, but they cant be like a Warhound titan, so they are the mid ground. Personally (and my main army I run all infantry), I find knights fine in soup or in an army. I think they maybe a little cheap but as CA18 rolls on they are manageable. Remember CA18 just got released so lets see in a few months.
I think Knights are fine, except for the 3++, really. Cap that at a 4++ and roll on.
It's people who play against knights without anti vehicle weapons and lose but expect to win vs. everyone else for like the last 8 pages.
I run quite a bit of anti-titan and anti-large units. I have bright lances and many other options with my Eldar. But knights aren't really the massive problem its knight having such a huge advantage with imperial soup lists. While eldar (namely ynnari) are more troublesome than they should be.
Crimson wrote: Frankly, you really shouldn't be able to relialibly one round a 600 point vehicle. If you can, it pretty much means that who shoots first wins.
My superheavy tanks are routinely one-rounded. I agree with you, on principle, that lethality is too high. But I've gotten so used to it I just plan for it.
Crimson wrote: Frankly, you really shouldn't be able to relialibly one round a 600 point vehicle. If you can, it pretty much means that who shoots first wins.
@Liam0404: I just got the WD and am reading the BR. Great stuff!
I wondered if you'd let us know why the Beta Tactical Reserve rules weren't used? Being able to "hide" the Dark Reapers in reserve, but still use them in your Turn 1 is a pretty big deal
The Battle report was fought back at the end of July, so the big FAQ hadn't came out yet - the cp costs and tactical restraint rules weren't in play either here.
I also wrote about this for our website if you're interested:
BaconCatBug wrote: If you dropped Knights to T7 with 2+ save it would fix so much it's not even funny. The main problem with 8th edition is that it's either Bring Knights or lose. Even if you tool explicitly for Knights, they just turn around and get a 3++ and block all your stuff, and even if you do manage to degrade them they just stratagem back up to full effectiveness.
Nah, i killed every knight at an ITC tournament last weekend without even trying, it wasnt the knights that i had trouble with, it was hordes. I was able to do 30-40 wounds to knights each turn.
And I also once won a game with a 3000 point handicap while blind. Please share this magical secret sauce that can somehow bypass all the wounds on a 3++ castellan in a single turn.
Skyweaver + Doom
MW bypass 3++
Also, i thought you would know this, since you seem all knowing and never wrong
liam0404 wrote: The best armies have way to deal with the castellan though - Talos armies ring haywire, Ynarri bring double tapping reapers and the ability to use jinx (bringing that invulnerable down), and hordes just don't care about the save.
What do you think about the new Sisters Beta Dex and what would you take against a knights force with that dex (prefeably without souping (*)).
Struggling a bit with the army.
thanks
(*) unless you feel thats a essential element of the game now.
Don't sisters have tons of deep striking/highly mobile melta? Feels like they are pretty good at anti tank.
Taking Imperium and choosing to NOT soup is basically saying "I want to be strong but I choose to not be as competitive as possible". I totally understand it and do it myself but it's a bit like a racing driver refusing to fit high performance slick tyres that will take a second of their lap time because they didn't come pre-fitted to the car.
You can still race and you might do well, but you're choosing not to use all the options available to you.
Well they have one pistol for deepstriking and scouting melta guns that need to get within 6" , have one shot and are very expensive - so its not ideal - especially now Sisters lost double shoot AOF and lack Mortal Wounds causing abilities.
The main combat character is strength 7 so hurting knights in melee is hard, we can;t get power axes so the best of the rest is a Strength 5 relic weapon which does 3 damage.. All these on T3 models.
I was really hoping that a player of the quality of Liam might say how he would use Sisters in such a match up and what he thought of the Beta Dex.
Another thread that ends up pointing out the sorry trash heaps that are marines and necrons. The disconnect between those players in the have group (CWE, orcs, tau, etc) when discussing knights vs those in the have not group (crons, nids and marines) is pretty stark.
Most factions have a way of dealing with knights. Horde them to death (orcs, nids, guard, chaos), sneaky tactics them to death (CWE, Ynarri, harlies, gsc), just shoot them who cares (orcs, tau, cwe, guard), or punch them in the face (custodes, gsc chaos, orcs).
The only ones left out in the cold are marines and necrons. Nids suffer but they usually have the bodies or can get tied up in cqc with whatever screens are brought. Now that the meta has shifted to hordes and knights marines seem to struggle to create a list that can deal with both ends of the spectrum and not get tabled by turn 3.
That dead horse beaten, I'm glad that GW is embracing more competitive players. Hopefully they keep their feelers out and actually watch tourney games and not just take a glance at the results to not only see what lists are out there dominating but how they do it (and what rules are broken, mobbing up lootas, grot shields, 3++ knights, yanarri, doom, terrain...)
I do find it strange that they were caught off guard by the lists you guys brought though. I would think the play testers would be reporting on even more broken lists than the ones you guys brought (constrained by the existing models and crazy travel schedules as you guys were) and the fact that the GW staff wasn't well versed in these pretty meta lists says a lot about the communication between those play testers and the brains at GW.
The Battle report was fought back at the end of July, so the big FAQ hadn't came out yet - the cp costs and tactical restraint rules weren't in play either here.
I also wrote about this for our website if you're interested:
SHUPPET wrote: that's the expected response from someone who doesn't have an answer to overwhelming evidence proving their position wrong but still doesn't want to let go of it.
If that's your opinion then fine, it's understood. Mine is just the opposite, and instead of leaning on the fact that everyone is entitled to an opinion, it leans on all the knowledge and information we have on the subject.
