FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I seriously can't believe some people are still arguing that Guard squads are not overpowered for their cost. And I was a die-hard fan of IG up until I played a different army and saw how easy guard have it.
The current state of guard is literally indefensible by logic, only by woo and irrationality.
Your forgetting the first rule of guard club
Never admit how powerful your units are. Like EVER !!!
I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing the data from the upcoming ITC season with best infaction requiring pure lists.
I suspect it's going to be interesting watching the results and how people try to spin those results.
What results? You're so far away from competitive play you have no idea what the changes to BiF even means. The change means absolutely nothing in terms of what takes top 8 at majors, which will still be soup. The only difference now is that soup players won't be taking BiF awards as consolation prize for not taking best in ITC. As for mono codex power, Mono-Guard are completely shut out of top tables by Eldar and I don't see that changing as long as -2/-3 is so stupidly easy to stack.
As for dealing with FRFSRF bogeymen, I would like to introduce you to the humble Deathwatch Intercessor.
10 Deathwatch Intercessors in cover vs FOUR Infantry squads and two company commanders with FRFSRF starting at 30"range. 180 points vs 220 points.
Turn One
One dead guard squad. Straight up deleted with hellfire rounds and reroll 1's to wound.
Guard squads move into 24" range, engage FRFSRF on three of the squads. 54 shots, 1.4 wounds after save, let's be generous and say we dropped an Intercessor. Without cover, it's 3 wounds, so either way, still 9 models left.
Turn Two
Second guard squad loses 9 men, probably not spending CP to save one guardsmen, he runs.
Guard squads move to 18", let's again be generous and say they're Armageddon, so now they're getting full value on FRFSRF. 72 shots. Another dead intercessor, two more dead intercessors out of cover.
Turn Three
Third guard squad takes 8 casualties, 7 if the Intercessors have not been in cover this whole time. We'll say the Guard player spent a CP to make it a 1D3 morale check and they passed though.
Guard squads move to 12", FRFSRF on the three survivors from squad three and the untouched squad. 49 shots. 1.29 wounds. feth it, let's just say they dropped another Intercessor cause the Guardsmen need the help at this point.
Turn Four
Intercessors can easily clean up with a round of shooting + charging. The company commanders might now be tying them up for the rest of the game, but the Guard player in this scenario burned 1 CP, has been wasting 4/6 possible orders the whole game, tied up or lost 220 points of their own units, and in ITC gave up at least four primary points on approach, with a probable two more from either Butcher's Bill or Reaper.
You could MMM all four of the squads turn one into RF range, but at that point, the play is to move up 6", split fire at the two furthest squads, and charge the full strength one before they can get a FRFSRF volley.
And when your Guard squads cost as much as a DW Intercessor Squad, you can complain about how weak they are. But why stop there? A guard squad can't compare to a Leviathan, NERF THE LEVIATHAN.
See, you can't compare the two. It's silly to do so. Also please point to me the lists loading out 8 squads of DW Intercessors that are winning majors. Hell, point to me the list of any DW w/ pure intercessors squads. So in effect, that is not a fair argument. DW is not in any way breaking the Meta with their overpoweredness.
Also you gave all the boneses to Intercessors, and took the guard out of RF range. This is horribly skewed. LOS exists for a reason.
I'm not complaining about how weak guardsmen are, I'm pointing out that FRFSRF guardsmen are not some OP punch above their weight squad in a realistic scenario and even used MORE points in guardsmen than Intercessors. Yes, if you magically got them all into RF range then they will punch above their weight. But unless you're a mouthbreather, the Guard player is never going to get that opportunity.
Because the guardsmen don't start in RF range. And there's no way you're maneuvering 40 models without at least one squad of them being in LOS. If anything, this was skewed in favor of the guardsmen. The guardsmen have 40 points and two extra CP in this scenario and the best possible regiment tactic for FRFSRF. Cadian can't get rerolls on the move.
I didn't give DW 'all the bonuses', I gave them their chapter tactic and standard ammo for a T3 target. That's like complaining about me simulating Raven Guard getting their -1 to hit.
I have never seen a player in game make the choice to send intercessor squads after entrenched guard squads holding objectives. I wonder why.
Because they can sit at 30" and kill a squad per turn without receiving any return fire?
Here is a guard player trying to defend 4ppm guardsmen before, because you apparentlyhaven't seen this argument that is already over a year old.
GW has given up and is now bringing other troops down to the bottom floor of ppm which is crowned by Guard.
Take a basic squad of each thing, no buffs, and go from there.
???
But I did. Multiple times, and they come out ahead in every scenario against other unbuffed infantry. And when I do that people are all like "but you have to consider the faction as a whole" so I do the math again but with buffs affecting both sides, and guard still win handily. And then people go "orders are different from auras so it's not the same" and then just declare all the math unrepresentative. Or even better, that the comparison involves units that don't have the same role and so is wrong.
And it really baffles me when people downplay the effects of FRFSRF, saying it doesn't do much because it's S3. I mean, 3 guard infantry squads can use FRFSRF to keep up with a double tapping Russ Punisher's firepower, and that's at long range. At half range, the punisher is completely outdone. And most Guard players seem to think that the punisher needs a point increase, so...
Ok, so I’ve just done a bit more math myself in regards to “who comes out on top unbuffed”. That even means not rapid firing – but being able to shoot from turn 1. This is also not taking into account morale losses. (As a morale trade off, I’ve not taken the decision of presuming you’d remove Guard sergeants first – otherwise morale would play a bigger factor).
Vs Marines.
2 squads of Guard vs 1 squad of 6 Marines (80 points v 78)
If Guard go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 4 with only 17.26% Casualties.
If Marines go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 6. 29.23% Casualties.
Guard win.
Vs T’au
2 squads of Guard vs 11 Fire warriors (80 points v 77)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 37.55% Casualties vs 91.83%
If T’au go first, Guard win. 65.55% Casulaties vs 62.72%.
Advantage to Guard. Neither side is “tabled”.
Vs Nids
2 squads of Guard vs 3 Warriors with Deathspitters (not even going to bother with it being vs 10 Termagants with devourers) (80 points v 75)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 55.56% Casualties vs 66.67%.
If Nids go first, Nids win. 33.33% Casualties vs 77.78%.
Draw over 6 turns, with slight advantage to Nids. Neither side is “tabled”.
Vs Thousand Sons
6 squads of Guard vs 11 Rubrics (one with Soulreaper and killing off Sorcerer first) (240 points v 240)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 35.5% Casualties vs 59.92%
If Sons go first, Guard win. 44.34% Casualties vs 47.1%.
Guard win, though, it is pretty close if Sons go first. Neither side is “tabled”.
Vs Orks
3 squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz (120 points vs 120)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 5. 16.54% Casualties.
If Orks go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 6. 29.71% Casualties.
Easy Guard win.
Vs Necrons
3 squads of Guard vs 1 unit of Warriors
If Guard go first, Necrons win. 33.61% Casualties to 50.5%.
If Necrons go first, then Necrons win. 41.09% Casualties vs 57.28%.
Necrons win over 6 turns. Neither side is “tabled”.
Vs Admech (Rangers)
1 squad v 1 squad (40 points each)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Admech tabled turn 6. 27.8% Guard Casualties.
If Admech go first, Guard win. 51.9% Casualties vs 80.06%.
Guard win.
So - from a DURABILITY point alone (one of the points that seems to get mentioned over and over again, Guardsmen aren't the "best" across the board troop for troop.
Of course, this changes when you start having other squads shoot at the Guardsmen etc, but, in the troop v troop situation it is slightly different.
Except morale is important, because that's guards weaknesses at at least one of the above is immune to morale. Orks wouldn't stay still and shoot, because they eat guard in melee combat, Marines is highly outdated since Marines with be always in rapid fire range, Admech got cheaper (also have a 30" gun which the above ignores?), etc.
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
Then I'm sorry to say that your points just aren't even relevant to any discussion about balance.
By that logic anyone who isn't playing with atleast 32 guardsmen in their list just isn't relevant to any discussion about balance.
So we're balancing around bigger tables or playing half points on a standard sized table?
No.
Why don't we balance for a 10'x10' table? I bet IG artillery would really enjoy that!
So is playing 1.5k on a 6x4 not 40k? Is not using ITC terrain rules not 40k?
What missions are you using to play proper 40k?
But really were back to defending 4ppm guardsmen again like seriously this BS was old 6 months ago, even CA didn't actually change up the who best mono faction was.
So is playing 1.5k on a 6x4 not 40k? Is not using ITC terrain rules not 40k?
What missions are you using to play proper 40k?
But really were back to defending 4ppm guardsmen again like seriously this BS was old 6 months ago, even CA didn't actually change up the who best mono faction was.
What about people that only play the long way on a 10'x4' table? What about nid hordes that refuse to play on anything bigger than 2'x2'? Do we need their input too? Playing a different table size is vastly different and more damaging than what missions you choose.
If you deviate from the standard you cannot expect that everything will be balanced. It's literally outlined in the damn BRB.
I kinda want the Ro3 migrated from "organized event suggestion" to "Match play requirement"
Most people play it that way anyway and with Narrative and Open play, you can still play 4+ of something non-Troops if you want
I know Chapter Approved is supposed to be the place for those things but I hope they make a concerted effort to catch weird prices that resulted from other changes.
The Hurricane Bolter's price made sense as a triple-linked Storm Bolter when the SB was 4 points, it should have gone down to 5 when the SB went down to 2. The LasTalon is the same price as a twin linked Lascannon, and it's literally the same profile with half the range.
I'm sure those aren't the only thing like that in the system right now.
The Newman wrote: I know Chapter Approved is supposed to be the place for those things but I hope they make a concerted effort to catch weird prices that resulted from other changes.
The Hurricane Bolter's price made sense as a triple-linked Storm Bolter when the SB was 4 points, it should have gone down to 5 when the SB went down to 2. The LasTalon is the same price as a twin linked Lascannon, and it's literally the same profile with half the range.
I'm sure those aren't the only thing like that in the system right now.
Like Cyclone Missile Launchers being 36" and the S4 mode being 2d3 shots for the same cost at 2 regular MLs which are 48" and the S4 mode is d6 shots (x2 since there is 2 of them)? Yeah, CML needs a heafty drop in points.
Sadly, though, I think we have to wait until December to see any such changes, if at all.
Galef wrote: I kinda want the Ro3 migrated from "organized event suggestion" to "Match play requirement"
Most people play it that way anyway and with Narrative and Open play, you can still play 4+ of something non-Troops if you want
-
Why would it need to be codified? Most everyone I've seen play as though it was a Matched Play baseline rule anyway. Same with the detachment limit.
The Newman wrote: I know Chapter Approved is supposed to be the place for those things but I hope they make a concerted effort to catch weird prices that resulted from other changes.
The Hurricane Bolter's price made sense as a triple-linked Storm Bolter when the SB was 4 points, it should have gone down to 5 when the SB went down to 2. The LasTalon is the same price as a twin linked Lascannon, and it's literally the same profile with half the range.
I'm sure those aren't the only thing like that in the system right now.
Like Cyclone Missile Launchers being 36" and the S4 mode being 2d3 shots for the same cost at 2 regular MLs which are 48" and the S4 mode is d6 shots (x2 since there is 2 of them)?
Yeah, CML needs a heafty drop in points.
Sadly, though, I think we have to wait until December to see any such changes, if at all.
-
Yeah - lots of really inconsistent stuff that is actually really easy to fix by just making it consistent or making obviously worse options cost less than obviously better options. Really not rocket science.
Why don't we balance for a 10'x10' table? I bet IG artillery would really enjoy that!
10'x10' table? Damn 60 pts for a drop pod is now a steal!
LOL yeah - you kinda want to come in to 2 or 3 in a game like that anyways because you want to be able to focus fire and you'd need a few turns to get in range.
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
1k is on a 4x4, that is standard..... did you not look at the chart?
For reference we started playing small point values on larger boards because when we played at the recommended size and terrain density the game didn't last long enough to be worth deploying. We almost never made it to turn three. We had a lot of games not even make it to turn two. We had games that were legitimately over before player two even got to make an attack, where over half their army was dead before on the top of one. Heck, we had a couple of games where player two was tabled before their first turn.
Those weird table and game sizes that some people are saying make our evaluation of balance meaningless are the result of how imbalanced we think the game is to start with.
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
1k is on a 4x4, that is standard..... did you not look at the chart?
For reference we started playing small point values on larger boards because when we played at the recommended size and terrain density the game didn't last long enough to be worth deploying. We almost never made it to turn three. We had a lot of games not even make it to turn two. We had games that were legitimately over before player two even got to make an attack, where over half their army was dead before on the top of one. Heck, we had a couple of games where player two was tabled before their first turn.
Those weird table and game sizes that some people are saying make our evaluation of balance meaningless are the result of how imbalanced we think the game is to start with.
I'm really curious about the lists involved in the games where a player was tabled before their first turn. Like, that sounds far swingier than any game I've ever seen in this edition; it's not perfectly balanced but it shouldn't be that bad.
That was a 42 man mini-marine list vs an imperial armor column. Between his preliminary bombardment and all the Leman Russes firing twice (and some admittedly hot dice) I ran out of models before he ran out of guns.
How are you loosing 42 marines in one turn? You have a 2+ save in cover vs. imperial guard and theres no way his tanks should have had LOS to your entire army unless you deployed out in the open.
Eihnlazer wrote: How are you loosing 42 marines in one turn? You have a 2+ save in cover vs. imperial guard and theres no way his tanks should have had LOS to your entire army unless you deployed out in the open.
True LoS makes it almost impossible to completely block LoS to 8 squads of marines when there are 6 Russes spread over the other side of the table. He hit every single squad on the preliminary bombardment and then 12 battle cannon shots plus the HBs was enough to finish the job. And I couldn't roll a 4+ to save my life.
I didn't say it was a statistically likely result, just that it happened. And part of the result was that we started playing with six times as much terrain.
Eihnlazer wrote: How are you loosing 42 marines in one turn? You have a 2+ save in cover vs. imperial guard and theres no way his tanks should have had LOS to your entire army unless you deployed out in the open.
True LoS makes it almost impossible to completely block LoS to 8 squads of marines when there are 6 Russes spread over the other side of the table. He hit every single squad on the preliminary bombardment and then 12 battle cannon shots plus the HBs was enough to finish the job. And I couldn't roll a 4+ to save my life.
I didn't say it was a statistically likely result, just that it happened. And part of the result was that we started playing with six times as much terrain.
He hit eight squads with Preliminary Bombardment!?!?! That's a 1 in 1,679,616 chance.
Eihnlazer wrote: How are you loosing 42 marines in one turn? You have a 2+ save in cover vs. imperial guard and theres no way his tanks should have had LOS to your entire army unless you deployed out in the open.
True LoS makes it almost impossible to completely block LoS to 8 squads of marines when there are 6 Russes spread over the other side of the table. He hit every single squad on the preliminary bombardment and then 12 battle cannon shots plus the HBs was enough to finish the job. And I couldn't roll a 4+ to save my life.
I didn't say it was a statistically likely result, just that it happened. And part of the result was that we started playing with six times as much terrain.
He hit eight squads with Preliminary Bombardment!?!?! That's a 1 in 1,679,616 chance.
They shoulda went to Las Vegas & bet all on red.
I'm believing this less and less.
Was there no/minimal terrain? Did the marine player not know how to deploy? was it their first day on planet earth? Did the guard player just roll sixes?
I'm really curious about the lists involved in the games where a player was tabled before their first turn. Like, that sounds far swingier than any game I've ever seen in this edition; it's not perfectly balanced but it shouldn't be that bad.
Kraken genestealers can do a real number on melee elite armies, when there is a lot of terrain the blocks LoS. No idea what else it could be, pre Ro3 inari dark reapers could blow up the opposing army too, but it is a thing of the past now.
Anyway, I too would like to see Bolter Discipline made official.
As well as that, the only thing I absolutely hope for beyond all hope, is that they consolidate every errata and FAQ currently valid into a single downloadable document. I can't stand having to scroll through the community website for a new document each time I wan't to check something.
One document, twice per year, containing ALL of the valid FAQs and errata to date. That's all I really want.
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
1k is on a 4x4, that is standard..... did you not look at the chart?
For reference we started playing small point values on larger boards because when we played at the recommended size and terrain density the game didn't last long enough to be worth deploying. We almost never made it to turn three. We had a lot of games not even make it to turn two. We had games that were legitimately over before player two even got to make an attack, where over half their army was dead before on the top of one. Heck, we had a couple of games where player two was tabled before their first turn.
Those weird table and game sizes that some people are saying make our evaluation of balance meaningless are the result of how imbalanced we think the game is to start with.
Then change your terrain... wtf. Just add more terrain, how is this even a problem for you?
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
1k is on a 4x4, that is standard..... did you not look at the chart?
For reference we started playing small point values on larger boards because when we played at the recommended size and terrain density the game didn't last long enough to be worth deploying. We almost never made it to turn three. We had a lot of games not even make it to turn two. We had games that were legitimately over before player two even got to make an attack, where over half their army was dead before on the top of one. Heck, we had a couple of games where player two was tabled before their first turn.
Those weird table and game sizes that some people are saying make our evaluation of balance meaningless are the result of how imbalanced we think the game is to start with.
Then change your terrain... wtf. Just add more terrain, how is this even a problem for you?
Yeah...gotta agree here. If your terrain is so bad you can't hide 20+ Marines in your deployment zone it's not the game that's at fault, it's your terrain, or at least your terrain set-up. GW could help somewhat here with proper terrain rules and that is something I wouldn't mind seeing them expand on. Regardless, the fact is GW can't and shouldn't balance around weird scenarios and set-ups that are completely non-standard and data from them isn't really helpful in determining what needs to be fixed. It's not about someone not playing ITC rules or not playing rulebook missions, it's about playing a game that's so far removed from anything resembling regular 40k it might as well be a whole alternate format.
I'd like to see the next FAQ fix soup in some way, revert some of the Fly changes to not be quite so punishing and deal with some of the current outliers in terms of power level and play experience - Mental Onslaught is one culprit that needs seriously reining in, for example. Ideally I'd like to see a complete overhaul of the CP system to not tie it to who is lucky enough to have the most useful Troops but it seems more likely GW will opt for a less radical change (if they make any change at all, which I'm sceptical about).
More terrain doesn't fix much. It has to be tall LoS blocking terrain. And you need enough for both parts of the table and the middle too, Because just one side out of LoS means unfun game for who ever goes second.
The problem with such terrain though, is that no other game wants terrain like that. So in a store that doesn't have unlimited store space you have to play with what majority wants. And this means walls with windows and doors, woods hills that can't hide an NDK, or even a termintor if you decied to added paladin banners to them etc.
Karol wrote: More terrain doesn't fix much. It has to be tall LoS blocking terrain. And you need enough for both parts of the table and the middle too, Because just one side out of LoS means unfun game for who ever goes second.
The problem with such terrain though, is that no other game wants terrain like that. So in a store that doesn't have unlimited store space you have to play with what majority wants. And this means walls with windows and doors, woods hills that can't hide an NDK, or even a termintor if you decied to added paladin banners to them etc.
There's a difference between being able to hide a NDK and being able to hide a bunch of regular Marines. If you can't hide a bunch of Terminators on your average table it's not the game that's at fault, it's your terrain. The rulebook is actually pretty clear on at least this aspect of things. Also, what you're describing is exactly the reason I said GW need to come up with proper terrain rules, and proper LoS rules too, which would help out people with older terrain collections and remove the need for common house rules like the bottom floor of ruins blocking LoS.
I wonder if it would make people happy if they nerfed everything from every army that is good or useful and brought everything down to a nice pleasant level together. That would be tranquil, and some armies could stay relatively untouched then. I don't even know what I'd want out of the big FAQ I guess I'd just want no knee jerk reactions cutting the legs off each others books.
Though if I was honest I really dislike allies these days, I miss mono codex armies and honestly at the highest level soup lists breed the most boring lists where no one really has feel and ends up like the amazing oatmeal of excellence, mostly. Now that isn't to say some don't find that fun, I'm sure they do. To me however they look like fluff nightmares and 40k without the feel and ambiance is an awful lot like reading a book from the first sentence of every page, what is the point ?
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
1k is on a 4x4, that is standard..... did you not look at the chart?
For reference we started playing small point values on larger boards because when we played at the recommended size and terrain density the game didn't last long enough to be worth deploying. We almost never made it to turn three. We had a lot of games not even make it to turn two. We had games that were legitimately over before player two even got to make an attack, where over half their army was dead before on the top of one. Heck, we had a couple of games where player two was tabled before their first turn.
Those weird table and game sizes that some people are saying make our evaluation of balance meaningless are the result of how imbalanced we think the game is to start with.
Then change your terrain... wtf. Just add more terrain, how is this even a problem for you?
You must have missed the part where I said we now put several times more terrain on the board. We're averaging 15+ tall hills and ruins over 6" square on a 4x4 right now.
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
1k is on a 4x4, that is standard..... did you not look at the chart?
For reference we started playing small point values on larger boards because when we played at the recommended size and terrain density the game didn't last long enough to be worth deploying. We almost never made it to turn three. We had a lot of games not even make it to turn two. We had games that were legitimately over before player two even got to make an attack, where over half their army was dead before on the top of one. Heck, we had a couple of games where player two was tabled before their first turn.
Those weird table and game sizes that some people are saying make our evaluation of balance meaningless are the result of how imbalanced we think the game is to start with.
Then change your terrain... wtf. Just add more terrain, how is this even a problem for you?
You must have missed the part where I said we now put several times more terrain on the board. We're averaging 15+ tall hills and ruins over 6" square on a 4x4 right now.
Are your trees and ruins properly blocking a significant amount of line of sight though?
You must have missed the part where I said we now put several times more terrain on the board. We're averaging 15+ tall hills and ruins over 6" square on a 4x4 right now.
Quality is just as important as quantity here. Does this terrain block LoS? The big problem with 40k's terrain rules is they are basically non-existent so things like forests and hills that used to block LoS simply don't any more. It's that blocking LoS that is crucial given how lethal 40k is nowadays.
If 40K is too lethal to be played on „White Dwarf Battle Report“-Style Terrain, the lethality needs to be dialed down.
Weird LOS-blocking things or ITC-style house rules for ruins might work as a quick fix for events in the absence of a fix, but it cannot really be the benchmark for whether the game is balanced as it comes out of the box/book.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I wonder if it would make people happy if they nerfed everything from every army that is good or useful and brought everything down to a nice pleasant level together. That would be tranquil, and some armies could stay relatively untouched then. I don't even know what I'd want out of the big FAQ I guess I'd just want no knee jerk reactions cutting the legs off each others books.
Though if I was honest I really dislike allies these days, I miss mono codex armies and honestly at the highest level soup lists breed the most boring lists where no one really has feel and ends up like the amazing oatmeal of excellence, mostly. Now that isn't to say some don't find that fun, I'm sure they do. To me however they look like fluff nightmares and 40k without the feel and ambiance is an awful lot like reading a book from the first sentence of every page, what is the point ?
That's an overly rational and uncontroversial opinion, unfortunately GW seams to be influenced too much by the soup is the correct way to balance crowd, so mono armies are going to be the ones that keep talking the biggest hits while soup just moves along again and finds the new think to make look broken.
Sunny Side Up wrote: If 40K is too lethal to be played on „White Dwarf Battle Report“-Style Terrain, the lethality needs to be dialed down.
Weird LOS-blocking things or ITC-style house rules for ruins might work as a quick fix for events in the absence of a fix, but it cannot really be the benchmark for whether the game is balanced as it comes out of the box/book.
Or just play Cities of Death. There is a game mode basically called "40k too lethal? Play this!"
AngryAngel80 wrote: I wonder if it would make people happy if they nerfed everything from every army that is good or useful and brought everything down to a nice pleasant level together. That would be tranquil, and some armies could stay relatively untouched then. I don't even know what I'd want out of the big FAQ I guess I'd just want no knee jerk reactions cutting the legs off each others books.
Though if I was honest I really dislike allies these days, I miss mono codex armies and honestly at the highest level soup lists breed the most boring lists where no one really has feel and ends up like the amazing oatmeal of excellence, mostly. Now that isn't to say some don't find that fun, I'm sure they do. To me however they look like fluff nightmares and 40k without the feel and ambiance is an awful lot like reading a book from the first sentence of every page, what is the point ?
That's an overly rational and uncontroversial opinion, unfortunately GW seams to be influenced too much by the soup is the correct way to balance crowd, so mono armies are going to be the ones that keep talking the biggest hits while soup just moves along again and finds the new think to make look broken.
Your making it much to complicated. The simple answer is often the right one.
Soup means more armies being bought and GW is still a business looking to make money.
Nothing to do with which opinion on the internet GW is influenced by.
Sunny Side Up wrote: If 40K is too lethal to be played on „White Dwarf Battle Report“-Style Terrain, the lethality needs to be dialed down.
Weird LOS-blocking things or ITC-style house rules for ruins might work as a quick fix for events in the absence of a fix, but it cannot really be the benchmark for whether the game is balanced as it comes out of the box/book.
Or just play Cities of Death. There is a game mode basically called "40k too lethal? Play this!"
Seconded. I'd even argue that GW themselves most likely use Cities or death when they play on a city board...
Sunny Side Up wrote: If 40K is too lethal to be played on „White Dwarf Battle Report“-Style Terrain, the lethality needs to be dialed down.
Weird LOS-blocking things or ITC-style house rules for ruins might work as a quick fix for events in the absence of a fix, but it cannot really be the benchmark for whether the game is balanced as it comes out of the box/book.
Or just play Cities of Death. There is a game mode basically called "40k too lethal? Play this!"
Maybe. Maybe not.
I don't mind the lethality of 40K. Makes games quick.
Either way, giant LOS-blockers all around aren't what the "vanilla" game is designed for and it asymmetrically disadvantages/advantages armies in ways that inevitably skews the balance.
Use GW ruins and GW rules for ruins, if you wanna play "competitive".
If you wanna Cities of Death or ITC "ruins-block-line-of-sight" for your beer & pretzels, so the pretty models stay around longer, that's perfectly fine. It just isn't the format the game is balanced around.
Sunny Side Up wrote: If 40K is too lethal to be played on „White Dwarf Battle Report“-Style Terrain, the lethality needs to be dialed down.
Weird LOS-blocking things or ITC-style house rules for ruins might work as a quick fix for events in the absence of a fix, but it cannot really be the benchmark for whether the game is balanced as it comes out of the box/book.
Or just play Cities of Death. There is a game mode basically called "40k too lethal? Play this!"
Maybe. Maybe not.
I don't mind the lethality of 40K. Makes games quick.
