well how you guys talk about gak being OP it sure sounds like like that's what it means.
Which is my point, if anything undercosted is automatically OP, then what is a fair cost then? 150pts, 200, 250? or would different stats make the current price ok? or a limit of 1 unit per army? let's get down to brass tracks, what would it take to make the unit acceptable(to your narrow window)?
how much value do you put in a stat line? what makes adding 10pts(or whatever) all of the sudden OK or 20pts and it's the worst unit in the game?
I don't think they need to change, if they do big deal. y'all just complain about the next slightly less OP unit. AND THE NEXT AND THE NEXT ad infinitum. until it's time to talk about how trash they are and need a points decrease.
Did one squad ever win the game? or was it spamming that's the issue? im pretty sure there is a huge difference between 1 squad and 6. so how is one squad OP, what makes them sooooo ridiculous? would you rather face 6 squads or just 1? If the possibility of taking 6 squads is the problem, the unit itself isnt OP, the ability to take that many would be the problem, which is a playstyle issue not a unit issue.
So how is the unit by itself OP? it that one single unit gonna win the game for you? they're fething 3 dudes, if 3 dudes win the game by themselves, then it is a unit issue.
If you guys are losing games due to a single unit, I really dont know what to tell you?
A unit is either OP or it isn't. One unit is OP, 3 are much, much worse because when a unit is OP it tends to get increasing returns rather than diminishing returns when you run multiples. I'm sure most armies could probably deal with 1 unit, but that doesn't alter the fact that they are disproportionately good for their points - their offense is absurd for the points they cost and their defense is very good too.
It's not even about losing or winning against 1 or 3 units of them, it's simply about how powerful the unit is compared to its cost. The entire thread explains this, it's genuinely puzzling you don't seem to understand the problem if you've read the whole thing.
Its really simple, Racerguy is a space marine player and he likes his new OP toys.
funny how I dont care if they're good or not(if you had read my post you'd know that). My Bloody Rose & Flawless Host dont care how good they are. My favorite adversary doesnt care how good they are.
The only reason people are complaining about them is in a tourney meta. why should that effect non-tourney metas?
still didnt answer what it would take to make them agreeable to you?
So how about instead of complaining about it, offer some real solutions to the (perceived) problem?
Racerguy180 wrote: well how you guys talk about gak being OP it sure sounds like like that's what it means.
Which is my point, if anything undercosted is automatically OP, then what is a fair cost then? 150pts, 200, 250? or would different stats make the current price ok? or a limit of 1 unit per army? let's get down to brass tracks, what would it take to make the unit acceptable(to your narrow window)?
how much value do you put in a stat line? what makes adding 10pts(or whatever) all of the sudden OK or 20pts and it's the worst unit in the game?
I don't think they need to change, if they do big deal. y'all just complain about the next slightly less OP unit. AND THE NEXT AND THE NEXT ad infinitum. until it's time to talk about how trash they are and need a points decrease.
Am I misunderstanding, or are you outright dismissing the idea that a unit overperforming for its cost makes it unbalanced, with a side of 'nothing will ever be acceptable to you people'...?
Yeah, I think most people would argue that a higher cost would be fair, different stats (eg eliminating double-shoot) could make the current cost acceptable, and 1-per-army would be a band-aid to limit the collateral damage of an auto-take.
This really isn't super complicated. 50pts per model would make them still a very strong unit; at 60ppm they'd be on similar footing to most anti-tank platforms in the game.
Racerguy180 wrote: funny how I dont care if they're good or not(if you had read my post you'd know that). My Bloody Rose & Flawless Host dont care how good they are. My favorite adversary doesnt care how good they are.
The only reason people are complaining about them is in a tourney meta. why should that effect non-tourney metas?
still didnt answer what it would take to make them agreeable to you?
So how about instead of complaining about it, offer some real solutions to the (perceived) problem?
With the way certain loyalist subfactions can boost them into absurdity? Make them 60 PPM. Get rid of that stuff and 50 PPM might be fair. So you can still take them in your fun, non-competitive lists, you just have to pay a fair price for them. Cool?
First of all, I've played Salamanders since RT and didnt jump on the bandwagon.
Secondly, I havent even been able to play a game(9th or otherwise)w them yet. (oh and by the way, I'd take them if they sucked)
Thirdly, I would have no issue playing w a handicap in points, so if someone wanted to discuss about monoliths being too "expensive", no problem. would 5 extra cp for you be disagreeable? how bout another 120pts for you then? Are they that overpowered if you have more pts/cp? not everything has to be even.
See that's what grownups do, compromise.
Buddy, no one gives a single gak about what you and your group do in a clumsy attempt to make things more fair.
That doesn't excuse GW releasing undercosted and overpowered models, and your apologist nonsense for this multi-million dollar company and attempt to deflect criticisms of poor balance in a thread about balance is, to sanitize my language for the carebears on this site, silly.
I play Custodes (top three army in the game right now), and I'd play Custodes even if they were bad (and did). Who cares?
It's not even that I dislike the new marine codex. I think it's decent, got a lot of variety, and pretty much all of it is viable. Which is great.
Problem is that every other army doesn't have the same kind of codex. Not even close.
Yeah I agree. Some people will say that power creep is bad for the game, but when almost every codex has huge gaping holes in it that are dogshit and just a few competitively powerful options to skew towards, that isn't something to strive for. It's gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Yes of course, only those elite eldar players with their few rare units should be allowed to win tournaments. Heaven forbid someone buys two or three starter sets and gets a tournament worthy army out of it. How could one even rival the skill levels one had to achive playing a double dipping Inari army or a 6-7 flyers list.
And with majority of people playing marines, it is also the most natural thing for minority played armies to be always the OP ones. Nothing helps the game grow and be fun, then a minority bullying a majority.
Your victim complex is honestly out of this world my man.
No one said that the Eldar codices having OP units they could skew towards was ideal; ideally all units would be perfectly costed for their function and able to fulfill that function when used appropriately.
Your strawmanning bs is ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: Did one squad ever win the game? or was it spamming that's the issue? im pretty sure there is a huge difference between 1 squad and 6. so how is one squad OP, what makes them sooooo ridiculous? would you rather face 6 squads or just 1? If the possibility of taking 6 squads is the problem, the unit itself isnt OP, the ability to take that many would be the problem, which is a playstyle issue not a unit issue.
So how is the unit by itself OP? it that one single unit gonna win the game for you? they're fething 3 dudes, if 3 dudes win the game by themselves, then it is a unit issue.
If you guys are losing games due to a single unit, I really dont know what to tell you?
\
People take three because they are so efficiently-costed that there is no reason to take anything else in that slot and no better use of 120 points.
One squad might not be enough to win the game if you then spend 240 points on poo poo doo doo garbage. So you take two or three because there is legitimately no better use of the points most of the time.You max out on them because there is no other unit at least of its function that is most likely to enable you to win the game.
Your insistence that they are only showing up competitively in three groups of three (technically wrong I think some have placed with just two) isn't a refutation of their strength but an affirmation of it.
It's not about just that one unit but about how easily it does its job and slots into that role. A single squad of Eradicators doesn't have the power output of a Knight Castellan obviously. But a Castellan is also twice as expensive as three squads of Eradicators.
It's all about point efficiency, which you seem to have trouble grasping.
Racerguy180 wrote: well how you guys talk about gak being OP it sure sounds like like that's what it means.
Which is my point, if anything undercosted is automatically OP, then what is a fair cost then? 150pts, 200, 250? or would different stats make the current price ok? or a limit of 1 unit per army? let's get down to brass tracks, what would it take to make the unit acceptable(to your narrow window)?
how much value do you put in a stat line? what makes adding 10pts(or whatever) all of the sudden OK or 20pts and it's the worst unit in the game?
I don't think they need to change, if they do big deal. y'all just complain about the next slightly less OP unit. AND THE NEXT AND THE NEXT ad infinitum. until it's time to talk about how trash they are and need a points decrease.
Am I misunderstanding, or are you outright dismissing the idea that a unit overperforming for its cost makes it unbalanced, with a side of 'nothing will ever be acceptable to you people'...?
Yeah, I think most people would argue that a higher cost would be fair, different stats (eg eliminating double-shoot) could make the current cost acceptable, and 1-per-army would be a band-aid to limit the collateral damage of an auto-take.
This really isn't super complicated. 50pts per model would make them still a very strong unit; at 60ppm they'd be on similar footing to most anti-tank platforms in the game.
Or just remove double shoot and we're done.
what makes it overpreform for its cost? what is an appropriate performance level for a given units cost?
Racerguy180 wrote: well how you guys talk about gak being OP it sure sounds like like that's what it means.
Which is my point, if anything undercosted is automatically OP, then what is a fair cost then? 150pts, 200, 250? or would different stats make the current price ok? or a limit of 1 unit per army? let's get down to brass tracks, what would it take to make the unit acceptable(to your narrow window)?
how much value do you put in a stat line? what makes adding 10pts(or whatever) all of the sudden OK or 20pts and it's the worst unit in the game?
I don't think they need to change, if they do big deal. y'all just complain about the next slightly less OP unit. AND THE NEXT AND THE NEXT ad infinitum. until it's time to talk about how trash they are and need a points decrease.
Am I misunderstanding, or are you outright dismissing the idea that a unit overperforming for its cost makes it unbalanced, with a side of 'nothing will ever be acceptable to you people'...?
Yeah, I think most people would argue that a higher cost would be fair, different stats (eg eliminating double-shoot) could make the current cost acceptable, and 1-per-army would be a band-aid to limit the collateral damage of an auto-take.
This really isn't super complicated. 50pts per model would make them still a very strong unit; at 60ppm they'd be on similar footing to most anti-tank platforms in the game.
Or just remove double shoot and we're done.
what makes it overpreform for its cost? what is an appropriate performance level for a given units cost?
Can you name a single unit that performs a similar role as well as Eradicators, while still accounting for cost?
Because a unit should be balanced both externally (not significantly better or worse than other Codecs' units that fill a similar role) and internally (not significantly better or worse than other units in the same Codex that fill a similar role).
Which is not to say units should be identical-for instance, a glass cannon can be cheaper than a unit like Eradicators, even with the same damage output. Because they take less effort to remove. A Troops unit can be less durable than a similarly pointed Elites unit, because durable ObSec is more valuable than just plain old durable bodies.
The fact that its damage output is significantly higher than comparable, similar-cost competitors, without any attendant disadvantages in range, mobility, or durability to offset those capabilities.
As an objective metric: the fact that it regularly shows up in the maximum allowable quantity in tournament lists.
Racerguy180 wrote: what is an appropriate performance level for a given units cost?
The one that puts it on par with the median performance of the rest of the game.
I can't tell if you're genuinely unfamiliar with Eradicators and game balance or if this is some weird solipsism exercise where we're supposed to all nod our heads and accept that game balance has no meaning.
First of all, I've played Salamanders since RT and didnt jump on the bandwagon.
I feel your pain. I've been playing Ultras since they took 5th place in a 4 horse race during 2nd.
Ordana wrote: Take a Space Marine army using only 1 of each unit and play against any other army only take 1 of each unit (ignore troops if you think that changes anything) and tell me how it goes. I bet the Marine player gets to take a lot more 'good' units then whatever they are facing and they will likely handily win because of the plethora of good units in the current Space Marine arsenal compared to everyone else having only a handful in total in their codex.
Now compare the points costs. SM rarely get to take 1 of "everything" (even if "everything" means broad categories/abilities let alone literally one of every unit) in any list.
Question: Would it be reasonable to increase the power/efficiency of similar units in other books and call for a smaller increase (or even no increase) in eradicator points?
Eradicators are quite a bit better than my fire dragons, but I also don't feel that my fire dragons have been especially good at their job for a while now. Similarly, melta chosen, tankbusters, blaster/haywire scourges, etc. seem to generally be considered inefficient these days.
If all those units had their efficiency increased (by either increasing their abilities or lowering their cost) to match the efficiency of eradicators, would the game be better overall? Or are eradicators too good in general for their efficiency to be a desirable goalpost?
TLDR; are eradicators too good, or are they reasonable but also the only melta unit that does its job efficiently?
The only reason people are complaining about them is in a tourney meta. why should that effect non-tourney metas?
Of all the many wrong things you've said in this thread this is probably the most misguided. The problem with OP units extends way beyond top-level tournament play. I'd argue OP units can have a much greater effect on non-competitive metas and groups. If everyone's a cutthroat competitive player then they'll probably acknowledge units are OP while working to formulate a plan to deal with them. In some case units will be so OP that isn't possible and the only options are to take the OP thing yourself (this happened at the last LVO with the winning Iron Hands list) or hope you don't have to face something.
However, in more casual settings, the effect of OP units can be much worse for the game. OP units and Codices make the game miserable for people not using them because they make the game feel unfair if you don't have the counters (and sometimes there are no effective counters if units are extremely OP). The current SM Codex is like that. It's so much better than everything else that pretty much any reasonable army from it is likely to stomp all over an army from another Codex that hasn't been specifically tuned to compete against it. The same applies to units that are OP. In a more casual meta a unit that destroys whatever it points at that is also extremely tough for its cost is disheartening and not fun to play against for most people. This can push newer players away from the hobby if all they're going to do is lose all the time.
I've seen it happen with new players who choose, say, Necrons because they think they look cool and they love the idea of a resilient implacable host of automatons slowly advancing across the board. Their friend starts playing too and he chooses Space Marines. Then every single game, through no real fault of either player, the SM player wins because his Codex is simply massively more powerful than the Necron one. What's quite likely to happen is the Necron player gets disheartened not just at losing all the time but feeling like he has no chance to win at all while also being annoyed that the army doesn't really reflect the background either. In this scenario the SM player having a single unit of Eradicators is not in itself a game-breaking problem because single units rarely are. It is contributing to the overall problem and the only solution to that is for each individually OP unit to be better balanced.
Wyldhunt wrote: Question: Would it be reasonable to increase the power/efficiency of similar units in other books and call for a smaller increase (or even no increase) in eradicator points?
Eradicators are quite a bit better than my fire dragons, but I also don't feel that my fire dragons have been especially good at their job for a while now. Similarly, melta chosen, tankbusters, blaster/haywire scourges, etc. seem to generally be considered inefficient these days.
If all those units had their efficiency increased (by either increasing their abilities or lowering their cost) to match the efficiency of eradicators, would the game be better overall? Or are eradicators too good in general for their efficiency to be a desirable goalpost?
TLDR; are eradicators too good, or are they reasonable but also the only melta unit that does its job efficiently?
This is a pertinent question, the issue is that the 120 pt unit clears 200+ tanks too well, their defensive profile means they can actually take some punishment as well.
If you start giving fire dragons double tap etc. They're slagging tanks like it's nobodies business assuming they don't get a price hike, but when a unit of 6 fire dragons at w/e they cost start dropping knights reliably we have a disparity again.
The downside to these melta units should be a combination of short range, frailty and that they're wasted against infantry based armies. Eradicators skirt being too good at all of those.
TLDR; are eradicators too good, or are they reasonable but also the only melta unit that does its job efficiently?
Depends on if you like a King of the Mountain Last Man Standing on Turn 4 wins kind of battle, or a lower casualty more about goals, points, scoring etc type things.
Gettysburg was one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War with casualties of about 28%. If you're looking for that kind of "realism" then yeah they're probably over powered.
Or Tanks and vehicles are way way way too expensive. Freeman and Crandall made something like 36 flights between them into Ia Drang. A total of 59 or so Helicopters made who knows how many flights, only 4 were shot down.
In the Second Battle of El Alamein The Allies had 1029 tanks and 1,451 anti-tank guns. while the Axis forces had 547 tanks and 496 anti-tank guns while losing only 500 of them while the Allies lost 332 to 500 tanks. The Axis had more "Land Raiders" and "Eradicators" than the Allies had Predators, and still the Allies still only lost a third to a half of them. Some of that is the Allies had more "Eradicators" alone than the Axis had Land Raiders AND Eradicators, but they still didn't clear the field.
TLDR; are eradicators too good, or are they reasonable but also the only melta unit that does its job efficiently?
Depends on if you like a King of the Mountain Last Man Standing on Turn 4 wins kind of battle, or a lower casualty more about goals, points, scoring etc type things.
Gettysburg was one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War with casualties of about 28%. If you're looking for that kind of "realism" then yeah they're probably over powered.
Or Tanks and vehicles are way way way too expensive. Freeman and Crandall made something like 36 flights between them into Ia Drang. A total of 59 or so Helicopters made who knows how many flights, only 4 were shot down.
In the Second Battle of El Alamein The Allies had 1029 tanks and 1,451 anti-tank guns. while the Axis forces had 547 tanks and 496 anti-tank guns while losing only 500 of them while the Allies lost 332 to 500 tanks. The Axis had more "Land Raiders" and "Eradicators" than the Allies had Predators, and still the Allies still only lost a third to a half of them. Some of that is the Allies had more "Eradicators" alone than the Axis had Land Raiders AND Eradicators, but they still didn't clear the field.
Battles are NOT games are they????
If you are playing a GAME of 40K then most of the time most people use power or points to make sure they have roughly equal forces so they can have a good game.#
IF then you have a unit that its obviuously better than others and its equivalent then it damages the experience.
Its not rocket science and it does not matter if its a Wave Serpent, Riptide or a Eradicator. Overpowered units damage the game.
Again if you two are claiming that balance does not matter then WHY are you worried about changes to a single unit - WHY do you need that unit in your army at the level or power?
Again if you two are claiming that balance does not matter then WHY are you worried about changes to a single unit - WHY do you need that unit in your army at the level or power?
It boggles the mind how often I say things on here I've never said on here.
Breton wrote:
Depends on if you like a King of the Mountain Last Man Standing on Turn 4 wins kind of battle, or a lower casualty more about goals, points, scoring etc type things.
Gettysburg was one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War with casualties of about 28%. If you're looking for that kind of "realism" then yeah they're probably over powered.
Or Tanks and vehicles are way way way too expensive. Freeman and Crandall made something like 36 flights between them into Ia Drang. A total of 59 or so Helicopters made who knows how many flights, only 4 were shot down.
In the Second Battle of El Alamein The Allies had 1029 tanks and 1,451 anti-tank guns. while the Axis forces had 547 tanks and 496 anti-tank guns while losing only 500 of them while the Allies lost 332 to 500 tanks. The Axis had more "Land Raiders" and "Eradicators" than the Allies had Predators, and still the Allies still only lost a third to a half of them. Some of that is the Allies had more "Eradicators" alone than the Axis had Land Raiders AND Eradicators, but they still didn't clear the field.
Can you find the word balance in the text above? Can you find any comment on what the right balance is, aside from pointing out the "right balance" OF THE GAME OVERALL as THE QUESTION WAS ASKED depends on what kind of simulation and "casualty level" the player(s) are looking for?
Can you please point to the part where I or the guy I was replying to for that matter said balance doesn't matter?
Wyldhunt wrote:Question: Would it be reasonable to increase the power/efficiency of similar units in other books and call for a smaller increase (or even no increase) in eradicator points?
Eradicators are quite a bit better than my fire dragons, but I also don't feel that my fire dragons have been especially good at their job for a while now. Similarly, melta chosen, tankbusters, blaster/haywire scourges, etc. seem to generally be considered inefficient these days.
If all those units had their efficiency increased (by either increasing their abilities or lowering their cost) to match the efficiency of eradicators, would the game be better overall? Or are eradicators too good in general for their efficiency to be a desirable goalpost?
TLDR; are eradicators too good, or are they reasonable but also the only melta unit that does its job efficiently?
Asking if Eradicators are too strong or if everything else is too weak not only doesn't say Balance Doesn't Matter the very foundation is not only that balance matters, but asks where that balance should be.
Breton/Racer Maybe you could answer some straight questions?
IS the Eradicator a much much better unit than equivalents in other Codex - yes or no.
IS it a good or bad thing to have such units in the game?
Most importantly
WHY is it a bad thing to question if Units are too good (or too bad)?
Talking about real life battles in the context of game balance and rules is very very different to a game - its like disucssing medievil warfare and saying it relates to Chess.
In 40k we don't incorporate logistics, weather, overall army morale, tiredness, quality of army commander, confideence or lack of same by his or her officers or rank and file, the mainatiance and realiability of the machines and warriors, time of day.... etc etc
You can try and do this in a narrative based game but having a base rules structure that at least tries to be balanced is surely a good thing.
Mr Morden wrote: Breton/Racer Maybe you answer some straight questions?
You first? Where did I say balance didn't matter? And what the hell does Racer have to do with it? I replied to a person named Wyldhunt. I QUOTED a person named Wyldhunt, and did so in such a way it LITERALLY said "Wyldhunt wrote:"... Are you frothing so hard you didn't even read who or what you were replying do? Do you need to take a break? Maybe a little naptime?
IS the Eradicator a much much better unit than equivalents in other Codex - yes or no.
I'm not impressed with them, but I'm in the minority, and I acknowledge a lot of my dislike isn't balance based - I'm the one who asked the question about why everyone hyped them so hard in the first place.
IS it a good or bad thing to have such units in the game?
Most importantly
WHY is it a bad thing to question if Units are too good (or too bad)?
I do love straight questions like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and "When did you kick your cocaine habit?".
Your victim complex is honestly out of this world my man.
No one said that the Eldar codices having OP units they could skew towards was ideal; ideally all units would be perfectly costed for their function and able to fulfill that function when used appropriately.
Your strawmanning bs is ridiculous.
So the balancing is suppose to start now, when tau and eldar, who were much better then marines in the past, are having less fun. And the starting is not suppose to be made by making other armies better, but by making marines weaker. Just so when xeno players get their books they would double dip on power buffs, because not only would their books be made better, but also marines were made weaker. Yeah, I don't even play marines, I call bs on that. How about xeno player wait till they get their codex to have claims about power level of 9th, and then if those are unbalanced they can wait for a CA or FAQ to fix those problems. You know the way they were saying this to marine players in 8th.
Your victim complex is honestly out of this world my man.
No one said that the Eldar codices having OP units they could skew towards was ideal; ideally all units would be perfectly costed for their function and able to fulfill that function when used appropriately.
Your strawmanning bs is ridiculous.
So the balancing is suppose to start now, when tau and eldar, who were much better then marines in the past, are having less fun. And the starting is not suppose to be made by making other armies better, but by making marines weaker. Just so when xeno players get their books they would double dip on power buffs, because not only would their books be made better, but also marines were made weaker. Yeah, I don't even play marines, I call bs on that. How about xeno player wait till they get their codex to have claims about power level of 9th, and then if those are unbalanced they can wait for a CA or FAQ to fix those problems. You know the way they were saying this to marine players in 8th.
I understand the perspective Karol but you're too hard line on it, every army should have a chance at being top dog simultaneously. Marines being too good now isn't the fault of eldar players, nor a slight against them, indeed they may not be grwat in a months time for all we know.
Its better to achieve parity and equality ASAP, there doesn't always have to be an army that craps on the others.
So the balancing is suppose to start now, when tau and eldar, who were much better then marines in the past, are having less fun. And the starting is not suppose to be made by making other armies better, but by making marines weaker. Just so when xeno players get their books they would double dip on power buffs, because not only would their books be made better, but also marines were made weaker. Yeah, I don't even play marines, I call bs on that. How about xeno player wait till they get their codex to have claims about power level of 9th, and then if those are unbalanced they can wait for a CA or FAQ to fix those problems. You know the way they were saying this to marine players in 8th.
Again? Past mistakes do not justify current mistakes.
Your logic is flawed and it actually justifies having imbalances in the game.
Again? Past mistakes do not justify current mistakes.
But it does typify Human Nature. Sympathy for people suffering from the same thing they let you suffer from is in short supply.
Here is the thing the player's didnt set the point or codex imbalances GW did, plent of people who played both sides of that codex power band said GW did a bad job.
Karol's current attitude stinka of aww pure you, shut up and take it.
Expect that's exactly what won't happe people playing with 20 year old sculpts and kits that are so old and terrible they have more warping issues than Resin kits will walk away and new players won't bother to pick up those armies.
40k will become the new 30k it'll be all Power armour all the time, some people may like that and it might just be with GW ability to actually balance but once the people who have invested in these xeno armies go you'll have nothing else but marines to play.
Karol's current attitude stinka of aww pure you, shut up and take it.
Expect that's exactly what won't happe people playing with 20 year old sculpts and kits that are so old and terrible they have more warping issues than Resin kits will walk away and new players won't bother to pick up those armies.
40k will become the new 30k it'll be all Power armour all the time, some people may like that and it might just be with GW ability to actually balance but once the people who have invested in these xeno armies go you'll have nothing else but marines to play.
"Its different when I do it or it happens to me" doesn't generate a lot of sympathy either. Balance would be lovely. Expecting people to have a whole lot of sympathy for people who told SM players to suck it up and learn2play when Marines sucked - or worse told Marine players their armies deserved to suck because GW gave them all the cool models - well, I wouldn't hold my breath. Now you could say Karol should think further ahead, and realize the sucky army today will be the power house tomorrow who could support his complaints to GW, or tell him to learn2play again. As for me, I've seen too many GW cycles to worry if Marines go in the tank again for a year or two, and too much human nature to expect the people who don't care about Marine armies to care when it does. There's plenty of time for all kinds of long views.
So the balancing is suppose to start now, when tau and eldar, who were much better then marines in the past, are having less fun. And the starting is not suppose to be made by making other armies better, but by making marines weaker. Just so when xeno players get their books they would double dip on power buffs, because not only would their books be made better, but also marines were made weaker. Yeah, I don't even play marines, I call bs on that. How about xeno player wait till they get their codex to have claims about power level of 9th, and then if those are unbalanced they can wait for a CA or FAQ to fix those problems. You know the way they were saying this to marine players in 8th.
No, the balancing is supposed to start whenever there is an imbalance. You know that, but because your army is currently on the top arc of the pendulum, you dont care and would rather gak on anyone who you can now look down on.
How about you stop being a complete narcissist and realize that maybe, just maybe, your poster army steamrolling everyone and everything isnt an ideal state for the game to be in?
Sterling191 wrote:No, the balancing is supposed to start whenever there is an imbalance. You know that, but because your army is currently on the top arc of the pendulum, you dont care and would rather gak on anyone who you can now look down on.
How about you stop being a complete narcissist and realize that maybe, just maybe, your poster army steamrolling everyone and everything isnt an ideal state for the game to be in?
Karol doesn't play SM, he plays GK. Which are not the "top dogs" by any stretch. Also they can't take eradicators.
Karol is a troll and it is high time we stop engaging with his troll posts. Ignore him entirely or only engage with him when he makes a reasonable point. He's just poking people where he knows he'll get a reaction.
vict0988 wrote: Karol is a troll and it is high time we stop engaging with his troll posts. Ignore him entirely or only engage with him when he makes a reasonable point. He's just poking people where he knows he'll get a reaction.
Anyone mentioning anything pro-marine on here will get heckled, I understand why they are frustrated but if someone posts "I really like new eldar releases" they'll get a pat on the back. Post "I'm looking forwards to a blood angels supplement" and you'll get raged at endlessly.
This thread is an excellent microcosm for one of the reasons why people are actually mad at Marine dominance and prevalence.
It's not that they are overwhelmingly powerful for a large swathe of factions to deal with, or that they're far too common on the tabletop and so you get burned out on facing them. It's that there's a significant portion of the LSM playerbase that just refuses to believe there is an issue with the army and will not only refuse to acknowledge imbalance but will try and argue in the opposite direction. I have legitimately seen people arguing (not so much on Dakka to be fair) that Salamanders and Iron Hands are not overpowered but that they're actually bad armies. This is despite both of them ripping through the tournament scene at the moment. Even discounting empirical evidence you can understand how strong the armies are just through stats and mathhammering.
But there's a significant part of the LSM playerbase that just outright refuses to understand the problem or even acknowledge there is one.
I never saw Craftworld players in 8th saying Altaioc Flyers or Ynnari Spears/Reapers were underpowered units. At most they would point to the rest of the Codex being sub-optimal and wanting to rely on the broken gak in order to win games and they might try and offer counterplay ideas. Same with Drukhari players and mass Venom, Grotesque and Talos spam, and triple Dissy Ravagers. Everyone acknowledged they were good and tournament results reflected that.
The current situation with Space Marines is unique in recent memory because you have OVERWHELMING empirical evidence of Marines being dominant and opinions from top-tier incredibly skilled players stating again and again and again that the army needs a redesign somehow. You have 3x3 Eradicators showing up in every single top list and absolutely crushing everything. And yet here we are. People in this thread trying to somehow argue that Marines are not dominant and not even wanting to maybe consider that there might be a problem with Eradicators or the Codex and its supplements in general.
It's absurd. This is actually why there's so much backlash against Marines. Because of people like this.
Bosskelot wrote: This thread is an excellent microcosm for one of the reasons why people are actually mad at Marine dominance and prevalence.
It's not that they are overwhelmingly powerful for a large swathe of factions to deal with, or that they're far too common on the tabletop and so you get burned out on facing them. It's that there's a significant portion of the LSM playerbase that just refuses to believe there is an issue with the army and will not only refuse to acknowledge imbalance but will try and argue in the opposite direction. I have legitimately seen people arguing (not so much on Dakka to be fair) that Salamanders and Iron Hands are not overpowered but that they're actually bad armies. This is despite both of them ripping through the tournament scene at the moment. Even discounting empirical evidence you can understand how strong the armies are just through stats and mathhammering.
But there's a significant part of the LSM playerbase that just outright refuses to understand the problem or even acknowledge there is one.
I never saw Craftworld players in 8th saying Altaioc Flyers or Ynnari Spears/Reapers were underpowered units. At most they would point to the rest of the Codex being sub-optimal and wanting to rely on the broken gak in order to win games and they might try and offer counterplay ideas. Same with Drukhari players and mass Venom, Grotesque and Talos spam, and triple Dissy Ravagers. Everyone acknowledged they were good and tournament results reflected that.
The current situation with Space Marines is unique in recent memory because you have OVERWHELMING empirical evidence of Marines being dominant and opinions from top-tier incredibly skilled players stating again and again and again that the army needs a redesign somehow. You have 3x3 Eradicators showing up in every single top list and absolutely crushing everything. And yet here we are. People in this thread trying to somehow argue that Marines are not dominant and not even wanting to maybe consider that there might be a problem with Eradicators or the Codex and its supplements in general.
