Yoyoyo wrote: I haven't seen a lot of complaints about the Daemon Weapons, Relics, Stratagems, or WL Traits. They seem to be pretty much on point. Lots of flavour and fun tricks to make playstyles more diverse and unique.
A lot of people are complaining PA2 wasn't designed as a competitive balance patch. I think you're bound to be disappointed if that's what you were expecting.
Then they should market it as an RPG, not a war game.
Well, actually they do and it's also how I see it and how the game works best. Especially when looking at the whining of many competitive players on this board I have the feeling if these guys would simply play more interesting scenarios than eternal war and ITC many problems wouldn't be as bad. But of course if that's how people have fun I can't tell them they're doing it wrong. I can just say as a fluff oriented player GW provides me with a lot of things and the rules for CSM in PA 2 bring back rules from the 3.5 codex and Traitor Legions, which is nice.
So bt got a supplement, a real one, one that makes them monoviable.
Further they are just better for less points and don't need to waste cp to get enough effectiveness on their base troops with WT etc.
Seems fair, it isn't like the normal marine dex 2.0 was allready head and shoulder above csm dex 1.1
....
To be honest at this point, we've just house ruled CSM army traits effect every unit in the army (Yesss, +1 LD Land raiders!).
Otherwise all of us csm players are kinda disgruntled and unfortunately the massive wave of Codex space marine players have only themselves to play against since none of us feel like getting our gak kicked in even in a casual setting.
If I get any more bitter better repaint my lads to Iron Warriors!
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: To be honest at this point, we've just house ruled CSM army traits effect every unit in the army (Yesss, +1 LD Land raiders!).
Otherwise all of us csm players are kinda disgruntled and unfortunately the massive wave of Codex space marine players have only themselves to play against since none of us feel like getting our gak kicked in even in a casual setting.
If I get any more bitter better repaint my lads to Iron Warriors!
well CSM atleast GOT a dex and don't lose out on 4 stats compared to R&H infantry.
But i distinctly remember GW stating they fetthed up and would improve this situation at the start of 8th........
Spoiler:
Considering my first CSM were a IW splinter, i indeed can verify that i snapped allready 2 shovels.
Altough that might be the case because it is snowing here and i have to get rid of it.
I don't give a feth what people think about GW. I hate bull gak artists and whining for the sake of whining.
okey, but this way it makes it non valid to voice any dislike of the state of the game, unless one is either a GW employ of high enough rank to rewrite the rules or impact the rewriting of the rules, or big enoug investor to do the same thing. Everyone else is just unhappy and Gw does not care about it.
I'm not hallucinating a name generator in this book, am I?
i wonder why do those exist, to be honest. Are people having trouble with writing down various german, dack or hungarian names, or something?
Karol wrote: okey, but this way it makes it non valid to voice any dislike of the state of the game, unless one is either a GW employ of high enough rank to rewrite the rules or impact the rewriting of the rules, or big enoug investor to do the same thing. Everyone else is just unhappy and Gw does not care about it.
There is a difference in stating your dislike for something in a constructive manner and spilling "GW is trash this and GW is trash that" into every single thread that comes up. You don't see me writing under every slightly negative post "Your opinion is wrong, the game is still great". Some people are good at explaining why they think a rule is bad or why they are disappointed with the campaign books. Others don't add anything to the discussion apart from aggressively stating "I'm still angry and/or frustrated"
Karol wrote: okey, but this way it makes it non valid to voice any dislike of the state of the game, unless one is either a GW employ of high enough rank to rewrite the rules or impact the rewriting of the rules, or big enoug investor to do the same thing. Everyone else is just unhappy and Gw does not care about it.
There is a difference in stating your dislike for something in a constructive manner and spilling "GW is trash this and GW is trash that" into every single thread that comes up. You don't see me writing under every slightly negative post "Your opinion is wrong, the game is still great". Some people are good at explaining why they think a rule is bad or why they are disappointed with the campaign books. Others don't add anything to the discussion apart from aggressively stating "I'm still angry and/or frustrated"
Which still adds to the discussion.
And considering the FB page, there are a lot of angry people here, People unhappy with the state GW is in, in terms of design.
And it is perfectly valid, just because you deem them not adding anything to the discussion, is solely a YOU issue.
And again YOU are not the sole arbitrator as to WHAT is deemed "adding to the discussion".
Karol wrote: okey, but this way it makes it non valid to voice any dislike of the state of the game, unless one is either a GW employ of high enough rank to rewrite the rules or impact the rewriting of the rules, or big enoug investor to do the same thing. Everyone else is just unhappy and Gw does not care about it.
There is a difference in stating your dislike for something in a constructive manner and spilling "GW is trash this and GW is trash that" into every single thread that comes up. You don't see me writing under every slightly negative post "Your opinion is wrong, the game is still great". Some people are good at explaining why they think a rule is bad or why they are disappointed with the campaign books. Others don't add anything to the discussion apart from aggressively stating "I'm still angry and/or frustrated"
well I guess it is a thing. Though in the end it doesn't matter that much in the end game. It is just like sports. Doesn't matter if the dudes is more technical or just a year older and a head taller, if both put you on top of your head 9/10 times. But from a pure esthetic point of view, it is for sure better to read eloquent people, then not. that is very true.
And again YOU are not the sole arbitrator as to WHAT is deemed "adding to the discussion".
Isn't that mostly governed by social or status stuff? I mean I could try to rant at my store, and get kicked out 3-5 min in to it, but the store owner can go on a 1 hour non stop why women bringing children in to the store are worse then drunk drivers rant, and unless his wife pops up, he will not only do it, but could easily extend it too.
It is probably, I think, the same on forums, people that are liked, or at least people like to read what they write, can do more, then people who everyone wants to have on ignore.
Not Online!!! wrote: So bt got a supplement, a real one, one that makes them monoviable.
Further they are just better for less points and don't need to waste cp to get enough effectiveness on their base troops with WT etc.
Seems fair, it isn't like the normal marine dex 2.0 was allready head and shoulder above csm dex 1.1
....
...
Have the rest of the rules leaked somewhere or something?