Either way, giant LOS-blockers all around aren't what the "vanilla" game is designed for and it asymmetrically disadvantages/advantages armies in ways that inevitably skews the balance.
Use GW ruins and GW rules for ruins, if you wanna play "competitive".
If you wanna Cities of Death or ITC "ruins-block-line-of-sight" for your beer & pretzels, so the pretty models stay around longer, that's perfectly fine. It just isn't the format the game is balanced around.
Implying that things like optimized jump pack smash captains one-rounding 400-point superheavies by spending 9cp from an allied 500-point guard brigade IS how GW actually playtests and considers "the normal way to play the game."
I wonder if we could evaluate how likely that is by looking at the standard game length vs the time it takes to table someone using optimized netlists against each other.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I wonder if it would make people happy if they nerfed everything from every army that is good or useful and brought everything down to a nice pleasant level together. That would be tranquil, and some armies could stay relatively untouched then. I don't even know what I'd want out of the big FAQ I guess I'd just want no knee jerk reactions cutting the legs off each others books.
Though if I was honest I really dislike allies these days, I miss mono codex armies and honestly at the highest level soup lists breed the most boring lists where no one really has feel and ends up like the amazing oatmeal of excellence, mostly. Now that isn't to say some don't find that fun, I'm sure they do. To me however they look like fluff nightmares and 40k without the feel and ambiance is an awful lot like reading a book from the first sentence of every page, what is the point ?
That's an overly rational and uncontroversial opinion, unfortunately GW seams to be influenced too much by the soup is the correct way to balance crowd, so mono armies are going to be the ones that keep talking the biggest hits while soup just moves along again and finds the new think to make look broken.
Your making it much to complicated. The simple answer is often the right one.
Soup means more armies being bought and GW is still a business looking to make money.
Nothing to do with which opinion on the internet GW is influenced by.
I just wish the answer to how do I make X army better wasn't always well bring A, B and C from Y army. If I bloody wanted to play Y army I would have Y army. When you already have 4 armies why should you half to buy another 2 half armies to make those armies work.
TBH I think the whole horsegak answer of "Soup is fine because GW sells more" is just a copout to avoid addressing the real issue, and really doesn't do anything except try to silence legitimate concerns about how soup is ruining the game.
Wayniac wrote: TBH I think the whole horsegak answer of "Soup is fine because GW sells more" is just a copout to avoid addressing the real issue, and really doesn't do anything except try to silence legitimate concerns about how soup is ruining the game.
It's not really a copout, though. It's a compelling reason why GW might prefer to find an alternative option for balancing outside of banning so-called "soup".
Wayniac wrote: TBH I think the whole horsegak answer of "Soup is fine because GW sells more" is just a copout to avoid addressing the real issue, and really doesn't do anything except try to silence legitimate concerns about how soup is ruining the game.
I dont think it was intended as an apologetic, just as an explanation as to the reason why GW has done nothing to prevent its abuse.
Wayniac wrote: TBH I think the whole horsegak answer of "Soup is fine because GW sells more" is just a copout to avoid addressing the real issue, and really doesn't do anything except try to silence legitimate concerns about how soup is ruining the game.
It's not really a copout, though. It's a compelling reason why GW might prefer to find an alternative option for balancing outside of banning so-called "soup".
Most people aren't talking about outright banning soup though, just limiting the powergaming benefits such that you wouldn't see it dominating tournaments, but those who want to play fluffy and not care about the mechanical advantage would still be able to do it. Essentially by removing the min/maxing aspect (say reducing or eliminating the CP you get from allied detachments), you disincentivize competitive players from abusing it while not taking it off the table for the people who want to play it for fluff reasons rather than the min/max potential.
Wayniac wrote: TBH I think the whole horsegak answer of "Soup is fine because GW sells more" is just a copout to avoid addressing the real issue, and really doesn't do anything except try to silence legitimate concerns about how soup is ruining the game.
It's not really a copout, though. It's a compelling reason why GW might prefer to find an alternative option for balancing outside of banning so-called "soup".
Most people aren't talking about outright banning soup though, just limiting the powergaming benefits such that you wouldn't see it dominating tournaments, but those who want to play fluffy and not care about the mechanical advantage would still be able to do it. Essentially by removing the min/maxing aspect, you disincentivize competitive players from abusing it while not taking it off the table for the people who want to play it for fluff reasons rather than the min/max potential.
The dirty secret is that most people who claim to play for fluff reasons and also post a ton online are the most sensitive to small balance changes they can use to blame their losses on.
If you're already putting one self-imposed limitation on yourself to feel self-superior and insulate against blaming yourself for a loss (I play 'fluffy armies' unlike those dirty minmaxing power-gamers!!) then you are more likely to display other aspects of scrub behavior, like blaming dice rolls for losses or blaming small balance changes aimed at top level competitive play.
(this is not an opinion on the existence of actual casual players who just bring the same collections of models they've had for years and don't follow the competitive meta in any way shape or form, just noting that they are usually not on online forums discussing the general state of the game.)
Wayniac wrote: TBH I think the whole horsegak answer of "Soup is fine because GW sells more" is just a copout to avoid addressing the real issue, and really doesn't do anything except try to silence legitimate concerns about how soup is ruining the game.
It's not really a copout, though. It's a compelling reason why GW might prefer to find an alternative option for balancing outside of banning so-called "soup".
It's not a cop-out OR a reason.
People LITERALLY want soup. This isn't GW forcing it - this is the MOST restrictive ally system - remember when anyone could ally anyone last edition? Allies have been a thing through multiple editions. People like combined armies.
People need to stop rolling out these arguments like the players have no agency in this.
Wayniac wrote: TBH I think the whole horsegak answer of "Soup is fine because GW sells more" is just a copout to avoid addressing the real issue, and really doesn't do anything except try to silence legitimate concerns about how soup is ruining the game.
It's not really a copout, though. It's a compelling reason why GW might prefer to find an alternative option for balancing outside of banning so-called "soup".
It's not a cop-out OR a reason.
People LITERALLY want soup. This isn't GW forcing it - this is the MOST restrictive ally system - remember when anyone could ally anyone last edition? Allies have been a thing through multiple editions. People like combined armies.
People need to stop rolling out these arguments like the players have no agency in this.
It's been around for ages and it's been problematic for competitive play for ages.
Personally I don't see any problem at all with them coming out and saying as a "competitive play suggestion" that allies aren't allowed, and then balancing based on that.
You don't want to use it in casual games, fine. Have fun! But souping is inherently at odds with proper competitive balance.
If allies make competitive balance go all cross-eyed and the real answer is just to delineate between casual and competitive then that's fine, if a bit of a shame. It's the attempts to "fix" (read: kill off) allies/resurrect the FOC that irritate me.
It's been around for ages and it's been problematic for competitive play for ages.
Personally I don't see any problem at all with them coming out and saying as a "competitive play suggestion" that allies aren't allowed, and then balancing based on that.
You don't want to use it in casual games, fine. Have fun! But souping is inherently at odds with proper competitive balance.
On the contrary - it level sets armies and allows for minor factions to get codexes.
That a SMALL handful of units causes problems is not indicative of a problem with soup.
Wayniac wrote: TBH I think the whole horsegak answer of "Soup is fine because GW sells more" is just a copout to avoid addressing the real issue, and really doesn't do anything except try to silence legitimate concerns about how soup is ruining the game.
It's not really a copout, though. It's a compelling reason why GW might prefer to find an alternative option for balancing outside of banning so-called "soup".
Most people aren't talking about outright banning soup though, just limiting the powergaming benefits such that you wouldn't see it dominating tournaments, but those who want to play fluffy and not care about the mechanical advantage would still be able to do it. Essentially by removing the min/maxing aspect (say reducing or eliminating the CP you get from allied detachments), you disincentivize competitive players from abusing it while not taking it off the table for the people who want to play it for fluff reasons rather than the min/max potential.
Don't we want fluffy armies to be the winning armies though? Castellan + Guard strikes me as a pretty fluffy army (less so with smash captains, but they are on the wain). Ynarri 3 flavour bean eldar chilli (as long as you don't take covens) is a really fluffy list. Mixed Aeldari (including covens) without Ynarri is also fluffy, more so if Prophets of Flesh or Black Heart are involved (lot's of examples of this in the ficiton). Deathwatch and Guard. Fluffy!
For the first time in 40k we are actually seeing a lot of fluff compliant lists at the top tables, not all top lists are perfectly fluffy, but they are alot closer than what we have seen in the past. Anyone else remember Storm Talons and Flyrants? Or Vect and Coteaz?
Now I think we probably want to boost mono codexes a bit, but I don't really think they should be balanced with allied lists for top end play, unless they are obligate mono armies then they should be as strong as an allied list (and thus stronger than other mono dex armies).
Allies aren't disappearing from competitive play (and there are a couple of factions that it would outright kill if it did). I imagine that the biggest changes we can hope for are tweaks to the CP that allies generate.
Eihnlazer wrote: How are you loosing 42 marines in one turn? You have a 2+ save in cover vs. imperial guard and theres no way his tanks should have had LOS to your entire army unless you deployed out in the open.
True LoS makes it almost impossible to completely block LoS to 8 squads of marines when there are 6 Russes spread over the other side of the table. He hit every single squad on the preliminary bombardment and then 12 battle cannon shots plus the HBs was enough to finish the job. And I couldn't roll a 4+ to save my life.
I didn't say it was a statistically likely result, just that it happened. And part of the result was that we started playing with six times as much terrain.
He hit eight squads with Preliminary Bombardment!?!?! That's a 1 in 1,679,616 chance.
It's funny how often these 1 in a million chances happen on a regular basis. It's almost like anything that can happen will happen or something.
Wayniac wrote: TBH I think the whole horsegak answer of "Soup is fine because GW sells more" is just a copout to avoid addressing the real issue, and really doesn't do anything except try to silence legitimate concerns about how soup is ruining the game.
It's not really a copout, though. It's a compelling reason why GW might prefer to find an alternative option for balancing outside of banning so-called "soup".
It's not a cop-out OR a reason.
People LITERALLY want soup. This isn't GW forcing it - this is the MOST restrictive ally system - remember when anyone could ally anyone last edition? Allies have been a thing through multiple editions. People like combined armies.
People need to stop rolling out these arguments like the players have no agency in this.
It's been around for ages and it's been problematic for competitive play for ages.
Personally I don't see any problem at all with them coming out and saying as a "competitive play suggestion" that allies aren't allowed, and then balancing based on that.
You don't want to use it in casual games, fine. Have fun! But souping is inherently at odds with proper competitive balance.
Personally, I do not see anything wrong with using Allies. The problems come when the use of those allies gives you advantages over taking more of the same faction.
Armies are built with inherent weaknesses/deficiencies (usually) and taking an ally that covers that gap has a clear affect on balance.
Add in 8E's method of generating CPs and the issue is magnified.
Taking allies should be allowed because "people literally want them" and "GW makes more money that way", but taking said allies should NEVER give you more than advantage than taking a Mono-faction list. Because when it does, those perfectly valid Mono-faction lists are indirectly punished.
This is the main reason I advocate some kind of rule to reward taking detachments that share several of your WLs Faction keywords.
The issue with allies is that factions are built with a weakness. A hypothetical faction might have lots of cheap troops but they have low power weapons and no melee. If you can just take melee units from an army that has amazing melee units but each one costs as much as 5 regular guys, you've just negated both of the balancing weaknesses of those armies. That's the problem in a nutshell.
You can't balance the game when half of the armies (of which there are already way too many IMHO and it's just bloated) can ignore their built-in weakness by taking a unit from a different, allied army. Why have a drawback at all when you can simply negate it? If Tau, for example, could ally in units that excelled at melee, would this be balanced when the Tau army's weakness is that they suck in melee and excel at shooting? You would just remove their weakness.
RE: Fluff, it depends. Loyal 32, 3 smash captains and a Castellan are not fluffy unless you do some serious stretching to explain it. An army like the one that won LVO, which was an actual Guard army with a Castellan, was arguably fluffy in that it actually had guard and tanks, it wasn't just the minimal possible to get +5 CP and a CP regen relic. This is a subjective thing because it has to be; something can be fluffy in one case and just min/maxing in another, similar case.
Eihnlazer wrote: How are you loosing 42 marines in one turn? You have a 2+ save in cover vs. imperial guard and theres no way his tanks should have had LOS to your entire army unless you deployed out in the open.
True LoS makes it almost impossible to completely block LoS to 8 squads of marines when there are 6 Russes spread over the other side of the table. He hit every single squad on the preliminary bombardment and then 12 battle cannon shots plus the HBs was enough to finish the job. And I couldn't roll a 4+ to save my life.
I didn't say it was a statistically likely result, just that it happened. And part of the result was that we started playing with six times as much terrain.
He hit eight squads with Preliminary Bombardment!?!?! That's a 1 in 1,679,616 chance.
It's funny how often these 1 in a million chances happen on a regular basis. It's almost like anything that can happen will happen or something.
It's funny how, when abstracted across a large number of events, just how closely to once a million times something with the odds of one in a million happen.
It's also funny how even-handed the distribution of "lucky" and "unlucky" rolls are, once you get into large numbers.
But you still don't expect a 5-man Tac squad to one-round a fully-buffed Shining Spears squad. It's certainly possible (with Grav), but you don't expect it. Similarly, it's certainly possible for 5 Guardsmen to kill 10 Marines in one round of shooting without buffs - but it's not going to happen.
Wayniac wrote: The issue with allies is that factions are built with a weakness. A hypothetical faction might have lots of cheap troops but they have low power weapons and no melee. If you can just take melee units from an army that has amazing melee units but each one costs as much as 5 regular guys, you've just negated both of the balancing weaknesses of those armies. That's the problem in a nutshell.
You can't balance the game when half of the armies (of which there are already way too many IMHO and it's just bloated) can ignore their built-in weakness by taking a unit from a different, allied army. Why have a drawback at all when you can simply negate it? If Tau, for example, could ally in units that excelled at melee, would this be balanced when the Tau army's weakness is that they suck in melee and excel at shooting? You would just remove their weakness.
RE: Fluff, it depends. Loyal 32, 3 smash captains and a Castellan are not fluffy unless you do some serious stretching to explain it. An army like the one that won LVO, which was an actual Guard army with a Castellan, was arguably fluffy in that it actually had guard and tanks, it wasn't just the minimal possible to get +5 CP and a CP regen relic. This is a subjective thing because it has to be; something can be fluffy in one case and just min/maxing in another, similar case.
This is a poor narrative. What if an army who has a built in weakness has absolutely no tools to deal with an army that can exploit that weakness?
I don't pick armies for their innate weakness. I pick them, because I enjoy their strengths.
Wayniac wrote: The issue with allies is that factions are built with a weakness. A hypothetical faction might have lots of cheap troops but they have low power weapons and no melee. If you can just take melee units from an army that has amazing melee units but each one costs as much as 5 regular guys, you've just negated both of the balancing weaknesses of those armies. That's the problem in a nutshell.
You can't balance the game when half of the armies (of which there are already way too many IMHO and it's just bloated) can ignore their built-in weakness by taking a unit from a different, allied army. Why have a drawback at all when you can simply negate it? If Tau, for example, could ally in units that excelled at melee, would this be balanced when the Tau army's weakness is that they suck in melee and excel at shooting? You would just remove their weakness.
RE: Fluff, it depends. Loyal 32, 3 smash captains and a Castellan are not fluffy unless you do some serious stretching to explain it. An army like the one that won LVO, which was an actual Guard army with a Castellan, was arguably fluffy in that it actually had guard and tanks, it wasn't just the minimal possible to get +5 CP and a CP regen relic. This is a subjective thing because it has to be; something can be fluffy in one case and just min/maxing in another, similar case.
This is a poor narrative. What if an army who has a built in weakness has absolutely no tools to deal with an army that can exploit that weakness?
I don't pick armies for their innate weakness. I pick them, because I enjoy their strengths.
Except it isn't a poor narrative, it's how a balanced system with multiple factions should be. If Faction A is all strengths with no weakness, why bother playing Factions B or C?
We are not saying that the weakness needs to be glaring and debilitating, but it needs to be there for a good opponent to leverage their unique strengths against. Guard, for example should be Quantity of shooting over quality and fold in melee most of the time T'au should be Quality of shooting and even worse at melee Marines are Jack of all trades, masters on none (which is apparently more weakness than strength) And Orks are Quantity of bodies, good in melee and rely on weight of dice for shooting rather than quality.
Those are just a few examples (that might not even be accurate anymore). If Guard can take an Allie with decent Melee, or shooting to make melee all but impossible to achieve, then their weakness disappears. While there isn't anything too terrible about this, armies like T'au, Necrons and Orks do not have the option AT ALL. Disagreeing that this is a problem, even a small one, is part of the problem.
Armies that can take allies should be able to do so, but armies that cannot should be compensated equally (or sliiiiightly penalize the use of allies by doing something like limit how many CP they generate by half). Personally, though I'd rather not penalize anyone, but rather reward Monofaction lists more. Double CPs for their detachments is ALL detachments share 2+ Factions keywords with the WL.
Eihnlazer wrote: How are you loosing 42 marines in one turn? You have a 2+ save in cover vs. imperial guard and theres no way his tanks should have had LOS to your entire army unless you deployed out in the open.
True LoS makes it almost impossible to completely block LoS to 8 squads of marines when there are 6 Russes spread over the other side of the table. He hit every single squad on the preliminary bombardment and then 12 battle cannon shots plus the HBs was enough to finish the job. And I couldn't roll a 4+ to save my life.
I didn't say it was a statistically likely result, just that it happened. And part of the result was that we started playing with six times as much terrain.
He hit eight squads with Preliminary Bombardment!?!?! That's a 1 in 1,679,616 chance.
It's funny how often these 1 in a million chances happen on a regular basis. It's almost like anything that can happen will happen or something.
It's funny how, when abstracted across a large number of events, just how closely to once a million times something with the odds of one in a million happen.
It's also funny how even-handed the distribution of "lucky" and "unlucky" rolls are, once you get into large numbers.
But you still don't expect a 5-man Tac squad to one-round a fully-buffed Shining Spears squad. It's certainly possible (with Grav), but you don't expect it. Similarly, it's certainly possible for 5 Guardsmen to kill 10 Marines in one round of shooting without buffs - but it's not going to happen.
The math is actually very easy.
I wouldn't expect a Preliminary Bombardment and six Battle Cannons with double-tap to wipe out 42 Marines either, and yet here we are.
Eihnlazer wrote: How are you loosing 42 marines in one turn? You have a 2+ save in cover vs. imperial guard and theres no way his tanks should have had LOS to your entire army unless you deployed out in the open.
True LoS makes it almost impossible to completely block LoS to 8 squads of marines when there are 6 Russes spread over the other side of the table. He hit every single squad on the preliminary bombardment and then 12 battle cannon shots plus the HBs was enough to finish the job. And I couldn't roll a 4+ to save my life.
I didn't say it was a statistically likely result, just that it happened. And part of the result was that we started playing with six times as much terrain.
He hit eight squads with Preliminary Bombardment!?!?! That's a 1 in 1,679,616 chance.
It's funny how often these 1 in a million chances happen on a regular basis. It's almost like anything that can happen will happen or something.
It's funny how, when abstracted across a large number of events, just how closely to once a million times something with the odds of one in a million happen.
It's also funny how even-handed the distribution of "lucky" and "unlucky" rolls are, once you get into large numbers.
But you still don't expect a 5-man Tac squad to one-round a fully-buffed Shining Spears squad. It's certainly possible (with Grav), but you don't expect it. Similarly, it's certainly possible for 5 Guardsmen to kill 10 Marines in one round of shooting without buffs - but it's not going to happen.
The math is actually very easy.
I wouldn't expect a Preliminary Bombardment and six Battle Cannons with double-tap to wipe out 42 Marines either, and yet here we are.
Honestly, that does sound frustrating but I don't think it's reasonable to balance a game around edge cases like this. Statistically, even with your dudes standing completely out in the open, you'd expect more like... 12 to die from that.
Bharring wrote: But it cuts both ways; I've seen a small Sternguard squad ace a full-HP Asurman through a 2+ rerollable in 6th *on overwatch*.
These things happen. But they happen roughly just as frequently in your favor as in your opponent's.
I've had a game in 8th where a WaveSerpent did 15 damage to a LR in the shooting phase, then had a Farseer finish it off with a pistol.
The next game after that, I fired every single long-range weapon in my army at a Dread and did 4 HP total - in a 2k points game.
And confirmation bias is a thing.
THat doesn't stop angry threads about souped-up shokkas oneshotting imperial knights, or rage threads about how the vindicare assassin's updated rules mean he's going to be one-shotting two warbosses every turn, or any number of complaints based on crazy unlucky things That Happened one Time To Me and It Was OP.
Wayniac wrote: The issue with allies is that factions are built with a weakness. A hypothetical faction might have lots of cheap troops but they have low power weapons and no melee. If you can just take melee units from an army that has amazing melee units but each one costs as much as 5 regular guys, you've just negated both of the balancing weaknesses of those armies. That's the problem in a nutshell.
You can't balance the game when half of the armies (of which there are already way too many IMHO and it's just bloated) can ignore their built-in weakness by taking a unit from a different, allied army. Why have a drawback at all when you can simply negate it? If Tau, for example, could ally in units that excelled at melee, would this be balanced when the Tau army's weakness is that they suck in melee and excel at shooting? You would just remove their weakness.
RE: Fluff, it depends. Loyal 32, 3 smash captains and a Castellan are not fluffy unless you do some serious stretching to explain it. An army like the one that won LVO, which was an actual Guard army with a Castellan, was arguably fluffy in that it actually had guard and tanks, it wasn't just the minimal possible to get +5 CP and a CP regen relic. This is a subjective thing because it has to be; something can be fluffy in one case and just min/maxing in another, similar case.
This is a poor narrative. What if an army who has a built in weakness has absolutely no tools to deal with an army that can exploit that weakness?
I don't pick armies for their innate weakness. I pick them, because I enjoy their strengths.
Again the same argument stands that picking an army shouldn't instantly require you buying 40 models and another codex, to be considered a competitive list.
At that point what you have isn't 4 or 5 armies it's just 1 army split up into multiple codex's.
Like seriously who is actually enjoying the meta that starts every competitive imperial list with well got to take the loyal 32 plus mortars. And while we're at it you should be using a Castellen as it's OP.
That's not balanced or allowing diversity.
Jesus at that point why are GW even selling any other troop choice for Imperium?
Same goes for a number of other armies, like why sell choas marines while cultists even post nerf where still the better choice?
Galef wrote: Except it isn't a poor narrative, it's how a balanced system with multiple factions should be.
If Faction A is all strengths with no weakness, why bother playing Factions B or C?
We are not saying that the weakness needs to be glaring and debilitating, but it needs to be there for a good opponent to leverage their unique strengths against.
Guard, for example should be Quantity of shooting over quality and fold in melee most of the time
T'au should be Quality of shooting and even worse at melee
Marines are Jack of all trades, masters on none (which is apparently more weakness than strength)
And Orks are Quantity of bodies, good in melee and rely on weight of dice for shooting rather than quality.
Those are just a few examples (that might not even be accurate anymore). If Guard can take an Allie with decent Melee, or shooting to make melee all but impossible to achieve, then their weakness disappears.
While there isn't anything too terrible about this, armies like T'au, Necrons and Orks do not have the option AT ALL. Disagreeing that this is a problem, even a small one, is part of the problem.
Armies that can take allies should be able to do so, but armies that cannot should be compensated equally (or sliiiiightly penalize the use of allies by doing something like limit how many CP they generate by half).
Personally, though I'd rather not penalize anyone, but rather reward Monofaction lists more. Double CPs for their detachments is ALL detachments share 2+ Factions keywords with the WL.
-
No. There are no sideboards. There is no "leveraging of weakness" against your opponent unless you simply happened to bring the correct list. Your suggestion just exacerbates bad matchups.
And despite the insistence that no weaknesses exist people deploy lists that mute strong parts of the meta to great effect. What does a Castellan shoot when the opponent has no vehicles?
Bharring wrote: But it cuts both ways; I've seen a small Sternguard squad ace a full-HP Asurman through a 2+ rerollable in 6th *on overwatch*.
These things happen. But they happen roughly just as frequently in your favor as in your opponent's.
I've had a game in 8th where a WaveSerpent did 15 damage to a LR in the shooting phase, then had a Farseer finish it off with a pistol.
The next game after that, I fired every single long-range weapon in my army at a Dread and did 4 HP total - in a 2k points game.
And confirmation bias is a thing.
THat doesn't stop angry threads about souped-up shokkas oneshotting imperial knights, or rage threads about how the vindicare assassin's updated rules mean he's going to be one-shotting two warbosses every turn, or any number of complaints based on crazy unlucky things That Happened one Time To Me and It Was OP.
@Newman - Totally. I left that as "implied", but forgot to actually make the implication.
@the_scotsman:
Which explains why we get so many totally-out-there viewpoints on the forums. Which is why a little math goes a long way.
Although we also see the other extreme - a little math that "proves" a viewpoint, without understanding or handling variance/distribution. How many times do we see "X is mathematically better than Y" based on a couple formulas and a couple handwaves?
the_scotsman wrote: THat doesn't stop angry threads about souped-up shokkas oneshotting imperial knights, or rage threads about how the vindicare assassin's updated rules mean he's going to be one-shotting two warbosses every turn, or any number of complaints based on crazy unlucky things That Happened one Time To Me and It Was OP.
While I certainly agree with the sentiment, GW could do a lot to reduce this kind of thing happening by making things a bit more reliable and have a lower high potential.
Quick example would be changing a Lascannon from a d6 damage weapon to a D3+2 weapon. Keeps the random feel, but you can always rely on 3-5 damage. No more rolling 1 or 2 damage, but you can never do 6 either.
Bharring wrote: But it cuts both ways; I've seen a small Sternguard squad ace a full-HP Asurman through a 2+ rerollable in 6th *on overwatch*.
These things happen. But they happen roughly just as frequently in your favor as in your opponent's.
I've had a game in 8th where a WaveSerpent did 15 damage to a LR in the shooting phase, then had a Farseer finish it off with a pistol.
The next game after that, I fired every single long-range weapon in my army at a Dread and did 4 HP total - in a 2k points game.
That should have taken you a million games but it only took you 200 or so. I've lost the roll to go first 19 times in a row before too. You know the odds of that? The only answer is dice are pretty terrible at creating random distribution. We should all use dice apps.
Again the same argument stands that picking an army shouldn't instantly require you buying 40 models and another codex, to be considered a competitive list.
At that point what you have isn't 4 or 5 armies it's just 1 army split up into multiple codex's.
