I am concerned. As a lifelong eldar player, since 1995, I don't remember the exact edition, my love for Eldar runs deep, long before they were top tier good. It pains me to see how overly good they've become since 6th edition, leading to almost all non-eldar players hating them and feeling that they are allowed to legally cheat, essentially. Enter the LVO list and the ynnari problem. I knew soulburst was too good when I read the index. Ynnari as a stand alone army was nerfed into the ground, and I think most reasonable people felt it was justified. Now ynnari survives as a small detachment in either a craftworld or dark eldar list a-la the LVO list, and now people are screaming for even more nerfs. What I'm wondering is, if you nerf the ynnari even further, at that point, does it not make more sense to just scrap them completely? I mean, if you nerf them yet again, what is the point really? The only thing that actually makes them different is soulburst, it's literally the only difference.
Martel732 wrote: Eldar were god tier in 2nd ed. So there is no "before" they were god tier.
Perhaps, I was a middle schooler when I started playing them with my buddies, we had no clue about competitive lists, I was thinking more about those middle editions when they were average.
Yep, Ynnari can disappear...and it wouldn't hurt much at all. GW didn't, or hasn't yet done anything with them, so they're just a random story-off-shoot which adds nothing to the game.
I like Soulburst as a theoretical exercise; with a normal Eldar army the alpha-strike is a serious problem, if you don't get first turn you get pretty mangled by the alpha-strike so they started designing Craftworld units so that you can put out a lot of damage even if that happens, which makes them too good if you get the alpha-strike because the army is designed to let about half of it put out the damage a full list would normally put out in a competitive setting because you have to assume that when you get alphaed you won't have much more than half your stuff left.
Soulburst is designed to punish armies based on how many Eldar they kill, which could induce your opponent to delay killing a unit to delay the Soulburst.
The problem arises when units whose damage output is balanced around the assumption that a lot of your army is going to die on turn one get to take Soulburst actions, which effectively gives you the advantage of a permanent rolling alpha-strike.
I feel like if Soulburst were to exist as a significant mechanic you'd need to write a specific Ynnari list balanced around using it; with the Ynnari-as-Eldar-soup-with-Soulburst approach everything's either balanced so that Soulburst is dramatically better than not using it or dramatically worse than not using it.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Also this doesn't feel like a proposed rule topic, unless the proposed rule is remove subfactions.
The proposed rule is "how do you fix Soulburst?". It's a question, not a proposal, but I'd think this is still the right subforum to put it into.
Agreed, I did put some thought into what sub-forum to put this in, at the end of the day we are discussing changing certain rules. I don't see any other place to put it that is better than here.
This seems to be your answer to any units you don't like or think are too good, from a number of other comments I've seen you make on different threads. It doesn't really address the core premise, which is, is the community in general at odds with the foundational mechanic of an entire sub-faction (soulburst/ynnari), and rather than nerfing into some completely unappealing or unplayable form, simply scrap it and start over.
Also, "X should cost more points," is a purely subjective analysis. You believe it's clear that it should cost more. But that doesn't mean that people who's job it is to play test everything against everything else would come to the same conclusion. I think genestealers are too good in their current iteration of cheap obsec troop choices that play way more like elite/fast attack specialist units that decimate anything they touch. But I completely concede that my analysis is purely subjective, and is by no means law or consensus.
Soulburst mechanic is hecka strong, even with the 'nerfs' it has received (Cant use during you opponents turn, must have one of the three as your warlord to access ynnari)
It's a mechanic that rewards lucky plays with more plays. The problem is that since they dont have a codex out atm (don't know when it is gonna come out) people use them as a eldar soup mix when it was clear that this was supposed to be an entirely new faction in the Aeldari lore and game play wise. That said, I cannot think of a way to tame soulburst without completely making it useless or a niche thing. Which is sad because the ability itself is quite cool from both a fluff and mechanical point of view.
The only idea i could think of is that when they do get a codex, they'll take out the 'anyone can be ynnari' and just make it so that units from both craftworlds and drukhari are in the codex. With the Ynnari faction keyword replacing their normal rules. This way, you can still take them in a normal CW or drukhari list, but only part of your army has access to souburst.
ATM, limiting access to soulburst would actually fix the problem
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The Ynnari keyword really should replace the Craftworld keyword, it's silly that you can stack stratagems and rules from several sources in that way.
This is probably too strong, I agree with that, the saim hann advance and charge stratagem is particularly brutal in conjunction with soulburst and quicken. I think I'd rather see Ynnari scraped all-together rather than see certain units get a big price hike. People think price increases will fix the units, they never do, they just make the units obsolete and go to the shelf. If Dark Reapers or Shining Spears became 50 points a model tomorrow, me and every other eldar player wouldn't say, "well all in all that was pretty fair, let me adjust my list accordingly." More like, "OK well these are gone, what other combination of units offers great value/rate."
Only players who purely play to the fluff, or play to have fun only, and not necessarily win (I applaud this perspective by the way, for home games and such), pick units that they simply like, or that look cool, or have cool lore, regardless of their cost or potency. Any player who builds lists to play at "tournaments," local or big, is picking units based on efficiency, value, rate, etc. "Just double there points cost! That'll do the trick!" never works the way people think it will.
Case-in-point, the shadow spectres were incredibly competitive at 23 ppm, they received a 30% price hike going to 33 ppm and now they've completely disappeared from the competitive scene. I own 12 of them /facepalm. Do I still play with them? Sure. During my friendly home games with my close friends.
TLDR: Jacking up the cost of things like reapers and spears doesn't make them more appropriate for the competitive scene, it removes them from the scene all together.
While soul burst sounds cool and fluffy, it's very mechanic make it damn near impossible to cost effectively.
The underlying mechanic need to be scrapped and replaced with a mechanic that has someway of costing it appropriatly.
Otherwise anyone not using soulburst will be paying the soulbusted points for units, that won't be that effective or soulburst units will be op as they are now.
Ice_can wrote: While soul burst sounds cool and fluffy, it's very mechanic make it damn near impossible to cost effectively.
The underlying mechanic need to be scrapped and replaced with a mechanic that has someway of costing it appropriatly.
Otherwise anyone not using soulburst will be paying the soulbusted points for units, that won't be that effective or soulburst units will be op as they are now.
I agree that soulburst is very good, but is it "broken?" I ask because most current codexes have received some sort of double-shooting: slaanesh stratagem, grinding advance for russ's, fire prism stratagem, weapons from the dark age is a pseudo double tap etc. If soulburst is broken, are all these other double shooting mechanics also broken?
Ynnari needs to not be able to be put on everything, and instead needs a codex asap.
That's how you would fix it, by making Ynnari Faction keyword an actual faction keyword specific to Ynnari units who only can get Ynnari things, not craftworld or Kabal stuff (when that comes out) then and only then will soulburst actually be something that is strong but scaled fairly.
Cause at that point soulburst will only effect Ynnari, not every aeldari unit.
Also, the difference of soulburst to stratagems is that the stratagem can only be used once per turn in matched play, abilities specific to units are specific usually to one of it's weapons. While soulburst has no limit during your turn. That is the difference
mchammadad wrote: Ynnari needs to not be able to be put on everything, and instead needs a codex asap.
That's how you would fix it, by making Ynnari Faction keyword an actual faction keyword specific to Ynnari units who only can get Ynnari things, not craftworld or Kabal stuff (when that comes out) then and only then will soulburst actually be something that is strong but scaled fairly.
Cause at that point soulburst will only effect Ynnari, not every aeldari unit.
Also, the difference of soulburst to stratagems is that the stratagem can only be used once per turn in matched play, abilities specific to units are specific usually to one of it's weapons. While soulburst has no limit during your turn. That is the difference
But soulburst absolutely has the same limit, you can only choose each mode once, ie only one unit per turn can double shoot, that's no different than a stratagem like the slaanesh one. In fact one unit, once per turn, to me, seems inherently weaker than being able to spam units that have built in double shooting without restriction, like spamming russ's or fire prisms.
Those are stratigums that cost CP are once per phase, usually are phase specific hence limit use, stength from death triggers in both players turn, in each phase and has no limit to times it can trigger.
It allows you to interrupt the whole basis of IGYG in a way that can give many of your units effectivly free turns. How do you point balance that? Plus all the other general eldar shenanigans.
Ice_can wrote: Those are stratigums that cost CP are once per phase, usually are phase specific hence limit use, stength from death triggers in both players turn, in each phase and has no limit to times it can trigger.
