Because it's a dig at GW's poster boys getting so much support. Eldar players have had similarly OP rules, but have never had Marine-level support.
Marines have always been, and probably always will be, GW's favored faction. This dig is about how much attention they got, not just how powerful their rules are.
CWE gets more attention than, say, Nids. But not notably more than most other factions. Only Marines have had this kind of attention.
And what's this fixation with "eldar players"? Am I missing scads of threads where self-professed Eldar messiahs are proclaiming that anyone but IG/Knights/CSM/Demons/1ksons/DG/Marines/CWE/DE/Harlies/Ynnari/Custodes/etc need to "L2P"? And why only Eldar and not IoM or Chaos?
Wait so all of the outrage is about the fact that eldar models are finecast and old? Why should eldar players be entitled to big model support, when they don't make the majority of players. I am in the wrestling club, I don't dislike it. But even not smart me, knows that expecting my club to have support the same as the football class or hand ball team would be odd.
And fixation comes from the fact that I don't see necron or tyranid players go on and on how new marine rules are the most evil thing in game, and how it destroys the game.
Circular argument (again) - how do you grow the support of a particular faction when you don't support it and in fact constantly, relentlessly support a single Faction?
If you only make stuff for one massive bloated mess of a sub faction then I guess most people will buy that - right?
Does your Football class get the samer backing, funding and advertising as your wrestling club?
Speaking from personal experience, I know that I did actually stop playing the game altogether because of lack of support. Haven't played a single game of 40k in 2019, and my buying has also seen a dramatic cut aswell. Support should be for more than just Space Marines. I think everyone can agree with this. If other factions don't see updated Codexes soon (not supplements, just Codexes) then I'd consider that a substantial failure on Games Workshop's part.
Because it's a dig at GW's poster boys getting so much support. Eldar players have had similarly OP rules, but have never had Marine-level support.
Marines have always been, and probably always will be, GW's favored faction. This dig is about how much attention they got, not just how powerful their rules are.
CWE gets more attention than, say, Nids. But not notably more than most other factions. Only Marines have had this kind of attention.
And what's this fixation with "eldar players"? Am I missing scads of threads where self-professed Eldar messiahs are proclaiming that anyone but IG/Knights/CSM/Demons/1ksons/DG/Marines/CWE/DE/Harlies/Ynnari/Custodes/etc need to "L2P"? And why only Eldar and not IoM or Chaos?
Wait so all of the outrage is about the fact that eldar models are finecast and old?
What's this obsession with Eldar? It was just a joke about how much attention Marines were getting, as opposed to *everyone else*. It wasn't about "Marines get more than Eldar". It was "Marines get more than everyone else".
Why should eldar players be entitled to big model support, when they don't make the majority of players.
Once again, you keep going off about Eldar players, like they're the root of all evil. The complaint isn't that Marines simply get more attention than everyone else. It's how *much* more attention they get. Marines are the most common army, but they're a smaller fraction of the playerbase than they are of attention they're getting.
I am in the wrestling club, I don't dislike it. But even not smart me, knows that expecting my club to have support the same as the football class or hand ball team would be odd.
I feel your pain. I remember returning from taking first in State for Academic Decathalon for our school. Lots of 1st place individual rankings in various categories on our team. What was the school abuz about? Women's fieldhocky got 3rd at regionals. Like you, I expected this. Didn't like it, but certainly understood it.
And fixation comes from the fact that I don't see necron or tyranid players go on and on how new marine rules are the most evil thing in game, and how it destroys the game.
Funny, I'm not seeing a lot of Eldar players make those specific claims, either. But I sure am seeing complaints from Necron, Tyranid, T'au, Chaos, Eldar, and IoM players.
Just where, exactly, are you seeing only Eldar players complain?
Just where, exactly, are you seeing only Eldar players complain?
eldar are probably the big boogeyman in his (self-admitted) toxic playgroup so theyre being influenced into thinking eldars are the source of all evil.
Im tired of elves getting a bad reputation for a few overtuned units that are spammed because the rest of the codexes aren't competitive. (try playing drukhari beasts, aspect warriors or harlequin troupes competitively).
addnid wrote: BA seem broken as feth to me, and they are obscuring the skies for our beloved bugs. Feth off powered plot amour boys, we want some tyranid previews !
They're far from broken. Nids should still be able to handle them given the BA's poor chapter tactic.
Yeah because there's no way gw will give ba a stratagem to skip to the assault doctrine.
Not to mention the fact that they're now "compliant " and will probably get access to most if not all the c:sm stuff.
Blood and Dark Angels are always noted as being mostly Codex Compliant in the actual Lore save for a few special bits and pieces (like pretty much every Chapter in the same Lore)
Thanks I never noticed that in the hundreds of black library books I've read.
My point is that they're getting at least some of the c:sm strategems. Plus there own, plus special issue wargear, plus everything else other chapters got in their supplements.
And it's about a 99.9% probability they'll get a stratagem to skip to the assault doctrine making their "ok" chapter doctrine better.
Just where, exactly, are you seeing only Eldar players complain?
eldar are probably the big boogeyman in his (self-admitted) toxic playgroup so theyre being influenced into thinking eldars are the source of all evil.
Im tired of elves getting a bad reputation for a few overtuned units that are spammed because the rest of the codexes aren't competitive. (try playing drukhari beasts, aspect warriors or harlequin troupes competitively).
Eldar (Craftworld) has the baggage of past editions where they had a top tier army in 6th and rolled into 7th still going strong to only then have their 7th edition codex gives them nearly universal buffs across the board (minus wave serpents), d weapons, and generally a lot of anti fun gimmicks they could pull off. 7th edition Eldar codex was probably the most tone deaf release ever by GW until they one upped themselves with Ynnari (which basiclaly stacked the cheese on top of Craftworld cheese).
Just where, exactly, are you seeing only Eldar players complain?
eldar are probably the big boogeyman in his (self-admitted) toxic playgroup so theyre being influenced into thinking eldars are the source of all evil.
Im tired of elves getting a bad reputation for a few overtuned units that are spammed because the rest of the codexes aren't competitive. (try playing drukhari beasts, aspect warriors or harlequin troupes competitively).
Eldar (Craftworld) has the baggage of past editions where they had a top tier army in 6th and rolled into 7th still going strong to only then have their 7th edition codex gives them nearly universal buffs across the board (minus wave serpents), d weapons, and generally a lot of anti fun gimmicks they could pull off. 7th edition Eldar codex was probably the most tone deaf release ever by GW until they one upped themselves with Ynnari (which basiclaly stacked the cheese on top of Craftworld cheese).
yeah but whats the point of continually treating eldar like a boogeyman? Are they still overpowered right now? apart from airwing spam.
addnid wrote: BA seem broken as feth to me, and they are obscuring the skies for our beloved bugs. Feth off powered plot amour boys, we want some tyranid previews !
They're far from broken. Nids should still be able to handle them given the BA's poor chapter tactic.
Yeah because there's no way gw will give ba a stratagem to skip to the assault doctrine.
Not to mention the fact that they're now "compliant " and will probably get access to most if not all the c:sm stuff.
Blood and Dark Angels are always noted as being mostly Codex Compliant in the actual Lore save for a few special bits and pieces (like pretty much every Chapter in the same Lore)
Thanks I never noticed that in the hundreds of black library books I've read.
My point is that they're getting at least some of the c:sm strategems. Plus there own, plus special issue wargear, plus everything else other chapters got in their supplements.
And it's about a 99.9% probability they'll get a stratagem to skip to the assault doctrine making their "ok" chapter doctrine better.
Think nids will get all that?
Its clearly written in the source material that this is the case for BA and DA - I assume you are being sarcastic?
addnid wrote: BA seem broken as feth to me, and they are obscuring the skies for our beloved bugs. Feth off powered plot amour boys, we want some tyranid previews !
They're far from broken. Nids should still be able to handle them given the BA's poor chapter tactic.
Yeah because there's no way gw will give ba a stratagem to skip to the assault doctrine.
Not to mention the fact that they're now "compliant " and will probably get access to most if not all the c:sm stuff.
Blood and Dark Angels are always noted as being mostly Codex Compliant in the actual Lore save for a few special bits and pieces (like pretty much every Chapter in the same Lore)
Thanks I never noticed that in the hundreds of black library books I've read.
My point is that they're getting at least some of the c:sm strategems. Plus there own, plus special issue wargear, plus everything else other chapters got in their supplements.
And it's about a 99.9% probability they'll get a stratagem to skip to the assault doctrine making their "ok" chapter doctrine better.
Think nids will get all that?
Its clearly written in the source material that this is the case for BA and DA - I assume you are being sarcastic?
addnid wrote: BA seem broken as feth to me, and they are obscuring the skies for our beloved bugs. Feth off powered plot amour boys, we want some tyranid previews !
They're far from broken. Nids should still be able to handle them given the BA's poor chapter tactic.
Yeah because there's no way gw will give ba a stratagem to skip to the assault doctrine.
WS didn't get it. BT didn't get it. THIS time the dastardly scheme will work though!
Because it's a dig at GW's poster boys getting so much support. Eldar players have had similarly OP rules, but have never had Marine-level support.
Marines have always been, and probably always will be, GW's favored faction. This dig is about how much attention they got, not just how powerful their rules are.
CWE gets more attention than, say, Nids. But not notably more than most other factions. Only Marines have had this kind of attention.
And what's this fixation with "eldar players"? Am I missing scads of threads where self-professed Eldar messiahs are proclaiming that anyone but IG/Knights/CSM/Demons/1ksons/DG/Marines/CWE/DE/Harlies/Ynnari/Custodes/etc need to "L2P"? And why only Eldar and not IoM or Chaos?
Wait so all of the outrage is about the fact that eldar models are finecast and old? Why should eldar players be entitled to big model support, when they don't make the majority of players. I am in the wrestling club, I don't dislike it. But even not smart me, knows that expecting my club to have support the same as the football class or hand ball team would be odd.
And fixation comes from the fact that I don't see necron or tyranid players go on and on how new marine rules are the most evil thing in game, and how it destroys the game.
The sentiment was refering to any non SM player in genral. But yes compare PA1 to PA2 BT supplament. We didn't get a single strategem, warlord trait or relic. Ive been using the same strategems warlord traits and relics since codex was printed... (I played around with wraith host from vigilus so thats an extra strategem I guess?). Having the same option gets boring. Having the same old ass finecast models gets boring. Having the same auto include OP unit gets boring also.