I don't give a feth what people think about GW. I hate bull gak artists and whining for the sake of whining.
okey, but this way it makes it non valid to voice any dislike of the state of the game, unless one is either a GW employ of high enough rank to rewrite the rules or impact the rewriting of the rules, or big enoug investor to do the same thing. Everyone else is just unhappy and Gw does not care about it.
I'm not hallucinating a name generator in this book, am I?
i wonder why do those exist, to be honest. Are people having trouble with writing down various german, dack or hungarian names, or something?
Do you believe someone calling me a white knight for saying a unit is somewhat usable is a valuable contribution to the forum?
Is there something so horribly offensive to me saying that that it offends people sensibilities? In what way is it rational to take such an offense? Do you think someone taking such an offense might not actually be committed to arguing in good faith?
Daedalus81 wrote: Do you believe someone calling me a white knight for saying a unit is somewhat usable is a valuable contribution to the forum?
Is there something so horribly offensive to me saying that that it offends people sensibilities? In what way is it rational to take such an offense? Do you think someone taking such an offense might not actually be committed to arguing in good faith?
What exactly did that post add to anything?
I don't think you are a white knight and I don't see why people get so confrontational over 40k, but its really unclear how Warp Talons are usable. 3 attacks, even with reroll wounds and AP-2, just isn't good enough for 24 points. I don't think they would be much better at say 22 points. At the same time they are mortal wound bait, and really die to any large number of low/no AP shots/punches.
Really the bitterness over all this is we through Psychic Awakening was effectively "40k 8.5", and its looking like that's only the case for Marines. Which is unsurprisingly further embittering, given how many people think its Marines versus everyone else (even if Marines were quite rubbish for about 18 months outside of Guilliman buff blobs).
And considering the FB page, there are a lot of angry people here, People unhappy with the state GW is in, in terms of design.
And it is perfectly valid, just because you deem them not adding anything to the discussion, is solely a YOU issue.
And again YOU are not the sole arbitrator as to WHAT is deemed "adding to the discussion".
I wrote that in response to what Slayer-Fan123 wrote to Daedalus81's statement about Warp Talons. You might disagree, but I'm with Daedalus81 here. Dismissing someone's valid opinion with a one liner that includes accusation of "white knighting" is bordering on "Posts that contain profanity, insults, blatant attempts at baiting a flame war (trolling), racial slurs, etc. will be locked, edited or deleted.". I really wish you could understand my position better.
Daedalus81 wrote: Do you believe someone calling me a white knight for saying a unit is somewhat usable is a valuable contribution to the forum?
Is there something so horribly offensive to me saying that that it offends people sensibilities? In what way is it rational to take such an offense? Do you think someone taking such an offense might not actually be committed to arguing in good faith?
What exactly did that post add to anything?
This
Edit:
Tyel wrote: I don't think you are a white knight and I don't see why people get so confrontational over 40k, but its really unclear how Warp Talons are usable. 3 attacks, even with reroll wounds and AP-2, just isn't good enough for 24 points. I don't think they would be much better at say 22 points. At the same time they are mortal wound bait, and really die to any large number of low/no AP shots/punches.
Really the bitterness over all this is we through Psychic Awakening was effectively "40k 8.5", and its looking like that's only the case for Marines. Which is unsurprisingly further embittering, given how many people think its Marines versus everyone else (even if Marines were quite rubbish for about 18 months outside of Guilliman buff blobs).
This is a good post, which gives some explanation and opportunities to discuss the point. Just saying "You are wrong. Stop posting, white knight" is not.
I wrote that in response to what Slayer-Fan123 wrote to Daedalus81's statement about Warp Talons. You might disagree, but I'm with Daedalus81 here. Dismissing someone's valid opinion with a one liner that includes accusation of "white knighting" is bordering on "Posts that contain profanity, insults, blatant attempts at baiting a flame war (trolling), racial slurs, etc. will be locked, edited or deleted.". I really wish you could understand my position better.
No, there is no other interpretation here,
firstly: You quoted Karol, NOT Slayer.
Secondly: Your statement is general and understood in, "if you can't or don't want to write a MASSIVE foundation your opinion is invalid." Out of hand dismissal is something slayer does aswell, just sitting on the other side of the same coin doesn't make your position beeing on another coin.
The correct statement and action would've been to alert a mod, and or questioning why he assumes Daedalus is supposedly a white knight, (which btw considering the start of this thread and this :
Daedalus81 wrote: *shrug* I love daemon weapons. I haven't flubbed Abaddon, yet, so i'll consider myself lucky.
I like Daemon Weapons too.
It doesn't change the fact that this doesn't actually do anything to address the current state of CSM problems.
I put a CSM model on the table and it is an objectively inferior model. I would even argue it's inferior to Scouts under the current conditions.
That is a problem that will not be solved by shiny baubles.
Sure, but just let it play out. If it's still a gak sandwich after CA then we've got work to do to either bust GW's balls, comp, or play something else.
Is nonsense.)
Do i believe Daedalus is too optimistic.
I don't know? Probably.
Do i believe this will solve the real issues the CSM dex has? Nope.
I quoted Karol because his statement was the last one regarding that discussion point. If you check my past postings, you will see that I usually quote the last post only to keep the quotation short and readable.
If you understood it as me trouncing Karol, then I should have made it more clear. I don't had the feeling from his response that he felt like that.
My statement is a general one, because something like "Your response need to be x words long in case A; can be somewhere between z and x long in case B; can be... to be considered as a meaningful contribution to the thread" is silly and impossible.
Your response does not have to be massive, just something like
"No it really does not make them interesting. Can you stop white knighting for a moment?"
a_typical_hero wrote: I quoted Karol because his statement was the last one regarding that discussion point. If you check my past postings, you will see that I usually quote the last post only to keep the quotation short and readable.
If you understood it as me trouncing Karol, then I should have made it more clear. I don't had the feeling from his response that he felt like that.
My statement is a general one, because something like "Your response need to be x words long in case A; can be somewhere between z and x long in case B; can be... to be considered as a meaningful contribution to the thread" is silly and impossible.
