Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 17:44:57


Post by: Xenomancers


-1 to hit army traits are pretty busted. I think they should just be mass removed from the game and replaced with something else. I'm not saying there are not other busted army traits...but -1 to hit for what ends up being most of your army completely overshadows other options. If not for 2 special characters (Cawl and Guilliman [these guys are even more busted than -1 army traits]) Every armies best faction would be -1 to hit that had access to it (obviosuly these heros need fixing too.)

-1 to hit is so obviously and statistically better than all the other defensive traits. 6+ stackable or non stackable FNP? always count in cover? Am I missing another? Not even remotely close in power level. Again - I'm not ignoring other OP army traits - the top 3 AM traits are a little too good. Kraken is a little OTT for nids. I just think they could be fixed differently. -1 to hit army traits should just be flat out replaced or at the very least (should not stack with other -1 to hits) really though - just remove them and replace with something else.

It's really just sad we have to go through all this nonsense to play the game we love. I could write a balanced rule set for this game in a day. Literally a day. It's just so obvious to me that they aren't trying.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 17:58:02


Post by: Kaiyanwang


How many auto-hitting long range weapons are there?
Genuine question, I do agree that the trait is very strong, I just do wonder if it's a no-brainer.
Say, all the marines are either AL or RG? Or such variety is going to disappear?

This said, this is for sure another "core", base design problem. A -1 has not the same effect on BS 3+ compared to BS 5+.

This is just the result of the same very amateurish design that gave us non-functional tanks (without hotfixes like the double shooting) when BS 3+ is not present, or under-used flamers (unless mounted on specific platforms and/or with longer range than the usual).


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 18:00:23


Post by: andysonic1


 Xenomancers wrote:
It's really just sad we have to go through all this nonsense to play the game we love. I could write a balanced rule set for this game in a day. Literally a day. It's just so obvious to me that they aren't trying.
Then why haven't you? Fan rules, if good, are accepted. Just look at ITC and how they structure their rules and missions in an attempt to support diverse army lists. These rules are accepted because they work.

As for your main concern about -1 to hit from range army traits: I don't see the problem. It's powerful, but the other army traits are powerful if used properly as well. My +1A World Eaters don't give a fudge about -1 to hit from range because I'm attempting to lodge a Chainaxe in your face. Iron Warriors basically don't care either since you can't stack it up as much against them. There is a current balance of giving everyone something powerful if used correctly that they are trying to do, it doesn't always work but in general it's something you need to play around. You can't be all shooting and you can't be all melee, you need to balance your list to be prepared for opponents with a random assortment of traits.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 18:09:03


Post by: Vaktathi


The -1 to hit traits I think are going to be the most enduring balance issues of 8E.

There are ways to work around or power through it for some armies, but not all, especially in casual/TAC lists.

They especially shouldnt apply to things like tanks or monsters, for Alaitoc this really felt like a concept pulled off one iconic niche unit (Pathfinders) and applied to the whole army without really any thought applied.

We'll see how it shakes out, but I think they were a big mistake (same with the Catachan rerolls too).


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 18:12:51


Post by: Xenomancers


 Kaiyanwang wrote:
How many auto-hitting long range weapons are there?
Genuine question, I do agree that the trait is very strong, I just do wonder if it's a no-brainer.
Say, all the marines are either AL or RG? Or such variety is going to disappear?

This said, this is for sure another "core", base design problem. A -1 has not the same effect on BS 3+ compared to BS 5+.

This is just the result of the same very amateurish design that gave us non-functional tanks (without hotfixes like the double shooting) when BS 3+ is not present, or under-used flamers (unless mounted on specific platforms and/or with longer range than the usual).

There are lots of ways get get serious shooting at 2+ to hit - though it's expensive. 2+ to hit doesn't care too much about -1 to hit but it gets progressively worse down the line. So if you have a -2 to hit - you are effectively invisible from bs4+ (I think we know how this will turn out). More auto hitting would go a long way but I think the real problem is -1 to hit going to any unit in an army for free.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 18:14:36


Post by: DarknessEternal


Jormunger is substantially better because it never goes away.

Every army can be shooting within 12" on turn 1 if they feel like it.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 18:19:24


Post by: Breng77


-1 to hit is not unbalanced, it is a good balancing factor to turn 1 alpha strike armies. The issue is Stacking to hit bonuses beyond -1. Further the fact that several of the -1 to hit armies also get the best army specific stratagems (CSM and Marines at least both get the infiltrate stratagem.) is an issue with faction balance.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 18:20:38


Post by: Xenomancers


 andysonic1 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
It's really just sad we have to go through all this nonsense to play the game we love. I could write a balanced rule set for this game in a day. Literally a day. It's just so obvious to me that they aren't trying.
Then why haven't you? Fan rules, if good, are accepted. Just look at ITC and how they structure their rules and missions in an attempt to support diverse army lists. These rules are accepted because they work.

As for your main concern about -1 to hit from range army traits: I don't see the problem. It's powerful, but the other army traits are powerful if used properly as well. My +1A World Eaters don't give a fudge about -1 to hit from range because I'm attempting to lodge a Chainaxe in your face. Iron Warriors basically don't care either since you can't stack it up as much against them. There is a current balance of giving everyone something powerful if used correctly that they are trying to do, it doesn't always work but in general it's something you need to play around. You can't be all shooting and you can't be all melee, you need to balance your list to be prepared for opponents with a random assortment of traits.

True - it doesn't work in melle. Melle is pretty much garbage teir again this edition though. The only units with viable melle are units that have a gimic to get into CC turn 1 - bezerkers are a rare exception because they have an outlandish number of attacks however - really are only viable because they can get auto turn 1 charges via warptime and having sneaky deployment.

Assuming every trait is being used properly -1 to hit is just better what other traits can offer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DarknessEternal wrote:
Jormunger is substantially better because it never goes away.

Every army can be shooting within 12" on turn 1 if they feel like it.

Jorm trait is pretty bad - because I could just be in cover anyways to get the same benefit. Plus nids want to advance every turn anyways - which turns the trait off. Play wise this is one of the worst traits (they just have some of the best strategems so it keeps them in the mix)


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 18:29:29


Post by: Dionysodorus


I don't think this is actually true. I agree that there's a problem but I don't think the problem is that -1 to hit is just so much more powerful than any other trait. I'll explain:

First, 6+ FNP is giving you a lot of the same benefit. -1 to hit is better when it works, but it's not that much better, and of course the FNP also applies to shooting from inside 12", CC, and mortal wounds. There are lots of units that would prefer the 6+ FNP. Deep strikers, for example, or close-range units in transports. Jormugandr's always-in-cover trait is even more effective, for most units without invulnerable saves, and would be competitive with -1 to hit if it didn't turn off when you advance or charge. It's true that -1 to hit is especially punishing for BS4+, but it's also probably a good thing that there's a way to counter Guard gunlines, which are otherwise extremely efficient.

Second, there are strong offensive traits too. The Salamanders trait is nuts and there are clearly units that would prefer it to the Raven Guard trait. The only reason you don't see more of it is that Guilliman's buff is better. You mention Kraken, which is another great offensive trait and which many Tyranid units would prefer to having -1 to hit. The Chaos Renegades trait would be very strong for several armies.

I think there are three underlying problems that make the -1 to hit traits look too good.

1) Lots of other traits are just bad. There are clearly tiers of traits, and GW doesn't seem to have paid much attention to this when giving out other goodies either. I'm most familiar with Eldar, where it's just immediately obvious that you want either Alatoic or Ulthwe for everything. Iyanden is almost strictly worse than Ulthwe for most real units. Biel-Tan and Saim-Hann apply to only a few units and aren't even very strong effects. I don't think the answer is to make everything as bad as Iyanden (for Eldar, I mean -- obviously there are armies that would love a free Commissar in every unit).

2) These traits often come with the best other goodies. Raven Guard, Alpha Legion, and Stygies get infiltrate stratagems, which is especially strong for Chaos.

3) Alatoic in particular is such a no-brainer over Ulthwe because the trait can benefit things that already get -1 to hit. This is also part of the appeal of Stygies (with dragoons). This is especially silly when it comes to Hemlocks -- Alatoic bumps them up to -2 to hit, while Ulthwe does literally nothing for them because Ulthwe's FNP doesn't stack with Spirit Stones. With the huge nerf to Shadow Spectres in CA, the main problems here are just the flyers and Rangers (which are only a reasonable Troops choice in Alatoic armies for this reason).


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 18:43:10


Post by: Xenomancers


Breng77 wrote:
-1 to hit is not unbalanced, it is a good balancing factor to turn 1 alpha strike armies. The issue is Stacking to hit bonuses beyond -1. Further the fact that several of the -1 to hit armies also get the best army specific stratagems (CSM and Marines at least both get the infiltrate stratagem.) is an issue with faction balance.

Stacking is the main problem for 3+ armies - but 4+ armies are pretty boned by the 5+ to hit.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:06:16


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Xenomancers wrote:
It's really just sad we have to go through all this nonsense to play the game we love. I could write a balanced rule set for this game in a day. Literally a day. It's just so obvious to me that they aren't trying.


Hyperbole, seriously, can we avoid it? It colors the entire tenor of the discussion going forward. Maybe you can, maybe you can't, making the statement invites a challenge to it which causes the discussion to digress into other unrelated topics, like your typing speed.

You feel that the -1 to hit outside of 12" trait is unbalanced and poorly implemented. Great. That's a valid discussion point, let's unpack that, not your hypothetical and completely unfounded claim at being able to write amazingly balanced game rules inside of a 24 hour period.

I don't currently have a problem with it, I do feel it's one of the better army traits (but only because the current meta is heavily slanted towards shooting), but I think it only seems overpowered by comparison to other traits that are not as generally applicable. However, against many armies, this ability will have little to no effect.
- Smite spam - who cares that you're -1 to hit at range?
- Assault - again, who cares?
- Immobile Gunline - is specifically the army style this was put in to counter, it's doing it's job, great.
- Fast Attack Gunline - only cares about half the time because they can get inside of 12" and fire their weapons if they want.
- Air Force - also doesn't care because they can negate the range effect.
- Super-Heavies - again, should be getting inside of 12" unless you're playing AM Super-Heavies, in which case, refer to immobile gunline.
- Hordes - again, don't care, will get inside 12".

I mean I can go on, but basically this is only a problem for armies that insist on sitting on their butts at max range.

A more cogent discussion would involve the army traits that don't get used and what could be done to make them more generally effective. For example, Word Bearers get to re-roll morale checks, outside of Cultists, who cares? How is this useful in a CSM army with high LD already?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:13:11


Post by: Spartacus


-1 to hit armies are the new paper in the game of 'Rock, Paper, Scissors' that is 40k 8th edition.

A static parking lot/gunline (rock) army will be at a massive disadvantage.

A deepstrike/infiltrate/in your face turn 1 army (scissors) will not care much.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:34:04


Post by: Galef


Spartacus wrote:
-1 to hit armies are the new paper in the game of 'Rock, Paper, Scissors' that is 40k 8th edition.

A static parking lot/gunline (rock) army will be at a massive disadvantage.

A deepstrike/infiltrate/in your face turn 1 army (scissors) will not care much.

Very well said.

-1 to hit is what makes Melee armies playable by indirectly making gun line armies less effective. What is important is giving as many armies access to the trait as possible.
I'll agree that right now it's a bit unbalanced because only 4 armies can do this army-wide (Marines, CSM, Eldar and Guard?)
Once more armies has access to the -1 to hit trait, or possible better traits, it won't seem so obvious.
Without this trait, gun line armies would reign supreme and we'd be in yet another edition in which melee armies are shelved.

Don't get me wrong, shooting armies are still better, but by giving those armies -1 to hit, it shifts the balance just enough to allow more melee centered lists to be playable.

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:36:51


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Galef wrote:
I'll agree that right now it's a bit unbalanced because only 2 armies can do this army-wide (Eldar and Guard?) and another two can put it on some of their units (SM/CSM).


Fixed for you, my pedantry knows no bounds.




-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:37:38


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Admech has this trait as well (stygies) which also comes with the infiltration stratagem like the CSM AL And SM RG.

I actually have to pick a forge world to play for some Mechanicus in the future too, as I may move into that army, not sure.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:38:17


Post by: Xenomancers


 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
It's really just sad we have to go through all this nonsense to play the game we love. I could write a balanced rule set for this game in a day. Literally a day. It's just so obvious to me that they aren't trying.


Hyperbole, seriously, can we avoid it? It colors the entire tenor of the discussion going forward. Maybe you can, maybe you can't, making the statement invites a challenge to it which causes the discussion to digress into other unrelated topics, like your typing speed.

You feel that the -1 to hit outside of 12" trait is unbalanced and poorly implemented. Great. That's a valid discussion point, let's unpack that, not your hypothetical and completely unfounded claim at being able to write amazingly balanced game rules inside of a 24 hour period.

I don't currently have a problem with it, I do feel it's one of the better army traits (but only because the current meta is heavily slanted towards shooting), but I think it only seems overpowered by comparison to other traits that are not as generally applicable. However, against many armies, this ability will have little to no effect.
- Smite spam - who cares that you're -1 to hit at range?
- Assault - again, who cares?
- Immobile Gunline - is specifically the army style this was put in to counter, it's doing it's job, great.
- Fast Attack Gunline - only cares about half the time because they can get inside of 12" and fire their weapons if they want.
- Air Force - also doesn't care because they can negate the range effect.
- Super-Heavies - again, should be getting inside of 12" unless you're playing AM Super-Heavies, in which case, refer to immobile gunline.
- Hordes - again, don't care, will get inside 12".

I mean I can go on, but basically this is only a problem for armies that insist on sitting on their butts at max range.

A more cogent discussion would involve the army traits that don't get used and what could be done to make them more generally effective. For example, Word Bearers get to re-roll morale checks, outside of Cultists, who cares? How is this useful in a CSM army with high LD already?

Don't sell yourself short - I think you could do a better job than GW at writing this complete ruleset in a 24 hour period too.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:41:21


Post by: Galef


 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Galef wrote:
I'll agree that right now it's a bit unbalanced because only 2 armies can do this army-wide (Eldar and Guard?) and another two can put it on some of their units (SM/CSM).


Fixed for you, my pedantry knows no bounds.

Fair enough, although it is entirely possible to make competitive lists with both SM and CSM in which every unit gets the -1 to hit trait. Ergo, 4 armies exist in which the entire list would be -1 to hit for the opponent.

The only thing I would concede might be too strong is being able to stack -1s. However, I would also argue that being able to do so (and the existence of Dark Reapers) is probably the only thing keeping Eldar "competitive". I haven't see a single Eldar list without Alaitoc Flyers and Dark Reapers placing in any tourney results.

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:43:31


Post by: Galas


Actually Imperial Guard has no -1 to hit rule. Only SM, CSM, Admech and Craftworld have it.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:45:50


Post by: Marmatag


Eh there needs to be some protection against shooting armies. I mean it's off the chain how good shooting and gunlines are in this edition, in general. When the Tau codex drops, and commanders are duking on everyone, that -1 to hit at 12" won't matter, because #deepstrike



-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:48:37


Post by: Xenomancers


 Galef wrote:
 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Galef wrote:
I'll agree that right now it's a bit unbalanced because only 2 armies can do this army-wide (Eldar and Guard?) and another two can put it on some of their units (SM/CSM).


Fixed for you, my pedantry knows no bounds.

Fair enough, although it is entirely possible to make competitive lists with both SM and CSM in which every unit gets the -1 to hit trait. Ergo, 4 armies exist in which the entire list would be -1 to hit for the opponent.

-

Yeah - no question about it ether - Space marines and Admech would have this as their go to trait if not for the presence of Cawl an Guilliman/Azreal (who offer more through having amazing auras).


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:50:20


Post by: ChargerIIC


I think it's more a weakness of the D6 system than something specific to toHit rolls. I understand why the original WH40k went with D6s, they the one dice type gamers have sacks of, but it creates this very narrow band in which you can boost stats before they become broken.

Take -1 toHit on a guardsman (BS 4+). Give him a single bonus and he's still fine. Stack another -1 to hit and he's nearly incapable of missing.

Reverse it. Give him +1 to hit and he still gets work done (effect 5+). Stack 2 of them (like an armywide -1 to hit rolls stacked on a flyer's native -1 to hit rolls) and suddenly he can't be relied on to hit anything (effective 6+ )

It gets just as bad on wound rolls. Add +1 or -1 and you are still within a decent band of effectivenss. Do +2 or -2 and a lot of units become either capable of only wounding on 6 or capable of effectively wounding anything they want.

It won't happen in this edition, but either bonuses need to not stack (causing a riot) or they need to move to different dice (causing a riot). This is assuming they haven't just resigned themselves to having the problem, which given how many times they've advertised 2+ BS and 2+ Wound rolls in community articles, might be the case. It's the politically least painful move for them.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:51:11


Post by: Xenomancers


 Marmatag wrote:
Eh there needs to be some protection against shooting armies. I mean it's off the chain how good shooting and gunlines are in this edition, in general. When the Tau codex drops, and commanders are duking on everyone, that -1 to hit at 12" won't matter, because #deepstrike


NM - this gonna work great because drones and character targeting


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:52:54


Post by: Galef


Honestly, the fact that this trait is the "go-to" for armies that have it says more about how "busted" shooting armies are rather than the trait itself.

 Marmatag wrote:
Eh there needs to be some protection against shooting armies. I mean it's off the chain how good shooting and gunlines are in this edition, in general. When the Tau codex drops, and commanders are duking on everyone, that -1 to hit at 12" won't matter, because #deepstrike

It is entirely possible that T'au end up getting an attribute or WL trait that flat out ignores -1 to hit modifiers, meaning armies that choose the -1 to hit trait end up not having a trait at all.

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:53:14


Post by: Galas


I really like the Open War Cards, the Toxic Rain card. On the first turn of the battle, everyone has -1 to hit. It really hurts alpha strike.

I know "But meele alpha strike!" meele alpha strike is extremely easy to play agaisn't just with deployment and totally unreliable.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:53:24


Post by: Elbows


While I can see it being really annoying in a tournament setting...if the army list is nothing filthy, it's a pretty reasonable trait. It does suck for non-shooty armies or armies with poor ballistic skill.

I do think, as mentioned it is entirely dependent on the type of army you encounter. It does encourage something like a gunline guard army to reconsider taking additional units. I actually like that. It forces some more thought when constructing armies.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:53:28


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Galef wrote:
 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Galef wrote:
I'll agree that right now it's a bit unbalanced because only 2 armies can do this army-wide (Eldar and Guard?) and another two can put it on some of their units (SM/CSM).


Fixed for you, my pedantry knows no bounds.

Fair enough, although it is entirely possible to make competitive lists with both SM and CSM in which every unit gets the -1 to hit trait. Ergo, 4 armies exist in which the entire list would be -1 to hit for the opponent.

-

Yeah - no question about it ether - Space marines and Admech would have this as their go to trait if not for the presence of Cawl an Guilliman/Azreal (who offer more through having amazing auras).


I'm actually not sure about that.

My possible Mechanicus force is looking a Lucius, for the neato deepstrike stratagem and the ignoring -1 save guns (mostly for fluff reasons); Mars, and not for Cawl but rather two uses of Canticles of the Omnissiah (imagine if Guard could double their orders for free and cast 2 on the same unit...); Stygies (because frankly -1 to hit outside of 12" is hilariously good)... well really all of them. I have a reason for liking each one. Even Graia I like because of the stratagem to 50/50 deny an enemy psy power. That seems funny.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 19:56:57


Post by: Xenomancers


 Galef wrote:
Honestly, the fact that this trait is the "go-to" for armies that have it says more about how "busted" shooting armies are rather than the trait itself.

 Marmatag wrote:
Eh there needs to be some protection against shooting armies. I mean it's off the chain how good shooting and gunlines are in this edition, in general. When the Tau codex drops, and commanders are duking on everyone, that -1 to hit at 12" won't matter, because #deepstrike

It is entirely possible that T'au end up getting an attribute or WL trait that flat out ignores -1 to hit modifiers, meaning armies that choose the -1 to hit trait end up not having a trait at all.

-

Man I hope they get that - would be great for the meta - also would be great for tau.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
I really like the Open War Cards, the Toxic Rain card. On the first turn of the battle, everyone has -1 to hit. It really hurts alpha strike.

I know "But meele alpha strike!" meele alpha strike is extremely easy to play agaisn't just with deployment and totally unreliable.

Well open war is narrative. So you can just cast defensive buffs everywhere anyways - Imagine an eldar dark reaper gun line with aliatoc trait with that card - plus conceal on everything. Literally invunerable to shooting and hits everything on 3+ reroll ones . forgive me my mind just automatically goes to the most broken stuff - I actually played a narrative game this weekend and it was a blast for my greyknights.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 20:04:43


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think deep striking commanders is even going to be viable with forewarned - plus they wont be getting within 12 of anything that opponents don't want them to be.


I'm not sure that the presence of a single stratagem costing 2CP invalidates an entire mechanic, again, it depends on what's deep striking and a number of other factors, it is by no means a binary result.

By that logic Dark Reapers invalidate Flyers entirely, which I hardly think is the case.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 20:09:35


Post by: Grimgold


At a guess, they figured if you care about the attack you'll have re-roll to hits, and since the IoM and Chaos get those like it was half off on a fire sale they are probably right. Also they figured that people would do math and see abilities like disgustingly resilient are way better, silly GW on that one though.

A BS 3+ (and let's face it almost all of the game is 3+) unit shooting generally has a 66% chance to hit, but is reduced to 50%. With reroll misses, it drops from 88% to 75%. That's about a 15% reduction in damage taken. Compare it to a 5+ FnP (a straight 33% reduction in damage taken) and you can see it's pretty weaksauce. Even at a 4+, it's 50% to 37% (26% reduction in incoming damage) without rerolls and 75% to 56% (25% reduction in incoming damage), neither of which achieve the levels of defense provided by disgustingly resilient.

I doubt you'll find many people on these board arguing that disgustingly resilient is OP, so it doesn't make much sense to argue an ability that is mathematically inferior, and can be bypassed by positioning is OP ethier.

The problem is one of psychology, you will miss more shots due to the -1 to hit than people will make DR rolls. The monkey brain thinks more is more powerful, despite the fact that missed shots would still have to roll to wound and have to fail an armor save. So it seems more efficacious in the minds of players, despite being inferior mathematically.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 20:11:46


Post by: Xenomancers


So heres what am picking up from the responses. -1 to hit everywhere is good for the game because it helps assault armies?

Does it really though? Are gun line armies going to build less like gunlines because of the existence of -1 to hit? Does it help melle armies survive if they use it themselves? Nah I don't think so. Melle armies work best when they hit turn 1 and don't benift from the -1 to hit at all practically. Melles issues are obvious. Guns are better than swords - it's just the way things are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think deep striking commanders is even going to be viable with forewarned - plus they wont be getting within 12 of anything that opponents don't want them to be.


I'm not sure that the presence of a single stratagem costing 2CP invalidates an entire mechanic, again, it depends on what's deep striking and a number of other factors, it is by no means a binary result.

By that logic Dark Reapers invalidate Flyers entirely, which I hardly think is the case.

Well actually i think I done goofed on this. A commander is going to have drones with him and you wont be able to target the commander.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 20:15:55


Post by: Arachnofiend


 Grimgold wrote:
At a guess, they figured if you care about the attack you'll have re-roll to hits, and since the IoM and Chaos get those like it was half off on a fire sale they are probably right. Also they figured that people would do math and see abilities like disgustingly resilient are way better, silly GW on that one though.

A BS 3+ (and let's face it almost all of the game is 3+) unit shooting generally has a 66% chance to hit, but is reduced to 50%. With reroll misses, it drops from 88% to 75%. That's about a 15% reduction in damage taken. Compare it to a 5+ FnP (a straight 33% reduction in damage taken) and you can see it's pretty weaksauce. Even at a 4+, it's 50% to 37% (26% reduction in incoming damage) without rerolls and 75% to 56% (25% reduction in incoming damage), neither of which achieve the levels of defense provided by disgustingly resilient.

I doubt you'll find many people on these board arguing that disgustingly resilient is OP, so it doesn't make much sense to argue an ability that is mathematically inferior, and can be bypassed by positioning is OP ethier.