If you dont get the joke you dont get the joke.. I mean any joke that you have to explain wasn't very good... I tried lol..
Take chaos who got royaly undeniably shafted. I feel sorry for you that the only players in your area who are WAAC airwing spammers kid and you have to deal with it... Nobody likes it. Eldar players dont like it. People on the recieving end dont like it either.. Any eldar player will tell you they wish airwing spam would be curbed and other things made more viable with rules/points. Its basicaly been at least half of your army picked for you over the last 2 years unless you purpusfuly gimp yourself.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: WS didn't get it. BT didn't get it. THIS time the dastardly scheme will work though!
Yes, they did. And they can use it every round for 1 CP:
The Crusader’s Helm. Add 3” to the model’s aura abilities. Also, at the start of your Movement phase, pick a Black Templars unit with the Combat Doctrines ability within 6” of this model. Until your next Movement phase, the Assault Doctrine is active for that unit, replacing the current doctrine. This is a great way to circumvent the turn 3 restriction that prevents you from achieving your full potential with combat units.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: WS didn't get it. BT didn't get it. THIS time the dastardly scheme will work though!
Yes, they did. And they can use it every round for 1 CP:
The Crusader’s Helm. Add 3” to the model’s aura abilities. Also, at the start of your Movement phase, pick a Black Templars unit with the Combat Doctrines ability within 6” of this model. Until your next Movement phase, the Assault Doctrine is active for that unit, replacing the current doctrine. This is a great way to circumvent the turn 3 restriction that prevents you from achieving your full potential with combat units.
Just where, exactly, are you seeing only Eldar players complain?
eldar are probably the big boogeyman in his (self-admitted) toxic playgroup so theyre being influenced into thinking eldars are the source of all evil.
Im tired of elves getting a bad reputation for a few overtuned units that are spammed because the rest of the codexes aren't competitive. (try playing drukhari beasts, aspect warriors or harlequin troupes competitively).
Eldar (Craftworld) has the baggage of past editions where they had a top tier army in 6th and rolled into 7th still going strong to only then have their 7th edition codex gives them nearly universal buffs across the board (minus wave serpents), d weapons, and generally a lot of anti fun gimmicks they could pull off. 7th edition Eldar codex was probably the most tone deaf release ever by GW until they one upped themselves with Ynnari (which basiclaly stacked the cheese on top of Craftworld cheese).
yeah but whats the point of continually treating eldar like a boogeyman? Are they still overpowered right now? apart from airwing spam.
I dunno but their history of being extremely powerful and often times anti fun to play against makes others who experienced that more critical of Eldar. Same set of baggage applies to the Tau. That said Eldar rolled into 8th on fairly even ground but with their codex they somewhat lead the pack with the whole minus to hit stacking thing which again is one of those "not fun to play against" playstyles.
I'm just pointing out some of the history at play and why people might not view Eldar in the best light.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: WS didn't get it. BT didn't get it. THIS time the dastardly scheme will work though!
Yes, they did. And they can use it every round for 1 CP:
The Crusader’s Helm. Add 3” to the model’s aura abilities. Also, at the start of your Movement phase, pick a Black Templars unit with the Combat Doctrines ability within 6” of this model. Until your next Movement phase, the Assault Doctrine is active for that unit, replacing the current doctrine. This is a great way to circumvent the turn 3 restriction that prevents you from achieving your full potential with combat units.
So yes, the dastardly scheme did come to pass.
You and your facts.. and quotes... How dare ye!
Yeah one unit getting through the arbitrary restrictions is amazing right?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: WS didn't get it. BT didn't get it. THIS time the dastardly scheme will work though!
Yes, they did. And they can use it every round for 1 CP:
The Crusader’s Helm. Add 3” to the model’s aura abilities. Also, at the start of your Movement phase, pick a Black Templars unit with the Combat Doctrines ability within 6” of this model. Until your next Movement phase, the Assault Doctrine is active for that unit, replacing the current doctrine. This is a great way to circumvent the turn 3 restriction that prevents you from achieving your full potential with combat units.
So yes, the dastardly scheme did come to pass.
You and your facts.. and quotes... How dare ye!
Yeah one unit getting through the arbitrary restrictions is amazing right?
It does at the least set precedent that Games Workshop are willing to create exceptions. Not hard evidence though, to be sure.
Just where, exactly, are you seeing only Eldar players complain?
eldar are probably the big boogeyman in his (self-admitted) toxic playgroup so theyre being influenced into thinking eldars are the source of all evil.
Im tired of elves getting a bad reputation for a few overtuned units that are spammed because the rest of the codexes aren't competitive. (try playing drukhari beasts, aspect warriors or harlequin troupes competitively).
Eldar (Craftworld) has the baggage of past editions where they had a top tier army in 6th and rolled into 7th still going strong to only then have their 7th edition codex gives them nearly universal buffs across the board (minus wave serpents), d weapons, and generally a lot of anti fun gimmicks they could pull off. 7th edition Eldar codex was probably the most tone deaf release ever by GW until they one upped themselves with Ynnari (which basiclaly stacked the cheese on top of Craftworld cheese).
Right, I remember that time Eldar got like 6 ridiculously buffed codexes in a row, making them better at pretty much every gameplay role than every other army. And they paired it with that huge, 15-kit model release for Eldar that they kept advertising and releasing kits from in the middle of releases for other factions. Eldar were 60+% of winning competitive lists for months! That really was the greatest mistake and most tonedeaf release GW ever did!
addnid wrote: BA seem broken as feth to me, and they are obscuring the skies for our beloved bugs. Feth off powered plot amour boys, we want some tyranid previews !
They're far from broken. Nids should still be able to handle them given the BA's poor chapter tactic.
Yeah because there's no way gw will give ba a stratagem to skip to the assault doctrine.
Not to mention the fact that they're now "compliant " and will probably get access to most if not all the c:sm stuff.
Even if they do, so what? Assaulting with power armor is bad in 8th ed and will continue to be bad no matter how many bells and whistles GW adds to it. Power armor bleeds points up close.
Just where, exactly, are you seeing only Eldar players complain?
eldar are probably the big boogeyman in his (self-admitted) toxic playgroup so theyre being influenced into thinking eldars are the source of all evil.
Im tired of elves getting a bad reputation for a few overtuned units that are spammed because the rest of the codexes aren't competitive. (try playing drukhari beasts, aspect warriors or harlequin troupes competitively).
Eldar (Craftworld) has the baggage of past editions where they had a top tier army in 6th and rolled into 7th still going strong to only then have their 7th edition codex gives them nearly universal buffs across the board (minus wave serpents), d weapons, and generally a lot of anti fun gimmicks they could pull off. 7th edition Eldar codex was probably the most tone deaf release ever by GW until they one upped themselves with Ynnari (which basiclaly stacked the cheese on top of Craftworld cheese).
yeah but whats the point of continually treating eldar like a boogeyman? Are they still overpowered right now? apart from airwing spam.
Because historically the ARE the boogeyman. Even going back to 2nd ed.
the_scotsman wrote: Right, I remember that time Eldar got like 6 ridiculously buffed codexes in a row, making them better at pretty much every gameplay role than every other army. And they paired it with that huge, 15-kit model release for Eldar that they kept advertising and releasing kits from in the middle of releases for other factions. Eldar were 60+% of winning competitive lists for months! That really was the greatest mistake and most tonedeaf release GW ever did!
owait.
I mean books and models aside - 7th wasn't that long ago. There was a reason something like 1/3rd+ of tournament lists were Eldar, and Ynnari went on to have a ludicrous win percentage.
If there was less bitterness, its because 7th was a fairly obvious broken edition by the end, and Eldar/Tau/Super friends (plus a couple of others) essentially came down to who went first, while stomping over everyone else.
One thing to add to the thread.
The point about Intercessors having had 2 30" AP-1 shots for ages is reasonable - and I don't think they are a tournament issue.
But from a casual gamer perspective, starting with last CA I believe they have gone down in points, gained bolter discipline, gained an extra attack in the first round of combat (which is quite handy if you do try a tie up with chaff approach) and typically a buff to their chapter tactic. (I guess you can argue on Ravenguard - but I think people are discovering that yes, 2+ save outside of 12" isn't much worse than -1 to hit in most circumstances.) They may or may not benefit from an extra point of AP depending on whether you want to leave Devastator doctrine - certain armies will, others won't.
Meanwhile they are in an army as a whole which has been buffed considerably so you just feel like you get more.
So I don't think you can entirely say "the situation is the same, don't know what you are talking about."
With that said I don't think 30" guns break the game - models that can move and fire heavy weapons, hitting on 3s sometimes on 2s always rerolling 1s, with an extra point of AP breaks the game (add the mountain of IH synergies here). Quasi-turn 1 Deep Strike with say RG abilities breaks the game.
Or it doesn't break the game - but it feels obnoxious. I'm still not convinced for instance that eliminators are "broken" point for point. But it certainly feels like it when the guy across from you says its 2s following by 2s, eat mortal wounds, hope you can make your saving throw. Oh you are going to hide behind that rock? Don't worry, we can still shoot you. Okay its only 1 damage now, and so not hugely efficient on the cheap guys - but it adds up and if you are a bit unlucky with saves, theres a dead psyker/lynch pin buff bot/whatever.
To which you get "just use a transport" - yeah, unfortunately my faction's transports are dreadful unlike say.... Repulsors. Which I'm not convinced are a game breaking unit either - but they are "good".
Marines just have an embarrassment of riches right now.
Martel732 wrote: GW gonna GW. Marines were trash, and then they massively overcompensated.
I actually think if you play Space Marines with just the base codex that they actually feel pretty good, and not the OPness that comes from the supplements. The problem is that there isn't much reason NOT to play the supplements if you're going to play pure Space Marines anyways.
Martel732 wrote: GW gonna GW. Marines were trash, and then they massively overcompensated.
I actually think if you play Space Marines with just the base codex that they actually feel pretty good, and not the OPness that comes from the supplements. The problem is that there isn't much reason NOT to play the supplements if you're going to play pure Space Marines anyways.
Just where, exactly, are you seeing only Eldar players complain?
eldar are probably the big boogeyman in his (self-admitted) toxic playgroup so theyre being influenced into thinking eldars are the source of all evil.