Like seriously who is actually enjoying the meta that starts every competitive imperial list with well got to take the loyal 32 plus mortars. And while we're at it you should be using a Castellen as it's OP.
That's not balanced or allowing diversity.
Jesus at that point why are GW even selling any other troop choice for Imperium?
Same goes for a number of other armies, like why sell choas marines while cultists even post nerf where still the better choice?
Again - just because there are easy choices from the IG book doesn't make soup bad. GSC saw mortars go to 7 points. We might see the same thing to happen to IG with the Big FAQ.
There is an Index for Ynarri coming shortly. Assassins still have yet to show their mark on the meta (which impacts IG the most).
What you hear on the forums or see at LVO top tables isn't the entire reality. People are increasingly doing well with varied lists. CSM are going to be employing some very dirty tricks soon as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Comparing monodexes, ig has damn few weaknesses.
This precisely. You want to kick Castellans out? Ok, well say hello to two Shadowswords, 80 Catachans, and Bullgryns.
That should have taken you a million games but it only took you 200 or so. I've lost the roll to go first 19 times in a row before too. You know the odds of that? The only answer is dice are pretty terrible at creating random distribution. We should all use dice apps.
Dice apps don't automatically make you roll average. Those 19 failed first turn rolls also relied on your opponent rolling high and on who got the +1.
Bharring wrote: But it cuts both ways; I've seen a small Sternguard squad ace a full-HP Asurman through a 2+ rerollable in 6th *on overwatch*.
These things happen. But they happen roughly just as frequently in your favor as in your opponent's.
I've had a game in 8th where a WaveSerpent did 15 damage to a LR in the shooting phase, then had a Farseer finish it off with a pistol.
The next game after that, I fired every single long-range weapon in my army at a Dread and did 4 HP total - in a 2k points game.
That should have taken you a million games but it only took you 200 or so.
If we're looking for those exact scenarios, sure, maybe it should take a million games.
But which scenarios are noteworthy? There are probably at least a million distinct scenarios in each game with odds of 1:million or worse, such that any one of them is noteworthy. The odds of at least one of those happening is much higher than one in a million.
Edit: I wanted to expand on this.
Say you roll two dice.
Snakeeyes? What are the odds? That shouldn't happen? (1/36 chance)
Boxcars? Same deal (1/36 chance)
Doubles? Not common (1/6 chance)
Exactly 7? Not common (1/6 chance)
10 or better? That's rare (1/12)
4 or worse? That's rare (1/12)
So, even only considering those cases "weird" results, none of which have a better than 1/6 chance, we're now quite close to a 50/50 chance of it happening.
Consider how many dice you roll in a game. And how often. If you aren't seeing a "one in a hundred" event at least once per game, *that's* actually noteworthy.
Lack of "That shouldn't happen" events is actually one of the ways observational data is validated. Meaning, if these things *don't* occur, the data should be questioned.
I've lost the roll to go first 19 times in a row before too. You know the odds of that? The only answer is dice are pretty terrible at creating random distribution. We should all use dice apps.
It's much harder to prove the fairness of a die app than a die.
I'll assume the app is fair, certainly. But I'd also assume the dice are fair.
Again the same argument stands that picking an army shouldn't instantly require you buying 40 models and another codex, to be considered a competitive list.
At that point what you have isn't 4 or 5 armies it's just 1 army split up into multiple codex's.
Like seriously who is actually enjoying the meta that starts every competitive imperial list with well got to take the loyal 32 plus mortars. And while we're at it you should be using a Castellen as it's OP.
That's not balanced or allowing diversity.
Jesus at that point why are GW even selling any other troop choice for Imperium?
Same goes for a number of other armies, like why sell choas marines while cultists even post nerf where still the better choice?
Again - just because there are easy choices from the IG book doesn't make soup bad. GSC saw mortars go to 7 points. We might see the same thing to happen to IG with the Big FAQ.
There is an Index for Ynarri coming shortly. Assassins still have yet to show their mark on the meta (which impacts IG the most).
What you hear on the forums or see at LVO top tables isn't the entire reality. People are increasingly doing well with varied lists. CSM are going to be employing some very dirty tricks soon as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Comparing monodexes, ig has damn few weaknesses.
This precisely. You want to kick Castellans out? Ok, well say hello to two Shadowswords, 80 Catachans, and Bullgryns.
Clamoring for monodex just makes IG stronger.
Well their is plenty of posters on dakka and more worryingly even a number of the playtesters who haven openly stated that knight's are getting strategums recosted and the Castellen is getting a points increase.
I don't think recosting strategums on the assumption that everyone is taking a battalion for 180 points is remotely fair, but apparently that the way GW are going,
While forcing mono codex on competitive might see guard dominant for a year I'd rather that and force GW to actually rebalance points in CA 2019 than the current rules allowing them to dodge from bolt on unit to bolt on unit.
Martel732 wrote: Great. I wonder what the next guardsmen-fueled nightmare will be?
GW can't get around that 4 ppm is too cheap.
Back to blood angels, according to my competitive buddies. They're not fans of how Deathwatch fueled by guard have been doing due to them being crappy against knights and mediocre against ynnari.
Bharring wrote: But it cuts both ways; I've seen a small Sternguard squad ace a full-HP Asurman through a 2+ rerollable in 6th *on overwatch*.
These things happen. But they happen roughly just as frequently in your favor as in your opponent's.
I've had a game in 8th where a WaveSerpent did 15 damage to a LR in the shooting phase, then had a Farseer finish it off with a pistol.
The next game after that, I fired every single long-range weapon in my army at a Dread and did 4 HP total - in a 2k points game.
That should have taken you a million games but it only took you 200 or so. I've lost the roll to go first 19 times in a row before too. You know the odds of that? The only answer is dice are pretty terrible at creating random distribution. We should all use dice apps.
And guy wins lottery twice with only short time in between. Point being? Variance doesn't work like "i got unlucky/lucky, no way it happens again soon".
Because even though their dev. cycles are usually so far behind they're still fighting the War in Heaven, apparently they can speed them up for a few days to account for Adepticon, just about fast enough to delay the FAQ.
Good for you? Stop acting like you have full insight to the process and chill out.
Well technically they had time to write the FAQ since the last CA. That is a lot of time to gather data and think about changes. Even if it is done by one man for 10 min every day, then it is still whole days of work time since CA went to print. Unless of course they did nothing and started writing it post adepticon, then in deed they could have delays.
Good for you? Stop acting like you have full insight to the process and chill out.
Well technically they had time to write the FAQ since the last CA. That is a lot of time to gather data and think about changes. Even if it is done by one man for 10 min every day, then it is still whole days of work time since CA went to print. Unless of course they did nothing and started writing it post adepticon, then in deed they could have delays.
That's because it's an ongoing process that requires people to play games, deliberate, and provide feedback on top of testing new codexes like GSC, CSM, and Sisters. Not to mention Index Assassins and Ynnari.
It's almost as if an electronic database of FAQs doesn't need two grand-fanfare releases a year, and instead should be updated little-by-little on a frequent basis as soon as individual fixes become ready.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: It's almost as if an electronic database of FAQs doesn't need two grand-fanfare releases a year, and instead should be updated little-by-little on a frequent basis as soon as individual fixes become ready.
Fixes are in context of other fixes. You might think IS should be 5 points, but then assassins come out and wreck the gak out of their CCs. Or not. Only time will tell.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: It's almost as if an electronic database of FAQs doesn't need two grand-fanfare releases a year, and instead should be updated little-by-little on a frequent basis as soon as individual fixes become ready.
Fixes are in context of other fixes. You might think IS should be 5 points, but then assassins come out and wreck the gak out of their CCs. Or not. Only time will tell.
The issue is in souphammer that those are essentially the same faction. It's kind of like saying "Drukhari mech spam isn't a problem at all, Ynnari Skyweavers totally wreck them!"
That's the same list. It's just going to slot in a summoned assassin, marginally increasing its power.
Galef wrote: Except it isn't a poor narrative, it's how a balanced system with multiple factions should be.
If Faction A is all strengths with no weakness, why bother playing Factions B or C?
We are not saying that the weakness needs to be glaring and debilitating, but it needs to be there for a good opponent to leverage their unique strengths against.
Guard, for example should be Quantity of shooting over quality and fold in melee most of the time
T'au should be Quality of shooting and even worse at melee
Marines are Jack of all trades, masters on none (which is apparently more weakness than strength)
And Orks are Quantity of bodies, good in melee and rely on weight of dice for shooting rather than quality.
Those are just a few examples (that might not even be accurate anymore). If Guard can take an Allie with decent Melee, or shooting to make melee all but impossible to achieve, then their weakness disappears.
While there isn't anything too terrible about this, armies like T'au, Necrons and Orks do not have the option AT ALL. Disagreeing that this is a problem, even a small one, is part of the problem.
Armies that can take allies should be able to do so, but armies that cannot should be compensated equally (or sliiiiightly penalize the use of allies by doing something like limit how many CP they generate by half).
Personally, though I'd rather not penalize anyone, but rather reward Monofaction lists more. Double CPs for their detachments is ALL detachments share 2+ Factions keywords with the WL.
-
No. There are no sideboards. There is no "leveraging of weakness" against your opponent unless you simply happened to bring the correct list. Your suggestion just exacerbates bad matchups.
And despite the insistence that no weaknesses exist people deploy lists that mute strong parts of the meta to great effect. What does a Castellan shoot when the opponent has no vehicles?
With stratagems this game more emulates a game of magic than a board game. Side boards actually should be a thing.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: It's almost as if an electronic database of FAQs doesn't need two grand-fanfare releases a year, and instead should be updated little-by-little on a frequent basis as soon as individual fixes become ready.
Fixes are in context of other fixes. You might think IS should be 5 points, but then assassins come out and wreck the gak out of their CCs. Or not. Only time will tell.
The issue is in souphammer that those are essentially the same faction. It's kind of like saying "Drukhari mech spam isn't a problem at all, Ynnari Skyweavers totally wreck them!"
That's the same list. It's just going to slot in a summoned assassin, marginally increasing its power.
Well, I'm not worried about IG growing stronger from the presence of assassins, but weaker.
It is not terribly hard to kill a CC. The CC makes two units of IS twice as good. Killing a CC is similar to removing 20 models worth of offensive output - a priest, even more.
Vindicaries (and GSC) are potentially IG's own worst enemy (and now maybe marines).
So, if they take to the meta, what happens?
+85 for their own assassin
+62 for an ogryn BG that can't likely cover all
+whatever for mortars
Suddenly we're removing a couple of basilisks or whatever equivalent for what amounts to a lesser degree of offensive power. Kick the Castellan in the face a little and where do we land?
Galef wrote: Except it isn't a poor narrative, it's how a balanced system with multiple factions should be.
If Faction A is all strengths with no weakness, why bother playing Factions B or C?
We are not saying that the weakness needs to be glaring and debilitating, but it needs to be there for a good opponent to leverage their unique strengths against.
Guard, for example should be Quantity of shooting over quality and fold in melee most of the time
T'au should be Quality of shooting and even worse at melee
Marines are Jack of all trades, masters on none (which is apparently more weakness than strength)
And Orks are Quantity of bodies, good in melee and rely on weight of dice for shooting rather than quality.
Those are just a few examples (that might not even be accurate anymore). If Guard can take an Allie with decent Melee, or shooting to make melee all but impossible to achieve, then their weakness disappears.
While there isn't anything too terrible about this, armies like T'au, Necrons and Orks do not have the option AT ALL. Disagreeing that this is a problem, even a small one, is part of the problem.
Armies that can take allies should be able to do so, but armies that cannot should be compensated equally (or sliiiiightly penalize the use of allies by doing something like limit how many CP they generate by half).
Personally, though I'd rather not penalize anyone, but rather reward Monofaction lists more. Double CPs for their detachments is ALL detachments share 2+ Factions keywords with the WL.
-
No. There are no sideboards. There is no "leveraging of weakness" against your opponent unless you simply happened to bring the correct list. Your suggestion just exacerbates bad matchups.
And despite the insistence that no weaknesses exist people deploy lists that mute strong parts of the meta to great effect. What does a Castellan shoot when the opponent has no vehicles?
With stratagems this game more emulates a game of magic than a board game. Side boards actually should be a thing.
Just because it's moved in the wrong direction doesn't mean it should move *further* in the wrong direction.
That said, Assassins are now sideboards. Summoning is, too, but it was too costly to "matter".
Phaeron Gukk wrote: It's almost as if an electronic database of FAQs doesn't need two grand-fanfare releases a year, and instead should be updated little-by-little on a frequent basis as soon as individual fixes become ready.
Fixes are in context of other fixes. You might think IS should be 5 points, but then assassins come out and wreck the gak out of their CCs. Or not. Only time will tell.
Oh come on - assassins 1 shot lots of stuff more valuable than a CC. Tiggy for example. Ahriman....shooting at a CC is a waste of time. In other words the vindi assassin is OP - I've never played it in a game where it hasn't killed twice of it's point value. Granted I roll 2+'s like a boss but that's kind of the idea.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: It's almost as if an electronic database of FAQs doesn't need two grand-fanfare releases a year, and instead should be updated little-by-little on a frequent basis as soon as individual fixes become ready.
Fixes are in context of other fixes. You might think IS should be 5 points, but then assassins come out and wreck the gak out of their CCs. Or not. Only time will tell.
Oh come on - assassins 1 shot lots of stuff more valuable than a CC. Tiggy for example. Ahriman....shooting at a CC is a waste of time. In other words the vindi assassin is OP - I've never played it in a game where it hasn't killed twice of it's point value. Granted I roll 2+'s like a boss but that's kind of the idea.
Well, considering you'll never find Ahriman next to CCs until R&H gets redone CCs are a prime target and far easier to kill (it would be hard to one shot Ahriman - you'd be better off with the other assassins perhaps). People are all over IS on this board. What happens to IS when they have no commander?
Galef wrote: Except it isn't a poor narrative, it's how a balanced system with multiple factions should be.
If Faction A is all strengths with no weakness, why bother playing Factions B or C?
We are not saying that the weakness needs to be glaring and debilitating, but it needs to be there for a good opponent to leverage their unique strengths against.
Guard, for example should be Quantity of shooting over quality and fold in melee most of the time
T'au should be Quality of shooting and even worse at melee
Marines are Jack of all trades, masters on none (which is apparently more weakness than strength)
And Orks are Quantity of bodies, good in melee and rely on weight of dice for shooting rather than quality.
Those are just a few examples (that might not even be accurate anymore). If Guard can take an Allie with decent Melee, or shooting to make melee all but impossible to achieve, then their weakness disappears.
While there isn't anything too terrible about this, armies like T'au, Necrons and Orks do not have the option AT ALL. Disagreeing that this is a problem, even a small one, is part of the problem.
Armies that can take allies should be able to do so, but armies that cannot should be compensated equally (or sliiiiightly penalize the use of allies by doing something like limit how many CP they generate by half).
Personally, though I'd rather not penalize anyone, but rather reward Monofaction lists more. Double CPs for their detachments is ALL detachments share 2+ Factions keywords with the WL.
-
No. There are no sideboards. There is no "leveraging of weakness" against your opponent unless you simply happened to bring the correct list. Your suggestion just exacerbates bad matchups.
And despite the insistence that no weaknesses exist people deploy lists that mute strong parts of the meta to great effect. What does a Castellan shoot when the opponent has no vehicles?
With stratagems this game more emulates a game of magic than a board game. Side boards actually should be a thing.
Just because it's moved in the wrong direction doesn't mean it should move *further* in the wrong direction.
That said, Assassins are now sideboards. Summoning is, too, but it was too costly to "matter".
I don't think it's necessarily a wrong direction. Stratagems could be cool if they did something about CP generation. Sideboards just seem like a good idea for competitive play. Lots of units in this game would be great in certain situations but are terrible in TAC lists. A lot of units that are OP would be a lot less problematic with side boards. Some armies like marines (who are heavily customizable) might even be playable in this case.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: It's almost as if an electronic database of FAQs doesn't need two grand-fanfare releases a year, and instead should be updated little-by-little on a frequent basis as soon as individual fixes become ready.
Fixes are in context of other fixes. You might think IS should be 5 points, but then assassins come out and wreck the gak out of their CCs. Or not. Only time will tell.
Oh come on - assassins 1 shot lots of stuff more valuable than a CC. Tiggy for example. Ahriman....shooting at a CC is a waste of time. In other words the vindi assassin is OP - I've never played it in a game where it hasn't killed twice of it's point value. Granted I roll 2+'s like a boss but that's kind of the idea.
Well, considering you'll never find Ahriman next to CCs until R&H gets redone CCs are a prime target and far easier to kill (it would be hard to one shot Ahriman - you'd be better off with the other assassins perhaps). People are all over IS on this board. What happens to IS when they have no commander?
It is pretty easy to hide a CC there job isn't that important. You take them because they are cheap and do too much for their points. You'd still take them even if they did nothing though so just hide them and have them do nothing until they have a job to do. It's not that hard to do. I can't hide my ancient banner really. He has to maximize his 6 inch aura to be worth his points.
Galef wrote: Except it isn't a poor narrative, it's how a balanced system with multiple factions should be.
If Faction A is all strengths with no weakness, why bother playing Factions B or C?
We are not saying that the weakness needs to be glaring and debilitating, but it needs to be there for a good opponent to leverage their unique strengths against.
Guard, for example should be Quantity of shooting over quality and fold in melee most of the time
T'au should be Quality of shooting and even worse at melee
Marines are Jack of all trades, masters on none (which is apparently more weakness than strength)
And Orks are Quantity of bodies, good in melee and rely on weight of dice for shooting rather than quality.
Those are just a few examples (that might not even be accurate anymore). If Guard can take an Allie with decent Melee, or shooting to make melee all but impossible to achieve, then their weakness disappears.
While there isn't anything too terrible about this, armies like T'au, Necrons and Orks do not have the option AT ALL. Disagreeing that this is a problem, even a small one, is part of the problem.
Armies that can take allies should be able to do so, but armies that cannot should be compensated equally (or sliiiiightly penalize the use of allies by doing something like limit how many CP they generate by half).
Personally, though I'd rather not penalize anyone, but rather reward Monofaction lists more. Double CPs for their detachments is ALL detachments share 2+ Factions keywords with the WL.
-
No. There are no sideboards. There is no "leveraging of weakness" against your opponent unless you simply happened to bring the correct list. Your suggestion just exacerbates bad matchups.
And despite the insistence that no weaknesses exist people deploy lists that mute strong parts of the meta to great effect. What does a Castellan shoot when the opponent has no vehicles?
With stratagems this game more emulates a game of magic than a board game. Side boards actually should be a thing.
Just because it's moved in the wrong direction doesn't mean it should move *further* in the wrong direction.
That said, Assassins are now sideboards. Summoning is, too, but it was too costly to "matter".
I don't think it's necessarily a wrong direction. Stratagems could be cool if they did something about CP generation. Sideboards just seem like a good idea for competitive play. Lots of units in this game would be great in certain situations but are terrible in TAC lists. A lot of units that are OP would be a lot less problematic with side boards. Some armies like marines (who are heavily customizable) might even be playable in this case.
I'd expect Sideboards to help armies more focused on specialization than on generalists.
I think Sideboards would make CWE even more OP, and drop SM down a bit.
SM should be configurable. You should take Flamers for GEQ, Plasma for MEQ/TEQ, and Melta for Vehicles. Unfortunately, Plasma is just too good vs GEQ and vehicles, especially compared to Flamers and Meltas.
Fixes are in context of other fixes. You might think IS should be 5 points, but then assassins come out and wreck the gak out of their CCs. Or not. Only time will tell.
If you're telling me we shouldn't be so hasty to nerf Imperium Soup because we need to see if Imperium Soup can develop a counter to Imperium Soup, I don't even know anymore.
It is pretty easy to hide a CC there job isn't that important. You take them because they are cheap and do too much for their points. You'd still take them even if they did nothing though so just hide them and have them do nothing until they have a job to do. It's not that hard to do. I can't hide my ancient banner really. He has to maximize his 6 inch aura to be worth his points.
Hiding can be easier said than done - especially if you want board control. Just the presence of an assassin has caused you to limit your movement and you risk over extending your order range unless you have vox.
Fixes are in context of other fixes. You might think IS should be 5 points, but then assassins come out and wreck the gak out of their CCs. Or not. Only time will tell.
If you're telling me we shouldn't be so hasty to nerf Imperium Soup because we need to see if Imperium Soup can develop a counter to Imperium Soup, I don't even know anymore.
You've immediately conflated IS with imperial soup, which is really the wrong thing to do isn't it? It's not just Index Assassins. GSC and Exterminators exist. Last I knew IS has no DS speading.
I'm not taking a position. I'm offering a thought experiment on the knock-on effect of changes in the context of the entire game.
Um, the same thing that happens to other chaff when their buff character bites it. Except other chaff pay more, and/or don't get traits
-
IS have no economy of scale. They're always 10 models. The stratagems are poor and the traits are situational for the popular ones.
30 cultists can still double tap and VotLW with full rerolls to hit, because you're not coming anywhere near being able to snipe Abaddon.
And? 180pts for 5CPs for OTHER armies to use is too cheap. 5ppm IS would make that 210pts, which is a bit more palatable. Even without taking Soup, that's a cheap way to fill you minimum slots so that you can spend points on other toys to use those CPs on. Even the Command Reroll is worth it in almost every phase, so it doesn't matter if Guard "don't have good Stratagems". Given anyone 30+ CPs and they'll use them
And I'm not even that concerned about IS vs Cultists. I can't stand that Marines cost over 3x what an IS unit does for less than 2x the value
Galef wrote: And? 180pts for 5CPs for OTHER armies to use is too cheap. 5ppm IS would make that 210pts, which is a bit more palatable.
Even without taking Soup, that's a cheap way to fill you minimum slots so that you can spend points on other toys to use those CPs on. Even the Command Reroll is worth it in almost every phase, so it doesn't matter if Guard "don't have good Stratagems". Given anyone 30+ CPs and they'll use them
And I'm not even that concerned about IS vs Cultists. I can't stand that Marines cost over 3x what an IS unit does for less than 2x the value
-
I'm not saying IS shouldn't necessarily be 5 points.
Um, the same thing that happens to other chaff when their buff character bites it. Except other chaff pay more, and/or don't get traits
-
IS have no economy of scale. They're always 10 models. The stratagems are poor and the traits are situational for the popular ones.
30 cultists can still double tap and VotLW with full rerolls to hit, because you're not coming anywhere near being able to snipe Abaddon.
They can't VOTLW anymore.
Also, MSU IS enconomy of scale in 8th edition....having enough CCs for your IS's is EXACTLY the correct number for them to provide you with 12 cps.
To get the same benefit out of guard infantry that you do with Abbadon+spending 2CPs, you could take regular infantry squads with Yarrick or Harker or Cadian trait and just order them to FRFSRF.
"double tapping with full rerolls to hit" is scary until you realize
-They cost 20% more
-FRFSRF is double tapping for 5pts more per squad of 10 than that squad of cultists cost
-4+ to hit rerolling 1s is better than 5+ to hit rerolling everything
-They also get better defenses.
-They don't burn your army's most important stratagem.
Even then, there's usually not a reason to bother. it's more efficient to just not bring the passive hit roll buff in a lot of instances. Like, who cares? You're getting a bucket of CP for dirt ass cheap and also a highly effective unit.
While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.
I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm not taking a position. I'm offering a thought experiment on the knock-on effect of changes in the context of the entire game.
My point is that with regular mini-updates to the FAQ and utilizing the feckless horde of 40K players (and their endless capacity to complain if you get it wrong), you can work through the knock-on effects way more efficiently than nuking the rule-set with clunky bi-annual updates and hoping you smoke the right target. Although they're not complete successes, the Bolter Disciple beta rule and the Sisters Beta Codex are ideally how i'd want fixes and FAQs to be done from now on.
Galef wrote: And? 180pts for 5CPs for OTHER armies to use is too cheap. 5ppm IS would make that 210pts, which is a bit more palatable.
Even without taking Soup, that's a cheap way to fill you minimum slots so that you can spend points on other toys to use those CPs on. Even the Command Reroll is worth it in almost every phase, so it doesn't matter if Guard "don't have good Stratagems". Given anyone 30+ CPs and they'll use them
And I'm not even that concerned about IS vs Cultists. I can't stand that Marines cost over 3x what an IS unit does for less than 2x the value
-
I'm not saying IS shouldn't necessarily be 5 points.
Reemule wrote: While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.
I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.
Yes, I agree though Ahriman on a disc isn't infantry and so survives a little more easily. He can heal, but if he perils after getting dropped a few wounds...look out.
Galef wrote: And? 180pts for 5CPs for OTHER armies to use is too cheap. 5ppm IS would make that 210pts, which is a bit more palatable.
Even without taking Soup, that's a cheap way to fill you minimum slots so that you can spend points on other toys to use those CPs on. Even the Command Reroll is worth it in almost every phase, so it doesn't matter if Guard "don't have good Stratagems". Given anyone 30+ CPs and they'll use them
And I'm not even that concerned about IS vs Cultists. I can't stand that Marines cost over 3x what an IS unit does for less than 2x the value
-
I'm not saying IS shouldn't necessarily be 5 points.
Marines: Double the damage for more than triple the points cost! What a bargain.
And then consider beta bolter which doubles the marine and cover which halves the damage.
Cover takes IS from 0.7 to 0.3, which is 3 to 4 times worse depending on if the GEQ are in cover.
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm not taking a position. I'm offering a thought experiment on the knock-on effect of changes in the context of the entire game.
My point is that with regular mini-updates to the FAQ and utilizing the feckless horde of 40K players (and their endless capacity to complain if you get it wrong), you can work through the knock-on effects way more efficiently than nuking the rule-set with clunky bi-annual updates and hoping you smoke the right target. Although they're not complete successes, the Bolter Disciple beta rule and the Sisters Beta Codex are ideally how i'd want fixes and FAQs to be done from now on.
I'll agree that beta bolter was a good kind of update, but also perhaps safer in terms of what it could effect. I would like to see play testing become more open like Sisters as well.
Reemule wrote: While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.
I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.
Yes, I agree though Ahriman on a disc isn't infantry and so survives a little more easily. He can heal, but if he perils after getting dropped a few wounds...look out.
Agreed and Honor Guard really give Tiggy a easy way out of real damage. But I actually think that is one of the best parts of the Vindicare. His board control is amazing. Far larger than it should be.
Um, the same thing that happens to other chaff when their buff character bites it. Except other chaff pay more, and/or don't get traits
-
IS have no economy of scale. They're always 10 models. The stratagems are poor and the traits are situational for the popular ones.