It's my opinion based upon a number of soft metrics, which is why it will remain opinion and not fact. I will agree that they are attempting to achieve balance without significantly impacting their best selling lines of models, you can read into that what you will. Granted, I'm a cynic and skeptic, which tends to make me assume the worst potential conclusions from the available information.
Where does the continual crappiness of primaris marines, GW's biggest and most important and usually bestselling product line, factor into your "soft metrics"?
Do you allow that enormous contradiction to your conspiracy narrative disprove it, or are you mostly in the "explain away and disregard data that does not fit my narrative" kind of a business?
bananathug wrote: Another thread that ends up pointing out the sorry trash heaps that are marines and necrons. The disconnect between those players in the have group (CWE, orcs, tau, etc) when discussing knights vs those in the have not group (crons, nids and marines) is pretty stark.
Most factions have a way of dealing with knights. Horde them to death (orcs, nids, guard, chaos), sneaky tactics them to death (CWE, Ynarri, harlies, gsc), just shoot them who cares (orcs, tau, cwe, guard), or punch them in the face (custodes, gsc chaos, orcs).
The only ones left out in the cold are marines and necrons. Nids suffer but they usually have the bodies or can get tied up in cqc with whatever screens are brought. Now that the meta has shifted to hordes and knights marines seem to struggle to create a list that can deal with both ends of the spectrum and not get tabled by turn 3.
That dead horse beaten, I'm glad that GW is embracing more competitive players. Hopefully they keep their feelers out and actually watch tourney games and not just take a glance at the results to not only see what lists are out there dominating but how they do it (and what rules are broken, mobbing up lootas, grot shields, 3++ knights, yanarri, doom, terrain...)
I do find it strange that they were caught off guard by the lists you guys brought though. I would think the play testers would be reporting on even more broken lists than the ones you guys brought (constrained by the existing models and crazy travel schedules as you guys were) and the fact that the GW staff wasn't well versed in these pretty meta lists says a lot about the communication between those play testers and the brains at GW.
Nids also has OOE and Broodlords. They do a lot of damage to Knights, it is possible to one round a knight with OOE, also Smite. Broodlords cant for sure, but can easily do 5 wounds to them in melee and a smite.
bananathug wrote: Another thread that ends up pointing out the sorry trash heaps that are marines and necrons. The disconnect between those players in the have group (CWE, orcs, tau, etc) when discussing knights vs those in the have not group (crons, nids and marines) is pretty stark.
Most factions have a way of dealing with knights. Horde them to death (orcs, nids, guard, chaos), sneaky tactics them to death (CWE, Ynarri, harlies, gsc), just shoot them who cares (orcs, tau, cwe, guard), or punch them in the face (custodes, gsc chaos, orcs).
The only ones left out in the cold are marines and necrons. Nids suffer but they usually have the bodies or can get tied up in cqc with whatever screens are brought. Now that the meta has shifted to hordes and knights marines seem to struggle to create a list that can deal with both ends of the spectrum and not get tabled by turn 3.
That dead horse beaten, I'm glad that GW is embracing more competitive players. Hopefully they keep their feelers out and actually watch tourney games and not just take a glance at the results to not only see what lists are out there dominating but how they do it (and what rules are broken, mobbing up lootas, grot shields, 3++ knights, yanarri, doom, terrain...)
I do find it strange that they were caught off guard by the lists you guys brought though. I would think the play testers would be reporting on even more broken lists than the ones you guys brought (constrained by the existing models and crazy travel schedules as you guys were) and the fact that the GW staff wasn't well versed in these pretty meta lists says a lot about the communication between those play testers and the brains at GW.
Where does Marines being one of the few factions that falls into the trifecta of Has units that can actually kill it in melee - has easy access to S9 - has ability to turn off invuln saves come in?
IMO marines are not out of the meta because they can't deal with knights, they're out of the meta because they can't deal with aeldari soup/guard/hordes in general. If the meta was just knights, marines would be half decent.
IDK if marines are out of the meta didn't a DW player (with a knight etc) win heat 3 or something or place high. Crutch of the knight but you know in a tourney. But to the point, knight maybe good for points, but are they OP... I think they are almost at were they should be, maybe should cost a tad more.
BaconCatBug wrote: If you dropped Knights to T7 with 2+ save it would fix so much it's not even funny. The main problem with 8th edition is that it's either Bring Knights or lose. Even if you tool explicitly for Knights, they just turn around and get a 3++ and block all your stuff, and even if you do manage to degrade them they just stratagem back up to full effectiveness.
Nah, i killed every knight at an ITC tournament last weekend without even trying, it wasnt the knights that i had trouble with, it was hordes. I was able to do 30-40 wounds to knights each turn.
Of the top 5 armies in the BAO, the biggest ITC tournament we have had in a while, 4 of the top 5 lists had knights.
People talking down knights never seem to bother looking at what the people who actually win big tournaments bring. It’s getting ridiculous now
The Battle report was fought back at the end of July, so the big FAQ hadn't came out yet - the cp costs and tactical restraint rules weren't in play either here.
I also wrote about this for our website if you're interested:
Thanks for the read. Can you give your point of view on the subject of Knight balance since we're at it ?
At the time of the battle report, I honestly thought that's Knights in some form of imperium soup were one of the best lists in the game (depending on the other components of the soup).
Now? They're second tier at best IMO. The big FAQ really hurt them. They need CPs to be super efficient, and they no longer have ready access to them as a result of those changes.
I also think that unless you're packing mortars, Knights suck in environments that use the LOS blocking rules for the ground floor. It's super easy to avoid being tabled and score objectives.
Add onto this the fact that Ynarri and Orks were probably neck and neck anyway, and they've just slipped too far. I think even Tauncan probably be comfortable Vs Knights as well depending on their build.