It allows you to interrupt the whole basis of IGYG in a way that can give many of your units effectivly free turns. How do you point balance that? Plus all the other general eldar shenanigans.
Uhh...what? Soulburst can only happen on your turn. It seems like there's a lot of complaining about Ynnari by people who don't understand how it works. This is the second person so far, and only on this page.
The way to fix Ynnari is to make them a faction unto themselves.
You replace the <Craftworld> and <Whatever the hell DEldar get> Keyword with YNNARI. They get their own relics, warlord traits, and stratagems. Eldar and Delder stratagems don't work on Ynnari and Ynnari don't work on Craftworld/DEldar.
Now the Ynnari function more like Dark Angles or Blood Angles and it all balances out.
Now it can only activate in the ynarri players turn and only once per action type (move, shoot, fight).
It's the same problem now that the marine codex has but with actual good units. The codex is tuned to be used with Guilliman (reroll all hits/wounds) so either you tune down the entire codex to account for the optimum situation (marine dex problem) or you tone down the offending ability/entity.
I think it should just be a spell (WoP) and the ynarri faction needs a new trick (+1 to hit or wound for units that have suffered a casualty/wound would fit the SfD idea?)
Scrap ‘em. There should only be CWE and DE. Merge the other subfactions into these. Fewer factions = better balance. And quicker finished editions (“finished edition” = release of all codices).
Lots of other factions ought to be merged. Custodes + grey knights, inquisition + sisters, tyranid + genestealer cult, drukhari + harlequins. Rewrite lore as needed.
Northern85Star wrote: Scrap ‘em. There should only be CWE and DE. Merge the other subfactions into these. Fewer factions = better balance. And quicker finished editions (“finished edition” = release of all codices).
Lots of other factions ought to be merged. Custodes + grey knights, inquisition + sisters, tyranid + genestealer cult, drukhari + harlequins. Rewrite lore as needed.
Only problem is people actually want more variety with their armies. Hence the different codexes.
Some units play completely different to others, grey knights do not play like custodians and vice versa, so making a codex that blends both will just make less sense. Inquisition and sisters had been in imperial agents and that didn't see much play because it was late in the edition (7th) and people dont really collect sisters armies because of the fact their 90% metal cast, which if you have ever played with metal models, is a PAIN to maintain.
Genestealer cults and tyranids play completely different, hence the different rules. One is massive swarm while the other is a uprising by the local population that is generations in the making.
Harlequins have always been their own thing, they are a faction that doesn't hold itself to any of the aeldari factions except to their god Cegorach. They do the work of their god, irrespective of what other aeldari do.
Variety made 40k get a new lease of life, taking that away for simplicity's sake will be stupid at this point. More so because those new factions that had/have a codex that actually sold very well (I can attest to custodians as i am making an army of the golden legion)
Besides, Aeldari have always had harlequins as a side faction. Been there since as long as i can remember (5th ed)
Besides, Aeldari have always had harlequins as a side faction. Been there since as long as i can remember (5th ed)
Depends on what you mean by "side faction." In 3rd(?) through 6th, they were just unit entries that appeared in the craftworld (and sometimes dark eldar) books. Which, I believe, is what he's suggesting. Keep the unit entries, but get rid of faction-specific rules. Not that I care for this idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Northern85Star wrote: Scrap ‘em. There should only be CWE and DE. Merge the other subfactions into these. Fewer factions = better balance. And quicker finished editions (“finished edition” = release of all codices).
Lots of other factions ought to be merged. Custodes + grey knights, inquisition + sisters, tyranid + genestealer cult, drukhari + harlequins. Rewrite lore as needed.
I see where you're coming from, but I hate this idea. Variety of play styles, models, and fluff keeps things fresh in my eyes. But I'm one of those weirdos that was using homebrewed harlequin codex rules back before they had a 'dex, so... Also, why give harlies to the drukhari instead of the craftworlders? If anything, we could put them in both books again like in previous editions. Not that anyone really loved that situation, but it seems weird to arbitrarily restrict options for one faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I pitched a (probably overly complicated) alternative to Strength From Death a while back. No one seemed interested in commenting on it at the time:
If I were to update the concept, I'd probably pitch it as something like:
*Ditch the current soul burst rules.
* When an aeldari unit dies anywhere on the table, or when an enemy unit dies within 7" of a Ynnari unit, give the nearest ynnari unit what basically amounts to an act of faith token.
* Units carrying tokens pass all of their tokens (plus one more for dying) to the closest ynnari unit when they die. So your scorpions kill a thing and get a token. Then they get killed and pass two tokens onto their closest buddies.
* You can spend tokens in the relevant phase of your own turn to do a thing. More potent actions cost more tokens to pull off. So you might spend 1 token in the movement phase to move a second time. Shooting or fighting a second time might cost 2 or even 3 tokens. Casting an extra psychic power (including one you've already cast) would probably be a 2 token thing.
* Word of the Phoenix changes to give a token to a targeted ynnari unit.
* Have the Ynnari keyword replace the Craftworld, Kabal, Cult, and Masque keywords. (And Coterie for corsairs). So everyone is still an "asuryani" or a "drukhari", but you'll miss out on certain stratagems and on your chapter tactic equivalents.
So the intended result is that ynnari aren't throwing around offensive bonus actions at the same rate, BUT you'll be able to spread the love of Ynnead around more easily. So Yvraine won't be able to give reapers an extra round of shooting every turn unless they happen to have units dying nearby, but you will be consistently giving bonus actions to at least a few units spread across your army as the battle goes on and whittles you down.
Instead of getting craftworld traits that make you kill faster or die slower, you end up with a mechanic that allows you to maintain a certain amount of effectiveness even as your forces are whittled down. So if your opponent alpha strikes you really hard on turn 1, it just means they've given you some tokens to spend on your next turn and even the playing field.
If the trait gained (shooting twice) is better than the trait lost (-1 to hit) then ynarii will be unbalanced, all other things being equal.
So either you need a point premium on ynarri units and go with your idea (I still feel the acting twice in a phase idea is broken) or else how do you stop it from just being better eldar?
Soulburst needs to be ynnari specific. Adding craftworlds or Kabals to the mix just makes an already great mechanic even more powerful.
To that point, i would say replace the CRAFTWORLD or KABAL keywords in the units with YNNARI. That way you cant use those traits with soulburst. It isn't perfect, but nothing ever is
bananathug wrote: If the trait gained (shooting twice) is better than the trait lost (-1 to hit) then ynarii will be unbalanced, all other things being equal.
So either you need a point premium on ynarri units and go with your idea (I still feel the acting twice in a phase idea is broken) or else how do you stop it from just being better eldar?
So the thing about balance is that we aren't (or at least shouldn't be) looking for 100% perfect 1 to 1 effectiveness between various options. In a game like 40k with all of its varied options, such balance isn't really realistic. Instead, what we should be striving for is to have all options fall within an acceptable range of effectiveness so that all options are viable in their own right. The goal here is to present interesting choices. Overpowered things are problematic not only because they break down the meaningful interactions between units in game play but also because their over effectiveness removes interesting options from the game.
So it actually isn't a problem if a trait (shooting twice) is better than a trait lost (-1 to hit) so long as the level of effectiveness of both traits falls within the intended range and so long as one trait doesn't invalidate another. For instance, I will never take the warlord trait from the main rulebook that just gives my warlord a 6+ FNP if I have access to the eldar warlord trait that gives 6+ FNP and another wound.
Alaitoc's Fieldcraft (-1 to hit) is designed to keep units alive while getting bonus actions is generally used to increase your offensive power (moving units into position, casting psychic powers to kill stuff or make other things kill stuff, shooting, charging in to kill stuff, or stabbing.) Because one is defensive and the other is basically offensive, both are hypothetically valid choices that reward different units and play styles.
Even between two offensive rules (Biel-Tan's rerolls for shuriken weapons and Strength From Death), we're still fine provided one choice doesn't remove all interesting decisions for the other. If I'm running tons of shuriken weapons or like a Biel-Tan relic or warlord trait, then the Biel-Tan rules might prove more valuable to me than Strength From Death. If I'm not running units that particularly take advantage of the benefits of being Biel-Tan, then I might prefer the accumulating extra actions as things die via the ynnari rules.
TLDR; You strive to make it different eldar rather than better eldar. Salamanders are better at doing raw damage than Raven Guard thanks to their rerolls, but that doesn't stop people from taking Raven Guard when they want to sit back and shoot and/or infiltrate forward. The idea is to make multiple valid playstyles with their own sets of strengths, weaknesses, and interesting choices. Same as pretty much any choice made in list creation. Do you give your storm guardians a flamer or a fusion gun? It depends on how you want your army to work.