30 cultists can still double tap and VotLW with full rerolls to hit, because you're not coming anywhere near being able to snipe Abaddon.
They can't VOTLW anymore.
Also, MSU IS enconomy of scale in 8th edition....having enough CCs for your IS's is EXACTLY the correct number for them to provide you with 12 cps.
To get the same benefit out of guard infantry that you do with Abbadon+spending 2CPs, you could take regular infantry squads with Yarrick or Harker or Cadian trait and just order them to FRFSRF.
"double tapping with full rerolls to hit" is scary until you realize
-They cost 20% more -FRFSRF is double tapping for 5pts more per squad of 10 than that squad of cultists cost -4+ to hit rerolling 1s is better than 5+ to hit rerolling everything -They also get better defenses. -They don't burn your army's most important stratagem.
Even then, there's usually not a reason to bother. it's more efficient to just not bring the passive hit roll buff in a lot of instances. Like, who cares? You're getting a bucket of CP for dirt ass cheap and also a highly effective unit.
Cultists can still VOTLW. It's Legion Traits (e.g. -1 to hit from being <ALPHA LEGION> ) that they lost.
Cultists can still VOTLW. It's Legion Traits (e.g. -1 to hit from being <ALPHA LEGION> that they lost.
Oh yea - thanks for catching that. When I got the book I ran through it trying to see how they lost it and I can't see how people came to that conclusion. They're still HA Infantry and the stratagem only excludes renegades.
Marines: Double the damage for more than triple the points cost! What a bargain.
And then consider beta bolter which doubles the marine and cover which halves the damage.
Cover takes IS from 0.7 to 0.3, which is 3 to 4 times worse depending on if the GEQ are in cover.
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm not taking a position. I'm offering a thought experiment on the knock-on effect of changes in the context of the entire game.
My point is that with regular mini-updates to the FAQ and utilizing the feckless horde of 40K players (and their endless capacity to complain if you get it wrong), you can work through the knock-on effects way more efficiently than nuking the rule-set with clunky bi-annual updates and hoping you smoke the right target. Although they're not complete successes, the Bolter Disciple beta rule and the Sisters Beta Codex are ideally how i'd want fixes and FAQs to be done from now on.
I'll agree that beta bolter was a good kind of update, but also perhaps safer in terms of what it could effect. I would like to see play testing become more open like Sisters as well.
Not really sure what maths your trying to show with that as you've changed the targets so the maths isn't consistent.
Killing .9 of a guardsmen is only 4 points removed .6 of a 13 point marine killed is 7 points. The guard players winning the war of attrition.
I, too, am curious as to what makes the FAQ take so long to release. If I were to speculate (and a little optimistic), I would say they spend time testing any changes they make before they release it. The pessimist in me, though, thinks that the Games Workshop development team are hesitant to make any sizeable changes to the game with so many moving parts (and more releases in the future they have to make sure not to break like the GSC with the FAQ 2 last year). I know it can't just be to plan and write the FAQ, as they already had most of the FAQ completed before Adepticon, and have admitted they don't plan on making any big changes. Maybe the formatting takes longer than the actual planning itself, but my experience seriously doubts this is true.
Not really sure what maths your trying to show with that as you've changed the targets so the maths isn't consistent.
Killing .9 of a guardsmen is only 4 points removed .6 of a 13 point marine killed is 7 points. The guard players winning the war of attrition.
Yes, fair enough, but this is sans beta bolter and cover. Of course it's also sans CC and not everyone has snipers to take them out, so we can't necessarily cost them low because of that potential, but if Ogryn BGs become required then it's somewhat of the same effect as a 1 point increase on 60 models (with the benefit of a beat stick).
Not really sure what maths your trying to show with that as you've changed the targets so the maths isn't consistent.
Killing .9 of a guardsmen is only 4 points removed .6 of a 13 point marine killed is 7 points. The guard players winning the war of attrition.
Yes, fair enough, but this is sans beta bolter and cover. Of course it's also sans CC and not everyone has snipers to take them out, so we can't necessarily cost them low because of that potential, but if Ogryn BGs become required then it's somewhat of the same effect as a 1 point increase on 60 models (with the benefit of a beat stick).
I won't be broken hearted if IS go to 5 points.
Making IS 5 points bringing them defensively in like with tacs, but better than them at doing damage.
They are out damaged by rangers and firewarriors who are less resilient.
Darsath wrote: I, too, am curious as to what makes the FAQ take so long to release. If I were to speculate (and a little optimistic), I would say they spend time testing any changes they make before they release it. The pessimist in me, though, thinks that the Games Workshop development team are hesitant to make any sizeable changes to the game with so many moving parts (and more releases in the future they have to make sure not to break like the GSC with the FAQ 2 last year). I know it can't just be to plan and write the FAQ, as they already had most of the FAQ completed before Adepticon, and have admitted they don't plan on making any big changes. Maybe the formatting takes longer than the actual planning itself, but my experience seriously doubts this is true.
My suspicion is that Adepticon probably hasn't made much difference to the document due to their slow-as-anything design cycles, but if you can get an extra two weeks on a deadline (under a useful pretext) why not?
Darsath wrote: I, too, am curious as to what makes the FAQ take so long to release. If I were to speculate (and a little optimistic), I would say they spend time testing any changes they make before they release it. The pessimist in me, though, thinks that the Games Workshop development team are hesitant to make any sizeable changes to the game with so many moving parts (and more releases in the future they have to make sure not to break like the GSC with the FAQ 2 last year). I know it can't just be to plan and write the FAQ, as they already had most of the FAQ completed before Adepticon, and have admitted they don't plan on making any big changes. Maybe the formatting takes longer than the actual planning itself, but my experience seriously doubts this is true.
The faq is taking just as long as it did last year when it released 2 weeks after Adepticon.
Reemule wrote: While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.
I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.
85 point model chance of sniping a 4 wound character is really high. You really wont find better odds of getting over 100% point return on a shooting attack anywhere in 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Care to run the numbers on a Vindicare oneshotting Tiggy or Ahriman?
(5/6)(5/6)(5/6) to get a wound so about 60% chance to get a wound through. d3 damage with a mortal on a 3+/4+/5+ and so on. It's a little complicated and I don't have to go through all the % but with a cp reroll available it is well over a 50% to kill outright on 4 wound character with a 3+ save. You chance to deal 2 or 3 wounds is also really high.
ahriman on a disk loses infantry so has to wound of 3's but still a great chance of 1 shotting and he cost even more than tiggy.
Reemule wrote: While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.
I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.
85 point model chance of sniping a 4 wound character is really high. You really wont find better odds of getting over 100% point return on a shooting attack anywhere in 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Care to run the numbers on a Vindicare oneshotting Tiggy or Ahriman?
(5/6)(5/6)(5/6) to get a wound so about 60% chance to get a wound through. d3 damage with a mortal on a 3+/4+/5+ and so on. It's a little complicated and I don't have to go through all the % but with a cp reroll available it is well over a 50% to kill outright on 4 wound character with a 3+ save. You chance to deal 2 or 3 wounds is also really high.
ahriman on a disk loses infantry so has to wound of 3's but still a great chance of 1 shotting and he cost even more than tiggy.
40% chance of doing 0 Wounds.
60%*(1/3) chance to do no more than that d3 damage, or 20% of total - cumulatively, we're up to a 60% survival chance
60%*(2/3)*(1/2) chance (works out to 20%) to do exactly 1 MW. Of that, 2 out of 3 survive (because you didn't do 3W from your D3) - so another 13.3%. Up to 73.3% survival, and 6.7% kill
60%*(2/3)*(1/2)(2/3) chance (13.3%) to do exactly 2 MW. Of that, 1 out of 3 survive - so another 4.4%. Up to 77.7% survival, 15.5% kill
60%*(2/3)(1/2)(1/3) chance (6.7%) to do at least 3 MW. Beyond that, doesn't matter - it's a kill. So final numbeers:
77.7% survival, 22.3% kill.
You're shy of 25%. Not even halfway to 50%.
You're not even close to being reliable.
As for better odds of getting over 100% point return?
Guardsman shooting any other GEQ:
2x(1/2)(1/2)(2/3) = 1/3 chance to kill a Cultist, Guardian, or whatever (T3 5+ - there's tons of those that cost more than 4pts). Having a 22.3% chance or higher of getting a 100% points return is not rare at all in this game. Because 22.3% is *low*.
Reemule wrote: While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.
I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.
85 point model chance of sniping a 4 wound character is really high. You really wont find better odds of getting over 100% point return on a shooting attack anywhere in 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Care to run the numbers on a Vindicare oneshotting Tiggy or Ahriman?
(5/6)(5/6)(5/6) to get a wound so about 60% chance to get a wound through. d3 damage with a mortal on a 3+/4+/5+ and so on. It's a little complicated and I don't have to go through all the % but with a cp reroll available it is well over a 50% to kill outright on 4 wound character with a 3+ save. You chance to deal 2 or 3 wounds is also really high.
ahriman on a disk loses infantry so has to wound of 3's but still a great chance of 1 shotting and he cost even more than tiggy.
My math says it's more like 40% to kill a 4W character/24% to kill a 5W character assuming Infantry and 3+ armour, assuming you have a CP available for rerolls.
Ok, so I’ve just done a bit more math myself in regards to “who comes out on top unbuffed”. That even means not rapid firing – but being able to shoot from turn 1. This is also not taking into account morale losses. (As a morale trade off, I’ve not taken the decision of presuming you’d remove Guard sergeants first – otherwise morale would play a bigger factor).
Vs Orks 3 squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz (120 points vs 120) If Guard go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 5. 16.54% Casualties. If Orks go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 6. 29.71% Casualties. Easy Guard win.
So - from a DURABILITY point alone (one of the points that seems to get mentioned over and over again, Guardsmen aren't the "best" across the board troop for troop. Of course, this changes when you start having other squads shoot at the Guardsmen etc, but, in the troop v troop situation it is slightly different.
It's actually a lot worse then this. 20 Ork boyz is 140ptsnot 120pts, so a better comparison would be 3 and a half squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz. SO turn 1 guard kill 5 orkz, orkz kill 5ish Guardsmen (Orkz have to get within 18' range compared to IG's 24). Guard shoot and kill 4 more, orkz shoot 22 shots and kill 4, turn 3 guard are now down to a lowly 26 so 26 shots 13 hits 4 wounds 3-4 dead Ork boyz, orkz are now at 7-8 Boyz, leadership is now a thing and those -3 means they will likely lose at least some boyz, but lets say everyone is fearless. those 8 boyz get 16 shots, 6ish hits and 4 wounds for 2-3 dead Guard. Guard are now at 23, that is 11 hits and 4 wounds for another 4 dead Orkz bringing them to 3-4 boyz, those 4 boyz return 8 shots for 3 hits and 1 dead Guard, next turn the boyz all die. (With morale this would have happened 2 turns earlier. SO Boyz lose 20 boyz, guard lose 13. 140pts of dead Boyz, 52 of Guard.
with moving and rapid fire If Guard go first with no buffs that is 35 shots at BS4 so roughly 17.5 hits, wounding in 5s is about 6 wounds, with a 6+ save that is 5 dead Orkz turn 1. Orkz are leadership 15 at this point so basically fearless. Those orkz with shootas have to advance as well to get into range since they only have 5' of movement and their guns are ranged 18, so 15 boyz left, 30 shots hitting on 6s, rerolling hits as dakkax3 kicks in = basically 6 hits, wounding on 3s = 4 wounds, guardsmen get a 5+ save so say 3 dead Guard LD 7 with sergeant so -3 = 4 so on a 5+ they lose 1-2 more, lets say they pass. They are now likely 15-16' from the guard, the guard lets say are guarding something so can't retreat (which is the easy win for them) so they move forward to double tap the orkz. 32 guardsmen alive = 64 shots, 32 hits 11ish wounds vs 6+ save = 9 dead Orkz, Orkz now have 6 boyz left with -9 LD Modifier, At this point they use the nobz LD7 and lose 2+D6 so likely 5-6 GG turn 2. Orkz lose 140pts of boyz, IG lose 12pts of guard. If the Orkz get 1st turn its slightly better, but it results in tabling turn 3 instead.
Except morale is important, because that's guards weaknesses at at least one of the above is immune to morale. Orks wouldn't stay still and shoot, because they eat guard in melee combat, Marines is highly outdated since Marines with be always in rapid fire range, Admech got cheaper (also have a 30" gun which the above ignores?), etc.
It doesn't matter what Ork boyz do to Guardsmen, they lose no matter what. Ironically, the best way for ork infantry to kill guardsmen at near parity is to get in range as Bad Moonz. 30 SHoota boyz fire 60 shots for 20 hits and 20 rerolls which result in 7 more hits. 27 hits = 18 wounds, so basically killing 12 guard. Of course 30 Shoota boyz = 210pts and 12 guard = 48pts of course, if GW was smart and reduced the price of boyz back to 6 and increased the cost of guard to 5 that would make it a lot closer in parity.
Good for you? Stop acting like you have full insight to the process and chill out.
Well technically they had time to write the FAQ since the last CA. That is a lot of time to gather data and think about changes. Even if it is done by one man for 10 min every day, then it is still whole days of work time since CA went to print. Unless of course they did nothing and started writing it post adepticon, then in deed they could have delays.
That's because it's an ongoing process that requires people to play games, deliberate, and provide feedback on top of testing new codexes like GSC, CSM, and Sisters. Not to mention Index Assassins and Ynnari.
they had time for all of that since CA entered the to print phase. Unless again. They did not work on the rules or FAQ at all, and just started 2-3 weeks ago, or are trying to make it based only on adepticon stuff. if it is true that books are ready a few months before they hit the stores, then for this FAQ they had 6 month of last year and 3 months of this year. 2 hours every week spend on rewriting rules is heck of time to finish stuff when you have 9 months to do it. And still leaves 38 hours per week to do other stuff, that is assuming not doing any overtime or working at home.
Again I would rather have GW makes a good FAQ later, then a bad FAQ just to fit the time table. So it ain't bothering me that much. But saying that GW is "late" because they don't have time doesn't seem to be very realistic.
Ok, so I’ve just done a bit more math myself in regards to “who comes out on top unbuffed”. That even means not rapid firing – but being able to shoot from turn 1. This is also not taking into account morale losses. (As a morale trade off, I’ve not taken the decision of presuming you’d remove Guard sergeants first – otherwise morale would play a bigger factor).
Vs Orks
3 squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz (120 points vs 120)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 5. 16.54% Casualties.
If Orks go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 6. 29.71% Casualties.
Easy Guard win.
So - from a DURABILITY point alone (one of the points that seems to get mentioned over and over again, Guardsmen aren't the "best" across the board troop for troop.
Of course, this changes when you start having other squads shoot at the Guardsmen etc, but, in the troop v troop situation it is slightly different.
It's actually a lot worse then this. 20 Ork boyz is 140ptsnot 120pts, so a better comparison would be 3 and a half squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz. SO turn 1 guard kill 5 orkz, orkz kill 5ish Guardsmen (Orkz have to get within 18' range compared to IG's 24). Guard shoot and kill 4 more, orkz shoot 22 shots and kill 4, turn 3 guard are now down to a lowly 26 so 26 shots 13 hits 4 wounds 3-4 dead Ork boyz, orkz are now at 7-8 Boyz, leadership is now a thing and those -3 means they will likely lose at least some boyz, but lets say everyone is fearless. those 8 boyz get 16 shots, 6ish hits and 4 wounds for 2-3 dead Guard. Guard are now at 23, that is 11 hits and 4 wounds for another 4 dead Orkz bringing them to 3-4 boyz, those 4 boyz return 8 shots for 3 hits and 1 dead Guard, next turn the boyz all die. (With morale this would have happened 2 turns earlier. SO Boyz lose 20 boyz, guard lose 13. 140pts of dead Boyz, 52 of Guard.
with moving and rapid fire
If Guard go first with no buffs that is 35 shots at BS4 so roughly 17.5 hits, wounding in 5s is about 6 wounds, with a 6+ save that is 5 dead Orkz turn 1. Orkz are leadership 15 at this point so basically fearless. Those orkz with shootas have to advance as well to get into range since they only have 5' of movement and their guns are ranged 18, so 15 boyz left, 30 shots hitting on 6s, rerolling hits as dakkax3 kicks in = basically 6 hits, wounding on 3s = 4 wounds, guardsmen get a 5+ save so say 3 dead Guard LD 7 with sergeant so -3 = 4 so on a 5+ they lose 1-2 more, lets say they pass. They are now likely 15-16' from the guard, the guard lets say are guarding something so can't retreat (which is the easy win for them) so they move forward to double tap the orkz. 32 guardsmen alive = 64 shots, 32 hits 11ish wounds vs 6+ save = 9 dead Orkz, Orkz now have 6 boyz left with -9 LD Modifier, At this point they use the nobz LD7 and lose 2+D6 so likely 5-6 GG turn 2. Orkz lose 140pts of boyz, IG lose 12pts of guard. If the Orkz get 1st turn its slightly better, but it results in tabling turn 3 instead.
Except morale is important, because that's guards weaknesses at at least one of the above is immune to morale. Orks wouldn't stay still and shoot, because they eat guard in melee combat, Marines is highly outdated since Marines with be always in rapid fire range, Admech got cheaper (also have a 30" gun which the above ignores?), etc.
It doesn't matter what Ork boyz do to Guardsmen, they lose no matter what. Ironically, the best way for ork infantry to kill guardsmen at near parity is to get in range as Bad Moonz. 30 SHoota boyz fire 60 shots for 20 hits and 20 rerolls which result in 7 more hits. 27 hits = 18 wounds, so basically killing 12 guard. Of course 30 Shoota boyz = 210pts and 12 guard = 48pts of course, if GW was smart and reduced the price of boyz back to 6 and increased the cost of guard to 5 that would make it a lot closer in parity.
I just want to point out that wasn't my maths in your quote, that was a guard player trying to justify that 4ppm. Guardsmen are balanced.
I just want to point out that wasn't my maths in your quote, that was a guard player trying to justify that 4ppm. Guardsmen are balanced.
My apologies, I must have deleted the wrong quote line when posting that. Either way though, if that is the case that guardsmen player is clutching at straws. They change the circumstances to make the math seem worse for guardsmen. Guardsmen need a point increase badly and have for some time, I would argue Tau firewarriors need a nerf as well but that is another story
I just want to point out that wasn't my maths in your quote, that was a guard player trying to justify that 4ppm. Guardsmen are balanced.
My apologies, I must have deleted the wrong quote line when posting that. Either way though, if that is the case that guardsmen player is clutching at straws. They change the circumstances to make the math seem worse for guardsmen. Guardsmen need a point increase badly and have for some time, I would argue Tau firewarriors need a nerf as well but that is another story
The thing with firewarriors is they actually bleed points like nobody's business, only better than cultists.
They do less damage than skitari vrs infantry, however they are a serious threat to vehicals and monsters in 8th, very much how the fluff says they should be, but the 8th wounding system really does suck at defining light medium and heavy armoured vehicles.
I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.
Terrain needs better rules.
Ynnari needs a little nerf.
Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.
I just want to point out that wasn't my maths in your quote, that was a guard player trying to justify that 4ppm. Guardsmen are balanced.
My apologies, I must have deleted the wrong quote line when posting that. Either way though, if that is the case that guardsmen player is clutching at straws. They change the circumstances to make the math seem worse for guardsmen. Guardsmen need a point increase badly and have for some time, I would argue Tau firewarriors need a nerf as well but that is another story
The thing with firewarriors is they actually bleed points like nobody's business, only better than cultists.
They do less damage than skitari vrs infantry, however they are a serious threat to vehicals and monsters in 8th, very much how the fluff says they should be, but the 8th wounding system really does suck at defining light medium and heavy armoured vehicles.
My comment was more in line with normal game play and not static Infantry vs Infantry, even though I still think Firewarriors are better than most. The 30' range is a huge stand off benefit to the Tau army and allows them to deploy beyond most armies ability to reliably get into CC. Team them up in an Onion of death with the correct buffing characters and they are truly frightening. But the thing that really makes them OP in my opinion is that they get all those buffs and range and are fairly durable with a 4+ save standard.....AND they cost 7ppm. Nothing ruins fun like a Tau Onion of death of 40 Firewarriors along with a fireblade camping on a central point in the map with Range 36 guns (Bork'an) and getting a 3rd shot at half range, so if you actually do get into shooting range of them they will unload 120 S5 shots hitting on 4s rerolling 1s. Ohh, and if you do get into assault, enjoy that overwatch. Those 120 shots in overwatch on average inflict 14 wounds to ork boyz. the 120 shots in the shoot phase tend to liquify 2 entire mobs of boyz. All for the low low cost of 322pts. If I played Tau I would never play less than 80 firewarriors just for their pure damage output and standoff ability. In a 2k list you have 644pts tied up in 2 onions of death which basically cover the entire deployment and neutral zones. you then spend your remaining 1356pts on whatever you want to add to that.
Not really sure what maths your trying to show with that as you've changed the targets so the maths isn't consistent.
Killing .9 of a guardsmen is only 4 points removed .6 of a 13 point marine killed is 7 points. The guard players winning the war of attrition.
Yes, fair enough, but this is sans beta bolter and cover. Of course it's also sans CC and not everyone has snipers to take them out, so we can't necessarily cost them low because of that potential, but if Ogryn BGs become required then it's somewhat of the same effect as a 1 point increase on 60 models (with the benefit of a beat stick).
I won't be broken hearted if IS go to 5 points.
Making IS 5 points bringing them defensively in like with tacs, but better than them at doing damage.
They are out damaged by rangers and firewarriors who are less resilient.
they had time for all of that since CA entered the to print phase. Unless again. They did not work on the rules or FAQ at all, and just started 2-3 weeks ago, or are trying to make it based only on adepticon stuff. if it is true that books are ready a few months before they hit the stores, then for this FAQ they had 6 month of last year and 3 months of this year. 2 hours every week spend on rewriting rules is heck of time to finish stuff when you have 9 months to do it. And still leaves 38 hours per week to do other stuff, that is assuming not doing any overtime or working at home.
Again I would rather have GW makes a good FAQ later, then a bad FAQ just to fit the time table. So it ain't bothering me that much. But saying that GW is "late" because they don't have time doesn't seem to be very realistic.
I think people here expect that 40KFAQs are GWs only immediate priority.
The reality is that it isn't and people need to get over that. They'll likely be out on Monday.
Has anyone received April white dwarf? I almost feel like they delayed it to coincide.
they had time for all of that since CA entered the to print phase. Unless again. They did not work on the rules or FAQ at all, and just started 2-3 weeks ago, or are trying to make it based only on adepticon stuff. if it is true that books are ready a few months before they hit the stores, then for this FAQ they had 6 month of last year and 3 months of this year. 2 hours every week spend on rewriting rules is heck of time to finish stuff when you have 9 months to do it. And still leaves 38 hours per week to do other stuff, that is assuming not doing any overtime or working at home.
Again I would rather have GW makes a good FAQ later, then a bad FAQ just to fit the time table. So it ain't bothering me that much. But saying that GW is "late" because they don't have time doesn't seem to be very realistic.
I think people here expect that 40KFAQs are GWs only immediate priority.
The reality is that it isn't and people need to get over that. They'll likely be out on Monday.
Has anyone received April white dwarf? I almost feel like they delayed it to coincide.
Kind of feel this is missing the point. It doesn't have to be their only priority for Games Workshop to be working on it, especially since it was already worked on before Adepticon, and the changes are smaller scale. People make excuses for Games Workshop's inactivity here, and it only does a dis-service to customers who demand a higher quality of product.
My math says it's more like 40% to kill a 4W character/24% to kill a 5W character assuming Infantry and 3+ armour, assuming you have a CP available for rerolls.
I think, generally though that with double tap and decent rolls a vindicaire can have a couple characters on the ropes.
Terminator armor HQs and rhino blockers will be necessary.
they had time for all of that since CA entered the to print phase. Unless again. They did not work on the rules or FAQ at all, and just started 2-3 weeks ago, or are trying to make it based only on adepticon stuff. if it is true that books are ready a few months before they hit the stores, then for this FAQ they had 6 month of last year and 3 months of this year. 2 hours every week spend on rewriting rules is heck of time to finish stuff when you have 9 months to do it. And still leaves 38 hours per week to do other stuff, that is assuming not doing any overtime or working at home.
Again I would rather have GW makes a good FAQ later, then a bad FAQ just to fit the time table. So it ain't bothering me that much. But saying that GW is "late" because they don't have time doesn't seem to be very realistic.
I think people here expect that 40KFAQs are GWs only immediate priority.
The reality is that it isn't and people need to get over that. They'll likely be out on Monday.
Has anyone received April white dwarf? I almost feel like they delayed it to coincide.
Kind of feel this is missing the point. It doesn't have to be their only priority for Games Workshop to be working on it, especially since it was already worked on before Adepticon, and the changes are smaller scale. People make excuses for Games Workshop's inactivity here, and it only does a dis-service to customers who demand a higher quality of product.
You assume nothing is being done and assign malice without evidence.
Not really sure what maths your trying to show with that as you've changed the targets so the maths isn't consistent.
Killing .9 of a guardsmen is only 4 points removed .6 of a 13 point marine killed is 7 points. The guard players winning the war of attrition.
Yes, fair enough, but this is sans beta bolter and cover. Of course it's also sans CC and not everyone has snipers to take them out, so we can't necessarily cost them low because of that potential, but if Ogryn BGs become required then it's somewhat of the same effect as a 1 point increase on 60 models (with the benefit of a beat stick).
I won't be broken hearted if IS go to 5 points.
Making IS 5 points bringing them defensively in like with tacs, but better than them at doing damage.
They are out damaged by rangers and firewarriors who are less resilient.
Out damaged by rangers?
.....really? Rangers like the Eldar sniper troop?
No skitari Rangers, why GW insist on reusing names I don't know.
Skitari are the same points as firewarriors and can have a -1 to hit trait, but people love to beat on firewarriors despite them having worse damage output vrs T3 infantry.
I don't remember if Intercessor Sergeants got their CC options in an FAQ or in CA, but Reiver Sergeants need something to make that squad worthwhile. I really hope they get Power Axe / Chain Fist instead of the usual Power Sword / Power Fist options if GW does get around to them.
they had time for all of that since CA entered the to print phase. Unless again. They did not work on the rules or FAQ at all, and just started 2-3 weeks ago, or are trying to make it based only on adepticon stuff. if it is true that books are ready a few months before they hit the stores, then for this FAQ they had 6 month of last year and 3 months of this year. 2 hours every week spend on rewriting rules is heck of time to finish stuff when you have 9 months to do it. And still leaves 38 hours per week to do other stuff, that is assuming not doing any overtime or working at home.
