Browsing a lot of forums and facebook pages I keep seeing the words "Lists are optimised to take out heavy stuff" or "My list has a lot of anti-tanks". After seeing a titan get taken down turn 1 in a non -Apocalypse game yesterday I too wonder if things in 8th edition do a little too much damage to vehicles and heavy walkers while armies of boyz, gants and guards seem to survive until the end of the game.
Personally, I'm unsure what to think as I only have one heavy walker/vehicle (an ork morkanaut) and I tend to play lists that don't have a huge amount of anti-tank. I'm more in the "I don't know" section but I was wondering what everyone else's experiences of the game are?
When the initial index armies were released a few units (like las-preds and lascannons in general) did notably more damage to vehicles and GW seem to have been scaling up to these with new books.
It's worth keeping in mind that anti-horde in this edition seems to have taken a bit of a dive in places. Something like a marine with a heavy bolter is only enough to kill a single guardsmen per turn, flamer weapons aren't all that much, old heavy ordnance weapons now kill one or two models no matter big a hole they would have made in a 3rd-7th ed formation.
So I think it's a mix of things - most anti-horde weapons are simply poor at their job while anti-vehicle weapons are also now for dealing with monsters, characters, and elite units, and old anti-elite infantry weapons have transmuted into anti-vehicle weapons themselves (plasma being better than melta at the job for instance).
Previous editions of 40k, 7th edition being a notable example, had situations where models / units were all but untouchable, from a game mechanics perspective.
For starters, entire sections of infantry would have no (meaningful) interaction at all with something that had high Toughness / AV. So skewing towards being too Tough / high AV could cripple an opponent's damage output, resulting in a viable strategy of being flat-out immune to many attacks.
Next, fishing for Invisibility became a reliable strategy. If you have large point-value units that can only be hit by 1/6 attacks, instead of 3 or 4 / 6 attacks, the durability is tripled / quadrupled. So you could have units that are only damaged by a limited number of weapons, suddenly having a staggering increase in survivability.
And then Invulnerable saves could be rerolled. So the limited pool of viable weapons is then decreased in effectiveness by 75%, you can then save half or more of those damaging results [5+ reroll is 56% success rate] so basically... you had units that were so incredibly difficult to damage that there was no efficient means to deal with them. The pendulum had swung too far to the right.
Now, in 8th, the pendulum has swung too far [in my opinion] to the left, in that nothing is really survivable. Some games work well with that system. Warmachine / Hordes, for example, is as "killy" as 8th, but balanced in that the ranges are much, MUCH shorter and allow for counter play. Whereas 8th edition 40k allows you to reach out and crush someone from the get go.
So, 40k could reduce the effective killing power of all units in some way. Not much fun, really just prolongs the game, but does lessen the impact of 1st turn alpha strike. Hard to balance an overall buffing mechanic, as most anything would result in already good horde armies [IG] becoming even more resistant to damage.
I honestly don't see much of a "working" way to deal with this, other than to either create massive points changes to units, or implement some form of alternating activation. There are so many scale issues with such a limited RNG [d6] that I have difficulty determining any other way to keep a game that plays quickly, has fun, interactive play [non-Invis-2++ rerolling T8 Deathstars] and allows a variety of units that goes from Grot to Marine to Dreadnaught to Imperial Knight and beyond.
To me, the alternative is ultra-skew lists, that you can determine the outcome before you start. Do you have the tools? Yes / No. Win / Lose.
TL : DR - Everything does much more damage than it used to. For me, that's an acceptable negative, if it prevents an "untouchable" class of units from existing that are non-interactive to game with or against.
Also, a poll options that says, "Not ideal, but workable" would be nice.
You're just artificially inflating game length by making things take longer to kill. There is no problem with being able to kill something in 1 turn.
Obviously a couple armies damage is a bit too high in the shooting phase. Eldar with Reapers, for example. Or, Imperial Guard, with their artillery, another example.
Just tone down the egregious offenders.
As someone whose army has never been viable in my entire tenure of 40k until 8th edition, it's refreshing to not put my models down, look at my opponent's list, and sigh, knowing i could do nothing against it. Just having a chance to win, even if it's small, is so much better than how things were.
The points of some bigger units should probably come down, excluding Baneblades, these should go up in price. Imperial Knights could easily shave off 100 points. Or, make them T10 2+.
Also, I didn't vote. What is it with Dakka Dakka and dumb poll questions?
A.T. wrote: Something like a marine with a heavy bolter is only enough to kill a single guardsmen per turn, flamer weapons aren't all that much, old heavy ordnance weapons now kill one or two models no matter big a hole they would have made in a 3rd-7th ed formation.
No, I think the mindset was "bring tools to take down Magnus, Stormravens, and Asscan Razorbacks" and the internet just never came down from that level.
It is now a self defeating cycle - "I need to bring lascannons to kill tanks and the best point per lascannon is a las pred, which means I need more lascannons in case they have las preds, which means..." and so on.
Flamers need a little help, but heavy bolters kill twice as many IG as a lascannon would at far less cost. I am of the mind that the Infantry Squad problem is a little column A and a little column B. IS are strong and versatile, but people also are overly obsessed with AV and forgo anti infantry weapons. It's also why you don't often see Dark Reapers without ML and/or Shining Spears.
I did not vote, because this poll doesn't represent my views in any form.
It seems like basic troop transports, like rhinos, are too tough. Last edition, it would take a relatively minor miracle for a warboss to not krump a rhino in half. Now, a rhino will endure like 3-4 rounds of combat with a warboss.
But big stompy units like knights, morkanauts, wraithknights, aren't tough enough. They just fold like wet paper to any dedicated amount of firepower.
It's kind of odd, and I don't know exactly how to fix it. I think being less stingy with T9 would help.
They can always just go the route of adding wounds, but hell, a T8 garg squiggoth with 35 wounds still goes down INCREDIBLY fast more often than not.
Marmatag wrote: You're just artificially inflating game length by making things take longer to kill. There is no problem with being able to kill something in 1 turn.
Obviously a couple armies damage is a bit too high in the shooting phase. Eldar with Reapers, for example. Or, Imperial Guard, with their artillery, another example.
Just tone down the egregious offenders.
As someone whose army has never been viable in my entire tenure of 40k until 8th edition, it's refreshing to not put my models down, look at my opponent's list, and sigh, knowing i could do nothing against it. Just having a chance to win, even if it's small, is so much better than how things were.
The points of some bigger units should probably come down, excluding Baneblades, these should go up in price. Imperial Knights could easily shave off 100 points. Or, make them T10 2+.
Also, I didn't vote. What is it with Dakka Dakka and dumb poll questions?
But now with killiness being this good games are decided on basically first turn or two there isn't any real reason to take out models. Just roll dice and use pen or dice as wound counters as that's what models are reduced to
I'd say 40K 8th is absolutely "too" killy for me. It doesn't ruin the game, but the aim of GW is "more models, less time", and you can see it in the game.
Things in general are extremely deadly almost across the board, be it statwise or weight of dice. I do feel strongly that "nothing is safe" when playing a game without tons of terrain or special rules.
Are there to many invul saves? Hell yeah there are. They are handing invul saves out to everyone yo the point of the only gimik daemons had is a run of the mill thing.
I think so.
Its mixed, but I don't like the fact the game is so skewed to "this unit comes on and deletes this unit". Or "I have first turn, Im going to kill 25-30% of your stuff, sucks for you."
Or that you have to do this or you get the same back. Not sure what the answer is - but it isnt strategy for me. Its just applied maths.
I like that anything can now be brought down with enough fire power. Previous editions basically made tanks untouchable for the most part once your own heavy weapons were taken out. But saying that I do get very frustrated that my Renegade Knight dies within the first two turns of a game when everything gets thrown at it. I pay the points for it and I want it to at least do something in a game. It is a tough line to balance.
Marmatag wrote: You're just artificially inflating game length by making things take longer to kill. There is no problem with being able to kill something in 1 turn.
Obviously a couple armies damage is a bit too high in the shooting phase. Eldar with Reapers, for example. Or, Imperial Guard, with their artillery, another example.
Just tone down the egregious offenders.
As someone whose army has never been viable in my entire tenure of 40k until 8th edition, it's refreshing to not put my models down, look at my opponent's list, and sigh, knowing i could do nothing against it. Just having a chance to win, even if it's small, is so much better than how things were.
The points of some bigger units should probably come down, excluding Baneblades, these should go up in price. Imperial Knights could easily shave off 100 points. Or, make them T10 2+.
Also, I didn't vote. What is it with Dakka Dakka and dumb poll questions?
But now with killiness being this good games are decided on basically first turn or two there isn't any real reason to take out models. Just roll dice and use pen or dice as wound counters as that's what models are reduced to
I have found that it is generally in my advantage to go second. But, I play competitive ITC.
And T8 doesn't mean much when an increadibly cheap manticore wounds it on 3s and does solid damage, as well as cutting a vehicle to its invuln, if it even has one.
Some weapon's damage ranges (Lascannan's D6), does mean that in some games you're going to spike high and lose big things that shouldn't be lost turn 1. I had Mortarion die to a Las Pred and Missile Devs turn 1 in a tournament, which sucked, but that was my fault for taking a unit that is vulnerable to spikes like that. When my opponents don't spike, which is the average, Mortarion is a beast.
Infantry, hordes of them, provide a great base level, and a threat at all turns in the game. This, for me, is a great thing. I love Infantry vs Infantry battles. Infantry are much more resilient to damage spikes right now, since being 1W means they don't care about those damage spikes. If an opponent goes too anti-horde, then the big stuff can still come in, but you can't just take big stuff and win either.
Ultimately, I do think there are a few weapons that deal too much damage (Plasma should either only be 2 damage, or only go up to S8, not both in my opinion, and Dark Reapers need 1 lower damage across the board on their shooting modes), but that's hardly across the board.
EDIT: There's no "No. I like where things are at." option. I will refrain from voting until there's a different "No" answer.
One thing that might be an interesting change is to have 2 AP modifiers. One for troops and the other for vehicles/monsters. Then you could do things like have flamers do more damage to troops and be less effective against vehicles (Say -3AP vs troops -0 vs Vehicles) without totally neutering the weapon against vehicles.
Anyway that's just a quick thought from someone who doesn't play often or well.
Marmatag wrote: You're just artificially inflating game length by making things take longer to kill. There is no problem with being able to kill something in 1 turn.
Obviously a couple armies damage is a bit too high in the shooting phase. Eldar with Reapers, for example. Or, Imperial Guard, with their artillery, another example.
Just tone down the egregious offenders.
As someone whose army has never been viable in my entire tenure of 40k until 8th edition, it's refreshing to not put my models down, look at my opponent's list, and sigh, knowing i could do nothing against it. Just having a chance to win, even if it's small, is so much better than how things were.
The points of some bigger units should probably come down, excluding Baneblades, these should go up in price. Imperial Knights could easily shave off 100 points. Or, make them T10 2+.
Also, I didn't vote. What is it with Dakka Dakka and dumb poll questions?
But now with killiness being this good games are decided on basically first turn or two there isn't any real reason to take out models. Just roll dice and use pen or dice as wound counters as that's what models are reduced to
I have found that it is generally in my advantage to go second. But, I play competitive ITC.
And T8 doesn't mean much when an increadibly cheap manticore wounds it on 3s and does solid damage, as well as cutting a vehicle to its invuln, if it even has one.