Again just agree with this. I often find running my spears as biel tan is just more affective turn in and turn out, than strength from death. They pump out a lot of shuriken shots, re rolling all those 1's gives you a ton of mileage.
To your main point though, absolutely, people reflexively seeking balance as pure equality is both impossible and undesirable. Any fun and interesting game will provide you with fun and interesting choices. That means things need to be different so that a choice needs to be made. Should I take unit A or unit B, they're both distinct and do different things. And yes, in this environment people will judge certain units better than others, hopefully based on context and scenario, and not on universality. When you get universality the you approach the need to look at something for a possible nerf or adjustment. The spears as biel tan over ynnari are a good example, but I even think reapers aren't such a no brainer as some people like to think. For example if I'm going against a tau gunline I'm going to strongly consider taking my reapers as alaitoc and pairing them up with a warlock for conceal. Strategically, against an opponent that hits on 4's a decent amount of the time, forcing them to hit on 6's could vey well give me more mileage than a double shoot. Context and scenario.
This still leaves the issue of a "chapter tactic" if you will. All factions have the equivalent of one, what would it be in your scenario? Do they just get to keep their craftworld attribute plus battle focus?
fraser1191 wrote: Maybe the fact that they get to pull from 3 different factions with no real downside?
How is this any different from space marines being able to pull from guard/sisters/inquisiton/mechanicus/skiitari/knights, or chaos being able to mix and match between thousand sons, nurgle, or just demons in general?
fraser1191 wrote: Maybe the fact that they get to pull from 3 different factions with no real downside?
How is this any different from space marines being able to pull from guard/sisters/inquisiton/mechanicus/skiitari/knights, or chaos being able to mix and match between thousand sons, nurgle, or just demons in general?
I think a lot of people have either not played vs ynnari recently, or don't understand their rules.
1) Making a unit ynnari loses it some good rules (craftworld trait, power from pain, rising crescendo) in order to use soulburst.
2) Soulburst (after chapter tactics) is used exactly like a stratagem, except that it can only be used during the ynnari turn.
3) One of the big three MUST be your warlord. Until they get a codex that means only the BRB warlord traits and stratagems, also no relics.
4) Having a complete other faction as a seperate detachment is the only way to access ANY stratagems or relics. The only strat people really hate on is the Saim Hain one. But without another faction, you can't even deep strike ynnari units (who don't inherently have it). To take even a single relic you pay CP.
All that aside, dark reapers certainly need some changes. A slight points increase and some kind of rule (call it "massive heat generation") that says the launchers can only be shot once per turn (so no soulburst or forewarned stratagem). Shining spears (and reapers) should both be more limited in squad size. A group of 3 or 5 ynnari spears still hits hard, but it doesn't wipe out everything and is much more manageable (for the opponent).
I'd much rather see the total number of models be limited rather than the squad sizes. So you can have 9 reapers max, either one squad of nine or three squads of three etc, same for spears. But I don't like the ability of punishing and stifling strategy, give people the opportunity to decide between a large squad or an msu approach, while still preventing spam overall.
The problem starts when you stack psyker support and soulburst though. Since you can only soulburst a unit once, and one action type per turn (and only cast a psyker power once), you want to have a single big unit. Big units with big one off buffs get huge results. By artificially limiting the squad size you have to decide either to spread buffs out, take other options to replicate effects (autarch for rerolls, etc), or use several not as powerful units.
I understand your point, it's explained correctly, I'm simply arguing that getting to buff one large unit, or getting to have a stratagem affect one large unit, isn't overpowered or problematic. I don't think the LVO list is overpowered because of one large reaper unit with yvraine. I think it's everything combined together: the hard to hit alaitoc squads, the msu reaper squads that get to spam tempest launchers, the turn one charging spears, etc. I think big squad of reapers with yvraine, by itself, is just one powerful combo in a game with a number of really powerful combos, and doesn't necessarily have to be completely killed off.
novaspike wrote: Shining spears (and reapers) should both be more limited in squad size. A group of 3 or 5 ynnari spears still hits hard, but it doesn't wipe out everything and is much more manageable (for the opponent).
Can we raise that to 6 models per squad for the spears? I'd hate to buy two boxes of three bikes and have the sixth bike go to waste. ^_^;
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: Just make soulburst a stratagem 1 CP when a unit is completely destroyed within 7" except the morale phase pick one of the following....
Now it is limited to once per phase, but also total uses in game and competes with other stratagems for CP.
I think with that you could even lift the restriction of only having it happen during your turn
Then their psychic power could just allow for using this stratagem without destroying a unit.
I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly. Soul bursting only lets you do a given type of soul burst action (such as shooting) once per turn. Do we really need to stop people from, for instance, getting an extra round of shooting with one unit and getting a free charge with another unit if they manage to kill off two enemy squads in the shooting phase? I'm not especially opposed to tying the more powerful forms of soul bursting to stratagems though.
novaspike wrote: Shining spears (and reapers) should both be more limited in squad size. A group of 3 or 5 ynnari spears still hits hard, but it doesn't wipe out everything and is much more manageable (for the opponent).
Can we raise that to 6 models per squad for the spears? I'd hate to buy two boxes of three bikes and have the sixth bike go to waste. ^_^;
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: Just make soulburst a stratagem 1 CP when a unit is completely destroyed within 7" except the morale phase pick one of the following....
Now it is limited to once per phase, but also total uses in game and competes with other stratagems for CP.
I think with that you could even lift the restriction of only having it happen during your turn
Then their psychic power could just allow for using this stratagem without destroying a unit.
I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly. Soul bursting only lets you do a given type of soul burst action (such as shooting) once per turn. Do we really need to stop people from, for instance, getting an extra round of shooting with one unit and getting a free charge with another unit if they manage to kill off two enemy squads in the shooting phase? I'm not especially opposed to tying the more powerful forms of soul bursting to stratagems though.
Yes we do. An extra round of shooting costs every other army 2+ CP and is usually restricted in some way. So getting it for free with a psychic power (the most common way to see the shooting done) Or fighting twice typically costs 3 CP, so getting to do so for killing a unit is extremely powerful especially because most fight twice strats are end of the phase not immediate. Making it a 1 CP stratagem with the kill restriction (or psychic power use) would still be more powerful than any other army has and would limit the use of other stratagems if you want to use it. Right now shining spears can use a stratagem to advance and charge, use quicken to move twice, and can fight twice all for what 1 CP. So chances are they can do this every turn. IF you needed to spend CP on it now you are spending 2 CP to do that, and another to double shoot your reapers. If you spent CP to webway some units, now you are probably halfway through your CP in a single turn. It is still powerful, but you will get to do it maybe twice, not every turn. As I said you could also lift the "your turn only" restriction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
peteralmo wrote: This still leaves the issue of a "chapter tactic" if you will. All factions have the equivalent of one, what would it be in your scenario? Do they just get to keep their craftworld attribute plus battle focus?
Not sure, but you could easily do something that would work for them, they don't have a codex yet so they have not need of a "chapter tactic" at present as all other index books lack capter tactics.
fraser1191 wrote: Maybe the fact that they get to pull from 3 different factions with no real downside?
How is this any different from space marines being able to pull from guard/sisters/inquisiton/mechanicus/skiitari/knights, or chaos being able to mix and match between thousand sons, nurgle, or just demons in general?
They cannot do so in a single detachment without penalty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
novaspike wrote: I think a lot of people have either not played vs ynnari recently, or don't understand their rules.
1) Making a unit ynnari loses it some good rules (craftworld trait, power from pain, rising crescendo) in order to use soulburst.
2) Soulburst (after chapter tactics) is used exactly like a stratagem, except that it can only be used during the ynnari turn.
3) One of the big three MUST be your warlord. Until they get a codex that means only the BRB warlord traits and stratagems, also no relics.
4) Having a complete other faction as a seperate detachment is the only way to access ANY stratagems or relics. The only strat people really hate on is the Saim Hain one. But without another faction, you can't even deep strike ynnari units (who don't inherently have it). To take even a single relic you pay CP.
All that aside, dark reapers certainly need some changes. A slight points increase and some kind of rule (call it "massive heat generation") that says the launchers can only be shot once per turn (so no soulburst or forewarned stratagem). Shining spears (and reapers) should both be more limited in squad size. A group of 3 or 5 ynnari spears still hits hard, but it doesn't wipe out everything and is much more manageable (for the opponent).
