I played a game against an Astroglide Militarium player earlier today. Now normally I have no problem beating the Guard with my nigh-invincible auto-regrouping Space Marines with their 10 Rhinos and BS4 special weapons, but then my opponent pulled out something called a "Stormsword".
It looked like an RC toy rather than something appropriate for 40k. It was huge. Worse, the thing had like 4 guns on it, and even though I used some of the free Krak grenades my MEQ dudes get to inflict a couple HP damage on it, I couldn't stop it shooting! It Stunned one of my Rhinos and ran over muh Devastator Sergeant!
Models like this have absolutely no place in 40k and I think it should be banned. It only costs 600-odd points too, which is undercosted for a non-SM vehicle with 4 guns on it.
Come up with a C:SM solution that doesn't use drop pods, grav cannons, bikes, centurions, librarians or anything but bolter marines in rhinos. You can't. Therefore the Stormsword is the most OP unit in the game.
It's time to set the Clock...s? Oh it seems this is a bit of a different one!
Yes of course, but you've only touched the slice of the brie my friend, did you know they have different types of tanks just LIKE that one!? Multiple types! I've even heard of a tank with ELEVEN guns, they just have so much cheese that it's like a fondue as soon as they start setting up.
Wait 'till he sees the Stormlord. Only 450pts, nine guns, and full to the brim of allied grav-cannons. It'll blow his mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It's time to set the Clock...s? Oh it seems this is a bit of a different one!
Yes of course, but you've only touched the slice of the brie my friend, did you know they have different types of tanks just LIKE that one!? Multiple types! I've even heard of a tank with ELEVEN guns, they just have so much cheese that it's like a fondue as soon as they start setting up.
And it's a plastic kit! They don't even have to throw four hundred dollars at Forge World for it! The madness!
Is that the one that has a transport capacity as well as everything else? So they can fit their OP 20-man infantry squads (Tacs only get 5 attacks per assault phase how can I ever kill them all?) with their OP Commissars (rerolling Morale checks is OP) and their OP lasguns (why should they shoot twice? They're not Space Marines! Zomgop) in the back of their OP cheese mega-tank that I can't even kill with Krak Grenades.
This game is so broken, I'm going to play Warmachine instead.
Five real guys, how can an army that has this model in it be anything but OPOPOP CHEEEEESE? Just by owning one you become a sex god with lustful followers that Slaanesh would envy, and imagine what happens when you put one on the table!
I remember having a 5 man unit of stormbolter/powerfist Terminators running across open ground for two turns against an Imperial Guard gunline with like 50 Guardsman. Those overpowered Lasguns killed all of my Terminators!!! And he had like three autocannons toooo!!! Wtf they need to nerf Lasguns and remove HWTs!
TheCustomLime wrote: I remember having a 5 man unit of stormbolter/powerfist Terminators running across open ground for two turns against an Imperial Guard gunline with like 50 Guardsman. Those overpowered Lasguns killed all of my Terminators!!! And he had like three autocannons toooo!!! Wtf they need to nerf Lasguns and remove HWTs!
Way underpriced, Autocannons. They should cost like 30pts each. if it can kill a terminator, it should cost as much as one. That is called "balance".
I heard their basic infantry can all get this cheesy psychic type buff that you can't even deny and it makes them all shoot 3 times! How is that even fair?
TheCustomLime wrote: Come up with a C:SM solution that doesn't use drop pods, grav cannons, bikes, centurions, librarians or anything but bolter marines in rhinos. You can't. Therefore the Stormsword is the most OP unit in the game.
If equivalent points of tacticals with flamer and missile launcher can't kill it then it's clearly OP.
The player base has been shrinking since the advent of 6th edition. Say what you want, but power creep, scale creep, price creep, etc. are all to blame for this.
Mock me if you want.
Or don't.
Either way:
Enjoy the dwindling player base.
Enjoy your grav cannons, super heavies, etc. when you have an even more limited selection of opponents than you do now.
But hey. That will give you the great opportunity to build your own gaming table so that you can play many a game of warhammer: solitaire.
Traditio wrote: The player base has been shrinking since the advent of 6th edition. Say what you want, but power creep, scale creep, price creep, etc. are all to blame for this.
Correlation does not equal causation. There is no proof that "scale creep" and "power creep" are the reason 40k is losing players. there a whole host of factors for why 40k is losing market dominance.
Traditio wrote: The player base has been shrinking since the advent of 6th edition. Say what you want, but power creep, scale creep, price creep, etc. are all to blame for this.
Correlation does not equal causation. There is no proof that "scale creep" and "power creep" are the reason 40k is losing players. there a whole host of factors for why 40k is losing market dominance.
Keep telling yourself that.
I'm sure that 5th edition players who quit in 6th will likely have a few things to say about that.
Traditio wrote: The player base has been shrinking since the advent of 6th edition. Say what you want, but power creep, scale creep, price creep, etc. are all to blame for this.
Correlation does not equal causation. There is no proof that "scale creep" and "power creep" are the reason 40k is losing players. there a whole host of factors for why 40k is losing market dominance.
Keep telling yourself that.
I'm sure that 5th edition players who quit in 6th will likely have a few things to say about that.
As someone who's been playing since 4ed I can say that players quit for a lot more reasons then "these models are bigger and stronger then i think they should be". Some have of course, but you haven't proved that that is THE reason
Traditio wrote: The player base has been shrinking since the advent of 6th edition. Say what you want, but power creep, scale creep, price creep, etc. are all to blame for this.
Correlation does not equal causation. There is no proof that "scale creep" and "power creep" are the reason 40k is losing players. there a whole host of factors for why 40k is losing market dominance.
Although I haven't quit yet, I've never been closer to doing so.
Super heavies just ain't fun to fight
Traditio wrote: The player base has been shrinking since the advent of 6th edition. Say what you want, but power creep, scale creep, price creep, etc. are all to blame for this.
Correlation does not equal causation. There is no proof that "scale creep" and "power creep" are the reason 40k is losing players. there a whole host of factors for why 40k is losing market dominance.
Although I haven't quit yet, I've never been closer to doing so.
Super heavies just ain't fun to fight
And that's fine. My point is that until Tradito actually has proof, he can't claim that everyone is quitting 40k because of "power/scale creep)
Traditio wrote: The player base has been shrinking since the advent of 6th edition. Say what you want, but power creep, scale creep, price creep, etc. are all to blame for this.
Correlation does not equal causation. There is no proof that "scale creep" and "power creep" are the reason 40k is losing players. there a whole host of factors for why 40k is losing market dominance.
Although I haven't quit yet, I've never been closer to doing so.
Super heavies just ain't fun to fight
(I took a count once. There are about 8-9 of over 50 legal superheavies that are actually OP, the primary issue being that five of them (Stormsurge, Wraithknight, Hellhammer, Doomhammer ((?) Whichever the one with the hull-mounted Hellhammer gun is), Shadowsword) are in GW books and can be built out of GW plastics while almost all the non-OP ones are Forge World. So most of the blanket "ban all superheavies!" discussion is actually an issue with GW's design team being terrible and needing to just hand FW the chair rather than superheavies being inherently broken.)
I'm sure that 5th edition players who quit in 6th will likely have a few things to say about that.
Played from 5th, dropped at 7th - rubbish rules were the reason, not these Power and Scale creeps you speak of; I never dealt with competitive players, but I left because the game still felt shoddy and unbalanced.
Anyways, take an Exalt, BBAP - this has given me a good laugh before work.
Traditio wrote: The player base has been shrinking since the advent of 6th edition. Say what you want, but power creep, scale creep, price creep, etc. are all to blame for this.
Correlation does not equal causation. There is no proof that "scale creep" and "power creep" are the reason 40k is losing players. there a whole host of factors for why 40k is losing market dominance.
Although I haven't quit yet, I've never been closer to doing so.
Super heavies just ain't fun to fight
(I took a count once. There are about 8-9 of over 50 legal superheavies that are actually OP, the primary issue being that five of them (Stormsurge, Wraithknight, Hellhammer, Doomhammer ((?) Whichever the one with the hull-mounted Hellhammer gun is), Shadowsword) are in GW books and can be built out of GW plastics while almost all the non-OP ones are Forge World. So most of the blanket "ban all superheavies!" discussion is actually an issue with GW's design team being terrible and needing to just hand FW the chair rather than superheavies being inherently broken.)
And people still say that all Forgeworld stuff is OP, and try to ban it.
Sigh.
Traditio wrote: The player base has been shrinking since the advent of 6th edition. Say what you want, but power creep, scale creep, price creep, etc. are all to blame for this.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Your preferred fix appears to be for all units to become gakky, overcosted, underperforming garbage. How that will prevent the game haemorraging players is anyone's guess. Do I want to play a game where all the units suck? I don't think I do.
Traditio, maybe you should try, I don't know, posting better. Maybe then people might take you seriously. You may honestly have some valid points, but you wrap them in some of the worst posting I've seen on these forums.
At least go and learn what balance actually is. For every valid balance concern you raise, you raise another five that aren't problems and further have no clue how to fix them.
Traditio has:
• Said everything other than 50-100 dudes with guns is "shenanigans" and should be banned from 40k.
• A history of absolutely refusing to adapt to any situation other than situations involving 50 dudes with guns.
• Said that placing even a single Riptide on the table in a casual game is "dishonorable".
• A Confederate flag as his avatar.
• Said that "you so much as smile when you contemplate running it, re-think it, and chances are, you should pick something else."
• Said that Aun'va was "Shenanigans" and should be banned.
• Said that codexes like KDK were "Shenanigans" and should be banned.
I don't even try to take this seriously any more. Don't feed the troll.
I heard the astra militarum actually killed all of the imperial guard and stole every unit they had. That is so overpowered I cannot begin to fathom taking them on!
Yeah but Orks are just a massive cheese army anyway. They're so undercosted, you can take like THIRTY of them! And they ALL have Shootas! zomgop cheese pls nerf ok gw ty
BBAP wrote: Yeah but Orks are just a massive cheese army anyway. They're so undercosted, you can take like THIRTY of them! And they ALL have Shootas! zomgop cheese pls nerf ok gw ty
And shootas are just like bolters but better! And everyone knows you can kill anything with a bolter. And orks shoot so much! 60 shots from a squad of 30 boyz! And than they all charge and strike and kill stuff. That's insane! They should be nerfed.
blood ravens addiction wrote: Every army is OP if you use it correctly and get lucky dice. I killed Ghazkull (bad spelling) with 19 guardsmen and a sergeant. Lasguns only.
Traditio wrote: The player base has been shrinking since the advent of 6th edition. Say what you want, but power creep, scale creep, price creep, etc. are all to blame for this.
Mock me if you want.
Or don't.
Either way:
Enjoy the dwindling player base.
Enjoy your grav cannons, super heavies, etc. when you have an even more limited selection of opponents than you do now.
But hey. That will give you the great opportunity to build your own gaming table so that you can play many a game of warhammer: solitaire.
You make is so easy, though. It's also ironic that both grav cannons and most super heavies are perfectly fair taken alone. If you can't handle non-invisible grav cannons and SHW (hull points are a bitch), then you are a bad player. Period.
Traditio wrote: The player base has been shrinking since the advent of 6th edition. Say what you want, but power creep, scale creep, price creep, etc. are all to blame for this.
Mock me if you want.
Or don't.
Either way:
Enjoy the dwindling player base.
Enjoy your grav cannons, super heavies, etc. when you have an even more limited selection of opponents than you do now.
But hey. That will give you the great opportunity to build your own gaming table so that you can play many a game of warhammer: solitaire.
This is what separates us Traditio.
I love 40k. Like a lot, it brought me into the hobby, and I have a difficult time enjoying other games. There are no universes that I love as much as 40k.
That is why I still play it as it is. I love 40k, I don't love all the different types of creep, in fact, I hate it. But I can't escape it. If I go play at a tournament, I have to deal with all of those things. That's part of the game. I won't pretend it doesn't exist. I'll talk about my dislike, and I'll ignore it in friendly games, but I won't pretend it doesn't exist.
Also, the threats about the dwindling 40k playerbase are completely moot as you spend your time complaining a game that you say is a lost cause, so why waste your time and your dignity on this forum?
koooaei wrote: And shootas are just like bolters but better!
You laugh, but my CSM would much rather have shootas than bolters.
Yeah, because they're BS4 and have all kinds of OP special rules. They also get to have Daemons, which are the most OP units in the game, especially the Nurglings - did you know they can Outflank? How am I supposed to beat a unit that can Outflank?
BBAP wrote: All with lasguns too. Some dude killed Ghaz'kull with lasguns so they're obvs broken. GWpls nerf ok ty
Aaaaaand how do you nerf a lasgun exactly? Make it weaker? That makes it cheaper, which means I get more of them and can kill Ghazghkull easier. Make it stronger? Hardly any difference, perhaps 1 point higher per model. It'll just make it easier.
BBAP wrote: All with lasguns too. Some dude killed Ghaz'kull with lasguns so they're obvs broken. GWpls nerf ok ty
Aaaaaand how do you nerf a lasgun exactly? Make it weaker? That makes it cheaper, which means I get more of them and can kill Ghazghkull easier. Make it stronger? Hardly any difference, perhaps 1 point higher per model. It'll just make it easier.
You can't nerf a lasgun.
A guardsman with a lasgun should be at least 25 points. If it can kill a terminator it should obviously cost at least somewhat the same. After all, Guard has access to all the cheese buffs called "orders" that my Librarians can't even do!
BBAP wrote: All with lasguns too. Some dude killed Ghaz'kull with lasguns so they're obvs broken. GWpls nerf ok ty
Aaaaaand how do you nerf a lasgun exactly? Make it weaker? That makes it cheaper, which means I get more of them and can kill Ghazghkull easier. Make it stronger? Hardly any difference, perhaps 1 point higher per model. It'll just make it easier.
You can't nerf a lasgun.
A guardsman with a lasgun should be at least 25 points. If it can kill a terminator it should obviously cost at least somewhat the same. After all, Guard has access to all the cheese buffs called "orders" that my Librarians can't even do!
What he said, but Librarians should also get to do Orders. And Tactical Squads should get RttS/ Cult Ambush. Not very "Tactical" if they can't Ambush people.
So much cheese in this game. How can Marines hope to compete? Broken game.
BBAP wrote: I played a game against an Astroglide Militarium player earlier today. Now normally I have no problem beating the Guard with my nigh-invincible auto-regrouping Space Marines with their 10 Rhinos and BS4 special weapons, but then my opponent pulled out something called a "Stormsword".
It looked like an RC toy rather than something appropriate for 40k. It was huge. Worse, the thing had like 4 guns on it, and even though I used some of the free Krak grenades my MEQ dudes get to inflict a couple HP damage on it, I couldn't stop it shooting! It Stunned one of my Rhinos and ran over muh Devastator Sergeant!
Models like this have absolutely no place in 40k and I think it should be banned. It only costs 600-odd points too, which is undercosted for a non-SM vehicle with 4 guns on it.
This made me laugh profusely. The StormSword is good, but... it's not new and it's legal.
I am in your camp as far as whether it "should" be... But the Land of Should is a lonely place. No one lives there, people only pas through.
In this case, it just means you gotta embrace meltas and Grav Guns a lot more.Adapt and overcome.
BBAP wrote: I played a game against an Astroglide Militarium player earlier today. Now normally I have no problem beating the Guard with my nigh-invincible auto-regrouping Space Marines with their 10 Rhinos and BS4 special weapons, but then my opponent pulled out something called a "Stormsword".
It looked like an RC toy rather than something appropriate for 40k. It was huge. Worse, the thing had like 4 guns on it, and even though I used some of the free Krak grenades my MEQ dudes get to inflict a couple HP damage on it, I couldn't stop it shooting! It Stunned one of my Rhinos and ran over muh Devastator Sergeant!
Models like this have absolutely no place in 40k and I think it should be banned. It only costs 600-odd points too, which is undercosted for a non-SM vehicle with 4 guns on it.
This made me laugh profusely. The StormSword is good, but... it's not new and it's legal.
I am in your camp as far as whether it "should" be... But the Land of Should is a lonely place. No one lives there, people only pas through.
In this case, it just means you gotta embrace meltas and Grav Guns a lot more.Adapt and overcome.
But if you have to rely on overpowered weapons to kill a unit that makes that unit overpowered. I should be able to take a TAC lists with missile launchers marines in rhinos and destroy Baneblades in a well balanced game.
BBAP wrote: All with lasguns too. Some dude killed Ghaz'kull with lasguns so they're obvs broken. GWpls nerf ok ty
Aaaaaand how do you nerf a lasgun exactly? Make it weaker? That makes it cheaper, which means I get more of them and can kill Ghazghkull easier. Make it stronger? Hardly any difference, perhaps 1 point higher per model. It'll just make it easier.
TheCustomLime wrote:But if you have to rely on overpowered weapons to kill a unit that makes that unit overpowered. I should be able to take a TAC lists with missile launchers marines in rhinos and destroy Baneblades in a well balanced game.
The "standard" load-out for a 10 man squad of tactical marines is a rhino, a flamer and a missile launcher. That was the loadout that was expressedly encouraged in the 5th edition codex. In the 5th edition codex, if you had a 10 man squad, you could switch out 2 boltguns for a missile launcher and flamer for free. That was the weapons configuration that came with the Assault on Black Reach boxed set. 10 man tactical marine squad with flamer and missile launcher is literally what GW pushed through 5th edition.
Why shouldn't I expect to be able to win games with tactical marines with flamers, missile launchers and rhinos when that's precisely what GW marketed until the advent of 6th edition?
Ditto if I play dark angels tactical squads with a plasma gun and plasma cannon. That's literally what GW marketed.
I don't think that I should be able to win all the time with that. But yes, it seems perfectly reasonable to have a fair shot if that's what I'm using.
Yes, the flamer is an anti-infantry weapon. Yes, the missile launcher is an anti-vehicle weapon.
So if I use those things, why shouldn't I have roughly a 50/50 shot when GW itself basically told me: "This is what you should be using" for most of the time that 40k has been around?
Because the scale has gotten out of whack. Because power creep. And because you like the fact that your new, expensive toys win you games without any real strategic effort on your part.
No. Using teleporting grav centurions doesn't make you a "good" player.
Ditto if you use a bane blade, an imperial knight or a wraithknight.
That doesn't make you a good player.
It just means that you brought something to the table that should never have been introduced to the "normal" game in the first place.
If missile launchers is what GW has consistently told me that I should use, and missile launchers can't reliably kill it, then no, it doesn't belong on the table.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But hey, mock me all you want.
Eventually, you'll be mocking me...and have practically nobody to play with. Because with GW's ridiculous prices and the ridiculous shifts in power balance, few people will have the ability or the desire to keep up.
The "standard" load-out for a 10 man squad of tactical marines is a rhino, a flamer and a missile launcher. That was the loadout that was expressedly encouraged in the 5th edition codex. In the 5th edition codex, if you had a 10 man squad, you could switch out 2 boltguns for a missile launcher and flamer for free. That was the weapons configuration that came with the Assault on Black Reach boxed set. 10 man tactical marine squad with flamer and missile launcher is literally what GW pushed through 5th edition.
