Switch Theme:

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

Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/04 14:47:32


Post by: bat702


basically like thin their ranks or bring it down but something that rewards you for killing multiple wound high save infantry


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/04 14:53:21


Post by: Unit1126PLL


What? No, that would harm Space Marines.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 00:45:35


Post by: alextroy


This is a question for GW, but it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to fix Thin Their Ranks to account for them. It would look something like:

Thin Their Ranks: If you select this objective; keep a tally of kill points as detailed below for each enemy model you destroys excluding Character models. A model that was destroyed and returned to the board can be destroyed again and add to your tally of kill points each time it is destroyed. At the end of the battle, divide your kill point tally by 10 and round down -- the result is the number of victory points you score. The number of points added to the tally is: models with 1-4 wounds add 1 per wound on the model; models with 5-9 wounds add 5; models with 10 or more wounds add 10.

Note that I excluded Character models to prevent double dipping with Assassinate.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 01:15:59


Post by: Karol


No thank you. I already have a secondary that gives up max points to my opponent just by virtue of killing my stuff. I really don't need another one. Unless if taking the secondary comes with some real sever handicaps to the person going for it.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 02:19:26


Post by: BlackoCatto


How about getting rid of all kill secondaries


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 03:09:06


Post by: yukishiro1


It is beyond doubt they deliberately did not put an elite multi-wound squad killing secondary into the game, because the secondaries overall are cribbed from ITC, with the notable and glaring exception of gangbusters. There is zero chance that even as careless a company as GW simply overlooked it.

So the question then becomes: why did they deliberately leave off one of the ITC secondaries while keeping all the rest? Answers vary depend on your tinfoil quotient, but I think it's hard to say it's a complete coincidence that most of the new model releases to go with 9th edition are elite multi-wound squads.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 06:54:57


Post by: Spoletta


yukishiro1 wrote:
It is beyond doubt they deliberately did not put an elite multi-wound squad killing secondary into the game, because the secondaries overall are cribbed from ITC, with the notable and glaring exception of gangbusters. There is zero chance that even as careless a company as GW simply overlooked it.

So the question then becomes: why did they deliberately leave off one of the ITC secondaries while keeping all the rest? Answers vary depend on your tinfoil quotient, but I think it's hard to say it's a complete coincidence that most of the new model releases to go with 9th edition are elite multi-wound squads.


Doesn't take a genius to undertstand why.

It would 100% be the most dumb secondary of the lot.

Abhor the witch right now is considered the dumbest, and manages to screw just a couple of factions and only if the opponent has no psykers.

A secondary that targets elite infantries would cripple a dozen or more of factions just for the fact that they play such faction. It would be a hugely dumb secondary and if they did really implement that, this board would still be raging about it.

Let's not delude ourselves. The only reason why many players want such secondary is because it hurts SM, and hurting SM is good in everyone's book.

It probably was there in the first iteration of the test document, but then it was cut out for good reasons. Actually the existence of dumb ones like Abhor and Assassination is probably due to them going under the radar because there was an elephant like that during the playtest.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 07:41:42


Post by: Not Online!!!


Spoletta, your italian, ever heard of equal long pikes for everyone?

You either HAVE kill secondaries against ALL factions or you DON'T have them.

Having them only for a "few" skew type of lists which mostly cripple factions that are badly designed, is Neither fair nor balanced and stacks the deck.

Limitations upon kill secondaries would also be a really neat thing.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 07:55:32


Post by: kingheff


Change thin the ranks to count wounds instead of models, quick and dirty fix but it would make it a lot fairer.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 08:05:56


Post by: PaddyMick


Doesn't having your wound count spread across more models help with playing the primary and therefore compensate for giving up the secondary?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 08:17:40


Post by: Not Online!!!


IN theory.
in practice small arms fire, especially off one faction, has increased in lethality to a point that multiple wounds can be considered better.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 08:35:38


Post by: Spoletta


Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoletta, your italian, ever heard of equal long pikes for everyone?

You either HAVE kill secondaries against ALL factions or you DON'T have them.

Having them only for a "few" skew type of lists which mostly cripple factions that are badly designed, is Neither fair nor balanced and stacks the deck.

Limitations upon kill secondaries would also be a really neat thing.


That wouldn't fix it. You just change the list of those good at not bleeding secondaries.

Even with that secondary, Harlequins would still not bleed any for example.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 08:57:25


Post by: Not Online!!!


Spoletta wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoletta, your italian, ever heard of equal long pikes for everyone?

You either HAVE kill secondaries against ALL factions or you DON'T have them.

Having them only for a "few" skew type of lists which mostly cripple factions that are badly designed, is Neither fair nor balanced and stacks the deck.

Limitations upon kill secondaries would also be a really neat thing.


That wouldn't fix it. You just change the list of those good at not bleeding secondaries.

Even with that secondary, Harlequins would still not bleed any for example.


Yeah , harlequins would still be an issue, but it would still be a better basis to start balance from then what we have now.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 09:23:53


Post by: PaddyMick


yukishiro1 wrote:
So the question then becomes: why did they deliberately leave off one of the ITC secondaries while keeping all the rest? Answers vary depend on your tinfoil quotient, but I think it's hard to say it's a complete coincidence that most of the new model releases to go with 9th edition are elite multi-wound squads.


So they made the rules to sell more models? Specifically a part of the rules that encourages you to field less models? Doesn't make sense.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 09:38:20


Post by: Spoletta


Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoletta, your italian, ever heard of equal long pikes for everyone?

You either HAVE kill secondaries against ALL factions or you DON'T have them.

Having them only for a "few" skew type of lists which mostly cripple factions that are badly designed, is Neither fair nor balanced and stacks the deck.

Limitations upon kill secondaries would also be a really neat thing.


That wouldn't fix it. You just change the list of those good at not bleeding secondaries.

Even with that secondary, Harlequins would still not bleed any for example.


Yeah , harlequins would still be an issue, but it would still be a better basis to start balance from then what we have now.


No, you wouldn't.


Right now you have a situation with 2 factions screwed, and half a dozen with an handicap.
In that way you would have ~15 factions screwed, half a dozen with an handicap and around a dozen lucky ones. Seems much worse to me.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 09:43:28


Post by: Not Online!!!


Then you don't understand the concept,
Basically , curb multiple choices of kill secondaries, implement a kill secondary against all armies, this would still be a better system then what we have now, where certain armies just get to pass, whilest other have hard counters via kill secondaries.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 10:01:40


Post by: shortymcnostrill


I'd be for removing all kill secondaries. I never liked the effect those had on itc either, leading to skew lists/limiting of viable units.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 11:47:41


Post by: Blackie


Spoletta wrote:



Right now you have a situation with 2 factions screwed, and half a dozen with an handicap.
In that way you would have ~15 factions screwed, half a dozen with an handicap and around a dozen lucky ones. Seems much worse to me.


It's not IF those 15ish factions would remain top tiers. All that matters is overall balance, not mirrored rules for each kind of models. I mean hordes, psykers and vehicles are all very capable regardless of the secondaries that might harm them, if they're not it's because of codexes creep for example meltas against vehicles. I ALWAYS bring tons of vehicles for my orks even if I auto concede 15 points for Bring It Down, same with sisters which I don't own but I played a lot proxying them. And both TS and GK aren't losing hard because of Abhor the Witch.

Now if those elite oriented factions get somehow hurt by a secondary that allows the opponent to easily score 10-15 VPs while remaining fairly competitive overall I honestly don't see a problem at all.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 12:10:15


Post by: the_scotsman


The purpose of a kill secondary is to counter a skew list, right? You should only be able to score 15 points on a kill secondary easily if your opponent has taken one particular unit type and composed his ENTIRE army of just that type of unit.

The ones that aren't working are the ones where it's pretty damn easy to max them even against a basic TAC list of several factions. Space Marines have piles of bikes, vehicles, dreadnoughts, etc that are not just MEQ infantry. There ought to be some objective you can easily max to 15 if your opponent's list is just 2000 points of MEQ infantry and supporting characters.

Playing Guard does not force you to have 2000 points of Leman Russ tanks. Playing Orks does not require 250 boyz.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 12:40:42


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


This would severely curtail all Custodes players, which is unfair.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 12:50:26


Post by: the_scotsman


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This would severely curtail all Custodes players, which is unfair.


Again: Does the existence of a secondary that gets maxed if you kill 150 models severely curtail all Ork players? IIRC Custodes players have a choice that includes other options besides "I have placed all 2000 points of my army into JUST INFANTRY keyword models". Custodes have Dreadnoughts, Custodes have bikers, Custodes have tanks. Even leaving out FW.

People keep comparing this to Abhor, but the problem with Abhor is unique. First, because it and it alone STACKS with other kill secondaries, since it is incorrectly in "Warpcraft" instead of the same category as Assassinate, meaning you can combo it and make ANY psyker character worth 8 points, and second because it offers a massive five points for a psyker character model and 3 for any psyker unit you kill.

Nobody (at least, nobody reasonable) is asking for an elite-killing equivalent of Abhor. they're asking for an elite-killing equivalent of Thin Their Ranks, which is still not by any means guaranteed even if you run up against a green tide ork list. If you don't get rid of all one hundred fifty models, you're not maxing that one, you better get to work.

...Also, Custodes are what, 45ppm at their cheapest? If this secondary is designed around 20ppm MEQ as a baseline as it should be, you probably couldn't max it even against a pure custodes army as they have 1/2 to 1/3 of a general MEQ list's bodycount. And if they could, it'd be like "if you get tabled, your opponent gets 15pts for tabling you."


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 14:19:20


Post by: Spoletta


 Blackie wrote:
Spoletta wrote:



Right now you have a situation with 2 factions screwed, and half a dozen with an handicap.
In that way you would have ~15 factions screwed, half a dozen with an handicap and around a dozen lucky ones. Seems much worse to me.


It's not IF those 15ish factions would remain top tiers. All that matters is overall balance, not mirrored rules for each kind of models. I mean hordes, psykers and vehicles are all very capable regardless of the secondaries that might harm them, if they're not it's because of codexes creep for example meltas against vehicles. I ALWAYS bring tons of vehicles for my orks even if I auto concede 15 points for Bring It Down, same with sisters which I don't own but I played a lot proxying them. And both TS and GK aren't losing hard because of Abhor the Witch.

Now if those elite oriented factions get somehow hurt by a secondary that allows the opponent to easily score 10-15 VPs while remaining fairly competitive overall I honestly don't see a problem at all.


Look, I can quote myself.
Spoletta wrote:


Let's not delude ourselves. The only reason why many players want such secondary is because it hurts SM, and hurting SM is good in everyone's book.



If SM weren't competitive, no one would care at all about this topic.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 14:22:17


Post by: Tycho



No, you wouldn't.


Right now you have a situation with 2 factions screwed, and half a dozen with an handicap.
In that way you would have ~15 factions screwed, half a dozen with an handicap and around a dozen lucky ones. Seems much worse to me.


But what if ... and hear me out - this is gonna sound CARAAAAZZZZZY! BUT .... what if we made them where NO ONE WAS AUTO-SCREWED!?

You think the existence of a secondary that targets elite infantry is bad because it targets the essential make up of a faction and all of its subfactions, but you're totes fine with the other factions that are targeted in this way? That's cool because it's not marines and not a majority? You're starting to sound like Karol's opposite.

The fact is, not a single one of the kill secondaries really does what it's suppose to do, and all of the non-kill secondaries are probably not pointed correctly. Most of them are harder to do, actually carry an opportunity cost and deliver fewer points. To quote a great man "That does not make sense."

People keep comparing this to Abhor, but the problem with Abhor is unique. First, because it and it alone STACKS with other kill secondaries, since it is incorrectly in "Warpcraft" instead of the same category as Assassinate, meaning you can combo it and make ANY psyker character worth 8 points, and second because it offers a massive five points for a psyker character model and 3 for any psyker unit you kill.


There is another problem with it. Yeah, you can play guard and not bring a ton of vehicles (I don't know why you would honestly but the fact remains that you CAN), same for Orks. A lot of the armies that are targeted by some of the sillier kill types can work around them to some extent. Usually makes for a worse army, but they CAN do it. There is no possible way for Tsons or Grey Knights to NOT have Psyker Characters. They don't even have to skew. Tsons filled out all 3 HQs? Great. 24 points for me! Just dumb.

I said in the other thread that I was fine with having kill secondaries as long as they were balanced better than the abortion of an attempt we currently have, but really, the more we talk about it, the more of a PITA it seems to become. We should probably just dump the kill secondaries entirely and look to rework the non-kill ones.

EDIT:

I mentioned a while back that my group had played enough 9th (several hundred games across 20 people playing 3-4 people in socially distanced garages) that we started to find land mines that others would eventually stumble across. I deliberately avoided specifying them because I wanted to see if was just us or a issue with the game. Since then pretty much everything we identified has turned out to be somewhat of an issue from the secondaries to the first turn advantage, to the fact that smaller tables are causing additional problems. I think 9th has a lot of potential, but it needsn some tweaks.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 14:33:36


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


First question here? And I feel the most important?

What is the definition of Elite Infantry?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 14:38:38


Post by: Tycho


Let's not delude ourselves. The only reason why many players want such secondary is because it hurts SM, and hurting SM is good in everyone's book.


It's not about "hurting" space marines. It's about wanting to be able to participate equally in the game. Crazy right? Imagine playing an army that will pretty much come into every single game giving up at least 15-24 points because the very nature of the army has been targeted by the kill secondaries (which, weirdly, don't even properly target the real "problem" units in 9th), and the vast majority of the time (because let's face it, in most cases marines will be 50+% of available opponents), you're playing against an army that literally gives up no secondaries at all. None.

If you don't see a problem with that IDK what to tell you, but it's not good for the game. Especially not when the non-kill secondaries aren't very good and on top of everything else, the army that doesn't give up secondaries, also happens to be on of the best in the game, AND the most numerous.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 14:45:59


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
First question here? And I feel the most important?

What is the definition of Elite Infantry?

Multiwound models with a 4+ or better save, in my book.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 14:55:32


Post by: the_scotsman


Spoletta wrote:


If SM weren't competitive, no one would care at all about this topic.


In your version of the universe, if SM were underpowered, DG, Harlequins or Custodes would not be the baseline army to beat?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 14:57:39


Post by: Not Online!!!


the_scotsman wrote:
Spoletta wrote:


If SM weren't competitive, no one would care at all about this topic.


In your version of the universe, if SM were underpowered, DG, Harlequins or Custodes would not be the baseline army to beat?


it's as if elite infantry is a bit off an issue due to beeing the only type of unit not beeing penalised via kill secondaries.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 15:01:32


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
First question here? And I feel the most important?

What is the definition of Elite Infantry?

Multiwound models with a 4+ or better save, in my book.


For thought (and not a gotcha type thing!), Necron Immortals and Deathmarks don’t meet that (T5, 1W, 3+ Sv), but Triarch Praetorians and Lychguard would (T5, 2W, 3+Sv)

All four are, for my money, a greater threat than Bog Standard Marines, due to role and equipment load outs.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 15:04:07


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
First question here? And I feel the most important?

What is the definition of Elite Infantry?

Multiwound models with a 4+ or better save, in my book.

I believe that ITC's Gangbusters secondary was for any unit that contained multiple 3+ wound models, but I could definitely see that definition being changed to affect 2W models with 4+ or better armour saves. A bit too easy to leave the terminators, gravis, or Possessed at home.

Edit: Good point on Immortals and Death Marks Doc. Maybe it should be based on PPM?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 15:06:30


Post by: Spoletta


Tycho wrote:

No, you wouldn't.


Right now you have a situation with 2 factions screwed, and half a dozen with an handicap.
In that way you would have ~15 factions screwed, half a dozen with an handicap and around a dozen lucky ones. Seems much worse to me.


But what if ... and hear me out - this is gonna sound CARAAAAZZZZZY! BUT .... what if we made them where NO ONE WAS AUTO-SCREWED!?

You think the existence of a secondary that targets elite infantry is bad because it targets the essential make up of a faction and all of its subfactions, but you're totes fine with the other factions that are targeted in this way? That's cool because it's not marines and not a majority? You're starting to sound like Karol's opposite.

The fact is, not a single one of the kill secondaries really does what it's suppose to do, and all of the non-kill secondaries are probably not pointed correctly. Most of them are harder to do, actually carry an opportunity cost and deliver fewer points. To quote a great man "That does not make sense."



So you do agree with me that a secondary which targets elite infantry is bad and just makes the problem worse instead of fixing it?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 15:10:29


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
First question here? And I feel the most important?

What is the definition of Elite Infantry?

Multiwound models with a 4+ or better save, in my book.