The problem is one of psychology, you will miss more shots due to the -1 to hit than people will make DR rolls. The monkey brain thinks more is more powerful, despite the fact that missed shots would still have to roll to wound and have to fail an armor save. So it seems more efficacious in the minds of players, despite being inferior mathematically.

I generally agree, though this goes out the window now that we know that non-marine armies are gonna get the trait on their fliers. -1 to hit is a fairly reasonable penalty (though it is still pretty much always the best trait when available), -2 to hit though...


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 20:23:46


Post by: Xenomancers


 Grimgold wrote:
At a guess, they figured if you care about the attack you'll have re-roll to hits, and since the IoM and Chaos get those like it was half off on a fire sale they are probably right. Also they figured that people would do math and see abilities like disgustingly resilient are way better, silly GW on that one though.

A BS 3+ (and let's face it almost all of the game is 3+) unit shooting generally has a 66% chance to hit, but is reduced to 50%. With reroll misses, it drops from 88% to 75%. That's about a 15% reduction in damage taken. Compare it to a 5+ FnP (a straight 33% reduction in damage taken) and you can see it's pretty weaksauce. Even at a 4+, it's 50% to 37% (26% reduction in incoming damage) without rerolls and 75% to 56% (25% reduction in incoming damage), neither of which achieve the levels of defense provided by disgustingly resilient.

I doubt you'll find many people on these board arguing that disgustingly resilient is OP, so it doesn't make much sense to argue an ability that is mathematically inferior, and can be bypassed by positioning is OP ethier.

The problem is one of psychology, you will miss more shots due to the -1 to hit than people will make DR rolls. The monkey brain thinks more is more powerful, despite the fact that missed shots would still have to roll to wound and have to fail an armor save. So it seems more efficacious in the minds of players, despite being inferior mathematically.

Most people on this board think DG are under-powered. I know how strong they are. Not fair to call the ability inferior ether. On units that have natural -1 to hit - Their damage reduction becomes far superior. It would also be pretty hard to factor but FNP rolls occur after rolls for damage are taken so a lot of times you will have to take 2 FNP rolls to save a 1 wound model (a 2 damage shot). There is also the issue with overcharging weapons blowing up more on the user.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 20:25:53


Post by: Grimgold


I kind of hate flyers, so I'm probably biased on this, but I think the flyer rules are horrible to begin with. The fact I'll have more reason to hate flyers doesn't really sour me on the base rule.

With that said, the easy answer is that minuses to hit don't stack.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 20:27:16


Post by: Breng77


 Xenomancers wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
-1 to hit is not unbalanced, it is a good balancing factor to turn 1 alpha strike armies. The issue is Stacking to hit bonuses beyond -1. Further the fact that several of the -1 to hit armies also get the best army specific stratagems (CSM and Marines at least both get the infiltrate stratagem.) is an issue with faction balance.

Stacking is the main problem for 3+ armies - but 4+ armies are pretty boned by the 5+ to hit.


No stacking is the main problem for all armies. Gunline 4+ armies hitting things more than 12" away on a 5+ is fine, as it mitigates alpha strike gunline armies effectiveness. Which is good for the game. Stacking where those armies hit on a 6+ or not at all, is bad for the game.

It is good for assault armies because it reduces the effectiveness of static gunlines that sit behind chaff, and shooting that doesn't require LOS (typically long range) in the general meta. The issue is that these armies are also the most effective assault armies because they have the infiltrate stratagems along with the - 1 to hit. So the natural counter to these armies belongs to those same armies. So they end up being the only ones taken barring super buff characters.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 20:27:27


Post by: Xenomancers


 Grimgold wrote:
I kind of hate flyers, so I'm probably biased on this, but I think the flyer rules are horrible to begin with. The fact I'll have more reason to hate flyers doesn't really sour me on the base rule.

With that said, the easy answer is that minuses to hit don't stack.

In my OP I stated that would be my preferred secondary solution. I'd prefer a defensive buff not scale with enemy BS though - that is just flat unfair IMO.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 20:42:33


Post by: Bharring


It hurts AM most - which are currently considered top dog.

SM aren't affected as much - because they are BS4.

Funnily enough, Tac squads are BS4, and typically want to move up to wihtin 12" to shoot. So everyone's favorite unit actually does fairly well against it.

It would help Assault armies that can't assume a turn-1 charge. If Ork Boyz could get it, it'd be scary. You'd either have to move up and all but give them the charge if you failed to finish them (what can't cover 12" between moving and charging?), or you stay put and lose a decent chunk of your shooting.

I don't like it. I thought it was OP when RG got it, even worse for AL, and at a whole new level for CWE. But it hurts the top dogs, and doesn't affect much of the bottom of the pack.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 20:46:28


Post by: Galef


Another point that I am not sure has been addressed here is how re-rolls work before modifiers.
Meaning that if something is BS3+ with a -1 to hit modifier and a re-roll, any natural 3+ rolls cannot be rerolled as they technically counts as a successful hit before the modifier.

It really should be the player's choice when to apply modifiers. That would help make -1 to hit not such a hard pill to swallow.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 20:48:46


Post by: Grimgold


 Xenomancers wrote:

Most people on this board think DG are under-powered. I know how strong they are. Not fair to call the ability inferior ether. On units that have natural -1 to hit - Their damage reduction becomes far superior. It would also be pretty hard to factor but FNP rolls occur after rolls for damage are taken so a lot of times you will have to take 2 FNP rolls to save a 1 wound model (a 2 damage shot). There is also the issue with overcharging weapons blowing up more on the user.



I showed in my prior post why -1 to hit is worse in terms of damage prevention, but just to walk you down the garden path of the math, we'll do 100 bolter shots against 2 different groups of chaos marines, the first a group of sneaky alpha legion and the second a group of hideously deformed plague marines:

Alpha legion gives a -1 to hit, so the math is like this:
1/2 (to hit) * 1/2 (To wound) * 1/3 (failed armor save) = 1/12th, so it takes 12 shots to get a wound thru, so for 100 bolter shots you get 8.3 unsaved wounds.

DG have DR so the math goes like this:
2/3 (to hit) * 1/2 (to wound) * 1/3 (failed armor save) * 2/3 (failed DR) = 2/27 so for every 27 shots two wounds get thru, so in 100 bolter shots you get 7.4 unsaved wounds.

It can also be completely negated by being within 12", which does not apply to DR. As for plasma, if your in rapid fire range the -1 to hit doesn't apply, so DR is the clear winner there as well.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 20:51:08


Post by: Bharring


Well, that's DG.

Other FnP attributes are 6+++, not 5+++.

Besides, there is the inverse case of a 2W weapon hitting a 2W model. A 5+++ on Termies eating overcharged Plasma is about double the durability.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 20:54:00


Post by: sfshilo


Breng77 wrote:
-1 to hit is not unbalanced, it is a good balancing factor to turn 1 alpha strike armies. The issue is Stacking to hit bonuses beyond -1. Further the fact that several of the -1 to hit armies also get the best army specific stratagems (CSM and Marines at least both get the infiltrate stratagem.) is an issue with faction balance.


Balancing alpha strike is best done with deployment limitations in the mission or by making the targets harder to kill (transports). Those alpha strike armies are often putting down a sick amount of firepower at low Strength, the -1 to hit is really not going to do a lot. This in turn is countered by small mobile armies or armies that wield anti-transport firepower. These are all good mechanics in the game. (I'm glad chapter approved is bringing over the AoS missions, they are much more balanced and force you to not just net list to win.)

I really don't think -1 to hit is an issue imo, now if an army comes out that is -1 to hit at all times? That's broke. So far it's been either a single phase, or a range limited thing, both of which have options to counter. (Hit them in the face or shoot them in the face.) Age of Sigmar has one army build like that (-1 to hit all the time) and it doesn't break the game because it's slower to slow and cannot really chase anything down.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 21:02:01


Post by: Xenomancers


 Grimgold wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Most people on this board think DG are under-powered. I know how strong they are. Not fair to call the ability inferior ether. On units that have natural -1 to hit - Their damage reduction becomes far superior. It would also be pretty hard to factor but FNP rolls occur after rolls for damage are taken so a lot of times you will have to take 2 FNP rolls to save a 1 wound model (a 2 damage shot). There is also the issue with overcharging weapons blowing up more on the user.



I showed in my prior post why -1 to hit is worse in terms of damage prevention, but just to walk you down the garden path of the math, we'll do 100 bolter shots against 2 different groups of chaos marines, the first a group of sneaky alpha legion and the second a group of hideously deformed plague marines:

Alpha legion gives a -1 to hit, so the math is like this:
1/2 (to hit) * 1/2 (To wound) * 1/3 (failed armor save) = 1/12th, so it takes 12 shots to get a wound thru, so for 100 bolter shots you get 8.3 unsaved wounds.

DG have DR so the math goes like this:
2/3 (to hit) * 1/2 (to wound) * 1/3 (failed armor save) * 2/3 (failed DR) = 2/27 so for every 27 shots two wounds get thru, so in 100 bolter shots you get 7.4 unsaved wounds.

It can also be completely negated by being within 12", which does not apply to DR. As for plasma, if your in rapid fire range the -1 to hit doesn't apply, so DR is the clear winner there as well.
I was specifically talking about -2 to hit. Natural -1 plus the army trait. Also more to your point. If DG wasn't slow AF people would talk about how broken they are. Plus I am seeing a fair amount of DG stuff showing up in GT top 10's. That is a lot of CSM models though - a lot of them using -1 to hit traits themselves.

Also - love the no country for old men image - I love that movie - you made me laugh


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 21:05:34


Post by: daedalus


There's no problem with things getting -1 to hit. It should have never been able to stack though, let alone have been a design decision for codexes to be largely based around it.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 21:06:38


Post by: Martel732


Maybe GW expects the BA codex to balance this out.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 21:18:30


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Xenomancers wrote:
So heres what am picking up from the responses. -1 to hit everywhere is good for the game because it helps assault armies?


Cherry picking.

It's more accurate to say that -1 to hit has the most impact on static gun line armies, exactly the spot where it's designed to have the most impact.

Against non-static armies, given an average starting distance of 24" from your opponent's front line, it's effectiveness is not a binary argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimgold wrote:
I doubt you'll find many people on these board arguing that disgustingly resilient is OP, so it doesn't make much sense to argue an ability that is mathematically inferior, and can be bypassed by positioning is OP ethier.


DR applies on a per wound basis and may not negate an entire attack.

-1 to hit applies on a per attack basis and may negate the entire attack.

It's worth discussing from a balance standpoint, but it is a bit apples and oranges.



-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 22:04:04


Post by: Valentine009



Yeah - no question about it ether - Space marines and Admech would have this as their go to trait if not for the presence of Cawl an Guilliman/Azreal (who offer more through having amazing auras).

I'm actually not sure about that.

My possible Mechanicus force is looking a Lucius, for the neato deepstrike stratagem and the ignoring -1 save guns (mostly for fluff reasons); Mars, and not for Cawl but rather two uses of Canticles of the Omnissiah (imagine if Guard could double their orders for free and cast 2 on the same unit...); Stygies (because frankly -1 to hit outside of 12" is hilariously good)... well really all of them. I have a reason for liking each one. Even Graia I like because of the stratagem to 50/50 deny an enemy psy power. That seems funny.


While the deepstriking shenanigans sound awesome, there is not much you would actually want to deepstrike aside from Electropriests, Ruststalkers and Punchy Kastellans. Electropriests are super fragile, so it is a huge risk if you dont get first turn, Ruststalkers are just kind of bad (take infiltrators and get deepstrike for free) and Punchy Kastellans are good and tanky, but outclassed by thier shooty brethren. This on top of the fact that Admech is INCREDIBLE CP dependent means that the ability to deepstrike is just not as good as it is with other armies.

The thing that really makes specific forgeworlds good is thier forgeworld specific stratagem. You take mars for full rerolls with Cawl and the Fury of Mars strategem, not the 2 canticles (which are frankly not that useful). Ryza is competitive, just because the +1 to wound, +1 damage with Plasma stratagem is so strong.

Segwaying off of that, the thing that bothers me about -1 to hit is how good it is against models that depend on rolling gimmicks, aka tesla weapons and plasma (both of which Admech has). With -1 to hit those procs become impossible, or disproportionally worse.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 22:06:09


Post by: Grimgold


 TwinPoleTheory wrote:


DR applies on a per wound basis and may not negate an entire attack.

-1 to hit applies on a per attack basis and may negate the entire attack.

It's worth discussing from a balance standpoint, but it is a bit apples and oranges.



The only case where it is substantially different is when shooting multiple wound weapons at single wound targets, which in fairness is an edge case. If someone is using las cannons to take out your plague marines, they are being very wasteful with their firepower. Still, If they use Las cannons on your ICs/dreads the math still applies in more or less the same way.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 22:35:36


Post by: craftworld_uk


Look at it as a challenge. Include more close combat, fast and/or deep striking units to get up close quicker.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 22:41:00


Post by: warhead01


I play Orks and don't really see the -1 to hit as much of a problem. But it really depends on just what I'm fighting.
If I am able to engage it in close combat then I'm good. If it's shooting I bring artillery with bs 4+ so it's doable. And I bring burnas and scrochas so there's lots of auto hits in there.
As long as I can balance that then I'm comfortable with my chances.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 23:18:38


Post by: Fafnir


GW realized that they made 8th edition too far skewed to shooting, leaving melee at it's core too risky, weak, and prone to alpha strikes to be competitive.

So they threw a bandaid on the issue by tossing -1 to hit from shooting to everyone and their dog. I wouldn't say that it's working as intended, but I'd hardly call it game breaking.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/27 23:25:28


Post by: BoomWolf


Well, much like some of the Tau's old 7th tricks-it only works against people who are themselves trying to pull something not too friendly to begin with (to remind you: "Tau OP! they can intercept everything and always get first shot!", well yea-but it only works when YOU tried to pull an "always get first shot" by deepstrike, if you didn't its wasted points.)

The range penalty trait only works against someone who goes "feth this, I'm not even TRYING to engage at melee, or even up close shooting"
And quite honestly, the game was never intended for gunline.
Even the shootiest army that is tau, always had some level of getting close to seal the deal, be it with suits, breacher or whatnot.
Because NOT doing it is getting old fast.

So now the range penalty comes along and says "well, if you plan to sit back and shoot all day, I got bad news for ya!, but if you come at my face, I got no trait."
Its basically a meta-balancing factor. the more gunlines dominate, the more powerful the trait becomes and ergo more common, and that directly leads to melee/point blank being better BECAUSE they practically ignore this trait.

Given that these days some units can even assault planes (and do a decent job at it), there are no excuses left to why assault CANT work. especially when so supposedly "broken trait", doesn't even work against assault armies.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 00:01:34


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


 Fafnir wrote:
GW realized that they made 8th edition too far skewed to shooting, leaving melee at it's core too risky, weak, and prone to alpha strikes to be competitive.

So they threw a bandaid on the issue by tossing -1 to hit from shooting to everyone and their dog. I wouldn't say that it's working as intended, but I'd hardly call it game breaking.


It seems that GKs are not anyone nor their dogs.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 00:10:43


Post by: BaconCatBug


Simple solution, change the to hit/to wound/to save mechanic to a D12. That way modifiers are an 8.3% mod instead of 16.6% mod. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/743515.page


Basically, anywhere that needs a 2+ to hit/wound/save right now would instead need a 3+ on a D12, 3+ to 5+, 4+ to 7+, 5+ to 9+ and 6+ to 11+


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 00:36:53


Post by: Kaiyanwang


 Galef wrote:
Another point that I am not sure has been addressed here is how re-rolls work before modifiers.
Meaning that if something is BS3+ with a -1 to hit modifier and a re-roll, any natural 3+ rolls cannot be rerolled as they technically counts as a successful hit before the modifier.

It really should be the player's choice when to apply modifiers. That would help make -1 to hit not such a hard pill to swallow.


That one is quite maddening too, yes. Good point.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 00:42:03


Post by: Infantryman


Fafnir wrote:GW realized that they made 8th edition too far skewed to shooting, leaving melee at it's core too risky, weak, and prone to alpha strikes to be competitive.


http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeverBringAKnifeToAGunFight

BaconCatBug wrote:Simple solution, change the to hit/to wound/to save mechanic to a D12. That way modifiers are an 8.3% mod instead of 16.6% mod. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/743515.page


Basically, anywhere that needs a 2+ to hit/wound/save right now would instead need a 3+ on a D12, 3+ to 5+, 4+ to 7+, 5+ to 9+ and 6+ to 11+


Inclined to agree. The 1d6 is the biggest holdback. Maybe if they did something like FAD's system the d6 would still be useful, but I think it's a bit beyond most Warhammer players (involves division!).

M.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 01:11:59


Post by: Fafnir


Yes, close combat on any large scale in the 41st millennium is silly. But Warhammer 40k is silly and fantastical, and the game is meant to represent that. It's a setting where sheer force of will and rule of cool make a chainsword a tactically viable weapon alongside mortars. If the game is meant to represent that wildly indulgent fluff, bringing that knife to the gunfight needs to be a viable option.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 01:16:00


Post by: Arachnofiend


Leo_the_Rat wrote:
 Fafnir wrote:
GW realized that they made 8th edition too far skewed to shooting, leaving melee at it's core too risky, weak, and prone to alpha strikes to be competitive.

So they threw a bandaid on the issue by tossing -1 to hit from shooting to everyone and their dog. I wouldn't say that it's working as intended, but I'd hardly call it game breaking.


It seems that GKs are not anyone nor their dogs.

I mean, GKs are a subfaction of Space Marines and Space Marines got it. The only major faction that didn't get the -1 to hit rule so far is Guard, because obviously you're not going to give a rule designed to counter "sit back and shoot" armies to an army that does absolutely nothing except sit back and shoot.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 01:42:59


Post by: Fafnir


I have to say, GK not getting a -1 to hit rule is kind of weird when you think about it, since they were the first faction to get something like that all the way back in 3rd edition with The Shrouding.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 03:46:32


Post by: Galef


Martel732 wrote:
Maybe GW expects the BA codex to balance this out.

HA! Good one as usual Martel.

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 03:58:28


Post by: Infantryman


 Fafnir wrote:
Yes, close combat on any large scale in the 41st millennium is silly. But Warhammer 40k is silly and fantastical, and the game is meant to represent that. It's a setting where sheer force of will and rule of cool make a chainsword a tactically viable weapon alongside mortars. If the game is meant to represent that wildly indulgent fluff, bringing that knife to the gunfight needs to be a viable option.


True, I do agree.

M.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 04:08:19


Post by: sennacherib


I guess in the next chapter approved were are going to have to see some special space marine traits to help balance this out Right?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 06:37:01


Post by: ERJAK


 andysonic1 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
It's really just sad we have to go through all this nonsense to play the game we love. I could write a balanced rule set for this game in a day. Literally a day. It's just so obvious to me that they aren't trying.
Then why haven't you? Fan rules, if good, are accepted. Just look at ITC and how they structure their rules and missions in an attempt to support diverse army lists. These rules are accepted because they work.

As for your main concern about -1 to hit from range army traits: I don't see the problem. It's powerful, but the other army traits are powerful if used properly as well. My +1A World Eaters don't give a fudge about -1 to hit from range because I'm attempting to lodge a Chainaxe in your face. Iron Warriors basically don't care either since you can't stack it up as much against them. There is a current balance of giving everyone something powerful if used correctly that they are trying to do, it doesn't always work but in general it's something you need to play around. You can't be all shooting and you can't be all melee, you need to balance your list to be prepared for opponents with a random assortment of traits.


Side bar to ole Xenomancer: lolololokokokok9kloloo8ooio9...wat?

No you couldn't. Because NO game is balanced. Even chess favors the side that goes first.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 07:18:51


Post by: CassianSol


 Xenomancers wrote:
-1 to hit army traits are pretty busted. I think they should just be mass removed from the game and replaced with something else. I'm not saying there are not other busted army traits...but -1 to hit for what ends up being most of your army completely overshadows other options. If not for 2 special characters (Cawl and Guilliman [these guys are even more busted than -1 army traits]) Every armies best faction would be -1 to hit that had access to it (obviosuly these heros need fixing too.)

-1 to hit is so obviously and statistically better than all the other defensive traits. 6+ stackable or non stackable FNP? always count in cover? Am I missing another? Not even remotely close in power level. Again - I'm not ignoring other OP army traits - the top 3 AM traits are a little too good. Kraken is a little OTT for nids. I just think they could be fixed differently. -1 to hit army traits should just be flat out replaced or at the very least (should not stack with other -1 to hits) really though - just remove them and replace with something else.

It's really just sad we have to go through all this nonsense to play the game we love. I could write a balanced rule set for this game in a day. Literally a day. It's just so obvious to me that they aren't trying.


I don't disagree with you about the -1 to hit and Gulliman being big and obvious bad balance points. I used Gulliman (with opponent's pre-consent) this weekend and it was boring and overpowered.

However your claim to be able to balance the game in a day is laughable and completely undermines your point. It is bloody difficult. There are too many units and too many options.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 07:23:14


Post by: Fafnir


Yeah, GW's design team might be crap at it, but it's still a hard job, and requires some pretty rigorous testing (part of why GW's design team is so bad) to get right. Sure, there are a lot of obvious things that can be shifted around, but there's also a lot of little things that make waves.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 09:29:37


Post by: koooaei


 Xenomancers wrote:
I could write a balanced rule set for this game in a day. Literally a day. It's just so obvious to me that they aren't trying.


could you please share your eternal wisdom?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 09:41:29


Post by: morgoth


 koooaei wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
I could write a balanced rule set for this game in a day. Literally a day. It's just so obvious to me that they aren't trying.


could you please share your eternal wisdom?


It's not eternal.

When he said he could, he meant "last Wednesday".

This week, unfortunately, his wisdom isn't high enough to straight-up beat a rules-writing team with testing time but no 20/20 hindsight.

Maybe next week.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 09:44:58


Post by: koooaei


Next mission would be to solve the mid-east political crysis. I bet Xenomancers could do it in a couple hours. Right after having made 40k balanced.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 09:52:29


Post by: morgoth


 koooaei wrote:
Next mission would be to solve the mid-east polytical crysis. I bet Xenomancers could do it in a couple hours. Right after having made 40k balanced.


I would go for -1 to hit as chapter trait for Israel tbh, it's really the only trait that is worth anything apparently.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 10:00:18


Post by: fresus


I'm curious to see if GW keeps that trend with armies that have more -1 to hit.
Harlequins essentially have -1-to-hit armywide (we don't see many footslogging troupes). DE can spam venoms and flyers (which is already a pretty decent build) which both have -1-to-hit already. If either of these army gets a -1 CT, it will be brutal.
Since GW buffed the already-powerful Hemlock, while giving it access to an additional -1-to-hit, I think it's possible we'll see the same stuff for Harlies and DE.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 14:50:56


Post by: Xenomancers


 koooaei wrote:
Next mission would be to solve the mid-east political crysis. I bet Xenomancers could do it in a couple hours. Right after having made 40k balanced.

Wow - incredible analogy. Balancing a dice game which can be figured through statistics/math is equal to a 60 years long human relocation and battle for a holy land which has been fought over for centuries. Being an ork player I'd think you'd be the first one agreeing that -1 to hit army traits are a problem. The game is hard to balance though so...I guess we should give GW a break on that.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 14:58:41


Post by: Bharring


The Hemlock got some buffs, including the -1 to hit outside 12". But at the same time, it lost the ability to give itself, and any infantry near it, -1 to hit vs all shooting.

So yes, the Hemlock got buffed, and it's stupid that you can stack the Flyer -1 with the Alaitoc -1. But one of the things that made the Hemlock OP was that it could *already* stack two -1s pre-buff. It can still stack the same number, but it trades Conceal for Alaitoc.

(It can only cast Offensive runes of battle, not Defensive ones, such as Conceal.)


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 14:59:31


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Maybe we should put Xenomancers on the North Korea crisis once he's finished flawlessly balancing Warhammer 40k and also solving the crisis in the middle east.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:01:23


Post by: Bharring


I really do not expect to see a non-trivial asymetric game be truly balanced in my lifetime. I'd like it to be closer, but perfect balance is going to be nigh impossible.

