To start, let me just say that as it stands 9th edition Space Marines are probably too strong. I say probably rather than stating that they are because we simply don't have the data to prove it yet. My definition of too strong is also that they dominate tournaments, that's my focus so I really don't care if their mid-tier units are over tuned against another faction's mid-tier units. With that out of the way, I would like to look at the problem with generalist units at high tiers of play.

Traditionally the mantra has been 'fight the shooty stuff, shoot the fighty stuff' but rarely has that ever worked outside of casual metas. The reason is that it's always better to pay for only the stats you need for your role. For example, if you're a suicide melta unit of editions past you want to be as cheap as possible to get a high RoI hence why 3-man Chaos Terminators units were considered good but 5-man Tactical Marines with a melta and combi-melta in a drop pod weren't even though they only managed one fewer shot than the Terminators.

The other reason is that you still lose to specialists in spite of your 'good' stats. No elite melee unit is going to baulk at charging a Devestaror squad just because they're better at melee than a Guardsman, so those extra stats you paid for haven't done anything. Your 3+ armour and 4 toughness isn't going to make you tough because most marine lists aren't tank heavy so the anti-tank unit just shoots at your infantry and gets a fair RoI because Marines aren't cheap the way Orks and Guardsmen are. At the same time, 1W MEQs weren't so tough that they didn't still die to massed S3 and S4 fire that the did get saves against; this is the point lost when somebody points of how much tougher a Marine is against lasgun fire compared to their Ork Boyz.

So given these problems how does one go about designing a Marine unit that uses the MEQ statline that is good enough to be top tier in a given role without just being the best at everything?

It sounds like you're addressing more fundamental issues than just stas and rules alone. 40k is not a deep game-so it's hard to make a lot of things work the way they should.

Do note: I disagree with your assertion that the only meta that matters is the tournament meta. That's because, if you go to a tournament, you're going in KNOWING that people will play hardball. You might not play full hardball yourself-maybe you're a fluffy player who wants to do the best they can with their Demi-Company, or it's just a good way to get a lot of games in a day or two-but you know you'll face mean lists. In a casual setting, an unbalanced Dex (especially one like the Marine Dex, which is NOT just one or two OP units and the rest garbage, but across the board really flipping good) is worse, since there's not the same acknowledgement that at least some people (those aiming for the top) will have the meanest lists possible.

 JNAProductions wrote:
It sounds like you're addressing more fundamental issues than just stas and rules alone. 40k is not a deep game-so it's hard to make a lot of things work the way they should.

That's the goal. I've been trying to do this in the I don’t think marines should have two wounds thread but it's been difficult to gain traction and get people to discuss this design issue there.

Do note: I disagree with your assertion that the only meta that matters is the tournament meta. That's because, if you go to a tournament, you're going in KNOWING that people will play hardball. You might not play full hardball yourself-maybe you're a fluffy player who wants to do the best they can with their Demi-Company, or it's just a good way to get a lot of games in a day or two-but you know you'll face mean lists. In a casual setting, an unbalanced Dex (especially one like the Marine Dex, which is NOT just one or two OP units and the rest garbage, but across the board really flipping good) is worse, since there's not the same acknowledgement that at least some people (those aiming for the top) will have the meanest lists possible.

I don't disagree with that. It's just that my focus is at the top end so it's what I want to analyze.

I guess boiled down the question is, can you make a generalist unit that's OP that doesn't feel OP at everything? Followed up by, can you make an OP Marine unit that people won't complain about given how large a percentage of players are Marine players?

The number 1 problem has nothing to do with generalist or specialists.

The marines are specialists in lore - specialists in strategic and operational flexibility, specialists in speed and shock of attack, and specialists in combat power concentration.

Unfortunately, 40k is such a shallow game that those aren't direct benefits, and it takes a very skilled player to leverage things like combat power concentration on such a tiny board (really, the only way to do it is identify crucial terrain pieces that will break up the enemy army into smaller chunks that can be engaged by your more mobile and less-space-consuming Marines).

The real problem with marines isn't that they're generalists. It's that 40k is a shallow game, and the lore benefits of Marines don't make themselves known the way they did in Epic or in 3rd / 4th with Strategy Rating.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The number 1 problem has nothing to do with generalist or specialists.

The marines are specialists in lore - specialists in strategic and operational flexibility, specialists in speed and shock of attack, and specialists in combat power concentration.

Unfortunately, 40k is such a shallow game that those aren't direct benefits, and it takes a very skilled player to leverage things like combat power concentration on such a tiny board (really, the only way to do it is identify crucial terrain pieces that will break up the enemy army into smaller chunks that can be engaged by your more mobile and less-space-consuming Marines).

The real problem with marines isn't that they're generalists. It's that 40k is a shallow game, and the lore benefits of Marines don't make themselves known the way they did in Epic or in 3rd / 4th with Strategy Rating.

Agreed. If you bring back Strategry Rating, more meaningful morale, Ld checks to target non-closest units and multiple krak grenades in combat, you've got a good start. Then reintroduce blinding, gas and virus weapons where they can gain the benefits of their sealed environments. Throw in some targeters for good measure.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The number 1 problem has nothing to do with generalist or specialists.

The marines are specialists in lore - specialists in strategic and operational flexibility, specialists in speed and shock of attack, and specialists in combat power concentration.

Unfortunately, 40k is such a shallow game that those aren't direct benefits, and it takes a very skilled player to leverage things like combat power concentration on such a tiny board (really, the only way to do it is identify crucial terrain pieces that will break up the enemy army into smaller chunks that can be engaged by your more mobile and less-space-consuming Marines).

The real problem with marines isn't that they're generalists. It's that 40k is a shallow game, and the lore benefits of Marines don't make themselves known the way they did in Epic or in 3rd / 4th with Strategy Rating.

Agreed. If you bring back Strategry Rating, more meaningful morale, Ld checks to target non-closest units and multiple krak grenades in combat, you've got a good start. Then reintroduce blinding, gas and virus weapons where they can gain the benefits of their sealed environments. Throw in some targeters for good measure.

I agree.

40k as a setting has plenty of depth to make each faction feel unique and it's a shame that the rules we get stifle this. None of that changes that GW won't make those rules and we're stuck* with them and that in such a shallow system it is hard to balance generalists. If you guys want to, I'll gladly talk hypothetical 40k where we get deep satisfying rules and there's tons of room for skill expression, but in general when you see me out posting in the wild I'm talking about the game I expect GW to make based on what they've done in the past.

*Outside of putting in a lot of effort and building our own community that uses a homebrew system that GW doesn't sue us for.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The number 1 problem has nothing to do with generalist or specialists.

The marines are specialists in lore - specialists in strategic and operational flexibility, specialists in speed and shock of attack, and specialists in combat power concentration.

Unfortunately, 40k is such a shallow game that those aren't direct benefits, and it takes a very skilled player to leverage things like combat power concentration on such a tiny board (really, the only way to do it is identify crucial terrain pieces that will break up the enemy army into smaller chunks that can be engaged by your more mobile and less-space-consuming Marines).

The real problem with marines isn't that they're generalists. It's that 40k is a shallow game, and the lore benefits of Marines don't make themselves known the way they did in Epic or in 3rd / 4th with Strategy Rating.

Agreed. If you bring back Strategry Rating, more meaningful morale, Ld checks to target non-closest units and multiple krak grenades in combat, you've got a good start. Then reintroduce blinding, gas and virus weapons where they can gain the benefits of their sealed environments. Throw in some targeters for good measure.

sadly if they brought in gas attacks and made marines immune you'd see the same complaints leveraged against that you saw against morale and ATSKNF pre-8th edition, namely that "it's pointless to have the rule when half the armies ignore it"

 JNAProductions wrote:

Do note: I disagree with your assertion that the only meta that matters is the tournament meta. That's because, if you go to a tournament, you're going in KNOWING that people will play hardball. You might not play full hardball yourself-maybe you're a fluffy player who wants to do the best they can with their Demi-Company, or it's just a good way to get a lot of games in a day or two-but you know you'll face mean lists. In a casual setting, an unbalanced Dex (especially one like the Marine Dex, which is NOT just one or two OP units and the rest garbage, but across the board really flipping good) is worse, since there's not the same acknowledgement that at least some people (those aiming for the top) will have the meanest lists possible.

I think that the ONLY meta that matters is the tourney meta. Hear me out here.



TLDR;
Tournament meta is the only meta that matters. GW repeatedly has proven that changes to the game are driven by tournament player complaints, or judges calls.
We can play fluff/friendly/narrative games however we want with whatever changes to the rules and models we want, but if you want to play at a FLGS outside your circle of 40k buddies, you're gonna have to play tryhards.
This has been my experience, at least. Maybe yours is diffrent, but judging from the stuff I read in the various forums, this seems to be the case everywhere.

I think 9th's rules facilitate a generalist style of play. Units are much more likely to make use of their movement, shooting and assault potential because they have to fight over objectives rather than castle in a corner all game.

I also don't think there was anything wrong with the 1 wound MEQ profile, it was just overcosted. If you left them with basic weapons (certainly before the doctrines) they did very little damage (or rather, units costing half the points did the same or better). Unfortunately if you loaded them up with bling so their damage output was reasonable they got very expensive. Paying 25-35 points a wound was clearly madness.

But this strange idea T4/3+ *doesn't work* but say T3 5+ *does* is just weird. Its purely a function of points. There was always a middle point GW could have reached, but they didn't, they did massive buffs, then 2 wounds and cheaper specials instead.

friendly reminder that marine """"generalist""" units can beat opposing specialist units at their role.

Equal points firefight at 30" away? Intercessors beat Fire Warriors or Skitarii Rangers without breaking a sweat.

Melee combat vs a unit that has zippity doo dah ranged weaponry, as in none, none at all? Equal points of marines beat Howling Banshees, Genestealers, Daemonettes, and Harlequins - all basically gun-less anti-marine melee specialists.

Yeah. Marines shouldn't be able to confront the specialists on their own field and win. That's obviously absurd.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. Marines shouldn't be able to confront the specialists on their own field and win. That's obviously absurd.

I mean therein lies the issue. if you'll recall, earlier in the edition, a lot of hay was made about how marines pay for all these stats they'll never get to use - a 5++ in terminators that only triggers vs AP-4, W2 on troops that will just get targeted by D2 weaponry, pistols on their belts that only get used if they'e in an unlikely melee combat and just decide to not fall back, A2 on long range antitank specialists, a reroll to LD on units that will be fielded in units of 3 or 5 so they never take morale tests anyway, etc.

GWs dilemma when it comes to costing these kinds of options is, well - do they pay a fair price for them? or do they get them basically for free where they can then go up against other armies that don't get all the assorted bonus extras and have an advantage for no points?

Marines 1.0 was the former - and marines were bottom of the barrel bad. Marines 2.0 is the latter, and you've got a bunch of marine units running around that do the same thing as other factions' specialists but get triple the attacks and +1S, or better morale, or free bolt pistols and whatever other junk just for free.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. Marines shouldn't be able to confront the specialists on their own field and win. That's obviously absurd.

I mean therein lies the issue. if you'll recall, earlier in the edition, a lot of hay was made about how marines pay for all these stats they'll never get to use - a 5++ in terminators that only triggers vs AP-4, W2 on troops that will just get targeted by D2 weaponry, pistols on their belts that only get used if they'e in an unlikely melee combat and just decide to not fall back, A2 on long range antitank specialists, a reroll to LD on units that will be fielded in units of 3 or 5 so they never take morale tests anyway, etc.

GWs dilemma when it comes to costing these kinds of options is, well - do they pay a fair price for them? or do they get them basically for free where they can then go up against other armies that don't get all the assorted bonus extras and have an advantage for no points?

Marines 1.0 was the former - and marines were bottom of the barrel bad. Marines 2.0 is the latter, and you've got a bunch of marine units running around that do the same thing as other factions' specialists but get triple the attacks and +1S, or better morale, or free bolt pistols and whatever other junk just for free.

Marines weren't really bottom-of-the-barrel bad. I see this assertion a lot, but I'd say they were solidly middling, better than the worst (e.g. GK, Necrons) but worse than the top (e.g. knight&guard).

As for "paying points for things they'll never get to use" - well, then use them. A generalist is supposed to give you options - for example, if you don't fall back, you lose attacks from not having Shock Assault, right? Well, wrong, because you have pistols. Pistols give you the option to stay in combat, if, for example, you didn't want the enemy unit to be free to charge on its own turn. That A2 on your long range antitank specialists (what unit is this btw) will go a long way when Daemons deep strike next to their feet and charge them - so you can leave them a little less protected than you would if they were 1A with WS4+. If you're only fielding 3 or 5 men, perhaps field 6 or 10 - you can combat squad anyways, if you want...

that's the point of a generalist. Flexibility. You pay points to be able to wipe out Daemonettes that deep strike and charge you, while other armies would suffer (or dedicate assets to screening the deepstrike).You pay points for the ability to shoot while inhibiting the enemy's shooting and charging by staying in combat, etc. You just have to use your tools, instead of derp2win with obvious units doing obvious things while obvious.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. Marines shouldn't be able to confront the specialists on their own field and win. That's obviously absurd.