Could you tell me how you feel going second is an advantage? I am a relative new player and I had a similar feeling, but only if there is eough terrain, so I can hide atleast my squishy units. If my wave serpent and flyers are out in the open and beeing shot at is fine, as long as my important stuff stays same. When I go second then, I see most of the enemys stuff and can counterstrike.
The lack of a proper cover mechanic and real cover save means that AP is king where as you needed AP and ignore cover to melt units with only markerlighting with Tau or psychic/relic shenanigans could reliably do both which made positioning more important and target priority less straight forward.
Vehicles are in a weird place with a lot of their points costs and durability not really matching up all that well.
I don't think it's a problem of how much damage weaponry inflicts, I think it's much more a problem of how 40k is generally played.
Tables are set up with barely any LOS covering terrain, and this means that the strategic mobility of shooting armies is magnified in importance by quite a large margin. HVTs have nowhere to hide, so an army can focus all it's firepower and delete said models quickly. This is a sensible outcome in war, but generally you also get some significant cover on the table to help both forces engage on more favorable terms if manipulated properly.
That being said, the way LOS ignoring weaponry is handled is also a big problem, as there is actually no effect to accuracy and no requirement to paint targets for bombardment. If GW handles this problem and we play with larger/denser terrain, this problem will be mitigated and the game will play out with more of a focus on maneuver warfare.
Marmatag wrote: You're just artificially inflating game length by making things take longer to kill. There is no problem with being able to kill something in 1 turn.
Obviously a couple armies damage is a bit too high in the shooting phase. Eldar with Reapers, for example. Or, Imperial Guard, with their artillery, another example.
Just tone down the egregious offenders.
As someone whose army has never been viable in my entire tenure of 40k until 8th edition, it's refreshing to not put my models down, look at my opponent's list, and sigh, knowing i could do nothing against it. Just having a chance to win, even if it's small, is so much better than how things were.
The points of some bigger units should probably come down, excluding Baneblades, these should go up in price. Imperial Knights could easily shave off 100 points. Or, make them T10 2+.
Also, I didn't vote. What is it with Dakka Dakka and dumb poll questions?
But now with killiness being this good games are decided on basically first turn or two there isn't any real reason to take out models. Just roll dice and use pen or dice as wound counters as that's what models are reduced to
I have found that it is generally in my advantage to go second. But, I play competitive ITC.
And T8 doesn't mean much when an increadibly cheap manticore wounds it on 3s and does solid damage, as well as cutting a vehicle to its invuln, if it even has one.
Could you tell me how you feel going second is an advantage? I am a relative new player and I had a similar feeling, but only if there is eough terrain, so I can hide atleast my squishy units. If my wave serpent and flyers are out in the open and beeing shot at is fine, as long as my important stuff stays same. When I go second then, I see most of the enemys stuff and can counterstrike.
Whats your view on the topic? Thank you!
Hi, absolutely!
The ITC missions used in tournaments feature progressive scoring for both kills and objectives. At the core, you have between 2-6 objective markers on the table for a mission. The board is entirely symmetric, as well, with the objective marker locations pre-determined.
You score points at the end of your turn:
Did you hold at least 1 objective? Yes/No. Yes = 1 point. Did you kill at least 1 enemy unit? Yes/No. Yes = 1 point.
And at the end of the *game* turn, both players can score:
Did you hold *more* objectives than your opponent? Yes/No. Yes 1 = point. Did you kill *more* units than your opponent? Yes/No. Yes = 1 point.
And of course everyone has equal opportunity secondaries.
By going second, I can knock you off of objectives and get that extra point, or better understand if i need to commit to killing a unit entirely or just seriously degrading it. This will allow me an easier path to scoring 2 extra points, per turn.
Considering both players have the same overall opportunity to score, 6 points (2 over 3 turns) is actually incredibly significant.
Also, if you deploy and construct your list with denying secondaries in mind, you will get punched in the mouth going second, but it won't hurt that bad.
I recently took first place in another ITC tournament, opting to go second twice in 3 games. I was forced to go first in another. In the games I went second, the extra 4 points in 2 turns effectively iced the game regardless of what happened on turn 3+.
You do need to adjust how you deploy and build your list, but planning on going second has given me an immense advantage. Think about it. How often would your opponent chose to go first? Pretty often, right? So if you build a list that is designed to go second, you're fairly well insulated from losing that roll off, and when you do win the roll and have the choice, telling your opponent to go second is just another instance of "As planned." You are effectively insulating yourself from bad luck in the roll off.
When you start seeing people not taking set piece models to any form of competitive game due to risk of losing it before you even get a turn to play with it, you have to think something is wrong with the damage. Now if that is fixed by nerfing anti tank or making new rules to take some of the piss out of alpha strike builds (like a rule stating all models who have no had their first turn gain a +1 to either its armor or invlun save).
Simply cutting the points of super heavies only works in the aspect that it helps super heavies but it still leaves things like primarchs as a auto loss to a alpha list. now if you hate primarchs then this will tickle your fancy but it is not balanced.
I think GW will do something about the alpha strike because they gain a lot of profit from center piece models (primarchs, riptides, wraith knights) and at the rate the meta is going in my area is that people have stopped bringing any model worth more than 300 points (with exceptions). We have a few DG players who have stopped running morty due to first turn kills. I doubt il see Magnus anytime until the next edition or codex drop because his nerf to his aura left him even more in the breeze against alpha strikes. I know I have stopped running him in anything but a very casual setting.
But yes, the big problems with 8th at this moment are hordes are to cheap, elite models and armies cost to much, anti tank is to potent and anti horde is far to flacid (until flamers are halved in cost they wont be a effective deterrent. Because of the above you see lists that make use of lots of cheap bodies are on the top.
If am not sure what the answer is to be honest. A damage nerf seems the best upfront answer along with a slashing of flamer or flamer like weapons prices to boot. But I am sure that is a very unpopular stance for me to be taking.
TLDR. No player or army should be losing center piece high value models before they even take a turn with them. And flamers need a price slashing.
Table wrote: When you start seeing people not taking set piece models to any form of competitive game due to risk of losing it before you even get a turn to play with it, you have to think something is wrong with the damage. Now if that is fixed by nerfing anti tank or making new rules to take some of the piss out of alpha strike builds (like a rule stating all models who have no had their first turn gain a +1 to either its armor or invlun save).
Set piece or not its a war game, you are going to lose models
a lot of people seem to have an aversion to taking things off the table and to an extent i can understand that. especially a cool big thing you spent days on painting or what not.
It's not just that things are too powerful it is that they are too powerful and too mobile. If I don't kill morty/magnus turn 1 they are going to be in my face and killing my army on their turn.
There is so much deepstriking/turn 1 charges that the game has really turned into delete them before they delete you.
It is too easy to get firepower exactly where it is needed turn 1 instead of taking a couple turns to maneuver or be able to force your opponent to split fire or shoot at things you want them to.
Also, toughness as a defense has really lost it's ability to differentiate targets. I still think we should go to more a toughness vs save model instead of a toughness and save. Big beasts should have high toughness t9+ while elites should have high armor values 2+.
That way strong weapons can work against high toughness but if they don't have a good save modifier they won't work against elites. A leman russ could be t12 5+ while a predator could stay t7 3+.
A lascannon should be s9 -1 d6. Plasma could be s6 -2/s7 -3 2d. Short ranged high power weaponry could be a combo of both (meltas/fire dragons keep that s9 -3). The more variety of weapons we are forced to bring the less we can spam the more tactical the game becomes.
Also too many invuln saves. All those 4++s in response to deal with the high str + high AP weapons skew the game because you need so many shots to hit, wound and then punch through that invuln.
Also the board is too small for the amount of models on it. 1st turn engagements should be rare and positioning for a turn or two should be the norm but then we'd have to either get huge boards that would be impractical to play on/store or GW would have to sell less models.
Games would become all day affairs lasting many turns which would be great sometimes but would further relegate 40k to a niche market because not all of us have 6+ hours to play.
I'm not sure how to solve the problem. I'd start with adjusting toughness, saves, weapon str and ap values. Then ranges, then points and then finally game size.
Table wrote: When you start seeing people not taking set piece models to any form of competitive game due to risk of losing it before you even get a turn to play with it, you have to think something is wrong with the damage. Now if that is fixed by nerfing anti tank or making new rules to take some of the piss out of alpha strike builds (like a rule stating all models who have no had their first turn gain a +1 to either its armor or invlun save).
Set piece or not its a war game, you are going to lose models
a lot of people seem to have an aversion to taking things off the table and to an extent i can understand that. especially a cool big thing you spent days on painting or what not.
I did not type or even hint that my problem was this. I am sure some people do indeed have this problem. I am simply stating that the current amount of long ranged AT firepower is getting so profound that in my local meta no one is taking primarchs or super heavies. This hurts GW by slowing sales of the most profitable kits they make and it hurts the meta by making hordes even more of a no brainer. It hurts list diversity and in turn hurts fun. I am not qualified to talk on a tournament level of play. I can only guess at what happens at LVO is a reflection of this but it is just a guess.
In full disclosure I own three full armies over 4k points of minis in each. Out of those three ( Thousand Sons, Night Lords and World Eaters with DG being my next project ) I own ONE super heavy, which is Magnus. I have five lists I run with my sons. Only one of those five make use of Magnus.
Im am simply stating what I am seeing and my personal thoughts are that super heavies (in moderation) are a fun part of the game for many players and that those players should not be losing those models before they take a turn. If the meta was that hordes evaporated on turn one it would be bad as well. When alpha is to strong it hurts the game.
Table wrote: When you start seeing people not taking set piece models to any form of competitive game due to risk of losing it before you even get a turn to play with it, you have to think something is wrong with the damage. Now if that is fixed by nerfing anti tank or making new rules to take some of the piss out of alpha strike builds (like a rule stating all models who have no had their first turn gain a +1 to either its armor or invlun save).
Set piece or not its a war game, you are going to lose models
a lot of people seem to have an aversion to taking things off the table and to an extent i can understand that. especially a cool big thing you spent days on painting or what not.
I did not type or even hint that my problem was this. I am sure some people do indeed have this problem. I am simply stating that the current amount of long ranged AT firepower is getting so profound that in my local meta no one is taking primarchs or super heavies. This hurts GW by slowing sales of the most profitable kits they make and it hurts the meta by making hordes even more of a no brainer. It hurts list diversity and in turn hurts fun. I am not qualified to talk on a tournament level of play. I can only guess at what happens at LVO is a reflection of this but it is just a guess.
In full disclosure I own three full armies over 4k points of minis in each. Out of those three ( Thousand Sons, Night Lords and World Eaters with DG being my next project ) I own ONE super heavy, which is Magnus. I have five lists I run with my sons. Only one of those five make use of Magnus.
Im am simply stating what I am seeing and my personal thoughts are that super heavies (in moderation) are a fun part of the game for many players and that those players should not be losing those models before they take a turn. If the meta was that hordes evaporated on turn one it would be bad as well. When alpha is to strong it hurts the game.
I hope this clears up my stance.
eh sorry wasn't implying that it was your stance its just a thing i notice with a lot of people.
BUT i will say are the mega models really a door buster for gw?
they are cool but they only ever sell one of them. (in general) AND they are often a massive chunk of your army meaning less models purchased to fill out the rest of the list. mind you people that buy those are probably the kinda person that already has a decent sized collection in the first place. i dont often see new players just grabbing one of those after their first starter set. (mind you this is entirely anecdotal)
if anything this pushes people to buy more normal dudes which outside of starts are probably going to make gw more cash. (possibly)
bananathug wrote: It's not just that things are too powerful it is that they are too powerful and too mobile. If I don't kill morty/magnus turn 1 they are going to be in my face and killing my army on their turn.