DV8 wrote: Because a player who is looking to place and do well in tournaments should realistically know about how all armies in the game function (otherwise that's just poor planning on their part). That means staying up to date on all the Codices and FAQs, so they will be reading them all in turn anyways. Whether all the entries are grouped into one super-PDF, or scattered across 20, a player looking to place/do well in competition will read them all anyways.
I agree, but am also resentful that this is the way it is. While variety is great, there are far too many factions in 40K right now, with far too many units and each faction with its own FAQ.
I used to have almost all the Codices for 40k (save for Guard and Orks at the time) and used to be "up to date" with all the rules for all the armies for all of 40K.
But a combination of factions/unit counts doubling or even tripling since then and me actually having a life outside this game, I just cannot realistically keep up.
I just do not have the mental stamina or disposable income to play competitively anymore.
For a brief time in 8E it looked like the game was going to be streamlined enough for this to be possible for me again. Afterall, 1 BRB and 5 Indexes was all you needed.
But alas, that dream has died.
On the bright side, my sons are getting more and more invested in 40K, so I am able to pass th torch as it were and just play for fun (best of both worlds).
I got off on a bit of a tangent there, but:
TL;DR If you are serious about this game competitively, it isn't a huge inconvenience to keep up. But for some, the inconvenience does indeed put up a wall to that world that shouldn't exist.
The issue is that several codices are designed to require that crutch. At least the Eldar factions don't NEED allies, but the wording of Doom makes everyone bring in Eldar.
Yep, an this is probably the main reason Aeldari Factions get hate. They don't NEED each other to be good, but together get the same level of advantage as other factions.
Factions using allies as a crutch go for "meh" to "good", but Aeldari go from "good" to "great/OP"
SOMETHING needs to change to limit the advantage of taking Allies without completely removing them
-
For 3-4 mounts before CA IK were to most winning faction, in CA they buffed this fraction, until eldars took a hit.
in white dwarf they post again the proven list just cuz they wanna sell more guards and knights.
But i guess the logic is knights and guard soap is problem, leds nerf eldare
the_scotsman wrote: Where does the continual crappiness of primaris marines, GW's biggest and most important and usually bestselling product line, factor into your "soft metrics"?
Do you allow that enormous contradiction to your conspiracy narrative disprove it, or are you mostly in the "explain away and disregard data that does not fit my narrative" kind of a business?
Do you have actual numbers showing that Primaris models are among their best selling lines of models? That would certainly be a point against my cynical skepticism, despite your assumption that I am unwilling to integrate data into my assumptions. I would be fascinated to see hard GW sales data on a per product line basis, that would be very relevant data.
the_scotsman wrote: Where does the continual crappiness of primaris marines, GW's biggest and most important and usually bestselling product line, factor into your "soft metrics"?
Do you allow that enormous contradiction to your conspiracy narrative disprove it, or are you mostly in the "explain away and disregard data that does not fit my narrative" kind of a business?
Do you have actual numbers showing that Primaris models are among their best selling lines of models? That would certainly be a point against my cynical skepticism, despite your assumption that I am unwilling to integrate data into my assumptions. I would be fascinated to see hard GW sales data on a per product line basis, that would be very relevant data.
Primaris intercessors are 60$ per a squad of 10. Primaris and space marine players are rare as is. (which is wierd to think about) inferring from that people are not returning to primaris or space marines.
It's people who play against knights without anti vehicle weapons and lose but expect to win vs. everyone else for like the last 8 pages.
I think the biggest problem is people who play against Knights with only enough Anti-Tank to kill, say, a Baneblade.
The durability difference between most LOWs (or any vehicle/monster) and a 3++ Castellan is dramatic. To one-round a Baneblade, you need about 30 BS 4+ lascannons, which is possible but expensive. To one-round a 3++ Castellan, you need 72 BS4+ Lascannons, which is almost 250% more firepower...
Yes and without allies and CP a pure knights list can pull of that buff maybe twice in a game and do nothing else strategums wise.
Also that 3++ doesn't work in Close combat run up and punch it.
Seriously instead of complaining try engaging the brain and counter playing a unit by attacking its weaknesses instead of trying to out play it at it's own game.
Is a cawl's wrath castellen undercosted yes by 50-100 points, but the strategums etc are fine in codex.
You just highlighted a problem, not countered the complaints lol. Knights get really strong with allies and their codex gives them the choice of the most allies in the game, that is part of their rules. Not grabbing more CP through allies is an entirely self imposed restriction, but I guess you gotta try engaging the brain first . This post was a big backfire.
It's people who play against knights without anti vehicle weapons and lose but expect to win vs. everyone else for like the last 8 pages.
I think the biggest problem is people who play against Knights with only enough Anti-Tank to kill, say, a Baneblade.
The durability difference between most LOWs (or any vehicle/monster) and a 3++ Castellan is dramatic. To one-round a Baneblade, you need about 30 BS 4+ lascannons, which is possible but expensive. To one-round a 3++ Castellan, you need 72 BS4+ Lascannons, which is almost 250% more firepower...
Yes and without allies and CP a pure knights list can pull of that buff maybe twice in a game and do nothing else strategums wise.
Also that 3++ doesn't work in Close combat run up and punch it.
Seriously instead of complaining try engaging the brain and counter playing a unit by attacking its weaknesses instead of trying to out play it at it's own game.
Is a cawl's wrath castellen undercosted yes by 50-100 points, but the strategums etc are fine in codex.
You just highlighted a problem, not countered the complaints lol. Knights get really strong with allies and their codex gives them the choice of the most allies in the game, that is part of their rules. Not grabbing more CP through allies is an entirely self imposed restriction, but I guess you gotta try engaging the brain first . This post was a big backfire.
