So I keep seeing complaints about smite arise even after the nerf to malefic lords (who were the most notorious smite spam offendors due to their low points costs and 4+ invul saves). And this kind of surprises me. I have yet to spend much time on the receiving end of smite spam, and there isn't a ton of it to be found around town. So I'm asking you lot to help me understand the "smite = OP" mentality that most people seem to agree about. What is it that makes smite so notoriously problematic in its current incarnation? From my limited knowledge...
*Malefic lords were a big deal because they were cheap, screenable, and had an invul that made them tough to take down even if you happened to reach them or bring sniper rifles. However, my understanding is that malefic lords have been recosted to make taking one of them a pricey investment and spamming them downright ill-advised.
*Imperial psykers are, as I understand it, pretty cheap and costed similarly to a malefic lord's old cost, but they're relatively susceptible to snipers, deepstrikers, etc. due to not having an invul in the first place. Additionally, the infamous conscript blobs that were once used to shield them have become much less of an issue now that they're vulnerable to morale tests. So while I could see smite spam + screens for imperials being effective in the right circumstances, it looks like the sort of thing you can deal with on paper.
*Elite armies with psykers (eldar, marines, etc.) have some reasonably powerful psykers, but their limited numbers and lack of cheap screens make me think I could probably blunt the effectiveness of their smiters with bubblewrap.
*Armies that can put "smite" on nearly every unit (thousand sons, grey knights, maybe eldar if you really went for warlock spam or something) generally only do 1 wound with smite. Which isn't a bad tool to have on your utility belt, but I'm not really intimidated by the threat of 1 mortal wound per enemy unit. Especially considering these armies can generally be dealt with using bubble wrap.
So I'm probably missing something really obvious. This isn't me saying, "get good." I believe that I am most likely completely oblivious to a significant consideration that has lead to all the talk of how smite needs to be nerfed of late. My armies tend to feature expensive, elite units that are theoretically great targets for smite, so I'd like to be able to spot smite spam danger coming. Plus, I don't really feel qualified to chime in during conversations about smite when I don't properly understand it.
Tzeentzch.
Say hello to my dirt cheap blue and brim stone horror spam, each unit gets to cast smite.
The other thing that makes smite spam so powerful is guess who does not need to follow character targeting rules when using it? Thats right this guy, means you can snipe out characters with it.
Backspacehacker wrote: Tzeentzch.
Say hello to my dirt cheap blue and brim stone horror spam, each unit gets to cast smite.
The other thing that makes smite spam so powerful is guess who does not need to follow character targeting rules when using it? Thats right this guy, means you can snipe out characters with it.
Uh... You might want to talk to your local Tzeentch player because it sounds like they've been screwing with you. Smite only hits the closest enemy model, it's the other, usually weaker damaging spells like Infernal Gaze that can pick any target within range.
As for the OP, it is largely an issue with the super underpriced psykers that Chaos used to get and Guard still gets. Eldar would be on this list but they have such a preposterous number of good psychic powers they don't even have the room to cast smite more than a couple times so shrug.
Backspacehacker wrote: Tzeentzch.
Say hello to my dirt cheap blue and brim stone horror spam, each unit gets to cast smite.
The other thing that makes smite spam so powerful is guess who does not need to follow character targeting rules when using it? Thats right this guy, means you can snipe out characters with it.
Not unless the character is the closest visible model, since you cannot target smite beyond that for any unit.
Opes! disreguard im thinking AoS smite been a while since i have done 8th. But as stated its the spamming on under costed units. For a while there the brimstone and blue horror list was just bonkers.
mortal wounds should've never gotten out of the gate in their current form. The "you take wounds and there's nothing you can do about it" mechanic should be reserved for orbital strikes, titan explosions, and the like.
They just need to make the other 90% of mortal wounds into auto wounds at ap values based on the thing (minus a lot for smite and most other powers, minus a little or none for junk transports exploding.) Invuln saves shouldn't be so easily bypassed.
Thanks to mortal wounds having no degree of scaling whatsoever, like half the powers in the game are "smite but slightly different."
Backspacehacker wrote: Opes! disreguard im thinking AoS smite been a while since i have done 8th. But as stated its the spamming on under costed units. For a while there the brimstone and blue horror list was just bonkers.
Are horrors still a problematic source of smite spam? I may be mistaken, but I thought brimstones only got the flat 1 damage version of smite, and I thought pink horrors had to have at least 11 guys to get regular smite. At which point, you're spending ~100 points per smite. Or am I completely off?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Smite isn't all that big of a problem. As others have said, the problem is with cheaper psykers that have full smite that can be spammed.
What units would be included in the list of 'cheap psykers" these days? I know my warlocks are cheap, but they get destrucotr smite. I know imperials have a few different psykers to pick from, but I was under the impression that they were mostly 4 wounds or less with no save worth mentioning leaving them vulnerable to snipers, etc. And the consensus seems to be that malefic lords are suboptimal now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
niv-mizzet wrote: mortal wounds should've never gotten out of the gate in their current form. The "you take wounds and there's nothing you can do about it" mechanic should be reserved for orbital strikes, titan explosions, and the like.
Is it really fair to think of smite as a "there's nothing you can do about it" mechanic though? You can screen your expensive units, take psykers and anti-psyker options of your own (assuming your faction has any), use certain stratagems, etc. Excluding things like special rules and stratagems that let you actively resist incoming attacks, it actually kind of seems like you have more ability to actively resist enemy smites than you do enemy shooting. Sure, smite is relatively efficient against heavily armored, expensive models, but isn't that comparable to a meltagun being efficient against a vehicle?
From the perspective of someone who has a tzeentch force that probably wont see the table for some time; smite is boring. It's exactly the problem I had with Str D and stomp in 7th edition. I roll a couple dice and then tell you how many models you have the pleasure of taking off the table. What? You paid a butt tonne of points for your high toughness, good armor and invulnerable saves? Well you will think twice before doing that again, won't you? Except it's even more of a problem because literally every psyker in the game has access to it. What's worse is that if you are playing a psychic heavy force you often don't have enough alternative psychic powers to get you away from smiting at least a couple times. This is made all the worse by the fact that roughly half of the other options most armies have for psychic powers are smite but worse.
That's the problem I have with smite at least. It makes the psychic phase incredibly boring for everyone involved. It's far too easy to spam and in many cases it incentivizes you using it over other codex specific psychic powers.
There is a problem with some units which can't a full normal power smite and we're/are very cheap to purchase. That is a points issue not a smite issue.
Further almost every army with a codex has a way to save versus smite be it a faction special rule that let's them get a 6+ or 5+ to ignore wounds, or stratagem s that give saves versus mortal wounds.
The issues are
1.)cheap psykers with full smite
-inquisitors
-primaris psyker
-Weird boy
2.) reinforced screen hammer - close assault units are pretty good at killing chaff, but most of them die to smite pretty badly. Super shooting lists + screen + smite bots are hard for many armies to deal with.
niv-mizzet wrote: mortal wounds should've never gotten out of the gate in their current form. The "you take wounds and there's nothing you can do about it" mechanic should be reserved for orbital strikes, titan explosions, and the like.
Is it really fair to think of smite as a "there's nothing you can do about it" mechanic though? You can screen your expensive units, take psykers and anti-psyker options of your own (assuming your faction has any), use certain stratagems, etc. Excluding things like special rules and stratagems that let you actively resist incoming attacks, it actually kind of seems like you have more ability to actively resist enemy smites than you do enemy shooting. Sure, smite is relatively efficient against heavily armored, expensive models, but isn't that comparable to a meltagun being efficient against a vehicle?
Yes, it is fair to think of it that way. It is a relatively simple matter to have smites coming from highly mobile or deep striking units. Not all armies have access to 4ppm chaff to surround every valuable unit on all sides while also allowing that unit the space to perform its function. Also, many of the "smite-like" powers let you target what you want.
Meltaguns at least tend not to be efficient against small targets, and some of the high priority targets that they want to hit, like a character, tend to have invulns and still get a save. A smite can still drop 6 of them in one go, or 3 2-wound models, or just outright slay a character. Kinda like the old rolling a 6 on a D thing from 7e.
I'm not really asking for average joe the marine to be more defensible against smites, I just want legendary chapter masters wearing terminator armor, iron halos, holding storm shields, and being protected by 18 flavors of other relics to not die with no defense rolls to random_unnamed_psyker_06 as soon as he looks at them funny. Or to two rhino explosions, for that matter.
As I said, it's not necessarily smite I have a problem with, but mortal wounds in general shouldn't be on 90% of the things they're on.
Mortal wounds, a great idea that was poorly implemented and very easy for some factions to initially exploit. Most of the exploitation has been curbed.
I still say mortal wounds in their current incarnation was/is a mistake.
Smite just happened to be the easy thing to point at.
Mortal wounds, a great idea that was poorly implemented and very easy for some factions to initially exploit. Most of the exploitation has been curbed.
I still say mortal wounds in their current incarnation was/is a mistake.
Smite just happened to be the easy thing to point at.
Indeed this. Smite is the poster boy for MW's, but it's really the MW's that are the issue.
I think smite itself just needs to be toned down, maybe it's one wound and d3 on a 10+. The biggest backlash towards smite is that it is one of the only sources of mortal wounds, and only some armies can spam it. We still don't like the idea of our psykers doing all the damage: being more unstoppable than lascannons or thunderhammers.
Nahh, I disagree. I like that Mortal Wounds are in the game to help out against inv. saves. Having buffed out, nigh unkillable models is bad for the game, imo. Mortal Wounds are a great equalizer in that regard.
Insectum7 wrote: Nahh, I disagree. I like that Mortal Wounds are in the game to help out against inv. saves. Having buffed out, nigh unkillable models is bad for the game, imo. Mortal Wounds are a great equalizer in that regard.
Inv saves aren't problem. In 8th ed there's no unit that's really too tough for points by having high protections. Do you know THE toughest models in game? You are looking at IG trooper/brimstone(even without inv save)/cultist type. It's the hordes armies struggle to get rid of point efficiently. Not monsters/elite units smite spam or not.
Insectum7 wrote: Nahh, I disagree. I like that Mortal Wounds are in the game to help out against inv. saves. Having buffed out, nigh unkillable models is bad for the game, imo. Mortal Wounds are a great equalizer in that regard.
I have yet to run into such a model. Now that multiple damage is a thing, you can have boss as heck captains with all the protections ever, and one failed save can cripple or kill them.
The closest thing to unkillable are the things that clock in at 4-5 points per wound since they still haven't fixed traditionally anti-horde weapons so that they adequately answer hordes.
Smite isn't a problem because it's OP, it's a problem because it's an irritating thing to have in the game. There are two main problems:
A): GW is terrible at making psykers/Wizards scale sensibly. The way denial works combined with the fact that some armies can get psykers in every slot and some armies can't get any psykers at all means that a good percentage of the time your opponent has no way of interacting with smite, it's just a thing that happens and screws you up. But from the player with the psykers' perspective they've got a problem of diminishing returns from taking more psykers because of the one-cast-attempt-per-turn problem, which ends up making people complaining about smite feel annoying. And what ends up happening is that the 8e psyker implementation feels bad for everyone most of the time.
B): The mechanism by which Smite is written into the game is a stupid idea. By making all psykers' fallback attack power a few mortal wounds you make psykers a specialized one-trick mess that are incredibly cost-effective when thrown at heavy infantry with Invulnerable saves (Custodians, Wraiths, that sort of thing) and most vehicles, but an incredible waste of time against anyone who's got cheap infantry and enough positional flexibility to make them the closest target. Since this is a game-wide mechanic that transcends armies/Codexes it screws psyker armies by handing them a long built-in list of terrible matchups and it screws some small-model-count armies by handing a wide range of armies a tool that hard-counters a lot of their stuff.
It'd be better if instead of a Smite power that caused mortal wounds psykers had powers with weapon profiles that could be interacted with like weapons, and "psyker" the keyword and "psyker" the lore concept got split up so you could restrict things that use the actual psychic power mechanics to the HQ slot so you couldn't just overwhelm any ability to deny powers with sheer brute quantity of psykers, but that isn't how GW decided to write 8th, so that's where we are.
(Addendum: Given some of my experiences using Smite against Wraiths and Hammernators I am in favour of leaving some kind of Invul-ignoring or Invul-reducing option in play.)
(Further addendum: Tau could also stand to have some kind of client-race psyker (lorewise a Kroot Shaman makes the most sense) and some of the Necron anti-psychic tech needs to get rules so we don't have two entire army books that can't interact with the psychic rules in any way.)
Insectum7 wrote: Nahh, I disagree. I like that Mortal Wounds are in the game to help out against inv. saves. Having buffed out, nigh unkillable models is bad for the game, imo. Mortal Wounds are a great equalizer in that regard.
I have yet to run into such a model. Now that multiple damage is a thing, you can have boss as heck captains with all the protections ever, and one failed save can cripple or kill them.
The closest thing to unkillable are the things that clock in at 4-5 points per wound since they still haven't fixed traditionally anti-horde weapons so that they adequately answer hordes.
For sure invulnerable saves plus rerollables aren't quite what they used to be, but even 2+ 3++ is obnoxious. I'm not a much a fan of hero hammer. I like that Smite exists as a hard counter to "superman" tactics, and also means that basic squads and heroes mutually support each other. Hero buffs squad, squad protects hero, hero inyervenes on squads behalf. It's interesting.
The one problem with smite, and psychic powers in general for me, are that there is very little real defence for some armies. I played a 1000pts all biker army against Death Guard last week, opponent seized and thanks to the deployment had cast enough smite and plague winds, among others, to take out almost half my army before I got to do anything. 3 Psykers in 1000pts with each one causing an average of 4 mortal wounds left my army in a pretty bad way.
I do like the way they have done it with GK, making smite a reduced range that only causes 1 mortal wound regardless of the roll, with it being increased to 3 if the target has the daemon key word. Something like that could work, say with only 3 wounds going off on a 12 or something.
Again that 2/3 inv guy is easier to take out than 4point horde if you factor in points. If that is too tough why you aren"t asking for cultists etc to be made softer?
The main problem with Smite is some people dislike the Mortal Wounds mechanic, and Smite is the most commonly encountered source of Mortal Wounds.
The other problem is people who play low model count uber armies, taking offense that you actually put a wound on their model that was -1 to hit with 2+,3++,5+++ saves. It doesn't occur to them that is pretty much why Mortal Wounds attacks exist in the first place.
Mortal wounds are also a bit of an issue atm. Because it ignores all defenses save for the exceptionally rare fnp save, it further pushes the edition towards cheap hordes. While it's fairly minor it is still worth mentioning. It basically punishes already highly priced elite armies for merely being elite armies. Which also ties into how few ways there are to punish horde armies for being hordes.
I think the issue with smite spam goes beyond mortal wounds issues. The main issue of the smite spam strategy for players to play against, is that usually it is characters casting the smite (so they can’t be targeted) and, there is a rather large screening unit or 2 protecting them.
This leads to a compounding factor of not being able to get to the characters whilst also then having no defence against them.
Personally, I think smite should have an adapted Rule of 1 rule. Something like a casting limit of 3 attempts rather than unlimited. (this would affect all versions of smite – but would have to be adjusted for certain armies, likely Grey Knights, Thousand Sons, Eldar and Daemons to represent their ability/reliance with psychic power).
Mortal wounds is a crucial and necessary component of the game, acting as a hard counter to stacked hit-modifiers and rerollable invulnerable saves. But mortal wounds needs to be expensive because they are potentially very powerful. I don't think any full-smiting psyker should be less than 60-70 points.
adamsouza wrote: The main problem with Smite is some people dislike the Mortal Wounds mechanic, and Smite is the most commonly encountered source of Mortal Wounds.
The other problem is people who play low model count uber armies, taking offense that you actually put a wound on their model that was -1 to hit with 2+,3++,5+++ saves. It doesn't occur to them that is pretty much why Mortal Wounds attacks exist in the first place.
Or you could you know just shoot them seeing they are lot easier to take out by points than say chaos cultist or ork boyz.
You DO know don't you that game has no true anti-horde weapon right now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pismakron wrote: Mortal wounds is a crucial and necessary component of the game, acting as a hard counter to stacked hit-modifiers and rerollable invulnerable saves. But mortal wounds needs to be expensive because they are potentially very powerful. I don't think any full-smiting psyker should be less than 60-70 points.
Ah right the "softer per points" units really needs yet another way to get rid of them. Guess people want to just play cultists etc.
You DO know don't you that game has no true anti-horde weapon right now?
It has at least one.
Really? Can you name one? Because in order to be more efficient at killing Guardsmen than Space Marines said anti-horde weapon would have to have Strength 2 AP-. The only thing I can think of that actually has that is Gretchin in close combat - and even their shooting is Strength 3.
Edit: And even that weapon would be a weirdly effective anti-tank weapon.
kombatwombat wrote: Really? Can you name one? Because in order to be more efficient at killing Guardsmen than Space Marines said anti-horde weapon would have to have Strength 2 AP-. The only thing I can think of that actually has that is Gretchin in close combat - and even their shooting is Strength 3.
Edit: And even that weapon would be a weirdly effective anti-tank weapon.