Why shouldn't I expect to be able to win games with tactical marines with flamers, missile launchers and rhinos when that's precisely what GW marketed until the advent of 6th edition?
In case you missed it, this IS NOT 5th ed anymore.
Why shouldn't I expect to be able to win games with tactical marines with flamers, missile launchers and rhinos when that's precisely what GW marketed until the advent of 6th edition?
Because now you have nothing to deal with heavy infantry or anything more durable than a few rhinos reliably. The flamer is anti LIGHT infantry weapon, not an anti ALL infantry weapon. The ML is anti light vehicle weapon, not an anti flyer/heavy tank/Everything weapon.
I don't think that I should be able to win all the time with that. But yes, it seems perfectly reasonable to have a fair shot if that's what I'm using.
Not if that's the extent of your special/heavy weapons. If you build a gak list, expect it to perform like gak.
So if I use those things, why shouldn't I have roughly a 50/50 shot when GW itself basically told me: "This is what you should be using" for most of the time that 40k has been around?
Two things here. 5th ed was not the majority of time 40k was around, and the times have changed. Stop living in 5th ed.
Because the scale has gotten out of whack. Because power creep. And because you like the fact that your new, expensive toys win you games without any real strategic effort on your part.
No. Using teleporting grav centurions doesn't make you a "good" player.
Ditto if you use a bane blade, an imperial knight or a wraithknight.
That doesn't make you a good player.
Neither does building a bad list then whining everyone else is OP. Neither does refusing to adapt in anyway shape or form and blaming everyone and thing besides yourself.
If missile launchers is what GW has consistently told me that I should use, and missile launchers can't reliably kill it, then no, it doesn't belong on the table.
So LAND RAIDERS do not belong on the table then? Terminators either? Meganobs? Any squad of infantry properly spaced out? AV13? Anything with an invul save? Do you realize how dumb that sounds? You just eliminated everything inthe game but the lightest vehicles AND marine squads pretty much.
Eventually, you'll be mocking me...and have practically nobody to play with. Because with GW's ridiculous prices and the ridiculous shifts in power balance, few people will have the ability or the desire to keep up.
It's the price hike, not the poor balance that's really been driving players away, and preventing new players from starting.
In the mean time, we'll keep laughing at all of your "the sky is falling!" threads, insane ideas on "balance" (aka "the latest thing that beat my 5th ed army/does ONE thing better than C:SM/I deem randomly unfair")
In case you missed it, this IS NOT 5th ed anymore.
Even in Fifth that combo was meh, they were the CHEAPEST options for a reason.
It wasn't just 5th edition. 10 man tactical squad with flamer and missile launcher was the marketed standard load-out at least since 2nd edition. I'm willing to bet that it was probably true for rogue trader.
Also it seems like he desires that everyone be able to win with what just comes out a box?
Why shouldn't I?
If that's what GW marketed, why shouldn't I have as good a chance of winning with that as with anything else?
Does he believe that nobody should have options either?
Yes. You should be able to play how you want. And regardless of what you use, you should have roughly a 50/50 chance of winning, independently of player skill.
You shouldn't be able to pull the newest OP gak from the latest edition, plop it on the table, and say: "I just started playing this morning, but I win. Good game."
Traditio wrote: The "standard" load-out for a 10 man squad of tactical marines is a rhino, a flamer and a missile launcher. That was the loadout that was expressedly encouraged in the 5th edition codex. In the 5th edition codex, if you had a 10 man squad, you could switch out 2 boltguns for a missile launcher and flamer for free. That was the weapons configuration that came with the Assault on Black Reach boxed set. 10 man tactical marine squad with flamer and missile launcher is literally what GW pushed through 5th edition.
In case you haven't noticed it's currently 7th edition, not 5th. How things used to work in 5th edition is irrelevant.
And it's a bad argument anyway. An upgrade being "free" doesn't mean that it's meant to be the standard, it just means that certain upgrades are considered to have a value of zero points compared to the bolter they replace. The missile/flamer combination was only "encouraged" if you assume that you want the cheapest possible tactical squads. Even back in 5th edition most of us realized that missile/flamer was not the default option. Melta guns were the standard special weapon, not flamers, because flamers had very little value. So not only are you trying to make an absurd argument based on obsolete rules, you're doing it with revisionist history about a version of the game that only exists in your own mind.
Why shouldn't I expect to be able to win games with tactical marines with flamers, missile launchers and rhinos when that's precisely what GW marketed until the advent of 6th edition?
For the same reason that I can't expect to win games with Marbo in my IG army, put 10-man squads in my Vendettas, or start my entire army in reserve: because the rules have changed since 5th edition.
If missile launchers is what GW has consistently told me that I should use, and missile launchers can't reliably kill it, then no, it doesn't belong on the table.
Missile launchers have never been able to reliably kill everything. Even back in 5th edition LRBTs, Land Raiders, terminators, etc, were virtually immune to missile launchers. It is not reasonable to declare that anything your "decent at several things, great at none of them" weapon can't reliably kill is "cheese" and insist that it be removed from the game. If you want to kill heavy tanks you take things like grav weapons, lascannons, and melta guns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: And regardless of what you use, you should have roughly a 50/50 chance of winning, independently of player skill.
This is a terrible argument. If I bring an army that has literally no weapon capable of damaging a tank should I have a 50/50 chance of winning a game of 40k? If I take a Tau army that has no ranged weapons (lots of crisis suits with multiple shield generators) should I have a 50/50 chance of winning? If I take a naked captain and two naked 5-man tactical squads (and no other units) in a 2000 point game should I have a 50/50 chance of winning? Of course not. If you fail at the strategic aspect of list building and show up with a poorly designed army you should expect to lose as a result. The game can not and should not cater to your demands to be able to get away with making bad choices because "that's how it worked in 5th edition".
Why shouldn't I expect to be able to win games with tactical marines with flamers, missile launchers and rhinos when that's precisely what GW marketed until the advent of 6th edition?
How is it? There is a reason why that loadout is the cheapest and it has nothing to do with it being the standard.
I don't think that I should be able to win all the time with that. But yes, it seems perfectly reasonable to have a fair shot if that's what I'm using.
Provided the enemy only brings light infantry and light armour, sure.
Yes, the flamer is an anti-infantry weapon. Yes, the missile launcher is an anti-vehicle weapon.
Light hordes. At best.
So if I use those things, why shouldn't I have roughly a 50/50 shot when GW itself basically told me: "This is what you should be using" for most of the time that 40k has been around?
Because they are utter gak when compared to the other options?
Because the scale has gotten out of whack. Because power creep. And because you like the fact that your new, expensive toys win you games without any real strategic effort on your part.
Yes it has, but that is not your problem here.
Ditto if you use a bane blade,
That doesn't make you a good player.
A Baneblade? You have issue with the Baneblade? Oh hell Tradito, just quit now. The Baneblade is extremely weak when compared to other LoW.
If missile launchers is what GW has consistently told me that I should use, and missile launchers can't reliably kill it, then no, it doesn't belong on the table.
GW never told you to use them. And your Missile Launchers are utter crap against heavy armour, so why should you expect to win? Stop whining and grow a pair.
The "standard" load-out for a 10 man squad of tactical marines is a rhino, a flamer and a missile launcher. That was the loadout that was expressedly encouraged in the 5th edition codex. In the 5th edition codex, if you had a 10 man squad, you could switch out 2 boltguns for a missile launcher and flamer for free. That was the weapons configuration that came with the Assault on Black Reach boxed set. 10 man tactical marine squad with flamer and missile launcher is literally what GW pushed through 5th edition.
No, it wasn't 'standard'. It was the cheapest loadout, and was only one possible loadout, amongst many. Thst doesn't make it 'standard'. If anything, the only 'standard' is that tac. Squads come in sizes of 5-10, and marines carry bolters as their longarms. In any case, what the fifth edition codex rules said have nothing to do with things - in case you hadn't noticed, things change.
Why shouldn't I expect to be able to win games with tactical marines with flamers, missile launchers and rhinos when that's precisely what GW marketed until the advent of 6th edition?
Because that's not what gw marketed? It's only what you wished gw marketed, based on your own hysterically skewed perspective,
In any case, I could get behind that argument in the lore and tabletop, if marines with flamers, mission launchers and rhinos was literally all you had as options and represented the entirety of the codex, but no, codex:marines has, and has had, through all its previous incarnations, far more stuff to use. Even in the lore, marines use plenty other stuff than just relying on your napoleonics in spaaaace.
Ditto if I play dark angels tactical squads with a plasma gun and plasma cannon. That's literally what GW marketed.
And yet, their codex has plenty other options too. Being the first legion. They're famously for plasma, nowhere does it say they'd use it instead of everything else.
By the way, you do realise, to use your own argument, that dark angels are far more famous fr their death wing and raven wing elements? They're very much marketed around that. So you should be all for lots of bikes and deep striking terminators?
I don't think that I should be able to win all the time with that. But yes, it seems perfectly reasonable to have a fair shot if that's what I'm using.
So then by that reasoning, I should be able to take an army of scouts with knives and win half my games.
Lol, but no. In any game with the breadth of options as 40k, no, you shouldn't be able to 'just win with that'. It can play a part, certainly, in the greater scheme of things. Rhino marines have a role, but they shouldn't encompass everything about the game - it is far too big for that.But that also implies the acknowledgement and acceptance of the validity of the rest of the space marine armoury.
Yes, the flamer is an anti-infantry weapon. Yes, the missile launcher is an anti-vehicle weapon.
So if I use those things, why shouldn't I have roughly a 50/50 shot when GW itself basically told me: "This is what you should be using" for most of the time that 40k has been around?
.
Flamers are for light infantry, missile launchers are limited anti vehicles. They can't do the whole job on their own, nor should they. There's far more out there, and marines have far more tools in their armoury to deal with those things thst flamers and missile launchers can't do all by themselves. Hmm, it's almost like marines have specialist solutions to problems using other tools beyond just missile launchers and flamers. Things thst they are happy to use and things that are readily available.
By all means use your missile launchers and flamers. Just bear in mind, they're only part of the bigger picture. And can you point me To where gw told you 'this is what you should be using'? Because I very much doubt thst this is a thing.
Because the scale has gotten out of whack. Because power creep. And because you like the fact that your new, expensive toys win you games without any real strategic effort on your part.
Lol. Says the person who wants his marines with bolters to just gun down everything and win games without any strategic effort on his part. And who wants to do this in a game where no one else has any cool toys. You are self absorbed, Entitled, and selfish. And a poor player with a terrible attitude.
It just means that you brought something to the table that should never have been introduced to the "normal" game in the first place.
Says who now? I prefer smaller scale games myself, like infinity and warmachine, but folks are not wrong for wanting to field super heavies. Things like Titans are some of the most iconic images of 40k. And they're amazing centrepieces, or even justmthings to paint.
If missile launchers is what GW has consistently told me that I should use, and missile launchers can't reliably kill it, then no, it doesn't belong on the table.
Lol, but no. Missile launchers are one option to one unit, amongst a whole codex. If missile launchers from your tac.squads can't kill it, then chances are that it's probably not the right tool for the job. And it's not like those missile armed tac.squads don't have other support elements and specialist weapons available to them, along with the various delivery methods to apply said weapons to bad guys. It's almost like they emthought about this...
The only thing thst doesn't belong in the table is your stinking self-absorbed attitude, your entitlement, your vindictiveness and small mindedness, and your martyrdom complex.
Eventually, you'll be mocking me...and have practically nobody to play with. Because with GW's ridiculous prices and the ridiculous shifts in power balance, few people will have the ability or the desire to keep up.
Lol, but no. I have other games, and I have good groups that I play with where we approach the game in a way where those silly things don't really don't cause any havoc.
It wasn't just 5th edition. 10 man tactical squad with flamer and missile launcher was the marketed standard load-out at least since 2nd edition. I'm willing to bet that it was probably true for rogue trader.
Considering White Dwarf Space Marine armies weren't filled with Tacticals with Flamers/Missile launchers.. There's no such thing as a standard loadout.
This guy is crazy. Do you actually think that you should always have a 50% chance of winning? Also flamers are useless and the only time I've seen them do some actual damage is in a 10 man squad. Why don't you play 30k which doesn't have formation cheese. And you really only see marines so everything is nice and fair.
Traditio I'd love to play a fame against you
Il bring my tau and wipe you off the board just to watch you cry just like the immature so and so you are
Do the world a favor quit the hobby your irritating
Last time I checked every 10 point model beat guardsmen, unless the points have changed drastically since I've came back? I've not got any new codices so I'm not sure, but isn't a tac marine around 14-15 points? Even with FRFSRF 10 guardsmen do not beat 10 tac marines. Even if they fired first and had a plasma gun and plasma pistol and had rapid fire they'd still either lose or draw.
Unless you were being sarcastic of course, then sorry.
NivlacSupreme wrote: This guy is crazy. Do you actually think that you should always have a 50% chance of winning? Also flamers are useless and the only time I've seen them do some actual damage is in a 10 man squad. Why don't you play 30k which doesn't have formation cheese. And you really only see marines so everything is nice and fair.
Nah he'd hate 30k. His flamers will be even more useless and his missile launchers will still be questionable.
Indeed he'd probably come back in a few days complaining about the Typhon...
NivlacSupreme wrote: This guy is crazy. Do you actually think that you should always have a 50% chance of winning? Also flamers are useless and the only time I've seen them do some actual damage is in a 10 man squad. Why don't you play 30k which doesn't have formation cheese. And you really only see marines so everything is nice and fair.
Nah he'd hate 30k. His flamers will be even more useless and his missile launchers will still be questionable.
Indeed he'd probably come back in a few days complaining about the Typhon...
And devs all with a heavy weapon. And primarchs. and spartans. and Admech MCs. And other legions' special units.
Traditio wrote: You shouldn't be able to pull the newest OP gak from the latest edition, plop it on the table, and say: "I just started playing this morning, but I win. Good game."
Find an experienced player with a balanced army who's played against one of these things before and try it out. It won't work.
Last time I checked every 10 point model beat guardsmen, unless the points have changed drastically since I've came back? I've not got any new codices so I'm not sure, but isn't a tac marine around 14-15 points? Even with FRFSRF 10 guardsmen do not beat 10 tac marines. Even if they fired first and had a plasma gun and plasma pistol and had rapid fire they'd still either lose or draw.
Unless you were being sarcastic of course, then sorry.
This whole thread is very, very sarcastic, don't worry.
Last time I checked every 10 point model beat guardsmen, unless the points have changed drastically since I've came back? I've not got any new codices so I'm not sure, but isn't a tac marine around 14-15 points? Even with FRFSRF 10 guardsmen do not beat 10 tac marines. Even if they fired first and had a plasma gun and plasma pistol and had rapid fire they'd still either lose or draw.
Unless you were being sarcastic of course, then sorry.
I'm being serious. Do you know how many Tactical Marines I've lost to cheesy Guardsman and their OP Lasguns? I demand they be nerfed!
(I'm joking. Just parodying typical "Timmy" attitudes towards balance)
Martel732 wrote: Missile launchers have been unplayable garbage since 3rd. They weren't usable in 5th.
No dude, they were the standard. GW marketed them and in 5th ed they were the benchmark-nay! the acme- of heavy weapons in a well balanced and cinematic battle. Anything that a single missile launcher couldn't destroy in a single turn was OP and it still stays so.
Why are people still responding to him? Its obvious he is either an autist (not a insult mind you) or a troll. Either way its lame to make fun of mental illness and even lamer to feed a obvious troll. At this point I think everyone and anyone can brush this post off. But I would be lying if I did not admit I get a perverse pleasure in reading Tradito tripe. It is like a car accident rubbernecker. Does that make me a bad person? It sure feels like it does. :(
Martel732 wrote: Missile launchers have been unplayable garbage since 3rd. They weren't usable in 5th.
No dude, they were the standard. GW marketed them and in 5th ed they were the benchmark-nay! the acme- of heavy weapons in a well balanced and cinematic battle. Anything that a single missile launcher couldn't destroy in a single turn was OP and it still stays so.
Indeed. The glory days of two-man Long Fang Packs halting entire mech armies with their single Missile Launcher and combi-Flamer Pack Leader seem so long ago. Game broken. Pls nerf ok gw ty
Martel732 wrote: Also, why should anyone care what gw markets? Missile launchers were good in 2nd vs elite infantry and mcs, but were still sketchy vs vehicles.
You still have yet to answer if I am bad person or not. I need the validation like I need to read Tactics : Tradito (spelling).
Martel732 wrote: Also, why should anyone care what gw markets? Missile launchers were good in 2nd vs elite infantry and mcs, but were still sketchy vs vehicles.
You still have yet to answer if I am bad person or not. I need the validation like I need to read Tactics : Tradito (spelling).
BBAP wrote: I played a game against an Astroglide Militarium player earlier today. Now normally I have no problem beating the Guard with my nigh-invincible auto-regrouping Space Marines with their 10 Rhinos and BS4 special weapons, but then my opponent pulled out something called a "Stormsword".
It looked like an RC toy rather than something appropriate for 40k. It was huge. Worse, the thing had like 4 guns on it, and even though I used some of the free Krak grenades my MEQ dudes get to inflict a couple HP damage on it, I couldn't stop it shooting! It Stunned one of my Rhinos and ran over muh Devastator Sergeant!
Models like this have absolutely no place in 40k and I think it should be banned. It only costs 600-odd points too, which is undercosted for a non-SM vehicle with 4 guns on it.
This made me laugh profusely. The StormSword is good, but... it's not new and it's legal.
I am in your camp as far as whether it "should" be... But the Land of Should is a lonely place. No one lives there, people only pas through.
In this case, it just means you gotta embrace meltas and Grav Guns a lot more.Adapt and overcome.
But if you have to rely on overpowered weapons to kill a unit that makes that unit overpowered. I should be able to take a TAC lists with missile launchers marines in rhinos and destroy Baneblades in a well balanced game.
Eh...no? While Missile luanchers WILL glance it, the sheer volume of missiles necessary is fairly ridiculous.
The Land of Should doesn't actually exist. No one EATS the way they should, no one SLEEPS as much as they should and life isn't a "Should" situation.
Bud, I don't play much anymore, but even I have to agree that your taking things too far. You took a bad list. Before I even play a game, me and my opponent sit down and talk lists. He wants to bring vehicles, fine. I let him decide on how many he wants to bring, then I come up with a number for what I am willing to field to oppose that. I want to bring infantry hordes, I let him know about how much will hit the field, and let him come up with a response. By the end of 10 minutes, we have lists that should be fairly equal on scale. Try that next time.
On the subject of guardsman for all ye sarcastic people in the audience... remember that even termagants get an armor save. Nerf them harder.