There is so much deepstriking/turn 1 charges that the game has really turned into delete them before they delete you.
It is too easy to get firepower exactly where it is needed turn 1 instead of taking a couple turns to maneuver or be able to force your opponent to split fire or shoot at things you want them to.
Also, toughness as a defense has really lost it's ability to differentiate targets. I still think we should go to more a toughness vs save model instead of a toughness and save. Big beasts should have high toughness t9+ while elites should have high armor values 2+.
That way strong weapons can work against high toughness but if they don't have a good save modifier they won't work against elites. A leman russ could be t12 5+ while a predator could stay t7 3+.
A lascannon should be s9 -1 d6. Plasma could be s6 -2/s7 -3 2d. Short ranged high power weaponry could be a combo of both (meltas/fire dragons keep that s9 -3). The more variety of weapons we are forced to bring the less we can spam the more tactical the game becomes.
Also too many invuln saves. All those 4++s in response to deal with the high str + high AP weapons skew the game because you need so many shots to hit, wound and then punch through that invuln.
Also the board is too small for the amount of models on it. 1st turn engagements should be rare and positioning for a turn or two should be the norm but then we'd have to either get huge boards that would be impractical to play on/store or GW would have to sell less models.
Games would become all day affairs lasting many turns which would be great sometimes but would further relegate 40k to a niche market because not all of us have 6+ hours to play.
I'm not sure how to solve the problem. I'd start with adjusting toughness, saves, weapon str and ap values. Then ranges, then points and then finally game size.
Morty may be to strong but as a player who owns Magnus I can safely say that if he is evaporating your army on turn two then you are doing something wrong. Yes he can get mega smites but more often than not hes throwing d6 smites out and even more often than that he isnt landing 3 smites or are getting denied. On average I would say he puts out 6 mortal wounds a turn through smites and his melee profile is only good for taking out non super heavy vehicles. If your army cannot handle 6 mortal wounds a turn targeting the unit closest to him then the problem lies with your army or play and not the model. I am also not saying Magnus is strong, because he is. I am saying he is not this monster beat stick people like to make him out to be. That would be Morty.
And thats the problem. When a game comes down to whoever goes first wins and games running two turns then you know your meta is trashed. And you are correct, Las Cannons and their ilk are to strong., to much high invuln saves would be problem if we did not have multiple sources of mortal wounds and things like death hex. They have just nerfed Magnus for this very reason and it would be a good nerf if the ranged AT alpha was not as crazy strong as it is. I like the idea of max 4+ invuln saves with no invuln re-rolls.
While I am sure that alot of comp players love two turn games, most people that I know do not and it often leaves one side feeling very cheated.
Table wrote: When you start seeing people not taking set piece models to any form of competitive game due to risk of losing it before you even get a turn to play with it, you have to think something is wrong with the damage. Now if that is fixed by nerfing anti tank or making new rules to take some of the piss out of alpha strike builds (like a rule stating all models who have no had their first turn gain a +1 to either its armor or invlun save).
Set piece or not its a war game, you are going to lose models
a lot of people seem to have an aversion to taking things off the table and to an extent i can understand that. especially a cool big thing you spent days on painting or what not.
I did not type or even hint that my problem was this. I am sure some people do indeed have this problem. I am simply stating that the current amount of long ranged AT firepower is getting so profound that in my local meta no one is taking primarchs or super heavies. This hurts GW by slowing sales of the most profitable kits they make and it hurts the meta by making hordes even more of a no brainer. It hurts list diversity and in turn hurts fun. I am not qualified to talk on a tournament level of play. I can only guess at what happens at LVO is a reflection of this but it is just a guess.
In full disclosure I own three full armies over 4k points of minis in each. Out of those three ( Thousand Sons, Night Lords and World Eaters with DG being my next project ) I own ONE super heavy, which is Magnus. I have five lists I run with my sons. Only one of those five make use of Magnus.
Im am simply stating what I am seeing and my personal thoughts are that super heavies (in moderation) are a fun part of the game for many players and that those players should not be losing those models before they take a turn. If the meta was that hordes evaporated on turn one it would be bad as well. When alpha is to strong it hurts the game.
I hope this clears up my stance.
eh sorry wasn't implying that it was your stance its just a thing i notice with a lot of people.
BUT i will say are the mega models really a door buster for gw?
they are cool but they only ever sell one of them. (in general) AND they are often a massive chunk of your army meaning less models purchased to fill out the rest of the list. mind you people that buy those are probably the kinda person that already has a decent sized collection in the first place. i dont often see new players just grabbing one of those after their first starter set. (mind you this is entirely anecdotal)
if anything this pushes people to buy more normal dudes which outside of starts are probably going to make gw more cash. (possibly)
I forget where I heard this and probably should not be saying it, but I think GW makes alot more profit from big kits than infantry kits. Which is why we now have super heavies outside of apoc games (is apoc even still a supported format?). And it makes sense. I would own more super heavy models if I was a player that was comfortable using 1/4th of my list on one model. Magnus is a fluff take for me. Anything more than a fluff match and Ahriman will always be my HQ.
bananathug wrote: It is too easy to get firepower exactly where it is needed turn 1 instead of taking a couple turns to maneuver or be able to force your opponent to split fire or shoot at things you want them to.
*snip*
Also the board is too small for the amount of models on it. 1st turn engagements should be rare and positioning for a turn or two should be the norm but then we'd have to either get huge boards that would be impractical to play on/store or GW would have to sell less models.
I usually play 2k pts* on a 6x4 table. I love my Eldar for their mobility, but apart from a turn 1 rush there's usually not really anywhere to go. I mean sure I take an objective here and flee like a cowa... I mean fall back there, but actual outflanking isn't really a thing when you're fighting with such large forces on what's essentially 3 or 4 football fields(?)
*my opponents like their toys. I'd prefer 1.5, 1.25 or even 1k!
bananathug wrote: It's not just that things are too powerful it is that they are too powerful and too mobile. If I don't kill morty/magnus turn 1 they are going to be in my face and killing my army on their turn.
There is so much deepstriking/turn 1 charges that the game has really turned into delete them before they delete you.
It is too easy to get firepower exactly where it is needed turn 1 instead of taking a couple turns to maneuver or be able to force your opponent to split fire or shoot at things you want them to.
Agreed. Decreasing damage potential per turn works as long as mobility is reduced as well, because, like you said, you only get 1 player turn of shooting at Mortarion and similar units before they are on top of you. If you can't kill said units in 1 playerturn, but they can still reach you in 1 player turn we still have a big problem.
Ok. Start with your own army. Start with what should be nerfed, and how so, within your army. For instance, drop the strength of all guard shooting by 2.
BUT i will say are the mega models really a door buster for gw? they are cool but they only ever sell one of them. (in general) AND they are often a massive chunk of your army meaning less models purchased to fill out the rest of the list. mind you people that buy those are probably the kinda person that already has a decent sized collection in the first place. i dont often see new players just grabbing one of those after their first starter set. (mind you this is entirely anecdotal)
if anything this pushes people to buy more normal dudes which outside of starts are probably going to make gw more cash. (possibly)
Do players normally buy only up to what's on their list?
I mean, I've got a Hydra in the TODO pile, and plans to get a number of FW models, a few more regular GW vehicles, a couple more infantry squads, and at least one Super Heavy - at no point will I ever really field every model I've got even with my current assortment.
To field this question, I don't think damage potential needs to be reduced, but I do think interactivity needs to be increased. In other words, reduce the predominance of alpha-strike = win the game.
As mentioned before, the high damage potential of WM/H is offset by the short ranges. You can set up "piece trades" by putting bait out front, with heavy hitters behind, where the heavies [sometimes literally] are mostly safe from being damaged, until they're able to charge in to do damage of their own.
Since the ranges of attacks in 40k are such that you can't reasonably do this, the alternative is really to limit the amount of damage Player A can do to B, before B can hit A. Alternating activations seems to be a way to do that without breaking the fundamentals of 8th. You can have killy stuff, that trades back and forth. Chess has 100% kill rates, but you don't get to move all of your pieces before your opponent can respond. I think that's a key issue in 8th. There would seem to be a large number of additional bonuses to Alt-Act, but this is one particular area I think it would greatly improve the play of the game.
To the challenge of nerfing one's own army: Longtime Guard player. Increasing the cost of Infantry by at least one point per model would be a good start. Help to limit board control. Apply a penalty of some sort to indirect fire [All non-LOS attacks] of -1 to hit, or a bonus to armour... something. Change "Blast" weapons from d6 shots, to a single to-hit roll that generates d6 hits. Higher risk / reward increases likelihood of a damage "anti-spike" that could be the saving grace of a small squad. Also feels more intuitive to me. A single shot is fired, and if it hits, you see how many are caught in the blast. Maybe it's just me.
For simplification purposes, I'd also like to see "Orders" more-or-less replace Auras in all codices. This diminishes blobbing, and makes balance easier as you can judge how many units can be effected by a given buff. Want more than 1 or 2 units buffed? Buy more Buffers. This is not as much about Guard as it is about other armies, but someone like Harker could give +1 BS to one unit, instead of RR 1's to everything within 6" sort of deal.
Fire raptors and sicarians back to pre-ca point levels
You can get rid of Guilliman if you want because he is a pox on the codex but then we'd have to reduce the points of everything in the dex by 10ish%
Marine shooting is also too spikey. Replace all d6 weapons with straight 3s, all d6 shot weapons with flat 3s, d3 and 2d3s can stay as is.
No las-cannons on razorbacks.
Plasma s6/s7 (except the heavy plasmas they can stay s7/s8).
Captains and LTs get orders not auras (2 units, 12" range leave the auras for named characters)
Flamers range 12", d3 shots per 5 models in target unit but +1 ap (armor save gets better by 1 but 1s always fail)
Captian slamginuis needs a nerf but I'm not sure how to do it because his power comes from stacking so many strats.
Assassins need a good long hard look. Eversors should probably cost 110 points each the rest are probably okay. Not sure if callidus should do d3 mortal wounds, probably 1 or 2.
Give more units PoTMS (dreads and preds, not transports)
Umm that's about it because as everyone knows marines suck
Change "Blast" weapons from d6 shots, to a single to-hit roll that generates d6 hits. Higher risk / reward increases likelihood of a damage "anti-spike" that could be the saving grace of a small squad. Also feels more intuitive to me. A single shot is fired, and if it hits, you see how many are caught in the blast. Maybe it's just me.l.
You realize this wouldn't be nerf per se but just make game more random? Average damage output stays same. You just have bigger swings making it more of a luck thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Audustum wrote: Maybe we're looking at this wrong. People just don't like that stuff dies on T1/T2 right? We want positioning to matter more?
What if we halve all ranges?
Problem with that comes with suspension of disbelief. Weapon ranges are already ridiculously short. For ranges to make any sense they would have to be unlimited.
Better terrain rules that helps cutting down ranges works better for believable.
BTW presumably you would also be halving movement ranges? As otherwise h2h would become too good. As it is most units would have longer CC threat range than rifle shoots giving shooting unit basically overwatch only. At least now you might get round of shooting...
Also you would need then to increase turn count to give foot slogging usability. Oh and stuff that has REALLY long range like basilisk, manticore, battle cannon would go up in value as they basically ignore range halving so just gets twice as long to shoot before enemy infantry gets close. Deep strike also would get huge boost.
One thing I'll say is that 40k seems to have far too many layers of defence and offence.