I'm so happy someone else also bothered to do this math breakdown.
Though if more of the old template (blast or flamer) had the number of hits scale up with unit size you could probably have a few additional weapons that actually kill hordes better. But sadly they only seem to do that for anti tank weapons they don't want to be useless against infantry. So we still have none, but their is technically a second way they could exist.
You DO know don't you that game has no true anti-horde weapon right now?
It has at least one.
Really? Can you name one? Because in order to be more efficient at killing Guardsmen than Space Marines said anti-horde weapon would have to have Strength 2 AP-. The only thing I can think of that actually has that is Gretchin in close combat - and even their shooting is Strength 3.
Edit: And even that weapon would be a weirdly effective anti-tank weapon.
Yes, Gretchin. That is one. I didn't say there were two, just that there was one. And indeed Gretchin are weirdly semi-effective at anti-tank
kombatwombat wrote: Really? Can you name one? Because in order to be more efficient at killing Guardsmen than Space Marines said anti-horde weapon would have to have Strength 2 AP-. The only thing I can think of that actually has that is Gretchin in close combat - and even their shooting is Strength 3.
Edit: And even that weapon would be a weirdly effective anti-tank weapon.
I'm so happy someone else also bothered to do this math breakdown.
Though if more of the old template (blast or flamer) had the number of hits scale up with unit size you could probably have a few additional weapons that actually kill hordes better. But sadly they only seem to do that for anti tank weapons they don't want to be useless against infantry. So we still have none, but their is technically a second way they could exist.
The scaling thing doesn't really work so well against a lot of horde armies these days though. In many cases it is just as easy to take multiple 10 man squads as your chaff, in which case you often don't get a bonus, and even if you did those guns would be better against 10 man marine squads than the chaff.S2 is really the way to go, but there is none.
Mortal wounds could have been a problem in the previous editions when vehicles had 2-5 HP and leading characters around 3.
Now that those units have at least doubled their wounds mortal wounds are a perfect add to the game.
Smite is fine, a few undercosted psykers might been a problem but honestly with the appropriate nerf of malefic lords smite spam is something exceptional and usually far from being particularly competitive.
The biggest problem with smite is that it has the same problem Superheavy/Gargantuan had in 7th (Woah clickbait title! bear with me here though.)
Much like the Character rule, it breaks down at the extreme high and extreme low end of the spectrum.
In 7th, there was a vast, huge, monstrous gulf between a two hundred and eighty point gorkanaut and a three hundred point wraithknight. The gorkanaut would simply stand zero chance of ever making a scratch on the WK in shooting, in close combat, in any measurable type of impact, largely because around 300 points was the invisible threshold where above this line, everything gains a big SPIKE in power and below this line, everything is much weaker.
so in current 8th ed, ~45 points is the line where your psyker goes from casting some form of micro-smite (usually 1 mortal wound or 1 dice cast for 33% odds of success and super easy deny) to full big boy smite.
For reference, rolling a success on Smite is an 83% chance - almost the exact percentage of if the caster had ballistic skill 2+ and smite were a shooting attack. The difference between 1 damage smite and full damage smite is double, and the difference between 1 die smite and full damage smite is triple. The other thing those magical full-smiters tend to get as opposed to their microsmite competition is 4 wounds, meaning they cannot be one-shot by Perils of the Warp by any means.
This means if you compare side-by-side a microsmiter like a Warlock and a full-smiter like a Spiritseer, there's almost no competition to be had. For ten points, his smite power (and range, Destructor has only 9" range) doubles, he loses the 2% chance per shot to crit himself to death and smack a huge chunk of your army with D3 mortal wounds and he gets a host of other bonuses as well like double damage on his melee weapon and a boost to wraith units.
With any rule where there's an "invisible line" the stuff that's problematic to balance is going to be right there riding that line. Character rule interacting with stuff that's 15 points and pretty much relying on it to survive, and with stuff that's borderline right on the edge 300+ point characters who can't be targeted. Smite interacting with 45 point characters who just cross the line into full power range.
You DO know don't you that game has no true anti-horde weapon right now?
It has at least one.
Really? Can you name one? Because in order to be more efficient at killing Guardsmen than Space Marines said anti-horde weapon would have to have Strength 2 AP-. The only thing I can think of that actually has that is Gretchin in close combat - and even their shooting is Strength 3.
Edit: And even that weapon would be a weirdly effective anti-tank weapon.
Yes, Gretchin. That is one. I didn't say there were two, just that there was one. And indeed Gretchin are weirdly semi-effective at anti-tank
Well if we’re going to play the pedantic game, technically Gretchin close combat attacks aren’t a weapon as they don’t have a listed weapon with a name and profile that includes Str 2...
Blackie wrote:Mortal wounds could have been a problem in the previous editions when vehicles had 2-5 HP and leading characters around 3.
Now that those units have at least doubled their wounds mortal wounds are a perfect add to the game.
Smite is fine, a few undercosted psykers might been a problem but honestly with the appropriate nerf of malefic lords smite spam is something exceptional and usually far from being particularly competitive.
Mortal wounds are a solution to a problem that no longer exists: invisible 2++/3+++ rerollable deathstars. Thinking that this is still a problem that needs a counter is being stuck in 7th Edition Thinking. 7th Ed has no bearing on 8th - just because it was powerful last edition doesn’t mean it deserves a counter in this edition.
There are things in 8th that are quite durable. Things like Storm Shield Terminators - 2+/3++ 2W sounds pretty tough. Until anything with 2 damage and any AP value over 0 turns their way - things like Autocannons and Flamestorm Cannons. Or even things like just lots of Heavy Bolters or Heavy Flamers - a 10-Twin Heavy Flamer Baneblade will kill a 5-man Hammernator squad on Overwatch!
Some things are hard to hit - notably some Eldar can have up to -3 (even -4 maybe?) to hit. If they use a pile of stratagems, which means burning through CP, which they aren’t exactly swimming in, or Psychic Powers, which can be nullified, fail, Perils or find themselves out of range of. Plus flame weapons and most of the time close combat simply don’t care about your fancy 3CP + Psychic + specific unit ability + specific conditions -3 to hit.
Some things are durable and hard to hit. Not many of them, though - I struggle to think of many things with a solid Invul Save, good toughness/wounds stat and more than -1 to hit. Alaitoc flyers getting -2 to hit is certainly a problem but a very, very specific one that would be trivial to fix without changing the core rules.
The only thing I can think of that is actually problematic is Magnus with his re-roll 1s to save mechanic. Since this can be combined with All Is Dust and the Changeling’s -1 to hit, plus Magnus’ inherent durability and potential 3++, Tzeentch armies can have these problems. But this is a case of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater - Mortal Wounds shouldn’t have to exist because of Magnus’ re-roll saves aura; the aura should be changed for the good of the game. Not introducing re-rolls to save is a far superior solution to introducing Mortal Wounds.
You know what actually has overpowered durability this edition? Hint, it’s not 2+/2++/3+++ rerollable. It’s T3 Sv5+ in huge, cheap numbers.
Mortal wounds I have actually had grow on me because they're a shortcut. If properly balanced, something that causes some wounds (which doesn't mean it one-shots things, because things have more wounds in 8th) without having to roll to hit, reroll to hit, wound, save... it saves a lot of time.
I think it's dumb that ALL offensive powers need to involve mortals, because that's already samey and boring, but I like the basic "psychic pew-pew" power having a couple mortals.
the game not having any useful anti infantry powers or weapons is its own problem.
I actually think smite is okay, for the reasons that Breng77 thinks it's bad. I'm not really sure why this is, but to use his exact points:
1) Cheap psykers. YAY! They're relevant again. A psychic inquisitor feels more significant on the table than a points sink, and a Primaris Psyker is a true terror to behold compared to other mortal men, rather than a wet-noodle most commonly used as a battery to fuel other special snowflake psykers.
2) Screenhammer 40k and the death of elite units: YAY! Infantry are relevant again! For a long time there has been no real reason to bring hordes of regular troopers (except to get the 2 mandatory troops in prior editions). Finally, they are relevant, and I think they're relevant in the only way such cheap and plentiful bodies could be relevant: By screening. I don't think there is any other way to make "basic dooders" useful, without simply returning elite infantry to the spot as top dog.
Anything that knocks elite units (e.g. Custodes, Terminators, Leman Russes, Bikers, Obliterators, Magnus, whathaveyou) down a peg so that regular troopers can be relevant and even important for army construction is a bonus in my book.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually think smite is okay, for the reasons that Breng77 thinks it's bad. I'm not really sure why this is, but to use his exact points:
1) Cheap psykers. YAY! They're relevant again. A psychic inquisitor feels more significant on the table than a points sink, and a Primaris Psyker is a true terror to behold compared to other mortal men, rather than a wet-noodle most commonly used as a battery to fuel other special snowflake psykers.
2) Screenhammer 40k and the death of elite units: YAY! Infantry are relevant again! For a long time there has been no real reason to bring hordes of regular troopers (except to get the 2 mandatory troops in prior editions). Finally, they are relevant, and I think they're relevant in the only way such cheap and plentiful bodies could be relevant: By screening. I don't think there is any other way to make "basic dooders" useful, without simply returning elite infantry to the spot as top dog.
Anything that knocks elite units (e.g. Custodes, Terminators, Leman Russes, Bikers, Obliterators, Magnus, whathaveyou) down a peg so that regular troopers can be relevant and even important for army construction is a bonus in my book.
The issues are
1.) Those cheap psykers are better than their more expensive alternatives, largely because smite is one of the better abilities for psykers to use. I'd rather they either be more expensive, or had some other ability to make them worth their points.
2.) Horde Infantry this edition would be well worth it without the extra killing power of smite, smite makes them too good. Think about Berserkers, an obvious answer to killing a screen, except when that screen has a bunch of smite behind it and now that 200 point unit kills the 90 point screen, at the cost of dying the next turn whether they can stay in combat or not. Your comments make it sound like Costodes, terminators, Bikers etc are good in this edition (or really last edition). Making a bunch of elite (especially assault based) units irrelevant is not a good way of making cheap troops relevant. IMO screens are important enough this edition and powerful enough, without having a way to evaporate units that should be able to deal with the screen. It is one thing if the smite character is say 70 points, but when it is 40 and there are 6 of them they erase a unit a turn.
I think smite is ok, it just shouldn't be on (or as good) on cheaper options. I really wish psyker levels and primaris powers were still a thing.
In short, Smite, like tons of excellent things in this game is abuseable by spamming it...and spamming is allowed because GW would rather sell more models than a solid game (and I don't hold this against them). Ideally, yes GW would have rules which limited models more accurately to rerepsent fluff/balance, but that conflicts with selling you tons of plastic - their goal as a profit driven company.
This "loophole" if you will, is what is exploited by competitive gamers, much as all other forms of spam (armies consisting of 15 assassins...where each should be a "one per army" option, but then GW couldn't sell you 15x $35 models, etc.)
1) They're not better, they're just cheaper. The perception that they are better comes from the same perception that asks why a Primaris Librarian should ever be taken over a regular librarian, as if +1 attack and +1 wound doesn't matter. Psykers are more than batteries! Inquisitors should not be a similar price to Librarians while being completely worse in every way except their ability to cast smite.
2) This is arguable, I think, and your example goes too far. Based on what I've seen from lists on the internet, in the local scene, and various battle reports, "elite units" are not irrelevant. They exist as an important part of the battle-line for a variety of armies and lists, which is about right. They're mixed in in good, but fair, numbers to the game as a whole. That's what is good. They aren't irrelevant.
Smite isn't even a problem. Malefic lords and primaris psykers were a problem - that is fixed. Spiritseers are currently a problem but aren't even casting smite because they have powers better than smite - regardless - they need to go up 15 points.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually think smite is okay, for the reasons that Breng77 thinks it's bad. I'm not really sure why this is, but to use his exact points:
1) Cheap psykers. YAY! They're relevant again. A psychic inquisitor feels more significant on the table than a points sink, and a Primaris Psyker is a true terror to behold compared to other mortal men, rather than a wet-noodle most commonly used as a battery to fuel other special snowflake psykers.
2) Screenhammer 40k and the death of elite units: YAY! Infantry are relevant again! For a long time there has been no real reason to bring hordes of regular troopers (except to get the 2 mandatory troops in prior editions). Finally, they are relevant, and I think they're relevant in the only way such cheap and plentiful bodies could be relevant: By screening. I don't think there is any other way to make "basic dooders" useful, without simply returning elite infantry to the spot as top dog.
Anything that knocks elite units (e.g. Custodes, Terminators, Leman Russes, Bikers, Obliterators, Magnus, whathaveyou) down a peg so that regular troopers can be relevant and even important for army construction is a bonus in my book.
The issues are
1.) Those cheap psykers are better than their more expensive alternatives, largely because smite is one of the better abilities for psykers to use. I'd rather they either be more expensive, or had some other ability to make them worth their points.
2.) Horde Infantry this edition would be well worth it without the extra killing power of smite, smite makes them too good. Think about Berserkers, an obvious answer to killing a screen, except when that screen has a bunch of smite behind it and now that 200 point unit kills the 90 point screen, at the cost of dying the next turn whether they can stay in combat or not. Your comments make it sound like Costodes, terminators, Bikers etc are good in this edition (or really last edition). Making a bunch of elite (especially assault based) units irrelevant is not a good way of making cheap troops relevant. IMO screens are important enough this edition and powerful enough, without having a way to evaporate units that should be able to deal with the screen. It is one thing if the smite character is say 70 points, but when it is 40 and there are 6 of them they erase a unit a turn.
I think smite is ok, it just shouldn't be on (or as good) on cheaper options. I really wish psyker levels and primaris powers were still a thing.
except that the basic powers are more granular in 8th than they were in 7th.
in 7th the power of your psyker had nothing to do with their points value, it was directly related to whether or not you could get access to the good tables or not. It was a system that could theoretically be balanced decently...but the ubiquitous micro-level mistakes GW made really just screwed them.
8th psykers, I feel, are closer to the mark, but still not there. The invisible line between micro-smites and full size smites is too big and too abrupt at the 45-50 point level. the 100-point psykers are reasonable, the supercheap 30- point psykers are reasonable, 200-point psykers a wee bit underpowered, and then the 300+ character range is broken as usual for a whole host of reasons mostly revolving around the usual GW rules writers having a boner for a particular character and letting it get in the way of their judgement.
really, there are only two or three smite-spam characters you could label as "a problem." Spiritseers, Primaris Psykers, MAYBE ork weirdboyz. Horrors+Magnus isn't a problem with smitespam, it's a problem with a 3-point model having a 4++ and Magnus being completely nutso. Nobody's having a problem dealing with GK, Thousand Sons, MSU tzeentch daemons, etc, the actual "smite spam armies".
This you can fix through micro balance of the problem units, which GW seems to be doing.
For the most part cheaper = better. I don't know why anyone would keep denying this at this point. The ability to take up table space in this game is invaluable.
Martel732 wrote: For the most part cheaper = better. I don't know why anyone would keep denying this at this point. The ability to take up table space in this game is invaluable.
cheaper is better for the same unit, but worse units should be cheaper, yes?
Or are you saying that there should be no price differences between units regardless of relative power?
Unit1126PLL wrote: 1) They're not better, they're just cheaper. The perception that they are better comes from the same perception that asks why a Primaris Librarian should ever be taken over a regular librarian, as if +1 attack and +1 wound doesn't matter. Psykers are more than batteries! Inquisitors should not be a similar price to Librarians while being completely worse in every way except their ability to cast smite.
2) This is arguable, I think, and your example goes too far. Based on what I've seen from lists on the internet, in the local scene, and various battle reports, "elite units" are not irrelevant. They exist as an important part of the battle-line for a variety of armies and lists, which is about right. They're mixed in in good, but fair, numbers to the game as a whole. That's what is good. They aren't irrelevant.
1.) If the purpose of a unit is to do a specific thing (like cast smite, or any other power really) cheaper is better. So if I have no intent of my librarian being in harms way on a regular basis than the +1 A and +1 wound don't matter if it is costly to aquire them. Things should not be the same price but the value of extra stats loses a lot when you have character rule protection, and all you want the unit for is to cast smite. In that case cheaper is always better. Inquisitors should not be similar price to Librarians if they regularly do less in the game, stats etc don't matter and they are not worse in every way except smite. Again though this is why I wish psyker level and primaris powers were still a thing, having a common power (unless it is awful, which in this case it is a top power given its ease to cast and effect) that is desirable and spamable means cheaper = better For the inquisitor vs Libby question, if I want to use smite as a weapon getting 2 casts for the cost of 1 is better. 2 inquisitors (close in cost to a single libby) are better in every way to the libby unless you value some other power the libby has, if you want smite, take the 2 inquisitors. Same with the primaris psyker So maybe an inquisitor that is a psyker should be 70 points he'd still be cheaper, but not 2 for 1 cheaper.
2.) What tournament list have you seen terminators in? Custodes? I see things like oblits etc because they are shooting units. I've seen berserkers, but lots of elite choices, compared to chaff and characters not so much.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually think smite is okay, for the reasons that Breng77 thinks it's bad. I'm not really sure why this is, but to use his exact points:
1) Cheap psykers. YAY! They're relevant again. A psychic inquisitor feels more significant on the table than a points sink, and a Primaris Psyker is a true terror to behold compared to other mortal men, rather than a wet-noodle most commonly used as a battery to fuel other special snowflake psykers.