I went through the thread before I posted. I just felt puritan on posting something related to the thread before I made an off comment on the guardsman jokes. I'm closing on a house atm, so I'm trying to be prim and proper before I have to get down and dirty on the repairs it will need. Sue me.
Unyielding Hunger wrote: I went through the thread before I posted. I just felt puritan on posting something related to the thread before I made an off comment on the guardsman jokes. I'm closing on a house atm, so I'm trying to be prim and proper before I have to get down and dirty on the repairs it will need. Sue me.
My Strike-team of highly trained lawyers is on the way. I'm going to sue you to kingdom come.
Unyielding Hunger wrote: I went through the thread before I posted. I just felt puritan on posting something related to the thread before I made an off comment on the guardsman jokes. I'm closing on a house atm, so I'm trying to be prim and proper before I have to get down and dirty on the repairs it will need. Sue me.
My Strike-team of highly trained lawyers is on the way. I'm going to sue you to kingdom come.
Unyielding Hunger wrote: I went through the thread before I posted. I just felt puritan on posting something related to the thread before I made an off comment on the guardsman jokes. I'm closing on a house atm, so I'm trying to be prim and proper before I have to get down and dirty on the repairs it will need. Sue me.
My Strike-team of highly trained lawyers is on the way. I'm going to sue you to kingdom come.
Whats the stats on those?
Veteran statline with one extra toughness and initiative. Their law-based education gives them a 5++ against physic attacks. They have the special rule lawsuit: they can exchange all their attacks by a single one that hits automatically. The opponent must make a leadership, with a minus one modifier per lawyer after the first, and if he fails he's removed from the game. If successful he cannot attack, his efforts have been spent at court.
Lord Kragan wrote: Veteran statline with one extra toughness and initiative. Their law-based education gives them a 5++ against physic attacks. They have the special rule lawsuit: they can exchange all their attacks by a single one that hits automatically. The opponent must make a leadership, with a minus one modifier per lawyer after the first, and if he fails he's removed from the game. If successful he cannot attack, his efforts have been spent at court.
Are they functionally immune to single Missile Launchers? If so they're OP and I will refuse to play you if you field them.
God what a broken game no wonder nobody plays anymore gwpls nerf all ok ty
This thread is, once again, an illustration of why 40k as a whole, and the 40k community, is toxic.
The same people who will balk at heavier restrictions on army construction in the rules (e.g., heavy tanks MUST be in the heavy support slot, you may only field 1 heavy tank per heavy support slot, and you may only field 3 heavy supports...NO exceptions), because, they will say, this imposes limits on what people can and can't bring, because this will turn people off from the game, because this will restrict who can and can't play...because people should be able to take whatever the feth they want, you know?
...
...these same people will balk at the idea that the game should ACTUALLY be balanced around the notion that people should ACTUALLY be able to take whatever the feth they want and have a 50/50 shot at winning, independently of player skill...
...and when someone like me complains about the fact that you can, in fact, NOT currently expect this in a game in which it is LITERALLY advertised in the book that you should take what you think looks cool, not what you think you "should" bring...
...you mock me for complaining about power imbalance, about being forced to take either x, y and z or else, lose most of the time, etc., and when I continue to complain, you tell me that I should just quit the game.
I want you to ponder for a moment what you actually have to gain by this kind of behavior.
This is a public forum. Anyone on the internet can read this.
How many people who either play warhammer 40k or are THINKING about playing warhammer 40k think like I do?
I want you to think for a moment about the people who are reading what you are writing in answer to me, LITERALLY mocking me for actually wanting to have a fair shot regardless of list construction (assuming equivalent points) and telling me to quit the game...
...Because that kind of talk is going to draw people in. That kind of people is going to attract new players. That kind of talk is going to encourage people to keep playing and buy more GW products. Right?
Have fun with your progressively shrinking hobby. I hope that you all end up with a massive stock pile of OPGW products and nobody to field them against.
I want you to think for a moment about the people who are reading what you are writing in answer to me, LITERALLY mocking me for actually wanting to have a fair shot regardless of list construction (assuming equivalent points) and telling me to quit the game...
No, we mock you because you have no sense of balance, no willingness to adapt, crazy ideas about what a "proper" army looks like, constantly cry OP then ignore solutions because "i can take whatever I want and should be able to win." What you fail to realize is that if you build a gak list (i.e. yours) you can't expect it to perform well. If you're army can't deal with high toughness/high AV/high model count/2+ armor save, obviously you're going to struggle against anything that falls into that category. And if you then rely on a terrible weapon (bolters) to do all the heavy lifting for you, you're gonna have a rough time period.
And just because something is "advertised" (even if it isn't...) doesn't mean that it's the optimal, or even an effective squad loadout.
If I take NOTHING but crisis suits without weapons or equipment, should I have a 50% chance to win? Of course not. If I bring nothing but cultists, should I have an even chance against land raiders? Should I have an even chance if I bring no synapse creatures in a 'nid army? No, and it's stupid to think you SHOULD have an even chance. If you build a bad list, you will not have an even chance.
Another example, in starcraft, if I bring nothing but zealots (a melee only unit) and my enemy brings mass air units, or siege tanks, should I have an even chance to win? By your logic, yes, I should, even though those are basically direct counters.
Traditio wrote: This thread is, once again, an illustration of why 40k as a whole, and the 40k community, is toxic.
The same people who will balk at heavier restrictions on army construction in the rules (e.g., heavy tanks MUST be in the heavy support slot, you may only field 1 heavy tank per heavy support slot, and you may only field 3 heavy supports...NO exceptions), because, they will say, this imposes limits on what people can and can't bring, because this will turn people off from the game, because this will restrict who can and can't play...because people should be able to take whatever the feth they want, you know?
...
...these same people will balk at the idea that the game should ACTUALLY be balanced around the notion that people should ACTUALLY be able to take whatever the feth they want and have a 50/50 shot at winning, independently of player skill...
...and when someone like me complains about the fact that you can, in fact, NOT currently expect this in a game in which it is LITERALLY advertised in the book that you should take what you think looks cool, not what you think you "should" bring...
...you mock me for complaining about power imbalance, about being forced to take either x, y and z or else, lose most of the time, etc., and when I continue to complain, you tell me that I should just quit the game.
I want you to ponder for a moment what you actually have to gain by this kind of behavior.
This is a public forum. Anyone on the internet can read this.
How many people who either play warhammer 40k or are THINKING about playing warhammer 40k think like I do?
I want you to think for a moment about the people who are reading what you are writing in answer to me, LITERALLY mocking me for actually wanting to have a fair shot regardless of list construction (assuming equivalent points) and telling me to quit the game...
...Because that kind of talk is going to draw people in. That kind of people is going to attract new players. That kind of talk is going to encourage people to keep playing and buy more GW products. Right?
Have fun with your progressively shrinking hobby. I hope that you all end up with a massive stock pile of OPGW products and nobody to field them against.
You all deserve it.
Except thats where your wrong.
No game should ever be 50/50 if you show up with what ever you want.
Case in point, if you show up with a heavy psyker army, and i brink sisters of silence and some culuxes, guess what my army SHOULD! be better then yours because its a counter to it.
Armies are ment to counter one another, they are meant to be an eb and flow kinda thing. No one army should dominate at everything, and if you really read the forms and actually look at what people are saying, thats what we bitch about. The prime example of this is tau, and eldar. Right now those two armies CAN stand toe to toe with any army of any combination and they can win 9/10 times that is NOT balanced.
Each faction has its strengths and each formation you want to bring should have its strengths.
Im sorry dude, but if some one showed up with a flyer army where 75% of it is flying and my 25% of my army is pure AA and it destroys them, thats not a game imbalance, that my opponent not thinking and playing an army that i can counter easily.
Traditio wrote: This thread is, once again, an illustration of why 40k as a whole, and the 40k community, is toxic.
The same people who will balk at heavier restrictions on army construction in the rules (e.g., heavy tanks MUST be in the heavy support slot, you may only field 1 heavy tank per heavy support slot, and you may only field 3 heavy supports...NO exceptions), because, they will say, this imposes limits on what people can and can't bring, because this will turn people off from the game, because this will restrict who can and can't play...because people should be able to take whatever the feth they want, you know?
...
...these same people will balk at the idea that the game should ACTUALLY be balanced around the notion that people should ACTUALLY be able to take whatever the feth they want and have a 50/50 shot at winning, independently of player skill...
...and when someone like me complains about the fact that you can, in fact, NOT currently expect this in a game in which it is LITERALLY advertised in the book that you should take what you think looks cool, not what you think you "should" bring...
...you mock me for complaining about power imbalance, about being forced to take either x, y and z or else, lose most of the time, etc., and when I continue to complain, you tell me that I should just quit the game.
I want you to ponder for a moment what you actually have to gain by this kind of behavior.
This is a public forum. Anyone on the internet can read this.
How many people who either play warhammer 40k or are THINKING about playing warhammer 40k think like I do?
I want you to think for a moment about the people who are reading what you are writing in answer to me, LITERALLY mocking me for actually wanting to have a fair shot regardless of list construction (assuming equivalent points) and telling me to quit the game...
...Because that kind of talk is going to draw people in. That kind of people is going to attract new players. That kind of talk is going to encourage people to keep playing and buy more GW products. Right?
Have fun with your progressively shrinking hobby. I hope that you all end up with a massive stock pile of OPGW products and nobody to field them against.
You all deserve it.
Great job generalising an entire hobby's worth of people.
I'm sure you must be the only one who embodies the True Meaning of 40k. You are truly exalted above everyone else who wants to use what you, quite rightly, deem the tools of Cheese and WAAC.
We should be ashamed. /sarcasm
Spoiler:
Without any malice, if you hate the way GW is going, instead of berating it, you can just quit? Perhaps try 30k. But just as you are getting angry that people are telling you what to play, you are doing exactly the same. You are telling people that they are bad if they use anything that makes them smile when they choose it, bad if they buy a Knight (because that could be put to charity), bad if they field a Superheavy (including the underpowered ones like the Baneblade and Malcador) and other such cases.
There's nothing wrong with having a fair game, provided you play the game how the game is now meant to be played. That means moving with the meta, and taking off your 5th Edition tinted glasses, and taking a new look at 40k. If you won't play with what's given to you, how can you hope to win? That's like me trying to climb in a mountain race with no climbing gear - possible, but you're severely handicapping yourself. You're doing just that, and then telling the person with climbing gear they're doing it wrong.
If I take an Unbound list of just one squad of Crisis Suits, completely bare, in a 2000 points list against a tournament standard Eldar army, should I still have a 50/50 chance?
An element of sensibility needs to be accounted for - the sensibility coming from the players taking the right tools for the job, and actually adapting to the meta, instead of demanding the meta change around them.
If there's someone on the internet who has the same opinion as you, Traditio, then it may be better off for them that they don't invest into 40k - it's not a cheap investment, and if they know now that they can't destroy Warlord Titans with bolters, that'll save them a lot of time and stress.
Consider 40k as what it is now, and if you still want to be part of that. Because if you're going to keep complaining and berating the members of that community, you may want to call it quits and salvage whatever's left of the 40k you knew. That's not being aggressive, that's not trying to create hatespeech - that's the best advice I can give you if you're that sick of 40k.
Traditio wrote: This thread is, once again, an illustration of why 40k as a whole, and the 40k community, is toxic.
Toxic community wounds my Chapter Master on 2+ how is that balanced gwpls nerf ok ty
The same people who will balk at heavier restrictions on army construction in the rules (e.g., heavy tanks MUST be in the heavy support slot, you may only field 1 heavy tank per heavy support slot, and you may only field 3 heavy supports...NO exceptions), because, they will say, this imposes limits on what people can and can't bring, because this will turn people off from the game, because this will restrict who can and can't play...because people should be able to take whatever the feth they want, you know?
I don't balk at comp restrictions. As long as the comp is sensible, and not just a knee-jerk reaction to stuff that riles up internet whiners, it's usually fine. Problem is that comping is often not done well, particularly at a local level, so you end up creating a "meta" that favours one type of army or playstyle over others. That's not solving a problem, it's just moving it somewhere else.
...these same people will balk at the idea that the game should ACTUALLY be balanced around the notion that people should ACTUALLY be able to take whatever the feth they want and have a 50/50 shot at winning, independently of player skill...
Punchan' a strawman.
What "should" be the case, isn't. I'd love a 40k where I can build a truly balanced army from whatever goofy/ stupid/ cool-ass units I like the look of, but that's not the game we're playing, and I don't think it'll ever be the case unless there's a wholesale re-imagining of 40k's core rules. It's not the Gargants or Super-Heavies or "OP Death Guard Cheese" that prevent me playing whatever I like and winning with it - it's the core rules. Maybe there'll come a day when that's not the case, but in the meantime I'm having plenty of fun playing with the rules we've got at the moment.
...and when someone like me complains about the fact that you can, in fact, NOT currently expect this in a game in which it is LITERALLY advertised in the book that you should take what you think looks cool, not what you think you "should" bring...
Free upgrades aren't the "default" options. If this was the case then every custom IC **should** be running with their basic kit and nothing else, and adding any wargear to them at all would indicate that the game is unbalanced and should be flushed down the toilet or whatever it is you think. There's no "advertising" or advisement going on, just a template upon which you can build. When people tell you you should take whatever you think is cool, they're doing so because they value fluff over competitiveness. If you want to build a TAC army list you just can't do that. The game just doesn't allow for it, and probably never will unless some swingeing changes are made to the core mechanics.
I want you to think for a moment about the people who are reading what you are writing in answer to me, LITERALLY mocking me for actually wanting to have a fair shot regardless of list construction (assuming equivalent points) and telling me to quit the game...
You get gak because of the way you say things, not necessarily because you say them. I can't imagine reading yet another Traditio whine-fest about OP Death Guard Cheese or Magnus Boycotts or whatever is likely to draw much interest from newbies either. If anything that gak is actuively harmful - you want people to believe that these "OP" units represent some kind of impassable barrier to any enjoyment of the game whatsoever, which simply isn't true. Most of these "OP" units **can** be manageable if your army list isn't ass, but you're so obsessed with this idea of taking whatever you like and winning with it that you seem unable to see that.
...Because that kind of talk is going to draw people in. That kind of people is going to attract new players. That kind of talk is going to encourage people to keep playing and buy more GW products. Right?
How would you know what's going to draw players in or chase them away? Your entire schtick is "units should be overcosted garbage because I can't kill WKs with bolters". Nobody is going to play a game where all the units suck ass and you only get ten of them at 2000pts.
Every time you respond to the Troll as if his arguments were legitimate, God makes Guardsmen with Lasguns more OP.
Think of the children, folks! We don't want Guardsmen with Lasguns any more OP than they already are! Keep responding to him like this, and they'll need to be 40, 50, or even eventually 100 points per model! Oh, the humanity!
Traditio wrote: This thread is, once again, an illustration of why 40k as a whole, and the 40k community, is toxic.
The same people who will balk at heavier restrictions on army construction in the rules (e.g., heavy tanks MUST be in the heavy support slot, you may only field 1 heavy tank per heavy support slot, and you may only field 3 heavy supports...NO exceptions), because, they will say, this imposes limits on what people can and can't bring, because this will turn people off from the game, because this will restrict who can and can't play...because people should be able to take whatever the feth they want, you know?
...
...these same people will balk at the idea that the game should ACTUALLY be balanced around the notion that people should ACTUALLY be able to take whatever the feth they want and have a 50/50 shot at winning, independently of player skill...
People should not be restricted from taking whatever models they want. But if you take worthless weapons like flamers and bolters, with no anti-armor, against IG armored company, you deserve to lose, as you are using the wrong tools for that situation.
...and when someone like me complains about the fact that you can, in fact, NOT currently expect this in a game in which it is LITERALLY advertised in the book that you should take what you think looks cool, not what you think you "should" bring...
Where in the rulebook does it say that players are entitled to taking units that are ineffective against their opponent and have a chance to win?
...you mock me for complaining about power imbalance, about being forced to take either x, y and z or else, lose most of the time, etc., and when I continue to complain, you tell me that I should just quit the game.
Because your ideas of "power imbalance" are BS.
I want you to ponder for a moment what you actually have to gain by this kind of behavior.
This is a public forum. Anyone on the internet can read this.
Absolutely nothing. I've been at home with a severe fever all week with nothing to do but post on Dakka.
How many people who either play warhammer 40k or are THINKING about playing warhammer 40k think like I do?
One. His name is Traditio.
I want you to think for a moment about the people who are reading what you are writing in answer to me, LITERALLY mocking me for actually wanting to have a fair shot regardless of list construction (assuming equivalent points) and telling me to quit the game...
Because you deserve to be mocked for saying that taking all anti-tank weapons against an infantry list, or all anti-infantry weapons against a tank list should be effective. Countering all possible threats is what TAC lists are for, and I might actually respect you if your idea of what a TAC list is wasn't borderline-delusional.
...Because that kind of talk is going to draw people in. That kind of people is going to attract new players. That kind of talk is going to encourage people to keep playing and buy more GW products. Right?
Have fun with your progressively shrinking hobby. I hope that you all end up with a massive stock pile of OPGW products and nobody to field them against.
Traditio wrote: This thread is, once again, an illustration of why 40k as a whole, and the 40k community, is toxic.
It is, but not for the reason you think.
...these same people will balk at the idea that the game should ACTUALLY be balanced around the notion that people should ACTUALLY be able to take whatever the feth they want and have a 50/50 shot at winning, independently of player skill...
I keep saying this, and you keep ignoring it: if you bring bad lists you should lose the game. If you bring a Tau list with nothing but crisis suits with no weapons you should lose every game, and if you have anywhere near a 50/50 chance of winning there is something seriously wrong with the game. Balance does not in any way negate the need to use skill in constructing an effective list.
...you mock me for complaining about power imbalance, about being forced to take either x, y and z or else, lose most of the time, etc., and when I continue to complain, you tell me that I should just quit the game.
We mock you because you keep making obvious terrible arguments, often about rules you don't even understand.
How many people who either play warhammer 40k or are THINKING about playing warhammer 40k think like I do?
What's your point? Should we lie to people and tell them that everything is ok so they'll buy a game they won't be happy with once they discover the truth? If you want to blame someone for declining sales blame GW, not the people pointing out that you're wrong.
Traditio wrote: This thread is, once again, an illustration of why 40k as a whole, and the 40k community, is toxic.
I have no shame in saying that the common denominator of the toxicity on these thread is not the broken nature of 40K, it's you. How long is it going to take you to realise this?
Traditio wrote: The same people who will balk at heavier restrictions on army construction in the rules (e.g., heavy tanks MUST be in the heavy support slot, you may only field 1 heavy tank per heavy support slot, and you may only field 3 heavy supports...NO exceptions), because, they will say, this imposes limits on what people can and can't bring, because this will turn people off from the game, because this will restrict who can and can't play...because people should be able to take whatever the feth they want, you know?
...
...these same people will balk at the idea that the game should ACTUALLY be balanced around the notion that people should ACTUALLY be able to take whatever the feth they want and have a 50/50 shot at winning, independently of player skill...