Tell all those downsides to the top players in the ITC and on the american ETC team who auto-take a ynnari detachment because of how strong soulburst is. Sure it works like a stratagem. But those stratagems (of the commonly used soul burst powers) are 2-3 CP stratagems and considered extremely powerful at that, that ynnari get for free. So essentially you are getting something like 10-12 extra CP per game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: figured out what I might do for their tactic actually.
Make strength from death when a unit with this trait kills an enemy unit gain a CP on the roll of a 4+ (maybe 3+).
I understand what you're saying, but essentially the differing opinions represented on the thread constitute a fundamental difference in what the problem actually is. Namely it appears one group of people feel the strength from death "chapter tactic" isn't problematic on a baseline level, but does need to be closely monitored and controlled, because it's ceiling is so high. Where others feel it is fundamentally and inextricably overpowered and should be "nixed" essentially, transforming it into something wholly different from what it is now. We'll have to see where GW goes with it. They invented the ynnari, the lore, and the rule itself as it relates to gameplay, will they admit wholesale mistake and re-invent the subfaction, or continue to tweak and adjust? We will see...
I feel though that the lore and the extra action mechanics are not required to be linked. The lore revolves around them gaining benefit from death, that could easily be written into them getting extra CP from units dying nearby (maybe instead of kill a unit is still unit dies within 7" they gain a CP on a 4+). Then just build the different soulburst abilities into stratagems, similar to the ones that exist now for other factions to shoot twice, fight twice etc. I feel like that motif in general would largely solve their issues. You could then build into their relics, warlord traits, special characters bonuses to this ability/more CP generation revolving around deaths. It would still be fluffy, strong, and flexible I just feel that extra actions are just super strong and because the ynnari models are cross faction models you cannot build the ability into their cost. Doing it this way also makes it a mechanic that scales better vs the way it currently works.
Breng77 wrote: I feel though that the lore and the extra action mechanics are not required to be linked. The lore revolves around them gaining benefit from death, that could easily be written into them getting extra CP from units dying nearby (maybe instead of kill a unit is still unit dies within 7" they gain a CP on a 4+). Then just build the different soulburst abilities into stratagems, similar to the ones that exist now for other factions to shoot twice, fight twice etc. I feel like that motif in general would largely solve their issues. You could then build into their relics, warlord traits, special characters bonuses to this ability/more CP generation revolving around deaths. It would still be fluffy, strong, and flexible I just feel that extra actions are just super strong and because the ynnari models are cross faction models you cannot build the ability into their cost. Doing it this way also makes it a mechanic that scales better vs the way it currently works.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, the pearl clutching! Only mid-tier! Scandalous!
They weren't actually mid tier in 5th - I destroyed people with fortuned foot warlock units. Fire prisms and wraith lords and warwalkers were also amazing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This issue with elder is currently their underpriced units. Shinning spears and dark reapers and even wave serpents (is it really reasonable that a 130 point transport is has the effective wounds of a land raider vs anti tank weapons?). Compared to similar units they perform about 30-40% too well for their points.
Also their rules are just better...amazing stratagems and army traits that affect their entire army.
But then you'd have to specify enemy deaths or someone will take a bunch of cheap single beasts or archon court models to self kill and pad out CP.
That is why it is a roll to get them. You could specify enemy models but then I think the generation roll would either need to be automatic or like a 2+ as against some lists it would do almost nothing otherwise. Sure you could pad out a bunch of Msu squads but then your stratagems do less or your opponent focuses down your important stuff and ignores your small squads. But you are talking about an investment of foc slots, points, and running them into combat hoping they die within 7" of another ynnari model and rolling a 4+. So 10 such models average 4-5 extra CP plus any detachment they fill out. If attack twice is 3 cp, sure it helps but it is still more restrictive than things currently are.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, the pearl clutching! Only mid-tier! Scandalous!
They weren't actually mid tier in 5th - I destroyed people with fortuned foot warlock units. Fire prisms and wraith lords and warwalkers were also amazing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This issue with elder is currently their underpriced units. Shinning spears and dark reapers and even wave serpents (is it really reasonable that a 130 point transport is has the effective wounds of a land raider vs anti tank weapons?). Compared to similar units they perform about 30-40% too well for their points.
Also their rules are just better...amazing stratagems and army traits that affect their entire army.
At some point the community has to accept that the fluff has to inform the tone of certain races at a baseline level. Eldar are light years ahead of humanity in regard to technology, their weapons and tanks should do as much, or more, for less. Where the balance comes in is predominantly with other metrics, marines have a universal 4+ toughness, pretty much 3+ armor or better, and never break ranks. Eldar are basically 3+ toughness across the board, 4+/5+ armor, can easily run away, etc. Orks, by the basic strictures of the lore, are super tough, but also extremely crude technologically, and their BS is also not great, etc. I never understood why people complained that a reaper launcher is better than a missile launcher, or that a wave serpent is better than a rhino, they have to be, the entire foundation of the lore of the game would crumble away if they weren't demonstrably better. If your natural reaction would then be to say, well then they should cost twice as much, you have just asked for the same end to be accomplished through different means; if you're not going to make them equal via the lore, then make them equal via points. And that just isn't what 40k is, it's not checkers, or chess for that matter. Some things are just better than other things in 40k, full stop, the game designers want it that way, everything isn't supposed to be equal. You're meant to pick an army, play to it's strengths, become strategic with what they can do well, what they can't do well, and master your choice. Not cry foul because the reaper launcher isn't directly equatable to the missile launcher, which isn't directly equatable to the big rokit (or whatever the Ork version is called).
The issue with that stance is it allows for min max units. Something like dark reapers get way more out of their weapons and rules than they lose to being T3/ S3. By your argument individual eldar models should be costly because there are fewer eldar as they are a dying race. From a balance standpoint a model with better rules and weapons needs to cost more than a similar model that performs worse. Your argument seems to be eldar are super advanced so they should be OP. Marines don't fit their fluff as far as effectiveness. Put simply I'm ok with eldar having better weapons and rules so long as they pay for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You would have a point if list building were more restricted, but as it is not it doesn't work if points don't balance units. Do devestators have to be reapers no, but they should not cost more and do less. You say it is about synergy, but some units are outliers to synergy and are too powerful because they also benefit from synergy.
Breng77 wrote: The issue with that stance is it allows for min max units. Something like dark reapers get way more out of their weapons and rules than they lose to being T3/ S3. By your argument individual eldar models should be costly because there are fewer eldar as they are a dying race. From a balance standpoint a model with better rules and weapons needs to cost more than a similar model that performs worse. Your argument seems to be eldar are super advanced so they should be OP. Marines don't fit their fluff as far as effectiveness. Put simply I'm ok with eldar having better weapons and rules so long as they pay for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You would have a point if list building were more restricted, but as it is not it doesn't work if points don't balance units. Do devestators have to be reapers no, but they should not cost more and do less. You say it is about synergy, but some units are outliers to synergy and are too powerful because they also benefit from synergy.
To your first point, yes, I think the game designers intend, or are ok with, the ability for savvy players to min/max. I don't think they're interested in re-designing the game away from this possibility, nor do I believe competitive warhammer players want the game to evolve into chess essentially. If you don't care for competitive 40k, simply play friendly games.
I stand by my opinion about where eldar are in 8th edition in regards to point costs, but I am more in agreement with you in regard to the state of marines. They do do less for more, and as such, I think they need point reductions, rather seeing eldar points increase. You may find that some people feel the imperium keyword alone opens up list building in a way to easily circumvent the point cost shortcomings of pure marines, but again, I think they really need point decreases.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, the pearl clutching! Only mid-tier! Scandalous!
They weren't actually mid tier in 5th - I destroyed people with fortuned foot warlock units. Fire prisms and wraith lords and warwalkers were also amazing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This issue with elder is currently their underpriced units. Shinning spears and dark reapers and even wave serpents (is it really reasonable that a 130 point transport is has the effective wounds of a land raider vs anti tank weapons?). Compared to similar units they perform about 30-40% too well for their points.
Also their rules are just better...amazing stratagems and army traits that affect their entire army.