On the bright side, look at some of the comparisons that keep getting bandied about. Dreadnaught vs Wraithlord are very asymetric, but very balanced. Fire Prism vs QuadLas Pred. DAs or Guardians vs Tacs. Not perfect, but so close that we can argue for days on any of those pairs, and still they seem to stack up about equal to eachother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Except BA. I hope they change that streak. I fee bad for BA faithful.)


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:08:23


Post by: Backspacehacker


Deep strike and or fast attack, problem solved. I have fought armies with that trait and I just drop 10 terminators on them and laugh as I make a 9inch charge turn 1


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:14:13


Post by: Xenomancers


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Deep strike and or fast attack, problem solved. I have fought armies with that trait and I just drop 10 terminators on them and laugh as I make a 9inch charge turn 1

If you did that against eldar - you'd lose all your terminators before they even got to shoot.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:17:03


Post by: Ravenor81


As an Ork player having even a -1 to hit pretty much invalidates an entire unit in my army, Lootas. Having the ability to make that -2 completely invalidates any point investment in said unit. Things like this are why blanket -1 army wide are bad. I’m hoping this will be fixed by the ork codex...whenever that happens.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:19:48


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
Deep strike and or fast attack, problem solved. I have fought armies with that trait and I just drop 10 terminators on them and laugh as I make a 9inch charge turn 1

If you did that against eldar - you'd lose all your terminators before they even got to shoot.


Would you?
Reaper Launchers:
- Big missile: 2.7 dead terminators
- Tiny Missile: 4.4 dead terminators.

So not even half against Tactical Terminators. Against TH/SS Terminators, it kills:
Reaper Launchers:
- Big missile: 1.9 dead terminators
- Tiny Missile: 3 dead terminators.

So not even a third of the squad against TH/SS terminators.

Methinks you're suffering from that rush of gak to the brain again, Xenomancers. For someone so good at math and statistics, you're awful at math and statistics.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:27:04


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Xenomancers wrote:
If you did that against eldar - you'd lose all your terminators before they even got to shoot.


Hasty generalization.

Dark Reapers might take out 3 Terminators with Forewarned, not likely to eliminate an entire squad, even a 5 man squad.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:27:22


Post by: Bharring


On average dice, that Reaper squad doesn't even wipe a 10man Tac squad.

I'd still suggest combat squadding the Termies, though. In that matchup, not going to be great. But you can drop into cover or out of LOS or something - which makes things much better for you. And two squads are more likely to get 1 into CC if you're going for a turn-1 charge.

Don't undersell Storm BOlters within 12" against t3 infantry, though.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:27:35


Post by: Galef


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
Deep strike and or fast attack, problem solved. I have fought armies with that trait and I just drop 10 terminators on them and laugh as I make a 9inch charge turn 1

If you did that against eldar - you'd lose all your terminators before they even got to shoot.


Would you?
Reaper Launchers:
- Big missile: 2.7 dead terminators
- Tiny Missile: 4.4 dead terminators.

So not even half against Tactical Terminators. Against TH/SS Terminators, it kills:
Reaper Launchers:
- Big missile: 1.9 dead terminators
- Tiny Missile: 3 dead terminators.

So not even a third of the squad against TH/SS terminators.

Methinks you're suffering from that rush of gak to the brain again, Xenomancers. For someone so good at math and statistics, you're awful at math and statistics.

You beat me to it. Forewarned Reapers might kill your average 5-man MEQ squad deep-striking in, but no way it kills 10 TEQ

This pretty much high-lights a pretty obvious bias against a certain army and by extension, a bias against the -1 to hit attribute that is the subject of the thread
-1 to hit opens up so, so many list possibilities that would otherwise not be viable in 40K due to how shooting heavy the game has always been

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:28:03


Post by: Bharring


TRIPLE NINJA!


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:28:45


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Bharring wrote:
TRIPLE NINJA!
I am the ninja-est.

(One might even say I'm -1 To Hit with an Infiltrate stratagem...)


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:42:09


Post by: Backspacehacker


I run deathwing so I get that sweet sweet deathwing knight unit with thunder hammers that don't have a -1 to hit and a apoth to bring them back.

Again, I have never had an issue with the -1 to hit because it's only effective at 12"plus. It's not hard to deal with. Is it powerful? Yes, is it arguably the best trait? Yeah you could argue it. Is it zomg powerful hit with nerf bat? No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galef wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
Deep strike and or fast attack, problem solved. I have fought armies with that trait and I just drop 10 terminators on them and laugh as I make a 9inch charge turn 1

If you did that against eldar - you'd lose all your terminators before they even got to shoot.


Would you?
Reaper Launchers:
- Big missile: 2.7 dead terminators
- Tiny Missile: 4.4 dead terminators.

So not even half against Tactical Terminators. Against TH/SS Terminators, it kills:
Reaper Launchers:
- Big missile: 1.9 dead terminators
- Tiny Missile: 3 dead terminators.

So not even a third of the squad against TH/SS terminators.

Methinks you're suffering from that rush of gak to the brain again, Xenomancers. For someone so good at math and statistics, you're awful at math and statistics.

You beat me to it. Forewarned Reapers might kill your average 5-man MEQ squad deep-striking in, but no way it kills 10 TEQ

This pretty much high-lights a pretty obvious bias against a certain army and by extension, a bias against the -1 to hit attribute that is the subject of the thread
-1 to hit opens up so, so many list possibilities that would otherwise not be viable in 40K due to how shooting heavy the game has always been

-


Also need to take into account that if it's a tac Terminator squad, they get to shoot at them then charge, so your numbers of lost terminators will be a little bit less, or a lot less depending on the load out.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:45:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


No no, this is before they shoot, Blackspacehacker, using the deep-strike-repellant stratagem. That's why I did a 10-man reaper squad with full loadout firing at full ballistic skill - it's certainly not Overwatch or anything.

In fact, it's a good way to draw out the stratagem. They blow the stratagem, kill a few comparatively irrelevant terminators, then you drop your Black Templar's Vanguard Veterans on their heads and murderblender their faces.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:47:35


Post by: Bharring


(There's a CWE stratagem for 2CP that allows one unit within 6" of a Farseer to intercept reinforcements once - with all the normal shooting rules applying.)


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:50:47


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No no, this is before they shoot, Blackspacehacker, using the deep-strike-repellant stratagem. That's why I did a 10-man reaper squad with full loadout firing at full ballistic skill - it's certainly not Overwatch or anything.

In fact, it's a good way to draw out the stratagem. They blow the stratagem, kill a few comparatively irrelevant terminators, then you drop your Black Templar's Vanguard Veterans on their heads and murderblender their faces.


Oh gotcha gotcha, yeah I would just try and bait them with a more expendable squad. My rw dw list has like 2 Terminator squads, Belial, an apoth, and a banner so, just have them blow their load on the knights to soak up the wounds on 3+ then bring the rest in with no issues


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:52:30


Post by: Bharring


They can choose when to use it, but must choose immediately when you place a unit.

You needn't choose which units are arriving before setting them up.

So place them most expendable first. If he shoots, youv'e saved your less expendable units. If he doesn't, you've just deployed safely everything but your least expendable unit. He's going to have a hard choice there.

It's still powerful, but it's not autowin.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:53:04


Post by: Backspacehacker


Hell I'm really hoping the leaked dark angels strat are real.

+3 to the charge after a deep strike
Or
Deep strike within 6 inches of a Raven wing unit even if it's less then 9 inches away from an enemy.

Yes please, minus 1 to shoot? Pfft don't help when I deep strike 3 Inches away.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 15:58:47


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Bharring wrote:
They can choose when to use it, but must choose immediately when you place a unit.

You needn't choose which units are arriving before setting them up.

So place them most expendable first. If he shoots, youv'e saved your less expendable units. If he doesn't, you've just deployed safely everything but your least expendable unit. He's going to have a hard choice there.

It's still powerful, but it's not autowin.


Yeah. And there are on-the-tabletop ways to make this harder; e.g. put your most expendable units in the most tactically threatening places, like on the flanks or in their rear, or in front of his axis of advance. The Terminators can operate for a time without support, so you can place them simply to full-frontal some unfortunate part of the enemy's line.

This means they can blow the stratagem on a relatively irrelevant fight (the Terminators) to kill high-value models, or they can actually shoot at something important (the Expendables) but not kill much of value.

Then, you can pivot your army around its axis to make the Terminator's seemingly irrelevant fight into your main axis of advance, while the expendables slow down the enemy's own advance...


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 16:55:54


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Xenomancers wrote:
 koooaei wrote:
Next mission would be to solve the mid-east political crysis. I bet Xenomancers could do it in a couple hours. Right after having made 40k balanced.

Wow - incredible analogy. Balancing a dice game which can be figured through statistics/math is equal to a 60 years long human relocation and battle for a holy land which has been fought over for centuries. Being an ork player I'd think you'd be the first one agreeing that -1 to hit army traits are a problem. The game is hard to balance though so...I guess we should give GW a break on that.

Yeah the analogy is stupid. And there's a good point about people like us maybe having a better ability to fix balance issues in the game. I know I tried to apply for the rules team when that was available, but as I'm not local for them that didn't happen. Plus I find myself better at fixing the rules rather than trying to create them, try as I do (especially if you read my fixes for Tyranids and Orks for 7th).

That said, no fix for the game is overnight. We had people saying they could balance 7th out of anything that quickly, and I was trying to take a week with each codex and make sure they would balance with each other. I maybe got 5 or 6 done before I tossed that out because 8th was on the way.
8th is newer, but let's not pretend the fixes will be quicker because of that. I'd still take a week with each codex to make sure everything is the way it should be.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 17:10:34


Post by: Bharring


It does seem simpler. But so does mid-east peace.

Go to any college campus. Start talking to the coeds about how to solve it. Half of them will have "perfect" solutions.

Imagine how relatively simpler it is to balance Chess. Then recall that Chess is not actually balanced (White has the advantage). Are you saying you could make 40k more balanced than Chess?

If you spend a lot of time in the Proposed Rules section (great place to put your balancing skills to an easy test), you'll find that most people wind up disagreeing on the finer points of balance.

If most people can't even throw in a few Proposed Rules that the majority believes are balanced, how would they rewrite 40k entirely in a way that appears balanced?

Try maintaining any sufficiently complex solution. Any given piece is simple. You an math it out. On the whole, it's a pile of crud. Its why software is always either not done or in need of a refactor. Same with company structures.

At any rate, if you want a 'put up or shut up', head on over to the Proposed Rules section.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 17:31:10


Post by: Breng77


I mean sure I could balance the game in 1 minute.

Throw out all buffs, all units become re-skinned tactical marines, with unit size 10 and no options except bolters. Players alternate unit activation, tables have no terrain.

Game is basically balanced.

Now lets add all the options players want, and try to do that again, it ceases to be easy every option you add makes it harder.

especially if we are talking about good internal and cross faction balance.



-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 17:39:32


Post by: Martel732


I think the best I could do in a day is get rid of the most obvious miscostings. But I'm not sure how many of those there even are.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 17:53:07


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Martel732 wrote:
I think the best I could do in a day is get rid of the most obvious miscostings. But I'm not sure how many of those there even are.


Yes, and unit costings can be a very sensitive thing.

Look at conscripts: at 3ppm, too powerful (apparently), at 4ppm: gone from the game, lol.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 18:07:28


Post by: Martel732


I think guardsmen at 5 ppm get conscripts back in the game. Guardsmen are a 5 point model, I think. 5+ armor is greatly improved, as is 24" S3.

And there are several undercosted units in the new Tyranid codex as well. Dakkafex, I'm looking at you.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 18:13:22


Post by: ChargerIIC


Martel732 wrote:
I think guardsmen at 5 ppm get conscripts back in the game. Guardsmen are a 5 point model, I think. 5+ armor is greatly improved, as is 24" S3.

And there are several undercosted units in the new Tyranid codex as well. Dakkafex, I'm looking at you.


So... two troop choices that would never be fielded again. At least we'd still have tempestus before you rebalanced them on your way out.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 18:14:39


Post by: Martel732


Hyperbole at its finest. 5 ppm guardsmen are completely fair compared to termagants and boyz. 5 pts for 5+ armor model is still quite good, just not the gold standard for all troops.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 18:15:00


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Martel732 wrote:
Hyperbole at its finest. 5 ppm guardsmen are completely fair compared to termagants and boyz.


Perhaps Termagants and Boyz are overcosted.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 18:17:36


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I think the best I could do in a day is get rid of the most obvious miscostings. But I'm not sure how many of those there even are.


Yes, and unit costings can be a very sensitive thing.

Look at conscripts: at 3ppm, too powerful (apparently), at 4ppm: gone from the game, lol.

I actually thought the codex did an okay job at fixing the Conscript issue, but the Commisar needs a slight buff now. That's always the issue with hyperbole, especially when GW may or may not be listening to feedback. Heck, there's still people that think Eldar should still suffer for their sins in 6th/7th.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 18:17:46


Post by: Martel732


Perhaps, but guardsmen look like the outlier, not every other troop. I'm not even looking at elite infantry here, who are dramatically inferior to even 5 pt guardsmen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I think the best I could do in a day is get rid of the most obvious miscostings. But I'm not sure how many of those there even are.


Yes, and unit costings can be a very sensitive thing.

Look at conscripts: at 3ppm, too powerful (apparently), at 4ppm: gone from the game, lol.

I actually thought the codex did an okay job at fixing the Conscript issue, but the Commisar needs a slight buff now. That's always the issue with hyperbole, especially when GW may or may not be listening to feedback. Heck, there's still people that think Eldar should still suffer for their sins in 6th/7th.


Eldar have never truly paid back 2nd ed karma, much less 6/7th.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 18:21:00


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I think the best I could do in a day is get rid of the most obvious miscostings. But I'm not sure how many of those there even are.


Yes, and unit costings can be a very sensitive thing.

Look at conscripts: at 3ppm, too powerful (apparently), at 4ppm: gone from the game, lol.

I actually thought the codex did an okay job at fixing the Conscript issue, but the Commisar needs a slight buff now. That's always the issue with hyperbole, especially when GW may or may not be listening to feedback. Heck, there's still people that think Eldar should still suffer for their sins in 6th/7th.


I think they overcommitted to killing conscripts and indirectly gutted other things.

E.G. at 3PPM while passing Orders on a 4+ only and having a 50-man max squad size, an all-conscript Valhallan theme army is still viable, because they're cheap. At 4ppm, but getting complete orders and having a 50-man max squad size, the Valhallan army is still viable. But at 4ppm while only getting Orders on a 4+, and only having a 30 man max squad size, well, at that point it's better to take 3 Infantry Squads than 30 conscripts.

Plus the Commissar nerf, which means Valhallans, Mordians, and Catachans will never bring them again, while Iyanden gets the same thing as an Army Trait and the Tyranids get a better thing as an Army Special Rule is just silly.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 18:29:54


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I think the best I could do in a day is get rid of the most obvious miscostings. But I'm not sure how many of those there even are.


Yes, and unit costings can be a very sensitive thing.

Look at conscripts: at 3ppm, too powerful (apparently), at 4ppm: gone from the game, lol.

I actually thought the codex did an okay job at fixing the Conscript issue, but the Commisar needs a slight buff now. That's always the issue with hyperbole, especially when GW may or may not be listening to feedback. Heck, there's still people that think Eldar should still suffer for their sins in 6th/7th.


I think they overcommitted to killing conscripts and indirectly gutted other things.

E.G. at 3PPM while passing Orders on a 4+ only and having a 50-man max squad size, an all-conscript Valhallan theme army is still viable, because they're cheap. At 4ppm, but getting complete orders and having a 50-man max squad size, the Valhallan army is still viable. But at 4ppm while only getting Orders on a 4+, and only having a 30 man max squad size, well, at that point it's better to take 3 Infantry Squads than 30 conscripts.

Plus the Commissar nerf, which means Valhallans, Mordians, and Catachans will never bring them again, while Iyanden gets the same thing as an Army Trait and the Tyranids get a better thing as an Army Special Rule is just silly.

Tyranids have to pay a lot more than 30 points to do the same thing on top of most of those units being easy to actually shoot at. Eldar ruin everyone's fun again though.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 18:31:36


Post by: Xenomancers


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I think the best I could do in a day is get rid of the most obvious miscostings. But I'm not sure how many of those there even are.


Yes, and unit costings can be a very sensitive thing.

Look at conscripts: at 3ppm, too powerful (apparently), at 4ppm: gone from the game, lol.

I actually thought the codex did an okay job at fixing the Conscript issue, but the Commisar needs a slight buff now. That's always the issue with hyperbole, especially when GW may or may not be listening to feedback. Heck, there's still people that think Eldar should still suffer for their sins in 6th/7th.


I think they overcommitted to killing conscripts and indirectly gutted other things.

E.G. at 3PPM while passing Orders on a 4+ only and having a 50-man max squad size, an all-conscript Valhallan theme army is still viable, because they're cheap. At 4ppm, but getting complete orders and having a 50-man max squad size, the Valhallan army is still viable. But at 4ppm while only getting Orders on a 4+, and only having a 30 man max squad size, well, at that point it's better to take 3 Infantry Squads than 30 conscripts.

Plus the Commissar nerf, which means Valhallans, Mordians, and Catachans will never bring them again, while Iyanden gets the same thing as an Army Trait and the Tyranids get a better thing as an Army Special Rule is just silly.

They did exactly what I said they should - raise the cost of all AM infantry. 4 pt models aren't actually supposed to be doing damage or getting orders cast - they are supposed to die.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 18:34:43


Post by: auticus


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I think the best I could do in a day is get rid of the most obvious miscostings. But I'm not sure how many of those there even are.


Yes, and unit costings can be a very sensitive thing.

Look at conscripts: at 3ppm, too powerful (apparently), at 4ppm: gone from the game, lol.


We live in a world of extremes.

Its either too good so always take, or its not good at all and never take. 4 points per game isn't bad. Its just not really good anymore. So don't take it.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 18:43:01


Post by: Bharring


The game is asymetric. What Iyanden got is only similar to Commisars superficially.

When you lose 3 guys in a 5-man CWE squad, you could lose 1 more from a roll of a 6 - so the trait does nothing. When you lose 4 guys out of a 5-man squad, you lose 1 guy on a 5 or 6 - so the trait does nothing. 5-man CWE squads can't lose more than 1 guy already, pre-trait.

10mans are typically Guardians or a deathstar.

Deathstars have other ways to handle Morale, and if not, you might save 2-3 guys in a whole game in that 10man unit (a single 10-man cant' take enough casualties to lose more than 1 guy in more than 1 round before being wiped).

Guardians are still 8ppm - twice what IG pay. If you're playing a lot of them, it helps. But you're still not running several 30mans. Further, if Guardians are taking enough firepower to force a scary Morale check, it'll rarely be little enough to leave enough Guardians standing to be a threat.

So CWE can't make use of it the way IG could. It rarely ever can matter. And, when it can, typically only saves you a couple models a game - at the cost of what could be a better trait.

I go so far in depth on this one point (is it unfair for Iyanden to get what IG lost), because it's a great case study in asymetry. Much like how Infiltrate is a much bigger deal for AL than RG, not all rules affect everyone equally.

Imagine an attribute that said "Your Infantry cannot be wounded on better than a 4+". Would you care much if a SM Chapter got it? But imagine how broken that'd be if IG or CWE got it?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 18:54:01


Post by: Martel732


Guardians are 8 ppm? Guardsmen should definitely be 5 ppm, then.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 19:09:27


Post by: Fafnir


Martel732 wrote:
Guardians are 8 ppm? Guardsmen should definitely be 5 ppm, then.


Good thing we got chapter approved to fix all tha--oh... OH... well then, nevermind.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 19:13:08


Post by: Martel732


I'm expecting that hammer to drop in March, with the smite hammer.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 20:23:26


Post by: Xenomancers


Do you think space marines will get chapter traits on their vehicles?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 20:29:47


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Xenomancers wrote:
Do you think space marines will get chapter traits on their vehicles?


No, I doubt it, although the wording of the Blood Angels trait as it's presented in the preview doesn't specifically call out Infantry/Dreads, it simply states that units with the trait get the ability.

That being said I expect only infantry and dreadnoughts to have the trait.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 20:44:19


Post by: Galef


 Xenomancers wrote:
Do you think space marines will get chapter traits on their vehicles?

They already do get chapter tactics on their vehicles....






...all the vehicles with 'Dreadnought' in the name at least.

Honestly it makes sense for Eldar to be able to apply their attributes to their vehicles, being more advanced and semi-living compared to the metal bawkes on the lesser races. Necrons probably should too, maybe *maybe* T'au.
The only reason Dreadnoughts should get to use the chapter tactics is because there is a half-dread marine wired into it. Rhinos and Storm Ravens do not have systems that are integrated into the actual pilot in the same manner. And before anyone mentions the Machine Spirit, AI is not the same. Why else do you think servo skulls are made with human brains instead of computers?

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 20:46:16


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Galef wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Do you think space marines will get chapter traits on their vehicles?

They already do get chapter tactics on their vehicles....






...all the vehicles with 'Dreadnought' in the name at least.

Honestly it makes sense for Eldar to be able to apply their attributes to their vehicles, being more advanced and semi-living compared to the metal bawkes on the lesser races. Necrons probably should too, maybe *maybe* T'au.
The only reason Dreadnoughts should get to use the chapter tactics is because there is a half-dread marine wired into it. Rhinos and Storm Ravens do not have systems that are that integrated into the actual pilot. And before anyone mentions the Machine Spirit, AI is not the same. Why else do you think servo skulls are made with human brains instead of computers?

-


To be fair, the difference between an "AI" and "human brain being used as a CPU" is really not that different.

The hardware an intelligence is running on has very little to do with the intelligence itself.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 20:59:27


Post by: Daedalus81


 Xenomancers wrote:

Wow - incredible analogy. Balancing a dice game which can be figured through statistics/math is equal to a 60 years long human relocation and battle for a holy land which has been fought over for centuries. Being an ork player I'd think you'd be the first one agreeing that -1 to hit army traits are a problem. The game is hard to balance though so...I guess we should give GW a break on that.


Excellent. Please math out the points for a reroll to hit aura.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 21:04:07


Post by: Xenomancers


 Galef wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Do you think space marines will get chapter traits on their vehicles?

They already do get chapter tactics on their vehicles....






...all the vehicles with 'Dreadnought' in the name at least.

Honestly it makes sense for Eldar to be able to apply their attributes to their vehicles, being more advanced and semi-living compared to the metal bawkes on the lesser races. Necrons probably should too, maybe *maybe* T'au.
The only reason Dreadnoughts should get to use the chapter tactics is because there is a half-dread marine wired into it. Rhinos and Storm Ravens do not have systems that are integrated into the actual pilot in the same manner. And before anyone mentions the Machine Spirit, AI is not the same. Why else do you think servo skulls are made with human brains instead of computers?

-

An eldar tank should be superior to a human one - I agree with that. It should come in the form of being able to shoot on the move with no penalty - being faster - and having advanced shielding. Eldar tanks already have that. I'd be okay with it if they paid additional for it but they don't. It's a hand out. A -1 to hit hand out is nothing to snuff at ether. Plus - IG tanks get traits and they are just far inferior humans compared to marines - if you claim it make sense for eldar and not marines - it must not make sense to you that AM guys get traits.

What baffles me is marines were the first army to get army traits. Now they are the only army to have army traits that only affect half of their army. That makes no sense to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Wow - incredible analogy. Balancing a dice game which can be figured through statistics/math is equal to a 60 years long human relocation and battle for a holy land which has been fought over for centuries. Being an ork player I'd think you'd be the first one agreeing that -1 to hit army traits are a problem. The game is hard to balance though so...I guess we should give GW a break on that.


Excellent. Please math out the points for a reroll to hit aura.

Considering almost every army has access to 3+ reroll 1's to hit with their most efficient shooters - it is pretty easy to call that a wash - I'd be happy to see auras removed from the game entirely though. It might help games get past turn 3. However - then marines would go from being at/near the bottom to being absolutely terrible because auras are about the only thing marines do better than other armies.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 21:12:46


Post by: Galef


 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:
An eldar tank should be superior to a human one - I agree with that. It should come in the form of being able to shoot on the move with no penalty - being faster - and having advanced shielding. Eldar tanks already have that. I'd be okay with it if they paid additional for it but they don't. It's a hand out. A -1 to hit hand out is nothing to snuff at ether. Plus - IG tanks get traits and they are just far inferior humans compared to marines - if you claim it make sense for eldar and not marines - it must not make sense to you that AM guys get traits.