...and when someone like me complains about the fact that you can, in fact, NOT currently expect this in a game in which it is LITERALLY advertised in the book that you should take what you think looks cool, not what you think you "should" bring...
I got nothing...
Traditio wrote: ...you mock me for complaining about power imbalance, about being forced to take either x, y and z or else, lose most of the time, etc., and when I continue to complain, you tell me that I should just quit the game.
If this is what you think is going on, then you've misunderstood by a mile.
Traditio wrote: I want you to ponder for a moment what you actually have to gain by this kind of behavior.
You coming to your senses, hopefully.
Traditio wrote: This is a public forum. Anyone on the internet can read this.
Is that supposed to give you some sort of leeway?
Traditio wrote: I want you to think for a moment about the people who are reading what you are writing in answer to me, LITERALLY mocking me for actually wanting to have a fair shot regardless of list construction (assuming equivalent points) and telling me to quit the game...
Again: If that's what you think we're mocking you for, then you might want to have a think about what's actually going on.
Traditio wrote: Have fun with your progressively shrinking hobby. I hope that you all end up with a massive stock pile of OPGW products and nobody to field them against.
Well if we all enjoyed the hobby enough to justify the expenditure, then ending up with "...a massive stock pile of OPGW products and nobody to field them against" is fine.
Traditio wrote: This thread is, once again, an illustration of why 40k as a whole, and the 40k community, is toxic.
I have no shame in saying that the common denominator of the toxicity on these thread is not the broken nature of 40K, it's you. How long is it going to take you to realise this?
NB. There is an "Ignore" button. You might consider it.
Traditio wrote: This thread is, once again, an illustration of why 40k as a whole, and the 40k community, is toxic.
I have no shame in saying that the common denominator of the toxicity on these thread is not the broken nature of 40K, it's you. How long is it going to take you to realise this?
NB. There is an "Ignore" button. You might consider it.
I have. I'm only sad it doesn't hide people quoting him.
Traditio wrote: This thread is, once again, an illustration of why 40k as a whole, and the 40k community, is toxic.
I have no shame in saying that the common denominator of the toxicity on these thread is not the broken nature of 40K, it's you. How long is it going to take you to realise this?
NB. There is an "Ignore" button. You might consider it.
If you think a lasgun is OP, The leman Russ makes any other tank look like toys.
Battle Cannon, wrecks SM in 1 shot, totally OP.
Vanquisher can 1 shot a Land Raider, A LAND RAIDER. THE KING of METAL BAWKES
Exterminator can shred Rhinos THE FEWLS
Executioner can melt TERMINATORS enmass! Demolishers even moreso and can smash bigger tanks! the humanity!
Eradicator can smush any and all tau in cover with anti cover shots!
Punisher will put out more shots than any army by itself!
Annihilator puts the predator to shame!
For even more just remove the turret and you can bolt a Demolisher cannon into its hull and make a vindicator look like a paper box. Or put a giant lasercannon of death and snipe things with it!
Nerf des stuffz. SM tanks shud be bettar than guard!
Unyielding Hunger wrote: Hmm, spirited conversation, this. Is this kind of thread common nowadays? I remember these forums as slightly quieter.
Only with Dakka's favorite troll taking the bait here. If not for him, things are quieter.
(Sisters of Battle-related stuff and Australian shipping, excluded, of course...)
There's also my ongoing effort to convince Martel the Blood Angels are less terrible than he thinks that occasionally takes random threads off on a funny tangent.
Wow, both sides have managed to make an argument for why I've come to hate the current 40K rules (and community) so much.
If your local GW Stores and/or FLGS's are as hostile as the online community can be, I'm a little worried about the clientele that you've run into at these places haha. I'm just happy that the clientele of the two GW stores I go to are all great people (with the exception of two semi-regulars who sometimes get on my nerves a little).
Traditio wrote: This thread is, once again, an illustration of why 40k as a whole, and the 40k community, is toxic.
I have no shame in saying that the common denominator of the toxicity on these thread is not the broken nature of 40K, it's you. How long is it going to take you to realise this?
NB. There is an "Ignore" button. You might consider it.
You know those things that frustrated and annoy the hell out of you but you somehow still derive enjoyment from it? Well trying to convince Traditio that they are wrong is one of those things for me haha. Plus I have some (possibly misplaced) hope that Traditio might one day wake up haha
Do you realize how dumb that sounds? You just eliminated everything inthe game but...marine squads...
It's called 30k. And people love it for some reason
30k is fine, but at the same time, it'd have even MORE stuff that'd he'd freak about. Phosphex? Admech? Ordinatus engines? More than 8 MLs in a list? Flare shielding? Primarchs? FORGEWORLD? the list goes on and on.
Do you realize how dumb that sounds? You just eliminated everything inthe game but...marine squads...
It's called 30k. And people love it for some reason
30k is fine, but at the same time, it'd have even MORE stuff that'd he'd freak about. Phosphex? Admech? Ordinatus engines? More than 8 MLs in a list? Flare shielding? the list goes on and on.
No idea what that is but it sounds like 10 marines with a flamer and missile launcher can't kill it. Needs IMMEDIATE nerfing.
I regularly lose my guardsman deathstars to frag missile/flame combo. How can this guy be arguing that tacticals are fair when they're so blatantly OP against horde and MEQ.
MarsNZ wrote: I regularly lose my guardsman deathstars to frag missile/flame combo. How can this guy be arguing that tacticals are fair when they're so blatantly OP against horde and MEQ.
Yeah, but how many guardsmen do you lose against flak missiles? Not very many, I bet. Guardsmen need to be nerfed with a special rule that flak missiles can fire at them at full BS.
MarsNZ wrote: I regularly lose my guardsman deathstars to frag missile/flame combo. How can this guy be arguing that tacticals are fair when they're so blatantly OP against horde and MEQ.
Yeah, but how many guardsmen do you lose against flak missiles? Not very many, I bet. Guardsmen need to be nerfed with a special rule that flak missiles can fire at them at full BS.
Yeah, those crazy Guardsmen should be nerfed. Why the hell are they BS3? That's almost as good as a Space Marine. They should be BS2 because normal humans can't shoot nearly as good as the Emperor's finest.
If I have 2000 points of chaos cultists and you have 2000 points of tanks, why should you auto win?
Yes, I will grant that my cultists shouldn't be able to touch your tanks. But why shouldn't hiding in cover and holding objectives be an option?
Your tanks should have a rate of fire, points cost, etc. so that, if I play my cards right, you will be unable to to kill enough cultists to get more objectives than me. I should be able to swamp your tanks in bodies and control the field.
And that's one way to balance tanks indirectly. Yes, make them durable and make them hit hard. But make them points-expensive and a give them a low rate of fire. That's what GW did with the landraider.
Your tanks should be able to blast a hole in enemy lines, should be durable and should be able to advance easily.
But if you don't have infantry to follow those tanks and mop up, you should suffer for it tactically.
MarsNZ wrote: I regularly lose my guardsman deathstars to frag missile/flame combo. How can this guy be arguing that tacticals are fair when they're so blatantly OP against horde and MEQ.
Yeah, but how many guardsmen do you lose against flak missiles? Not very many, I bet. Guardsmen need to be nerfed with a special rule that flak missiles can fire at them at full BS.
Yeah, those crazy Guardsmen should be nerfed. Why the hell are they BS3? That's almost as good as a Space Marine. They should be BS2 because normal humans can't shoot nearly as good as the Emperor's finest.
and WS3? Cmon, like ANY guardsmen even knows what the pointy end of the knife is for! WS1, no way they can match a space marine ever.
They should only be able to shoot snap-shots when targeting space marines. Cause space marines are scary and one marine can kill 100 or even 1000 guardsmen. He just gets bored after that amount and returns to the space monastery to pray for purity and awesomeness.
Btw, in all fairness, 2000 pt of cultists should probably win 2000 pt of tanks on maelstorm.
Traditio wrote: If I have 2000 points of chaos cultists and you have 2000 points of tanks, why should you auto win?
Because my army is a fluffy IG armored company list with tanks filling a variety of different roles: HQ tanks, anti-infantry tanks, tank destroyers, artillery, etc. Your list is a bunch of copies of a single unit that is meant to be used in a supporting role alongside the marines that are the focus of the CSM codex, and a completely one-dimensional strategy with no attempt at all to be a TAC list.
But why shouldn't hiding in cover and holding objectives be an option?
You've already stated that "hide on the objectives and hope you don't lose your whole army" is not an acceptable option because it isn't fun.
But if you don't have infantry to follow those tanks and mop up, you should suffer for it tactically.
Wait, I thought I should be able to win at the exact same 50/50 rate as everyone else, no matter what I bring? Why should I suffer tactically because I didn't bring infantry to follow my tanks and mop up?
Peregrine wrote:You've already stated that "hide on the objectives and hope you don't lose your whole army" is not an acceptable option because it isn't fun.
It's not fun. However, purely from a game balance point of view, I accept that it should be a viable possibility.
Wait, I thought I should be able to win at the exact same 50/50 rate as everyone else, no matter what I bring? Why should I suffer tactically because I didn't bring infantry to follow my tanks and mop up?
And this is where you're just making a strawman of my position.
I don't think that a cultist should be exactly equal to an LRBT.
Cultists and LRBTs should clearly have different playstyles associated with them, different strengths, different weaknesses, etc.
I think that 40 (or however many) cultists should have a better ability to hold objectives and kill light infantry than a single LRBT.
Just for starters.
I think that an LRBT should be much more durable and should be much more efficient at taking individual, heavily armored targets.
But ultimately, I think that if I have x points of cultists and you have the same number of points of LRBTs, that it should be roughly equiprobable, independently of player skill, that either I or you will win the game.
Yes, your tanks should hit harder and be hard to kill. But they should also lack volume of fire, be expensive and not have the same capacity to hold objectives. Hiding in cover and swarming the field with bodies should a real strategy.
You keep ignoring the fact that units have different roles in their respective armies. Cultists are not supposed to be the core of your army. They're supposed to be expendable meatshields to throw at the enemy while the CSM that are the core of your army (it is, after all, Codex: Chaos Space Marines, not Codex: Imperial Guard Without 95% Of Their Units). An army of nothing but cultists should lose the vast majority of the time because you're ignoring the point of the CSM codex, just like taking an army of nothing but Hydras (IG anti aircraft specialist) should fail because an army of nothing but AA support units is not a reasonable strategy. Bad strategies should fail, otherwise what's the point in playing the game?
And no, swarming the table with bodies and hoping your opponent can't remove them fast enough should NOT be a viable strategy. It isn't fun for either player, so it should lose so frequently that people are discouraged from bringing such a game-ruining list. This is an example of what I mean about using "unbalanced" options to direct the experience of the game.
I know this was all created as sarcasm, and I really feel a lot of the snark is deserved, but I have something I do want to get off my chest.
My personal collection of space marine (figures) is built from collected starter sets from over the years. That means more than 90% of my "troops" are tactical squads with missile launchers - with practically no options for switch-outs. I own all of one model with a grav-weapon, which I just painted last night.
With that said, I'd like to be able to bring a force composed of mainly tactical squads to a game and not be mocked for it. If my enemy brings X points of models, in a perfect game I would hope that the same X points of tac squads would have a 50% chance of beating that; my imperfect understanding of the 40K points system is that is what the meaning behind having a points system is. If points aren't supposed to represent unit parity, what does it represent - player's ability to stack the deck in the points allowed?
Instead, I get the impression the game is all about bringing the right units to the table, and stuffing your list with as many of those right units as you can buy for the points. And it seems if you don't know what those units are, you need to "Learn2Play". It doesn't seem to be a case of using a unit to its best advantage tactically; it's just having the right unit to delete all points-inferior units around you.
I'm not much interested in a game where victory is decided before the first miniature hits the board. It's a money and time sink to put together an army for this game, showing up with the "wrong" army isn't just a disappointment, it's a waste of hours of work and money. And it isn't like there's a sideboard or some way of mitigating an inadvertent bad decision once you flop the minis on the game board. You'd just better hope you're skillful enough to mitigate it (if that's even possible) or you're about to lose 3 hours of your life and have some expensive minis that are going to sit on a shelf unused from there on out (or you hope you can trick some other fool to off-load them on at e-bay).
Stormonu wrote: I know this was all created as sarcasm, and I really feel a lot of the snark is deserved, but I have something I do want to get off my chest.
My personal collection of space marine (figures) is built from collected starter sets from over the years. That means more than 90% of my "troops" are tactical squads with missile launchers - with practically no options for switch-outs. I own all of one model with a grav-weapon, which I just painted last night.
With that said, I'd like to be able to bring a force composed of mainly tactical squads to a game and not be mocked for it. If my enemy brings X points of models, in a perfect game I would hope that the same X points of tac squads would have a 50% chance of beating that; my imperfect understanding of the 40K points system is that is what the meaning behind having a points system is. If points aren't supposed to represent unit parity, what does it represent - player's ability to stack the deck in the points allowed?
Instead, I get the impression the game is all about bringing the right units to the table, and stuffing your list with as many of those right units as you can buy for the points. And it seems if you don't know what those units are, you need to "Learn2Play". It doesn't seem to be a case of using a unit to its best advantage tactically; it's just having the right unit to delete all points-inferior units around you.
I'm not much interested in a game where victory is decided before the first miniature hits the board. It's a money and time sink to put together an army for this game, showing up with the "wrong" army isn't just a disappointment, it's a waste of hours of work and money. And it isn't like there's a sideboard or some way of mitigating an inadvertent bad decision once you flop the minis on the game board. You'd just better hope you're skillful enough to mitigate it (if that's even possible) or you're about to lose 3 hours of your life and have some expensive minis that are going to sit on a shelf unused from there on out (or you hope you can trick some other fool to off-load them on at e-bay).
If you find you're unable to win simply due to army power, change the mission.
Your underprepared marine list may have actually been caught unawares and is now fighting a losing battle while hoping to simply get from the midpoint of the table to the short edge. Suddenly your game isn't so one sided and you'll have more tactical choices for the game at hand.
Talk to your opponent, find a good point to work from, enjoy your game!
Stormonu wrote: If my enemy brings X points of models, in a perfect game I would hope that the same X points of tac squads would have a 50% chance of beating that
Take 100 men with shovels and molotov cocktails vs a battlegroup of 3 tanks. First situation: 100 men are thrown at tanks in the open field. Second situation: 100 men have a couple days to prepare the ground for a tank assault.
And you want them to have equal chances in both situations?
Another question is that in 40k universe there are some men with power shovels that can withstand tank shells and some tanks that can fly above pits all for the same points. But that doesn't make the concept you're suggesting adequate nevertheless. The problem is not with the counter-tactics, it's with the other balance aspect.
Stormonu wrote: If my enemy brings X points of models, in a perfect game I would hope that the same X points of tac squads would have a 50% chance of beating that
Take 100 men with shovels and molotov cocktails vs a battlegroup of 3 tanks. First situation: 100 men are thrown at tanks in the open field. Second situation: 100 men have a couple days to prepare the ground for a tank assault.
And you want them to have equal chances in both situations?
Another question is that in 40k universe there are some men with power shovels that can withstand tank shells and some tanks that can fly above pits all for the same points. But that doesn't make the concept you're suggesting adequate nevertheless. The problem is not with the counter-tactics, it's with the other balance aspect.
Stormonu wrote: If my enemy brings X points of models, in a perfect game I would hope that the same X points of tac squads would have a 50% chance of beating that
Take 100 men with shovels and molotov cocktails vs a battlegroup of 3 tanks. First situation: 100 men are thrown at tanks in the open field. Second situation: 100 men have a couple days to prepare the ground for a tank assault.
And you want them to have equal chances in both situations?
Another question is that in 40k universe there are some men with power shovels that can withstand tank shells and some tanks that can fly above pits all for the same points. But that doesn't make the concept you're suggesting adequate nevertheless. The problem is not with the counter-tactics, it's with the other balance aspect.
What are you even talking about?
About you wanting a fork be as good at cutting meals as a knife.
One of the big problems with 40K is that the idea of equal points dictating whether or not the game is balanced assumes that the units in each player's/team's list has equal ability to take out the other player's/team's list while being susceptible to the enemy's list to roughly the same degree. And that's why having a roughly even 40K match can be so difficult. I guarantee that there are plenty of lists that you could play against with all your Tactical Marines and have a 50/50 chance of winning, but there are even more that would be heavily skewed for or against you, and that's the nature of 40K Tabletop.
I'm running into this exact problem with my close mates who play 40K with me, so I'm having to bump up my lists and buy more models (I don't mind this since I planned to do this anyway) in order for us all to have games that are balanaced in more than just point limits. It is unfortunate, but hey - that's the hobby these days.
One of the big problems with 40K is that the idea of equal points dictating whether or not the game is balanced assumes that the units in each player's/team's list has equal ability to take out the other player's/team's list while being susceptible to the enemy's list to roughly the same degree. And that's why having a roughly even 40K match can be so difficult. I guarantee that there are plenty of lists that you could play against with all your Tactical Marines and have a 50/50 chance of winning, but there are even more that would be heavily skewed for or against you, and that's the nature of 40K Tabletop.
I'm running into this exact problem with my close mates who play 40K with me, so I'm having to bump up my lists and buy more models (I don't mind this since I planned to do this anyway) in order for us all to have games that are balanaced in more than just point limits. It is unfortunate, but hey - that's the hobby these days.
The alternative option to buying more models would be negotiating a points handicap. CSM vs eldar can be easily balanced that way with the right points handicap. Having equal points only makes sense when codices are equal. People should be less precious about playing equal points.
Actually, depending on the universe, Molotov cocktails are a perfect counter for tanks; are they sealed against NBC attacks, are the engines sealed? Are you going to lose troops getting the tanks hosed? Yes, but at the end of the day, they are probably going to be full of dead people too.
As to your supposition Stormonu, there are aspects of both Learn2Play and Pay2Win in this game; there are hard counters in this game. If you want to be able to bring whatever you want and still have a chance of winning against whatever you face, might I suggest Warmachine\Hordes?
I am just going to pipe up here and say that Warmahords is very much not a game where you bring what you like to win, so much is determined by the warnoun match up (i will say though that the rules system is far tighter and the company much more responsive though)
In terms of playing the game, i feel part of miniature wargaming is accepting that things are never balanced, there will always be ways to break a game.
saying that i am kinda sad that the game is so broken at the moment, was pretty excited to get back into it but it has been pretty brutal trying to figure out a list that is fun to play and to face while being competitive.
One of the big problems with 40K is that the idea of equal points dictating whether or not the game is balanced assumes that the units in each player's/team's list has equal ability to take out the other player's/team's list while being susceptible to the enemy's list to roughly the same degree. And that's why having a roughly even 40K match can be so difficult. I guarantee that there are plenty of lists that you could play against with all your Tactical Marines and have a 50/50 chance of winning, but there are even more that would be heavily skewed for or against you, and that's the nature of 40K Tabletop.