Im tired of elves getting a bad reputation for a few overtuned units that are spammed because the rest of the codexes aren't competitive. (try playing drukhari beasts, aspect warriors or harlequin troupes competitively).
Eldar (Craftworld) has the baggage of past editions where they had a top tier army in 6th and rolled into 7th still going strong to only then have their 7th edition codex gives them nearly universal buffs across the board (minus wave serpents), d weapons, and generally a lot of anti fun gimmicks they could pull off. 7th edition Eldar codex was probably the most tone deaf release ever by GW until they one upped themselves with Ynnari (which basiclaly stacked the cheese on top of Craftworld cheese).
yeah but whats the point of continually treating eldar like a boogeyman? Are they still overpowered right now? apart from airwing spam.
I dunno but their history of being extremely powerful and often times anti fun to play against makes others who experienced that more critical of Eldar. Same set of baggage applies to the Tau. That said Eldar rolled into 8th on fairly even ground but with their codex they somewhat lead the pack with the whole minus to hit stacking thing which again is one of those "not fun to play against" playstyles.
I'm just pointing out some of the history at play and why people might not view Eldar in the best light.
oh i agree that the - to his spamming is unfun to play, so are invulns on everything (clowns) but i feel like without these stats, elfs are just faster marines with one less toughness. Their "tricks" are what keeps them alive.
Martel732 wrote: GW gonna GW. Marines were trash, and then they massively overcompensated.
But they won't stop doing it. See pa2 and possibly 3.
And my point earlier was that ba are basically getting the full sm supplement treatment while nids are most likely getting similar to what pa1 and 2 gave eldar and csm. So more uneven rules.
Martel732 wrote: GW gonna GW. Marines were trash, and then they massively overcompensated.
I actually think if you play Space Marines with just the base codex that they actually feel pretty good, and not the OPness that comes from the supplements. The problem is that there isn't much reason NOT to play the supplements if you're going to play pure Space Marines anyways.
Aye dex 2.0 is preety well done imo.
Whe it first came out I was like... whaaaat!?
Its really good book. On par with everything else arguably leading the pack.. fair enough. People were saying marines were garbage so they got a boist. (by which i believe they actually meant:marines are garbage compared to alitoic airwing and IK lists).
I though ok i guess that keeps people happy. I guess i have to really be ruthless now for casual games and no longer be able to take fun stuff if i want to have a fighting chance and think extra hard.
Then came the 7 now almost 8 supplaments...
I guess im really going to have to invest in that alitoic flier spam then... (I wont)
I see Marine book 2.0 without supplements to be kinda like CWE 7E codex without ScatterBikes.
Still an unmitigated crap factory of bloat and stupid, both from a design and balance perspective. But the player is clearly trying to not be a donkey cave about it. Likely to be a fun game.
But also not what you'll see (mostly) at tournies.
Sort off like a downside?
Like restricted units,or higher cost?
Better, forcing certain min units?
Could work.
Almost like... well, I don't want to say "Formations"... but I think Restricted Units would work.
In other words, if you're playing Iron Hands with all the fancy bonuses from the Supplement... you have to use specific units or not take specific units. You have to "play to the fluff" can be the excuse GW can give.
What if using the Supplements came with a "tax" of some sort?
There are two possible solutions as I see it;
1. Give every other faction supplement style rules.
2. Remove the supplements from competitive play.
Well I don't see number 2 happening. Everyone whose bought supplements would go nuts. And it doesn't look like gw is going for number 1 based on the ca leeks. More like make everything else cheaper than dirt.
Sort off like a downside?
Like restricted units,or higher cost?
Better, forcing certain min units?
Could work.
Almost like... well, I don't want to say "Formations"... but I think Restricted Units would work.
In other words, if you're playing Iron Hands with all the fancy bonuses from the Supplement... you have to use specific units or not take specific units. You have to "play to the fluff" can be the excuse GW can give.
Too late you said the F word. Looking more and more like 7th.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: WS didn't get it. BT didn't get it. THIS time the dastardly scheme will work though!
Yes, they did. And they can use it every round for 1 CP:
The Crusader’s Helm. Add 3” to the model’s aura abilities. Also, at the start of your Movement phase, pick a Black Templars unit with the Combat Doctrines ability within 6” of this model. Until your next Movement phase, the Assault Doctrine is active for that unit, replacing the current doctrine. This is a great way to circumvent the turn 3 restriction that prevents you from achieving your full potential with combat units.
What if using the Supplements came with a "tax" of some sort?
There are two possible solutions as I see it;
1. Give every other faction supplement style rules.
2. Remove the supplements from competitive play.
I'd prefer to see point increases on top of turn limited doctrines, but since that's a long timeline then maybe the community needs to push #2 until then.
If a major tournament feels the need to ban a supplement, it would probably reflect very poorly on Games Workshop, and cause controversy for the TO. It's more of a last resort.
Darsath wrote: If a major tournament feels the need to ban a supplement, it would probably reflect very poorly on Games Workshop, and cause controversy for the TO. It's more of a last resort.
Many here stateside banned Forge World models for a while.
The thing about tournaments banning anything at all, is that... well, the TO can do that. And if people dislike it, he won't have a good turnout. His tournament, his rules.
Hellebore wrote: I think they just need to readjust the base point cost of everything.
Start with a guardsman at 10pts and work up (only working down rarely like for grotz).
The cost is irrelevant - it just needs to be an accurate comparative value.
In 2nd ed a guardsman was 10pts and a marine was 30.
Points cost isn't enough. The MEQ statline would need a complete rework as well. For perfect balance, that 1 guardsmen must equal the output/efficiency of 3 marines which is something GW have never really been able to do
Hellebore wrote: I think they just need to readjust the base point cost of everything.
Start with a guardsman at 10pts and work up (only working down rarely like for grotz).
The cost is irrelevant - it just needs to be an accurate comparative value.
In 2nd ed a guardsman was 10pts and a marine was 30.
Points cost isn't enough. The MEQ statline would need a complete rework as well. For perfect balance, that 1 guardsmen must equal the output/efficiency of 3 marines which is something GW have never really been able to do
The internal codex balances are all out of whack for all armies. This leads to bigger imbalances between codexes externaly.
I firmly believe the number one reason for poor internal costing is the fact they removed point costs for gear on data sheets and made it so that gear costs the same regardless of what its going on. Which is insane. Yes the argument is they cost the unit itself proportionally but do they? We can see they clearly dont...
Unit X is over-performing whilst equipped with Gun B due to being very reliable/efficient... Unit X is armed with Gun B? Well lets increase the cost of Gun B, because its clearly too good.
Gun B was also the only way to arm units C,D,E,F. Now those units become even more invalid compared to the over perfoming Unit X. It means anyone who Run unit X with a different configuration will be shafted if Unit X base point cost is changed.
Anyone running Gun B on any other unit apart from Unit X will be affected also meaning you will have to pick unit X because it's the most efficient.
However if you only increased the cost of Gun B on Unit X but kept Gun B the same price for the rest of the codex that would create a better balance.
Instead, we get this knee jerk points wackamole by someone who appears to be blindfolded..
Hellebore wrote: I think they just need to readjust the base point cost of everything.
Start with a guardsman at 10pts and work up (only working down rarely like for grotz).
The cost is irrelevant - it just needs to be an accurate comparative value.
In 2nd ed a guardsman was 10pts and a marine was 30.
Points cost isn't enough. The MEQ statline would need a complete rework as well. For perfect balance, that 1 guardsmen must equal the output/efficiency of 3 marines which is something GW have never really been able to do
Perfect balance isn't needed, or even really possible.
But much better balance can be achieved, if GW put the resources towards it.
What if marines doctrines BS happening because they are looking at the slowly approaching end of 30K and want to sell 40k to the 30k crowd? After all they are used to rubbing marines vs marines for days and have lots of money as they buy FW.
WH old world will most likely be the replacement of 30k in terms of studio focus and 30k is allegedly nearing completion.
Ishagu wrote: They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.
Answer = don't play ITC
Certain things are too powerful regardless of playing ITC or not. Dead units can't hold objectives and armies that can decide what you're allowed to have live by T2 won't care you're doing GW missions or ITC missions.
Ishagu wrote: They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.
Answer = don't play ITC
How does not playing ITC address that at all? What about non-ITC play makes it impossible to spam strong units?
You literally can't win the missions. The design promotes balanced lists, each mission playing to a different strength an requires different units to score. You can never bring a singular build to dominate a game.
The CA Eternal War missions are superior in every way for the game.
You kind of a need a codex designed with a lot of valid options to play the balanced build game. When you have a 2-3 option codex, if a missions changes makes it unable for one of those options to work, it is not like you can take other options, because there are no other options for you to take.
Ishagu wrote: . You can never bring a singular build to dominate a game.
Except that marines can.
EW1 - Basically just hold more of the objectives so you get whichever random one scores more most often, which means just kill enemy units on objectives.
EW2 - A single objective? Marines love this. They don't give a crap about losing invulnerable saves while they swamp it with centurions.
EW3 - Characters are they key points...great...Eliminators solve that.
EW4 - TROOPS control objectives. So they kill all your TROOPS, sit Primaris on theirs, and score more on secondaries of which there is 1 point per round for killing a unit.
EW5 - Models with FLY > TROOPS for control. Great - they'll just kill those models. Control is at the start of the turn so dropping a unit on an objective won't save you.
EW6 - Controlling opponent's objective is worth most, which is not possible against marines so you're fighting for the center and they can kill you better.
There is no dynamic in these missions that can't be solved by marines just killing the right things harder. If you can't push the marines zone of control back you literally have no options.
Alternatively in ITC I can focus on holding - something you do above. I can focus on what units I can remove. The marines will likely hold more and kill more each turn so I just won't worry about that. I can play cagey with units he has targeted for secondaries. I can play to my lists strengths by picking secondaries that don't require killing.
If I wind up forcing them to a low score and capped as many points as I can then I've done well. A win doesn't always have to be a 'W'.
Ishagu wrote: They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.
Answer = don't play ITC
How does not playing ITC address that at all? What about non-ITC play makes it impossible to spam strong units?
You literally can't win the missions. The design promotes balanced lists, each mission playing to a different strength an requires different units to score. You can never bring a singular build to dominate a game.
The CA Eternal War missions are superior in every way for the game.