2) Screenhammer 40k and the death of elite units: YAY! Infantry are relevant again! For a long time there has been no real reason to bring hordes of regular troopers (except to get the 2 mandatory troops in prior editions). Finally, they are relevant, and I think they're relevant in the only way such cheap and plentiful bodies could be relevant: By screening. I don't think there is any other way to make "basic dooders" useful, without simply returning elite infantry to the spot as top dog.
Anything that knocks elite units (e.g. Custodes, Terminators, Leman Russes, Bikers, Obliterators, Magnus, whathaveyou) down a peg so that regular troopers can be relevant and even important for army construction is a bonus in my book.
The issues are
1.) Those cheap psykers are better than their more expensive alternatives, largely because smite is one of the better abilities for psykers to use. I'd rather they either be more expensive, or had some other ability to make them worth their points.
2.) Horde Infantry this edition would be well worth it without the extra killing power of smite, smite makes them too good. Think about Berserkers, an obvious answer to killing a screen, except when that screen has a bunch of smite behind it and now that 200 point unit kills the 90 point screen, at the cost of dying the next turn whether they can stay in combat or not. Your comments make it sound like Costodes, terminators, Bikers etc are good in this edition (or really last edition). Making a bunch of elite (especially assault based) units irrelevant is not a good way of making cheap troops relevant. IMO screens are important enough this edition and powerful enough, without having a way to evaporate units that should be able to deal with the screen. It is one thing if the smite character is say 70 points, but when it is 40 and there are 6 of them they erase a unit a turn.
I think smite is ok, it just shouldn't be on (or as good) on cheaper options. I really wish psyker levels and primaris powers were still a thing.
except that the basic powers are more granular in 8th than they were in 7th.
in 7th the power of your psyker had nothing to do with their points value, it was directly related to whether or not you could get access to the good tables or not. It was a system that could theoretically be balanced decently...but the ubiquitous micro-level mistakes GW made really just screwed them.
8th psykers, I feel, are closer to the mark, but still not there. The invisible line between micro-smites and full size smites is too big and too abrupt at the 45-50 point level. the 100-point psykers are reasonable, the supercheap 30- point psykers are reasonable, 200-point psykers a wee bit underpowered, and then the 300+ character range is broken as usual for a whole host of reasons mostly revolving around the usual GW rules writers having a boner for a particular character and letting it get in the way of their judgement.
really, there are only two or three smite-spam characters you could label as "a problem." Spiritseers, Primaris Psykers, MAYBE ork weirdboyz. Horrors+Magnus isn't a problem with smitespam, it's a problem with a 3-point model having a 4++ and Magnus being completely nutso. Nobody's having a problem dealing with GK, Thousand Sons, MSU tzeentch daemons, etc, the actual "smite spam armies".
This you can fix through micro balance of the problem units, which GW seems to be doing.
The issue is psykers don't scale well because of smite, and having psyker levels (not the 7th edition system) would allow for an easy fix to this. Psyker mastery level = maximum number of dice a psyker can use when trying to cast a power. Then make cheap psykers level 1 all powers on 1 dice. Moderate psykers level 2 (what is normal now) and pricey psykers level 3 (can use 3 dice to cast). You could even go higher if desired, if you keep perils as double 1s and 6s. Leave smite as is, but cheap psykers will fail casting it 66% of the time. If every power tree got a cheap primaris power that casts on maybe a 3 that is ok (could be 1 mortal wound smite if desired, or something else).
Then armies like GK could be 1 ML per 5 guys in the unit for basic troops, better units could be higher ML etc, which would fix their stupid problem that they all get bad smite. Then if you want their anti-daemon flavor give them +1 ML vs daemons.
You could design a system like that, but what you'd have is...another system, which could be balanced correctly and could be not balanced correctly.
You'd have psykers level 2 who should be level 3 or level 1, psykers level 1 who are super cheap and spammable, a character juuust squeaking over the psyker level 3 mark who's then super strong and reliable, and all the imbalanced crap that goes along besides.
It would be different from what we have now, but not inherently better. Just different.
tneva82 wrote: Again that 2/3 inv guy is easier to take out than 4point horde if you factor in points. If that is too tough why you aren"t asking for cultists etc to be made softer?
Because Cultists are plenty killable, and I like troops more than big-bad-characters.
If you don't want to be Smited, screen your valuable units, easy.
tneva82 wrote: Again that 2/3 inv guy is easier to take out than 4point horde if you factor in points. If that is too tough why you aren"t asking for cultists etc to be made softer?
Because Cultists are plenty killable, and I like troops more than big-bad-characters.
If you don't want to be Smited, screen your valuable units, easy.
You do realise that some armies do not have cheap screening units?
Unit1126PLL wrote: 1) They're not better, they're just cheaper. The perception that they are better comes from the same perception that asks why a Primaris Librarian should ever be taken over a regular librarian, as if +1 attack and +1 wound doesn't matter. Psykers are more than batteries! Inquisitors should not be a similar price to Librarians while being completely worse in every way except their ability to cast smite.
2) This is arguable, I think, and your example goes too far. Based on what I've seen from lists on the internet, in the local scene, and various battle reports, "elite units" are not irrelevant. They exist as an important part of the battle-line for a variety of armies and lists, which is about right. They're mixed in in good, but fair, numbers to the game as a whole. That's what is good. They aren't irrelevant.
1.) If the purpose of a unit is to do a specific thing (like cast smite, or any other power really) cheaper is better. So if I have no intent of my librarian being in harms way on a regular basis than the +1 A and +1 wound don't matter if it is costly to aquire them. Things should not be the same price but the value of extra stats loses a lot when you have character rule protection, and all you want the unit for is to cast smite. In that case cheaper is always better. Inquisitors should not be similar price to Librarians if they regularly do less in the game, stats etc don't matter and they are not worse in every way except smite. Again though this is why I wish psyker level and primaris powers were still a thing, having a common power (unless it is awful, which in this case it is a top power given its ease to cast and effect) that is desirable and spamable means cheaper = better For the inquisitor vs Libby question, if I want to use smite as a weapon getting 2 casts for the cost of 1 is better. 2 inquisitors (close in cost to a single libby) are better in every way to the libby unless you value some other power the libby has, if you want smite, take the 2 inquisitors. Same with the primaris psyker So maybe an inquisitor that is a psyker should be 70 points he'd still be cheaper, but not 2 for 1 cheaper.
2.) What tournament list have you seen terminators in? Custodes? I see things like oblits etc because they are shooting units. I've seen berserkers, but lots of elite choices, compared to chaff and characters not so much.
1) Perhaps you're pigeonholing units into a perceived "purpose" that doesn't match their capabilities? If you have no intent to put your Librarian in harms way, then you're certainly overpaying for the stats that make him better at being in harms way. So you're right, you don't want a librarian. But someone who DOES recognize the value of those stats might put the unit in harm's way, since it's considerably better at it. That's on you and how you plan to use your units, not on GW. A unit better at being in harm's way should pay more for the privilege, whether or not a given player actually puts him in harm's way. I would argue that in every way a stock Librarian is twice as good as a stock (but psyker) Inquisitor, except in the single one instance of casting Smite and no other powers in a turn. If that's all you're using your librarian for, then yes, a cheaper psyker is better, because of course you're not getting full value for your librarian. But that's not the Librarian's fault, or the cheaper psyker's.
2) I said I see a fair balance. The most recent Heat 2 top-table game in the Warhammer GT featured a 3-LOW list (magnus, morty, and aetos'rau'keres or whatever) with brimstones fighting a horde of Bloodletters (like 80) backed up by Slaaneshi chaos marines. Fluff abomination that it was, it was a perfect example of elite units being screened by cheap units in both armies, and both cheap troops (Cultists/Bloodletters on one side and Brimstones on the other) being just as relevant to the outcome of the game as the superpowered ultraelite units (Noise Marines, Oblits, the Daemon Primarchs).
the_scotsman wrote: You could design a system like that, but what you'd have is...another system, which could be balanced correctly and could be not balanced correctly.
You'd have psykers level 2 who should be level 3 or level 1, psykers level 1 who are super cheap and spammable, a character juuust squeaking over the psyker level 3 mark who's then super strong and reliable, and all the imbalanced crap that goes along besides.
It would be different from what we have now, but not inherently better. Just different.
It is actually easier to balance and better than what we have now. The issue now is that a cheap psyker (unless specifically made otherwise) is as good at casting every power as a more expensive psyker, there is no mechanic in place to allow for a difference. Could it be done poorly sure. spam able Level 1 psykers would be fine. If all those psykers cast on 1 dice smite spam would be a non issue. You would get 1 out of 3 smites through, and easily get shut down by better psykers. It just gives you one more option to balance on, right now there is just cost, or special rules to nerf psykers (like baby smite).
tneva82 wrote: Again that 2/3 inv guy is easier to take out than 4point horde if you factor in points. If that is too tough why you aren"t asking for cultists etc to be made softer?
Because Cultists are plenty killable, and I like troops more than big-bad-characters.
If you don't want to be Smited, screen your valuable units, easy.
You do realise that some armies do not have cheap screening units?
Name one army without access to any screening units.
Unit1126PLL wrote: 1) They're not better, they're just cheaper. The perception that they are better comes from the same perception that asks why a Primaris Librarian should ever be taken over a regular librarian, as if +1 attack and +1 wound doesn't matter. Psykers are more than batteries! Inquisitors should not be a similar price to Librarians while being completely worse in every way except their ability to cast smite.
2) This is arguable, I think, and your example goes too far. Based on what I've seen from lists on the internet, in the local scene, and various battle reports, "elite units" are not irrelevant. They exist as an important part of the battle-line for a variety of armies and lists, which is about right. They're mixed in in good, but fair, numbers to the game as a whole. That's what is good. They aren't irrelevant.
1.) If the purpose of a unit is to do a specific thing (like cast smite, or any other power really) cheaper is better. So if I have no intent of my librarian being in harms way on a regular basis than the +1 A and +1 wound don't matter if it is costly to aquire them. Things should not be the same price but the value of extra stats loses a lot when you have character rule protection, and all you want the unit for is to cast smite. In that case cheaper is always better. Inquisitors should not be similar price to Librarians if they regularly do less in the game, stats etc don't matter and they are not worse in every way except smite. Again though this is why I wish psyker level and primaris powers were still a thing, having a common power (unless it is awful, which in this case it is a top power given its ease to cast and effect) that is desirable and spamable means cheaper = better For the inquisitor vs Libby question, if I want to use smite as a weapon getting 2 casts for the cost of 1 is better. 2 inquisitors (close in cost to a single libby) are better in every way to the libby unless you value some other power the libby has, if you want smite, take the 2 inquisitors. Same with the primaris psyker So maybe an inquisitor that is a psyker should be 70 points he'd still be cheaper, but not 2 for 1 cheaper.
2.) What tournament list have you seen terminators in? Custodes? I see things like oblits etc because they are shooting units. I've seen berserkers, but lots of elite choices, compared to chaff and characters not so much.
1) Perhaps you're pigeonholing units into a perceived "purpose" that doesn't match their capabilities? If you have no intent to put your Librarian in harms way, then you're certainly overpaying for the stats that make him better at being in harms way. So you're right, you don't want a librarian. But someone who DOES recognize the value of those stats might put the unit in harm's way, since it's considerably better at it. That's on you and how you plan to use your units, not on GW. A unit better at being in harm's way should pay more for the privilege, whether or not a given player actually puts him in harm's way. I would argue that in every way a stock Librarian is twice as good as a stock (but psyker) Inquisitor, except in the singe one instance of casting Smite and no other powers in a turn. If that's all you're using your librarian for, then yes, a cheaper psyker is better, because of course you're not getting full value for your librarian. But that's not the Librarian's fault, or the cheaper psyker's.
2) I said I see a fair balance. The most recent Heat 2 top-table game in the Warhammer GT featured a 3-LOW list (magnus, morty, and aetos'rau'keres or whatever) with brimstones fighting a horde of Bloodletters (like 80) backed up by Slaaneshi chaos marines. Fluff abomination that it was, it was a perfect example of elite units being screened by cheap units in both armies, and both cheap troops (Cultists/Bloodletters on one side and Brimstones on the other) being just as relevant to the outcome of the game as the superpowered ultraelite units (Noise Marines, Oblits, the Daemon Primarchs).
1.) It is provably false that a librarian is twice as good in every way over a psyker inquisitor. Psyker inquisitor provides an LD aura buff, not the Libby, 2 Inquisitors cast the same number of powers as a librarian but deny twice as many times. Have more wounds, more attacks, and can cast smite twice. The issue is that the librarian is still not good at being in harms way, so paying extra for being better at doing so poorly is a bad thing. Certainly not worth twice as much. Putting him in harms way means he dies faster and as a result gets even less value over the course of the game.
2.) So Daemon Primarchs which are good at avoiding smite damage, and shooting elite units which are better against smite. Again, terminators? Custodes? Where are those units? The issue is that smite + screen punishes elite close combat units.
tneva82 wrote: Again that 2/3 inv guy is easier to take out than 4point horde if you factor in points. If that is too tough why you aren"t asking for cultists etc to be made softer?
Because Cultists are plenty killable, and I like troops more than big-bad-characters.
If you don't want to be Smited, screen your valuable units, easy.
You do realise that some armies do not have cheap screening units?
Name one army without access to any screening units.
Most have some available but requiring them limits list building. Space Marine armies should not need to ally in guard to be viable. If they choose to not ally they have no access to cheap screening units. But since you asked it depends on what you define as cheap. Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Dark Eldar all lack options under 8 points I think. I we don't include allies, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Sisters, Space Marines.
Someone told me a long time ago that the worst part of any game is getting beat and knowing there is nothing you could do. In any game or video game if you are defeated it should always be because you made a mistake or you are not leveled for that fight. Imagine being in a computer game where you enter a fight and the first thing that happens is you are frozen while the enemy takes away half your army. There was nothing you could have done and it's not fair... and if a game is not fair it's unbalanced. Smite is like this in the psk phase. You take a bunch of additional wounds for what seems like no reason and that's before the shooting phase! Turn 1 this can basically cause an auto loss before you even move a single model (don't get me started on mortal wounds before the game even begins!). No game should have you sit there and take it! There should be a built in system to at least give everyone an equal defence against smite.
I have a problem with how readily available and easy it is to min/max mortal wounds and how that is the go-to strategy.
This is another item that takes away meaningful choice out of the game and is almost equivalent to just flipping over a card in a magic game that says "tap your opponent's card out, it can't be used anymore" and then you can take a bunch of that card.
lolman1c wrote: Someone told me a long time ago that the worst part of any game is getting beat and knowing there is nothing you could do. In any game or video game if you are defeated it should always be because you made a mistake or you are not leveled for that fight. Imagine being in a computer game where you enter a fight and the first thing that happens is you are frozen while the enemy takes away half your army. There was nothing you could have done and it's not fair... and if a game is not fair it's unbalanced. Smite is like this in the psk phase. You take a bunch of additional wounds for what seems like no reason and that's before the shooting phase! Turn 1 this can basically cause an auto loss before you even move a single model (don't get me started on mortal wounds before the game even begins!). No game should have you sit there and take it! There should be a built in system to at least give everyone an equal defence against smite.
1) don't have valuable units as the closest thing and within 18", either by being out of range or screening as discussed.
2) Use your own psykers, which provide effectively a 4++ against Smite
3) Use models who provide other defenses against psychic powers (culexus, SoS, etc)
4) Use Stratagems that provide defenses against psychic powers or Smite (Armor of Contempt for instance)
You have vastly, vastly more counterplay as someone playing an elite army like Marines against a psyker who wants to cast Smite on you than you do against a basic 48" range anti-tank gun sitting in the back of the board and plugging away at you. A Razorback pays 10 points per wound and requires five psykers to successfully smite it to kill it on a turn. If we're talking the cheapest and arguably most problematic smitespam unit currently in the game, Spiritseers, that's over 200 points to kill a roughly 100 point tank from 18". You want to do that math with Bright Lances?
pismakron wrote: Mortal wounds is a crucial and necessary component of the game, acting as a hard counter to stacked hit-modifiers and rerollable invulnerable saves. But mortal wounds needs to be expensive because they are potentially very powerful. I don't think any full-smiting psyker should be less than 60-70 points.
This
Every other post here is basically made by elite armies players bashing the Smite mechanic due to its efficiency against high cost models compared to cheap ones (*cough* Horde armies that we all remember sucked badly throughout 4 editions of 40K)
lolman1c wrote: Someone told me a long time ago that the worst part of any game is getting beat and knowing there is nothing you could do. In any game or video game if you are defeated it should always be because you made a mistake or you are not leveled for that fight. Imagine being in a computer game where you enter a fight and the first thing that happens is you are frozen while the enemy takes away half your army. There was nothing you could have done and it's not fair... and if a game is not fair it's unbalanced. Smite is like this in the psk phase. You take a bunch of additional wounds for what seems like no reason and that's before the shooting phase! Turn 1 this can basically cause an auto loss before you even move a single model (don't get me started on mortal wounds before the game even begins!). No game should have you sit there and take it! There should be a built in system to at least give everyone an equal defence against smite.