I'm running into this exact problem with my close mates who play 40K with me, so I'm having to bump up my lists and buy more models (I don't mind this since I planned to do this anyway) in order for us all to have games that are balanaced in more than just point limits. It is unfortunate, but hey - that's the hobby these days.
The alternative option to buying more models would be negotiating a points handicap. CSM vs eldar can be easily balanced that way with the right points handicap. Having equal points only makes sense when codices are equal. People should be less precious about playing equal points.
True, but this may be just as difficult as playing with units that are 'balanced' against each other as I described. But either way, it is possible to balance the game beyond the points system.
Stormonu wrote: With that said, I'd like to be able to bring a force composed of mainly tactical squads to a game and not be mocked for it.
We're mocking Traditio for crying "OP!" at everything his Codex doesn't get access to. Nobody worth listening to will mock you for bringing mostly Tactical Squads to a game. They might, however, suggest to you that it's not the best idea, and not something you should expect consistent results from.
If my enemy brings X points of models, in a perfect game I would hope that the same X points of tac squads would have a 50% chance of beating that; my imperfect understanding of the 40K points system is that is what the meaning behind having a points system is. If points aren't supposed to represent unit parity, what does it represent - player's ability to stack the deck in the points allowed?
That's a common mistake. Points values are set around armies, not units. It's not that 55pts of unit [x] is exactly as "good" as 55pts of unit [y]. The idea is that 1850pts of army [x] should be as powerful as 1850pts of army [y]. The fact the game has different unit types, each with different strengths and weaknesses, each with different things they counter and are countered by, means that's not always the case. That's why it's important to learn your army, learn the game, and learn to build army lists.
Instead, I get the impression the game is all about bringing the right units to the table
For a given definition of "right". There are various different types of units in 40k, and all of them have different strengths and weaknesses. Part of the strategic element of competitive 40k is building an army list from your chosen Codex that contains elements capable of dealing with any threat your opponent can bring.
and stuffing your list with as many of those right units as you can buy for the points.
Again, it depends on the definition of "right". You can build a powerful army just by spamming Scatbikes and Warp Spiders. That'll be enough to muscle your way to a win against a lot of other builds. Then some doofus deploys four Land Raiders with Scouts in them and invalidates your entire army.
The "right" unit, to me, is one that fills a hole in your army's capabilities. If you already have a load of Scatbikes and Warp Spiders, then another unit of either is not the "right" unit.
It doesn't seem to be a case of using a unit to its best advantage tactically; it's just having the right unit to delete all points-inferior units around you.
Again, not quite. You can take an optimised army list with all the "right" units, but if you move them wrong, or expend them too early, then you can lose the game. It's not as easy as buying a net list and showing face - you can field an army full of "OP Death Guard cheese" and still lose.
I'm not much interested in a game where victory is decided before the first miniature hits the board.
I don't think there's a tabletop wargame that isn't. Chess, maybe. The fact 40k requires a significant investment of time and effort just to get an army on the table is the reason it's so important to learn the game before you start buying, especially if you're buying towards a balanced, competitive army. Even if you're not, if your only interest is collecting and playing with models you enjoy, then it's important to learn the game anyway - doing so allows you to recognise when your opponent is fielding an army your own can't match, which means tyou can refuse the game, or at the very least will be less frustrated when you get stomped.
S8 AP3 is not an adequate stat line for a heavy weapon. The small template doesn't cover enough models. This means that the missile launcher should never be fielded under most circumstances. Done.
"swarming the field with bodies should a real strategy. "
It is, but only for gladius marines because free stuff.
BBAP wrote: Points values are set around armies, not units. It's not that 55pts of unit [x] is exactly as "good" as 55pts of unit [y]. The idea is that 1850pts of army [x] should be as powerful as 1850pts of army [y]. The fact the game has different unit types, each with different strengths and weaknesses, each with different things they counter and are countered by, means that's not always the case. That's why it's important to learn your army, learn the game, and learn to build army lists.
Thank god that someone understands. And stated it better than anything I could have said.
Martel732 wrote: S8 AP3 is not an adequate stat line for a heavy weapon.
S8 AP3 large blast at least can kill several models. However, I don't care much for the battle cannon myself. And it has extra efficacy vs vehicles. But it's still a blast, so meh. The step from battle cannon to ion accelerator is so huge and the points just don't show it.
Guys, yesterday I was using my footslogging marines army (because transports only let me fire with 2 models instead of the entire unit! So weak...) and, of course, not caring about cover (cover is for those pansies in the Guard!); however, my opponent brought a most outlandish unit this time - guys riding horses.
Yeah, you read it right - HORSES. How can people even care about riding freaking animals in the future?!?
I laughed at the notion and at his unit, but the oaf dared to charge them into my advancing tacticals. To my surprise, they had I5, S5, AP3 attacks!!! That's absurd and totally OP! GW, nerf that unit at once! In fact, I bet it's not even legal - horse riders, come on...
Vector Strike wrote: Guys, yesterday I was using my footslogging marines army (because transports only let me fire with 2 models instead of the entire unit! So weak...) and, of course, not caring about cover (cover is for those pansies in the Guard!); however, my opponent brought a most outlandish unit this time - guys riding horses.
Yeah, you read it right - HORSES. How can people even care about riding freaking animals in the future?!?
I laughed at the notion and at his unit, but the oaf dared to charge them into my advancing tacticals. To my surprise, they had I5, S5, AP3 attacks!!! That's absurd and totally OP! GW, nerf that unit at once! In fact, I bet it's not even legal - horse riders, come on...
That's so OP. They're also just as fast as a bike! The horror!
Vector Strike wrote: Guys, yesterday I was using my footslogging marines army (because transports only let me fire with 2 models instead of the entire unit! So weak...) and, of course, not caring about cover (cover is for those pansies in the Guard!); however, my opponent brought a most outlandish unit this time - guys riding horses.
Yeah, you read it right - HORSES. How can people even care about riding freaking animals in the future?!?
I laughed at the notion and at his unit, but the oaf dared to charge them into my advancing tacticals. To my surprise, they had I5, S5, AP3 attacks!!! That's absurd and totally OP! GW, nerf that unit at once! In fact, I bet it's not even legal - horse riders, come on...
Unyielding Hunger wrote: Hmm, spirited conversation, this. Is this kind of thread common nowadays? I remember these forums as slightly quieter.
Only with Dakka's favorite troll taking the bait here. If not for him, things are quieter.
(Sisters of Battle-related stuff and Australian shipping, excluded, of course...)
There's also my ongoing effort to convince Martel the Blood Angels are less terrible than he thinks that occasionally takes random threads off on a funny tangent.
Martel will not miss an opportunity to tell people how bad Blood Angels are.
Peregrine wrote:You've already stated that "hide on the objectives and hope you don't lose your whole army" is not an acceptable option because it isn't fun.
It's not fun. However, purely from a game balance point of view, I accept that it should be a viable possibility.
It is a viable possibility, for some armies (like Necrons in a Decurion, or perhaps Nurgle Daemons). At least, some units in some armies are suited to it. Personally I don't think the whole army should be able to do this and win, for the same reason I don't think you should be able to win at StarCraft by building nothing but static defenses.
Wait, I thought I should be able to win at the exact same 50/50 rate as everyone else, no matter what I bring? Why should I suffer tactically because I didn't bring infantry to follow my tanks and mop up?
And this is where you're just making a strawman of my position.
You're one to talk about strawman arguments...
Traditio wrote: I don't think that a cultist should be exactly equal to an LRBT.
Cultists and LRBTs should clearly have different playstyles associated with them, different strengths, different weaknesses, etc.
I think that 40 (or however many) cultists should have a better ability to hold objectives and kill light infantry than a single LRBT.
Guess what? They do. A large blob of Cultists can swamp many infantry units, overwhelming them with sheer numbers, whereas a LRBT will use powerful weapons to kill those infantry. Same result, different approaches. However, every unit in the game shouldn't be an infantry killer, otherwise tanks would be invincible and you'd be crying about that (rightly so if literally nothing could hurt tanks!). Different units should have different jobs, so figuring out which units to put in a TAC list becomes a bit of a balancing act.
Traditio wrote: I think that an LRBT should be much more durable and should be much more efficient at taking individual, heavily armored targets.
But ultimately, I think that if I have x points of cultists and you have the same number of points of LRBTs, that it should be roughly equiprobable, independently of player skill, that either I or you will win the game.
But it shouldn't. Not really. Think about it; if one army consists of Leman Russes exclusively, and the opposing one consists of cultists exclusively, it should be one-sided against the cultists. As the game progresses, those tanks are going to be shooting and killing the cultists, while meanwhile the cultists have little if anything that can even scratch a tank. So factor in attrition, and a few turns in there is 50% of the cultists left, vs. 100% of the tanks. To me, that suggests that the cultists should lose, since as they lose units their ability to hold the objectives diminishes, while the tanks continue to have the same ability to hold the objectives (since they aren't losing units). It's really not that hard to understand.
Traditio wrote: Yes, your tanks should hit harder and be hard to kill. But they should also lack volume of fire, be expensive and not have the same capacity to hold objectives.
They do, and they are, for the most part.
Traditio wrote: Hiding in cover and swarming the field with bodies should a real strategy.
It is for some armies. Ever heard of the Green Tide?
Martel732 wrote: S8 AP3 large blast at least can kill several models. However, I don't care much for the battle cannon myself. And it has extra efficacy vs vehicles. But it's still a blast, so meh. The step from battle cannon to ion accelerator is so huge and the points just don't show it.
Um what you do realize the ion accelerator is only available on one model in the entire army right? Plus it should be better than a battle cannon as if you actually read any of the lore you'd realize tau tech > imperial tech. Its funny your complaining about the ion accelerator and by extension the riptide yet ice lost my riptide to Ork artillery that would only scratch the paint work of a leman Russ.
koooaei wrote: Ain't better tech supposed to cost more points?
It does though. To give you a example
Crisis battle suits cost 2 more bare bones cultists in terms of points vs space marines and all I get for that is +1 wound attack and become jetpack infantry I still have to buy guns too.
The riptide is actually quite expensive for what it does outside of riptide wing as its fire power is rather lacking for the cost but its more of a durable tank.
Of I was to take 185 points of crisis suits with guns they would probably do more damage but not be as tanky
koooaei wrote: Exchange your riptides for 150 lrbt and let's see how your games go and who's lacking what. Stop derailing a troll thread![/quote
I'm sorry hut what? If anyone derailed the thread its Martel my point simply was stop comparing 2 units who don't even do the same roll in the army. If he wants to compare the lemon Russ to anything it should be the hammer head.]
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: stop comparing 2 units who don't even do the same roll in the army. If he wants to compare the lemon Russ to anything it should be the hammer head.
The problem is that the Riptide does have the same role as the LRBT (and the same role as the ion Hammerhead). It's a long-range shooting platform with a primary target of MEQs. Except the Riptide gets AP 2 instead of AP 3, vastly better mobility, better durability, better upgrades and secondary weapons, and no vehicle damage table. It's just plain better at everything, without the appropriate point cost increase to pay for that superiority. If I could use the Riptide's rules for my LRBT models in my IG army I'd take that trade every time.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: stop comparing 2 units who don't even do the same roll in the army. If he wants to compare the lemon Russ to anything it should be the hammer head.
The problem is that the Riptide does have the same role as the LRBT (and the same role as the ion Hammerhead). It's a long-range shooting platform with a primary target of MEQs. Except the Riptide gets AP 2 instead of AP 3, vastly better mobility, better durability, better upgrades and secondary weapons, and no vehicle damage table. It's just plain better at everything, without the appropriate point cost increase to pay for that superiority. If I could use the Riptide's rules for my LRBT models in my IG army I'd take that trade every time.
Better secondary weapons? ERM nope I don't think so. Yes it gets AP2 on its gun because unlike guard we don't have easy access to long range high strength high ap weapons unlike any of the imperial armies. Yes the riptide is durable but guess what its our only durable unit.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: stop comparing 2 units who don't even do the same roll in the army. If he wants to compare the lemon Russ to anything it should be the hammer head.
The problem is that the Riptide does have the same role as the LRBT (and the same role as the ion Hammerhead). It's a long-range shooting platform with a primary target of MEQs. Except the Riptide gets AP 2 instead of AP 3, vastly better mobility, better durability, better upgrades and secondary weapons, and no vehicle damage table. It's just plain better at everything, without the appropriate point cost increase to pay for that superiority. If I could use the Riptide's rules for my LRBT models in my IG army I'd take that trade every time.
Better secondary weapons? ERM nope I don't think so. Yes it gets AP2 on its gun because unlike guard we don't have easy access to long range high strength high ap weapons unlike any of the imperial armies. Yes the riptide is durable but guess what its our only durable unit.
Stormsurge. Tau'nar. Iridium/stimm buff'mander. Ghostkeels. all are very durable. Long range? TLHYMP, Regular missile pods. Seeker missiles. Ion rifles. HRR. Railrifles. Ion cannons. All but the ion rifles and rail rifles are 36" iirc, and and are S7 or better, and AP4 or better. Rail rifle is 30" S6, AP1, and ion is 30" S7 AP4 (or S8 AP4, blast gets hot) Riptide secondary weapons: TL 4 shot S5 AP 5 ignores cover and LoS, TL plasma rifles, or TL fusion blasters, compared to plasma cannons, HBs/HFs, or multi meltas (none of which are TL, and the base LRBT makes those fire snap shots).
Riptides OR hammerheads > LRBTs Tau ranged shooting > guard ranged shooting
Tau durable units > guard durable units
Tau model count < guard model count (not that it matters)
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: stop comparing 2 units who don't even do the same roll in the army. If he wants to compare the lemon Russ to anything it should be the hammer head.
The problem is that the Riptide does have the same role as the LRBT (and the same role as the ion Hammerhead). It's a long-range shooting platform with a primary target of MEQs. Except the Riptide gets AP 2 instead of AP 3, vastly better mobility, better durability, better upgrades and secondary weapons, and no vehicle damage table. It's just plain better at everything, without the appropriate point cost increase to pay for that superiority. If I could use the Riptide's rules for my LRBT models in my IG army I'd take that trade every time.
Better secondary weapons? ERM nope I don't think so. Yes it gets AP2 on its gun because unlike guard we don't have easy access to long range high strength high ap weapons unlike any of the imperial armies. Yes the riptide is durable but guess what its our only durable unit.
Stormsurge. Tau'nar. Iridium/stimm buff'mander. Ghostkeels. all are very durable. Long range? TLHYMP, Regular missile pods. Seeker missiles. Ion rifles. HRR. Railrifles. Ion cannons. All but the ion rifles and rail rifles are 36" iirc, and and are S7 or better, and AP4 or better. Rail rifle is 30" S6, AP1, and ion is 30" S7 AP4 (or S8 AP4, blast gets hot) Riptide secondary weapons: TL 4 shot S5 AP 5 ignores cover and LoS, TL plasma rifles, or TL fusion blasters, compared to plasma cannons, HBs/HFs, or multi meltas (none of which are TL, and the base LRBT makes those fire snap shots).
Riptides OR hammerheads > LRBTs Tau ranged shooting > guard ranged shooting
Tau durable units > guard durable units
Tau model count < guard model count (not that it matters)
And your point is? Guard should be inferior to tau in the shooting because guess what that is all we frigging do we have access to no psychic buffs unlike guard our transport costs more than yours and does less than a bloody chimrae.
Uh, yes, better secondary weapons. SMS/fusion/plasma that can fire twice per turn are way better than a hull heavy bolter that you have to fire at BS 1 because your main gun is ordnance.
Yes it gets AP2 on its gun because unlike guard we don't have easy access to long range high strength high ap weapons unlike any of the imperial armies.
Uh, lol? Tau have the same plasma/melta that IG have, Broadsides have STR 8 AP 1 to match IG lascannons if you want long range single shots, and the Riptide is just as good as any of the IG artillery at killing elite infantry. Giving the Riptide AP 2 without even having to nova charge the gun was sheer lunacy.
Yes the riptide is durable but guess what its our only durable unit.
The Stormsurge and Ghostkeel would like to disagree with that claim, even without considering the ridiculously durable FW Riptide variants. And it's not like IG have any durable units besides the LRBT and Baneblade, so you wouldn't get much sympathy even if it was true.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: stop comparing 2 units who don't even do the same roll in the army. If he wants to compare the lemon Russ to anything it should be the hammer head.
The problem is that the Riptide does have the same role as the LRBT (and the same role as the ion Hammerhead). It's a long-range shooting platform with a primary target of MEQs. Except the Riptide gets AP 2 instead of AP 3, vastly better mobility, better durability, better upgrades and secondary weapons, and no vehicle damage table. It's just plain better at everything, without the appropriate point cost increase to pay for that superiority. If I could use the Riptide's rules for my LRBT models in my IG army I'd take that trade every time.
Better secondary weapons? ERM nope I don't think so. Yes it gets AP2 on its gun because unlike guard we don't have easy access to long range high strength high ap weapons unlike any of the imperial armies. Yes the riptide is durable but guess what its our only durable unit.
Stormsurge. Tau'nar. Iridium/stimm buff'mander. Ghostkeels. all are very durable. Long range? TLHYMP, Regular missile pods. Seeker missiles. Ion rifles. HRR. Railrifles. Ion cannons. All but the ion rifles and rail rifles are 36" iirc, and and are S7 or better, and AP4 or better. Rail rifle is 30" S6, AP1, and ion is 30" S7 AP4 (or S8 AP4, blast gets hot) Riptide secondary weapons: TL 4 shot S5 AP 5 ignores cover and LoS, TL plasma rifles, or TL fusion blasters, compared to plasma cannons, HBs/HFs, or multi meltas (none of which are TL, and the base LRBT makes those fire snap shots).
Riptides OR hammerheads > LRBTs Tau ranged shooting > guard ranged shooting
Tau durable units > guard durable units
Tau model count < guard model count (not that it matters)
And your point is? Guard should be inferior to tau in the shooting because guess what that is all we frigging do we have access to no psychic buffs unlike guard our transport costs more than yours and does less than a bloody chimrae.
My point is you're wrong. we have PLENTY of long range shooting, and high S low AP shooting, and some VERY VERY durable units. Not to mention our plasma doesn't have gets hot! so it's safer to spam. (in exchange for S6 which is meaningless if you're hunting MEQs/TEQs)
But he has vespids! So it's perfectly fine. Bad stuff to balance out the amazingly good stuff. Now if he had to take both and not just two of the amazingly good stuff...
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: And your point is? Guard should be inferior to tau in the shooting because guess what that is all we frigging do
You do know that the movement phase exists, right? I know many Tau players don't know how to do anything besides set up a gunline at the back edge of the table and roll dice until someone wins, but the Tau have tons of mobile shooting. JSJ crisis suits, deep strike everywhere, Piranha swarms that can dump seeker missiles/drones and respawn next turn with all of their losses replaced, etc. IG have nowhere near the same level of mobility, so if anything the Tau should have weaker shooting to make up for it.
we have access to no psychic buffs unlike guard
Yes you do. They're called markerlights.
our transport costs more than yours and does less than a bloody chimrae.