What baffles me is marines were the first army to get army traits. Now they are the only army to have army traits that only affect half of their army. That makes no sense to me
.

Well, first of all, Eldar tanks do suffer -1 to hit for moving, it's just that they have 1 assault weapon to choose instead of 100% heavy weapon options. But otherwise, I can agree with the premise.
Fieldcraft probably shouldn't apply to a thing that is too big to be "stealthy". But the Iyanden attribute specifically applies to stuff made of wraithbone, which all the vehicles are.

At the end of the day, I feel like GW is making decisions intentionally, whether we agree with or can justify those decisions or not is up to us

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 21:24:21


Post by: Xenomancers


 Galef wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:
An eldar tank should be superior to a human one - I agree with that. It should come in the form of being able to shoot on the move with no penalty - being faster - and having advanced shielding. Eldar tanks already have that. I'd be okay with it if they paid additional for it but they don't. It's a hand out. A -1 to hit hand out is nothing to snuff at ether. Plus - IG tanks get traits and they are just far inferior humans compared to marines - if you claim it make sense for eldar and not marines - it must not make sense to you that AM guys get traits.

What baffles me is marines were the first army to get army traits. Now they are the only army to have army traits that only affect half of their army. That makes no sense to me
.

Well, first of all, Eldar tanks do suffer -1 to hit for moving, it's just that they have 1 assault weapon to choose instead of 100% heavy weapon options. But otherwise, I can agree with the premise.
Fieldcraft probably shouldn't apply to a thing that is too big to be "stealthy". But the Iyanden attribute specifically applies to stuff made of wraithbone, which all the vehicles are.

At the end of the day, I feel like GW is making decisions intentionally, whether we agree with or can justify those decisions or not is up to us

-

You can buy a crystal targeting matrix - why would you though? the best load out is all assault weapons anyways. I think you are giving GW too much credit. It seems like an army trait lottery with wild guess for the points costs. Even in the chapter approved leaks you see no rational about the points costs.

Malific lords for example were obviously OP at 30 points but compared to a spirit seer at 45 points they are pretty balanced - so they made it 80 points? Another crazy example is a revenant titan for the eldar. It was 1200 points now its 2000. At 1200 points it was criminally over costed - it played like a 600-700 point model. Also - space marine centurions aren't mentioned in the points leaks and I've seen the PDF - they aren't getting dropped in points - currently it's at the bottom of a pile of unplayable units in the space marine arsenal. I don't see a lot of intellgent decisions being made by GW's balance team. If such a thing exists.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 21:24:51


Post by: Bharring


The Fieldcraft - in all its forms - could probably be better if it specified Infantry, and maybe Bikes.

But if it got taken from Dreads, there'd be hell to pay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
CTM only matters if you fire at the closest. If you want to use your heavy weapons on anything but the chaff they're shoving in your face, it does nothing.

The all-assault is a worthwhile loadout, but that means no Brightlances (our not-quite-Lascannon option) or any other anti-heavy-stuff weapons.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 22:10:05


Post by: Daedalus81


 Xenomancers wrote:

Considering almost every army has access to 3+ reroll 1's to hit with their most efficient shooters - it is pretty easy to call that a wash - I'd be happy to see auras removed from the game entirely though. It might help games get past turn 3. However - then marines would go from being at/near the bottom to being absolutely terrible because auras are about the only thing marines do better than other armies.


Sweet! A wash! RG is like a double wash then, because SM hit on 3s?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 22:48:10


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Galef wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Do you think space marines will get chapter traits on their vehicles?

They already do get chapter tactics on their vehicles....






...all the vehicles with 'Dreadnought' in the name at least.

Honestly it makes sense for Eldar to be able to apply their attributes to their vehicles, being more advanced and semi-living compared to the metal bawkes on the lesser races. Necrons probably should too, maybe *maybe* T'au.
The only reason Dreadnoughts should get to use the chapter tactics is because there is a half-dread marine wired into it. Rhinos and Storm Ravens do not have systems that are integrated into the actual pilot in the same manner. And before anyone mentions the Machine Spirit, AI is not the same. Why else do you think servo skulls are made with human brains instead of computers?

-

Ah yes, because Iron Hands no longer getting anything to make vehicles more durable makes sense, as well as Imperial Fists forgetting how to ignore cover, even with that little dude popping from the top of a Rhino and firing a Storm Bolter. Which no longer ignores cover simply because he's not on foot.

Super awesome justifications. Just because Eldar are more advanced. How didn't I already think of that? Brilliant post, Galef.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 22:49:53


Post by: blaktoof


The -1 to hit trait can be negated by getting to within 12".


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 22:55:11


Post by: Bharring


... Or because Chapter Tactics are tactics that affect the members of the Chapter - but not necessarily the cars they drive.

... Or because Uthwe Wraithbone is affected by psyker energies because Wraithbone is a manifestation of the Warp itself.

... Or because vehicles piloted by prescient pilots are more likely to be affected by the pilots prescience than vehicles driven by cybernetically enhanced pilots are likely to have redundant or hardened systems built into the pilot themselves.

We could just dismiss it as "CWE therefore OP", certainly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If I put a metal plate in my foot, does that mean I can't get a flat tire on my car anymore?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 22:57:49


Post by: Martel732


blaktoof wrote:
The -1 to hit trait can be negated by getting to within 12".


That's hard to do without dying. I'm BA. I tried to do that against index lists and couldn't do it. It's not going to work now.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 23:02:13


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
... Or because Chapter Tactics are tactics that affect the members of the Chapter - but not necessarily the cars they drive.

... Or because Uthwe Wraithbone is affected by psyker energies because Wraithbone is a manifestation of the Warp itself.

... Or because vehicles piloted by prescient pilots are more likely to be affected by the pilots prescience than vehicles driven by cybernetically enhanced pilots are likely to have redundant or hardened systems built into the pilot themselves.

We could just dismiss it as "CWE therefore OP", certainly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If I put a metal plate in my foot, does that mean I can't get a flat tire on my car anymore?

Which means my Imperial Fists example still works. Try again.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 23:03:36


Post by: Galas


Can we stop with the random fluff justifications for tactics to apply in some cases to vehicles and in others don't?

It is just a random rules inconsistence, don't try to pass it as some kind of "yeah they did this because of fluff"


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 23:05:32


Post by: Bharring


"Ah yes, because Iron Hands no longer getting anything to make vehicles more durable makes sense".

Goalpost moved.

CWE doesn't have 'Ignores Cover' as an attribute. So neither get that on their vehicles. If they did, though, that sort of thing would require advanced optics and controls to allow the driver of a tank to pull it off. Something that CWE would have but Fists would not.

So moved goal posts, CWE *doesnt* have it. And someone upthread always explains why it would make more sense if CWE *did* have it.

What's the next goalpost?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 23:06:29


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
"Ah yes, because Iron Hands no longer getting anything to make vehicles more durable makes sense".

Goalpost moved.

CWE doesn't have 'Ignores Cover' as an attribute. So neither get that on their vehicles. If they did, though, that sort of thing would require advanced optics and controls to allow the driver of a tank to pull it off. Something that CWE would have but Fists would not.

So moved goal posts, CWE *doesnt* have it. And someone upthread always explains why it would make more sense if CWE *did* have it.

What's the next goalpost?

Iron Hands literally had it first with IWND on all vehicles. I never moved the goalposts.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 23:06:45


Post by: Bharring


It's not really random fluff. It was a concious decision when the first "modern" CTs were introduced (with SM in 6th). They existed long before, but CTs were meant to affect Battle Brothers fighting as Battle Brothers.

That's not a random fluff point. That's a central tennant in the introduction of the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Ah yes, because Iron Hands no longer getting anything to make vehicles more durable makes sense"

->

[Reasons why CWE should have it and IH should not]

->

[Ignores that] You didn't answer why IF doesn't have it on vehicles?

That's a goalpost move.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 23:08:02


Post by: Galas


Bharring wrote:
It's not really random fluff. It was a concious decision when the first "modern" CTs were introduced (with SM in 6th). They existed long before, but CTs were meant to affect Battle Brothers fighting as Battle Brothers.

That's not a random fluff point. That's a central tennant in the introduction of the rule.


It doesn't follow any kind of fluff for the equivalents of Chapter and Legion tactics to not apply to vehicles but everything else ones (AM, IG, Eldar) does, just like it doesn't follow any kind of fluff to lose those bonuses when you are fighting alongside allies in the same detachment, is pure balance/rules interaction . But if you want to think it does, ok. Go ahead. I'm not gonna enter this nonsense again.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 23:09:50


Post by: bananathug


I think it wouldn't be as bad if the range was 18-20".

Would be hard to screen units outside of the -1 range and the ability to move and then shoot heavy weapons/assault and shoot assault weapons w/o a -2 would be really helpful.

Also the no stacking thing is pretty obvious. -2 and -3 are out there and are quite frustrating/good with how re-rolls and modifiers work.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 23:12:35


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
It's not really random fluff. It was a concious decision when the first "modern" CTs were introduced (with SM in 6th). They existed long before, but CTs were meant to affect Battle Brothers fighting as Battle Brothers.

That's not a random fluff point. That's a central tennant in the introduction of the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Ah yes, because Iron Hands no longer getting anything to make vehicles more durable makes sense"

->

[Reasons why CWE should have it and IH should not]

->

[Ignores that] You didn't answer why IF doesn't have it on vehicles?

That's a goalpost move.

It might as well be a random fluff point as there isn't a fluff justification for Marines and Chaos Marines not to get it, yet Eldar do.

I'm literally just using two examples as the main ones. One of which is Imperial Fists, who forget to ignore cover, and the inconsistency with Iron Hands dreads somehow being more survivable compared to the Predator. A guy bekng wired in doesnt just GIVE a FNP equivalent.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 23:16:24


Post by: Bharring


-Fluff reason why CWE get it but SM don't
-Fluff reason why CWE get it but SM don't
-Fluff reason why CWE get it but SM don't
-Fluff reason why CWE get it but SM don't

Response #1: Don't use random fluff to justify it!
Response #2: "there isn't a fluff justification for Marines and Chaos Marines not to get it, yet Eldar do"

Several were just given upthread.

I agree on the FnP on the Dread is a bit off, though. And removing it would be an unnecessary nerf.

I honestly think, balance wise, CTs overall should change. But the amount of gak that gets claimed in these threads...


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 23:17:36


Post by: buddha


Simplest solution is two fold and takes a que from the tyranids codex. 1) No trait stacks with any other ability. Takes out multiple minuses to hit hit problems, removes crazy FNP stacking. 2) retro the pre-eldar codexes that traits apply to everything in the detachment if properly battleforged. Just silly that every codex after eldar has had this but the older ones.

That fixes about any abuse scenario and keeps balance.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 23:18:50


Post by: Bharring


The CWE FNP already doesn't stack, explicitly.

But I think I agree with you, Buddha.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/28 23:25:39


Post by: leopard


Personally I'd have put "-1 to hit at long range" as a basic game rule, and defined lone range as 18" (because 12" is too short and 24" is too long on a 4' table), would have further put a -1 (so -2 total) over 36" range.

then removed the army traits of -1 to hit and put them back on cover saves where such belong really in a D6 game (i.e. stuff you can get around by blasting the general area with something powerful)



-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 03:37:13


Post by: sennacherib


@OP - this is the continuation apparently of your 40 page thread where you erroneously claimed that space marines are the worst codex.

I’m not trying to be a jerk. I just want want to know a few things.
1. Why do you play the game if everything about the games lack of balance etc makes you angry. There are other games? Checkers? Chess?
2. Have you ever heard of planned obsolescence. Is it possible that GW Knows that there are crappy balance issues and they want to see players buy new units or even change armies to try to find some kind of equilibrium within the constantly changing balance of the game?
3. Didn’t your chapter just get huge point reductions. The win button is even larger. If all you care about is having a whole bunch of new strategems that eldar have etc maybe you should play eldar?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 04:30:55


Post by: Fafnir


leopard wrote:
Personally I'd have put "-1 to hit at long range" as a basic game rule, and defined lone range as 18" (because 12" is too short and 24" is too long on a 4' table), would have further put a -1 (so -2 total) over 36" range.

then removed the army traits of -1 to hit and put them back on cover saves where such belong really in a D6 game (i.e. stuff you can get around by blasting the general area with something powerful)



I would be happy with this. Perhaps have the associated faction trait turn the 18" into 12". It would make melee combat viable outside of reserves viable for more than just ultra-fast moving lock-ups, and help to alleviate the raw destructive potential of alpha strike armies.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 04:35:01


Post by: Arachnofiend


 Fafnir wrote:
leopard wrote:
Personally I'd have put "-1 to hit at long range" as a basic game rule, and defined lone range as 18" (because 12" is too short and 24" is too long on a 4' table), would have further put a -1 (so -2 total) over 36" range.

then removed the army traits of -1 to hit and put them back on cover saves where such belong really in a D6 game (i.e. stuff you can get around by blasting the general area with something powerful)



I would be happy with this. Perhaps have the associated faction trait turn the 18" into 12". It would make melee combat viable outside of reserves viable for more than just ultra-fast moving lock-ups, and help to alleviate the raw destructive potential of alpha strike armies.

I dunno, I think Guard being effectively BS5+ at all times would kill the army dead. Balancing out gunlines and melee is a commendable goal but I think this would go too far into killing gunlines.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 04:42:34


Post by: Fafnir


Give Scout Sentinals (and other analogous units for other armies) the ability to act as spotters who could skip their shooting to negate the penalties against a unit, and let snipers ignore the penalty.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 07:21:50


Post by: Spoletta


-hit stacking from Eldar just received a nerf with CA. The worst offenders, the spectres, received a huge price hike.
Now Eldar have a -1 hit trait like a lot of other factions plus a -2 on a unit per turn. The only problem i still see is the crimson hunter, which has both the -2 to hit and the range to make use of it. The hemlock will rarely be at -2 after first turn if he wants to be usefull.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 08:49:19


Post by: morgoth


Having played that army trait, I would like to point out that Eldar generally don't do well in CC and can't really prevent anyone from closing within 12".

That means most of this discussion is about the first turn or static armies.

There seem to be a lot of whine again about how Eldar is OP, what exactly makes them so strong again?

I haven't played much with the new codex, but Eldar pre-codex were pure failure, and I don't see what could be so strong even with the new codex.

Overall, my understanding is that some people in this thread feel the -1 to hit further improves a very strong build.

But what's that build to begin with?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 08:54:31


Post by: Martel732


CQC is largely irrelevant in 8th, luckily for Eldar.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 09:17:41


Post by: morgoth


Martel732 wrote:
CQC is largely irrelevant in 8th, luckily for Eldar.


How can that be true with all the armies that can simply 1-turn charge, and massive improvement to some of them?

Also, is this still true in a post-conscript meta?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 09:31:31


Post by: Arachnofiend


morgoth wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
CQC is largely irrelevant in 8th, luckily for Eldar.


How can that be true with all the armies that can simply 1-turn charge, and massive improvement to some of them?

Also, is this still true in a post-conscript meta?

Alpha Legion Khorne Berzerkers seem to work pretty well even at the highest level of play; verdict is still out on if Genestealers can compete on top tables post-codex though I think they probably can.

To be fair, the CSM and Tyranids codexes are the only ones that have come out you would expect a high-performing CC strategy out of. Might see the introduction of another powerful CC threat with the Blood Angels if the rumor that Death Company is getting Blood for the Blood God is true.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 13:15:39


Post by: sennacherib


isn’t the rule -1 outside of 12”?
Can’t space marines deep strike lots of units.
They have infiltrating units too.
They have fast units like speeders and storm ravens.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 13:34:15


Post by: CREEEEEEEEED


I'd say Salamanders trait is much better than the -1 to hit.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 13:38:30


Post by: Kirasu


 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I'd say Salamanders trait is much better than the -1 to hit.


Its important to understand that the marine version is heavily nerfed and only affects infantry, bikes and dreadnoughts where as Eldar have no such restriction.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 14:23:23


Post by: Galef


 Kirasu wrote:
 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I'd say Salamanders trait is much better than the -1 to hit.


Its important to understand that the marine version is heavily nerfed and only affects infantry, bikes and dreadnoughts where as Eldar have no such restriction.

Also important to understand is that many of the Eldar weapons are 12" range only and thus many units have to forego using the Alaitoc trait just to be able to shoot...at all.

It is pretty clear (to me at least) that GW intentionally made Chapter and Legion attributes only apply to certain units, while CWE gets detachment-wide access. It makes sense in the fluff, and GW writes rules based on fluff FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. If it makes sense to GW, the rules will reflect it. I'm actually impressed that 8E is a balanced as it is so far.

And honestly, if you are unsatisfied that the rules are not 100% consistent because of this kind of decision making on GW's part, remember that GW in a model company, not a rules company. (despite having "Games" in their name). Also remember that this is supposed to be an asymmetrical system allowing diversity of factions/units. The only way to make the rules 100% consistent is to drop all armies but Marines of different colors.
If that is the kind of game you want, GW already supports it and it's 30K.

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 14:24:41


Post by: KurtAngle2


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Hyperbole at its finest. 5 ppm guardsmen are completely fair compared to termagants and boyz.


Perhaps Termagants and Boyz are overcosted.


Agreed, I'd put Termagants at 3, Hormogaunts at 4 and Boyz at 5


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 14:51:51


Post by: Backspacehacker


Martel732 wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
The -1 to hit trait can be negated by getting to within 12".


That's hard to do without dying. I'm BA. I tried to do that against index lists and couldn't do it. It's not going to work now.


No its not, Terminators, Fast attack, drop pods, fliers.
There are easy ways to do it, you are just choosing not to do it.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 14:58:18


Post by: Xenomancers


Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Considering almost every army has access to 3+ reroll 1's to hit with their most efficient shooters - it is pretty easy to call that a wash - I'd be happy to see auras removed from the game entirely though. It might help games get past turn 3. However - then marines would go from being at/near the bottom to being absolutely terrible because auras are about the only thing marines do better than other armies.


Sweet! A wash! RG is like a double wash then, because SM hit on 3s?

RG would be a wash - except he also rerolls wounds. Which is problematic for balance. Yet marines still under-perform against armies who don't have this buff on the big stage so clearly marines need help - I'd start with army traits on the whole army. On the topic though - I don't think -1 to hit should be one of those options. It shouldn't be an option for anyone. Too strong.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 15:00:30


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Xenomancers wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Considering almost every army has access to 3+ reroll 1's to hit with their most efficient shooters - it is pretty easy to call that a wash - I'd be happy to see auras removed from the game entirely though. It might help games get past turn 3. However - then marines would go from being at/near the bottom to being absolutely terrible because auras are about the only thing marines do better than other armies.


Sweet! A wash! RG is like a double wash then, because SM hit on 3s?

RG would be a wash - except he also rerolls wounds. Which is problematic for balance. Yet marines still under-perform against armies who don't have this buff on the big stage so clearly marines need help - I'd start with army traits on the whole army. On the topic though - I don't think -1 to hit should be one of those options. It shouldn't be an option for anyone. Too strong.


"Marines still under perform against armies who dont have this buff on the big stage, clearly marines need help"
Yeah im gonna need a source on that.

And its not that strong, we have been saying this whole thread deep strike is a thing, fliers, are a thing, DROP PODS, are a thing, all put you at 9 inches, they dont get a -1 to hit anymore. Hell Psykers, that -1 wont do anything against a mortal wound.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 15:05:36


Post by: Xenomancers


 Galas wrote:
Can we stop with the random fluff justifications for tactics to apply in some cases to vehicles and in others don't?

It is just a random rules inconsistence, don't try to pass it as some kind of "yeah they did this because of fluff"

I'm not - I am only arguing for balance purpose. If eldar/AM vehicles and flyers are affected by their traits - everyone should be. Including CSM - all chapters of marines. I'd be fine if they did it like with AM and made special traits within the main trait that only affected vehicles. Just to reiterate too - I don't think -1 to hit should be an army trait for anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Considering almost every army has access to 3+ reroll 1's to hit with their most efficient shooters - it is pretty easy to call that a wash - I'd be happy to see auras removed from the game entirely though. It might help games get past turn 3. However - then marines would go from being at/near the bottom to being absolutely terrible because auras are about the only thing marines do better than other armies.


Sweet! A wash! RG is like a double wash then, because SM hit on 3s?

RG would be a wash - except he also rerolls wounds. Which is problematic for balance. Yet marines still under-perform against armies who don't have this buff on the big stage so clearly marines need help - I'd start with army traits on the whole army. On the topic though - I don't think -1 to hit should be one of those options. It shouldn't be an option for anyone. Too strong.


"Marines still under perform against armies who dont have this buff on the big stage, clearly marines need help"
Yeah im gonna need a source on that.

And its not that strong, we have been saying this whole thread deep strike is a thing, fliers, are a thing, DROP PODS, are a thing, all put you at 9 inches, they dont get a -1 to hit anymore. Hell Psykers, that -1 wont do anything against a mortal wound.

Drop pods aren't actually a thing anymore. Deep striking any unit you want for free is a thing now (1 command point) Marines can't do this. In fact our 80ish point drops pods have more restrictions than free deep strike from other armies. Eldar do it / tyranids do it. If you are spending real points to do it - you are losing - that is a fact. Screening units are also a thing - deep strike can put you within 9 inch of things they are okay with you being 12 inches from. You wont be 12" from their flyers or dark reapers I assure you.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 15:12:46


Post by: Backspacehacker


So this is not actually about the -1 to hit, this is about you getting out played by someone with dark reapers and you cry OP. Like every thread you make is complaining about a unit.

-1 to hit is not that strong. There are plenty of ways to deal with it, and counter it. From reading this thread, this entire rant can be summed up with one sentence, "Get gud" Seriously, there are ways around it, if you dont want to use it, thats your own fault.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 15:23:10


Post by: Breng77


 Xenomancers wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Considering almost every army has access to 3+ reroll 1's to hit with their most efficient shooters - it is pretty easy to call that a wash - I'd be happy to see auras removed from the game entirely though. It might help games get past turn 3. However - then marines would go from being at/near the bottom to being absolutely terrible because auras are about the only thing marines do better than other armies.


Sweet! A wash! RG is like a double wash then, because SM hit on 3s?

RG would be a wash - except he also rerolls wounds. Which is problematic for balance. Yet marines still under-perform against armies who don't have this buff on the big stage so clearly marines need help - I'd start with army traits on the whole army. On the topic though - I don't think -1 to hit should be one of those options. It shouldn't be an option for anyone. Too strong.


"Marines still under perform against armies who dont have this buff on the big stage, clearly marines need help"
Yeah im gonna need a source on that.

And its not that strong, we have been saying this whole thread deep strike is a thing, fliers, are a thing, DROP PODS, are a thing, all put you at 9 inches, they dont get a -1 to hit anymore. Hell Psykers, that -1 wont do anything against a mortal wound.

Drop pods aren't actually a thing anymore. Deep striking any unit you want for free is a thing now (1 command point) Marines can't do this. In fact our 80ish point drops pods have more restrictions than free deep strike from other armies. Eldar do it / tyranids do it. If you are spending real points to do it - you are losing - that is a fact. Screening units are also a thing - deep strike can put you within 9 inch of things they are okay with you being 12 inches from. You wont be 12" from their flyers or dark reapers I assure you.


Raven Guard would like a word with you. Marines absolutely can "deep strike" for 1 CP., or take plenty of units that have inherent deepstrike, or take pods, OR take Issodon....seriously Marines are not lacking for advanced deployment options.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 15:31:05


Post by: Bharring


Wait, when did Marines lose their Infiltrate stratagem? And when did Drop Pods get actually removed from the codex? And when did CWE get a screening unit?

On a mathhammer standpoint, and on a first look, I thought -1 to hit was OP, even when it was only infantry/dreads. I still think it's too good for CWE. But a lot of people have brought up a lot of good points about it being good for the game as a whole.

If you want to show that it's bad for the game as a whole, perhaps try fewer emotive falsehoods, and actually stick to the facts?