For thought (and not a gotcha type thing!), Necron Immortals and Deathmarks don’t meet that (T5, 1W, 3+ Sv), but Triarch Praetorians and Lychguard would (T5, 2W, 3+Sv)

All four are, for my money, a greater threat than Bog Standard Marines, due to role and equipment load outs.


I disagree, playing my Slaanesh Daemons. I'd dramatically rather prefer to fight Necron Immortals and Deathmarks in melee than bog standard marines. Conversely, less so against Triarch Praetorians and Lychguard. That also means that necron immortals and deathmarks are, on the main, easier to kill than your bog standard marine (even if they're harder to keep down).


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 15:13:39


Post by: Spoletta


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
First question here? And I feel the most important?

What is the definition of Elite Infantry?

Multiwound models with a 4+ or better save, in my book.

I believe that ITC's Gangbusters secondary was for any unit that contained multiple 3+ wound models, but I could definitely see that definition being changed to affect 2W models with 4+ or better armour saves. A bit too easy to leave the terminators, gravis, or Possessed at home.

Edit: Good point on Immortals and Death Marks Doc. Maybe it should be based on PPM?


ITC ganbuster is a bad basis for a discussion. It has always been the most troublesome secondary of the packet.

Unfortunately there is no way to define the elite models without leaving something out. You can't define them by the wounds, you can't define them by the armor save, you can't define them by thoughness. PPm is probably the only way to define it, but PPM changes based on gear, so you are opening another can of worms.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 15:23:31


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Spoletta wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
First question here? And I feel the most important?

What is the definition of Elite Infantry?

Multiwound models with a 4+ or better save, in my book.

I believe that ITC's Gangbusters secondary was for any unit that contained multiple 3+ wound models, but I could definitely see that definition being changed to affect 2W models with 4+ or better armour saves. A bit too easy to leave the terminators, gravis, or Possessed at home.

Edit: Good point on Immortals and Death Marks Doc. Maybe it should be based on PPM?


ITC ganbuster is a bad basis for a discussion. It has always been the most troublesome secondary of the packet.

Unfortunately there is no way to define the elite models without leaving something out. You can't define them by the wounds, you can't define them by the armor save, you can't define them by thoughness. PPm is probably the only way to define it, but PPM changes based on gear, so you are opening another can of worms.


Why can't you? What's wrong with saying "multiwound models with a 4+ or better save"?

You even quoted my message without telling me why my definition is bad.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 15:31:19


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


In response to Spoletta?

We can’t properly discuss a rule implementation without first defining what it is that’s going to be affected.

Would Necron Warriors (T4, W1, 4+So, pretty reliable resurrection) count? They’re a pain to shift, even without RP specific builds.

If not, why not. Again please note this is not me picking at people or specific opinions.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 15:35:04


Post by: Blackie


Spoletta wrote:


If SM weren't competitive, no one would care at all about this topic.


Probably. But that's also why a secondary like this one would be good for the game's health.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:


So you do agree with me that a secondary which targets elite infantry is bad and just makes the problem worse instead of fixing it?


I still don't get why it would be bad. It's a tool to counter skew lists, and some of those skew lists can be impossible to deal with for some TAC armies. Hence an answer to balance things off would be good.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 15:42:01


Post by: Spoletta


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
First question here? And I feel the most important?

What is the definition of Elite Infantry?

Multiwound models with a 4+ or better save, in my book.

I believe that ITC's Gangbusters secondary was for any unit that contained multiple 3+ wound models, but I could definitely see that definition being changed to affect 2W models with 4+ or better armour saves. A bit too easy to leave the terminators, gravis, or Possessed at home.

Edit: Good point on Immortals and Death Marks Doc. Maybe it should be based on PPM?


ITC ganbuster is a bad basis for a discussion. It has always been the most troublesome secondary of the packet.

Unfortunately there is no way to define the elite models without leaving something out. You can't define them by the wounds, you can't define them by the armor save, you can't define them by thoughness. PPm is probably the only way to define it, but PPM changes based on gear, so you are opening another can of worms.


Why can't you? What's wrong with saying "multiwound models with a 4+ or better save"?

You even quoted my message without telling me why my definition is bad.


Because for example a lot of elite infantries are 1W.
Immortals are one, but also pretty much all elite aspect warriors. Harlequins are clearly elite infantries but are 1W. Aberrants are clearly elite with 2W and high PPM, but have a 5+ save.
Is an elite infantry defined only by the defensive profile or by the whole package? For example, is a repentia an elite infantry for you? Each of them costs quite a bit of points afterall. What about a genestealer?
How would you consider a Witchseeker? A Tzaangor enlightened? A flamer of Tzeentch?

There are dozens of examples of elite infantries that don't fit in your definition, simply because with a vast range of models like the one of this game, the ways you can be elite are enormous.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 15:48:01


Post by: Karol


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[

Why can't you? What's wrong with saying "multiwound models with a 4+ or better save"?

You even quoted my message without telling me why my definition is bad.

because for some armies you just described not an elite trooper, but a regular unit. And I really don't want my units to give up 15VPs for the "kill the marines" secondary and 15pts for AtW at the same time, with no way to counter.

But that's also why a secondary like this one would be good for the game's health.

how would making the game less fun for majority of the playfield count as good for the health of the game, not to mention that is screws over armies that already suffer from kill secondaries.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 15:52:02


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I think you have to define Elite faction as a faction that (deep breath) uses mostly Elite Slot units.

Custodes
Astartes (All colors and types)
Necrons

Now that begs the question, is an Elite unit just a keyword or does it need a stricter definition. I think somebody said above and I agree. Multi-wound (EDIT) models, with a 2+ save. I would also add: has access to special strats and abilities not available to basic troops. Characters basically. Everything in the Custodes line could be a character in any other army. Take Wardens: 3W models, with a 2+4++6+++, and WS/BS 2+. Also a whole slew of special strats and abilities. Basically character strength.

I don't think it should be based off cost per model though....


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 15:58:56


Post by: Karol


If my termins ever get updated then a +2 dude with an inv save and 3W doesn't seem very far off from my troop option.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 15:59:36


Post by: Unit1126PLL


See, I wouldn't define Aspect Warriors as elite, nor would I define Immortals as elite.

Aspect Warriors are worse than Militarum Tempestus? Are they elite? Are skitarii? I think not.

Immortals might be hard to shift, but they're not really in the same league as intercessors or nobs or basic tactical marines. I don't even think they're as good as Flash Gitz, except that they have obsec and are cheaper (i.e. have attributes of non-elite units). And have RP, which is an army trait that applies to Necron Warriors. Are Necron Warriors elite, because they're also hard to shift? They're harder to shift than Immortals.

I think if you include things like Aspect Warriors especially, you have to start including MT and Skitarii. MT aren't too much better than Kabalites with deep strike, who are basically IG veterans.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 16:00:26


Post by: CommunistNapkin


Just a thought, but what if the kill secondaries moved away from killing specific unit types (vehicles/monsters, characters, psykers, etc.) to killing units based on battlefield role? For example, there could be a kill secondary for removing HQ models, Fast Attacks, Elites, Heavy Supports, Aircraft, Dedicated Transports, and Super Heavies. I'd definitely leave off troops, and obviously all of these would have to be in a single category. Then remove all the other kill secondaries. Something like that would punish lists who skewed heavily into one battlefield role, but a TAC list with a few of everything couldn't be maxed out against.

Or alternatively, just remove the kill secondaries altogether.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 16:45:46


Post by: Tycho


So you do agree with me that a secondary which targets elite infantry is bad and just makes the problem worse instead of fixing it?


I'm not sure I am honestly. You are on record as saying they exist to "control skew". The problem is, they flat out don't. They absolutely do not, and the units they do target, are already struggling in 9th thanks to the new rules. The very things the kill secondaries are aimed at, were already sufficiently nerfed by the 9th ed rules themselves, or were never actually problems in the first place. They are solutions in search of problems.

So my preference is, honestly, to get rid of all of the kill secondaries. They are flat out trash and I think eliminating them is the cleanest solution with the least fallout. BUT, if that's not going to happen (and let's face it, it probably won't), then I'm all for a secondary that can be maxed against marines. That condition is significantly better for the health of the game than what we have now.

Making the faction that is already both the most numerous as well as one of the best also completely immune to an entire portion of the game? Nope. Not a fan.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 16:54:09


Post by: Spoletta


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
See, I wouldn't define Aspect Warriors as elite, nor would I define Immortals as elite.

Aspect Warriors are worse than Militarum Tempestus? Are they elite? Are skitarii? I think not.

Immortals might be hard to shift, but they're not really in the same league as intercessors or nobs or basic tactical marines. I don't even think they're as good as Flash Gitz, except that they have obsec and are cheaper (i.e. have attributes of non-elite units). And have RP, which is an army trait that applies to Necron Warriors. Are Necron Warriors elite, because they're also hard to shift? They're harder to shift than Immortals.

I think if you include things like Aspect Warriors especially, you have to start including MT and Skitarii. MT aren't too much better than Kabalites with deep strike, who are basically IG veterans.


I said ELITE aspect warriors. Not guardians, not dire avengers.

Warp spiders are not on the level of a skitarii. Dark reapers are not militarum tempestus.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 16:54:35


Post by: yukishiro1


Kill secondaries are trash, but if you're going to have them, it makes absolutely zero sense not to have one that punishes skewing out on 3W+ models. I dunno why y'all are arguing over the definition in ITC (non-troops 3W+ multi-model units) that worked just fine.

Which, contrary to the one guy's objections, would impact quins too, as their bikes would be covered.

The fact that they ported over all the ITC secondaries except gangbusters is inexplicable from a balance point of view...well, until you remember that many of the new 9th edition releases are squads that would be covered by gangbusters if it existed.





Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 17:42:11


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


yukishiro1 wrote:
Kill secondaries are trash, but if you're going to have them, it makes absolutely zero sense not to have one that punishes skewing out on 3W+ models. I dunno why y'all are arguing over the definition in ITC (non-troops 3W+ multi-model units) that worked just fine.

Which, contrary to the one guy's objections, would impact quins too, as their bikes would be covered.

The fact that they ported over all the ITC secondaries except gangbusters is inexplicable from a balance point of view...well, until you remember that many of the new 9th edition releases are squads that would be covered by gangbusters if it existed.





I think people quantified "Infantry models" unless I am mistaken. That would mean most bikes, dreadnaughts, and stuff are exempted. I think that would balance it out nicely.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 18:11:49


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
See, I wouldn't define Aspect Warriors as elite, nor would I define Immortals as elite.

Aspect Warriors are worse than Militarum Tempestus? Are they elite? Are skitarii? I think not.

Immortals might be hard to shift, but they're not really in the same league as intercessors or nobs or basic tactical marines. I don't even think they're as good as Flash Gitz, except that they have obsec and are cheaper (i.e. have attributes of non-elite units). And have RP, which is an army trait that applies to Necron Warriors. Are Necron Warriors elite, because they're also hard to shift? They're harder to shift than Immortals.

I think if you include things like Aspect Warriors especially, you have to start including MT and Skitarii. MT aren't too much better than Kabalites with deep strike, who are basically IG veterans.


I said ELITE aspect warriors. Not guardians, not dire avengers.

Warp spiders are not on the level of a skitarii. Dark reapers are not militarum tempestus.


Banshees are elite aspect warriors, and are basically crappy versions of the hoplite skitarii. Swooping Hawks are elite aspect warriors, and functionally indistinguishable from MT (their only unique thing is their grenade pack which isn't very good). Fire Dragons are an elite aspect warrior, and their only difference from a melta command squad is 1 slightly better armor (and worse guns that don't get the melta rule) and model count.

Meanwhile, Dire Avengers are not nearly the level of devastators and Warp Spiders are not nearly the level of plasma inceptors.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 18:14:45


Post by: Spoletta


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
See, I wouldn't define Aspect Warriors as elite, nor would I define Immortals as elite.

Aspect Warriors are worse than Militarum Tempestus? Are they elite? Are skitarii? I think not.

Immortals might be hard to shift, but they're not really in the same league as intercessors or nobs or basic tactical marines. I don't even think they're as good as Flash Gitz, except that they have obsec and are cheaper (i.e. have attributes of non-elite units). And have RP, which is an army trait that applies to Necron Warriors. Are Necron Warriors elite, because they're also hard to shift? They're harder to shift than Immortals.

I think if you include things like Aspect Warriors especially, you have to start including MT and Skitarii. MT aren't too much better than Kabalites with deep strike, who are basically IG veterans.


I said ELITE aspect warriors. Not guardians, not dire avengers.

Warp spiders are not on the level of a skitarii. Dark reapers are not militarum tempestus.


Banshees are elite aspect warriors, and are basically crappy versions of the hoplite skitarii. Swooping Hawks are elite aspect warriors, and functionally indistinguishable from MT (their only unique thing is their grenade pack which isn't very good). Fire Dragons are an elite aspect warrior, and their only difference from a melta command squad is 1 slightly better armor (and worse guns that don't get the melta rule) and model count.

Meanwhile, Dire Avengers are not nearly the level of devastators and Warp Spiders are not nearly the level of plasma inceptors.


So you are saying that taking down a 30+ ppm model should be worth the same as taking down a 5 ppm model. So the assassination secondary is perfectly done for you I guess.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 18:17:01


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
See, I wouldn't define Aspect Warriors as elite, nor would I define Immortals as elite.

Aspect Warriors are worse than Militarum Tempestus? Are they elite? Are skitarii? I think not.

Immortals might be hard to shift, but they're not really in the same league as intercessors or nobs or basic tactical marines. I don't even think they're as good as Flash Gitz, except that they have obsec and are cheaper (i.e. have attributes of non-elite units). And have RP, which is an army trait that applies to Necron Warriors. Are Necron Warriors elite, because they're also hard to shift? They're harder to shift than Immortals.

I think if you include things like Aspect Warriors especially, you have to start including MT and Skitarii. MT aren't too much better than Kabalites with deep strike, who are basically IG veterans.


I said ELITE aspect warriors. Not guardians, not dire avengers.

Warp spiders are not on the level of a skitarii. Dark reapers are not militarum tempestus.


Banshees are elite aspect warriors, and are basically crappy versions of the hoplite skitarii. Swooping Hawks are elite aspect warriors, and functionally indistinguishable from MT (their only unique thing is their grenade pack which isn't very good). Fire Dragons are an elite aspect warrior, and their only difference from a melta command squad is 1 slightly better armor (and worse guns that don't get the melta rule) and model count.

Meanwhile, Dire Avengers are not nearly the level of devastators and Warp Spiders are not nearly the level of plasma inceptors.


So you are saying that taking down a 30+ ppm model should be worth the same as taking down a 5 ppm model. So the assassination secondary is perfectly done for you I guess.


No, I'm saying you're misdefining elite infantry. I never made a claim about 'worth'. Furthermore, I would never make such a claim, because GW's points costs are not accurate representations of a unit's effectiveness on the battlefield.

When you're done wasting your time, do try to clean up the straw you've left all over the floor.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 18:30:40


Post by: the_scotsman


Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
See, I wouldn't define Aspect Warriors as elite, nor would I define Immortals as elite.

Aspect Warriors are worse than Militarum Tempestus? Are they elite? Are skitarii? I think not.

Immortals might be hard to shift, but they're not really in the same league as intercessors or nobs or basic tactical marines. I don't even think they're as good as Flash Gitz, except that they have obsec and are cheaper (i.e. have attributes of non-elite units). And have RP, which is an army trait that applies to Necron Warriors. Are Necron Warriors elite, because they're also hard to shift? They're harder to shift than Immortals.

I think if you include things like Aspect Warriors especially, you have to start including MT and Skitarii. MT aren't too much better than Kabalites with deep strike, who are basically IG veterans.


I said ELITE aspect warriors. Not guardians, not dire avengers.

Warp spiders are not on the level of a skitarii. Dark reapers are not militarum tempestus.


Banshees are elite aspect warriors, and are basically crappy versions of the hoplite skitarii. Swooping Hawks are elite aspect warriors, and functionally indistinguishable from MT (their only unique thing is their grenade pack which isn't very good). Fire Dragons are an elite aspect warrior, and their only difference from a melta command squad is 1 slightly better armor (and worse guns that don't get the melta rule) and model count.

Meanwhile, Dire Avengers are not nearly the level of devastators and Warp Spiders are not nearly the level of plasma inceptors.


So you are saying that taking down a 30+ ppm model should be worth the same as taking down a 5 ppm model. So the assassination secondary is perfectly done for you I guess.


Pro tip, just, in general for the internet:

If you type the words "So You're Saying" at the beginning of every reply, the answer is "no."