So what? That's one Tau unit that isn't obviously better than its IG equivalent. And the Devilfish is actually a very good unit. It costs a bit more but it's way more durable and being able to jump over terrain has a lot of value if you're playing on a table with a proper amount of terrain. And of course, unlike IG infantry, Tau units aren't utterly dependent on having a transport in the first place. You've got deep striking JSJ infantry all over the codex, having a less than perfect transport gives you zero sympathy.
Guard are in a MUCH worse place than tau, and pretending otherwise is completely dishonest. Just because we have a few bad/subpar units doesn't mean anything (i.e. vespids, devilfish, hammerheads, ethereals, pathfinders vs the drone formation), especially when we have FANTASTIC formations.
You do know that the movement phase exists, right? I know many Tau players don't know how to do anything besides set up a gunline at the back edge of the table and roll dice until someone wins, but the Tau have tons of mobile shooting. JSJ crisis suits, deep strike everywhere, Piranha swarms that can dump seeker missiles/drones and respawn next turn with all of their losses replaced, etc. IG have nowhere near the same level of mobility, so if anything the Tau should have weaker shooting to make up for it.
Thank you Peregrine. I felt liver pain reading that "muh Tau superior firepower". GW refuses to conceive IG as more than a gunline, hence IG should have the biggest firepower. Fullstop.
You automatically assumed I play a gun line when I actually play mech tau. Guards should get a buff to their gunlines? You do realize how boring it is to face a gunline right there's only 1 stationary unit in my army and that's my broadside everything else in my army moves whether that be up the board or retreats so most of my army is in the 12" supporting fire bubble from the hunter cadre
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: You automatically assumed I play a gun line when I actually play mech tau. Guards should get a buff to their gunlines? You do realize how boring it is to face a gunline right there's only 1 stationary unit in my army and that's my broadside everything else in my army moves whether that be up the board or retreats so most of my army is in the 12" supporting fire bubble from the hunter cadre
And? that has nothing to do with what you were talking about.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: You automatically assumed I play a gun line when I actually play mech tau. Guards should get a buff to their gunlines? You do realize how boring it is to face a gunline right there's only 1 stationary unit in my army and that's my broadside everything else in my army moves whether that be up the board or retreats so most of my army is in the 12" supporting fire bubble from the hunter cadre
And? that has nothing to do with what you were talking about.
Actually it does one person automatically assumed I play a gun line like a lot of tau players and then someone else brought up imperial guard gunlines.
I should make it clear by long range good ap weapons I mean with a longer range than 24 and ap of 3 or better
Why do you need long range low AP weapons if you're playing a very mobile force? And if you do, ion heads. IA riptides. Stormsurges. Tau'nar (if anyone would let you play it/you have the money for it). Skyrays/that pirahna formation that refills drones/missiles. Deepstriking crisis suits. All of those are ways to get AP 3 or better with long range, or at least the ability to get close enough to use it.
You guys have no idea just how amused I am by the turn that this thread has taken.
You made the thread to mock me for saying that death guard rules are OP.
And here we have a tau player claiming that riptides are not OP and that, indeed, the riptide is necessary for a tau codex that otherwise wouldn't fare very well at all.
Because the tau codex is full of units that are neither durable, have long range nor hit hard.
Traditio wrote: You guys have no idea just how amused I am by the turn that this thread has taken.
You made the thread to mock me for saying that death guard rules are OP.
And here we have a tau player claiming that riptides are not OP and that, indeed, the riptide is necessary for a tau codex that otherwise wouldn't fare very well at all.
Because the tau codex is full of units that are neither durable, have long range nor hit hard.
Lol.
I guess trolls who take the bait attract more trolls, eh Traditio?
General Annoyance wrote:I guess trolls who take the bait attract more trolls, eh Traditio?
It makes me wonder:
Where are the "troll" threads designed to "troll" people who think that nothing in the game is broken?
When I complain because a fething 17 point MEQ has fearless, relentless, FNP and T5 (meanwhile, compare that to what Iron Warriors got), I get an entire thread devoted to making fun of me.
Where are the threads mocking people who think that riptides are less points-efficient, durable, etc. than LRBTs?
Traditio wrote: You guys have no idea just how amused I am by the turn that this thread has taken.
You made the thread to mock me for saying that death guard rules are OP.
And here we have a tau player claiming that riptides are not OP and that, indeed, the riptide is necessary for a tau codex that otherwise wouldn't fare very well at all.
Because the tau codex is full of units that are neither durable, have long range nor hit hard.
Lol.
There's always delusional ATT types in any Tau thread. I choose to ignore them.
I think this has been brought up before - you aren't always incorrect or on the completely wrong train of thought, but when you consistently misinterpret people's responses, set up polls to create flimsy conclusions derived from that data, and accuse others of being trolls for not agreeing with you while simultaneously ignoring both their and other's valid points of view, you're asking to not be taken seriously.
General Annoyance wrote:I guess trolls who take the bait attract more trolls, eh Traditio?
It makes me wonder:
Where are the "troll" threads designed to "troll" people who think that nothing in the game is broken?
When I complain because a fething 17 point MEQ has fearless, relentless, FNP and T5 (meanwhile, compare that to what Iron Warriors got), I get an entire thread devoted to making fun of me.
Where are the threads mocking people who think that riptides are less points-efficient, durable, etc. than LRBTs?
Where are those threads?
One good Chaos Marine unit not make a codex. They fit the fluff and chaos needed some love.
There's also plenty of over costed and sub par units that are weak for costs.
...
Secondly.
For all your polls. You seem to have gained less wisdom that the sum information gained.
Traditio wrote: You guys have no idea just how amused I am by the turn that this thread has taken.
You made the thread to mock me for saying that death guard rules are OP.
And here we have a tau player claiming that riptides are not OP and that, indeed, the riptide is necessary for a tau codex that otherwise wouldn't fare very well at all.
Because the tau codex is full of units that are neither durable, have long range nor hit hard.
Lol.
You're right, one person speaks for everyone, and he definitely wasn't told he was wrong.
Unyielding Hunger wrote: Hmm, spirited conversation, this. Is this kind of thread common nowadays? I remember these forums as slightly quieter.
Only with Dakka's favorite troll taking the bait here. If not for him, things are quieter.
(Sisters of Battle-related stuff and Australian shipping, excluded, of course...)
There's also my ongoing effort to convince Martel the Blood Angels are less terrible than he thinks that occasionally takes random threads off on a funny tangent.
Martel will not miss an opportunity to tell people how bad Blood Angels are.
Ha why are you guys trolling Martel? ...if 2 non-Blood Angel players can convince Martel that he's wrong and the Blood Angels are in fact great, you still have pretty much the rest of the 40k community to convince. When it comes to "competitive 40K" the Blood Angels are always near the bottom and most people already understand this.
Also while I personally LOVE Angel's Blade, it did nothing to change that [competitive 40k] because it's incredibly inefficient at the 1850 or 1650 points level. Are you trying to say that your army is worse off and therefore you are just a better game-general or deserving of more praise/sympathy because of your army adversity? Seriously dudes, weak.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: You automatically assumed I play a gun line when I actually play mech tau. Guards should get a buff to their gunlines? You do realize how boring it is to face a gunline right there's only 1 stationary unit in my army and that's my broadside everything else in my army moves whether that be up the board or retreats so most of my army is in the 12" supporting fire bubble from the hunter cadre
Nice moving the goalpost. What you play is not relevant. The point is not: "facing a gunline is frustrating?". It can be. (Albeit I find ironic this remark from a player of one of the most frustrating armies to play against - an army that has a counter to everything).
The point raised was "tau should outshoot everybody" but that's not true because they have mobility advantage over gunline armies. They should not outshoot gunlines AND have greater mobility. Fullstop. Everything else said in this regard is unfocused or plain wrong.
Because I totally made people post 20 posts about Tau. I just brought it up as example of how Imperial shooting fails utterly. Imperial heavy weapons are gak except for grav and the relatively rare multilaser. Xenos get lots of great choices including troops that can rip GMCs to pieces, ranged D, flamer D, AP 2 ignore cover pie plates, etc.
Nice moving the goalpost. What you play is not relevant. The point is not: "facing a gunline is frustrating?". It can be.
(Albeit I find ironic this remark from a player of one of the most frustrating armies to play against - an army that has a counter to everything).
The point raised was "tau should outshoot everybody" but that's not true because they have mobility advantage over gunline armies.
They should not outshoot gunlines AND have greater mobility. Fullstop.
Everything else said in this regard is unfocused or plain wrong.
They have mobility as well as shooting but they don't have psykers at all and exceedingly weak melee. IG might be slow (although they do have some mobile units) but they do have decent psyker options and are marginally better at CC. IG's main issue is just their codex is 6th ed whilst tau is 7th, no?
Well, Daemons are also 6th ed and they already did pretty good even before Fenris I. An old codex is a too easy explanation, especially when you hear Ork players saying that their older Codex was actually stronger than the current one .
LOL, hey look, a thread went more than 5 pages, time to evolve to it's final form "Boo wah Riptides!"
Riptides over perform for the cost, yup. Agreed. 100% in fact.
Wildly over nerf the unit into the ground, removing its defining features, 100% disagree, lets nerf it so it at least resembles what its supposed to do (mild nerf to gun, mild nerf to T/Armor, mild nerf to options, probably serisouly balanced without trashing the unit. I realize revenge is wanted by many, but that's not productive)
Missile launchers ate my crisis commander for lunch, and instant deathed him, 15 pt upgrade killed my 165 point special named commander, pls nerf missile launcher!
pumaman1 wrote: LOL, hey look, a thread went more than 5 pages, time to evolve to it's final form "Boo wah Riptides!"
Riptides over perform for the cost, yup. Agreed. 100% in fact.
Wildly over nerf the unit into the ground, removing its defining features, 100% disagree, lets nerf it so it at least resembles what its supposed to do (mild nerf to gun, mild nerf to T/Armor, mild nerf to options, probably serisouly balanced without trashing the unit. I realize revenge is wanted by many, but that's not productive)
Missile launchers ate my crisis commander for lunch, and instant deathed him, 15 pt upgrade killed my 165 point special named commander, pls nerf missile launcher!
We had complaints about AM and Tau. Time for another codex, perhaps?
---
So, yesterday I played a bizarre Eldar list. The guy generally uses strong stuff like Wraithlords, Shining Spears and Storm Guardians - yeah, I know, right? Freaking WAAC dude. Well, this time he surpassed himself with TFG-ness: he brought some girls that didn't allow me to overwatch! THE DOLT! And not only that, but I had to test for FEAR! Golly molly, who in these days bring Fear units? Everyone told me it was useless!
Now I don't play him anymore. People laugh when I tell them what transpired; of course they would! No overwatch, fear, S3 AP3 infantry models, come on...
pumaman1 wrote: LOL, hey look, a thread went more than 5 pages, time to evolve to it's final form "Boo wah Riptides!"
Riptides over perform for the cost, yup. Agreed. 100% in fact.
Wildly over nerf the unit into the ground, removing its defining features, 100% disagree, lets nerf it so it at least resembles what its supposed to do (mild nerf to gun, mild nerf to T/Armor, mild nerf to options, probably serisouly balanced without trashing the unit. I realize revenge is wanted by many, but that's not productive)
Missile launchers ate my crisis commander for lunch, and instant deathed him, 15 pt upgrade killed my 165 point special named commander, pls nerf missile launcher!
When a unit is the poster child for the problems of 7th ed, it's going to get brought up a lot. Being more durable than a warhound titan against most weapons gets attention.
Traditio wrote: You guys have no idea just how amused I am by the turn that this thread has taken.
You made the thread to mock me for saying that death guard rules are OP.
And here we have a tau player claiming that riptides are not OP and that, indeed, the riptide is necessary for a tau codex that otherwise wouldn't fare very well at all.
Because the tau codex is full of units that are neither durable, have long range nor hit hard.
Lol.
There's always delusional ATT types in any Tau thread. I choose to ignore them.
Delusional? No you are the delusional ones you cry cheese at any time Tau get anything good because we shoot you and move away but guess what a smart player can beat tau. You just don't like the fact you can't charge at us and wreck our lists in melee anymore and m sorry if you play any kind of marine army with the exception of chaos you have no right to complain.
The whole point of the tau play style is we shoot you run away gang up on you and shoot you again but once again imperial players who mostly want to drive their marines at the tau lines and charge them and win andas someone who also plays chaos I find it rathet hilarious imperium players complaining about tau being too op in the shooting phase when you guys have been stealing things chaos were known for.
Vector Strike wrote: So, yesterday I played a bizarre Eldar list. The guy generally uses strong stuff like Wraithlords, Shining Spears and Storm Guardians - yeah, I know, right? Freaking WAAC dude. Well, this time he surpassed himself with TFG-ness: he brought some girls that didn't allow me to overwatch! THE DOLT! And not only that, but I had to test for FEAR! Golly molly, who in these days bring Fear units? Everyone told me it was useless!
Now I don't play him anymore. People laugh when I tell them what transpired; of course they would! No overwatch, fear, S3 AP3 infantry models, come on...
I don't blame you, I'd never play such a cheesemonger ever again with his S3 power weapons and I5.
Traditio wrote: You guys have no idea just how amused I am by the turn that this thread has taken.
You made the thread to mock me for saying that death guard rules are OP.
And here we have a tau player claiming that riptides are not OP and that, indeed, the riptide is necessary for a tau codex that otherwise wouldn't fare very well at all.
Because the tau codex is full of units that are neither durable, have long range nor hit hard.
Lol.
There's always delusional ATT types in any Tau thread. I choose to ignore them.
Delusional? No you are the delusional ones you cry cheese at any time Tau get anything good because we shoot you and move away but guess what a smart player can beat tau. You just don't like the fact you can't charge at us and wreck our lists in melee anymore and m sorry if you play any kind of marine army with the exception of chaos you have no right to complain.
The whole point of the tau play style is we shoot you run away gang up on you and shoot you again but once again imperial players who mostly want to drive their marines at the tau lines and charge them and win andas someone who also plays chaos I find it rathet hilarious imperium players complaining about tau being too op in the shooting phase when you guys have been stealing things chaos were known for.
You are being a bit delusional. There's "good", like broadsides and crisis suits, and then there's "MC that takes sucks up more firepower than a titan". Even grav is not really that effective vs the Riptide or Stormsurge, which begs the question, what is? Nothing other than D.
Traditio wrote: When I complain because a fething 17 point MEQ has fearless, relentless, FNP and T5 (meanwhile, compare that to what Iron Warriors got), I get an entire thread devoted to making fun of me.
Sounds fine to me. Maybe bring less boltguns.
Where are the threads mocking people who think that riptides are less points-efficient, durable, etc. than LRBTs?
You can kill Riptides with Missile Launchers. I thought you'd love them.
Traditio wrote: You guys have no idea just how amused I am by the turn that this thread has taken.
You made the thread to mock me for saying that death guard rules are OP.
And here we have a tau player claiming that riptides are not OP and that, indeed, the riptide is necessary for a tau codex that otherwise wouldn't fare very well at all.
Because the tau codex is full of units that are neither durable, have long range nor hit hard.
Lol.
There's always delusional ATT types in any Tau thread. I choose to ignore them.
Delusional? No you are the delusional ones you cry cheese at any time Tau get anything good because we shoot you and move away but guess what a smart player can beat tau. You just don't like the fact you can't charge at us and wreck our lists in melee anymore and m sorry if you play any kind of marine army with the exception of chaos you have no right to complain.
The whole point of the tau play style is we shoot you run away gang up on you and shoot you again but once again imperial players who mostly want to drive their marines at the tau lines and charge them and win andas someone who also plays chaos I find it rathet hilarious imperium players complaining about tau being too op in the shooting phase when you guys have been stealing things chaos were known for.
I play Tau. I own 4,000 points of them, and I've never owned a single Marine army of any sort.
By "delusional ATT types", I mean the kind of people who say that Tau are "barely competitive" or "Ork-tier without Y'vahras" or "Riptides are balanced or underpowered". That blatant disconnection from reality is disturbing, which is why I call it out wherever it arises.
Also, I had to read your post four times to actually comprehend what you were trying to say. You may want to reword it in the future, so your message is more coherent.
The great equalizer against Tau is the most broken psychic power in the game. If I need a tac nuke-style solution to stop you, your list might be pretty strong.
Traditio wrote: The player base has been shrinking since the advent of 6th edition. Say what you want, but power creep, scale creep, price creep, etc. are all to blame for this.
Correlation does not equal causation. There is no proof that "scale creep" and "power creep" are the reason 40k is losing players. there a whole host of factors for why 40k is losing market dominance.
I'm sure this one tiny factor, known as "more competing games in the market than ever before" surely has nothing do with it. Must be the balance, which used to be great before, before it started turning players away.
Martel732 wrote: The great equalizer against Tau is the most broken psychic power in the game. If I need a tac nuke-style solution to stop you, your list might be pretty strong.
And it should be Martel its time for you marine players to accept the fact that you shouldn't have an easy time beating my army
Traditio wrote: You guys have no idea just how amused I am by the turn that this thread has taken.
You made the thread to mock me for saying that death guard rules are OP.
And here we have a tau player claiming that riptides are not OP and that, indeed, the riptide is necessary for a tau codex that otherwise wouldn't fare very well at all.
Because the tau codex is full of units that are neither durable, have long range nor hit hard.
Lol.
There's always delusional ATT types in any Tau thread. I choose to ignore them.
Delusional? No you are the delusional ones you cry cheese at any time Tau get anything good because we shoot you and move away but guess what a smart player can beat tau. You just don't like the fact you can't charge at us and wreck our lists in melee anymore and m sorry if you play any kind of marine army with the exception of chaos you have no right to complain.
The whole point of the tau play style is we shoot you run away gang up on you and shoot you again but once again imperial players who mostly want to drive their marines at the tau lines and charge them and win andas someone who also plays chaos I find it rathet hilarious imperium players complaining about tau being too op in the shooting phase when you guys have been stealing things chaos were known for.
I play Tau. I own 4,000 points of them, and I've never owned a single Marine army of any sort.
By "delusional ATT types", I mean the kind of people who say that Tau are "barely competitive" or "Ork-tier without Y'vahras" or "Riptides are balanced or underpowered". That blatant disconnection from reality is disturbing, which is why I call it out wherever it arises.
Also, I had to read your post four times to actually comprehend what you were trying to say. You may want to reword it in the future, so your message is more coherent.
Actually Tau do need the riptide because guess what it allows us to deal with blobs of marines and terminators without having to rely on battle suits.
People want to constantly complain about tau but don't bother to realize hey maybe if I knock out his marker lights or maybe if I land my drop pod 1" away from his units he won't risk intercepting due to the risk of hitting his own units.