1) don't have valuable units as the closest thing and within 18", either by being out of range or screening as discussed.
2) Use your own psykers, which provide effectively a 4++ against Smite
3) Use models who provide other defenses against psychic powers (culexus, SoS, etc)
4) Use Stratagems that provide defenses against psychic powers or Smite (Armor of Contempt for instance)
You have vastly, vastly more counterplay as someone playing an elite army like Marines against a psyker who wants to cast Smite on you than you do against a basic 48" range anti-tank gun sitting in the back of the board and plugging away at you. A Razorback pays 10 points per wound and requires five psykers to successfully smite it to kill it on a turn. If we're talking the cheapest and arguably most problematic smitespam unit currently in the game, Spiritseers, that's over 200 points to kill a roughly 100 point tank from 18". You want to do that math with Bright Lances?
Requires is a strong statement as it assumes you never roll 3 damage on a D3 or get D6 damage. So if we are going by averages, it takes on average 3 successful Brightlance wounds to kill the razorback in a single turn. What is the cheapest cost to get those brightlances? It also doesn't consider that the bright lance has more points of failure (needs to hit, wound, by pass any save that might exist). It looks like war walkers are the cheapest access to bright lances I can find at 90 points for 2, so you are looking at least 180 points To get to the point where you might have 3 successful wounding hits (statistically that is not the case). If we look at statistically each bright lance shot does 1.6 damage on average, So you need an average of 7 Brightlances to kill said razorback in a single turn(assuming no -1 to hit, no cover). The cost of that is 4 war walkers or 360 points (for 8 lances). Compare that to the spirit seer with smite. Each Spirit seer averages 1.79 damage [75% chance to get D3 smite (27/36), 8 % chance to get D6 smite (3/36)] So it takes on average 6 Spirit seers to kill the Razorback in 1 turn or 270 points. SO it seems to me that smite is coming out ahead in this comparison. Though it is also true that range and ability to choose target fall in favor of the bright lance.
Another important consideration in this comparison, mortal wounds carry over and bright lance damage does not. So those bright lances on average kill only 3 conscripts, or 3 primaris marines, and only 2 Terminators, where The spirit seers kill 10 conscripts and 5 primaris/terminators.
pismakron wrote: Mortal wounds is a crucial and necessary component of the game, acting as a hard counter to stacked hit-modifiers and rerollable invulnerable saves. But mortal wounds needs to be expensive because they are potentially very powerful. I don't think any full-smiting psyker should be less than 60-70 points.
This
Every other post here is basically made by elite armies players bashing the Smite mechanic due to its efficiency against high cost models compared to cheap ones (*cough* Horde armies that we all remember sucked badly throughout 4 editions of 40K)
Its fine in small doses and it has its uses and counters
but like literally all the problems with this game its when you spam it it becomes a problem.
Smite should not be available at a points cost where you can smite Ork Boys, expect to kill only 10 points worth a cast, and consider that a perfectly reasonable return on your points.
I think naked mind-bullet Smiters should be a minimum of 70 points. I'd prefer if most psykers could cast 2 powers, had a reasonable amount of gear and stats so they could operate in other phases of the game, but cost 120+ points. If you want to spam that then you are going to have a very small army with it.
Smite should not be available at a points cost where you can smite Ork Boys, expect to kill only 10 points worth a cast, and consider that a perfectly reasonable return on your points.
I think naked mind-bullet Smiters should be a minimum of 70 points. I'd prefer if most psykers could cast 2 powers, had a reasonable amount of gear and stats so they could operate in other phases of the game, but cost 120+ points. If you want to spam that then you are going to have a very small army with it.
What statline do you mean by naked? Do you mean WS4+ BS4+ S 3 T3 etc etc. like a trained guardsmen? Or WS5+ BS5+ S3 T3 etc etc. like an untrained human? Or T4 Str4 like a Librarian? How many wounds? 4 like a Primaris Psyker or 6 like a Primaris Librarian?
Because if you think paying 70 points is worth it on making a naked Guardsman be able to cast smite (and have like, 2 or 3 more wounds), then you're bonkers.
I like the smite mechanic. In all my games of 8th I have not had any bad experiences from being on the receiving end, including a pre-codex game against GK. This is all part and parcel of that element of a new edition where you have to change and adapt your tactics from the previous edition. Points perhaps need to be adjusted on some models but not to the extent that it ruins a perfectly good aspect of the game.
What statline do you mean by naked? Do you mean WS4+ BS4+ S 3 T3 etc etc. like a trained guardsmen? Or WS5+ BS5+ S3 T3 etc etc. like an untrained human? Or T4 Str4 like a Librarian? How many wounds? 4 like a Primaris Psyker or 6 like a Primaris Librarian?
Because if you think paying 70 points is worth it on making a naked Guardsman be able to cast smite (and have like, 2 or 3 more wounds), then you're bonkers.
It probably is worth it, because the smite is too good. You're right, in theory the better stats are worth something, but most of the value of the psyker is the smite. It overshadows everything else the psyker can do, and that's a problem. It should be possible to have psykers (even cheap psykers) whose purpose is to do something else than smite.
Smite should not be available at a points cost where you can smite Ork Boys, expect to kill only 10 points worth a cast, and consider that a perfectly reasonable return on your points.
I think naked mind-bullet Smiters should be a minimum of 70 points. I'd prefer if most psykers could cast 2 powers, had a reasonable amount of gear and stats so they could operate in other phases of the game, but cost 120+ points. If you want to spam that then you are going to have a very small army with it.
What statline do you mean by naked? Do you mean WS4+ BS4+ S 3 T3 etc etc. like a trained guardsmen? Or WS5+ BS5+ S3 T3 etc etc. like an untrained human? Or T4 Str4 like a Librarian? How many wounds? 4 like a Primaris Psyker or 6 like a Primaris Librarian?
Because if you think paying 70 points is worth it on making a naked Guardsman be able to cast smite (and have like, 2 or 3 more wounds), then you're bonkers.
It is absolutely worth it assuming he also gets to be a character, making him largely immune to ranged fire power. It is a min-maxing problem, you are giving up things you have no reason to use in the first place. For instance you could make a Psyker that is LD 1 with 1 A and S1 that has WS 6+ and BS 6+ and none of that really matters to what he is doing on the battlefield, and as such should be given very little consideration in his costing. T and save should have a bit more value, but mostly his powers should be the main source of his cost. Unless there is some other arbitrary limit on the number of psykers allowing super cheap psykers is a problem.
For instance if we went back to the old FOC with 2 HQ choices max, you could have a weak psyker worth 15 points and it would largely not be an issue, because you could only bring 2 of them (or 3 if you made them elites) due to other constraints. When they lack such restraints and you can bring 10-15, get CP for doing so, and spam the powers it creates problem. GW has recognized the issue with psychic power spam, other than smite, but not for smite. If for instance you subjected smite to the "rule of one" then you could also allow for super cheap psykers.
lolman1c wrote: Someone told me a long time ago that the worst part of any game is getting beat and knowing there is nothing you could do. In any game or video game if you are defeated it should always be because you made a mistake or you are not leveled for that fight. Imagine being in a computer game where you enter a fight and the first thing that happens is you are frozen while the enemy takes away half your army. There was nothing you could have done and it's not fair... and if a game is not fair it's unbalanced. Smite is like this in the psk phase. You take a bunch of additional wounds for what seems like no reason and that's before the shooting phase! Turn 1 this can basically cause an auto loss before you even move a single model (don't get me started on mortal wounds before the game even begins!). No game should have you sit there and take it! There should be a built in system to at least give everyone an equal defence against smite.
The worst thing is getting beat and thinking you made no mistakes. That's the true failure - even when odds are stacked against you.
lolman1c wrote: Someone told me a long time ago that the worst part of any game is getting beat and knowing there is nothing you could do. In any game or video game if you are defeated it should always be because you made a mistake or you are not leveled for that fight. Imagine being in a computer game where you enter a fight and the first thing that happens is you are frozen while the enemy takes away half your army. There was nothing you could have done and it's not fair... and if a game is not fair it's unbalanced. Smite is like this in the psk phase. You take a bunch of additional wounds for what seems like no reason and that's before the shooting phase! Turn 1 this can basically cause an auto loss before you even move a single model (don't get me started on mortal wounds before the game even begins!). No game should have you sit there and take it! There should be a built in system to at least give everyone an equal defence against smite.
1) don't have valuable units as the closest thing and within 18", either by being out of range or screening as discussed.
2) Use your own psykers, which provide effectively a 4++ against Smite
3) Use models who provide other defenses against psychic powers (culexus, SoS, etc)
4) Use Stratagems that provide defenses against psychic powers or Smite (Armor of Contempt for instance)
You have vastly, vastly more counterplay as someone playing an elite army like Marines against a psyker who wants to cast Smite on you than you do against a basic 48" range anti-tank gun sitting in the back of the board and plugging away at you. A Razorback pays 10 points per wound and requires five psykers to successfully smite it to kill it on a turn. If we're talking the cheapest and arguably most problematic smitespam unit currently in the game, Spiritseers, that's over 200 points to kill a roughly 100 point tank from 18". You want to do that math with Bright Lances?
Not everyone has good screen units. And before you say the word allies, no, armies should be able to stand on their own. Not everyone has psykers. Not everyone is imperium. Against tac marines or necron warriors guarding more relevant stuff, a couple smites still nets a good return on your psyker's cost, heaven help them if you critical smite. And thanks to MW overflow, smite isn't bad against anything. You still knock out multiple guardsmen models virtually guaranteed, which is more than a heavy bolter can say. And remember, there are are lot of "smite-like" powers that don't care about screens.
The problem is and always be the mortal wound mechanic. There are several units like terminators and canoptek wraiths that get absolutely hosed by them due to their high points per wound, presumably because they're paying for defenses to stop from losing those wounds so easily. Those types of models are currently sitting on shelves, and when you look at their stats, you wonder why. It's because the entire MW mechanic hard counters them, and MW are all over the place. You can't even have your chapter master in a pile of relics and armor and force fields stand next to a pair of rhinos.
And the problem is that you can't get those guys back on the table just by reducing their cost until they're played, because at that point they will be paying so little for their defensive mitigation that when they roll up on someone who DOESN'T have mortal wounds, they'll be crazy overpowered. Going that route will just bring us back to 7e where the competitive games you either had the hard counter or didn't, and actually playing the game was usually just a formality.
It seems to me some people just have a very intense traumatic memory of near invincible units from last edition, but those guys are gone. You can't invis a big pile of wolves, you can't face tank with a character with 2+/3++/3++ while abusing look out sir to make sure things he couldn't tank killed some putz instead...let it go. Smashy can't hurt you anymore.
Haha I've played against a Daemon army with like 10 smites/turn with my AdMech and even with the Graia stratagem (deny on 4+ that doesn't work) and dogma (FNP 6+) there was just nothing I could do. Shoot them ? Sure I got nice anti-horde weapons. But they have a 4++.
Smite is so much bullsh*t I plan on changing my army entirely because of how defenseless I am against that kind of stuff. I'd like to be able to participate in my opponent's psychic phase instead of just taking down models.
Aaranis wrote: Haha I've played against a Daemon army with like 10 smites/turn with my AdMech and even with the Graia stratagem (deny on 4+ that doesn't work) and dogma (FNP 6+) there was just nothing I could do. Shoot them ? Sure I got nice anti-horde weapons. But they have a 4++.
Smite is so much bullsh*t I plan on changing my army entirely because of how defenseless I am against that kind of stuff. I'd like to be able to participate in my opponent's psychic phase instead of just taking down models.
10 brimstone smites is, iirc, 10 wounds per turn, and they have very low shooting and awful CC.
I can't imagine an army that would so easily fold after suffering 10 wounds between the shooting, assault, and psychic phases. Your story is bupkis.
If you mean smites that were done by units other than Brimstones, well, IIRC none of the Daemon psykers are actually "cheap" psykers, so that's... still not a problem.
What if smite only ignored invlun saves? -1 AP no invlun save?
Would seem to be a middle ground. Wouldn't punish "elite" units like termies too much but would still make it viable against 3+'s?
I agree that it is so spammed because many of the other pyschic powers just aren't good (see eldar vs marine powers) and 40 point full smite units are a problem.
Aaranis wrote: Haha I've played against a Daemon army with like 10 smites/turn with my AdMech and even with the Graia stratagem (deny on 4+ that doesn't work) and dogma (FNP 6+) there was just nothing I could do. Shoot them ? Sure I got nice anti-horde weapons. But they have a 4++.
Smite is so much bullsh*t I plan on changing my army entirely because of how defenseless I am against that kind of stuff. I'd like to be able to participate in my opponent's psychic phase instead of just taking down models.
10 brimstone smites is, iirc, 10 wounds per turn, and they have very low shooting and awful CC.
I can't imagine an army that would so easily fold after suffering 10 wounds between the shooting, assault, and psychic phases. Your story is bupkis.
If you mean smites that were done by units other than Brimstones, well, IIRC none of the Daemon psykers are actually "cheap" psykers, so that's... still not a problem.
Alright so it was a 1500 pts game, I'll try to recall what his army was made of:
- At least 4 units of I think 10 Brimstones (the ones that don't split);
- 1 Chariot of Tzeentch;
- 3 Flamers;
- 1 or two Exalted Flamers, don't remember really;
- Ahriman on Disc;
- Nurgle Sorcerer;
- 1 Nurgle Daemon Prince;
- 1 Tzeentch Daemon Prince;
- Changeling;
And I think there was one or two Heralds of Tzeentch too.
I think I used to suffer at least 6 Smites a turn, all at D3 or D6 each, plus a few other powers that gave MW too and one malus power. Then get burnt by the flamers, assaulted by the whole army and just dying in droves, because that's what AdMech does when it tries to play a list other than 6 Kastellans + Cawl and 3 Onagers + 60 Conscripts that never moves.
Brimstones do D3 MW with their one die Smite, right ? And they get one casualty each time they cast Smite or something like that, correct ? I didn't verify his army because I trust the guy.
Well Brimstones were pretty heavely nerfed both in his cost (from 2ppm to 3ppm) and his Smite power. So it depends if that list was pre or post Brimstone nerf.
Galas wrote: Well Brimstones were pretty heavely nerfed both in his cost (from 2ppm to 3ppm) and his Smite power. So it depends if that list was pre or post Brimstone nerf.
It was recent, so I guess it was post-nerf. However I just checked the Errata for Chaos and I don't remember if he was aware if they only deal 1 MW when under 10 Brimstones. Either way I got totally trashed, but I'll ask him next time.
niv-mizzet wrote: mortal wounds should've never gotten out of the gate in their current form. The "you take wounds and there's nothing you can do about it" mechanic should be reserved for orbital strikes, titan explosions, and the like.
They just need to make the other 90% of mortal wounds into auto wounds at ap values based on the thing (minus a lot for smite and most other powers, minus a little or none for junk transports exploding.) Invuln saves shouldn't be so easily bypassed.
Thanks to mortal wounds having no degree of scaling whatsoever, like half the powers in the game are "smite but slightly different."
If you want to remove mortal wounds, you have to remove invulnerable saves.
Name one army without access to any screening units.
All non-chaos Space Marine armies.
You're forgetting that Unit is of the opinion that any Imperium force should be made up of mostly Guard or else you're intentionally throwing the game.
You don't have to remove inv saves. Inv saves have been in the game for literally decades. Mortal wounds are a couple of years old starting with AOS and months old in 40k. The game functioned fine without mortal wounds all this time.
auticus wrote: You don't have to remove inv saves. Inv saves have been in the game for literally decades. Mortal wounds are a couple of years old starting with AOS and months old in 40k. The game functioned fine without mortal wounds all this time.
to be fair, invul saves started to get rather crazy over the last several editions. In 3E and 4E most invul saves were 5+, a good one was 4+, anything better was rare, especially against shooting, Then with 5E they started making 3++ somewhat normal for tanky characters and some heavy infantry, and with 6E/7E they got into not just 2++ saves (which were previously unheard of outside of the DE Shadowfield that broke permanently on the first failed saved and Thraka's "one turn per game" usage) but rerollable 3++ and 2++ saves.
That got to be more than a wee bit ridiculous. 8E has mostly done a good job of keeping that under better control than 7E (barring a couple standout issues), but we did see major creep in invul power over the editions.
Yes, to be fair, the Storm Shield was a 4+ invuln and only in combat, and units with a 4+ invuln were usually 1 per army on the HQ (back when Iron Halos were max 1 per army).
You could also get a 4+ from a Rosarius, which was TOTALLY WHACKY because it was not limited to 1 per army, but rather a whole 2 per army because of HQ slot restrictions.
You were lucky to have a 5+ invuln.
But after 5th broke the 3++ invuln barrier they became ridiculous, and have never really been toned back down to reasonable. Hell, if the new Custodes HQ has anything like his 30k friend he'll have a re-rollable 3++ because reasons.
the_scotsman wrote:
1) don't have valuable units as the closest thing and within 18", either by being out of range or screening as discussed.