It's absurd. This is actually why there's so much backlash against Marines. Because of people like this.
Nailed it. And it's crazy the persecution complex that this has created among Marines players too. I won't name names but the usual suspects are certainly out in force in this thread. Yeah, there are definitely people on Dakka that go too far in their statements about Marines players and we've seen some nutso melodramatic threads here about boycotts. But the answer to melodrama is not more melodrama; that certainly doesn't endear me to the plight of the Marines player.
It really is a shame -- there basically isn't anywhere else on the internet that *talks about 40k the game* like Dakka does as a large, broad community (I guess B&C, but again it's still through a Marines-focused lens), so if one were to take a break from here, then one misses out on that. But boy... it's not the community it once was. Maybe I'm just looking through rose-colored lenses but it seems a shame.
vict0988 wrote: Karol is a troll and it is high time we stop engaging with his troll posts. Ignore him entirely or only engage with him when he makes a reasonable point. He's just poking people where he knows he'll get a reaction.
Anyone mentioning anything pro-marine on here will get heckled, I understand why they are frustrated but if someone posts "I really like new eldar releases" they'll get a pat on the back. Post "I'm looking forwards to a blood angels supplement" and you'll get raged at endlessly.
"
Where were you in 7th? There was a campaign to stop playing against Eldar players LMAO.
Karol doesn't play SM, he plays GK. Which are not the "top dogs" by any stretch. Also they can't take eradicators.
You've not only completely missed the point, you've also managed to grossly misrepresent my statement at the same time. Well done!
Karol plays an army that went from being garbage tier for almost an entire edition, to one of the strongest in the PA-era of 8th edition. 9th has been a mixed bag for that army, but its still vastly overperforming a significant number of others. So what does that particular player do? Lord it over the armies that he can now dominate, while simultaneously arguing that they should be forced to suffer the same way he did.
That's not good for anyone involved.
Eradicators being a smoking crater of brokenness is irrelevant to this particular ball of vitriol and toxicity. But you go on and defend him because his army cant take that unit. Great example to be setting for both internal balance and basic civility.
vict0988 wrote: Karol is a troll and it is high time we stop engaging with his troll posts. Ignore him entirely or only engage with him when he makes a reasonable point. He's just poking people where he knows he'll get a reaction.
Anyone mentioning anything pro-marine on here will get heckled, I understand why they are frustrated but if someone posts "I really like new eldar releases" they'll get a pat on the back. Post "I'm looking forwards to a blood angels supplement" and you'll get raged at endlessly.
"
Where were you in 7th? There was a campaign to stop playing against Eldar players LMAO.
Doesn't have to be eldar, any none marine faction really.
And people still complain about csm 3.5 and R&H Malefic Lords.... the list could go on. No, definitely not just a Loyalist Dogs thing. Just them now because they're the faction with the most "problem" units. If something else becomes an issue I'm sure it will get plenty of attention.
Anyone mentioning anything pro-marine on here will get heckled, I understand why they are frustrated but if someone posts "I really like new eldar releases" they'll get a pat on the back. Post "I'm looking forwards to a blood angels supplement" and you'll get raged at endlessly.
What eldar releases? Do you mean codex/supplements that everyone got?
Because books is basically what aeldari players got in the last X years, barring a handful of models (mostly updated kits of already existing units). So yeah, give them their right to like those "releases" at least
Anyone mentioning anything pro-marine on here will get heckled, I understand why they are frustrated but if someone posts "I really like new eldar releases" they'll get a pat on the back. Post "I'm looking forwards to a blood angels supplement" and you'll get raged at endlessly.
What eldar releases? Do you mean codex/supplements that everyone got?
Because books is basically what aeldari players got in the last X years, barring a handful of models (mostly updated kits of already existing units). So yeah, give them their right to like those "releases" at least
I wouldn't take their right to enjoy releases away, but they've as much right to enjoy a release as a blood angels player. Guess which one would get immediately attacked on these boards though.
Anyone mentioning anything pro-marine on here will get heckled, I understand why they are frustrated but if someone posts "I really like new eldar releases" they'll get a pat on the back. Post "I'm looking forwards to a blood angels supplement" and you'll get raged at endlessly.
What eldar releases? Do you mean codex/supplements that everyone got?
Because books is basically what aeldari players got in the last X years, barring a handful of models (mostly updated kits of already existing units). So yeah, give them their right to like those "releases" at least
I wouldn't take their right to enjoy releases away, but they've as much right to enjoy a release as a blood angels player. Guess which one would get immediately attacked on these boards though.
Neither.
It's not the players, by and large, that are being attacked. It's GW for releasing such garbage balance.
If a player says "I can't wait to crush new players with these OP units!" then yeah, they're a jerkwad, but if they're more along the lines of "Oh, sweet! New models! Hope they look cool," then that's fine.
Anyone mentioning anything pro-marine on here will get heckled, I understand why they are frustrated but if someone posts "I really like new eldar releases" they'll get a pat on the back. Post "I'm looking forwards to a blood angels supplement" and you'll get raged at endlessly.
What eldar releases? Do you mean codex/supplements that everyone got?
Because books is basically what aeldari players got in the last X years, barring a handful of models (mostly updated kits of already existing units). So yeah, give them their right to like those "releases" at least
I wouldn't take their right to enjoy releases away, but they've as much right to enjoy a release as a blood angels player. Guess which one would get immediately attacked on these boards though.
Neither.
It's not the players, by and large, that are being attacked. It's GW for releasing such garbage balance.
If a player says "I can't wait to crush new players with these OP units!" then yeah, they're a jerkwad, but if they're more along the lines of "Oh, sweet! New models! Hope they look cool," then that's fine.
I still remember people being slammed with "shill", "marine sympathiser" and good old "white knight" because they dared to like some of the new stuff last time. Let's see what the new coddx and supplements bring.
I do accept gw is often the cause of the ire, but to poor timmy who wanted to talk about how cool it was his new winged dreadnought was that had fly. To be hit with a slew of ban marines, oh yay another unit to beat my npc faction with etc. Type comments, it must be draining.
Anyone mentioning anything pro-marine on here will get heckled, I understand why they are frustrated but if someone posts "I really like new eldar releases" they'll get a pat on the back. Post "I'm looking forwards to a blood angels supplement" and you'll get raged at endlessly.
What eldar releases? Do you mean codex/supplements that everyone got?
Because books is basically what aeldari players got in the last X years, barring a handful of models (mostly updated kits of already existing units). So yeah, give them their right to like those "releases" at least
I wouldn't take their right to enjoy releases away, but they've as much right to enjoy a release as a blood angels player. Guess which one would get immediately attacked on these boards though.
Neither.
It's not the players, by and large, that are being attacked. It's GW for releasing such garbage balance.
If a player says "I can't wait to crush new players with these OP units!" then yeah, they're a jerkwad, but if they're more along the lines of "Oh, sweet! New models! Hope they look cool," then that's fine.
I still remember people being slammed with "shill", "marine sympathiser" and good old "white knight" because they dared to like some of the new stuff last time. Let's see what the new coddx and supplements bring.
I do accept gw is often the cause of the ire, but to poor timmy who wanted to talk about how cool it was his new winged dreadnought was that had fly. To be hit with a slew of ban marines, oh yay another unit to beat my npc faction with etc. Type comments, it must be draining.
Nailed it. And it's crazy the persecution complex that this has created among Marines players too. I won't name names but the usual suspects are certainly out in force in this thread. Yeah, there are definitely people on Dakka that go too far in their statements about Marines players and we've seen some nutso melodramatic threads here about boycotts. But the answer to melodrama is not more melodrama; that certainly doesn't endear me to the plight of the Marines player.
It really is a shame -- there basically isn't anywhere else on the internet that *talks about 40k the game* like Dakka does as a large, broad community (I guess B&C, but again it's still through a Marines-focused lens), so if one were to take a break from here, then one misses out on that. But boy... it's not the community it once was. Maybe I'm just looking through rose-colored lenses but it seems a shame.
I actualy remember 8th, and after every supposed nerf, eldar players were saying that now their army was fixed. Only it was never fixed, mass reapers procing off flocks of DE birds. Gone and Inari were suppose to be fixed. Rule of 3, were suppose to be fixed. Double dipping on stratagems, and again same thing. This is no persecution this is just remember how it was.
Same with advice given to marine players. Just play this one specific tournament lists in casual games and you are good. Ultramarine build won one tournament in Australia, guess marines are good. Never mind you are playing DA or SW.
We don't even have the marine codex or even the slightest idea what is in the necron or further books, and people are crazy enough to ask for deep marine nerfs. After an edition when marines were bad for most of the time. I get people asking for their armies being buffed. Armies should be buffed, and asking for nerfs out of spite , or worse because they think their faction is the one that should be on the top is an evil thing to do.
My only friend quit because of the anti IH hate. Started them at the start of 8th, full primaris army out of two dark empires. And over night he was turned in to the scaped goat of WAAC behaviour, by people who didn't mind tabling him for 2+ years. Worse I noticed that this wasn't a my store only thing. The whole world acted like that. Eldar players that had been dominating for years, suddenly couldn't live in a world where at the very end of an edition some other army was better. It tought me a lot about w40k and game balance in practic. No one cares about real balance, only about their factions being good, and it is better to have a fun and good set of rules, then a bad one. And people are willing to have a good set, over other people having their nerfed.
So in the end it is better to enjoy the time an army is fun, because waiting for it being good again can take years.
I also want to see tau or eldar players acting when their books come out. Wonder what happens if those are better then marines right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sterling191 791574 10918843 wrote:
No, the balancing is supposed to start whenever there is an imbalance. You know that, but because your army is currently on the top arc of the pendulum, you dont care and would rather gak on anyone who you can now look down on.
How about you stop being a complete narcissist and realize that maybe, just maybe, your poster army steamrolling everyone and everything isnt an ideal state for the game to be in?
I play GK. I have no access to any of the units or rules that make marines good right now. I am not steam rolling anyone, although comparing to 8, which was horrible by the way for a termintor GK army, 9th is fun for me. Hey GW even decided to add a core rule that screws my army over, because it gives a free minor by virtue of every model being a psyker.
I actualy remember 8th, and after every supposed nerf, eldar players were saying that now their army was fixed. Only it was never fixed, mass reapers procing off flocks of DE birds. Gone and Inari were suppose to be fixed. Rule of 3, were suppose to be fixed. Double dipping on stratagems, and again same thing. This is no persecution this is just remember how it was.
I mean, you list 'fixes' for four different armies there, and label them all under "problem Eldar players". Even though most of these things only affected a small subset of a small subset of people who play 'Eldar'.
Rule of 3 wasn't even really an Eldar thing, though it did affect them, as for a lot of 7th and 8th they only had 3 or 4 units that were actually 'good', and so spamming them was the easiest way to make a strong army.
Also, after "every supposed nerf", you're saying Eldar still isn't 'fixed'? Craftworlds is by far the weakest its ever been, with hardly any units actually competitively viable. All the things that made them viable have been removed, with nothing to replace it. Dark Eldar are bottom tier. Ynnari are -below- bottom tier, dwelling in some sub-basement somewhere, putting lotion on its skin or else it gets the nerf-hose again.
In fact the only Eldar army you didn't even mention, is the only one that's actually still good. It's also the only one that still feels like an 'Eldar' army.
People aren't annoyed with Marines because they have one or two strong units that can be spammed in tournament lists (which is the only thing that made Eldar "overpowered" before, those one or two units that were broken and spammable, as the rest of the book was average at best). People are annoyed because even the worst Marine units are better than most things other armies can put on the table. The average marine unit is becoming a force to be reckoned with.
If every army ends up in the same place... well that would be great. But it's also 12-36 months before we will know this. And going by the Necron codex (which is a lot weaker, so far, than the Marine one) it's not looking good.
So people are annoyed. Cos they want to play fun games with a variety of armies. But they would still like to win. And to win, right now, you need to wear power armour.
(My own view on this, is actually that while Marines is very very strong right now, the bigger winners of these changes will be Chaos. But Chaos don't get things like Eradicators, so maybe that will balance out.)
I actualy remember 8th, and after every supposed nerf, eldar players were saying that now their army was fixed. Only it was never fixed, mass reapers procing off flocks of DE birds. Gone and Inari were suppose to be fixed. Rule of 3, were suppose to be fixed. Double dipping on stratagems, and again same thing. This is no persecution this is just remember how it was.
I mean, you list 'fixes' for four different armies there, and label them all under "problem Eldar players". Even though most of these things only affected a small subset of a small subset of people who play 'Eldar'.
in fairness that's not unique here. I can't remember how often I've heard people act like iron hands, space wolves dark angels and even grey knights and custodes are "the same thing!"
It really is a shame -- there basically isn't anywhere else on the internet that *talks about 40k the game* like Dakka does as a large, broad community (I guess B&C, but again it's still through a Marines-focused lens), so if one were to take a break from here, then one misses out on that. But boy... it's not the community it once was. Maybe I'm just looking through rose-colored lenses but it seems a shame.
there are a few discords out there that manage to discuss the game, while also not being a endless pit of negativity. but I agree DakkaDakka is NOT what it once was, the hyperbolic negativity tends to drown everything out.
Its a combination of power, the seemingly endless deluge of releases, and just raw comparisons.
In Dark Eldar world - if Lelith gets a 2 damage bump then she might be quite interesting. Still probably in worst cult - but you can get round that. But Jain Zar is standing right there looking obsolete so my faith isn't great. On the other hand Drazar did get a bump so... who knows?
in fairness that's not unique here. I can't remember how often I've heard people act like iron hands, space wolves dark angels and even grey knights and custodes are "the same thing!"
Oh I agree. It certainly happens both ways. I wouldn't have included grey knights or custodes in that list, but the others do get lumped together a lot. But then when it comes to -units- (rather than traits) being overpowered, it's fairer for the legions that all get access to those units to be lumped together.
Tyel wrote:Its a combination of power, the seemingly endless deluge of releases, and just raw comparisons.
In Dark Eldar world - if Lelith gets a 2 damage bump then she might be quite interesting. Still probably in worst cult - but you can get round that. But Jain Zar is standing right there looking obsolete so my faith isn't great. On the other hand Drazar did get a bump so... who knows?
I mean, Phoenix Lords are some of the worst units (for their points) in the game, and they have been for as long as I can remember. I suspect the reason for this is that GW have no interest in remaking the sculpts, and so they just throw down some basic rules and heap on a high points cost, so they know for sure they wont get played. Means they can just forget about them for an entire edition (or 4-5 editions, so far, and counting).
Problem is, this is the same thing they do with a lot of Eldar units. They take the rules that made them good (like advancing, remember that), give them out to everyone, but then don't reduce the points cost of the unit to compensate. This is why Eldar currently pay space marine prices, for guardsman defence profiles.
Well, we did get a new Jain Zar within the last year, so I'm hopeful that we'll see additional Phoenix Lord resculpts over the next few years.
The PLs just feel like no one has really give them a proper review in over a decade. Most of them don't have invuls, for instance. Which wasn't that big a deal when most weapons couldn't reduce or remove a 2+ armor save and you could hide the phoenix lord inside a squad of ablative wounds. But obviously that's no longer the case.
Right now, they're all hovering around 100 points, hit with less oomph than an optimized marine captain, and have buff auras that are roughly comparable to a captain's (but generally only work on a single type of unit). Which just... isn't all that useful.
I used to love running Baharroth because he gave my swooping hawks hit & run, chipped in an extra grenade pack, and (at one point) could even make enemies only hit on 6's. His squad of hawks behaved differently than they did without him. Now, he's basically a power sword jump captain whose buff only works on one type of unit (and not on himself oddly enough) and who ocassionally manages to toss out a couple cheeky mortal wounds instead of having an invul save.
I'd prefer he be roughly as powerful (and expensive) as one of the named marine characters (thinking chapter masters) and cost comparable points. Let PLs be the Shrikes and Calgars and Vulkan He'Stans of the craftworlders.
It's not the players, by and large, that are being attacked. It's GW for releasing such garbage balance.
.
Scroll up a couple posts to see non-marine players blame marine players for A) Not getting much sympathy when Marines were bad, and B) Earning the enmity they're getting now that Marines are good.
Am I the only person on the planet that plays more than one army? Seriously, some of the SM defenders act like everyone is locked into their armies and that they could never possibly understand that struggles of a marine player. I play 12 armies because I have been playing for 20+ years, including SM.
How is it hard to understand that people are getting annoyed by the constant stream of SM releases topped by the best codex in the game generally. Eldar have models that have been around longer than a good deal of the players in the game but SM are getting their entire line updated to "Primaris" status.
I completely agree that Eradicators punch way above their point cost which is plainly evident if you compare them to any other melta based unti. The argument that they are the new norm for melta units is a joke because it is not the norm until the majority of the units in the game reach that level, not if it is just the one.
If by some miracle Necrons do come out at the same level as SM when they get their codex that means that we are looking at a pretty cool edition once everyone gets a codex. Which could take up to three years. Which could also suffer from power creep that is inevitable in all things GW leading to SM becoming garbage until they get a 2.0 codex about halfway through the edition, but of course Necrons wont get any kind of update in the same vein.
I know their is a joke thread out there right now talking about Assault Intercessors but in my experience they also punch WAY above their point cost. I ran a group of 5 Assault Intercessors into a group of 4 GK Paladins and won handily, hitting 2+ saves with model with a high number of -2AP attacks coupled with SM's ease of access to rerolls is just insane.
So the balancing is suppose to start now, when tau and eldar, who were much better then marines in the past, are having less fun.
Ideally it would have started when the game was first created and been preserved forever, or at least when eighth edition started. Balance should start now because as far as I know no one has a time machine with which they can retroactively make earlier game states more balanced. So it should start now because now is the only time we have available to us to make it balanced.
So that's the first claim you put in my mouth.
And the starting is not suppose to be made by making other armies better, but by making marines weaker.
On the contrary, generally I'd prefer weaker books to get elevated to a level more on par with the Marines codex so they too can have a relative wealth of options with many viable picks instead of having to rely on one or two units.
Second claim you put in my mouth.
Just so when xeno players get their books they would double dip on power buffs, because not only would their books be made better, but also marines were made weaker.
Even if that is true, your presuming that relative parity can not be achieved this way when, frankly, this is not the case.
Yeah, I don't even play marines, I call bs on that. How about xeno player wait till they get their codex to have claims about power level of 9th, and then if those are unbalanced they can wait for a CA or FAQ to fix those problems. You know the way they were saying this to marine players in 8th.
You could also just see a therapist to work out your inferiority complex towards xenos players my man.
"Its different when I do it or it happens to me" doesn't generate a lot of sympathy either. Balance would be lovely. Expecting people to have a whole lot of sympathy for people who told SM players to suck it up and learn2play when Marines sucked - or worse told Marine players their armies deserved to suck because GW gave them all the cool models - well, I wouldn't hold my breath. Now you could say Karol should think further ahead, and realize the sucky army today will be the power house tomorrow who could support his complaints to GW, or tell him to learn2play again. As for me, I've seen too many GW cycles to worry if Marines go in the tank again for a year or two, and too much human nature to expect the people who don't care about Marine armies to care when it does. There's plenty of time for all kinds of long views.
Stop validating his whiny garbage, he assumes everyone is a xenos player.
Guess what? The only xenos army I've played in years except for a very recent Harlequins game (and Harlies are doing awesome right now) are Necrons, who were among the worst armies in eighth edition and unlike his precious Grey Knights never actually received buffs to make them good. Other armies I play? Custodes (also amazing right now), mono-Chaos Daemons, Thousand Sons, and... Grey Knights, his army of choice. But this dude is still rolling up on me with his anti-xenos spiteful bslol.
Engaging with Karol on anything eldar related is just tiresome.
He should draw some satisfaction that Richard siegler, arguably the best competitive player in the world, chose grey knights over custodes as one of his three armies in the art of war streamhouse RTT featuring four really top tier players. Considering how good custodes are I don't think grey knights players have anything to worry about. He can go crush eldar and t'au players while they wait for a new codex.
Argive wrote: There are no winners here today friend..
Actually there are , the gw Arms Dealer allways wins.
Touche....
Frustration is a buisness model after all in the gaming industry, not to mention that GW can conveniently spread out earnings over all quartals by selling rules piecemeal.
the only real losers are all the players, especially those that get a dex either early or late, in general.
Well those and SM players which at this point should be rebranded as Cashcowmarines.
I do not think custodes are VERY good. They are much better than they were, but they aren't winning tournies and against very competitive lists I have only seen defeats.
Frustration is a buisness model after all in the gaming industry, not to mention that GW can conveniently spread out earnings over all quartals by selling rules piecemeal.
the only real losers are all the players, especially those that get a dex either early or late, in general.
Well those and SM players which at this point should be rebranded as Cashcowmarines.
From my understanding of MtG, GW is moving in their direction. The amount of rule releases seems to have gone up a lot.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: Am I the only person on the planet that plays more than one army? Seriously, some of the SM defenders act like everyone is locked into their armies and that they could never possibly understand that struggles of a marine player. I play 12 armies because I have been playing for 20+ years, including SM.
Its forum wars. There are people who have seemingly decided they were faction "X" 5-20 years ago, and that means they are faction "X" forever, they'll never buy any more models or do anything else but complain about it on the internet.
I'm pretty happy to say i whinged when Marines were rubbish, and I'm whinging when marines are ludicrously overpowered. 7th edition Ynnari rules should never have existed, Alaitoc should have gone in the first CA, and the whole consequent direction of CWE the last few years should have been different.
When were eldar not OP, I know only 8th, but from stories told, it looks like they were breaking 7th and 6th ed real well too, and were much more balanced in prior editions too.
Ideally it would have started when the game was first created and been preserved forever, or at least when eighth edition started. Balance should start now because as far as I know no one has a time machine with which they can retroactively make earlier game states more balanced. So it should start now because now is the only time we have available to us to make it balanced.
So that's the first claim you put in my mouth.
And balance is starting now. The new sm are the new normal and balanced. If there are weaker armies, then they should be brought up to the level. The idea that to get balance the good stuff has to be destroyed first is stupid. It as if in sports someone who isn't the top contender asked for those that are to have their legs broken just to make things fair.
But history and past do matter. I have my sympathy for an orc player right now, but I have zero for a tau/eldar one. Specialy if they try to high horse and make the balance some sort of moral issue. Which it clearly is not.
On the contrary, generally I'd prefer weaker books to get elevated to a level more on par with the Marines codex so they too can have a relative wealth of options with many viable picks instead of having to rely on one or two units.
GW has three modes. It has changes that don't fix or change anything mode. I doubt people are asking for those regarding marines. They have the buff mode, which I don't think they are asking for either. And they have the kill mode, the way they fixed castellans, BA jump lists, dakka tyrant lists, Inari with their WD codex etc. So yeah asking for changes to a book someone does not use, is asking for their army to be nerfed. Unless this is some sort of magical thing where GW after 8 editions of writing rules decides to write them totaly different in that balanced manner, which to me ends in one way. The DA and GK codex when they came out were called balanced too, and it only ment they turned bad real fast. On the other hand an OP codex like the eldar one lasted almost a whole edition, as a best codex, and was a good codex to the very end of 8th.
Even if that is true, your presuming that relative parity can not be achieved this way when, frankly, this is not the case.
So what are you asking for, all codex coming out at the same time? That won't happen. Codex designed a year later, by different people, for faction testers, designers , sells departaments care in different ways to have the same level. I mean that is like me wishing to not be autistic or having blue eyes.
You could also just see a therapist to work out your inferiority complex towards xenos players my man.
My therapists has much bigger problems, but when I started w40k he actualy okeyed it. But good job making fun at someone with mental problems. Very classy.
Nailed it. And it's crazy the persecution complex that this has created among Marines players too. I won't name names but the usual suspects are certainly out in force in this thread. Yeah, there are definitely people on Dakka that go too far in their statements about Marines players and we've seen some nutso melodramatic threads here about boycotts. But the answer to melodrama is not more melodrama; that certainly doesn't endear me to the plight of the Marines player.
It really is a shame -- there basically isn't anywhere else on the internet that *talks about 40k the game* like Dakka does as a large, broad community (I guess B&C, but again it's still through a Marines-focused lens), so if one were to take a break from here, then one misses out on that. But boy... it's not the community it once was. Maybe I'm just looking through rose-colored lenses but it seems a shame.
I actualy remember 8th, and after every supposed nerf, eldar players were saying that now their army was fixed. Only it was never fixed, mass reapers procing off flocks of DE birds. Gone and Inari were suppose to be fixed. Rule of 3, were suppose to be fixed. Double dipping on stratagems, and again same thing. This is no persecution this is just remember how it was.
Same with advice given to marine players. Just play this one specific tournament lists in casual games and you are good. Ultramarine build won one tournament in Australia, guess marines are good. Never mind you are playing DA or SW.
We don't even have the marine codex or even the slightest idea what is in the necron or further books, and people are crazy enough to ask for deep marine nerfs. After an edition when marines were bad for most of the time. I get people asking for their armies being buffed. Armies should be buffed, and asking for nerfs out of spite , or worse because they think their faction is the one that should be on the top is an evil thing to do.
My only friend quit because of the anti IH hate. Started them at the start of 8th, full primaris army out of two dark empires. And over night he was turned in to the scaped goat of WAAC behaviour, by people who didn't mind tabling him for 2+ years. Worse I noticed that this wasn't a my store only thing. The whole world acted like that. Eldar players that had been dominating for years, suddenly couldn't live in a world where at the very end of an edition some other army was better. It tought me a lot about w40k and game balance in practic. No one cares about real balance, only about their factions being good, and it is better to have a fun and good set of rules, then a bad one. And people are willing to have a good set, over other people having their nerfed.
So in the end it is better to enjoy the time an army is fun, because waiting for it being good again can take years.
I also want to see tau or eldar players acting when their books come out. Wonder what happens if those are better then marines right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sterling191 791574 10918843 wrote:
No, the balancing is supposed to start whenever there is an imbalance. You know that, but because your army is currently on the top arc of the pendulum, you dont care and would rather gak on anyone who you can now look down on.
How about you stop being a complete narcissist and realize that maybe, just maybe, your poster army steamrolling everyone and everything isnt an ideal state for the game to be in?
I play GK. I have no access to any of the units or rules that make marines good right now. I am not steam rolling anyone, although comparing to 8, which was horrible by the way for a termintor GK army, 9th is fun for me. Hey GW even decided to add a core rule that screws my army over, because it gives a free minor by virtue of every model being a psyker.
Except everything you listed ended up being fixed...
Dark reapers are still costed as if they could fire multiple times per turn.
Ynnari basically got destroyed.
How was rules of 3 put in the game because of eldar?
Double dipping on stratagems? What does that mean?
Again, you miss the point and focus on your eldar hatred.
The army doesnt matter, the balance does. When eldars were op, i was one of the people complaining about it even if i play the army myself.
There shouldnt be OP or unplayable armies in the game, you should know, you spent an entire edition crying about how your GK were gak.
Look at youself, you became the exact type of toxic player you were complaining about before.
EDIT:
Why does it matter if eldar were OP in past editions? GK also were in the past. Its a brand new edition, now is the perfect time to balance everything from the start.
Personally i just want balance, wheter that means nerfing SM or buffing everything else to their level (which i would prefer since theyre the only army that can actually play fluffy lists and still compete) doesnt matter, only the result does.
Oh and your therapist clearly didnt know who you were going to play 40k with because these people fethed you up big time with their toxicity.
Karol wrote: And balance is starting now. The new sm are the new normal and balanced. If there are weaker armies, then they should be brought up to the level. The idea that to get balance the good stuff has to be destroyed first is stupid. It as if in sports someone who isn't the top contender asked for those that are to have their legs broken just to make things fair.
The problem with always buffing is lethality.
If Eradicators are the new normal then everything becomes so lethal the game is over in 2 shooting phases and whoever shoots first wins. That has already been a problem repeatedly throughout the game.
They had a make a basic Custodes t5 3w 2+/4++ just to be able to put out an army that actually fills the 'small elite force' without it being shot off the table in 1 turn (and even then I have run into plenty of armies that could cripple 9 bikes in 1 turn of shooting).
More lethal is often not better. So lets bring down the outliers to a more healthy level where battles actually last 5 turns with something left on the table and then buff what is below that.
My therapists has much bigger problems, but when I started w40k he actualy okeyed it. But good job making fun at someone with mental problems. Very classy.
Karol, nobody is making fun of mental health issues. I think its fair to say that most people posting on this forum have them in one shape or another.
What we're saying is that you need to get control of yours because right now you're on a narcissistic spiral of "ME ME ME ME ME ME ME", which is not good for you or anyone else around you long term, and that its being exacerbated by the exceptionally toxic community of players you yourself have described in your local 40k scene. Believe it or not we're actually worried about you.
Your running around screaming "feth EVERYONE, I GOT MINE YOU CAN ALL CHOKE ON IT" is not indicative of a good emotional balance.
Argive wrote: So this is not some sort of top tier competative game or anything, also mistakes were made. Its nids vs marines so not exactly a paragon of examples.
But it just shows what difference a single CM makes in a bottom tier trait army (black templars) without relic/FW dreds or anything like that...
Here is the thing, I play Black Templars and I do not think they are bottom tier with their traits. Sure their rerolls to charge and 5+ against mortal wounds isn't great but the ability to both auto-hit and auto-wound on tohit rolls of 6 against infantry while in the assault doctrine is pretty awesome and considering that in the assault doctrine your assault intercessors are -2AP it gets fairly nasty.
At the same time I do have a hard time thinking of a Chapter that has worse traits I just feel dirty calling that the worst...
It's not the players, by and large, that are being attacked. It's GW for releasing such garbage balance.
.
Scroll up a couple posts to see non-marine players blame marine players for A) Not getting much sympathy when Marines were bad, and B) Earning the enmity they're getting now that Marines are good.