Again I would rather have GW makes a good FAQ later, then a bad FAQ just to fit the time table. So it ain't bothering me that much. But saying that GW is "late" because they don't have time doesn't seem to be very realistic.
I think people here expect that 40KFAQs are GWs only immediate priority.
The reality is that it isn't and people need to get over that. They'll likely be out on Monday.
Has anyone received April white dwarf? I almost feel like they delayed it to coincide.
Kind of feel this is missing the point. It doesn't have to be their only priority for Games Workshop to be working on it, especially since it was already worked on before Adepticon, and the changes are smaller scale. People make excuses for Games Workshop's inactivity here, and it only does a dis-service to customers who demand a higher quality of product.
Customers who demand a higher quality of product are playing something other than 40k.
Reemule wrote: While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.
I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.
85 point model chance of sniping a 4 wound character is really high. You really wont find better odds of getting over 100% point return on a shooting attack anywhere in 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Care to run the numbers on a Vindicare oneshotting Tiggy or Ahriman?
(5/6)(5/6)(5/6) to get a wound so about 60% chance to get a wound through. d3 damage with a mortal on a 3+/4+/5+ and so on. It's a little complicated and I don't have to go through all the % but with a cp reroll available it is well over a 50% to kill outright on 4 wound character with a 3+ save. You chance to deal 2 or 3 wounds is also really high.
ahriman on a disk loses infantry so has to wound of 3's but still a great chance of 1 shotting and he cost even more than tiggy.
My math says it's more like 40% to kill a 4W character/24% to kill a 5W character assuming Infantry and 3+ armour, assuming you have a CP available for rerolls.
how do you work out the reroll which can be used at any step in the process? Also wound rolls of 6 do d6 damage - how would you figure that?
how do you work out the reroll which can be used at any step in the process? Also wound rolls of 6 do d6 damage - how would you figure that?
No idea about the reroll, but for the damage I'd split the numbers. (1/6 x 3.5) + (4/6 x 2)
Unless there's a rule I've forgotten about, the to-hit rolls and armour saves will be the same either way, so there's no need to separate those. Also, I'm aware that 4/6 should really be 2/3, but I wanted to make my workings a little clearer.
The alternative would be to create an excel formula and run it 1000 times to get an idea of what the average damage is (rather than having to simplify damage). In this case, you might be able to write it such that it rerolls the first fail or the first damage roll of 1 (whichever happens first) each time.
No skitari Rangers, why GW insist on reusing names I don't know.
Skitari are the same points as firewarriors and can have a -1 to hit trait, but people love to beat on firewarriors despite them having worse damage output vrs T3 infantry.
Correct me if I am wrong ( I don't play against Skittari that often) but their weapons max out at 30' range and are S4, Tau can easily get to 36 or even 42 and have the ability to add a shot at half range so 3 shots at 18-21' range instead of 2 at 15 like Skits. Yeah the -1 to hit is cool but its not a huge boost to durability.
Reemule wrote: While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.
I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.
85 point model chance of sniping a 4 wound character is really high. You really wont find better odds of getting over 100% point return on a shooting attack anywhere in 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Care to run the numbers on a Vindicare oneshotting Tiggy or Ahriman?
(5/6)(5/6)(5/6) to get a wound so about 60% chance to get a wound through. d3 damage with a mortal on a 3+/4+/5+ and so on. It's a little complicated and I don't have to go through all the % but with a cp reroll available it is well over a 50% to kill outright on 4 wound character with a 3+ save. You chance to deal 2 or 3 wounds is also really high.
ahriman on a disk loses infantry so has to wound of 3's but still a great chance of 1 shotting and he cost even more than tiggy.
My math says it's more like 40% to kill a 4W character/24% to kill a 5W character assuming Infantry and 3+ armour, assuming you have a CP available for rerolls.
how do you work out the reroll which can be used at any step in the process? Also wound rolls of 6 do d6 damage - how would you figure that?
I wrote a program when the rules first came out, and they had a high average damage because they could do a lot -- d6 damaeg plus mortal wounds, but had a much lower skew over all. More often then I'd like (I think it was around 30%, I'll have to.chdck on Monday) they did zero damage, and most often did 3 to 4 total wounds to a Company Commander, And Less than that to a marine.
So while they have the chance to one shot Guilliman, you need to of them to reliable kill a character, and even then there was a fdecent chance they would skunk it.
No skitari Rangers, why GW insist on reusing names I don't know.
Skitari are the same points as firewarriors and can have a -1 to hit trait, but people love to beat on firewarriors despite them having worse damage output vrs T3 infantry.
Correct me if I am wrong ( I don't play against Skittari that often) but their weapons max out at 30' range and are S4, Tau can easily get to 36 or even 42 and have the ability to add a shot at half range so 3 shots at 18-21' range instead of 2 at 15 like Skits. Yeah the -1 to hit is cool but its not a huge boost to durability.
Their weapons are the same range as tau ones.
The 36 inch range requires taking a sept that prevents all the named charictors. The 42 is a nice theory hammer wall but relies on a T4 1W 4+ non charictor unit it dies so easily, additionally it is only available via another 40 points unit.
-1 to hit isn't a huge bust to durability? please point out a what else gives you at worse a 20% damaged reduction against BS 2+ to a 50% reduction against BS 5+?
I think people here expect that 40KFAQs are GWs only immediate priority.
The reality is that it isn't and people need to get over that. They'll likely be out on Monday.
Has anyone received April white dwarf? I almost feel like they delayed it to coincide.
I am not a mind reader, so I don't know what other peoples think. What I do know is that GW had a lot of time to start working on the FAQ. I just don't think that the argument that they have little time or they only think a week or two in the future, when they have models and books waiting for months or maybe even years, waiting for release, is a valid one. The castellan or IG soup problem are a know thing, they are known in some cases for more then a year. IMO they had enough time to write and test stuff. Unless of course they think the stuff is fine, and does not require any fixs. Then they may as well not put out the FAQ. If it ain't going to deal with some real issuse, then it is just playing with words and anwser questions that are many things, but not frequently asked.
I don't remember if Intercessor Sergeants got their CC options in an FAQ or in CA, but Reiver Sergeants need something to make that squad worthwhile. I really hope they get Power Axe / Chain Fist instead of the usual Power Sword / Power Fist options if GW does get around to them.
But aren't all GW rules glued to what is in a box? If reavers don't come with the options, then GW won't errata the weapons in as an option, unless they have some new models to sell. The primaris melee weapon upgrades started poping up, if I remember corectly, when GW started to sell faction upgrade sprues, and had Lts with illegal weapons et ups.
No skitari Rangers, why GW insist on reusing names I don't know.
Skitari are the same points as firewarriors and can have a -1 to hit trait, but people love to beat on firewarriors despite them having worse damage output vrs T3 infantry.
Correct me if I am wrong ( I don't play against Skittari that often) but their weapons max out at 30' range and are S4, Tau can easily get to 36 or even 42 and have the ability to add a shot at half range so 3 shots at 18-21' range instead of 2 at 15 like Skits. Yeah the -1 to hit is cool but its not a huge boost to durability.
Their weapons are the same range as tau ones.
The 36 inch range requires taking a sept that prevents all the named charictors. The 42 is a nice theory hammer wall but relies on a T4 1W 4+ non charictor unit it dies so easily, additionally it is only available via another 40 points unit.
-1 to hit isn't a huge bust to durability? please point out a what else gives you at worse a 20% damaged reduction against BS 2+ to a 50% reduction against BS 5+?
Cover, FNP, +1 armor, they all add the same 17% bonus to durability.
And the Sept is good enough on its own...but you can take multiple detachments so you can still take whatever named characters you want. I don't play Tau so I don't know which ones are worth a damn, but giving your standard troop choices a S5 ranged 36' gun seems rather nice When Ork shoota boyz finally get in range the Tau are firing 50% more shots at higher strength and Ballistic skill and have easy access to reroll 1s which is a bigger benefit to Tau then Orkz because a 1/3rd chance isn't as good as a 1/2 chance to hit with a reroll
No skitari Rangers, why GW insist on reusing names I don't know.
Skitari are the same points as firewarriors and can have a -1 to hit trait, but people love to beat on firewarriors despite them having worse damage output vrs T3 infantry.
Correct me if I am wrong ( I don't play against Skittari that often) but their weapons max out at 30' range and are S4, Tau can easily get to 36 or even 42 and have the ability to add a shot at half range so 3 shots at 18-21' range instead of 2 at 15 like Skits. Yeah the -1 to hit is cool but its not a huge boost to durability.
Their weapons are the same range as tau ones.
The 36 inch range requires taking a sept that prevents all the named charictors. The 42 is a nice theory hammer wall but relies on a T4 1W 4+ non charictor unit it dies so easily, additionally it is only available via another 40 points unit.
-1 to hit isn't a huge bust to durability? please point out a what else gives you at worse a 20% damaged reduction against BS 2+ to a 50% reduction against BS 5+?
Cover, FNP, +1 armor, they all add the same 17% bonus to durability.
And the Sept is good enough on its own...but you can take multiple detachments so you can still take whatever named characters you want. I don't play Tau so I don't know which ones are worth a damn, but giving your standard troop choices a S5 ranged 36' gun seems rather nice When Ork shoota boyz finally get in range the Tau are firing 50% more shots at higher strength and Ballistic skill and have easy access to reroll 1s which is a bigger benefit to Tau then Orkz because a 1/3rd chance isn't as good as a 1/2 chance to hit with a reroll
That's not even remotely true. Depending on what your save is, a +1 improvement is either massive or barely noticeable.
Karol wrote: The castellan or IG soup problem are a know thing, they are known in some cases for more then a year. IMO they had enough time to write and test stuff. Unless of course they think the stuff is fine, and does not require any fixs.
It is possible that they don't think that Imperial soup is a problem, and they may not think the IG are a problem - I suspect they may be aware of a goof on the IK relic/trait side of things, though.
Karol wrote: then they may as well not put out the FAQ. If it ain't going to deal with some real issuse, then it is just playing with words and anwser questions that are many things, but not frequently asked.
If they're answering questions in an FAQ, then they're actually using it for what it should be used for - and just because you (or your local group) haven't asked a particular question, doesn't mean they haven't seen it often enough to warrant an answer.
Finding errata in a FAQ release is what should be viewed as odd, not as the standard.
That's not even remotely true. Depending on what your save is, a +1 improvement is either massive or barely noticeable.
FNP is a whole other ballpark.
12 bolter shots hitting on 3s, with a -1 to hit = 6 hits, 3 wounds against a 6+ save = 2.5 damage on average
12 bolter shots hitting on 3s = 8 hits, 4 wounds, +1 armor = 2.66 damage ish
12 Bolter shots hitting on 3s = 8 hits, 4 wounds against a 6+ save = 3.33 with a 6+ FNP = 2.77 damage ish
(+1 armor is the same as cover)
So yeah, its different but pretty close to equal. So saying a -1 to hit is a massive buff and worth way more then +1 strength on your weapon is kind of ....dishonest. Is -1 to hit good? Yeah of course, I just don't think its a huge buff over +1 strength on the weapon.
That's not even remotely true. Depending on what your save is, a +1 improvement is either massive or barely noticeable.
FNP is a whole other ballpark.
12 bolter shots hitting on 3s, with a -1 to hit = 6 hits, 3 wounds against a 6+ save = 2.5 damage on average
12 bolter shots hitting on 3s = 8 hits, 4 wounds, +1 armor = 2.66 damage ish
12 Bolter shots hitting on 3s = 8 hits, 4 wounds against a 6+ save = 3.33 with a 6+ FNP = 2.77 damage ish
(+1 armor is the same as cover)
So yeah, its different but pretty close to equal. So saying a -1 to hit is a massive buff and worth way more then +1 strength on your weapon is kind of ....dishonest. Is -1 to hit good? Yeah of course, I just don't think its a huge buff over +1 strength on the weapon.
Yeah, now repeat that piece of math with a 3+ save or a 2+ save. HUGE difference.
No skitari Rangers, why GW insist on reusing names I don't know.
Skitari are the same points as firewarriors and can have a -1 to hit trait, but people love to beat on firewarriors despite them having worse damage output vrs T3 infantry.
Correct me if I am wrong ( I don't play against Skittari that often) but their weapons max out at 30' range and are S4, Tau can easily get to 36 or even 42 and have the ability to add a shot at half range so 3 shots at 18-21' range instead of 2 at 15 like Skits. Yeah the -1 to hit is cool but its not a huge boost to durability.
Their weapons are the same range as tau ones.
The 36 inch range requires taking a sept that prevents all the named charictors. The 42 is a nice theory hammer wall but relies on a T4 1W 4+ non charictor unit it dies so easily, additionally it is only available via another 40 points unit.
-1 to hit isn't a huge bust to durability? please point out a what else gives you at worse a 20% damaged reduction against BS 2+ to a 50% reduction against BS 5+?
Cover, FNP, +1 armor, they all add the same 17% bonus to durability.
And the Sept is good enough on its own...but you can take multiple detachments so you can still take whatever named characters you want. I don't play Tau so I don't know which ones are worth a damn, but giving your standard troop choices a S5 ranged 36' gun seems rather nice When Ork shoota boyz finally get in range the Tau are firing 50% more shots at higher strength and Ballistic skill and have easy access to reroll 1s which is a bigger benefit to Tau then Orkz because a 1/3rd chance isn't as good as a 1/2 chance to hit with a reroll
If you're taking multiple detachments it defeats the point of taking the named characters cauae they can'tbuff everything due to different keywords
And of course Firewarriors are better at shooting than Orks because the moment a Boy touches them the Firewarriors melt. If you pay for 2 WS3+ S4 attacks and dont use them because you just want to have a shootout with Tau its your own fault.
And for the Ranger comparison, you have to keep in mind the Skitari have both better BS and access to much better special weapons than the Firewarriors do.
Pure wishlisting but Custodes either need more shots per model, or they need a beta rule like the Marines have to balance how pitifully small their model count is (and to give some merit to things other than just the jetbikes).
Eihnlazer wrote: They could double up our shots but they would have to make them damage 1 instead of 2. Custodes are too accurate to be doubling up on D2 bolters.
That's fair. Beta bolter rules would be better balanced then.
That's not even remotely true. Depending on what your save is, a +1 improvement is either massive or barely noticeable.
FNP is a whole other ballpark.
12 bolter shots hitting on 3s, with a -1 to hit = 6 hits, 3 wounds against a 6+ save = 2.5 damage on average
12 bolter shots hitting on 3s = 8 hits, 4 wounds, +1 armor = 2.66 damage ish
12 Bolter shots hitting on 3s = 8 hits, 4 wounds against a 6+ save = 3.33 with a 6+ FNP = 2.77 damage ish
(+1 armor is the same as cover)
So yeah, its different but pretty close to equal. So saying a -1 to hit is a massive buff and worth way more then +1 strength on your weapon is kind of ....dishonest. Is -1 to hit good? Yeah of course, I just don't think its a huge buff over +1 strength on the weapon.
Those minor diffrences your talking about are actually quite important, Also you can't use 1 weapon against one target profile to make generalist statements.
6 skitari shooting at Ork boy's kill 1.67
6 Firewarriors kill 1.67 oh look +1S is the same as +1 BS.
But if that was true
Why do the skitari kill 1.78 Guardsmen but the Tau only kill 1.33?
Heck let's look at a Marine incover shot at by anything at 0Ap takes a 50% damage reduction, but only a 33% reduction vrs Ap-1
Let's take Ork boy's, in cover vrs Ap0 they take 20% less damages, just don't fight primaris they only allow you to take 16.7% less in cover.
-1 to hit is the only change that gives zero cares about what the model it's on's stats are or what the weapons stats are it's flat across any weapon on a given Ballistic Skill.
Finding errata in a FAQ release is what should be viewed as odd, not as the standard.
Sure this for example.
Page 99 – Armoury of Titan Add the following sentence:‘You can only use this Stratagem once per battle.’
It is possible that they don't think that Imperial soup is a problem, and they may not think the IG are a problem - I suspect they may be aware of a goof on the IK relic/trait side of things, though.
but the problem with the castellan is not the relic, it is the IG allying him in to give it protection from assault, objective grabbers, even more fire and melee power. IK armies with castellans and other knights aren't doing super great. The only people that think that IG is ok, are people that play IG and don't want it nerfed. Now am not saying someone who writes rules for GW can't be playing IG, but it would be rather petty if they just wrote the rules and kept errata/FAQ in such a way, that their armies are better to play with. That is something maybe I would do, but those are grown adults.
Reemule wrote: While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.
I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.
85 point model chance of sniping a 4 wound character is really high. You really wont find better odds of getting over 100% point return on a shooting attack anywhere in 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Care to run the numbers on a Vindicare oneshotting Tiggy or Ahriman?
(5/6)(5/6)(5/6) to get a wound so about 60% chance to get a wound through. d3 damage with a mortal on a 3+/4+/5+ and so on. It's a little complicated and I don't have to go through all the % but with a cp reroll available it is well over a 50% to kill outright on 4 wound character with a 3+ save. You chance to deal 2 or 3 wounds is also really high.
ahriman on a disk loses infantry so has to wound of 3's but still a great chance of 1 shotting and he cost even more than tiggy.
My math says it's more like 40% to kill a 4W character/24% to kill a 5W character assuming Infantry and 3+ armour, assuming you have a CP available for rerolls.
how do you work out the reroll which can be used at any step in the process? Also wound rolls of 6 do d6 damage - how would you figure that?
The reroll is easy for our purposes. It is flatly worse than firing twice. As such, it cannot double the odds. As such, it cannot get a low-20s base chance up to the 50s even.
If you want a more exact number, you take the odds of failure due to your dice, then multiply that by the odds of success. Then add the odds of success. Remember that you can't CP the failed save (although your opponent can). This is an upper bound, but easily shows - in greater detail - that you're not even close to 50%.
The on-wounds-of-6 is covered in another thread. Doesn't move the numbers much, though.
The more this thread goes on the more sad it becomes. For better or worse this is the most balanced 40k has ever been. If you aren't playing at the most bleeding edge of competitive the system is fine. I know I'm going to say a controversial thing but could it just be that trying to make 40k as it stands, a hyper competitive game perhaps a pointless thing ? Not every game is the height of a skill showcasing exhibition. I know we want to feel like we are the tactical masterminds of the ages but the game really doesn't work that way. Really it never has. Does skill factor in sure it does but unless we were only playing the same armies with the same choices and same set ups given same board states could we really ever find out who is best, oh and we'd need to take dice away as well as that adds to much variance.
We need to either decide on good enough balance and playing games not on the bleeding edge or realize we will always have a best build that will need to be brought down to open up the next one over and over and over etc, forever. This FAQ and countless others won't ever change that fact. Can we maybe not just want armies to be nerfed because we got nerfed with our army ? The only real way for better balance is to have like 0 options and little variance between armies. I mean even on here unless something is broken or could be broken, it's worthless. Saying a unit is ok sounds like a sin. So do we all want everything broke good ? Do we want everything useless ok ? This system isn't a fine tuned machine its a fun machine and that is about all you can ask for. If imperial guard haunt your dreams,maybe you need a break or to play a slightly less tournament ready game, or get a thicker skin to loss. As I bet my bottom dollar even if guard go up 1 point there will still be crying over them unless the whole army is thrashed for right or wrong reasons.
My biggest hope is the FAQ tells people to chill, it's just a game and not a way to judge how much better or worse we are from one another. Not a machine to forever crunch math hammer and cry about how one unit is better than " My" unit. Removing fun will never make the game people want as then they'd say the game is boring. So I hope it is just small stuff, and people can eventually find the fun they once had with the game and get over the army bias and victimization that seems to plague some players.
AngryAngel80 wrote: The more this thread goes on the more sad it becomes. For better or worse this is the most balanced 40k has ever been. If you aren't playing at the most bleeding edge of competitive the system is fine. I know I'm going to say a controversial thing but could it just be that trying to make 40k as it stands, a hyper competitive game perhaps a pointless thing ? Not every game is the height of a skill showcasing exhibition. I know we want to feel like we are the tactical masterminds of the ages but the game really doesn't work that way. Really it never has. Does skill factor in sure it does but unless we were only playing the same armies with the same choices and same set ups given same board states could we really ever find out who is best, oh and we'd need to take dice away as well as that adds to much variance.
We need to either decide on good enough balance and playing games not on the bleeding edge or realize we will always have a best build that will need to be brought down to open up the next one over and over and over etc, forever. This FAQ and countless others won't ever change that fact. Can we maybe not just want armies to be nerfed because we got nerfed with our army ? The only real way for better balance is to have like 0 options and little variance between armies. I mean even on here unless something is broken or could be broken, it's worthless. Saying a unit is ok sounds like a sin. So do we all want everything broke good ? Do we want everything useless ok ? This system isn't a fine tuned machine its a fun machine and that is about all you can ask for. If imperial guard haunt your dreams,maybe you need a break or to play a slightly less tournament ready game, or get a thicker skin to loss. As I bet my bottom dollar even if guard go up 1 point there will still be crying over them unless the whole army is thrashed for right or wrong reasons.
My biggest hope is the FAQ tells people to chill, it's just a game and not a way to judge how much better or worse we are from one another. Not a machine to forever crunch math hammer and cry about how one unit is better than " My" unit. Removing fun will never make the game people want as then they'd say the game is boring. So I hope it is just small stuff, and people can eventually find the fun they once had with the game and get over the army bias and victimization that seems to plague some players.
I am definitely on the boat of "more balamce is always good, but" train myself. Mostly when said balance sacrifices flavor or creativity inside of a faction.
List buidling will always be a skill, but I would rather see 100 okay lists come out of a codex than 1 perfect one in terms of options.
AngryAngel80 wrote: The more this thread goes on the more sad it becomes. For better or worse this is the most balanced 40k has ever been. If you aren't playing at the most bleeding edge of competitive the system is fine. I know I'm going to say a controversial thing but could it just be that trying to make 40k as it stands, a hyper competitive game perhaps a pointless thing ? Not every game is the height of a skill showcasing exhibition. I know we want to feel like we are the tactical masterminds of the ages but the game really doesn't work that way. Really it never has. Does skill factor in sure it does but unless we were only playing the same armies with the same choices and same set ups given same board states could we really ever find out who is best, oh and we'd need to take dice away as well as that adds to much variance.
We need to either decide on good enough balance and playing games not on the bleeding edge or realize we will always have a best build that will need to be brought down to open up the next one over and over and over etc, forever. This FAQ and countless others won't ever change that fact. Can we maybe not just want armies to be nerfed because we got nerfed with our army ? The only real way for better balance is to have like 0 options and little variance between armies. I mean even on here unless something is broken or could be broken, it's worthless. Saying a unit is ok sounds like a sin. So do we all want everything broke good ? Do we want everything useless ok ? This system isn't a fine tuned machine its a fun machine and that is about all you can ask for. If imperial guard haunt your dreams,maybe you need a break or to play a slightly less tournament ready game, or get a thicker skin to loss. As I bet my bottom dollar even if guard go up 1 point there will still be crying over them unless the whole army is thrashed for right or wrong reasons.
My biggest hope is the FAQ tells people to chill, it's just a game and not a way to judge how much better or worse we are from one another. Not a machine to forever crunch math hammer and cry about how one unit is better than " My" unit. Removing fun will never make the game people want as then they'd say the game is boring. So I hope it is just small stuff, and people can eventually find the fun they once had with the game and get over the army bias and victimization that seems to plague some players.
I have three wishes. One is that flamers range is increased to 9”. Second is that you can always fire a flamer on overwatch no matter the charge distance of your opponent. Lastly is some kind of Inquisition update.
Nerak wrote: I have three wishes. One is that flamers range is increased to 9”. Second is that you can always fire a flamer on overwatch no matter the charge distance of your opponent. Lastly is some kind of Inquisition update.
What's the purpose of the 9" flamer range? You still wouldn't be able to use it after deep striking, as by definition an enemy unit must be more than 9" away in that instance. Do you want 10" flamers? I could understand that.
Nerak wrote: I have three wishes. One is that flamers range is increased to 9”. Second is that you can always fire a flamer on overwatch no matter the charge distance of your opponent. Lastly is some kind of Inquisition update.
What's the purpose of the 9" flamer range? You still wouldn't be able to use it after deep striking, as by definition an enemy unit must be more than 9" away in that instance. Do you want 10" flamers? I could understand that.[/quote
I'd just like it if they ignored charged distance & cover all together and kept 8".
If they're going to make flamers better, I'd rather it be by making them better for all armies rather than trying to shoe horn them into anti-charge weapons.
10 inch flamers would actually be pretty great, for the flamer loving public. For those who are flamer haters, it would suck. I miss combi flamers feeling like a valid option on the units that could take them though.
It doesn't matter what Ork boyz do to Guardsmen, they lose no matter what. Ironically, the best way for ork infantry to kill guardsmen at near parity is to get in range as Bad Moonz. 30 SHoota boyz fire 60 shots for 20 hits and 20 rerolls which result in 7 more hits. 27 hits = 18 wounds, so basically killing 12 guard. Of course 30 Shoota boyz = 210pts and 12 guard = 48pts of course, if GW was smart and reduced the price of boyz back to 6 and increased the cost of guard to 5 that would make it a lot closer in parity.
Comparing units 1 vs 1 like that is silly though. Orks don't come walking across field like that. They charge 9" away with overwatch as only shooting before charge roll. Often needing 8 on the charge.
Stratagems and support is core of 40k. If you aren't factoring those you aren"t comparing 40k units(
It is possible that they don't think that Imperial soup is a problem, and they may not think the IG are a problem - I suspect they may be aware of a goof on the IK relic/trait side of things, though.
but the problem with the castellan is not the relic, it is the IG allying him in to give it protection from assault, objective grabbers, even more fire and melee power. IK armies with castellans and other knights aren't doing super great. The only people that think that IG is ok, are people that play IG and don't want it nerfed. Now am not saying someone who writes rules for GW can't be playing IG, but it would be rather petty if they just wrote the rules and kept errata/FAQ in such a way, that their armies are better to play with. That is something maybe I would do, but those are grown adults.
If the base Castellan with extra CP was an issue, we'd be seeing Cultist-powered versions in Chaos armies, which we're not.
Last I checked, the consensus was that the problem was the combo of Cawl's Wrath, House Raven, and possibly Order of Companions (I think it is?), none of which are available to Chaos (AFAIK - don't have CA2018 to hand). Now, being able to power some of the strats with IGCP is certainly a bonus, but it was the extra sauce available to IK that made the difference.