Your response does not have to be massive, just something like
"No it really does not make them interesting. Can you stop white knighting for a moment?"
is not helpful.
Well it doesn't make warptalons work, albeit the later part is just insult.
Not Online!!! wrote: So bt got a supplement, a real one, one that makes them monoviable.
I think CSM actually has much better support for assault. There's no way that BT Litanies are going to outperform CSM Sorcerers. Their super doctrine (auto wounds on 6's after charge/intervention during assault doctrine) is fairly marginal. Their Relic is nice but it's only S +1 and has no way to deal with Invul saves. And of course Overwatch is a big issue, they have the Land Raider stratagem but keeping a LR alive until T3 is no joke.
How well would they really do if restricted to Tac Marines, Terminators, Land Raiders and classic units like Predator tanks and Dreadnoughts? I'd be skeptical that the supplement would let them compete against the Primaris range.
Yoyoyo wrote: I think CSM actually has much better support for assault. There's no way that BT Litanies are going to outperform CSM Sorcerers. Their super doctrine (auto wounds on 6's after charge/intervention during assault doctrine) is fairly marginal. Their Relic is nice but it's only S +1 and has no way to deal with Invul saves. And of course Overwatch is a big issue, they have the Land Raider stratagem but keeping a LR alive until T3 is no joke.
ROFL
BT are vastly superior. They're basically better World Eaters. Their chapter tactic is going to be just fine, especially with a prayer that adds attacks, furthermore, any prayer that adds any bonus to hit is going to double how often it activates. So, I don't think it's crappy when fully a third of your attacks auto-hit/auto-wound. If they get some way to put a unit in Assault Doc on turn 2 (which is not unlikely), they're golden. They're better at resisting psychic powers than WE also.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Their chapter tactic is going to be just fine, especially with a prayer that adds attacks, furthermore, any prayer that adds any bonus to hit is going to double how often it activates.
Isn't that just Prescience, DttFE and the Butcher's Nails trait?
Yoyoyo wrote: Isn't that just Prescience, DttFE and the Butcher's Nails trait?
Prescience has a 50% chance to activate unless you spend CP, prayers have a 66.7% chance to activate. Also, World Eaters don't carry psykers, not sure you read that part of the story.
DttFE only works against Imperium, BT works against everyone, also, it doesn't auto-wound.
Butcher's nails requires delivery, something BT do much better that WE currently.
Berzerkers have never been bad this edition, delivery and survival has always been the problem.
And considering the FB page, there are a lot of angry people here, People unhappy with the state GW is in, in terms of design.
And it is perfectly valid, just because you deem them not adding anything to the discussion, is solely a YOU issue.
And again YOU are not the sole arbitrator as to WHAT is deemed "adding to the discussion".
I wrote that in response to what Slayer-Fan123 wrote to Daedalus81's statement about Warp Talons. You might disagree, but I'm with Daedalus81 here. Dismissing someone's valid opinion with a one liner that includes accusation of "white knighting" is bordering on "Posts that contain profanity, insults, blatant attempts at baiting a flame war (trolling), racial slurs, etc. will be locked, edited or deleted.". I really wish you could understand my position better.
[
frankly if I was a mod I'd look at any post that contained a accusation of white knighting as a personal attack. because thats what it is it immediatly dismisses someone's argument as just a empty defence etc.
and is almost always used when someone is told to be rational and logical about their latest hyperbolic temper tantrum
And considering the FB page, there are a lot of angry people here, People unhappy with the state GW is in, in terms of design.
And it is perfectly valid, just because you deem them not adding anything to the discussion, is solely a YOU issue.
And again YOU are not the sole arbitrator as to WHAT is deemed "adding to the discussion".
I wrote that in response to what Slayer-Fan123 wrote to Daedalus81's statement about Warp Talons. You might disagree, but I'm with Daedalus81 here. Dismissing someone's valid opinion with a one liner that includes accusation of "white knighting" is bordering on "Posts that contain profanity, insults, blatant attempts at baiting a flame war (trolling), racial slurs, etc. will be locked, edited or deleted.". I really wish you could understand my position better.
[
frankly if I was a mod I'd look at any post that contained a accusation of white knighting as a personal attack. because thats what it is it immediatly dismisses someone's argument as just a empty defence etc.
and is almost always used when someone is told to be rational and logical about their latest hyperbolic temper tantrum
Defending a bad unit like that and defending GW for it should just be dismissed, don't care. It's bad enough CSM players need to deal with the crap in their codex, and to be told "actually no things are cool" is a load of crap itself.
Anyone defending the CSM codex is a white knight for GW, period. There's no excuse at this point.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Defending a bad unit like that and defending GW for it should just be dismissed, don't care. It's bad enough CSM players need to deal with the crap in their codex, and to be told "actually no things are cool" is a load of crap itself.
Anyone defending the CSM codex is a white knight for GW, period. There's no excuse at this point.
But we got a new psyker model, you know, to go along with SM being able to bump their Psychic Hood bonus out to 24".
TwinPoleTheory wrote: But what about the story? WE and Ahriman running together, that seems like it's against the RP.
Sure.
Is it fluffy to have Guard, Sisters and Imperial Fists in the same army? Absolutely. But players who want to leverage the new SM rules to win would be reducing their competitive advantage. That's why focusing on the purely competitive aspects of the game inevitably squeezes out a lot of the fun, flavour and diversity.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: But what about the story? WE and Ahriman running together, that seems like it's against the RP.
Sure.
Is it fluffy to have Guard, Sisters and Imperial Fists in the same army? Absolutely. But players who want to leverage the new SM rules to win would be reducing their competitive advantage. That's why focusing on the purely competitive aspects of the game inevitably squeezes out a lot of the fun, flavour and diversity.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: But what about the story? WE and Ahriman running together, that seems like it's against the RP.
Sure.
Is it fluffy to have Guard, Sisters and Imperial Fists in the same army? Absolutely. But players who want to leverage the new SM rules to win would be reducing their competitive advantage. That's why focusing on the purely competitive aspects of the game inevitably squeezes out a lot of the fun, flavour and diversity.