Pointing out the fallacy of SM players saying their army was weak throughout 8th or only top tier for a brief stint of time is not denying them sympathy for when their army was bad (I can't remember anytime literally EVER where a Marine army was ever as bad as bottom tier armies). Furthermore the enmity isn't directed at them, it is at GW who keeps pushing one faction more than any other. The only enmity a SM player receives is when they downplay how OP a unit is....say like Eradicators being the best (read as most point efficient) anti-tank unit in the game or saying ridiculous things like "well our army was only top tier for half the edition".
And it is likewise not solely a SM thing. When Tau were spamming riptides like it was going out of style, people complained, when Eldar could drop models on the table and basically be more OP than custom built lists, people complained.
Hell, I have sat here and listened to people complain that the Ork stompa is too powerful.....arguably the most useless unit in the game....
People will complain about everyone's factions including their own. The only thing that matters is if you are providing facts/figures and are open minded enough to admit when you were wrong. As an example, I myself over was wrong on how powerful the SSAG was going to be. Luckily for most players GW nerfed it into an early grave.
It's not the players, by and large, that are being attacked. It's GW for releasing such garbage balance.
.
Scroll up a couple posts to see non-marine players blame marine players for A) Not getting much sympathy when Marines were bad, and B) Earning the enmity they're getting now that Marines are good.
Pointing out the fallacy of SM players saying their army was weak throughout 8th or only top tier for a brief stint of time is not denying them sympathy for when their army was bad (I can't remember anytime literally EVER where a Marine army was ever as bad as bottom tier armies). Furthermore the enmity isn't directed at them, it is at GW who keeps pushing one faction more than any other. The only enmity a SM player receives is when they downplay how OP a unit is....say like Eradicators being the best (read as most point efficient) anti-tank unit in the game or saying ridiculous things like "well our army was only top tier for half the edition".
And it is likewise not solely a SM thing. When Tau were spamming riptides like it was going out of style, people complained, when Eldar could drop models on the table and basically be more OP than custom built lists, people complained.
Hell, I have sat here and listened to people complain that the Ork stompa is too powerful.....arguably the most useless unit in the game....
People will complain about everyone's factions including their own. The only thing that matters is if you are providing facts/figures and are open minded enough to admit when you were wrong. As an example, I myself over was wrong on how powerful the SSAG was going to be. Luckily for most players GW nerfed it into an early grave.
In response to the bolded bit, bottom 11 win rates for 2020 season contains:
Salamanders
Space wolves
Black templars
Ultramarines
Dark angels
The only 2 real armies lower than dark angels were death guard and ynnari.
2019 season if we again ignore obvious "best in faction" attempts like the pure fortifications or pure titan lists, bottom 10 has:
Deathwatch
Space wolves
Blood angels
Grey knights
Dark angels
Dark angels were the lowest win rate for a codex printed army.
Marines often frequent the bottom of the tables, but it's not what gets attention.
Yes, a few of the Space Marine sub-factions have been at the bottom of tournament results but tournament players are not loyal to any one army so they hop to the most powerful version of what ever they can play. Extrapolating Salamanders, Black Templars and Ultramarines out makes no difference because they share a codex with Iron Hands and Raven Guard. Tournament players are not running the first three and that leaves you with die hard fans who are not looking to be the best, they are just looking to have fun with their favorite faction.
Grey Knights don't count in the conversation because they hardly share units with the Space Marine codex, they are effectively an entirely different army. Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Deathwatch all have more in line with the core codex but again if a tournament player can jump to any which faction they want when it comes to Space Marines due to the shared pool of models the only ones playing those armies in tournaments is the die hard fans, not the most competitive players.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Salamanders have won more tournaments than any other army from what I've seen so they could be very powerful but hard to play if they've got a low overall winning percentage.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Argive wrote: So this is not some sort of top tier competative game or anything, also mistakes were made. Its nids vs marines so not exactly a paragon of examples.
But it just shows what difference a single CM makes in a bottom tier trait army (black templars) without relic/FW dreds or anything like that...
Here is the thing, I play Black Templars and I do not think they are bottom tier with their traits. Sure their rerolls to charge and 5+ against mortal wounds isn't great but the ability to both auto-hit and auto-wound on tohit rolls of 6 against infantry while in the assault doctrine is pretty awesome and considering that in the assault doctrine your assault intercessors are -2AP it gets fairly nasty.
At the same time I do have a hard time thinking of a Chapter that has worse traits I just feel dirty calling that the worst...
CM + doctrines on its own is so potent it makes average random collection of various SM units into a steamroller... This list only had only one unit of eradicators in it too... Some assult intercessors, couple impulsors and a repulsor plus heap of characters. tbf it seemed on paper like you average sort of list and no cheesey spamming. But then all it takes is a single CM + doctrines, strats, WL trait and litanies and what have you, the resulting force multiplication thing is bannanas..
October cant come quick enough. Really hope Necrons get some obnoxious stuff we can complain about instead coz its just tiring seeing this play out over and over..
October cant come quick enough. Really hope Necrons get some obnoxious stuff we can complain about instead coz its just tiring seeing this play out over and over..
Argive wrote: There are no winners here today friend..
Actually there are , the gw Arms Dealer allways wins.
Touche....
I'd rather have all the dexes at once to See this mystical good balance the playtesters seemed so genuinly happy about until they saw the patchwork to hold the Players over until their respective dexes release...
October cant come quick enough. Really hope Necrons get some obnoxious stuff we can complain about instead coz its just tiring seeing this play out over and over..
Argive wrote: There are no winners here today friend..
Actually there are , the gw Arms Dealer allways wins.
Touche....
I'd rather have all the dexes at once to See this mystical good balance the playtesters seemed so genuinly happy about until they saw the patchwork to hold the Players over until their respective dexes release...
now that's hilarious, GW balance....damn I hadnt laughed like that since the last time someone made such a ridiculous statement.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Are 90%+ of the dark angels units basically the same as Space Marines just with a different paint scheme and a couple extra glyphs?
They are?
Then no, DA are just a different sub faction of Space Marines. SM's can play any number of different chapters by just saying "I know they are green, but they are Iron Hands now" and they are already basically WYSIWYG
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Are 90%+ of the dark angels units basically the same as Space Marines just with a different paint scheme and a couple extra glyphs?
They are?
Then no, DA are just a different sub faction of Space Marines. SM's can play any number of different chapters by just saying "I know they are green, but they are Iron Hands now" and they are already basically WYSIWYG
which is stupid, jumping ship to get the best rules is fething moronic.
And it happens all the time and nobody really cares in friendly games. In tournaments they aren't allowed to care either There is usually no rules against an army having to be the specific paint scheme.
Buffing gave me a list idea, and brought this back to the original question. Most of my lists are pretty much Calgar + Tiggy for HQ's. It's what I've been doing for 20+ years. The Indomitus Box got me playing (in my head) with the bladeguard in an Impulsor, which led to the Bladguard Cap, LT, Tiggy, and Squad in an Impulsor - the realization Elites are 0-6 because of the Command Squad changes made me think about swapping Tiggy with the Ancient in an Impulsor - anyway long story short, I tried to make that list again. The first time I didn't really know what to do with about a quarter of the points and left a bunch of them in a big bucket called Repulsor Executioner so they were SOMEWHERE and somewhere that reminded me of what they were there for.
I swapped some stuff around - ended up with Tiggy, Bladeguard Cap, Lt, squad, 1x5 Aggressors, 2x5 Assault Intercessors, 2x5 Intercessors, 1x5 Bolter Inceptors, 1x3 Eradicators, and 2 Impulsors (1 Bellicatus, 1 Shield Dome) - and Guilliman.
The idea was to run three blobs with a potentially a couple outliers (not outriders)
The Bladeguard all hop in the Shield Dome and run around.
Some Assault Intercessors hop in the other one.
The Dakka Inceptors are to deep strike/counter "dirty trick"
That was the long part of the story(sorry) to get to this part -
Gman, Aggressors, and Eradicators all run together. Tiggy is a little better than 50/50 to end up here (-1 to hit the Gravis wounds you have to whittle away to get to G-Man feels even more frustrating). The other 1x5 Assault Intercessors could potentially tag along, but only so much fits in his bubble.
Gman and the Gravis synergize very well. G is Chapter Master and Lieutenant all in one, and I still have a Cap/LT bubble for a second blob. Plus he boosts Advancing. So the 3 inch slower Gravis are now only 1" slower, and only if they roll a 1 for their advance, add the rerolls and the advance and fire assault penalties are further mitigated.
Now I don't do the skew list but I did realize surrounding G Man with Aggressors and 3x3 Eradicators suddenly gets very nasty very fast. If this sticks I wouldn't be surprised to see G make a comeback?
Eradicators are cheap and good. Spammed Eradicators and Aggressors with Guilliman making them faster than normal troops AND reducing the penalty for it makes them a little wild.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Are 90%+ of the dark angels units basically the same as Space Marines just with a different paint scheme and a couple extra glyphs?
They are?
Then no, DA are just a different sub faction of Space Marines. SM's can play any number of different chapters by just saying "I know they are green, but they are Iron Hands now" and they are already basically WYSIWYG
Excellent, marines were the worst army of 2019 and bottom 3 2020 if dark angels are simply "marines".
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
So 40k should be pay to win? No stand-alone codex + supplement your sub-faction can rot? SW and SM share 200 datasheets, Mephrit and Sautekh share 60. Index Imperium included all non-FWSM units and could do so again if you removed pictures and fluff. Release codices and campaign books without matched play rules and have them focus on the fluff, art, minis and crusade and narrative rules. Let CA handle all the balance sensitive matched play rules like Stratagems, Relics, WL traits and pts. Release any updated indexes along with CA or let them wait until next CA if they are not quite ready. Make a document where any playtester or developer can post faction issues to be fixed come next index and/or CA update.
kingheff wrote: Salamanders have won more tournaments than any other army from what I've seen so they could be very powerful but hard to play if they've got a low overall winning percentage.
Bad in 8th, but became good in 9th with tactical reserves, Eradicators and smaller tables. They have an amazing WR now.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
So 40k should be pay to win? No stand-alone codex + supplement your sub-faction can rot? SW and SM share 200 datasheets, Mephrit and Sautekh share 60. Index Imperium included all non-FWSM units and could do so again if you removed pictures and fluff. Release codices and campaign books without matched play rules and have them focus on the fluff, art, minis and crusade and narrative rules. Let CA handle all the balance sensitive matched play rules like Stratagems, Relics, WL traits and pts. Release any updated indexes along with CA or let them wait until next CA if they are not quite ready. Make a document where any playtester or developer can post faction issues to be fixed come next index and/or CA update.
kingheff wrote: Salamanders have won more tournaments than any other army from what I've seen so they could be very powerful but hard to play if they've got a low overall winning percentage.
Bad in 8th, but became good in 9th with tactical reserves, Eradicators and smaller tables. They have an amazing WR now.
Didn't Index include all the Chaos datasheets too? So WE/EC/TK/DG/CSM are all the same? And they have Marine in the name, so they must all be Marines too? You can make the distinction as broad or as narrow as you want, but it works both ways. If you're going to blame IH meta as Marines in general, you can't really argue DA as Marines Meta isnt just as honest.
In response to the bolded bit, bottom 11 win rates for 2020 season contains:
Salamanders
Space wolves
Black templars
Ultramarines
Dark angels
The only 2 real armies lower than dark angels were death guard and ynnari.
2019 season if we again ignore obvious "best in faction" attempts like the pure fortifications or pure titan lists, bottom 10 has:
Deathwatch
Space wolves
Blood angels
Grey knights
Dark angels
Dark angels were the lowest win rate for a codex printed army.
Marines often frequent the bottom of the tables, but it's not what gets attention.
Tournaments results are not the whole truth though. Tournament lists are based on a style of playing that is NOT the majority of 40k gaming, not to mention the house rules (including time limitations) that completely alter the game experience.
In any casual to semi-competitive game SM are and always have been extremely solid because they don't need skew lists to work. Heck my SW without doctrines were way easier to play than orks in 8th edition, definitely stronger, and yet codex orks was considered solid mid tier and codex SW bottom tier because of some tournament results and a few skew lists. I remember during index times a good number of orks high results in tournaments, and yet index orks were indeed the weakest orks I've ever seen since 3rd edition. But one single built in the specific setting of tournaments was so anti meta to achieve some good results.
Not long ago we had SW among the most effective SM chapters due to some tournament results that were affected by a mistake in a FAQ that was immediately fixed.
Never consider tournament results alone to discuss the state of a faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: which is stupid, jumping ship to get the best rules is fething moronic.
For standalone armies like DA, SW or BA maybe, in fact they're more than just a SM chapter, they're actually independent armies with their own codex. I don't see any problem in vanilla marines switching chapters though, it's the same thing that ork, tau, eldar, drukhari, necrons, sisters, tyranids, etc do all the time and no one complains. Changing codex could be moronic, switching subfactions within the same codex it's not, it adds longevity and variety to the game for people like me that hate playing the same lists over and over again.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
So 40k should be pay to win? No stand-alone codex + supplement your sub-faction can rot? SW and SM share 200 datasheets, Mephrit and Sautekh share 60. Index Imperium included all non-FWSM units and could do so again if you removed pictures and fluff. Release codices and campaign books without matched play rules and have them focus on the fluff, art, minis and crusade and narrative rules. Let CA handle all the balance sensitive matched play rules like Stratagems, Relics, WL traits and pts. Release any updated indexes along with CA or let them wait until next CA if they are not quite ready. Make a document where any playtester or developer can post faction issues to be fixed come next index and/or CA update.
kingheff wrote: Salamanders have won more tournaments than any other army from what I've seen so they could be very powerful but hard to play if they've got a low overall winning percentage.
Bad in 8th, but became good in 9th with tactical reserves, Eradicators and smaller tables. They have an amazing WR now.
Didn't Index include all the Chaos datasheets too? So WE/EC/TK/DG/CSM are all the same? And they have Marine in the name, so they must all be Marines too? You can make the distinction as broad or as narrow as you want, but it works both ways. If you're going to blame IH meta as Marines in general, you can't really argue DA as Marines Meta isnt just as honest.
Chaos Index included everything Chaos, including Heretic Astartes. Index Imperium 1 was Adeptus Astartes, Index Imperium 2 was non-Astartes Imperium units. BA and DA successors would benefit from being part of the main SM codex. The current SM win-rate is not amazing, 100% agreed and I don't think I am on the SM hate train, but there is a lot of internal balance work between units and sub-factions that needs doing for all factions, not just for Adeptus Astartes. Eradicators still need a 20-30% nerf and CM Strat needs to be 3 CP as I am sure lots of Harlequin and Ork units and Stratagems needs another pass as well. Tacs are awful until they get 100% more wounds for 20% more pts for an example of an SM unit that is currently overpriced and I am pretty sure TFCs are overpriced as well. But the same goes for all sorts of other units like Craftworld Guardians and if enough people started running mass Iyanden Guardians the Craftworld win-rate would tank as well, but is there a Craftworld that is currently absolutely dominating? We see a few people that have been lucky and had a good win-rate with a sub-faction once or twice, but Salamanders have done it on a much larger scale so we can be pretty sure that there is something that needs to be looked at there. I have been for greater internal balance all along, for every faction and I am sure that means buffing some and nerfing some SM.
October cant come quick enough. Really hope Necrons get some obnoxious stuff we can complain about instead coz its just tiring seeing this play out over and over..
Argive wrote: There are no winners here today friend..
Actually there are , the gw Arms Dealer allways wins.
Touche....
I'd rather have all the dexes at once to See this mystical good balance the playtesters seemed so genuinly happy about until they saw the patchwork to hold the Players over until their respective dexes release...
now that's hilarious, GW balance....damn I hadnt laughed like that since the last time someone made such a ridiculous statement.
Hence the mystical.
I will believe it when i see it, but the dispointment was visible, so even if it is just meh balance (which is allready GW's upper limit regardless, because GW) , it will be better then this initial bout.
Those UM look good.
No wait its IH. And RG. And IF.
No wait its Salamanders. Or White Scars.
You can hate it all you like - but competitive players, who want to win games, will move to the best rules. If you go to a tournament thinking "sure, I know X is better, but I prefer Y" you are probably not taking it as seriously as someone who will take X, and so are likely to do worse than them. So the win rate of sub-faction marines will invariably swing as the good players move between sub factions.
Which really comes out in BA/DA and super special Space Wolves. There is a very powerful mood of "Sure, I could just play Codex Primaris+Dev Pod, but if my unique characters/units don't work then I'm just going to run them anyway and suck because otherwise why am I playing the faction". Which again, isn't a very competitive mindset (which is "if they suck, they suck, play something else), and results in lower win rates.
Which doesn't deny that DA probably were the worst marine chapter in 8th (barring a bit of early edition Azrael utilising that 4++ aura) - but as a result no one with an interest in winning played them, which unsurprisingly made them do statistically worse.
Tyel wrote: Those UM look good.
No wait its IH. And RG. And IF.
No wait its Salamanders. Or White Scars.
You can hate it all you like - but competitive players, who want to win games, will move to the best rules. If you go to a tournament thinking "sure, I know X is better, but I prefer Y" you are probably not taking it as seriously as someone who will take X, and so are likely to do worse than them. So the win rate of sub-faction marines will invariably swing as the good players move between sub factions.
Which really comes out in BA/DA and super special Space Wolves. There is a very powerful mood of "Sure, I could just play Codex Primaris+Dev Pod, but if my unique characters/units don't work then I'm just going to run them anyway and suck because otherwise why am I playing the faction". Which again, isn't a very competitive mindset (which is "if they suck, they suck, play something else), and results in lower win rates.
Which doesn't deny that DA probably were the worst marine chapter in 8th (barring a bit of early edition Azrael utilising that 4++ aura) - but as a result no one with an interest in winning played them, which unsurprisingly made them do statistically worse.
Chapter hopping WAAC players will become more of an issue in 9th with the 100% supplement method they're employing but hopefully it'll end some of these argument since it will just be "marines" since the consensus seems to be that supplements aren't diverse enough to warrant separate consideration and that anyone who plays purely to win will hop to whichever is best. We will be able to finally refer to them under the blanket of "marines".
My heart will go out to whoever is serious about trying to play the "bad supplement" in tournaments because it will be proxy mean your army will suck forever due to how the averages will balance out. If we find dark angels supplement has a 10% win rate and a salamanders 90%, we'll be back in that glorious "marines at 50% no problems here" moment.
And balance is starting now. The new sm are the new normal and balanced. If there are weaker armies, then they should be brought up to the level. The idea that to get balance the good stuff has to be destroyed first is stupid. It as if in sports someone who isn't the top contender asked for those that are to have their legs broken just to make things fair. .
Except:
a) GW has shown no sign whatsoever they will bring others to same level. More of opposite. SOB aren't marine level and necron leaks aren't all that hot either.
b) everything going up IS problem. It creates just spiral of lethality with game determined by alpha strike. If you bring up power level to marine level then armies are too lethal and there isn't much point continuing after alpha strike has been done. Which means turn 1 roll is the most important thing in the game. All rest is useless.
Power level should be brought DOWN if you want to have some semblance of TACTICS or MANOUVER in the game. Do you want game to be game of skill or game of who rolls 50-50 roll better? Guess if your winrate sucks taking game to where it's 50-50 by being determined by single 50-50 dice roll would be nice!
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Are 90%+ of the dark angels units basically the same as Space Marines just with a different paint scheme and a couple extra glyphs?
They are?
Then no, DA are just a different sub faction of Space Marines. SM's can play any number of different chapters by just saying "I know they are green, but they are Iron Hands now" and they are already basically WYSIWYG
Excellent, marines were the worst army of 2019 and bottom 3 2020 if dark angels are simply "marines".
Again you are ignoring some key facts when regarding that information that makes you seem like you are being completely disingenuous when you use it.
In a tournament meta if one chapter has the best tactics hand down then the majority of tournament players are going to jump ship to that chapter regardless of how their marines are painted.
On the other hand my friend who is a die hard Deathwing DA player who goes to tournaments will continue to get trounced cause...all terminator army in 9th edition is a bit of a joke. I would hazard to guess that the majority of people who insist on bringing DA to tournaments fall into this category instead of the meta chasers.
Now, does that mean DA are bottom tier? Or does that mean that they do not play well to the current missions and have a hard time competing against the meta? (Read: Space Marines.) What about an optimized DA list vs a optimized SM list? What about an optimized DA list vs an optimized CSM list? Or any Xenos army? Those are relevant statistics.
It is safe the assume that the majority of the SM list are optimized meta chasing list because of the pure abundance of tournament players that are high caliber that are taking SM to tournaments. Your options for the current 9th meta in tournaments is SM or some sort of anti-SM skew list, that says a lot.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Are 90%+ of the dark angels units basically the same as Space Marines just with a different paint scheme and a couple extra glyphs?
They are?
Then no, DA are just a different sub faction of Space Marines. SM's can play any number of different chapters by just saying "I know they are green, but they are Iron Hands now" and they are already basically WYSIWYG
Excellent, marines were the worst army of 2019 and bottom 3 2020 if dark angels are simply "marines".
Again you are ignoring some key facts when regarding that information that makes you seem like you are being completely disingenuous when you use it.
In a tournament meta if one chapter has the best tactics hand down then the majority of tournament players are going to jump ship to that chapter regardless of how their marines are painted.
On the other hand my friend who is a die hard Deathwing DA player who goes to tournaments will continue to get trounced cause...all terminator army in 9th edition is a bit of a joke. I would hazard to guess that the majority of people who insist on bringing DA to tournaments fall into this category instead of the meta chasers.
Now, does that mean DA are bottom tier? Or does that mean that they do not play well to the current missions and have a hard time competing against the meta? (Read: Space Marines.) What about an optimized DA list vs a optimized SM list? What about an optimized DA list vs an optimized CSM list? Or any Xenos army? Those are relevant statistics.
It is safe the assume that the majority of the SM list are optimized meta chasing list because of the pure abundance of tournament players that are high caliber that are taking SM to tournaments. Your options for the current 9th meta in tournaments is SM or some sort of anti-SM skew list, that says a lot.
You raise the exact problem, people throw shade on "marines" but dark angels in this example are a complete unknown since as you say, they're not used by the top players and their only results are fluffier fans. So we have no idea as to their balance other than "worse than the others".
Tyel wrote: T
You can hate it all you like - but competitive players, who want to win games, will move to the best rules. If you go to a tournament thinking "sure, I know X is better, but I prefer Y" you are probably not taking it as seriously as someone who will take X, and so are likely to do worse than them. So the win rate of sub-faction marines will invariably swing as the good players move between sub factions.
.
There is an interview that I like to link with Nick N he explicitly states what you say:
Lists matter and in the competitive scene they will determine the outcome of tournies. When you have people who devote, literally, their lives to the game any advantage is important. Plus we all know that list imbalances are not minor, it creeps down to all levels of gaming.
In response to the bolded bit, bottom 11 win rates for 2020 season contains:
Salamanders
Space wolves
Black templars
Ultramarines
Dark angels
The only 2 real armies lower than dark angels were death guard and ynnari.
2019 season if we again ignore obvious "best in faction" attempts like the pure fortifications or pure titan lists, bottom 10 has:
Deathwatch
Space wolves
Blood angels
Grey knights
Dark angels
Dark angels were the lowest win rate for a codex printed army.
Marines often frequent the bottom of the tables, but it's not what gets attention.
Tournaments results are not the whole truth though. Tournament lists are based on a style of playing that is NOT the majority of 40k gaming, not to mention the house rules (including time limitations) that completely alter the game experience.
In any casual to semi-competitive game SM are and always have been extremely solid because they don't need skew lists to work. Heck my SW without doctrines were way easier to play than orks in 8th edition, definitely stronger, and yet codex orks was considered solid mid tier and codex SW bottom tier because of some tournament results and a few skew lists. I remember during index times a good number of orks high results in tournaments, and yet index orks were indeed the weakest orks I've ever seen since 3rd edition. But one single built in the specific setting of tournaments was so anti meta to achieve some good results.
Not long ago we had SW among the most effective SM chapters due to some tournament results that were affected by a mistake in a FAQ that was immediately fixed.
Never consider tournament results alone to discuss the state of a faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: which is stupid, jumping ship to get the best rules is fething moronic.
For standalone armies like DA, SW or BA maybe, in fact they're more than just a SM chapter, they're actually independent armies with their own codex. I don't see any problem in vanilla marines switching chapters though, it's the same thing that ork, tau, eldar, drukhari, necrons, sisters, tyranids, etc do all the time and no one complains. Changing codex could be moronic, switching subfactions within the same codex it's not, it adds longevity and variety to the game for people like me that hate playing the same lists over and over again.
I've only ever played the 18th and my list changes (almost) every game. do I want heavy assault, do I want rapid attack, do I want long range shooty, do I want all infantry??? my lists follow what I'm feeling like, not some rules based whatever is better stupidity. now my Bloody Rose & Flawless Host lists are pretty much static(more due to only having limited models for them) but hopefully in the near future, that will change.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Are 90%+ of the dark angels units basically the same as Space Marines just with a different paint scheme and a couple extra glyphs?
They are?
Then no, DA are just a different sub faction of Space Marines. SM's can play any number of different chapters by just saying "I know they are green, but they are Iron Hands now" and they are already basically WYSIWYG
Excellent, marines were the worst army of 2019 and bottom 3 2020 if dark angels are simply "marines".
Again you are ignoring some key facts when regarding that information that makes you seem like you are being completely disingenuous when you use it.
In a tournament meta if one chapter has the best tactics hand down then the majority of tournament players are going to jump ship to that chapter regardless of how their marines are painted.
On the other hand my friend who is a die hard Deathwing DA player who goes to tournaments will continue to get trounced cause...all terminator army in 9th edition is a bit of a joke. I would hazard to guess that the majority of people who insist on bringing DA to tournaments fall into this category instead of the meta chasers.
Now, does that mean DA are bottom tier? Or does that mean that they do not play well to the current missions and have a hard time competing against the meta? (Read: Space Marines.) What about an optimized DA list vs a optimized SM list? What about an optimized DA list vs an optimized CSM list? Or any Xenos army? Those are relevant statistics.
It is safe the assume that the majority of the SM list are optimized meta chasing list because of the pure abundance of tournament players that are high caliber that are taking SM to tournaments. Your options for the current 9th meta in tournaments is SM or some sort of anti-SM skew list, that says a lot.
You raise the exact problem, people throw shade on "marines" but dark angels in this example are a complete unknown since as you say, they're not used by the top players and their only results are fluffier fans. So we have no idea as to their balance other than "worse than the others".
Is a nerf to Eradicators going to cripple DA all of a sudden? Are DA being held up exclusively by Eradicators? No? Then why on earth are you equating this with DA being nerfed?
DA are not SM. Codex: Space Marine is an entirely different codex as of right this minute. Sure, DA could probably use some love but because of the current Primaris fits all solution that GW has going right now they and all other Marines are losing their identity.
I have not kept up to date 100% on current rumors but I remember hearing that DA, BA, and SW might be reduced to supplements to the core SM codex. If that is the case than more and more you are going to see them lose their unique traits in favor of more Primaris units which is where I believe GW is heading. It happened to my Black Templars and now that First Born are being phased out slowly I could see it happening to all other SM chapters.
Most of the complaints people have right now are about Primaris units, which are not exclusive to any SM chapter, and the amount of free stuff that SM get for being SM. The rerolls on top of rerolls, the liberal sprinkling of AP modifiers and now the 2D weapons that are all of the place to answer the move to 2W SM that negatively effect all Xenos armies in significant ways.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Are 90%+ of the dark angels units basically the same as Space Marines just with a different paint scheme and a couple extra glyphs?
They are?
Then no, DA are just a different sub faction of Space Marines. SM's can play any number of different chapters by just saying "I know they are green, but they are Iron Hands now" and they are already basically WYSIWYG
Excellent, marines were the worst army of 2019 and bottom 3 2020 if dark angels are simply "marines".
Again you are ignoring some key facts when regarding that information that makes you seem like you are being completely disingenuous when you use it.
In a tournament meta if one chapter has the best tactics hand down then the majority of tournament players are going to jump ship to that chapter regardless of how their marines are painted.
On the other hand my friend who is a die hard Deathwing DA player who goes to tournaments will continue to get trounced cause...all terminator army in 9th edition is a bit of a joke. I would hazard to guess that the majority of people who insist on bringing DA to tournaments fall into this category instead of the meta chasers.
Now, does that mean DA are bottom tier? Or does that mean that they do not play well to the current missions and have a hard time competing against the meta? (Read: Space Marines.) What about an optimized DA list vs a optimized SM list? What about an optimized DA list vs an optimized CSM list? Or any Xenos army? Those are relevant statistics.
It is safe the assume that the majority of the SM list are optimized meta chasing list because of the pure abundance of tournament players that are high caliber that are taking SM to tournaments. Your options for the current 9th meta in tournaments is SM or some sort of anti-SM skew list, that says a lot.
You raise the exact problem, people throw shade on "marines" but dark angels in this example are a complete unknown since as you say, they're not used by the top players and their only results are fluffier fans. So we have no idea as to their balance other than "worse than the others".
Is a nerf to Eradicators going to cripple DA all of a sudden? Are DA being held up exclusively by Eradicators? No? Then why on earth are you equating this with DA being nerfed?
DA are not SM. Codex: Space Marine is an entirely different codex as of right this minute. Sure, DA could probably use some love but because of the current Primaris fits all solution that GW has going right now they and all other Marines are losing their identity.
I have not kept up to date 100% on current rumors but I remember hearing that DA, BA, and SW might be reduced to supplements to the core SM codex. If that is the case than more and more you are going to see them lose their unique traits in favor of more Primaris units which is where I believe GW is heading. It happened to my Black Templars and now that First Born are being phased out slowly I could see it happening to all other SM chapters.
Most of the complaints people have right now are about Primaris units, which are not exclusive to any SM chapter, and the amount of free stuff that SM get for being SM. The rerolls on top of rerolls, the liberal sprinkling of AP modifiers and now the 2D weapons that are all of the place to answer the move to 2W SM that negatively effect all Xenos armies in significant ways.
Your info is out of date. But the argument is nobody would know for certain what a nerf to Eradicators would mean for dark angels, since anyone wanting to win a tourney wouldn't use DA to begin with. Not equating it to them being nerfed, just highlighting they've been a bottom 3 army the last 2 years.