AngryAngel80 wrote: The more this thread goes on the more sad it becomes. For better or worse this is the most balanced 40k has ever been. If you aren't playing at the most bleeding edge of competitive the system is fine. I know I'm going to say a controversial thing but could it just be that trying to make 40k as it stands, a hyper competitive game perhaps a pointless thing ? Not every game is the height of a skill showcasing exhibition. I know we want to feel like we are the tactical masterminds of the ages but the game really doesn't work that way. Really it never has. Does skill factor in sure it does but unless we were only playing the same armies with the same choices and same set ups given same board states could we really ever find out who is best, oh and we'd need to take dice away as well as that adds to much variance.
We need to either decide on good enough balance and playing games not on the bleeding edge or realize we will always have a best build that will need to be brought down to open up the next one over and over and over etc, forever. This FAQ and countless others won't ever change that fact. Can we maybe not just want armies to be nerfed because we got nerfed with our army ? The only real way for better balance is to have like 0 options and little variance between armies. I mean even on here unless something is broken or could be broken, it's worthless. Saying a unit is ok sounds like a sin. So do we all want everything broke good ? Do we want everything useless ok ? This system isn't a fine tuned machine its a fun machine and that is about all you can ask for. If imperial guard haunt your dreams,maybe you need a break or to play a slightly less tournament ready game, or get a thicker skin to loss. As I bet my bottom dollar even if guard go up 1 point there will still be crying over them unless the whole army is thrashed for right or wrong reasons.
My biggest hope is the FAQ tells people to chill, it's just a game and not a way to judge how much better or worse we are from one another. Not a machine to forever crunch math hammer and cry about how one unit is better than " My" unit. Removing fun will never make the game people want as then they'd say the game is boring. So I hope it is just small stuff, and people can eventually find the fun they once had with the game and get over the army bias and victimization that seems to plague some players.
Ok but if we went with this thinking we would be all living in mud huts, and the pain medicin would be sticking a red hot poker in your ear. Just because the game was bad in the past, doesn't mean it has to be bad now or in the future. People that claim that w40k is great right now, accuse those that want fixs, that we want the game to have all armies at 50/50 win ratio. But it is not the case. People want to not have armies costing the same money, but being night and day as far as power goes. Worse most of the people that tell others to chill play armies that are good to pay with to begin with. I mean where are the legions of GK players telling others to chill and "it is just a game" others ? Math crunching math maybe not fun to all, but sometimes it is needed to show how big a gap exists between those for fun IG armies and bottom tier stuff. Now I get it, if someone plays a good army they don't want it nerfed. But it is really not peoples foult that GW doesn't know how to make stuff better, just how to nerf stuff in to the ground. So if the gap between good and bad can only be made smaller by GW nerfing the living hell out of good armies, then it should be done. At worse people are going to have the same levels as fun, as every army is going to be as unfun to play as the other. There won't be people playing some armies wondering what others talk about when they point out that edition seems to be rather unfun to play right now.
10 inch flamers would actually be pretty great, for the flamer loving public. For those who are flamer haters, it would suck. I miss combi flamers feeling like a valid option on the units that could take them though.
And then your roll a 1 on number of hits and your glorious anti horde weapon is worse then a lascannon vs orcs. Flamer type weapons should have a flat number of auto hits they do, to be a real counter to horde units. Then they can even have a 6" range, as long as shoting with 1-2 of them means a 30 model units with low saves gets hurt real bad.
nordsturmking wrote: I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.
Terrain needs better rules.
Ynnari needs a little nerf.
Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.
GK and BA and a few others need a buff
This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.
If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.
If the base Castellan with extra CP was an issue, we'd be seeing Cultist-powered versions in Chaos armies, which we're not.
Last I checked, the consensus was that the problem was the combo of Cawl's Wrath, House Raven, and possibly Order of Companions (I think it is?), none of which are available to Chaos (AFAIK - don't have CA2018 to hand). Now, being able to power some of the strats with IGCP is certainly a bonus, but it was the extra sauce available to IK that made the difference.
Well, of course, The problem is the CP powered Castellan, because he has good (but expensive) stratagems that take him to 9000.
The Cultist or Nurgling-powered Castellan + possibly other Knights would obviously be just as good, if he had Stratagems such as Order of Companions as well as ridiculous warlord traits/relics (which also cost CPs to take) to use those CP.
Inversely, the Imperial Guard/AdMech powered Castellan obviously wouldn't be as bad, if all he did was use basic re-rolls with all those CP. No order of companions. No shooting at top profile. No worthwhile relics/warlord traits to choose from (by spending CP on them). Etc.. (Though arguably he would still not be "balanced" point for point in survivability/damage output with other fire support options in the game such as Predators, Devastators or whatever).
And Ion Bulkwark is arguably among the worst parts of it (especially as it stacks with Rotate Ion Shield). But even if they cap Knight Invuls at 4+, Ion Bulwark over 6 game turns is essentially (up to) 18 CP you don't have to spend. More realistically, if the Castellan dies, say, turn 3, it's still 9 CP-equivalent of a warlord trait that eats up enemy firepower, etc.. Not even old-school pre-Farming-nerf Grand Strategist was always this efficient/good in CP-equivalent. Stacking it with Rotate Ion Shields is just the cherry on top.
AngryAngel80 wrote: 10 inch flamers would actually be pretty great, for the flamer loving public. For those who are flamer haters, it would suck. I miss combi flamers feeling like a valid option on the units that could take them though.
I do think it's pretty damn silly that the iconic terminator with a flamer can't use it out of Deepstrike, the iconic method of deploying a terminator.
AngryAngel80 wrote: 10 inch flamers would actually be pretty great, for the flamer loving public. For those who are flamer haters, it would suck. I miss combi flamers feeling like a valid option on the units that could take them though.
I do think it's pretty damn silly that the iconic terminator with a flamer can't use it out of Deepstrike, the iconic method of deploying a terminator.
I think GW needs to experiment more with special bonuses for certain units. Something like Terminators getting +1 extra inch on flamers would be interesting. It would boost an under utilized unit while keeping it away from units that could spam Flamers until the cows come and become sentient. I think the bolter beta rules were an interesting approach that boosted a few under-utilized units although I would also argue that the blanket cheque of upgrades it gave was also a problem as it boosted things that probably needed less boosting in comparison to underutilized units.
AngryAngel80 wrote: 10 inch flamers would actually be pretty great, for the flamer loving public. For those who are flamer haters, it would suck. I miss combi flamers feeling like a valid option on the units that could take them though.
I do think it's pretty damn silly that the iconic terminator with a flamer can't use it out of Deepstrike, the iconic method of deploying a terminator.
I think GW needs to experiment more with special bonuses for certain units. Something like Terminators getting +1 extra inch on flamers would be interesting. It would boost an under utilized unit while keeping it away from units that could spam Flamers until the cows come and become sentient. I think the bolter beta rules were an interesting approach that boosted a few under-utilized units although I would also argue that the blanket cheque of upgrades it gave was also a problem as it boosted things that probably needed less boosting in comparison to underutilized units.
They'd need 2" (sorry to be that guy hah).
But yeah, that would be a nice approach. Terminators generally need more love, but that's been the case since day 1 of this edition.
nordsturmking wrote: I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.
Terrain needs better rules.
Ynnari needs a little nerf.
Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.
GK and BA and a few others need a buff
This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.
If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.
A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.
Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.
An Errata I would like to see is the Heavy Plasma Cannon. now it has the same profile of a Plasma Cannon, it seems to me it lacks of +1S.
about Terminator, I’d like to see them move and shoot without penalties and hallow them to take all of the options you find on the sprue. 5 dudes with 3 different heavy weapons
AngryAngel80 wrote: The more this thread goes on the more sad it becomes. For better or worse this is the most balanced 40k has ever been. If you aren't playing at the most bleeding edge of competitive the system is fine. I know I'm going to say a controversial thing but could it just be that trying to make 40k as it stands, a hyper competitive game perhaps a pointless thing ? Not every game is the height of a skill showcasing exhibition. I know we want to feel like we are the tactical masterminds of the ages but the game really doesn't work that way. Really it never has. Does skill factor in sure it does but unless we were only playing the same armies with the same choices and same set ups given same board states could we really ever find out who is best, oh and we'd need to take dice away as well as that adds to much variance.
We need to either decide on good enough balance and playing games not on the bleeding edge or realize we will always have a best build that will need to be brought down to open up the next one over and over and over etc, forever. This FAQ and countless others won't ever change that fact. Can we maybe not just want armies to be nerfed because we got nerfed with our army ? The only real way for better balance is to have like 0 options and little variance between armies. I mean even on here unless something is broken or could be broken, it's worthless. Saying a unit is ok sounds like a sin. So do we all want everything broke good ? Do we want everything useless ok ? This system isn't a fine tuned machine its a fun machine and that is about all you can ask for. If imperial guard haunt your dreams,maybe you need a break or to play a slightly less tournament ready game, or get a thicker skin to loss. As I bet my bottom dollar even if guard go up 1 point there will still be crying over them unless the whole army is thrashed for right or wrong reasons.
My biggest hope is the FAQ tells people to chill, it's just a game and not a way to judge how much better or worse we are from one another. Not a machine to forever crunch math hammer and cry about how one unit is better than " My" unit. Removing fun will never make the game people want as then they'd say the game is boring. So I hope it is just small stuff, and people can eventually find the fun they once had with the game and get over the army bias and victimization that seems to plague some players.
Ok but if we went with this thinking we would be all living in mud huts, and the pain medicin would be sticking a red hot poker in your ear. Just because the game was bad in the past, doesn't mean it has to be bad now or in the future. People that claim that w40k is great right now, accuse those that want fixs, that we want the game to have all armies at 50/50 win ratio. But it is not the case. People want to not have armies costing the same money, but being night and day as far as power goes. Worse most of the people that tell others to chill play armies that are good to pay with to begin with. I mean where are the legions of GK players telling others to chill and "it is just a game" others ? Math crunching math maybe not fun to all, but sometimes it is needed to show how big a gap exists between those for fun IG armies and bottom tier stuff. Now I get it, if someone plays a good army they don't want it nerfed. But it is really not peoples foult that GW doesn't know how to make stuff better, just how to nerf stuff in to the ground. So if the gap between good and bad can only be made smaller by GW nerfing the living hell out of good armies, then it should be done. At worse people are going to have the same levels as fun, as every army is going to be as unfun to play as the other. There won't be people playing some armies wondering what others talk about when they point out that edition seems to be rather unfun to play right now.
10 inch flamers would actually be pretty great, for the flamer loving public. For those who are flamer haters, it would suck. I miss combi flamers feeling like a valid option on the units that could take them though.
And then your roll a 1 on number of hits and your glorious anti horde weapon is worse then a lascannon vs orcs. Flamer type weapons should have a flat number of auto hits they do, to be a real counter to horde units. Then they can even have a 6" range, as long as shoting with 1-2 of them means a 30 model units with low saves gets hurt real bad.
No one is saying better balance is bad. All anyone is saying is boring, dull armies don't make the game fun for anyone. Even if guard go up a point, even if you take a knife to each and every unit they book has till guard are little more than an absolute auto loss at even the most casual level. Guess what ? There will still be a best army, and a best unit and it will still run rampant all over the scene and the GK will still suck, they won't in any way nerf everything enough GK will be on parity without re-working them entirely with a new book, that is honestly their only hope.
I've played bad armies before, for a long time and even won games still. It is possible. Now I say that assuming you play against people who want both sides to have fun and from the short time I've been here it seems like where ever you game has to be in dantes inferno where there is only suffering and broken dreams and GK could never ever win, even in dreams. Though I recall your collection isn't really even ideal, even for a good GK list. So I have to point out this as well, there has never been a time in 40k where the amount of money you spent on your army meant anything in relation to how good it ran against other armies. That is why you do research, learn the game a bit, pick up the army that is effective and fits your play style. There will never be a time in this game where I can buy 200$ worth of units, regardless of what they are and come in at the same use as another random collection of models that cost the same. How much the model costs means nothing to its effectiveness in game and it never will I'm willing to bet on that.
I hope that GW never listen to the people wanting to see everyone nerfed and instead focus on bringing up the weaker factions and just touching on actual problem units. The fact is, people wouldn't give a rats rear end about IS from IG if that knight combo wasn't there. The nerfing of cultists was also dumb, and no one called for that. You don't need to math hammer to know when one unit is just better than another, that can often be easily discerned naturally. If you played the game long enough you just pick it up. From my first game of 8th edition I knew that smite was broke as a joke, commissars were way too good, conscripts were great and the standard value of guard infantry was great. That isn't hard to understand and wasn't hard to pick up on. Mathhammer while helpful isn't always a needed tool for the obvious. Many of these issues I blame on allies and I doubt that will change.
I will leave this idea here as well. It is telling of a mentality to want everyone else brought down so no one has fun, as opposed to your own faction brought up so you can compete. There will never be enough nerfs to make GK awesome, at this point, GW wouldn't do that to their own game. The people that say to chill, are just saying that, chill. It is at the end of the day, just a game and if it causes so much displeasure it may be a time to step away for a bit, work on a different army maybe if you just can't step away. Many of us have played a low tier army for a long long time and even won. It's hard to imagine, but guard were crap for awhile too. Most factions have had their time at the bottom of the pile. However the balance in every game has never been better. In editions past the balance was bad, some armies could bring a list with little thought at all placed into it and just roll your army off the board. That has been much less the case with this edition, so far.
In closing, they already said these won't be sweeping changes, so thinking it's going to be the magic hammer that fixes a bottom of the bin army is just delusional at this point. The problems that cast disparity on the balance of armies are in the system itself not just on any one unit. Imbalance is like Hydra, cut off one head, and 10 more take its place, hail hydra.
Yes, flamers rolling a one sucks, it sucks with blasts weapons as well but I doubt they will change universally how those weapons work, changing ranges would do worlds to make them more viable though and that they may do which is why I agreed that would be nice in the FAQ.
Making everything over the top ridiculous is just as terrible as nerfing the problems. See what they are doing with AOS right now to see how this works; each new faction has some OP gimmick, but some have it more crazy than others so you still have some options being way OP despite trying to make everything OP.
It needs to be both: Nerf the op things, buff the underperforming things. It doesn't have to be huge nerfs, but that's how you correctly balance things.
The two major issues are that 1) The game itself is largely bloated and one dimensional, with only very shallow tactics bolted onto a poor imitation of combo stacking with none of the depth, and 2) The 40k design team's frequent lack of actually understanding the issue and instead just band-aid fixing what's been dominating at tournaments months before since fixing the main issues would require the rules to be rewritten, and they've said this is the "last" edition.
It doesn't matter what Ork boyz do to Guardsmen, they lose no matter what. Ironically, the best way for ork infantry to kill guardsmen at near parity is to get in range as Bad Moonz. 30 SHoota boyz fire 60 shots for 20 hits and 20 rerolls which result in 7 more hits. 27 hits = 18 wounds, so basically killing 12 guard. Of course 30 Shoota boyz = 210pts and 12 guard = 48pts of course, if GW was smart and reduced the price of boyz back to 6 and increased the cost of guard to 5 that would make it a lot closer in parity.
Comparing units 1 vs 1 like that is silly though. Orks don't come walking across field like that. They charge 9" away with overwatch as only shooting before charge roll. Often needing 8 on the charge.
Stratagems and support is core of 40k. If you aren't factoring those you aren"t comparing 40k units(
I was responding to a guy comparing IG to everyone's troops Tneva, his math was wrong for Ork boyz, he priced us at 6ppm and still had us losing horribly.
But as far as your comment about 9' away, that isn't true though. You can Jump 1 squad a turn which means turn 1 you will only have 1 unit of boyz getting into CC if they are lucky enough to get their charge off, even then they will be subjected to overwatch, and depending on what that overwatch is, it could literally kill 30 boyz. I've seen a Tau onion eviscerate 3 mobz in 1 turn. 2 in the shooting phase and 1 in the charge phase. Personally, what I do is put 1 or 2 mobz in deep strike with strats and then team them with da jump to have my deep striking army appear turn 2 while my gun line loota bomb whittles down the enemy.
Regarding flamers: I feel like rather than changing them, giving every army that can deepstrike access to the Seraphim's stratagem from the Sister's beta tules would be better.
nordsturmking wrote: I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.
Terrain needs better rules.
Ynnari needs a little nerf.
Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.
GK and BA and a few others need a buff
This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.
If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.
A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.
Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.
So what you were really complaining about wasn't that knights generate cps for their lance detachments, but that they quickly get out of hand when you insert cheap screening bodies and cp on top of one.
A sentiment shared quite heavily through the thread, it just struck me as odd as you were the only person I'd seen pull out the lance rules specifically as something to tone down.
Do you think its possible for GW just to announce that they are getting rid of FAQ and errata and are just going to do a Big update to the game every 6 months? It seems kind of stupid for people to have to wait a year for point cuts/increases and new rules to help under performing and over performing units/armies. At the same time, it seems just as dumb not to answer frequently asked questions in a more timely manner. I mean hell, hire a guy to just update the game's FAQ every month, it would be simple.
SemperMortis wrote: Do you think its possible for GW just to announce that they are getting rid of FAQ and errata and are just going to do a Big update to the game every 6 months? It seems kind of stupid for people to have to wait a year for point cuts/increases and new rules to help under performing and over performing units/armies. At the same time, it seems just as dumb not to answer frequently asked questions in a more timely manner. I mean hell, hire a guy to just update the game's FAQ every month, it would be simple.
"But if we update the FAQs on the first of every month people will get confused!" - GW Head of Boomer division.
They could put out an FAQ once every two months where they pick 5 or 6 of the RAW snaffles in BaconCatBug's sig. and add in a Beta rule for something that's obviously working, and they'd have content for years.
SemperMortis wrote: Do you think its possible for GW just to announce that they are getting rid of FAQ and errata and are just going to do a Big update to the game every 6 months? It seems kind of stupid for people to have to wait a year for point cuts/increases and new rules to help under performing and over performing units/armies. At the same time, it seems just as dumb not to answer frequently asked questions in a more timely manner. I mean hell, hire a guy to just update the game's FAQ every month, it would be simple.
"But if we update the FAQs on the first of every month people will get confused!" - GW Head of Boomer division.
You don't realize how difficult it would be to keep up with changes at tournaments. Meaningful monthly updates would likely be detrimental.
SemperMortis wrote: Do you think its possible for GW just to announce that they are getting rid of FAQ and errata and are just going to do a Big update to the game every 6 months? It seems kind of stupid for people to have to wait a year for point cuts/increases and new rules to help under performing and over performing units/armies. At the same time, it seems just as dumb not to answer frequently asked questions in a more timely manner. I mean hell, hire a guy to just update the game's FAQ every month, it would be simple.
"But if we update the FAQs on the first of every month people will get confused!" - GW Head of Boomer division.
You don't realize how difficult it would be to keep up with changes at tournaments. Meaningful monthly updates would likely be detrimental.
Yeah, especially if GW didn't change how FAQs were distributed. We'd be having to scroll through dozens of documents just to figure out how the rules currently worked.
"April FAQ Update: This month, we've cleared up some rules for the following factions: X, Y and Z - be sure to check out their respective FAQs for full details! In addition, we've noticed [MODEL/UNIT] isn't doing so hot, so here's a Beta Rule we'd like you to try out for us. [BETA RULE]. We're looking to reassess the rule in about 6 months time, so until then be sure to send us your feedback at [address]!"
How would that be difficult? Why are people always making excuses for GW's backwards update policies?
It's bad enough that I'm using 3 books to put together my current Primaris army (C:SM, Vanguard SM, and CA:2018), if I had to keep up on constant FAQ updates I'd likely end up getting lost at some point.
Twice a year is about right. It lets them tackle major problems, see trends and play out over multiple large tournaments and figure out where the game isn't playing like they want. Doing it every month means a constantly shifting target that doesn't let them accurately see where the game is as tournaments wouldn't adopt the rules in a timely manner to see the changes play out.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: The beta rules could be quarterly, bi-annually, whatever. But having to wait for a once-a-year BIG FAQ to fix obvious rules errors is just dumb.
Big FAQ is twice a year. We used to get FAQs maybe once a year (with some armies left untouched for surprising amounts of time regardless how many emails you sent in) but now it's twice a year and they do a lot better about answering questions.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Better than before =/= good enough now, especially since "before" was 7th edition.
Before was also 6th ed, 5th ed (previously called "the best edition"), 4th ed (the forgotten edition), and 3rd edition (the previous best edition before 5th). Seriously, twice a year is better than we've had it before since they started doing online FAQs and frankly the idea that it's not good enough is frankly just silly.
The reason it's not good enough right now (ignoring "back in my day" arguments which I'm not even going to touch) is because of the way content gets put out by GW, riddled with silly errors (65pt Oblits!), way too fast for a bi-annual FAQ to cover.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: The reason it's not good enough right now (ignoring "back in my day" arguments which I'm not even going to touch) is because of the way content gets put out by GW, riddled with silly errors (65pt Oblits!), way too fast for a bi-annual FAQ to cover.
But that's why they FAQ individual releases a couple of weeks after they come out?
Phaeron Gukk wrote: The reason it's not good enough right now (ignoring "back in my day" arguments which I'm not even going to touch) is because of the way content gets put out by GW, riddled with silly errors (65pt Oblits!), way too fast for a bi-annual FAQ to cover.
They do a post codex release FAQ that's outside of the standard FAQ schedule. Seriously, you're making up reasons to complain at this point. The FAQ schedule is as good as it can be. The only way the rules could be better than they currently are is if they opened every codex up to an open beta before they go to printing, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: The reason it's not good enough right now (ignoring "back in my day" arguments which I'm not even going to touch) is because of the way content gets put out by GW, riddled with silly errors (65pt Oblits!), way too fast for a bi-annual FAQ to cover.
They do a post codex release FAQ that's outside of the standard FAQ schedule. Seriously, you're making up reasons to complain at this point. The FAQ schedule is as good as it can be. The only way the rules could be better than they currently are is if they opened every codex up to an open beta before they go to printing, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Where is it for Shadowspear? It should have come out already.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: "April FAQ Update: This month, we've cleared up some rules for the following factions: X, Y and Z - be sure to check out their respective FAQs for full details! In addition, we've noticed [MODEL/UNIT] isn't doing so hot, so here's a Beta Rule we'd like you to try out for us. [BETA RULE]. We're looking to reassess the rule in about 6 months time, so until then be sure to send us your feedback at [address]!"
How would that be difficult? Why are people always making excuses for GW's backwards update policies?
Christ it has nothing to do with GW.
Warhammer takes 3+ hours to play for one game not considering list building time. Changes take lots of games to process. You could be prepared one month and then another tweak comes along and changes how you approach the meta upsetting all the previous work instantly.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: The reason it's not good enough right now (ignoring "back in my day" arguments which I'm not even going to touch) is because of the way content gets put out by GW, riddled with silly errors (65pt Oblits!), way too fast for a bi-annual FAQ to cover.
They do a post codex release FAQ that's outside of the standard FAQ schedule. Seriously, you're making up reasons to complain at this point. The FAQ schedule is as good as it can be. The only way the rules could be better than they currently are is if they opened every codex up to an open beta before they go to printing, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Where is it for Shadowspear? It should have come out already.
Have they done it for those mini codexes that come in the box before? I haven't been keeping track.
If they do, then Shadowspear might be getting left alone since there is likely a new Marine codex coming out to roll Shadowspear's new units into (along with all the points changes from 2018).
Phaeron Gukk wrote: The reason it's not good enough right now (ignoring "back in my day" arguments which I'm not even going to touch) is because of the way content gets put out by GW, riddled with silly errors (65pt Oblits!), way too fast for a bi-annual FAQ to cover.
They do a post codex release FAQ that's outside of the standard FAQ schedule. Seriously, you're making up reasons to complain at this point. The FAQ schedule is as good as it can be. The only way the rules could be better than they currently are is if they opened every codex up to an open beta before they go to printing, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Where is it for Shadowspear? It should have come out already.
When there's a big FAQ about to drop they hold off on releasing other FAQs until then.
Reemule wrote: While the odds are poor on sniping Arhiman or even tiggy with the Vidicare, even if you don't get a kill you generally see him get into duck and cover mode. Neither of those charecters can really take 2 shots well.
I found my will to play a bit dimmed right now. I'm only working on modeling and wondering what is going to be worth anything on the table after the FAQ.
85 point model chance of sniping a 4 wound character is really high. You really wont find better odds of getting over 100% point return on a shooting attack anywhere in 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Care to run the numbers on a Vindicare oneshotting Tiggy or Ahriman?
(5/6)(5/6)(5/6) to get a wound so about 60% chance to get a wound through. d3 damage with a mortal on a 3+/4+/5+ and so on. It's a little complicated and I don't have to go through all the % but with a cp reroll available it is well over a 50% to kill outright on 4 wound character with a 3+ save. You chance to deal 2 or 3 wounds is also really high.
ahriman on a disk loses infantry so has to wound of 3's but still a great chance of 1 shotting and he cost even more than tiggy.
My math says it's more like 40% to kill a 4W character/24% to kill a 5W character assuming Infantry and 3+ armour, assuming you have a CP available for rerolls.
how do you work out the reroll which can be used at any step in the process? Also wound rolls of 6 do d6 damage - how would you figure that?
I figured I'd post a little maths explanation for those who want to know.
The probability of a Vindicare Killing Ahriman without rerolls
So the probabilities are as follows (with no reroll):
BrianDavion wrote: I'd like to see CSMs get a boltgun, bolt pistol and CCW all at once, it'd really be a nice moderate fix for the army
They had the opportunity to do that with the recent update but didn't. I don't know why they didn't, but they didn't. I still own a 3 armed CSM with all three who is illegal because of the removal of that option.
The current FAQ/Errata set-up is a logistical mess, unclear at the best of times and perpetually 6 months behind for even obvious fixes such as the nonsense in BaconCatBug's sig. If GW made a concerted effort to fix even one of those things, that would be a start.
As an aside, the rules for how a Monolith transports Necron units (i.e. one of its main functions) is still an absolute dumpster fire that needs to be torn down and re-written from the ground up. The unit being gated in deep-strikes but it's kinda like getting out of a transport but still like deep striking? What?
BrianDavion wrote: I'd like to see CSMs get a boltgun, bolt pistol and CCW all at once, it'd really be a nice moderate fix for the army
They had the opportunity to do that with the recent update but didn't. I don't know why they didn't, but they didn't. I still own a 3 armed CSM with all three who is illegal because of the removal of that option.
yeah it annoys me, CSMs are clearly supposed to be more melee centric, but a chainsword isn't worth the trade for a bolt gun. but making CSMs similer to grey hunters would IMHO transform the army
I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.
Bravo.
So, really ~39% danger zone for casting and 13% catastrophe. Reroll will kick it up a bit and this is against a character with a 1 pip advantage to wounding.
greyknight12 wrote: What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.
Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)
That's a good point, but I don't track the tournament results with any particular interest beyond the broad strokes. Did anything happen at Adepticon this year that was at-odds with our previous/current understanding of problem units/armies?
greyknight12 wrote: What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.
Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)
Have some patience ffs.
2 weeks - it came on April 16th. I'm reasonably certain we'll see it on Monday.
greyknight12 wrote: What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.
Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)
Have some patience ffs.
2 weeks - it came on April 16th. I'm reasonably certain we'll see it on Monday.
greyknight12 wrote: What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.
Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)
Have some patience ffs.
I was going to say it seems to be around the end of the month, so as long as it comes out before the end of April it's on time.
greyknight12 wrote: What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.
Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)
Have some patience ffs.
2 weeks - it came on April 16th. I'm reasonably certain we'll see it on Monday.
it came out the 16th but Adepticon was 22-25 March.
So 3 weeks later.
Weird. I could have sworn it was the last weekend, but I guess that wouldn't make sense. Well, with any luck there are fewer changes for them to process this time.
greyknight12 wrote: What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.
Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)
Have some patience ffs.
Given the 22nd is Easter Monday, and a bank holiday in the UK, do you think they'd post it then?
Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.
Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD* and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.
Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.
AngryAngel80 wrote: In closing, they already said these won't be sweeping changes, so thinking it's going to be the magic hammer that fixes a bottom of the bin army is just delusional at this point. The problems that cast disparity on the balance of armies are in the system itself not just on any one unit. Imbalance is like Hydra, cut off one head, and 10 more take its place, hail hydra.
This line of argument doesn't make much sense in the context of:
AngryAngel80 wrote: The more this thread goes on the more sad it becomes. For better or worse this is the most balanced 40k has ever been.
which has been achieved through points changes, including more than a few "magic hammers". Chapter Approved seems very successful at keeping the hydra in check. We just want to to be even better.
You can argue certain factions are going to be more "fun" - or interactive - than others based on their rules and that can't very easily be fixed without a full re-write. I'd agree. At the danger of exaggeration - there is more synergy in most GSC unit entries than the entire GK book. In that respect its a badly designed codex. I personally think GK are up there as the most boring army in the game, because I have never liked their magic marine incarnation and find the difference between strike marines, purifiers, interceptors etc fairly limited. But I guess someone could say the same for BA and death company, sanguinary guard etc.
But "being boring" isn't GK's fundamental problem. The problem is that so much of the the GK book is overcosted. Lets start with the fact there is no way on earth a Strike Marine is worth 21 points. We can with scarcely any changes beyond making say Strike Marines 17-18 points, and GK would become "more" viable. Repeat for the other 1 wound MEQ choices. (Tbh this applies to most 1 wound MEQ choices across all armies). After all this is what happened with Necrons. Did it make the whole book competitive? No - but there are a small confluence of units you can build around that are up to the standard.
I'd expect the FAQ around Friday next week at the earliest. With the holiday weekend next week it seems like something that'd be later rather than sooner.
SemperMortis wrote: Do you think its possible for GW just to announce that they are getting rid of FAQ and errata and are just going to do a Big update to the game every 6 months? It seems kind of stupid for people to have to wait a year for point cuts/increases and new rules to help under performing and over performing units/armies. At the same time, it seems just as dumb not to answer frequently asked questions in a more timely manner. I mean hell, hire a guy to just update the game's FAQ every month, it would be simple.
"But if we update the FAQs on the first of every month people will get confused!" - GW Head of Boomer division.
You don't realize how difficult it would be to keep up with changes at tournaments. Meaningful monthly updates would likely be detrimental.
Horribly difficult. Let me give it a shot though.....
TOURNAMENT WEBSITE: We will be following the most up to date FAQ for this tournament. Plan accordingly.
DIFFERENT TOURNAMENT'S WEBSITE: We will be following the FAQ as of MONTH/DAY/YEAR Plan accordingly.
Yeah i understand how hard it would be to update a digital FAQ once a month or once every 2-3 months as opposed to twice a year.
I mean, can you imagine having to have Steve the intern update a website's FAQ page once every 4-12 weeks? How would he manage that much work in such a short time frame. The last FAQ in November released so much content I can't even keep track of it all. 3 Beta rules being made into true rules, 1 explanation of a beta rule and then 2 new beta rules as well as a quick run down of CP adjustments made to things considered "OP". 6 pages total, and if they actually used those massive blank spots on the pages they could probably bring it to 3 or 4 pages. I just don't think Steve the intern can handle 4 pages of typing and/or copy pasting a bunch of images onto a page, that would easily take 2 or maybe even 3 Steve's 5 to 6 months.
As for answering actual FAQ questions...the design team is just way to busy......doing stuff, yeah...stuff. Having Steve the Interns cousin, Stephen, go through FAQ e-mails and pick the 5-6 most commonly asked questions once a month and then having a hour long designer meeting to answer those questions would just be over the top as far as manpower requirements....Who would make the coffee? Who would bring the donuts?
ClockworkZion wrote: I'd expect the FAQ around Friday next week at the earliest. With the holiday weekend next week it seems like something that'd be later rather than sooner.
Yeah it most likely won't drop Friday coming. Bank holiday. Could be tomorrow if we're lucky, but could end up bumped to a week on Tuesday.
greyknight12 wrote: What I want to see from the Big FAQ at this point is its existence.
Ah fickle memory.
Last years April faq was 3 weeks after Adepticon.
There is nothing weird about what is happening right now. The faq will likely arrive either this Monday or the Monday after (22nd)
Have some patience ffs.
Given the 22nd is Easter Monday, and a bank holiday in the UK, do you think they'd post it then?
Do it tuesday. They can do it Monday while no one is in the office, automatic timed publications are a thing on the internet.
Ice_can wrote:Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.
Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.
Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.
que tantrum. I wish more people would look at the game this way.
Ice_can wrote:Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.
Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.
Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.
que tantrum. I wish more people would look at the game this way.
True but at the same time professional game devs should be able to spot the offensively broken combos or imbalances when top and longterm players can do it just by reading codex's.
Ice_can wrote:Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.
Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.
Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.
que tantrum. I wish more people would look at the game this way.
True but at the same time professional game devs should be able to spot the offensively broken combos or imbalances when top and longterm players can do it just by reading codex's.
Ice_can wrote: Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.
Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.
Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.
Who cares?
You know how many possible combinations of armies you can make from all Codex entries that exist.
Out of that pool, every single army list that was simply submitted to adepticon was probably in the 0.000000000001% of the most powerful OP stuff, including all lists that went 0-6 and whatnot, and, mathematically, are all likely deserving a heavy nerf simply because a tournament player picked it over the literally billions of other inferior combinations and lists those lists by definition aren't balanced against.
Ice_can wrote: Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.
Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.
Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.
I have not received my WD. Everyone seems to be delayed. Are you speaking from facts or just being silly?
No, this WD has a teaser for Ynnari for the next WD, and many are joking Ynnari will be buffed. No one has leaked whats in the next WD yet, none that i have seen at least. Give it 2 weeks and leaks should be out.
Horribly difficult. Let me give it a shot though.....
TOURNAMENT WEBSITE: We will be following the most up to date FAQ for this tournament. Plan accordingly.
DIFFERENT TOURNAMENT'S WEBSITE: We will be following the FAQ as of MONTH/DAY/YEAR Plan accordingly.
Yeah i understand how hard it would be to update a digital FAQ once a month or once every 2-3 months as opposed to twice a year.
I mean, can you imagine having to have Steve the intern update a website's FAQ page once every 4-12 weeks? How would he manage that much work in such a short time frame. The last FAQ in November released so much content I can't even keep track of it all. 3 Beta rules being made into true rules, 1 explanation of a beta rule and then 2 new beta rules as well as a quick run down of CP adjustments made to things considered "OP". 6 pages total, and if they actually used those massive blank spots on the pages they could probably bring it to 3 or 4 pages. I just don't think Steve the intern can handle 4 pages of typing and/or copy pasting a bunch of images onto a page, that would easily take 2 or maybe even 3 Steve's 5 to 6 months.
As for answering actual FAQ questions...the design team is just way to busy......doing stuff, yeah...stuff. Having Steve the Interns cousin, Stephen, go through FAQ e-mails and pick the 5-6 most commonly asked questions once a month and then having a hour long designer meeting to answer those questions would just be over the top as far as manpower requirements....Who would make the coffee? Who would bring the donuts?
Still doesn't alleviate my concern listed in my subsequent post and disregards time for internal play testers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: No, this WD has a teaser for Ynnari for the next WD, and many are joking Ynnari will be buffed. No one has leaked whats in the next WD yet, none that i have seen at least. Give it 2 weeks and leaks should be out.
Thanks.
@Ice_Can - you should probably edit your comment to sound less like it's coming from an informed position.
Ice_can wrote: Maybe their all standing around trying to figure out why all the armies they had NERF's pre-writen for are not the armies that topped adepticon.
Then again this is GW they are possibly running around panicking about the massive buffs they just handed Yannari in the WD and the ensuing table flipping that's about to come their way as they assumed that imperial soup lists were going to get stronger.
Or maybe thier just having a relaxing afternoon tea break, can't get to stressed out about it, it is only a game after all.
I have not received my WD. Everyone seems to be delayed. Are you speaking from facts or just being silly?
I had assumed that stating possibly made it clear it's not based on a 100% known fact.
It is possible that they don't think that Imperial soup is a problem, and they may not think the IG are a problem - I suspect they may be aware of a goof on the IK relic/trait side of things, though.
but the problem with the castellan is not the relic, it is the IG allying him in to give it protection from assault, objective grabbers, even more fire and melee power. IK armies with castellans and other knights aren't doing super great. The only people that think that IG is ok, are people that play IG and don't want it nerfed. Now am not saying someone who writes rules for GW can't be playing IG, but it would be rather petty if they just wrote the rules and kept errata/FAQ in such a way, that their armies are better to play with. That is something maybe I would do, but those are grown adults.
If the base Castellan with extra CP was an issue, we'd be seeing Cultist-powered versions in Chaos armies, which we're not.
Last I checked, the consensus was that the problem was the combo of Cawl's Wrath, House Raven, and possibly Order of Companions (I think it is?), none of which are available to Chaos (AFAIK - don't have CA2018 to hand). Now, being able to power some of the strats with IGCP is certainly a bonus, but it was the extra sauce available to IK that made the difference.
The few people I've seen discuss this in any serious manner figure that over taking a Castellan, you can take a Questoris, give it Double Battlecannon, and Icarus top mount. That is averaging out to 14 Battlecannon, 9 Stubber, and 4Autocannon shots, over 6 Autocannon, 7 Plasma, 3.5 Volcano, 4 Melta, and a Missile. With the reroll strat, your going to get more from the 27 shots from the Questoris, over the 21.5 from the Castellan. This holds true if you minimum on shots (Knight has 17 to the Castellans 12, and if you Max fire, 37 to 33. It is not as high quality of firepower, but its also almost 100 points less.
Thanks - that's pretty brutal. The double tap won't have a reroll, but he can still have a good chance to put some characters on the ropes. I imagine that with wounding on 2s and only 4 wounds that CCs would be killed closer to 55 to 60% of the time.
Thanks - that's pretty brutal. The double tap won't have a reroll, but he can still have a good chance to put some characters on the ropes. I imagine that with wounding on 2s and only 4 wounds that CCs would be killed closer to 55 to 60% of the time.
It's ~53%, to kill, but that is a big increase compared to these characters that have saves and 5 wounds!
nordsturmking wrote: I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.
Terrain needs better rules.
Ynnari needs a little nerf.
Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.
GK and BA and a few others need a buff
This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.
If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.
A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.
Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.
So what you were really complaining about wasn't that knights generate cps for their lance detachments, but that they quickly get out of hand when you insert cheap screening bodies and cp on top of one.
A sentiment shared quite heavily through the thread, it just struck me as odd as you were the only person I'd seen pull out the lance rules specifically as something to tone down.
I am trying to say that they either need to limit the CP a knight can use or change cp cost. So either lance detachments should generate less cp or cp should be bound the detachment which they came from.
I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.
Bravo.
So, really ~39% danger zone for casting and 13% catastrophe. Reroll will kick it up a bit and this is against a character with a 1 pip advantage to wounding.
Tiggy has only 4 wounds. It's 40% kill without a reroll. Probably a reroll on the damage would be most efficient if you roll a 1 and reroll on mortal wounds to try to ensure a kill if you get 2 or 3 damage on the roll. This should get you over 50% kill.
nordsturmking wrote: I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.
Terrain needs better rules.
Ynnari needs a little nerf.
Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.
GK and BA and a few others need a buff
This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.
If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.
A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.
Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.
So what you were really complaining about wasn't that knights generate cps for their lance detachments, but that they quickly get out of hand when you insert cheap screening bodies and cp on top of one.
A sentiment shared quite heavily through the thread, it just struck me as odd as you were the only person I'd seen pull out the lance rules specifically as something to tone down.
I am trying to say that they either need to limit the CP a knight can use or change cp cost. So either lance detachments should generate less cp or cp should be bound the detachment which they came from.
Imagine you have a resource like command points and every army has equal access to them. Then you can actually balance the GD stratagems based on what they affect. 600 point models benefit a lot more from stratagems than 200-300 point units so the stratagems should cost more in a knight army...AND THEY DO for the most part. The thing is they can generate CP like IG...that is the flaw in the system with out a doubt and everyone already sees that. It's been beat to death in fact with multiple superior options compared to the current game being suggested. Basically the most boring topic in the game right now because the current system shouldn't have survived the first couple of months of 8th rather than be going on for almost 2 years.
I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.
Bravo.
So, really ~39% danger zone for casting and 13% catastrophe. Reroll will kick it up a bit and this is against a character with a 1 pip advantage to wounding.
Tiggy has only 4 wounds. It's 40% kill without a reroll. Probably a reroll on the damage would be most efficient if you roll a 1 and reroll on mortal wounds to try to ensure a kill if you get 2 or 3 damage on the roll. This should get you over 50% kill.
Thanks for the corrections on the wound (I'm not a marine player), your maths is a little off though, it's 25.1% to kill a 4 wound 3+sv character with no reroll and 47.4% with a reroll.
Thanks - that's pretty brutal. The double tap won't have a reroll, but he can still have a good chance to put some characters on the ropes. I imagine that with wounding on 2s and only 4 wounds that CCs would be killed closer to 55 to 60% of the time.
Don't CCs have a 4++? With a 4++, that's nearly a 50% "nope" off the top (slightly less - you could do 4 MW, but the odds are ~ 60%*(2/3)(1/2)(1/3)(1/6) - or about 1% chance).
Thanks - that's pretty brutal. The double tap won't have a reroll, but he can still have a good chance to put some characters on the ropes. I imagine that with wounding on 2s and only 4 wounds that CCs would be killed closer to 55 to 60% of the time.
Don't CCs have a 4++? With a 4++, that's nearly a 50% "nope" off the top (slightly less - you could do 4 MW, but the odds are ~ 60%*(2/3)(1/2)(1/3)(1/6) - or about 1% chance).
You can't take invulnerable saves against a Vindicare's weapons. Poor Warlocks with their 2 wounds...
I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.
Bravo.
So, really ~39% danger zone for casting and 13% catastrophe. Reroll will kick it up a bit and this is against a character with a 1 pip advantage to wounding.
Tiggy has only 4 wounds. It's 40% kill without a reroll. Probably a reroll on the damage would be most efficient if you roll a 1 and reroll on mortal wounds to try to ensure a kill if you get 2 or 3 damage on the roll. This should get you over 50% kill.
Tiggy is roughly a 25% chance without reroll, probably somewhere in the 40s *with* reroll - my original numbers didn't take into account the increased wounds (d6 vs d3) on a 6 to wound, but that only factors in roughly once every 18 unsaved wounds.
Thanks - that's pretty brutal. The double tap won't have a reroll, but he can still have a good chance to put some characters on the ropes. I imagine that with wounding on 2s and only 4 wounds that CCs would be killed closer to 55 to 60% of the time.
Don't CCs have a 4++? With a 4++, that's nearly a 50% "nope" off the top (slightly less - you could do 4 MW, but the odds are ~ 60%*(2/3)(1/2)(1/3)(1/6) - or about 1% chance).
You can't take invulnerable saves against a Vindicare's weapons. Poor Warlocks with their 2 wounds...
Thanks, spaced that.
Drager has much better numbers. Not only did he not forget the chance of the larger damage die, but also I used upper bounds whereas he used the actual values (because I'm lazy and he's awesome).
I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.
Bravo.
So, really ~39% danger zone for casting and 13% catastrophe. Reroll will kick it up a bit and this is against a character with a 1 pip advantage to wounding.
Tiggy has only 4 wounds. It's 40% kill without a reroll. Probably a reroll on the damage would be most efficient if you roll a 1 and reroll on mortal wounds to try to ensure a kill if you get 2 or 3 damage on the roll. This should get you over 50% kill.
Thanks for the corrections on the wound (I'm not a marine player), your maths is a little off though, it's 25.1% to kill a 4 wound 3+sv character with no reroll and 47.4% with a reroll.
I was just trying to figure it in my head. I've seen it in action too many times. I've even abused it to the max with gman giving reroll 1's to hit. It really is too much. Eliminators are terrible in comparison even rerolling hits and wounds (and they are pretty good units).
Automatically Appended Next Post: bharing I'm not doing this math. The above chart is stating a 40.7% chance to do 4 wounds to a 3+ save character.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wait we have different charts going around. Whatever...Point is. These are the averages. For people that can't fail 4+'s it's pretty much auto kill.
I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.
Bravo.
So, really ~39% danger zone for casting and 13% catastrophe. Reroll will kick it up a bit and this is against a character with a 1 pip advantage to wounding.
Tiggy has only 4 wounds. It's 40% kill without a reroll. Probably a reroll on the damage would be most efficient if you roll a 1 and reroll on mortal wounds to try to ensure a kill if you get 2 or 3 damage on the roll. This should get you over 50% kill.
Thanks for the corrections on the wound (I'm not a marine player), your maths is a little off though, it's 25.1% to kill a 4 wound 3+sv character with no reroll and 47.4% with a reroll.
I was just trying to figure it in my head. I've seen it in action too many times. I've even abused it to the max with gman giving reroll 1's to hit. It really is too much. Eliminators are terrible in comparison even rerolling hits and wounds (and they are pretty good units).
Automatically Appended Next Post: bharing I'm not doing this math. The above chart is stating a 40.7% chance to do 4 wounds to a 3+ save character.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wait we have different charts going around.
So what happens to the math when these <4 wound support charaters hide behind a wall or vehicle and continue to support and be useful?
What happens to the math when the Vindi has to move to get LoS on something, thereby forfeiting his "ignore penalties to hit" ability and now hitting on 3+ (at best)?
It is not all 'doom and gloom' and the opponent of a Vindi has it in their control to mitigate losing their characters.
They only thing undercosted about Vindis is the shoot twice strat, which should probably cost 2CPs instead of 1.
I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.
Wait we have different charts going around. Whatever...Point is. These are the averages. For people that can't fail 4+'s it's pretty much auto kill.
This might be semantics, but that is a probability distribution, not an average. It can be used to calculate average damage and gives an average damage of 1.9 to 2 s.f.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So what happens to the math when these <4 wound support charaters hide behind a wall or vehicle and continue to support and be useful?
That's an easy one. If all characters on the field are not visible and the vindicare can't move to make them visible, then the maths gives 100% 0 Damage.
Galef wrote: What happens to the math when the Vindi has to move to get LoS on something, thereby forfeiting his "ignore penalties to hit" ability and now hitting on 3+ (at best)?
I'm possibly going to calculate this later, but not show my work as it's too time-consuming to do for every calculation. If I do, I'll let you know.
Galef wrote: So what happens to the math when these <4 wound support charaters hide behind a wall or vehicle and continue to support and be useful?
What happens to the math when the Vindi has to move to get LoS on something, thereby forfeiting his "ignore penalties to hit" ability and now hitting on 3+ (at best)?
It is not all 'doom and gloom' and the opponent of a Vindi has it in their control to mitigate losing their characters.
They only thing undercosted about Vindis is the shoot twice strat, which should probably cost 2CPs instead of 1.
-
I mean, this is a question that you could ask for any other sniper unit in the game. It's just that none of them are anywhere near as effective as the Vindicare even when they're a similar price point.
Galef wrote: So what happens to the math when these <4 wound support charaters hide behind a wall or vehicle and continue to support and be useful?
That's an easy one. If all characters on the field are not visible and the vindicare can't move to make them visible, then the maths gives 100% 0 Damage.
Exactly. I was just trying to add some perspective on the math. Essentially, if a Character gets shot by a Vindi, it's either because the owning player wanted their character shot, of there isn't enough terrain on the table. But I don't think it's fair to assume that a Vindi can always get LoS on its ideal target.
Burnage wrote: I mean, this is a question that you could ask for any other sniper unit in the game. It's just that none of them are anywhere near as effective as the Vindicare even when they're a similar price point.
True, but the Vindi requires a bit more invested than points, such as another detachment or CP. It also won't have ObSec like Troop Sniper units. And is itself vulnerable to said Sniper units (although maybe not too much)
nordsturmking wrote: I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.
Terrain needs better rules.
Ynnari needs a little nerf.
Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.
GK and BA and a few others need a buff
This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.
If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.
A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.
Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.
So what you were really complaining about wasn't that knights generate cps for their lance detachments, but that they quickly get out of hand when you insert cheap screening bodies and cp on top of one.
A sentiment shared quite heavily through the thread, it just struck me as odd as you were the only person I'd seen pull out the lance rules specifically as something to tone down.
I am trying to say that they either need to limit the CP a knight can use or change cp cost. So either lance detachments should generate less cp or cp should be bound the detachment which they came from.
Really a formation that is minimum 1k + points often more likely to be 1.2.1.5k points shouldn't generate 6CP?
A formation that's minimum 700 points generating 3CP is obviously broken, when you can build an IG brigade with 12CP for under 600 points.
At that point your basically calling for their codex to be squatted.
I am trying to say that they either need to limit the CP a knight can use or change cp cost. So either lance detachments should generate less cp or cp should be bound the detachment which they came from.
First one would make souping just even more obvious. Mono should be boosted over soup instead
Galef wrote: So what happens to the math when these <4 wound support charaters hide behind a wall or vehicle and continue to support and be useful?
That's an easy one. If all characters on the field are not visible and the vindicare can't move to make them visible, then the maths gives 100% 0 Damage.
Exactly. I was just trying to add some perspective on the math. Essentially, if a Character gets shot by a Vindi, it's either because the owning player wanted their character shot, of there isn't enough terrain on the table.
But I don't think it's fair to assume that a Vindi can always get LoS on its ideal target.
-
Yes, which sort of underlines my initial string of posts - if Vindicares take (and they should) then people bringing bodyguards and transports will be sort of mandatory, which alters the meta a fair bit and potentially more for Castellan soup.
Eliminators and the Vindicare is the best combo I've tested. I start with the eliminators and see if I can get a wound or a few on a character I can see then if the Vindi can finish the job.
I'll do a breakdown for the probabilities with a CP reroll later (and show how it's worked out) for those interested in how the maths works.
Wait we have different charts going around. Whatever...Point is. These are the averages. For people that can't fail 4+'s it's pretty much auto kill.
This might be semantics, but that is a probability distribution, not an average. It can be used to calculate average damage and gives an average damage of 1.9 to 2 s.f.
Well, there are a couple different meanings of "average" here:
One is the average wounds (expected value of wounds) - as above
One is that, in the average occurence - meaning most likely - what happens. The usage is more colloquial then technical, and the definition is frequently fuzzy, but in this case it's clearly about "Did the target die or not". The numbers say the target is not killed.
Galef wrote: What happens to the math when the Vindi has to move to get LoS on something, thereby forfeiting his "ignore penalties to hit" ability and now hitting on 3+ (at best)?
I'm possibly going to calculate this later, but not show my work as it's too time-consuming to do for every calculation. If I do, I'll let you know.
Braver man than I. Without the reroll, it wouldn't be asking much. But the reroll complicates matters (and you're far more precise than the upper-bound method I posted earlier).
Galef wrote: So what happens to the math when these <4 wound support charaters hide behind a wall or vehicle and continue to support and be useful?
That's an easy one. If all characters on the field are not visible and the vindicare can't move to make them visible, then the maths gives 100% 0 Damage.
Exactly. I was just trying to add some perspective on the math. Essentially, if a Character gets shot by a Vindi, it's either because the owning player wanted their character shot, of there isn't enough terrain on the table.
But I don't think it's fair to assume that a Vindi can always get LoS on its ideal target.
-
Yes, which sort of underlines my initial string of posts - if Vindicares take (and they should) then people bringing bodyguards and transports will be sort of mandatory, which alters the meta a fair bit and potentially more for Castellan soup.
Not all factions have Bodyguards, have Transports that block LOS to models on the ground, or can leverage their HQs when their HQs don't have LOS.
A bubble HQ can hide behind a wall, but a psyker or shooter who targets enemies can't.
nordsturmking wrote: I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.
Terrain needs better rules.
Ynnari needs a little nerf.
Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.
GK and BA and a few others need a buff
This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.
If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.
A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.
Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.
So what you were really complaining about wasn't that knights generate cps for their lance detachments, but that they quickly get out of hand when you insert cheap screening bodies and cp on top of one.
A sentiment shared quite heavily through the thread, it just struck me as odd as you were the only person I'd seen pull out the lance rules specifically as something to tone down.
I am trying to say that they either need to limit the CP a knight can use or change cp cost. So either lance detachments should generate less cp or cp should be bound the detachment which they came from.
Really a formation that is minimum 1k + points often more likely to be 1.2.1.5k points shouldn't generate 6CP?
A formation that's minimum 700 points generating 3CP is obviously broken, when you can build an IG brigade with 12CP for under 600 points.
At that point your basically calling for their codex to be squatted.
I agree on some part. But what are you going to do with those 12 spend them on the 600p brigade which generated them? I think not.
CP are much more effective on the knights. I realized the lance formation is not the problem the knight stratagems are.
I am not calling for their codex to be squatted. Thats a total exaggeration. Even without CP a Knight list is pretty good andeven more so with AM added.
I am trying to say that they either need to limit the CP a knight can use or change cp cost. So either lance detachments should generate less cp or cp should be bound the detachment which they came from.
First one would make souping just even more obvious. Mono should be boosted over soup instead
I agree. And i hope GW comes up with some thing that makes the game more fun for every one.
nordsturmking wrote: I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.
Terrain needs better rules.
Ynnari needs a little nerf.
Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.
GK and BA and a few others need a buff
This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.
If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.
A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.
Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.