At some point the community has to accept that the fluff has to inform the tone of certain races at a baseline level. Eldar are light years ahead of humanity in regard to technology, their weapons and tanks should do as much, or more, for less. Where the balance comes in is predominantly with other metrics, marines have a universal 4+ toughness, pretty much 3+ armor or better, and never break ranks. Eldar are basically 3+ toughness across the board, 4+/5+ armor, can easily run away, etc. Orks, by the basic strictures of the lore, are super tough, but also extremely crude technologically, and their BS is also not great, etc. I never understood why people complained that a reaper launcher is better than a missile launcher, or that a wave serpent is better than a rhino, they have to be, the entire foundation of the lore of the game would crumble away if they weren't demonstrably better. If your natural reaction would then be to say, well then they should cost twice as much, you have just asked for the same end to be accomplished through different means; if you're not going to make them equal via the lore, then make them equal via points. And that just isn't what 40k is, it's not checkers, or chess for that matter. Some things are just better than other things in 40k, full stop, the game designers want it that way, everything isn't supposed to be equal. You're meant to pick an army, play to it's strengths, become strategic with what they can do well, what they can't do well, and master your choice. Not cry foul because the reaper launcher isn't directly equatable to the missile launcher, which isn't directly equatable to the big rokit (or whatever the Ork version is called).
Totally agree with the points about the differences in races and that not everything is supposed to be equal. The imbalances introduce strategy, tactics, and outright luck in ways that make the game compelling.
But Strength from Death is a little too unequal, to the point where it changes the probable outcomes of each match. As you described, the other races have benefits and drawbacks that offset each other in meaningful ways. SfD doesn't, it just needs to be applied to your biggest / toughest unit. It invalidates the imbalances themselves, making the game a little less exciting.
From this perspective, one way to adjust SfD would be to make it a Stratagem. Players would need to make decisions about when and where to apply it, and there would be downsides for making a suboptimal decision with your CPs. It brings it line with many other aspects of the game.
Yes, I think something like that would be fine. I still think ynnari will then need, in addition to that stratagem, a meaningful chapter tactic of sorts. Or else they're just craftworld with a new stratagem to use.
Martel732 wrote: Eldar were god tier in 2nd ed. So there is no "before" they were god tier.
Perhaps, I was a middle schooler when I started playing them with my buddies, we had no clue about competitive lists, I was thinking more about those middle editions when they were average.
Back when a bright lance was like 60 points? I seem to recall it being one of the most over costed armies circa 4th edition.
But as for the topic at hand, I think the issue isn't actually the Ynarri, more than its the fact that for some slowed reason you can still use CRAFTWORLD/CABAL SPECIFIC stratagems by abusing the force organization structures.
Spam spam spam has been the mantra of the competitively minded side of the community for at least as long as I've been playing. What I am seeing in the larger community at the FLGS level is a return to fun games running very diverse model sets. Take me for example, I have Custodes and Tyranids currently. I run no less than 7 different types of units for my bugs, and I run no less than 4 for my custodes, with Trajann. I'm looking for a more narrative style of play and I'm choosing to both not play spam lists, nor play against people who play spam lists.
That all sounds great, good for you. The original thrust of the opening post had to do with LVO and equivalent level tournaments. I can completely sympathize with your dislike for spam, but it is a permanent fixture of the hyper competitive meta, and it isn't going anywhere. So given that spam will always be a reality at the highest level tournaments, how do we, within that reality, adequately address the gnashing of teeth going on over soulburst. And we've had some pretty good ideas floated.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, the pearl clutching! Only mid-tier! Scandalous!
They weren't actually mid tier in 5th - I destroyed people with fortuned foot warlock units. Fire prisms and wraith lords and warwalkers were also amazing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This issue with elder is currently their underpriced units. Shinning spears and dark reapers and even wave serpents (is it really reasonable that a 130 point transport is has the effective wounds of a land raider vs anti tank weapons?). Compared to similar units they perform about 30-40% too well for their points.
Also their rules are just better...amazing stratagems and army traits that affect their entire army.
At some point the community has to accept that the fluff has to inform the tone of certain races at a baseline level. Eldar are light years ahead of humanity in regard to technology, their weapons and tanks should do as much, or more, for less. Where the balance comes in is predominantly with other metrics, marines have a universal 4+ toughness, pretty much 3+ armor or better, and never break ranks. Eldar are basically 3+ toughness across the board, 4+/5+ armor, can easily run away, etc. Orks, by the basic strictures of the lore, are super tough, but also extremely crude technologically, and their BS is also not great, etc. I never understood why people complained that a reaper launcher is better than a missile launcher, or that a wave serpent is better than a rhino, they have to be, the entire foundation of the lore of the game would crumble away if they weren't demonstrably better. If your natural reaction would then be to say, well then they should cost twice as much, you have just asked for the same end to be accomplished through different means; if you're not going to make them equal via the lore, then make them equal via points. And that just isn't what 40k is, it's not checkers, or chess for that matter. Some things are just better than other things in 40k, full stop, the game designers want it that way, everything isn't supposed to be equal. You're meant to pick an army, play to it's strengths, become strategic with what they can do well, what they can't do well, and master your choice. Not cry foul because the reaper launcher isn't directly equatable to the missile launcher, which isn't directly equatable to the big rokit (or whatever the Ork version is called).
Sorry, but to me, they have disconnected fluff from crunch entirely. There is no excuse for the eldar, imo. Other than some authors fapping off to them when they write the codex.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, the pearl clutching! Only mid-tier! Scandalous!
They weren't actually mid tier in 5th - I destroyed people with fortuned foot warlock units. Fire prisms and wraith lords and warwalkers were also amazing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This issue with elder is currently their underpriced units. Shinning spears and dark reapers and even wave serpents (is it really reasonable that a 130 point transport is has the effective wounds of a land raider vs anti tank weapons?). Compared to similar units they perform about 30-40% too well for their points.
Also their rules are just better...amazing stratagems and army traits that affect their entire army.
At some point the community has to accept that the fluff has to inform the tone of certain races at a baseline level. Eldar are light years ahead of humanity in regard to technology, their weapons and tanks should do as much, or more, for less. Where the balance comes in is predominantly with other metrics, marines have a universal 4+ toughness, pretty much 3+ armor or better, and never break ranks. Eldar are basically 3+ toughness across the board, 4+/5+ armor, can easily run away, etc. Orks, by the basic strictures of the lore, are super tough, but also extremely crude technologically, and their BS is also not great, etc. I never understood why people complained that a reaper launcher is better than a missile launcher, or that a wave serpent is better than a rhino, they have to be, the entire foundation of the lore of the game would crumble away if they weren't demonstrably better. If your natural reaction would then be to say, well then they should cost twice as much, you have just asked for the same end to be accomplished through different means; if you're not going to make them equal via the lore, then make them equal via points. And that just isn't what 40k is, it's not checkers, or chess for that matter. Some things are just better than other things in 40k, full stop, the game designers want it that way, everything isn't supposed to be equal. You're meant to pick an army, play to it's strengths, become strategic with what they can do well, what they can't do well, and master your choice. Not cry foul because the reaper launcher isn't directly equatable to the missile launcher, which isn't directly equatable to the big rokit (or whatever the Ork version is called).
Sorry, but to me, they have disconnected fluff from crunch entirely. There is no excuse for the eldar, imo. Other than some authors fapping off to them when they write the codex.
I'm sorry Martel but the foundational lore of the grim dark, the very thing that undergirds this whole thing we call 40k, was written before there was even rogue trader, and it's not changing. You don't have to like it, you can choose not to play the game, but the Eldar are far more advanced than space marines, and they always will be, and the rules will always reflect that. You wishing so hard for marines and eldar to somehow be equals isn't going to make a difference. It is what it is. Given that, we can discuss rules tweaks, and point tweaks, and that's what we're all trying to do here, for the most part.
No one is, or should, show up with some far reaching foundational and philosophical, wholesale change to the core of the game and it's respective races, that's frivolous and unhelpful.
By the way, it's also unhelpful to say, I don't like these guys so double all there point costs.
Martel732 wrote: Eldar were god tier in 2nd ed. So there is no "before" they were god tier.
Perhaps, I was a middle schooler when I started playing them with my buddies, we had no clue about competitive lists, I was thinking more about those middle editions when they were average.
They've been top tier in every edition where they got a codex.
Martel732 wrote: Eldar were god tier in 2nd ed. So there is no "before" they were god tier.
Perhaps, I was a middle schooler when I started playing them with my buddies, we had no clue about competitive lists, I was thinking more about those middle editions when they were average.
They've been top tier in every edition where they got a codex.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, the pearl clutching! Only mid-tier! Scandalous!