I mean therein lies the issue. if you'll recall, earlier in the edition, a lot of hay was made about how marines pay for all these stats they'll never get to use - a 5++ in terminators that only triggers vs AP-4, W2 on troops that will just get targeted by D2 weaponry, pistols on their belts that only get used if they'e in an unlikely melee combat and just decide to not fall back, A2 on long range antitank specialists, a reroll to LD on units that will be fielded in units of 3 or 5 so they never take morale tests anyway, etc.

GWs dilemma when it comes to costing these kinds of options is, well - do they pay a fair price for them? or do they get them basically for free where they can then go up against other armies that don't get all the assorted bonus extras and have an advantage for no points?

Marines 1.0 was the former - and marines were bottom of the barrel bad. Marines 2.0 is the latter, and you've got a bunch of marine units running around that do the same thing as other factions' specialists but get triple the attacks and +1S, or better morale, or free bolt pistols and whatever other junk just for free.

Marines weren't really bottom-of-the-barrel bad. I see this assertion a lot, but I'd say they were solidly middling, better than the worst (e.g. GK, Necrons) but worse than the top (e.g. knight&guard).

As for "paying points for things they'll never get to use" - well, then use them. A generalist is supposed to give you options - for example, if you don't fall back, you lose attacks from not having Shock Assault, right? Well, wrong, because you have pistols. Pistols give you the option to stay in combat, if, for example, you didn't want the enemy unit to be free to charge on its own turn. That A2 on your long range antitank specialists (what unit is this btw) will go a long way when Daemons deep strike next to their feet and charge them - so you can leave them a little less protected than you would if they were 1A with WS4+. If you're only fielding 3 or 5 men, perhaps field 6 or 10 - you can combat squad anyways, if you want...

that's the point of a generalist. Flexibility. You pay points to be able to wipe out Daemonettes that deep strike and charge you, while other armies would suffer (or dedicate assets to screening the deepstrike).You pay points for the ability to shoot while inhibiting the enemy's shooting and charging by staying in combat, etc. You just have to use your tools, instead of derp2win with obvious units doing obvious things while obvious.

100% agree. There is no issue where SM pay for things they don't use. The point of the SM being good but not the best at everything is you can attempt to control how you engage your enemy. If they suck in a melee you can try to force them into a melee. If they prefer a melee you can hold up better then any non melee unit, survive it with your durability, break free and shoot the gak out of them.

There are a lot of things to talk about here.

1. Tournament vs casual- I would argue that assuming tournament play is the be-all and end-all and casual play can see 'trickle-down' benefits is a mistake. If we could get the game to where [insert any faction] felt great in casual play but didn't show up to LVO, I'd consider that a net win.

I think it's a mistake to assume that casual play directly reflects the tournament meta; while in general better tournament balance leads to better casual balance, these two environments don't always align in terms of list composition or playstyle. In addition to tournament balance not taking things like fluff into account, different units will behave differently at different levels of play. A unit that might be a challenge but beatable in a tournament could be unstoppable in casual play, or a unit that rocks in casual just sucks when you get to a tournament level. The different contexts regarding list composition, playstyle, and most importantly player skill all make a difference

2. Tying in with the above, the biggest advantage of a generalist profile is margin for error. No, the fact that Devastators are tougher and fightier than Guardsmen won't stop me from charging them with Genestealers- but there is a non-negligible chance that I'm going to get bogged down fighting them, maybe even lose a few 'Stealers depending on how the rolls go, and give you time to counter. Furthermore, I have to engage in force with a squad of 10+ expensive 'Stealers; if I throw a couple of Gaunts at them to tie them up it's pretty likely you'll kill them all and I'll accomplish nothing. Meanwhile if you're Guard and I have the opportunity to get even just a couple Termagants into your heavy weapon teams, those heavy weapons are going to be either dead or tied up for the rest of the game. A mistake that might be survivable with the generalists is game over for the specialists.

And that's not even getting into the opportunities that broad capabilities allow you to exploit. As a melee army, a gunline that has the potential to charge me and do a significant amount of damage makes a huge difference to my tactics compared to one that will never, ever willingly charge.

This sort of 'forgiveness' and flexibility is significantly more useful to casual players than to tournament players, who already know their game plan before the models hit the table. Another good example is Aggressors, where you want them to be shooting but if they get caught in melee it's not the worst thing in the world. I have seen casual players make good use of this; whereas tournament players are looking at them solely as shooting units and consider them unattractive on that basis.

This is, fundamentally, what the idea of skill floors and skill ceilings is about. Generalist factions that can't specialize too much tend to have high skill floors (meaning, it is difficult to screw up as badly with them as you can with a less-forgiving faction) but low skill ceilings (meaning, there's only so much optimization you can do with them). This is not intrinsically a bad thing- unless you have the expectation that every faction is going to show up equally in tournaments (ie, they all have the exact same skill ceiling), and that's where problems start.

3. As others have mentioned, the things Marines should be good at aren't well represented in 40K. Drop Pods are actually the one thing that lets them feel special, with your army coming down in optimal positions on turn 1. But given the lore-based advantages of excellent C&C, excellent coordination, good shock assault, good operational speed, and small footprint, the things Marines should be excelling at are:
-Responding to changes on the battlefield instantly and with coordination.
-Appearing from deep strike accurately, precisely, and just when needed.
-Concentrating force into a small area to leverage their individual eliteness, seal-clubbing normal troopers while avoiding their specialists/heavy weapons.

You see the problem? In a game where everyone has perfect information all the time and everything reacts instantly with perfect coordination like a chess piece, Marine C&C doesn't matter. In a game where everyone can DS in on turn 2 and appear exactly where they want 9.1" away from the enemy, Marine precision in insertion doesn't matter. In a game where basic rifles can now shoot all the way across the board, force concentration isn't possible.

You build up a Marine army in Epic and hand it to a newbie and they can still beat the snot out of Orks who, going by stats alone, should kick their asses sideways- because the newbie is going to have an army that does what they want where they want, while the Ork player is constantly struggling to get his troops where they're needed and assemble enough force to stop the Marines from eating his army piecemeal.

Without those elements, Marines cannot be the special forces they are in the lore. You can't make Navy SEALs actually feel like Navy SEALs if they're expected to be able to take on a Soviet armor brigade on an open field. So making them viable as generalists is all we have left.

4. In the past, GW used to charge too much for generalists. Having two units that can each fight decently and shoot decently has never been as good as having one unit that can fight well and one unit that can shoot well. Currently, GW charges Marines too little for generalists, in that they tend to have the same power as specialists while also having secondary abilities. It is possible, and reasonable, to meet somewhere in the middle, where a Marine unit that can shoot and fight is going to pay more than a non-Marine unit that can just shoot, but not that much more.

There's a heuristic here that can be scaled to target the appropriate level of play. In a bleeding-edge tournament meta, those secondary capabilities are so unimportant that they should be worth a pittance- but then in casual play, it's a pretty feels-bad moment for the kid who just started Tau to find that the Marines are 90% as good at shooting as them, point for point, but also smashes them in melee. Adjust the heuristic to target that casual meta, and now tournament players will bemoan Marines sucking again.

Furthermore, 9th Ed's mission design rewards generalists a lot more than 8th did, so I think there is real value to be placed there. A unit that can shoot and then charge is perfect for taking objectives from the enemy, and the armies that can't do this are currently suffering even in those cutthroat tournament metas.

I don't think there's a solution that will make everybody happy. But it is possible to roughly balance generalists, to the point at least where they're fine in general play but might not be top dog in tournaments.

TBF playing a melee army against Marines at the end of 8th was.... not wholly enjoyable.

Don't get into melee? Get shot to death.
Get into melee? Lose because the other guys have more attacks and all sorts of stratagems and tricks and weird shenanigans (depending on what color they were painted at the time, it could range from fight last to HI from 6" away to exploding 6s to hit to rerolls...).

Options? None, except really be on the struggle bus or (ironically)_play like Marines should play and concentrate so much combat power into so tiny of an area that you can get local victories, and then expand that advantage while the Marines struggle to maneuver in response...

...which is now harder to pull off on a smaller board. Wheeeee.

I'll throw this out as a long time player that isn't too enamored with the direction of the game right now. I could be wrong, but here it goes:

For a long time, at least up through 6th edition, the whole game was kinda predicated on the idea that for any given faction you had to take some number of Troop choices and that Troop choices specifically were needed for securing objectives - creating a decent incentive to use basic Troops. Moreover, most armies only had a few options for Troops, but they formed the backbone of your army nonetheless. Even moreover, it was generally understood that Troops were some of least effective units in your army - largely because by design they tended to be non-specialists.

Starting in 7th edition, and continuing since with formations, multiple detachments, CP-shenanigan's, etc. the basic Troop choice selections were often able to be avoided all together, and I think it's really hurt the character and feeing of the game and what a balanced army looks like - and more importantly plays like. All armies have become cheese armies, and it's a matter of who can bring the cheesiest platter to the table.

So in a way, generalists units, whether SM or another faction, were never meant to be "good" or better in a specialty role than a specialists was. The fact that this basic tenant of the game was tossed in the dumpster is causing a lot of consternation it seems.

Marines in past editions were generally and consistently the toughest troop choices in the game as it was. How much more tough did they really need to be? They already lived up to their lore IMHO - and it seems crazy to be making them even stronger and doing specialists jobs, at the basic troop level.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The number 1 problem has nothing to do with generalist or specialists.

The marines are specialists in lore - specialists in strategic and operational flexibility, specialists in speed and shock of attack, and specialists in combat power concentration.

Unfortunately, 40k is such a shallow game that those aren't direct benefits, and it takes a very skilled player to leverage things like combat power concentration on such a tiny board (really, the only way to do it is identify crucial terrain pieces that will break up the enemy army into smaller chunks that can be engaged by your more mobile and less-space-consuming Marines).

The real problem with marines isn't that they're generalists. It's that 40k is a shallow game, and the lore benefits of Marines don't make themselves known the way they did in Epic or in 3rd / 4th with Strategy Rating.

Agreed. If you bring back Strategry Rating, more meaningful morale, Ld checks to target non-closest units and multiple krak grenades in combat, you've got a good start. Then reintroduce blinding, gas and virus weapons where they can gain the benefits of their sealed environments. Throw in some targeters for good measure.

sadly if they brought in gas attacks and made marines immune you'd see the same complaints leveraged against that you saw against morale and ATSKNF pre-8th edition, namely that "it's pointless to have the rule when half the armies ignore it"

Just because people are complaining about something doesnt make it a valid complaint. Game designers just got to put on the big boy pants and weather some ire.

Not like gas attacks are the hill to die on, just that people are going to complain regardless, and the customer is not always right.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'll throw this out as a long time player that isn't too enamored with the direction of the game right now. I could be wrong, but here it goes:

For a long time, at least up through 6th edition, the whole game was kinda predicated on the idea that for any given faction you had to take some number of Troop choices and that Troop choices specifically were needed for securing objectives - creating a decent incentive to use basic Troops. Moreover, most armies only had a few options for Troops, but they formed the backbone of your army nonetheless. Even moreover, it was generally understood that Troops were some of least effective units in your army - largely because by design they tended to be non-specialists.

Starting in 7th edition, and continuing since with formations, multiple detachments, CP-shenanigan's, etc. the basic Troop choice selections were often able to be avoided all together, and I think it's really hurt the character and feeing of the game and what a balanced army looks like - and more importantly plays like. All armies have become cheese armies, and it's a matter of who can bring the cheesiest platter to the table.

So in a way, generalists units, whether SM or another faction, were never meant to be "good" or better in a specialty role than a specialists was. The fact that this basic tenant of the game was tossed in the dumpster is causing a lot of consternation it seems.

Marines in past editions were generally and consistently the toughest troop choices in the game as it was. How much more tough did they really need to be? They already lived up to their lore IMHO - and it seems crazy to be making them even stronger and doing specialists jobs, at the basic troop level.

I remember playing Plague Marines in 5th and sitting on top of objectives for days ,,, debatably they were the toughest troop unit to try and shift in 5th... saying that I completely agree... Heavy intercessors are, IMO, the most egregious of this. They are specialist in two areas and they fit a troop spot... even if playing 5th edition style missions where only troops take objectives this would be too much.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'll throw this out as a long time player that isn't too enamored with the direction of the game right now. I could be wrong, but here it goes:

For a long time, at least up through 6th edition, the whole game was kinda predicated on the idea that for any given faction you had to take some number of Troop choices and that Troop choices specifically were needed for securing objectives - creating a decent incentive to use basic Troops. Moreover, most armies only had a few options for Troops, but they formed the backbone of your army nonetheless. Even moreover, it was generally understood that Troops were some of least effective units in your army - largely because by design they tended to be non-specialists.

Starting in 7th edition, and continuing since with formations, multiple detachments, CP-shenanigan's, etc. the basic Troop choice selections were often able to be avoided all together, and I think it's really hurt the character and feeing of the game and what a balanced army looks like - and more importantly plays like. All armies have become cheese armies, and it's a matter of who can bring the cheesiest platter to the table.

So in a way, generalists units, whether SM or another faction, were never meant to be "good" or better in a specialty role than a specialists was. The face that this basic tenant of the game was tossed in the dumpster is causing a lot of consternation it seems.

Marines in past editions were generally and consistently the toughest troop choices in the game as it was. How much more tough did they really need to be? They already lived up to their lore IMHO - and it seems to crazy to be making them even stronger at the basic troop level.