Again still not OP though.
I'm.not denying they're a good codex, but the issue lies in CP rules and allies not as everyone keeps screaming that knights are OP.
If you cost evrything in their codex with 200 points of guard assumed, then why are they having thier codex balanced for an out of codex buff, but not skyweavers, dissy cannons and farseers?
the_scotsman wrote: Where does the continual crappiness of primaris marines, GW's biggest and most important and usually bestselling product line, factor into your "soft metrics"?
Do you allow that enormous contradiction to your conspiracy narrative disprove it, or are you mostly in the "explain away and disregard data that does not fit my narrative" kind of a business?
Do you have actual numbers showing that Primaris models are among their best selling lines of models? That would certainly be a point against my cynical skepticism, despite your assumption that I am unwilling to integrate data into my assumptions. I would be fascinated to see hard GW sales data on a per product line basis, that would be very relevant data.
Primaris intercessors are 60$ per a squad of 10. Primaris and space marine players are rare as is. (which is wierd to think about) inferring from that people are not returning to primaris or space marines.
They're only rare in top tier competitive environments.
Tons of casual players still play marines. We're swamped with Marine players where I live despite their shittiness because most people just want to play the army/models they like as long as they aren't totally worthless (GK...). Also anecdotal but the space marine battleforces are both sold out on GW's site and other 3rd party sellers whereas the Necron and Eldar ones are still there. Up until a few months ago I saw loads of place still selling the older battleforces like Tau and Orks because they hadn't cleared out the stock but after 2 months you can't find those Space Marine sets anywhere.
the_scotsman wrote: Where does the continual crappiness of primaris marines, GW's biggest and most important and usually bestselling product line, factor into your "soft metrics"?
Do you allow that enormous contradiction to your conspiracy narrative disprove it, or are you mostly in the "explain away and disregard data that does not fit my narrative" kind of a business?
Do you have actual numbers showing that Primaris models are among their best selling lines of models? That would certainly be a point against my cynical skepticism, despite your assumption that I am unwilling to integrate data into my assumptions. I would be fascinated to see hard GW sales data on a per product line basis, that would be very relevant data.
Primaris intercessors are 60$ per a squad of 10. Primaris and space marine players are rare as is. (which is wierd to think about) inferring from that people are not returning to primaris or space marines.
They're only rare in top tier competitive environments.
Tons of casual players still play marines. We're swamped with Marine players where I live despite their shittiness because most people just want to play the army/models they like as long as they aren't totally worthless (GK...). Also anecdotal but the space marine battleforces are both sold out on GW's site and other 3rd party sellers whereas the Necron and Eldar ones are still there. Up until a few months ago I saw loads of place still selling the older battleforces like Tau and Orks because they hadn't cleared out the stock but after 2 months you can't find those Space Marine sets anywhere.
See I've seen the opposite most marine players are deathguard players in my area. But maybe it changes based on area?
Spectral Ceramite wrote: How many other lists with knights didn't make it? Do people run knight spam cause they think they need it?etc etc many variables
Why do you think that is more important than the prevalence of knights in the top brackets? People playing down knights are wrong doing so as evidenced by players far far better than them utilizing knights to regularly place at the top of big countywide tournaments. No one is going to deny that ynnari are also extremely good, and the debate over which is the gooderest is counterproductive and the people trying to claim there was s nothing wrong at all with knights are laughably wrong themselves
It's people who play against knights without anti vehicle weapons and lose but expect to win vs. everyone else for like the last 8 pages.
I think the biggest problem is people who play against Knights with only enough Anti-Tank to kill, say, a Baneblade.
The durability difference between most LOWs (or any vehicle/monster) and a 3++ Castellan is dramatic. To one-round a Baneblade, you need about 30 BS 4+ lascannons, which is possible but expensive. To one-round a 3++ Castellan, you need 72 BS4+ Lascannons, which is almost 250% more firepower...
Yes and without allies and CP a pure knights list can pull of that buff maybe twice in a game and do nothing else strategums wise. Also that 3++ doesn't work in Close combat run up and punch it.
Seriously instead of complaining try engaging the brain and counter playing a unit by attacking its weaknesses instead of trying to out play it at it's own game.
Is a cawl's wrath castellen undercosted yes by 50-100 points, but the strategums etc are fine in codex.
You just highlighted a problem, not countered the complaints lol. Knights get really strong with allies and their codex gives them the choice of the most allies in the game, that is part of their rules. Not grabbing more CP through allies is an entirely self imposed restriction, but I guess you gotta try engaging the brain first . This post was a big backfire.
Again still not OP though. I'm.not denying they're a good codex, but the issue lies in CP rules and allies not as everyone keeps screaming that knights are OP.
The point is, regardless to what extreme you were arguing it, the logic you put forth actually works against you, not for you.
Ice_can wrote: If you cost evrything in their codex with 200 points of guard assumed, then why are they having thier codex balanced for an out of codex buff, but not skyweavers, dissy cannons and farseers?
If these units are too much also, then that's also an issue that may need a down tune, not an excuse to leave poor examples of balance in the game just because they aren't the only instances of it. I was the first one to say to BCB that he's overrating Knights.
Perhaps I'm just a bit too bitter about most of my Anti-Big-Thing weapons being pointless vs Knights. Higher volume small arms shouldn't be more ideal for taking down a Knight than low-volume good-AP weapons.
Consider a Brightlance hit vs a Knight: a 1/2 chance to wound, and a 1/3 chance to get past a 3++. So 1/6 Brightlance hits wound.