2) Use your own psykers, which provide effectively a 4++ against Smite
3) Use models who provide other defenses against psychic powers (culexus, SoS, etc)
4) Use Stratagems that provide defenses against psychic powers or Smite (Armor of Contempt for instance)
1) So, in other words, don’t play with an elite assault army.
2) So, in other words, don’t play with an army that doesn’t or can’t use psykers. And if you can take psykers, in order to have a reasonable defence against Smite, make sure you take several of them. If the problem unit’s only solution is to take the problem unit yourself (psykers), something fundamental has gone wrong with the rules.
3) So, in other words, don’t play with the faction you want to play, play with the faction that is actually capable of dealing with the problem.
4) So, in other words, don’t play with an army that doesn’t have anti-psyker stratagems that specifically apply to them and CP to spare. That Armour of Contempt isn’t going to help Terminators.
5) So, in other words, don’t play with an army that isn’t Guard.
Seriously though, what exactly do expect something like Black Templars or a Necron army to do about Smite, or even Mortal Wounds in general? Templars at least have their Deny the Witch Stratagem... for a CP they get a 50/50 chance to deny one Smite per turn. Not exactly helpful if your opponent can bring more than one Smite or can cast multiple powers.
Vaktathi wrote:Then with 5E they started making 3++ somewhat normal for tanky characters and some heavy infantry, and with 6E/7E they got into not just 2++ saves (which were previously unheard of outside of the DE Shadowfield that broke permanently on the first failed saved and Thraka's "one turn per game" usage) but rerollable 3++ and 2++ saves.
That got to be more than a wee bit ridiculous. 8E has mostly done a good job of keeping that under better control than 7E (barring a couple standout issues), but we did see major creep in invul power over the editions.
Leaving aside for now that introducing one horrible mechanic (Mortal Wounds) to counter an existing horrible mechanic (2++ rerollable) is a terrible idea, particularly when fixing the original mechanic is trivial, exactly how long do we have to suffer for the sins of 7th Ed?
GW already fixed that problem with 8th Ed. Invisibility is gone (its replacement, hit modifiers, are problematic in specific instances but nowhere near as bad), I don’t know of a Feel No Pain better than 4+++ and that’s on Death Guard where it kind of is their shtick and doesn’t appear to be game breaking, I only know of one 2++ and that requires lots of shenanigans and powers and stratagems and can’t be put on a dangerous unit or for very long, and the only rerollable save mechanic I can think of is Magnus which I’ve already said on this thread is an isolated and easily fixed case.
People need to accept that the Chapter Master Smash and invisible Wolfstar boogeymen are dead and buried with last edition. Punishing people who play Custodes or Storm Shield Terminators in 8th because of the problems of 7th is the act of a petulant child. Don’t bring 7th ed’s baggage into 8th.
Vaktathi wrote:Then with 5E they started making 3++ somewhat normal for tanky characters and some heavy infantry, and with 6E/7E they got into not just 2++ saves (which were previously unheard of outside of the DE Shadowfield that broke permanently on the first failed saved and Thraka's "one turn per game" usage) but rerollable 3++ and 2++ saves.
That got to be more than a wee bit ridiculous. 8E has mostly done a good job of keeping that under better control than 7E (barring a couple standout issues), but we did see major creep in invul power over the editions.
Leaving aside for now that introducing one horrible mechanic (Mortal Wounds) to counter an existing horrible mechanic (2++ rerollable) is a terrible idea, particularly when fixing the original mechanic is trivial, exactly how long do we have to suffer for the sins of 7th Ed?
GW already fixed that problem with 8th Ed. Invisibility is gone (its replacement, hit modifiers, are problematic in specific instances but nowhere near as bad), I don’t know of a Feel No Pain better than 4+++ and that’s on Death Guard where it kind of is their shtick and doesn’t appear to be game breaking, I only know of one 2++ and that requires lots of shenanigans and powers and stratagems and can’t be put on a dangerous unit or for very long, and the only rerollable save mechanic I can think of is Magnus which I’ve already said on this thread is an isolated and easily fixed case.
People need to accept that the Chapter Master Smash and invisible Wolfstar boogeymen are dead and buried with last edition. Punishing people who play Custodes or Storm Shield Terminators in 8th because of the problems of 7th is the act of a petulant child. Don’t bring 7th ed’s baggage into 8th.
My only point was that invul saves had grown to be issues in previous editions, I made no argument regarding Mortal Wounds, as they're currently implemented, being a needed or appropriate counter mechanism in 8E. My jury is still way out to lunch on Mortal Wounds/Smite/etc in general currently.
I wouldn't be sad to see mortal wounds changed into "you still get your invuln save" since the mechanics that made obscene invulnerables a thing are now dead and gone.
Galas wrote: Well Brimstones were pretty heavely nerfed both in his cost (from 2ppm to 3ppm) and his Smite power. So it depends if that list was pre or post Brimstone nerf.
It was recent, so I guess it was post-nerf. However I just checked the Errata for Chaos and I don't remember if he was aware if they only deal 1 MW when under 10 Brimstones. Either way I got totally trashed, but I'll ask him next time.
Under 10 PINKS, a unit of only brimes never gets full smite.
Also, they only have 1 dice, and a brime dies whenever it tries casting, regardless of success.
No wonder you get trashed if the enemy more than triples the power of his units.
WindstormSCR wrote: I wouldn't be sad to see mortal wounds changed into "you still get your invuln save" since the mechanics that made obscene invulnerables a thing are now dead and gone.
I would. You already get Feel No Pain style saves. Storm Shields, Iron Halos, and Rosarious, would make Mortal Wounds irrelevant, to the very armies they are needed against.
WindstormSCR wrote: I wouldn't be sad to see mortal wounds changed into "you still get your invuln save" since the mechanics that made obscene invulnerables a thing are now dead and gone.
I would. You already get Feel No Pain style saves. Storm Shields, Iron Halos, and Rosarious, would make Mortal Wounds irrelevant, to the very armies they are needed against.
the problem is all of those units cost a huge number of points, have comparatively few wounds per model, and so any mortal wounds present a massive counter to them, to the degree that since the start of 8th in a very active community I have watched the slow disappearance of these types of models
adamsouza wrote: I would. You already get Feel No Pain style saves. Storm Shields, Iron Halos, and Rosarious, would make Mortal Wounds irrelevant, to the very armies they are needed against.
...and the best those things together are going to give you is a 3++/6+++ with no rerolls on a 5W T4 model. In an era of multi-damage weapons where characters can be targeted directly in combat and can’t tank for their squads.
You’re afraid of a 7th Ed boogeyman. GW took that particular boogeyman out behind the garden shed and put a .50 cal billet in the back of its head, and good riddance. It’s time for us all to grow up and move on. We don’t need the Mortal Wound nightlight to protect us from the 2++/3+++ rerollable monster under the bed anymore.
auticus wrote: You don't have to remove inv saves. Inv saves have been in the game for literally decades. Mortal wounds are a couple of years old starting with AOS and months old in 40k. The game functioned fine without mortal wounds all this time.
Invulnerable saves are broken by design and always were, especially in ther imperial and chaotic incarnations (4+ invul for Eldar never did much).
All those stem from the fact that an invul save is absolute.
Even FnP, which are a major design problem, had counters - I don't think they have anymore so they're just like invul saves now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kombatwombat wrote: Punishing people who play Custodes or Storm Shield Terminators in 8th because of the problems of 7th is the act of a petulant child. Don’t bring 7th ed’s baggage into 8th.
Wow. poor GW rules team.
They must be so sad that you called them a petulant child.
adamsouza wrote: It's an adjustment to the meta. Mortal wounds are paper to the rock that was mostly unkillable units.
Problem is there is no rock in 8th paper is needed. It just makes already bad elite units even worse. There's NO NEED for mortal wounds. It's hordes that needs toughness nerf rather than elite.
Or at least if mortal wounds remain there needs to be true anti-horde weapons available which currently are totally lacking.
We ARE talking about 8th ed since it's about mortal wounds which is 8th ed only thing right? You aren't by any chance trying to use 7th ed units which don't exists any more to justify 8th ed rules are you?
adamsouza wrote: It's an adjustment to the meta. Mortal wounds are paper to the rock that was mostly unkillable units.
Very true.
Unfortunately, that does little for the people who want to play Mr. Unkillable and his deathstar friends.
I think that overall, the game is in a much better state with regards to rock/paper/scissors mechanics, even if that means that "hero armies" just aren't that great.
I personally don't play them, always found them very frustrating to play against, even if you win, and for some reason, those Marine players often managed to save 2 or 3 times more 3++ or 2+ than they should mathematically have by rolling them one by one.
That made for a very annoying game tbh.
I have the impression that FnP was the biggest problem of 7th ed, and might be one of the top contenders for 8th ed too.
It often ends up as a complementary invul, which is one invul too many on those who already have one.
morgoth wrote: Unfortunately, that does little for the people who want to play Mr. Unkillable and his deathstar friends.
Which people conveniently forget don't exists. Unless you count hordes seeing there's no real paper to rock that is cheap wounds. THOSE are the ones hard to kill for their points.
Name tough character, he's easier to take down point to point than chaos cultist.
"Unkillable models". Mortarion? Magnus? HAH! What is?
*Simpsons hippie voice* Sounds like, somebody’s livin’ in the past. Contemporiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiize, man!
Seriously though, Mortal Wounds are an 8th Edition answer to a 7th Edition problem. If either unkillable units or Mortal Wounds are going to exist; they have to exist in the same edition to balance each other. Unfortunately, Mortal Wounds didn’t exist when they were needed (7th), and do exist when they’re not (8th), so both editions suffer.
Even FnP, which are a major design problem, had counters - I don't think they have anymore so they're just like invul saves now.
Totally agree with you here. The double-Strength ignoring FNP was helpful.
Wow. poor GW rules team.
They must be so sad that you called them a petulant child.
Given that I’m something of a GW apologist, that wasn’t directed at the GW team...
morgoth wrote: Unfortunately, that does little for the people who want to play Mr. Unkillable and his deathstar friends.
Which people conveniently forget don't exists. Unless you count hordes seeing there's no real paper to rock that is cheap wounds. THOSE are the ones hard to kill for their points.
Name tough character, he's easier to take down point to point than chaos cultist.
"Unkillable models". Mortarion? Magnus? HAH! What is?
Essentially your argument is that since there's a horde problem, there's no reason to address the potential elite problem.
I think it’s just about empirically proven that 8th does not have an elite problem. It has the opposite - it’s struggletown out there for elites this edition.
kombatwombat wrote: I think it’s just about empirically proven that 8th does not have an elite problem. It has the opposite - it’s struggletown out there for elites this edition.
What I'm hinting at is that 8th edition has no problem with elites because they made the smart design decision to make invulns and FnP balanced instead of overpowered.
Apparently, they did not expect hordes to be a problem and thus did not include a solution to them in the game.
After all, that's a honest mistake for a game that hasn't had a horde problem in ... how long exactly?
Not really.
Multiple LOW lists are a thing, and "small elites" like terminators are better than ever.
It's just that hordes are actually a thing now so you can't see it.
A slight improvement in horde slaying capacity (improving the guns that shoot more against large units and adding more such guns for example, more ways to hammer LD attacks for another) would quickly shift things towards elites, as there are some VERY good elites out there.
This is obviously purely anecdotal and I'm still a touch salty, but my local GW is still reeling from a GK army.
In the lead-up to xmas we've all signed up for a league, and our choices are already locked-in, so there's no chance to change. I've got a decent Sisters list - St.Smashastine and seraphim, plus exorcists and a few other bits here and there - did fairly well against a nasty EC list in the first game.
Unfortunately, we're on the verge of having the whole league collapse because of a GK army which seems to be unstoppable. I don't know their codex well enough to say exactly what they've got, but there's the Stormraven with 48 bolter shots a turn, and a whole boatload of teleporting grey knights with flamer-type weapons. Even with the Sisters' D6 Deny the Witch, there's nothing I can do against the sheer weight of mortal wounds - assuming every unit deep strikes in, as it usually does, there's about 5D3-6 mortal wounds coming in straight away, plus the monstrous shooting phase and the Grey Knight's famous stabbing.
I played them last night (and I'm still a bit miffed!) and I've never felt quite so much like a spectator in a game of 40k - half the force was gone by the end of GK turn two, Celestine had died once, and by the end of turn three all my anti-vehicle equipment, including a dread, the exorcist, and a retributor squad was toast.
I know 40k has never been a game about perfect balance, but absent of taking Sisters of Silence or Culexuses (Culexi?) there's nothing i can see to deal with this force, and there's certainly no chance anyone is going to have a chance at unseating the GK in the league, which rather makes the whole thing a bit pointless. I obviously like playing the game, but if I'd known the league was a foregone conclusion I wouldn't have gone to the bother of signing up.
The only issue I have with smite is that Elite armies already suffer enough due to Malestrom and the new to wound charts that Smite only punishes them further.
AFAIK, most GK only do 1 mortal wound per smite. Unless you are a daemon.
Also, flamer weapon has 8 inch range, you teleport to 9 away, no way he hits these flamer on the drop.
Given that GK are currently perhaps the weakest of the actual codcies, gk of all being unstoppable seems off.
I often find these anecdotal reports of things being op directly caused by people playing wrong, at time VERY wrong.
jbeil wrote:.Unfortunately, we're on the verge of having the whole league collapse because of a GK army which seems to be unstoppable. I don't know their codex well enough to say exactly what they've got, but there's the Stormraven with 48 bolter shots a turn, and a whole boatload of teleporting grey knights with flamer-type weapons. Even with the Sisters' D6 Deny the Witch, there's nothing I can do against the sheer weight of mortal wounds - assuming every unit deep strikes in, as it usually does, there's about 5D3-6 mortal wounds coming in straight away, plus the monstrous shooting phase and the Grey Knight's famous stabbing.
It sounds like your dreaded opponent might be cheating a bit. Almost nothing in the GK army can do a full D3-D6 Mortal Wound Smite; they have a depowered version of Smite that only does 1 MW. Flamer-type weapons aside from the one carried by the Dreadknight have an 8” range, so if they Deep Strike they should never be able to shoot you with them the turn they arrive.
AaronWilson wrote:The only issue I have with smite is that Elite armies already suffer enough due to Malestrom and the new to wound charts that Smite only punishes them further.
...and the new AP system, and the new Morale system, and multi-damage weaponry, and templates being able to hit small numbers of models multiple times... yeah, it’s not a great environment for elites at the moment.
I also wonder about his 48 shot raven. Assuming he has it maximized for dakka he gets 12 shots from his twin assault cannons, 24 shots from his hurricane bolters, if within 12", and 6 shots from his twin heavy bolters (12 S6 AP -1 D1 + 24 S4 AP0 D1 +6 S5 AP-1 D1). It also costs a decent chunk of points, 313.
It sounds like he made have made a few mistakes- he still has to place half of his units on the board and can't put everything into deep strike mode.
Smite should not be available at a points cost where you can smite Ork Boys, expect to kill only 10 points worth a cast, and consider that a perfectly reasonable return on your points.
I think naked mind-bullet Smiters should be a minimum of 70 points. I'd prefer if most psykers could cast 2 powers, had a reasonable amount of gear and stats so they could operate in other phases of the game, but cost 120+ points. If you want to spam that then you are going to have a very small army with it.
What statline do you mean by naked? Do you mean WS4+ BS4+ S 3 T3 etc etc. like a trained guardsmen? Or WS5+ BS5+ S3 T3 etc etc. like an untrained human? Or T4 Str4 like a Librarian? How many wounds? 4 like a Primaris Psyker or 6 like a Primaris Librarian?
Because if you think paying 70 points is worth it on making a naked Guardsman be able to cast smite (and have like, 2 or 3 more wounds), then you're bonkers.
The thread has moved on a bit - but why?
Casting smite on naked marines gets you about 21 points worth of damage. On a 70 point model that is a 30% return. This is fine.
And it just gets better if those marines are blinged out in any way. Or I am targeting something other than a rhino with a higher points/wound ratio.
At 46 points I am getting a 45% return on naked marines. This is top tier worthy. And again - it gets even better against many options.
At 46 points I can smite 6 point Ork Boys - which should be terrible - and still get a 21.7% return. Not amazing - but still better than most "suboptimal" situations.
Insectum7 wrote: Nahh, I disagree. I like that Mortal Wounds are in the game to help out against inv. saves. Having buffed out, nigh unkillable models is bad for the game, imo. Mortal Wounds are a great equalizer in that regard.
Except that there are units which have abilities who also work against smite, and others dont. Some even get those for free, others cant get them at all. Like disgustingly resilient, or catalyst. Its gets even worse when a model with an inv. sv. has access to a FNP ability and can smite.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I also wonder about his 48 shot raven. Assuming he has it maximized for dakka he gets 12 shots from his twin assault cannons, 24 shots from his hurricane bolters, if within 12", and 6 shots from his twin heavy bolters (12 S6 AP -1 D1 + 24 S4 AP0 D1 +6 S5 AP-1 D1). It also costs a decent chunk of points, 313.
It sounds like he made have made a few mistakes- he still has to place half of his units on the board and can't put everything into deep strike mode.