I'd like you to spin the WB trait out as flavour.
I can think of a word to describe it's favour but the admins wouldn't like it if I used it.
BT are almost certainly going to be a stronger army than WE, barring some unforseen pants-on-head powerful stratagem for WE. Whether this is the same as being a competitively viable mono-army remains to be seen.
I play both of them, so I'm double-winning rules-wise.
I see the comment section is as entertaining as yesterday at least. I don't play either faction, so I have no horse in the race. I just find the comments very entertaining.
I don't think layering special rules on special rules is good for the game though. Even if you eventually dial down everything so the factions are relatively balanced, too many rules exceptions is bad design.
Yoyoyo wrote: It's the same as ATSKNF, and reduced morale losses IS a big part of the character of SM.
Do you actually read the rules or do you just say what you want them to be? Because they're not the same. It appears they're just the same in your head.
Yes, so now their Chaplains are objectively superior to Dark Apostles in every way.
Librarians are superior to Sorcerers in most ways.
Chapter champion is, well, something CSM don't have, period.
But we're getting a new Sorcerer model...I mean, I've only got a dozen different Sorcerers painted up, why not line up one more jackhole to get denied.
Yoyoyo wrote: It's the same as ATSKNF, and reduced morale losses IS a big part of the character of SM.
Do you actually read the rules or do you just say what you want them to be? Because they're not the same. It appears they're just the same in your head.
Yes, so now their Chaplains are objectively superior to Dark Apostles in every way.
Librarians are superior to Sorcerers in most ways.
Chapter champion is, well, something CSM don't have, period.
But we're getting a new Sorcerer model...I mean, I've only got a dozen different Sorcerers painted up, why not line up one more jackhole to get denied.
At fething 24 range. Just one more way c:sm can out range everyone else.
Gadzilla666 wrote: At fething 24 range. Just one more way c:sm can out range everyone else.
I think the one that really gets me right now is the whole Dark Apostle/Chaplain discrepancy. It's like CSM got prayers first only to be completely upstaged by SM.
CSM: 'We got prayers to our dark gods, it's going to be super-sweet!'
SM: 'Hold my beer.'
That's easy.
The Word Bearers are the most organised of the traitor legions - because there is nothing as bureaucratic as organised religion. Therefore they should have "big" squads rather than the traditional MSU. In game terms these should benefit more from stratagems - and in turn, they are spared the downside of having big squads, which is morale, by their chapter tactic.
Unfortunately in practice the game benefit of a reroll on morale is negligible in the extreme, and there are not enough stratagems - or ways to get bags of command points - that "take big squads" is a rational choice.
So realistically you have say Alpha Legion, which makes models... 25% tougher, 33% tougher against shooting outside 12".
And here you have "if your army is such you should only be taking morale on a 6 you can now reroll that dice, but its probably not going to come up very often."
Except morale would be less of an issue if you had just taken AL in the first place, so just take AL what are you doing.
Maybe there is loads of stuff we have not seen, but it looks like WB were bad, and are remaining bottom tier. It looks like some of the other chapters at least get something - which will be nice to use on softer tables.
But barring fairly dramatic changes in CA I don't see CSM standing up to any of the Marine Chapters. Basic CSM should go down to 10-11 points. Does anyone see it happening?
Gadzilla666 wrote: At fething 24 range. Just one more way c:sm can out range everyone else.
I think the one that really gets me right now is the whole Dark Apostle/Chaplain discrepancy. It's like CSM got prayers first only to be completely upstaged by SM.
CSM: 'We got prayers to our dark gods, it's going to be super-sweet!'
SM: 'Hold my beer.'
Yeah that's the one that hacks me off the most as well.
The Word Bearers trait should be that you can only lose one model from morale checks or something - re-rolls are worthless in the case of CSM squads, since they should either be run as 5 man units with whatever that assault cannon is called or a las-cannon, or simply not at all.
Gadzilla666 wrote: At fething 24 range. Just one more way c:sm can out range everyone else.
I think the one that really gets me right now is the whole Dark Apostle/Chaplain discrepancy. It's like CSM got prayers first only to be completely upstaged by SM.
CSM: 'We got prayers to our dark gods, it's going to be super-sweet!'
SM: 'Hold my beer.'
Yeah that's the one that hacks me off the most as well.
Already had plans for a super da.
CSM cast more reliably, but the point cost is WAY out of whack and now casting 3 smothers that reliability.
It seems you got a lot of new HQ options and improvements even though you already have good HQs, but no new options or improvements for Chapter Tactics.
Meanwhile, DE got new Chapter Tactic equivalents even though they already had good ones, any no HQ options/improvements even though their HQs are abysmal.
It seems you got a lot of new HQ options and improvements even though you already have good HQs, but no new options or improvements for Chapter Tactics.
Meanwhile, DE got new Chapter Tactic equivalents even though they already had good ones, any no HQ options/improvements even though their HQs are abysmal.
Perhaps we could arrange a trade of sorts?
Lots of new HQ options? You're not serious are you?
It seems you got a lot of new HQ options and improvements even though you already have good HQs, but no new options or improvements for Chapter Tactics.
Meanwhile, DE got new Chapter Tactic equivalents even though they already had good ones, any no HQ options/improvements even though their HQs are abysmal.
Perhaps we could arrange a trade of sorts?
Yes, half the traits and stratagems for build a FUNCTIONING fething BASE TRAIT.
That's easy.
The Word Bearers are the most organised of the traitor legions - because there is nothing as bureaucratic as organised religion. Therefore they should have "big" squads rather than the traditional MSU. In game terms these should benefit more from stratagems - and in turn, they are spared the downside of having big squads, which is morale, by their chapter tactic.
Unfortunately in practice the game benefit of a reroll on morale is negligible in the extreme
It's not just negligible, and it doesn't spare WBs the downside of having big squads, as it can easily do you more harm than good. They have been described in every codex (and other texts like IA) as being utterly unwilling to take a single step back, e.g. 8th ed:
This unshakeable creed sees them marching towards certain death as often as glorious victory, yet regardless of the carnage around them, they remain unwilling to take a single step back
They really need the "no more than one model can flee from a unit" rule at the absolute bare minimum in addition to an optional re-roll to reflect this.