Consider Lasblaster/Lasgun hits vs a Knight. 1/6 chance to wound, 1/3 chance to get past the 3++.
So a single Guardsman unit in RF range, no upgrades, no buffs does more damage to an IK than a Brightlance. WTF.
Lascannons aren't a lot better. 12" more range, and 33% better chance to range.
Bharring wrote: Perhaps I'm just a bit too bitter about most of my Anti-Big-Thing weapons being pointless vs Knights. Higher volume small arms shouldn't be more ideal for taking down a Knight than low-volume good-AP weapons.
Consider a Brightlance hit vs a Knight: a 1/2 chance to wound, and a 1/3 chance to get past a 3++. So 1/6 Brightlance hits wound.
Consider Lasblaster/Lasgun hits vs a Knight. 1/6 chance to wound, 1/3 chance to get past the 3++.
So a single Guardsman unit in RF range, no upgrades, no buffs does more damage to an IK than a Brightlance. WTF.
Lascannons aren't a lot better. 12" more range, and 33% better chance to range.
*That's* a big problem thematically.
Yeah, high invulnerable save (and IG being ludicrously undercosted) causes this. That's why I cringe when every time when there is a problem with an unit's durability people suggest giving in an invul or improving an existing one. better than 5+ invulnerable saves should be rare, they feth up the weapon roles.
Bharring wrote: Perhaps I'm just a bit too bitter about most of my Anti-Big-Thing weapons being pointless vs Knights. Higher volume small arms shouldn't be more ideal for taking down a Knight than low-volume good-AP weapons.
Consider a Brightlance hit vs a Knight: a 1/2 chance to wound, and a 1/3 chance to get past a 3++. So 1/6 Brightlance hits wound.
Consider Lasblaster/Lasgun hits vs a Knight. 1/6 chance to wound, 1/3 chance to get past the 3++.
So a single Guardsman unit in RF range, no upgrades, no buffs does more damage to an IK than a Brightlance. WTF.
Lascannons aren't a lot better. 12" more range, and 33% better chance to range.
*That's* a big problem thematically.
Yup. They COULD introduce more complicated rules to make it more fair, but leaving it as a simple invulnerable save is easier, so that's how they wrote it. If I was writing Ion Shield rules, it would be like an Invulnerable save, but for each wound saved you still roll the damage, and the Ion Shield takes the damage. Maybe give the Ion Shield 20-30 wounds. Once the Ion Shield is brought down to zero, then the model loses it's invulnerable save, unless it uses a stratagem like Rotate Ion Shields to bring the shields back up, or they regen on the next turn. Or maybe just make it like Titan void shields, where it degrades as the Titan takes damage, so it might start as a 3++, but once it's down to like 10 wounds left it's on a 5++.
Bharring wrote: ... Or make Ion Shield (or one of the other buffs) +1 Armor Save instead of Invuln Save?
If I get a few Melta Guns in range of your Knight, you should be scared of their AP-4. Currently, their AP-4 is about the same as AP0.
Invulnerable saves should be rare period. I hate how stormshields give ++3 invulnerable save. Very few things should give that even space marines don't need something that good.
I agree that it should just be an improvement of your armor save so you get a +1 to your armor save (1s still fail), but if your opponent has something with ap - 4 its now ap-3. You still have a 5+ save. Anything more and its a bit OP
Bharring wrote: Perhaps I'm just a bit too bitter about most of my Anti-Big-Thing weapons being pointless vs Knights. Higher volume small arms shouldn't be more ideal for taking down a Knight than low-volume good-AP weapons.
Consider a Brightlance hit vs a Knight: a 1/2 chance to wound, and a 1/3 chance to get past a 3++. So 1/6 Brightlance hits wound.
Consider Lasblaster/Lasgun hits vs a Knight. 1/6 chance to wound, 1/3 chance to get past the 3++.
So a single Guardsman unit in RF range, no upgrades, no buffs does more damage to an IK than a Brightlance. WTF.
Lascannons aren't a lot better. 12" more range, and 33% better chance to range.
*That's* a big problem thematically.
The thing is if GW had actually blank canvassed the stats and design units for 8th edition that could have been avoided by actually embracing the concept that stats no longer have a cap of 10.
They could have had infantry 1-10 wounds, light vehicals small monsters 10 to 20 wounds, medium Vehicals/monsters 20 to 30 wounds, heavy vehicals 30 to 40, LoW 40 to 80.
Could have made a lascannon 8 damage in those sort of stats and infantry weapons would never be a good choice at 1 ot 2 wounds per shot. Especially if expanded the T stats aswell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: ... Or make Ion Shield (or one of the other buffs) +1 Armor Save instead of Invuln Save?
If I get a few Melta Guns in range of your Knight, you should be scared of their AP-4. Currently, their AP-4 is about the same as AP0.
They already have a 2+sv relic, just no-one takes it as it's esentially redundant as most anti tank weapons are -3AP so 5+ with a 5++? It's not a buff it's just a pointless option.
Bharring wrote: It's only "not a buff" because their Invulns are too good.
When people say they bring anti-tank, they should be talking about Lascannons, Melta, and Bright/Darklances, not Plasma, Ravagers, and Reapers.
So your claiming a 5++ is too good now?
A 5++ on a unit that pays 12points per wound, A russ pays 10 points per wound a 20% premium for a 5++ doesn't sound unreasonable.
Bharring wrote: ... Or make Ion Shield (or one of the other buffs) +1 Armor Save instead of Invuln Save?
If I get a few Melta Guns in range of your Knight, you should be scared of their AP-4. Currently, their AP-4 is about the same as AP0.
Invulnerable saves should be rare period. I hate how stormshields give ++3 invulnerable save. Very few things should give that even space marines don't need something that good.