Just saving you some time there for life in general, The answer to "So you're saying" is always always always no, because nobody says "So You're Saying" and then doesn't write something that isn't made of straw.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 18:47:58


Post by: AnomanderRake


the_scotsman wrote:
...Pro tip, just, in general for the internet:

If you type the words "So You're Saying" at the beginning of every reply, the answer is "no."

Just saving you some time there for life in general, The answer to "So you're saying" is always always always no, because nobody says "So You're Saying" and then doesn't write something that isn't made of straw.


So you're saying there's absolutely no context in which using "so you're saying..." for rhetorical effect or to request clarification is appropriate?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 18:53:06


Post by: Blackie


Spoletta wrote:


Because for example a lot of elite infantries are 1W.
Immortals are one, but also pretty much all elite aspect warriors. Harlequins are clearly elite infantries but are 1W. Aberrants are clearly elite with 2W and high PPM, but have a 5+ save.
Is an elite infantry defined only by the defensive profile or by the whole package? For example, is a repentia an elite infantry for you? Each of them costs quite a bit of points afterall. What about a genestealer?
How would you consider a Witchseeker? A Tzaangor enlightened? A flamer of Tzeentch?

There are dozens of examples of elite infantries that don't fit in your definition, simply because with a vast range of models like the one of this game, the ways you can be elite are enormous.


This wouldn't be an issue at all. No one is asking for a secondary that hurts elites, we're asking a secondary that hurts infantry models with 3 or more wounds. Those harlequins, repentias, aberrants and even classic power armour marines wouldn't be affected at all.

Other units like meganobz would be affected but if someone brings just one or maybe two units of 3+ wounds models, along with cheaper dudes and vehicles, a secondary that hurts them is not that effective, therefore it wouldn't hurt the army.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 20:11:45


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Karol wrote:
No thank you. I already have a secondary that gives up max points to my opponent just by virtue of killing my stuff. I really don't need another one. Unless if taking the secondary comes with some real sever handicaps to the person going for it.


I'm not sure what I think. Imperial Guard already faces yielding 2 for full secondaries for destruction, and at a rate of 4 points per vehicle no less because they double-dip Thin Their Ranks and Bring it Down. So like, other factions have it way worse than GK.
However, I agree that no faction should structurally give up 2 full secondaries just for existing, like IG does, particularly when factions like SM go around giving up none. [and FYI, anyone saying like "This is fair because SM give up Engage or something is a load of crap. They don't give it up any more than anyone else does, and they're abnormally good at scoring it for themselves to boot.]


I definitely think that if we're going to have kill secondaries:
No faction should structurally be able to yield 2 simultaneous in the same game
No faction should structurally be able to avoid yielding without jumping through hoops
No secondaries should double-dip with each other. [IE: Thin Their Ranks and Bring it Down]


First pass solutions would be:
Move Thin Their Ranks, Bring it Down, Assassinate, and Abhor the Witch to be in the same category ["Purge the Enemy"], so you can't take any two of them together.
Remove the clause about adding 1 VP per vehicle with 11+ wounds from Thin Their Ranks. Seriously, why is this in the objective for killing light infantry hordes?
Change Bring it Down so that dreadnoughts and pengines aren't advantaged score-wise over tanks. Seriously, especially with duty eternal they're no less tough than killing a Rhino or Razorback, they're in fact probably tougher. Either making all vehicles 3 points, or all vehicles 2 points, would work, depending on how easy it should be to score.
Send Cut off the Head to replace Thin Their Ranks in "No Mercy, No Respite". It's not really pertinent to killing anything specific built into a list, everyone has a warlord, it doesn't belong in a category with the other anti-skew kill objectives.

Create an objective that should generally be able to be scored easily against SM or Custodes lists that aren't heavily into vehicles:
-- An all-infantry SM list [at least mine] averages around 15 3+ wound infantry/biker/cavalry models and around 30-40 2 wound infantry models.
-- Killing about 40%-50% of this force should give full credit for the objective [40%-50% by points is comparable with Thin Their Ranks, Bring it Down, and Abhor the Witch, which requires about 750-1000 points of light infantry, 600-750 points of vehicles, or about 600-1000 points of GK/Tsons respectively to score out]
-- Therefore, I would propose a wording like "score 1 point for: every model with 3+ wounds destroyed [~750 points of Custodes or Terminators or Thundercav], and every 3 models with 2 wounds destroyed [~1200 points of Marines]"
This wording would be roughly on par with Bring it Down and Abhor the Witch in terms of ease of scorability.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 20:21:22


Post by: Spoletta


 Blackie wrote:
Spoletta wrote:


Because for example a lot of elite infantries are 1W.
Immortals are one, but also pretty much all elite aspect warriors. Harlequins are clearly elite infantries but are 1W. Aberrants are clearly elite with 2W and high PPM, but have a 5+ save.
Is an elite infantry defined only by the defensive profile or by the whole package? For example, is a repentia an elite infantry for you? Each of them costs quite a bit of points afterall. What about a genestealer?
How would you consider a Witchseeker? A Tzaangor enlightened? A flamer of Tzeentch?

There are dozens of examples of elite infantries that don't fit in your definition, simply because with a vast range of models like the one of this game, the ways you can be elite are enormous.


This wouldn't be an issue at all. No one is asking for a secondary that hurts elites, we're asking a secondary that hurts infantry models with 3 or more wounds. Those harlequins, repentias, aberrants and even classic power armour marines wouldn't be affected at all.

Other units like meganobz would be affected but if someone brings just one or maybe two units of 3+ wounds models, along with cheaper dudes and vehicles, a secondary that hurts them is not that effective, therefore it wouldn't hurt the army.


Wait, that's different.

3 or more wound models is a different definition and something to which I can agree with.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 20:23:03


Post by: Beardedragon


bat702 wrote:
basically like thin their ranks or bring it down but something that rewards you for killing multiple wound high save infantry


yes thank god im playing Orks against my friend who plays Custodies, and there are so few secondaries that work for me.

Absolutely nothing related to killing suits killing elites


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 20:24:56


Post by: Spoletta


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
See, I wouldn't define Aspect Warriors as elite, nor would I define Immortals as elite.

Aspect Warriors are worse than Militarum Tempestus? Are they elite? Are skitarii? I think not.

Immortals might be hard to shift, but they're not really in the same league as intercessors or nobs or basic tactical marines. I don't even think they're as good as Flash Gitz, except that they have obsec and are cheaper (i.e. have attributes of non-elite units). And have RP, which is an army trait that applies to Necron Warriors. Are Necron Warriors elite, because they're also hard to shift? They're harder to shift than Immortals.

I think if you include things like Aspect Warriors especially, you have to start including MT and Skitarii. MT aren't too much better than Kabalites with deep strike, who are basically IG veterans.


I said ELITE aspect warriors. Not guardians, not dire avengers.

Warp spiders are not on the level of a skitarii. Dark reapers are not militarum tempestus.


Banshees are elite aspect warriors, and are basically crappy versions of the hoplite skitarii. Swooping Hawks are elite aspect warriors, and functionally indistinguishable from MT (their only unique thing is their grenade pack which isn't very good). Fire Dragons are an elite aspect warrior, and their only difference from a melta command squad is 1 slightly better armor (and worse guns that don't get the melta rule) and model count.

Meanwhile, Dire Avengers are not nearly the level of devastators and Warp Spiders are not nearly the level of plasma inceptors.


So you are saying that taking down a 30+ ppm model should be worth the same as taking down a 5 ppm model. So the assassination secondary is perfectly done for you I guess.


No, I'm saying you're misdefining elite infantry. I never made a claim about 'worth'. Furthermore, I would never make such a claim, because GW's points costs are not accurate representations of a unit's effectiveness on the battlefield.

When you're done wasting your time, do try to clean up the straw you've left all over the floor.


Just trying to show you why what you say is illogic.

There is no definition of elite infantry, you fabricated one for yourself, but it is by far not a shared definition. For me for example there is no world where a Dark Reaper isn't an elite infantry.

You can't make a secondary if you can't make a definition for it.

You are the only one in here "misdefining" things.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 20:26:05


Post by: yukishiro1


The context to all of this is that ITC had that very secondary, and GW copied the ITC secondaries with minor tweaks, except that they "oddly" left off the one that would cover gravis (and necron destroyers). All they had to do was keep that secondary, but they removed it, for reasons which they have never owned up to. Meanwhile, more than half of the new releases fall into the category that secondary would cover.

It's a very convenient coincidence, if that's what it is.




Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 20:27:10


Post by: Spoletta


Beardedragon wrote:
bat702 wrote:
basically like thin their ranks or bring it down but something that rewards you for killing multiple wound high save infantry


yes thank god im playing Orks against my friend who plays Custodies, and there are so few secondaries that work for me.

Absolutely nothing related to killing suits killing elites


Except that such secondary wouldn't do you any good in that case.

The "quality" of a custodes wound is completely different to the wounds of other models. They are T5 2+.

Any secondary which is based on wounds would never be good against custodes. If it did, it would mean that it is absolutely broken against other more common models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The context to all of this is that ITC had that very secondary, and GW copied the ITC secondaries with minor tweaks, except that they "oddly" left off the one that would cover gravis (and necron destroyers). All they had to do was keep that secondary, but they removed it, for reasons which they have never owned up to. Meanwhile, more than half of the new releases fall into the category that secondary would cover.

It's a very convenient coincidence, if that's what it is.




Gangbuster many times in the history of ITC, simply because they could never make it right.
Not to mention that we are not even talking about the same thing, because gangbuster was NOT against elite infantry, but 3W+ models (it was specifically aimed at Centurions).

Now if you want a secondary which works against Gravis skew, then we can talk because that has its merits, but it is my impression that what the people want in this thread is something to punish PEQ.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 20:33:29


Post by: Tycho


Now if you want a secondary which works against Gravis skew, then we can talk because that has its merits, but it is my impression that what the people want in this thread is something to punish PEQ.


No. Some want that. Most just think it's silly that PEQ can simply ignore being scored on ...



Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 20:36:41


Post by: Spoletta


Tycho wrote:
Now if you want a secondary which works against Gravis skew, then we can talk because that has its merits, but it is my impression that what the people want in this thread is something to punish PEQ.


No. Some want that. Most just think it's silly that PEQ can simply ignore being scored on ...



They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.

Faction balance is a thing. If faction balance is bad you act on the mission balance.
Mission design is another thing. You don't change mission design to nerf a faction.

Basic rules for game design.

There is nothing that punishes banshees either. Where's all the threads about that?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 20:37:29


Post by: Canadian 5th


Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoletta, your italian, ever heard of equal long pikes for everyone?

You either HAVE kill secondaries against ALL factions or you DON'T have them.

Having them only for a "few" skew type of lists which mostly cripple factions that are badly designed, is Neither fair nor balanced and stacks the deck.

Limitations upon kill secondaries would also be a really neat thing.

If it stacks the deck so well why are there so many factions that don't run elite infantry doing well?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 20:44:06


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Spoletta wrote:
Just trying to show you why what you say is illogic.

Well, you haven't.

Spoletta wrote:
There is no definition of elite infantry, you fabricated one for yourself, but it is by far not a shared definition.

No, it isn't a shared one. I proposed it because I think it is reasonable.

Spoletta wrote:
For me for example there is no world where a Dark Reaper isn't an elite infantry.

What makes it elite in your mind that's different than, say, an IG Veteran HWT with a missile launcher?
The 3+ save? Because the IG team has twice the wounds.
The hitting on a 3+ all the time instead of a 4+ all the time and sometimes 3+? Sure, but if "a special rule" is all that's required to make infantry elite, then Daemonettes are elite infantry.
Stratagem access? The IG vet HWT has stratagem access.

Spoletta wrote:
You can't make a secondary if you can't make a definition for it.

Which is why I proposed a definition, obviously.

Spoletta wrote:
You are the only one in here "misdefining" things.

You haven't actually shown why my definition is inadequate other than "I disagree with it" which, while certainly valid, leaves something to be desired.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 20:47:24


Post by: Tycho


They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.


Some do and they are easy to ignore. It doesn't make it right that the largest faction in the game can completely ignore a significant part of the game.

Faction balance is a thing. If faction balance is bad you act on the mission balance.
Mission design is another thing. You don't change mission design to nerf a faction.

Basic rules for game design.


Uh huh. And if faction balance is bad, and mission balance is bad? If the marines were just average tier, A lot of people would still be saying it's a bit naf to let the biggest faction ignore this. Call me crazy but that just seems like "Basic rules for game design" to me ...

There is nothing that punishes banshees either. Where's all the threads about that?


Right - Because you often see entire armies of ... oh wait no you don't. That's a spurious point at best and not really what we're talking about here is it?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 20:55:15


Post by: Canadian 5th


Tycho wrote:
They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.


Some do and they are easy to ignore. It doesn't make it right that the largest faction in the game can completely ignore a significant part of the game.

It doesn't make it wrong either, which is the point you're missing.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 21:19:50


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Spoletta wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Now if you want a secondary which works against Gravis skew, then we can talk because that has its merits, but it is my impression that what the people want in this thread is something to punish PEQ.


No. Some want that. Most just think it's silly that PEQ can simply ignore being scored on ...



They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.

Faction balance is a thing. If faction balance is bad you act on the mission balance.
Mission design is another thing. You don't change mission design to nerf a faction.

Basic rules for game design.

There is nothing that punishes banshees either. Where's all the threads about that?


The missions should also be generally equal towards all factions attempting them. This isn't the case.

Guard, for example, for showing up to the game with just about any list, give up essentially a full 30 points for their tanks and infantry. There's a lot more points on the table to score against them because there are two secondaries that simultaneously punish their only real defensive line profiles, and even go as far as to double-dip each other.
Space Marines, on the other hand, will rarely even have 45 points available to score from secondaries on the table, even accounting for Engage/Linebreaker and Banners/Scramblers. And, of course, Engage and Banners are equally well scorable against Guard, so Guard just offers a much easier scoring time and has a harder time at the mission because the mission is heavily biased against it.

This has nothing to do with faction balance, or the fact that Guard is also just not structurally very strong. Even if Guard had very powerful units, they'd still be playing the game some 20-30 points in the hole because of the secondaries. When one player has 90 points to score and the other player has 75, that's a failure of mission balance.


I would say that given what we have, secondary selection against any given average faction should generally look like:
1 secondary that you jump through some hoop yourself to do with some interaction. [Banners, Scramblers, Ritual, While We Stand]
1 secondary based on your control of the board [Engage, Linebreaker, etc.]
1 secondary based on destruction of whatever is most prevalent in the enemy army.

It's important to observe that that first category requires you to do something you wouldn't normally do towards effecting a victory to get those points. It has a negative effect on your game play, rather than just being points for progressing the mission and conducting normal play. If you, on the other hand, can replace that one with a kill secondary, then you have an easier mission, because none of your units have to stop to take actions or put themselves out of position or anything. Just play the game as you were going to, and get your points. On the other hand, if you don't give up a kill secondary, then your opponent has to take a second one from that first category, which makes the game harder for them through the inverse principle.

And there's actually no compensation for Guard or Tyranids or any other vehicles & light infantry army. There isn't a secondary that they can score better than Space Marines or Custodes or Sisters because they have an army full of tanks and light infantry, and they're worse at primary to boot due to lack of good staying power against general melee.

So, because missions should be equal for all armies participating, it really shouldn't be the case where the basic archetype of some armies is double-dipped on simultaneous secondaries and some armies won't ever give up any points for their list formulation. That's inherently unequal mission design, and that's why there should be an objective that yields points for destroying multiwound infantry, biker, and cavalry models. [or, alternatively, remove kill secondaries entirely]


One thing to note is that it doesn't take a skew list to give up full credit for Bring it Down, Thin Their Ranks, or Abhor the Witch.
As I mentioned, Bring it Down requires you to kill 5 vehicles. Most vehicles are between 100 and 200 points, averaging around 150 points. That's only about 750 points of vehicles to destroy to score full credit for the objective. Nobody would call a list with 5 assorted vehicles a skew list.
Abhor the Witch requires you to kill 5 psychic units. That's about 500 points of Strikes or Rubrics, and about 1000 points of heavier GK and Tsons units, still averaging around 750 points of units.
Thin Their Ranks is a little higher bar, but tanks also count for it. But exclusively on infantry, it takes 150 infantry, which for a light infantry army like Guard, Tyranids, or Orks is around 1000 points. The only reason it's tougher is because the detachment structure and low quality of basically all light infantry but Boyz often restricts the total light infantry body count to less than 150, but vehicles and support infantry units also provide credit for this objective to make up the difference.