Poisoned Metacanticle. Warpsmith model only, can at the end of combat do 4 extra attacks with this weapon. Any successful hits cause 1MW in addition to any other damage. S1 AP-
CSM is actually in the place where the game should be -- some cool traits, some fun stratagems, not trying to stack 3-4 layers of rules interactions on top of each other to break the game.
I understand SM envy but that's a design misstep. Too many rules interactions becomes like playing solitaire instead of move-countermove which is the path to fun and interactive design.
CSM is actually in the place where the game should be -- some cool traits, some fun stratagems, not trying to stack 3-4 layers of rules interactions on top of each other to break the game.
I understand SM envy but that's a design misstep. Too many rules interactions becomes like playing solitaire instead of move-countermove which is the path to fun and interactive design.
Fun and interactive?
I mean considering 8th sofar and the huge emphasis on alpha Strikes, size creep, etc.
The Iron adherring of IGOUGO, even though kt proved that Gw is capable of designing an decent Alternative system or apocalypse for that manner.
It was clear, sm needed a boost. Dex 2.0 alone would've made for a good enough boost.
Instead we got the full insanity with supplements aswell.
Just like 7.5 th edition.
Rules galore.
Not Online!!! wrote: I mean considering 8th sofar and the huge emphasis on alpha Strikes, size creep, etc.
There's too many Heavy Support choices on the board. Go back to 2 minor HQs, 3-4 troops, a Terminator Squad, some jump assault and a Pred/Dreadnought and you have pretty much the sweet spot for 40k. Unless of course you want to experiment with fun new units the're introducing, or deploy all your nicely painted toys at the same time, which is also totally valid and I'd never look down upon.
Competitive play needs to be a lot more restrictive. That's the reality if you want want balance. No named characters and no new units or new rules that are entering the meta. If you prioritize balance you don't get to play with every broken new toy GW throws at you because there's a fun new rule or model they're introducing. It's really not that complicated. And you're not allowed non-standard terrain either.
Not Online!!! wrote: I mean considering 8th sofar and the huge emphasis on alpha Strikes, size creep, etc.
There's too many Heavy Support choices on the board. Go back to 2 minor HQs, 3-4 troops, a Terminator Squad, some jump assault and a Pred/Dreadnought and you have pretty much the sweet spot for 40k. Unless of course you want to experiment with fun new units the're introducing, or deploy all your nicely painted toys at the same time, which is also totally valid and I'd never look down upon.
Competitive play needs to be a lot more restrictive. That's the reality if you want want balance. No named characters and no new units or new rules that are entering the meta. If you prioritize balance you don't get to play with every broken new toy GW throws at you because there's a fun new rule or model they're introducing. It's really not that complicated. And you're not allowed non-standard terrain either.
Sound fun?
Considering the non functional terrain rule for a wargame gw provides for 40k.
I doubt it.
And yes probably restricting or even going back to the old FOC would probably solve alot of issues.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering the non functional terrain rule for a wargame gw provides for 40k.
I doubt it.
NOVA is running standardized terrain and I imagine the rest of the competitive scene is going in the same direction.
The way to balance games is to prune them to the bare essentials. Fighting six variations on one mission around the same two L-shaped walls is what competitive play is about. But of course nobody wants to look soft by saying they're "not competitive". Fluff bunny is a derogatory term, isn't it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: No more Daemon Weapons ATM but here are more CSM leaks.
Night Lords Relic (Jump Pack): 2+ save, model always counts as being in cover
Spoiler:
Iron Warriors Relic (Mechatendrils): 4 attacks at S1 AP-, Mortal Wound on hit in addition to attack sequence
Spoiler:
Alpha Legion WL Trait: May target characters with ranged weapons. Unmodified wound rolls of 6 become Mortal Wounds.
CSM is actually in the place where the game should be -- some cool traits, some fun stratagems,
CSM are the only army in the game to have a trait that negatively impacts them. Seriously why even play Word Bearers? You might as well just play Black Legion, and their trait is borderlne worthless as well.
Chirst how could anyone think the CSM codex, which only has competitive successes based off of horrible soup lists, is a good basis for anything?
Not Online!!! wrote: I mean considering 8th sofar and the huge emphasis on alpha Strikes, size creep, etc.
There's too many Heavy Support choices on the board. Go back to 2 minor HQs, 3-4 troops, a Terminator Squad, some jump assault and a Pred/Dreadnought
If Terminators, Assault Marines, Predators and Dreadnoughts can be made worthwhile, that wouldn't be good bad.
Competitive play needs to be a lot more restrictive. That's the reality if you want want balance.
This I can agree on.
No named characters
Why not?
and no new units or new rules that are entering the meta.
Why not?
If you prioritize balance you don't get to play with every broken new toy GW throws at you because there's a fun new rule or model they're introducing.
Why not?
Wouldn't it just be better for GW to actually write balanced rules? Why is it that you're trying to construct some kind of black and white fallacy situation in which wanting a balanced game is boring?
It's really not that complicated. And you're not allowed non-standard terrain either.
Sound fun?
The terrain rules are like a page long iirc; I don't think we've ever used them.
But if it brought about an actually balanced game, yes it would be fun.
blood reaper wrote: CSM are the only army in the game to have a trait that negatively impacts them. Seriously why even play Word Bearers? You might as well just play Black Legion, and their trait is borderlne worthless as well.
It's pointless, he thinks the game is an RPG, like a GM is going to be standing around adjudicating 'fun' or setting up scenarios of his fan-fiction narratives that you battle out.
blood reaper wrote: Wouldn't it just be better for GW to actually write balanced rules? Why is it that you're trying to construct some kind of black and white fallacy situation in which wanting a balanced game is boring?