I agree that it should just be an improvement of your armor save so you get a +1 to your armor save (1s still fail), but if your opponent has something with ap - 4 its now ap-3. You still have a 5+ save. Anything more and its a bit OP
Storm Shields should only protect the wearer from the front 90°. Something similar should also apply for IK: Declare either the Front, one of two Sides or Rear as protected. But apparently this is too complicated for 8th.
Sometimes I have to chop through units with a 4++ that pay 5 pts per wound. Sometimes I'm paying nearly 30 ppw for a 4++. It's not very consistent.
At a 5++, going from a 3+ to a 2+ is only "not a buff" when faced with Ap-4 or better. In other words, only a handful of marginal weapons.
At a 3++, that's a very different story. It's still a buff vs weapons with AP0 (Which, as shown above, outperform dedicated Tank/Knight killer weapons like Melta or Brightlances - wtf). So still not "not a buff". But a lot closer.
Bharring wrote: ... Or make Ion Shield (or one of the other buffs) +1 Armor Save instead of Invuln Save?
If I get a few Melta Guns in range of your Knight, you should be scared of their AP-4. Currently, their AP-4 is about the same as AP0.
Invulnerable saves should be rare period. I hate how stormshields give ++3 invulnerable save. Very few things should give that even space marines don't need something that good.
I agree that it should just be an improvement of your armor save so you get a +1 to your armor save (1s still fail), but if your opponent has something with ap - 4 its now ap-3. You still have a 5+ save. Anything more and its a bit OP
Storm Shields should only protect the wearer from the front 90°. Something similar should also apply for IK: Declare either the Front, one of two Sides or Rear as protected. But apparently this is too complicated for 8th.
I still think it was stupid that you don't have to be facing the unit your firing at. Like as if a massive war titan can turn around and fire as accurately without tilting it off its axis.... I mean eldar i would get, but tau and imperium not so much.
Bharring wrote: ... Or make Ion Shield (or one of the other buffs) +1 Armor Save instead of Invuln Save?
If I get a few Melta Guns in range of your Knight, you should be scared of their AP-4. Currently, their AP-4 is about the same as AP0.
Invulnerable saves should be rare period. I hate how stormshields give ++3 invulnerable save. Very few things should give that even space marines don't need something that good.
I agree that it should just be an improvement of your armor save so you get a +1 to your armor save (1s still fail), but if your opponent has something with ap - 4 its now ap-3. You still have a 5+ save. Anything more and its a bit OP
Storm Shields should only protect the wearer from the front 90°. Something similar should also apply for IK: Declare either the Front, one of two Sides or Rear as protected. But apparently this is too complicated for 8th.
I still think it was stupid that you don't have to be facing the unit your firing at. Like as if a massive war titan can turn around and fire as accurately without tilting it off its axis.... I mean eldar i would get, but tau and imperium not so much.
Too complicated for 8th edition that idea, but 15 books/FAQ etc to play the game is not complicated at all.
It was really about removing thing's that could be argued, but they still didn't actually properly read the rules as they wrote them to check they worked as intended so
At least we don't have totally broken formations yet.
Too complicated for 8th edition that idea, but 15 books/FAQ etc to play the game is not complicated at all.
It was really about removing thing's that could be argued, but they still didn't actually properly read the rules as they wrote them to check they worked as intended so
At least we don't have totally broken formations yet.
Key Word : Yet.
Its going to happen we all know it.
But vehicle rules should still be a thing, i get infantry being able to move quick cause they are infantry, but vehicles need a back side where they are at least weaker.... (though at that point why not just bring back the old tank armor rules)
for a tactical point...I would like lof to matter when shooting at things like tanks.
I can 'imagine' that tank is spinning around in circles shooting in all directions over the course of its move......that is fine visually.
However the purpose of back stabbing or shooting someone in the rear does matter....So keep shooting from that fender...that is going to pass I guess....but shooting back at the fender seems odd.
First make better saves or modifiers to hit rules....They did it in prior editions...so they know how.
BUT if I manage to bring my melta guns around the bend and sneak up behind that tank....and shoot it in the butt...then that should matter....its a matter of tactics.
Is this a game where models matter?
Or is it a MTG/card game where power combos and stacking your stuff in such a way matters?
I see the models on the board so the answer should be obvious. Otherwise give us cardboard chips for playing pieces and we can still play the game.
admironheart wrote: for a tactical point...I would like lof to matter when shooting at things like tanks.
I can 'imagine' that tank is spinning around in circles shooting in all directions over the course of its move......that is fine visually.
However the purpose of back stabbing or shooting someone in the rear does matter....So keep shooting from that fender...that is going to pass I guess....but shooting back at the fender seems odd.
First make better saves or modifiers to hit rules....They did it in prior editions...so they know how.
BUT if I manage to bring my melta guns around the bend and sneak up behind that tank....and shoot it in the butt...then that should matter....its a matter of tactics.
Is this a game where models matter?
Or is it a MTG/card game where power combos and stacking your stuff in such a way matters?
I see the models on the board so the answer should be obvious. Otherwise give us cardboard chips for playing pieces and we can still play the game.
I think positioning is not as important as it used to be. And its a shame I think there should be a refocus on postioning actually being punishable. Blobs and rear attacks should matter. Maybe you charged a unit that is facing away from you from behind and your units attack, maybe that unit doesn't get overwatch?
Maybe if I shoot the back of a titan (which is the weakest part in previous editions) maybe it should have a lower toughness?
Well imagine a card game. You put your attack card in the middle. Then you surround it with buff cards. Then you attack.
Is this not What 40K has pretty much become as far as positioning.