Actually Tau do need the riptide because guess what it allows us to deal with blobs of marines and terminators without having to rely on battle suits.
People want to constantly complain about tau but don't bother to realize hey maybe if I knock out his marker lights or maybe if I land my drop pod 1" away from his units he won't risk intercepting due to the risk of hitting his own units.
There it is!
The "git gud" argument.
I'm sure NO ONE has EVER thought to shoot at the markerlights or use drop pods! NO ONE EVER! What a fething revelation!
Traditio wrote: The player base has been shrinking since the advent of 6th edition. Say what you want, but power creep, scale creep, price creep, etc. are all to blame for this.
Correlation does not equal causation. There is no proof that "scale creep" and "power creep" are the reason 40k is losing players. there a whole host of factors for why 40k is losing market dominance.
I'm sure this one tiny factor, known as "more competing games in the market than ever before" surely has nothing do with it. Must be the balance, which used to be great before, before it started turning players away.
Oh wait.
Or maybe the is more complex and we have a combination of balance off the charts (more and more every edition, so less and less people can stomach that) AND competent competitors.
But this would be too much of a complicated situation to be realistic, right?
Actually Tau do need the riptide because guess what it allows us to deal with blobs of marines and terminators without having to rely on battle suits.
People want to constantly complain about tau but don't bother to realize hey maybe if I knock out his marker lights or maybe if I land my drop pod 1" away from his units he won't risk intercepting due to the risk of hitting his own units.
There it is!
The "git gud" argument.
I'm sure NO ONE has EVER thought to shoot at the markerlights or use drop pods! NO ONE EVER! What a fething revelation!
Can you teach us more, oh master of strategy.
Actually no its called common sense. Drop your pods right in front of their unit remember interceptor is at the end of the movement phase so even if you scatter say 5" off target you still have your regular movement to get within 1" of their units and I can bet you most Tau players won't intercept those units.
Martel again I'm sorry am I supposed to feel sorry for you after what I had to out up with ba doing as a chaos player
Whatever you want to call it, you do understand that people have figured this out years ago, and that it doesn't change the simple fact the riptide is too good for its points?
Soon you'll be telling us what a burden it is to bring pathfinders for markerlights.
Honestly man, this isn't hard stuff. When the Tau players are telling you you're wrong, maybe you should go re-consider what it is you're arguing.
Actually Tau do need the riptide because guess what it allows us to deal with blobs of marines and terminators without having to rely on battle suits.
People want to constantly complain about tau but don't bother to realize hey maybe if I knock out his marker lights or maybe if I land my drop pod 1" away from his units he won't risk intercepting due to the risk of hitting his own units.
There it is!
The "git gud" argument.
I'm sure NO ONE has EVER thought to shoot at the markerlights or use drop pods! NO ONE EVER! What a fething revelation!
Can you teach us more, oh master of strategy.
Actually no its called common sense. Drop your pods right in front of their unit remember interceptor is at the end of the movement phase so even if you scatter say 5" off target you still have your regular movement to get within 1" of their units and I can bet you most Tau players won't intercept those units.
Martel again I'm sorry am I supposed to feel sorry for you after what I had to out up with ba doing as a chaos player
Vanilla marines have to build deathstars with invis or spam bodies like orks with gladius to keep up with Tau. Those are the defining differences between vanilla and BA in this case. But tell me again why the Riptide needs to be able to suck down 50 lascannon shots.
Traditio wrote: Where are the threads mocking people who think that riptides are less points-efficient, durable, etc. than LRBTs?
Where are those threads?
They all seem to get locked for some reason.
Remember:
BBAP wrote: Points values are set around armies, not units. It's not that 55pts of unit [x] is exactly as "good" as 55pts of unit [y]. The idea is that 1850pts of army [x] should be as powerful as 1850pts of army [y]. The fact the game has different unit types, each with different strengths and weaknesses, each with different things they counter and are countered by, means that's not always the case.
Actually Tau do need the riptide because guess what it allows us to deal with blobs of marines and terminators without having to rely on battle suits.
People want to constantly complain about tau but don't bother to realize hey maybe if I knock out his marker lights or maybe if I land my drop pod 1" away from his units he won't risk intercepting due to the risk of hitting his own units.
There it is!
The "git gud" argument.
I'm sure NO ONE has EVER thought to shoot at the markerlights or use drop pods! NO ONE EVER! What a fething revelation!
Can you teach us more, oh master of strategy.
Actually no its called common sense. Drop your pods right in front of their unit remember interceptor is at the end of the movement phase so even if you scatter say 5" off target you still have your regular movement to get within 1" of their units and I can bet you most Tau players won't intercept those units.
Martel again I'm sorry am I supposed to feel sorry for you after what I had to out up with ba doing as a chaos player
This is all incredibly obvious stuff that EVERY player has figured out, but between supporting fire making assaulting them a joke unless you funnel unit after unit into them, very good shooting, interceptor out the ass, and JSJ, armies like Orks are basically an autowin for tau, BA are basically an autowin too, as having below average shooting, only having a VERY poor way to assault from reserves, and no good assault transport makes it hard them to bring any of their possible strength against the Tau (especially since something like DC will obviously never make it to assault range in the same turn they can charge without being shot to pieces).
And tau don't especially need the riptide. What does it really bring? Massive damage output? Not unless it's in a riptide wing. Mobility? Yeah, right. Stupidly huge durability? Yes. It effectively locks down an entire section of the board by providing enough of a threat that it can't really be ignored, but is also more than durable enough to not care about being shot too much.
Actually Tau do need the riptide because guess what it allows us to deal with blobs of marines and terminators without having to rely on battle
People want to constantly complain about tau but don't bother to realize hey maybe if I knock out his marker lights or maybe if I land my drop pod 1" away from his units he won't risk intercepting due to the risk of hitting his own units.
Sigh.
No, it is not "necessary". I can counter Marines and Terminators just fine without it, because I am competent and know how to use the units in the codex properly.
Yes, I know how to counter Tau. I do it routinely when I play against them, and I deal with others' counters when people play against me. Any army can counter Terminators and Marines. If you cannot use all of the tools that Tau provide, and just spam Riptides instead, you will fail in the long run.
Actually Tau do need the riptide because guess what it allows us to deal with blobs of marines and terminators without having to rely on battle suits.
People want to constantly complain about tau but don't bother to realize hey maybe if I knock out his marker lights or maybe if I land my drop pod 1" away from his units he won't risk intercepting due to the risk of hitting his own units.
There it is!
The "git gud" argument.
I'm sure NO ONE has EVER thought to shoot at the markerlights or use drop pods! NO ONE EVER! What a fething revelation!
Can you teach us more, oh master of strategy.
Actually no its called common sense. Drop your pods right in front of their unit remember interceptor is at the end of the movement phase so even if you scatter say 5" off target you still have your regular movement to get within 1" of their units and I can bet you most Tau players won't intercept those units.
Martel again I'm sorry am I supposed to feel sorry for you after what I had to out up with ba doing as a chaos player
Vanilla marines have to build deathstars with invis or spam bodies like orks with gladius to keep up with Tau. Those are the defining differences between vanilla and BA in this case. But tell me again why the Riptide needs to be able to suck down 50 lascannon shots.
In what world do you need 50 lascannon shots to kill a riptide? Because funnily enough mine dies to Ork mech gunz lulz
Now maybe it is under priced but not by much but you lot want to completely Nerf it and reduce it to a expensive paper weight
Actually Tau do need the riptide because guess what it allows us to deal with blobs of marines and terminators without having to rely on battle
People want to constantly complain about tau but don't bother to realize hey maybe if I knock out his marker lights or maybe if I land my drop pod 1" away from his units he won't risk intercepting due to the risk of hitting his own units.
Sigh.
No, it is not "necessary". I can counter Marines and Terminators just fine without it, because I am competent and know how to use the units in the codex properly.
Yes, I know how to counter Tau. I do it routinely when I play against them, and I deal with others' counters when people play against me. Any army can counter Terminators and Marines. If you cannot use all of the tools that Tau provide, and just spam Riptides instead, you will fail in the long run.
I don't rely on my riptide at all and actually only from eld one if anything I rely on my fire warriors +ethereal who jumped out of their fishes and blow people's faces off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I can counter marines and terminators with goddamn BA. The Riptide is not necessary.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "In what world do you need 50 lascannon shots to kill a riptide?"
The world where math works. I might have overshot by a bit. But only a bit.
I don't care if it's unnerfed. But currently, it's a 300 pt model. Just like a scatbike is more like a 35-40 pt model. And the WK is a 450 pt model.
300 points don't make me bloody laugh martel stop crying if you don't like it why don't you just quit the gane
In what world do you need 50 lascannon shots to kill a riptide? Because funnily enough mine dies to Ork mech gunz lulz
Now maybe it is under priced but not by much but you lot want to completely Nerf it and reduce it to a expensive paper weight
Do the math. Against a 3++ Riptide, it take somewhere ~50 lascannons at BS3.
50 shots, 25 hits, 21 wound, 7 go through the invuln, and if you have FnP, you'd stop another 2, leaving 5 unsaved wounds, give or take 1 depending on rounding.
Pretty sure 40 BS 4 lascannon shots takes out a Warhound too, because of explodes results. The fact that we even are having this conversation is vomit inducing.
Meanwhile, my dreads die to scatterlasers like little bitches and lose the Riptide in CC.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "300 points don't make me bloody laugh martel stop crying if you don't like it why don't you just quit the gane"
Tell you what. I'll make a tau list paying 300 pts for riptides and still crush your standard marine list. 300 pts is completely fair for an immortal model. The Riptide is functionally immortal because any reasonable amount of fire that one might bring to bear is completely wasted against it. It's a complete trap for newer players and a big reason that Tau are THE baby seal clubbing list. Immortality should be expensive. Don't like that? Don't be immortal.
Actually funnily enough my csm have a answered to the riptide its called don't half your damn points into one unit. You act like nova charge is reliable it really isn't and quite frankly bringing fnpIMO makes the riptide too much of a major part of the list.
Again martel you really need to stop crying you remind me of a guard player I played against with my nurgle csm earlier this year who cried too at my Nurgle marines. I suggest you quit the game tbh
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Actually funnily enough my csm have a answered to the riptide its called don't half your damn points into one unit. You act like nova charge is reliable it really isn't and quite frankly bringing fnpIMO makes the riptide too much of a major part of the list.
Again martel you really need to stop crying you remind me of a guard player I played against with my nurgle csm earlier this year who cried too at my Nurgle marines. I suggest you quit the game tbh
Given the pricetag on the Riptide, nova charge is plenty reliable. And there's this thing called Riptide wing...
Quit acting like the stim injector is some major sacrifice of points on a T6 W5 2+/ 3++model.
I run pure MSUBA with bare minimum upgrades. Tau still have plenty of shooting to butcher my lists. Csm have some recent new toys that help that put them far above BA.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Actually funnily enough my csm have a answered to the riptide its called don't half your damn points into one unit. You act like nova charge is reliable it really isn't and quite frankly bringing fnpIMO makes the riptide too much of a major part of the list.
Again martel you really need to stop crying you remind me of a guard player I played against with my nurgle csm earlier this year who cried too at my Nurgle marines. I suggest you quit the game tbh
How many points are you playing? 225 is basically nothing in 1500+
Aah, i miss when this thread was making a parody of certain frequent participants in threads who sometimes had valid points, but communicated them so poorly that no one listened. Or he had terrible ideas, easy to point out, but couldn't take the criticism.
Do you remember those days? Pepperidge Farms remembers
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Actually funnily enough my csm have a answered to the riptide its called don't half your damn points into one unit. You act like nova charge is reliable it really isn't and quite frankly bringing fnpIMO makes the riptide too much of a major part of the list.
Again martel you really need to stop crying you remind me of a guard player I played against with my nurgle csm earlier this year who cried too at my Nurgle marines. I suggest you quit the game tbh
How many points are you playing? 225 is basically nothing in 1500+
1500 but I'm also running a full hunter contingent with 2 big squads of fire warriors in a devil fish each + 1 mini squad a crisis team some path finders a pirhana a broad side 5 marker drones a ethereal a body guard suit
pumaman1 wrote: Aah, i miss when this thread was making a parody of certain frequent participants in threads who sometimes had valid points, but communicated them so poorly that no one listened. Or he had terrible ideas, easy to point out, but couldn't take the criticism.
Do you remember those days? Pepperidge Farms remembers
No, its okay, Champion has gladly taken up the torch for Traditio.
Both equally misguided in understanding obvious and basic aspects of balance and gameplay.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Actually funnily enough my csm have a answered to the riptide its called don't half your damn points into one unit. You act like nova charge is reliable it really isn't and quite frankly bringing fnpIMO makes the riptide too much of a major part of the list.
Again martel you really need to stop crying you remind me of a guard player I played against with my nurgle csm earlier this year who cried too at my Nurgle marines. I suggest you quit the game tbh
How many points are you playing? 225 is basically nothing in 1500+
1500 but I'm also running a full hunter contingent with 2 big squads of fire warriors in a devil fish each + 1 mini squad a crisis team some path finders a pirhana a broad side 5 marker drones a ethereal a body guard suit
So yeah, 225 points is basically nothing in 1500. And you could probably save points by using a regular crisis squad instead of a bodyguard squad.
I'm not asking for 3rd ed BA rhino rush here. I'm really pointing how absurd the swing between vanilla marines and BA is based off of two or three formations and a psychic tree. Vanilla marine units taken individually are every bit as terrible as BA units. They get a few extra non-relentless grav cannons. Yippee.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Actually funnily enough my csm have a answered to the riptide its called don't half your damn points into one unit. You act like nova charge is reliable it really isn't and quite frankly bringing fnpIMO makes the riptide too much of a major part of the list.
Again martel you really need to stop crying you remind me of a guard player I played against with my nurgle csm earlier this year who cried too at my Nurgle marines. I suggest you quit the game tbh
How many points are you playing? 225 is basically nothing in 1500+
1500 but I'm also running a full hunter contingent with 2 big squads of fire warriors in a devil fish each + 1 mini squad a crisis team some path finders a pirhana a broad side 5 marker drones a ethereal a body guard suit
So yeah, 225 points is basically nothing in 1500. And you could probably save points by using a regular crisis squad instead of a bodyguard squad.
The body guard squad I have to take to get the ethereal into the hunter contingent.
@martel but then why complain at Tau? Are Tau players to blame for you having a garbage codex? Nope and I'm not being funny but while yes your formations suck you do now have access to grav cannons on your Devastator's.
Because unlike Necrons or Dark Angels or even Eldar to a certain extent, I don't get to play a game at all against Tau. No matter what I do, the result is the same. Can't deep strike. Can't advance. Anything that does make into CC is no longer viable. Just lambs to the slaughter.
Martel then maybe shoot them Tau do not like being shot and unless your opponent has either got a ethereal in the list or paid for sergants or got lucky on his warlord trait most of his army is LD 8 at best with the exceptions of the commanders unit and the riptides. Heck use damn osykers against them because Tau have next to no psychic defence
Again, every player who has been playing for more than six months knows this. Blood Angels cannot outshoot Tau. Blood Angels cannot use psyker spam to kill Tau. All Blood Angels can do is assault poorly. At least understand Martel's grievances before you start outputting condescending crap.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Martel then maybe shoot them Tau do not like being shot and unless your opponent has either got a ethereal in the list or paid for sergants or got lucky on his warlord trait most of his army is LD 8 at best with the exceptions of the commanders unit and the riptides. Heck use damn osykers against them because Tau have next to no psychic defence
I don't list tailor and ba psykers are basically useless vs tau.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Martel then maybe shoot them Tau do not like being shot and unless your opponent has either got a ethereal in the list or paid for sergants or got lucky on his warlord trait most of his army is LD 8 at best with the exceptions of the commanders unit and the riptides. Heck use damn osykers against them because Tau have next to no psychic defence
Yeah, out shoot the shooty army, good luck. I don't even think they can spam psykers as they don't have access to the libby conclave.
Calling out to quit the game if we "do not like it"?
There is always room for improvement (some editions of 40k more than others).
Imperial Cheese like the Stormsword is a fine example of an Epic level vehicle having lost it's way and finding itself in squad-based combat.
It is in the rules we can have a "Lord of War", I am sure my lord beats your lord because he has bigger guns than yours and AM/IG is all about big guns.
I like my Shadowsword but he really hopes you bring a truly epic sized LOW or it is a waste... but he can pass the time blowing up tanks spectacularly.
I am close to fielding 3 Imperial Knights but I am sure they are doomed facing the shock and awe of the Riptide swarms.
I like how this thread started, cheese is funny now.
I will SEVERLY reprimand anyone who tries to tell me 40k as it stands now is a competitive game.
You cannot force me to look at it any other way than a gaming joke, where it really is "bring what you like"!
Make the meanest thing you can think of for giggles!
Take an insane horde of stuff: can you field more bodies than their guns can handle?
Can you take so much armor it is enough to make a Tank Commander blush?
Really, people are completely unreasonable for calling people a TFG for their army lists or to play with the rules... it... does... not... matter.
40k is free of the yoke of oppression of "competition": the rules are only just good enough to be a scenario sandbox.
Even to make alliance armies to fly so much in the face of fluff, it would make Jervis Johnson's head spin!
There has never been a better time to create unholy... erm, "exciting" army combinations you only dreamed of or read about.
The exodus of players people lament are only the competitive players, "good riddance!" many would say.
No sense them souring our games with "math-hammer" and silly words like "choice" or "odds".
Remember: forge the narrative!, have fun!, frag them if they cannot take a joke! and have pity on the TFG: he has completely lost the plot and should be made fun of mercilessly.
Honestly for once I actually agree with Martel and his grievances and I don't blame him. This is truly a historic thread.
But yeah RT are way too hard to kill, and the damage for their points is quite high, same issue with Grav Cents but Grav Cents are easier to kill, like a lot easier to kill.
The Knight can probably D-Blade or Stomp out the Riptides, if you can remove their support.
My lists don't typically include knights because of all the WKs.
Yeah, why don't we quit ripping on tides (see what I did there? ) and talk about the true master of undercostedness, the Wraithknight. Especially the Skathach variety. Really Eldar in general are undercosted. Tau are much more fair. Everyone's arguments about the durability of the Riptide are a little bit misguided, considering in many situations there are better uses of the Nova reactor than a better invuln. (I usually Nova Charge my primary weapon, or Ripple Fire my secondary, because MOAR DAKKA!). So most of the time it's invuln is only 5+. Plenty of stuff can get through that. And if you want FnP on a Riptide, you pay a bucket of points for it. So it comes at the expense of additional firepower. Riptides are good, but they are properly expensive when kitted out for maximum durability.
The Knight can probably D-Blade or Stomp out the Riptides, if you can remove their support.
My lists don't typically include knights because of all the WKs.