CWE can deepstrike 1 unit for 1 CP, or 2 for 3 CP. They cannot deepstrike 3, outside units that natively have deepstrike - Hawks Spiders, Rangers. And they cant deepstrike both Vehicles and Infantry - one or the the other (even if they pay 3 CP)

Marines can Infiltrate as RG 1 unit per CP. No limit. If they don't want to do that, they can Pod in their Infantry - although the cost is high enough that most would rathe rdo something else instead. Outside the Pod, they still have some native Deep Strike units of their own.

These are asymetric, but each side has strengths and weeknesses. Handwaving away oen faction's strenghts and the other's weeknesses doesn't help us figure anything out.

(I still think Alaitoc is too strong, but I'm no longer against other factions having that -1 to hit.)


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 15:35:56


Post by: Martel732


morgoth wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
CQC is largely irrelevant in 8th, luckily for Eldar.


How can that be true with all the armies that can simply 1-turn charge, and massive improvement to some of them?

Also, is this still true in a post-conscript meta?


Because your units just leave combat like nothing happened and then shoot the CQC units off the table.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 15:38:51


Post by: fresus


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Can we stop with the random fluff justifications for tactics to apply in some cases to vehicles and in others don't?

It is just a random rules inconsistence, don't try to pass it as some kind of "yeah they did this because of fluff"

I'm not - I am only arguing for balance purpose. If eldar/AM vehicles and flyers are affected by their traits - everyone should be. Including CSM - all chapters of marines. I'd be fine if they did it like with AM and made special traits within the main trait that only affected vehicles. Just to reiterate too - I don't think -1 to hit should be an army trait for anyone.

If the fact that AM/Eldar vehicles get access to trait is included in their point cost, then there's no problem with balance.
If you're arguing that SM vehicles should all get access to CT for free, then I don't see how that would be in pursuit of balance.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 15:39:04


Post by: koooaei


2 days have passed. 40k still lacks balance.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 15:42:52


Post by: Xenomancers


If you really want to argue that marines can deepstrike by a complete overpriced drop pod...we can just stop having this discussion - that is a completely nonviable strategy because paying 80 points for something other armies do for free is obviously nonviable.

Also the RAVEN GUARD SPECIFIC stratagem is not deep strike but special infiltrate. It is only helpful if you go first - it doesn't give you alpha strike protection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 koooaei wrote:
2 days have passed. 40k still lacks balance.

GW would have to pay me to do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
fresus wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Can we stop with the random fluff justifications for tactics to apply in some cases to vehicles and in others don't?

It is just a random rules inconsistence, don't try to pass it as some kind of "yeah they did this because of fluff"

I'm not - I am only arguing for balance purpose. If eldar/AM vehicles and flyers are affected by their traits - everyone should be. Including CSM - all chapters of marines. I'd be fine if they did it like with AM and made special traits within the main trait that only affected vehicles. Just to reiterate too - I don't think -1 to hit should be an army trait for anyone.

If the fact that AM/Eldar vehicles get access to trait is included in their point cost, then there's no problem with balance.
If you're arguing that SM vehicles should all get access to CT for free, then I don't see how that would be in pursuit of balance.

What kind of clownish argument is that? Every army gets army traits for free.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 15:51:52


Post by: Bharring


Infiltrate is better and worse than Deep Strike. For Berzerkers and many CWE units, Infiltrate would be better. But for RG, DS would be better. But I think it's fairly fair to say unlimited use of 1CP per unit Infiltrate is at least as good, if not better, than being able to DS 1 or 2 units for 1 or 3 CP.

Regardless, other armies don't do it for "free". It costs CP, and for CWE it also costs opportunity. That point is flat out wrong.

Pods are inviable. Because other options are more viable. So Marines can Deep Strike with Pods, but choosing not to is almost always the better option. Because Pods aren't the only way to get within 12". Pods should be cheaper, but you can choose to pay points for DS where most factions cannot.

Also, there are a lot of uses of Infiltrate if you go second. Nowhere near as good as if you go first, but hardly useless.

Disregarding RG as "Only 1 chapter" is fairly reasonable in many discussions, but not this one. This one is about Traits that *only affect one <chapter-equiv>". ONLY RG is the same as shouting ONLY ALAITOC. Both are true. And if one makes it irrelevant, how does the other not?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 16:04:21


Post by: Xenomancers


Bharring wrote:
Infiltrate is better and worse than Deep Strike. For Berzerkers and many CWE units, Infiltrate would be better. But for RG, DS would be better. But I think it's fairly fair to say unlimited use of 1CP per unit Infiltrate is at least as good, if not better, than being able to DS 1 or 2 units for 1 or 3 CP.

Regardless, other armies don't do it for "free". It costs CP, and for CWE it also costs opportunity. That point is flat out wrong.

Pods are inviable. Because other options are more viable. So Marines can Deep Strike with Pods, but choosing not to is almost always the better option. Because Pods aren't the only way to get within 12". Pods should be cheaper, but you can choose to pay points for DS where most factions cannot.

Also, there are a lot of uses of Infiltrate if you go second. Nowhere near as good as if you go first, but hardly useless.

Disregarding RG as "Only 1 chapter" is fairly reasonable in many discussions, but not this one. This one is about Traits that *only affect one <chapter-equiv>". ONLY RG is the same as shouting ONLY ALAITOC. Both are true. And if one makes it irrelevant, how does the other not?

Only ravengaurd can infiltrate per stratagem. Any craftworld can deepstrike any unit in the codex for 1 CP or 2 for 3. It's also worth mentioning where Aliatoc are the stand out best craft-world - RG are not the best marine chapter - that is Ultra marines. So if you want to chose the best army trait - you have to forgo using the best combos in ultra marines. This is all relevant from a balance perspective. If Ultramarines had -1 to hit - id be going after them with the same fervor even though they are my chapter - same would be true of AdM if mars had -1. Eldar is the only army thus far that it's best army trait has access to everything in the entire book that is any good.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 16:19:53


Post by: Bharring


As you stated early on, Roboute Gilleman is notable because he makes the non -1-to-hit subfaction better than the -1-to-hit subfaction.

So much of the angst is the "You have your -1 cake, but I can't have my -1 cake with my primarch cake"?

In other words, -1-to-hit is OP and gamebreaking, but it's not a problem on Marines because they have something even better?

Gilleman needs to be toned down. Alaitoc needs to be toned down. But if RG are so bad, why does their -1 need to be toned down? AL needs to be toned down, but that's Infiltrating Berzerkers who aren't likely to benefit from the -1, not the -1 itself.

It seems, more and more, the problem is not the -1-to-hit traits. It's sounding more and more balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - "Any unit" - please be more accurate in your rue specifications. Almost any unit. Fairly sure Avatar and Wraithlords, for example, cannot.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 16:24:28


Post by: Martel732


Gotta admit. If the BA codex is actually good instead of steaming poo (as it will probably be), all the -1 handwringing is going to be amusing to me.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 17:11:41


Post by: Xenomancers


Bharring wrote:
As you stated early on, Roboute Gilleman is notable because he makes the non -1-to-hit subfaction better than the -1-to-hit subfaction.

So much of the angst is the "You have your -1 cake, but I can't have my -1 cake with my primarch cake"?

In other words, -1-to-hit is OP and gamebreaking, but it's not a problem on Marines because they have something even better?

Gilleman needs to be toned down. Alaitoc needs to be toned down. But if RG are so bad, why does their -1 need to be toned down? AL needs to be toned down, but that's Infiltrating Berzerkers who aren't likely to benefit from the -1, not the -1 itself.

It seems, more and more, the problem is not the -1-to-hit traits. It's sounding more and more balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - "Any unit" - please be more accurate in your rue specifications. Almost any unit. Fairly sure Avatar and Wraithlords, for example, cannot.

My original post adressed super buffers as well. In essesnse - free power is a bad thing reroll hit and wound bubbles and -1 to hit blanket buffs are too strong. Originally I thought vehicals could use the stratagem but it's just vehicles with the fly keyword - which is practically everything - it is everything that you'd want to. It even works on super heavy grav tanks.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 17:20:59


Post by: Bharring


The point is you often make grand claims about what factions can and can't do, ignoring the actual rules themselves.

If you're saying that disclaimer means Gilleman isn't relevant to the conversation, then why bring him up when claiming we should only consider Alaitoc for CWE, but never consider RavenGuard for SM?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 17:32:07


Post by: Xenomancers


Bharring wrote:
The point is you often make grand claims about what factions can and can't do, ignoring the actual rules themselves.

If you're saying that disclaimer means Gilleman isn't relevant to the conversation, then why bring him up when claiming we should only consider Alaitoc for CWE, but never consider RavenGuard for SM?

Because from a balance perspective space marines are trash and eldar are top notch?

It's also meaningless that you can DS a wraithlord or an avatar - they are terrible units. Whats not terrible? Shinning spears.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 17:34:22


Post by: Farseer_V2


I hate to be the one who addresses the elephant in the room but this is Xenomancers we're talking about. A brief walk through of his posts include endless posts whining about SMs being the worst codex, about how bad Grey Knights are, and other similar topics. There isn't really a reason to attempt to have a conversation at this point because one party isn't interested in actual discourse but rather repeating the same few talking points over and over.

Is -1 to hit a very obviously powerful army trait? Yes. Do some armies take more advantage of it than others? Yes. Do either of these mean that it's bad for the health of the game or game breaking? No. That's really all there is to it.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 17:51:48


Post by: Xenomancers


Classic Eldar drivel. My army is just better than everyone elses but it's not game breaking. That's just the way things are. I play eldar too btw. Busted things need to be called busted. That's just the way things are when you are playing beta 8th edition.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 17:57:45


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Xenomancers wrote:
Drop pods aren't actually a thing anymore. Deep striking any unit you want for free is a thing now (1 command point) Marines can't do this. In fact our 80ish point drops pods have more restrictions than free deep strike from other armies. Eldar do it / tyranids do it. If you are spending real points to do it - you are losing - that is a fact. Screening units are also a thing - deep strike can put you within 9 inch of things they are okay with you being 12 inches from. You wont be 12" from their flyers or dark reapers I assure you.


Hasty Generalization(s), again.

This statement depends on how you value CP, if you have a lot of CP in your army, maybe this cost is negligible, if you're running a smaller number of CP you might consider this very expensive. This also depends on the drop vehicle, which may have tactical usefulness beyond it's delivery capabilities.

As usual, your mileage may vary.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 17:58:31


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Galef wrote:
 Kirasu wrote:
 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I'd say Salamanders trait is much better than the -1 to hit.


Its important to understand that the marine version is heavily nerfed and only affects infantry, bikes and dreadnoughts where as Eldar have no such restriction.

Also important to understand is that many of the Eldar weapons are 12" range only and thus many units have to forego using the Alaitoc trait just to be able to shoot...at all.

It is pretty clear (to me at least) that GW intentionally made Chapter and Legion attributes only apply to certain units, while CWE gets detachment-wide access. It makes sense in the fluff, and GW writes rules based on fluff FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. If it makes sense to GW, the rules will reflect it. I'm actually impressed that 8E is a balanced as it is so far.

And honestly, if you are unsatisfied that the rules are not 100% consistent because of this kind of decision making on GW's part, remember that GW in a model company, not a rules company. (despite having "Games" in their name). Also remember that this is supposed to be an asymmetrical system allowing diversity of factions/units. The only way to make the rules 100% consistent is to drop all armies but Marines of different colors.
If that is the kind of game you want, GW already supports it and it's 30K.

-

Ah, classic Eldar player. Marine players apparently don't have any justification via fluff but Eldar do.

If one set of players can defend Scatterbikes they can defend anything.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 17:58:40


Post by: Martel732


Drop pods will probably get another price drop in March with the first rebalancing.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 18:15:10


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Xenomancers wrote:
Because from a balance perspective space marines are trash and eldar are top notch?


Hasty Generalization, again.

You move the goalposts every time someone points out your various logical fallacies and move on to the next hasty generalization that supposedly "proves" your point.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 18:22:19


Post by: Xenomancers


Martel732 wrote:
Drop pods will probably get another price drop in March with the first rebalancing.
How did they miss it in this re-balancing? They probably haven't sold a drop pod in 6 months.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Drop pods aren't actually a thing anymore. Deep striking any unit you want for free is a thing now (1 command point) Marines can't do this. In fact our 80ish point drops pods have more restrictions than free deep strike from other armies. Eldar do it / tyranids do it. If you are spending real points to do it - you are losing - that is a fact. Screening units are also a thing - deep strike can put you within 9 inch of things they are okay with you being 12 inches from. You wont be 12" from their flyers or dark reapers I assure you.


Hasty Generalization(s), again.

This statement depends on how you value CP, if you have a lot of CP in your army, maybe this cost is negligible, if you're running a smaller number of CP you might consider this very expensive. This also depends on the drop vehicle, which may have tactical usefulness beyond it's delivery capabilities.

As usual, your mileage may vary.

A command point isn't worth 80 points. Plus. Command points lose value when you lose 80 points in units to use them. So you are devaluing a command point by wasting 80 points on a drop pod when another army does it for free. It's like baizaro world. 1 army has to spend 80 points to deep strike units and other armies can do it for free and people actually defend it.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 18:27:02


Post by: Martel732


They didn't miss it. They only dropped it 10 pts. They are probably going to stick with 10 pt increments in a lot of cases until a) spammed units stop being spammed b) units never used start getting used.

Expect more price increases for manticores and more drops for drop pods.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 18:35:23


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Xenomancers wrote:
A command point isn't worth 80 points. Plus. Command points lose value when you lose 80 points in units to use them. So you are devaluing a command point by wasting 80 points on a drop pod when another army does it for free. It's like baizaro world. 1 army has to spend 80 points to deep strike units and other armies can do it for free and people actually defend it.


Hasty Generalization, again, and possibly some circular logic thrown in for fun.

Spending 1 CP to deep strike is not free.

Honestly, Drop Pods may need a points adjustment, but surrendering to hyperbole for every argument you make devalues every point you make.

I've been quite happy with using the Kharybdis Assault Claw, but it's good because it's very effective beyond it's ability to deliver troops. Is it still good at 375 points? We'll see, I own one, I'll play it again, we'll see, but I'm not running around like chicken little about it.

If you want to move the goalposts again and have a discussion about the relative value of CP within the context of individual armies versus the game as a whole, well, you should probably start a new thread for that as it promises to be a lengthy debate.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 18:37:44


Post by: Xenomancers


You get 3 command points for battle forged army - absolutely free.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 18:37:54


Post by: Martel732


As I said, drop pods will keep dropping as long as they are never used. That's the balancing model they appear to be using.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 18:40:31


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Xenomancers wrote:
You get 3 command points for battle forged army - absolutely free.


False Dichotomy.

Only free if you consider everything else you spend CP on to be worthless. Somehow I suspect that's not true.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 18:54:09


Post by: Bharring


Also, "Free" after you build your list to be Battleforged, which comes with restrictions. Fairly light restrictions, but still restrictions. Just like how that Battalion costs you not being able to take a list of nothing by FA. Not a points cost, but an opportunity cost.

Those 3 CP are free much like the 2k points you get in a 2k battleforged match. Yes, you didn't have to pay some other resource to get those points, but things you buy with those points generally isn't considered "free".

You even went back to update a previous post from "free" to 1CP, then posted again claiming the DS was "free".

This really feels like a "CWE > SM" thread, not a "-1 to-hit is OP" thread. If it were the latter, RG and AL would be just as relevant as Alaitoc. But, from the posts, it's just more "CWE OP" complaints. Most people (myself included) don't even disagree with that claim. But the wild claims and accusations being swung around are just crazy.

So let's ask this: Of the forces that can take -1 to hit, which are OP with it?
I'm seeing Alaitoc as OP.
Alpha Legion has some tricks, but generally the -1 doesn't matter much.
The others don't seem broken.

So if only 1 faction makes use of it and is broken, is it the trait itself that's broken?

The trait seems fine to me, now. But Alaitoc still doesn't.

If you want to discuss how OP Alaitoc is, perhaps you should be honest about your intention? Otherwise, we just get circular FUD.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 18:55:07


Post by: Martel732


It's the -1 to hit stacked on top of other Eldar huba-joobs.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 18:56:37


Post by: Bharring


If Martel and I agree on a SM/CWE thread, does DakkaDakka segfault?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:02:00


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Actually people complain about Alpha Legion and Raven Guard all the time.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:03:37


Post by: Bharring


Most complaints I've heard about Alpha Legion have been around the Infiltrate stratagem, which is something totally different.

There was some complaints about RG when tactics were revealed, but since they've been tried at tournies, have they really held up that well?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:05:53


Post by: Xenomancers


This is about -1 to hit army trait in general - it should not exists. It is too powerful. Eldar abuse it best that's how this devolved into that. The eldar defenders are out in force though just like with scatter bikes and warp spiders and serpents.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:08:08


Post by: Kanluwen


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Actually people complain about Alpha Legion and Raven Guard all the time.



Bharring wrote:Most complaints I've heard about Alpha Legion have been around the Infiltrate stratagem, which is something totally different.

There was some complaints about RG when tactics were revealed, but since they've been tried at tournies, have they really held up that well?

Bharring has the right of it, I feel. Most of the AL/RG complaints have centered around their Stratagems rather than the -1 to Hit @ 12"+.

I've been giving it some thought and I wonder if maybe the Eldar one should be altered to be the following for vehicles:
Eldar vehicles can only gain this if they are at least halfway concealed by a piece of cover


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:09:11


Post by: Xenomancers


Bharring wrote:
Most complaints I've heard about Alpha Legion have been around the Infiltrate stratagem, which is something totally different.

There was some complaints about RG when tactics were revealed, but since they've been tried at tournies, have they really held up that well?
That is because space marines are a terrible army. Once Aliatoc was released it instantly started dominating tournaments.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:09:47


Post by: Martel732


If they make assault viable, it's less powerful.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:10:53


Post by: Daedalus81


 Xenomancers wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Most complaints I've heard about Alpha Legion have been around the Infiltrate stratagem, which is something totally different.

There was some complaints about RG when tactics were revealed, but since they've been tried at tournies, have they really held up that well?
That is because space marines are a terrible army. Once Aliatoc was released it instantly started dominating tournaments.


Dude the book came out barely a month ago.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:13:54


Post by: Kanluwen


Martel732 wrote:
If they make assault viable, it's less powerful.

Or people can, y'know, just get within 12 inches.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:17:46


Post by: Xenomancers


Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Most complaints I've heard about Alpha Legion have been around the Infiltrate stratagem, which is something totally different.

There was some complaints about RG when tactics were revealed, but since they've been tried at tournies, have they really held up that well?
That is because space marines are a terrible army. Once Aliatoc was released it instantly started dominating tournaments.


Dude the book came out barely a month ago.

Tournaments happen every weekend all over the world.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:18:20


Post by: Tyel


I think its creating an unpleasant meta that tournament players may not mind, but is in danger of driving more and more casual players out of 40k.

The game is becoming far, far too dependent on skewed armies dictating the outcome of the game from turn 1 and the -1 to hit, which is clearly better than the other comparable tactics, is a factor in that.

I am sure there are other issues - but yes, if GW came in now and did a blanket change to make it something else I think that would be for the best.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:23:27


Post by: Galef


Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Most complaints I've heard about Alpha Legion have been around the Infiltrate stratagem, which is something totally different.

There was some complaints about RG when tactics were revealed, but since they've been tried at tournies, have they really held up that well?
That is because space marines are a terrible army. Once Aliatoc was released it instantly started dominating tournaments.


Dude the book came out barely a month ago.

Yeah, a month is not long enough to declare "tournament domination". People need to adapt to new stuff (i.e. get inside 12" and kill those -1 to hit traits)

I'll grant that the Alaitoc trait doesn't make as much sense on Grav tanks, but on Infantry, Bikes and Flyers, it makes perfect sense. The issue comes from the later being boosted quite a bit be an additional -1.
But let's not forget that prior to this edition, Flyers were always hit on 6s and flat out could not be targeted by blast weapons. Now those same Flyers are hit on 4+ or 5+ and by any weapon with range to them.

Flyers were not dominating 7E, they certainly won't dominate now. The only exception to this is the Stormraven, a SM Flyer btw, which was being spammed early on in 8E prior to the "Boot on the Ground" FAQ.
So the real issue isn't -1 traits sweeping across factions, it is when units in those faction already have -1 and get boosted to -2. The problem with fixing (to not stack) is that it makes Rangers not benefit from being Alaitoc. Ya know, the CW that has the most/best Rangers.

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:24:31


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Xenomancers wrote:
That is because space marines are a terrible army. Once Aliatoc was released it instantly started dominating tournaments.


Please post results to support this. Otherwise, Hasty Generalization...again.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:28:18


Post by: Kanluwen


 Galef wrote:

I'll grant that the Alaitoc trait doesn't make as much sense on Grav tanks, but on Infantry, Bikes and Flyers, it makes perfect sense. The issue comes from the later being boosted quite a bit be an additional -1.

I disagree with it making sense on Flyers. If it doesn't make sense on Grav Tanks, why would it make sense on Flyers?

But let's not forget that prior to this edition, Flyers were always hit on 6s and flat out could not be targeted by blast weapons. Now those same Flyers are hit on 4+ or 5+ and by any weapon with range to them.

Flyers were not dominating 7E, they certainly won't dominate now. The only exception to this is the Stormraven, a SM Flyer btw, which was being spammed early on in 8E prior to the "Boot on the Ground" FAQ.

Wasn't it the fact that the Stormraven is pretty durable and has a hover mode that made it such a big deal?


So the real issue isn't -1 traits sweeping across factions, it is when units in those faction already have -1 and get boosted to -2. The problem with fixing (to not stack) is that it makes Rangers not benefit from being Alaitoc. Ya know, the CW that has the most/best Rangers.
-

So rejig it to be rather than "At over 12 inches" to "When in cover"? The Pathfinders' schtick was that they're masters of concealment and disruption.
Right now, the only units that I know of(I don't have the Eldar book to go off of so forgive me if I'm wrong here) with native -1 to Hits at 12" and beyond are the Tau Stealth Suits, Ghostkeel, and Shadowsun.
Making it so that Alaitoc stuff is -1 to Hit when in Cover fixes the issue of the Flyer double-dipping for it while adding a bit more flavor to the rule and not ruining the feel of the Pathfinders as supreme concealment/camouflage experts IMO.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:31:01


Post by: Bharring


@Kahnluen,
I would agree with that change - but it may be simpler to just make Alaitoc's specify 'Infantry and Biker units'.

Technically, the Vyper is both a Biker and Vehicle, but I don't think that'd be a problem.

I actually added that change to the thread I started about theorycrafting potential changes in Proposed Rules.

@Xeno,
When you paint peoople who say "CWE are OP" as Eldar defenders, it's really, really hard to try to hash this stuff out.

Tyel,
I wouldn't mind if GW found a better answer and pushed that out. I just don't see it breaking the game.

The trait seems to be making one powerful codex even stronger, is a suboptimal choice in another codex, and tends to be irrelevant even when taken by yet another codex.

Still seems like it's Alaitoc, not the trait itself, that needs to be fixed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like the "While in cover" change. Makes sense. Should be both in cover and outside 12" though - we don't need DAs to be as durable as Tacs when in cover at close range.

I keep going back and forth on if Rangers should get it stacking. I think so. On them, it's not as big a deal. But note that a trait not supporting what the army is known for is common for CWE traits (Biel Tan and it's Thousand Cuts only buff one cut...).


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:37:47


Post by: Xenomancers


 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
That is because space marines are a terrible army. Once Aliatoc was released it instantly started dominating tournaments.


Please post results to support this. Otherwise, Hasty Generalization...again.

I've seen the results. Feel free to research them yourself - it is extremely taxing work as no one really compiles the data that you want to see.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:40:11


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Xenomancers wrote:
I've seen the results. Feel free to research them yourself - it is extremely taxing work as no one really compiles the data that you want to see.


Hasty Generalization it is then, again.

I am not required to find evidence to support your claims, that is for you to do, that's how debate works.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:41:24


Post by: kernbanks


This looks like a great survey... list all the trait archatypes (maybe with names behind) and have the community rank them - or select the most powerful. Not sure what Dakka has for survey options, also don't have all the codices so can't mine the data...