They are not. If i kill your army, you arent scoring any ca mission. Killing always works regardless of mission. Especially shooting, because i cant even screen against that.
Ishagu wrote: They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.
Answer = don't play ITC
How does not playing ITC address that at all? What about non-ITC play makes it impossible to spam strong units?
You literally can't win the missions. The design promotes balanced lists, each mission playing to a different strength an requires different units to score. You can never bring a singular build to dominate a game.
The CA Eternal War missions are superior in every way for the game.
They are not. If i kill your army, you arent scoring any ca mission. Killing always works regardless of mission. Especially shooting, because i cant even screen against that.
You haven't posted on the forum about how awfully terrible marines are in a while? Everything ok ??
Ishagu wrote: They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.
Answer = don't play ITC
How does not playing ITC address that at all? What about non-ITC play makes it impossible to spam strong units?
You literally can't win the missions. The design promotes balanced lists, each mission playing to a different strength an requires different units to score. You can never bring a singular build to dominate a game.
The CA Eternal War missions are superior in every way for the game.
I'm definitely pro CA18, and yes, in my opinion too they are vastly superior to ITC missions.
But marines are broken in both formats. CA18 is not a cure to that, but makes it worse.
CA18 rewards balanced lists with lots of different units with different purposes, and marines right now are the kings at that.
Well, any day you learn something is a good day. Relics of the Chapter has only been around for a couple years, better late than never.
That's funny, my Relics of the Crusade tells me I can take an additional Relic, not that I can skip straight to the Assault Doctrine.
A Relic that allows you to count one unit within 6" as being in the Assault Doctrine is not the same as a Stratagem that allows you to skip to the Assault Phase, like what was being discussed.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A Relic that allows you to count one unit within 6" as being in the Assault Doctrine is not the same as a Stratagem that allows you to skip to the Assault Phase, like what was being discussed.
That may have been your point, who cares? Marines can manipulate Doctrines to suit the playstyle of their specialist units.
Ultramarines can do it, Black Templars can do it, and I'm quite willing to bet Blood Angels will be able to do it.
Do you really think Blood Angels care that they can only put one squad into Assault Doctrine when that one squad is Death Company?
Oh no, they have to leave their tanks and heavy weapons in Devastator Doctrine while Death Company is in Assault Doctrine, what a fething tragedy.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A Relic that allows you to count one unit within 6" as being in the Assault Doctrine is not the same as a Stratagem that allows you to skip to the Assault Phase, like what was being discussed.
That may have been your point, who cares? Marines can manipulate Doctrines to suit the playstyle of their specialist units.
Ultramarines can do it, Black Templars can do it, and I'm quite willing to bet Blood Angels will be able to do it.
Do you really think Blood Angels care that they can only put one squad into Assault Doctrine when that one squad is Death Company?
Oh no, they have to leave their tanks and heavy weapons in Devastator Doctrine while Death Company is in Assault Doctrine, what a fething tragedy.
Sounds full of fething win to me.
Stick to the topic being discussed. The argument was that Blood Angels were sure to get a stratagem to skip to Assault Doctrine. The same argument was made for White Scars and Black Templars, and didn't pan out. That's all I ever made a comment on. I'll happily admit I was way too snarky, but I wasn't wrong. There is no stratagem that lets any of the current Space Marine factions skip to the Assault Doctrine.
It's possible Blood Angels will get such a stratagem, but based on previous expectations of the kind we would do well to temper the expectations.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Stick to the topic being discussed. The argument was that Blood Angels were sure to get a stratagem to skip to Assault Doctrine. The same argument was made for White Scars and Black Templars, and didn't pan out.
It didn't pan out according to *your* incredibly narrow definitions.
So fine, here's my counter-argument. It's more powerful to be able to select specific units that you put into preferred Doctrines than it is to put your whole army into one. This allows you to build your army to take advantage of early turn Doctrine restrictions while allowing you all the benefits of preferred Doctrines for specialized units.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's possible Blood Angels will get such a stratagem, but based on previous expectations of the kind we would do well to temper the expectations.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Stick to the topic being discussed. The argument was that Blood Angels were sure to get a stratagem to skip to Assault Doctrine. The same argument was made for White Scars and Black Templars, and didn't pan out.
It didn't pan out according to *your* incredibly narrow definitions.
There's no Stratagem that lets you skip to the Assault Phase under any reasonable definition. Even using a Stratagem to buy a Relic it is the Relic that does the skipping (which is a conditional skip under certain circumstances, not a skip full stop). If I hire you to murder someone I can still be found guilty of murder, but I did not murder the person.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's no Stratagem that lets you skip to the Assault Phase under any reasonable definition. Even using a Stratagem to buy a Relic it is the Relic that does the skipping (which is a conditional skip under certain circumstances, not a skip full stop). If I hire you to murder someone I can still be found guilty of murder, but I did not murder the person.
You are currently correct.
At the same time, I'd argue that it's more powerful to be able to manipulate Doctrines selectively rather than universally, so the point, in my mind, is moot.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Stick to the topic being discussed. The argument was that Blood Angels were sure to get a stratagem to skip to Assault Doctrine. The same argument was made for White Scars and Black Templars, and didn't pan out.
It didn't pan out according to *your* incredibly narrow definitions.
So fine, here's my counter-argument. It's more powerful to be able to select specific units that you put into preferred Doctrines than it is to put your whole army into one. This allows you to build your army to take advantage of early turn Doctrine restrictions while allowing you all the benefits of preferred Doctrines for specialized units.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's possible Blood Angels will get such a stratagem, but based on previous expectations of the kind we would do well to temper the expectations.
See above.
To be fair, you shouldn't have to explain this. It was pretty obvious what your point was.
E - and your point is entirely reasonable and correct.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's no Stratagem that lets you skip to the Assault Phase under any reasonable definition. Even using a Stratagem to buy a Relic it is the Relic that does the skipping (which is a conditional skip under certain circumstances, not a skip full stop). If I hire you to murder someone I can still be found guilty of murder, but I did not murder the person.
You are currently correct.
At the same time, I'd argue that it's more powerful to be able to manipulate Doctrines selectively rather than universally, so the point, in my mind, is moot.
Agreed, there is potential in being able to manipulate doctrines, depending on how it's done.
Ishagu wrote: They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.
Answer = don't play ITC
How does not playing ITC address that at all? What about non-ITC play makes it impossible to spam strong units?
You literally can't win the missions. The design promotes balanced lists, each mission playing to a different strength an requires different units to score. You can never bring a singular build to dominate a game.
The CA Eternal War missions are superior in every way for the game.
Actually i think CA will show the problem even more, because you just don`t get points from killing units and marines can have amassing first turns, because of the deployment advantage.
Even if you are able to out shoot them they will probably outscore you in equal conditions, aka the terrain, dices and objective placing don`t give them serious disadvantage.
And don`t forget they have stratagems that are useful in CA missions and but totally forgot in ITC.
Having played these missions near exclusively, strong units don't generally mean you have enough units to achieve your objectives. Your opponent being able to squat on the majority of them the first two turns and then you finally have a prayer of moving them off of those points because you've finally eliminated their major threats, is plenty to win the game. I've done it half a dozen times against knights lists, including some double digit VP differences in the results despite having been quite nearly tabled.
When killing things doesn't get you victory points, you play very, very differently. A smart list for CA 2018 brings enough stuff to kill that all the elite units in the world aren't going to solve your problem. There's to much standard chaff to clear out for them.
Ishagu wrote: ITC should just drop their mission pack. And by pack I mean the one mission they have.
Their tournament tracking, hobby tracking, player listing etc is all amazing and should be kept of course.
That's not an argument, you still haven't proved how your precious missions are better for game balance or fun. Without house rules for ruins the GW terrain sets are useless, what great game-design that is! Sure is balanced when there are 2-3 shooty sub-factions all from the same faction and then the rest of the bazillion different lists are useless because they get removed T2 by SM gunlines.
Okay so Warhammer World uses an ITC house rule, why not just use all of them? Where is your proof that their missions create a more balanced environment than Champions Missions?
How am I supposed to destroy the enemy WL against an IH castle? I might not even get a kill T1 depending on terrain and everything. 3 IH Flyers can go almost anywhere and will almost certainly destroy a unit. Linebreaker is really hard to do if you've been wiped T2... Soooo.
Guys, 40k stats doesn't care if the tournament is an ITC event, ETC event or GW event. Nor do ITC control the mission pack used by ITC events.
These arguments around missions are moot. The stats provided refer to all types of events using all types of mission packs. Marines outperform regardless of mission pack chaps.
vict0988 wrote: Okay so Warhammer World uses an ITC house rule, why not just use all of them? Where is your proof that their missions create a more balanced environment than Champions Missions?
How am I supposed to destroy the enemy WL against an IH castle? I might not even get a kill T1 depending on terrain and everything. 3 IH Flyers can go almost anywhere and will almost certainly destroy a unit. Linebreaker is really hard to do if you've been wiped T2... Soooo.
Because not all ITC rules are good? The missions are poor, as an example. I use the plural generously here because it's basically one missions with different secondaries when you really break it down.
The "Magic Boxes" are not good for the game, and create some pretty janky situations. Do terrain rules need some changes? Yes. Should they adopt more ITC rules? Hell no.
The CA2018 EW missions are already a far superior way to actually play the game, and over half of the community is ignorant to this fact because most of the ITC is still ignoring the GW mission design. Were the ITC missions necessary in 7th edition and start of 8th? Yes. Are they now? No!
Of course CA2018 doesn't solve all problems, but Eldar flyers and the Castellan both used to be massive problems, and in CA missions these units were no-where near as useful. As for the power of Marines, they aren't beyond fixes - the power comes from a few rule combinations that can be altered.
-IH Doctrine - too good, remove the re roll 1s
-Leviathan needs a keyword change, make it a "Heavy Dreadnough" so it no longer benefits from the strats that make it invulnerable.
-Remove all Vigilus detachments from working with the new codex
-Remove some Stratagem interaction for Assault Centurions
That would fix most of the issues, and I'm really not concerned at this stage, especially as a new edition is on the horizon.
But the missions are not better, they are different at best. They strongly promote marines, and more specific new primaris models and armies with the new set of rules. They do nothing to make weaker armies better. Necron or tyranids do not become better under the EW, nor do they get more options to play with under that rule set.