Marines of a basic variety across all marine books, are going to 2 wounds with terminators at 3 and GW confirmed that all marine books apart from grey knights will be supplements off the new core codex.
That sadly renders the bulk of your post obsolete.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Are 90%+ of the dark angels units basically the same as Space Marines just with a different paint scheme and a couple extra glyphs?
They are?
Then no, DA are just a different sub faction of Space Marines. SM's can play any number of different chapters by just saying "I know they are green, but they are Iron Hands now" and they are already basically WYSIWYG
Excellent, marines were the worst army of 2019 and bottom 3 2020 if dark angels are simply "marines".
Again you are ignoring some key facts when regarding that information that makes you seem like you are being completely disingenuous when you use it.
In a tournament meta if one chapter has the best tactics hand down then the majority of tournament players are going to jump ship to that chapter regardless of how their marines are painted.
On the other hand my friend who is a die hard Deathwing DA player who goes to tournaments will continue to get trounced cause...all terminator army in 9th edition is a bit of a joke. I would hazard to guess that the majority of people who insist on bringing DA to tournaments fall into this category instead of the meta chasers.
Now, does that mean DA are bottom tier? Or does that mean that they do not play well to the current missions and have a hard time competing against the meta? (Read: Space Marines.) What about an optimized DA list vs a optimized SM list? What about an optimized DA list vs an optimized CSM list? Or any Xenos army? Those are relevant statistics.
It is safe the assume that the majority of the SM list are optimized meta chasing list because of the pure abundance of tournament players that are high caliber that are taking SM to tournaments. Your options for the current 9th meta in tournaments is SM or some sort of anti-SM skew list, that says a lot.
You raise the exact problem, people throw shade on "marines" but dark angels in this example are a complete unknown since as you say, they're not used by the top players and their only results are fluffier fans. So we have no idea as to their balance other than "worse than the others".
Is a nerf to Eradicators going to cripple DA all of a sudden? Are DA being held up exclusively by Eradicators? No? Then why on earth are you equating this with DA being nerfed?
DA are not SM. Codex: Space Marine is an entirely different codex as of right this minute. Sure, DA could probably use some love but because of the current Primaris fits all solution that GW has going right now they and all other Marines are losing their identity.
I have not kept up to date 100% on current rumors but I remember hearing that DA, BA, and SW might be reduced to supplements to the core SM codex. If that is the case than more and more you are going to see them lose their unique traits in favor of more Primaris units which is where I believe GW is heading. It happened to my Black Templars and now that First Born are being phased out slowly I could see it happening to all other SM chapters.
Most of the complaints people have right now are about Primaris units, which are not exclusive to any SM chapter, and the amount of free stuff that SM get for being SM. The rerolls on top of rerolls, the liberal sprinkling of AP modifiers and now the 2D weapons that are all of the place to answer the move to 2W SM that negatively effect all Xenos armies in significant ways.
Your info is out of date. But the argument is nobody would know for certain what a nerf to Eradicators would mean for dark angels, since anyone wanting to win a tourney wouldn't use DA to begin with. Not equating it to them being nerfed, just highlighting they've been a bottom 3 army the last 2 years.
Marines of a basic variety across all marine books, are going to 2 wounds with terminators at 3 and GW confirmed that all marine books apart from grey knights will be supplements off the new core codex.
That sadly renders the bulk of your post obsolete.
Okay at this point in the conversation I am not even sure what your point is and why you are arguing other than for the sake of argument.
I think we can agree that DA are in a poor place. That has nothing to do with a nerf to Eradicators. If Eradicators are nerfed it is not going to make DA any better or worse with all things considered.
I am not even sure you are reading my post at this point based on your responses, you seem to be arguing against some perceived argument rather than what I am actually typing.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Are 90%+ of the dark angels units basically the same as Space Marines just with a different paint scheme and a couple extra glyphs?
They are?
Then no, DA are just a different sub faction of Space Marines. SM's can play any number of different chapters by just saying "I know they are green, but they are Iron Hands now" and they are already basically WYSIWYG
Excellent, marines were the worst army of 2019 and bottom 3 2020 if dark angels are simply "marines".
Again you are ignoring some key facts when regarding that information that makes you seem like you are being completely disingenuous when you use it.
In a tournament meta if one chapter has the best tactics hand down then the majority of tournament players are going to jump ship to that chapter regardless of how their marines are painted.
On the other hand my friend who is a die hard Deathwing DA player who goes to tournaments will continue to get trounced cause...all terminator army in 9th edition is a bit of a joke. I would hazard to guess that the majority of people who insist on bringing DA to tournaments fall into this category instead of the meta chasers.
Now, does that mean DA are bottom tier? Or does that mean that they do not play well to the current missions and have a hard time competing against the meta? (Read: Space Marines.) What about an optimized DA list vs a optimized SM list? What about an optimized DA list vs an optimized CSM list? Or any Xenos army? Those are relevant statistics.
It is safe the assume that the majority of the SM list are optimized meta chasing list because of the pure abundance of tournament players that are high caliber that are taking SM to tournaments. Your options for the current 9th meta in tournaments is SM or some sort of anti-SM skew list, that says a lot.
You raise the exact problem, people throw shade on "marines" but dark angels in this example are a complete unknown since as you say, they're not used by the top players and their only results are fluffier fans. So we have no idea as to their balance other than "worse than the others".
Is a nerf to Eradicators going to cripple DA all of a sudden? Are DA being held up exclusively by Eradicators? No? Then why on earth are you equating this with DA being nerfed?
DA are not SM. Codex: Space Marine is an entirely different codex as of right this minute. Sure, DA could probably use some love but because of the current Primaris fits all solution that GW has going right now they and all other Marines are losing their identity.
I have not kept up to date 100% on current rumors but I remember hearing that DA, BA, and SW might be reduced to supplements to the core SM codex. If that is the case than more and more you are going to see them lose their unique traits in favor of more Primaris units which is where I believe GW is heading. It happened to my Black Templars and now that First Born are being phased out slowly I could see it happening to all other SM chapters.
Most of the complaints people have right now are about Primaris units, which are not exclusive to any SM chapter, and the amount of free stuff that SM get for being SM. The rerolls on top of rerolls, the liberal sprinkling of AP modifiers and now the 2D weapons that are all of the place to answer the move to 2W SM that negatively effect all Xenos armies in significant ways.
Your info is out of date. But the argument is nobody would know for certain what a nerf to Eradicators would mean for dark angels, since anyone wanting to win a tourney wouldn't use DA to begin with. Not equating it to them being nerfed, just highlighting they've been a bottom 3 army the last 2 years.
Marines of a basic variety across all marine books, are going to 2 wounds with terminators at 3 and GW confirmed that all marine books apart from grey knights will be supplements off the new core codex.
That sadly renders the bulk of your post obsolete.
Okay at this point in the conversation I am not even sure what your point is and why you are arguing other than for the sake of argument.
I think we can agree that DA are in a poor place. That has nothing to do with a nerf to Eradicators. If Eradicators are nerfed it is not going to make DA any better or worse with all things considered.
I am not even sure you are reading my post at this point based on your responses, you seem to be arguing against some perceived argument rather than what I am actually typing.
You opened with
Is a nerf to Eradicators going to cripple DA all of a sudden? Are DA being held up exclusively by Eradicators? No? Then why on earth are you equating this with DA being nerfed?
Nobody was talking about DA being nerfed. Nor did anyone talk about nerfing eradicators in the conversation you quoted. We were discussing tournamrnt win rates and participation alongside the generalising of the term "marines" from a terminology perspective.
I don't mean offense but you posted a generalised statement about the state of the game to a specific conversation.
Balance never sells. Imbalance always sells. I just have to look at WarGaming.net and their handling of Premium Tanks and Ships in World of Tanks/Warships to validate this theory.
Slayer6 wrote: Balance never sells. Imbalance always sells. I just have to look at WarGaming.net and their handling of Premium Tanks and Ships in World of Tanks/Warships to validate this theory.
........ in my defence I bought Belfast because she was a ship I'd had the oppertunity to go aboard when I was in London, I never even realized it was OP as hell until afterwards
What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?
That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?
Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.
Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?
argonak wrote: What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?
That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?
Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.
Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?
I think they're worth about 55 pts/model, same as a boltstorm Aggressor is now although they should probably go up a bit further, I think GW should increase their price to 48 because I don't want to shake things up too much and people should be allowed to enjoy their toys for a while, anything over a 20% pts change is too much IMO. The base value calculated to be fair by the game developers and the changes made because of playtester recommendations would have to be really far off for it to take more than a couple of years to achieve perfect balance with every unit if every unit was looked at every year.
You cannot really separate the price of the weapons and the base model, one without the other is just not the same. An ultra-durable unit with no damage is worth relatively little, same for an ultra-squishy unit with tonnes of damage, but an ultra-durable unit with tonnes of damage? That's worth a lot. But that's just sort of a theory thing. Another theory thing is that you don't want to scare people away from playing something because it looks bad in comparison with how good it was previously because it might still be good enough to win and have fun with, so GW should put the pts to a boil slowly over time that they can cook as many Eradicator players as possible and not have any of them jump out of the pot, just like they did with Iron Hands and Castellans. Plasma is hard to compare to due to overheating, do we compare the assault plasma or the RF plasma? Because advancing and firing supercharged plasma is suicide, not so for Eradicators which increases Eradicator threat range.
How do 6 Eradicators stack up against 10 Hellblasters? I don't even know if it matters, because we don't have a clue what a balanced unit looks like and I do not think GW does either. Basic game design is #1 buffs are more fun than nerfs and #2 all buffs and no nerfs creates power creep. Having some sort of anchor would be the first step to figuring out balance, so what sort of anchor can we use? Well since GW has made it a rule that no model can be under 5 pts that's where we need to find our anchor, what's the least valuable model in the game? A Brimstone Horror, a Grot or a Heretic Guardsman. How many Brimstone Horrors is an Eradicator worth is in itself also a difficult question because it depends on the meta-game of your community, in one meta-game (with lots of Brimstone Horrors for example) Eradicators might be worth 8 Brimstone Horrors, in another (with lots lots of Land Raiders for example) 16 Brimstone Horrors. I don't think Eradicators are worth 11 Brimstone Horrors, but I also think the rule of "no less than 5 pts for a model" was silly, it might be that these cheap units will be viable in some very tiny amounts and that's how GW desires for things to be. As long as every option is viable in some amount then I am happy, it's impossible to make every army list viable, if Orks continue taking Gretchin then I'll be happy and if 50% of SM lists don't use Eradicators I'll be happy with that as well.
*6x3W w/ T5 (55 pt Eradicator) vs 10x2W w/ T4 (33 pt Hellblaster). *162 vs 180 lasgun hits to kill. *108 vs 80 AP-1 boltgun hits to kill. *21,6 vs 14,4 overcharged plasma hits to kill. *13,5 vs 14,4 meltagun hits to kill.
If 10 RF Overcharged Hellblasters w/ Captain do 1X damage 6 Eradicators in RF range w/ Captain do: *0,6X damage against Gretchin. *0,6X damage against Intercessors. *0,8X damage against MANZ. *1,26X damage against Leman Russ/Knights/Land Raider
Eradicators have M5 but can Advance and shoot should they need it, for the math above I just assumed they were both outflanking. Captain is a neccessity for overcharging somewhat safely, he's still good for Eradicators, but that's point in favour of the Eradicators and even with the Captain you're losing an average of 17ish pts per Overcharged shooting attack, although it is not necessary against Gretchin and Guardsmen. Eradicators cannot effectively split fire, that's a downside, but one that can be mitigated against most armies. You can multiply the values for Eradicators by 1,1 if you want to check if the numbers for 50 pts/model is more to your liking or 1,25 if you think 40 pts per model is fair. If you wanted the equivalent of the above numbers, but think it is Eradicators that are fair and Hellblasters that need a buff then they would need to be 26 pts per model. That's 20 pts for an Intercessors and 6 pts for upgrading a bolt rifle to a range 30" AP-4 plasma gun.
Slayer6 wrote: Balance never sells. Imbalance always sells. I just have to look at WarGaming.net and their handling of Premium Tanks and Ships in World of Tanks/Warships to validate this theory.
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.
I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.
I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.
Canoptek reanimator
Immolators were a hard sell
Howling banshees
Most of the ork buggies
Everyone's time worn favourite - reivers
There are plenty of dud/questionably ruled models released every year, thats just a selection.
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.
I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.
Why is Garen tier 1? He's ancient. Why is Yone tier 2? He's the newest champion. Why is Lillia tier 3? She's the second newest champion? Why is Sett tier 3? He was the champion released before that. Riot releasing OP champions is not amazing when it gets nerfed within a month most of the time, neither is buffing an underperforming new champion after it has come down in price to 6300. I have bought a new champion with RP once I think and bought the rest for free and I still mainly play Garen, in good times and bad and there is generally at least a couple of champions with higher win-rates than the newest champion around. How about the other games or did you just want to mention some anti-Riot sentiment? If so, fair enough, but I still think lack of balance hurts the longevity and fun of games.
I think talk about balance and imbalance can be misleading here.
People often raise SC1 as great because its balanced (after countless patches). And I guess to a degree at the highest level of play it is - but this *balance* is that most matches come down to the interplay of two or three units, and who can micro their's better. The whole rest of the faction's roster is considered irrelevant.
In 40k terms I guess this is like saying if every faction had their "meta list" that could plausibly go 5-0 at a tournament it would be quite a healthy game - which is true. But for more casual players, there may still be issues, if 80% of given books out and out suck, or get crushed by similar lists built arbitrarily from other books.
World of Tanks at the same time is obviously imbalanced and (unless they've changed it) contains a fairly naked pay to win feature in gold ammo. But you aren't really required to play the bad tanks beyond levelling through to the one you presumably want to get, so this imbalance doesn't necesarilly undermine the game. It just makes the grind less pleasant. I feel World of Warships is a much better game before T7, since almost all the early ships are viable in a good player's hands. Whereas some tanks are explicitly near unplayable. This suggests I like *balance* in a game. No one liked old - old world of tanks when the KV-1 was Tier 5 and could end up in matches against Tier 3s and so you were an unkillable god - unless you were driving the KV-1 (as I think 1/3rd of people did.)
Prior to Marines 2.0 I felt 8th edition was very balanced from a casual perspective. Yes if someone brought flyer spam, or Castellan+Guard+3 smash captains, they were probably going to win. But most people didn't own or want to own that specific combination of models.
By contrast, with any chapter, if you just stick a load of shooting units next to a chapter master + lieutenant, and the dice don't scream their hatred of all probablity, you just wipe out "casual" lists with near impunity.
This is why I think we see this dichotomy between "tabled by turn 2" and "wut, good players don't get tabled". No, good players don't, because their lists and play styles have had to evolve to deal with this ludicrous level of damage output. Your casual players however continue to plonk down their mis-match of units based on what they own, what they like etc, and get stomped.
And the Eradicators represent this in spades. They are completely warping the meta, they need to be nerfed into oblivion.
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.
I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.
Why is Garen tier 1? He's ancient. Why is Yone tier 2? He's the newest champion. Why is Lillia tier 3? She's the second newest champion? Why is Sett tier 3? He was the champion released before that. Riot releasing OP champions is not amazing when it gets nerfed within a month most of the time, neither is buffing an underperforming new champion after it has come down in price to 6300. I have bought a new champion with RP once I think and bought the rest for free and I still mainly play Garen, in good times and bad and there is generally at least a couple of champions with higher win-rates than the newest champion around. How about the other games or did you just want to mention some anti-Riot sentiment? If so, fair enough, but I still think lack of balance hurts the longevity and fun of games.
Calm down fangirl, Riot very much tends to make characters stronger on release, and tones them down afterwards (If they prove to be too strong).
Which is one of the main reasons why heroes aren't available in ranked immediately
TBF though, Riot atleast attempts to balance it's roster somewhat often, and does so for free, unlike GW which demands you shell over money for a balance patch every year once...
Prior to Marines 2.0 I felt 8th edition was very balanced from a casual perspective. Yes if someone brought flyer spam, or Castellan+Guard+3 smash captains, they were probably going to win. But most people didn't own or want to own that specific combination of models.
That's exactly how I was feeling about that period. Skew overpowered tournament lists were extremely uncommon in real life (heck, here even the loyal32 was never a thing, only WAAC dudes were willing to buy 3 boxes, 2 characters and a codex from a different faction) and average SM lists were absolutely ok, if not even pretty good.
Codex SM 2.0 has been a huge problem because it enhanced a tipycal/average collection of models (not necessarily a skew list) to a very powerful one. Same with Gulliman during index times: the UM player didn't need the overpowered tournament list with 6+ razorbacks to crush index opponents; an average SM army was already too good for most of the other players since the buffs that Primarch gave to the army were massive.
That's why I never consider tournament results alone to dictate the state of a faction; those data are based on skew lists that only represent a tiny fraction of the 40k universe. Sometimes an army is a top tier thanks to a single built that only WAAC of people with 10k points collection actually field, sometimes it's broken at any possible level (read: Iron Hands). Numbers should always be put into a context.
He's not (also champions being released in an overtuned state does not preclude older champions also being currently overpowered).
Why is Yone tier 2? He's the newest champion.
He's not.
Why is Lillia tier 3? She's the second newest champion?
Wasn't playing or otherwise paying attention to League during her release so I can't say. Judging by who you think is tier 1 (Garen lol) I'm going to assume that you frankly don't know what you're talking about.
Why is Sett tier 3? He was the champion released before that.
That was almost eight months ago.
Sett had a 55% win rate on release and was one of the strongest champions in the game as well as the strongest top laner. You're looking at post-nerf Sett who is still good.
Riot releasing OP champions is not amazing when it gets nerfed within a month most of the time, neither is buffing an underperforming new champion after it has come down in price to 6300. I have bought a new champion with RP once I think and bought the rest for free and I still mainly play Garen, in good times and bad and there is generally at least a couple of champions with higher win-rates than the newest champion around. How about the other games or did you just want to mention some anti-Riot sentiment? If so, fair enough, but I still think lack of balance hurts the longevity and fun of games.
New champions who are underperforming are often hotfixed buffed actually, while still 11,000 blue essence.
And League has undeniably been power creeped. Almost every new champions has some high elo or professional value kit-wise and rotates in and out of the meta. How often do you think Tryndamere shows up Masters+?
I don't know anything about the other games but Riot is certainly power creeping their game buddy. I also don't particularly have a problem with it; most old kits are uninteractive and frankly boring.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: TBF though, Riot atleast attempts to balance it's roster somewhat often, and does so for free, unlike GW which demands you shell over money for a balance patch every year once...
And usually have more than one shot between HB, Grav, Frag, Plasma, etc.
Which either is way worse or a lascannon.
1 S8 Melta shot vs T7 (bonus MM) - .4489 X 1D6 rerolled - the average of 2d6-take-best is 4.472 (even further in MM favor as you don't necessarily take the best) - 2.007
4 S5 D3 shots doesn't feel a way worse either. 2.66 Wounds per turn Assuming T7 is 3+
Lillia was released with a 45% WR and hasn't gotten above 48% since, it sure is a funny koinkidink that you didn't play when she was released, but you seem like a good honest debater so I will trust you. /s
I have seen a mix of strong and weak Yones in normals and according to the stats he's weak in ranked, I was a little surprised to see Garen tier 1 on a tier list, but I play him sub-optimally on purpose to have fun in normals so I don't really care most of the time. Power creep might be necessary if everything is the same, like in alpha MTG with the power level of the average creature there was almost no space to distinctify 200 different 1-mana Red creatures from 200 different 1-mana Blue creatures, MTG needed to power creep to increase their design space, same thing for early LOL where champions often had 3-4 abilities and 1-3 passives instead of 4-7 abilities and 1-5 passives. I don't think the same is true for 40k, Doctrines and Chapter Tactics were not necessary for showing that an army is Salamanders or Raven Guard, give people a balanced codex and they'll play snipers if they are RG or flamers if they are Salamanders, even if you give Salamanders a massive buff to flamers, if those flamers are overcosted even with the buffs they will still see little play. I think increasing the amount of Stratagems factions have has reduced how distinct one faction is from another rather than magnify it, no longer is it just WE and Black Templars that have an anti-psychic Strat, now it's also Iron Hands, which makes WE and BT less distinct. No doctrines, no chapter tactics, 20-30 shared Stratagems, choose 5 when writing your list and those are the ones you get to use, this would let people show you how they want their army to look and let whatever few Stratagems they choose to represent their list truly have an impact.
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.
I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.
Yone, Lillia, Sett(took a while before he became OP), Volibear rework.
Calm down fangirl, Riot very much tends to make characters stronger on release, and tones them down afterwards (If they prove to be too strong).
Which is one of the main reasons why heroes aren't available in ranked immediately
Champions are available in ranked as soon as theyre released.
The majority of the champions are undertuned and will never be touched again. About 25 other champions are viable top tier options. Each newer champion released regardless of whatever WR they demonstrate have too many abiltiies. I think this new champion cowgirl with swords and guns has 6 activations of her Q with each being a new ability. Champions with point and click ability denial...(makes 60% of all champions unplayable because most champs require to land an ability first to land their combo) really all kinds of reason.
Riot makes a fun game and it is competitive with the top 25 champions. The comparison I'd make to 40k would be.
8th ed space marines were like pre rework attrox and 8.5 made them the unstopable attrox we have now is typically ban or play in 50% of games or more. He is totally beatable. He just has all the tools he needs to compete at that lvl now - were before - he suck and was just a crappy version of tryndamere.
In regards to eliminators compared to LOL balance. Yeah...every champion is released overtunned. It is good business. They want to sell the champion before the weirdos without saved blue essence can buy them for free. GW doesn't do this...they literally just don't know they are overturning a models rules.
The majority of the champions are undertuned and will never be touched again. About 25 other champions are viable top tier options. Each newer champion released regardless of whatever WR they demonstrate have too many abiltiies. I think this new champion cowgirl with swords and guns has 6 activations of her Q with each being a new ability. Champions with point and click ability denial...(makes 60% of all champions unplayable because most champs require to land an ability first to land their combo) really all kinds of reason.
Riot makes a fun game and it is competitive with the top 25 champions. The comparison I'd make to 40k would be.
8th ed space marines were like pre rework attrox and 8.5 made them the unstopable attrox we have now is typically ban or play in 50% of games or more. He is totally beatable. He just has all the tools he needs to compete at that lvl now - were before - he suck and was just a crappy version of tryndamere.
In regards to eliminators compared to LOL balance. Yeah...every champion is released overtunned. It is good business. They want to sell the champion before the weirdos without saved blue essence can buy them for free. GW doesn't do this...they literally just don't know they are overturning a models rules.
releasing champion on the stronger side also endure they will see meaningful playrate so they can balance accordingly. An hour on live servers sees more testing of a champion's balance than months of in-house testing.
And no, not all champs are released OP.
The difference between LoL and 40k is that LoL's updates are quick and free whereas 40k takes months and you gotta pay for it. In that regard, LoL > 40k
argonak wrote: What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?
That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?
Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.
Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?
Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.
argonak wrote: What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?
That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?
Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.
Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?
Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.
That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.
If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.
argonak wrote: What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?
That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?
Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.
Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?
Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.
That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.
If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.
Multi Melta was bad - It wasn't so bad it needed double the shots though. The melta rule changing probably would have been enough. Personally I think it should just have a rule that it wounds vehicals and monster on a 2+ and that would have been fine. Double the shots is insane. It is going to need to increase to 30-35 points to be fair.
argonak wrote: What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?
That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?
Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.
Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?
Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.
That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.
If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.
but if you bring up the good units that's also not liked ,
Not Online!!! wrote: The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.
argonak wrote: What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?
That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?
Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.
Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?
Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.
That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.
If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.
but if you bring up the good units that's also not liked ,
Not Online!!! wrote: The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.
Obliterators are literally punished for their ability to shoot twice at +1 to hit and wound and all the buffs they are going to be loaded with.
Compare them to a terminator with a combi plasa and a chain axe though...Not a very big discrepancy IMO. The Term has a 2+ save and 3 Wounds compare to t5 and 3 wounds. Both have 2 quality shots. Terms can be loaded up in 10 man units and take advantage of stratagems. Eradicators capped at 3 man unit so is efficient on it's own but doesn't buff from stratagem that well.
argonak wrote: What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?
That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?
Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.
Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?
Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.
That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.
If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.
but if you bring up the good units that's also not liked ,
Not Online!!! wrote: The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.
Obliterators are literally punished for their ability to shoot twice at +1 to hit and wound and all the buffs they are going to be loaded with.
Compare them to a terminator with a combi plasa and a chain axe though...Not a very big discrepancy IMO. The Term has a 2+ save and 3 Wounds compare to t5 and 3 wounds. Both have 2 quality shots. Terms can be loaded up in 10 man units and take advantage of stratagems. Eradicators capped at 3 man unit so is efficient on it's own but doesn't buff from stratagem that well.
Terminators have 2 wounds, you don't know what Terminators are going to cost when the SM codex gets updated. How about combi-melta Terminators as they are now? You get twice the range and double the shots in return for having -1A +1S AP-1 in melee, that's a bad exchange for the Terminators and 2+ Sv is not so hot in an elite meta. SM have better buffs and abilities than CSM, if Eradicators had to pay even 1CP every time they double-tapped you'd have a point, but it's free and they are OP right now, CSM Terminators are not.
argonak wrote: What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?
That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?
Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.
Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?
Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.
That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.
If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.
Well saying they get double the shots of the Multi-Melta is disingenuous when it was revealed not long after we had rules for Eradicators that Multi-Meltas were getting two shots.
And quite frankly not even taking that into account, they're not exactly excelling compared to other usable Anti-Tank anyway. Anything they're better than is usually more durable too. Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.
argonak wrote: What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?
That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?
Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.
Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?
Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.
That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.
If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.
but if you bring up the good units that's also not liked ,
Not Online!!! wrote: The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.
Obliterators aren't good either unless you stack an impossible amount of buffs on them.
Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.
People are against them because they're an overpowered/undercosted unit that has been recently added to the already existing most overpowered army in the game.
If they were a necrons unit they wouldn't cause the same amount of panic.
Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.
People are against them because they're an overpowered/undercosted unit that has been recently added to the already existing most overpowered army in the game.
If they were a necrons unit they wouldn't cause the same amount of panic.
Then you're basically proving my point. It's one thing to be annoyed at Marines getting more models, but this line of thinking is irrational because you're solely focused on "why do Marines get a Melta model that works?"
argonak wrote: What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?
That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?
Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.
Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?
Except the Multi-Melta is double shots as of the new codex.
That doesn't change anything about the comparison to Aggressors or Hellblasters.
If existing melta is so awful that it's not worth comparing to, as the apologists are so quick to tell us, then we should be ignoring how Eradicators stack up against multi-meltas and instead comparing to other units.
but if you bring up the good units that's also not liked ,
Not Online!!! wrote: The very fact that 3 of them cost 15 pts more then a singular obliterator , should maybee give pause for thought.
Obliterators are literally punished for their ability to shoot twice at +1 to hit and wound and all the buffs they are going to be loaded with.
Compare them to a terminator with a combi plasa and a chain axe though...Not a very big discrepancy IMO. The Term has a 2+ save and 3 Wounds compare to t5 and 3 wounds. Both have 2 quality shots. Terms can be loaded up in 10 man units and take advantage of stratagems. Eradicators capped at 3 man unit so is efficient on it's own but doesn't buff from stratagem that well.
Terminators have 2 wounds, you don't know what Terminators are going to cost when the SM codex gets updated. How about combi-melta Terminators as they are now? You get twice the range and double the shots in return for having -1A +1S AP-1 in melee, that's a bad exchange for the Terminators and 2+ Sv is not so hot in an elite meta. SM have better buffs and abilities than CSM, if Eradicators had to pay even 1CP every time they double-tapped you'd have a point, but it's free and they are OP right now, CSM Terminators are not.
The points on a terminator are not changing much if at all. Anyways we are complaining about cost...if all the cost is changing in 1 month...what is all this discussion about?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Impossible amount of buffs to make obliterators good is the buffs that every choas army takes...You don't even need to take tones troops to make it work anymore ether. You get 15 CP for using 1 detachment. Choas has no right to complain about space marine units. You can buff 1 choas unit to kill half a marine army in 1 turn.
I say this as a choas player myself. Abuse your large units and get maximum effect out of your spells and stratagems...which are a lot better than the space marine ones mind you.
40 plasma hitting on2's reroll 1's with no overheat wounding on 2's...GTFO.
Then you're basically proving my point. It's one thing to be annoyed at Marines getting more models, but this line of thinking is irrational because you're solely focused on "why do Marines get a Melta model that works?"
Not necessarily a melta model, but it's a very efficient unit that doesn't need any external buff and it's super easy to add, just a single kit and just three infantry models. Added on top on a pile of overpowered stuff to chose from.
When a new unit is released and it's also very powerful on papaer it doesn't cause annoyance if it's added to a faction that struggles or is okeyish. Because overall there may be some balance gained by enhancing a faction with a new powerful release, which is healthy for the game. If marines get new mediocre units rulewise no one would really complain, people aren't annoyed that marines get tons of releases, they're annoyed that they get tons of help, even when they don't need it.
I think it's irrational to complain about releases that don't affect the meta. What's the matter with new bad marines units? They're shiny new toys to paint and collect and don't shake up the meta in favor of an army that is basically always competitive.
Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.
as much as I disagree with Slayer, this is true.
People are against them because they're an overpowered/undercosted unit that has been recently added to the already existing most overpowered army in the game.
If they were a necrons unit they wouldn't cause the same amount of panic.
that's bs and you know it. the minute an "OP" is released there is INSTANT & SUSTAINED complaining. People are still bitching about Chaos 3.5.
as has been stated in this very thread, an OP unit is OP irrespective of codex it comes out of.
Then you're basically proving my point. It's one thing to be annoyed at Marines getting more models, but this line of thinking is irrational because you're solely focused on "why do Marines get a Melta model that works?"
Not necessarily a melta model, but it's a very efficient unit that doesn't need any external buff and it's super easy to add, just a single kit and just three infantry models. Added on top on a pile of overpowered stuff to chose from.