It's not necessarily boring, but if you're serious about competitive balance your priority is on making the game a showcase for player agency. It's not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into a game because there's risks to that. Any time you introduce new content, you will upset game balance and introduce potential problems into the metagame. That's something that's to be anticipated, it's inevitable. You are never going to anticipate every rules interaction. Human are imperfect so I think saying "why doesn't GW not make mistakes" is more than a little unrealistic. What's realistic is drawing limits on the number of ways that players can break the game, so it's possible to fix it relatively promptly and keep competitive players satisfied that things are fair.
Any company that was serious about competitive balance would NEVER make the decisions GW has made regarding SM Codex 2.0. You're introducing sweeping changes that don't favor all factions, with no intention of correcting them in the short-term. You've got to border on pathological to think 40k is somehow intended as a competitive wargame. Once again -- terrain, points, etc. You can't accurately balance armies without some kind of objective control for this. What points value should 40k always be played at? What terrain setup should 40k always be played on? These are things that are very important if you're serious about establishing game balance.
Think about chess. Same board, same units, highly competitive and more or less perfectly balanced. Not much roleplaying aspect though. If you don't care about theme and setting, but the pure distillation of competition with no random factors and no imbalance to mar your victories? It's infinitely superior.
Iron Warrior's relic seems lame, only because the Warpsmith is a terrible model that barely sees play as it is, let alone one you want to get into combat.
Also reworked Trait, hahahaha you know as well as the rest of us that's not happening for a few years, at least.
blood reaper wrote: Wouldn't it just be better for GW to actually write balanced rules? Why is it that you're trying to construct some kind of black and white fallacy situation in which wanting a balanced game is boring?
It's not necessarily boring, but if you're serious about competitive balance your priority is on making the game a showcase for player agency. It's not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into a game because there's risks to that. Any time you introduce new content, you will upset game balance and introduce potential problems into the metagame. That's something that's to be anticipated, it's inevitable. You are never going to anticipate every rules interaction. Human are imperfect so I think saying "why doesn't GW not make mistakes" is more than a little unrealistic. What's realistic is drawing limits on the number of ways that players can break the game, so it's possible to fix it relatively promptly and keep competitive players satisfied that things are fair.
Any company that was serious about competitive balance would NEVER make the decisions GW has made regarding SM Codex 2.0. You're introducing sweeping changes that don't favor all factions, with no intention of correcting them in the short-term. You've got to border on pathological to think 40k is somehow intended as a competitive wargame. Once again -- terrain, points, etc. You can't accurately balance armies without some kind of objective control for this. What points value should 40k always be played at? What terrain setup should 40k always be played on? These are things that are very important if you're serious about establishing game balance.
Think about chess. Same board, same units, highly competitive and more or less perfectly balanced. Not much roleplaying aspect though. If you don't care about theme and setting, but the pure distillation of competition with no random factors and no imbalance to mar your victories? It's infinitely superior.
The thing is though, people treat 40k as a competitive wargame. Therefore, it is (whether or not it should be) and should be treated with regard to that, which is what GW consistently ignores. That cat is out of the bag and has been for years, but GW isn't capable (or doesn't care) about really focusing on that aspect.
blood reaper wrote: Wouldn't it just be better for GW to actually write balanced rules? Why is it that you're trying to construct some kind of black and white fallacy situation in which wanting a balanced game is boring?
It's not necessarily boring, but if you're serious about competitive balance your priority is on making the game a showcase for player agency. It's not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into a game because there's risks to that. Any time you introduce new content, you will upset game balance and introduce potential problems into the metagame. That's something that's to be anticipated, it's inevitable. You are never going to anticipate every rules interaction. Human are imperfect so I think saying "why doesn't GW not make mistakes" is more than a little unrealistic. What's realistic is drawing limits on the number of ways that players can break the game, so it's possible to fix it relatively promptly and keep competitive players satisfied that things are fair.
Any company that was serious about competitive balance would NEVER make the decisions GW has made regarding SM Codex 2.0. You're introducing sweeping changes that don't favor all factions, with no intention of correcting them in the short-term. You've got to border on pathological to think 40k is somehow intended as a competitive wargame. Once again -- terrain, points, etc. You can't accurately balance armies without some kind of objective control for this. What points value should 40k always be played at? What terrain setup should 40k always be played on? These are things that are very important if you're serious about establishing game balance.
Think about chess. Same board, same units, highly competitive and more or less perfectly balanced. Not much roleplaying aspect though. If you don't care about theme and setting, but the pure distillation of competition with no random factors and no imbalance to mar your victories? It's infinitely superior.
We aren't asking for absolute perfect balance and no mistakes ever.
We're asking them to actually try and do their best and maybe think once in a while.
Wayniac wrote: IThe thing is though, people treat 40k as a competitive wargame. Therefore, it is
Dude, some people treat vaccines as some conspiracy foisted on them by a nefarious government. Thinking something doesn't make it so.
If people WANT a competitively focused version of 40k? It's not impossible but stop thinking you can simply integrate every new hotness GW pushes on you and start developing a format where you actually prioritize competitive balance over marketing and pay-to-win. You 100% cannot have it both ways.
The night lords relic is a rework of stormbolt plate. It looks like most of the relics are probably just going to be updates of ones from traitor legions.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The night lords relic is a rework of stormbolt plate. It looks like most of the relics are probably just going to be updates of ones from traitor legions.
Which is what I expected.
no suprise there, most relics are re-works of relics from past editions. the IF relics are all from the old IF 3rd company supplement, all the Black Legion ones are mostly relics taken from the BL supplement etc.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The night lords relic is a rework of stormbolt plate. It looks like most of the relics are probably just going to be updates of ones from traitor legions.
Which is what I expected.
If thats the case I´m eagerly awaiting the return of Kor'Lath, Axe of Ruin. Man that relic was great.
blood reaper wrote: Wouldn't it just be better for GW to actually write balanced rules? Why is it that you're trying to construct some kind of black and white fallacy situation in which wanting a balanced game is boring?