I mean, from 5th thru 7th anything that got out of a transport was basically either performing a suicide attack or was about to get wiped off the board. between the twin options of just "pile on fire and wait for the 1s and 2s" and "just point your ap3 weaponry at them" marines did not feel particularly durable to me, as a player of such factions as Orks and Dark Eldar.

I actually really really like marines at W2. I do.and I don't REALLY mind shock assault - I really wish it didnt key off being charged though. I wish it was actually, you know, SHOCK ASSAULT, where if the marines charge you, you are SHOCKED by their ASSAULT, and not "shock defense" where you charge your howling banshees into a squad of marines wielding heavy weapons and they make the same number of attacks back against you with their sweet taekwondo kicks.

Marine assault units needed a damage bump. Shock assault does that, that's great. I'm glad assault marines are A3 now, about time. I'm glad tacticals feel like walking tanks, about time.

The things I hate most are:

-everything about bolter discipline. If Tau had bolter discipline marine players would be screeching endlessly that they'd ruined the game with their horrible game destroying antifun unfair cancerous apocalyptic oppressive personally offensive fascist horrific monstrous indefensible rules treason and all tau players had to be killed IMMEDIATELY or they'd boycott the game and go on hunger strikes.

-the fact that marines do more damage for the points than basically every "glass cannon" unit and faction now. They're as tough as necrons, but they deal way more damage way easier, both in melee and in shooting. there's a reason necron melee specialists are like "COWER in fear before my TWO STRENGTH SEVEN ATTACKS HI-YAH!"

Tone down the oppressive long range, tone down the capability to easily table opposing forces, and marines are better than they've ever been at feeling like marines. As soon as marines went from "close range shock assault troops" to "sits 30" away plunking away at you just as effectively as if they were right next to you" they became more cancerous than Tau. At least when you charge tau they lose.

 Lance845 wrote:


100% agree. There is no issue where SM pay for things they don't use. The point of the SM being good but not the best at everything is you can attempt to control how you engage your enemy. If they suck in a melee you can try to force them into a melee. If they prefer a melee you can hold up better then any non melee unit, survive it with your durability, break free and shoot the gak out of them.

Only the reality looks like this. If marines don't beat good melee and good shoting units, then all the marine player has to do, when half the store or more plays marines, is to skew their army in to running as much good or better melee or shoting and win half their games. And vs other xenos it is either a roll of dice, or the edition decides. If shoting is better, then an army with great shoting beats out all the marine players , beats those that are running melee armies and the only real problem are other people playing very shoty armies. Depending on how many games someone plays per month and how many people are there at the store, you may not have a single bad game for the entire edition. And that is accepting every game invite. If you don't play mirrors and skip on playing vs armies with better shoting then you, it is fun 10 out of 10 times all edition, or at least till GW nerfs the shoting of your army. Which is something that happened to Inari, although they were good at both melee and shoting at the same time.

Karol wrote:
Only the reality looks like this. If marines don't beat good melee and good shoting units, then all the marine player has to do, when half the store or more plays marines, is to skew their army in to running as much good or better melee or shoting and win half their games.

Clearly the only solution is for Marines to be better at shooting than shooting-only armies and better at melee than melee-only armies, because expecting them to play to their respective strengths and weaknesses in any given matchup is far too much to ask.

Karol wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


100% agree. There is no issue where SM pay for things they don't use. The point of the SM being good but not the best at everything is you can attempt to control how you engage your enemy. If they suck in a melee you can try to force them into a melee. If they prefer a melee you can hold up better then any non melee unit, survive it with your durability, break free and shoot the gak out of them.

Only the reality looks like this. If marines don't beat good melee and good shoting units, then all the marine player has to do, when half the store or more plays marines, is to skew their army in to running as much good or better melee or shoting and win half their games.

And then either the meta adjusts or you are a dick for list tailoring. Welcome to 40k.

And vs other xenos it is either a roll of dice, or the edition decides. If shoting is better, then an army with great shoting beats out all the marine players , beats those that are running melee armies and the only real problem are other people playing very shoty armies. Depending on how many games someone plays per month and how many people are there at the store, you may not have a single bad game for the entire edition. And that is accepting every game invite. If you don't play mirrors and skip on playing vs armies with better shoting then you, it is fun 10 out of 10 times all edition, or at least till GW nerfs the shoting of your army. Which is something that happened to Inari, although they were good at both melee and shoting at the same time.

THIS is a problem with the base game. Not marines. Everyone plays with this issue. This is because 40k is a tactically shallow gak show. You don't make it worse for every other army because you don't like playing on the same level playing field.

Well if it is a problem with the base game, and GW has not changed it in 9th ed, then probably they are not going to change it in the future. Why should the majority of players, which what the marine players are, be happy with the fact that the minority can easily buy and run armies for entire armies which are litteral marine killers. It is even happening right now. Harlequins and orks are beating marines both in and outside of events, because both can skew in a such a way that marines can't deal with them, and there aren't enough players of both for them to be running consistent enough in to each other to create any problems for them, and balance for other players.

No one in their right mind is going to accept the nerfing of their army just, so other player can have fun. There is zero logic behind it, and even less if it comes with some sort of expectation for GW to fix it somehow. Because if the marine players are the biggest buyers of GW products, making them their main source of income, making the marine player unhappy is just anti growth. If GW wants to keep up sales they had in 8th, or because of the coof something close to what they had in 8th, they are not going to start sacrificing their biggest audiance, just so the minority can have better gaming expiriance.

And then either the meta adjusts or you are a dick for list tailoring. Welcome to 40k.

tell me how did the GK or necron meta game 8th, or any bad armis from prior editions, adjusted to the top tier armies in prior editions?
I mean besides the people playing those armies being told to change armies of course.

did an eldar player spaming scatter bikers, wave serpents and WK tailor? seemed like it have been a basic eldar army at some time. Some strange lists with few units and buckets of characters seemed to have worked in the past too. I heard horror stories about invisibility psychic power and weapons that had no strenght, but killed stuff on hit ignoring W, T and Inv saves. I am sure that armies that the factions that had no access to those had great time in the past.

Karol wrote:
No one in their right mind is going to accept the nerfing of their army just, so other player can have fun.

I don't think I've ever heard someone openly admit their selfishness so brazenly before, in any medium. I think I know why everyone in Karol's meta plays hardball when he's around - because they can't expect any recompense from him in return.

Hi. I am of my right mind. I am happy to receive nerfs to create as balanced a product as GW can conceivably create. I do not give a single feth what form that takes.

Remember formations? It was a nerf to remove them. Perfect. Formations were bad for the game. Know doctrines? I think they are bad for the game. Kill them too. Know strategems? They are the new formations. And while their implementation is better in 9th they were a pox on 8th and should have been squatted.

Your whole argument Karol is that sometimes you fight an uphill battle agaisnt an army that has been purpose built to beat you and so you think your entire army should become immune to such practices.

YOU are bad for the game if that is your stance and thank all the gods you have no say in how anything gets made.

BrianDavion wrote:
sadly if they brought in gas attacks and made marines immune you'd see the same complaints leveraged against that you saw against morale and ATSKNF pre-8th edition, namely that "it's pointless to have the rule when half the armies ignore it"

To me at least, this seems like a perfectly valid complaint.

I'm not saying that it's inaccurate from a lore perspective, but from a game-design perspective 'my army is immune to X, Y and Z' just seems like poor design from the offset.

Let's be honest - this was a problem for many abilities in past editions. Stuff like Fear or similar Ld-based abilities were all but worthless when whole armies had good Ld and free rerolls, whilst others were outright Fearless. Hell, Knights were an army that were completely immune to all weapons of S5 or under (and practically immune to S6 weapons as well).

At the very least, you're either going to create inevitable feels-bad situations (when one player realises that all the fun equipment he spent points/CP on are completely worthless against his opponent's army) or else guarantee that a lot of weapons and wargear just never sees play (because it's too unreliable).

If you were going to do something like this, I'd suggest that it might work better to incorporate it into missions/terrain. e.g. having gas leaks in some areas or around objectives, which act as hazardous terrain except for Marines (and perhaps Necrons).

It would let Marines leverage some advantage from their gear without making the other player feel like they've wasted points on weapons that aren't worth a damn.

 Lance845 wrote:
Hi. I am of my right mind. I am happy to receive nerfs to create as balanced a product as GW can conceivably create.

Seconded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
sadly if they brought in gas attacks and made marines immune you'd see the same complaints leveraged against that you saw against morale and ATSKNF pre-8th edition, namely that "it's pointless to have the rule when half the armies ignore it"

To me at least, this seems like a perfectly valid complaint.

I'm not saying that it's inaccurate from a lore perspective, but from a game-design perspective 'my army is immune to X, Y and Z' just seems like poor design from the offset.

Let's be honest - this was a problem for many abilities in past editions. Stuff like Fear or similar Ld-based abilities were all but worthless when whole armies had good Ld and free rerolls, whilst others were outright Fearless. Hell, Knights were an army that were completely immune to all weapons of S5 or under (and practically immune to S6 weapons as well).

At the very least, you're either going to create inevitable feels-bad situations (when one player realises that all the fun equipment he spent points/CP on are completely worthless against his opponent's army) or else guarantee that a lot of weapons and wargear just never sees play (because it's too unreliable).

If you were going to do something like this, I'd suggest that it might work better to incorporate it into missions/terrain. e.g. having gas leaks in some areas or around objectives, which act as hazardous terrain except for Marines (and perhaps Necrons).

It would let Marines leverage some advantage from their gear without making the other player feel like they've wasted points on weapons that aren't worth a damn.

The Knight thing was perfectly effing fixable had they just let armies that could take entire units of anti-tank grenades ACTUALLY USE THEM. When a mob of 10 Tankbustas could only use ONE meltabomb against a Knight, bad times were had.

Edit:
As for the actual subject of your post , I think there's way to balance that all out in a reasonable fashion. You already have weapons that are good against some targets and not good against others, gas etc. is just another layer of that.

Karol wrote:
No one in their right mind is going to accept the nerfing of their army just, so other player can have fun. There is zero logic behind it

This is so far removed from normal human interaction I don't even know where to begin. Outright saying that the game should be unbalanced in favor of Marines so that their players stay happy is just shameless.

 vipoid wrote:
If you were going to do something like this, I'd suggest that it might work better to incorporate it into missions/terrain. e.g. having gas leaks in some areas or around objectives, which act as hazardous terrain except for Marines (and perhaps Necrons).

It would let Marines leverage some advantage from their gear without making the other player feel like they've wasted points on weapons that aren't worth a damn.

I expect that would go much like Chimeras being amphibious did in prior editions: almost never relevant, because outside of narrative-based gaming most players don't like when the scenario overtly favors one side or the other. Let alone the wailing, gnashing of teeth, and instant ITC houserule that would occur if this were applied in tournaments.

Immunity to gas might work if, like, gas ammunition were readily available for grenade launchers, missile launchers, artillery, and so on. That way it'd be something that players aren't actively buying with points, but Marines would still be able to cut off a potential weapon used against them.

"This is so far removed from normal human interaction I don't even know where to begin. Outright saying that the game should be unbalanced in favor of Marines so that their players stay happy is just shameless."

Nah, sounds on point for the marketing team.

 catbarf wrote:

Immunity to gas might work if, like, gas ammunition were readily available for grenade launchers, missile launchers, artillery, and so on. That way it'd be something that players aren't actively buying with points, but Marines would still be able to cut off a potential weapon used against them.

That's not a bad idea.

Generalist units cannot work in the IGOUGO system since they have entire turns not being able to do anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Immunity to gas might work if, like, gas ammunition were readily available for grenade launchers, missile launchers, artillery, and so on. That way it'd be something that players aren't actively buying with points, but Marines would still be able to cut off a potential weapon used against them.

That's not a bad idea.

Would Space Wolf players need to model on helmets for their dudes now?

Yo nerf my SWs into the ground if it means they can keep their flavour XD ... I want flavourful rules that are reasonable to play against... that is all XD.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hi. I am of my right mind. I am happy to receive nerfs to create as balanced a product as GW can conceivably create.

Seconded.

Thirded.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Generalist units cannot work in the IGOUGO system since they have entire turns not being able to do anything.

Generalist units in 9th can move up to an objective, shoot the unit standing on it, then charge them and seize the objective- hardly whole turns of not being able to do anything. 40K's implementation of IGOUGO allows a unit can do everything it has the capability to do, as opposed to, for example, having a limited number of 'actions' in an activation.

I have my issues with IGOUGO, but suggesting that it's the reason generalists don't work seems rather contrived.

 catbarf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Generalist units cannot work in the IGOUGO system since they have entire turns not being able to do anything.

Generalist units in 9th can move up to an objective, shoot the unit standing on it, then charge them and seize the objective- hardly whole turns of not being able to do anything. 40K's implementation of IGOUGO allows a unit can do everything it has the capability to do, as opposed to, for example, having a limited number of 'actions' in an activation.

I have my issues with IGOUGO, but suggesting that it's the reason generalists don't work seems rather contrived.