When a new unit is released and it's also very powerful on papaer it doesn't cause annoyance if it's added to a faction that struggles or is okeyish. Because overall there may be some balance gained by enhancing a faction with a new powerful release, which is healthy for the game. If marines get new mediocre units rulewise no one would really complain, people aren't annoyed that marines get tons of releases, they're annoyed that they get tons of help, even when they don't need it.
I think it's irrational to complain about releases that don't affect the meta. What's the matter with new bad marines units? They're shiny new toys to paint and collect and don't shake up the meta in favor of an army that is basically always competitive.
It's never acceptable to add imbalanced units, having a poor codex doesn't excuse it as youre not fixing the issues with the dex by papering over the cracks.
I can assure you people would complain about marines getting anything released as happens with literally every release. Rules wise or not a large group will complain.
It's just as rational to complain a unit is bad as it is too good.
Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.
as much as I disagree with Slayer, this is true.
People are against them because they're an overpowered/undercosted unit that has been recently added to the already existing most overpowered army in the game.
If they were a necrons unit they wouldn't cause the same amount of panic.
that's bs and you know it. the minute an "OP" is released there is INSTANT & SUSTAINED complaining. People are still bitching about Chaos 3.5.
as has been stated in this very thread, an OP unit is OP irrespective of codex it comes out of.
Slayer has a point here sadly, the people who complain about marines in general get to team up with the people who are verg involved with game balance. The first group feel justified and become more vocal on behalf of the latter who are usually a minority.
Land Speeder Tempest 6 S6 AP-1 and 2 S6 AP-1 D2 (22 pts worth of damage) vs 2 Eradicators 4 S8 AP-4 Dd6 (80 pts worth of damage). Mobility is kind of irrelevant when you can outflank and Eradicators are more durable. Land Speeders can hit on 4+ in melee with their guns but Eradicator punches + pistols almost makes up for that. The damage on Eradicators is insane, they are making their pts back in a turn, two tops.
Then you're basically proving my point. It's one thing to be annoyed at Marines getting more models, but this line of thinking is irrational because you're solely focused on "why do Marines get a Melta model that works?"
Not necessarily a melta model, but it's a very efficient unit that doesn't need any external buff and it's super easy to add, just a single kit and just three infantry models. Added on top on a pile of overpowered stuff to chose from.
Now we are getting it.
There's a problem with pricing models as though they were buffed all the time. Obliterators are the best example because they're priced like they have a bunch of outside buffs they might not necessarily get. This is a bad way to go about it, as the model is not being priced on its own merits but the merits of other factors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: Land Speeder Tempest 6 S6 AP-1 and 2 S6 AP-1 D2 (22 pts worth of damage) vs 2 Eradicators 4 S8 AP-4 Dd6 (80 pts worth of damage). Mobility is kind of irrelevant when you can outflank and Eradicators are more durable. Land Speeders can hit on 4+ in melee with their guns but Eradicator punches + pistols almost makes up for that. The damage on Eradicators is insane, they are making their pts back in a turn, two tops.
You're looking to imply Eradicators are any good in melee, which is honestly so hilarious I can't even take you seriously.
Then you're basically proving my point. It's one thing to be annoyed at Marines getting more models, but this line of thinking is irrational because you're solely focused on "why do Marines get a Melta model that works?"
Not necessarily a melta model, but it's a very efficient unit that doesn't need any external buff and it's super easy to add, just a single kit and just three infantry models. Added on top on a pile of overpowered stuff to chose from.
Now we are getting it.
There's a problem with pricing models as though they were buffed all the time. Obliterators are the best example because they're priced like they have a bunch of outside buffs they might not necessarily get. This is a bad way to go about it, as the model is not being priced on its own merits but the merits of other factors.
a buff should never be required for a unit to do its job or be balanced into its basic points/abilities. now if you make it additional points/strat, then it makes sense. Is every marine unit costed with Might of heroes in mind? is every Nid unit costed like its including kraken? I sure as gak hope not.
It's never acceptable to add imbalanced units, having a poor codex doesn't excuse it as youre not fixing the issues with the dex by papering over the cracks.
I can assure you people would complain about marines getting anything released as happens with literally every release. Rules wise or not a large group will complain.
It's just as rational to complain a unit is bad as it is too good.
40k has never been and never will be 100% balanced, GW's aim is to sell models not to provide a perfect balanced game. And I'm settled with that as long as the game stays reasonably balanced. Like 8th edition pre-SM codex 2.0. Even the current 9th barring the most competitive primaris marines armies.
Now if a new release is getting incredible rules because GW wants to push sales I can accept that, as long as the average meta doesn't suffer from a faction that bullies everyone else. That's why I made the necron eradicators example; they'd still be overpowered, sure, and overpowered stuff is always bad, but they wouldn't cause the same amount of problems they do if they are added to the current top tier faction.
That's why I believe it's ok to react in a different way if new overpowered unit belongs to the current top tier faction or not. Especially if that factions constantly receives helps. Overpowered units should never exist, we all agree to that, but they do exist the amount of annoyance is caused by the actual impact they have on the meta. Not by their rules in a vacuum.
Obliterators should cost similar to something statted similar. Custodes terminators come to mind.
An oblit is almost the exact same stat block as an allarus terminator. I think only base difference is -1WS/BS and 1" of move. This would put the base model at 57pts.
The weapons are different and the strats they can access are different though.
Allarus get a free grenade launcher and a Castellan axe for 10 pts.
Oblits get their fist for free and their fleshmetal gun. I would like to think that the weapons on the oblit are worth 20 points at least (probably 25 total).
So compared directly an oblit should cost 77-82pts apiece.
Eradicators vs custodian guard with pyrithe.
the guard have BS/WS 2+, +1 str, and a 4++.
Thats probably worth 7-8pts over erradicators base cost.
Weapons are a 2 shot 24" melta vs a 1 shot 12" melta and a guardian spear in melee. This is pretty equal in value overall.
Pyrithe guard are 55 pts apiece, so an erradicator should be at least 47-48pts base.
If you keep them at 40pts apiece, drop the range to 18".
Eihnlazer wrote: Obliterators should cost similar to something statted similar. Custodes terminators come to mind.
An oblit is almost the exact same stat block as an allarus terminator. I think only base difference is -1WS/BS and 1" of move. This would put the base model at 57pts.
The weapons are different and the strats they can access are different though.
Allarus get a free grenade launcher and a Castellan axe for 10 pts.
Oblits get their fist for free and their fleshmetal gun. I would like to think that the weapons on the oblit are worth 20 points at least (probably 25 total).
So compared directly an oblit should cost 77-82pts apiece.
Eradicators vs custodian guard with pyrithe.
the guard have BS/WS 2+, +1 str, and a 4++.
Thats probably worth 7-8pts over erradicators base cost.
Weapons are a 2 shot 24" melta vs a 1 shot 12" melta and a guardian spear in melee. This is pretty equal in value overall.
Pyrithe guard are 55 pts apiece, so an erradicator should be at least 47-48pts base.
If you keep them at 40pts apiece, drop the range to 18".
Actually realistically the 4++ and ws and bs 2+ is worth a lot more than 8 points. A 4++ for a crisis suit is straight up 8 points. +1 to hit in melee and shooting gotta be worth at least 4 points plus they also have a 2+ save That is worth a lot too...standing in cover it gets a friggen 3+ against ap-2 and still gets a 3+ save against ap -1 in the open.
The pyrite spear dude should cost a lot more than the eradicator and he does...It's a 5 to 10 point discrepancy at best. If you include 9 of them in your army...ALL YOUR HEAVY SUPPORT SLOTS. You can buy yourself a scout squad with all the OP savings you got...
Honestly I am all for the 18" range - They will be too expensive if they go over 45 points.
Buddy, both of those sites (especially champion.gg) are meme sites with a low to mid tier elo slant. Champion.gg pulls data from platinum 5 and up, and to be blunt any stats lower than Diamond 1 to Masters aren't even worth talking about. Below that the skill levels are so disparate it bluntly does not matter, and champions who are excellent at beating the gak out of bad players (like Garen) overperform. In fact, glancing at that tier list that is indeed a good tier list for "climbing", which is to say climbing from low elo. Champions like Garen hit a wall where people no longer play into your strengths and let you take over the game, where his incredibly basic kit can't adapt to the game pace. There's a reason riste, probably the highest profile NA Garen player, eventually gave up trying to maintain challenger as a Garen player for the good of his mental health.
Do you want to know how often Garen has been played in Challenger NA in the last month? Four times. Yone by comparison has a much more respectable 266 games, and Sett the "tier 3 champion" over three hundred. I also can't help but notice Lilia being relatively spammed (and no her 45% win rate does not matter considering challenger by default has a low sample size).
And that's just NA. In Korea Garen has literally not been played a single time in the last month in challenger:
But they, probably the most competitive region still, sure seem to play Sett with him being the second most-played champion in that elo. Yone is admittedly not being played as much as he is in NA so I might have been wrong about him.
But anyway, generic stats sites don't tell anywhere near the full story, since they pretty much all by default show plat+ stats. And like I said, that tier list is decent if you want something to help you climb out of silver or gold or whatever, not so much if you actually want to hit challenger (Garen is incredibly hard to play in truly high elo).
Yone, Lillia, Sett(took a while before he became OP), Volibear rework.
.
Sett was top tier on release with like a 54-55% win rate (extremely high for a new champ) my man, and when Voli wasn't he was very quickly made top tier.
And you can find exceptions all you want, but that's generally all they are: exceptions to the rule. For a legitimate exception, albeit going back a little while, when Illaoi was released she wasn't top tier and pretty much never has been, but that's because her kit is fundamentally weak, or at least binary.
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.
I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.
Then you've only played LoL in very recent times. It's always been a crapshoot in my experience with new champs being either terrible or OP. (I played since right before it came out of beta, but haven't actually played this season for the first time ever--I'll probably log in and play just until I hit gold just like I do for every season lol)
Void, most people are not challenger players, that's the point of challenger, it's not for most people. Are Eradicators terrible at top levels or bottom levels of 40k play? Anyways we shouldn't talk about skill or we'll invite the 40k doesn't involve skill crowd. Challenger players have enough IP that they are not going to pay money for the newest champion anyways, challenger is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
vict0988 wrote: Land Speeder Tempest 6 S6 AP-1 and 2 S6 AP-1 D2 (22 pts worth of damage) vs 2 Eradicators 4 S8 AP-4 Dd6 (80 pts worth of damage). Mobility is kind of irrelevant when you can outflank and Eradicators are more durable. Land Speeders can hit on 4+ in melee with their guns but Eradicator punches + pistols almost makes up for that. The damage on Eradicators is insane, they are making their pts back in a turn, two tops.
You're looking to imply Eradicators are any good in melee, which is honestly so hilarious I can't even take you seriously.
Is that you claiming that Land Speeder Tempests are good in melee? I said one wasn't much worse than the other, I wasn't aware that LSTs were amazing melee units, I was just comparing two units. It's clear that Eradicators are pretty bad in melee, although they'll beat an equal number of Ogryn if they are in Assault Doctrine, it also takes 24 Flayed Ones (336 pts or 2,8 x the value of 3 Eradicators) to kill 3 Eradicators in melee, it takes 32,4 Eradicators (1296 pts or 3,9 x the value of 24 Flayed Ones) to kill 24 Flayed ones in melee if they are in Assault Doctrine. How many melta shots do Flayed Ones make again? "It must be somewhere around half as many as Eradicators because they punch a bit harder in melee right?" "Wait, what do you mean Flayed Ones don't get meltaguns?"
Eradicators aren't some boogeyman to be afraid of. People are simply against them because it's the first usable MELTA unit.
Wrong statement is wrong.
Please name all the usable Melta units that appeared for 8th then.
Is the question in 8th only? Then formulate that statement correctly.
I mean you DO remember me being a big fan of suicide melta right? Termicide, Scout Missile, etc. I think it's obvious the statement was talking about last edition.
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.
I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.
Then you've only played LoL in very recent times. It's always been a crapshoot in my experience with new champs being either terrible or OP. (I played since right before it came out of beta, but haven't actually played this season for the first time ever--I'll probably log in and play just until I hit gold just like I do for every season lol)
I think it's safe to say that it is a new era of LOL. Cant say exactly when it started but probably like...yasuo?
Just look at Yasuos kit.multipart passive...gets a shield that recharges from ulting or moving/doubles crit chance q that stacks into a long range aoe knock-up with practically no cast time - w gap closer that does damage and resets on new target - e blocks any ranged projectile for like 3 seconds from a selected direction - ult locks down any knock up target and grants 50% armor pen...
COME ON MAN - compare that to like pre rework pantheon and its like...WUT?
Skill is such an important factor in LOL though. like miliseconds matter. So an OP champ at high lvl is not the same as an OP unit in 40k. put faker on anything and he will destroy you with jukes. So reliability becomes the most important factor for high teir play...not just steam face roll OP 1v5 carry ability like a yi or a yas or an irelia does if they get slighty ahead. It is a frustrating game because of this...because they allow champs to get out of hand in order to try and shake up competitive play. They just gonna keep picking olaf and lee sin for days though because they are reliable at what they do.
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.
I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.
Then you've only played LoL in very recent times. It's always been a crapshoot in my experience with new champs being either terrible or OP. (I played since right before it came out of beta, but haven't actually played this season for the first time ever--I'll probably log in and play just until I hit gold just like I do for every season lol)
I think it's safe to say that it is a new era of LOL. Cant say exactly when it started but probably like...yasuo?
Just look at Yasuos kit.multipart passive...gets a shield that recharges from ulting or moving/doubles crit chance q that stacks into a long range aoe knock-up with practically no cast time - w gap closer that does damage and resets on new target - e blocks any ranged projectile for like 3 seconds from a selected direction - ult locks down any knock up target and grants 50% armor pen...
COME ON MAN - compare that to like pre rework pantheon and its like...WUT?
Skill is such an important factor in LOL though. like miliseconds matter. So an OP champ at high lvl is not the same as an OP unit in 40k. put faker on anything and he will destroy you with jukes. So reliability becomes the most important factor for high teir play...not just steam face roll OP 1v5 carry ability like a yi or a yas or an irelia does if they get slighty ahead. It is a frustrating game because of this...because they allow champs to get out of hand in order to try and shake up competitive play. They just gonna keep picking olaf and lee sin for days though because they are reliable at what they do.
Well LoL would probably be different if the whole enemy team got to make their plays instead of the current "oh I can react to that" real time it is.
Amazing I can relate most of the problems of 40k to IGOUGO not being abandoned.
A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).
315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do EDIT:14.5.
Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.
The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.
Compared to a video game, like League, 40k has much less room for skill expression. Part of this is due to the heavy RNG inherent in a game that relies on rolling dice to determine outcomes and the other half is that the rules are fairly shallow and the implementation of IGOUGO is essentially non-interactive. The other half is that it's played out in turns rather than in real-time, so quick reactions and high levels of awareness aren't needed. There are also no drafts where you get to ban-pick-counter pick your opponent using a variety of units, no dynamic items to build or skills to rank up over the course of a single match, no timed objectives to shift the focus of the battle around the playspace in-game, and no real alternative strategies (lane swaps, flex picks, split push, dragon stacking versus focusing on rift scuttle and farming, early game versus scaling, etc.).
So unlike League where you can have champions that work well at each tier of play (Under Plat, Plat and Diamond, Challenger, Pro) there isn't really room to make units that work well at one tier but have a low skill cap or units that only a very skilled player can make use of. There also isn't an automated matchmaker for 40k and even if there were the relatively tiny player base and long game times mean that it would struggle to find even matches in a reasonable length of time.
All this basically says that we should raise the floor on bad units in 40k while lowering good units because everything has to fall into the same tier of play and compounding a skill imbalance because 40k does take skill to play well, with a list imbalance is going to result in many poor games.
Daedalus81 wrote: A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).
315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do 16.5 (21.2 at half range).
Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.
The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.
6 eradicators vs a knight at max range are getting 12 shots, 8 hits and 4 wounds for 14dmg on average. why waste the CM and 2CP to get +2.5 dmg, hell, id rather grab a 3rd squad of eradicators for almost the same price and just do 21dmg on average.
Daedalus81 wrote: The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.
This might be a "yes obviously" - but can you even CP it?
Daedalus81 wrote: The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.
This might be a "yes obviously" - but can you even CP it?
Not in 9th. The spell is a bit of a joke, too. WC7 to reroll one die.
Daedalus81 wrote: A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).
315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do 16.5 (21.2 at half range).
Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.
The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.
6 eradicators vs a knight at max range are getting 12 shots, 8 hits and 4 wounds for 14dmg on average. why waste the CM and 2CP to get +2.5 dmg, hell, id rather grab a 3rd squad of eradicators for almost the same price and just do 21dmg on average.
Yea that's fair. Though I did the math wrong and gave +1 to wound to both units, so it is 14.5 instead of 16.5.
Daedalus81 wrote: A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).
315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do 16.5 (21.2 at half range).
Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.
The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.
Against a knight? Yes. Because its 5++ warps the outcome by negating the eradicators AP-4. Against a T8 3+ target without a 5++ it's eradicators 24.889 vs obliterators 21.333 with both getting the support you included. Without support its eradicators 14 vs obliterators 8. Eradicators aren't that big of a problem for something like a knight but a big one for vehicles that lack invuls. It also shows just how important buff stacking is for the obliterators who fall quickly behind the eradicators without it. Eradicators, however, are fine unsupported.
Daedalus81 wrote: A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).
315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do 16.5 (21.2 at half range).
Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.
The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.
6 eradicators vs a knight at max range are getting 12 shots, 8 hits and 4 wounds for 14dmg on average. why waste the CM and 2CP to get +2.5 dmg, hell, id rather grab a 3rd squad of eradicators for almost the same price and just do 21dmg on average.
Yea that's fair. Though I did the math wrong and gave +1 to wound to both units, so it is 14.5 instead of 16.5.
You were correct in giving the eradicators +1 to wound. You specified that they were Salamanders, who get +1 to wound in the tactical doctrine with melta weapons, which is when they'd most likely hit. And eradicators aren't getting 4 unsaved wounds on a knight unsupported, you're forgetting the knights 5++. They'll do 9.333 damage on average against a knight unsupported, 12.444 if they're Salamanders in the tactical doctrine.
Daedalus81 wrote: A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).
315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do EDIT:14.5.
Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.
The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.
Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Daedalus81 wrote: The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.
This might be a "yes obviously" - but can you even CP it?
Not normally. Iron Warriors do have a stratagem for it: Rampant Technovirus, 1CP; until end of phase, you can reroll any or all D3 rolls made for Fleshmetal profiles for an Obliterator unit.
Buddy, both of those sites (especially champion.gg) are meme sites with a low to mid tier elo slant. Champion.gg pulls data from platinum 5 and up, and to be blunt any stats lower than Diamond 1 to Masters aren't even worth talking about. Below that the skill levels are so disparate it bluntly does not matter, and champions who are excellent at beating the gak out of bad players (like Garen) overperform. In fact, glancing at that tier list that is indeed a good tier list for "climbing", which is to say climbing from low elo. Champions like Garen hit a wall where people no longer play into your strengths and let you take over the game, where his incredibly basic kit can't adapt to the game pace. There's a reason riste, probably the highest profile NA Garen player, eventually gave up trying to maintain challenger as a Garen player for the good of his mental health.
Do you want to know how often Garen has been played in Challenger NA in the last month? Four times. Yone by comparison has a much more respectable 266 games, and Sett the "tier 3 champion" over three hundred. I also can't help but notice Lilia being relatively spammed (and no her 45% win rate does not matter considering challenger by default has a low sample size).
And that's just NA. In Korea Garen has literally not been played a single time in the last month in challenger:
But they, probably the most competitive region still, sure seem to play Sett with him being the second most-played champion in that elo. Yone is admittedly not being played as much as he is in NA so I might have been wrong about him.
But anyway, generic stats sites don't tell anywhere near the full story, since they pretty much all by default show plat+ stats. And like I said, that tier list is decent if you want something to help you climb out of silver or gold or whatever, not so much if you actually want to hit challenger (Garen is incredibly hard to play in truly high elo).
Yone, Lillia, Sett(took a while before he became OP), Volibear rework.
.
Sett was top tier on release with like a 54-55% win rate (extremely high for a new champ) my man, and when Voli wasn't he was very quickly made top tier.
And you can find exceptions all you want, but that's generally all they are: exceptions to the rule. For a legitimate exception, albeit going back a little while, when Illaoi was released she wasn't top tier and pretty much never has been, but that's because her kit is fundamentally weak, or at least binary.
What is this post even doing in a 40k forum talking about Eradicators?
Take it to PMs, seriously.
Daedalus81 wrote: The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.
This might be a "yes obviously" - but can you even CP it?
Not normally. Iron Warriors do have a stratagem for it: Rampant Technovirus, 1CP; until end of phase, you can reroll any or all D3 rolls made for Fleshmetal profiles for an Obliterator unit.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
It's important to discuss as most of those games have balance patches for free and probably don't mess up as hard with OP crap. I'm sure there's exceptions but not a lot.
It's important to discuss as most of those games have balance patches for free and probably don't mess up as hard with OP crap. I'm sure there's exceptions but not a lot.
I've played lots of video games where you've had some pretty blatently broken stuff that they've taken forever to nerf
It's important to discuss as most of those games have balance patches for free and probably don't mess up as hard with OP crap. I'm sure there's exceptions but not a lot.
I've played lots of video games where you've had some pretty blatently broken stuff that they've taken forever to nerf
It's important to discuss as most of those games have balance patches for free and probably don't mess up as hard with OP crap. I'm sure there's exceptions but not a lot.
I've played lots of video games where you've had some pretty blatently broken stuff that they've taken forever to nerf
GW is in the business of selling models, once you understand that...its pretty easy to get the game. If you're enamored by what's strongest, you've been caught...hook...line...& sinker.
the 2 types of games are not even close to being similar.
By their very nature online video games have instant feedback due to the online nature of them. Reaction times, player "skill"(hopping in fortnite, which is the stupidest thing ever, not that I play or have even played it once), figuring out the physics to make stuff that's literally impossible happen, and exploiting are relatively easy to "balance". tweak the algorithm a lil and bam, all of the sudden gaks changed.
Whereas tabletop games take months to even come close to the same number of games that can happen in the first day of an online one. Something tells me that the total number of people that play 40k(worldwide)wouldnt even be considered worth considering for a video games balancing around.
Dice rolling, model availability, etc are much much harder to account for. Someone rolling hot with a crappy army can win a game vs an OP army that's gone cold on the bones, how can you reconcile that?
also, I cant exactly build/paint any of the online game stuff and then play, now can I????
It's important to discuss as most of those games have balance patches for free and probably don't mess up as hard with OP crap. I'm sure there's exceptions but not a lot.
I've played lots of video games where you've had some pretty blatently broken stuff that they've taken forever to nerf
GW is in the business of selling models, once you understand that...its pretty easy to get the game. If you're enamored by what's strongest, you've been caught...hook...line...& sinker.
the 2 types of games are not even close to being similar.
By their very nature online video games have instant feedback due to the online nature of them. Reaction times, player "skill"(hopping in fortnite, which is the stupidest thing ever, not that I play or have even played it once), figuring out the physics to make stuff that's literally impossible happen, and exploiting are relatively easy to "balance". tweak the algorithm a lil and bam, all of the sudden gaks changed.
Whereas tabletop games take months to even come close to the same number of games that can happen in the first day of an online one. Something tells me that the total number of people that play 40k(worldwide)wouldnt even be considered worth considering for a video games balancing around.
Dice rolling, model availability, etc are much much harder to account for. Someone rolling hot with a crappy army can win a game vs an OP army that's gone cold on the bones, how can you reconcile that?
also, I cant exactly build/paint any of the online game stuff and then play, now can I????
I have a feeling you haven't played a video game before.
The amount of variables and agency in video games are essentially unparalleled compared to the agency in a board game consisting of a handful of stats. Take a look at fighting games for example, a single punch has startup frames, active frames, recovery frames, hitbox and hurtbox; and yet they manage to be balanced.
Are you telling me that a simple game, with simple rules, with simple interactions cannot be balanced? Lmfao.
I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.
an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.
oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.
If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?
It's important to discuss as most of those games have balance patches for free and probably don't mess up as hard with OP crap. I'm sure there's exceptions but not a lot.
I've played lots of video games where you've had some pretty blatently broken stuff that they've taken forever to nerf
GW is in the business of selling models, once you understand that...its pretty easy to get the game. If you're enamored by what's strongest, you've been caught...hook...line...& sinker.
the 2 types of games are not even close to being similar.
By their very nature online video games have instant feedback due to the online nature of them. Reaction times, player "skill"(hopping in fortnite, which is the stupidest thing ever, not that I play or have even played it once), figuring out the physics to make stuff that's literally impossible happen, and exploiting are relatively easy to "balance". tweak the algorithm a lil and bam, all of the sudden gaks changed.
Whereas tabletop games take months to even come close to the same number of games that can happen in the first day of an online one. Something tells me that the total number of people that play 40k(worldwide)wouldnt even be considered worth considering for a video games balancing around.
Dice rolling, model availability, etc are much much harder to account for. Someone rolling hot with a crappy army can win a game vs an OP army that's gone cold on the bones, how can you reconcile that?
also, I cant exactly build/paint any of the online game stuff and then play, now can I????
I have a feeling you haven't played a video game before.
The amount of variables and agency in video games are essentially unparalleled compared to the agency in a board game consisting of a handful of stats. Take a look at fighting games for example, a single punch has startup frames, active frames, recovery frames, hitbox and hurtbox; and yet they manage to be balanced.
Are you telling me that a simple game, with simple rules, with simple interactions cannot be balanced? Lmfao.
and some of those fighting games have plenty of exploits and unbalanced things. or did when I played them, fighting games don't hold my intreast these days because I tend to prefer a story, most fighting games last I checked made porno movie plots seem deep and enaging by contrast
Racerguy180 wrote: I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.
an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.
oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.
If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?
But for those of us that dont....
This just reeks of the button masher that wonders why they don't ever win a game and proceeds to call anyone that learned any combos a tryhard.
I have a feeling you haven't played a video game before.
The amount of variables and agency in video games are essentially unparalleled compared to the agency in a board game consisting of a handful of stats. Take a look at fighting games for example, a single punch has startup frames, active frames, recovery frames, hitbox and hurtbox; and yet they manage to be balanced.
Are you telling me that a simple game, with simple rules, with simple interactions cannot be balanced? Lmfao.
Simpler games are often harder to balance because they are so simple. Complexity adds more levers for balance.
Racerguy180 wrote: I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.
an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.
oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.
If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?
But for those of us that dont....
This just reeks of the button masher that wonders why they don't ever win a game and proceeds to call anyone that learned any combos a tryhard.
umm, no. I know plenty of combos (cuz you use those in REAL hand to hand combat) ya know a skill that can save your life. but i can do that in a video game as well. I just CHOOSE not to. it's more fun if there are REAL stakes. I'd just rather spend my money on something real, rather than 1's and 0's.
Racerguy180 wrote: I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.
an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.
oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.
If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?
But for those of us that dont....
This just reeks of the button masher that wonders why they don't ever win a game and proceeds to call anyone that learned any combos a tryhard.
online communities in gaming can be pretty fething toxic. button masher or not doesn't have anything to do with it.
Racerguy180 wrote: I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.
an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.
oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.
If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?
But for those of us that dont....
This just reeks of the button masher that wonders why they don't ever win a game and proceeds to call anyone that learned any combos a tryhard.
umm, no. I know plenty of combos (cuz you use those in REAL hand to hand combat) ya know a skill that can save your life. but i can do that in a video game as well. I just CHOOSE not to. it's more fun if there are REAL stakes. I'd just rather spend my money on something real, rather than 1's and 0's.
That's the scrub mentality in a nutshell. Your self imposed rules have no bearing on any discussion.
Racerguy180 wrote: I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.
an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.
oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.
If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?
But for those of us that dont....
This just reeks of the button masher that wonders why they don't ever win a game and proceeds to call anyone that learned any combos a tryhard.
online communities in gaming can be pretty fething toxic. button masher or not doesn't have anything to do with it.
Read his reply and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Racerguy180 wrote: I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.
an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.
oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.
If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?
But for those of us that dont....
This just reeks of the button masher that wonders why they don't ever win a game and proceeds to call anyone that learned any combos a tryhard.
online communities in gaming can be pretty fething toxic. button masher or not doesn't have anything to do with it.
Yeah sure, but anecdotally tighter-nit communities like the FGC isn't very toxic at all. Aside from a certain few people like LTG. Lmao.
I have a feeling you haven't played a video game before.
The amount of variables and agency in video games are essentially unparalleled compared to the agency in a board game consisting of a handful of stats. Take a look at fighting games for example, a single punch has startup frames, active frames, recovery frames, hitbox and hurtbox; and yet they manage to be balanced.
Are you telling me that a simple game, with simple rules, with simple interactions cannot be balanced? Lmfao.
Simpler games are often harder to balance because they are so simple. Complexity adds more levers for balance.
Eh, disagree. A simple card game like MTG manages to maintain balance without the need for bells and whistles.
Eonfuzz wrote: Eh, disagree. A simple card game like MTG manages to maintain balance without the need for bells and whistles.
I think its very hard to claim MTG is "balanced" in any obvious way that wouldn't equally apply to 40k.
I also don't think you can compare balance in a turn based game to anything with real time.
In League, or Street Fighter, or Starcraft, the balance issue is me being able to do "X" and you not being able to counter it. Or - moving from absolutes - not being able to counter it without demonstrating such a superiority of skill that it makes the game daft (and should eventually prove impossible as you move up any ladder).
40k doesn't really work that way due to the limited interactivity between players (which people whinge about, bring on alternate activations in a D12 system where no model bigger than a rhino is permitted and there are 8 different armour directions and damage tables etc etc).
So you can only really compare units performing in comparison to other units - and ones which are odds on to do too much damage, or are odds on to take too much damage to destroy, for a comparative number of points, are usually a balance issue. This isn't perfect, and there may still be fundamental imbalances such as "going first" and "secondary objective selection" - but it would be a good start.