It's not necessarily boring, but if you're serious about competitive balance your priority is on making the game a showcase for player agency. It's not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into a game because there's risks to that. Any time you introduce new content, you will upset game balance and introduce potential problems into the metagame. That's something that's to be anticipated, it's inevitable. You are never going to anticipate every rules interaction. Human are imperfect so I think saying "why doesn't GW not make mistakes" is more than a little unrealistic. What's realistic is drawing limits on the number of ways that players can break the game, so it's possible to fix it relatively promptly and keep competitive players satisfied that things are fair.
Except games like Dota manage this just fine though by having periods where new content is playtested, evaluated and altered before actually being released into the competitive sphere. If GW actually playtested, this would be possible.
Any company that was serious about competitive balance would NEVER make the decisions GW has made regarding SM Codex 2.0. You're introducing sweeping changes that don't favor all factions, with no intention of correcting them in the short-term. You've got to border on pathological to think 40k is somehow intended as a competitive wargame. Once again -- terrain, points, etc. You can't accurately balance armies without some kind of objective control for this. What points value should 40k always be played at? What terrain setup should 40k always be played on? These are things that are very important if you're serious about establishing game balance.
Exactly, that's why you don't do that - it's fething stupid. If you're going to introduce these changes, you do so universally, or you don't at all. It's a shallow cashgrab and it's been meet with near universal revile, even by the players of the armies who upgrades!
Think about chess. Same board, same units, highly competitive and more or less perfectly balanced. Not much roleplaying aspect though. If you don't care about theme and setting, but the pure distillation of competition with no random factors and no imbalance to mar your victories? It's infinitely superior.
Yeah but I don't want to play chess (chess is also not perfectly balanced, white has an statistical advantage iirc). The thing is wargames like Flames of War and Bolt Action have (or had) strong competitive scenes; they're far from perfect, but they're flavorful and are far more balanced than 40k. I do not expect perfect balance; I expect better balance, and I am not interested in roleplaying because it is not rewarding.
blood reaper wrote: Wouldn't it just be better for GW to actually write balanced rules? Why is it that you're trying to construct some kind of black and white fallacy situation in which wanting a balanced game is boring?
It's not necessarily boring, but if you're serious about competitive balance your priority is on making the game a showcase for player agency. It's not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into a game because there's risks to that. Any time you introduce new content, you will upset game balance and introduce potential problems into the metagame. That's something that's to be anticipated, it's inevitable. You are never going to anticipate every rules interaction. Human are imperfect so I think saying "why doesn't GW not make mistakes" is more than a little unrealistic. What's realistic is drawing limits on the number of ways that players can break the game, so it's possible to fix it relatively promptly and keep competitive players satisfied that things are fair.
Except games like Dota manage this just fine though by having periods where new content is playtested, evaluated and altered before actually being released into the competitive sphere. If GW actually playtested, this would be possible.
ok I admit to having never played DOTA (I'd rather shove Bamboo under my finger nails then play MOBAs) but I've played a LOT of video games, and can think of plenty of balance issues that are even worse then what I've seen in this game.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The night lords relic is a rework of stormbolt plate. It looks like most of the relics are probably just going to be updates of ones from traitor legions.
Which is what I expected.
If thats the case I´m eagerly awaiting the return of Kor'Lath, Axe of Ruin. Man that relic was great.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The night lords relic is a rework of stormbolt plate. It looks like most of the relics are probably just going to be updates of ones from traitor legions.
Which is what I expected.
If thats the case I´m eagerly awaiting the return of Kor'Lath, Axe of Ruin. Man that relic was great.
Which one was that?
It was the one from the Khorne Daemonkin Codex that spawned a temporary Bloodthirster when the bearer died. Ascend the bearer to a thirster through the Blood Tithe System and you got two Thirsters. Fun Times
40k is not DotA, man. Standardized map, standardized units, standardized game size, and only one tactical objective in the game. That's the core they balance around.
Further to that -- DotA wasn't made by a company and released with the intention of competitive play. It grew out of the WC3 custom map scene somewhere around 2005 and was mocked as some skill-free diversion from the actual 1v1 melee scene on ladder. It caught on not because of balance but because it was unique and fun and people enjoyed it, while existing side-by-side with the WC3 campaign and other custom games like Uther Party. I'm sure there's some lesson here in all that.
40k is not DotA, man. Standardized map, standardized units, standardized game size, and only one tactical objective in the game. That's the core they balance around.
All of those factors are ultimately irrelevant to the point I was making, as was the rest of your post (which managed to leave out the bit where Dota 2, regardless of intent, has become one of the most competitive games on the planet). The argument I was making was that Dota, and other games have periods in which new content is restricted to non-competitive game modes where it can be playtested by the community, feedback can be given and the material can then be moved into competitive zone once it is deemed to be fixed. 40k would benefit massively from this sort of thing.
blood reaper wrote: The argument I was making was that Dota, and other games have periods in which new content is restricted to non-competitive game modes where it can be playtested by the community, feedback can be given and the material can then be moved into competitive zone once it is deemed to be fixed.
Sure dude. I agree with you on that completely.
Let the ITC and oher tournament organizers have their mission format, terrain format, and a list of what rules and units are approved for strictly competitive play. Outside of that, you can play around with whatever new craziness GW has released and amped up to 11 so the rules generate interest in the models. It's really that simple.
blood reaper wrote: The argument I was making was that Dota, and other games have periods in which new content is restricted to non-competitive game modes where it can be playtested by the community, feedback can be given and the material can then be moved into competitive zone once it is deemed to be fixed.
Sure dude. I agree with you on that completely.
Let the ITC and oher tournament organizers have their mission format, terrain format, and a list of what rules and units are approved for strictly competitive play. Outside of that, you can play around with whatever new craziness GW has released and amped up to 11 so the rules generate interest in the models. It's really that simple.
Yeah, and once that content has been playtested and such, it can be moved into functional 40k. It isn't hard; and with luck it will see all these curazhy new units GW puts out can be made into usable models, rather than models that GW Community tells me are good (or 'fun' or 'awesome' or 'fluffy').
Daemon Weapons: roll a D6 at the start of the fight phase, on a 1, suffer a mortal wound. 2+, fight as normal.
Q'OAR the Boundless: Tzeentch power sword, Hellforged sword, force sword only.