It really isn't. The game rewards specialization because you only pay for what you need. Specialized units being uninterrupted can accomplish what they need to whereas the Generalists struggle to do anything because they're priced at being as capable as those specialized units while being uninterrupted.
If you were able to actually make use of those stats via being able to interact and interupt the opponent, you'd be better off, wouldn't you agree?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It really isn't. The game rewards specialization because you only pay for what you need. Specialized units being uninterrupted can accomplish what they need to whereas the Generalists struggle to do anything because they're priced at being as capable as those specialized units while being uninterrupted.
If you were able to actually make use of those stats via being able to interact and interupt the opponent, you'd be better off, wouldn't you agree?

AA introduces an activation economy that rewards reacting with optimal counters rather than mediocre ones, especially with action limitations that prevent generalists from using their full capabilities in one activation. If my army is half melee specialists and half ranged ones, and yours is all generalists, I can bring comparable firepower to bear either earlier than you or later than you as I desire. If once the armies meet you have to choose between punching or shooting on an activation, you're only getting half of your value whereas I can get all of mine.

More generally, if we're talking pure AA then individual units can't be interrupted; what might be relevant is the ability to interrupt an army's coordination. But I don't see that as particularly relevant to the generalist issue- if anything, generalists need to group up to present credible threats, while if I get the opportunity to activate my one unit of 20 Genestealers, hey, that's all I need.

So alternating activation provides some additional opportunities to spoil plans that rely on single ultra-specialized units as their lynchpins, but in my game-playing and game design I've never noticed any particular trend of generalist units being more desirable under AA than IGOUGO. Do you have any particular examples of games where this is generally considered to be the case?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
..Traditionally the mantra has been 'fight the shooty stuff, shoot the fighty stuff' but rarely has that ever worked outside of casual metas...

I'd like to break down some general design; I think it will make this conversation a bit clearer.

Here are a few unit attributes other than fighty and shooty:
Mobility
Durability
Footprint/Table space taken up
Deployment Options
Support

Conceptually, if you were building a unit from the ground up and each attribute was worth a set amount of points, then unoptimized generalists would be terrible. Luckily, the standards for paying for attributes don't have to be so rigid, so generalists can be balanced based off of their actual possible roles on the table rather than as simple addition of attributes. When designing a generalist unit, what needs to be asked is whether that unit's attributes are synergistic with it's battlefield role. If those attributes are all synergistic with their role, then the unit needs to pay full price for those attributes. If a unit is designed with attributes that aren't synergistic, then they should pay a fraction of the points for those attributes. Now that the 9th edition codex have moved away from the absurd notion of a table of weapon costs regardless of unit, there shouldn't be a barrier to making viable generalist units. Indeed, the majority of units shouldn't be completely optimized in order give the game more flavor.

About the "bring back the NBCR (nuclear, biological, chemical, radioactive) weapons", I think it is a false problem: it would be enough give to the various troops an equipment able to protect them, without make them immune to the effects of these weapons and the problem should be solved; for example the guardsmen should survive with 3 or less on a D6, the space marines in power armor with 4 or less and the ones in terminator armor with 5 or less.
About the main problem of this topic (if I have understood it), I think it is due to the "original sin of Games Workshop": they make a war game without knowing (and caring to know) how the armies actually work in a real war, so they aren't able to create a set of credible rules (credible, not realistic). For example the tactical squad should be the backbone of a space marine army, because they should be able to perform the great part of the military action, leaving to the assault and devastator squads the role of high specialized detachments, able to carry out very specific tasks. Now I don't want start to explain my ideas about how to resolve this issue, because before I want understand how and how much the rules are changed (I played only the second edition); but reading also these topics: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/792731.page and https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/793047.page, it seems to me that certain issues aren't been solved.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Generalist units cannot work in the IGOUGO system since they have entire turns not being able to do anything.

Hmm. Didn't realize this. Must be a new development with 9th ed.

Reintroduce initiative and make movement more important with marines slow relative others in both senses. Make charges based on movement. Make marines relatively more expensive and allow access to wargear that others do not e.g. targeters. Limit ranges and use bigger tables with varied terrain and realistic cover interactions. Squat idiot units like ... everything since end of 7th imho. Kill auras and buffmander bs. Get rid of the card game. Pay for stratagems and others.

 jeff white wrote:
Reintroduce initiative and make movement more important with marines slow relative others in both senses. Make charges based on movement. Make marines relatively more expensive and allow access to wargear that others do not e.g. targeters. Limit ranges and use bigger tables with varied terrain and realistic cover interactions. Squat idiot units like ... everything since end of 7th imho. Kill auras and buffmander bs. Get rid of the card game. Pay for stratagems and others.

Movement is already the most important phase of the game when playing someone of roughly equal skill (admittedly this skews pretty battle if it's your 8 year old nephew with a couple of start collecting boxes VS. Nick Nanavati with 27 eradicators, but those matchup differentials are far, far more rare than Dakka would have you believe) and initiative was always a TERRIBLE mechanic.

People on dakka want to talk about dumbing down the game and removing 'tactical play' all the time; well, initiative is the single best example of that. Initiative reduces the entirety of the combat phase to filling in spreadsheets with absolutely no thought necessary. In previous editions I wondered why they even bothered with the combat phase due to it being both far weaker than shooting(deathstars notwithstanding) and to it being easily the worst most boring aspect of the entire game, and the majority of that was down to initiative making the whole thing a case of 'my number bigger than your number'.

The rest of it was a combination of things that won't make any meaningful change (extra wargear? why? They already have more wargear than any other faction in the game?) and drivel (IS CARDGAME CUZ HAS CMOBOS!!!).

Also sidebar: Realistic cover interactions? Realistically NOTHING in the 40k universe that isn't SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to withstand significant punishment would even stand up to lasguns. Trees, ruins, normal buildings, pipes, etc don't do much against modern munitions, the feth are they gonna do against the stuff 40k armies are kicking out?

 jeff white wrote:
Reintroduce initiative and make movement more important with marines slow relative others in both senses. Make charges based on movement. Make marines relatively more expensive and allow access to wargear that others do not e.g. targeters. Limit ranges and use bigger tables with varied terrain and realistic cover interactions. Squat idiot units like ... everything since end of 7th imho. Kill auras and buffmander bs. Get rid of the card game. Pay for stratagems and others.

Ah yes Initiative! Let's return to the days of "Does this Tyranid melee unit get access to Assault grenades?.. No" It seems like people who have fond memories of Initiative tend to forget how annoying it was to discover how many melee units ended up being screwed over because of the penalties of charging through cover.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Reintroduce initiative and make movement more important with marines slow relative others in both senses. Make charges based on movement. Make marines relatively more expensive and allow access to wargear that others do not e.g. targeters. Limit ranges and use bigger tables with varied terrain and realistic cover interactions. Squat idiot units like ... everything since end of 7th imho. Kill auras and buffmander bs. Get rid of the card game. Pay for stratagems and others.

Ah yes Initiative! Let's return to the days of "Does this Tyranid melee unit get access to Assault grenades?.. No" It seems like people who have fond memories of Initiative tend to forget how annoying it was to discover how many melee units ended up being screwed over because of the penalties of charging through cover.

This wasn't a problem with the initiative mechanic. This was a problem with the cover mechanic. One that could have easily been fixed.

Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

That was sort of the point, though, right? Initiative acted as sort of a defensive stat for armies like Eldar, whose defense was speed. If Orks got in with Eldar, the Eldar could wipe out a few before they could swing, which protected the Eldar unit in a roundabout way. Now? Being fast gets you bupkis for defense. Or at least, gets you weird and inconsistent rules like LFR stratagem (did you know that only one unit of eldar can be fast per phase? the rest have to be slow) or bizarre invuln saves (wytches can dodge knives on a 4+ but not bullets, while Genestealers can dodge knives and bullets but only on a 5+).

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

So we're allowed to have an initiative mechanic... so long as no army is slower than any other army?

 vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

So we're allowed to have an initiative mechanic... so long as no army is slower than any other army?

May as well remove it then.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

That was sort of the point, though, right? Initiative acted as sort of a defensive stat for armies like Eldar, whose defense was speed. If Orks got in with Eldar, the Eldar could wipe out a few before they could swing, which protected the Eldar unit in a roundabout way. Now? Being fast gets you bupkis for defense. Or at least, gets you weird and inconsistent rules like LFR stratagem (did you know that only one unit of eldar can be fast per phase? the rest have to be slow) or bizarre invuln saves (wytches can dodge knives on a 4+ but not bullets, while Genestealers can dodge knives and bullets but only on a 5+).

But thats not how it worked in practice. In practice units that were meant to be melee units but happened to come from slow armies paid a "melee tax" in models lives just to do the one job they were meant to do. There are better ways to handle the speed and initiative then just assigning a static number and telling certain armies "oh well".

vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

So we're allowed to have an initiative mechanic... so long as no army is slower than any other army?

No.

Back before 8th I was working on a version of the game and I came up with a replacement for the initiative stat.

It worked where certain units/weapons could have a rule that amounts to "fast" or "slow".

There would essentially be 6 initiative steps.

1) Current players Fast.
2) Opponents Fast
3) Current players normal
4) Opponents normal.
5) Current players Slow
6) Opponents Slow.

So Tyranid Scything talons would be Fast and so Hormagaunts would tend to get to strike first unless it was the opponents turn and they were also fast (Eldar are the charge would strike first, tyranids on the charge would strike first).

Most weapons would be normal (Ork Choppa is a normal weapon. Orks charge a marine they strike first. Marine charges an ork they strike first).

And Slow weapons would drop to the bottom of the que (powerfists, crushing claws).

Now Necron Lychguard, preatorians, Overlords with their warscythes, flayed ones, etc... Ork Boyz and such... they wouldn't get fethed out of doing their thing when they charge on their own turn while the units and weapons that are supposed to be quicker can also do their thing.

The initiative attribute as was implemented is a problem and creates problems. This doesn't.

So in that case, Orks would still strike after eldar, and pay in models lives every time they charged...

but initiative is wrong because that also happens, okay.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So in that case, Orks would still strike after eldar, and pay in models lives every time they charged...

but initiative is wrong because that also happens, okay.

If that eldar unit had that rule or had weapons with that rule. But more importantly, it wouldn't be that way versus every other army in the game as well. The eldar army wouldn't be blanket "fast". They would likely have more options that were fast but not every option.

Likewise, ScyTal are fast. But Rending claws are not. Genestealers equiped with both could rending claw you on their turn and scy tal you on yours to leverage their "speed" at the cost of higher AP.

It creates a far more dynamic and interesting interplay of weapons and units then just saying. Well Eldar are initiative 10 and orks are initiative 2 so.. ::shrug::

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So in that case, Orks would still strike after eldar, and pay in models lives every time they charged...

but initiative is wrong because that also happens, okay.

If that eldar unit had that rule or had weapons with that rule. But more importantly, it wouldn't be that way versus every other army in the game as well. The eldar army wouldn't be blanket "fast". They would likely have more options that were fast but not every option.

Likewise, ScyTal are fast. But Rending claws are not. Genestealers equiped with both could rending claw you on their turn and scy tal you on yours to leverage their "speed".

It creates a far more dynamic and interesting interplay of weapons and units then just saying. Well Eldar are initiative 10 and orks are initiative 2 so.. ::shrug::

But stuff like that already existed (and conceivably can exist) in the initiative system. Powerfists were Initiative 1, Charnabal Sabres give you +1 initiative (so make you fasterer). There's two examples right there of pre-existing weapons that made you either faster or slower depending on weapon choice.

The armies still had baseline speeds on top of that though, and the eldar were faster than the orks. It sounds like, in your system, for baseline speeds, the eldar will still be faster than the orks, except in the cases where they take weapons that are slower like powerfists that would make them I1, for example (sorry we can't talk about initiative in your system)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So in that case, Orks would still strike after eldar, and pay in models lives every time they charged...

but initiative is wrong because that also happens, okay.

If that eldar unit had that rule or had weapons with that rule. But more importantly, it wouldn't be that way versus every other army in the game as well. The eldar army wouldn't be blanket "fast". They would likely have more options that were fast but not every option.

Likewise, ScyTal are fast. But Rending claws are not. Genestealers equiped with both could rending claw you on their turn and scy tal you on yours to leverage their "speed".

It creates a far more dynamic and interesting interplay of weapons and units then just saying. Well Eldar are initiative 10 and orks are initiative 2 so.. ::shrug::

But stuff like that already existed (and conceivably can exist) in the initiative system. Powerfists were Initiative 1, Charnabal Sabres give you +1 initiative (so make you fasterer). There's two examples right there of pre-existing weapons that made you either faster or slower depending on weapon choice.

The armies still had baseline speeds on top of that though, and the eldar were faster than the orks. It sounds like, in your system, for baseline speeds, the eldar will still be faster than the orks, except in the cases where they take weapons that are slower like powerfists that would make them I1, for example (sorry we can't talk about initiative in your system)

An ork with a weapon that gave them +1 Initiative wasn't going before an eldar anyway. Or a Space marine. Or anyone. The baseline speeds is the part that was a problem.

 Lance845 wrote:
An ork with a weapon that gave them +1 Initiative wasn't going before an eldar anyway. Or a Space marine. Or anyone. The baseline speeds is the part that was a problem.

Right, but why is that bad? A weapon that gave them +3 initiative would let them swing. But I think Orks, in general, are supposed to be slower than eldar in the lore, and so GW never gave them a weapon with +3. Or +1, that I recall, for that matter. That's just the same as them being Normal, Eldar being Fast, and Orks having no weapons that make them Fast. There's literally no difference (except yours has 3 steps instead of 10, and resolves ties in favor of the current player instead of going with simultaneity).