So each unit has a toughness and a save, the former is targeted by a weapon's Strength, the latter reduced by its AP. Okay, fine
Ah, but then a lot of units have an invulnerable save - which is a super special save that ignores the AP of the weapon. Wait, so it just ignores AP outright? And it's unaffected by the model's armour save, by cover or by the AP of the weapon shooting it? Nope. Okay, so apparently invulnerable saves live in their own world that's completely unrelated to the existing game mechanics. Great.
No, don't worry, because there's also this special type of damage called a Mortal Wound, which ignores toughness, armour saves, invulnerable saves. Oh, so we've now got a type of damage that ignores the entirety of the actual damage rules, up to and including the seemingly misnamed invulnerable saves.
Wait, don't worry! You see, there's also an extra layer of protection. It has about twenty different names, but everyone just calls it Feel No Pain (FNP for short). FNP is an extra save that is taken after your other saves, and is taken against individual wounds - even Mortal Wounds! So, we've now got a different save that can be taken in addition to a model's normal save, and which isn't affected by any of the model's characteristics, nor any of the weapon's characteristics.
Is this really a sensible way of doing things? We have exceptions to the normal rules, then we have exceptions to the rules that are also the exceptions to those exceptions, and then we have yet more exceptions that are also exceptions to the exceptions of the first exceptions.
I voted "too killy", but for a different reason...
When I spend 100 hours painting a unit, and it gets erased as soon as it hits the table, I'm not happy. I stopped playing my Orks because I wanted the models that I painted with great care to stay more than a few minutes on the tabletop.
The amount of 'anti big stuff' people bring is a result of the meta and GW's choices.
For a while in 5-7th GW pushed for 'Big Models'. Every army got something big and killy. Its where we got Riptides, Wraithknights, Knights, Magnus, Girlyman, Mortarion ect.
A bunch of these models did really good at the start of 8th. Magnus, Girlyman, Mortarion mostly.
This created a form of litmus test in the global meta. To do well in a tournament you need to be able to beat a Magnus/Mortarion list. Or the Gman motorpool ect.
So armies are loaded with 'anti big stuff' weapons because if you take 3 turns to kill 1 'big thing' your going to lose to game.
As codexes come out and points are adjusted the meta will shift again. If you go to a major tournament tomorrow and you want to win you need to be able to beat the Eldar netlist of Reapers and Spears.
No, but there are some broken combos that can evaporate armored stuff too easily. Cut the most efficient re-rolls and strategems for the shooting phase and games will last more than 2-3 turns.
Ordana wrote: The amount of 'anti big stuff' people bring is a result of the meta and GW's choices.
For a while in 5-7th GW pushed for 'Big Models'. Every army got something big and killy. Its where we got Riptides, Wraithknights, Knights, Magnus, Girlyman, Mortarion ect.
A bunch of these models did really good at the start of 8th. Magnus, Girlyman, Mortarion mostly.
This created a form of litmus test in the global meta. To do well in a tournament you need to be able to beat a Magnus/Mortarion list. Or the Gman motorpool ect.
So armies are loaded with 'anti big stuff' weapons because if you take 3 turns to kill 1 'big thing' your going to lose to game.
As codexes come out and points are adjusted the meta will shift again. If you go to a major tournament tomorrow and you want to win you need to be able to beat the Eldar netlist of Reapers and Spears.
Very much this.
Dark reapers end up being a very low cost way to bring solid damage without the baggage of being a vehicle. Throw in shining spears for great anti infantry and it exposes lists who brought too many big guns (on top of being highly effective).
One of the things I really liked about 8th edition is that the game is faster. One of the reasons, however, is that the damage output is so high.
Personally the only thing I might change in regards to kilability are vehicles/larger units. Maybe boost their HP a bit to see what happens, but leaving everything else as is.
Regarding horde armies they have always suffered from having to be removed posthaste. If anything I feel like they are in a better place now as most of them can now at least get a basic save(as long as the AP is -) compared to previous editions. It's not like high-wound weapons spill over on horde armies.
I think it also has to do with humans' tendency to remember negative experiences very well in combination with the huge randomness that D6 damage gives. If you instantly lose your shiny big model because your opponent makes some lucky rolls for D6 weapon damage, you're going to remember that very well and as a result might think that anti-tank is too powerful while on average it might not be, it's just too random. Several months ago I played a game where I 100-0 a Redemptor dread in a single lascannon volley from my Land Raider. 3 wounds, he didn't manage to save one of them and then I rolled a 4, 5 and 6 for damage without rerolls. A redemptor has 14 wounds, so instakill. That single lucky shot won me the game because we played 1k points and the dread alone was worth 200+ or more than a 5th of his army. Second turn, I shot all the guns on the same LR at a group of Hellblasters and managed to take out exactly 1 model. From hero to zero in 1 turn, which sucks. I really think that D6 damage values should simply be removed and replaced by a flat 3 or 4 (depending on weapon) or else D3+2, which would keep some randomness but would get rid of the extreme edge cases. It might be worse for realism (after all a lascannon hit could both just scratch off a tail light of a tank (1 damage) or blow up it's fuel tank (6 damage)) but it would definitely be better for game health.
Eldarsif wrote: Regarding horde armies they have always suffered from having to be removed posthaste. If anything I feel like they are in a better place now as most of them can now at least get a basic save(as long as the AP is -) compared to previous editions. It's not like high-wound weapons spill over on horde armies.
I think the other thing with hordes was that they used to suffer from weapons being incidentally effective against them.
For example, a player might take a S8 AP3 large blast weapon to kill marines. Or a S6 AP3 torrent flamer to kill Jinking bikes. But those things would also blow a huge hole in an Ork or Guardsman unit.
In essence, there was almost never a need to take dedicated anti-horde weapons, because so many flamers and large blasts were excellent at killing hordes in addition to more elite targets.
Marmatag wrote: Maybe because I play Tyranids I just don't see the problem. It's still difficult to remove T8 targets in this game, much more so than T7.
The biggest problem with D6 systems is that the only truly viable section of the dice curve is 3/4/5. The difference between 5 and 6 is way too large of a jump for a single stat point difference.
Marmatag wrote: You're just artificially inflating game length by making things take longer to kill. There is no problem with being able to kill something in 1 turn.
Obviously a couple armies damage is a bit too high in the shooting phase. Eldar with Reapers, for example. Or, Imperial Guard, with their artillery, another example.
Just tone down the egregious offenders.
As someone whose army has never been viable in my entire tenure of 40k until 8th edition, it's refreshing to not put my models down, look at my opponent's list, and sigh, knowing i could do nothing against it. Just having a chance to win, even if it's small, is so much better than how things were.
The points of some bigger units should probably come down, excluding Baneblades, these should go up in price. Imperial Knights could easily shave off 100 points. Or, make them T10 2+.
Also, I didn't vote. What is it with Dakka Dakka and dumb poll questions?
But now with killiness being this good games are decided on basically first turn or two there isn't any real reason to take out models. Just roll dice and use pen or dice as wound counters as that's what models are reduced to
I have found that it is generally in my advantage to go second. But, I play competitive ITC.
And T8 doesn't mean much when an increadibly cheap manticore wounds it on 3s and does solid damage, as well as cutting a vehicle to its invuln, if it even has one.
Could you tell me how you feel going second is an advantage? I am a relative new player and I had a similar feeling, but only if there is eough terrain, so I can hide atleast my squishy units. If my wave serpent and flyers are out in the open and beeing shot at is fine, as long as my important stuff stays same. When I go second then, I see most of the enemys stuff and can counterstrike.
Whats your view on the topic? Thank you!
Primarily the advantage of going second is that you also get to go last (i.e., the last turn before the game ends is your turn). this allows you to know for sure on your last turn that your opponent will not have a chance to counter what you do, and is very nice for end of game missions that say "whoever's holding the relic at the end wins" or "whoever has more objectives at the end wins".
If you go second, your opponent just gets to say "ok, I need to get as many objectives as I can" while you on the other hand get to identify exactly how many objectives you need to win.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Really? I've always heard that when time is called that's the game regardless of where it is. It's dice down, count up your points and clean up.
Players need to communicate and not start a new turn unless there is time to finish. Going over is not a problem if you're wrapping up.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Really? I've always heard that when time is called that's the game regardless of where it is. It's dice down, count up your points and clean up.
If you get to that point you already past multiple points where you should have looked at the time and not gone for another turn.
Change "Blast" weapons from d6 shots, to a single to-hit roll that generates d6 hits. Higher risk / reward increases likelihood of a damage "anti-spike" that could be the saving grace of a small squad. Also feels more intuitive to me. A single shot is fired, and if it hits, you see how many are caught in the blast. Maybe it's just me.
You realize this wouldn't be nerf per se but just make game more random? Average damage output stays same. You just have bigger swings making it more of a luck thing.
Ah, you didn't read the fine print!
Average damage output only remains the same if a unit is large enough to allow the up-spikes to deal full damage. If I shoot a Manticore at a 3 model unit, and miss, 0 Hits. But if I hit with my one to-hit roll, and then roll 7 hits, I can only kill those 3 models. The probability of "something small" surviving that attack goes to approximately 50% [odds of missing with one shot] vs 25% [for example] of 3 models surviving 7 to-hit rolls.
And yes, it does become more swingy, which was exactly my point. Overkilling something does not result in a higher average damage, you can only kill so much. But missing entirely allows those units to live. This has a negative-net impact on how much damage "Blast" weapons can do. Not much, but it is some.
No, we just need more effective anti-horde weapons. Make blast weapons great again! And flamers and heavy bolters too!
I general, it is good for things to die quickly, because that leads to faster games. Games of 40k already take a very long time, no need to increase that even further.
Nids are brutal beyond description once dark reapers and guardsmen get patched. Heavy venom cannons are straight up unfair. It's just that even more unfair stuff is out there right now.
Ask a Necron Warrior.
A unit of 10 Warriors was able to strip hull points from any tank when penetrating on 6+ in the former editions.
Today, these guys are absolutely poor since tanks have 10-16 wounds and generally a 3+ save.
Martel732 wrote: Nids are brutal beyond description once dark reapers and guardsmen get patched. Heavy venom cannons are straight up unfair. It's just that even more unfair stuff is out there right now.
I totally disagree with this statement.
What kind of list are you facing that actually uses these things, that puts out more damage than any other meta list?
Lists with 8 dakkafexes. That basically get free -1 to hit and free BS3+. On an assault weapon. That's better than a lascannon. Yeah, totally fair. Totally.
Martel732 wrote: Lists with 8 dakkafexes. That basically get free -1 to hit and free BS3+. On an assault weapon. That's better than a lascannon. Yeah, totally fair. Totally.
1000 points in 8 models is a recipe for freaking disaster. You can't move up the field and screen them from all sides... and -1 only applies to shooting. A Lascannon actually has -3AP, so it's better than -2AP, and has a longer range, as well as a higher expected damage output. Additionally, these guys will be moving, and don't get access to rerolls like Lascannons do.
If this was a good deal, you'd be devoting 1000 points of your list to predators. Because predators would annihilate these Carnifex with no trouble, and are flat better. They'll get rerolls - hits AND 1 to wound. They'll get better screens in the form of IG. They'll be able to pop Carnifexes like it's going out of style.
Not to mention, you'll descent of angels and wholly neutralize at least 1 fex per turn.
If the Carnifex is OP, the predator tank is jesus on wheels.
Predators are more expensive, don't get -1 to hit, don't have assault lascannons and degrade. ANd have more expensive screening units. The fact that you can get 8 of these things for 1000 pts is nuts.