Using LoL in any kind of discussion like this as if it is some kind of counterpoint also ignores that the game sells you heroes and runes. You are directly incentivised to buy power. Sure, you can theoretically grind to get them for free, but that will take literal months of doing nothing else with your free time apart from playing LoL.
A lot of these games also have "yearly installments" where they rake you for $60+ just to get the new "balancing pass" (aka: improvements from last year's game). These also 100% invalidate a lot of work, keeping you on that tread a little longer.
But I guess we forgot how these games really rake their players. At least I don't have to pay tons of extra cash to get some fancy Ronin Warriors inspired skin for my Space Marines. Oh, wait, Forge World did that... lol.
Bosskelot wrote: Using LoL in any kind of discussion like this as if it is some kind of counterpoint also ignores that the game sells you heroes and runes. You are directly incentivised to buy power. Sure, you can theoretically grind to get them for free, but that will take literal months of doing nothing else with your free time apart from playing LoL.
You don't buy runes anymore and most champion are on a similar powerlevel (in their respetive roles). Basically you buy champions that fit your playstyle more then for their "OP-ness" the % winrate of champions is usually between 45-55% and any outlier get patched for free in a reasonable amount of time. LoL is a completely FTP game with 0% P2W.
MTG isnt balanced anymore, after 25 years, they managed to feth up what they were doing right and now theyre spamming bans (30-ish in the last 5? years).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Purifying Tempest wrote: A lot of these games also have "yearly installments" where they rake you for $60+ just to get the new "balancing pass" (aka: improvements from last year's game). These also 100% invalidate a lot of work, keeping you on that tread a little longer.
But I guess we forgot how these games really rake their players. At least I don't have to pay tons of extra cash to get some fancy Ronin Warriors inspired skin for my Space Marines. Oh, wait, Forge World did that... lol.
What games make you pay for patches in 2020?
If you're talking about new versions of the game (Smash bros 4 vs Smash bros Ultimate for example), this isnt a balance patch, they are brand new games.
The only thing you pay for in Smash is for the new characters, which you are in no way obligated to buy. The balance patches are free.
Part of the reason for banned cards in magic is that they provide cards for multiple player types. That includes cards who are story driven, but can be unbalanced. They basically go into each set knowing that certain cards are likely to be banned, because they're trying to appeal to multiple player types. Having a banned list for competitive lets them have their cake and eat it too.
Mmmpi wrote: Part of the reason for banned cards in magic is that they provide cards for multiple player types. That includes cards who are story driven, but can be unbalanced. They basically go into each set knowing that certain cards are likely to be banned, because they're trying to appeal to multiple player types. Having a banned list for competitive lets them have their cake and eat it too.
The "story driven cards" aren't the ones being banned. And they went 6 years with no bans in standard to most sets realeased having at least one card banned. They clearly messed up a part of their design process
Daedalus81 wrote: A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).
315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do 16.5 (21.2 at half range).
Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.
The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.
6 eradicators vs a knight at max range are getting 12 shots, 8 hits and 4 wounds for 14dmg on average. why waste the CM and 2CP to get +2.5 dmg, hell, id rather grab a 3rd squad of eradicators for almost the same price and just do 21dmg on average.
Because you are taking CM anyways? Also - have to get within 12 to get melta rule.
New edition = new version of the game. GW does this every 3ish years, instead of annually.
New fancy characters to play with = codices. Which, unless you're space marines, seem to come out at about the same timing (every 3ish years).
These numbers are not absolute, but it is just to illustrate that like any big multiplayer game, the company keeps you on the release train buying the newest fad... be it through a new game where all the people will be playing (edition change), or getting the new hotness (a codex update).
Balancing patches (Big FAQs) are free. Game expansions (Chapter Approved) cost, but are normally substantially less than the core game.
The BIG difference is that typical online games are vastly more fast-paced in both game play and release. They definitely operate in the 'agile' space... where a big game like 40K tends to operate in 'waterfall'.
So... I mean, there's lots of parallels, but saying you get everything free in these online multiplayer games is disregarding how they really monetize the game. A developer is not going to constantly inject balancings and content for free... that's more like a AAA standalone release that may receive triage care through its first year, but that care DRASTICALLY drops off as the game ages and teams move onto new projects, and the game becomes either "as-is, no new improvements" or "community managed".
Why are we expecting GW to do anything different? They have to monetize their product, otherwise they won't be able to keep the lights on in their offices.
They always swinging to make good units, I just think in the case of Eradicators, they got a really solid hit. A unit that can punch ridiculously hard and has a really good defensive profile compared to many other "on foot" options that aren't Custodes or Terminator-styled. They're made a bit better because things like Salamanders exist, and that particular trait needs to be destroyed where ever it exists, lol.
I'm not even really sure how to handle it at this point, maybe a simple points increase will do... but that being said, I'd prefer to play against them than not at all. Fortunately, I adhere to "all units cost 0 points when they hit the table" and tend to react to what they can do to the game instead of how many points they cost.
Anyways, rambling now. Friend and I had a longish talk about Eradicators, I've simmered down about them. They're powerful, they give my Fire Dragons some wicked envy, and I just dance around them to try to ignore them while weakening the rest of the opponent's board. All said, I don't really care about them. Ultramarine Aggressors on the other hand...
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
Thank you. Daedalus can always be counted on to make really strong points.
and ofc! "The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too)." if you are gonna complain about space marine auras...you better start complaining about every rules stack situation. ESP COMBO WOMBO that end up tripling or quadrupling average damage or in some cases even by a factor of 10.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: Infinity releases free balance patches. They even release free rules and an armybuilder that actually works.
How GW hasnt moved to this model just blows my mind. So behind the times in everything but making the best models.
You'd have a point if you started 40k with any army rules, but you dont. Thats literally buying a balance patch right there compared to Index armies (which also has to be purchased!)
Xenomancers wrote: How GW hasnt moved to this model just blows my mind. So behind the times in everything but making the best models.
Depends on what percentage of their revenue people are spending on rules.
I guess you'd say that if people spent less on rules, they'd spend more on plastic - but then plastic supply may be limited in various ways, in a way that digital hats, or whatever, aren't.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
Thank you. Daedalus can always be counted on to make really strong points.
and ofc! "The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too)." if you are gonna complain about space marine auras...you better start complaining about every rules stack situation. ESP COMBO WOMBO that end up tripling or quadrupling average damage or in some cases even by a factor of 10.
People do, including many who play the most WOMBO COMBO army in the game, including myself. I'd love it if gw would abandon the "stack buffs on that bad unit until it's good" design they've stuck csm with and just gave our units rules that allow them to work without that ccg crap. Then they could nix all the strategems that allow you to pull those combos off. Shoot/attack twice and +1 to wound strategems/traits/psychic powers should be the first to go.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
Thank you. Daedalus can always be counted on to make really strong points.
and ofc! "The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too)." if you are gonna complain about space marine auras...you better start complaining about every rules stack situation. ESP COMBO WOMBO that end up tripling or quadrupling average damage or in some cases even by a factor of 10.
People do, including many who play the most WOMBO COMBO army in the game, including myself. I'd love it if gw would abandon the "stack buffs on that bad unit until it's good" design they've stuck csm with and just gave our units rules that allow them to work without that ccg crap. Then they could nix all the strategems that allow you to pull those combos off. Shoot/attack twice and +1 to wound strategems/traits/psychic powers should be the first to go.
As much flak as loyalist get for their doctrines, giving them +1 Ap on various werapons as the game goes on was a good way to make bad units decent.
The fact that possessed was a legitimate strategy for csm shows how stupid the codex is.
Xenomancers wrote: How GW hasnt moved to this model just blows my mind. So behind the times in everything but making the best models.
Depends on what percentage of their revenue people are spending on rules.
I guess you'd say that if people spent less on rules, they'd spend more on plastic - but then plastic supply may be limited in various ways, in a way that digital hats, or whatever, aren't.
Also, free doesn't go hand in hand with the best in the world and exclusive hobby. And it is hard to explain the game not being an exclusive hobby with 60$ non limited edition models.
Plus infinity is made by spaniard, and they are always strangly nice.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
Thank you. Daedalus can always be counted on to make really strong points.
and ofc! "The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too)." if you are gonna complain about space marine auras...you better start complaining about every rules stack situation. ESP COMBO WOMBO that end up tripling or quadrupling average damage or in some cases even by a factor of 10.
People do, including many who play the most WOMBO COMBO army in the game, including myself. I'd love it if gw would abandon the "stack buffs on that bad unit until it's good" design they've stuck csm with and just gave our units rules that allow them to work without that ccg crap. Then they could nix all the strategems that allow you to pull those combos off. Shoot/attack twice and +1 to wound strategems/traits/psychic powers should be the first to go.
Thats a problem too with most strats not exactly being strategic.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
An autocannon Armiger kills 1,7 Eradicators (71 pts or 41% of the Armiger's value) on average, saying that it pretty reliably kills 2 is cooking the books IMO. 3 Eradicators deal 6,2 damage to an Armiger on average (91 pts or 76% of the Eradicator units' value). Were you trying to reinforce Eradicators being OP by showing how the perfect counter unit fails as soon as the Eradicators get into range? 60" range is amazing but with the changes to reinforcements and recomended minimum board size the Eradicators are massively better than auto Armigers. Eradicators can benefit from better faction rules than Armigers can, but as I have just shown, they don't even need to be Salamanders to absolutely eradicate autocannon Armigers despite them seemingly having all the right solutions for countering them between an invul save and a damage 3 weapon with a little bit of AP. Asking for 48 pts as a start is not outrageous, it's perfectly reasonable given that math supports them going all the way to 55 and still being decent, which then turns them into being great if they are Salamanders or get support from the very competitively costed support HQ Marines have in the form of a Chapter Master and Lieutenant.
Xenomancers wrote: How GW hasnt moved to this model just blows my mind. So behind the times in everything but making the best models.
Depends on what percentage of their revenue people are spending on rules.
I guess you'd say that if people spent less on rules, they'd spend more on plastic - but then plastic supply may be limited in various ways, in a way that digital hats, or whatever, aren't.
There would still be a cost for rules I am sure if they went digital. The question is how much. Per year your average sucker is probably spending between 150-300 dollars on rules. A 10-20 dollar/month subscription would cover that - for those who can't afford you can just get access to your armies specific rules and core game rules for the cost of the codex today...(30$?). Since I'm sure GW already has servers for their online content - just add more space and hire the necessary staff to maintain the system and update it periodically. I would imagine that would actually cost less than paying a company to print millions of copies of a book.
Why does GW just do it like gaming companies. Have core books for core factions, but leave the good rules in supplements, which would be digital only and require both the paying for the digital rules, and upkeeping the subscription for their army builder app. And every edition they could update the app, being puting out a new one, so people would have to jump to that one if they wanted to have 10th ed rules.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
Thank you. Daedalus can always be counted on to make really strong points.
and ofc! "The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too)." if you are gonna complain about space marine auras...you better start complaining about every rules stack situation. ESP COMBO WOMBO that end up tripling or quadrupling average damage or in some cases even by a factor of 10.
People do, including many who play the most WOMBO COMBO army in the game, including myself. I'd love it if gw would abandon the "stack buffs on that bad unit until it's good" design they've stuck csm with and just gave our units rules that allow them to work without that ccg crap. Then they could nix all the strategems that allow you to pull those combos off. Shoot/attack twice and +1 to wound strategems/traits/psychic powers should be the first to go.
There is a fair bit more hatred going towards loyalists for every good combo they have. Sometimes it sounds like marines are the only strong army in the game they way people complain. its funny because I play lots of armies and consider lots of them to be as strong or stronger than marines.
Karol wrote: Why does GW just do it like gaming companies. Have core books for core factions, but leave the good rules in supplements, which would be digital only and require both the paying for the digital rules, and upkeeping the subscription for their army builder app. And every edition they could update the app, being puting out a new one, so people would have to jump to that one if they wanted to have 10th ed rules.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
An autocannon Armiger kills 1,7 Eradicators (71 pts or 41% of the Armiger's value) on average, saying that it pretty reliably kills 2 is cooking the books IMO. 3 Eradicators deal 6,2 damage to an Armiger on average (91 pts or 76% of the Eradicator units' value). Were you trying to reinforce Eradicators being OP by showing how the perfect counter unit fails as soon as the Eradicators get into range? 60" range is amazing but with the changes to reinforcements and recomended minimum board size the Eradicators are massively better than auto Armigers. Eradicators can benefit from better faction rules than Armigers can, but as I have just shown, they don't even need to be Salamanders to absolutely eradicate autocannon Armigers despite them seemingly having all the right solutions for countering them between an invul save and a damage 3 weapon with a little bit of AP. Asking for 48 pts as a start is not outrageous, it's perfectly reasonable given that math supports them going all the way to 55 and still being decent, which then turns them into being great if they are Salamanders or get support from the very competitively costed support HQ Marines have in the form of a Chapter Master and Lieutenant.
We're circling the drain again. Why is it always assumed that eradicators will have freedom to appear inside of 12" with full rerolls and magically their targets haven't been out wrecking other stuff in the turn they're off the table?
Those 3 units of eradicators (360 points) by your own admission kill 1 armiger and half kill another (175 killed and 88 of damage assuming stubbers) Pretty sure their big brothers will then turn and summarily execute said eradicators.
The vacuum mathshammering for this never works out because of too many external factors.
An autocannon Armiger kills 1,7 Eradicators (71 pts or 41% of the Armiger's value) on average, saying that it pretty reliably kills 2 is cooking the books IMO. 3 Eradicators deal 6,2 damage to an Armiger on average (91 pts or 76% of the Eradicator units' value). Were you trying to reinforce Eradicators being OP by showing how the perfect counter unit fails as soon as the Eradicators get into range? 60" range is amazing but with the changes to reinforcements and recomended minimum board size the Eradicators are massively better than auto Armigers. Eradicators can benefit from better faction rules than Armigers can, but as I have just shown, they don't even need to be Salamanders to absolutely eradicate autocannon Armigers despite them seemingly having all the right solutions for countering them between an invul save and a damage 3 weapon with a little bit of AP. Asking for 48 pts as a start is not outrageous, it's perfectly reasonable given that math supports them going all the way to 55 and still being decent, which then turns them into being great if they are Salamanders or get support from the very competitively costed support HQ Marines have in the form of a Chapter Master and Lieutenant.
I agree Eradicators should go up in cost.
The highlighted cooking of the books shows the role of mathhammer. 1.7 is one dead with effectively a 70% chance to kill another since they'll never do anything other than flat 3 damage. That's pretty reliable. I take the single hit reroll so my dice tend to lean towards "two or more" rather than "one to two". Then again I'm probably fully switching to grav on Moirax, which almost always kills the squad (yes Eradicators/marines bending the meta)
Armigers that go first have 28" of movement. With a heldrake out front there aren't many places they can pop up fully w/i 6" of an eligible edge. Almost all of the time they wind up in my opponent's deployment. So as long as I'm >30" from one side and >30" from their edge I am not at risk (unless they have marksman).
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
An autocannon Armiger kills 1,7 Eradicators (71 pts or 41% of the Armiger's value) on average, saying that it pretty reliably kills 2 is cooking the books IMO. 3 Eradicators deal 6,2 damage to an Armiger on average (91 pts or 76% of the Eradicator units' value). Were you trying to reinforce Eradicators being OP by showing how the perfect counter unit fails as soon as the Eradicators get into range? 60" range is amazing but with the changes to reinforcements and recomended minimum board size the Eradicators are massively better than auto Armigers. Eradicators can benefit from better faction rules than Armigers can, but as I have just shown, they don't even need to be Salamanders to absolutely eradicate autocannon Armigers despite them seemingly having all the right solutions for countering them between an invul save and a damage 3 weapon with a little bit of AP. Asking for 48 pts as a start is not outrageous, it's perfectly reasonable given that math supports them going all the way to 55 and still being decent, which then turns them into being great if they are Salamanders or get support from the very competitively costed support HQ Marines have in the form of a Chapter Master and Lieutenant.
We're circling the drain again. Why is it always assumed that eradicators will have freedom to appear inside of 12" with full rerolls and magically their targets haven't been out wrecking other stuff in the turn they're off the table?
Those 3 units of eradicators (360 points) by your own admission kill 1 armiger and half kill another (175 killed and 88 of damage assuming stubbers) Pretty sure their big brothers will then turn and summarily execute said eradicators.
The vacuum mathshammering for this never works out because of too many external factors.
What full re-rolls was assumed? ZERO re-rolls were assumed, despite a free re-roll to wound and to hit per squad is available for free with Salamanders, neither was the +1 to wound from Salamanders super doctrine featured in despite being FREE, neither was the roll two dice pick the highest melta feature part of the equation despite being FREE, because I figured it was unreasonable to say they arrived within 12", all they need to do is arrive within 24". How exactly is a Knights list going to screen you out by more than 24" from every single Armiger armiger in their army? Why are you assuming free chaff to screen out Eradicators? You can also shoot 1x3 Eradicators against one big Knight and 2x3 at another big Knight or shoot them all at the same big Knight if you have something else that can bait out RIS and you will do a pts-efficient amount of damage to them. You complain about me assuming full re-rolls (which I didn't) then turn around and assume that there is another 400-800 pts of big Knights waiting to pounce on the Eradicators, well how about we say 2 auto Armigers and 2 Crusaders for 1300 pts, that's 32,5 Eradicators, enough to kill one of the big Knights if the rest of your army was able to pop RIS. The remaining two Armigers will kill 3,5/32,5 of my Eradicators and the big Knight will kill 7 and hold up 1 squad in melee. The remaining Eradicators will wipe out the Knight in RF range and will finally kill the two Armigers T3 or T4.
An autocannon Armiger kills 1,7 Eradicators (71 pts or 41% of the Armiger's value) on average, saying that it pretty reliably kills 2 is cooking the books IMO. 3 Eradicators deal 6,2 damage to an Armiger on average (91 pts or 76% of the Eradicator units' value). Were you trying to reinforce Eradicators being OP by showing how the perfect counter unit fails as soon as the Eradicators get into range? 60" range is amazing but with the changes to reinforcements and recomended minimum board size the Eradicators are massively better than auto Armigers. Eradicators can benefit from better faction rules than Armigers can, but as I have just shown, they don't even need to be Salamanders to absolutely eradicate autocannon Armigers despite them seemingly having all the right solutions for countering them between an invul save and a damage 3 weapon with a little bit of AP. Asking for 48 pts as a start is not outrageous, it's perfectly reasonable given that math supports them going all the way to 55 and still being decent, which then turns them into being great if they are Salamanders or get support from the very competitively costed support HQ Marines have in the form of a Chapter Master and Lieutenant.
I agree Eradicators should go up in cost.
The highlighted cooking of the books shows the role of mathhammer. 1.7 is one dead with effectively a 70% chance to kill another since they'll never do anything other than flat 3 damage. That's pretty reliable. I take the single hit reroll so my dice tend to lean towards "two or more" rather than "one to two". Then again I'm probably fully switching to grav on Moirax, which almost always kills the squad (yes Eradicators/marines bending the meta)
Armigers that go first have 28" of movement. With a heldrake out front there aren't many places they can pop up fully w/i 6" of an eligible edge. Almost all of the time they wind up in my opponent's deployment. So as long as I'm >30" from one side and >30" from their edge I am not at risk (unless they have marksman).
I am glad for your sanity.
55% chance of killing 2+ according to this http://40k.ghostlords.com/dice/#attacks=4d3&bs=3&ap=1&s=7&d=3&t=5&save=3&wounds=3 website. Non-Salamanders are not spamming Eradicators, but that could be because they've "only" gotten one Indomitus box, that's the only thing I can see in favour of them not being totally insane as a baseline unit and only being OP in one specific Legion.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Does the Armiger math include the Heavy Stubber, as low as the damage is?
No, it does not, sorry, that's another 3 pts worth of Aggressors dead, 1,714285714285714285714285714286% of the cost of the Armiger. Making the comparison 43% vs 76% instead of 41% vs 76%.
An autocannon Armiger kills 1,7 Eradicators (71 pts or 41% of the Armiger's value) on average, saying that it pretty reliably kills 2 is cooking the books IMO. 3 Eradicators deal 6,2 damage to an Armiger on average (91 pts or 76% of the Eradicator units' value). Were you trying to reinforce Eradicators being OP by showing how the perfect counter unit fails as soon as the Eradicators get into range? 60" range is amazing but with the changes to reinforcements and recomended minimum board size the Eradicators are massively better than auto Armigers. Eradicators can benefit from better faction rules than Armigers can, but as I have just shown, they don't even need to be Salamanders to absolutely eradicate autocannon Armigers despite them seemingly having all the right solutions for countering them between an invul save and a damage 3 weapon with a little bit of AP. Asking for 48 pts as a start is not outrageous, it's perfectly reasonable given that math supports them going all the way to 55 and still being decent, which then turns them into being great if they are Salamanders or get support from the very competitively costed support HQ Marines have in the form of a Chapter Master and Lieutenant.
I agree Eradicators should go up in cost.
The highlighted cooking of the books shows the role of mathhammer. 1.7 is one dead with effectively a 70% chance to kill another since they'll never do anything other than flat 3 damage. That's pretty reliable. I take the single hit reroll so my dice tend to lean towards "two or more" rather than "one to two". Then again I'm probably fully switching to grav on Moirax, which almost always kills the squad (yes Eradicators/marines bending the meta)
Armigers that go first have 28" of movement. With a heldrake out front there aren't many places they can pop up fully w/i 6" of an eligible edge. Almost all of the time they wind up in my opponent's deployment. So as long as I'm >30" from one side and >30" from their edge I am not at risk (unless they have marksman).
I am glad for your sanity.
55% chance of killing 2+ according to this http://40k.ghostlords.com/dice/#attacks=4d3&bs=3&ap=1&s=7&d=3&t=5&save=3&wounds=3 website. Non-Salamanders are not spamming Eradicators, but that could be because they've "only" gotten one Indomitus box, that's the only thing I can see in favour of them not being totally insane as a baseline unit and only being OP in one specific Legion.
They are straight up best as salie succesors with +3 range and MOA because of the bonus melta super doct + sundergy with the other good units for salamanders...agressors with flamestorm. It is literally a gravis spam all the way.
The real life math on the armigers is this.
7 shots
5 hits
3 wounds
1 or 2 failed saves.
If you have reroll 1's on the armiger you average 2 failed saves. (Guilliman 12" aura(IMO the best way to run knights)/ and also 1 of the knight houses does this)
Realistically though - on the curve a little over half the time you are going to kill all 3 gravis.
It is the nature of flat 3 vs 3 wound models.
Lets break it down further though. Armiger (14" move) can then charge the erads...they dont even average a wound against the knight and now they cant shoot. The armiger can though. Armiger Wins.
Other than being slightly underpriced...these guys arent a problem at all...there is actually game breaking gak in this game...like 2++ shinning spears.
Bosskelot wrote: Using LoL in any kind of discussion like this as if it is some kind of counterpoint also ignores that the game sells you heroes and runes. You are directly incentivised to buy power. Sure, you can theoretically grind to get them for free, but that will take literal months of doing nothing else with your free time apart from playing LoL.
League hasn't had purchasable runes in years and they were never purchasable by money.
Getting additional champions gets you precisely ZERO extra power. In fact, having additional champions is honestly detrimental to the vast majority of the player base. You're usually MUCH better off getting really good at one champion than trying to fit into meta or team comps (until the higher levels of play at least.) A frankly huge number of people are actually paying to LOSE when they buy new champions with money.
There is not only no INCENTIVE to buy power, there's no ABILITY to do so. Try sticking to games you understand the basic aspects of for your arguments in the future.
Insularum wrote: Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.
Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.
Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.
The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).
Thank you. Daedalus can always be counted on to make really strong points.
and ofc! "The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too)." if you are gonna complain about space marine auras...you better start complaining about every rules stack situation. ESP COMBO WOMBO that end up tripling or quadrupling average damage or in some cases even by a factor of 10.
People do, including many who play the most WOMBO COMBO army in the game, including myself. I'd love it if gw would abandon the "stack buffs on that bad unit until it's good" design they've stuck csm with and just gave our units rules that allow them to work without that ccg crap. Then they could nix all the strategems that allow you to pull those combos off. Shoot/attack twice and +1 to wound strategems/traits/psychic powers should be the first to go.
There is a fair bit more hatred going towards loyalists for every good combo they have. Sometimes it sounds like marines are the only strong army in the game they way people complain. its funny because I play lots of armies and consider lots of them to be as strong or stronger than marines.
You're wrong.
There are no ARMIES that are as strong as marines. There are LISTS that are as strong as the lists marines can put out but if you take the armies as a whole, there's nothing else that matches up.
What other army can put out 5 tournament winning caliber lists using 5 different 'chapter tactics' that all operate completely differently and require different tools to deal with? No one. You can bog down an IH list with bodies but that's not going to do you any good against ultramarine or imperial fists, is it? You can overwhelm an ultramarine or imperial fist list with fast, strong melee but all that's going to do to whitescars is let them kill you faster. You can bring marine killing guns and efficient screens to take out whitescar armies before they can overwhelm you with speed and competent melee AND shooting, but that's not going to be enough to get through ironhands or salamanders defensive bonuses before their dreadnoughts/eradicators pound your shooting into dust. That's even ignoring the whole 'grav pod' thing.
Space marines are as hated as they are right now because you can basically throw darts at the codex and come up with something that can hit the podium. It's the same problem CWE had in 7th before chaos took over the reigns with their insane deathstars and infinite horrors.
Well no marine list can be all lists at once. So I don't see your point. Realistically though. If you are good at killing salamanders - you are good at killing ultramarines. It makes basically no difference. They share the same units.
Just a hint though...ALL MARINES ARE WEAK VS TAU AND ELDAR (CWE AND DRAKARI) Quinns do quite nicely too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Helverins average to 8 shots.
16/3 hits
32/9 wounds
16/9 failed saves
Which is 1-2 dead Gravis models... unless they have a FNP. Such as being Iron Hands, or near a Chief Apothecary. That DRASTICALLY reduces damage.
Cheif apoth is nice but it is only a 3 inch aura - 3 inch auras are actaully limiting. Ironhands is nice but WEAK AF super doctrine.
Choas can get around this though with infernals hevlrines for +1 damage. That is the only way I play Choas knights. Infernals or go home.
Xenomancers wrote: Cheif apoth is nice but it is only a 3 inch aura - 3 inch auras are actaully limiting. Ironhands is nice but WEAK AF super doctrine.
Xenomancers wrote: Cheif apoth is nice but it is only a 3 inch aura - 3 inch auras are actaully limiting. Ironhands is nice but WEAK AF super doctrine.
Father of the Future is a 6" aura.
To be fair to Xeno there's a ton of bloat and I only remember there being a relic with a 3" range and any of the Warlord Traits you'd want you're gonna waste a CP to get.
Argive wrote: Must be nice having so many relics, and trait options you cant even remember them all...
It really isn't because the balance is so gakky most might as well not exist.
How is it worse that half of your 130 Relics are useless instead of half of your 13 Relics are useless?
Well, any detachment will be limited to 20-something, it's not like your ironhands captain has a raven guard relic and salamander warlord trait.
Nor does a Mephrit Overlord get a Sautekh relic and a Novokh WL trait. How is having 30 relics, half of which are useless worse than having 7 relics, half of which are useless?
Argive wrote: Must be nice having so many relics, and trait options you cant even remember them all...
It really isn't because the balance is so gakky most might as well not exist.
How is it worse that half of your 130 Relics are useless instead of half of your 13 Relics are useless?
Well, any detachment will be limited to 20-something, it's not like your ironhands captain has a raven guard relic and salamander warlord trait.
Nor does a Mephrit Overlord get a Sautekh relic and a Novokh WL trait. How is having 30 relics, half of which are useless worse than having 7 relics, half of which are useless?
It isn’t, but how is having 10-15 workable relics close to the 65 in your original statement? Don't try and mislead or warp a fact to suit an argument.
Argive wrote: Must be nice having so many relics, and trait options you cant even remember them all...
It really isn't because the balance is so gakky most might as well not exist.
How is it worse that half of your 130 Relics are useless instead of half of your 13 Relics are useless?
Well, any detachment will be limited to 20-something, it's not like your ironhands captain has a raven guard relic and salamander warlord trait.
Nor does a Mephrit Overlord get a Sautekh relic and a Novokh WL trait. How is having 30 relics, half of which are useless worse than having 7 relics, half of which are useless?
It isn’t, but how is having 10-15 workable relics close to the 65 in your original statement? Don't try and mislead or warp a fact to suit an argument.
7 isn't close to 13 either, I was comparing whole factions, SM vs Necrons, not sub-factions Mephrit vs Ultramarines. SM have nothing to whine about in regards to relics.
Argive wrote: Must be nice having so many relics, and trait options you cant even remember them all...
It really isn't because the balance is so gakky most might as well not exist.
How is it worse that half of your 130 Relics are useless instead of half of your 13 Relics are useless?
Well, any detachment will be limited to 20-something, it's not like your ironhands captain has a raven guard relic and salamander warlord trait.
Nor does a Mephrit Overlord get a Sautekh relic and a Novokh WL trait. How is having 30 relics, half of which are useless worse than having 7 relics, half of which are useless?
It isn’t, but how is having 10-15 workable relics close to the 65 in your original statement? Don't try and mislead or warp a fact to suit an argument.
7 isn't close to 13 either, I was comparing whole factions, SM vs Necrons, not sub-factions Mephrit vs Ultramarines. SM have nothing to whine about in regards to relics.
Argive wrote: Must be nice having so many relics, and trait options you cant even remember them all...
It really isn't because the balance is so gakky most might as well not exist.
How is it worse that half of your 130 Relics are useless instead of half of your 13 Relics are useless?
Well, any detachment will be limited to 20-something, it's not like your ironhands captain has a raven guard relic and salamander warlord trait.
Nor does a Mephrit Overlord get a Sautekh relic and a Novokh WL trait. How is having 30 relics, half of which are useless worse than having 7 relics, half of which are useless?
It isn’t, but how is having 10-15 workable relics close to the 65 in your original statement? Don't try and mislead or warp a fact to suit an argument.