So what you were really complaining about wasn't that knights generate cps for their lance detachments, but that they quickly get out of hand when you insert cheap screening bodies and cp on top of one.
A sentiment shared quite heavily through the thread, it just struck me as odd as you were the only person I'd seen pull out the lance rules specifically as something to tone down.
I am trying to say that they either need to limit the CP a knight can use or change cp cost. So either lance detachments should generate less cp or cp should be bound the detachment which they came from.
Really a formation that is minimum 1k + points often more likely to be 1.2.1.5k points shouldn't generate 6CP?
A formation that's minimum 700 points generating 3CP is obviously broken, when you can build an IG brigade with 12CP for under 600 points.
At that point your basically calling for their codex to be squatted.
I agree on some part. But what are you going to do with those 12 spend them on the 600p brigade which generated them? I think not.
CP are much more effective on the knights. I realized the lance formation is not the problem the knight stratagems are.
I am not calling for their codex to be squatted. Thats a total exaggeration. Even without CP a Knight list is pretty good andeven more so with AM added.
Hence the issue isn't knights or even their stratageums, it's 12CP for under 600 points that's the problem.
To balance strategums between mono and soup each lance would have to give atleast 12CP or more, that's not a good solution and rebalancing codex's on the assumption that everyone is taking 600 points of pure cheese is terrible for balance and downright lazy game design.
Yes, which sort of underlines my initial string of posts - if Vindicares take (and they should) then people bringing bodyguards and transports will be sort of mandatory, which alters the meta a fair bit and potentially more for Castellan soup.
not all armies have access to bodyguard models, in fact I think most armies don't have them. And being forced to take a Land Raider to protect an HQ for armies that are already high cost seems like a win/win situation for the vindicare player.
nordsturmking wrote: I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.
Terrain needs better rules.
Ynnari needs a little nerf.
Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.
GK and BA and a few others need a buff
This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.
If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.
A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.
Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.
So what you were really complaining about wasn't that knights generate cps for their lance detachments, but that they quickly get out of hand when you insert cheap screening bodies and cp on top of one.
A sentiment shared quite heavily through the thread, it just struck me as odd as you were the only person I'd seen pull out the lance rules specifically as something to tone down.
I am trying to say that they either need to limit the CP a knight can use or change cp cost. So either lance detachments should generate less cp or cp should be bound the detachment which they came from.
Really a formation that is minimum 1k + points often more likely to be 1.2.1.5k points shouldn't generate 6CP?
A formation that's minimum 700 points generating 3CP is obviously broken, when you can build an IG brigade with 12CP for under 600 points.
At that point your basically calling for their codex to be squatted.
I agree on some part. But what are you going to do with those 12 spend them on the 600p brigade which generated them? I think not.
CP are much more effective on the knights. I realized the lance formation is not the problem the knight stratagems are.
I am not calling for their codex to be squatted. Thats a total exaggeration. Even without CP a Knight list is pretty good andeven more so with AM added.
Hence the issue isn't knights or even their stratageums, it's 12CP for under 600 points that's the problem.
To balance strategums between mono and soup each lance would have to give atleast 12CP or more, that's not a good solution and rebalancing codex's on the assumption that everyone is taking 600 points of pure cheese is terrible for balance and downright lazy game design.
Honestly I'd just like to see them revert the CP change to Brigades and Battalions while giving all battleforged armies something like +4 CP to start with. The gap in terms of CP efficiency between armies that can field cheap HQs/troops and those that can't increased dramatically with that buff.
Yes, which sort of underlines my initial string of posts - if Vindicares take (and they should) then people bringing bodyguards and transports will be sort of mandatory, which alters the meta a fair bit and potentially more for Castellan soup.
not all armies have access to bodyguard models, in fact I think most armies don't have them. And being forced to take a Land Raider to protect an HQ for armies that are already high cost seems like a win/win situation for the vindicare player.
Not all factions have Bodyguards, have Transports that block LOS to models on the ground, or can leverage their HQs when their HQs don't have LOS.
A bubble HQ can hide behind a wall, but a psyker or shooter who targets enemies can't.
I'd be using a rhino not a land raider, but then Ahriman will probably be on foot. The goal is to block LOS to the vindi - not their whole army, if possible. The biggest issue is the first time the vindicaire comes down from orbit, but he usually needs protection so he's limited.
GKs are potentially in a good position to absorb sniper shots with lots of terminator HQs. Tau have drones. Orks have grots (at the expense of Lootas).
The vindicaire player has to have his own protection as well and then it becomes a sort of arms race. Do drones and bodyguard nullify assassins enough to keep them out of the meta? I'm not sure.
At this point I just want GW to get off their arse and release it.
Without question we'll see additional stratagem CP adjustments.
I think we'll see more tweaking of the Fly keyword.
Finalized Tactical Reserves rule.
Finalized Prepared Positions.
Finalized Tactical Restraint with hopefully some minor tweaks to make Ultramarines great again.
Wishlisting...
Return to 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade detachments respectively.
Return to the original Character targeting rules (i.e. closest visible).
Alter Psychic Focus.to limit Smite to once per turn also.
oni wrote: At this point I just want GW to get off their arse and release it.
Without question we'll see additional stratagem CP adjustments.
I think we'll see more tweaking of the Fly keyword.
Finalized Tactical Reserves rule.
Finalized Prepared Positions.
Finalized Tactical Restraint with hopefully some minor tweaks to make Ultramarines great again.
Wishlisting...
Return to 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade detachments respectively.
Return to the original Character targeting rules (i.e. closest visible).
Alter Psychic Focus.to limit Smite to once per turn also.
closest visible is stupid because then you get things like 2 rhino's parked almost back to back which block LoS to everything but your character for my lascannon.
Burnage wrote: Honestly I'd just like to see them revert the CP change to Brigades and Battalions while giving all battleforged armies something like +4 CP to start with. The gap in terms of CP efficiency between armies that can field cheap HQs/troops and those that can't increased dramatically with that buff.
Quick thought on the Battle-forged bonus - wouldn't it make more sense for it to scale by game size, than be a static bonus?
I mean, in theory 3CP means a heck of a lot more at 1k points than 10k.
oni wrote: At this point I just want GW to get off their arse and release it.
Without question we'll see additional stratagem CP adjustments.
I think we'll see more tweaking of the Fly keyword.
Finalized Tactical Reserves rule.
Finalized Prepared Positions.
Finalized Tactical Restraint with hopefully some minor tweaks to make Ultramarines great again.
Wishlisting...
Return to 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade detachments respectively.
Return to the original Character targeting rules (i.e. closest visible).
Alter Psychic Focus.to limit Smite to once per turn also.
closest visible is stupid because then you get things like 2 rhino's parked almost back to back which block LoS to everything but your character for my lascannon.
The character rules as they are, are fine.
I strongly disagree. I understand the Character sniping tactic, but it really is the lesser of evils. I've experienced too many games where my shooting has been effectively turned off because of one pesky, hiding model stopping me from targeting a lone Character charging up the backfield in the wide open. It doesn't make for good game play.
Burnage wrote: Honestly I'd just like to see them revert the CP change to Brigades and Battalions while giving all battleforged armies something like +4 CP to start with. The gap in terms of CP efficiency between armies that can field cheap HQs/troops and those that can't increased dramatically with that buff.
Quick thought on the Battle-forged bonus - wouldn't it make more sense for it to scale by game size, than be a static bonus?
I mean, in theory 3CP means a heck of a lot more at 1k points than 10k.
It already does scale. A player is able to take more detachments at higher point levels.
oni wrote: At this point I just want GW to get off their arse and release it.
Without question we'll see additional stratagem CP adjustments.
I think we'll see more tweaking of the Fly keyword.
Finalized Tactical Reserves rule.
Finalized Prepared Positions.
Finalized Tactical Restraint with hopefully some minor tweaks to make Ultramarines great again.
Wishlisting...
Return to 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade detachments respectively.
Return to the original Character targeting rules (i.e. closest visible).
Alter Psychic Focus.to limit Smite to once per turn also.
closest visible is stupid because then you get things like 2 rhino's parked almost back to back which block LoS to everything but your character for my lascannon.
The character rules as they are, are fine.
Nah - character targeting rules are bad. Targets should have to be visible and eligible targets to shoot to screen for characters. Then its fine.
oni wrote: At this point I just want GW to get off their arse and release it.
Without question we'll see additional stratagem CP adjustments.
I think we'll see more tweaking of the Fly keyword.
Finalized Tactical Reserves rule.
Finalized Prepared Positions.
Finalized Tactical Restraint with hopefully some minor tweaks to make Ultramarines great again.
Wishlisting...
Return to 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade detachments respectively.
Return to the original Character targeting rules (i.e. closest visible).
Alter Psychic Focus.to limit Smite to once per turn also.
closest visible is stupid because then you get things like 2 rhino's parked almost back to back which block LoS to everything but your character for my lascannon.
The character rules as they are, are fine.
Nah - character targeting rules are bad. Targets should have to be visible and eligible targets to shoot to screen for characters. Then its fine.
Character rules should be tweaked though such that monsters and vehicles are targetable. It makes no sense that a Dreadnought Character cannot be shot, but any other Dreadnought can be. Same thing with Demon Princes.... a gigantic demon prince is an easy target when standing next to smaller infantry. Or maybe a rule that Characters cannot be shot only if they're within 6" of another model with the same Keyword. Like infantry with infantry, vehicles with vehicles, monsters with monsters. Then it would make sense that you can't pick out an individual monster at that range.
Ehhh - certain units are quite useless without being characters without significant points adjustments. Gman/Malenthrope/Daemon princes come to mind. They would probably need to be elevated to 12 or more wounds in this case. I totally agree though - not being able to shoot the units you want is VERY frustrating and doesn't make for fun game play.
Burnage wrote: Honestly I'd just like to see them revert the CP change to Brigades and Battalions while giving all battleforged armies something like +4 CP to start with. The gap in terms of CP efficiency between armies that can field cheap HQs/troops and those that can't increased dramatically with that buff.
Quick thought on the Battle-forged bonus - wouldn't it make more sense for it to scale by game size, than be a static bonus?
I mean, in theory 3CP means a heck of a lot more at 1k points than 10k.
I think you are on the right track.
I'd say - increase the bonus for being battle forged based on point level. Like say 15 CP for a 2000 point game and then have additional detachments beyond your first cost you additional CP (subtracted from your total) and have allied detachments cost you MORE cp. Then with everyone starting on basically the same CP - you can balance all stratagems against each other.
Xenomancers wrote: I'd say - increase the bonus for being battle forged based on point level. Like say 15 CP for a 2000 point game and then have additional detachments beyond your first cost you additional CP (subtracted from your total) and have allied detachments cost you MORE cp. Then with everyone starting on basically the same CP - you can balance all stratagems against each other.
When I see this suggestion come up, it normally comes with "But Battalions and Brigades should cost less/nothing to take" and I make grumbly noises because CP farming with Battalions and Brigades is (one of) the issues. Would that be something you'd want under this system?
To move the game to the next level, it almost has to move CP away from detachments. There just isn't a way when you have an army that might be 4 models, and a force that might be 200models to have the current detachment provide CP process to work.
I totally agree. The current system is almost the worst of both worlds, in that it allows you to ignore the old FOC if you want to, but still suplexes you off the top rope if you don't take a Battalion (or two!). And some might think that's fine, but in my opinion not every faction SHOULD be troop heavy.
GW's Character targeting rules are bizarre. It's so simple to fix I'll even do it for free.
Targeting Characters
An enemy CHARACTER with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 that is within 2" of another non-CHARACTER friendly unit can be selected as a target in the Shooting phase only if it is both visible to the firing model and it is the closest enemy unit to the firing model. Ignore other enemy CHARACTERS with a Wounds characteristics of less than 10 when determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model.
An enemy CHARACTER with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 that is not within 2" of another non-CHARACTER friendly can be selected as a target in the Shooting phase unit as normal.
Ignore other enemy CHARACTERS with a Wounds characteristics of less than 10 when determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model.
No more "My Company Commander behind a wall" blocking, no more "Gulliman is out in the open with no other friendly units within 24" of him but because there is a group of scouts in the ruins over there I can't shoot at him."
Phaeron Gukk wrote: I totally agree. The current system is almost the worst of both worlds, in that it allows you to ignore the old FOC if you want to, but still suplexes you off the top rope if you don't take a Battalion (or two!). And some might think that's fine, but in my opinion not every faction SHOULD be troop heavy.
The troops aren't what bothers me, it's the HQ heaviness from BAttalions and BRigades I'm not a fan of.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW's Character targeting rules are bizarre. It's so simple to fix I'll even do it for free.
Targeting Characters
An enemy CHARACTER with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 that is within 2" of another non-CHARACTER friendly unit can be selected as a target in the Shooting phase only if it is both visible to the firing model and it is the closest enemy unit to the firing model. Ignore other enemy CHARACTERS with a Wounds characteristics of less than 10 when determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model.
An enemy CHARACTER with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 that is not within 2" of another non-CHARACTER friendly can be selected as a target in the Shooting phase unit as normal.
Ignore other enemy CHARACTERS with a Wounds characteristics of less than 10 when determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model.
No more "My Company Commander behind a wall" blocking, no more "Gulliman is out in the open with no other friendly units within 24" of him but because there is a group of scouts in the ruins over there I can't shoot at him."
2 inches might be a bit too tight, but otherwise that would work.
Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
Phaeron Gukk wrote: I totally agree. The current system is almost the worst of both worlds, in that it allows you to ignore the old FOC if you want to, but still suplexes you off the top rope if you don't take a Battalion (or two!). And some might think that's fine, but in my opinion not every faction SHOULD be troop heavy.
That's the whole point of troops -- they are, y'know, the building blocks of the army?
Some armies. IG, Orks, Tau, etc. Should a dying race of hyper-specialized elves be able to be quantified in terms of "rank and file"? Should any human(?) worthy of the rank of Custodian be in the troop slot? Not every army wants to look like an IG Platoon, and not every army should.
I think it's because they are strictly their own line. DG or TS for instance are for sure CSM because they have oodles of overlapping units just like marines.
I'm sure there's an argument for Space wolves, but they did get Primaris after all
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Some armies. IG, Orks, Tau, etc. Should a dying race of hyper-specialized elves be able to be quantified in terms of "rank and file"? Should any human(?) worthy of the rank of Custodian be in the troop slot? Not every army wants to look like an IG Platoon, and not every army should.
The Troops slot should represent the core elements of an army. They should be the units identified as being most commonly fielded by the faction.
Within the context of an Eldar army, there will be a cadre of core units - be they Guardians, Dire Avengers, etc. And while individual Custodes would be beyond a HQ choice for an IG army, within the context of their own structure, they too are the rank and file.
The slot of Troop just represents that basic building block, but what that building block is will be different for each faction. It is the same for every slot - it is merely an abstraction that, if used correctly, nudges players towards army builds that actually fit broadly within how the army would work in the background material.
Then maybe it's a matter of wider design, because for many factions the Troop slot/Battalions feels to me bolted on, to make an army fit the same-old generic structure/FOC. For all of its MANY MANY flaws, the IK codex recognized that players who buy Giant Mecha want to play Giant Mecha, not Giant Mecha + Bolt-On Generic Battery. The Knight-Specific Detachments are really cool in concept, and good ways of pushing people into thematic lists as you said.
(The issue is that you can still add the bolt-on battalion, and it's so dang cheap...)
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
Xenomancers wrote: I'd say - increase the bonus for being battle forged based on point level. Like say 15 CP for a 2000 point game and then have additional detachments beyond your first cost you additional CP (subtracted from your total) and have allied detachments cost you MORE cp. Then with everyone starting on basically the same CP - you can balance all stratagems against each other.
When I see this suggestion come up, it normally comes with "But Battalions and Brigades should cost less/nothing to take" and I make grumbly noises because CP farming with Battalions and Brigades is (one of) the issues. Would that be something you'd want under this system?
Under this system the most efficient CP build is a single detachment. Taking allied detachments would be the least. It would do numbers for the game.
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
They take 8 CP because they don't really need CP - obviously they work better with more but that is more the fact that spears and moving twice and shooting twice and fighting twice in the same turn is just too powerful a combination.
nordsturmking wrote: I would like to see the following things to be addressed. Some of this is probably too much for an FAQ.
Terrain needs better rules.
Ynnari needs a little nerf.
Knights:
The Castellan needs to be toned down. I am not even sure it should be a playable option in a 2000p game. 604 points in one model is just too big. Especially when you can bring it back to full power with a stratagem.
A knight list with 6 models in total(4 big knight 2 small ones) schould not have 12 CP so easly. There is no tax for them to get the CP. Everything you need to take to get them you would alredy take anyway.
GK and BA and a few others need a buff
This interests me, because the downside to getting those cp is that your army consists of 6 models. Yes they're big, scary durable models, but 6 dudes doesn't help cap objectives an you have no screening to speak of. No psychic phase or input into it either.
If people want to invest 30% of their force into one model that's a decision for then to make, as when it blows up they will feel the repercussions of it keenly.
A player could also take Castelllan + 2xCrusader + 64 IG and have 15+ CP and all the opsec he wants.
Have you killed a Castellan behinde a screen of 60+ models? Some armys just don't have the shooting to kill the Castellan when it has its 3++.
So what you were really complaining about wasn't that knights generate cps for their lance detachments, but that they quickly get out of hand when you insert cheap screening bodies and cp on top of one.
A sentiment shared quite heavily through the thread, it just struck me as odd as you were the only person I'd seen pull out the lance rules specifically as something to tone down.
I am trying to say that they either need to limit the CP a knight can use or change cp cost. So either lance detachments should generate less cp or cp should be bound the detachment which they came from.
Really a formation that is minimum 1k + points often more likely to be 1.2.1.5k points shouldn't generate 6CP?
A formation that's minimum 700 points generating 3CP is obviously broken, when you can build an IG brigade with 12CP for under 600 points.
At that point your basically calling for their codex to be squatted.
I agree on some part. But what are you going to do with those 12 spend them on the 600p brigade which generated them? I think not.
CP are much more effective on the knights. I realized the lance formation is not the problem the knight stratagems are.
I am not calling for their codex to be squatted. Thats a total exaggeration. Even without CP a Knight list is pretty good andeven more so with AM added.
Hence the issue isn't knights or even their stratageums, it's 12CP for under 600 points that's the problem.
To balance strategums between mono and soup each lance would have to give atleast 12CP or more, that's not a good solution and rebalancing codex's on the assumption that everyone is taking 600 points of pure cheese is terrible for balance and downright lazy game design.
No the problem is that knights combine op stratagems with big models adn some are just too good and knights have lot of them. The CP from the lance detachments would not be a problme if knights had no op stratagems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: At this point I just want GW to get off their arse and release it.
Without question we'll see additional stratagem CP adjustments.
I think we'll see more tweaking of the Fly keyword.
Finalized Tactical Reserves rule.
Finalized Prepared Positions.
Finalized Tactical Restraint with hopefully some minor tweaks to make Ultramarines great again.
Wishlisting...
Return to 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade detachments respectively.
Return to the original Character targeting rules (i.e. closest visible).
Alter Psychic Focus.to limit Smite to once per turn also.
"Alter Psychic Focus. to limit Smite to once per turn" is a bad idea most armys could only cast 7 powers total. So if my army could cast 10 i could not use the last 3. or i might only want to cast 6 or less of the 7 diffrent powers.
They take 8 CP because they don't really need CP - obviously they work better with more but that is more the fact that spears and moving twice and shooting twice and fighting twice in the same turn is just too powerful a combination.
Its just a system. Same would apply for a Guard/Castellan/Assassin force. 8 CP makes them a much different animal. Or 10 CP if its just a brigade of Guard and a Castellan.
The CP system is fundamentally flawed. That needs to be fixed. If allies are going to exist (they will) then all CP needs to be equal and transferable between codex as well as stratagem power. This wont automatically make the game perfectly balanced but it is more than a step in the right direction. There are a lot more problems in this game that CP generation.
Stratagems are really unbalanced. (we literally have stratagems that do the exact same thing but a lot better that cost the same)
ie Forwarned/Auspex scan
We have units that are better but cost less. IE
Infantry/Cultist
These are pretty easy problems to fix too. I'd call these problems that someone with no knowledge of how the game works could see and Identify immediately (these problems shouldn't even exist in an intelligently designed game) It would be like 1 basket on a basketball court being larger than the other...
There are more complicated problems too - those will be easier to fix once we don't have these really simple problems going on.
Stratagems are really unbalanced. (we literally have stratagems that do the exact same thing but a lot better that cost the same)
ie Forwarned/Auspex scan
We do literally have stratagems that do the exact same thing but a lot better at the same cost. However, Forewarned/Auspex is not one. Forewarned does mostly the same thing mostly better for the same cost. But not the exact same thing.
When using precision terms like 'literally' or 'better', try to keep your examples precise. Or use less precise terms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phaeron Gukk wrote: Some armies. IG, Orks, Tau, etc. Should a dying race of hyper-specialized elves be able to be quantified in terms of "rank and file"? Should any human(?) worthy of the rank of Custodian be in the troop slot? Not every army wants to look like an IG Platoon, and not every army should.
A dying race of hyper-specialized Space Elves should be able to quantify "rank and file" - they're the guys who project force and control the situation, as opposed to the guys who zip around or specialize in melting tanks or specialize in heavy weapons.
The hyper-specialized Space Elves have both a unit hyper specialized in that (Dire Avengers), and a unit of militia, specialized in non-combat tasks (Guardians). They actually fit that structure really, really well.
(They can also take exiles who refused to specialize as their other troops choice.)
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
BRAVO! I agree. Detachments should make you pay for slots. Then people might actually fill them out instead of MSUing requirements.
As I have said a lot, invert the CP system fixes so many of its problems.
Start at X CP for everyone.
Detachments cost CP instead of give them.
Mono gets better because it will have less detachments and so more CP.
Soup comes at the cost of CP.
Stuff like the loyal 32 is dead for purely CP reasons (people will probably still take guard for more bodies on the table).
Now I don't have a whole lot of experience with 8th edition (try to read that like someone stretching out their suspenders and saying they aren't a big city lawyer type in a southern drawl). And I haven't seen too much CP farming or even play at the level where CP are used all that effectively to be honest. I usually have about 8 CP for my 2000 pt armies and my opponent is in the same ball park. That said, I agree that the current system is pretty much the opposite of how I would think to design their generation.
I find it super odd that I barely want to fill out detachments so I can double (or even triple) dip. I can usually: 1) get more CPs, 2) can sometimes pretty much ignore FOC and 3) Ally with multiple factions. It makes little sense to me to keep stacking bonuses like that especially in a game where several factions can't ally at all.
It makes far more sense to me to have of a starting pool of CPs and trying to fit everything I can into a single detachment and taking additional detachments at a loss of CPs to circumvent FOC limitations of additional units or factions I want in my overall list. The trade off being able to take units I couldn't otherwise have.
As for those ally factions for all intents and purposes (read: Fallen, Inquisition, Assassins, etc.), they can easily have a special rules that allows them to ally without the loss of CP. I would go so far as to throw in factions like Grey Knights, Deathwatch and such (maybe even Custodes, I don't know exactly how well they function on their own), since while they can be their own thing, it makes a lot of sense for them to not be as well.
Then it is just a matter of re-balencing the cost of some of the Stratagems to fit the new system. Sure it will be a mess but current system and codices are already that now.
Ordana wrote: As I have said a lot, invert the CP system fixes so many of its problems.
Start at X CP for everyone.
Detachments cost CP instead of give them.
Mono gets better because it will have less detachments and so more CP.
Soup comes at the cost of CP.
Stuff like the loyal 32 is dead for purely CP reasons (people will probably still take guard for more bodies on the table).
Downside of this is it would push Knights into havingneven more CP and only make them even stronger than they are with the loyal 32.
I'm not against CP fixes, but it feels like a blanket fix doesn't fix everything but would favor elite armies who have less units to worry about spending CP on.
If it was tied to the number of units or models (with certain keywords like titanic representing a minimum number of models) that'd instead give more CP to horde armies who run MSU spam or large blobs.
We can't just look at the average army but must look at the extremes when considering CP generation and hoe it favors certain armies over another.
Ordana wrote: As I have said a lot, invert the CP system fixes so many of its problems.
Start at X CP for everyone.
Detachments cost CP instead of give them.
Mono gets better because it will have less detachments and so more CP.
Soup comes at the cost of CP.
Stuff like the loyal 32 is dead for purely CP reasons (people will probably still take guard for more bodies on the table).
Downside of this is it would push Knights into havingneven more CP and only make them even stronger than they are with the loyal 32.
I'm not against CP fixes, but it feels like a blanket fix doesn't fix everything but would favor elite armies who have less units to worry about spending CP on.
If it was tied to the number of units or models (with certain keywords like titanic representing a minimum number of models) that'd instead give more CP to horde armies who run MSU spam or large blobs.
We can't just look at the average army but must look at the extremes when considering CP generation and hoe it favors certain armies over another.
It's a 2 step fix:
- fixed cp for everyone
- adjust stratagem costs i.e. Knight stratagems simply cost more than equivalents because they buff stronger units.
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
Stupid idea. However, I normally only have 8-9 in my ynnari detachment. It’s all I need. I’ll still wipe your board. SfD baby
Sounds like a new edition change over an eratta for the rules to shift that much.
No? Just have a Matched Play/Organized Play beta rule that mandates number of CP based on points, then tweak stratagem costs via errata (which they've done already btw)
Galef wrote: Given the choice between CPs being generated by detachments OR points/power level, I'd prefer points/power level.
However, I think a combination of the two would be best. Otherwise if we move to something like "5CPs per 500pts/20PL" then suddenly Battalions and Brigades that have a high unit investment are worthless and everyone will gravitate towards Spearheads/Outriders/Vanguards
Therefore a better solution would be to have Battlalions and Brigades be the ONLY detachments that grant CPs, but only like 2 for Battalion, 5 or so for a Brigade.
That way there is incentive to take them, but the gap isn't so large since MOST CPs are generated for Battle-Forged base on army size
-
A 2K games give you 12 CP.
- 1 CP for each detachment after the first.
-1 CP for each Faction taken after the first.
You take a Craftworld/Ynarri/Drukari soup? 8 CP.
Technically wouldn't that be 6CP? If you take all 3 factions you lose 2 CP, each faction then requires its own detachment so there is another -2, so if you take 3 factions you automatically lose 4 CP.
This is btw, a very good idea and a decent idea at ending soup. Knight armies can now take a knight army and still have 12 CP as opposed to relying on the IG battery pack. If they like souping or they really want those loyal 32, they can take them, its just -2 to their CP I like it. A subtle kick in the balls to soup armies.
of course, if 