Karol wrote: But the missions are not better, they are different at best. They strongly promote marines, and more specific new primaris models and armies with the new set of rules. They do nothing to make weaker armies better. Necron or tyranids do not become better under the EW, nor do they get more options to play with under that rule set.
I'm sorry but that is absolutely not correct.
If you play all 6 Eternal War missions you will see a great deal of balancing as a whole. Certain units benefit from one mission, and utterly fail in another. This creates a situation where you can't focus too much on a single unit. EG: 3 Repulsors would lose you more games than they win, you just threw away 1000 points on 3 Tanks. You can table opponents in CA missions on turn 3 and still lose the game, hence the mentality of how lists are built has to change if you want to win.
One EW mission + One Maelstrom mission simultaneously, with d3 objetives scoring 2 points and discarding impossible cards (Unless the Maelstrom mission lets you discard cards, like 6, then you can't discard impossibles because you should have done that before)
That way you can play the fixed EW objetive at the same time it forces flexibility but with the Maelstrom randomness greately dismished.
The ETC method is not bad, actually. I've enjoyed some events with those missions. I just find that their design takes away some of the best quirks and varierty form the EW missions.
I like how in certain CA missions only certain units can score, for example. That can ruin the day of a player who brought the minimum troop requirement so he can focus on units with more output.
It's a balance. I love having those mission peramaters as it encourages players to make the lists balanced.
And having the guy with the netlist lose a mission because his 3 units of Scouts were removed on turn 1 is a great way to deter people from simply spamming the strongest units.
It's not perfect of course, there's no such thing, but it's far better than the netlist focused ITC environment. But yeah, I'll take ETC missions over ITC any day lol
Ishagu wrote: It's a balance. I love having those mission peramaters as it encourages players to make the lists balanced.
And having the guy with the netlist lose a mission because his 3 units of Scouts were removed on turn 1 is a great way to deter people from simply spamming the strongest units.
It's not perfect of course, there's no such thing, but it's far better than the netlist focused ITC environment. But yeah, I'll take ETC missions over ITC any day lol
as i said in your other posts, what should i do when i have to play "cut of the head" and im using an army with fragile characters and i end up against some beefy melee characters or some snipers? might as welll scoop right there because the odds of my characters scoring is almost null.
vict0988 wrote: Okay so Warhammer World uses an ITC house rule, why not just use all of them? Where is your proof that their missions create a more balanced environment than Champions Missions?
How am I supposed to destroy the enemy WL against an IH castle? I might not even get a kill T1 depending on terrain and everything. 3 IH Flyers can go almost anywhere and will almost certainly destroy a unit. Linebreaker is really hard to do if you've been wiped T2... Soooo.
Because not all ITC rules are good? The missions are poor, as an example. I use the plural generously here because it's basically one missions with different secondaries when you really break it down.
The "Magic Boxes" are not good for the game, and create some pretty janky situations. Do terrain rules need some changes? Yes. Should they adopt more ITC rules? Hell no.
The CA2018 EW missions are already a far superior way to actually play the game, and over half of the community is ignorant to this fact because most of the ITC is still ignoring the GW mission design. Were the ITC missions necessary in 7th edition and start of 8th? Yes. Are they now? No!
Of course CA2018 doesn't solve all problems, but Eldar flyers and the Castellan both used to be massive problems, and in CA missions these units were no-where near as useful. As for the power of Marines, they aren't beyond fixes - the power comes from a few rule combinations that can be altered.
-IH Doctrine - too good, remove the re roll 1s -Leviathan needs a keyword change, make it a "Heavy Dreadnough" so it no longer benefits from the strats that make it invulnerable. -Remove all Vigilus detachments from working with the new codex -Remove some Stratagem interaction for Assault Centurions
That would fix most of the issues, and I'm really not concerned at this stage, especially as a new edition is on the horizon.
Lots of statements of facts, yet no data or even reason to back up these facts, makes me think they are not facts and just opinions of someone with an irrational hate-on for Frontline. Take a look at Andrew Helland's winning list from Fresno Smackdown.
Spoiler:
1st Place
Andrew Helland - Fresno Smackdown
++ Battalion Detachment +5CP (Imperium - Space Marines) [47 PL, 5CP, 837pts] ++ **Chapter Selection**: Iron Hands
+ HQ + Chaplain [5 PL, 90pts]: 2. Catechism of Fire, Boltgun, Jump Pack, Litany of Hate Chapter Master in Phobos Armor [5 PL, -2CP, 99pts]: Camo cloak, Master-crafted instigator bolt carbine, Stratagem: Chapter Master
++ Spearhead Detachment +1CP (Imperium - Space Marines) [36 PL, 1CP, 684pts] ++ **Chapter Selection**: Iron Hands
+ HQ + Techmarine on Bike [6 PL, 74pts]: Chainsword, Servo-arm, Storm bolter, The Ironstone, Twin boltgun
+ Heavy Support + Devastator Squad [6 PL, 150pts]: Armorium Cherub . Space Marine Sergeant: Boltgun, Chainsword . Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon and grav-amp
. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon and grav-amp
. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon and grav-amp
. Space Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon and grav-amp
+ Elites + Invictor Tactical Warsuit [6 PL, 136pts]: Fragstorm Grenade Launcher, Heavy bolter, 2x Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Twin ironhail autocannon Invictor Tactical Warsuit [6 PL, 136pts]: Fragstorm Grenade Launcher, Heavy bolter, 2x Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Twin ironhail autocannon Invictor Tactical Warsuit [6 PL, 136pts]: Fragstorm Grenade Launcher, Heavy bolter, 2x Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Twin ironhail autocannon
++ Total: [105 PL, 7CP, 1,999pts] ++
Which mission is the list weak in? What all-rounder list is going to be more well-rounded and win a higher percentage of games than this list at an Eternal War event? You might have lists that do better or worse in single missions, but in the majority of missions? Is your goal really just that once in a while IH or IF will lose a match against a Nids or Harlequins because they got a bad mission for that one specific match-up? Let's assume there is that one in six magical mission where the above list sucks against Nids or Harlequins, what then? What's the likelihood that exactly this mission will be the one you play in the first round against them? The one magical mission where IH suck might not even be used at an event. You're not going to see Assault Marines or Tactical Squads regardless of mission format. I really don't understand what kind of list you think can only be found at an Eternal War event?
I'm hoping Frontline nerfs the grossest things available to SM, I got caught out by a few Ultramarine Stratagems and lost my first game against them, but I'm confident I can win a very healthy chunk of my games against them with Necrons after I thoroughly read all the rules available to them, you are right that it's mostly a few bad apples that are making the pie very sour. I really should have figured UM would have some tricks up their sleeve being the doctrine for every situation chapter, it was actually a fun game. I also had several very fair games against pre-WD Black Templars with my casual list because they were sort of good at both melee and shooting and my opponent wasn't just a big clump of shooting but brought an actual balanced list. I managed to win a couple of ITC games against IH (yes ITC, boooh spoooky) because I was able to hide in ruins (that blocked LOS) and sit on objectives, win on secondaries both games. But trying to win a straight battle against IH is a nightmare and some missions are going to force that to a greater degree than any ITC mission is.
It is actually super fluffy that IH win straight match-ups I just think these sorts of rules belong in narrative battles and maybe if everyone got rules like this more people would have a reason to play narrative, add in some rules for vehicle facings and I'd be totally into doing that sometimes. But right now I just play Maelstrom for fun or ITC for competitive. The dislike I have for these supplements is really that I'm more or less forced to play against them and forced to learn a bazillion new Stratagems before the game starts unless I want to get caught out. I've had to deal with that from both UM and RG now, those are the most tacticool chapters so hopefully none of the other have anything else I'll get sniped by before I sit down and bother to read all the Stratagems.
I'm a big fan of the Frontline guys, their contribution to the hobby is without question.
Lots of things relating to the ITC are amazing, the stat tracking, hobby scores, faction scores, etc.
I think the missions are holding them back now, especially as GW have really upped their game since CA2018.
I can't comment on any other format then the CA17/18 missions as that's all I play but I do agree they tend to be rather friendly to TAC lists. Seeing as that is how I personally prefer the game they are good for me and my group. Having said that I watched 2 of my friends play last week and Cut of the Head vs Raven Guard is not a lot of fun. I can only imagine my own horror of playing against them in that mission with my fragile Ork HQ. So yes they do have balance issues of their own, although maybe that's just Marines being overtuned again.
Karol wrote: But the missions are not better, they are different at best. They strongly promote marines, and more specific new primaris models and armies with the new set of rules. They do nothing to make weaker armies better. Necron or tyranids do not become better under the EW, nor do they get more options to play with under that rule set.
I'm sorry but that is absolutely not correct.
If you play all 6 Eternal War missions you will see a great deal of balancing as a whole. Certain units benefit from one mission, and utterly fail in another. This creates a situation where you can't focus too much on a single unit. EG: 3 Repulsors would lose you more games than they win, you just threw away 1000 points on 3 Tanks. You can table opponents in CA missions on turn 3 and still lose the game, hence the mentality of how lists are built has to change if you want to win.
We play only 4 out of 6. No one here likes the hero score one, specially after eliminators became a thing. Although maybe my view on this is skewed.
I find it weird this article is basically saying: Play other stuff don't play 40k guys... Play kill...team.. Or apocalypse.. Or kill team...
Just stop with this nonsense whining NPCs ..FFS just buy Marines and STFU!!!!!!
That's literally not what they're saying.
No it isn't. But if they're suggesting recreating anything from the night lords trilogy in kt it'd be nice if they let heretic astartes take raptors so the bleeding eyes can come along.
Spearhead could be fun if they'd just undo what they did to my super heavys last ca.
The topic of this thread isn't 'ITC Missions Suck!' Or 'Narrative Play Sucks!' - it's to discuss the new Marine Meta, whether marines are OP and what fixes we'd like to see to bridge the gap between them and other factions.
Stick to the broad topic please people, there are threads dedicated to other discussions. Ishagu - you've made a topic about ITC vs Eternal War missions, we don't need 2.
How is discussion of whether ITC makes Marines OP or more OP not relevant to this thread? If Marines were super pts-effective in terms of killing but somehow lost every game they were used in then they wouldn't be good. The question is whether the mission format changes Marine win-rates.
vict0988 wrote: How is discussion of whether ITC makes Marines OP or more OP not relevant to this thread? If Marines were super pts-effective in terms of killing but somehow lost every game they were used in then they wouldn't be good. The question is whether the mission format changes Marine win-rates.