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:49:24


Post by: Bharring


It does have polls.

The only trait I can think of which would give it a run for it's money would be the FnP trait.

I'm fairly sure it's the best trait. I'm fairly sure most people think it is. I'd like it to be weaker. Again, I think most people would. But that isn't the topic of the thread. The thread is about it being stupidly OP and ruining the game. That is a MUCH higher bar than simply being the best.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:53:12


Post by: Farseer_V2


 Xenomancers wrote:
 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
That is because space marines are a terrible army. Once Aliatoc was released it instantly started dominating tournaments.


Please post results to support this. Otherwise, Hasty Generalization...again.

I've seen the results. Feel free to research them yourself - it is extremely taxing work as no one really compiles the data that you want to see.


That's not how that works. Your claim was challenged, you have to produce evidence to defend your statement. In effect you either cannot or will not provide proof of your statement and thus your point is invalid. Which isn't surprising - yes -1 to hit is good, several armies have access to it. The reason it looks so good on Alatioc is the lack of other truly viable trait options. It creates a skewed perspective because unlike armies like AdMech or Marines who have an incentive to use their other traits to access a more all together powerful trait, Eldar do not. The problem isn't that -1 to hit is too good, its that its the only universally effective option in the CWE book.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:53:55


Post by: Galef


I wouldn't mind Alaitoc Fieldcraft to apply to Infantry and Bikes only (although it makes sense to apply to Flyers & non-tank Vehicles too as "Feildcraft" can represent expert dodging and playing with the enemy's blind spots, but I could live without it for balance sake, I guess).

If you disregard Alaitoc for a moment, I don't thing other armies with -1 to hit traits are exactly "dominating" tournies.
-1 to hit is perfectly healthy for the game as it counter-balances pure shooting armies.
it goes back to the old argument that shooting can be used from turn 1, but melee can't happen until turn 2.
Thankfully, melee is finally a turn 1 option for many list, but it still needs a bit of help. -1 to hit traits make melee/close range armies viable vs gunlines.

Time will tell if Tau, Orks or Necrons get -1 to hit traits.

-



-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:54:01


Post by: sennacherib


 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Because from a balance perspective space marines are trash and eldar are top notch?


Hasty Generalization, again.

You move the goalposts every time someone points out your various logical fallacies and move on to the next hasty generalization that supposedly "proves" your point.

This has been true in all the threads where he states “X is too gud, change rules. Eldar are OP, SM need Moar”.

I can appreciate when someone is upset with one thing or another. But the constant outpouring of hate and I could do better gets old. What’s your real motivation.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:56:36


Post by: Spartacus


 Galef wrote:
I wouldn't mind Alaitoc Fieldcraft to apply to Infantry and Bikes only (although it makes sense to apply to Flyers & non-tank Vehicles too as "Feildcraft" can represent expert dodging and playing with the enemy's blind spots, but I could live without it for balance sake, I guess).



Mymeara became adept at cloaking/hiding their entire craftworld when the need arose. Shouldn't be an issue to do the same thing for a Grav tank.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 19:57:48


Post by: Bharring


"Holofields" may not be wargear choices anymore, but CWE didn't lose that technology.

(I seem to need to add "But I'd be fine with the change, for balance sake" to most of my posts, just to avoid 4 pages of hate.)


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 20:02:15


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


Bharring wrote:
I'm fairly sure it's the best trait. I'm fairly sure most people think it is. I'd like it to be weaker. Again, I think most people would. But that isn't the topic of the thread. The thread is about it being stupidly OP and ruining the game. That is a MUCH higher bar than simply being the best.


I'd probably agree with this generally. That being said, I've played with some of the other CSM traits, and they can be *very* good when used correctly. World Eaters chapter trait is flat-out amazing on Cultists, they punch way above their weight class with that trait. Night Lords trait is a very fidgety trait that you have to design your army to take advantage of, however, under the right circumstances, could be devastating. Iron Warriors is very solid and easy to use, it would be amazing if they could actually use it with artillery and vehicles.

That being said, there are ones I'm really not thrilled with. The Black Legion trait isn't bad, neither is Emperor's Children, just not as generally applicable to the prevailing gunline meta right now. I hate the Word Bearers legion trait, I have no good things to say about this, feels superfluous, should have given them an extra die when summoning Daemons, would have been useful, thematic, effective.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 20:06:51


Post by: Xenomancers


 Farseer_V2 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
That is because space marines are a terrible army. Once Aliatoc was released it instantly started dominating tournaments.


Please post results to support this. Otherwise, Hasty Generalization...again.

I've seen the results. Feel free to research them yourself - it is extremely taxing work as no one really compiles the data that you want to see.


That's not how that works. Your claim was challenged, you have to produce evidence to defend your statement. In effect you either cannot or will not provide proof of your statement and thus your point is invalid. Which isn't surprising - yes -1 to hit is good, several armies have access to it. The reason it looks so good on Alatioc is the lack of other truly viable trait options. It creates a skewed perspective because unlike armies like AdMech or Marines who have an incentive to use their other traits to access a more all together powerful trait, Eldar do not. The problem isn't that -1 to hit is too good, its that its the only universally effective option in the CWE book.

Eldar have the exact same copy and paste options as everyone else. Eldar success isn't tied to a special character like admech and space marines - so they are free to pick whatever trait they want to use. -1 to hit being the blatantly obvious decision. CSM which is basically the top codex right now (though it is mostly soup lists) Is always played as -1 to hit alpha legion - not only because it has the best combos but also because the -1 to hit is OP as feth on obliteraters and such.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 20:13:53


Post by: Farseer_V2


 Xenomancers wrote:
Eldar have the exact same copy and paste options as everyone else. Eldar success isn't tied to a special character like admech and space marines - so they are free to pick whatever trait they want to use. -1 to hit being the blatantly obvious decision. CSM which is basically the top codex right now (though it is mostly soup lists) Is always played as -1 to hit alpha legion - not only because it has the best combos but also because the -1 to hit is OP as feth on obliteraters and such.


You do a brilliant job of dodging points and moving goal posts in nearly every thread I watch you in. Get challenged to post tournament results? No you go do it. Get told that's now how the burden of proof works? Just skip that point to loop back into another point and then disengage from a known tactic of "Eldar OP!' to deflect with 'Alpha Legion OP!'. Ultimately at this point all I can do is agree to disagree with you because you have 0 interest in an actual discussion or possibly changing your view point, much less even actively listening to ideas that don't line up with yours.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 20:19:57


Post by: Xenomancers


 Farseer_V2 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Eldar have the exact same copy and paste options as everyone else. Eldar success isn't tied to a special character like admech and space marines - so they are free to pick whatever trait they want to use. -1 to hit being the blatantly obvious decision. CSM which is basically the top codex right now (though it is mostly soup lists) Is always played as -1 to hit alpha legion - not only because it has the best combos but also because the -1 to hit is OP as feth on obliteraters and such.


You do a brilliant job of dodging points and moving goal posts in nearly every thread I watch you in. Get challenged to post tournament results? No you go do it. Get told that's now how the burden of proof works? Just skip that point to loop back into another point and then disengage from a known tactic of "Eldar OP!' to deflect with 'Alpha Legion OP!'. Ultimately at this point all I can do is agree to disagree with you because you have 0 interest in an actual discussion or possibly changing your view point, much less even actively listening to ideas that don't line up with yours.
I have already said that I am not digging the results up for you. It is grueling work - you want to know the truth - do it yourself.

And I answered the other part of your post.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 20:23:11


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Xenomancers wrote:
Eldar have the exact same copy and paste options as everyone else.


Not sure what this means other than many armies get this trait, yes, this is true.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Eldar success isn't tied to a special character like admech and space marines - so they are free to pick whatever trait they want to use. -1 to hit being the blatantly obvious decision.


Hasty Generalization, again.

 Xenomancers wrote:
CSM which is basically the top codex right now (though it is mostly soup lists) Is always played as -1 to hit alpha legion - not only because it has the best combos but also because the -1 to hit is OP as feth on obliteraters and such.


Hasty Generalization, again.

Please post the CSM-based lists that are currently "dominating" the tournaments.

It's OP on Obliterators because you can't be bothered to move 12" closer to them? You know their range is 24" right?

Furthermore, Smite Spam is not CSM, that is pre-CA Malefic Lord spam. These types of Smite Spam lists rarely make significant use of Legion traits, since most of the units involved aren't actually from the CSM codex. Perhaps you mean Renegades and Heretics (RAH) or Daemons? There is one list that I've seen which used Alpha Legion Tzeentchian Obliterators alongside the Changeling, it was a good combo, it didn't win the tournament, it placed. Many codices have good combos, this is not strange.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 20:25:25


Post by: Spoletta


-1 to hit trait is perfectly balanced against all other traits. It is only perceived as the better one right now because the game is focused on shooting. 6 months from now, we have no idea what the meta will be, gunline armies could be 100% unviable and the ultramarine trait would become all the rage.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 20:26:19


Post by: Daedalus81


 Xenomancers wrote:

Tournaments happen every weekend all over the world.


And clearly you have the tap into all of that data? Care to share it?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 20:34:49


Post by: Xenomancers


Twin pole you are straight trolling.

When someone says this to me -refering to -1 to hit trait
"The reason it looks so good on Alatioc is the lack of other truly viable trait options."
Then I say this
"Eldar have the exact same copy and paste options as everyone else"

I am obviosuly expressing that this isn't an eldar problem. It is a game problem. Which is actually proving my point.

You keep going on about hasty generalizations. Well let me hit you with some facts. Space marine and Ad Mech Tournament success is directly tied Cawl and Guilliman respectively. They want to use the -1 to hit trait BUT THEY CAN'T. Everyone else uses the -1 trait competitively because it is glaringly better.

Observing things in a vacum is bad. Obliterators deep strike and wipe out your best units and there is a bunch of bezerkers in rhinos in front of them. Getting close is not an option - unless you can somehow manage to destroy their whole army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
-1 to hit trait is perfectly balanced against all other traits. It is only perceived as the better one right now because the game is focused on shooting. 6 months from now, we have no idea what the meta will be, gunline armies could be 100% unviable and the ultramarine trait would become all the rage.

This game will always be focused on shooting - LOL. Unviable gunlines? So - AM, Tau, and Space marines will cease to exist huh?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 20:46:39


Post by: Bharring


Raven Guard's Infiltrate is "the exact same copy and paste option" as Alpha Legion. Infiltrate is OP for Alpha Legion. Would you argue that Infiltrate is OP for Raven Guard?

The game is asymetric. Different abilities are better or worse for different armies. Infiltrate would be even more OP in CWE hands, but it's just not as big a deal for Loyalist Marines.

As such, Alaitoc's -1-to-hit being mostly the same as other factions -1-to-hit doesn't mean it's as powerful in other armies' hands as it is in Alaitoc's.

Just how many "other armies" do you think are out there with the trait? I'll give you a hint: less than a dozen.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 20:49:03


Post by: RedCommander


I don't think this is too powerful. I've faced this multiple times and I've beaten this multiple times. Not to say it's not powerful, far from it.

Either way, I don't think its level of power is the problem. The problem is that these traits are too samey. C'mon, GW, show some originality.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 20:51:40


Post by: Galef


Bharring wrote:
Infiltrate would be even more OP in CWE hands.

Which is exactly why CWE are limited in the use of Infiltrating stratagem. Unlike AL/RG, CWE can infiltrate a max of 2 units and have to spend 3CPs to do so.

 RedCommander wrote:
The problem is that these traits are too samey. C'mon, GW, show some originality.

Be careful what you wish for. Most times GW tries giving out unique snowflake special rules, you either get an asymmetrically OP army, or they overcompensate by making those units too expensive and thus unless.

Chapter Tactics, Legion traits, CW attributes, etc should give flavor to an army, not be the main course.

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 21:01:32


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


 Xenomancers wrote:
Twin pole you are straight trolling.


Here's the sad thing, I'm not. I actually think you probably have some decent points, I agree with you sometimes. However, your presentation is horrible, you engage in every kind of logical fallacy in the book when debating the topics you post about, and never once have I actually seen you admit error once you have adopted a position, even when reasonable counterpoints are presented to your hyperbolic vitriol.

Mostly though, the sheer volume of logical fallacies you use in your posts in mind blowing. I just started identifying them as an exercise in the hopes that maybe you would make the effort to construct cogent arguments rather than retreating into hyperbole and emotional appeal.


 Xenomancers wrote:
I am obviosuly expressing that this isn't an eldar problem. It is a game problem. Which is actually proving my point.


If your point is that the trait exists in multiple armies, you are correct. If your point is that the trait inherently undermines the competitive balance of the game, no, you haven't. Again, you've engaged a number of hasty generalizations, false dichotomies and goalpost shifting. About the only logical fallacy you haven't engaged in was Ad Hominem, until now, when you accused me of trolling you.


 Xenomancers wrote:
You keep going on about hasty generalizations. Well let me hit you with some facts. Space marine and Ad Mech Tournament success is directly tied Cawl and Guilliman respectively. They want to use the -1 to hit trait BUT THEY CAN'T. Everyone else uses the -1 trait competitively because it is glaringly better.


Again, you may have a point about Gulliman and Cawl, at least from a tournament perspective, but again, it fails to prove your other point and is once again, a hasty generalization. If you want to post information that actually backs up this claim, I'll stop calling it a hasty generalization. That's how debate works.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Observing things in a vacum is bad. Obliterators deep strike and wipe out your best units and there is a bunch of bezerkers in rhinos in front of them. Getting close is not an option - unless you can somehow manage to destroy their whole army.


Clearly this must be the list you refer to as "dominating" tournaments from the CSM codex, please point us to the results and list so that we can share in your terror and horror.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 21:22:28


Post by: Martel732


I don't think he's trolling at all.

Even for me, some of the posting in here is too absolutist, and does't get to the heart of the problem.

If CC = viable, then -1 to hit becomes far less powerful. That's it. That's the solution.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 21:29:10


Post by: Galef


Martel732 wrote:
If CC = viable, then -1 to hit becomes far less powerful. That's it. That's the solution.

And will Nids just getting a Codex, BAs on the way and Orks still yet to come out, CC may indeed become viable
However I do think it's interesting that none of those armies have a -1 to hit trait. Only AL seem to get both -1 to hit and decent melee units.

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 21:30:17


Post by: Martel732


 Galef wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
If CC = viable, then -1 to hit becomes far less powerful. That's it. That's the solution.

And will Nids just getting a Codex, BAs on the way and Orks still yet to come out, CC may indeed become viable
However I do think it's interesting that none of those armies have a -1 to hit trait. Only AL seem to get both -1 to hit and decent melee units.

-


If BA units are FINALLY costed correctly, the -1 to hit won't slow us down much at all. Flamers, frags, melta, and punching don't care.

For the record, all the nid players are gunlining with dakkafexes. I told them not to buy 12 of them, as the hammer is going to come for them.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 21:33:34


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


Martel732 wrote:
If BA units are FINALLY costed correctly, the -1 to hit won't slow us down much at all. Flamers, frags, melta, and punching don't care.


They're moving in the right direction for BA, your chapter trait is straight gangsta.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 21:34:34


Post by: Martel732


 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
If BA units are FINALLY costed correctly, the -1 to hit won't slow us down much at all. Flamers, frags, melta, and punching don't care.


They're moving in the right direction for BA, your chapter trait is straight gangsta.


The beta strikes are still going to murder power armor CQC, I fear. We need cheaper BA-specific units, too. MOAR BODIES!!


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 22:50:11


Post by: bananathug


October 1-22nd results (probably not long enough for eldar to count):
https://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/11/16/top-itc-tournament-lists-october-2017/

AM
Alpha legion
AM + GMDKs
Alpha legion
rowboat + stormravens
rowboat + AM x2 (same list top 3)
AM
Alpha legion + morty
Alpha legion + magnus
Magnus+morty
Blood angels + leviathan dreads
rowboat + stormravens + xiphon
Ynarri
assassins
renegade kinghts + mal lords
CawlBots

I sure do see a lot of alpha legion (25%) followed by rowboat + stormravens and then AM. Best results I can see.

There have been more recent tourneys where 3 out of top 4 were eldar of some color (http://www.gowarhead.com/2017/11/war-head-triad-iii-coverage.html)

It seems the meta is moving and it seems with the changes to points target the current FOTM SM army is getting (gulliman + stormravens) to the exclusion of the other top performers so that one will probably move onto fire raptors and xiphons + guilliman, get replaced with something else or the point changes won't have an effect (which I doubt).

But if -1 wasn't very powerful I doubt we'd see so many alpha legion armies. Hard to say definitely because the strat is really good and we don't see many/any RG armies anymore (I'd posit that's because SM suck without guilliman and are rather 1 trick with him)

-1 is good, I think with all of ways CWE get it to -2 it boarders on game breaking. We'll see how the meta shifts in the next couple months, I think the CA nerfs will help speed the meta shift along but I curious to wait and see.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 22:57:30


Post by: Bharring


I hadn't realized Alpha Legion was up there so far.

Any further details on the list? Like, was it AL to infiltrate Zerkers then a bunch of Maelific Lords? Or was it AL for some CSM long-range shooting? Or what?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 23:31:23


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


I checked out the BoK list, about the last half dozen Chaos lists have had a decent level of AL in them. Usually some Oblits and a squad of Berzerkers or two to use with Forward Operatives.

Still a lot of Mal Lords and Horrors, and obviously M&M here and there.

So what can we take from this?

Alpha Legion is proving effective in tournaments, appears to be supported heavily by Daemons/Renegades, if not vice versa entirely. AL is basically there for Oblits+Changeling and infiltrating Berzerkers.

Honestly, given the recent results posted above, it's not a bad spread, the lists are all carbon copies of one another, but that is going to be the tendency for tournament lists.

Interestingly enough, the only Eldar on the list is Ynnari, which works against the premise of the thread.



-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 23:46:45


Post by: Arachnofiend


bananathug wrote:
But if -1 wasn't very powerful I doubt we'd see so many alpha legion armies. Hard to say definitely because the strat is really good and we don't see many/any RG armies anymore (I'd posit that's because SM suck without guilliman and are rather 1 trick with him)

Raven Guard doesn't have anything worth infiltrating like Alpha Legion does (Cultists and Khorne Berzerkers are both exceptionally good targets for the stratagem). The -1 to hit is largely exploited for obliterators, especially Tzeentch ones with the Changeling so you can be -2 to hit.

It's a very strong list, but it'll be interesting to see if it can still keep up with Guard/Eldar/Tyranids when the malefic lords are removed from it.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 23:47:46


Post by: Martel732


 Arachnofiend wrote:
bananathug wrote:
But if -1 wasn't very powerful I doubt we'd see so many alpha legion armies. Hard to say definitely because the strat is really good and we don't see many/any RG armies anymore (I'd posit that's because SM suck without guilliman and are rather 1 trick with him)

Raven Guard doesn't have anything worth infiltrating like Alpha Legion does (Cultists and Khorne Berzerkers are both exceptionally good targets for the stratagem). The -1 to hit is largely exploited for obliterators, especially Tzeentch ones with the Changeling so you can be -2 to hit.

It's a very strong list, but it'll be interesting to see if it can still keep up with Guard/Eldar/Tyranids when the malefic lords are removed from it.


Infiltrated RG assault centurions are terrifying. But what do I know? I play BA.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 23:48:00


Post by: bananathug


I honestly think the thing to take from this is -2 to hit is broken, -1 merely good.

changeling + AL = broken. Same with Altorac(sp?) and conceal/-1 to hit strat/flyer.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/29 23:59:32


Post by: Arachnofiend


Martel732 wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
bananathug wrote:
But if -1 wasn't very powerful I doubt we'd see so many alpha legion armies. Hard to say definitely because the strat is really good and we don't see many/any RG armies anymore (I'd posit that's because SM suck without guilliman and are rather 1 trick with him)

Raven Guard doesn't have anything worth infiltrating like Alpha Legion does (Cultists and Khorne Berzerkers are both exceptionally good targets for the stratagem). The -1 to hit is largely exploited for obliterators, especially Tzeentch ones with the Changeling so you can be -2 to hit.

It's a very strong list, but it'll be interesting to see if it can still keep up with Guard/Eldar/Tyranids when the malefic lords are removed from it.


Infiltrated RG assault centurions are terrifying. But what do I know? I play BA.

Are they? The only times I've heard the word "centurion" in 8th it's been associated with the word "terrible". Not my army though so I could be wrong.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 00:08:09


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


bananathug wrote:
I honestly think the thing to take from this is -2 to hit is broken, -1 merely good.

changeling + AL = broken. Same with Altorac(sp?) and conceal/-1 to hit strat/flyer.


-2 is really good, although generally it will be a localized effect (ie the units around the Changeling, the unit that you cast MoP on,an Alaitoc flyer specifically), but given that it removes Orks entirely from the shooting process is problematic, for sure.

However, that starts to get in to a discussion of what should stack and what shouldn't stack. FnP stacks in various circumstances, as does +1 to hit. I don't think it would be bad to nix stacking entirely, but it may involve some rules revision to released materials.

Stacking is often what breaks systems like these anyways.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 00:23:39


Post by: Kaiyanwang


 RedCommander wrote:
The problem is that these traits are too samey. C'mon, GW, show some originality.

I would not be so hard on GW on this: the same trait can play in a dramatically different way on different armies like Marines, CSM, Eldar and Mech.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 01:59:37


Post by: Daedalus81


bananathug wrote:
October 1-22nd results (probably not long enough for eldar to count)


Definitely not since it was out Oct 28th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote:

AM
Alpha legion
AM + GMDKs
Alpha legion
rowboat + stormravens
rowboat + AM x2 (same list top 3)
AM
Alpha legion + morty
Alpha legion + magnus
Magnus+morty
Blood angels + leviathan dreads
rowboat + stormravens + xiphon
Ynarri
assassins
renegade kinghts + mal lords
CawlBots


Looking at actual lists there is only one i'd attribute to true AL cheese -- Obliterators and the Changeling.

The rest are Magnus/Morty/Malefic Lords/Klaws/Fire Raptors


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 02:13:40


Post by: usmcmidn


The biggest cheese I can think of in the game is the guy who beats me, seriously, the game isn’t balanced if I’m not winning 100% of the time. Every list is pure cheese with their 1st turn charges and -1 to hit and thousands of Ork boyz, not to mention the storm ravens and the conscripts and the assault cannons and the Eldar and those disgusting bloated green Marines.... but if I win my army is completely balanced and it is because of my pure tactical genius, end of story.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 02:28:40


Post by: Martel732


 Arachnofiend wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
bananathug wrote:
But if -1 wasn't very powerful I doubt we'd see so many alpha legion armies. Hard to say definitely because the strat is really good and we don't see many/any RG armies anymore (I'd posit that's because SM suck without guilliman and are rather 1 trick with him)

Raven Guard doesn't have anything worth infiltrating like Alpha Legion does (Cultists and Khorne Berzerkers are both exceptionally good targets for the stratagem). The -1 to hit is largely exploited for obliterators, especially Tzeentch ones with the Changeling so you can be -2 to hit.

It's a very strong list, but it'll be interesting to see if it can still keep up with Guard/Eldar/Tyranids when the malefic lords are removed from it.


Infiltrated RG assault centurions are terrifying. But what do I know? I play BA.

Are they? The only times I've heard the word "centurion" in 8th it's been associated with the word "terrible". Not my army though so I could be wrong.


Well, they get 3 hurricane bolters and 6 melta shots and automatically set up within optimal range. And they can be placed in cover for 1+ saves. And shooting them from more than 12" is at -1. So yeah, terrifying, imo.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 02:30:27


Post by: Strat_N8


 Galef wrote:
However I do think it's interesting that none of those armies have a -1 to hit trait. Only AL seem to get both -1 to hit and decent melee units.


Have to wait and see with Orks (most of the -1 to hit subfactions have been the "sneaky" ones, so Blood Axes are a possibility for it), but Tyranids didn't get it because they already have access to a -1 in the form of Venomthropes and Malanthropes (or carapace Spore Cysts for a Carnifex spam army). As far as I can tell, Astra Miliarium and Grey Knights so far are the only factions without access to a -1 trait or bubble of some sort, but even then AM may end up getting it indirectly through Brood Brothers when the Genestealer Cult Codex shows up.