You only have to kill about 1/3 of the enemy force to score the kill secondaries, which makes the lack of one to affect multiwound infantry models more egregious. There's an argument that it should be 3+ save infantry to catch the marine-like but single-wound Sisters as well, but at least right now Sisters are usually presenting Bring it Down due to having a greater reliance on vehicles, so exclusively hitting multiwound infantry would probably be okay.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 21:19:55


Post by: Tycho


It doesn't make it wrong either, which is the point you're missing.


What? Yes. It does. It is 100% wrong that a faction simply gets to say "What that? That major portion of the new edition? Yeah, we don't do that." It's sloppy design at best and incredibly jaded at worst.

The missions should also be generally equal towards all factions attempting them. This isn't the case.


Precisely.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 21:26:57


Post by: Canadian 5th


Tycho wrote:
It doesn't make it wrong either, which is the point you're missing.


What? Yes. It does. It is 100% wrong that a faction simply gets to say "What that? That major portion of the new edition? Yeah, we don't do that." It's sloppy design at best and incredibly jaded at worst.

Why? There's no moral wrongness to a game being unfair. There isn't even anything to say that 40k is designed to be fair. Seriously, scan the rules and tell me where GW have promised you a fair and balanced experience.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 21:28:38


Post by: Spoletta


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoiler:
Spoletta wrote:
Just trying to show you why what you say is illogic.

Well, you haven't.

Spoletta wrote:
There is no definition of elite infantry, you fabricated one for yourself, but it is by far not a shared definition.

No, it isn't a shared one. I proposed it because I think it is reasonable.

Spoletta wrote:
For me for example there is no world where a Dark Reaper isn't an elite infantry.

What makes it elite in your mind that's different than, say, an IG Veteran HWT with a missile launcher?
The 3+ save? Because the IG team has twice the wounds.
The hitting on a 3+ all the time instead of a 4+ all the time and sometimes 3+? Sure, but if "a special rule" is all that's required to make infantry elite, then Daemonettes are elite infantry.
Stratagem access? The IG vet HWT has stratagem access.

Spoletta wrote:
You can't make a secondary if you can't make a definition for it.

Which is why I proposed a definition, obviously.

Spoletta wrote:
You are the only one in here "misdefining" things.

You haven't actually shown why my definition is inadequate other than "I disagree with it" which, while certainly valid, leaves something to be desired.


That didn't look like a proposal of definition, but if you intended it as such then that is fine.
By the way, to answer your question, I see very good reasons to consider an HWT team an elite infantry. Who cares if in the fluff they are actually 2 grunts, rulewise they are a big infantry with a big gun.

As to why your definition is inadequate, it is because it is too focused on the defensive profile. For a lot of players though the definition of an elite infantry includes the aspect warriors, and in fact when the CWE/Ynnari were OP, there were loads of threads asking for ITC secondaries to punish that faction! Same problem, that faction was not bleeding secondaries... like many other factions that just didn't happen to be competitive at the time, but you didn't hear anyone talking about those!

It is the same thing over and over again.
Faction X is OP, please GW/ITC/ETC change the rules to nerf faction X instead of, you know, nerf said faction.

Modifying a general rule (like mission objectives) to hurt a specific model/unit/faction is dumb, because you are hitting a lot more things in the crossfire, things that were perfectly fine.

You can claim that marines are OP and that they have to be nerfed, and I will not come and tell you that you are wrong, because it is a legitimate position. The nerf though cannot be made by changing a general rule.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 21:28:57


Post by: Tycho


Why? There's no moral wrongness to a game being unfair. There isn't even anything to say that 40k is designed to be fair. Seriously, scan the rules and tell me where GW have promised you a fair and balanced experience.


Didn't realize you were coming from the standpoint of not caring if people actually have fun. If that's your stance, I can't really argue. It is absolutely awful design and a terrible approach, but ok. If you're good with that, you're good with that. lol


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 21:34:43


Post by: Canadian 5th


Spoletta wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoiler:
Spoletta wrote:
Just trying to show you why what you say is illogic.

Well, you haven't.

Spoletta wrote:
There is no definition of elite infantry, you fabricated one for yourself, but it is by far not a shared definition.

No, it isn't a shared one. I proposed it because I think it is reasonable.

Spoletta wrote:
For me for example there is no world where a Dark Reaper isn't an elite infantry.

What makes it elite in your mind that's different than, say, an IG Veteran HWT with a missile launcher?
The 3+ save? Because the IG team has twice the wounds.
The hitting on a 3+ all the time instead of a 4+ all the time and sometimes 3+? Sure, but if "a special rule" is all that's required to make infantry elite, then Daemonettes are elite infantry.
Stratagem access? The IG vet HWT has stratagem access.

Spoletta wrote:
You can't make a secondary if you can't make a definition for it.

Which is why I proposed a definition, obviously.

Spoletta wrote:
You are the only one in here "misdefining" things.

You haven't actually shown why my definition is inadequate other than "I disagree with it" which, while certainly valid, leaves something to be desired.


That didn't look like a proposal of definition, but if you intended it as such then that is fine.
By the way, to answer your question, I see very good reasons to consider an HWT team an elite infantry. Who cares if in the fluff they are actually 2 grunts, rulewise they are a big infantry with a big gun.

As to why your definition is inadequate, it is because it is too focused on the defensive profile. For a lot of players though the definition of an elite infantry includes the aspect warriors, and in fact when the CWE/Ynnari were OP, there were loads of threads asking for ITC secondaries to punish that faction! Same problem, that faction was not bleeding secondaries... like many other factions that just didn't happen to be competitive at the time, but you didn't hear anyone talking about those!

It is the same thing over and over again.
Faction X is OP, please GW/ITC/ETC change the rules to nerf faction X instead of, you know, nerf said faction.

Modifying a general rule (like mission objectives) to hurt a specific model/unit/faction is dumb, because you are hitting a lot more things in the crossfire, things that were perfectly fine.

You can claim that marines are OP and that they have to be nerfed, and I will not come and tell you that you are wrong, because it is a legitimate position. The nerf though cannot be made by changing a general rule.

This.

I'd be for fixing the other kill secondaries so they don't handicap any given faction but I'm against adding any kind of elite secondary because it's impossible to define. To some people the PEQ stat line is elite, to others, it starts with Gravis or even Terminators, and to others, an elite infantry unit is any unit armed with specialized weapons on more than a couple of models. This would then have us asking are Devastators elite and at that point the whole thing just gets silly.

Tycho wrote:
Why? There's no moral wrongness to a game being unfair. There isn't even anything to say that 40k is designed to be fair. Seriously, scan the rules and tell me where GW have promised you a fair and balanced experience.


Didn't realize you were coming from the standpoint of not caring if people actually have fun. If that's your stance, I can't really argue. It is absolutely awful design and a terrible approach, but ok. If you're good with that, you're good with that. lol

It's not that. I think 40k is more fun when it has interesting lists at the top of the tournament standings; I could frankly care less about the casual game. I'm coming at this wondering why after all the years of unbalanced rules you would have any expectation of balance from GW.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 21:40:29


Post by: Spoletta


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoiler:
Spoletta wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Now if you want a secondary which works against Gravis skew, then we can talk because that has its merits, but it is my impression that what the people want in this thread is something to punish PEQ.


No. Some want that. Most just think it's silly that PEQ can simply ignore being scored on ...



They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.

Faction balance is a thing. If faction balance is bad you act on the mission balance.
Mission design is another thing. You don't change mission design to nerf a faction.

Basic rules for game design.

There is nothing that punishes banshees either. Where's all the threads about that?


The missions should also be generally equal towards all factions attempting them. This isn't the case.

Guard, for example, for showing up to the game with just about any list, give up essentially a full 30 points for their tanks and infantry. There's a lot more points on the table to score against them because there are two secondaries that simultaneously punish their only real defensive line profiles, and even go as far as to double-dip each other.
Space Marines, on the other hand, will rarely even have 45 points available to score from secondaries on the table, even accounting for Engage/Linebreaker and Banners/Scramblers. And, of course, Engage and Banners are equally well scorable against Guard, so Guard just offers a much easier scoring time and has a harder time at the mission because the mission is heavily biased against it.

This has nothing to do with faction balance, or the fact that Guard is also just not structurally very strong. Even if Guard had very powerful units, they'd still be playing the game some 20-30 points in the hole because of the secondaries. When one player has 90 points to score and the other player has 75, that's a failure of mission balance.


I would say that given what we have, secondary selection against any given average faction should generally look like:
1 secondary that you jump through some hoop yourself to do with some interaction. [Banners, Scramblers, Ritual, While We Stand]
1 secondary based on your control of the board [Engage, Linebreaker, etc.]
1 secondary based on destruction of whatever is most prevalent in the enemy army.

It's important to observe that that first category requires you to do something you wouldn't normally do towards effecting a victory to get those points. It has a negative effect on your game play, rather than just being points for progressing the mission and conducting normal play. If you, on the other hand, can replace that one with a kill secondary, then you have an easier mission, because none of your units have to stop to take actions or put themselves out of position or anything. Just play the game as you were going to, and get your points. On the other hand, if you don't give up a kill secondary, then your opponent has to take a second one from that first category, which makes the game harder for them through the inverse principle.

And there's actually no compensation for Guard or Tyranids or any other vehicles & light infantry army. There isn't a secondary that they can score better than Space Marines or Custodes or Sisters because they have an army full of tanks and light infantry, and they're worse at primary to boot due to lack of good staying power against general melee.

So, because missions should be equal for all armies participating, it really shouldn't be the case where the basic archetype of some armies is double-dipped on simultaneous secondaries and some armies won't ever give up any points for their list formulation. That's inherently unequal mission design, and that's why there should be an objective that yields points for destroying multiwound infantry, biker, and cavalry models.


We have said this already.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If a faction is screwed by the new design of the secondary missions, then why should it be good to add more factions to the list of the screwed ones? (While still leaving many factions in the unscrewed area, so you are NOT making the packet more fair and balanced).

We shouldn't have threads asking for ways to punish more factions, we should have threads asking how to ease the pain on the few factions that right now have difficulties coping with the new missions. How to redesign Abhor the Witch. How to redesign assassination. How to redesign Grind them Down and so on.

Your analysis is 100% correct, but you are applying it to a discussion that is proposing a solution which would be totally wrong to solve what you have correctly highlighted as an issue.

Punishing more factions because a few are suffering is NOT the correct way to tackle this problem.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 21:41:43


Post by: VladimirHerzog


So why would changing "thin their ranks" to : "for every 10 wounds you destroy, score 1 VP" and removing the option of double dipping in kill secondaries not be the perfect fix?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 21:47:14


Post by: Canadian 5th


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
So why would changing "thin their ranks" to : "for every 10 wounds you destroy, score 1 VP" and removing the option of double dipping in kill secondaries not be the perfect fix?

Each pool of 10 wounds isn't created equally, this is painfully obvious. Are you going to argue that killing 10 gants is equal to killing 3 terminators and wounding a fourth?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 21:48:46


Post by: Tycho


It's not that. I think 40k is more fun when it has interesting lists at the top of the tournament standings; I could frankly care less about the casual game. I'm coming at this wondering why after all the years of unbalanced rules you would have any expectation of balance from GW.


This hurts tournaments more than anything and pretty much guarantees LESS list variety as the top players will take armies that can't be hit for secondaries. It pretty much accomplishes the exact opposite of everything you are saying you want in that quote.

And yes, GW has traditionally had unbalanced rules to one degree or another and I've always had a problem with it. This is especially bad though because it's one of those times where the only options are an unacceptable level of incompetence or an unacceptable level of greed.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 21:52:31


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
So why would changing "thin their ranks" to : "for every 10 wounds you destroy, score 1 VP" and removing the option of double dipping in kill secondaries not be the perfect fix?

Each pool of 10 wounds isn't created equally, this is painfully obvious. Are you going to argue that killing 10 gants is equal to killing 3 terminators and wounding a fourth?


Then why does killing 3 vypers give me as many points as killing 3 bligh-haulers?
Then why does killing a t9 Chaos Porphyrion give the same as killing a t8 gallant.




Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 21:58:27


Post by: Canadian 5th


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
So why would changing "thin their ranks" to : "for every 10 wounds you destroy, score 1 VP" and removing the option of double dipping in kill secondaries not be the perfect fix?

Each pool of 10 wounds isn't created equally, this is painfully obvious. Are you going to argue that killing 10 gants is equal to killing 3 terminators and wounding a fourth?


Then why does killing 3 vypers give me as many points as killing 3 bligh-haulers?
Then why does killing a t9 Chaos Porphyrion give the same as killing a t8 gallant.


Because some of the secondaries are pretty bad and we should probably fix them rather than add another terrible secondary.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 21:58:51


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Spoletta wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoiler:
Spoletta wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Now if you want a secondary which works against Gravis skew, then we can talk because that has its merits, but it is my impression that what the people want in this thread is something to punish PEQ.


No. Some want that. Most just think it's silly that PEQ can simply ignore being scored on ...



They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.

Faction balance is a thing. If faction balance is bad you act on the mission balance.
Mission design is another thing. You don't change mission design to nerf a faction.

Basic rules for game design.

There is nothing that punishes banshees either. Where's all the threads about that?


The missions should also be generally equal towards all factions attempting them. This isn't the case.

Guard, for example, for showing up to the game with just about any list, give up essentially a full 30 points for their tanks and infantry. There's a lot more points on the table to score against them because there are two secondaries that simultaneously punish their only real defensive line profiles, and even go as far as to double-dip each other.
Space Marines, on the other hand, will rarely even have 45 points available to score from secondaries on the table, even accounting for Engage/Linebreaker and Banners/Scramblers. And, of course, Engage and Banners are equally well scorable against Guard, so Guard just offers a much easier scoring time and has a harder time at the mission because the mission is heavily biased against it.

This has nothing to do with faction balance, or the fact that Guard is also just not structurally very strong. Even if Guard had very powerful units, they'd still be playing the game some 20-30 points in the hole because of the secondaries. When one player has 90 points to score and the other player has 75, that's a failure of mission balance.


I would say that given what we have, secondary selection against any given average faction should generally look like:
1 secondary that you jump through some hoop yourself to do with some interaction. [Banners, Scramblers, Ritual, While We Stand]
1 secondary based on your control of the board [Engage, Linebreaker, etc.]
1 secondary based on destruction of whatever is most prevalent in the enemy army.

It's important to observe that that first category requires you to do something you wouldn't normally do towards effecting a victory to get those points. It has a negative effect on your game play, rather than just being points for progressing the mission and conducting normal play. If you, on the other hand, can replace that one with a kill secondary, then you have an easier mission, because none of your units have to stop to take actions or put themselves out of position or anything. Just play the game as you were going to, and get your points. On the other hand, if you don't give up a kill secondary, then your opponent has to take a second one from that first category, which makes the game harder for them through the inverse principle.

And there's actually no compensation for Guard or Tyranids or any other vehicles & light infantry army. There isn't a secondary that they can score better than Space Marines or Custodes or Sisters because they have an army full of tanks and light infantry, and they're worse at primary to boot due to lack of good staying power against general melee.

So, because missions should be equal for all armies participating, it really shouldn't be the case where the basic archetype of some armies is double-dipped on simultaneous secondaries and some armies won't ever give up any points for their list formulation. That's inherently unequal mission design, and that's why there should be an objective that yields points for destroying multiwound infantry, biker, and cavalry models.


We have said this already.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If a faction is screwed by the new design of the secondary missions, then why should it be good to add more factions to the list of the screwed ones? (While still leaving many factions in the unscrewed area, so you are NOT making the packet more fair and balanced).

We shouldn't have threads asking for ways to punish more factions, we should have threads asking how to ease the pain on the few factions that right now have difficulties coping with the new missions. How to redesign Abhor the Witch. How to redesign assassination. How to redesign Grind them Down and so on.

Your analysis is 100% correct, but you are applying it to a discussion that is proposing a solution which would be totally wrong to solve what you have correctly highlighted as an issue.

Punishing more factions because a few are suffering is NOT the correct way to tackle this problem.


I proposed 2 fixes earlier:
simultaneously push Abhor and Thin their Ranks into the same category as Bring it Down [thus removing the opportunity to double dip that against Tyranids, Guard, and the like]
and introduce a secondary that affects medium/heavy infantry/bike/cavalry based armies. As long as the points are calibrated to be about 750 points of dead support assets or 1000 points of dead troops, that should cover almost all the factions.
plus adjusting the Bring it Down to not favor dreadnoughts/spammed small vehicles over other vehicles would help.