It sounds like your issue was that you thought Marines and Orks should be on the same initiative stat Speed Level instead of having a difference between them. That's fine, make Orks I4 Normal speed like SM. It's a bit wonkey they're faster than a mortal human but I can dig it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
An ork with a weapon that gave them +1 Initiative wasn't going before an eldar anyway. Or a Space marine. Or anyone. The baseline speeds is the part that was a problem.

Right, but why is that bad? A weapon that gave them +3 initiative would let them swing. But I think Orks, in general, are supposed to be slower than eldar in the lore, and so GW never gave them a weapon with +3. Or +1, that I recall, for that matter. That's just the same as them being Normal, Eldar being Fast, and Orks having no weapons that make them Fast. There's literally no difference (except yours has 3 steps instead of 10, and resolves ties in favor of the current player instead of going with simultaneity).

It sounds like your issue was that you thought Marines and Orks should be on the same initiative stat Speed Level instead of having a difference between them. That's fine, make Orks I4 Normal speed like SM. It's a bit wonkey they're faster than a mortal human but I can dig it.

Because this isn't a novel, it's a game. No representation in the game will ever match the so fast you cannot trace them with your eye speed of the eldar. The lore, as always, is a crap excuse for making unbalanced changes to the game. It's bad because it's unbalanced. Killing initiative is good for the game because it means the units can just do the thing they are supposed to do. Allowing for a "initiative-lite" in the form of those special rules allows representation without unbalance.

My issue isn't that I think orks should be anything. It's that I want a good general playing field for everyone.

JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hi. I am of my right mind. I am happy to receive nerfs to create as balanced a product as GW can conceivably create.

Seconded.

Thirded.

Fourthed? Quartered?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
An ork with a weapon that gave them +1 Initiative wasn't going before an eldar anyway. Or a Space marine. Or anyone. The baseline speeds is the part that was a problem.

Right, but why is that bad? A weapon that gave them +3 initiative would let them swing. But I think Orks, in general, are supposed to be slower than eldar in the lore, and so GW never gave them a weapon with +3. Or +1, that I recall, for that matter. That's just the same as them being Normal, Eldar being Fast, and Orks having no weapons that make them Fast. There's literally no difference (except yours has 3 steps instead of 10, and resolves ties in favor of the current player instead of going with simultaneity).

It sounds like your issue was that you thought Marines and Orks should be on the same initiative stat Speed Level instead of having a difference between them. That's fine, make Orks I4 Normal speed like SM. It's a bit wonkey they're faster than a mortal human but I can dig it.

Because this isn't a novel, it's a game. No representation in the game will ever match the so fast you cannot trace them with your eye speed of the eldar. The lore, as always, is a crap excuse for making unbalanced changes to the game. It's bad because it's unbalanced. Killing initiative is good for the game because it means the units can just do the thing they are supposed to do. Allowing for a "initiative-lite" in the form of those special rules allows representation without unbalance.

My issue isn't that I think orks should be anything. It's that I want a good general playing field for everyone.

I believe it is possible to balance the game and also keep it lore friendly, by reining in the lore somewhat where necessary. The game should never disconnect itself from the lore, because that's not engaging anymore - the game, by itself, is pretty awful. I play it to connect with the lore, and so I want the lore to have some semblance of impact on the game.

I am happy with some semblance. I don't think old initiative did that in any way that made for a good game.

There are units in the game right now that always strike first. I don't think they should always strike first. I think they, as a unit, should be quick and should generally strike first. Until something else that is also quick comes around on their turn. Be that ScyTals or some other weapon or unit. Some of those units are Eldar/DEldar/Harlequinns. I am happy for that to be the case. Let the exceptionally fast be represented as fast. Let everyone else be normal. Have only the exceptionally slow be slow. Orks and necrons should not be exceptionally slow by nature.

Why not, if GW's lore says they're exceptionally slow and we want some lore on the tabletop? Plus, don't forget that the "exceptionally slow" we're talking about here is like, as slow as a regular civilian human who winds up their punches and whatnot.

Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

What about units that defend themselves by being fast like Dire Avengers that aren't combat units? Do they have to become faux combat units and deliberately charge to "defend themselves" now?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What about units that defend themselves by being fast like Dire Avengers that aren't combat units? Do they have to become faux combat units and deliberately charge to "defend themselves" now?

No, they defense themselves by using their high Move to stay away from melee.

Because GWs lore ALSO says they are not exceptionally slow. Which sources are you cherry picking from? GWs lore says that tyranids are the ultimate threat to the entire galaxy (But also orks, and necrons, and chaos, while tau are unstopable in their expansion and the imperium is the only hope and the eldar are there too i guess.) and that a genestealer can slice through terminator armor like it's paper. So should all rending claws be AP5/ignores invul saves all the time? Would that make for a good game? It also says terminator armor is entirely impenetrable and can take hits better then actual SM tanks. Which ones right?

The game has to come first. Guided by, but not dictated to, by the fluff. The fluff is wildly inconsistent and makes for a terrible game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

What about units that defend themselves by being fast like Dire Avengers that aren't combat units? Do they have to become faux combat units and deliberately charge to "defend themselves" now?

No, they should have defensive abilities like invulnerable saves and to hit penalties that reflect them dodging out of the way.

Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What about units that defend themselves by being fast like Dire Avengers that aren't combat units? Do they have to become faux combat units and deliberately charge to "defend themselves" now?

No, they defense themselves by using their high Move to stay away from melee.

Oh? So they don't defend anything but themselves, then, because they have to retreat when the orks get close.

Lance845 wrote:Because GWs lore ALSO says they are not exceptionally slow. Which sources are you cherry picking from? GWs lore says that tyranids are the ultimate threat to the entire galaxy and that a genestealer can slice through terminator armor like it's paper. So should all rending claws be AP5/ignores invul saves all the time? Would that make for a good game? It also says terminator armor is entirely impenetrable and can take hits better then actual SM tanks. Which ones right?

The game has to come first. Guided by, but not dictated to, by the fluff. The fluff is wildly inconsistent and makes for a terrible game.

Write better fluff that isn't so inconsistent would be my first advice. If GW wants to set the game in the universe, make a universe suitable for a game to be set in.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

What about units that defend themselves by being fast like Dire Avengers that aren't combat units? Do they have to become faux combat units and deliberately charge to "defend themselves" now?

No, they should have defensive abilities like invulnerable saves and to hit penalties that reflect them dodging out of the way.

Those are terribly implemented in 9th.
An invuln will not help at all against orks with choppas, but will make them incredibly more durable against Howling Banshees. That's backwards to how Initiative would have helped them.
The lack of minuses to-hit stacking means that it isn't a valuable defensive buff against slow weapons like Power Klaws - which is also ass backwards to how Initiative would have helped them.

 Lance845 wrote:

Back before 8th I was working on a version of the game and I came up with a replacement for the initiative stat.

It worked where certain units/weapons could have a rule that amounts to "fast" or "slow".

There would essentially be 6 initiative steps.

1) Current players Fast.
2) Opponents Fast
3) Current players normal
4) Opponents normal.
5) Current players Slow
6) Opponents Slow.

So Tyranid Scything talons would be Fast and so Hormagaunts would tend to get to strike first unless it was the opponents turn and they were also fast (Eldar are the charge would strike first, tyranids on the charge would strike first).

Most weapons would be normal (Ork Choppa is a normal weapon. Orks charge a marine they strike first. Marine charges an ork they strike first).

And Slow weapons would drop to the bottom of the que (powerfists, crushing claws).

Now Necron Lychguard, preatorians, Overlords with their warscythes, flayed ones, etc... Ork Boyz and such... they wouldn't get fethed out of doing their thing when they charge on their own turn while the units and weapons that are supposed to be quicker can also do their thing.

The initiative attribute as was implemented is a problem and creates problems. This doesn't.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems like you could just take the old initiative system and add a line such that 'in any case where initiative values are tied, the units controlled by the active player go first.'

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Because GWs lore ALSO says they are not exceptionally slow. Which sources are you cherry picking from? GWs lore says that tyranids are the ultimate threat to the entire galaxy and that a genestealer can slice through terminator armor like it's paper. So should all rending claws be AP5/ignores invul saves all the time? Would that make for a good game? It also says terminator armor is entirely impenetrable and can take hits better then actual SM tanks. Which ones right?

The game has to come first. Guided by, but not dictated to, by the fluff. The fluff is wildly inconsistent and makes for a terrible game.

Write better fluff that isn't so inconsistent would be my first advice. If GW wants to set the game in the universe, make a universe suitable for a game to be set in.

Great. How does that apply now to this discussion?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Oh? So they don't defend anything but themselves, then, because they have to retreat when the orks get close.

Nice goal-shifting.

You asked about defending themselves, if you want to contest a melee unit in melee, then bring a melee unit.

 Lance845 wrote:
Because GWs lore ALSO says they are not exceptionally slow. Which sources are you cherry picking from? GWs lore says that tyranids are the ultimate threat to the entire galaxy (But also orks, and necrons, and chaos, while tau are unstopable in their expansion and the imperium is the only hope and the eldar are there too i guess.) and that a genestealer can slice through terminator armor like it's paper. So should all rending claws be AP5/ignores invul saves all the time? Would that make for a good game? It also says terminator armor is entirely impenetrable and can take hits better then actual SM tanks. Which ones right?

The game has to come first. Guided by, but not dictated to, by the fluff. The fluff is wildly inconsistent and makes for a terrible game.

Well, that's how genestealers worked in 3rd. And 3rd was a decent game. But I think GW needs a single reliable narrative to base the game off of, and make all the other fluff unreliable narration.

 vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Back before 8th I was working on a version of the game and I came up with a replacement for the initiative stat.

It worked where certain units/weapons could have a rule that amounts to "fast" or "slow".

There would essentially be 6 initiative steps.

1) Current players Fast.
2) Opponents Fast
3) Current players normal
4) Opponents normal.
5) Current players Slow
6) Opponents Slow.

So Tyranid Scything talons would be Fast and so Hormagaunts would tend to get to strike first unless it was the opponents turn and they were also fast (Eldar are the charge would strike first, tyranids on the charge would strike first).

Most weapons would be normal (Ork Choppa is a normal weapon. Orks charge a marine they strike first. Marine charges an ork they strike first).

And Slow weapons would drop to the bottom of the que (powerfists, crushing claws).

Now Necron Lychguard, preatorians, Overlords with their warscythes, flayed ones, etc... Ork Boyz and such... they wouldn't get fethed out of doing their thing when they charge on their own turn while the units and weapons that are supposed to be quicker can also do their thing.

The initiative attribute as was implemented is a problem and creates problems. This doesn't.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems like you could just take the old initiative system and add a line such that 'in any case where initiative values are tied, the units controlled by the active player go first.'

You are missing something. A necron Lychguard who charges a space marine fights last. Always. So did flayers btw. And wraiths. And their hover bikes. And destroyers.

It's not the same as adding in that line.

Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Oh? So they don't defend anything but themselves, then, because they have to retreat when the orks get close.

What is with your goalshifting?

You asked about defending themselves, if you want to contest a melee unit in melee, then bring a melee unit.

Well, I didn't think anyone would seriously suggest "run away" as a defensive tactic, so you're right, I didn't in my initial argument include "without fleeing".
I don't want to contest the melee unit in melee; I would plan to get any charged DA as much relief as I can, because they're not a melee unit. But Initiative used to be a defensive benefit available to otherwise not-melee units, that was removed and replaced with very little.

Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Because GWs lore ALSO says they are not exceptionally slow. Which sources are you cherry picking from? GWs lore says that tyranids are the ultimate threat to the entire galaxy and that a genestealer can slice through terminator armor like it's paper. So should all rending claws be AP5/ignores invul saves all the time? Would that make for a good game? It also says terminator armor is entirely impenetrable and can take hits better then actual SM tanks. Which ones right?

The game has to come first. Guided by, but not dictated to, by the fluff. The fluff is wildly inconsistent and makes for a terrible game.

Write better fluff that isn't so inconsistent would be my first advice. If GW wants to set the game in the universe, make a universe suitable for a game to be set in.

Great. How does that apply now to this discussion?

It was a discussion about the philosophy of how the fluff should apply on the tabletop, right? The fluff should always be the determinator of tabletop interactions, and furthermore the fluff should be good enough to support a balanced game while doing so.

And I disagree entirely. The fluff should never be the determining factor. It should be A factor that points things in a direction but never at the expense of the game itself.

It's great that you want there to be balanced fluff. But there isn't. So what are you proposing we work with?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Well, I didn't think anyone would seriously suggest "run away" as a defensive tactic, so you're right, I didn't in my initial argument include "without fleeing".
I don't want to contest the melee unit in melee; I would plan to get any charged DA as much relief as I can, because they're not a melee unit. But Initiative used to be a defensive benefit available to otherwise not-melee units, that was removed and replaced with very little.

Initiative wasn't a defensive benefit, it was an offensive one. It didn't directly make units more durable, but it meant that they could get to kill a few of their attackers.

Any defensive benefit was just a consequence of the improved offense.

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

I don't think it works well. "Initiative" is having fast reflexes, not moving fast. An ork on a bike can move faster than an harlequin eldar. But the eldar STILL has faster reflexes.