Also worth noting, the Tyranid codex specifically calls out it's -1 to hit effects from being able to stack, so there very well may be a similar rule added to the faction traits in an errata if it appears to skew things too badly.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 06:55:10


Post by: Thousand-Son-Sorcerer


I really dont see why people think it is so good. Most of the -1 to hit traits have a qualifier which allows people to get around having a -1 to hit.

Personally I run AL Rubric Marines because im a treacherous donkey-cave that thinks friends are for pussies. They do alright but not all that great. Mostly people just get within 12 and then take them out. It buys me some time but it really isnt broken in any way.

Keep in mind it would probably be a good idea for them to attach the army traits to certain charcters rather then just giving the entire army.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 06:55:12


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Arachnofiend wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
bananathug wrote:
But if -1 wasn't very powerful I doubt we'd see so many alpha legion armies. Hard to say definitely because the strat is really good and we don't see many/any RG armies anymore (I'd posit that's because SM suck without guilliman and are rather 1 trick with him)

Raven Guard doesn't have anything worth infiltrating like Alpha Legion does (Cultists and Khorne Berzerkers are both exceptionally good targets for the stratagem). The -1 to hit is largely exploited for obliterators, especially Tzeentch ones with the Changeling so you can be -2 to hit.

It's a very strong list, but it'll be interesting to see if it can still keep up with Guard/Eldar/Tyranids when the malefic lords are removed from it.


Infiltrated RG assault centurions are terrifying. But what do I know? I play BA.

Are they? The only times I've heard the word "centurion" in 8th it's been associated with the word "terrible". Not my army though so I could be wrong.

Well Assault Centurions got better after that huge points drop in the codex, but the Devastator ones are paying for their sins still.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 08:20:05


Post by: Spoletta


Xenomancers wrote:
This game will always be focused on shooting - LOL. Unviable gunlines? So - AM, Tau, and Space marines will cease to exist huh?


Yeah, like it never happened in the history of 40k that assault armies broke the meta. Nids armies are already showing that pure gunlines are not viable anymore, and that you need at least a 20-30% of your army invested in melee specialists.

Martel732 wrote:
 Galef wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
If CC = viable, then -1 to hit becomes far less powerful. That's it. That's the solution.

And will Nids just getting a Codex, BAs on the way and Orks still yet to come out, CC may indeed become viable
However I do think it's interesting that none of those armies have a -1 to hit trait. Only AL seem to get both -1 to hit and decent melee units.

-


If BA units are FINALLY costed correctly, the -1 to hit won't slow us down much at all. Flamers, frags, melta, and punching don't care.

For the record, all the nid players are gunlining with dakkafexes. I told them not to buy 12 of them, as the hammer is going to come for them.


I have no idea what nids lists you are looking at. Competitive nids list are all assault oriented with ranged support elements, usually exocrines, hive guards and biovores.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 08:41:39


Post by: tneva82


 Xenomancers wrote:

This game will always be focused on shooting - LOL. Unviable gunlines? So - AM, Tau, and Space marines will cease to exist huh?


Ah the youngster of these days (jk) Don't remember the editions where assault was the king. I started 40k on days when turn 1 rhino assaults followed by consolidiations into new combats from which you were not able to flee on your own was dominating. Shooty army just basically evaporated when enemy could literally charge before they got even one round of shooting(not even overwatch back then) and were never able to shoot barring pure luck as enemy stayed in combat(often ensuring only one or two of their own models got into combat on THEIR turn thus making it unlikely enemy would flee from combat unless there was consolidiation target available)


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 11:53:00


Post by: Tyel


I feel I am repeating the same point as yesterday - but while "stack turn 1 charges" is a counter to -1 to hit armies, I am not sure that is good for the game either.

40k is in danger of devolving into a glorified game of rock-paper-scissors.

One of the big things with 8th was that we were meant to be getting away from "only hit on 6s, I get a 2++ rerollable". This stacking -1s to hit is definitely moving in that direction. It is a massive meta defining buff that also has the effect of really screwing over certain armies.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 12:32:51


Post by: Kanluwen


 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
I really dont see why people think it is so good. Most of the -1 to hit traits have a qualifier which allows people to get around having a -1 to hit.

Personally I run AL Rubric Marines because im a treacherous donkey-cave that thinks friends are for pussies. They do alright but not all that great. Mostly people just get within 12 and then take them out. It buys me some time but it really isnt broken in any way.

And this is where the issue lies.

For Alpha Legion and Raven Guard, it's not as great as it is for Stygies or Alaitoc. RG+AL only get their trait on infantry, bikers, and Dreadnoughts/Helbrutes.
Stygies and Alaitoc get it on what amounts to basically everything you take for them.
The main complaint centers around the Alaitoc flyers though as they can be given a -2 to Hit thanks to the Fieldcraft ability stacking with "Hard to Hit"(-1 to Hit Flyers in the shooting phase).


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 12:56:07


Post by: Spoletta


Tyel wrote:
I feel I am repeating the same point as yesterday - but while "stack turn 1 charges" is a counter to -1 to hit armies, I am not sure that is good for the game either.

40k is in danger of devolving into a glorified game of rock-paper-scissors.

One of the big things with 8th was that we were meant to be getting away from "only hit on 6s, I get a 2++ rerollable". This stacking -1s to hit is definitely moving in that direction. It is a massive meta defining buff that also has the effect of really screwing over certain armies.


The rock-paper-scissors logic will apply only to skewed lists, which will not be competitive.
Gunline wins against slow assault and loses against fast assault which in turn loses against slow assault.
Truly competitive lists will mix parts of these 3 archetypes. You don't bring a list to a tournament that is match up dependent.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 13:19:17


Post by: Mickmann


My main army is DA, and I played most games with em. But if I could choose a chapter tactic to fit my playstile, it definitley wouldnt be -1 to your hit rolls.

Actually BA's chapter tactics sound *reeeeeaaally* strong I think. +1 to wound in the first battle round? Wounding everything at least on 5+ with your bare fists? I would take that over "-1 to hit" every day!

Also the the drop pod is beeing declared as "useless". It has a slight advantage over infiltrating per cp though: You can drop it onto an objective to hold it, and a drop pod is durable enough to not go down easy. Especially if it's *not* dropped in turn 1.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 13:23:17


Post by: tneva82


Problem with assault hasn't generally been doing damage so the +1 to wound isn't THAT awesome help.

And that pod is expensive objective grabber that can only capture objectives outside enemy deployment zone most of the time. Unless you delay it to turn 3 at which point game is basically done often anyway.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 13:36:43


Post by: morgoth


Spoletta wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
This game will always be focused on shooting - LOL. Unviable gunlines? So - AM, Tau, and Space marines will cease to exist huh?


Yeah, like it never happened in the history of 40k that assault armies broke the meta. Nids armies are already showing that pure gunlines are not viable anymore, and that you need at least a 20-30% of your army invested in melee specialists.


I think Assault breaking the game is a lot more likely than the reverse in general.

Assault broke 7th way worse than anything Eldar broke 6th phase B and 7th, no army could stand in the way of the super best friends electro displacement face stomper.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 13:46:28


Post by: Martel732


morgoth wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
This game will always be focused on shooting - LOL. Unviable gunlines? So - AM, Tau, and Space marines will cease to exist huh?


Yeah, like it never happened in the history of 40k that assault armies broke the meta. Nids armies are already showing that pure gunlines are not viable anymore, and that you need at least a 20-30% of your army invested in melee specialists.


I think Assault breaking the game is a lot more likely than the reverse in general.

Assault broke 7th way worse than anything Eldar broke 6th phase B and 7th, no army could stand in the way of the super best friends electro displacement face stomper.


But any other assault unit was worthless.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 13:58:32


Post by: Tyel


Spoletta wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I feel I am repeating the same point as yesterday - but while "stack turn 1 charges" is a counter to -1 to hit armies, I am not sure that is good for the game either.

40k is in danger of devolving into a glorified game of rock-paper-scissors.

One of the big things with 8th was that we were meant to be getting away from "only hit on 6s, I get a 2++ rerollable". This stacking -1s to hit is definitely moving in that direction. It is a massive meta defining buff that also has the effect of really screwing over certain armies.


The rock-paper-scissors logic will apply only to skewed lists, which will not be competitive.
Gunline wins against slow assault and loses against fast assault which in turn loses against slow assault.
Truly competitive lists will mix parts of these 3 archetypes. You don't bring a list to a tournament that is match up dependent.


I don't this is true. 40k has never really worked this way.
I agree you don't bring lists to a tournament which are match dependent - you bring lists which are "good". You end up with a tier system rather than a counter system.

So Rock-paper-scissors is probably the wrong example. I didn't really mean in terms of hard counters. What I meant was that it was over fast. You might still play out the game - dice can always do strange things - but given normal dice both players know the result an hour or so before the end.

Take the post above saying superfriends broke the game.

Well... they didn't. Or at least no more than various other factions.
They regularly lost in tournaments to Eldar, and Riptides, and double gladius lists etc.
What mattered was who went first. If the super friends player went first, allowing them to advance up the table and activate their psychic defences, they probably had the game in the bag.
If the shooty player went first, getting another turn to shoot, including one before invisibility was up, they had a good chance of killing enough that they had the game in the bag.

I would feel fairly confident in saying 80% of games were won by the player who went first. These lists were very good "skews", rather than being counters, and could confidently stomp weaker lists.

Like for instance the RG+Assbacks etc List is not really a skew - it just takes units which are good and puts them together. Certain factions can build against it - but to be honest they are making lists which are "good". I am not sure that having built such a list the marine player could then "counter build" against it.

This is why you end up with top tier lists that tend to endure until GW change the rules (either via Codex creep or a new edition).


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 16:05:42


Post by: TwinPoleTheory


tneva82 wrote:
Problem with assault hasn't generally been doing damage so the +1 to wound isn't THAT awesome help.

And that pod is expensive objective grabber that can only capture objectives outside enemy deployment zone most of the time. Unless you delay it to turn 3 at which point game is basically done often anyway.


I think you'd be surprised, +1 to wound alongside the new wounding mechanics is an amazing benefit. It allows beat troops to punch way above their weight class and it allows elite troops to absolutely wreck certain units. Honestly, characters with Power Fists or Librarian Dreadnoughts are going be wounding T8 on a 3+ or 2+, which is really good, it also means that any character that can hit at S5 or better is wounding anything in the game on a 4+ on the charge. There's also the simple fact that it allows you to attack pretty much anything in the game with any units in your army and have a reasonable chance of doing damage to it.

If they get the cost and delivery mechanisms to really put their assault units in place I think it will be very effective.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 16:25:52


Post by: Spoletta


Tyel wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I feel I am repeating the same point as yesterday - but while "stack turn 1 charges" is a counter to -1 to hit armies, I am not sure that is good for the game either.

40k is in danger of devolving into a glorified game of rock-paper-scissors.

One of the big things with 8th was that we were meant to be getting away from "only hit on 6s, I get a 2++ rerollable". This stacking -1s to hit is definitely moving in that direction. It is a massive meta defining buff that also has the effect of really screwing over certain armies.


The rock-paper-scissors logic will apply only to skewed lists, which will not be competitive.
Gunline wins against slow assault and loses against fast assault which in turn loses against slow assault.
Truly competitive lists will mix parts of these 3 archetypes. You don't bring a list to a tournament that is match up dependent.


I don't this is true. 40k has never really worked this way.
I agree you don't bring lists to a tournament which are match dependent - you bring lists which are "good". You end up with a tier system rather than a counter system.

So Rock-paper-scissors is probably the wrong example. I didn't really mean in terms of hard counters. What I meant was that it was over fast. You might still play out the game - dice can always do strange things - but given normal dice both players know the result an hour or so before the end.

Take the post above saying superfriends broke the game.

Well... they didn't. Or at least no more than various other factions.
They regularly lost in tournaments to Eldar, and Riptides, and double gladius lists etc.
What mattered was who went first. If the super friends player went first, allowing them to advance up the table and activate their psychic defences, they probably had the game in the bag.
If the shooty player went first, getting another turn to shoot, including one before invisibility was up, they had a good chance of killing enough that they had the game in the bag.

I would feel fairly confident in saying 80% of games were won by the player who went first. These lists were very good "skews", rather than being counters, and could confidently stomp weaker lists.

Like for instance the RG+Assbacks etc List is not really a skew - it just takes units which are good and puts them together. Certain factions can build against it - but to be honest they are making lists which are "good". I am not sure that having built such a list the marine player could then "counter build" against it.

This is why you end up with top tier lists that tend to endure until GW change the rules (either via Codex creep or a new edition).


Hmm yes, this analysis is closer to my experience as well. Though to be fair, the distance between a good list and a "fluffy list" has greatly shortened in 8th compared to 7th.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 16:26:25


Post by: tneva82


Yes it's good but assault units tend to kill target anyway. Overkill is not useful. Does it matter do you cause 10 or 15 wounds if target has 8? Problem is getting there and surviving shooting


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 16:29:50


Post by: Spoletta


Martel732 wrote:
morgoth wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
This game will always be focused on shooting - LOL. Unviable gunlines? So - AM, Tau, and Space marines will cease to exist huh?


Yeah, like it never happened in the history of 40k that assault armies broke the meta. Nids armies are already showing that pure gunlines are not viable anymore, and that you need at least a 20-30% of your army invested in melee specialists.


I think Assault breaking the game is a lot more likely than the reverse in general.

Assault broke 7th way worse than anything Eldar broke 6th phase B and 7th, no army could stand in the way of the super best friends electro displacement face stomper.


But any other assault unit was worthless.


Right now the meta is not defined by gunlines in general, but a finite number of them. I could count the models across all factions that are pushing the meta into gunline heavy, and i would not reach a dozen. It always works like that, assault and shooting are usually failry balanced if you don't optimize lists, then depeding on the edition one of the two can push the limits further.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 16:29:54


Post by: Bharring


But if you can have a 5-man ASM squad do the work instead of a 5-man VV squad with weapons, you can have more bodies or other things with the remaining points.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 17:06:02


Post by: Spoletta


LC BA Termies will be scary.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 17:07:52


Post by: Martel732


Spoletta wrote:
LC BA Termies will be scary.


They'll be shot dead or hit a screen. I'm looking for ways around this, but not seeing any


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 17:24:51


Post by: SweetLou


This kind of gak makes my orks cry.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 17:28:32


Post by: Martel732


SweetLou wrote:
This kind of gak makes my orks cry.


At least you have numbers. Power assault in general is far inferior.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 17:31:51


Post by: Galef


Martel732 wrote:
SweetLou wrote:
This kind of gak makes my orks cry.


At least you have numbers. Power assault in general is far inferior.

I gotta agree with Martel here. It is the same as shooting at Flyers in prior editions. Orks going from 5+ to 6+ was not nearly as hard as Marines going from 3+ to 6+
Orks are built to have the quantity of shots to get hits. Marines rely on quality. -1 to hit affects quality, ergo, Marines are worse off.

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 17:54:37


Post by: Spoletta


 Galef wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
SweetLou wrote:
This kind of gak makes my orks cry.


At least you have numbers. Power assault in general is far inferior.

I gotta agree with Martel here. It is the same as shooting at Flyers in prior editions. Orks going from 5+ to 6+ was not nearly as hard as Marines going from 3+ to 6+
Orks are built to have the quantity of shots to get hits. Marines rely on quality. -1 to hit affects quality, ergo, Marines are worse off.

-


No wait, i think you are really really wrong about this matter.
-1 to hit affects LESS the marines compared to other factions, Orks in particular.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 18:16:23


Post by: Galef


Spoletta wrote:

No wait, i think you are really really wrong about this matter.
-1 to hit affects LESS the marines compared to other factions, Orks in particular.

Statistically on a 1 shot basis, you are right. A singe shot from a single Marine does not go down in efficiency as much as a single shot from a single Ork
What I am alluding to is that a single shot from a Marine is worth much more than a single shot from an Ork, because Orks have straight up more shots

Orks are made to make up for having poor quality by having massed quantity, ergo reducing their quality has less of an overall effect because they have the quantity to counter it.
Marines have no such quantity, thus anything the reduces their quality it felt more.

When you are throwing buckets of dice, -1 to hit doesn't hurt as much as you still get hits. Throwing small numbers of dice might mean no hits at all, even if the quality of hits is better.
Some hits are better than no hits.

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 18:22:52


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
But if you can have a 5-man ASM squad do the work instead of a 5-man VV squad with weapons, you can have more bodies or other things with the remaining points.

People are gonna take barebones Vanguard anyway.

Do you know the price difference between Assault Marines and Vanguard by chance? Based off this post you don't.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 18:35:08


Post by: xeen


Playing with and against the -1 to hit (at over 12" remember) I don't think it is overpowered in the case of SM and CSM because it only applies to Infantry, Bikes, Dreadnoughts. I think the problem is when it applies to every unit. It takes away tactical depth and strategy in list building. I am working on an AL list that is all -1 to hit units, but in doing so I am not taking the very good all laser cannon predator, or daemon engines, or even rhinos. So I am restricting my options to have all -1. If I take some of the vehicles, then there are units in my army without -1 that the opponent can target. Each play is making a choice. All -1 or have some units more vulnerable, or shoot the -1 units, or concentrate on the non -1 units until I can get closer. When the -1 is army wide with no restrictions, then you can make any list you want without any extra thought, and there is no target priority decision by the opponent. The extra -1 on Super Sonic is problematic in itself. The mistake they really made is allowing some armies access -1 outside of basically infantry and bikes.

I actually like the Blood Angels CT. If you ever used "Veterans of the Long War" stratagem you will know how +1 to wound can make mediocre attacks so much more potent. I also think the tactics that allow vehicles to double the wounds for damage chart seems really good, but I have never played with or against, only watched on battle reports. I guess my point is there are multiple tactics that are good in someway, and may warrant taking over -1 to hit, depending on your army, but -1 to hit army wide is probably the best tactic and probably needs to be toned down.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 18:57:33


Post by: Bharring


My post didn't refer to barebones VV. Kitted VV versus naked VV is kinda the same scenario.

The point is that, now that you need less of any given assault threat to do the same damage, if it's overkill now, either take more of smaller threats or take on more at once with the threats.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 19:06:29


Post by: Spoletta


 Galef wrote:
Spoletta wrote:

No wait, i think you are really really wrong about this matter.
-1 to hit affects LESS the marines compared to other factions, Orks in particular.

Statistically on a 1 shot basis, you are right. A singe shot from a single Marine does not go down in efficiency as much as a single shot from a single Ork
What I am alluding to is that a single shot from a Marine is worth much more than a single shot from an Ork, because Orks have straight up more shots

Orks are made to make up for having poor quality by having massed quantity, ergo reducing their quality has less of an overall effect because they have the quantity to counter it.
Marines have no such quantity, thus anything the reduces their quality it felt more.

When you are throwing buckets of dice, -1 to hit doesn't hurt as much as you still get hits. Throwing small numbers of dice might mean no hits at all, even if the quality of hits is better.
Some hits are better than no hits.

-


I still don't get it.
If we assume that equal points in ork shooting and SM shooting provide the same average result, how can reducing the ork output by 50% and the SM output by 25% be more harmful for SM?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 19:32:28


Post by: Galef


Spoletta wrote:
I still don't get it.
If we assume that equal points in ork shooting and SM shooting provide the same average result, how can reducing the ork output by 50% and the SM output by 25% be more harmful for SM?

I think I've explained it the best I can without dropping some math (which I don't have books nearby to do justice). But my point is that math isn't 100% of the equation.
There is no such thing as an all shooting Ork list as any self respecting Ork general will include plenty of melee units. So 50% less shooting should not be as hard a blow for Orks in general than to Marines that HAVE to include decent shooting.

But even just looking at the numbers alone, Orks have so many shots that the averages come closer to expected and you can rely on some hits.
Marines having so few shots in general means that a single round of poor shooting can mean whole units get zero shooting.

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 20:19:10


Post by: Bharring


The averages do *not* favor the Orkz. Regardless of the shooty-or-not nature of the unit, a 5+ unit does 50% less damage, and a 3+ unit does 25% less damage.

Your other argument - that the Orkz aren't as dependent on their shooting - is a possiblitiy. The idea is that, while the Orkz lose 50% of their shooting, it only amounts to one or two more guys that live until the Orkz assualt. On the other hand, the Marines kill maybe 5 or 10 fewer guys before getting assaulted. The Marines would be worse off, if that's how it works out.

However, the math is very clear - the numbers hurt Orkz more. It's just that, tactically, it may not matter.

If an Ork list is a ton of long-range dakka and not really kitted for assault, it will certainly hurt the Ork army worse. It's just that the Ork army is more likely to *not* be long-range dakka.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 20:35:41


Post by: Breng77


 Galef wrote:
Spoletta wrote:

No wait, i think you are really really wrong about this matter.
-1 to hit affects LESS the marines compared to other factions, Orks in particular.

Statistically on a 1 shot basis, you are right. A singe shot from a single Marine does not go down in efficiency as much as a single shot from a single Ork
What I am alluding to is that a single shot from a Marine is worth much more than a single shot from an Ork, because Orks have straight up more shots

Orks are made to make up for having poor quality by having massed quantity, ergo reducing their quality has less of an overall effect because they have the quantity to counter it.
Marines have no such quantity, thus anything the reduces their quality it felt more.

When you are throwing buckets of dice, -1 to hit doesn't hurt as much as you still get hits. Throwing small numbers of dice might mean no hits at all, even if the quality of hits is better.
Some hits are better than no hits.

-


This would be true if marines were not able to put out higher volumes of fire than many ork units for a similar price. Especially when we are talking about high S, high Damage shots.

What you say was true last edition for snap firing, but lets look at 2 comparably pointed units and how their fire power is effected

10 tactical marines Rapid firing bolters = 130 points
22 Ork boyz with shootas = 132 points

Marines get 20 shots, orks 44.

Without -1 to hit
Marines hit 13.33 times
Orks hit 14.67 times slight advantage orks, their bucket of dice helps to make up for their bad BS in this case

With -1 to hit
Marines hit 10 times
Orks hit 7.33 their volume of fire is no longer an equalizing factor.

A -1 to hit goes from the ork unit producing 1.34 more hits, to producing 2.67 fewer hits.

If we go to -2 to hit
Marines hit 6.67 times
Orks hit 0.

What about a devastator squad vs tank bustas
5 devs with 4 ML =165
10 tank bustas = 170

Normal
Marines 2.67 missiles hit
Orks 3.33 hits, so 0.67 hits, their extra shots offset their bad BS

-1 to hit
Marines hit 2 times
Orks hit 1.67

So extra shots help a bit, but not very much once modifiers start coming in to play. Especially when they stack. Which is why I would like to see modifiers not stack, with a few very specific exceptions (maybe elder rangers can get -2 but not things like flyers or most other things, not alpha legion oblits with changeling etc.)

As for orks mostly relying on assault, they have no but to do so with -1 to hit for shooting being common, especially when it stacks.





-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 20:42:29


Post by: Bharring


It does seem like "to-hit penalties don't stack" would be a great direction to go.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 20:46:12


Post by: Martel732


Maybe GW wants -1 to hit to be the Eldar scheme in general. Other, lesser armies won't be able to stack it.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 20:56:20


Post by: Tyran


 Galef wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
SweetLou wrote:
This kind of gak makes my orks cry.


At least you have numbers. Power assault in general is far inferior.

I gotta agree with Martel here. It is the same as shooting at Flyers in prior editions. Orks going from 5+ to 6+ was not nearly as hard as Marines going from 3+ to 6+
Orks are built to have the quantity of shots to get hits. Marines rely on quality. -1 to hit affects quality, ergo, Marines are worse off.

-

The fact that you are comparing snapshots with -1 to hit shows you don't understand math.

Snapshot favored Orks because it it was a -1 to hit for them, while it was a -3 to hit for Marines. Orks could still get 50% of their firepower against things that only got 25% of Marine firepower.

But a flat -1 to hit works different for Marines, because now they are only losing a 25% of their firepower while Orks still are losing 50% of theirs. Even worse, now there is the possibility of a -2 to hit, which negates Ork shooting while Marines would still have 50% of their normal firepower against that.