Going through the short list:
Ad Mech - Bring it Down or New Objective
CSM - New Objective [post codex]
Custodes - New Objective
Daemons - Thin Ranks
Dark Eldar -
Eldar - Bring it Down or New Objective
Guard - Bring it Down and Thin Ranks [but it's okay as long as they can't be taken together]
GSC - Bring it Down and Thin Ranks
GK - New Objective and Abhor the Witch
Necrons - Bring it Down or New Objective
Orks - Thin Ranks or Bring it Down
Sisters - Bring it Down
SM - New Objective
Tyranids - Bring it Down and Thin Ranks and maybe Abhor the Witch
Tau - Bring it Down or New Objective

This kind of only leaves DE out, and that's mostly because right now I don't know what DE is doing right now. A multiwound-targeting objective would cover the presently unaffected SM and Custodes, as well as cover a group of lists that are heavy into Kataphrons, Destroyers, Jetbikes, or Wraiths that aren't currently affected.

For the most part, you either have to be heavy into light infantry, heavy into vehicles, or heavy into multiwound infantry. There's a pretty small margin of single wound and low model count lists that also don't manage to offer 5 vehicle targets.



Competitive missions should be symmetric, we basically all agree, and right now they're not because of the lack of a secondary to affect multiwound/elite infantry armies, and an overabundance of secondaries to affect vehicle/light infantry armies.

An alternative option would be to eliminate kill secondaries all-together.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 22:16:46


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
So why would changing "thin their ranks" to : "for every 10 wounds you destroy, score 1 VP" and removing the option of double dipping in kill secondaries not be the perfect fix?

Each pool of 10 wounds isn't created equally, this is painfully obvious. Are you going to argue that killing 10 gants is equal to killing 3 terminators and wounding a fourth?


Then why does killing 3 vypers give me as many points as killing 3 bligh-haulers?
Then why does killing a t9 Chaos Porphyrion give the same as killing a t8 gallant.


Because some of the secondaries are pretty bad and we should probably fix them rather than add another terrible secondary.


couldnt we do both?

Personally i'd 100% get rid of the kill secondaries and focus more on the action based ones.



Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 22:38:03


Post by: Canadian 5th


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Personally i'd 100% get rid of the kill secondaries and focus more on the action based ones.

I 100% agree, 40k players don't need any extra incentive to want to remove the other player's models from the table and these do nothing either way on the skew issue.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 22:44:22


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Personally i'd 100% get rid of the kill secondaries and focus more on the action based ones.

I 100% agree, 40k players don't need any extra incentive to want to remove the other player's models from the table and these do nothing either way on the skew issue.


Not to restart the other thread but in case you did not know, thats how Infinity's missions are structured, you need a specialist to activate an antenna for example.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 22:49:00


Post by: Canadian 5th


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Personally i'd 100% get rid of the kill secondaries and focus more on the action based ones.

I 100% agree, 40k players don't need any extra incentive to want to remove the other player's models from the table and these do nothing either way on the skew issue.


Not to restart the other thread but in case you did not know, thats how Infinity's missions are structured, you need a specialist to activate an antenna for example.

Honestly, if I thought I could get my group to play a tabletop style game I'd try Infinity, but that's not going to happen. I think we'll end up sticking to Gloomhaven, MtG, and PnP games like D&D and Cyberpunk.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 22:50:20


Post by: Tycho


Honestly, if I thought I could get my group to play a tabletop style game I'd try Infinity, but that's not going to happen. I think we'll end up sticking to Gloomhaven, MtG, and PnP games like D&D and Cyberpunk.


So ... you don't even play 40k?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 22:54:41


Post by: Canadian 5th


Tycho wrote:
Honestly, if I thought I could get my group to play a tabletop style game I'd try Infinity, but that's not going to happen. I think we'll end up sticking to Gloomhaven, MtG, and PnP games like D&D and Cyberpunk.


So ... you don't even play 40k?

Not currently, though I own a large collection of Chaos Space Marine and Dark Angels models. I also have played almost every army, but this was back in 4th early 5th and that was all proxies.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 23:01:25


Post by: Hecaton


 Canadian 5th wrote:

It doesn't make it wrong either, which is the point you're missing.


Faction variance is a thing, but this is clearly done in a way that specifically benefits the golden child faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not currently, though I own a large collection of Chaos Space Marine and Dark Angels models. I also have played almost every army, but this was back in 4th early 5th and that was all proxies.


Aight so kindly avoid talking about the rules balance.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/05 23:06:21


Post by: Canadian 5th


Hecaton wrote:
Aight so kindly avoid talking about the rules balance.

No.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 01:04:57


Post by: Karol


Tycho wrote:
Why? There's no moral wrongness to a game being unfair. There isn't even anything to say that 40k is designed to be fair. Seriously, scan the rules and tell me where GW have promised you a fair and balanced experience.


Didn't realize you were coming from the standpoint of not caring if people actually have fun. If that's your stance, I can't really argue. It is absolutely awful design and a terrible approach, but ok. If you're good with that, you're good with that. lol

But people generaly do care only about other people armies, or armies that beat their army. There are no legions of space marine players asking for nerfs, because right now, unlike in many times in the past, marine players are having fun playing their marines. At the same time I don't see eldar players start their rants about marines being OP, with the clause of and nerf harlequins too, because they are even more broken then marines.

Plus it is as mr Canadian said, no where in its rules does GW promise a fair or balanced game. They don't even promise a good or enjoyable one, at best they hint at the fact that people should make their own fun and enjoyment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Not to restart the other thread but in case you did not know, thats how Infinity's missions are structured, you need a specialist to activate an antenna for example.


Lets better not ask for stuff like that from GW. I think they have scenarios like that in AoS. which are super fun for factions that have to play missions that require casters, but GW decided that theirs shouldn't have one.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 01:14:51


Post by: JNAProductions


Karol wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Why? There's no moral wrongness to a game being unfair. There isn't even anything to say that 40k is designed to be fair. Seriously, scan the rules and tell me where GW have promised you a fair and balanced experience.


Didn't realize you were coming from the standpoint of not caring if people actually have fun. If that's your stance, I can't really argue. It is absolutely awful design and a terrible approach, but ok. If you're good with that, you're good with that. lol

But people generaly do care only about other people armies, or armies that beat their army. There are no legions of space marine players asking for nerfs, because right now, unlike in many times in the past, marine players are having fun playing their marines. At the same time I don't see eldar players start their rants about marines being OP, with the clause of and nerf harlequins too, because they are even more broken then marines.

Plus it is as mr Canadian said, no where in its rules does GW promise a fair or balanced game. They don't even promise a good or enjoyable one, at best they hint at the fact that people should make their own fun and enjoyment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Not to restart the other thread but in case you did not know, thats how Infinity's missions are structured, you need a specialist to activate an antenna for example.


Lets better not ask for stuff like that from GW. I think they have scenarios like that in AoS. which are super fun for factions that have to play missions that require casters, but GW decided that theirs shouldn't have one.
Pretty sure there are SM players on this very forum who acknowledge Marines are too good and need to be toned down.

Not everyone-because, yes, a lot of people act selfish-but not everyone's a jerk.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 01:19:29


Post by: Karol


You know on a forum you can claim what ever you want. But growing sales, when the stuff that GW sales is mostly marines, seem to point out that people who buy and play marines are having a grand time right now.

Also I always have problem with people playing 5 different armies and 3 different games, being called he is an X player. If you can switch at any time, then it sound like someone who does 400m asking for changes to 100m dash, when they maing 400m anyway.


Not everyone-because, yes, a lot of people act selfish-but not everyone's a jerk.

At the same time durning 8th, I wasn't seeing eldar or tau players asking for nerfs to their armies. Only L2P comments or fixing the being OP problem, by giving their armies more units and more rules, so they can diversify. Which brings me back to my idea, that either everyone is a jerk or no one is, and people just act like that the same way they do in daily life.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 01:21:48


Post by: JNAProductions


Karol wrote:
You know on a forum you can claim what ever you want. But growing sales, when the stuff that GW sales is mostly marines, seem to point out that people who buy and play marines are having a grand time right now.

Also I always have problem with people playing 5 different armies and 3 different games, being called he is an X player. If you can switch at any time, then it sound like someone who does 400m asking for changes to 100m dash, when they maing 400m anyway.
Yes, and that certainly has nothing to do with Marines having 100+ units, as compared to Harlequin's seven. Or that Marines have been in every single starter set I know of for 40k.

Even IF people are jerks... Shouldn't you strive to be better? The "you" in this case is not just you specifically, but a general you as well.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 07:15:33


Post by: SemperMortis


Spoletta wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
It is beyond doubt they deliberately did not put an elite multi-wound squad killing secondary into the game, because the secondaries overall are cribbed from ITC, with the notable and glaring exception of gangbusters. There is zero chance that even as careless a company as GW simply overlooked it.

So the question then becomes: why did they deliberately leave off one of the ITC secondaries while keeping all the rest? Answers vary depend on your tinfoil quotient, but I think it's hard to say it's a complete coincidence that most of the new model releases to go with 9th edition are elite multi-wound squads.


Doesn't take a genius to undertstand why.

It would 100% be the most dumb secondary of the lot.

Abhor the witch right now is considered the dumbest, and manages to screw just a couple of factions and only if the opponent has no psykers.

A secondary that targets elite infantries would cripple a dozen or more of factions just for the fact that they play such faction. It would be a hugely dumb secondary and if they did really implement that, this board would still be raging about it.

Let's not delude ourselves. The only reason why many players want such secondary is because it hurts SM, and hurting SM is good in everyone's book.

It probably was there in the first iteration of the test document, but then it was cut out for good reasons. Actually the existence of dumb ones like Abhor and Assassination is probably due to them going under the radar because there was an elephant like that during the playtest.


I just loved this post. Basically, Kill secondaries are perfectly fine because they don't impact Marines, but how dare you propose one that does.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 07:51:54


Post by: CEO Kasen


If we're going to reward kills at all, can't we just go back to the old system?

We remove all the kill secondaries and replace them with a single secondary that just gives you, say, (numbers out of my arse here) 5 VP for every 25% of the enemy's army you destroy by percentage of points. Hell, go by PL if you want to make the math easier. Units/vehicles reduced below half of their total wounds count half.

That system involved more math, yes, but I think that was fine, because a high value target was a high value target regardless of what is essentially arbitrary, cross-factionally imbalancable crap like how many wounds or models made up that unit.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 07:55:01


Post by: Blackie


Spoletta wrote:


Wait, that's different.

3 or more wound models is a different definition and something to which I can agree with.


Yeah, the ultimate goal of proposed rules like this one is to hurt armies like custodes or primaris-gravis infantry based lists. Basically those armies that are immune to Thin Their Ranks and Bring It Down.

Even if we consider only 2+ wounds instead of 3+ it wouldn't be a big deal. Pretty much every army doesn't field more than 1 maybe 2 unit of multiwounds infantry, certainly not enough to autolose a lot of points through a secondary that hurts elites.

Example: score 1VP for each multiwound infantry model killed for a maximum of 15VP. An ork army with 5 meganobz would concede max 5 points, 10 if there are two squads of multiwounds models. But then the opponent couldn't chose Bring It Down. Take sisters: 10 Arcoflagellants could net the opponent 10 VPs but then no VPs for killing Rhinos, Exorcists, Mortifiers, etc...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
If we're going to reward kills at all, can't we just go back to the old system?

We remove all the kill secondaries and replace them with a single secondary that just gives you, say, (numbers out of my arse here) 5 VP for every 25% of the enemy's army you destroy by percentage of points. Hell, go by PL if you want to make the math easier. Units/vehicles reduced below half of their total wounds count half.

That system involved more math, yes, but I think that was fine, because a high value target was a high value target regardless of what is essentially arbitrary, cross-factionally imbalancable crap like how many wounds or models made up that unit.


That wouldn't be a bad idea actually. Worked well in old editions.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 08:00:59


Post by: Spoletta


 CEO Kasen wrote:
If we're going to reward kills at all, can't we just go back to the old system?

We remove all the kill secondaries and replace them with a single secondary that just gives you, say, (numbers out of my arse here) 5 VP for every 25% of the enemy's army you destroy by percentage of points. Hell, go by PL if you want to make the math easier. Units/vehicles reduced below half of their total wounds count half.

That system involved more math, yes, but I think that was fine, because a high value target was a high value target regardless of what is essentially arbitrary, cross-factionally imbalancable crap like how many wounds or models made up that unit.


That's already a secondary, just on the defense side. The less points you lose, the more points you get.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
It is beyond doubt they deliberately did not put an elite multi-wound squad killing secondary into the game, because the secondaries overall are cribbed from ITC, with the notable and glaring exception of gangbusters. There is zero chance that even as careless a company as GW simply overlooked it.

So the question then becomes: why did they deliberately leave off one of the ITC secondaries while keeping all the rest? Answers vary depend on your tinfoil quotient, but I think it's hard to say it's a complete coincidence that most of the new model releases to go with 9th edition are elite multi-wound squads.


Doesn't take a genius to undertstand why.

It would 100% be the most dumb secondary of the lot.

Abhor the witch right now is considered the dumbest, and manages to screw just a couple of factions and only if the opponent has no psykers.

A secondary that targets elite infantries would cripple a dozen or more of factions just for the fact that they play such faction. It would be a hugely dumb secondary and if they did really implement that, this board would still be raging about it.

Let's not delude ourselves. The only reason why many players want such secondary is because it hurts SM, and hurting SM is good in everyone's book.

It probably was there in the first iteration of the test document, but then it was cut out for good reasons. Actually the existence of dumb ones like Abhor and Assassination is probably due to them going under the radar because there was an elephant like that during the playtest.


I just loved this post. Basically, Kill secondaries are perfectly fine because they don't impact Marines, but how dare you propose one that does.


I have no idea how you managed to read that from my post


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 08:16:54


Post by: Spoletta


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoiler:
Spoletta wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Now if you want a secondary which works against Gravis skew, then we can talk because that has its merits, but it is my impression that what the people want in this thread is something to punish PEQ.


No. Some want that. Most just think it's silly that PEQ can simply ignore being scored on ...



They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.

Faction balance is a thing. If faction balance is bad you act on the mission balance.
Mission design is another thing. You don't change mission design to nerf a faction.

Basic rules for game design.

There is nothing that punishes banshees either. Where's all the threads about that?


The missions should also be generally equal towards all factions attempting them. This isn't the case.

Guard, for example, for showing up to the game with just about any list, give up essentially a full 30 points for their tanks and infantry. There's a lot more points on the table to score against them because there are two secondaries that simultaneously punish their only real defensive line profiles, and even go as far as to double-dip each other.
Space Marines, on the other hand, will rarely even have 45 points available to score from secondaries on the table, even accounting for Engage/Linebreaker and Banners/Scramblers. And, of course, Engage and Banners are equally well scorable against Guard, so Guard just offers a much easier scoring time and has a harder time at the mission because the mission is heavily biased against it.

This has nothing to do with faction balance, or the fact that Guard is also just not structurally very strong. Even if Guard had very powerful units, they'd still be playing the game some 20-30 points in the hole because of the secondaries. When one player has 90 points to score and the other player has 75, that's a failure of mission balance.


I would say that given what we have, secondary selection against any given average faction should generally look like:
1 secondary that you jump through some hoop yourself to do with some interaction. [Banners, Scramblers, Ritual, While We Stand]
1 secondary based on your control of the board [Engage, Linebreaker, etc.]
1 secondary based on destruction of whatever is most prevalent in the enemy army.

It's important to observe that that first category requires you to do something you wouldn't normally do towards effecting a victory to get those points. It has a negative effect on your game play, rather than just being points for progressing the mission and conducting normal play. If you, on the other hand, can replace that one with a kill secondary, then you have an easier mission, because none of your units have to stop to take actions or put themselves out of position or anything. Just play the game as you were going to, and get your points. On the other hand, if you don't give up a kill secondary, then your opponent has to take a second one from that first category, which makes the game harder for them through the inverse principle.

And there's actually no compensation for Guard or Tyranids or any other vehicles & light infantry army. There isn't a secondary that they can score better than Space Marines or Custodes or Sisters because they have an army full of tanks and light infantry, and they're worse at primary to boot due to lack of good staying power against general melee.

So, because missions should be equal for all armies participating, it really shouldn't be the case where the basic archetype of some armies is double-dipped on simultaneous secondaries and some armies won't ever give up any points for their list formulation. That's inherently unequal mission design, and that's why there should be an objective that yields points for destroying multiwound infantry, biker, and cavalry models.


We have said this already.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If a faction is screwed by the new design of the secondary missions, then why should it be good to add more factions to the list of the screwed ones? (While still leaving many factions in the unscrewed area, so you are NOT making the packet more fair and balanced).

We shouldn't have threads asking for ways to punish more factions, we should have threads asking how to ease the pain on the few factions that right now have difficulties coping with the new missions. How to redesign Abhor the Witch. How to redesign assassination. How to redesign Grind them Down and so on.