Lance845 wrote:And I disagree entirely. The fluff should never be the determining factor. It should be A factor that points things in a direction but never at the expense of the game itself.

It's great that you want there to be balanced fluff. But there isn't. So what are you proposing we work with?

Right now? I'd say we don't have much of anything to work with, because the fluff is bad. We could go to your 3-step initiative system and say "active player takes ties" or we could go back to GW's 10 step initiative system and concept of simultaneity. Either one is "justified".

Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Well, I didn't think anyone would seriously suggest "run away" as a defensive tactic, so you're right, I didn't in my initial argument include "without fleeing".
I don't want to contest the melee unit in melee; I would plan to get any charged DA as much relief as I can, because they're not a melee unit. But Initiative used to be a defensive benefit available to otherwise not-melee units, that was removed and replaced with very little.

Initiative wasn't a defensive benefit, it was an offensive one. It didn't directly make units more durable, but it meant that they could get to kill a few of their attackers.

Any defensive benefit was just a consequence of the improved offense.

Killing attackers before they could swing is a defensive benefit. Killing them while they were swinging isn't, and certainly killing them after they swing isn't. Reducing the enemy's damage before they can apply it is a defense in itself.

The only reason it was an "offensive" benefit at all is that you killed the enemy before they killed any of you - only, that doesn't help at all except that it keeps more of your models alive. Initiative didn't affect damage output of a unit at all, except where it kept models alive that wouldn't otherwise swing. Do you know what we call something that keeps models alive? A defensive benefit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

That was sort of the point, though, right? Initiative acted as sort of a defensive stat for armies like Eldar, whose defense was speed. If Orks got in with Eldar, the Eldar could wipe out a few before they could swing, which protected the Eldar unit in a roundabout way. Now? Being fast gets you bupkis for defense. Or at least, gets you weird and inconsistent rules like LFR stratagem (did you know that only one unit of eldar can be fast per phase? the rest have to be slow) or bizarre invuln saves (wytches can dodge knives on a 4+ but not bullets, while Genestealers can dodge knives and bullets but only on a 5+).

 vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Your right. The issue with the initiative mechanic is that orks and necrons got fethed.

So we're allowed to have an initiative mechanic... so long as no army is slower than any other army?

Step 1 in these kind of conversations is REMOVE FLUFF FROM YOUR HEAD. This is a game not a book so using fluff to justify something in the game is wrong because it inevitably leads to bad rules design.

The problem with initiative was it was a MAJOR blow in combat a lot of the time, enough to make it functionally useless to charge certain enemy units. So you had slow melee units like Ork boyz, slowly walking up the field of battle, than, when they finally get close enough to charge the enemy, they were hit by overwatch and THAN they got hit by the enemy who got to strike first. I have rather unkind memories of charging a SM squad that had a pair of flamers in it, getting hit by a bunch of auto-hit over watch shots, getting peppered by bolters and than finally getting into combat, just to have my ork boyz decimated by the combination of Overwatch AND getting hit by the enemy first.

So you had a CC oriented unit getting beaten by a non-CC oriented unit because that faction had baseline initiative of 4 where as Orkz I believe were 2. It only got worse when GW added in the "Duel" mechanic. Basically every Ork nob died to some random sgt with a Power Sword or hell, even a Chainsword.

"Step 1 in these kind of conversations is REMOVE FLUFF FROM YOUR HEAD. This is a game not a book so using fluff to justify something in the game is wrong because it inevitably leads to bad rules design."

I want to agree with this, but to many, many players this is the selling point of the entire game. I don't think its that easy, nor is it satisfying to have the game so divorced from the purported "reality".

Sounds like problems with the Challenges and Overwatch than problems with initiative purely, since those kinds of critiques didn't happen in editions without either of those things that still had Initiative....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SecondTime wrote:
"Step 1 in these kind of conversations is REMOVE FLUFF FROM YOUR HEAD. This is a game not a book so using fluff to justify something in the game is wrong because it inevitably leads to bad rules design."

I want to agree with this, but to many, many players this is the selling point of the entire game. I don't think its that easy, nor is it satisfying to have the game so divorced from the purported "reality".

Agreed. If I am just playing the game for the game, I'll give up on 40k and go play something satisfying for its mechanics alone.

It's not impossible to make generalist units good. I remember getting a lot of flexible use out of my mechanized CSM's in 5E, running 4 units of ten in my 2k list. They really were pretty capable at outfighting units they couldn't outshoot and outshooting things they couldn't outfight.

Generalist units can be good when given the right tools and mechanics.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I don't think it works well. "Initiative" is having fast reflexes, not moving fast. An ork on a bike can move faster than an harlequin eldar. But the eldar STILL has faster reflexes.

While you are right, "moving fast" is what matters when it comes to attacking first, while reflexes has more to do with evading.

A Harlequin should not hit before a charging bike, because the sheer momentum advantage the bike has.

Although you could argue that reflexes should be considered in WS, and a return to pre-8th WS chart.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Killing attackers before they could swing is a defensive benefit. Killing them while they were swinging isn't, and certainly killing them after they swing isn't. Reducing the enemy's damage before they can apply it is a defense in itself.

The only reason it was an "offensive" benefit at all is that you killed the enemy before they killed any of you - only, that doesn't help at all except that it keeps more of your models alive. Initiative didn't affect damage output of a unit at all, except where it kept models alive that wouldn't otherwise swing. Do you know what we call something that keeps models alive? A defensive benefit.

No, it is an offensive one, after all you are attacking, you are killing. There is nothing defensive about that aside of the good old "the best defense is a good offense".

 Tyran wrote:
No, it is an offensive one, after all you are attacking, you are killing. There is nothing defensive about that aside of the good old "the best defense is a good offense".

I see where you're coming from, but the ONLY benefit of initiative is it killed them before they killed me, thusly keeping more of me alive. It had no other benefit than keeping people alive who otherwise would be dead. That's defense.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I see where you're coming from, but the ONLY benefit of initiative is it killed them before they killed me, thusly keeping more of me alive.

The issue is that using that logic, a Tau gunline is similarly just "defense", after all it is only killing the enemy before they get the chance to kill them. Any act of killing in warfare is defensive using that logic.

It had no other benefit than keeping people alive who otherwise would be dead. That's defense.

And this is blatantly false, as the primary benefit is killing the other first.

Moreover, this defensive benefit is only relevant if the charging unit is relatively weak.

If 5 Eldar Guardians get charged by 30 orks, defensively speaking initiative doesn't matter, those 5 Eldars are dead.

But they may manage to kill a few orks before dying under the old initiative rules, and that is a purely offensive benefit.

 Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I see where you're coming from, but the ONLY benefit of initiative is it killed them before they killed me, thusly keeping more of me alive.

 Tyran wrote:
The issue is that using that logic, a Tau gunline is similarly just "defense", after all it is only killing the enemy before they get the chance to kill them. Any act of killing in warfare is defensive using that logic.

Not at all! Offense is the act of finding someone and killing them for some other reason (e.g. an objective) and defense is killing them because if you don't kill them, they kill you. A Tau gunline is defending itself when it shoots a closely approaching melee unit, and is conducting offense when it shoots a fairly harmless unit across the board to remove it from an objective.

Obviously.

It had no other benefit than keeping people alive who otherwise would be dead. That's defense.

And this is blatantly false, as the primary benefit is killing the other first.

Yes but why does killing the other first matter? Killing him last is the same as killing him first - except in the first case, you are guaranteed to be still alive at the end.

 Tyran wrote:
Moreover, this defensive benefit is only relevant if the charging unit is relatively weak.

Well, defenses shouldn't be flawless. They should fail sometimes, especially against strong attacks.

 Tyran wrote:
If 5 Eldar Guardians get charged by 30 orks, defensively speaking initiative doesn't matter, those 5 Eldars are dead.

In which case, their higher initiative stat failed to protect them, which is fine. Their armor save could fail to protect them too, that doesn't mean it's not a defensive stat.

 Tyran wrote:
But they may manage to kill a few orks before dying under the old initiative rules, and that is a purely offensive benefit.

No it isn't, not really. If I step into your house to steal your TV, and you shoot me in the chest with a shotgun, you were defending yourself (well, your stuff), even if I died doing it. If I have a buddy who subsequently steals your TV, that doesn't suddenly mean you murdered me offensively, that just means your defense failed.

I am not sure what you mean by generalist unit. But I asume you mean the 'red mage' problem. In final fantasy the red mage was a melee/wizard hybrid. This can be seen in similar units in other RPG's as well. Essentially what the game designer aims to do is to make a unit that is duel class. So you take half of the stats from the warrior, and half of the stats from the wizards and you add them together for a new hybrid clas. This often leads to a very underperforming class that is not good at anything.

The solution to this in the abstract is to not make it 50% worse, make it around 75% ot 80% worse in both fighter and melee. Generalist classes/units should not be priced for the sum of their parts. Because when you have a focused clas/unit you are getting a premium product that performs very well.

The 8th edition tyranid warrior was a good example of a unit that functioned OK at this. It had T4, 3W, 4+ save. Could fight just OK, and shoot OK. To summarice it was not good at anything. But since it could do very many things a littlebit you where OK to pay around 25 points for it.

In theory a generalist unit does not need to be bad, you just need to get a lot more then what you pay for with a focused unit. I do not know if this is a Space Marine problem. Space Marines have so many different flavours and such a dence codex they can pretty much be build how ever you want. This eats up a lot of designspace, but that is another discussion. Propperly costed a generalist unit should be able to be wellbalansed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Not at all! Offense is the act of finding someone and killing them for some other reason (e.g. an objective) and defense is killing them because if you don't kill them, they kill you. A Tau gunline is defending itself when it shoots a closely approaching melee unit, and is conducting offense when it shoots a fairly harmless unit across the board to remove it from an objective.

Obviously.

So under this logic, a Genestealer unit charging Fire Warriors is defense? After all it is killing them so they cannot shoot anymore.

Yes but why does killing the other first matter? Killing him last is the same as killing him first - except in the first case, you are guaranteed to be still alive at the end.

And in the last you are not guaranteed to kill them.

Which btw is the other side of this argument, that melee units with a high initiative are offensively better, specially against other melee units.

Their armor save could fail to protect them too, that doesn't mean it's not a defensive stat.

Last time I checked, armor saves do not kill other models.

No it isn't, not really. If I step into your house to steal your TV, and you shoot me in the chest with a shotgun, you were defending yourself (well, your stuff), even if I died doing it. If I have a buddy who subsequently steals your TV, that doesn't suddenly mean you murdered me offensively, that just means your defense failed.

Bringing a legal concept that is only applicable in the US (and not in all US states) in a discussion about tabletop gameplay is just grasping at straws, and that's all I will say on the matter because I don't want to bring politics into this.

But fine, if you want your Eldar Guardians to attack before the Orks so much, then charge with them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If I step into your house to steal your TV, and you shoot me in the chest with a shotgun, you were defending yourself (well, your stuff), even if I died doing it.

Reminds me of this thread:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/784718.page

 Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Not at all! Offense is the act of finding someone and killing them for some other reason (e.g. an objective) and defense is killing them because if you don't kill them, they kill you. A Tau gunline is defending itself when it shoots a closely approaching melee unit, and is conducting offense when it shoots a fairly harmless unit across the board to remove it from an objective.

Obviously.

So under this logic, a Genestealer unit charging Fire Warriors is defense? After all it is killing them so they cannot shoot anymore.

Yes but why does killing the other first matter? Killing him last is the same as killing him first - except in the first case, you are guaranteed to be still alive at the end.

And in the last you are not guaranteed to kill them.

Which btw is the other side of this argument, that melee units with a high initiative are offensively better, specially against other melee units.

Their armor save could fail to protect them too, that doesn't mean it's not a defensive stat.

Last time I checked, armor saves do not kill other models.

No it isn't, not really. If I step into your house to steal your TV, and you shoot me in the chest with a shotgun, you were defending yourself (well, your stuff), even if I died doing it. If I have a buddy who subsequently steals your TV, that doesn't suddenly mean you murdered me offensively, that just means your defense failed.

Bringing a legal concept that is only applicable in the US (and not in all US states) in a discussion about tabletop gameplay is just grasping at straws, and that's all I will say on the matter because I don't want to bring politics into this.

But fine, if you want your Eldar Guardians to attack before the Orks so much, then charge with them.

Who cares?

The point is Dire Avengers used to have more utility in close combat that didn't involve just running away.

Speaking of running away, the old Battle Focus rules sure did a lot for Eldar infantry in a way that an extra inch of movement really doesn't.

 Tyran wrote:
A Harlequin should not hit before a charging bike, because the sheer momentum advantage the bike has.

Absolutely disagree. If the biker has slower reflexes and less agility, the only thing that could help him strike first would be higher reach (that only Death Korp riders have, afaik, not bikers, who don't get lance).
The harlequin doesn't need momentum, all she needs to do is put her weapons where the biker is going and use the biker's momentum against her. And since the harlequin has better reflexes than the biker, she will be able to react if the biker move quicker than the biker can react to her own movement.