7 isn't close to 13 either, I was comparing whole factions, SM vs Necrons, not sub-factions Mephrit vs Ultramarines. SM have nothing to whine about in regards to relics.
Argive wrote: Must be nice having so many relics, and trait options you cant even remember them all...
It really isn't because the balance is so gakky most might as well not exist.
How is it worse that half of your 130 Relics are useless instead of half of your 13 Relics are useless?
Well, any detachment will be limited to 20-something, it's not like your ironhands captain has a raven guard relic and salamander warlord trait.
Nor does a Mephrit Overlord get a Sautekh relic and a Novokh WL trait. How is having 30 relics, half of which are useless worse than having 7 relics, half of which are useless?
It isn’t, but how is having 10-15 workable relics close to the 65 in your original statement? Don't try and mislead or warp a fact to suit an argument.
7 isn't close to 13 either, I was comparing whole factions, SM vs Necrons, not sub-factions Mephrit vs Ultramarines. SM have nothing to whine about in regards to relics.
Argive wrote: Must be nice having so many relics, and trait options you cant even remember them all...
It really isn't because the balance is so gakky most might as well not exist.
That is whining about the 130+ Relics not being universally viable when my faction has under 15 which are not universally viable either.
You get a new codex in 4-7 weeks, I'm sure there'll be more. But yeah you're right that is a complaint in response to a pointless jab. Let's not get caught in a spiral of pointless complaining either way.
Argive wrote: Must be nice having so many relics, and trait options you cant even remember them all...
It really isn't because the balance is so gakky most might as well not exist.
How is it worse that half of your 130 Relics are useless instead of half of your 13 Relics are useless?
Well, any detachment will be limited to 20-something, it's not like your ironhands captain has a raven guard relic and salamander warlord trait.
Nor does a Mephrit Overlord get a Sautekh relic and a Novokh WL trait. How is having 30 relics, half of which are useless worse than having 7 relics, half of which are useless?
It isn’t, but how is having 10-15 workable relics close to the 65 in your original statement? Don't try and mislead or warp a fact to suit an argument.
7 isn't close to 13 either, I was comparing whole factions, SM vs Necrons, not sub-factions Mephrit vs Ultramarines. SM have nothing to whine about in regards to relics.
Argive wrote: Must be nice having so many relics, and trait options you cant even remember them all...
It really isn't because the balance is so gakky most might as well not exist.
That is whining about the 130+ Relics not being universally viable when my faction has under 15 which are not universally viable either.
Because it's putting rules on top of rules, which is bloat. If 4 relics for each other army are the only ones being used, whereas Marines get maybe a total of maybe 10-15 but have 8+ Supplements dedicated to it, what is that telling you? They're just throwing rules at a wall and hoping they stick.
Xenomancers wrote: Cheif apoth is nice but it is only a 3 inch aura - 3 inch auras are actaully limiting. Ironhands is nice but WEAK AF super doctrine.
Father of the Future is a 6" aura.
Well If that is the case I have been self nerfing it. Been using cheif apoth with my ultras for some time.
I think its fair enough to say that by doing the same old thing Tau can *compete* with Marines - and I think this fact was weirdly overlooked when the great and the good cast their over 9th and declared dead faction, bad, unplayable, doomed...
But they are still clearly worse than they were in 8th, which raises a lot of problems against *other* lists, while Marines are still walking over everyone.
Similar story with DE. Bad faction is generally bad, but there are a few tools that are good in a very marine-dominated meta, so the stats suggest not entirely screwed.
CWE look awful.
Because it's putting rules on top of rules, which is bloat. If 4 relics for each other army are the only ones being used, whereas Marines get maybe a total of maybe 10-15 but have 8+ Supplements dedicated to it, what is that telling you? They're just throwing rules at a wall and hoping they stick.
I think they're just making things that seem fun or evocative to them and that other people might enjoy.
Not everyone is a min/maxer and taking a relic that fits that character of the army is a welcome option for those players.
Because it's putting rules on top of rules, which is bloat. If 4 relics for each other army are the only ones being used, whereas Marines get maybe a total of maybe 10-15 but have 8+ Supplements dedicated to it, what is that telling you? They're just throwing rules at a wall and hoping they stick.
I think they're just making things that seem fun or evocative to them and that other people might enjoy.
Not everyone is a min/maxer and taking a relic that fits that character of the army is a welcome option for those players.
Exactly, sure many relics arent playable competitively but they sure are fun to stick on your character to give him flavor. giving The Red axe to a Dominus isnt a strong choice, but its hella cool when you realise your dominus like to examinate his enemies.... up close.
Because it's putting rules on top of rules, which is bloat. If 4 relics for each other army are the only ones being used, whereas Marines get maybe a total of maybe 10-15 but have 8+ Supplements dedicated to it, what is that telling you? They're just throwing rules at a wall and hoping they stick.
I think they're just making things that seem fun or evocative to them and that other people might enjoy.
Not everyone is a min/maxer and taking a relic that fits that character of the army is a welcome option for those players.
Exactly, sure many relics arent playable competitively but they sure are fun to stick on your character to give him flavor. giving The Red axe to a Dominus isnt a strong choice, but its hella cool when you realise your dominus like to examinate his enemies.... up close.
How do you see the drones? Choas lacks the ILOS needed to beat tau. Marine builds were spaming TFC which is now heavily nerfed along with ironhands (no more stay in dev doct all game) No more chappy dread ether. Then we had covid and the data stops.
if i dont see the drones i just shoot the tides directly. Either he lets the dmg 1's go through or he transfers them to the drones. When you have 32 5 -1 1 shots coming at you, i win either way.
I havnt lost to tau in ages. they have gak board control. Sure they will inflict heavy casualties to me but i'll win on the mission.
Because it's putting rules on top of rules, which is bloat. If 4 relics for each other army are the only ones being used, whereas Marines get maybe a total of maybe 10-15 but have 8+ Supplements dedicated to it, what is that telling you? They're just throwing rules at a wall and hoping they stick.
I think they're just making things that seem fun or evocative to them and that other people might enjoy.
Not everyone is a min/maxer and taking a relic that fits that character of the army is a welcome option for those players.
Exactly, sure many relics arent playable competitively but they sure are fun to stick on your character to give him flavor. giving The Red axe to a Dominus isnt a strong choice, but its hella cool when you realise your dominus like to examinate his enemies.... up close.
How do you see the drones? Choas lacks the ILOS needed to beat tau. Marine builds were spaming TFC which is now heavily nerfed along with ironhands (no more stay in dev doct all game) No more chappy dread ether. Then we had covid and the data stops.
Don't need to. Vox Scream doesn't require LOS, and turns off savior protocols. Then I just feed the Gundam plasma, lascannons, and accelerator cannon rounds.
VladimirHerzog wrote: if i dont see the drones i just shoot the tides directly. Either he lets the dmg 1's go through or he transfers them to the drones. When you have 32 5 -1 1 shots coming at you, i win either way.
I havnt lost to tau in ages. they have gak board control. Sure they will inflict heavy casualties to me but i'll win on the mission.
You don't actually. Tides have 1+ save in cover and are t7 with 14 wounds. You could shoot them all day with 1 damage weapons and they will survive the whole game. At the very best you are wounding on 5's with a 3+ save for the rip and they can heal d3 every turn. You are losing this war of attrition again tau firepower - EVERY TIME.
you only have board control for a few turns until your whole army is gone and that only maters if there is a central objective they can't see. Top tau lists are doing really well by the looks of it
VladimirHerzog wrote: if i dont see the drones i just shoot the tides directly. Either he lets the dmg 1's go through or he transfers them to the drones. When you have 32 5 -1 1 shots coming at you, i win either way.
I havnt lost to tau in ages. they have gak board control. Sure they will inflict heavy casualties to me but i'll win on the mission.
You don't actually. Tides have 1+ save in cover and are t7 with 14 wounds. You could shoot them all day with 1 damage weapons and they will survive the whole game. At the very best you are wounding on 5's with a 3+ save for the rip and they can heal d3 every turn. You are losing this war of attrition again tau firepower - EVERY TIME.
you only have board control for a few turns until your whole army is gone and that only maters if there is a central objective they can't see. Top tau lists are doing really well by the looks of it
It's difficult to gain cover for a Riptide.
And, assuming a Lord or Prince for RR1s, it takes...
162 BS3+ S5 AP-1 D1 shots.
But, as you're so fond of pointing out, Chaos relies on wombo-combos, so let's take a single Havoc squad with a Lord, Prescience and VotLW, shooting twice...
64 shots
2,240/36 or 560/9 hits
280/9 wounds
280/27 failed saves, for just over 10 damage.
Another singular Havoc squad can put 32 shots downrange, getting 24-25 hits, 8 or so wounds, and a good chance of finishing off the Riptide.
Now, I'm fully in agreement that you should not be able to buff up a singular squad to that monstrous level, and Havocs and other CSM units should be good on their own without so much crazy buff-stacking.
But we're not talking about hypotheticals, we're talking about the game as it is.
Because it's putting rules on top of rules, which is bloat. If 4 relics for each other army are the only ones being used, whereas Marines get maybe a total of maybe 10-15 but have 8+ Supplements dedicated to it, what is that telling you? They're just throwing rules at a wall and hoping they stick.
I think they're just making things that seem fun or evocative to them and that other people might enjoy.
Not everyone is a min/maxer and taking a relic that fits that character of the army is a welcome option for those players.
Then the person complaining that there's 100 relics available to Marines shouldn't be complaining about usability with their 15. There are clearly more duds than hits, and that really cannot be disputed. Adding units or weapons only matters when they get used or at minimum have a broad purpose.
VladimirHerzog wrote: if i dont see the drones i just shoot the tides directly. Either he lets the dmg 1's go through or he transfers them to the drones. When you have 32 5 -1 1 shots coming at you, i win either way.
I havnt lost to tau in ages. they have gak board control. Sure they will inflict heavy casualties to me but i'll win on the mission.
You don't actually. Tides have 1+ save in cover and are t7 with 14 wounds. You could shoot them all day with 1 damage weapons and they will survive the whole game. At the very best you are wounding on 5's with a 3+ save for the rip and they can heal d3 every turn. You are losing this war of attrition again tau firepower - EVERY TIME.
you only have board control for a few turns until your whole army is gone and that only maters if there is a central objective they can't see. Top tau lists are doing really well by the looks of it
It's difficult to gain cover for a Riptide.
And, assuming a Lord or Prince for RR1s, it takes...
162 BS3+ S5 AP-1 D1 shots.
But, as you're so fond of pointing out, Chaos relies on wombo-combos, so let's take a single Havoc squad with a Lord, Prescience and VotLW, shooting twice...
64 shots
2,240/36 or 560/9 hits
280/9 wounds
280/27 failed saves, for just over 10 damage.
Another singular Havoc squad can put 32 shots downrange, getting 24-25 hits, 8 or so wounds, and a good chance of finishing off the Riptide.
Now, I'm fully in agreement that you should not be able to buff up a singular squad to that monstrous level, and Havocs and other CSM units should be good on their own without so much crazy buff-stacking.
But we're not talking about hypotheticals, we're talking about the game as it is.
24" range...< 36" range. Havoc squads are all dead turn 1. Sure - that might be one of the better units to dumb damage 1 into a riptide - no one actually takes those units though. Havocs will almost always be lascannons if they are even taken.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: Its also harder to hide drones this edition compared to last edition.
That might be true on some tables...you still have to physically see a drone to shoot it. You can even block it with your models.
Xenomancers wrote: You don't actually. Tides have 1+ save in cover and are t7 with 14 wounds. You could shoot them all day with 1 damage weapons and they will survive the whole game. At the very best you are wounding on 5's with a 3+ save for the rip and they can heal d3 every turn. You are losing this war of attrition again tau firepower - EVERY TIME.
you only have board control for a few turns until your whole army is gone and that only maters if there is a central objective they can't see. Top tau lists are doing really well by the looks of it
Riptides cannot get light cover (neither Monsters nor Battlesuits can gain the benefit of terrain cover, which is presently the only way for them to get to a 1+ armor save outside of Dal'yth Sept, which nobody runs because its abjectly terrible in 9th). The only way they can gain dense cover is through a very specific terrain placement which is highly table dependent.
"Top Tau" lists arent for a moment doing "really well". But facts have never got in the way of your histrionics before, so why start now?
Xenomancers wrote: You don't actually. Tides have 1+ save in cover and are t7 with 14 wounds. You could shoot them all day with 1 damage weapons and they will survive the whole game. At the very best you are wounding on 5's with a 3+ save for the rip and they can heal d3 every turn. You are losing this war of attrition again tau firepower - EVERY TIME.
you only have board control for a few turns until your whole army is gone and that only maters if there is a central objective they can't see. Top tau lists are doing really well by the looks of it
Riptides cannot get light cover (Monsters can never gain the benefit of terrain cover, which is presently the only way for them to get to a 1+ armor save outside of Dal'yth Sept, which nobody runs because its abjectly terrible in 9th). The only way they can gain dense cover is through a very specific terrain placement which is highly table dependent.
"Top Tau" lists arent for a moment doing "really well". But facts have never got in the way of your histrionics before, so why start now?
Actually dakka is just really good at ignoring statistical trends....
Tau actually are doing really well right now. You cant argue with facts.
I went over both scenarios...at best is a 3++ (covering both 8th and 9th eddition)
Gotta love dakka...like literally the only place in the world you actually have to argue the fact that tau and eldar are strong against marines...LOL. Only guess is none of you have actually played against Tau after their PA supplement made them uber bonkers.
VladimirHerzog wrote: if i dont see the drones i just shoot the tides directly. Either he lets the dmg 1's go through or he transfers them to the drones. When you have 32 5 -1 1 shots coming at you, i win either way.
I havnt lost to tau in ages. they have gak board control. Sure they will inflict heavy casualties to me but i'll win on the mission.
You don't actually. Tides have 1+ save in cover and are t7 with 14 wounds. You could shoot them all day with 1 damage weapons and they will survive the whole game. At the very best you are wounding on 5's with a 3+ save for the rip and they can heal d3 every turn. You are losing this war of attrition again tau firepower - EVERY TIME.
you only have board control for a few turns until your whole army is gone and that only maters if there is a central objective they can't see. Top tau lists are doing really well by the looks of it
It's difficult to gain cover for a Riptide.
And, assuming a Lord or Prince for RR1s, it takes...
162 BS3+ S5 AP-1 D1 shots.
But, as you're so fond of pointing out, Chaos relies on wombo-combos, so let's take a single Havoc squad with a Lord, Prescience and VotLW, shooting twice...
64 shots
2,240/36 or 560/9 hits
280/9 wounds
280/27 failed saves, for just over 10 damage.
Another singular Havoc squad can put 32 shots downrange, getting 24-25 hits, 8 or so wounds, and a good chance of finishing off the Riptide.
Now, I'm fully in agreement that you should not be able to buff up a singular squad to that monstrous level, and Havocs and other CSM units should be good on their own without so much crazy buff-stacking.
But we're not talking about hypotheticals, we're talking about the game as it is.
Ain't nobody taking two CC havoc squads. Maybe when they're W2, but they'll die just as fast to HBCs. Maybe in a drill, but that style of play doesn't do well in 9th.
Xenomancers wrote: You don't actually. Tides have 1+ save in cover and are t7 with 14 wounds. You could shoot them all day with 1 damage weapons and they will survive the whole game. At the very best you are wounding on 5's with a 3+ save for the rip and they can heal d3 every turn. You are losing this war of attrition again tau firepower - EVERY TIME.
you only have board control for a few turns until your whole army is gone and that only maters if there is a central objective they can't see. Top tau lists are doing really well by the looks of it
Riptides cannot get light cover (Monsters can never gain the benefit of terrain cover, which is presently the only way for them to get to a 1+ armor save outside of Dal'yth Sept, which nobody runs because its abjectly terrible in 9th). The only way they can gain dense cover is through a very specific terrain placement which is highly table dependent.
"Top Tau" lists arent for a moment doing "really well". But facts have never got in the way of your histrionics before, so why start now?
Actually dakka is just really good at ignoring statistical trends....
Tau actually are doing really well right now. You cant argue with facts.
I went over both scenarios...at best is a 3++ (covering both 8th and 9th eddition)
Gotta love dakka...like literally the only place in the world you actually have to argue the fact that tau and eldar are strong against marines...LOL. Only guess is none of you have actually played against Tau after their PA supplement made them uber bonkers.
If Tau are doing "Really Well" please provide the tournaments they have won or even placed top 3 in since 9th dropped?
Fairly sure they are one of the few factions that have NOT had a top three finish in a GT.
That list as far as I am aware reads as
TAU
GSC Nids
Eldar
AdMech
Imperial Knights
Choas Knights
Your ability to claim you know the game better than the top players and yet refuse to provide any evidence to back your supposed genius up is really telling.
Fine some Taudar bad touched you 2 editions ago get over it and stop labeling codex's are the boogy man when they aren't.
It's a little early to even care about these tournament results considering no armies have gotten their 9th eddition codex updates yet...it's kinda like caring who wins preseason games in football. It can show a trend though or give you a reason to be optimistic. To be fair - there is not enough data to say tau are doing well right now. Top 3 is an extremely arbitrary number too. Normally we look at like...top 10...top 20...or maybe even top 4 - top 3 why?
What is your source of data btw? 40kstats? they have like 5 tournmanets worth of data on their data page...theres probably been 50 ITC tournaments in the states since the rules dropped. Id love to see this info at a glance.
Xenomancers wrote: 24" range...< 36" range. Havoc squads are all dead turn 1. Sure - that might be one of the better units to dumb damage 1 into a riptide - no one actually takes those units though. Havocs will almost always be lascannons if they are even taken.
You WILL outflank the havocs so they can do their one turn punch then die like they always do.
chaincannon havocs is the most popular loadout by far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: It's a little early to even care about these tournament results considering no armies have gotten their 9th eddition codex updates yet...it's kinda like caring who wins preseason games in football. It can show a trend though or give you a reason to be optimistic. To be fair - there is not enough data to say tau are doing well right now. Top 3 is an extremely arbitrary number too. Normally we look at like...top 10...top 20...or maybe even top 4 - top 3 why?
What is your source of data btw? 40kstats? they have like 5 tournmanets worth of data on their data page...theres probably been 50 ITC tournaments in the states since the rules dropped. Id love to see this info at a glance.
So when you claim that tau are doing well what do you use as a reference point? their ability to dish out damage and tabling their opponents?
Because if we cant use torunament results to claim theyre in a bad spot, you sure as hell can't use them either.
Xenomancers wrote: It's a little early to even care about these tournament results considering no armies have gotten their 9th eddition codex updates yet...it's kinda like caring who wins preseason games in football. It can show a trend though or give you a reason to be optimistic. To be fair - there is not enough data to say tau are doing well right now. Top 3 is an extremely arbitrary number too. Normally we look at like...top 10...top 20...or maybe even top 4 - top 3 why?
I genuinely enjoy that your response to "show us the data" is you flat out admitting that you dont have data to support your claim.
Also well done for again driving right past your massive rules errors undermining your entire argument.
To be fair - there is not enough data to say tau are doing well right now.
That's some rapid goalpost shifting! 30 minutes between those two posts.
The consensus seems to be Tau are not as bad as initially thought but certainly aren't beating SM easily. The points changes to drones seems to have really hurt them it seems.
Xenomancers wrote: It's a little early to even care about these tournament results considering no armies have gotten their 9th eddition codex updates yet...it's kinda like caring who wins preseason games in football. It can show a trend though or give you a reason to be optimistic. To be fair - there is not enough data to say tau are doing well right now. Top 3 is an extremely arbitrary number too. Normally we look at like...top 10...top 20...or maybe even top 4 - top 3 why?
I genuinely enjoy that your response to "show us the data" is you flat out admitting that you dont have data to support your claim.
Also well done for again driving right past your massive rules errors undermining your entire argument.
My response to show the data is we are likely both looking at the same fething data - 40kstats. Tau have a 52% WR equal to custodians...IDK if you are paying attention but custodians are dominant right now - I play at 3 clubs - it's all custodians. In my area they are winning basically every game they play. Yeah I see salamanders up there at the top - no surprise - Ultras at 54% surprising when alderai are near the bottom. This is like 4 25 man tournaments worth of data...if you have more please share it instead of doing what you are doing...which is like...Im not even sure what it is...seems like a personal attack more than anything.
To be fair - there is not enough data to say tau are doing well right now.
That's some rapid goalpost shifting! 30 minutes between those two posts.
The consensus seems to be Tau are not as bad as initially thought but certainly aren't beating SM easily. The points changes to drones seems to have really hurt them it seems.
Let me clarify.
If small sets of data matter to you - you cant argue tau are doing well.
But small sets of data don't matter much. They can start to show a trend but it could be wrong.
Tau have only gotten better as a result of everyone else getting worse. Most armies saw point increases on their best units and they still use those units. Overall Tau make out like bandits being the only army that gets free overwatch in a cover heavy eddition and they have straight up ignore cover whenever they want it. Things like ghostkhells got worse...but that doesn't matter no one used ghostkeels. They don't have to spam 30-45 useless firewarriors anymore to get CP. Their new Relic weapons are insanely good.
My response to show the data is we are likely both looking at the same fething data - 40kstats. Tau have a 52% WR equal to custodians...IDK if you are paying attention but custodians are dominant right now - I play at 3 clubs - it's all custodians. In my area they are winning basically every game they play. Yeah I see salamanders up there at the top - no surprise - Ultras at 54% surprising when alderai are near the bottom. This is like 4 25 man tournaments worth of data...if you have more please share it instead of doing what you are doing...which is like...Im not even sure what it is...seems like a personal attack more than anything.
Show me a single instance of an organized 40k 9th edition event where Tau placed.
You cant, because it hasnt happened. Winrate as a metric is, once again, meaningless when those wins dont mean anything. We had this discussion in 8th. Apparently we need to have it again in 9th.
Tau have only gotten better as a result of everyone else getting worse. Most armies saw point increases on their best units and they still use those units. Overall Tau make out like bandits being the only army that gets free overwatch in a cover heavy eddition and they have straight up ignore cover whenever they want it. Things like ghostkhells got worse...but that doesn't matter no one used ghostkeels. They don't have to spam 30-45 useless firewarriors anymore to get CP. Their new Relic weapons are insanely good.
The number of completely inaccurate statements in this paragraph is staggering. Tau were one of the hardest hit armies by the shift to 9th. The combination of new terrain rules, alterations to fly, and points changes took the entire faction off at the knees. That you think they're somehow a god tier army is insane.
Once again, you're demonstrating that you dont know what the feth you're talking about. Not with regards to how this faction works. Not with regards to how 9th edition works. Not with regards to how simple outcomes work.
yeah, saying tau "made out like bandits" is ridiculous, they're one of the armies that saw their core strategy affected the most by the new edition.
Shield drones went up in pts so castling became harder.
The game is much more about mobility and board control than before, you NEED some sort of melee presence.
Fly got nerfed so now their strategy of "i can't be stopped from shooting" doesnt exist anymore.
He's only looking at the numbers on the guns and going full-on "bigger is better" mode.
Tau Empire are slightly above 50% WR in tournaments, slightly below 50% WR against SM. Asuryani are quite a bit below 50% WR in tournaments, but about 50% WR against SM. https://www.40kstats.com/faction-vs-faction
Because it's putting rules on top of rules, which is bloat. If 4 relics for each other army are the only ones being used, whereas Marines get maybe a total of maybe 10-15 but have 8+ Supplements dedicated to it, what is that telling you? They're just throwing rules at a wall and hoping they stick.
I think they're just making things that seem fun or evocative to them and that other people might enjoy.
Not everyone is a min/maxer and taking a relic that fits that character of the army is a welcome option for those players.
Then the person complaining that there's 100 relics available to Marines shouldn't be complaining about usability with their 15. There are clearly more duds than hits, and that really cannot be disputed. Adding units or weapons only matters when they get used or at minimum have a broad purpose.
I think it's great that Marines have more than 130 Relics, it's the best kind of bloat, I don't have to read it before the game and then my opponent will have to announce them and I can have them read what they do to me, this takes a very short time, requires no homework and is a great fluff outlet. I was complaining about you saying that Marines having more than 130 Relics doesn't matter because half doesn't matter, the exact same reasoning can be used for a faction that has 13 Relics to say they actually only have half that amount, no matter how you spin that gacha SM come out ahead in terms of choices. Marines don't have 100% of the top 20 relics in the game, so other factions can compete in terms of efficiency, but not in terms of choice. The end of the matter is that it is nicer to have more than 130 Relics than less than 20 and whining about too many of them being bad is in bad taste, just like it's in bad taste to say Eradicators won't be OP with the new SM codex because SM will have more OP units by then, that's not how OP works.
Because it's putting rules on top of rules, which is bloat. If 4 relics for each other army are the only ones being used, whereas Marines get maybe a total of maybe 10-15 but have 8+ Supplements dedicated to it, what is that telling you? They're just throwing rules at a wall and hoping they stick.
I think they're just making things that seem fun or evocative to them and that other people might enjoy.
Not everyone is a min/maxer and taking a relic that fits that character of the army is a welcome option for those players.
Then the person complaining that there's 100 relics available to Marines shouldn't be complaining about usability with their 15. There are clearly more duds than hits, and that really cannot be disputed. Adding units or weapons only matters when they get used or at minimum have a broad purpose.
I think it's great that Marines have more than 130 Relics, it's the best kind of bloat, I don't have to read it before the game and then my opponent will have to announce them and I can have them read what they do to me, this takes a very short time, requires no homework and is a great fluff outlet. I was complaining about you saying that Marines having more than 130 Relics doesn't matter because half doesn't matter, the exact same reasoning can be used for a faction that has 13 Relics to say they actually only have half that amount, no matter how you spin that gacha SM come out ahead in terms of choices. Marines don't have 100% of the top 20 relics in the game, so other factions can compete in terms of efficiency, but not in terms of choice. The end of the matter is that it is nicer to have more than 130 Relics than less than 20 and whining about too many of them being bad is in bad taste, just like it's in bad taste to say Eradicators won't be OP with the new SM codex because SM will have more OP units by then, that's not how OP works.
Thats like saying extra Strats would be good and they added 10 more, except all of them are a variety of hitting and wounding bonuses against Meganobz.
It's ultra specific and doesn't really work for any game outside specifically tailored lists, so whats the point of it existing? Did Scars need a +1S banner with sources of rerolling to wound or bonuses to it? No, so why take that over the regular Relic to begin with!
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a bit of hyperbole to say that marines are pawing through 130 relics.
There's 15 in the main book, 7 or so more in the supplement, and 8 or so special issue.
15+15*6+6+5*1=116 not including BA, DA, DW, GK or SW. Adeptus Astartes have over 130 relics between them. Necrons have less than 20 between them. There are far more Necron characters than SM characters in the galaxy, they have the tech to make better relics as well. While any on Chapter might have access to as "little" as 23, Necron Dynasties have access to as few as 6 and no more than 7. Sorry about using SM and Adeptus Astartes interchangeably, I'm just thinking it's the same thing in low and high gothic respectively, didn't mean to say Codex SM.
My response to show the data is we are likely both looking at the same fething data - 40kstats. Tau have a 52% WR equal to custodians...IDK if you are paying attention but custodians are dominant right now - I play at 3 clubs - it's all custodians. In my area they are winning basically every game they play. Yeah I see salamanders up there at the top - no surprise - Ultras at 54% surprising when alderai are near the bottom. This is like 4 25 man tournaments worth of data...if you have more please share it instead of doing what you are doing...which is like...Im not even sure what it is...seems like a personal attack more than anything.
Show me a single instance of an organized 40k 9th edition event where Tau placed.
You cant, because it hasnt happened. Winrate as a metric is, once again, meaningless when those wins dont mean anything. We had this discussion in 8th. Apparently we need to have it again in 9th.
Tau have only gotten better as a result of everyone else getting worse. Most armies saw point increases on their best units and they still use those units. Overall Tau make out like bandits being the only army that gets free overwatch in a cover heavy eddition and they have straight up ignore cover whenever they want it. Things like ghostkhells got worse...but that doesn't matter no one used ghostkeels. They don't have to spam 30-45 useless firewarriors anymore to get CP. Their new Relic weapons are insanely good.
The number of completely inaccurate statements in this paragraph is staggering. Tau were one of the hardest hit armies by the shift to 9th. The combination of new terrain rules, alterations to fly, and points changes took the entire faction off at the knees. That you think they're somehow a god tier army is insane.
Once again, you're demonstrating that you dont know what the feth you're talking about. Not with regards to how this faction works. Not with regards to how 9th edition works. Not with regards to how simple outcomes work.
Wow so...you know by in large all vehicals got better right? so the fly nerf is superfluous to no -1 to hit on the move and now you can shoot into melee. Tau are virtually unchargable anyways...You really need to work on critical thinking. Units that move fast and have long ranged guns arent at risk of being charged...now they can move without pentalty for free...it's a buff. Before you were taking target lock or velocity tracker so your riptide could move and shoot. Now you are taking reroll shots on overwatch instead - so you overwatch better - while other units like a relic levithan have to pay to over-watch now...Like how many times are you gonna tell me I dont know what I am talking about...then you get completely owned? The only mention you make that actually makes sense is the change to cover. Tau doesn't like -1 to hits but it's also a blessing at the same time because there cant be worse than a -1.
@Xeno, you saying in your reply that you "owned him" is maximum cringe.
Tau still have the same problem as before where they need to stay tightly packed to make good use of FTGG.
You also need to keep your riptides close to their drones, who should also ideally be hidden.
This means that you can't really make use of the riptide's mobility. And saying that you can't end up in melee against Tau is just false, making use of terrain or using a resilient target to charge in and soak the overwatch is still a viable strategy, except now its even more punishing than before since they run less fire warriors to screen and they can't fall back and shoot with fly.
Wow so...you know by in large all vehicals got better right? so the fly nerf is superfluous to no -1 to hit on the move and now you can shoot into melee.
Congratulations, you're now hitting on 5s with your Riptides in combat. Your Commanders, Broadsides, and Crisis suits cant shoot into combat because they're not vehicles, and your Hammerheads are already dead. And now they can't reposition themselves on the table after being tagged.