Your analysis is 100% correct, but you are applying it to a discussion that is proposing a solution which would be totally wrong to solve what you have correctly highlighted as an issue.

Punishing more factions because a few are suffering is NOT the correct way to tackle this problem.


I proposed 2 fixes earlier:
simultaneously push Abhor and Thin their Ranks into the same category as Bring it Down [thus removing the opportunity to double dip that against Tyranids, Guard, and the like]
and introduce a secondary that affects medium/heavy infantry/bike/cavalry based armies. As long as the points are calibrated to be about 750 points of dead support assets or 1000 points of dead troops, that should cover almost all the factions.
plus adjusting the Bring it Down to not favor dreadnoughts/spammed small vehicles over other vehicles would help.

Going through the short list:
Ad Mech - Bring it Down or New Objective
CSM - New Objective [post codex]
Custodes - New Objective
Daemons - Thin Ranks
Dark Eldar -
Eldar - Bring it Down or New Objective
Guard - Bring it Down and Thin Ranks [but it's okay as long as they can't be taken together]
GSC - Bring it Down and Thin Ranks
GK - New Objective and Abhor the Witch
Necrons - Bring it Down or New Objective
Orks - Thin Ranks or Bring it Down
Sisters - Bring it Down
SM - New Objective
Tyranids - Bring it Down and Thin Ranks and maybe Abhor the Witch
Tau - Bring it Down or New Objective

This kind of only leaves DE out, and that's mostly because right now I don't know what DE is doing right now. A multiwound-targeting objective would cover the presently unaffected SM and Custodes, as well as cover a group of lists that are heavy into Kataphrons, Destroyers, Jetbikes, or Wraiths that aren't currently affected.

For the most part, you either have to be heavy into light infantry, heavy into vehicles, or heavy into multiwound infantry. There's a pretty small margin of single wound and low model count lists that also don't manage to offer 5 vehicle targets.



Competitive missions should be symmetric, we basically all agree, and right now they're not because of the lack of a secondary to affect multiwound/elite infantry armies, and an overabundance of secondaries to affect vehicle/light infantry armies.

An alternative option would be to eliminate kill secondaries all-together.


I disagree with that. Going from your list, I can see many factions against which scoring 15 would be trivial and many other were scoring 15 would be impossible. Take Tau for example. I don't know many Tau lists with 5 vehicles/monsters or 15 suits. Demons will never bleed 15 to think their ranks. CWE hardly bring 5 vehicles or 15 wraithguards. Necrons too in many cases don't bleed much to Bring it Down. Harlequins don't bleed anything.
It would still be the current situation, just with changed actors. If the objective is to give 15 free points to everyone, that doesn't serve the purpose. One thing for sure though is that all the killy secondaries should be in the same group, to that I agree.
Either, we remove killy secondaries or we stick to their purpose.
The killy secondaries are there to make sure that if I want to bring a varied and well balanced list of tools in my list, I cannot be screwed by someone bringing only knights and making 60% of my weapons useless. If that happens, I get the killy secondary and in return for being less efficient I have an offset on the score sheet.
To that end, Assassinate and Abhor the witch should be removed, since they have no purpose.
Thin their ranks, Titan Slayer and bring it down are the only secondaries which have a meaning to exist, but obviously they shouldn't coexist against the same opponent. A new objective could have a place if it was aimed at Gravis level models, since a gravis only list is indeed a skew and makes all my small weapons useless.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 09:38:34


Post by: addnid


I don't see the issue with assassinate. I play GSC but I am fine with the risk involved in playing lots of squishy characters.

Some characters give huge benefits (the necron one who enables a core unit to fall back a do what they want for example), and as such the opponent needs a reward for killing them (especially if you bring them in abundant numbers).

I think it just doesn't match well with abhor the witch (which we all agree is at the very least not very well balanced, and I don't think anyone would shed any tear if GW removed it).
Cheap characters also slow the game down a lot with their special rules, and for me that alone is enough to justfy an incentive to kill them !
Also, what armies (aside from GSC and Astra Militarum) are boned by assassinate ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Honestly, if I thought I could get my group to play a tabletop style game I'd try Infinity, but that's not going to happen. I think we'll end up sticking to Gloomhaven, MtG, and PnP games like D&D and Cyberpunk.


So ... you don't even play 40k?

Not currently, though I own a large collection of Chaos Space Marine and Dark Angels models. I also have played almost every army, but this was back in 4th early 5th and that was all proxies.


But... Canadian 5th you did at least try 9th edition right ? Because of all your posts in so many threads, I mean they must at least be based on a tiny bit of experience (and not 100% on 40k disgrunted theoryhammer) ? And please try to not get this thread locked like you did the other one


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 10:36:33


Post by: kingheff


Spoletta: CWE hardly bring 5 vehicles.

Craftworlds are only viable with lots of vehicles, I know I'm going to give up 15 PTS for bring them down but I'd rather that than know I'm going to lose by bringing infantry.



Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 11:08:54


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Well, ideally I'd actually would like to see a trade-off between units that play the primary well (mostly ObSec, units benefiting from the efficiency buff of <Core> for the newer books, etc..), giving you a disadvantage in the secondaries, and units that perform poorly in primaries (e.g. non-Core vehicles, Monsters, stuff that is hard to maneouver because it lacks fly/infantry keyword) being the best "secondary denial" choices.


Ironically, atm (even just looking at the two 9th Ed. books of Marines and Necrons), it's the units that play the primary best (and mostly aren't restrained by a lack of <Core> ) are also the units that give up the least secondaries, which seems ass-backwards to me from a game-design perspective.



Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 11:11:34


Post by: addnid


 kingheff wrote:
Spoletta: CWE hardly bring 5 vehicles.

Craftworlds are only viable with lots of vehicles, I know I'm going to give up 15 PTS for bring them down but I'd rather that than know I'm going to lose by bringing infantry.



I don't play eldar, but let me say this: Respect man for playing CWE at the moment !!

Because I honestly don't see how you can win with CWE currently. Against anything but the trash tier armies (though even GSC can probably beat CWE easily). They have nothing going on for them really. Expensive, far from durable stuff, with very little melee capability... The worst is that Harlquins are got tier and can be allied in, and Druka are being given a new codex, and they can be allied in.

That leaves CWE with old, ugly AF models (and FFS all you got these last 2 years was jain zar and banshees), sheeeeeeet rules, and allies which are better in every way (well unless they botch the druka codex, but I have a feeling it will be "necron treated" so I am confident).
Anyone still playing that army shows true dedication and love, and in these dark times, my friends, you are beacons of hope, light and principles held high ! Houh Ha !


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 11:55:20


Post by: Not Online!!!


if you regard this as dedication what do you call the poor saps remaining with the yeeted FW armies? Or better yet, those still playing WHFB


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 12:29:10


Post by: kingheff


 addnid wrote:
 kingheff wrote:
Spoletta: CWE hardly bring 5 vehicles.

Craftworlds are only viable with lots of vehicles, I know I'm going to give up 15 PTS for bring them down but I'd rather that than know I'm going to lose by bringing infantry.



I don't play eldar, but let me say this: Respect man for playing CWE at the moment !!

Because I honestly don't see how you can win with CWE currently. Against anything but the trash tier armies (though even GSC can probably beat CWE easily). They have nothing going on for them really. Expensive, far from durable stuff, with very little melee capability... The worst is that Harlquins are got tier and can be allied in, and Druka are being given a new codex, and they can be allied in.

That leaves CWE with old, ugly AF models (and FFS all you got these last 2 years was jain zar and banshees), sheeeeeeet rules, and allies which are better in every way (well unless they botch the druka codex, but I have a feeling it will be "necron treated" so I am confident).
Anyone still playing that army shows true dedication and love, and in these dark times, my friends, you are beacons of hope, light and principles held high ! Houh Ha !


Luckily for me I'm not quite so down on the models though some are definitely in need of updating. I still much prefer my craftworlds vehicles to my salamander vehicles, for example.
A vehicle heavy list has served me pretty well in 9th with some spears for clearing out stragglers that had the temerity to not die in my shooting phase!
I think craftworlds have snuck up to a 42% winrate even with, speculation on my part, more than a few players moving to Harlequins. Craftworlds can't play 9th the way marines or harlies do but I think the rumours of our demise have been exaggerated.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 12:33:32


Post by: the_scotsman


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Karol wrote:
No thank you. I already have a secondary that gives up max points to my opponent just by virtue of killing my stuff. I really don't need another one. Unless if taking the secondary comes with some real sever handicaps to the person going for it.


I'm not sure what I think. Imperial Guard already faces yielding 2 for full secondaries for destruction, and at a rate of 4 points per vehicle no less because they double-dip Thin Their Ranks and Bring it Down.


I'm having a hard time coming up with an idea of a guard list that would give up full points both for BID and Thin, is that common? It doesn't seem like guard tanks are particularly cheaper than anyone else's, russes tend to be fairly pricy comparative to the typical dreadnoughts and razorbacks that maines field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
if you regard this as dedication what do you call the poor saps remaining with the yeeted FW armies? Or better yet, those still playing WHFB


Yes, you're a very special boy, Not Online.

I'm very sorry that you've been possessed by the mantle of the Faction Oppressed, that's a tough one to take on. Just look at the husk of poor Karol after being possessed for so long, godspeed buddy.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 12:55:36


Post by: Karol


I'm very sorry that you've been possessed by the mantle of the Faction Oppressed, that's a tough one to take on. Just look at the husk of poor Karol after being possessed for so long, godspeed buddy.

I have been training all the time we were in lock down, only lost 3kg, but it was mostly fat and because I didn't have access to supplements from school. If anything I look better now, because I gained 9cm of height over summer.

What if primaris and secondaries were like relics or chapter tactics. There would be a set number of them for each army, and they could fit how the army can play in both the lore and game play aspect. So for example armies like knights wouldn't have to worry about having a rule set that doesn't work at all in 9th. Same with armies like tau, maybe their objective wouldn't have to be about pushing mid turn 1-2 and taking stuff back in melee. They could have objectives based around what ever they would be good at in their new books.

And then on top of it some unit could get extra scenario rules. When there is a bilion of regular guants in your area killing a unit of 10, shouldn't be giving people full VP for being killed. maybe boys, guants or swarms worth half VP in kill secondaries? At the same time something elite being killed, like lets say a GK paladin or Custodes, could be worth more, which would make the game balanced and more fun. The custodes player would get really good rules to companstate, while on the flip side of things losing any model or unit would hurt them a lot.

And then some armies like DE or Inquisition, should have the option to take more primaris or secondaries, maybe at the cost of losing the other or some limits to list building or have an option to change a secondary mid game through a stratagem. That would actualy make stuff dynamic.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 13:52:38


Post by: Tycho


But people generaly do care only about other people armies, or armies that beat their army. There are no legions of space marine players asking for nerfs, because right now, unlike in many times in the past, marine players are having fun playing their marines. At the same time I don't see eldar players start their rants about marines being OP, with the clause of and nerf harlequins too, because they are even more broken then marines.


Karol, the more I read your posts, the worse I feel for you. Obviously I don't know your group, but from reading your posts, it seems like you have a toxic gaming community. There are many people who want the game to be fun for everyone. As an example, I am a marine player. I have several different armies, but marines have been my primary since Rogue Trader days. I literally have a full chapter save the Thunderhawks. I stopped playing them in 8th when they became unfun for people to play against. My marines have been shelved for over a year at this point. What's more, if you read my posts, you'll see I frequently bring up the fact that Dark Eldar have only LOST models since 5th ed. Why? I don't play DE. It could be, because I realize the game is shifting to an unhealthy state and I'd prefer it if everyone had similar levels of support. This is the attitude we should all have honestly.

Plus it is as mr Canadian said, no where in its rules does GW promise a fair or balanced game. They don't even promise a good or enjoyable one, at best they hint at the fact that people should make their own fun and enjoyment.


I would not put much stock into what "mr Cadian" has said. He seems fine with the game moving to an increasingly unhealthy state where it becomes unfun for many because "it's not "morally wrong" and they don't promise anything else.". This is beyond short sighted. Plus, if you're going have strong opinions on a game, you should probably have at least tried it recently. He hasn't played since 5th. So, grain of salt with everything he says honestly.

I don't see the issue with assassinate. I play GSC but I am fine with the risk involved in playing lots of squishy characters.


The issue is twofold. It stacks with Abhor the witch meaning GK and Tsons characters give double secondaries when you kill them.It's especially bad because those armies have to bring psyker characters. They don't have a choice.

The second issue is that killing a 20 point guard character with low toughness, a weak armor save, no invuln, and only a few wounds probably shouldn't be the same points as killing a 160 point, high toughness, 3+ invuln. save character with 5 or more wounds. Yet they are. They give the exact same amount of points. Doesn't make sense.



Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 14:00:33


Post by: Mezmorki


Couldn't one just make the "Thin Their Ranks" secondary count the WOUNDS of any non-vehicle models rather than the number of models? That might work?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 15:20:51


Post by: bat702


Making thin their ranks count wounds would be cool, but it still doesnt 100% make up for the 3+ and 2+ saves those wounds carry


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 15:25:11


Post by: VladimirHerzog


What if, imagine, we had a proper keyword system that allowed to identify units by them.
Something like giving elite models the <Elite> keyword?

So Intercessors would be <Elite><Infantry>
you could even add keywords
Termis and gravis could be <Elite><Heavy><Infantry>
Bikers could be <Elite><Cavalry>

then you'd keep gaunts/guardians as <Infantry>
and jetbikes as <Cavalry>


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 15:29:49


Post by: kirotheavenger


Maybe awarding victory points based on the category of unit you're shooting at is a horrific system that leads you deeper and deeper into ridiculous rabbit holes trying to make it "fair".

If you must award VP for destroying the enemy, points is the most balanced system.
Thin their Ranks could be 1vp per 100 points of INFANTRY destroyed for example.

It's more book keeping, but it's fairer.
Just doing away with these secondaries would be better. The reward for killing the enemy is that the enemy has less to kill you with, and less to achieve their own objectives with.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 15:32:11


Post by: vipoid


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
What if, imagine, we had a proper keyword system that allowed to identify units by them.
Something like giving elite models the <Elite> keyword?

So Intercessors would be <Elite><Infantry>
you could even add keywords
Termis and gravis could be <Elite><Heavy><Infantry>
Bikers could be <Elite><Cavalry>

then you'd keep gaunts/guardians as <Infantry>
and jetbikes as <Cavalry>


An excellent suggestion. And then we could have a secondary objective that rewards you for killing elite units.

Just one minor change - Marines instead get the <Hyper Elite> keyword, which is like <Elite> except that they're more elite than anyone else and also (completely by coincidence) there's no secondary objective that rewards you for killing <Hyper Elite> units.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 15:32:35


Post by: Xenomancers


Why is there even a debate?

Secondaries that deal with army composition are bad for game balance. It is indisputable. Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience? That is not what is happening with these secondaries. So they should be redesigned with factors that do not punish you for bringing a particular army design/archetype.



Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 15:33:02


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Maybe awarding victory points based on the category of unit you're shooting at is a horrific system that leads you deeper and deeper into ridiculous rabbit holes trying to make it "fair".

If you must award VP for destroying the enemy, points is the most balanced system.
Thin their Ranks could be 1vp per 100 points of INFANTRY destroyed for example.

It's more book keeping, but it's fairer.
Just doing away with these secondaries would be better. The reward for killing the enemy is that the enemy has less to kill you with, and less to achieve their own objectives with.


Ah yes, 4th edition's awesome VP calculator for kills rears its head again. GW left it behind because it was too much math, but I agree with you.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 15:35:49


Post by: kirotheavenger


I agree, it's too much of a pain in the neck imo.
So it's better just to not have any kill secondaries to do away with all the crap.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 15:40:35


Post by: VladimirHerzog


kirotheavenger wrote:
Just doing away with these secondaries would be better. The reward for killing the enemy is that the enemy has less to kill you with, and less to achieve their own objectives with.


Xenomancers wrote:Why is there even a debate?

Secondaries that deal with army composition are bad for game balance. It is indisputable. Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience? That is not what is happening with these secondaries. So they should be redesigned with factors that do not punish you for bringing a particular army design/archetype.




100%, i'm suggesting changes to how the kill secondaries work because i doubt GW will remove them and therefore i'd like to see them more balanced.