It is absolutely relevant.
I have shown, multiple times now, that marines have excellent win rates, TWiP and First Loss statistics regardless of mission format.
Not sure what more you want on that particular point?
So I put 500pts of orks against 500pts of primaris marines played by a young man who had only been into the game for 1 year.
The kid had these eliminators who can choose to shoot at things that they cannot see from 36inches away. They got +2 armor saves and were pesky but he only had 3 of them.
The rest of his army was shooty-primarises of some sorts or other, and one unit with knives that gave them double attacks.
We played with one objective in the center of the table
He brought two mines of some sort, infiltrated past the objective, and set those up.
Then he camped a couple of units near the objective, left his eliminators in ruins and left another long-shooty squad of some sort way in back behind a wall.
His mines could only damage one model each, so they ended each eating a gretchin each.
I rolled my bonebreaka onto the objective turn 2.
Charged the mega armored warboss into the unit with 2 knives and ended them turn 3.
End of the game the warboss and bigmek and half dead bonebreaka were sitting in the center of the table, grots and orks otherwise dead, his eliminators still chillin and his long shooty dudes still out of the picture.
He killed himself with model placement, movement, basically every strategic decision that could be made he made wrong.
If he had done things right, then he should have been able to to win I think.
In the end it was a fun game, though I still struggle with 8th ed rules on some points, overall it seemed to play OK.
And, I can see where - at higher point levels - all of the buffs on buffs and rerolls and rerolls from stacked superdudes would be super annoying.
I mean, it seemed as if nothing on his side of the table was simply a rifle, or s shoota. It seemed as if nothing that he ever aimed to do wasn't trademarked somehow, and it was just... cheesy, really.
There is a thread here recently on Dakka asking why GI Joe doesn't have a mini game. I think that they do - Primaris marines with their kung-fu grips and so on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To echo some of the comments above, I checked into the local GW and spoke with the man. The ITC is the trouble with nuweenies being so tough. This is the view from that side of the fence.
Given my limited experience with 8th ed so far I think that I agree with him.
jeff white wrote: So I put 500pts of orks against 500pts of primaris marines played by a young man who had only been into the game for 1 year.
The kid had these eliminators who can choose to shoot at things that they cannot see from 36inches away. They got +2 armor saves and were pesky but he only had 3 of them.
The rest of his army was shooty-primarises of some sorts or other, and one unit with knives that gave them double attacks.
We played with one objective in the center of the table
He brought two mines of some sort, infiltrated past the objective, and set those up.
Then he camped a couple of units near the objective, left his eliminators in ruins and left another long-shooty squad of some sort way in back behind a wall.
His mines could only damage one model each, so they ended each eating a gretchin each.
I rolled my bonebreaka onto the objective turn 2.
Charged the mega armored warboss into the unit with 2 knives and ended them turn 3.
End of the game the warboss and bigmek and half dead bonebreaka were sitting in the center of the table, grots and orks otherwise dead, his eliminators still chillin and his long shooty dudes still out of the picture.
He killed himself with model placement, movement, basically every strategic decision that could be made he made wrong.
If he had done things right, then he should have been able to to win I think.
In the end it was a fun game, though I still struggle with 8th ed rules on some points, overall it seemed to play OK.
And, I can see where - at higher point levels - all of the buffs on buffs and rerolls and rerolls from stacked superdudes would be super annoying.
I mean, it seemed as if nothing on his side of the table was simply a rifle, or s shoota. It seemed as if nothing that he ever aimed to do wasn't trademarked somehow, and it was just... cheesy, really.
There is a thread here recently on Dakka asking why GI Joe doesn't have a mini game. I think that they do - Primaris marines with their kung-fu grips and so on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To echo some of the comments above, I checked into the local GW and spoke with the man. The ITC is the trouble with nuweenies being so tough. This is the view from that side of the fence.
Given my limited experience with 8th ed so far I think that I agree with him.
The revivers with knifes only get +1 attack not double attacks.
Al lot of what you are talking about with the eliminators is just their basic rules, they have camo cloaks for the bonus to their saves in cover and that’s nothing new, their snipers have a few different ammunition choices. They are a bit cheap for their points, probably need To be closer to 90ppm.
bananathug wrote: What exactly are people seeing in the BAPA that is so upsetting?
Litanies will boost the power of BA for sure. Just getting those will bring BA up in power significantly but no where near where nu-marines are as far as I can tell.
Well, they're a better Assault army than World Eaters and Black Templars, but they get to keep their psykers. A 5 man squad of Death Company fully buffed can get upwards of I think 40 attacks on the charge? Who needs to attack twice at that point?
bananathug wrote: +1 attack on the charge isn't powerful if you have to wait until t3 to do it and without a way to get units into melee who cares.
It is unlikely (to the point of absurdity) that they will have to wait until turn 3 to put a squad into Assault Doctrine. Black Templars can do it for one squad any time they want, I seriously doubt BA won't be able to do the same or better.
bananathug wrote: Without a bunch of new strats (deepstrike, advance and charge, something like trans-human, something to protect the dreads), an ability to skip to assault doctrine and reduction on costs of existing strats (pre-game move, 3d6 charge are done cheaper by vanilla) BA are still SM -1 (which probably is a good thing given how broken SM are).
I guess it's a good thing they mention that there are new warlord traits and strats and such in the new supplement, might have had something less than amazing for an SM chapter. Whew!
Looks like they missed the ability to change doctrines, didn't get advance and charge or the ability to scout/deepstrike units nor did they get reduction on existing strats as far as I know.
Trans-human and the half-damage to dreads strats will help but we are no where near a BA meta. BA should fit in nicely in soup lists and bring a lot more than they did pre-ca/pa but still not competing with nu-marines.
The +1 advance and charge is probably better than the t3 super-doctrine. Sucks BA didn't get something to help out their vehicles but other marines do marine mech so much better than BA it's probably for the best.
jeff white wrote: So I put 500pts of orks against 500pts of primaris marines played by a young man who had only been into the game for 1 year.
The kid had these eliminators who can choose to shoot at things that they cannot see from 36inches away. They got +2 armor saves and were pesky but he only had 3 of them.
The rest of his army was shooty-primarises of some sorts or other, and one unit with knives that gave them double attacks.
We played with one objective in the center of the table
He brought two mines of some sort, infiltrated past the objective, and set those up.
Then he camped a couple of units near the objective, left his eliminators in ruins and left another long-shooty squad of some sort way in ...
The revivers with knifes only get +1 attack not double attacks.
Al lot of what you are talking about with the eliminators is just their basic rules, they have camo cloaks for the bonus to their saves in cover and that’s nothing new, their snipers have a few different ammunition choices. They are a bit cheap for their points, probably need To be closer to 90ppm.
Actually i didnt mind the eliminator cheater rifles. That was fine in the hands of a veteran spamming that shat then ok. Trouble. He should be using 6 at least at one time.
Perhaps ignoring AP is a benefit they should only have sometimes. Invune saves are not properly costed to begin with.
Did you just imply Harlequins are OP?
Daemons, at least, are placing well in tournaments. But Harlequins?
Harliquens have a really high win rate. Not specifically saying harlequins are OP (with their point drops they probably will be). Invune saves always work though. Except against mortals which aren't exactly high output in this game anyways. Armor saves can be completely ignored but invunes always get their value. That isn't really fair for a whole army to ignore AP considering the way the ap system works. Maybe invune saves shouldn't always work ether.
Perhaps ignoring AP is a benefit they should only have sometimes. Invune saves are not properly costed to begin with.
Did you just imply Harlequins are OP?
Daemons, at least, are placing well in tournaments. But Harlequins?
Harliquens have a really high win rate. Not specifically saying harlequins are OP (with their point drops they probably will be). Invune saves always work though. Except against mortals which aren't exactly high output in this game anyways. Armor saves can be completely ignored but invunes always get their value. That isn't really fair for a whole army to ignore AP considering the way the ap system works. Maybe invune saves shouldn't always work ether.
So what would you propose changing Daemons to? How would you modify them?
Perhaps ignoring AP is a benefit they should only have sometimes. Invune saves are not properly costed to begin with.
Did you just imply Harlequins are OP?
Daemons, at least, are placing well in tournaments. But Harlequins?
Harliquens have a really high win rate. Not specifically saying harlequins are OP (with their point drops they probably will be). Invune saves always work though. Except against mortals which aren't exactly high output in this game anyways. Armor saves can be completely ignored but invunes always get their value. That isn't really fair for a whole army to ignore AP considering the way the ap system works. Maybe invune saves shouldn't always work ether.
So what would you propose changing Daemons to? How would you modify them?
A pokemon/starcraft type damage system. Weapons have an ideal target they excel against and do poorly against. Nothing is effective against everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Harlequins have that high a win rate? I thought it was just around 40% which I expect for an army with like 0 options.
Every option is very good though. They just got massive points drops. This number is going to go up a lot now. A LOT.
Yeah - invune saves are a huge issue and shouldn't exist. However. A mission that turns them off in a certain location - it's not really a big deal. Units with armor saves have their saves ignored all the time. I don't see a big difference in cost between armor and invo saves on models.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Harlequins have that high a win rate? I thought it was just around 40% which I expect for an army with like 0 options.
45% mono. They are 57% otherwise. They basically just tack on as haywire delivery and that's about it usually. No one uses Troupes, but they will now, I think.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Harlequins have that high a win rate? I thought it was just around 40% which I expect for an army with like 0 options.
45% mono. They are 57% otherwise. They basically just tack on as haywire delivery and that's about it usually. No one uses Troupes, but they will now, I think.
If the game was mono vs mono. Quins would have an even higher win rate. That is not how the game is played though (or at least it didn't used to be). They have some particularly broken thinks - like the solitaire - and haywire bike which for some reason GW has decided should drop in points. LOL. I play against mono quins all the time with mono armies. They have some busted mechanics. Like a -1 to wound aura. Troops going to be spammed now. A 7 point quinn is abolutely insane. A dire avenger has a higher base cost. Please explain that to me.
Marines have a 3+ that can be boosted to a 2+ with cover. Requiring Melta or better to completely ignore.