Remember, the whole charge concept means nothing, it's an artifact of sequential turns. In reality, it's two warriors both going at each other, and one of them will simply move into attacking position quickly.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Absolutely disagree. If the biker has slower reflexes and less agility, the only thing that could help him strike first would be higher reach (that only Death Korp riders have, afaik, not bikers, who don't get lance).
The harlequin doesn't need momentum, all she needs to do is put her weapons where the biker is going and use the biker's momentum against her. And since the harlequin has better reflexes than the biker, she will be able to react if the biker move quicker than the biker can react to her own movement.

Remember, the whole charge concept means nothing, it's an artifact of sequential turns. In reality, it's two warriors both going at each other, and one of them will simply move into attacking position quickly.

Reflexes and speed are different things, after all one has to do with the ability of the nervous system to process information and react to it, while speed is about displacement over time and has more to do with force and mass. (Because Newton)

Thus better reflexes don't really make you faster, but make your speed more effective.

 Tyran wrote:
Thus better reflexes don't really make you faster, but make your speed more effective.

And that's why you'll strike first. You don't need to be moving fast to hit first, you need to be the one that reacted faster to where the other was going.
If anything, being in a bike impairs your capacity to react.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Thus better reflexes don't really make you faster, but make your speed more effective.

And that's why you'll strike first. You don't need to be moving fast to hit first, you need to be the one that reacted faster to where the other was going.
If anything, being in a bike impairs your capacity to react.

But that isn't really attacking first, but striking more precisely/effectively while evading incoming attacks. After all, the biker is going to be swinging their weapons at the same time and thus the Harlequin needs to not only hit the Biker but also avoid being hit in turn.

Regarding initiative, another aspect is that the old system also allowed for weapons that strike slower than everything else.

It used to be that Power Fists, Thunder Hammers etc. were basically the strongest weapons available to infantry - but they had to strike after all other units. It was a significant drawback and one that meant there was often good reason to take alternative weapons.

The new versions of those weapons, with just -1 to hit, just isn't a significant drawback. Especially now that near enough every character is hitting on 2s and most other units are hitting on 3s, plus all the rerolls and other buffs that are available. Rather than being high-risk, high-reward, they've instead become negligible-risk, high-reward.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Speaking of running away, the old Battle Focus rules sure did a lot for Eldar infantry in a way that an extra inch of movement really doesn't.

Yeah, it's the same reason I miss stuff like Fleet on all non-Coven DE units or Corsairs and their Reckless Abandon ability. These traits go a long way towards making a faction feel fast and mobile on the battlefield, far more so than a mere +1M.

Please move the initiative discussion to another thread; it's not very relevant to this one.

 Tyran wrote:
But that isn't really attacking first, but striking more precisely/effectively while evading incoming attacks.

It's having the initiative. The harlequin will make his move before the biker can react, and then the biker will react, if she survives!

regarding initative, we could always make it work like it does in RPGs and having you roll for initative before a combat begins. roll 1d6, add your init score, winner fights first.

might make it more intreasting as you're often never going to be entirely sure whose going first in a combat. *shrugs* proably be problematic for that but it's 2:30 am here, and I'm coming up with dumb ideas when I should be sleeping

BrianDavion wrote:
regarding initative, we could always make it work like it does in RPGs and having you roll for initative before a combat begins. roll 1d6, add your init score, winner fights first.

might make it more intreasting as you're often never going to be entirely sure whose going first in a combat. *shrugs* proably be problematic for that but it's 2:30 am here, and I'm coming up with dumb ideas when I should be sleeping

isn't stupid if handled correctly, you could add in modifiers, f.e. when you attack add +1 to the result of the roll, melee focussed infantry could get an USR which grants another +1, etc .. Wouldn't even need be a difficult system.

Not Online!!! wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
regarding initative, we could always make it work like it does in RPGs and having you roll for initative before a combat begins. roll 1d6, add your init score, winner fights first.

might make it more intreasting as you're often never going to be entirely sure whose going first in a combat. *shrugs* proably be problematic for that but it's 2:30 am here, and I'm coming up with dumb ideas when I should be sleeping

isn't stupid if handled correctly, you could add in modifiers, f.e. when you attack add +1 to the result of the role, melee focussed infantry could get an USR which grants another +1, etc .. Wouldn't even need be a difficult system.

To use the earlier example of Orks, you could easily have 'ere we go give +2 Initiative when charging, for example.

You'd have too imo.

Not Online!!! wrote:
You'd have too imo.

Doesn't this just show its a silly mechanic?

Tyel wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You'd have too imo.

Doesn't this just show its a silly mechanic?

nay, it is a more granular mechanic, what is silly is the fact that we are in a completly binary system atm.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
But that isn't really attacking first, but striking more precisely/effectively while evading incoming attacks.

It's having the initiative. The harlequin will make his move before the biker can react, and then the biker will react, if she survives!

Because fighting apparently is a sequence in which fighters take turns to attack each other./s

Yes I'm aware that as a tabletop game, such abstractions are necessary, but please don't try to sell me the idea that has anything to do with "realism".

Not Online!!! wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You'd have too imo.

Doesn't this just show its a silly mechanic?

nay, it is a more granular mechanic, what is silly is the fact that we are in a completly binary system atm.

I'd say the really silly part is that a unit fighting on one side of the battlefield somehow slows down a unit on the other side.

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

This is just wrong though. The difference in movement is like 2", which isn't nothing but it's not much. Especially when marines then have the same 12" charge potential (and way more ways of improving the odds of actually getting that charge in).

Really, it would be much better if your charge range was affected by your movement. Like your potential charge distance is Movement +2" or something, or Eldar gets 12" charge, marines get 10" charge, etc.

As it is, even slow lumbering custodes or death guard with a 4" move, can suddenly leap 12" across the board at an actually "fast" enemy and murder them.

Niiru wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

This is just wrong though. The difference in movement is like 2", which isn't nothing but it's not much. Especially when marines then have the same 12" charge potential (and way more ways of improving the odds of actually getting that charge in).

Really, it would be much better if your charge range was affected by your movement. Like your potential charge distance is Movement +2" or something, or Eldar gets 12" charge, marines get 10" charge, etc.

As it is, even slow lumbering custodes or death guard with a 4" move, can suddenly leap 12" across the board at an actually "fast" enemy and murder them.

I actually agree on Move affecting charge distances.

 Tyran wrote:
Yes I'm aware that as a tabletop game, such abstractions are necessary, but please don't try to sell me the idea that has anything to do with "realism".

It has to do with being characterful. It has to do with making the things that make some units awesome in the lore (having insanely fast reflexes) matter in the tabletop. And having insanely fast reflexes is not something that should be made irrelevant by your opponent riding a bike. Right now, with your version of things, it totally is invalidated by riding a bike.

I apologize for possibly derailing this thread even further, but we still use initiative in our game.

Movement is armor save + Initiative in inches.

A unit (usually) still gets a bonus attack on the charge, and those attacks are always of the highest initiative. This way orks will still get a slew of attacks in before say the eldar get all their attacks, and then the orks finish with lower initiative attacks.

It works pretty well for us.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Yes I'm aware that as a tabletop game, such abstractions are necessary, but please don't try to sell me the idea that has anything to do with "realism".

It has to do with being characterful. It has to do with making the things that make some units awesome in the lore (having insanely fast reflexes) matter in the tabletop. And having insanely fast reflexes is not something that should be made irrelevant by your opponent riding a bike. Right now, with your version of things, it totally is invalidated by riding a bike.

It's not irrelevant, after all those units usually have an invulnerable save to represent evading the attack.

And I really like that my genestealers have an invulnerable save, as they are already very fragile even with it.

 Tyran wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Yes I'm aware that as a tabletop game, such abstractions are necessary, but please don't try to sell me the idea that has anything to do with "realism".

It has to do with being characterful. It has to do with making the things that make some units awesome in the lore (having insanely fast reflexes) matter in the tabletop. And having insanely fast reflexes is not something that should be made irrelevant by your opponent riding a bike. Right now, with your version of things, it totally is invalidated by riding a bike.

It's not irrelevant, after all those units usually have an invulnerable save to represent evading the attack.

And I really like that my genestealers have an invulnerable save, as they are already very fragile even with it.

Dodges shouldn't work vs blasts, but that's asking too much of system, I know. Clearly, genestealer reflexes should be completely identical to a force field.

Niiru wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

This is just wrong though. The difference in movement is like 2", which isn't nothing but it's not much. Especially when marines then have the same 12" charge potential (and way more ways of improving the odds of actually getting that charge in).

Really, it would be much better if your charge range was affected by your movement. Like your potential charge distance is Movement +2" or something, or Eldar gets 12" charge, marines get 10" charge, etc.

As it is, even slow lumbering custodes or death guard with a 4" move, can suddenly leap 12" across the board at an actually "fast" enemy and murder them.

I´d agree, it feels very wrong for my Termies to DS in, get a charge off and in between that and pile in/consolidating move further than they normally would have over 2 turns.

Niiru wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

This is just wrong though. The difference in movement is like 2", which isn't nothing but it's not much. Especially when marines then have the same 12" charge potential (and way more ways of improving the odds of actually getting that charge in).

Really, it would be much better if your charge range was affected by your movement. Like your potential charge distance is Movement +2" or something, or Eldar gets 12" charge, marines get 10" charge, etc.

As it is, even slow lumbering custodes or death guard with a 4" move, can suddenly leap 12" across the board at an actually "fast" enemy and murder them.

custodes aren't lumbering, they have a movement profile of 6.

but I agree it feels odd that speed doesn't affect advance and charge rolls.

 Castozor wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

This is just wrong though. The difference in movement is like 2", which isn't nothing but it's not much. Especially when marines then have the same 12" charge potential (and way more ways of improving the odds of actually getting that charge in).

Really, it would be much better if your charge range was affected by your movement. Like your potential charge distance is Movement +2" or something, or Eldar gets 12" charge, marines get 10" charge, etc.

As it is, even slow lumbering custodes or death guard with a 4" move, can suddenly leap 12" across the board at an actually "fast" enemy and murder them.

I´d agree, it feels very wrong for my Termies to DS in, get a charge off and in between that and pile in/consolidating move further than they normally would have over 2 turns.

It's almost as though the random charge distance is totally wonky for a game mechanic!

 Castozor wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly I just prefer the new rules. If you are fast it means you have a high Move, and thus you are more likely to charge and thus have the "initiative".

This is just wrong though. The difference in movement is like 2", which isn't nothing but it's not much. Especially when marines then have the same 12" charge potential (and way more ways of improving the odds of actually getting that charge in).

Really, it would be much better if your charge range was affected by your movement. Like your potential charge distance is Movement +2" or something, or Eldar gets 12" charge, marines get 10" charge, etc.

As it is, even slow lumbering custodes or death guard with a 4" move, can suddenly leap 12" across the board at an actually "fast" enemy and murder them.

I´d agree, it feels very wrong for my Termies to DS in, get a charge off and in between that and pile in/consolidating move further than they normally would have over 2 turns.

It's also silly that units charge further than they run - so giving up your shooting and assault just to run gets you M+d6", but stopping to shoot and then stopping again to charge gets you M+2d6" plus potentially another 3" pile-in and then another 3" consolidate.

 Tyran wrote:
And I really like that my genestealers have an invulnerable save, as they are already very fragile even with it.

Invulnerable save and FNP save are another business entirely lol.
They just work so weird, and don't represent anything really.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
And I really like that my genestealers have an invulnerable save, as they are already very fragile even with it.

Invulnerable save and FNP save are another business entirely lol.
They just work so weird, and don't represent anything really.

Then how are you planning to represent dodging bullets? that is a staple of "superhuman reflexes" in the lore.

 Tyran wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
And I really like that my genestealers have an invulnerable save, as they are already very fragile even with it.

Invulnerable save and FNP save are another business entirely lol.
They just work so weird, and don't represent anything really.

Then how are you planning to represent dodging bullets? that is a staple of "superhuman reflexes" in the lore.

Just have it not work vs blasts and such.

 Tyran wrote:
Then how are you planning to represent dodging bullets? that is a staple of "superhuman reflexes" in the lore.

Some mutually exclusive ideas off the top of my head:
-Implement dodge saves exclusively as FNPs, not invulns, so that armor is still taken into account.
-Don't allow it to work vs Blast weapons.
-Have Blast weapons force rerolls of the dodge save.
-Represent dodging as a penalty to hit. Preferably with an exception to, or abolishment of, the hard to-hit cap.
-Fix the problem by creating a defensive stat that represents difficulty to hit, so we can finally resolve these wonky mechanics in a consistent way.

Just to get back on the main point a bit.

Can Generalist units be good in 40k, specifically in regards to Tac/Intercessors.

yes. The issue I see with them is that they should have to pay for being a generalist unit though. GW has a long history of incorrectly doing this and I can already here the usual suspects when it comes to Space Marine White Knights furiously typing.

For Orkz, Killakanz were considered to be a "generalist" unit. They had ok shooting and were equipped with a Kan klaw which used to be a bit worse than a PK but is now basically a bit better. The issue is that Killakanz are BS4+ and WS5+ The cheapest variant you can have is 50pts and has a big shoota which makes little use out of its superior BS of 4 because 3 S5 no AP 1D shots aren't exactly frightening. Their durability is their only strong point T5, 5W 3+ save. Shooting at fellow orkz, a Kan averages .83 dead ork boyz a turn, in CC they average .83 dead ork boyz a turn. To earn back its points killing orkz a Kan would need 7.5 turns at range or 7.5 turns in CC
Kanz are a generalist unit that is clearly over priced.