They weren't actually mid tier in 5th - I destroyed people with fortuned foot warlock units. Fire prisms and wraith lords and warwalkers were also amazing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This issue with elder is currently their underpriced units. Shinning spears and dark reapers and even wave serpents (is it really reasonable that a 130 point transport is has the effective wounds of a land raider vs anti tank weapons?). Compared to similar units they perform about 30-40% too well for their points.
Also their rules are just better...amazing stratagems and army traits that affect their entire army.
At some point the community has to accept that the fluff has to inform the tone of certain races at a baseline level. Eldar are light years ahead of humanity in regard to technology, their weapons and tanks should do as much, or more, for less. Where the balance comes in is predominantly with other metrics, marines have a universal 4+ toughness, pretty much 3+ armor or better, and never break ranks. Eldar are basically 3+ toughness across the board, 4+/5+ armor, can easily run away, etc. Orks, by the basic strictures of the lore, are super tough, but also extremely crude technologically, and their BS is also not great, etc. I never understood why people complained that a reaper launcher is better than a missile launcher, or that a wave serpent is better than a rhino, they have to be, the entire foundation of the lore of the game would crumble away if they weren't demonstrably better. If your natural reaction would then be to say, well then they should cost twice as much, you have just asked for the same end to be accomplished through different means; if you're not going to make them equal via the lore, then make them equal via points. And that just isn't what 40k is, it's not checkers, or chess for that matter. Some things are just better than other things in 40k, full stop, the game designers want it that way, everything isn't supposed to be equal. You're meant to pick an army, play to it's strengths, become strategic with what they can do well, what they can't do well, and master your choice. Not cry foul because the reaper launcher isn't directly equatable to the missile launcher, which isn't directly equatable to the big rokit (or whatever the Ork version is called).
Sorry, but to me, they have disconnected fluff from crunch entirely. There is no excuse for the eldar, imo. Other than some authors fapping off to them when they write the codex.
I'm sorry Martel but the foundational lore of the grim dark, the very thing that undergirds this whole thing we call 40k, was written before there was even rogue trader, and it's not changing. You don't have to like it, you can choose not to play the game, but the Eldar are far more advanced than space marines, and they always will be, and the rules will always reflect that. You wishing so hard for marines and eldar to somehow be equals isn't going to make a difference. It is what it is. Given that, we can discuss rules tweaks, and point tweaks, and that's what we're all trying to do here, for the most part.
No one is, or should, show up with some far reaching foundational and philosophical, wholesale change to the core of the game and it's respective races, that's frivolous and unhelpful.
By the way, it's also unhelpful to say, I don't like these guys so double all there point costs.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to echo Martel. It's fine to have a million and one rules, it's fine to have better guns and other weapons, it's NOT fine for them to cost the same points while being better.
If you want super duper Eldar, be prepared to outnumbered 3:1 by marines. Very simple. Foundational lore clearly means nothing to most other factions. I don't know why Eldar get a special pass.
Martel732 wrote: If you want super duper Eldar, be prepared to outnumbered 3:1 by marines. Very simple. Foundational lore clearly means nothing to most other factions. I don't know why Eldar get a special pass.
Id hope this would be the case for Marines to guard being outnumbered 1:100
but people complain about Ig enough as it is right?
Martel732 wrote: If you want super duper Eldar, be prepared to outnumbered 3:1 by marines. Very simple. Foundational lore clearly means nothing to most other factions. I don't know why Eldar get a special pass.
I really don't want this to devolve into lore lawyering, techincally the astartes are few in number as well since lore wise the bulk of the imperiums numbers come from guard etc etc etc, astartes alone would never outnumber eldar 3:1 etc. Let me say this, forget the lore. GW has made the eldar the premier glass cannon race, their offensive output potential is second to none really, maybe guard and tau are close. They are very weak, they never impress with toughness, armor, or wounds (looking at you necrons), and their points costs make sense in the context of aeldari lore in general, not imperium lore. I mean why aren't you lamenting that genestealers are infinitely better than assault marines for combat yet cost less? I think dark reapers could probably withstand going from 27 ppm to 30, spears could probably go from 31 ppm to 35, I would never dream of going any more than that. Conversely I think a devastator with a lascannon should not cost more than 32-34 ppm, this is reflective of the astartes body itself being much sturdier than the dark reaper body, and the technology for a human to develop a lascannon being much more costly than eldars much more advanced weaponry (part of advanced technology is abundance and accessibility, not just power). So wrapped up in all of that are some gameplay considerations, some lore considerations, as well as price increase for the best eldar units, and a points decrease for some astartes units. That to me is reasonable, 40 points for a reaper, 50 points for a shining spear, is smoking crack territory.
Martel732 wrote: If you want super duper Eldar, be prepared to outnumbered 3:1 by marines. Very simple. Foundational lore clearly means nothing to most other factions. I don't know why Eldar get a special pass.
Id hope this would be the case for Marines to guard being outnumbered 1:100
but people complain about Ig enough as it is right?
Only because guardsmen are objectively worth more than 4 ppm and marines are not worth 13 ppm.
" I mean why aren't you lamenting that genestealers are infinitely better than assault marines for combat yet cost less?"
So you would be happy if GW "got into the crunch" and made everything equal as a ratio of points cost to offensive output? Are you saying you want 40k to be chess basically? I have two rooks, you have two rooks, I have two knights, you have two knights, they both move and do exactly the same things? Is that what you're looking for out of 40k?
Because I love that some units are just flat out better than other units, across all races. And that includes units that are a "bargain" or a "steal." It's not really fun when you always have to pay top dollar for good performance. Centurion Devastators "perform well" but no one runs them because they are charged at the highest possible premium. People aren't surprised when a ferrari performs like a ferrari, it costs 200k, it better perform like that. People get really excited when an 80k corvette performs like a 200k ferrari. =)
Not exactly. I prefer starcraft style balancing. Marines are 50 mins, two zerglings are 50, and a zealot is 100. The units are different, and cost different amounts, but within their roles they are fair. For example, marines can shoot up, but have the least hps of the three.
40K would arbitrarily make one of the three units too expensive and one too cheap relative to their combat ability. I just want a unit that costs X points to have that much total combat utility. Currently, reapers have FAR more combat utility than their cost indicates.
No; units should be flat out better FOR THEIR COST, not just flat out better. Sure, if you want dark reapers to remain as they are, they can, but need to cost 50 ppm. Don't like it? Lose combat utility.
" It's not really fun when you always have to pay top dollar for good performance."
That's basically cheating in my view.
"People get really excited when an 80k corvette performs like a 200k ferrari. =) "
And then spam them and ruin everyone else's experience. No thanks.
Breng77 wrote: The issue with that stance is it allows for min max units. Something like dark reapers get way more out of their weapons and rules than they lose to being T3/ S3. By your argument individual eldar models should be costly because there are fewer eldar as they are a dying race. From a balance standpoint a model with better rules and weapons needs to cost more than a similar model that performs worse. Your argument seems to be eldar are super advanced so they should be OP. Marines don't fit their fluff as far as effectiveness. Put simply I'm ok with eldar having better weapons and rules so long as they pay for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You would have a point if list building were more restricted, but as it is not it doesn't work if points don't balance units. Do devestators have to be reapers no, but they should not cost more and do less. You say it is about synergy, but some units are outliers to synergy and are too powerful because they also benefit from synergy.
To your first point, yes, I think the game designers intend, or are ok with, the ability for savvy players to min/max. I don't think they're interested in re-designing the game away from this possibility, nor do I believe competitive warhammer players want the game to evolve into chess essentially. If you don't care for competitive 40k, simply play friendly games.
I stand by my opinion about where eldar are in 8th edition in regards to point costs, but I am more in agreement with you in regard to the state of marines. They do do less for more, and as such, I think they need point reductions, rather seeing eldar points increase. You may find that some people feel the imperium keyword alone opens up list building in a way to easily circumvent the point cost shortcomings of pure marines, but again, I think they really need point decreases.
I disagree with points decreases I think more things need to cost more in general in the game not less. The game already plays pretty slowly, adding more units and models to the table makes that worse. Further the more you lower points the less space you have for design and balancing.
Wow, I must say, this is impressive: one user (Martel) managed to sidetrack a completely decent discussion about Ynnari and possible fixes into his saltfest. In particular, the idea of SfD tokens seemed like a viable alternative to the mechanic as it is.