The fact that Orks pay less for dice is irrelevant, as the -1 is applied to each of their dice, and they will lose far more dice to a -1 than Marines.




-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 22:26:55


Post by: Galef


Tyran wrote:
The fact that you are comparing snapshots with -1 to hit shows you don't understand math.

Please make your comments less inflammatory. I understand math and statistics just fine, having made As in every math related class in high school and college.

My claim has less to do with the actual math than the overall affect on the armies in question. Obviously -1 has a greater affect on BS5+ than BS3+
My point is that those BS3+ shots MATTER MORE because there are fewer of them.
If Orks fail to hit with every shot, who cares, they weren't really shooting much without the -1. If a Marines fail to hit because of the -1 it reduces their odds of victory in a much more significant way.

Shooting is a bonus for Orks, not their main way of winning. Marines kinda rely on a few good rounds of shooting to win

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 23:07:46


Post by: Tyran


 Galef wrote:
Tyran wrote:
The fact that you are comparing snapshots with -1 to hit shows you don't understand math.

Please make your comments less inflammatory. I understand math and statistics just fine, having made As in every math related class in high school and college.

My claim has less to do with the actual math than the overall affect on the armies in question. Obviously -1 has a greater affect on BS5+ than BS3+
My point is that those BS3+ shots MATTER MORE because there are fewer of them.
If Orks fail to hit with every shot, who cares, they weren't really shooting much without the -1. If a Marines fail to hit because of the -1 it reduces their odds of victory in a much more significant way.

Shooting is a bonus for Orks, not their main way of winning. Marines kinda rely on a few good rounds of shooting to win

-


Except that is dependant in how the list are built. You can have an all assault Marine force of assault marines and terminators or an all shooting ork force of lootas and tankbustas.

Orks players are annoyed that their shooting is easily nullified in the current meta by modifiers, forcing them into pure assault lists.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 23:18:00


Post by: Eonfuzz


 Galef wrote:
Tyran wrote:
The fact that you are comparing snapshots with -1 to hit shows you don't understand math.

...
If Orks fail to hit with every shot, who cares, they weren't really shooting much without the -1. If a Marines fail to hit because of the -1 it reduces their odds of victory in a much more significant way.

-


A large portion of the Ork Codex are just 'Dakka' units, disregarding them "Just because their orks" makes no sense? Its like saying "Space marines have good guns, they shouldn't be able to hit in melee ever!"
Orkz are shoe-horned into running a melee based build *because* their ranged options are really sub-par.

Additionally, the new Ork Strategem "Dakka Dakka Dakka" lets you get another hit on a 6+, with the -1 modifier that essentially makes the stratagem completely useless.

 Galef wrote:

Shooting is a bonus for Orks, not their main way of winning. Marines kinda rely on a few good rounds of shooting to win
-


Here's an example.
5x Lootas 85 points
BS 5+ | Wep Attacks 1d3 (Average at 2)

vs
6x Space Marines 91 points (Tactical)
BS 3+ | Wep Attacks rf 2 (Lets say an average of 1.5)

No mods
Lootas hit 30% of 10 attacks, resulting in 3 hits
Space Marines hit 66.66% of 9 attacks, resulting in 6 hits.

With -1 modifier
Lootas hit 16.66% of 10 attacks, resulting in 1.5 hits.
Space marines hit 50% of 9, resulting in 4.5 hits

So tell us more about how it effects Orks less, Lootas are Orks dedicated shooting option


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 23:37:18


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Eonfuzz wrote:
 Galef wrote:
Tyran wrote:
The fact that you are comparing snapshots with -1 to hit shows you don't understand math.

...
If Orks fail to hit with every shot, who cares, they weren't really shooting much without the -1. If a Marines fail to hit because of the -1 it reduces their odds of victory in a much more significant way.

-


A large portion of the Ork Codex are just 'Dakka' units, disregarding them "Just because their orks" makes no sense? Its like saying "Space marines have good guns, they shouldn't be able to hit in melee ever!"
Orkz are shoe-horned into running a melee based build *because* their ranged options are really sub-par.

Additionally, the new Ork Strategem "Dakka Dakka Dakka" lets you get another hit on a 6+, with the -1 modifier that essentially makes the stratagem completely useless.

 Galef wrote:

Shooting is a bonus for Orks, not their main way of winning. Marines kinda rely on a few good rounds of shooting to win
-


Here's an example.
5x Lootas 85 points
BS 5+ | Wep Attacks 1d3 (Average at 2)

vs
6x Space Marines 91 points (Tactical)
BS 3+ | Wep Attacks rf 2 (Lets say an average of 1.5)

No mods
Lootas hit 30% of 10 attacks, resulting in 3 hits
Space Marines hit 66.66% of 9 attacks, resulting in 6 hits.

With -1 modifier
Lootas hit 16.66% of 10 attacks, resulting in 1.5 hits.
Space marines hit 50% of 9, resulting in 4.5 hits

So tell us more about how it effects Orks less, Lootas are Orks dedicated shooting option

And did you do the math on the Loota guns damage vs the Bolter damage there?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/11/30 23:49:59


Post by: Eonfuzz


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

And did you do the math on the Loota guns damage vs the Bolter damage there?


Sure thing - I'm assuming you want it against MEQ?

Lootas
1.5 hits at s7, 1(66%) wound at save -1, resulting in 0.5 penetrating(4+ save, 50%) for a total of 1 damage.

Marines
4.5 hits at s4, 2.25(50%) wounds, resulting in 1.5(3+ save, 33%) for a total of 1.5 damage.


Why do you think Orks shouldn't deserve a decent shooting phase?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 00:29:13


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Eonfuzz wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

And did you do the math on the Loota guns damage vs the Bolter damage there?


Sure thing - I'm assuming you want it against MEQ?

Lootas
1.5 hits at s7, 1(66%) wound at save -1, resulting in 0.5 penetrating(4+ save, 50%) for a total of 1 damage.

Marines
4.5 hits at s4, 2.25(50%) wounds, resulting in 1.5(3+ save, 33%) for a total of 1.5 damage.


Why do you think Orks shouldn't deserve a decent shooting phase?

I was thinking something the Loota would target.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 00:57:08


Post by: Eonfuzz


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I was thinking something the Loota would target.


2D screams "Use me against primaris or terminators"

Lootas
Against Primaris its a 50% chance to deal 2 damage.
Against Terminators its a 25% chance to deal 2 damage.
Otherwise you miss all shots.

MEQ
Against Primaris you deal 1 damage with a 50% for 1 more.
Against Terminators its a 50% to deal 1 damage.
Otherwise you miss all shots.

And besides, dont forget that SM also have the re-roll bubbles which let you reroll on 1's or 2's (If there's a - modifier) - this means that negative to hit impact SM's even less.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 01:23:03


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Eonfuzz wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I was thinking something the Loota would target.


2D screams "Use me against primaris or terminators"

Lootas
Against Primaris its a 50% chance to deal 2 damage.
Against Terminators its a 25% chance to deal 2 damage.
Otherwise you miss all shots.

MEQ
Against Primaris you deal 1 damage with a 50% for 1 more.
Against Terminators its a 50% to deal 1 damage.
Otherwise you miss all shots.

And besides, dont forget that SM also have the re-roll bubbles which let you reroll on 1's or 2's (If there's a - modifier) - this means that negative to hit impact SM's even less.

If you want to include rerolls like that, you need to buy an equivalent amount of Lootas for the buffing dude.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 02:02:43


Post by: Eonfuzz


We were talking about how the -1 to hit effects Marines more than Orks, I was making a point that Orks are hit harder than SM in this case.

Rerolls are just an extra cherry on top, losing 50% of your shots compared to losing 16% is straight forward as can be.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 02:50:42


Post by: Galef


Tyran wrote:
Orks players are annoyed that their shooting is easily nullified in the current meta by modifiers, forcing them into pure assault lists.

I get this. But at least they have the option to do pure assault lists. Marines don't really have the option to do all melee lists (technically they do, but the list would have to be the same few units repeated and would have zero versatility and would drastically weaker than a pure assault Ork list).

Mathmatically, Orks suffer worse from -1 to hit, sure. But only for a small portion of their units, so just don't take those units or get within 12" with them.
-1 to hit is likely to affect EVERY unit in the majority of a Marine list, or force them to take very short ranged weapons and the methods in which to deploy them.
And in that fashion, Orks are not as affected by -1 to hit as they don't have to tailor their ENTIRE list to counter it, just a few units like Lootas.

I can go round and round on this, but I think we should just agree to disagree.
We can revisit the topic once Orks get a legit Codex and see where they stand then (hopefully better, regardless of where I stand on the -1 to hit issue)

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 04:08:41


Post by: tneva82


" same few units repeated"

Hmmm...Ork boyz, more ork boyz, even more ork boyz, MAYBE stormboyz and/or kommandos just for fun. Yeah. What a wealth of different units!


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 14:01:43


Post by: Galef


tneva82 wrote:
" same few units repeated"

Hmmm...Ork boyz, more ork boyz, even more ork boyz, MAYBE stormboyz and/or kommandos just for fun. Yeah. What a wealth of different units!

Are you actually suggesting that the vast majority of Ork units are shooting units? An army with BS5+ almost across the board is a shooting army?
What kind of world do I live in?

Sure most units have shooting, but as I said before, the affects of said shooting are supposed to be a bonus as they make their way to melee.
So -1 to hit just stops you from seeing the preview trailers, but you're still in the seat to watch the movie (whether the movie is good is another issue altogether)

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 14:11:38


Post by: Bharring


I think we''re talking past eachother. Galef is saying that Orkz do some shooting, but mostly they do CC. Marines do some CC, but mostly they do shooting.

So Orkz might lose 50% of their shooting ability, but that was only 10% of their power. Marines might lose 25% of their shooting, but it's 20% of their power. So while Ork shooting is more impacted, the Ork army itself is *less* impacted.

He is *not* arguing that Ork Shooting is less impacted than Marine shooting (I think he made that claim too, originally, but clearly backed off of it).

Everyone else is saying Orkz lose more *shooting* than Marines.

These two are not mutually exclusive. It's possible both are true.

Is 50% of Ork shooting less of their power than 25% of Marine shooting is of their power? That is a very good question, and the one Galef is trying to discuss.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Those "10%" and "20%" of their power comments were SWAGs - only intended to show what the argument was, not intended to be the actual numbers.)


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 14:23:45


Post by: Galef


Bharring wrote:
I think we''re talking past eachother. Galef is saying that Orkz do some shooting, but mostly they do CC. Marines do some CC, but mostly they do shooting.

So Orkz might lose 50% of their shooting ability, but that was only 10% of their power. Marines might lose 25% of their shooting, but it's 20% of their power. So while Ork shooting is more impacted, the Ork army itself is *less* impacted.

He is *not* arguing that Ork Shooting is less impacted than Marine shooting (I think he made that claim too, originally, but clearly backed off of it).

Everyone else is saying Orkz lose more *shooting* than Marines.

These two are not mutually exclusive. It's possible both are true.

Is 50% of Ork shooting less of their power than 25% of Marine shooting is of their power? That is a very good question, and the one Galef is trying to discuss.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Those "10%" and "20%" of their power comments were SWAGs - only intended to show what the argument was, not intended to be the actual numbers.)

Thanx Bharring. That is pretty much what I am trying to say
Ork shooting may go down 50%, but that affects <25% of their list. Marine shooting only goes down 25%, but that affects 50-75% of most Marine lists

-


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 16:02:24


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
My post didn't refer to barebones VV. Kitted VV versus naked VV is kinda the same scenario.

The point is that, now that you need less of any given assault threat to do the same damage, if it's overkill now, either take more of smaller threats or take on more at once with the threats.

Except nobody ever cared about overkill because for the price you're taking Vanguard instead.

Do you or do you not know the price difference between Assault Marines and Vanguard?


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 16:31:27


Post by: malcontent999


 Galef wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
" same few units repeated"

Hmmm...Ork boyz, more ork boyz, even more ork boyz, MAYBE stormboyz and/or kommandos just for fun. Yeah. What a wealth of different units!

Are you actually suggesting that the vast majority of Ork units are shooting units? An army with BS5+ almost across the board is a shooting army?
What kind of world do I live in?

Sure most units have shooting, but as I said before, the affects of said shooting are supposed to be a bonus as they make their way to melee.
So -1 to hit just stops you from seeing the preview trailers, but you're still in the seat to watch the movie (whether the movie is good is another issue altogether)

-


Orks are actually about a 50/50 split and until this edition could definitely make a shooty army. We did it with massed firepower and blast weapons to make up for the low BS. I don't know where everyone is getting this 'orks should only want to assault' nonsense. A lot of our stuff doesn't want to be any closer than 24"-36". The minus to hit army traits really do kill many of our builds. It's getting to the point where I want to throw my lootas at the next person to tell me to 'just jump within 12 inches'.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 16:48:34


Post by: Bharring


Slayer,
What's your fascination with naked VV vs naked ASM? Does it really matter? Kitted VV are still a lot more expensive than ASM. Which is what I was referring to.

As for nobody ever cared about overkill, my post was soon after and in response to the complaint that a squad would be overkill, if it did 10 or 15 wounds to an 8-wound squad. A naked 5man VV squad is not doing 10 or 15 wounds on average to anything I can think of. So the complaint was heavier hitters than an unkitted VV squad.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 17:54:26


Post by: Martel732


They are 2 ppm more than ASM. And have far superior gear options.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 18:00:53


Post by: Bharring


I know - I have SM.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 18:20:57


Post by: morgoth


Tyel wrote:

Take the post above saying superfriends broke the game.

Well... they didn't. Or at least no more than various other factions.
They regularly lost in tournaments to Eldar, and Riptides, and double gladius lists etc.
What mattered was who went first. If the super friends player went first, allowing them to advance up the table and activate their psychic defences, they probably had the game in the bag.
If the shooty player went first, getting another turn to shoot, including one before invisibility was up, they had a good chance of killing enough that they had the game in the bag.


The thing is, that electro displacement deathstar was on a whole other level of stupid, to the point where it had past 75% win rate and was simply banned from ITC and other events, which never did anything that drastic before.

It's a level of no-play that hadn't been reached before and can only happen due to Assault, which in 7th used to simply prevent the opponent from playing at all, with the exception of an infantry only crappy overwatch.

Of course shooting was broken in this edition though, I'm just pointing out that when assault breaks the game, it's a lot more broken.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 23:04:30


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
What's your fascination with naked VV vs naked ASM? Does it really matter? Kitted VV are still a lot more expensive than ASM. Which is what I was referring to.

As for nobody ever cared about overkill, my post was soon after and in response to the complaint that a squad would be overkill, if it did 10 or 15 wounds to an 8-wound squad. A naked 5man VV squad is not doing 10 or 15 wounds on average to anything I can think of. So the complaint was heavier hitters than an unkitted VV squad.

You don't own Space Marines if you're saying kitted Vanguard are a lot more expensive.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/01 23:16:00


Post by: Bharring


I think you should run the numbers on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More specifically, VV that are averaging 10-15 wounds in one round of CC with their loadout are likely a bit more expensive than a naked 5man ASM squad.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/02 02:14:56


Post by: prendeho


I scanned through the thread and opinions are all over the place, heres my 2cents.

I've played my friends Eldar list 7 times with my Tau. its been a rout/tabling about each time. Being able to stack -2 to hit on Rangers/Wave Serpents/Fliers is great, or making it -3 with the strategem. My entire army outside of 12" is shooting on overwatch. That really sucks for marker lights, as I never ever will get the +1 to hit, so rereolling 1's is what I can shoot for.

I can't really rely on long range anti-tank so I have to spam commanders. Its not that great because deep striking them in results in getting blasted by forewarning. Does limit you tactically. Drones can soak it but it does leave them quite open unless you bring them down with other stuff.

Even then, I've seen wave serpents survive 12 fusion gun shots (9 hit, bad wound rolls/failed to wound) So sometimes I can't rely on commanders all the way, and they are my best anti-tank. Its frustrating how limiting it is sometimes.

I don't have dedicated assault troopers besides the fragile kroot hounds which limits options.

Getting in close is an option, but even then sometimes you can still stack the modifiers with stratagems, and leaves you real open for smites, which any good Eldar is bringing tons of.

For an faction that has its identity in basically 2 1/2 phases of the game, its brutal. I don't know how to compete with just my index, I've given up against his Eldar.

Eldar psychic phase also does a number but thats something else.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/02 02:32:51


Post by: Breng77


 Galef wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
" same few units repeated"

Hmmm...Ork boyz, more ork boyz, even more ork boyz, MAYBE stormboyz and/or kommandos just for fun. Yeah. What a wealth of different units!

Are you actually suggesting that the vast majority of Ork units are shooting units? An army with BS5+ almost across the board is a shooting army?
What kind of world do I live in?

Sure most units have shooting, but as I said before, the affects of said shooting are supposed to be a bonus as they make their way to melee.
So -1 to hit just stops you from seeing the preview trailers, but you're still in the seat to watch the movie (whether the movie is good is another issue altogether)

-


There are 16-17 Ork units that I would class a primarily shooting units, and more that I would consider middle ground units (things like kans). Arguably there are more of these than assault primary units (unless we include individual characters)


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/02 02:52:02


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
I think you should run the numbers on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More specifically, VV that are averaging 10-15 wounds in one round of CC with their loadout are likely a bit more expensive than a naked 5man ASM squad.

They're two or three points more expensive for the extra attack. 1 extra Power Weapon here and there is not adding to the cost like you think, as it's around 3 power weapons you're actually able to buy another Assault Marine.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/02 03:04:57


Post by: Gwarok


 Xenomancers wrote:
-1 to hit army traits are pretty busted. I think they should just be mass removed from the game and replaced with something else. I'm not saying there are not other busted army traits...but -1 to hit for what ends up being most of your army completely overshadows other options. If not for 2 special characters (Cawl and Guilliman [these guys are even more busted than -1 army traits]) Every armies best faction would be -1 to hit that had access to it (obviosuly these heros need fixing too.)

-1 to hit is so obviously and statistically better than all the other defensive traits. 6+ stackable or non stackable FNP? always count in cover? Am I missing another? Not even remotely close in power level. Again - I'm not ignoring other OP army traits - the top 3 AM traits are a little too good. Kraken is a little OTT for nids. I just think they could be fixed differently. -1 to hit army traits should just be flat out replaced or at the very least (should not stack with other -1 to hits) really though - just remove them and replace with something else.

It's really just sad we have to go through all this nonsense to play the game we love. I could write a balanced rule set for this game in a day. Literally a day. It's just so obvious to me that they aren't trying.


Couldn't agree more. And I love my Raven Guard.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/02 04:48:12


Post by: Bharring


Slayer,
A 10 man VV squad vs Guardsmen:
30x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) is about the 10-15 wounds mentioned.

To average 10-15 wounds, kitted or not, you're looking at twice the cost of a 5man ASM squad. It really doesn't matter that VV and ASM are so close in PPM. That was never the point. You're just stuck on a tangent.

Point is, the unit that's getting those 10-15 wounds costs a noticeable amount more than a 5man ASM.

You're just too invested in proving me wrong to even understand what I said.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/02 10:16:16


Post by: fe40k


“Orks are 5+, they don’t deserve to be a shooty army”

Go fetch yourself - Orks have, and should be able to, go melee, shooty, or a mix just like any other army.

Ork shooting should be buckets of dice; quantity, not quality.

They should be the one with 20/40 shot guns, not imperials - every other army should be jealous of the amount of shots, and dice rolled in general - not the other way around.

Try having played an Ork army in any previous edition, or even opening up their codex for once - the vast majority of their options are shooting based.

Previously, their play styles used to be horde/vehicle heavy/shooty/melee; in any combination of those aspects - or at least, they should be able to do that.

If Orks aren’t allowed to shoot, then space Marines shouldn’t be allowed to melee - cut out blood angels, cut out black Templar, vanguard vets, assault Marines, Dreadnoughts, everything. ; if you do that for Ork shooting units, guess what you get left - boys, stormboyz, Manz/def dreads, and that’s it.

But let’s be real - Orks should be allowed to shoot, Marines should be allowed to melee, everything should have options.

Don’t pigeonhole an army you don’t play, asses.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/02 10:47:19


Post by: Blackie


 Galef wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
" same few units repeated"

Hmmm...Ork boyz, more ork boyz, even more ork boyz, MAYBE stormboyz and/or kommandos just for fun. Yeah. What a wealth of different units!

Are you actually suggesting that the vast majority of Ork units are shooting units? An army with BS5+ almost across the board is a shooting army?
What kind of world do I live in?

Sure most units have shooting, but as I said before, the affects of said shooting are supposed to be a bonus as they make their way to melee.
So -1 to hit just stops you from seeing the preview trailers, but you're still in the seat to watch the movie (whether the movie is good is another issue altogether)

-


Actually in the ork index more than 50% of the units are shooty ones, not to mention those ones that can have both setups, shooty or choppy. The BS5+ should be balanced by the insane amount of shots orks could fire, in a fluffy perspective. But unfortunately it's not the reality. Lots of 100% background based orks lists are shooting oriented, basically all those armies that are themed around big meks. But also spead freaks lists which don't have the insane amount of S4 hits that green tides can have and strongly rely on the shooting phase with embarked flash gitz or tankbustas, bikes, buggies and planes, other than assault units which can't have the math to do the entire job alone.

The -1 to hit is not affecting marines that badly, their shooting would be pretty strong anyway.

And orks close combat abilities are not that good, basically because the edition doesn't particularly reward melee. Now if they can actually wreck something in close combat I may even accept the nullification of their shooting lists. Unfortunately it's not the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:


The rock-paper-scissors logic will apply only to skewed lists, which will not be competitive.
Gunline wins against slow assault and loses against fast assault which in turn loses against slow assault.
Truly competitive lists will mix parts of these 3 archetypes. You don't bring a list to a tournament that is match up dependent.


IMHO it's the opposite. Many tournament lists are based on the rock-paper-scissor complex because mixed styles usually don't work at competitive levels. Tournaments players bring lists with one of these archetypes and pray that they'll avoid their hard counter. The majority of the factions can win a tournament only with this approach.

Orks only bring green tides and they hopre they'll avoid lists with massive anti infantry weapons. Drukhari only bring tons of lances/blasters and they hope to face lots of armors and avoid hordes.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/02 19:08:33


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
A 10 man VV squad vs Guardsmen:
30x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) is about the 10-15 wounds mentioned.

To average 10-15 wounds, kitted or not, you're looking at twice the cost of a 5man ASM squad. It really doesn't matter that VV and ASM are so close in PPM. That was never the point. You're just stuck on a tangent.

Point is, the unit that's getting those 10-15 wounds costs a noticeable amount more than a 5man ASM.

You're just too invested in proving me wrong to even understand what I said.

No, I understand the original point. What I'm seeing is a bad defense of Assault Marines.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/03 15:57:11


Post by: Danny slag


 ChargerIIC wrote:
I think it's more a weakness of the D6 system than something specific to toHit rolls. I understand why the original WH40k went with D6s, they the one dice type gamers have sacks of, but it creates this very narrow band in which you can boost stats before they become broken.

Take -1 toHit on a guardsman (BS 4+). Give him a single bonus and he's still fine. Stack another -1 to hit and he's nearly incapable of missing.

Reverse it. Give him +1 to hit and he still gets work done (effect 5+). Stack 2 of them (like an armywide -1 to hit rolls stacked on a flyer's native -1 to hit rolls) and suddenly he can't be relied on to hit anything (effective 6+ )

It gets just as bad on wound rolls. Add +1 or -1 and you are still within a decent band of effectivenss. Do +2 or -2 and a lot of units become either capable of only wounding on 6 or capable of effectively wounding anything they want.

It won't happen in this edition, but either bonuses need to not stack (causing a riot) or they need to move to different dice (causing a riot). This is assuming they haven't just resigned themselves to having the problem, which given how many times they've advertised 2+ BS and 2+ Wound rolls in community articles, might be the case. It's the politically least painful move for them.


I agree, a d10 system would allow a lot more granularity and balance.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/03 16:37:01


Post by: Tyran


On the other hand, it would be a pain to roll 180 D10.
I mean, it is already a pain to roll 180 D6.


-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking? @ 2017/12/03 17:27:53


Post by: Bharring


You're making your own straw man, then, Slayer.