I don't know. I have had 0 problems facing lists regularly with 4-6 dakkafexes with my Dark Angels. Tyranid Guard with their weapon that ignore LOS are a much bigger problem for me.
Because Carnifex are decent but they always have to move, and moving models in Tyranid land can't get *any* rerolls of *any* kind that don't already have it baked into the unit or weapon profiles.
You are totally taking your rerolls for granted. If we could put a 74 point captain, and a 70 point Lieutenant in the middle of our Carnifex ball, and screen it with T3 5+ models that can receive orders, then yeah, i'd say they're too strong.
And seriously, 8 Carnifexes? How many sources of Synapse does this list have? that's what you should kill. Suddenly those Carnifex are going to be slower, and way more inaccurate.
This list will never be meta. If it became number 1, it would immediately be unseated by Tau commanders.
Martel732 wrote: Nids are brutal beyond description once dark reapers and guardsmen get patched. Heavy venom cannons are straight up unfair. It's just that even more unfair stuff is out there right now.
I totally disagree with this statement.
What kind of list are you facing that actually uses these things, that puts out more damage than any other meta list?
Martel732 wrote: Nids are brutal beyond description once dark reapers and guardsmen get patched. Heavy venom cannons are straight up unfair. It's just that even more unfair stuff is out there right now.
I totally disagree with this statement.
What kind of list are you facing that actually uses these things, that puts out more damage than any other meta list?
IT BEGINS!
I mean, not really, this list gets aced by Chaos, Eldar, Guard, general Imperium, Tau would handle it (3 damage shots, drones don't care!), Sisters would handle it (hello, scout melta spam + flamer city), i mean it's just not that great of a list. You could make the argument that it's tough for a general BA list to handle, but i'm still not sure i agree with that. Lascannons will still win the fight here due to Carnifex limited range.
I mean, not really, this list gets aced by Chaos, Eldar, Guard, general Imperium, Tau would handle it (3 damage shots, drones don't care!), Sisters would handle it (hello, scout melta spam + flamer city), i mean it's just not that great of a list. You could make the argument that it's tough for a general BA list to handle, but i'm still not sure i agree with that. Lascannons will still win the fight here due to Carnifex limited range.
Don't worry. I was just joking around.
I think Guard has always been the foil for Nids though. I don't know if that makes it okay, but I don't think I've lost a game against Nids, like, ever. I can't really imagine a TAC list with any army that would really struggle against it. GK would probably be the hardest, at least of the armies I normally see, but with enough force weapons / psilencer shots, I'd think you'd make up for only wounding on 6s.
I mean, not really, this list gets aced by Chaos, Eldar, Guard, general Imperium, Tau would handle it (3 damage shots, drones don't care!), Sisters would handle it (hello, scout melta spam + flamer city), i mean it's just not that great of a list. You could make the argument that it's tough for a general BA list to handle, but i'm still not sure i agree with that. Lascannons will still win the fight here due to Carnifex limited range.
Don't worry. I was just joking around.
I think Guard has always been the foil for Nids though. I don't know if that makes it okay, but I don't think I've lost a game against Nids, like, ever. I can't really imagine a TAC list with any army that would really struggle against it. GK would probably be the hardest, at least of the armies I normally see, but with enough force weapons / psilencer shots, I'd think you'd make up for only wounding on 6s.
LOL, gotcha.
Nids struggle with the current Imperial Guard. Their chaff is so cheap and their shooting is so potent.
But i should point out Carnifex are only T7. So your average strength 4 weapons wound on 5s, not 6s.
I feel like weapons are pretty ok.. but man, do bigger models die really, really fast. The games quickly becoming horde-hammer because 30 man units are much harder to kill overall than a 30 wound model in many cases. Screw your D6 damage lascannons, kill a single gaunt! I think bigger stuff needs a bit more survivability. But yes, mobility is also a pretty big issue; a lot of stuff can get T1 charges no problem. Overwatch is also pretttttyyyy crazy when you combine all the rerolls many armies have, and how many guns they have. Charging a 40 man cultist unit is questionable many times, lol
Zid wrote: I feel like weapons are pretty ok.. but man, do bigger models die really, really fast. The games quickly becoming horde-hammer because 30 man units are much harder to kill overall than a 30 wound model in many cases. Screw your D6 damage lascannons, kill a single gaunt! I think bigger stuff needs a bit more survivability. But yes, mobility is also a pretty big issue; a lot of stuff can get T1 charges no problem. Overwatch is also pretttttyyyy crazy when you combine all the rerolls many armies have, and how many guns they have. Charging a 40 man cultist unit is questionable many times, lol
Well to be fair,
it was mega flying robot monster fight in 7th of because of how powerful some MC's were.
If I put a unit on the field, I’d like for it to be able to do something before I remove it from the table. If I’m just going to put something on the table just to remove it a few minutes later, I will not be happy.
I will say that for the 1,000 pts games I”ve been playing, this hasn”t been a problem - and maybe that is where the issue is - the meta has settled on games that are just too big for IGOUGO sort of games.
Stormonu wrote: If I put a unit on the field, I’d like for it to be able to do something before I remove it from the table. If I’m just going to put something on the table just to remove it a few minutes later, I will not be happy.
I will say that for the 1,000 pts games I”ve been playing, this hasn”t been a problem - and maybe that is where the issue is - the meta has settled on games that are just too big for IGOUGO sort of games.
IGOUGO definitely has issues with durability scaling to focused fire. Threat range control is also a factor of this, but that ship sailed long ago.
Iron_Captain wrote:I general, it is good for things to die quickly, because that leads to faster games. Games of 40k already take a very long time, no need to increase that even further.
I swear, half this community thinks everything in the world makes the games too long.
Maybe you should kick it old school and play toy soldiers without dice at all?
Marmatag wrote: Horde models already die incredibly fast. The only issue is when they're shielding a gunline.
Tyranids and Orks aren't exactly crushing everyone and they're the canonical horde armies.
The problem isn't hordes. It's ONE army that can be both Gunline AND horde, and do both better than anyone else.
This, I 100% agree. My greentides lose 50-60 orks per turn against competitive lists, that's 300-400 points of cheap bodies that also do very little outside combat. I feel they should be even tougher
Marmatag wrote: Because Carnifex are decent but they always have to move, and moving models in Tyranid land can't get *any* rerolls of *any* kind that don't already have it baked into the unit or weapon profiles.
You are totally taking your rerolls for granted. If we could put a 74 point captain, and a 70 point Lieutenant in the middle of our Carnifex ball, and screen it with T3 5+ models that can receive orders, then yeah, i'd say they're too strong.
And seriously, 8 Carnifexes? How many sources of Synapse does this list have? that's what you should kill. Suddenly those Carnifex are going to be slower, and way more inaccurate.
This list will never be meta. If it became number 1, it would immediately be unseated by Tau commanders.
I think she's only got two synapse in the list. Maybe three. She basically doesn't worry about synapse with that list.
Zid wrote: I feel like weapons are pretty ok.. but man, do bigger models die really, really fast. The games quickly becoming horde-hammer because 30 man units are much harder to kill overall than a 30 wound model in many cases. Screw your D6 damage lascannons, kill a single gaunt! I think bigger stuff needs a bit more survivability. But yes, mobility is also a pretty big issue; a lot of stuff can get T1 charges no problem. Overwatch is also pretttttyyyy crazy when you combine all the rerolls many armies have, and how many guns they have. Charging a 40 man cultist unit is questionable many times, lol
Well to be fair,
it was mega flying robot monster fight in 7th of because of how powerful some MC's were.
:O I like mega robot monster fights! GOJIRA!
That said, they need to find a good balance. Seems like taking bigger models anymore is more of a liability than an advantage, especially when coupled with the "I can retreat whenever I please!" rules. No way to leave that Demon Prince in combat and keep him from getting blown off the board!
I also don't get why the IC rule was removed... I mean, character rules as they are is basically the same thing. Hell, that might even cut out the Aura hammer, giving the units they are attached to special rules like before. Not sure why they did that, but I didn't play 7th (but 6th did have a huge issue with deathstars,,, maybe thats why?)
Stormonu wrote: If I put a unit on the field, I’d like for it to be able to do something before I remove it from the table. If I’m just going to put something on the table just to remove it a few minutes later, I will not be happy.
I will say that for the 1,000 pts games I”ve been playing, this hasn”t been a problem - and maybe that is where the issue is - the meta has settled on games that are just too big for IGOUGO sort of games.
IGOUGO definitely has issues with durability scaling to focused fire. Threat range control is also a factor of this, but that ship sailed long ago.
Yeah, they'd definitely have to significantly tweek the game for IGOUGO, especially in terms of the way models interact.
Marmatag wrote: Horde models already die incredibly fast. The only issue is when they're shielding a gunline.
Tyranids and Orks aren't exactly crushing everyone and they're the canonical horde armies.
The problem isn't hordes. It's ONE army that can be both Gunline AND horde, and do both better than anyone else.
This, I 100% agree. My greentides lose 50-60 orks per turn against competitive lists, that's 300-400 points of cheap bodies that also do very little outside combat. I feel they should be even tougher
But then look at Demons, where all the best units seem to be 30 man deepstriking blobs.. and I get that thats entirely due to the fact they can get the charge right after. But Death Guard and Chaos use large hordes as well. Tyranids gribbles have never been a "big" feature of the army, the gribbles were always mean't to tie you up until the big stuff arrived.
But I will say, IG hordes are definitely more effective. Is this because of the guns maybe? because they can overwatch a billion rerollable shots and kill an orc tide before it hits?
I feel this thread is a lot of complaining by players who field lots of Lords of War and expecting them to single handily destroy a whole army by themselves, and get mad once their opponent goes oh look papa smurf or oh look that Nurgle guy that will obliterate all my Marines if I let them get to close. So I’ll focus fire on them and then they die...
I’ve seen players not able to kill those units in shooting (a lot of players) and then get owned and now people want shooting damage to go down?
Marmatag wrote: Because Carnifex are decent but they always have to move, and moving models in Tyranid land can't get *any* rerolls of *any* kind that don't already have it baked into the unit or weapon profiles.
You are totally taking your rerolls for granted. If we could put a 74 point captain, and a 70 point Lieutenant in the middle of our Carnifex ball, and screen it with T3 5+ models that can receive orders, then yeah, i'd say they're too strong.
And seriously, 8 Carnifexes? How many sources of Synapse does this list have? that's what you should kill. Suddenly those Carnifex are going to be slower, and way more inaccurate.
This list will never be meta. If it became number 1, it would immediately be unseated by Tau commanders.
I think she's only got two synapse in the list. Maybe three. She basically doesn't worry about synapse with that list.
Yes you do, you have to worry about instinctive behavior. Kill the synapse guys and all the Carnifex are at -1 to hit unless it's the closest model, and other debuffs.
daedalus wrote: Honestly, for the points paid per wound, I kinda feel like everything that has more than one wound needs another one.
I kind of feel the same.
In a game against Eldar last week, I had 3 laspreds taken out turn one. There was some lucky rolling, but came away feeling that shouldn't have happened. I still won the game, my MVPs were 40-man cultist squads that could just sit on objectives and be redeployed when they lost models. The cultists advanced right back up to where they were and took the objective based on numbers, the Eldar couldn't kill them fast enough.
The idea that massed infantry has the edge on elite units / tanks makes me wonder why we bother with the cooler choices form the Codex. I would hate to have to track multiple wounds on every model on the board, but I'm also not down with success as a function of bodies.
daedalus wrote: Honestly, for the points paid per wound, I kinda feel like everything that has more than one wound needs another one.