(Also, I might point out that his comparison of Starcraft is good in theory, but forgot the most important part: you have to take units in the context of their entire armies, the game, and counterplay. For example, tight terrain-heavy maps hinder zerglings and advantage zealots and that needs to be accounted for)
The problem is, even if GW agreed with you, and we don't know that they do, they might think the now nerfed ynnari are fine and the LVO results are acceptable, they probably would never go to the absurd length you're suggesting. It sounds like you're advocating for what? A 50 point toughness 3 one wound model with no invulnerable save or feel no pain? You're suggestion, if ported to a visual representation, might be that of a toddler jamming his fingers in his ears and stomping his feet (I'm not calling you a toddler, merely the point hike suggestion). I've offered what I think is a reasonable place to start as far as point increases go, but you seemed to scoff at it as very unreasonable. I'm wondering if GW would agree with you, considering they very recently LOWERED the cost of reapers.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: The setting was perfectly fine before the Ynarri were a thing. It'll survive perfectly fine without them.
I don't necessarily disagree, but just to confirm, you are advocating for them just to be removed?
Sure. There are way to many factions at the moment. If Ynarri were going to stay a thing they should have been rolled into CWE or DE.
Genestealer cults should have been rolled into Tyranids.
Sisters should be rolled into Inquisition.
And so forth.
Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Deathwatch, and Grey Knights should be rolled into Marines...
Oh wait, were you going to have it stop before that?
Not at all. I thought that was aptly covered by 'And so forth'.
Though I would roll Deathwatch and Greyknights into Inquisition with Imperial Agents, Scions, and Sisters and Custodes, as Codex Imperium.
That leaves the Imperium with 4 Codexs, which is still too many really, but better than the sea of wallpaper we have now.
Not to mention, and no one has really brought this up yet, but I think the keyword system has represented a really elegant approach to controlling detachments and overall army composition. And if they keyword system is currently allowing from broken things, then just adjust which keywords certain things have, don't scrap the keyword system imo, I really like it.
Reapers functionally have 2+ armor and their offense is insanity. If i could take a model with those rules for 45 or 50 ppmid strongly consider it. Thats how you know something is reasonably costed; its neither an autotake or autopass.
Your point increase leaves them as an autotake. That's not really enough. They'd see play at 45-50 because they are that strong.
Martel732 wrote: Reapers functionally have 2+ armor and their offense is insanity. If i could take a model with those rules for 45 or 50 ppmid strongly consider it. Thats how you know something is reasonably costed; its neither an autotake or autopass.
Your point increase leaves them as an autotake. That's not really enough. They'd see play at 45-50 because they are that strong.
So do oppose anything you see to be an auto-take in 40k? Do you feel 40k should have no units ever considered an auto-take? Because I like that there are really good units in a particular edition of a codex, and units that aren't so great, and I like whats on that list to fluctuate a bit over time. What you call auto-take, I just call the best units in the current dex. And every dex, at any given time, will have it's best units.
Martel732 wrote: Reapers functionally have 2+ armor and their offense is insanity. If i could take a model with those rules for 45 or 50 ppmid strongly consider it. Thats how you know something is reasonably costed; its neither an autotake or autopass.
Your point increase leaves them as an autotake. That's not really enough. They'd see play at 45-50 because they are that strong.
So do oppose anything you see to be an auto-take in 40k? Do you feel 40k should have no units ever considered an auto-take?
In a word? Yes.
And at the same time, no unit should be an auto-pass.
I'm okay with CERTAIN LISTS having auto-take units (for instance, Spoilpox Scrivener for Plaguebearer-heavy Nurgle armies) but if it's an auto-take no matter what, it's too powerful.
Martel732 wrote: Reapers functionally have 2+ armor and their offense is insanity. If i could take a model with those rules for 45 or 50 ppmid strongly consider it. Thats how you know something is reasonably costed; its neither an autotake or autopass.
Your point increase leaves them as an autotake. That's not really enough. They'd see play at 45-50 because they are that strong.
So do oppose anything you see to be an auto-take in 40k? Do you feel 40k should have no units ever considered an auto-take?
In a word? Yes.
And at the same time, no unit should be an auto-pass.
I'm okay with CERTAIN LISTS having auto-take units (for instance, Spoilpox Scrivener for Plaguebearer-heavy Nurgle armies) but if it's an auto-take no matter what, it's too powerful.
"It's too powerful" is a purely subjective statement, it's your opinion. I don't think things that are auto-takes are "too powerful," I just think they are the best thing at the moment that codex offers, and there always has to be a best thing.
Agreed, I'd like to see more narrow synergies where some units are great in some combinations but not always great. Though I also wish there were more list building restrictions as they allow for more balance mechanics.
Martel732 wrote: Reapers functionally have 2+ armor and their offense is insanity. If i could take a model with those rules for 45 or 50 ppmid strongly consider it. Thats how you know something is reasonably costed; its neither an autotake or autopass.
Your point increase leaves them as an autotake. That's not really enough. They'd see play at 45-50 because they are that strong.
So do oppose anything you see to be an auto-take in 40k? Do you feel 40k should have no units ever considered an auto-take?
In a word? Yes.
And at the same time, no unit should be an auto-pass.
I'm okay with CERTAIN LISTS having auto-take units (for instance, Spoilpox Scrivener for Plaguebearer-heavy Nurgle armies) but if it's an auto-take no matter what, it's too powerful.
"It's too powerful" is a purely subjective statement, it's your opinion. I don't think things that are auto-takes are "too powerful," I just think they are the best thing at the moment that codex offers, and there always has to be a best thing.
That's an external balance issue.
Each Codex (or even Index Faction) should be as good, with a well-built list, as any other Codex.
Within the Codex, no option should be so powerful as to be an auto-take.
I do agree that an auto-take for Tau is probably not overpowered compared to, say, Guard, but do you understand the point that I want a balanced game?
Martel732 wrote: Oh, the pearl clutching! Only mid-tier! Scandalous!
They weren't actually mid tier in 5th - I destroyed people with fortuned foot warlock units. Fire prisms and wraith lords and warwalkers were also amazing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This issue with elder is currently their underpriced units. Shinning spears and dark reapers and even wave serpents (is it really reasonable that a 130 point transport is has the effective wounds of a land raider vs anti tank weapons?). Compared to similar units they perform about 30-40% too well for their points.
Also their rules are just better...amazing stratagems and army traits that affect their entire army.
At some point the community has to accept that the fluff has to inform the tone of certain races at a baseline level. Eldar are light years ahead of humanity in regard to technology, their weapons and tanks should do as much, or more, for less. Where the balance comes in is predominantly with other metrics, marines have a universal 4+ toughness, pretty much 3+ armor or better, and never break ranks. Eldar are basically 3+ toughness across the board, 4+/5+ armor, can easily run away, etc. Orks, by the basic strictures of the lore, are super tough, but also extremely crude technologically, and their BS is also not great, etc. I never understood why people complained that a reaper launcher is better than a missile launcher, or that a wave serpent is better than a rhino, they have to be, the entire foundation of the lore of the game would crumble away if they weren't demonstrably better. If your natural reaction would then be to say, well then they should cost twice as much, you have just asked for the same end to be accomplished through different means; if you're not going to make them equal via the lore, then make them equal via points. And that just isn't what 40k is, it's not checkers, or chess for that matter. Some things are just better than other things in 40k, full stop, the game designers want it that way, everything isn't supposed to be equal. You're meant to pick an army, play to it's strengths, become strategic with what they can do well, what they can't do well, and master your choice. Not cry foul because the reaper launcher isn't directly equatable to the missile launcher, which isn't directly equatable to the big rokit (or whatever the Ork version is called).
Sorry, but to me, they have disconnected fluff from crunch entirely. There is no excuse for the eldar, imo. Other than some authors fapping off to them when they write the codex.
I'm sorry Martel but the foundational lore of the grim dark, the very thing that undergirds this whole thing we call 40k, was written before there was even rogue trader, and it's not changing. You don't have to like it, you can choose not to play the game, but the Eldar are far more advanced than space marines, and they always will be, and the rules will always reflect that. You wishing so hard for marines and eldar to somehow be equals isn't going to make a difference. It is what it is. Given that, we can discuss rules tweaks, and point tweaks, and that's what we're all trying to do here, for the most part.
No one is, or should, show up with some far reaching foundational and philosophical, wholesale change to the core of the game and it's respective races, that's frivolous and unhelpful.
By the way, it's also unhelpful to say, I don't like these guys so double all there point costs.
I agree with what Martel is saying, but I don't like the way he's saying it. I disagree with what you are saying, but the tone is far less constructive then Martel's.