Kill secondaries are just primaries disguised as secondaries. Action and position based secondaries are the good ones since they lower the overall lethality and dont double dip with the primaries (usually)


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 15:49:09


Post by: kirotheavenger


I agree, secondaries are potentially a way to encourage other ways to use your units than simply annihilating the enemy.
Making those secondaries just "kill the enemy" completely defeats that purpose.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 15:53:53


Post by: Gadzilla666


Kill secondaries are garbage, but if we have to have them then there should be one that punishes multi-wound infantry and biker type units. I never played ITC, but Gangbusters looks pretty good for that job. Might need some tweaks, but it's a good starting point.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 16:04:45


Post by: Tycho


Secondaries that deal with army composition are bad for game balance. It is indisputable. Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience? That is not what is happening with these secondaries. So they should be redesigned with factors that do not punish you for bringing a particular army design/archetype.


Honestly, the current set we have don't even target the "problem" units lol.

I'm still of a mind that just dumping all the kill secondaries entirely is the best way to go. This may be famous last words, but that seems like the best way to fix the problems they are causing while also inflicting the least amount of unintended side-effects.

If the secondaries truly were designed to "control skew", they failed. 9th actually does that somewhat well. Knights were a big problem in 8th, but can anyone make the claim that they're a problem now? I think 9th's core rules and mission design did a really good job of controlling most of the more egregious skew lists. If we dump the kill secondaries then we're left with a cropping of objectives that require players to make trade-offs and actual decisions (again - getting points for firing a anti-tank gun at a tank is just ... dumb), and that every army generally has a shot to achieve while also not being unfairly penalized by them.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 16:24:32


Post by: Xenomancers


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Kill secondaries are garbage, but if we have to have them then there should be one that punishes multi-wound infantry and biker type units. I never played ITC, but Gangbusters looks pretty good for that job. Might need some tweaks, but it's a good starting point.

I agree if they must exist all types must exist.

The thing that bothers me most is what it does to list construction. You build your list to not give up points by including the perfect amount of units of each type to deny points. Okay...fine. Now you have kind of a pseudo FOC check. Unfortuantely though - most armies do not function without some kind of skew going on. They armies that have the most choices and arent punished by this are already the problem Childs.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 16:29:32


Post by: Not Online!!!


the_scotsman wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Karol wrote:
No thank you. I already have a secondary that gives up max points to my opponent just by virtue of killing my stuff. I really don't need another one. Unless if taking the secondary comes with some real sever handicaps to the person going for it.


I'm not sure what I think. Imperial Guard already faces yielding 2 for full secondaries for destruction, and at a rate of 4 points per vehicle no less because they double-dip Thin Their Ranks and Bring it Down.


I'm having a hard time coming up with an idea of a guard list that would give up full points both for BID and Thin, is that common? It doesn't seem like guard tanks are particularly cheaper than anyone else's, russes tend to be fairly pricy comparative to the typical dreadnoughts and razorbacks that maines field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
if you regard this as dedication what do you call the poor saps remaining with the yeeted FW armies? Or better yet, those still playing WHFB


Yes, you're a very special boy, Not Online.

I'm very sorry that you've been possessed by the mantle of the Faction Oppressed, that's a tough one to take on. Just look at the husk of poor Karol after being possessed for so long, godspeed buddy.


very funny. Especially because the point beeing made that there are indeed whole segments of the playerbase stuck in a far worse position then eldar. Truth of the matter is that with rules alone you don't get to eat so to speak. And right now we get one really favoured faction getting to once again get cake(model support) and eat it too(getting suspiciously not targeted with a dedicated killsecondary) whilest 90 % of the other factions are sustained on tablescraps or less.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Kill secondaries are garbage, but if we have to have them then there should be one that punishes multi-wound infantry and biker type units. I never played ITC, but Gangbusters looks pretty good for that job. Might need some tweaks, but it's a good starting point.


This, if we indeed NEED them to reign certain types of units in and avoid spam, because that is what i think was the intention behind the kill secondaries, then we might aswell implement it against ALL unit types that are spamable, and gravis most certainly as is Primaris is to a degree spamable


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 16:56:43


Post by: Xenomancers


Tycho wrote:
Secondaries that deal with army composition are bad for game balance. It is indisputable. Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience? That is not what is happening with these secondaries. So they should be redesigned with factors that do not punish you for bringing a particular army design/archetype.


Honestly, the current set we have don't even target the "problem" units lol.

I'm still of a mind that just dumping all the kill secondaries entirely is the best way to go. This may be famous last words, but that seems like the best way to fix the problems they are causing while also inflicting the least amount of unintended side-effects.

If the secondaries truly were designed to "control skew", they failed. 9th actually does that somewhat well. Knights were a big problem in 8th, but can anyone make the claim that they're a problem now? I think 9th's core rules and mission design did a really good job of controlling most of the more egregious skew lists. If we dump the kill secondaries then we're left with a cropping of objectives that require players to make trade-offs and actual decisions (again - getting points for firing a anti-tank gun at a tank is just ... dumb), and that every army generally has a shot to achieve while also not being unfairly penalized by them.

Exactly. completely failing to control skew anyways plus. We already have a system to control skew - it is called detachments. Maybe detachments need to be modified a little ether in CP punish or more slots becoming more limited. Not sure why changing victory conditions gets such support from the community when there are such better ways to reel in "problem lists" without making the game unplayable for certain armies.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 17:02:51


Post by: Tycho


Exactly. completely failing to control skew anyways plus. We already have a system to control skew - it is called detachments. Maybe detachments need to be modified a little ether in CP punish or more slots becoming more limited.


IDK if we even need that. I could be wrong here as I haven't tested this, but it at least feels like the force org we have in 9th is good to go. It's been frustrating for my Tsons, but I think a new dex will fix that. I think between the missions, the tweaked rules, and the new force org layout, we are good and don't really need a kill secondary. Look at the successful lists right now at the tourneys that have happened. I don't really see a ton of skew there, and even in my own group's games, it's just not been a issue.

Knights are not great this edition. Heavy armor skew lists? Also not great. I have my issues with the missions, but one thing I think I can safely say is that it's the first set where you can bring a inferior list (inferior to a point anyway - there is always a limit), play to the mission, and have a chance to win. A mostly infantry list with little anti-tank actually has a chance this edition if it comes up against an all knight list. Because of this, I just don't think the kill secondaries are needed, and I'm not even sure we need to edit the force orgs.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 17:14:04


Post by: Xenomancers


I'm just saying detachments control skew a great deal. That is how I would fix a skew problem - I would alter or tax these skews. Not change the victory conditions for every army because some armies skew.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 17:20:38


Post by: the_scotsman


 Xenomancers wrote:
Why is there even a debate?

Secondaries that deal with army composition are bad for game balance. It is indisputable. Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience? That is not what is happening with these secondaries. So they should be redesigned with factors that do not punish you for bringing a particular army design/archetype.



I mean, no, it seems to be a pretty much universally despised and hated thing whenever someone wins a tournament with a hyper skew list that only includes one type or unit spammed over and over and over.

In my experience that is the thing that the 40k community hates the most vitriolically and consistently and wants nerfed the hardest.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 17:39:55


Post by: kirotheavenger


I don't think the FoC is up to the task of balancing games.
Because the variety of units in each given slot is just huge.

The requirement for Fast Attack seems to just be "canonically they're a bit faster" but for example Imperial Guard get Hellhounds, which are full on tanks, in Fast Attack.
"Elites" is just a mess of multiple choice, you can have anything in there.

An example of a game that I think manages a "force organisation" well is the videogame Steel Division.
It's categories are Recon, Infantry, Support, Tank, Anti-tank, Artillery, and Air.
Units are sorted very definitely by their capabilities. If 40k were to match that, you'd have stuff like Devastator Squads being Support when armed with heavy bolters, and Anti-tank when armed with lascannons.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 18:06:13


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think the FoC is up to the task of balancing games.
Because the variety of units in each given slot is just huge.

The requirement for Fast Attack seems to just be "canonically they're a bit faster" but for example Imperial Guard get Hellhounds, which are full on tanks, in Fast Attack.
"Elites" is just a mess of multiple choice, you can have anything in there.

An example of a game that I think manages a "force organisation" well is the videogame Steel Division.
It's categories are Recon, Infantry, Support, Tank, Anti-tank, Artillery, and Air.
Units are sorted very definitely by their capabilities. If 40k were to match that, you'd have stuff like Devastator Squads being Support when armed with heavy bolters, and Anti-tank when armed with lascannons.


yeah, servitors being elite in the space marines codex is the funniest gak to me lol


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 18:16:25


Post by: Xenomancers


the_scotsman wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Why is there even a debate?

Secondaries that deal with army composition are bad for game balance. It is indisputable. Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience? That is not what is happening with these secondaries. So they should be redesigned with factors that do not punish you for bringing a particular army design/archetype.



I mean, no, it seems to be a pretty much universally despised and hated thing whenever someone wins a tournament with a hyper skew list that only includes one type or unit spammed over and over and over.

In my experience that is the thing that the 40k community hates the most vitriolically and consistently and wants nerfed the hardest.

You are speaking about a balance issue of a single unit. If someone takes nothing but shinning spears/ or harli jetbikes/ or eradicators in an army. It is because the unit is unbalanced. They might meet the criteria for skew but the issue is unit balance. A themed list like a highly mobile army with all kinds of jetbikes and light vehicals is also a skew list but it's not spamming a particular unit.

Also like has been stated before - you can take 12-18 harli jetbikes if you want. It is extremely OP and this secondary system doesn't even punish it. So it's not fixing skew anyways.

"Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience?"

I don't know how you could disagree with this statement? People wants choices and they don't want to be punished for making them. Unit to unit balance is another issue though. Fixing unit balance with victory conditions is a terrible stop gap bandaid on another problem. Fix the unit issue. Problem solved.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think the FoC is up to the task of balancing games.
Because the variety of units in each given slot is just huge.

The requirement for Fast Attack seems to just be "canonically they're a bit faster" but for example Imperial Guard get Hellhounds, which are full on tanks, in Fast Attack.
"Elites" is just a mess of multiple choice, you can have anything in there.

An example of a game that I think manages a "force organisation" well is the videogame Steel Division.
It's categories are Recon, Infantry, Support, Tank, Anti-tank, Artillery, and Air.
Units are sorted very definitely by their capabilities. If 40k were to match that, you'd have stuff like Devastator Squads being Support when armed with heavy bolters, and Anti-tank when armed with lascannons.

Sounds like an error in detachment assignment - it has the same chassis and move characteristic as many other heavy support choices in IG. Likely intentional because they want IG to be able to spam tanks. Because IG should be able to spam tanks.

In genreal though your heavy support is where the big guns are. If you want to spam big guns. Youll have to take more than one detachment. Which has a tax of CP and other required units. It might not control it well enough but it is attacking the issue of "skew" the correct way. A bad way to attack the issue is to make a victory condition that is essentially "you lose if you bring this army composition". I would be more than happy to entertain the idea of readjusting tradition FOC assignments. Kind of like how scouts got moved to elite because they don't want them there to spam detachments.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 18:31:14


Post by: Tycho


I'm just saying detachments control skew a great deal. That is how I would fix a skew problem - I would alter or tax these skews. Not change the victory conditions for every army because some armies skew.


Ah - I gotcha. I misunderstood. Yeah, it does seem like just slapping an additional CP tax in spots where skew gets bad may work better.

I don't think the FoC is up to the task of balancing games.
Because the variety of units in each given slot is just huge.

The requirement for Fast Attack seems to just be "canonically they're a bit faster" but for example Imperial Guard get Hellhounds, which are full on tanks, in Fast Attack.
"Elites" is just a mess of multiple choice, you can have anything in there.

An example of a game that I think manages a "force organisation" well is the videogame Steel Division.
It's categories are Recon, Infantry, Support, Tank, Anti-tank, Artillery, and Air.
Units are sorted very definitely by their capabilities. If 40k were to match that, you'd have stuff like Devastator Squads being Support when armed with heavy bolters, and Anti-tank when armed with lascannons.


To a large degree, the FOC combined with the 9th ed rules already has leveled the field. Think of the worst skew lists from 8th - they are no longer viable in 9th. I mean sure you can play some of them, but what is everyone currently saying about things like knights? They're saying they suck.

Think about the old Supreme Command detachment where people took 3 Tsons Demon Princes for crazy psychic shennaginans w/the Primarchs, etc. These are all things of the past, and currently a lot of those old skew lists are pretty much "fixed".

The real issue we have isn't even skew at this point. It's a mega-faction that is completely unaffected by a major portion of the rules, while those same rules are beating the crap out of some armies that were never a problem to begin with.

RE: The video game comparison - almost all video game comparisons fall apart pretty quickly imo. You can't imagine the data streams gaming companies get. They get more customer data in one hour than GW will have in two years and that's not even remotely an exaggeration. The data is also largely unbiased. So when the team of people they have analysing said data sees the issues, it becomes much easier to solve them. Even in the example given, I think changing a units role based on its weapons makes sense to a point, but likely creates a very unwieldy scenario for pointing things.

So TLR -

I know at one point recently I said I was fine w/kill secondaries provided they were rebalanced, but seeing the discussion over the last few threads I am convinced the best way to solve this is to just dump ALL the kill secondaries.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/06 23:01:54


Post by: Canadian 5th


 addnid wrote:
But... Canadian 5th you did at least try 9th edition right ? Because of all your posts in so many threads, I mean they must at least be based on a tiny bit of experience (and not 100% on 40k disgrunted theoryhammer) ? And please try to not get this thread locked like you did the other one

Consider my interest in 40k these days to be that of a sports fan talking about rosters, stats, and trades on a forum. Most people on such forums don't actively play hockey, but we can all still easily discuss it. Sometimes those that play, or played, at a high level have unique and interesting insights but just as often some stats nerd who's never even played the sport comes along and finds an advanced metric that professional teams hire them to implement in their scouting department. Most often it's all a bunch of back and forth, the occasional heated exchange, and then it's back to cheering or booing your team of choice; so in that respect, I'm even less biased because I have no favorite 40k faction.

Tycho wrote:
RE: The video game comparison - almost all video game comparisons fall apart pretty quickly imo. You can't imagine the data streams gaming companies get. They get more customer data in one hour than GW will have in two years and that's not even remotely an exaggeration. The data is also largely unbiased. So when the team of people they have analysing said data sees the issues, it becomes much easier to solve them. Even in the example given, I think changing a units role based on its weapons makes sense to a point, but likely creates a very unwieldy scenario for pointing things.

I've been banging this same drum for ages now, people don't want to hear it.

The funny thing is that there is a solution to the balance issue. You could design a supercomputer that runs learning AIs that practice with each faction and simply run simulations to generate a data set on par with anything an online game has, it's wildly impractical and expensive but it could theoretically be done.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 08:16:41


Post by: Blackie


 Xenomancers wrote:


"Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience?"

I don't know how you could disagree with this statement? People wants choices and they don't want to be punished for making them. Unit to unit balance is another issue though. Fixing unit balance with victory conditions is a terrible stop gap bandaid on another problem. Fix the unit issue. Problem solved.


Having freedom of choice is one thing, bringing whatever units people want and have fun and balanced experience it's completely different. Someone might want to play only Stormravens for example, or any other extremely skew lists. Some sort of limitations in listbuilding should always be in play, and in my opinion limitations should be significant, definitely more strict than they are now.

Starting with removing squadrons for vehicles/walkers and reducing elites to 3 slots in a battallion.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 08:22:39


Post by: Hecaton


 Canadian 5th wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Aight so kindly avoid talking about the rules balance.

No.


You can't expect anyone to take you seriously, then. You're explicitly in Dunning-Kruger territory in all of this.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 13:38:19


Post by: Karol


 Blackie wrote:


Starting with removing squadrons for vehicles/walkers and reducing elites to 3 slots in a battallion.


That would be very bad for armies that are using all 6 elite slots right now, because for what ever reason, GW decided to not give them Lt level characters two per slot, and cram ton of characters in to the elite slot alongside basic units.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 14:17:52


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


Starting with removing squadrons for vehicles/walkers and reducing elites to 3 slots in a battallion.


That would be very bad for armies that are using all 6 elite slots right now, because for what ever reason, GW decided to not give them Lt level characters two per slot, and cram ton of characters in to the elite slot alongside basic units.


Elite is a dumb slot right now, it's basically the "one size fits all" slot. There should be new categories added to the game and units should be reorganized.

I know you're talking about your GK and its completely stupid in my eyes that an Apothecary, Brotherhood ancient and servitors are all Elites, even dreadnought should really be heavy support IMO. Paladins and Purifiers are the only units that do feel elite IMO.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 14:35:31


Post by: Tycho


Starting with removing squadrons for vehicles/walkers and reducing elites to 3 slots in a battallion.


I'm not sure what this solves beyond absolutely crippling multiple armies who need that slot just to function, and telling Astra Militarum they don't get to participate at all.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 14:51:19


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Tycho wrote:
Starting with removing squadrons for vehicles/walkers and reducing elites to 3 slots in a battallion.