We do play by power rating rather than points, so I'm not sure if that affects the deep striking rules - if someone can point to a page number for the bits they think he might have wrong I'd certainly be grateful!
Could it be that he's still using the INDEX rather than CODEX: GREY KNIGHTS? This chap is a GW employee so I doubt he'd be deliberately cheating or anything.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I also wonder about his 48 shot raven. Assuming he has it maximized for dakka he gets 12 shots from his twin assault cannons, 24 shots from his hurricane bolters, if within 12", and 6 shots from his twin heavy bolters (12 S6 AP -1 D1 + 24 S4 AP0 D1 +6 S5 AP-1 D1). It also costs a decent chunk of points, 313.
It sounds like he made have made a few mistakes- he still has to place half of his units on the board and can't put everything into deep strike mode.
We do play by power rating rather than points, so I'm not sure if that affects the deep striking rules - if someone can point to a page number for the bits they think he might have wrong I'd certainly be grateful!
Could it be that he's still using the INDEX rather than CODEX: GREY KNIGHTS? This chap is a GW employee so I doubt he'd be deliberately cheating or anything.
If you are not playing matched play then it is possible to deepstrike your entire army. Otherwise P215 has the Tactical Reserves rules for matched play which restrict it to half your units. As for playing index rather than codex GK, that is kind of cheating (especially for an employee) as the Codex rules replace those in the index. That said even then I though GK were limited with smite effectiveness in the index.
It's under the match play rules p215. Just because he's a GW employee doesn't mean that he knows all the rules. In fact he may have so many different versions of the rules in his head that he misremembers which rules are the correct set.
It could also be that you are playing with different play rules from each other. He may be using open play while you are expecting match play.
I had no intention of even implying that he was cheating so I'm sorry if I left that impression.
You may also want to check any scenerio's deployment rules if you are using the books scenerio. IIRC if you go 1st and he does not have any troops on the board by the end of your turn then you win automatically (some one else will have to say if this is correct or not and where that rule comes from but I'm pretty sure that it's right).
Smite should not be available at a points cost where you can smite Ork Boys, expect to kill only 10 points worth a cast, and consider that a perfectly reasonable return on your points.
I think naked mind-bullet Smiters should be a minimum of 70 points. I'd prefer if most psykers could cast 2 powers, had a reasonable amount of gear and stats so they could operate in other phases of the game, but cost 120+ points. If you want to spam that then you are going to have a very small army with it.
What statline do you mean by naked? Do you mean WS4+ BS4+ S 3 T3 etc etc. like a trained guardsmen? Or WS5+ BS5+ S3 T3 etc etc. like an untrained human? Or T4 Str4 like a Librarian? How many wounds? 4 like a Primaris Psyker or 6 like a Primaris Librarian?
Because if you think paying 70 points is worth it on making a naked Guardsman be able to cast smite (and have like, 2 or 3 more wounds), then you're bonkers.
The thread has moved on a bit - but why?
Casting smite on naked marines gets you about 21 points worth of damage. On a 70 point model that is a 30% return. This is fine.
And it just gets better if those marines are blinged out in any way. Or I am targeting something other than a rhino with a higher points/wound ratio.
At 46 points I am getting a 45% return on naked marines. This is top tier worthy. And again - it gets even better against many options.
At 46 points I can smite 6 point Ork Boys - which should be terrible - and still get a 21.7% return. Not amazing - but still better than most "suboptimal" situations.
This. Smite and the other "smite-like" powers are so good that they get at least mediocre performance against their worst targets. And then when they are hitting their favorite target, elite units that paid for a lot of defenses but not many wounds, they earn their points back in record time. Like if you take a hundred point marine Libby, who isn't a very efficient psyker since he pays for a cool weapon and marine stats and junk, and he rolls up on a termie squad, an average smite and psychic scourge immediately covers his point investment. If you get multiple turns of casting (likely since yknow...character,) or god forbid a critical smite, he's getting ridiculous return on his points. Like the kind of return that 7e riptides would be envious of. If something is going to be a hard counter, it should have a situation where it sucks in return. And smite school powers are always at least decent in every situation. Like magic's color hosers such as flashfires that completely obliterates white. The drawback is that it does absolutely nothing to anyone else. That's a good example of a decently designed hard counter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I like smite as it is for the most part, and a lot of this could be fixed by " elite " units' costs being tuned for the reality of 8th ed.
I think this is a rare circumstance where point fixing won't work.
I don't believe the points can actually correctly reconcile elite high defense units and reliable defense bypassing mortal wounds in the same game. If you decrease the cost of the elites to the point where they aren't giving up massive point swings every time a mortal wound comes their way, then when they run across an enemy without a good amount of mortal wounds, the unit will be grossly overpowered.
The only way I can think of to balance MW's as a common game mechanic is to remove all toughness and save values, and just give everything a wound count to reflect its durability. (Which I don't want because I like the game system differentiating between tough things and things with damage mitigation.)
Smite is fine as is. It is incredibly short ranged and can only hurt units that are closest which emphasizes movement strategy. The problem is cheap (<70 point) psykers that can be spammed with Supreme Command Detachments and the like. Also, I'm firmly in the "Mortal Wounds are Necessary" camp.
". If you decrease the cost of the elites to the point where they aren't giving up massive point swings every time a mortal wound comes their way, then when they run across an enemy without a good amount of mortal wounds, the unit will be grossly overpowered. "
Just take mortal wounds into account when costing them to make the problem more manageable. Yes, an 11 pt tac marine is still more vulnerable than an Ork boy, but is better off than a 13 pt tac marines.
the_scotsman wrote:
1) don't have valuable units as the closest thing and within 18", either by being out of range or screening as discussed.
2) Use your own psykers, which provide effectively a 4++ against Smite
3) Use models who provide other defenses against psychic powers (culexus, SoS, etc)
4) Use Stratagems that provide defenses against psychic powers or Smite (Armor of Contempt for instance)
1) So, in other words, don’t play with an elite assault army.
2) So, in other words, don’t play with an army that doesn’t or can’t use psykers. And if you can take psykers, in order to have a reasonable defence against Smite, make sure you take several of them. If the problem unit’s only solution is to take the problem unit yourself (psykers), something fundamental has gone wrong with the rules.
3) So, in other words, don’t play with the faction you want to play, play with the faction that is actually capable of dealing with the problem.
4) So, in other words, don’t play with an army that doesn’t have anti-psyker stratagems that specifically apply to them and CP to spare. That Armour of Contempt isn’t going to help Terminators.
5) So, in other words, don’t play with an army that isn’t Guard.
Seriously though, what exactly do expect something like Black Templars or a Necron army to do about Smite, or even Mortal Wounds in general? Templars at least have their Deny the Witch Stratagem... for a CP they get a 50/50 chance to deny one Smite per turn. Not exactly helpful if your opponent can bring more than one Smite or can cast multiple powers.
"waaah, a thing that is better against the armies I play exists in the game, it has to be deleted".
Yes, it is possible to have an army list that is hard-countered by something in the game, and if you don't change the list you are screwed. The guy who brings all eldar gunline with no screen is gonna get royally f'ed up by genestealer ambush or khorne alphazerkers. The guy who brings only vehicles is going to get F'ed up by a list that's nothing but lascannons. Does that mean we should remove lascannons?
I play pretty much nothing but decently elite assault armies, and have never had a problem dealing with smitespam. I play Dark Eldar, where I've got PFP to block Smite damage and that is it, that's all I've got that interacts with psykers besides just stabbing them in the face and putting my big huge transport vehicles with plenty of wounds between the psyker and what I don't want them to smite.With so much of the game revolving around abusing "gotta be the closest model" rules at this point, you'd think people would have figured out the primary way to get around smite...
Yes, if you play nothing but no psyker, no anti-psyker, no chaff, no transport all elite infantry with high save army, smite spam is going to mess you up. Things that counter other things exist in 40k. I'm sorry. Nerf rock, paper is fine. Please note that equating this to "just play guard" is fething asinine and it doesn't mean if you play Space Marines focused on assault that there is literally nothing you can do to defend yourself. it's as easy as stick a rhino or a flyer or something out in front of the psyker if you can't get to them.
Necrons have no counter to mortal wounds from smite? What is Reanimation Protocols? What is a Gloom Prism?
Look, I don't disagree that there are specific units in the game that use Smite too efficiently. What I do disagree with is the fact that a counter to invuln saves is unhealthy for the game in general. It's not. If you want a universal rule to go after in 8th ed, try terrain and the character rule. Both are vastly more unhealthy for the general state of the game. Smite is an inefficient source of damage most of the time you use it.
Unless you can actually demonstrate that it is less fair for something to die if you leave it out in front of 300-odd points of psykers than it would be if you left it out in front of 300-odd points of anti-elite shooting weapons, smite in general is not actually a problem. A unit of plasma scions or sternguard or oblits is going to do the exact same thing with less counterplay to you more points efficiently.
v0iddrgn wrote: Smite is fine as is. It is incredibly short ranged and can only hurt units that are closest which emphasizes movement strategy. The problem is cheap (<70 point) psykers that can be spammed with Supreme Command Detachments and the like. Also, I'm firmly in the "Mortal Wounds are Necessary" camp.
They absolutely are not necessary. The things that needed them vanished with the edition change. There's no way to balance a bunch of defense-bypassing mechanics with units that pay for good defenses. Either the mortal wounds will shelf those units (which is where we are now) or those units will get reduced to paying so little for their defenses that dealing with them efficiently without mortal wounds will be next to impossible.
There's also the enjoyment factor in that people don't like removing models with no rolls. People didn't like old strength D. People didn't like 6 stomps. People want to roll something before their model dies, even if it's an unlikely 6+ or something. That's part of why people would go to ground last edition even when it wasn't wise. They wanted to roll something before removing models.
Another factor in the smite debate and the presence of invulnerable saves: people keep defending invuln saves, saying they're weaker than they were in the past, and characterizing smite as solving a problem that doesn't exist. By and large though, characters have more wounds than they did in 7th edition, so while the invuln save may be worse, it still takes more oomph to chip a character away. As is, smite is an important tool, and while it doesn't allow for counterplay in every situation, it's not a sledgehammer either (well, except for in a couple situations on undercosted psykers.)
You can play all elite and have it work well, but it is countered by hordes and smite spam.
Space Marine players keep complaining they don't have cheap screens, but guess what, thete are other armies can't field all elites and remain competitive against Space Marines, so they field what works.
Playing Tyranids, I need huge hordes of bodies to tie up Marine forces, and I need the Mortal Wounds to chew through their defenses in any meaningful way.
3+ saves are just as good as 3++ when most of the attacks coming their way are AP -. Those 4++ saves make a mockery out of claws and jaws larger than the model making the save.
Nobody has mentioned Tau yet. I have a few defenses against smite, like 6+ FNP from ethereals (and I have to get 1st turn to get that defense up), stim injectors (why would you take these when you have ATS/Target lock/shield gens..) and at best the shield drone with 5+ FNP.
Getting dumped on by ~6d3 smites (playing vs Eldar) + executioner (d3 + d3 mortal wounds) is a huge kick in the dick.
I'm fine with mortal wounds being good and all, but entire armies (DE, Necrons, Tau, to name a few) just NOT participating in a phase and removing models without saves/deny the witch sucks, and is not fun
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Another factor in the smite debate and the presence of invulnerable saves: people keep defending invuln saves, saying they're weaker than they were in the past, and characterizing smite as solving a problem that doesn't exist. By and large though, characters have more wounds than they did in 7th edition, so while the invuln save may be worse, it still takes more oomph to chip a character away. As is, smite is an important tool, and while it doesn't allow for counterplay in every situation, it's not a sledgehammer either (well, except for in a couple situations on undercosted psykers.)
Except you aren't taking into account that multi-damage weapons are all over the place. Characters in 8th, once they're targetable, drop like chumps compared to last edition. Even G man, the upper end of protected characters, drops like a rock as soon as you start pumping lascannons into him.
As we keep saying, the days of amazing defense monsters with eternal warrior taking 1 wound from everything while using look out sir to a cheap unit to give them amazing staying power are over. If you are having a problem with tough units with good defenses, you aren't bringing enough multi damage weapons. Smite and other MW sources aren't necessary in the least.
They're just a mechanic that was terribly designed in what I consider to be an otherwise ok edition that can't be balanced by points, because either your army is ok against MW's, or your army has to be reduced in cost so much to be ok against MW's that it's overpowered against everything else.
I mean imagone trying to point cost necrons if all eldar attacks ignored their reanimation, saves, and quantum shielding. You can't. Either they're going to be underpowered against eldar and ok against others, or you reduce their cost to make them ok against eldar and they're absolutely ridic against everyone else.
prendeho wrote: Nobody has mentioned Tau yet. I have a few defenses against smite, like 6+ FNP from ethereals (and I have to get 1st turn to get that defense up), stim injectors (why would you take these when you have ATS/Target lock/shield gens..) and at best the shield drone with 5+ FNP.
Getting dumped on by ~6d3 smites (playing vs Eldar) + executioner (d3 + d3 mortal wounds) is a huge kick in the dick.
I'm fine with mortal wounds being good and all, but entire armies (DE, Necrons, Tau, to name a few) just NOT participating in a phase and removing models without saves/deny the witch sucks, and is not fun
Tau have drones. Practically the best defense against Mortal Wounds.
Did you manage to get close enough to my Tau Commander to inflict 2 Mortal wounds? Cool, I'll have these two drones eat them.
prendeho wrote: Nobody has mentioned Tau yet. I have a few defenses against smite, like 6+ FNP from ethereals (and I have to get 1st turn to get that defense up), stim injectors (why would you take these when you have ATS/Target lock/shield gens..) and at best the shield drone with 5+ FNP.
Getting dumped on by ~6d3 smites (playing vs Eldar) + executioner (d3 + d3 mortal wounds) is a huge kick in the dick.
I'm fine with mortal wounds being good and all, but entire armies (DE, Necrons, Tau, to name a few) just NOT participating in a phase and removing models without saves/deny the witch sucks, and is not fun
Tau have drones. Practically the best defense against Mortal Wounds.
Did you manage to get close enough to my Tau Commander to inflict 2 Mortal wounds? Cool, I'll have these two drones eat them.
Plus he's sinking ~350 points into psykers to get 6 smites and an executioner. That's 350 points of psychic damage that is limited to 18" range and auto targets the closest thing. Plus, he's either walking most of that across the table or else putting it in a transport that you can strand in his deployment zone. Or he's deepstriking it in a transport, in which case you have a turn to reposition and/or kill the tank.
Granted, smite is pretty great against commander spam, but commander spam is a temporary crutch that is indicative of poor balance and will hopefully be less of a thing in a couple months.
v0iddrgn wrote: Smite is fine as is. It is incredibly short ranged and can only hurt units that are closest which emphasizes movement strategy. The problem is cheap (<70 point) psykers that can be spammed with Supreme Command Detachments and the like. Also, I'm firmly in the "Mortal Wounds are Necessary" camp.
They absolutely are not necessary. The things that needed them vanished with the edition change.
Nope, they're just hiding in the shadows of the horde problem.
Anyway, just say it like it is: "I want my overpowered elite units back, with no counters to Invul save because that's how it was 10 years ago".
You may also want to check any scenerio's deployment rules if you are using the books scenerio. IIRC if you go 1st and he does not have any troops on the board by the end of your turn then you win automatically (some one else will have to say if this is correct or not and where that rule comes from but I'm pretty sure that it's right).
The auto win comes into affect at the end of turn 2, rather than turn 1. This gives the player going first who holds off part of his army in reserve has a chance when faced with a powerful alpha/beta strike.
ATM the toughest non LOW to kill in the game is a kraken tervigon with the chameleonic bio artefact, adaptive biology warlord trait, catalyst cast on it, and standing near a malanthrope and in cover.
14 wounds, toughness 8, 2+/5+++ save, -2 to hit, and -1 damage after the first phase it takes damage.
Pretty sure no other non LOW is as tough to kill. Granted he can be shot at from across the board, but with -2 to hit and toughness 8 only str 9 D6 damage weapons really threaten him.
Takes almost an average of 50 lazcannon shots from marines to kill him on turn 1.
Granted this doesnt take rerolls or BS2 into account but yeah.
If you don't kill him the first round its far worse since he has -1 damage from multi-damage weapons.
Points cost for this is 383 points. He's also basically immune to small arms fire.
v0iddrgn wrote: Smite is fine as is. It is incredibly short ranged and can only hurt units that are closest which emphasizes movement strategy. The problem is cheap (<70 point) psykers that can be spammed with Supreme Command Detachments and the like. Also, I'm firmly in the "Mortal Wounds are Necessary" camp.
They absolutely are not necessary. The things that needed them vanished with the edition change.
Nope, they're just hiding in the shadows of the horde problem.
Anyway, just say it like it is: "I want my overpowered elite units back, with no counters to Invul save because that's how it was 10 years ago".
Citation needed. And I play BA sir. I haven't had an overpowered or even survivable unit for its points in over half a decade. Nice try with the bait though.
v0iddrgn wrote: Smite is fine as is. It is incredibly short ranged and can only hurt units that are closest which emphasizes movement strategy. The problem is cheap (<70 point) psykers that can be spammed with Supreme Command Detachments and the like. Also, I'm firmly in the "Mortal Wounds are Necessary" camp.