I kind of feel the same.
In a game against Eldar last week, I had 3 laspreds taken out turn one. There was some lucky rolling, but came away feeling that shouldn't have happened. I still won the game, my MVPs were 40-man cultist squads that could just sit on objectives and be redeployed when they lost models. The cultists advanced right back up to where they were and took the objective based on numbers, the Eldar couldn't kill them fast enough.
The idea that massed infantry has the edge on elite units / tanks makes me wonder why we bother with the cooler choices form the Codex. I would hate to have to track multiple wounds on every model on the board, but I'm also not down with success as a function of bodies.
There's exceptions to the rule, but I generally agree and have had similar situations (though not the luxury of redeploying). I had a GMDK get lucky on overwatch and kill a Solitare and another Harlequin character (I forget the name) last Sunday when I played. Then I had a Bro Champ go down, but took out a few other characters with him. He lost major points on his turn by doing the only thing his army had going for him. It was pretty unfulfilling for both of us.
usmcmidn wrote: I feel this thread is a lot of complaining by players who field lots of Lords of War and expecting them to single handily destroy a whole army by themselves, and get mad once their opponent goes oh look papa smurf or oh look that Nurgle guy that will obliterate all my Marines if I let them get to close. So I’ll focus fire on them and then they die...
I’ve seen players not able to kill those units in shooting (a lot of players) and then get owned and now people want shooting damage to go down?
No keep it the way it is... Deploy better.
I'm playing orks. And there is nothing i can do if i don't go first. Deploying better? It's impossible to completely hide a large squad or a vehicle and even if you're inside terrain, it doesn't do much. It's just a bad system where if i go first and roll that 2d6 for a charge after deepstrike, the opponent looses, if i don't go first and don't roll this 2d6, i loose. And the faction can't even play any other type of game.
usmcmidn wrote: I feel this thread is a lot of complaining by players who field lots of Lords of War and expecting them to single handily destroy a whole army by themselves, and get mad once their opponent goes oh look papa smurf or oh look that Nurgle guy that will obliterate all my Marines if I let them get to close. So I’ll focus fire on them and then they die...
I’ve seen players not able to kill those units in shooting (a lot of players) and then get owned and now people want shooting damage to go down?
No keep it the way it is... Deploy better.
I'm playing orks. And there is nothing i can do if i don't go first. Deploying better? It's impossible to completely hide a large squad or a vehicle and even if you're inside terrain, it doesn't do much. It's just a bad system where if i go first and roll that 2d6 for a charge after deepstrike, the opponent looses, if i don't go first and don't roll this 2d6, i loose. And the faction can't even play any other type of game.
Iv had to deal with a few knights and even once a lord of skulls. and didnt go first.
the knights are a pain, they move fast and beat on things pretty hard even if i could leave combat. the lord of skulls.. man i got stupid lucky. a single repulsor and a few hellblasters managed to get it hurt real bad then it charged my repulsor and i nabbed two las cannon hits on overwatch followed by it failing saves and dieing. but thats just stupid stupid stupid luck.
usmcmidn wrote: I feel this thread is a lot of complaining by players who field lots of Lords of War and expecting them to single handily destroy a whole army by themselves
usmcmidn wrote: I feel this thread is a lot of complaining by players who field lots of Lords of War and expecting them to single handily destroy a whole army by themselves
This
Not exactly.... I have a Lord of Skulls and have not fielded him in 8th edition.
I say this because my 3 Laspreds die too easily. Some games, they are all gone before I get my first turn. You pay a lot of points for them, they have a lot of destructive potential, but so does everything else.
For about the same price, I can field 120 Cultists. They're not going to shoot up anything from across the board, but they are not going to be blown away in a single turn. I have stratagems that let me sit them on objectives where nothing can move them.
The trade off between elite units versus lots of bodies seems to be leaning too heavily towards the bodies. That's what people are really saying.
The trade off between elite units versus lots of bodies seems to be leaning too heavily towards the bodies. That's what people are really saying.
Well this is entirely subjective though.
Every list seems to have a balance of infantry and bigger stuff.
This is just the first time smaller dudes have contributed in any meaningful way in some time.
And the "smaller dudes" aren't the ones invalidating your big stuff that dies quickly - it's the "elite dudes" who have high powered weapons, or "guard dudes" who fire insane volumes of high str/high ap dice.
This whole thread seems like it's taken quite a turn.
"My lord of skulls dies too fast. Nerf hormagants, buff elite killers." effectively what i'm hearing.
One of the biggest mistakes was not giving heavier vehicles and things like that a kind of 'invulnerable' save against items with Rend of -1 or 0. Same could go for some of the more elite/points heavy infantry with what is supposed to be really good armor saves.
Kanluwen wrote: One of the biggest mistakes was not giving heavier vehicles and things like that a kind of 'invulnerable' save against items with Rend of -1 or 0. Same could go for some of the more elite/points heavy infantry with what is supposed to be really good armor saves.
I agree. Look at Deathwatch and Deathwing. 20pts per marine.... you fail that 3+ (most likely a 4 or 5 with the amount of ap in the game) and boom! 20 or 80pts off the table off the table from a 6pt model. Terminators are even worse! 250pts per squad sometimes and I've seen them crushed by half the amount of points.
Plasma Scions vs Terminators for example: 110pts+ vs 250pts+
Scions just wait for terminators to drop in, they drop in 9" away and fire 10 plasma shots hitting 3s and wounding on 2s (obviously overcharging because there is more scions where that came from!). My maths shows 3 dead terminators, meaning about 150pts down the drain. You fire back and you're likely to not even kill 1.
These are supposed to be unstoppable killing machines that can take entire star systems with only like 2 guys and 3 are taken down by 5 humans...
This i feel is the major problem... it is not the big titan legion or super heavies own by the rich dudes... it's the people who had elite armies that can be taken down by half the points. It's not balanced... I don't own an elite army but I have a Deathwing friend whose army is taking a beating this edition.
Kanluwen wrote: One of the biggest mistakes was not giving heavier vehicles and things like that a kind of 'invulnerable' save against items with Rend of -1 or 0. Same could go for some of the more elite/points heavy infantry with what is supposed to be really good armor saves.
Anti-tank firepower is just way too strong. If people were actually chipping these big models down with low strength, low AP weapons, they'd be incredibly viable.
If Imperial Knights reduced damage taken by 1 to a minimum of 1, that would be a different story. Think about how durable Eldar tanks are. or perhaps a "concentrated void shield," which gives a 4+ invulnerable save against weapons with a strength of 8 or better.
I would also give reaper Chainswords the special rule that they ignore all saves (invulnerable and otherwise), including "feel no pain". Lastly i would let a Knight fire its weapons even if it was involved in melee - but only against targets it wasn't fighting in the melee. Kind of like yeah you can stomp stuff, but it's pretty difficult to aim those guns straight down, and you run the risk of blowing off your own feet.
Of course i'm not talking about terminators. Terminators are already plenty durable. If you have a stormshield and a 2+/3++, i have no sympathy for you. Do you know how hard it is for me to deal with that as Tyranids?
I dunno. Like, Genestealers vs Terminators with TH/SS is pretty one sided. And Genestealers are a cheap troops choice you can deepstrike that can advance and charge...
Scions just wait for terminators to drop in, they drop in 9" away and fire 10 plasma shots hitting 3s and wounding on 2s (obviously overcharging because there is more scions where that came from!). My maths shows 3 dead terminators, meaning about 150pts down the drain. You fire back and you're likely to not even kill 1.
How do they fire 10 shots? At best you'll fire 8 from a single squad.
These are supposed to be unstoppable killing machines that can take entire star systems with only like 2 guys and 3 are taken down by 5 humans...
See if you don't buy into the Marines = gods, this is perfectly fine, humans with weapons made to kill heavily armored targets kill said targets. Imagine. My. Shock.
Not saying the opposite, but writting ''humans can kill them'' is a crappy arguments, and its probably some IG players are so antogonistic towards SM players.
Genestealers are not "cheap" they are 12ppm maby compared to terminators but against most things that puts them middle of the road to expensive. You also need to pay for some sort of delivery system weather it's a Tyrannocyte at over 100pts or a Tyrgon at 170ish pts or even (with one hive fleet only) the cheapest option a brood of raviners for 71pts and a CP to do it.
I find you just need to ether build expecting the alpha ether by reserving all your expencive things or layering defences like - to hits and cover and staying behing blos terrain. It's a much different game from 7th and many people are not adjusting well.
Wile there are still some offenders I find the system at it's core to be fine.
Bobthehero wrote: Not saying the opposite, but writting ''humans can kill them'' is a crappy arguments, and its probably some IG players are so antogonistic towards SM players.
There is a big disconnect between lore and TT. Alot of those marine players get pumped up GW's bolter porn then get a nasty dose of reality when they play. Lore as it is cannot match TT. If that were the case then 100 points of marines or CSM would be wiping out 2000 point forces. If GW toned down the power fantasy that is pushed on marine players and to a extent, CSM players then this would not be a issue.
I still stand by my stance that 500 point models should last long enough to at least take a turn with them, one turn, just one. In retrospect the problem is d6 damage spikes and most d6 damage should be changed to a flat amount like 3. Ive had games where Magnus never dies due to my opponent fielding few las-cannons and I played a game two weeks ago where he died 1st turn (and I still won, because if a alpha list cant table you turn 2 then its pretty smooth sailing). I feel the killing power of most super heavies is greatly exaggerated and alot of holdout hate comes from idiotic invis Magnus and Knights. Knights do a meager amount of damage this edition and Magnus is about right for his price damage wise. Morty on the otherhand, that is some nasty damage.
And for the people saying that the proponents of decreased damage are LoW spammers who get upset when they cant table a army, is pure hyperbole at best and blatant idiocy at worst. Making sweeping generalizations with zero evidence adds literally nothing to the thread.
Melta weapons would be damage 5 or 6 at half range.
Same thing for number of shots.
Looks good.
To be honest, after battle shock, the random shots is what I dislike most about the current rules. I can live with random damage, but potentially rolling 1s and 2s for RoF is a kick in the balls, especially for weapons that depend on multiple hits to do their jobs. If they had to go with random, having a battle cannon or flamer be 1d3+3 instead of 1d6 is how I wish they would have gone.
I voted yes. too much damage especially in the first turn. I played in a tournament this weekend and one play lost 80% of his army in the first turn to a blood angels player. The biggest problem in my opinion is that too many games are decided in the first turn. wining the "who goes first dice roll" is deciding to much.
Most things don't cause too much damage. Meltas for example, can do a lot of damage, but they are not overpowered because there is a risk involved - you have to get close.
The real problem is the Lascannon/equivalent long range D6 damage. There are too many of them available and there is no risk to their use case. They just ruin vehicles/monsters from a distance. They are a no brainer.
The other issue is that plasma guns are too good, or rather, the risks of overcharging are too easily mitigated. Overcharging is fun and a great rule but every man, woman, child, kroot, has access to rerolling 1s to hit. This means they rip through 2w units like paper. It isn't that they do much damage in of themselves, but that they cause too much damage without any form of downside. They shred armour, vehicles, elite infantry etc.
Some kind of night fighting return would go a long way.
Bobthehero wrote: Not saying the opposite, but writting ''humans can kill them'' is a crappy arguments, and its probably some IG players are so antogonistic towards SM players.
Not really... This argument was meant to be taken as a whole alongside my arguments with points. Terminators are meant to be super elite unbeatable troops (hence why only 5 can be pointed at 200-300pts). While humans are plentiful and why they're half the value of a marine. So if 1 cheap model (AKA Human) can beat 1 elite super heavy model (AKA Terminator) then it's both unbalanced and lore breaking.