It used to be only the Eldar had to utilize supporting units to make their other units very effective. Now everyone is that.
I like the rules...but as someone said 40K needs a clean slate.
I understand that Guard is not a hth army...but it don't mean in the battles we play they cannot have some great hth units available.
Every army should have a the same set of playing pieces give or take some fluff/rules. I know it would not be perfectly balanced but give everyone similar pieces but with faction/army differences to make it a bit different.(no it would not be chess with flare)
Then it is how many Rocks, how many Papers and how many Scissors you bring to the game. And how you position those Rock Paper Scissors vs your opponents...then add in the mission and it is pretty diverse and different everytime.
"The issue with "tactical" positioning to kill a tank is that, a lot of the time, when you had enough Melta Guns in the first place it was overkill."
Only because Melta Guns were designed to blow up any vehicle, on any facing.
The same was not true of the Plasma Gun or Heat Lance or Auto Cannon. In 6e/7e, a Plasma Gun shooting front armor on almost any tank had a negligible chance to do real damage, but rear armor gave it a great chance to kill the vehicle.
Even Melta, in 6e/7e, if it couldn't get within half range, benefited greatly from rear armor. A sizable Fire Dragon squad within 6" was likely to pop anything, sure. But even a Fire Dragon squad in that edition would try to get side/rear armor. you'd be surprised how often they failed to pop even medium threats from the front arch.
Bharring wrote: "The issue with "tactical" positioning to kill a tank is that, a lot of the time, when you had enough Melta Guns in the first place it was overkill."
Only because Melta Guns were designed to blow up any vehicle, on any facing.
The same was not true of the Plasma Gun or Heat Lance or Auto Cannon. In 6e/7e, a Plasma Gun shooting front armor on almost any tank had a negligible chance to do real damage, but rear armor gave it a great chance to kill the vehicle.
Even Melta, in 6e/7e, if it couldn't get within half range, benefited greatly from rear armor. A sizable Fire Dragon squad within 6" was likely to pop anything, sure. But even a Fire Dragon squad in that edition would try to get side/rear armor. you'd be surprised how often they failed to pop even medium threats from the front arch.
With Lances, Lascannons, and Autocannons, you were paying for essentially the range. The units that take those weapons don't have to do any tactical positioning as they're typically campers. If you want to try and Infiltrate a Lascannon to get the rear armor of a Predator, be my guest.
Fire Dragons also didn't have much an issue as they KINDA get special rules yo help them pop pop pop watching tanks drop. I can count maybe on one hand the situation you describe for 7th, and I definitely played tons of 7th. Of course when everyone and their mother discovered how much better Wraithguard were, who cares?
"I can count maybe on one hand the situation you describe for 7th, and I definitely played tons of 7th."
Fair enough. I can't count the number of times I saw that in 7th on one hand. Not a huge number, but certainly more than 5 times. Dice are crazy.
Sure, you rarely got side/rear armor with Lascannons, Brightlances, or autocannons. But you frequently got side/rear armor with Plasma, Heat Lances, Blasters, Melta Guns, Krak Grenades, and more. Another thing I can't count on one hand? The number of vehicles with Front AV > 10 that I finished off with *boltguns*. Facing really did matter.
Bharring wrote: "I can count maybe on one hand the situation you describe for 7th, and I definitely played tons of 7th."
Fair enough. I can't count the number of times I saw that in 7th on one hand. Not a huge number, but certainly more than 5 times. Dice are crazy.
Sure, you rarely got side/rear armor with Lascannons, Brightlances, or autocannons. But you frequently got side/rear armor with Plasma, Heat Lances, Blasters, Melta Guns, Krak Grenades, and more. Another thing I can't count on one hand? The number of vehicles with Front AV > 10 that I finished off with *boltguns*. Facing really did matter.
I really dislike how much GW has made positioning and LOS not matter. Between AV facings being gone, no templates or scattering any more, really reducing cover mattering, and allowing you to pre measure it's really dumbed down where you place a model mattering in a given game.
Bharring wrote: "I can count maybe on one hand the situation you describe for 7th, and I definitely played tons of 7th." Fair enough. I can't count the number of times I saw that in 7th on one hand. Not a huge number, but certainly more than 5 times. Dice are crazy.
Sure, you rarely got side/rear armor with Lascannons, Brightlances, or autocannons. But you frequently got side/rear armor with Plasma, Heat Lances, Blasters, Melta Guns, Krak Grenades, and more. Another thing I can't count on one hand? The number of vehicles with Front AV > 10 that I finished off with *boltguns*. Facing really did matter.
I really dislike how much GW has made positioning and LOS not matter. Between AV facings being gone, no templates or scattering any more, really reducing cover mattering, and allowing you to pre measure it's really dumbed down where you place a model mattering in a given game.
Wow I seriously must've not been playing this edition, in my games I do not allow premeasuring. I basically call it "Declaring a target."
They have dumbed it down for the worst, and I know of people who take severe advantage of the game's rulesets.
Reducing how cover works never really made sense to me, neither did getting rid of AV facings or vehicle positioning... if one of your sponsons is facing the other direction and there is no possible way that it can see me it should not be able to shoot. Weapons should be destroyable...
Scattering rules are only part of why small blasts were absolutely terrible and kept large blasts mediocre at best.
Scatter wasn't terrible for small blasts, it prevented certain weapons from going out of control like plasma cannons...
Though plasma in general for the imperium should always be : If you roll 1 the bearer takes a wound.
Bharring wrote: "I can count maybe on one hand the situation you describe for 7th, and I definitely played tons of 7th."
Fair enough. I can't count the number of times I saw that in 7th on one hand. Not a huge number, but certainly more than 5 times. Dice are crazy.