They absolutely are not necessary. The things that needed them vanished with the edition change.
Nope, they're just hiding in the shadows of the horde problem.
Anyway, just say it like it is: "I want my overpowered elite units back, with no counters to Invul save because that's how it was 10 years ago".
Smite spam is part of the horde problem. If hordes did not have auto-wounds backing them then there are a bunch of assault units that could be natural counters to them. Those counters are removed by smite because it takes several turns to grind down the horde.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Another factor in the smite debate and the presence of invulnerable saves: people keep defending invuln saves, saying they're weaker than they were in the past, and characterizing smite as solving a problem that doesn't exist. By and large though, characters have more wounds than they did in 7th edition, so while the invuln save may be worse, it still takes more oomph to chip a character away. As is, smite is an important tool, and while it doesn't allow for counterplay in every situation, it's not a sledgehammer either (well, except for in a couple situations on undercosted psykers.)
Except you aren't taking into account that multi-damage weapons are all over the place. Characters in 8th, once they're targetable, drop like chumps compared to last edition. Even G man, the upper end of protected characters, drops like a rock as soon as you start pumping lascannons into him.
As we keep saying, the days of amazing defense monsters with eternal warrior taking 1 wound from everything while using look out sir to a cheap unit to give them amazing staying power are over. If you are having a problem with tough units with good defenses, you aren't bringing enough multi damage weapons. Smite and other MW sources aren't necessary in the least.
They're just a mechanic that was terribly designed in what I consider to be an otherwise ok edition that can't be balanced by points, because either your army is ok against MW's, or your army has to be reduced in cost so much to be ok against MW's that it's overpowered against everything else.
I mean imagone trying to point cost necrons if all eldar attacks ignored their reanimation, saves, and quantum shielding. You can't. Either they're going to be underpowered against eldar and ok against others, or you reduce their cost to make them ok against eldar and they're absolutely ridic against everyone else.
You can't just blow past the "once they're targetable" caveat; that's a big deal. In fact, with the new rules on targeting characters, these elite units get even more defense. The play and counterplay involving positioning is actually one of the more nuanced aspects of 8th, and smite is definitely a part of that. As long as those restrictions are in place, I think it remains a tool in the meta that some armies need to make use of.
I thought this thread might be interesting as I am in the same position as the OP; not seeing the problem.
Unfortunately no one in this thread has provided any evidence to show that smite spam is an issue. It's all anecdotes about bad match ups or waffley theory hammer what ifs.
If you want to demonstrate that smite spam is a problem (post chapter approved) you need to post tournament results that show smite spam armies dominating. That is the closest you will get to some objective fact about it.
Failing that you could post a list that spams smite so that everyone can look at it and go "OMG my army could never beat that!".
I would also like to add that Sprirtseers are the best smite spammers in the game right now but, despite using them extensively, I almost never cast smite with them.
Here is an AM psyker spam list. 6 full size psykers in a 1k list. I didnt bother picking different psykana disciplines,and optimizing the list, just an example. Two psykers and one inf squad are in a chimera, transports advance and pop smoke. Next turn all pop out and psykers spam their powers. Chimeras and inf squads act as shields for the psykers.
Heavy Weapons Squad [3 PL, 66pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [26pts]: Lascannon [20pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [26pts]: Lascannon [20pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [14pts]: Heavy bolter [8pts]
Heavy Weapons Squad [3 PL, 66pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [26pts]: Lascannon [20pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [26pts]: Lascannon [20pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [14pts]: Heavy bolter [8pts]
v0iddrgn wrote: Smite is fine as is. It is incredibly short ranged and can only hurt units that are closest which emphasizes movement strategy. The problem is cheap (<70 point) psykers that can be spammed with Supreme Command Detachments and the like. Also, I'm firmly in the "Mortal Wounds are Necessary" camp.
They absolutely are not necessary. The things that needed them vanished with the edition change.
Nope, they're just hiding in the shadows of the horde problem.
Anyway, just say it like it is: "I want my overpowered elite units back, with no counters to Invul save because that's how it was 10 years ago".
Citation needed. And I play BA sir. I haven't had an overpowered or even survivable unit for its points in over half a decade. Nice try with the bait though.
Codex Space Marine had 2+ saves, on T5, with Jink and Storm Shield saves.
They still have 2+/3++ Terminators.
Blood Angels had sanguinary Priests giving out FNP.
If you want to win a pissing contest about losing survivability try playing 8E Necrons.
Moosatronic Warrior wrote: I thought this thread might be interesting as I am in the same position as the OP; not seeing the problem.
Unfortunately no one in this thread has provided any evidence to show that smite spam is an issue. It's all anecdotes about bad match ups or waffley theory hammer what ifs.
If you want to demonstrate that smite spam is a problem (post chapter approved) you need to post tournament results that show smite spam armies dominating. That is the closest you will get to some objective fact about it.
Failing that you could post a list that spams smite so that everyone can look at it and go "OMG my army could never beat that!".
I would also like to add that Sprirtseers are the best smite spammers in the game right now but, despite using them extensively, I almost never cast smite with them.
I'm not sure I agree that spirtseers are the best smite spammers (they are the cheapest by a point) if only because they lack access to a super cheap screen of bodies. I'm far less worried about smite spam if I can directly engage the psykers, and if you are paying for say guardians to protect your spirit seers your smite base costs far more than it would for Guard. In fact if we include screeinging units Malefic lords are basically as good at spamming smite as spirit seers are now, because they have access to cheaper screening units.
guardians are as cheap as it gets for a screen in eldar so you are paying a 40-50 point premium (per 10 models) on your screen compared to Chaos or guard. Maybe a little less than that if they are using pox walkers (20 points at that point). So if we assume that if you want to spam 5 smite psykers and say 50 screening models (most screens are larger than that in armies I have seen spamming smite) Guard is paying 230 points for 5 Primaris psykers + 200 points for their screen = 430 points. Eldar is paying 225 points for spirit seers + 400 points for their screen = 625 points. CSM is paying 400 points for psykers + 150(brims)-200(cultists)(300 if pox walkers) points for their screen = 550-600(700) So if we account for the screen Guard is by far the most points efficient with eldar the least efficient, this gets much worse if you want larger 100 man screens as some armies have been using.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
p5freak wrote: Here is an AM psyker spam list. 6 full size psykers in a 1k list. I didnt bother picking different psykana disciplines,and optimizing the list, just an example. Two psykers and one inf squad are in a chimera, transports advance and pop smoke. Next turn all pop out and psykers spam their powers. Chimeras and inf squads act as shields for the psykers.
Heavy Weapons Squad [3 PL, 66pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [26pts]: Lascannon [20pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [26pts]: Lascannon [20pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [14pts]: Heavy bolter [8pts]
Heavy Weapons Squad [3 PL, 66pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [26pts]: Lascannon [20pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [26pts]: Lascannon [20pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [14pts]: Heavy bolter [8pts]
That isn't even a very good list, more infantry squads, different heavy weapons and a couple Basilisks instead of chimeras and you have a real problem army.
p5freak wrote: Here is an AM psyker spam list. 6 full size psykers in a 1k list. I didnt bother picking different psykana disciplines,and optimizing the list, just an example. Two psykers and one inf squad are in a chimera, transports advance and pop smoke. Next turn all pop out and psykers spam their powers. Chimeras and inf squads act as shields for the psykers.
Heavy Weapons Squad [3 PL, 66pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [26pts]: Lascannon [20pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [26pts]: Lascannon [20pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [14pts]: Heavy bolter [8pts]
Heavy Weapons Squad [3 PL, 66pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [26pts]: Lascannon [20pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [26pts]: Lascannon [20pts]
. Heavy Weapon Team [14pts]: Heavy bolter [8pts]
That doesn't seem so bad. It's a decent amount of armor for 1k, but I'd only have to kill the Russ and 6 heavy weapons teams to basically neuter your ranged offense. I typically run dark reapers and a night spinner these days, so I feel like I can probably kill all your big guns by the end of turn 2 pretty reliably while keeping my distance from any approaching psykers. I can probably spare a cheap screen to eat your smite the first turn you come out of the chimeras. Your guardsman screens are squishy, so they should evaporate the turn after they disembark. Then I just have to toss any old unit into melee with your psykers and chimeras. The chimeras will effectively be silenced for a bit, and I stand decent odds of murderizing the psykers over the course of a couple turns. If I take a farseer as an HQ (to guide and probably mind war as needed), then I stand a good chance of shutting down 1 or 2 smites each turn. If I happen to take rangers as one of my troops, I might get lucky and kill off psykers even faster.
So basically, focus on your big guns turn 1 and 2, clear out disembarked infantry screens turns 2 and 3. Turns 3 and 4, I take some damage as a few smites and chimera shots get through, but at that point I'm basically just having to finish off the psykers. After that, it's mop up.
Martel732 wrote: Of course, they are slow, don't shoot at all, and have very expensive transport options.
I think this is why I forgot about them, they strike me as far too expensive to be effective given their drawbacks. Maybe deep striking them with a librarian to cast Veil of Time on them, but then it's even more expensive (~365) and they'll still probably only be able to charge a screen unit. Even with those saves dedicated firepower will bring them down, whether you have smite or not. I don't really see why smite is needed to counter a unit like this.
So, one of the problems i have with smite is there is absolutely no flavor behind it.
I would much prefer every faction or discipline getting their own primaris power to spam, rather than a bland mindbullet power.
And on that same vein, you've got Primaris Psykers, which cast the power better than Grand Master Voldus. From a lore standpoint that's gross, and from a game balance standpoint that's also gross, a 200 point psyker sucks at smiting while a 50 point psyker is ballsout awesome.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Also, that Kraken Tervigon is a perfect example of what smite is for....
I don't understand this statement... could you clarify?
Unit1126PLL wrote: *Talks about TH/SS terminators and not about the damn near unkillable unit mentioned above*
Probably because smite doesn't counter him, like, at all? Besides auto hitting I suppose, but he'll have SITW almost doubling your odds of failing the smite (6/36 to 10/36 chance to fail) and, most likely, at least a hive tyrant or two denying vs your roll-1. And then after all that he gets a 5+ save against all the mortal wounds.
There are very few armies that can honestly complain that much about psykers being un-counterable in 8th. Dark Eldar for sure, Tau even more (though as mentioned ubiquitous drones help the tau) and arguably necrons have very few units though they do have a universal defense in res protocols.
TH/ss terminators are counterd by smite. But they're not bad because of smite. They're bad because of how incredibly easy it is to screen them away from stuff that's actually valuable.
Which is kind of the theme of the whole thread: Missing the real core of the problem (no good anti-infantry weapons existing in the game+really broken character targeting restrictions leading to the current Hordes+Characters meta) and complaining about something that SEEMS really broken (taking wounds you can never ever not in a milion years get a save against or block, except when you can of course.)
Unit1126PLL wrote: Also, that Kraken Tervigon is a perfect example of what smite is for....
Except it is a terrible example of what smite is for. It has FNP which is a save against smite. So on average every 3 smites does 4 wounds to it? It also has shadows in the warp and is a backfield unit so screening it (with gaunts it literally spawns) is easy. You'd be better off shooting it with lascannons.
So point in fact smite is significantly better against TH/SS terminators than that Tervigon. Because they are a unit that needs to be on the front fighting to do anything, have no save (unless Iron Hands) against wounds from smite.
The issue is that the fix to units like that tervigon is to not allow them to be created in the first place, because anything you make to kill it (unless very specific) does as much or worse to less unkillable units. This was the problem with say stomp in the past, or D weapons. They were perfectly good answers to things like Screamer star, but they murdered all the other options as well.
Unit1126PLL wrote: *Talks about TH/SS terminators and not about the damn near unkillable unit mentioned above*
Probably because smite doesn't counter him, like, at all? Besides auto hitting I suppose, but he'll have SITW almost doubling your odds of failing the smite (6/36 to 10/36 chance to fail) and, most likely, at least a hive tyrant or two denying vs your roll-1. And then after all that he gets a 5+ save against all the mortal wounds.
There are very few armies that can honestly complain that much about psykers being un-counterable in 8th. Dark Eldar for sure, Tau even more (though as mentioned ubiquitous drones help the tau) and arguably necrons have very few units though they do have a universal defense in res protocols.
TH/ss terminators are counterd by smite. But they're not bad because of smite. They're bad because of how incredibly easy it is to screen them away from stuff that's actually valuable.
Which is kind of the theme of the whole thread: Missing the real core of the problem (no good anti-infantry weapons existing in the game+really broken character targeting restrictions leading to the current Hordes+Characters meta) and complaining about something that SEEMS really broken (taking wounds you can never ever not in a milion years get a save against or block, except when you can of course.)
Smite adds to the horde problem, because it murders those TH/SS termies while they try to get through said screen. If you had 5 TH/SS termies, assault a screen. 5 smites is fairly likely to kill the entire squad.
Makes me kind of hope GK get full smite at that time (or ignore this rule) otherwise they become even worse. Beyond that I like that as a potential fix.
It isn't it is just the most durable possible unit someone could come up with. Because it has basically every conceivable durability buff this edition short of an invulnerable save.
Yay. It's encouraging to see that the GW rules team is astute enough to see that there's an issue, although I wish they'd just go ahead and admit they slipped up when they made every other thing mortal wounds when it should've been just like Titan explosions and junk like that.
Breng77 wrote: It isn't it is just the most durable possible unit someone could come up with. Because it has basically every conceivable durability buff this edition short of an invulnerable save.
This forum is such a joke sometimes.
There are plenty of units more durable and survivable than a Tervigon. Without even trying i can tell you Mortarian is more survivable.
Anything "character" with <9 wounds is more survivable, too.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Another factor in the smite debate and the presence of invulnerable saves: people keep defending invuln saves, saying they're weaker than they were in the past, and characterizing smite as solving a problem that doesn't exist. By and large though, characters have more wounds than they did in 7th edition, so while the invuln save may be worse, it still takes more oomph to chip a character away. As is, smite is an important tool, and while it doesn't allow for counterplay in every situation, it's not a sledgehammer either (well, except for in a couple situations on undercosted psykers.)
Except you aren't taking into account that multi-damage weapons are all over the place. Characters in 8th, once they're targetable, drop like chumps compared to last edition. Even G man, the upper end of protected characters, drops like a rock as soon as you start pumping lascannons into him.
As we keep saying, the days of amazing defense monsters with eternal warrior taking 1 wound from everything while using look out sir to a cheap unit to give them amazing staying power are over. If you are having a problem with tough units with good defenses, you aren't bringing enough multi damage weapons. Smite and other MW sources aren't necessary in the least.
They're just a mechanic that was terribly designed in what I consider to be an otherwise ok edition that can't be balanced by points, because either your army is ok against MW's, or your army has to be reduced in cost so much to be ok against MW's that it's overpowered against everything else.
I mean imagone trying to point cost necrons if all eldar attacks ignored their reanimation, saves, and quantum shielding. You can't. Either they're going to be underpowered against eldar and ok against others, or you reduce their cost to make them ok against eldar and they're absolutely ridic against everyone else.
You can't just blow past the "once they're targetable" caveat; that's a big deal. In fact, with the new rules on targeting characters, these elite units get even more defense. The play and counterplay involving positioning is actually one of the more nuanced aspects of 8th, and smite is definitely a part of that. As long as those restrictions are in place, I think it remains a tool in the meta that some armies need to make use of.
You can blow past that caveat, because literally everyone has access to characters and can make use of it. The argument was that MW's were needed for guys that were near invincible, and my stance is that those guys don't exist anymore. And for like the 80h time, I'm not talking about smites specifically, but MW's. Several of those can come from snipers and powers that can target.
Breng77 wrote: It isn't it is just the most durable possible unit someone could come up with. Because it has basically every conceivable durability buff this edition short of an invulnerable save.
This forum is such a joke sometimes.
There are plenty of units more durable and survivable than a Tervigon. Without even trying i can tell you Mortarian is more survivable.
Anything "character" with <9 wounds is more survivable, too.
Mortarian is not more durable than the tervigon with all those buffs. Characters are against shooting, but not statistically and provide no case for mortal wounds.
Moosatronic Warrior wrote: I thought this thread might be interesting as I am in the same position as the OP; not seeing the problem.
Unfortunately no one in this thread has provided any evidence to show that smite spam is an issue. It's all anecdotes about bad match ups or waffley theory hammer what ifs.
If you want to demonstrate that smite spam is a problem (post chapter approved) you need to post tournament results that show smite spam armies dominating. That is the closest you will get to some objective fact about it.
Failing that you could post a list that spams smite so that everyone can look at it and go "OMG my army could never beat that!".
I would also like to add that Sprirtseers are the best smite spammers in the game right now but, despite using them extensively, I almost never cast smite with them.
Have you not seen recent tourney results? Chaos armies with malefic lords (now thankfully nerfed) and decimators have performed exceptionally well. Combined with the fact that they have a good screen unit, which is a requirement to be a top tier army right now, and it becomes pretty obvious why GT players call chaos the top army in the game. A recent 100 man GT I was judging at in October had the upper tables covered in mortal wound mechanics. And again, it's not just smite. Several of the smite-like powers can target whatever they want.