Daemons have a 5++. Worse against AP0 or -1. Equal against AP-2. And only better against AP-3, or -4 in cover.
That’s why they eat to be more reliable.
Now, some people get to break that (2 point storm shields, for instance) but it’s generally there.
It's not that simple. Being equal against ap-2 means that the 5++ unit is taking the same amount of damage for half the price for most daemons vs meq. It gets worse and worse against heavy weapons which typically have ap-3 and 4. In which case the 5++ is WAY better.
Xenomancers wrote: A 7 point quinn is abolutely insane. A dire avenger has a higher base cost. Please explain that to me
Explanation: default trooper was 13, now is 11 (with S3 no ap sword). The picture was mixed with Banshee change, which were also 13, now 11. (with power sword)
Xenomancers wrote: A 7 point quinn is abolutely insane. A dire avenger has a higher base cost. Please explain that to me
Explanation: default trooper was 13, now is 11 (with S3 no ap sword). The picture was mixed with Banshee change, which were also 13, now 11. (with power sword)
I see - so troopes base was 13 not 9. Well that makes it less insane.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: But then they’re firing heavy weapons at MEQs and not tanks. Meaning your Repulsor or whatever is free to rain death on them.
What if every weapon in your army is a heavy weapon? Like lots of armies actually are in a competitive list.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Harlequins have that high a win rate? I thought it was just around 40% which I expect for an army with like 0 options.
45% mono. They are 57% otherwise. They basically just tack on as haywire delivery and that's about it usually. No one uses Troupes, but they will now, I think.
If the game was mono vs mono. Quins would have an even higher win rate. That is not how the game is played though (or at least it didn't used to be). They have some particularly broken thinks - like the solitaire - and haywire bike which for some reason GW has decided should drop in points. LOL. I play against mono quins all the time with mono armies. They have some busted mechanics. Like a -1 to wound aura. Troops going to be spammed now. A 7 point quinn is abolutely insane. A dire avenger has a higher base cost. Please explain that to me.
Marines have a 3+ that can be boosted to a 2+ with cover. Requiring Melta or better to completely ignore.
Daemons have a 5++. Worse against AP0 or -1. Equal against AP-2. And only better against AP-3, or -4 in cover.
That’s why they eat to be more reliable.
Now, some people get to break that (2 point storm shields, for instance) but it’s generally there.
It's not that simple. Being equal against ap-2 means that the 5++ unit is taking the same amount of damage for half the price. It gets worse and worse against heavy weapons which typically have ap-3 and 4. In which case the 5++ is WAY better.
Infantry models aren't taking lots of AP3/4/5 hits. If AP2 hits marines in cover they save on a 4+. If it hits daemons regardless of where they are they save on a 5+. If its AP0 then marines save on a 2+ and daemons still save on a 5+. There isn't a real contest here and people have been talking about this for ages as to why marines ARE durable.
I'm gonna #doubt that mono quins would fare better if everyone was mono. Straight dakka just pulls them off the table fast -- note the sentence above. 4++ is great. Not so great on a T3 model. And less great when you probably need to transport them as well.
Which you can do with Space Marines-12 PPM for 2 AP-1 shots at 24” (T2, AP0 T1) is a dang sight better than no shots for 7-8 PPM.
I am not saying daemons are OP. I am saying invune saves are problematic. You also gotta consider lots of light weapons can have good AP. Like bolt rifles/suriken cats/ect. No weapons ignore invune saves except for a few melle weapons which typically suck.
Which you can do with Space Marines-12 PPM for 2 AP-1 shots at 24” (T2, AP0 T1) is a dang sight better than no shots for 7-8 PPM.
I am not saying daemons are OP. I am saying invune saves are problematic. You also gotta consider lots of light weapons can have good AP. Like bolt rifles/suriken cats/ect. No weapons ignore invune saves except for a few melle weapons which typically suck.
So what would you do, within the confines of the current system, for Daemons?
Because while a complete rewrite is probably the best option, that's probably not in the cards at the moment.
Which you can do with Space Marines-12 PPM for 2 AP-1 shots at 24” (T2, AP0 T1) is a dang sight better than no shots for 7-8 PPM.
I am not saying daemons are OP. I am saying invune saves are problematic. You also gotta consider lots of light weapons can have good AP. Like bolt rifles/suriken cats/ect. No weapons ignore invune saves except for a few melle weapons which typically suck.
So what would you do, within the confines of the current system, for Daemons?
Because while a complete rewrite is probably the best option, that's probably not in the cards at the moment.
I think giving units additional wounds is the best way to increase a units durability. Or in turn lowering it's cost. You could just give them a regular armor save too. Like other units have. For daemons - say they had no save but had 2 wounds on their standard infantry. It might make you tougher in a lot of situations. I just think it's pretty dumb when a volcano lance has an easier time killing a land raider than it does a few pink horrors.
Xenomancers wrote: I just think it's pretty dumb when a volcano lance has an easier time killing a land raider than it does a few pink horrors.
Why?
It's a single-shot weapon designed to kill tanks. Honestly, I'm surprised you're expecting it to kill more than one pink horror at all. It's like being surprised that an APFSDS round from an Abrams can kill a T72 but has a hard time at killing light infantry...
Xenomancers wrote: I play against mono quins all the time with mono armies. They have some busted mechanics. Like a -1 to wound aura.
A -1 to wound aura that can only be used on T3 infantry is hardly a broken mechanic.
-1 to hits and wounds are broken mechanics. We only have 6 pips on a dice.
-1 to-wound on a T3 unit means going from a 3+ to a 4+ most of the time. That's a 25% reduction in firepower. So the standard boltgun goes from removing Harlies from the table by the bucketload to removing Harlies from the table by the mostly-full-bucketload. They still die like flies, especially for their points.
Which you can do with Space Marines-12 PPM for 2 AP-1 shots at 24” (T2, AP0 T1) is a dang sight better than no shots for 7-8 PPM.
I am not saying daemons are OP. I am saying invune saves are problematic. You also gotta consider lots of light weapons can have good AP. Like bolt rifles/suriken cats/ect. No weapons ignore invune saves except for a few melle weapons which typically suck.
So what would you do, within the confines of the current system, for Daemons?
Because while a complete rewrite is probably the best option, that's probably not in the cards at the moment.
I think giving units additional wounds is the best way to increase a units durability. Or in turn lowering it's cost. You could just give them a regular armor save too. Like other units have. For daemons - say they had no save but had 2 wounds on their standard infantry. It might make you tougher in a lot of situations. I just think it's pretty dumb when a volcano lance has an easier time killing a land raider than it does a few pink horrors.
So you'd give demons a 33% increased survivability through other means, just to remove the invuln? What's the point?
As for a single super-powerful super-focused laser being more of a threat to a physical super-heavy target like a Land Raider than a gaggle of mystical creatures that phase out of reality frequently, I'd have to question that. Not being part of reality is a *really good excuse* to avoid being clipped by a reality-based laser.
To double down on that, "super powerful" anti-super-heavy lasers and such, which pack a gakton of AP and D, are designed to eliminate superheavy physical constructs. They should be much more of a threat to things like Land Raiders and Imperial Knights than Pink Horrors. If you catch a Pink Horror in reality, it dies very quickly to the laser already. But pumping up amps on the laser - while it would help you kill a big target faster - won't have any impact if you shoot something that *ceases to exist temporarily* when you shot at it.
Invulns aren't "Armor, but super-awesomer". They're the "Your quaint laws of physics have no meaning here" rules. Demons. Psyker-based shielding. Stuff like that. F=MA is only a law for the Materium. These things should be rare (wtf can a Knight get an invuln?), weaker (wtf is it 2ppm for a 3++ in some books?!?!), and on lighter targets (again, wtf can a Knight get one!?!) than armor saves. But they shouldn't be impacted by "Stronger-Awsomer-Bigger Weapons" bypassing them.
Xenomancers wrote: I just think it's pretty dumb when a volcano lance has an easier time killing a land raider than it does a few pink horrors.
Why?
It's a single-shot weapon designed to kill tanks. Honestly, I'm surprised you're expecting it to kill more than one pink horror at all. It's like being surprised that an APFSDS round from an Abrams can kill a T72 but has a hard time at killing light infantry...
To be fair to the abrams - it has a variety of rounds which some are great at anti personnel. As does most artillery. Plus no. The anti tank round will easily kill 1 dude. The gun is also more accurate than a small arm as well. The volcano lance is a little more powerful than that and obviously has some kind of blast effect having d6 shots. It should vaporize a few infantry without rolling basically.
Xenomancers wrote: I play against mono quins all the time with mono armies. They have some busted mechanics. Like a -1 to wound aura.
A -1 to wound aura that can only be used on T3 infantry is hardly a broken mechanic.
-1 to hits and wounds are broken mechanics. We only have 6 pips on a dice.
-1 to-wound on a T3 unit means going from a 3+ to a 4+ most of the time. That's a 25% reduction in firepower. So the standard boltgun goes from removing Harlies from the table by the bucketload to removing Harlies from the table by the mostly-full-bucketload. They still die like flies, especially for their points.
Which you can do with Space Marines-12 PPM for 2 AP-1 shots at 24” (T2, AP0 T1) is a dang sight better than no shots for 7-8 PPM.
I am not saying daemons are OP. I am saying invune saves are problematic. You also gotta consider lots of light weapons can have good AP. Like bolt rifles/suriken cats/ect. No weapons ignore invune saves except for a few melle weapons which typically suck.
So what would you do, within the confines of the current system, for Daemons?
Because while a complete rewrite is probably the best option, that's probably not in the cards at the moment.
I think giving units additional wounds is the best way to increase a units durability. Or in turn lowering it's cost. You could just give them a regular armor save too. Like other units have. For daemons - say they had no save but had 2 wounds on their standard infantry. It might make you tougher in a lot of situations. I just think it's pretty dumb when a volcano lance has an easier time killing a land raider than it does a few pink horrors.
So you'd give demons a 33% increased survivability through other means, just to remove the invuln? What's the point?
As for a single super-powerful super-focused laser being more of a threat to a physical super-heavy target like a Land Raider than a gaggle of mystical creatures that phase out of reality frequently, I'd have to question that. Not being part of reality is a *really good excuse* to avoid being clipped by a reality-based laser.