Sure, you rarely got side/rear armor with Lascannons, Brightlances, or autocannons. But you frequently got side/rear armor with Plasma, Heat Lances, Blasters, Melta Guns, Krak Grenades, and more. Another thing I can't count on one hand? The number of vehicles with Front AV > 10 that I finished off with *boltguns*. Facing really did matter.
FWIW, Eldar had easy ways to increase their hit rate (not to mention how silly Aspect Shrine was for the time for not a single downside).
Bharring wrote: "I can count maybe on one hand the situation you describe for 7th, and I definitely played tons of 7th."
Fair enough. I can't count the number of times I saw that in 7th on one hand. Not a huge number, but certainly more than 5 times. Dice are crazy.
Sure, you rarely got side/rear armor with Lascannons, Brightlances, or autocannons. But you frequently got side/rear armor with Plasma, Heat Lances, Blasters, Melta Guns, Krak Grenades, and more. Another thing I can't count on one hand? The number of vehicles with Front AV > 10 that I finished off with *boltguns*. Facing really did matter.
I really dislike how much GW has made positioning and LOS not matter. Between AV facings being gone, no templates or scattering any more, really reducing cover mattering, and allowing you to pre measure it's really dumbed down where you place a model mattering in a given game.
Wow I seriously must've not been playing this edition, in my games I do not allow premeasuring. I basically call it "Declaring a target."
They have dumbed it down for the worst, and I know of people who take severe advantage of the game's rulesets.
Reducing how cover works never really made sense to me, neither did getting rid of AV facings or vehicle positioning... if one of your sponsons is facing the other direction and there is no possible way that it can see me it should not be able to shoot. Weapons should be destroyable...
Scattering rules are only part of why small blasts were absolutely terrible and kept large blasts mediocre at best.
Scatter wasn't terrible for small blasts, it prevented certain weapons from going out of control like plasma cannons...
Though plasma in general for the imperium should always be : If you roll 1 the bearer takes a wound.
Scatter + 2" coherency (on top of usually low firing rates) kept Small Blasts terrible. Forgetting even Invisibility for a moment, they weren't a good weapon profile to have at all. I'd even wager you were better off with a two shot weapon.
Scatter + 2" coherency (on top of usually low firing rates) kept Small Blasts terrible. Forgetting even Invisibility for a moment, they weren't a good weapon profile to have at all. I'd even wager you were better off with a two shot weapon.
I found them great for certain units, plasma cannons i used all the time in my space marine lists in 5th and 6th. Though mileage may vary.
You played in an area where you even admitted people didn't care about unit coherence. That puts bias on your end, whereas you would find them terrible if your opponent cared even a little.
Small blasts (and large ones for that matter ) could do a lot of damage if you played with the right terrain. You couldn't always keep your guys perfectly spread out when you needed them to get some were quickly or pass through a narrow path way or between / through buildings.
I swear people here are playing planet bowling some times. You put a good amount of physical line of sight blocking terrain and you get a much better game.
I think terrain in general should be line blocking, if a unit is hiding a forest, it should be 'hidden' in the forest or the unit engaging that unit has to roll to see them. (like the old dawn / night fighting rules)
There are so many things that could be done to make terrain and positioning matter currently terrain does very little as does unit positioning. If i rear charge a unit I should get particular bonuses, now some units would be rewarded more like bikes and jump pack infantry. But they should be already as they are paying a premium for that unit. So it would make sense they would do great in combat or are excellent in charging from behind.
"FWIW, Eldar had easy ways to increase their hit rate (not to mention how silly Aspect Shrine was for the time for not a single downside)."
Yeah, like Guide. Or Guide. Or even Guide. Or, if you were really cheeky, Guide cast by Eldrad!
The 7e Codex spiced it up by adding Aspect Shrines, so now there were 2 ways to increase Fire Dragon hit rates!
Claims like that are completely ungrounded in reality, and make it hard to have a meaningful conversation.
Eldar certainly didn't struggle to remove hard targets, especially on the competitive scene - but it wasn't because Fire Dragons had a half dozen +hit buffs or anything like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've had fun with more LOS-blocking terrain and more Impassible terrain (and being one doesn't necessitate the other). It adds a lot to the game.
That and playing smaller sizes (1250 or 1500) add a lot back to the game that felt lost in the jump to 8E.
Bharring wrote: "FWIW, Eldar had easy ways to increase their hit rate (not to mention how silly Aspect Shrine was for the time for not a single downside)."
Yeah, like Guide. Or Guide. Or even Guide. Or, if you were really cheeky, Guide cast by Eldrad!
The 7e Codex spiced it up by adding Aspect Shrines, so now there were 2 ways to increase Fire Dragon hit rates!
Claims like that are completely ungrounded in reality, and make it hard to have a meaningful conversation.
Eldar certainly didn't struggle to remove hard targets, especially on the competitive scene - but it wasn't because Fire Dragons had a half dozen +hit buffs or anything like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've had fun with more LOS-blocking terrain and more Impassible terrain (and being one doesn't necessitate the other). It adds a lot to the game.
That and playing smaller sizes (1250 or 1500) add a lot back to the game that felt lost in the jump to 8E.
But Facing and AVs are still palpably absent.
Oh please, Eldar didn't have a hard time casting Guide, and you can't deny that. Buffed hitting was absolutely easy to achieve.
Aspect Shrine making them stupid is definitely grounded in reality and you should know this.
Seems like you're the one crying because people don't adhere to your made up rules of "fluffy" armies.
Please share this magical secret sauce that can somehow bypass all the wounds on a 3++ castellan in a single turn.