I don't play terminators (as mentioned) and I play Orks! So get that mind set old excuse out of your head immediately. But if a troop is being decimated by another troop that is a fraction of the cost then there is something wrong and makes it seem like humans are just as strong as marines. But, if you needed 250pts of humans to beat 250pts of terminators then that would both be balanced and seem lore friendly (as you would need lots of humans to take down 1 marine but not so many you're sinking points into.
What happens when the Terminators go first vs the Scions? I am curious. And I certainly don't view Terminators dying to a single plasma gun lorebreaking.
Edit: Your numbers are also wrong, as a mininal squad of Terminators is 200 pts, not 250 pts.
Bobthehero wrote: What happens when the Terminators go first vs the Scions? I am curious. And I certainly don't view Terminators dying to a single plasma gun lorebreaking.
Edit: Your numbers are also wrong, as a mininal squad of Terminators is 200 pts, not 250 pts.
The points depends entirely on weapons. If you go for the cheapest possible options (which is unlikely seen as the Scions haven't) then yes it will be 200pts If the termis go first you're likely to kill 4 scions... Which for a unit worth double the points isn't much seen as the Scions can just have another squad to do even more damage. But the whole scions vs terminators was just an example... there are plenty like it where Elite units are valued at Elite points but don't do nearly the same damage output (or even have defence against) as troops that are half the value.
Bobthehero wrote: What happens when the Terminators go first vs the Scions? I am curious. And I certainly don't view Terminators dying to a single plasma gun lorebreaking.
Edit: Your numbers are also wrong, as a mininal squad of Terminators is 200 pts, not 250 pts.
The points depends entirely on weapons. If you go for the cheapest possible options (which is unlikely seen as the Scions haven't) then yes it will be 200pts If the termis go first you're likely to kill 4 scions... Which for a unit worth double the points isn't much seen as the Scions can just have another squad to do even more damage. But the whole scions vs terminators was just an example... there are plenty like it where Elite units are valued at Elite points but don't do nearly the same damage output (or even have defence against) as troops that are half the value.
You're looking at only part of the picture, though.
The elites are paying for damage and resiliency both, while the cheaper troops have only damage. However, they have to choose how to tailor this damage, and one option (Plasma Guns) happens to let them be tailored against Elites. So yes, a cheaper, ultra-specialized unit will do better in its role than a generalist unit with much greater durability. And if it's role is "kill elite units" then a specialist cheap unit should (and does) beat a generalist elite unit.
Now, set them both up as generalist units, e.g. give the Scions hot-shot volleyguns or flamers or something, and keep the Terminators as a generalist unit (say, an assault cannon + 4 Storm Bolters or something). See how well the cheaper scions do then. And yes, I do see your retort coming: "scions only use plasma/you never see generalist scions/flamers are bad." But none of those are actually problems with the cheaper unit - rather, they are problems with the weapons. I do maintain that a specialist tailored to kill elites should beat generalist elites 9 times out of 10 though. Since they're specializing.
Units shouldn't have the ability to 1 turn kill units that are double or triple their points! Or you're having games where elite only armies stand no chance. I believe there should be anti elite units but they should be appropriately priced. And when I say unit, I mean weapons included in that unit so I mean overall points not base unit. If a terminator unit had a higher toughness to defend against plasma or all had 6 heavy shots each, then it wouldn't be a problem because a cheap unit isn't going to 1 turn kill it and it can fight back.
But i use this as an example for the overall problem. Deathwatch marines is another example.
But i hear gw fixed this problem with golden Mehriens.
lolman1c wrote: Units shouldn't have the ability to 1 turn kill units that are double or triple their points! Or you're having games where elite only armies stand no chance. I believe there should be anti elite units but they should be appropriately priced. And when I say unit, I mean weapons included in that unit so I mean overall points not base unit. If a terminator unit had a higher toughness to defend against plasma or all had 6 heavy shots each, then it wouldn't be a problem because a cheap unit isn't going to 1 turn kill it and it can fight back.
But i use this as an example for the overall problem. Deathwatch marines is another example.
But i hear gw fixed this problem with golden Mehriens.
Uhm, what? Why shouldn't a unit be able to one-turn units that are double or triple their points? Is this some law of game design? Can pawns not capture queens?
And even setting aside the game-design question of whether a unit should be able to one-turn something double or triple its price, most things in 40k won't. In fact, even your example is flawed, because:
4 Plasma Gun Scions = 22 points per model = 88 points. In rapid fire against tactical terminators: 8 shots, 5.33 hits, 4.44 wounds (assuming overcharge), 2.9 or 3 dead terminators (assuming overcharge). For ~120 points, again assuming overcharge. That's hardly double or triple its points.
LunarSol wrote: Most of the time you're also including a Prime, which ups the hits a bit, but significantly bumps the price as well.
Yes, if you're using a Prime, then it becomes:
129 points for a marginal increase in power. (1/2 of all misses are re-rolled, and 2/3 of the re-rolls become hits, so an extra 33% hits or something like that for almost ~50% more cost).
lolman1c wrote: Units shouldn't have the ability to 1 turn kill units that are double or triple their points! Or you're having games where elite only armies stand no chance. I believe there should be anti elite units but they should be appropriately priced. And when I say unit, I mean weapons included in that unit so I mean overall points not base unit. If a terminator unit had a higher toughness to defend against plasma or all had 6 heavy shots each, then it wouldn't be a problem because a cheap unit isn't going to 1 turn kill it and it can fight back.
But i use this as an example for the overall problem. Deathwatch marines is another example.
But i hear gw fixed this problem with golden Mehriens.
Uhm, what? Why shouldn't a unit be able to one-turn units that are double or triple their points? Is this some law of game design? Can pawns not capture queens?
And even setting aside the game-design question of whether a unit should be able to one-turn something double or triple its price, most things in 40k won't. In fact, even your example is flawed, because:
4 Plasma Gun Scions = 22 points per model = 88 points. In rapid fire against tactical terminators: 8 shots, 5.33 hits, 4.44 wounds (assuming overcharge), 2.9 or 3 dead terminators (assuming overcharge). For ~120 points, again assuming overcharge. That's hardly double or triple its points.
That's broken, in fact even reaching an 1:1 is generally viewed as insanely powerful (and there's a reason with 1:2 trades are considered somewhat efficient in the game)
Bobthehero wrote: 4 Scions with plasma guns aren't killing 5 terminators in one turn, unless you get good rolls.
~22% chance to kill 5.
48% to kill 4.
Terminators are just not good in 8th edition. Almost all their defensive benefits are actually useless.
The extra wound does nothing against Overcharged plasma and almost nothing against Lascannons and equiv.
Few weapons have -4 AP to make the invul save do anything.
If they only had 1W and no invul they would function the same in many cases while being significantly cheaper.
Custodes overcome this problem by having 3 wounds (So plasma still needs 2 shots) and a 4+ invul that actually helps against AP -3.
That's broken, in fact even reaching an 1:1 is generally viewed as insanely powerful (and there's a reason with 1:2 trades are considered somewhat efficient in the game)
Generally speaking, in an IGYG system, nothing should "kill its points" in one turn unless it significantly lacks the ability to get the first strike in.
That's broken, in fact even reaching an 1:1 is generally viewed as insanely powerful (and there's a reason with 1:2 trades are considered somewhat efficient in the game)
Generally speaking, in an IGYG system, nothing should "kill its points" in one turn unless it significantly lacks the ability to get the first strike in.
I challenge this.
Shooting is entirely different than melee. Melee units have to be strong because getting there is already incredibly difficult.
That's broken, in fact even reaching an 1:1 is generally viewed as insanely powerful (and there's a reason with 1:2 trades are considered somewhat efficient in the game)
Generally speaking, in an IGYG system, nothing should "kill its points" in one turn unless it significantly lacks the ability to get the first strike in.
I challenge this.
Shooting is entirely different than melee. Melee units have to be strong because getting there is already incredibly difficult.
Melee units being able to do more damage then shooting can be fair. But considering the abundance of T1 charges in 8th (or units fighting 3 times per phase) I don't think the situation where it would be ok exists right now.
That's broken, in fact even reaching an 1:1 is generally viewed as insanely powerful (and there's a reason with 1:2 trades are considered somewhat efficient in the game)
Generally speaking, in an IGYG system, nothing should "kill its points" in one turn unless it significantly lacks the ability to get the first strike in.
I challenge this.
Shooting is entirely different than melee. Melee units have to be strong because getting there is already incredibly difficult.
You can tell by all the lists that deep strike/infiltrate in Berzerkers and charge all across the line before their opponent can react.
That's broken, in fact even reaching an 1:1 is generally viewed as insanely powerful (and there's a reason with 1:2 trades are considered somewhat efficient in the game)
And yet, for editions, we didn't bat an eye when >50 points worth of meltagun infantry could take out a 250+ point land raider in a single shot.
And really nothing has changed as far as damage/odds go:
Plasmagun on BS4 against termies previously:
3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 5+ save
Plasmagun on BS3+ against termies now:
3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 5+ save
Point costs and delivery options changed, sure, but the base effectiveness of plasma didn't really go anywhere. And again, previously you could blow up vastly more expensive things in one lucky shot than you can now.
Yeah IDK where this "you shouldn't be able to one-shot more expensive things" comes from.
That's literally the mechanic by which you killed vehicles since vehicle rules existed in 40k, and in 6th and 7th you had the option of one-shotting them OR hull-pointing them, which could also happen with cheaper units.
To be fair Terminator armour hasn't worked as advertised since 2nd I believe? At least as long as I have been in the hobby and that's 6th.
The whole you shouldn't kill your points worth of shooting is weird. It should be does this unit make good on its points troighout the game? A suicide squad (like the scions) has to do it in 1 turn. RG on the other hand.
That's broken, in fact even reaching an 1:1 is generally viewed as insanely powerful (and there's a reason with 1:2 trades are considered somewhat efficient in the game)
Generally speaking, in an IGYG system, nothing should "kill its points" in one turn unless it significantly lacks the ability to get the first strike in.
I challenge this.
Shooting is entirely different than melee. Melee units have to be strong because getting there is already incredibly difficult.
You can tell by all the lists that deep strike/infiltrate in Berzerkers and charge all across the line before their opponent can react.
Yes, Alpha Legion can infiltrate Berzerkers and have a 100% chance to charge turn 1 if they go first. Berzerkers are the boogieman unit for melee combat in this edition and are incredibly strong.
Not everyone plays Berzerkers, or chaos. There are other melee units in the game. Outside of this one very specific case that depends on going first, melee comes with considerable drawbacks by virtue of how strong shooting is.
I would not make Melee units better in terms of damage output compared to shooting ones, but definitely 20%/33% cheaper than their shooting counterpart would be a godsend and needed to sustain the inevitable losses that they would suffer from distance
That's broken, in fact even reaching an 1:1 is generally viewed as insanely powerful (and there's a reason with 1:2 trades are considered somewhat efficient in the game)
Generally speaking, in an IGYG system, nothing should "kill its points" in one turn unless it significantly lacks the ability to get the first strike in.
I challenge this.
Shooting is entirely different than melee. Melee units have to be strong because getting there is already incredibly difficult.
"Getting there" is exactly the kind of thing I mean by difficulty getting the first strike in.
That's broken, in fact even reaching an 1:1 is generally viewed as insanely powerful (and there's a reason with 1:2 trades are considered somewhat efficient in the game)
And yet, for editions, we didn't bat an eye when >50 points worth of meltagun infantry could take out a 250+ point land raider in a single shot.