Tacs/intercessor on the other hand are a generalist unit that is clearly under priced.

For an Intercessor to make back its points shooting at orkz it would take 3.7 turns. In CC it would take 3 turns.

I don't think Intercessors/tacs are drastically under priced, I think a 4ish point increase would put them in a good spot. Likewise I think a 5pt decrease on Kanz with some kind of additional buff, like losing their morale rule and a major buff to Big shoota's would put them in a good spot.

Long story short, yes a generalist unit can be good and competitive. The issue we have right now is that tacs/intercessors are not generalist units, they are pt for pt beating units one on one who excel in only 1 aspect of the game. Specifically, Intercessors beat firewarriors in a duel at range, and beat Genestealers in a duel in CC. Point for point not model for model. So if intercessors are beating these dedicated units, they are not a generalist unit, they are either a dual specialist unit that is under priced or a generalist unit that is under priced/over performing. So either a nerf in stats/weapons or a points increase is warranted.

And yes I fully acknowledge that we are barely into 9th and only 2 factions have their codexs. But I just highly doubt GW will buff every other basic infantry/troops unit to a comparable level.

SemperMortis wrote:
Just to get back on the main point a bit.

Can Generalist units be good in 40k, specifically in regards to Tac/Intercessors.

yes. The issue I see with them is that they should have to pay for being a generalist unit though. GW has a long history of incorrectly doing this and I can already here the usual suspects when it comes to Space Marine White Knights furiously typing.

For Orkz, Killakanz were considered to be a "generalist" unit. They had ok shooting and were equipped with a Kan klaw which used to be a bit worse than a PK but is now basically a bit better. The issue is that Killakanz are BS4+ and WS5+ The cheapest variant you can have is 50pts and has a big shoota which makes little use out of its superior BS of 4 because 3 S5 no AP 1D shots aren't exactly frightening. Their durability is their only strong point T5, 5W 3+ save. Shooting at fellow orkz, a Kan averages .83 dead ork boyz a turn, in CC they average .83 dead ork boyz a turn. To earn back its points killing orkz a Kan would need 7.5 turns at range or 7.5 turns in CC
Kanz are a generalist unit that is clearly over priced.

If you look at this through the lens of past editions then you can see the reverse. A time when Tac Marines were bad and Kanz were underpriced and thus good.

The point on which this argument rests is if a generalist unit can be good without simply costing too little? By good let's look at 2009 era Boyz which were good enough to be taken in numbers and yet not good enough to be the only unit in their list. Also, their base stat line was used on other units in those lists with Burnas and Lootas being taken alongside them. Meanwhile, prior to late 8th edition, Space Marines have never done this because the few times their MEQ profile was good it was only good on a small number of units with that profile which were spammed while other units with that profile were taken in minimum squads or not taken at all. This is because paying a tax for stats that don't synergize with a unit's core role makes for a balance nightmare.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

If you look at this through the lens of past editions then you can see the reverse. A time when Tac Marines were bad and Kanz were underpriced and thus good.

The point on which this argument rests is if a generalist unit can be good without simply costing too little? By good let's look at 2009 era Boyz which were good enough to be taken in numbers and yet not good enough to be the only unit in their list. Also, their base stat line was used on other units in those lists with Burnas and Lootas being taken alongside them. Meanwhile, prior to late 8th edition, Space Marines have never done this because the few times their MEQ profile was good it was only good on a small number of units with that profile which were spammed while other units with that profile were taken in minimum squads or not taken at all. This is because paying a tax for stats that don't synergize with a unit's core role makes for a balance nightmare.

Nothing you just said counters any point I make, unless you are arguing that since kanz used to be good (5th-6th edition) that its ok for them to be god awful generalists for 7th, 8th and probably 9th.

Simply put, I think Generalist units can be appropriately priced, but at the moment, the SM codex doesn't contain any. Hell, aggressors technically fall into the generalist list because they are great at shooting and pretty damn good in melee but are relatively cheap.

SemperMortis wrote:
Nothing you just said counters any point I make, unless you are arguing that since kanz used to be good (5th-6th edition) that its ok for them to be god awful generalists for 7th, 8th and probably 9th.

Simply put, I think Generalist units can be appropriately priced, but at the moment, the SM codex doesn't contain any. Hell, aggressors technically fall into the generalist list because they are great at shooting and pretty damn good in melee but are relatively cheap.

Let's ask this then, if we 'balance' Space Marines by increasing their points costs that's not going to fix them. It's going to remove them from tournament play where they're already completely fine, and then it's going to mean they get to enjoy being dunked on by the next flavour of the month army that gets overturned and 'ruins' casual play.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Nothing you just said counters any point I make, unless you are arguing that since kanz used to be good (5th-6th edition) that its ok for them to be god awful generalists for 7th, 8th and probably 9th.

Simply put, I think Generalist units can be appropriately priced, but at the moment, the SM codex doesn't contain any. Hell, aggressors technically fall into the generalist list because they are great at shooting and pretty damn good in melee but are relatively cheap.

Let's ask this then, if we 'balance' Space Marines by increasing their points costs that's not going to fix them. It's going to remove them from tournament play where they're already completely fine, and then it's going to mean they get to enjoy being dunked on by the next flavour of the month army that gets overturned and 'ruins' casual play.

Really depends doesn't it? Are SM really OP right now (yes) or are they simply balanced by 9th edition standards. so in 18+ months, when everyone finally gets their new codex they might be balanced, by which point Codex 2.0 will come out and restart the cycle again.

SemperMortis wrote:
Really depends doesn't it? Are SM really OP right now (yes) or are they simply balanced by 9th edition standards. so in 18+ months, when everyone finally gets their new codex they might be balanced, by which point Codex 2.0 will come out and restart the cycle again.

Are SM actually OP given that they aren't dominating the tournament scene?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
[ OP given that they aren't dominating the tournament scene?

That's how metas work. If Space Marines are OP they will gate keep everything that does not beat Space Marines and go 50-50 in mirror matches. The things that rise to the top are the things that beat Space Marines without being equally vulnerable to everyone trying to beat Space Marines.

I've played several different competitive games and the things that are over powered must be so incredibly unbalanced to have 0 counters in the entire game to actually rise to the top.

So isn't the thing that beat the super OP Space Marines OP? Often that tactic/strategy/comp has it's own weaknesses that are shored up by Space Marines gatekeeping any counter by it's sheer player base size.

So why do people not switch to the counter instead of the OP thing?

If faction A has 80% Win Rate.

Faction B has 30% rate but 90% win rate vs faction A then Faction A will still be better until there is a critical mass of Faction A so it kind of self regulates to the point that even in testing it looks like an obvious pick.

It's kind of interesting, it becomes a super strange dance in some more complex games.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Are SM actually OP given that they aren't dominating the tournament scene?

This rather assumes that the top-tier tournament meta is perfectly reflective of general play.

Space Marines right now are a gatekeeper army. In casual they are oppresive just like Tau in 7th but in competitive there are many other armies that can make lists that work better or counter better space marines.

Where are you guys getting this from? The fact Marines don't get the top 4 spots in every tournament ever?

Its like saying Eldar were a gatekeeper army in 7th. No, they were just OP. Now various factions could keep up - and it is still a dice game - but they were clearly head and shoulders over a whole range of codexes.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Really depends doesn't it? Are SM really OP right now (yes) or are they simply balanced by 9th edition standards. so in 18+ months, when everyone finally gets their new codex they might be balanced, by which point Codex 2.0 will come out and restart the cycle again.

Are SM actually OP given that they aren't dominating the tournament scene?

The factions that currently make up Codex:Space Marines were 30% of the tournament meta in october. Other factions, like Harlequins, which represented about 1/10th as much of the pool, pulled slightly higher win rates, but not high enough to explain the MASSIVE number of mirror matches that would occur, shoving the marine percent much closer to 50% than it otherwise would be.

I'd like to know what percentage of armies a faction would need to represent for you to consider them to be 'dominating' if 30% isn't it.

Considering that more then half people playing w40k play sm, only 30% of the tournament lists being some sort of marines isn't domination. Specialy when some of the marine subfactions don't have even a 50% win ratio, and those that have one above 50%, do not reach the close to 60% win rates harlis or custodes have. And that is with more armies playing them.

If 1/3 of all wrestlers in competition are from one country or school, but only 1 gets in to top 4, then the school ain't dominating at all.
Now if marines were 10% player and had 50% + of placing in top 4, then it would be different.

40k Stats just reported 2 tournaments from Halloween, Marines got a 1st place and a 2nd place finish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ohh and in Vasteras Autumn Bash, 5th and 6th place were also Marines, and 7th was custodes

Karol wrote:
Considering that more then half people playing w40k play sm, only 30% of the tournament lists being some sort of marines isn't domination. Specialy when some of the marine subfactions don't have even a 50% win ratio, and those that have one above 50%, do not reach the close to 60% win rates harlis or custodes have. And that is with more armies playing them.

If 1/3 of all wrestlers in competition are from one country or school, but only 1 gets in to top 4, then the school ain't dominating at all.
Now if marines were 10% player and had 50% + of placing in top 4, then it would be different.

Do you have data that proves that 50% of people playing w40k play SM?

My impression was that the only actual data we had was of the competitive play pool.

There is also the fact that with 3% playrate and a 56% winrate, harlequins will almost never see a mirror match (which always results in a loss and a win for that faction, pushing their win pct closer to 50%) but with a 30% playrate and a 55% winrate, Space Marines will see mirror matches nearly 1/3 of the time.

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Considering that more then half people playing w40k play sm, only 30% of the tournament lists being some sort of marines isn't domination. Specialy when some of the marine subfactions don't have even a 50% win ratio, and those that have one above 50%, do not reach the close to 60% win rates harlis or custodes have. And that is with more armies playing them.

If 1/3 of all wrestlers in competition are from one country or school, but only 1 gets in to top 4, then the school ain't dominating at all.
Now if marines were 10% player and had 50% + of placing in top 4, then it would be different.

Do you have data that proves that 50% of people playing w40k play SM?

My impression was that the only actual data we had was of the competitive play pool.

There is also the fact that with 3% playrate and a 56% winrate, harlequins will almost never see a mirror match (which always results in a loss and a win for that faction, pushing their win pct closer to 50%) but with a 30% playrate and a 55% winrate, Space Marines will see mirror matches nearly 1/3 of the time.

In other words, in a 5 game tournament, every Marine player is likely to play between 1 and 2 mirror matches.

it is tough to overstate just how much that mirror match percentage matters to the overall winrate.

If marines were played the same % as now, but they won 100% of the games that were not mirror matches, Space Marines would only have an 85% winrate.

Generalists can actually be very effective, if not flat out OP. Take SM: a "generalist" SM army can be extremely good both offensive and defensive wise.

Offensive: with doctrines everything sooner or later gets a boost in AP and pretty much any weapon, including free ones, have natural AP-1 or better. Those weapons also have high rate of fire and easy access to re-rolls which means they are good against multiple kinds of targets.

Defensive: an entire army of high save, multiwound and T4-5 bodies is extremely resilient as it can soak tons of anti infantry shots while proper anti tank is kinda wasted on those platforms of 20-40ppm bodies.

IMHO the real SM problem is that SM aren't generalists at all. To be generalists they should be "just" decent in everything (mobility, staying power, melee potential, firepower, strong psychic phase, etc...) while in fact they are excellent in multiple fields and terrible in nothing. Only in a few aspects they're really the "jack of trades" that used to define them.

So in conclusion, they really aren't generalists but they are extremely good.

 Blackie wrote:
Generalists can actually be very effective, if not flat out OP. Take SM: a "generalist" SM army can be extremely good both offensive and defensive wise.

Offensive: with doctrines everything sooner or later gets a boost in AP and pretty much any weapon, including free ones, have natural AP-1 or better. Those weapons also have high rate of fire and easy access to re-rolls which means they are good against multiple kinds of targets.

Defensive: an entire army of high save, multiwound and T4-5 bodies is extremely resilient as it can soak tons of anti infantry shots while proper anti tank is kinda wasted on those platforms of 20-40ppm bodies.

IMHO the real SM problem is that SM aren't generalists at all. To be generalists they should be "just" decent in everything (mobility, staying power, melee potential, firepower, strong psychic phase, etc...) while in fact they are excellent in multiple fields and terrible in nothing. Only in a few aspects they're really the "jack of trades" that used to define them.

So in conclusion, they really aren't generalists but they are extremely good.

I think its hard to represent generalists in GW's game system. You either get target dummy marines or 9th ed marines. With the scale of the game now, I don't really understand how marines can possibly work. The Tau have like 1000 times more Riptides than the Imperium does marines. Entire marine chapters would be lost in an afternoon the way they are deployed.

Tyel wrote:
Where are you guys getting this from? The fact Marines don't get the top 4 spots in every tournament ever?

Its like saying Eldar were a gatekeeper army in 7th. No, they were just OP. Now various factions could keep up - and it is still a dice game - but they were clearly head and shoulders over a whole range of codexes.

You aren't disagreeing with me. As I said, in casual they are oppresive because their power level is just too much in literally all of the codex. But some armies can make better competitive lists (That doesnt mean marines aren't competitive or can't reach tops, is obviously they can and are). But a casual space marine army will trash any casual other codex army.