Now you are taking reroll shots on overwatch instead - so you overwatch better - while other units like a relic levithan have to pay to over-watch now...
Yes, hitting on those rerollable 6s on a Riptide is such a game changer. Wow, I cant imagine why nobody ever thought of that.
The only mention you make that actually makes sense is the change to cover. Tau doesn't like -1 to hits but it's also a blessing at the same time because there cant be worse than a -1.
Do you actually understand how hard it is for the mainline units in a Tau army to get a -1 to hit? No, you dont, because you are once again demonstrating how little you understand 9ths rules.
Like how many times are you gonna tell me I dont know what I am talking about...then you get completely owned?
Considering you just put on a master class of cluelessness, I'm going to continue to tell you that you dont know what you're talking about until such time as you demonstrate that you have a clue what you're talking about.
Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
We won't convince him, sadly, he still only looks at the damage output of a unit to judge its viability and he finds the mission a "gamey" aspect of 9th. He just wants to table everyone then have his opponents surrender instead of counting the pts and realising he actually lost the game.
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
No, they should balance the secondaries if needed or change how the army is designed. Last night the guys on Tabletop Titans said that GW should consider re-designing Tau (If they were hypothetically going to overhaul 1 army completely) Also Tau would do pretty well in most of the kill secondaries and engage on all fronts. But if they castle up they will lose on primaries
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
The game should be more than just roll dice, remove models, repeat until one side has no more models.
If an army cannot achieve that, then the army should be changed so it CAN achieve that.
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
What makes it really sad is that post-PA in 8th Tau were shaping up to be an exceptionally aggressive and mobile army that would have been a boatload of fun to play 9th style games with. Now the faction is highly pigeon-holed into a castle playstyle that just doesnt have what it takes to compete against an opponent with a functional brain and a not half-baked list.
Wow so...you know by in large all vehicals got better right? so the fly nerf is superfluous to no -1 to hit on the move and now you can shoot into melee.
Congratulations, you're now hitting on 5s with your Riptides in combat. Your Commanders, Broadsides, and Crisis suits cant shoot into combat because they're not vehicles, and your Hammerheads are already dead. And now they can't reposition themselves on the table after being tagged.
Now you are taking reroll shots on overwatch instead - so you overwatch better - while other units like a relic levithan have to pay to over-watch now...
Yes, hitting on those rerollable 6s on a Riptide is such a game changer. Wow, I cant imagine why nobody ever thought of that.
The only mention you make that actually makes sense is the change to cover. Tau doesn't like -1 to hits but it's also a blessing at the same time because there cant be worse than a -1.
Do you actually understand how hard it is for the mainline units in a Tau army to get a -1 to hit? No, you dont, because you are once again demonstrating how little you understand 9ths rules.
Like how many times are you gonna tell me I dont know what I am talking about...then you get completely owned?
Considering you just put on a master class of cluelessness, I'm going to continue to tell you that you dont know what you're talking about until such time as you demonstrate that you have a clue what you're talking about.
Wow sounds like you just put the sledgehammer down even though your whole army got shot off the board before it got close enough to charge me and die in overwatch...LOL you clearly dont play this game. Charge tau...you are hliarous...unless you are quinns or eldar...that aint happening.
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a bit of hyperbole to say that marines are pawing through 130 relics.
There's 15 in the main book, 7 or so more in the supplement, and 8 or so special issue.
15+15*6+6+5*1=116 not including BA, DA, DW, GK or SW. Adeptus Astartes have over 130 relics between them. Necrons have less than 20 between them. There are far more Necron characters than SM characters in the galaxy, they have the tech to make better relics as well. While any on Chapter might have access to as "little" as 23, Necron Dynasties have access to as few as 6 and no more than 7. Sorry about using SM and Adeptus Astartes interchangeably, I'm just thinking it's the same thing in low and high gothic respectively, didn't mean to say Codex SM.
Breaking news for you, there is a new necron codex, this will likely have different relics. Stop whining about a book thats got less than a month of life in it.
Xenomancers wrote: Wow sounds like you just put the sledgehammer down even though your whole army got shot off the board before it got close enough to charge me and die in overwatch...LOL you clearly dont play this game. Charge tau...you are hliarous...unless you are quinns or eldar...that aint happening.
????
why are quins and eldar the only ones that are able to charge tau in your little world?
And why do you consider them unchargeable? because their whole army fits in a 6" bubble to max out FTGG? So how can this "mobile" army reposition itself constantly if theyre stacked toghether in their corner?
Xenomancers wrote: Wow sounds like you just put the sledgehammer down even though your whole army got shot off the board before it got close enough to charge me and die in overwatch...LOL you clearly dont play this game. Charge tau...you are hliarous...unless you are quinns or eldar...that aint happening.
It takes...
12 railed saves
72 wounds
216 5+ Overwatch hits
648 shots, or 216 Fire Warriors in range of a Cadre Firebalde to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
It takes...
6 failed saves
12 wounds
36 hits
108 shots from a Heavy Burst Cannon to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
And a Lord Discordant can get a first-turn charge easily, by using Warptime.
Xenomancers wrote: Wow sounds like you just put the sledgehammer down even though your whole army got shot off the board before it got close enough to charge me and die in overwatch...LOL you clearly dont play this game. Charge tau...you are hliarous...unless you are quinns or eldar...that aint happening.
Putting aside the fact that this reads like a three year old is trying (and failing) to learn to speak, what exactly is your argument here? That Tau have ranged firepower? That they can Overwatch?
Though I do have to say that Im highly amused by the apparent assertion that I'm enraged because I lost to Tau...when Tau are one of my two primary armies at the moment.
Again, please continue to demonstrate that you lack a functioning understanding of how this edition, and this army in particular, operates.
Xenomancers wrote: Wow sounds like you just put the sledgehammer down even though your whole army got shot off the board before it got close enough to charge me and die in overwatch...LOL you clearly dont play this game. Charge tau...you are hliarous...unless you are quinns or eldar...that aint happening.
It takes...
12 railed saves
72 wounds
216 5+ Overwatch hits
648 shots, or 216 Fire Warriors in range of a Cadre Firebalde to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
It takes...
6 failed saves
12 wounds
36 hits
108 shots from a Heavy Burst Cannon to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
And a Lord Discordant can get a first-turn charge easily, by using Warptime.
Now calculate it for a simple rhino charging in before its payload and see how its not getting blown up on average
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
The game should be more than just roll dice, remove models, repeat until one side has no more models.
If an army cannot achieve that, then the army should be changed so it CAN achieve that.
That is the game ether way. You are literally just changing the victory conditions from the player who does the most damage to the player that stands on poker chips the longest.
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
The game should be more than just roll dice, remove models, repeat until one side has no more models.
If an army cannot achieve that, then the army should be changed so it CAN achieve that.
That is the game ether way. You are literally just changing the victory conditions from the player who does the most damage to the player that stands on poker chips the longest.
Yeah, thats what he said, thanks for confirming your reading comprehension.
One is more braindead than the other. Spoiler : its the one where you win by tabling the other guy.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a bit of hyperbole to say that marines are pawing through 130 relics.
There's 15 in the main book, 7 or so more in the supplement, and 8 or so special issue.
15+15*6+6+5*1=116 not including BA, DA, DW, GK or SW. Adeptus Astartes have over 130 relics between them. Necrons have less than 20 between them. There are far more Necron characters than SM characters in the galaxy, they have the tech to make better relics as well. While any on Chapter might have access to as "little" as 23, Necron Dynasties have access to as few as 6 and no more than 7. Sorry about using SM and Adeptus Astartes interchangeably, I'm just thinking it's the same thing in low and high gothic respectively, didn't mean to say Codex SM.
Breaking news for you, there is a new necron codex, this will likely have different relics. Stop whining about a book thats got less than a month of life in it.
I was going to add in to the comment that I wasn't whining, but I thought that was unnecessary since I said it in my last comment. I am not whining about Necrons having too few Relics or SM having too many. I am just stating the facts of the matter, half of relics in the game are useless, having more relics in absolute terms is never negative and saying that the raw number is irrelevant because half of them are bad is ignoring that half of all relics are bad, not just half of White Scars relics. 20/2>6/2. Necrons have waited awfully long though, it's a year of SM having this many Relics and Necrons having so few. The real issue is in terms of faction abilities and Stratagems. Waiting a year for parity is unfair and we all know there won't be parity with the new codexes, Necrons got shafted in PA and nobody is going to convince me to get my hopes up again.
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
The game should be more than just roll dice, remove models, repeat until one side has no more models.
If an army cannot achieve that, then the army should be changed so it CAN achieve that.
That is the game ether way. You are literally just changing the victory conditions from the player who does the most damage to the player that stands on poker chips the longest.
Right, and as tau are currently designed they dont do well standing on poker chips the longest which is why they dont do well in a tournament setting (as seen so far at least). Not sure what arguement youre trying to make now.
Xenomancers wrote: Wow sounds like you just put the sledgehammer down even though your whole army got shot off the board before it got close enough to charge me and die in overwatch...LOL you clearly dont play this game. Charge tau...you are hliarous...unless you are quinns or eldar...that aint happening.
It takes...
12 railed saves
72 wounds
216 5+ Overwatch hits
648 shots, or 216 Fire Warriors in range of a Cadre Firebalde to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
It takes...
6 failed saves
12 wounds
36 hits
108 shots from a Heavy Burst Cannon to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
And a Lord Discordant can get a first-turn charge easily, by using Warptime.
Now calculate it for a simple rhino charging in before its payload and see how its not getting blown up on average
Rhino is significantly more vulnerable to Pule Rifles. Two less wounds and only a 3+ save means it takes...
But, against the Heavy Burst Cannon, T7 makes a big difference.
5 failed saves
7.5 wounds
22.5 hits
67.5 shots
Speaking of which, I just noticed I did make a mistake on my Lord Discordant/Heavy Burst Cannon math. I used 5+ to-wound, not 4+. The actual numbers are:
6 failed saves
12 wounds
24 hits
72 shots
So they're about as durable as each other to HBC, with the Rhino being easier to kill with Pulse Rifles.
Xenomancers wrote: Wow sounds like you just put the sledgehammer down even though your whole army got shot off the board before it got close enough to charge me and die in overwatch...LOL you clearly dont play this game. Charge tau...you are hliarous...unless you are quinns or eldar...that aint happening.
It takes...
12 railed saves
72 wounds
216 5+ Overwatch hits
648 shots, or 216 Fire Warriors in range of a Cadre Firebalde to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
It takes...
6 failed saves
12 wounds
36 hits
108 shots from a Heavy Burst Cannon to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
And a Lord Discordant can get a first-turn charge easily, by using Warptime.
Now calculate it for a simple rhino charging in before its payload and see how its not getting blown up on average
FTGG is a real thing. It's not going to survive overwatch from 3 mega units on overwatch. It would be a waste to try.
Standard riptide build now is ATS and reroll overwatch. Stratagem for overwatch on 5's. So 55% hits. Some cover gives 5+ to hit in overwatch too - if I was tau...thats where I'd put my broadsides and riptide for sure. Literally just giving tau free shooting phases. Don't act like this is viable strategy...It's called throwing units away to the wolves IMO.
Im telling you this as an ultramarines player who frequently overwatches with 4 units against people trying to charge with a disco lord. DONT DO IT. YOU ARE HANDING ME THE W.
Xenomancers wrote: Wow sounds like you just put the sledgehammer down even though your whole army got shot off the board before it got close enough to charge me and die in overwatch...LOL you clearly dont play this game. Charge tau...you are hliarous...unless you are quinns or eldar...that aint happening.
It takes...
12 railed saves 72 wounds 216 5+ Overwatch hits 648 shots, or 216 Fire Warriors in range of a Cadre Firebalde to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
It takes...
6 failed saves 12 wounds 36 hits 108 shots from a Heavy Burst Cannon to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
And a Lord Discordant can get a first-turn charge easily, by using Warptime.
Now calculate it for a simple rhino charging in before its payload and see how its not getting blown up on average
FTGG is a real thing. It's not going to survive overwatch from 3 mega units on overwatch. It would be a waste to try.
Standard riptide build now is ATS and reroll overwatch. Stratagem for overwatch on 5's. So 55% hits. Some cover gives 5+ to hit in overwatch too - if I was tau...thats where I'd put my broadsides and riptide for sure. Literally just giving tau free shooting phases. Don't act like this is viable strategy...It's called throwing units away to the wolves IMO.
Im telling you this as an ultramarines player who frequently overwatches with 4 units against people trying to charge with a disco lord. DONT DO IT. YOU ARE HANDING ME THE W.
So charge with an Infantry unit from behind cover. Use anything that disables Overwatch. Or have multiple units ready to charge-once you FTGG, you can't Overwatch again.
Or, hell, just win on points. If the entire Tau army is just cornered up, they'll lose.
Standard riptide build now is ATS and reroll overwatch. Stratagem for overwatch on 5's. So 55% hits. Some cover gives 5+ to hit in overwatch too - if I was tau...thats where I'd put my broadsides and riptide for sure. Literally just giving tau free shooting phases. Don't act like this is viable strategy...It's called throwing units away to the wolves IMO.
For the third time, Riptides, Broadsides, Ghostkeels, Commanders and Crisis Suits cannot benefit from terrain cover. Furthermore, the only time you can use the 5+ OW strat is if the unit that was charged was a vehicle, and then only that specific vehicle (which cant take a CDF) gets a 5+ OW. Which you absolutely will not see on the table at present because they are terrible.
Xenomancers wrote: FTGG is a real thing. It's not going to survive overwatch from 3 mega units on overwatch. It would be a waste to try.
Baiting out FTGG from three deathstar units is an excellent use of an 80 point Rhino. I'll give up the metal box to silence your main guns for the rest of the phase any day of the week, then follow up with additional charges to ensure that those Riptides are tagged in combat.
Im telling you this as an ultramarines player who frequently overwatches with 4 units against people trying to charge with a disco lord. DONT DO IT. YOU ARE HANDING ME THE W.
Thank you for fully admitting you have no concept of how a Tau army functions. Only took you two pages to get there.
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
The game should be more than just roll dice, remove models, repeat until one side has no more models.
If an army cannot achieve that, then the army should be changed so it CAN achieve that.
That is the game ether way. You are literally just changing the victory conditions from the player who does the most damage to the player that stands on poker chips the longest.
Right, and as tau are currently designed they dont do well standing on poker chips the longest which is why they dont do well in a tournament setting (as seen so far at least). Not sure what arguement youre trying to make now.
I'm demonstrating how these victory conditions are stupid and have nothing to do with game balance. Balance is achieved by balanced stats and weapons and abilities. Not by changing the game to ignore the outcome of the battle and hand out snowflake rewards (here take the stands on poker chip reward - real competent general you lost your whole army but you held that observation post valiantly for 1 minute and 40 seconds!). If I have 90% of my army left and you have no models. The field is mine...all your Gaines are lost as I walk over your corpses.
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
The game should be more than just roll dice, remove models, repeat until one side has no more models.
If an army cannot achieve that, then the army should be changed so it CAN achieve that.
That is the game ether way. You are literally just changing the victory conditions from the player who does the most damage to the player that stands on poker chips the longest.
Right, and as tau are currently designed they dont do well standing on poker chips the longest which is why they dont do well in a tournament setting (as seen so far at least). Not sure what arguement youre trying to make now.
I'm demonstrating how these victory conditions are stupid and have nothing to do with game balance. Balance is achieved by balanced stats and weapons and abilities. Not by changing the game to ignore the outcome of the battle and hand out snowflake rewards (here take the stands on poker chip reward - real competent general you lost your whole army but you held that observation post valiantly for 1 minute and 40 seconds!). If I have 90% of my army left and you have no models. The field is mine...all your Gaines are lost as I walk over your corpses.
The ritual is complete, and Daemons begin spilling through to reality. There's only one surviving Cultist who is quickly beheaded by a Bloodletter, but the planet is still lost.
The comm pylon was protected for long enough to transmit vital data to the remainder of the Tau forces, even though there's no survivors.
The caravan of supplies that was making its way to the larger battlefront has made it through the pass, while the Ork assault was held off and prevented from disrupting it.
If you can't figure out a scenario that explains why a side can win despite suffering greater or even total losses, you lack imagination.
And if your sole criteria for a wargame's gameplay is "Kill the opposition" then I'm not sure wargames are for you.
Standard riptide build now is ATS and reroll overwatch. Stratagem for overwatch on 5's. So 55% hits. Some cover gives 5+ to hit in overwatch too - if I was tau...thats where I'd put my broadsides and riptide for sure. Literally just giving tau free shooting phases. Don't act like this is viable strategy...It's called throwing units away to the wolves IMO.
For the third time, Riptides, Broadsides, Ghostkeels, Commanders and Crisis Suits cannot benefit from terrain cover. Furthermore, the only time you can use the 5+ OW strat is if the unit that was charged was a vehicle. Which you absolutely will not see on the table at present because they are terrible.
Xenomancers wrote: FTGG is a real thing. It's not going to survive overwatch from 3 mega units on overwatch. It would be a waste to try.
Baiting out FTGG from three deathstar units is an excellent use of an 80 point Rhino. I'll give up the metal box to silence your main guns for the rest of the phase any day of the week, then follow up with additional charges to ensure that those Riptides are tagged in combat.
Im telling you this as an ultramarines player who frequently overwatches with 4 units against people trying to charge with a disco lord. DONT DO IT. YOU ARE HANDING ME THE W.
Thank you for fully admitting you have no concept of how a Tau army functions. Only took you two pages to get there.
Also thanks for pointing out another buff to overwatch. You have to make engagement range with ALL charge targets for charge to succeed - another example of how over-watch has been buffed.
Also thanks for pointing out another buff to overwatch. You have to make engagement range with ALL charge targets for charge to succeed - another example of how over-watch has been buffed.
Not being able to speculatively charge isnt a buff to overwatch, its a restriction on the assaulting unit with the side effect of reducing the amount of overwatch being fired. I guess allowing less OW is now a buff to OW? That makes sense.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a bit of hyperbole to say that marines are pawing through 130 relics.
There's 15 in the main book, 7 or so more in the supplement, and 8 or so special issue.
15+15*6+6+5*1=116 not including BA, DA, DW, GK or SW. Adeptus Astartes have over 130 relics between them. Necrons have less than 20 between them. There are far more Necron characters than SM characters in the galaxy, they have the tech to make better relics as well. While any on Chapter might have access to as "little" as 23, Necron Dynasties have access to as few as 6 and no more than 7. Sorry about using SM and Adeptus Astartes interchangeably, I'm just thinking it's the same thing in low and high gothic respectively, didn't mean to say Codex SM.
I'm just saying that no one player is interfacing with all those relics simultaneously. A Salamander's army will have 30 to choose from.
Otherwise we'd have to say that CSM have access to....36 (PA:CSM) + 14 (CSM) + 6 (TS) + 9 (PA:TS) + 6 (DG) + 7 (PAG) + 3 (Bile) + 6 (PA daemon weapons) = 87
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
The game should be more than just roll dice, remove models, repeat until one side has no more models.
If an army cannot achieve that, then the army should be changed so it CAN achieve that.
That is the game ether way. You are literally just changing the victory conditions from the player who does the most damage to the player that stands on poker chips the longest.
Right, and as tau are currently designed they dont do well standing on poker chips the longest which is why they dont do well in a tournament setting (as seen so far at least). Not sure what arguement youre trying to make now.
I'm demonstrating how these victory conditions are stupid and have nothing to do with game balance. Balance is achieved by balanced stats and weapons and abilities. Not by changing the game to ignore the outcome of the battle and hand out snowflake rewards (here take the stands on poker chip reward - real competent general you lost your whole army but you held that observation post valiantly for 1 minute and 40 seconds!). If I have 90% of my army left and you have no models. The field is mine...all your Gaines are lost as I walk over your corpses.
All this shows is you lack imagination. Plenty of ways to show a victory despite losing your forces as others have already come up with narrative reasons in this thread, and requires you to actually plan things out instead of hurr durr shoot big gun well.
If the Orks wipe out all life on Armageddon and destroy its infrastructure, but the imperium wipes out every ork on the planet afterwards who really won? Probably the side that lost a critical planet and production center, not the side with an endless tide of bodies
Also thanks for pointing out another buff to overwatch. You have to make engagement range with ALL charge targets for charge to succeed - another example of how over-watch has been buffed.
Not being able to speculatively charge isnt a buff to overwatch, its a restriction on the assaulting unit with the side effect of reducing the amount of overwatch being fired. I guess allowing less OW is now a buff to OW? That makes sense.
It is undoubtedly a buff to the defender which in this situation is the overwatchER. Hence it is a tau buff...they are almost always the defender. Spin however you like.
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
The game should be more than just roll dice, remove models, repeat until one side has no more models.
If an army cannot achieve that, then the army should be changed so it CAN achieve that.
That is the game ether way. You are literally just changing the victory conditions from the player who does the most damage to the player that stands on poker chips the longest.
Right, and as tau are currently designed they dont do well standing on poker chips the longest which is why they dont do well in a tournament setting (as seen so far at least). Not sure what arguement youre trying to make now.
I'm demonstrating how these victory conditions are stupid and have nothing to do with game balance. Balance is achieved by balanced stats and weapons and abilities. Not by changing the game to ignore the outcome of the battle and hand out snowflake rewards (here take the stands on poker chip reward - real competent general you lost your whole army but you held that observation post valiantly for 1 minute and 40 seconds!). If I have 90% of my army left and you have no models. The field is mine...all your Gaines are lost as I walk over your corpses.
All this shows is you lack imagination. Plenty of ways to show a victory despite losing your forces as others have already come up with narrative reasons in this thread, and requires you to actually plan things out instead of hurr durr shoot big gun well.
If the Orks wipe out all life on Armageddon and destroy its infrastructure, but the imperium wipes out every ork on the planet afterwards who really won? Probably the side that lost a critical planet and production center, not the side with an endless tide of bodies
Orks won because they will turn into fungus and then ork babies.
Do you actually WANT the only objective to be killing enemy models?
Because to me, that sounds boring as hell as a default. An occasional game of that, whether to get a new player acquainted with the rules, or just a relaxing break from actually having to think beyond target priority is fine. But as the main ruleset? No. Not good.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a bit of hyperbole to say that marines are pawing through 130 relics.
There's 15 in the main book, 7 or so more in the supplement, and 8 or so special issue.
15+15*6+6+5*1=116 not including BA, DA, DW, GK or SW. Adeptus Astartes have over 130 relics between them. Necrons have less than 20 between them. There are far more Necron characters than SM characters in the galaxy, they have the tech to make better relics as well. While any on Chapter might have access to as "little" as 23, Necron Dynasties have access to as few as 6 and no more than 7. Sorry about using SM and Adeptus Astartes interchangeably, I'm just thinking it's the same thing in low and high gothic respectively, didn't mean to say Codex SM.
I'm just saying that no one player is interfacing with all those relics simultaneously. A Salamander's army will have 30 to choose from.
Otherwise we'd have to say that CSM have access to....36 (PA:CSM) + 14 (CSM) + 6 (TS) + 9 (PA:TS) + 6 (DG) + 7 (PAG) + 3 (Bile) + 6 (PA daemon weapons) = 87
The reality is you are limitied to the number of characters in your army for how many relics you can take. Or in certain situations you can give to a sargent (honored sargent) or a single unit with a stratagem. There is really no doubt in anyones mind that the 8.5 space marine codex was a test for 9th eddition play codex design. All codex are going to look like the space marine one coming up. want 6 relics in your army? It's coming.
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
The game should be more than just roll dice, remove models, repeat until one side has no more models.
If an army cannot achieve that, then the army should be changed so it CAN achieve that.
That is the game ether way. You are literally just changing the victory conditions from the player who does the most damage to the player that stands on poker chips the longest.
Right, and as tau are currently designed they dont do well standing on poker chips the longest which is why they dont do well in a tournament setting (as seen so far at least). Not sure what arguement youre trying to make now.
I'm demonstrating how these victory conditions are stupid and have nothing to do with game balance. Balance is achieved by balanced stats and weapons and abilities. Not by changing the game to ignore the outcome of the battle and hand out snowflake rewards (here take the stands on poker chip reward - real competent general you lost your whole army but you held that observation post valiantly for 1 minute and 40 seconds!). If I have 90% of my army left and you have no models. The field is mine...all your Gaines are lost as I walk over your corpses.
All this shows is you lack imagination. Plenty of ways to show a victory despite losing your forces as others have already come up with narrative reasons in this thread, and requires you to actually plan things out instead of hurr durr shoot big gun well.
If the Orks wipe out all life on Armageddon and destroy its infrastructure, but the imperium wipes out every ork on the planet afterwards who really won? Probably the side that lost a critical planet and production center, not the side with an endless tide of bodies
Quite frankly we would still have people making the same stupid "it's about how you play the game L2P" arguments if CSM units were all increased by 50 points for no reason. Hell people were still doing it towards Grey Knights players before they got their revamp.
It is undoubtedly a buff to the defender which in this situation is the overwatchER. Hence it is a tau buff...they are almost always the defender.
Your argument is literally "Tau overwatching less, and being unable to maneuver after being engaged, is a buff to Tau". That's some astounding logic right there.
Billagio wrote: Tau basically only have 2 phases, and to make the most of their abilities they need to stay grouped...Not exactly good for the new objective based victory conditions in 9th. In other editions where you could win by just ass blasting your oppenent sure, but thats not the case anymore.
So secondaries are also holding armies back that have no other way of competing then huh? This is a good thing?
No, they should balance the secondaries if needed or change how the army is designed. Last night the guys on Tabletop Titans said that GW should consider re-designing Tau (If they were hypothetically going to overhaul 1 army completely) Also Tau would do pretty well in most of the kill secondaries and engage on all fronts. But if they castle up they will lose on primaries
It's almost like - and bear with me here - going All-Gundam-All-The-Time from the Riptide onwards was a bad plan, and they should've been introducing a wider range of Auxiliary units to cover capability gaps within the faction. Vaguely competent melee, some degree of tanky objective-holders, etc, etc.
Do you actually WANT the only objective to be killing enemy models?
Because to me, that sounds boring as hell as a default. An occasional game of that, whether to get a new player acquainted with the rules, or just a relaxing break from actually having to think beyond target priority is fine. But as the main ruleset? No. Not good.
It's always been then objective in the game. The primary objective has always actually been the secondary objective if you failed to remove all models which is pretty dang rare.
Just think about it...we rate units by their ability to get points back during a game. Heck most units can do it in 1 or 2 turns on average. HOW DO YOU GUYS HAVE ARMIES LEFT?
It's almost like - and bear with me here - going All-Gundam-All-The-Time from the Riptide onwards was a bad plan, and they should've been introducing a wider range of Auxiliary units to cover capability gaps within the faction. Vaguely competent melee, some degree of tanky objective-holders, etc, etc.
It's a little more nuanced than that, but you're not wrong. Adjustments to rules for various battlesuits to allow them to fill some of those niches would go a loooooong way to ameliorating the issues the army is facing right now. If, for instance (and this is me deliberately avoiding the issue of Markerlights), Broadsides and Crisis Suits could fire while engaged, then you'd very likely see defensively kitted variants of both used as "melee" screens for other components of the Tau arsenal.
Xenomancers wrote: Wow sounds like you just put the sledgehammer down even though your whole army got shot off the board before it got close enough to charge me and die in overwatch...LOL you clearly dont play this game. Charge tau...you are hliarous...unless you are quinns or eldar...that aint happening.
It takes...
12 railed saves
72 wounds
216 5+ Overwatch hits
648 shots, or 216 Fire Warriors in range of a Cadre Firebalde to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
It takes...
6 failed saves
12 wounds
36 hits
108 shots from a Heavy Burst Cannon to kill a Lord Discordant on Overwatch.
And a Lord Discordant can get a first-turn charge easily, by using Warptime.
Now calculate it for a simple rhino charging in before its payload and see how its not getting blown up on average
FTGG is a real thing. It's not going to survive overwatch from 3 mega units on overwatch. It would be a waste to try.
Standard riptide build now is ATS and reroll overwatch. Stratagem for overwatch on 5's. So 55% hits. Some cover gives 5+ to hit in overwatch too - if I was tau...thats where I'd put my broadsides and riptide for sure. Literally just giving tau free shooting phases. Don't act like this is viable strategy...It's called throwing units away to the wolves IMO.
Im telling you this as an ultramarines player who frequently overwatches with 4 units against people trying to charge with a disco lord. DONT DO IT. YOU ARE HANDING ME THE W.
You’re telling him this as an Ultramarine player who has consistently demonstrated an inability to understand your own army, let alone others, at even a casual level let alone the competitive level you insist on weighing in on all the time with completely underprepared, inexperienced, and downright illogical statements.
I’m not saying Tau aren’t a good army in 9th, I’m not going as far as some others have. But I will say absolutely nothing you’ve said so far has been even remotely accurate, and you are just clearly demonstrating how your incorrect gameplay decisions have led you to build up beliefs about the game from the perspective of a very casual level of play. Applying it to competitive discussion is a fallacy. Xenos you simply are not playing the game at the level of most the other posters weighing in here, let alone the higher level of play above that, that you assume your experiences will hold true all the way up to. I don’t doubt your experience has been what you claim. I’d just like to put it to you that your experience means far less than what you assume it does, and you having admitted to never even attending a competitive event, and self professing to not understanding the depth to how this game can be played competitively that some people are able to consistently win events without CHEATING, I really don’t think you should be making soooooo many posts always staunchly arguing these things with people and never ever even considering backing down or admitting you may be wrong, no matter how overwhelming the evidence that you are mistaken gets. Even if your overall point is right here (doubtful) it would be by pure chance and absolutely not for any of the illogical reasons you’ve put forth so far. That’s not a good place to ALWAYS be.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And wow, the idea that having to control objectives and actually having tactical spaces to play around, is less skillful than just lining Up models at their appropriate ranges each turn and seeing what the dice say, is just astounding to me. Have you put any real thought into the path your argument is currently taking, or are you just whipping that stuff out there because it’s a statement you can use to support your core argument here?