And really nothing has changed as far as damage/odds go:
Plasmagun on BS4 against termies previously:
3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 5+ save
Plasmagun on BS3+ against termies now:
3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 5+ save
Point costs and delivery options changed, sure, but the base effectiveness of plasma didn't really go anywhere. And again, previously you could blow up vastly more expensive things in one lucky shot than you can now.
Actually we all did and that's why the system has fundamentally changed to prevent something like this from happening again
I would agree that generally speaking, melee needs something to make it a bit more compelling. I think they should bring back the +1 attack on the charge rule or make it require some effort to get out of melee, even if it's just a flat die roll.
daedalus wrote: I would agree that generally speaking, melee needs something to make it a bit more compelling. I think they should bring back the +1 attack on the charge rule or make it require some effort to get out of melee, even if it's just a flat die roll.
I think all the T1 charges has made melee more attractive then it has been in a while.
The only issue melee has is the ability to freely move out of combat for the enemy when combined with chaff screens.
The removal of initiative and giving it to the assault is probably a better change than the +1, which scales weirdly and is hard to control across the variety of models it applies to.
Ordana wrote: I think all the T1 charges has made melee more attractive then it has been in a while.
The only issue melee has is the ability to freely move out of combat for the enemy when combined with chaff screens.
I dunno, maybe. I can't really speak too well to that as I tend to play pretty shooty armies. Even my GK I try to shoot with far more than rely on the assault options.
I still think the underlying issues with the game at the present are sort of the core mechanics they baked into the game. There's sort of a cascading effect there. Walking away from melee sucks because it's stupid and largely undermines stabby armies, but to get rid of that, you need to get rid of first turn assault, and to get rid of that you either need to set some artificial "no touching" rule for turn one (which is also stupid) or you need to get rid of reliable deep strike-ish rules on turn 1, but those existing rules are also kinda stupid, so I'd be okay with seeing them go (even in spite of my large Stormtrooper army).
Not exactly.... I have a Lord of Skulls and have not fielded him in 8th edition.
I say this because my 3 Laspreds die too easily. Some games, they are all gone before I get my first turn. You pay a lot of points for them, they have a lot of destructive potential, but so does everything else.
For about the same price, I can field 120 Cultists. They're not going to shoot up anything from across the board, but they are not going to be blown away in a single turn. I have stratagems that let me sit them on objectives where nothing can move them.
The trade off between elite units versus lots of bodies seems to be leaning too heavily towards the bodies. That's what people are really saying.
I fell out of the loop on this thread, but I wanted to comment on this, because it seems particularly odd.
You lose 3 laspreds in a turn, because your opponent invested a TON of points in anti-tank (plus some luck most likely). If you suddenly take 120 cultists instead that doesn't make the cultists a more useful choice, because all you've done is made his guns useless. If spend the points it takes to kill 3 laspreds in 1 turn and instead spent it on anti-infantry weapons you'd find a vastly different result. Until people stop taking only lascannon equivalents you won't see the meta shift out of this mold until someone starts being successful with more unconventional lists.
That's broken, in fact even reaching an 1:1 is generally viewed as insanely powerful (and there's a reason with 1:2 trades are considered somewhat efficient in the game)
Generally speaking, in an IGYG system, nothing should "kill its points" in one turn unless it significantly lacks the ability to get the first strike in.
I challenge this.
Shooting is entirely different than melee. Melee units have to be strong because getting there is already incredibly difficult.
Melee units being able to do more damage then shooting can be fair. But considering the abundance of T1 charges in 8th (or units fighting 3 times per phase) I don't think the situation where it would be ok exists right now.
Abundance? I'm BA, and I can do ONE. Where's my abundance? Oh yeah, and I hit 4 ppm guardsmen. Melee is trash.
No. It's just that first turn charges are a huge gamble for anyone and usually hit worthless models to boot. So people should quit acting like they are some revelation.
I do think it's a bit funny when people are upset that counter tactics exist.
Screens are a counter tactic to turn 1 charges. Yes, they're an easy, probably too easy, counter. But hard counters are a thing in gaming. If one tactic is super good in most situations, then it should be super bad when meeting its hard counter; it's the best way to discourage its use and make it not an auto-take strategy.
I've quit bothering to try. Which basically turns off my codex in practice. I'm back to shooting like everyone else. Which puts me at a huge disadvantage.
I'm not upset at the tactic itself. It's just way too easy and there are no downsides.
Martel732 wrote: I've quit bothering to try. Which basically turns off my codex in practice. I'm back to shooting like everyone else. Which puts me at a huge disadvantage.
I'm not upset at the tactic itself. It's just way too easy and there are no downsides.
Well, there are some downsides. Screens cost points, are clumsy, and generally lack the damage output of the other choices.
But I honestly think the real reason screens seem so OP right now is that they shut off what would otherwise be super OP themselves: deep strike alphas, whether melee or ranged. Seriously, I try to imagine a world in which screens do not exist and all I can imagine is deep-striking armies totally wrecking face with little recourse for the not-deep-striking armies.
Just putting dudes in Rhinos screws over deep strike alpha too. But cheap screens let people be greedy and the best of all worlds. And IG screens have amazing damage for their cost.
Melee deep strike alphas are never going to be good even without screens because rolling a 9" charge is brutally difficult for a whole army.
Oh, and fallback is a thing. Yes, first turn alpha melee would have been good in the older editions. Not anymore.
Martel732 wrote: Just putting dudes in Rhinos screws over deep strike alpha too. But cheap screens let people be greedy and the best of all worlds. And IG screens have amazing damage for their cost.
Melee deep strike alphas are never going to be good even without screens because rolling a 9" charge is brutally difficult for a whole army.
Oh, and fallback is a thing. Yes, first turn alpha melee would have been good in the older editions. Not anymore.
Keep believing that, my friend. Meanwhile, the armies that actually can first-turn melee, e.g. Alpha Legion 'zerks and genestealers, will be happily doing so and trouncing opponents even through screens. I can't even imagine what would happen without them.
But yeah, I see no reason to treat with someone so deluded as to believe that a first turn melee alphastrike across an entire frontage would be bad, even if only half the chargers made it. You only need one model to tie up a unit and prevent it from ever shooting.
Alpha legion is viable, but must go first. A true crap shoot.
Genestealers are very very meh in practice. The shooting bugs are where its at.
9" charges don't succeed half the time, even. So it wouldn't be good even with zero screens. If the Descent of Angels hit every unit ,then yes, that would be a huge problem. But usually, you can just laugh at the deep strikers.
Martel732 wrote: Just putting dudes in Rhinos screws over deep strike alpha too. But cheap screens let people be greedy and the best of all worlds. And IG screens have amazing damage for their cost.
Melee deep strike alphas are never going to be good even without screens because rolling a 9" charge is brutally difficult for a whole army.
Oh, and fallback is a thing. Yes, first turn alpha melee would have been good in the older editions. Not anymore.
Keep believing that, my friend. Meanwhile, the armies that actually can first-turn melee, e.g. Alpha Legion 'zerks and genestealers, will be happily doing so and trouncing opponents even through screens. I can't even imagine what would happen without them.
But yeah, I see no reason to treat with someone so deluded as to believe that a first turn melee alphastrike across an entire frontage would be bad, even if only half the chargers made it. You only need one model to tie up a unit and prevent it from ever shooting.
Tyranids do not send Genestealers against screens. Genestealers get their work done on turn 2+.
Any Tyranid player who uses GS to clear screens loses. That's a bad strategy.
I'm not going to let you get away with that comment. Back it up with some real justification that isn't "it happened one time to my 3 super heavies."
Martel732 wrote: Just putting dudes in Rhinos screws over deep strike alpha too. But cheap screens let people be greedy and the best of all worlds. And IG screens have amazing damage for their cost.
Melee deep strike alphas are never going to be good even without screens because rolling a 9" charge is brutally difficult for a whole army.
Oh, and fallback is a thing. Yes, first turn alpha melee would have been good in the older editions. Not anymore.
Keep believing that, my friend. Meanwhile, the armies that actually can first-turn melee, e.g. Alpha Legion 'zerks and genestealers, will be happily doing so and trouncing opponents even through screens. I can't even imagine what would happen without them.
But yeah, I see no reason to treat with someone so deluded as to believe that a first turn melee alphastrike across an entire frontage would be bad, even if only half the chargers made it. You only need one model to tie up a unit and prevent it from ever shooting.
Tyranids do not send Genestealers against screens. Genestealers get their work done on turn 2+.
Any Tyranid player who uses GS to clear screens loses. That's a bad strategy.
I'm not going to let you get away with that comment. Back it up with some real justification that isn't "it happened one time to my 3 super heavies."
Marmatag wrote:I don't even send Hormagants against screens.
I shoot screens.
You do not melee screens. You just don't. It's suicide.
I use Hormagants as screens. But my screens are T3, 6+, with no guns, and cost 5ppm.
Not sure where I said the genestealers or hormagaunts (??) are attacking screens.
I said they do their damage through screens. Shooting is generally how this is achieved, but there are many other ways, including deep-striking Trygons (though this depends on opponent's error) for example.
You said Genestealers are first turn melee, and mentioned them in the same category as Berzerkers. I'm curious what that means, if it doesn't mean you're fighting screens?
I think we are noticing the elites are bad in 8th because of the rise of hordes. Armies I used to watch people play in 6th and 7th (Deathwatch and Deathwing) just get trampled on.
And tge chess comparison a few pages ago is dumb. You can't snipe a queen with a pawn 40" away while your opponent spams hundreds of Knights. Also, chess is a 1:1 game with set moves and predictable patterns. It's balanced because both armies have the same starting troops and have the same playing feild. You don't have a 25% more chance to take a queen with a pawn when it is right next to you, nore do you get a -1 to hit because you spray painted your chess peices silver.
As for the pawn being able to take a queen quote... in chess you don't move your pawn up on turn 1 to kill the queen like you can basically do in 40k. Your opponent has time to recognise danger and adjust their plans while in 40k you just have to sit there and take it for a turn....
That's broken, in fact even reaching an 1:1 is generally viewed as insanely powerful (and there's a reason with 1:2 trades are considered somewhat efficient in the game)
And yet, for editions, we didn't bat an eye when >50 points worth of meltagun infantry could take out a 250+ point land raider in a single shot.
And really nothing has changed as far as damage/odds go:
Plasmagun on BS4 against termies previously:
3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 5+ save
Plasmagun on BS3+ against termies now:
3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 5+ save
Point costs and delivery options changed, sure, but the base effectiveness of plasma didn't really go anywhere. And again, previously you could blow up vastly more expensive things in one lucky shot than you can now.
No one batted a eye because you had to get close for melta. WIth las cannons you can sit at max range and get even more firepower in 8th. That is what people are getting salty about.
Marmatag wrote: You said Genestealers are first turn melee, and mentioned them in the same category as Berzerkers. I'm curious what that means, if it doesn't mean you're fighting screens?
I wonder if one of the ways to help combat out is that when units retreat from combat there is a reverse overwatch. Like a one-time attack.
As for Scions, having been a victim of them, there is nothing inherently wrong with being able to deploy and kill a much more powerful unit. In abstract, at least. Scions, however, can drop a large amount of high quality firepower anywhere on the board (within 9), can easily get protection vs. the overcharge risk and are very cheap. They have the mobility, offensive power and affordability. It is too much in combination. Personally, I'd take away the deep strike if they have more than one special weapon.