To double down on that, "super powerful" anti-super-heavy lasers and such, which pack a gakton of AP and D, are designed to eliminate superheavy physical constructs. They should be much more of a threat to things like Land Raiders and Imperial Knights than Pink Horrors. If you catch a Pink Horror in reality, it dies very quickly to the laser already. But pumping up amps on the laser - while it would help you kill a big target faster - won't have any impact if you shoot something that *ceases to exist temporarily* when you shot at it.
Invulns aren't "Armor, but super-awesomer". They're the "Your quaint laws of physics have no meaning here" rules. Demons. Psyker-based shielding. Stuff like that. F=MA is only a law for the Materium. These things should be rare (wtf can a Knight get an invuln?), weaker (wtf is it 2ppm for a 3++ in some books?!?!), and on lighter targets (again, wtf can a Knight get one!?!) than armor saves. But they shouldn't be impacted by "Stronger-Awsomer-Bigger Weapons" bypassing them.
Why? Because more powerful weapons should do more damage to targets.
Xenomancers wrote: To be fair to the abrams - it has a variety of rounds which some are great at anti personnel. As does most artillery. Plus no. The anti tank round will easily kill 1 dude. The gun is also more accurate than a small arm as well. The volcano lance is a little more powerful than that and obviously has some kind of blast effect having d6 shots. It should vaporize a few infantry without rolling basically.
I wouldn't want to be the gunner ordered to load the HE shell in the AP laser. That's not going to end well.
Why? Because more powerful weapons should do more damage to targets.
They already do. A Lascannon does more damage to a Pink Horror than a Lasgun.
Which you can do with Space Marines-12 PPM for 2 AP-1 shots at 24” (T2, AP0 T1) is a dang sight better than no shots for 7-8 PPM.
I am not saying daemons are OP. I am saying invune saves are problematic. You also gotta consider lots of light weapons can have good AP. Like bolt rifles/suriken cats/ect. No weapons ignore invune saves except for a few melle weapons which typically suck.
So what would you do, within the confines of the current system, for Daemons?
Because while a complete rewrite is probably the best option, that's probably not in the cards at the moment.
Agreed, Daemons are in a bad spot right now. Basically no useful stratagems and no reward for playing mono god. They should take a queue out of AoS daemon books where mono god gives bonuses like Depravity, Blood Tithe, Cycle of Corruption wheel etc.
They need a full rewrite from the ground up and that's not something points alone can fix without making things practically free.
Which you can do with Space Marines-12 PPM for 2 AP-1 shots at 24” (T2, AP0 T1) is a dang sight better than no shots for 7-8 PPM.
I am not saying daemons are OP. I am saying invune saves are problematic. You also gotta consider lots of light weapons can have good AP. Like bolt rifles/suriken cats/ect. No weapons ignore invune saves except for a few melle weapons which typically suck.
So what would you do, within the confines of the current system, for Daemons?
Because while a complete rewrite is probably the best option, that's probably not in the cards at the moment.
Agreed, Daemons are in a bad spot right now. Basically no useful stratagems and no reward for playing mono god. They should take a queue out of AoS daemon books where mono god gives bonuses like Depravity, Blood Tithe, Cycle of Corruption wheel etc.
They need a full rewrite from the ground up and that's not something points alone can fix without making things practically free.
Xenomancers wrote: To be fair to the abrams - it has a variety of rounds which some are great at anti personnel. As does most artillery. Plus no. The anti tank round will easily kill 1 dude. The gun is also more accurate than a small arm as well. The volcano lance is a little more powerful than that and obviously has some kind of blast effect having d6 shots. It should vaporize a few infantry without rolling basically.
I wouldn't want to be the gunner ordered to load the HE shell in the AP laser. That's not going to end well.
Why? Because more powerful weapons should do more damage to targets.
They already do. A Lascannon does more damage to a Pink Horror than a Lasgun.
Not really - its about the same in rapid fire. or much worse if its getting double shots.
There is seriously no defense of invune saves. Like...Prophets of the flesh. They cover their bodies in skin and its more effective armor than land-raiders. Like...if its so effective - why don't other armies start covering their tanks in flesh too! It's dumb. Invune saves should be removed from the game.
Xenomancers wrote: To be fair to the abrams - it has a variety of rounds which some are great at anti personnel. As does most artillery. Plus no. The anti tank round will easily kill 1 dude. The gun is also more accurate than a small arm as well. The volcano lance is a little more powerful than that and obviously has some kind of blast effect having d6 shots. It should vaporize a few infantry without rolling basically.
I wouldn't want to be the gunner ordered to load the HE shell in the AP laser. That's not going to end well.
Why? Because more powerful weapons should do more damage to targets.
They already do. A Lascannon does more damage to a Pink Horror than a Lasgun.
Not really - its about the same in rapid fire. or much worse if its getting double shots.
There is seriously no defense of invune saves. Like...Prophets of the flesh. They cover their bodies in skin and its more effective armor than land-raiders. Like...if its so effective - why don't other armies start covering their tanks in flesh too! It's dumb. Invune saves should be removed from the game.
prophets are a good example of broken invulns because theyre on high-toughness, high-wounds ,cheap models. Giving demons a 5++ and harlequins a 5++ isnt breaking anything, the guns you would shoot at them are still the best guns to shoot at them. Remove the gimmicks from harlequins and they wont see any table ever. All their units are 1 thoughness lower than their imperial equivalent , remove the -1 to hit/wound and invuln and they'll jsut die like flies, hell even with all these buffs they still die like flies to bolter fire.
Xenomancers wrote: To be fair to the abrams - it has a variety of rounds which some are great at anti personnel. As does most artillery. Plus no. The anti tank round will easily kill 1 dude. The gun is also more accurate than a small arm as well. The volcano lance is a little more powerful than that and obviously has some kind of blast effect having d6 shots. It should vaporize a few infantry without rolling basically.
I wouldn't want to be the gunner ordered to load the HE shell in the AP laser. That's not going to end well.
Why? Because more powerful weapons should do more damage to targets.
They already do. A Lascannon does more damage to a Pink Horror than a Lasgun.
Not really - its about the same in rapid fire. or much worse if its getting double shots.
This kind of FUD just spins us in circles.
24-48" range: Lascannon hits kill the Pink Horror 5/9 times, versus Lasgun 0 times. Massive advantage Lascannon.
12-24" range: Lascannon 5/9th times, Lasgun 3/9ths times - huge advantage Lascannon.
0-12" range: Lascannon 5/9ths times, Lasgun 5/9ths times - tie
The Lascannon has a massive advantage in killing a single Pink Horror at most ranges, and is tied in one range band. The Lasgun, as a rapid fire weapon, has the advantage of a small chance (~11%) to kill *two* Pink Horrors at close range (<12", but is not any more deadly to a single Pink Horror.
Which is what it should be. A single-target high-piercing deadly round - like a laser or AT weapon - should be deadlier to a single target from a single shot. But a higher-ROF weapon (like a rife) is certainly not a worse weapon for taking out a single close-range light target.
And that's before getting to damage done. The Lascannon does an average of 2 damage (3.5 EV, 5/9 chance to wound). The Lasgun does an average of 0.33 damage. It doesn't help much, because a dead Pink Horror is a dead Pink Horror. But the Lascannon averages *6x* the damage of a Lasgun at most ranges. Still over 3x the damage within 12".
So, yes really. The Lascannon does much more damage - either by chance of removal or actual damage done to the target. It's the worse weapon for clearing out Pink Horrors efficiently, certainly - but that's as it should be.
There is seriously no defense of invune saves.
Bloodletters *don't physically exist* at times.
ShimmerShields *stop any physical force completely*.
The Avatar of Khaine is *a literal piece of a God, of a being that transcends physical laws*.
Each of those, and more, are clear, serious, reasonable defenses of Invuln saves.
"But I'm even better at cutting through dense, deep, and heavy materials!" doesn't factor in to cutting through defenses that are not dense, deep, or heavy materials. Defenses that are not subject to the laws of the Materium.
Like...Prophets of the flesh. They cover their bodies in skin and its more effective armor than land-raiders. Like...if its so effective - why don't other armies start covering their tanks in flesh too!
There are specific cases of Invulns that don't make sense. The above, I'd rather see as T, W, or FnP personally. But that's not all invulns, that's specific invulns.
It's dumb. Invune saves should be removed from the game.
Why should a Lascannon hit to the chest kill a being that doesn't exist when it hits? Why should a Demon, as it blinks in/out and/or rewrites physics to keep it "alive", be just as vulnerable to AP-2 weapons as a human in a flak jacket?
Invulns allow for a greater variety of threats and concerns. Armor Pen isn't about ignoring any defenses. It's about ignoring *armor*.
Xenomancers wrote: FNP is even worse than invuns. At least it is capped at a reasonable 5+ and typically a 6+.
really?
lets say a lascannon hits (and lets say we know for a fact it would do 6 damage), against an invuln its 1 roll needed to block it all, against a FNP, thats 6 rolls needed to block it all. How is that worse than an invuln? if anything ,FNP would be perfect in prophets of flesh since their invulnerable save is litterally called "Insensible to Pain".
Xenomancers wrote: FNP is even worse than invuns. At least it is capped at a reasonable 5+ and typically a 6+.
really?
lets say a lascannon hits (and lets say we know for a fact it would do 6 damage), against an invuln its 1 roll needed to block it all, against a FNP, thats 6 rolls needed to block it all. How is that worse than an invuln? if anything ,FNP would be perfect in prophets of flesh since their invulnerable save is litterally called "Insensible to Pain".
It's "worse" when you're shooting small beings with small arms. When the "glass cannon" infantry gets a 5+ armor save then a 5+ FnP, basic small arms can feel ineffective (it's basically the same as a 4+ Sv).
But in the context of this thread, it should be substantially better. A 5+ armor save then a 5+ FnP has basically the same as a 6++ chance of surviving an AP-2 Dd6 weapon. Even lower for a D2+ weapon. Whereas a 5++ instead of the FnP has a 33% chance of ignoring the same weapon. Converesely, the first option (5+sv 5+ FnP) has a ~50% chance of surviving a Boltgun wound, whereas the second option (5++) has only a 33% chance of survival.
In other words, Invulns do more to protect you from heavily destructive single shots designed to cut through Armor and other physical defenses. FnP and other physical protections protect you less against weapons designed to cut through physical protections. Against weapons not intended to cut through heavy physical defenses, FnPs and other physical defenses do more than invulns.