Breng77 wrote: It isn't it is just the most durable possible unit someone could come up with. Because it has basically every conceivable durability buff this edition short of an invulnerable save.
This forum is such a joke sometimes.
There are plenty of units more durable and survivable than a Tervigon. Without even trying i can tell you Mortarian is more survivable.
Anything "character" with <9 wounds is more survivable, too.
Hidden character status is not the same thing as actually being durable.
Shots into the nightmare units from 7e were shrugged off and wasted.
Shots reducing a character's protectors are still killing enemies. See the difference?
And I don't see how character protection is even relevant in this discussion of whether smite and other MW's are needed in the game.
A Smite nerf for Matched Play where people deliberately stack the deck with as much Smite-causing stuff as they can seems potentially useful.
If you opponents are playing these lists in casual games... just have a chat. You don't need a Smite nerf to agree a social contract to make "don't be a douchebag" lists.
The huge problem with that is the other side of the fence, which is "you're being a douche bag for trying to tell me how to play the game when how I'm playing the game is perfectly valid and legal within the confines of how the game designer wrote the game".
auticus wrote: The huge problem with that is the other side of the fence, which is "you're being a douche bag for trying to tell me how to play the game when how I'm playing the game is perfectly valid and legal within the confines of how the game designer wrote the game".
Not really, the point of the game is for both players to have fun. If your valid legal list is routinely no fun for me to play against, I won't and if you ask me why not I'll be happy to tell you why (politely). There is no problem with refusing to play a game that you won't enjoy, or asking for someone to consider playing something else so that you both have a good time.
JohnnyHell wrote: A Smite nerf for Matched Play where people deliberately stack the deck with as much Smite-causing stuff as they can seems potentially useful.
If you opponents are playing these lists in casual games... just have a chat. You don't need a Smite nerf to agree a social contract to make "don't be a douchebag" lists.
A quick browse of any Internet forum including this one should make it obvious that that doesn't work. There are people who thought 7e riptides, wraithknights, and formations weren't overpowered. A lot of people are just talking from their joe's-garage-group viewpoint and experiences when the experiences you get from actual large GT's is vastly different and gives you a much better view on what's really happening in the game.
For example a lot of people don't know that a berserker unit that kills your front line chaff in one go can possibly move up to FIFTEEN inches after the combat (9 without using CP,) and use that to tie up a massive part of your army. A lot of people last edition didn't know that tanks could crush units until a few plucky souls (cough) used the tactic at some top GT tables and word started to spread about a rule that had been sitting in the core rulebook unnoticed for a couple years.
People who just don't have exposure to the real competitive game are always going to have some "weird" opinions on competitive aspects. And that means they're going to have some very different opinions on where the line for being a douchebag actually is.
It is much preferable in all cases to just have the game mechanics fixed to where it isn't "easy" to be that guy.
Martel732 wrote: How are they moving 15 exactly? I kind of want to know this.
Charge frontline guys. Something cheap like some marine scouts. Slaughter them. Consolidate 3" towards the backline units. Because they charged this turn, they are always eligible to be activated in the fight phase regardless of if an enemy is nearby. Activate again using berserker ability. Pile in 3, fight no one, consolidate 3. Use stratagem to fight again. Pile in 3, fight no one, consolidate 3. If they did not have a secondary layer of screen unit to stop it, you are now cuddling with their backfield predators/razorbacks/devastators. (Who DO get to hit you, but honestly, that's not going to do much.)
auticus wrote: The huge problem with that is the other side of the fence, which is "you're being a douche bag for trying to tell me how to play the game when how I'm playing the game is perfectly valid and legal within the confines of how the game designer wrote the game".
Not really, the point of the game is for both players to have fun. If your valid legal list is routinely no fun for me to play against, I won't and if you ask me why not I'll be happy to tell you why (politely). There is no problem with refusing to play a game that you won't enjoy, or asking for someone to consider playing something else so that you both have a good time.
But this doesn't come from me or you being a "douchebag". It comes from you and I having two different approaches to the game and the inability to reconcile the other person's approach. Which I find nothing wrong with for the same reason that some people love baseball but I can't stand it but I love football and others can't stand that.
I don't find anythiing wrong with realizing that joe powergamer has no place at my table because I'm not interested in powergaming 40k. That doesn't make Joe Powergamer a douchebag though.
auticus wrote: The huge problem with that is the other side of the fence, which is "you're being a douche bag for trying to tell me how to play the game when how I'm playing the game is perfectly valid and legal within the confines of how the game designer wrote the game".
Not really, the point of the game is for both players to have fun. If your valid legal list is routinely no fun for me to play against, I won't and if you ask me why not I'll be happy to tell you why (politely). There is no problem with refusing to play a game that you won't enjoy, or asking for someone to consider playing something else so that you both have a good time.
But this doesn't come from me or you being a "douchebag". It comes from you and I having two different approaches to the game and the inability to reconcile the other person's approach. Which I find nothing wrong with for the same reason that some people love baseball but I can't stand it but I love football and others can't stand that.
I don't find anythiing wrong with realizing that joe powergamer has no place at my table because I'm not interested in powergaming 40k. That doesn't make Joe Powergamer a douchebag though.
That is right, so long as he doesn't complain when people don't want to play him, that he has a "legal list" and should be allowed to use it.
Martel732 wrote: How are they moving 15 exactly? I kind of want to know this.
Charge frontline guys. Something cheap like some marine scouts. Slaughter them. Consolidate 3" towards the backline units. Because they charged this turn, they are always eligible to be activated in the fight phase regardless of if an enemy is nearby. Activate again using berserker ability. Pile in 3, fight no one, consolidate 3. Use stratagem to fight again. Pile in 3, fight no one, consolidate 3. If they did not have a secondary layer of screen unit to stop it, you are now cuddling with their backfield predators/razorbacks/devastators. (Who DO get to hit you, but honestly, that's not going to do much.)
That's all well and good. IF you declared a charge to all those units and they got to shoot overwatch at you.
Martel732 wrote: How are they moving 15 exactly? I kind of want to know this.
Charge frontline guys. Something cheap like some marine scouts. Slaughter them. Consolidate 3" towards the backline units. Because they charged this turn, they are always eligible to be activated in the fight phase regardless of if an enemy is nearby. Activate again using berserker ability. Pile in 3, fight no one, consolidate 3. Use stratagem to fight again. Pile in 3, fight no one, consolidate 3. If they did not have a secondary layer of screen unit to stop it, you are now cuddling with their backfield predators/razorbacks/devastators. (Who DO get to hit you, but honestly, that's not going to do much.)
That's all well and good. IF you declared a charge to all those units and they got to shoot overwatch at you.
Incorrect. You don't need to declare and get overwatched to engage a unit, you just can't attack it that turn, and then they are either stuck or have to fall back and not shoot. For backline heavy hitters like hellblasters and many tanks, this is a very powerful tactic.
So much for the Thousand Sons, you will be missed (at least for me, I had planned to work on this army slowly, now, screw it). If there was an option to swap out Smite for another power this wouldn't be so bad, but now, you'll simply never make a psychic check with an Aspiring Sorcerer.
Hilariously, its bad for tsons but great for Magnus. Smite spam was a solid way of dealing with him, he can only deny so many and MW bypass his insane invulnerable rolls.
Magnus is also the example of a character that you do need MW to deal with, once he gets his 3++ rerolling 1s up. Not sure any of the others really qualify though.
Psykers cheaper than say 60-70 ppm don't get full smite. They get baby smite. Brimstones get baby smite that allows invuln saves.
No casting after advancing.
Make snipers in more armies more affordable.
Psykers cheaper than say 60-70 ppm don't get full smite. They get baby smite. Brimstones get baby smite that allows invuln saves.
No casting after advancing.
Make snipers in more armies more affordable.
Martel732 wrote: For the most part cheaper = better. I don't know why anyone would keep denying this at this point. The ability to take up table space in this game is invaluable.
cheaper is better for the same unit, but worse units should be cheaper, yes?
Or are you saying that there should be no price differences between units regardless of relative power?
If the two units contribute the same to the battle while one has a bunch of things that make it "better" but that don't actually help it to contribute and it costs more because of that then which one delivers more for the points?
I mean, if you could choose between a Russ and a more expensive Russ that gets more attacks in CC which one are you going to take?
If the two units contribute the same to the battle while one has a bunch of things that make it "better" but that don't actually help it to contribute and it costs more because of that then which one delivers more for the points?
I mean, if you could choose between a Russ and a more expensive Russ that gets more attacks in CC which one are you going to take?
This is the fundamental weakness of Tactical Marines and, by extension, every Space Marine infantry unit.
adamsouza wrote: The object of the game is not always to be the most points, effective killer. Sometimes it pays to be cheap and have objective secured.
Guardsmen, Cultists, Ripper Swarms, Brimstones, etc.. no one is taking them for their killing power.
True. But it is partly a problem with ITC style gaming, which also removes many of the downsides for playing them.
- Stop merging EW/Maelstrom missions and board control becomes less important, at least in some EW missions. (The possiblity of) Relic or No Mercy played straight from the book becomes a strategic consideration (promoting more diversity in tournament army builds).
- Stop using the CA-version of who gets first turn for the BRB missions where it's not supposed to go, and low-drop armies become more relevant again. Transports also become stratgegically more important, perhaps justifying their price a bit more.
- Stop using First Strike instead of First Blood, and cheap, easily killed filler in a high-drop army becomes a slightly greater liability.
- Etc...
Most tournament formats removed the downsides for these kinda units without nerfing the upsides (board control, high drops, more CP through more unit-intensive detachments, etc..).
Smite is brutal at times. I had a match vs dark eldar and before they shoot in round one, my land raider raider was down by 9 wounds from smite alone. Now dark eldar are not even meant to have smite, but they can ally in some cheap farseers that ignores perils on 2+.
Smite is powerfull vs marines and other elites because all those points invested in toughness and armour means nothing. But then again the same complaints can be made about any source of mortal wounds.
It's lame with something that has an equal 100% chance to damage everything from grots to land raiders. And for those in defense saying mortal wounds saves time, why not design all attacks in the game with mortal wounds then, and make the only defense layer wounds. Why even bother with toughness, armour and ap from the start?
100 points per Farseer (or 130 per Farseer Skrunner) is hardly cheap for a model that can't share any of the transports, and is wasting the other powers they can know and cast.
That's at least 300 points.
They also don't ignore Perils on a 2+, but rather they can ignore each MW they'd suffer from Perils on a 2+, just in case your opponent was cheating you.
If they were cheap they should have been T3 S3 and 4+ save.
So could we can then conclude that Tactical Marines are by their very nature not very good? They pay for stats they can’t or don’t often use, so they fail at being efficient killers, and they’re not cheap since they’ve got T4/3+ so they’re not good at being cheap and Objective Secured either?
If the two units contribute the same to the battle while one has a bunch of things that make it "better" but that don't actually help it to contribute and it costs more because of that then which one delivers more for the points?
I mean, if you could choose between a Russ and a more expensive Russ that gets more attacks in CC which one are you going to take?
This is the fundamental weakness of Tactical Marines and, by extension, every Space Marine infantry unit.
Exactly. They pay for an all-round solid statline but can't get the equipment to utilize it fully so some of that statline is always being wasted.
If they were cheap they should have been T3 S3 and 4+ save.
So could we can then conclude that Tactical Marines are by their very nature not very good? They pay for stats they can’t or don’t often use, so they fail at being efficient killers, and they’re not cheap since they’ve got T4/3+ so they’re not good at being cheap and Objective Secured either?
IMHO they're a decent-average troop in a good army, but that's completely out of topic and it's a matter that was discussed for countless pages before.
adamsouza wrote: The object of the game is not always to be the most points, effective killer. Sometimes it pays to be cheap and have objective secured.
Guardsmen, Cultists, Ripper Swarms, Brimstones, etc.. no one is taking them for their killing power.
True. But it is partly a problem with ITC style gaming, which also removes many of the downsides for playing them.
- Stop merging EW/Maelstrom missions and board control becomes less important, at least in some EW missions. (The possiblity of) Relic or No Mercy played straight from the book becomes a strategic consideration (promoting more diversity in tournament army builds).
- Stop using the CA-version of who gets first turn for the BRB missions where it's not supposed to go, and low-drop armies become more relevant again. Transports also become stratgegically more important, perhaps justifying their price a bit more.
- Stop using First Strike instead of First Blood, and cheap, easily killed filler in a high-drop army becomes a slightly greater liability.
- Etc...
Most tournament formats removed the downsides for these kinda units without nerfing the upsides (board control, high drops, more CP through more unit-intensive detachments, etc..).
Of course those changes would make scenarios less important, game even more of who alpha strikes enemy off the board(often on turn 2 latest) and wouldn't actually help marines or other elite units.
adamsouza wrote: The object of the game is not always to be the most points, effective killer. Sometimes it pays to be cheap and have objective secured.
Guardsmen, Cultists, Ripper Swarms, Brimstones, etc.. no one is taking them for their killing power.
True. But it is partly a problem with ITC style gaming, which also removes many of the downsides for playing them.
- Stop merging EW/Maelstrom missions and board control becomes less important, at least in some EW missions. (The possiblity of) Relic or No Mercy played straight from the book becomes a strategic consideration (promoting more diversity in tournament army builds).
- Stop using the CA-version of who gets first turn for the BRB missions where it's not supposed to go, and low-drop armies become more relevant again. Transports also become stratgegically more important, perhaps justifying their price a bit more.
- Stop using First Strike instead of First Blood, and cheap, easily killed filler in a high-drop army becomes a slightly greater liability.
- Etc...
Most tournament formats removed the downsides for these kinda units without nerfing the upsides (board control, high drops, more CP through more unit-intensive detachments, etc..).
Of course those changes would make scenarios less important, game even more of who alpha strikes enemy off the board(often on turn 2 latest) and wouldn't actually help marines or other elite units.
Yup I don't think using more Kill Point only and Relic missions would make lists more varied, they would just make alpha strike even more important because the easiest way for many people to win those missions is to table their opponent. I don't think removing any of the changes that people have made would make the game better just more about setting up your alpha strike to win by tabling. Personally I wish they would remove tabling as a win condition (you are still likely to win the game if your opponent is dead), but progressive missions + removal of auto win really encourages players to interact with each other and makes the game more enjoyable.
I think this is just a clumsy, knee-jerk solution to the problem that fails to provide any alternative to armies that rely on psychic firepower (GK and TS being the obvious ones, but Daemons will feel it to a lesser extent also).
There are a couple of ways this could have been better handled, one would have been to give psykers an option to swap out Smite for a different power, two would have been to make it so lesser psykers don't do MW with Smite, just let them do normal wounds. It's definitely not as impressive, but auto-hitting with 1d3/1d6 wounds is better than the current solution, which is to simply turn the Aspiring Sorcerer into a walking Force Weapon with a Deny.
Psykers cheaper than say 60-70 ppm don't get full smite. They get baby smite. Brimstones get baby smite that allows invuln saves.
No casting after advancing.
Make snipers in more armies more affordable.
That would be better than this "fix", imo.
Brims just..shouldn't have psychic powers. There's a point where something as strong as a mortal wound shouldn't scale down.
TBH, I wouldn't even make Brims a "real unit" if I were designing them they'd be more of a flavor thing. a 3ppm model that is a body with a 4++ inv save is just unbalanceable, and there's not enough difference between blues and brims to work in gw's point scale granularity. I'd give them a rule like "at the end of your turn, roll a d6 for each unit that includes any Brimstone Horrors. That many go out, remove them from play." That way you actually want to take them with Split and use them as extra cheaper wounds but you're not just running 50 brimstones because they're a beyond-bonkers screen for an army that can be pretty much 100% characters.
But again this is a case of nerfing the one offender instead of a blanket nerf to everything.
If you think Brimstones knowing Smite is the problem... then you're wrong.
You forget that in order to cast Smite, you need to kill one of the Brimstones. So it's a trade, though admittedly still in the Brimstone's favour (otherwise there'd be no point in ever casting it). Also, as others have pointed out in other threads, that single MW Smite does as less damage against its supposed 'best targets' than 10 lasguns.
The problem with Brimstones isn't that they can cast Smite. You could remove their Psychic-ness entirely and they'd still be taken in droves because they're a 3pt model with a 4++. What they need is a points bump,and maybe (maybe!) a ++ save decrease on top of that. This would give a reason for Blue Horrors to be taken in Matched Play and fix main reason they are too good. Them knowing Smite is a red herring to throw Marine players off.
Also making it so they can only be seen via splitting would make it so they are never seen again. Split is just a bad rule.
been a while since i have done 8th. But as stated its the spamming on under costed units. For a while there the brimstone and blue horror list was just bonkers.
cheaper is better for the same unit, but worse units should be cheaper, yes?
and invisible Wolfstar boogeymen are dead and buried with last edition. Punishing people who play Custodes or Storm Shield Terminators in 8th because of the problems of 7th is the act of a petulant child. Don’t bring 7th ed’s baggage into 8th.