The technology level of the Eldar has never had anything to do with the price of their units. Here's a post from a designer explaining how they are priced:
No fapping was involved either. So, you are wrong, and he is wrong, and since you are both wrong, maybe stop wronging everything up for the rest of us and be civil to one another.
Ynarri could be fixed by making Strength from Death a Stratagem. If you need to argue about something, tell me why that's a bad idea.
I've already said it's a fine idea, but it also renders ynnari obsolete, it can just as easily be a craftworld stratagem included in the craftworld codex. In order to keep ynnari they still need a unique craftworld attribute to make them distinct from craftworld. Or don't, make snd a stratagem within craftworld and also include the three unique characters in the codex as well, I suppose.
Also your link to that AMA is just completely demoralizing. It means we're all wasting our time discussing balancing issues ad naseum, because they don't actually use play testing and game design theory, or competitive balance, to price units, they assign points purely with sales of the models in mind. What that tells us is, stop trying to figure this all out. When each new codex comes out, look for the best units, acknowledge those are the models they want to sell more of, and decide whether you want to pay to win, or just play inferior units and deal with it.
Also how in the world did you come up with the conclusion that I'm being less constructive lol?
peteralmo wrote: I've already said it's a fine idea, but it also renders ynnari obsolete, it can just as easily be a craftworld stratagem included in the craftworld codex. In order to keep ynnari they still need a unique craftworld attribute to make them distinct from craftworld. Or don't, make snd a stratagem within craftworld and also include the three unique characters in the codex as well, I suppose.
Also your link to that AMA is just completely demoralizing. It means we're all wasting our time discussing balancing issues ad naseum, because they don't actually use play testing and game design theory, or competitive balance, to price units, they assign points purely with sales of the models in mind. What that tells us is, stop trying to figure this all out. When each new codex comes out, look for the best units, acknowledge those are the models they want to sell more of, and decide whether you want to pay to win, or just play inferior units and deal with it.
Also how in the world did you come up with the conclusion that I'm being less constructive lol?
Uh... it doesn't mean that at all. It just means the claim from the previous post is incorrect.
To answer your question, condescension is not constructive.
Martel732 wrote: Reapers functionally have 2+ armor and their offense is insanity. If i could take a model with those rules for 45 or 50 ppmid strongly consider it. Thats how you know something is reasonably costed; its neither an autotake or autopass.
Your point increase leaves them as an autotake. That's not really enough. They'd see play at 45-50 because they are that strong.
So do oppose anything you see to be an auto-take in 40k? Do you feel 40k should have no units ever considered an auto-take?
In a word? Yes.
And at the same time, no unit should be an auto-pass.
I'm okay with CERTAIN LISTS having auto-take units (for instance, Spoilpox Scrivener for Plaguebearer-heavy Nurgle armies) but if it's an auto-take no matter what, it's too powerful.
"It's too powerful" is a purely subjective statement, it's your opinion. I don't think things that are auto-takes are "too powerful," I just think they are the best thing at the moment that codex offers, and there always has to be a best thing.
There doesn't actually always have to be a best thing. It often ends up like that but it is not a requirement of game design. You can instead have best things in certain combinations, or situations. Now your meta may end up dictating what is the best thing for you, that in part is due to the lack of restrictions in list building. IT is possible though to design several equally good lists that are playable within a codex that rely on different HQ choices, stratagems, chapter traits etc. I feel like Guard has come the closest to this with their traits (though still not there). But GW could have easily made traits that were super beneficial to specific units in a book to make those units good in some situations and not as optimal in others. They could have been restrictive on list design within specific traits where maybe say Dark Reapers are really good for Alaitoc (get some extra bonus) but they don't have very many so you are limited to a single squad or 2 small squads or something. IT is incredibly hard to have a lot of variety of units, rules, and balance when your only real mechanic for balance is points, and you have put the points on such a small scale that every point increased is a relatively large change in value for most models.
"Uh... it doesn't mean that at all. It just means the claim from the previous post is incorrect.
To answer your question, condescension is not constructive."
Uh huh, and so is bluntly repeating over and over again "just hike their points up." And I obviously take issue with the condescension remark, no condescension is intended on my part.
I'm not going to begin to imagine how you come up with "uh it doesn't mean that" when the GW higher-up clearly directed the game designer to drastically increase the potency of the unit, or "excitement" in his terms, while leaving the points cost alone. The designer in the AMA even offers an insight into his thinking in the moment, "of course, you'll need more models." But you interpret that as you will, I'm sure the community here will as well.
"There doesn't actually always have to be a best thing. It often ends up like that but it is not a requirement of game design. You can instead have best things in certain combinations, or situations. Now your meta may end up dictating what is the best thing for you, that in part is due to the lack of restrictions in list building. IT is possible though to design several equally good lists that are playable within a codex that rely on different HQ choices, stratagems, chapter traits etc. I feel like Guard has come the closest to this with their traits (though still not there). But GW could have easily made traits that were super beneficial to specific units in a book to make those units good in some situations and not as optimal in others. They could have been restrictive on list design within specific traits where maybe say Dark Reapers are really good for Alaitoc (get some extra bonus) but they don't have very many so you are limited to a single squad or 2 small squads or something. IT is incredibly hard to have a lot of variety of units, rules, and balance when your only real mechanic for balance is points, and you have put the points on such a small scale that every point increased is a relatively large change in value for most models."
Yes, definitely. To put it slightly differently, it would be OK if every codex had a 10/10 unit as long as it's best usage was situational, and the rest of the codex was populated with a plethora of 8's and 9's to allow for a variety of interesting and useful builds. I'm of course in favor of this, that would be awesome if every codex was like that, alas it's more of a pipe dream at this point, unfortunately. Not because it's impossible, only because GW appears to be incapable of writing a codex like that with regularity. Heck, even with erratas and FAQs do they manage to achieve it.
Martel732 wrote: Eldar were god tier in 2nd ed. So there is no "before" they were god tier.
Perhaps, I was a middle schooler when I started playing them with my buddies, we had no clue about competitive lists, I was thinking more about those middle editions when they were average.
They've been top tier in every edition where they got a codex.
My understanding is not in 3rd/4th/5th.
That would be incorrect.
Once they got their codex in 3rd they were great. No codex in 4th. In 5th they were great as well.
Martel732 wrote: Eldar were god tier in 2nd ed. So there is no "before" they were god tier.
Perhaps, I was a middle schooler when I started playing them with my buddies, we had no clue about competitive lists, I was thinking more about those middle editions when they were average.
They've been top tier in every edition where they got a codex.
My understanding is not in 3rd/4th/5th.
That would be incorrect.
Once they got their codex in 3rd they were great. No codex in 4th. In 5th they were great as well.
They had a Codex in 4th and dominated because they did Fish of Fury better than Tau.
I'd be okay with the "soul burst actions as stratagems, and dying stuff gives you CP" approach. It's functionally similar to my tokens proposal but with the added flexibility of being able to use the bonus CP on non-ynnari stratagems.
So it offers eldar players more versatility than my proposal, but you're also less likely to get tokens/CP from a given thing dying.
To me, one of the main things I liked about the original batch of ynnari mechanics was that it softened the blow of losing a unit. Like with the blood tithe mechanics, losing units became a source of fresh options and a chance to do more damage rather than purely being a source of frustration. So I"m fond of any mechanics that manage to do something similar.
But then you'd have to specify enemy deaths or someone will take a bunch of cheap single beasts or archon court models to self kill and pad out CP.
I'd consider that more of a feature than a bug. Not only is it arguably more fluffy to be gaining soul bursts from drinking eldar souls than ork souls, but it gives a role to units in a ynnari army might not have one otherwise. In 7th, people kept half-jokingly talking about how great wyches were for a ynnari army because they're raw crumminess meant you'd be able to soul burst more often with more lethal units. That doesn't say good things about the state of wyches at the time, but the point is that you could take small units of relatively cheap and squishy things without feeling bad about it.
Current ynnari rules reward you for taking about 2 large units (one for shooting and the other for stabbing). As a result, you'll probably never soul burst with, for instance, a squad of dire avengers unless they're the only candidate for doing so. You'll also probably never take those dire avengers with the intention of doing anything useful with them other than letting them screen against deepstrikers before they die, and kabalites do that better. But in a rules set where taking lots of small, squishy units means I gain some sort of resource? Those avengers are suddenly a useful battery for soul bursts (or CP or whatever) to fuel my heavy hitters. Sure, I'll still take a fat squad of shining spears, but they'll be hitting the enemy with hellions or wyches nearby to support them.