Yeah, why don't we quit ripping on tides (see what I did there? ) and talk about the true master of undercostedness, the Wraithknight. Especially the Skathach variety. Really Eldar in general are undercosted. Tau are much more fair. Everyone's arguments about the durability of the Riptide are a little bit misguided, considering in many situations there are better uses of the Nova reactor than a better invuln. (I usually Nova Charge my primary weapon, or Ripple Fire my secondary, because MOAR DAKKA!). So most of the time it's invuln is only 5+. Plenty of stuff can get through that. And if you want FnP on a Riptide, you pay a bucket of points for it. So it comes at the expense of additional firepower. Riptides are good, but they are properly expensive when kitted out for maximum durability.
I thought the Skathachs were less undercosted?
Even if the invul is 5+ you're still T6 2+ aren't you? Or am I wrong about that?
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Martel then maybe shoot them Tau do not like being shot and unless your opponent has either got a ethereal in the list or paid for sergants or got lucky on his warlord trait most of his army is LD 8 at best with the exceptions of the commanders unit and the riptides. Heck use damn osykers against them because Tau have next to no psychic defence
Yeah, out shoot the shooty army, good luck. I don't even think they can spam psykers as they don't have access to the libby conclave.
So ally in a Conclave? Why whine and cry when we have the ability to easily fix literally any problem in an IoM force?
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Martel then maybe shoot them Tau do not like being shot and unless your opponent has either got a ethereal in the list or paid for sergants or got lucky on his warlord trait most of his army is LD 8 at best with the exceptions of the commanders unit and the riptides. Heck use damn osykers against them because Tau have next to no psychic defence
Yeah, out shoot the shooty army, good luck. I don't even think they can spam psykers as they don't have access to the libby conclave.
So ally in a Conclave? Why whine and cry when we have the ability to easily fix literally any problem in an IoM force?
Because people don't play IoM. They play BA or SW or IG or SoB. If you're going to insist on allying in solutions to every issue we may as well just pick one codex for everyone to play.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Martel then maybe shoot them Tau do not like being shot and unless your opponent has either got a ethereal in the list or paid for sergants or got lucky on his warlord trait most of his army is LD 8 at best with the exceptions of the commanders unit and the riptides. Heck use damn osykers against them because Tau have next to no psychic defence
Yeah, out shoot the shooty army, good luck. I don't even think they can spam psykers as they don't have access to the libby conclave.
So ally in a Conclave? Why whine and cry when we have the ability to easily fix literally any problem in an IoM force?
Because people don't play IoM. They play BA or SW or IG or SoB. If you're going to insist on allying in solutions to every issue we may as well just pick one codex for everyone to play.
Didn't you just do that by complaining about no Conclave for BA?
The Knight can probably D-Blade or Stomp out the Riptides, if you can remove their support.
My lists don't typically include knights because of all the WKs.
Yeah, why don't we quit ripping on tides (see what I did there? ) and talk about the true master of undercostedness, the Wraithknight. Especially the Skathach variety. Really Eldar in general are undercosted. Tau are much more fair. Everyone's arguments about the durability of the Riptide are a little bit misguided, considering in many situations there are better uses of the Nova reactor than a better invuln. (I usually Nova Charge my primary weapon, or Ripple Fire my secondary, because MOAR DAKKA!). So most of the time it's invuln is only 5+. Plenty of stuff can get through that. And if you want FnP on a Riptide, you pay a bucket of points for it. So it comes at the expense of additional firepower. Riptides are good, but they are properly expensive when kitted out for maximum durability.
Wraithknight is actually easier to kill because it only has base 3+ armor. This actually makes a huge difference. Krak missiles are back in the picture, as are any other AP 3 high strength weapon the Riptide just laughs off. It's hard to spam wounds on the WK, but if you can, it takes far more than the Riptide. Plus, the best invuln it can get is 5++, so grav works MUCH better vs the WK. I'm not sure which one is truly more obnoxious. Riptide is able to be poisoned, but 2+/5+++ makes poison functionally useless. Also, Eldar don't have interceptor, so skyhammer is totally a thing vs WK. Skyhammer just becomes road pizza vs Tau.
The Knight can probably D-Blade or Stomp out the Riptides, if you can remove their support.
My lists don't typically include knights because of all the WKs.
Yeah, why don't we quit ripping on tides (see what I did there? ) and talk about the true master of undercostedness, the Wraithknight. Especially the Skathach variety. Really Eldar in general are undercosted. Tau are much more fair. Everyone's arguments about the durability of the Riptide are a little bit misguided, considering in many situations there are better uses of the Nova reactor than a better invuln. (I usually Nova Charge my primary weapon, or Ripple Fire my secondary, because MOAR DAKKA!). So most of the time it's invuln is only 5+. Plenty of stuff can get through that. And if you want FnP on a Riptide, you pay a bucket of points for it. So it comes at the expense of additional firepower. Riptides are good, but they are properly expensive when kitted out for maximum durability.
FNP is disgustingly cheap on the Riptide. Also, there's almost never a reason to do anything but the shield. Immortal model >> more dakka. Riptides are still far, far, FAR too cheap kitted out.
Would make sense with all the green colour palettes going around in the Guard...
I don't think anyone uses **that** name for them except GW. It's always Astroglide Millitarium, Astral Vomitarum, Astrid Milligan, Ass-tar Milipede, or sometimes even "the Imperial Guard".
ZergSmasher wrote: Everyone's arguments about the durability of the Riptide are a little bit misguided, considering in many situations there are better uses of the Nova reactor than a better invuln.
This would be a valid argument if nova charging the weapon actually mattered. If the ion weapon was STR 8 AP 4 and only got AP 2 with the nova charge then there would be a reason to do it, but giving it AP 2 by default makes the nova version redundant. The vast majority of the time you nova charge for the 3++.
ZergSmasher wrote: Everyone's arguments about the durability of the Riptide are a little bit misguided, considering in many situations there are better uses of the Nova reactor than a better invuln.
This would be a valid argument if nova charging the weapon actually mattered. If the ion weapon was STR 8 AP 4 and only got AP 2 with the nova charge then there would be a reason to do it, but giving it AP 2 by default makes the nova version redundant. The vast majority of the time you nova charge for the 3++.
Works a treat on the HBC, which I'm starting to like better than the Ion Accelerator at a TAC weapon. I've lost way too many IA blast shots to Gets Hot.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Martel then maybe shoot them Tau do not like being shot and unless your opponent has either got a ethereal in the list or paid for sergants or got lucky on his warlord trait most of his army is LD 8 at best with the exceptions of the commanders unit and the riptides. Heck use damn osykers against them because Tau have next to no psychic defence
Yeah, out shoot the shooty army, good luck. I don't even think they can spam psykers as they don't have access to the libby conclave.
So ally in a Conclave? Why whine and cry when we have the ability to easily fix literally any problem in an IoM force?
Because people don't play IoM. They play BA or SW or IG or SoB. If you're going to insist on allying in solutions to every issue we may as well just pick one codex for everyone to play.
Didn't you just do that by complaining about no Conclave for BA?
Because allies are their own set of problems for a different thread. (see: barkstar/superfriends), and the best unit BA have that MIGHT be a decent invis choice is DC, which against Tau armies with an abundance of markerlights is far less of a problem than it normally is.
And why should I care about his grirvences when its because of people like him crying that csm got one of their only 2 good units nerfed into oblivion. So sorry but I ain't sorry
PS I'd love to see all imperial codeces down to the level of csm before traitor legions
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: And why should I care about his grirvences when its because of people like him crying that csm got one of their only 2 good units nerfed into oblivion. So sorry but I ain't sorry
PS I'd love to see all imperial codeces down to the level of csm before traitor legions
Your army literally got buffed into competitiveness, still not good enough for you. Gotta drag other people down, too.
If anyone wonders why Chaos players are disliked, this right here.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Martel then maybe shoot them Tau do not like being shot and unless your opponent has either got a ethereal in the list or paid for sergants or got lucky on his warlord trait most of his army is LD 8 at best with the exceptions of the commanders unit and the riptides. Heck use damn osykers against them because Tau have next to no psychic defence
Yeah, out shoot the shooty army, good luck. I don't even think they can spam psykers as they don't have access to the libby conclave.
So ally in a Conclave? Why whine and cry when we have the ability to easily fix literally any problem in an IoM force?
Because people don't play IoM. They play BA or SW or IG or SoB. If you're going to insist on allying in solutions to every issue we may as well just pick one codex for everyone to play.
Didn't you just do that by complaining about no Conclave for BA?
Crazyterran wrote: If anyone wonders why Chaos players are disliked, this right here.
?That is painting with a rather broad brush!
It is a strange thing playing chaos, it is like GW's marketing department is entrenched in the codex making.
I DO see some good buffs in the new Codex but when they say for many of the formations "If the model can take a mark they must have one of X".
So now do I use blue-tac for all right shoulder pads or glue / decal on a mark and commit my masses to a given god?
It is almost as bad as the 50 flavors of the good old space marines!
BUT yes, we have been getting some good model love unlike the Sisters and Imperial Guard keep getting the odd new kit so it is all good (kinda).
Chaos has always looked awesome to me, for competitive playability your really have to sharpen your pencil and I keep thinking it should not be that hard.
They are supposed to be the biggest bad in the game... it would be nice for them to act that way.
But I am a gaming slut so I have many armies to go around... Imperial hordes are a favorite but I always liked my Chaos to thump them every once in a while to keep it fun.
If anyone wonders why Chaos players are disliked, this right here.
Nah, more often than not the CSM players complains are (were?) justified and many people that "disliked" them were just people not able to see or accept the obvious incoherence in the treatment from GW's part between Loyalists and Traitors.
I can think about a couple of posters like that.
Not to justify that dude's behaviour, but is better do not write this kind of comment, is dangerously generic, IMHO.
To me its a bad idea in general to generalize an army or its player base. I can't count the number of times I've seen SM players described as WAAC Scumbags who don't want any other army to ever get buffed or updated, or as Mary Sues. To generalize is just outright insulting as 9 times out of 10 the claim is just outright wrong, but that doesn't stop some people...
Would make sense with all the green colour palettes going around in the Guard...
I don't think anyone uses **that** name for them except GW. It's always Astroglide Millitarium, Astral Vomitarum, Astrid Milligan, Ass-tar Milipede, or sometimes even "the Imperial Guard".
Peregrine wrote: Five real guys, how can an army that has this model in it be anything but OPOPOP CHEEEEESE? Just by owning one you become a sex god with lustful followers that Slaanesh would envy, and imagine what happens when you put one on the table!
My stalkers wreck it after it's bomb scatters max distance into one of it's own units and gives me a free slay the warlord kill? (This actually happened to me)
War Kitten wrote: To me its a bad idea in general to generalize an army or its player base. I can't count the number of times I've seen SM players described as WAAC Scumbags who don't want any other army to ever get buffed or updated, or as Mary Sues. To generalize is just outright insulting as 9 times out of 10 the claim is just outright wrong, but that doesn't stop some people...
I agree, I take a lot of flakk sometimes in my group for running non-traditional lists in both my Eldar and SM forces. What can I say, I like Dreadnoughts, I'm going to run them, no matter how bad they are.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: And why should I care about his grirvences when its because of people like him crying that csm got one of their only 2 good units nerfed into oblivion. So sorry but I ain't sorry
PS I'd love to see all imperial codeces down to the level of csm before traitor legions
Two words:
Imperial. Guard.
We where about equal with CSM, and then you got buffed.
ZergSmasher wrote: Everyone's arguments about the durability of the Riptide are a little bit misguided, considering in many situations there are better uses of the Nova reactor than a better invuln.
This would be a valid argument if nova charging the weapon actually mattered. If the ion weapon was STR 8 AP 4 and only got AP 2 with the nova charge then there would be a reason to do it, but giving it AP 2 by default makes the nova version redundant. The vast majority of the time you nova charge for the 3++.
I threw out an idea where an overloading Nova Reactor caused consequential systems damage.
1-2: Defensive systems destroyed --> Riptide loses Invul saves
3-4: Targeting systems destroyed --> Riptide may only fire snap shots
5-6: Propulsion systems destroyed --> Riptide loses Jetpack type, becomes Infantry type.
I thought it was cool at least!
While a good idea, maybe lessen it a bit. A bad turn could make your riptide utterly useless. Maybe do 1-2: Lose invul save that turn, 3-4: Snap fire that turn, 5-6: Lose jetpack that turn. And then also if you fail you lose a wound. But something needs to happen to make nova charging more dangerous, or make picking something other than the shield more desirable
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: And why should I care about his grirvences when its because of people like him crying that csm got one of their only 2 good units nerfed into oblivion. So sorry but I ain't sorry
PS I'd love to see all imperial codeces down to the level of csm before traitor legions
Two words:
Imperial. Guard.
We where about equal with CSM, and then you got buffed.
Where they? I thought they were above Orks but below CSM?
I hope those factions to get a bump, even though that will put BA firmly at the bottom of the cellar. Loyalist marines with nothing that makes loyalist marines work.
Nobody is saying balance doesn't matter, just that you have no idea what balance is in regards to game design.
The game needs counters, otherwise there is no reason for certain units to exist. There being imbalance to allow for more strategic choice is only a bad thing when someone refuses to adjust play style to accommodate the fact that the game requires two people to play.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Nobody is saying balance doesn't matter, just that you have no idea what balance is in regards to game design.
The game needs counters, otherwise there is no reason for certain units to exist. There being imbalance to allow for more strategic choice is only a bad thing when someone refuses to adjust play style to accommodate the fact that the game requires two people to play.
Having counters to units is NOT the same as imbalance. Imbalance leads to spamming optimal units. Ie, imbalance removes counters, it does not provide them.
I threw out an idea where an overloading Nova Reactor caused consequential systems damage.
1-2: Defensive systems destroyed --> Riptide loses Invul saves
3-4: Targeting systems destroyed --> Riptide may only fire snap shots
5-6: Propulsion systems destroyed --> Riptide loses Jetpack type, becomes Infantry type.
I thought it was cool at least!
Because riptide wings exist, it seems that the riptide is only complained about as it exists in the riptide wing, and something like this might be ok if the core unit was that powerful. Unfortunately, it only drives people to use them EXCLUSIVELY in the riptide wing, to reduce the 1/3 chance of that happening every turn. A riptide alone is hardly the level often complained about. Still overly good, I agree. But this actually emphasizes the problem, you will only see riptide wing, the blatantly most OP thing, or none. And lets face it, Just means you'll see more of it, instead of someone running just 1 or 2 as actual elite choices.
2 base riptides is still around 55-65 BS4 lascannons to take out, even accounting for failed nova charges. That means it's also 11-13 grav cannons. You know, the weapon that all the xenos lose their minds over.
Martel732 wrote: 2 base riptides is still around 55-65 BS4 lascannons to take out, even accounting for failed nova charges. That means it's also 11-13 grav cannons. You know, the weapon that all the xenos lose their minds over.
But did we not just take it from 52 las cannons PER to just over 52 for both? Like i said, its too good, but that nerf just forces me to bring a riptide wing, something I'd rather not personally. I don't enjoy hyper-competitive tournament play on my FLGS Friday night 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd bring vespid's if i could find them for less than a kidney
Martel732 wrote: 2 base riptides is still around 55-65 BS4 lascannons to take out, even accounting for failed nova charges. That means it's also 11-13 grav cannons. You know, the weapon that all the xenos lose their minds over.
But did we not just take it from 52 las cannons PER to just over 52 for both? Like i said, its too good, but that nerf just forces me to bring a riptide wing, something I'd rather not personally. I don't enjoy hyper-competitive tournament play on my FLGS Friday night 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd bring vespid's if i could find them for less than a kidney
Martel732 wrote: 2 base riptides is still around 55-65 BS4 lascannons to take out, even accounting for failed nova charges. That means it's also 11-13 grav cannons. You know, the weapon that all the xenos lose their minds over.
But did we not just take it from 52 las cannons PER to just over 52 for both? Like i said, its too good, but that nerf just forces me to bring a riptide wing, something I'd rather not personally. I don't enjoy hyper-competitive tournament play on my FLGS Friday night 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd bring vespid's if i could find them for less than a kidney
52 was BS 3 lascannon assuming NOVA shield all the time. It's still an absurd amount of AP2 that most lists can't even begin to field.
Martel732 wrote: 2 base riptides is still around 55-65 BS4 lascannons to take out, even accounting for failed nova charges. That means it's also 11-13 grav cannons. You know, the weapon that all the xenos lose their minds over.
But did we not just take it from 52 las cannons PER to just over 52 for both? Like i said, its too good, but that nerf just forces me to bring a riptide wing, something I'd rather not personally. I don't enjoy hyper-competitive tournament play on my FLGS Friday night 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd bring vespid's if i could find them for less than a kidney
Why does it force you to bring the wing?
Because the wing mitigates the risk of the proposed penalty for nova failure to well (re-roll failed nova). If i have a 1/3 chance of permanently being downgraded to bs1, or losing the invul altogether, or losing JSJ, then it's a never take, because you need those nova rolls to be worth while. so 33% chance of permanent nerf or 11% and take 1 more unit generally considered too good. OK yeah, i like using my units as intended, so I'll bring the 11% wombo-combo.
Martel732 wrote: 2 base riptides is still around 55-65 BS4 lascannons to take out, even accounting for failed nova charges. That means it's also 11-13 grav cannons. You know, the weapon that all the xenos lose their minds over.
But did we not just take it from 52 las cannons PER to just over 52 for both? Like i said, its too good, but that nerf just forces me to bring a riptide wing, something I'd rather not personally. I don't enjoy hyper-competitive tournament play on my FLGS Friday night 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd bring vespid's if i could find them for less than a kidney
Why does it force you to bring the wing?
Because the wing mitigates the risk of the proposed penalty for nova failure to well (re-roll failed nova). If i have a 1/3 chance of permanently being downgraded to bs1, or losing the invul altogether, or losing JSJ, then it's a never take, because you need those nova rolls to be worth while. so 33% chance of permanent nerf or 11% and take 1 more unit generally considered too good. OK yeah, i like using my units as intended, so I'll bring the 11% wombo-combo.
Or you could just take the risk like other factions have to.
Martel732 wrote: 2 base riptides is still around 55-65 BS4 lascannons to take out, even accounting for failed nova charges. That means it's also 11-13 grav cannons. You know, the weapon that all the xenos lose their minds over.
But did we not just take it from 52 las cannons PER to just over 52 for both? Like i said, its too good, but that nerf just forces me to bring a riptide wing, something I'd rather not personally. I don't enjoy hyper-competitive tournament play on my FLGS Friday night 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd bring vespid's if i could find them for less than a kidney
52 was BS 3 lascannon assuming NOVA shield all the time. It's still an absurd amount of AP2 that most lists can't even begin to field.
I didn't debate that part, I agreed they are too good at codex: Riptide, but 2 base riptides taking 26-33 each to kill out of wing, versus 52 in wing(and 63-100% improvement) why make a penalty that strong arms me into the formation?
just remove the turret and you can bolt a Demolisher cannon into its hull and make a vindicator look like a paper box. Or put a giant lasercannon of death and snipe things with it!