- S user, AP -3, D d3, Abilities: Ignore invulnerable saves.
Thaa'Ris and Rhi'Ol, The Rapacious Talons: Slaanesh model with twin Lightning Claws or two malefic talons
- S user, AP -2, D 2, Abilities: Re-roll wound rolls, when resolving the D6 roll for the Daemon weapon ability, if you roll a 2+, you can make that many additional attacks (Like Abaddon's Sword).
Zaal, the Wrathful: Khorne model with power sword or Hellforged sword.
- Profile on the Community Page
C'Holl L'Ax, Fist of Decay: Nurgle model with power fist
- Profile on the Community Page
Ul'O'Coa, the Black Axe: Model with Power Axe, Force Axe or Daemon Axe
- S User, Ap 0, D 1, Abilities: Every unmodified wound roll of 4+ does a mortal wound in addition to any other damage.
It looks like the Nurgle fist is good vs. vehicles, Khorne/Slaneesh weapons are decent for chopping up marines, and Tzeentch/Undivided will wreck anything with an Invul save.
Since the WBWL can get the Possessed keyword, it might be possible for the Nurgle fist to hit at a flat 4dmg. Guaranteed Prescience on that too.
You've got options now that are potentially much better than the Elixir. +1S +1A on a rerollable charge is more decisive and gels better with the new EC Stratagems.
Put the WL Trait and the Daemon Weapon on one HQ, put the Raiment on the other so you now have rerollable charges on both. There's also a relic that shuts down Overwatch with no exceptions, so you can lock down units with nasty overwatch tricks and then send your beatstick HQs in after.
Well I play Renegades/Alpha Legion, so I won't be using the EC traits; but I might try out the Daemon Weapons though I'm tremendously adverse to unreliable weaponry. Anything that kills Tau Riptides quicker is appreciated though.
With luck it can take down a knight with daemon buffs and portents, that goes for any of the 3 damage weapons. WB can make any infantry/bike into a daemon, meaning you can use virulent blessings on top of VotLW and portents and the extra damage stratagem for being a possessed. So 4 damage + another for the locus and you might get 10 damage hits via the blessing. Not that it's practical to do this.
Yoyoyo wrote: Black Axe is not an outwardly impressive relic but it's generic meaning you can put it on an Exalted RC Champion.
Warptime + Advance and Charge will probably allow you to snipe out a more important character without issue. That's decent value for a 70pt HQ tax.
Or I can just use the Murder Sword since the dude isn't gonna live afterwards anyway so who cares about the single dude restriction, especially when it doesn't roll a D6 to determine if it actually frickin works.
Yoyoyo wrote: I think you have to name the character so you can't pick targets of opportunity. Your opponent is going to know exactly who you're gunning for.
and thus will thus deploy em behind a screen if he's not a complete fething idiot.
You're doing a fairly consistent 4-5MW to a T4 3++ character and slipping another 1-2 through the armor save. Nobody should be expecting miracles but it's enough to chop down a TH/SS Smash Captain that costs more than twice the points of an Exalted Champ in one turn.
Yoyoyo wrote: I mean, I think we can all read a profile.
You're doing a fairly consistent 4-5MW to a T4 3++ character and slipping another 1-2 through the armor save. Nobody should be expecting miracles but it's enough to chop down a TH/SS Smash Captain that costs more than twice the points of an Exalted Champ in one turn.
yeah but it can't one shot a warlord titan so it's crap!
Yoyoyo wrote: I think you have to name the character so you can't pick targets of opportunity. Your opponent is going to know exactly who you're gunning for.
Ergo forcing the opponent to deploy differently than normal in certain aspects. That makes it a more tactical tool right there.
Plus what else are you gonna really want to charge with the Axe anyway that the Sword won't do a better job on? You talked about killing a Slamguinus equivalent but they don't exactly use the most screening by the time you can even do a Champion + Warptime with reasonable success.
Yoyoyo wrote: I mean, I think we can all read a profile.
You're doing a fairly consistent 4-5MW to a T4 3++ character and slipping another 1-2 through the armor save. Nobody should be expecting miracles but it's enough to chop down a TH/SS Smash Captain that costs more than twice the points of an Exalted Champ in one turn.
yeah but it can't one shot a warlord titan so it's crap!
Literally nobody said that, so stop your white knighting.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Plus what else are you gonna really want to charge with the Axe anyway that the Sword won't do a better job on?
Anything with a decent Invul save that isn't the named target. They both do about 5-6 wounds on the designated target anyway -- the fact that the Axe MWs are in addition to the weapon profile, while the Sword MWs are instead of the weapon profile, makes them balance out fairly evenly.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Ergo forcing the opponent to deploy differently than normal in certain aspects. That makes it a more tactical tool right there.
You're arguing with someone who believes 40k is an RPG. 'Tactical decisions' are not what this person is considering. He has no concept of rules balance. It's a waste of your time.
“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”
Naming your target at the start of the game would seem to give away your intentions, as well as inviting counterplay by your opponent. But anyways. On to the pure math of things:
- Murder Sword against named target: 6 hits = 6 wounds.
- Murder Sword against 3++, non-target: 6 hits = 6(0.89)(0.33) = 1.76 wounds.
- Black Axe: 6 hits, rerolling wounds = 6(0.75)+6(0.75)(0.33) = 5.985 wounds.
There are pros and cons to everything. As they say in my 40k instagram fanfiction group
“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”
Naming your target at the start of the game would seem to give away your intentions, as well as inviting counterplay by your opponent. But anyways. On to the pure math of things:
- Murder Sword against named target: 6 hits = 6 wounds.
- Murder Sword against 3++, non-target: 6 hits = 6(0.89)(0.33) = 1.76 wounds.
- Black Axe: 6 hits, rerolling wounds = 6(0.75)+6(0.75)(0.33) = 5.985 wounds.
There are pros and cons to everything. As they say in my 40k instagram fanfiction group
Murder Sword can also be used on a suicide Jump Lord too and not need to worry about having to reroll to wound.
The Black Axe is only neat and that's it. Neat doesn't do anything for the army.