I'm not sure what this solves beyond absolutely crippling multiple armies who need that slot just to function, and telling Astra Militarum they don't get to participate at all.


Yeah, Admech not being able to take squads of Dunecrawlers surely destroyed the army. the AM codex could be changed to be able to be played without spamming russes


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 14:59:17


Post by: Tycho


Yeah, Admech not being able to take squads of Dunecrawlers surely destroyed the army. the AM codex could be changed to be able to be played without spamming russes


That's exactly what I said too isn't it?

The fact remains multiple armies currently need those elite slots to function at all and aren't even abusing it. They literally stop functioning, and it's easy to say "they would be changed to work without it" but what are you going to do? Especially for the vehicle squads thing. This is one of those changes that people propose thinking they've solved a thing that will inevitably lead only to brand new major issues we didn't have before.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 15:02:50


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I mean if you just roll back everything to the end of 4th you get a pretty playable game that meets all those criteria.

IG even get armored companies if you want to spam russes.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 15:04:03


Post by: Blackie


Karol wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


Starting with removing squadrons for vehicles/walkers and reducing elites to 3 slots in a battallion.


That would be very bad for armies that are using all 6 elite slots right now, because for what ever reason, GW decided to not give them Lt level characters two per slot, and cram ton of characters in to the elite slot alongside basic units.


No, they'd just pay 2-3 CPs to get the desired elite slots. Some competitive lists already pay 2-3 CPs for the second detachment, sister's Bloody Rose vanguard with multiple elites is a thing for example, it's not the end of the world.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 15:07:00


Post by: addnid


Leave detachments alone, they are more important battles to fight, stuff GW needs correcting.

I litterally never heard anyone complain about them in 9th edition (because they had glmaring issues ini 8th, namely giving CP for no good reason) except here.

This is really a "last on the list of grievances" kind of thing


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 15:13:52


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 addnid wrote:
Leave detachments alone, they are more important battles to fight, stuff GW needs correcting.

I litterally never heard anyone complain about them in 9th edition (because they had glmaring issues ini 8th, namely giving CP for no good reason) except here.

This is really a "last on the list of grievances" kind of thing


only thing that still irks me is the change to the supreme command detachment and superheavies.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 15:21:19


Post by: Tycho


I mean if you just roll back everything to the end of 4th you get a pretty playable game that meets all those criteria.

IG even get armored companies if you want to spam russes.


Different time, different game though. That was back when you needed more than a stiff breeze to kill a tank ...


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 16:48:00


Post by: alextroy


GW just nerfed Bring it Down and Abhor the Witch. Does this make the need for an anti-elite secondary unnecessary?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 16:53:37


Post by: Ice_can


 alextroy wrote:
GW just nerfed Bring it Down and Abhor the Witch. Does this make the need for an anti-elite secondary unnecessary?

Not sure that's 100% true for bring it down. They have fiddled with it but as to actually nerfed it dreadnaughts with their -1 damage are still way harder to kill than many of the vehicals giving up twice the VP's and for some idiotic reason someone decided that bring it down and titan slayer should overlap. Really you though that was necessary GW?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 16:57:40


Post by: Canadian 5th


Hecaton wrote:
You can't expect anyone to take you seriously, then. You're explicitly in Dunning-Kruger territory in all of this.

I guess that means we should shut down all the sports forums because people that don't play the sport they love can't have a clue what they're talking about. Ignore the fact that some of these people have gone on to be hired by professional teams because their work with statistical analysis was so high quality that it became valuable.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 16:58:54


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Canadian 5th wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
You can't expect anyone to take you seriously, then. You're explicitly in Dunning-Kruger territory in all of this.

I guess that means we should shut down all the sports forums because people that don't play the sport they love can't have a clue what they're talking about. Ignore the fact that some of these people have gone on to be hired by professional teams because their work with statistical analysis was so high quality that it became valuable.


Those forums aren't typically discussing the fundamentals of game design and whether or not balance should be the goal of a given rule-set, because that's a stupid thing to talk about when the answer is "of course it is, no the Cowboys shouldn't start with two touchdowns over their opponents just because they wear silver" or "why do the Patriots get to ignore the rules for no more than 1 forward pass per play while all the Texans get is the ability to not be penalized for pass interference?"


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 17:02:45


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Those forums aren't typically discussing the fundamentals of game design and whether or not balance should be the goal of a given rule-set, because that's a stupid thing to talk about when the answer is "of course it is, no the Cowboys shouldn't start with two touchdowns over their opponents just because they wear silver."

They do however talk about the details of constructing a good team, propose trades, discuss if certain specific rules are good or bad for the game (or just your team in particular), question the effects of the salary cap on roster building, and argue about draft philosophies for bringing new talent into your team, and go on about other extremely fundamental topics. To say that sports forums don't discuss complex and fundamental aspects of their sport is completely false.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 17:12:47


Post by: Ice_can


If you haven't played 9th have you atleast even read the dang rulebook? Mission pack? New codex's and points compaired to 8th edition codex's?

If the answer to any of the above is no, you are free to input to the discussion.
However you shoukd realise your doing so from a very uninformed position that's especially likely to cause issues.

It's like telling someone who actually does their job your know how they should be doing it better than they do.

This isn't Fing sports with the same rules for every team and lots of publicly available data for you to analysis in spreadsheets for months on end.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 17:35:15


Post by: Canadian 5th


Ice_can wrote:
If you haven't played 9th have you atleast even read the dang rulebook? Mission pack? New codex's and points compaired to 8th edition codex's?

Yes, it would be rather hard to discuss this without having done so. The rules are easily found so I make ready use of them.

It's like telling someone who actually does their job your know how they should be doing it better than they do.

So it's like I'm your manager? Cool.

This isn't Fing sports with the same rules for every team and lots of publicly available data for you to analysis in spreadsheets for months on end.

So there aren't tables of tournament data to go over? Battle reports to read and watch? Unit stats laid out in tables? I was unaware that 40k was impossible to analyze logically.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 17:35:44


Post by: alextroy


Ice_can wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
GW just nerfed Bring it Down and Abhor the Witch. Does this make the need for an anti-elite secondary unnecessary?

Not sure that's 100% true for bring it down. They have fiddled with it but as to actually nerfed it dreadnaughts with their -1 damage are still way harder to kill than many of the vehicals giving up twice the VP's and for some idiotic reason someone decided that bring it down and titan slayer should overlap. Really you though that was necessary GW?
Titan Slayer and Bring It Down are the same category. You can’t take them both.

As for dreadnaughts, are they really that resistant to dedicated anti-tank weapons?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 17:38:19


Post by: Hecaton


 Canadian 5th wrote:
I guess that means we should shut down all the sports forums because people that don't play the sport they love can't have a clue what they're talking about. Ignore the fact that some of these people have gone on to be hired by professional teams because their work with statistical analysis was so high quality that it became valuable.


"Armchair quarterbacks" not knowing jack about gak has been a running joke for more than fifty years. If I saw you actually doing statistical work on 40k, I'd probably take you seriously. I don't.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 17:38:33


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Canadian 5th wrote:
So there aren't tables of tournament data to go over? Battle reports to read and watch? Unit stats laid out in tables? I was unaware that 40k was impossible to analyze logically.


Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 17:44:32


Post by: JNAProductions


 alextroy wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
GW just nerfed Bring it Down and Abhor the Witch. Does this make the need for an anti-elite secondary unnecessary?

Not sure that's 100% true for bring it down. They have fiddled with it but as to actually nerfed it dreadnaughts with their -1 damage are still way harder to kill than many of the vehicals giving up twice the VP's and for some idiotic reason someone decided that bring it down and titan slayer should overlap. Really you though that was necessary GW?
Titan Slayer and Bring It Down are the same category. You can’t take them both.

As for dreadnaughts, are they really that resistant to dedicated anti-tank weapons?
I'll compare an Ironclad (T8, 3+, W8, -1 Damage) to a Leman Russ (T8, 3+, W12).

Hit values are the same.
Wound values are the same.
Save values are the same.
All that assumes no shenanigans, which are possible, but will not be assumed.
So the only difference is damage.

Spoiler:
D1
Ironclad takes 8.
Leman Russ takes 12.
150% durability on the Russ.

D2
Ironclad takes 8.
Leman Russ takes 6.
75% durability.

D3
Ironclad takes 4.
Leman Russ takes 4.
100% durability.

Dd3
Ironclad takes 6.
Leman Russ takes 6.
100% durability.

Dd6
Ironclad takes 3.
Leman Russ takes 4.
133% durability.

Dd6, Min 3
Ironclad takes 3.
Leman Russ takes 3.
100% durability.

Dd6+2
Ironclad takes 2.
Leman Russ takes 3.
150% durability.
Dreads that are NOT T8 are obviously more vulnerable to S4, S7, and S8. As well as the uncommon S14.

If there are any general statlines I missed that you want me to do, let me know.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 17:58:56


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.

Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 18:00:40


Post by: Tycho


GW just nerfed Bring it Down and Abhor the Witch. Does this make the need for an anti-elite secondary unnecessary?


No. First, while they did nerf Abhor, it still stacks w/assasinate and thus is still an issue. Definitely less of an issue but still an issue. Second, the need for the anti-elite secondary is a need independent of the abhor/assassinate discussion. Yes, abhor was nerfed, but this doesn't change the fact that the biggest faction in the game still ignores a massive portion of the game ...


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 18:53:50


Post by: SturmOgre


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.

Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.


Is there something wrong with my browser, or did you copy the quoted comment on purpose?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 19:14:23


Post by: Canadian 5th


SturmOgre wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.

Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.


Is there something wrong with my browser, or did you copy the quoted comment on purpose?

Nope, that's just me getting distracted.

My actual answer to his question is that there are plenty of examples of how data can be used by outsiders to make improvements to a system they only interact with in theory. I used sports as an example of this but your manager at work likely uses data to help streamline your workflow and thus even though they might never have done your jobs can take steps to make it easier. This doesn't always bear out in practice but nothing ever does.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 19:27:54


Post by: Hecaton


Removed - Rule #1 please


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 22:25:12


Post by: Spoletta


Tycho wrote:
GW just nerfed Bring it Down and Abhor the Witch. Does this make the need for an anti-elite secondary unnecessary?


No. First, while they did nerf Abhor, it still stacks w/assasinate and thus is still an issue. Definitely less of an issue but still an issue. Second, the need for the anti-elite secondary is a need independent of the abhor/assassinate discussion. Yes, abhor was nerfed, but this doesn't change the fact that the biggest faction in the game still ignores a massive portion of the game ...


The huge nerf to bring it down though reduces by a lot the list of factions that suffer from kill secondaries.

At this point they are more like the exception than the norm.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/07 22:50:32


Post by: Tycho


The huge nerf to bring it down though reduces by a lot the list of factions that suffer from kill secondaries.

At this point they are more like the exception than the norm


I might be misunderstanding you here, but marines were already the exception in that they don’t really suffer from the kill secondaries which is why some are saying we still need one (or suggesting to dump kill points entirely) for marines. While the faq does IMO fix some things, it doesn’t change the fact that marines are still generally immune.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 08:00:57


Post by: Spoletta


The game has 30+ factions and right now a whole TWO of them are really hindered by kill secondaries, so you want to add a dozen to that count to make things more fair?

I'll have you notice that nids are now quite safe in most of their lists.

Even astra militarum is now reasonably good. A list with 80 infantries and 6 tanks now gives only 12 in bring it down and gives 14 to thin their ranks only if you positively table every single model.

Demons no longer bleed Abhor the Witch when using multiple greater demons.

Admech now no longer bleeds bring it down.

The only two factions that now suffer the secondaries are TS and GK, and even there, you can now make some legit TS lists that don't bleed it so badly.
Don't know for GK, I don't have any experience playing them.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 11:30:44


Post by: Karol


Well with GK you bleed them the same as you did before. Sure your opponent has to kill a few more units, but it is not like killing a 1w marine that costs like a DG is hard to achive in a meta that is focued on killing marines with 2W, so not even termintors help much.
Losing 3 units and 2 characters is 10VP, it is really hard to imagine a game where something like this does not happen.
And opponents will try to kill characters, because they are the only ones that can use PA psychic powers and are part of GK trying to run theirs. To not get double or triple dipped on AtW, a GK player would have to face an opponent whose army is unable to kill marines in small numbers and half the wounds.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 14:06:24


Post by: Tycho


The game has 30+ factions and right now a whole TWO of them are really hindered by kill secondaries, so you want to add a dozen to that count to make things more fair?


No. I'm saying the need for it is completely independent of any issues Tsons and Grey Knights have. The only way to really fix those is to drop kill secondaries fully. Yes, the new faq semi-fixes a lot of problems with the secondaries. The issue it doesn't fix? Marines still being essentially immune to the kill secondaries.

Get rid of them all or make one that applies to them. I really don't care which, but it's terrible game design to make the biggest faction in the game both one of the best in terms of codex rules and one of the best in terms of benefiting from mission design. This needs fixed. The FAQ did nothing for that. Marines are actually my primary and have been since the beginning, but I stopped playing them in 8th. Would really like to pull them off the shelf at some point here, but I feel like they're still too good ...

That's all I'm saying. My opinion on the "elite secondary" has nothing to do with Tsons or Grey Knights.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 16:34:29


Post by: Spoletta


I understand your point, but I would no longer define them as "The best in terms of benefitting from mission design". They are simply on par with the other ones now.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 16:41:01


Post by: JNAProductions


Spoletta wrote:
I understand your point, but I would no longer define them as "The best in terms of benefitting from mission design". They are simply on par with the other ones now.
No?

If I take 6 Leman Russes, I give up 12 VP for 840-1,000 points of my army.
If I take 100 Guardsmen, I give up 10 VP for 550 points.
If I take 50 Intercessors or 50 Tacticals with upgrades, I give up 5 VP for 1,000 points.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 16:46:54


Post by: Tycho


No?

If I take 6 Leman Russes, I give up 12 VP for 840-1,000 points of my army.
If I take 100 Guardsmen, I give up 10 VP for 550 points.
If I take 50 Intercessors or 50 Tacticals with upgrades, I give up 5 VP for 1,000 points.


This. The fact that others are impacted slightly less does not change the fact that Marines are not impacted at all.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 16:52:52


Post by: CommunistNapkin


 JNAProductions wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
I understand your point, but I would no longer define them as "The best in terms of benefitting from mission design". They are simply on par with the other ones now.
No?

If I take 6 Leman Russes, I give up 12 VP for 840-1,000 points of my army.
If I take 100 Guardsmen, I give up 10 VP for 550 points.
If I take 50 Intercessors or 50 Tacticals with upgrades, I give up 5 VP for 1,000 points.


A Guard list consisting of 6 Russes (or support vehicles/artillery) and 100 infantry would be fluffy, thematic, and what you'd expect on the table at ~2000 points. Meaning more than likely, the opponent is going to take Bring It Down and Thin Their Ranks. So destroying those 6 vehicles will actually award 18 points (12 from BIG, 6 from TTR). Even with the changes, destroying 6 medium-heavy Guard vehicles to get that many points really won't be difficult.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 16:57:18


Post by: Tyel


The fact you'd only get 12 points though is I think a reasonably limiting factor on its own.

I think some distinction between easy 8-12 point secondaries and "hard but possible" 15 point secondaries is reasonable.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 17:05:35


Post by: JNAProductions


Tyel wrote:
The fact you'd only get 12 points though is I think a reasonably limiting factor on its own.

I think some distinction between easy 8-12 point secondaries and "hard but possible" 15 point secondaries is reasonable.
So where's the secondary that's an easy 12 against Marines?

Taking the cheapest possible options...

Three 10-Man Squads of Scouts is 420 points.
Three 4-Man squads or Servitors are 90 points.
Three Techmarines are 210 points.
One Lieutenant is 70 points.
That leaves 1,210 points to spend on naked Tactical Marines, for ten squads totaling 67 models. We'll say they're mostly 7- and 8-strong, with five and four respectively.

That's a total of 113 models at 1,996 points. Or 11 points for Thin Their Ranks if you utterly table your opponent.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 17:06:30


Post by: Tycho


The fact you'd only get 12 points though is I think a reasonably limiting factor on its own.

I think some distinction between easy 8-12 point secondaries and "hard but possible" 15 point secondaries is reasonable.


The problem is, show me a marine list that easily gives up anything in the same range. It's not about how much others are or are not hurt by the secondaries - it's about the fact that marines get to play a totally different game when it comes to this ...

EDIT:
JNA Ninja'd me


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 17:16:16


Post by: Spoletta


You are approaching this from the wrong point of view.

Taking 5 tanks does not award the opponent 10 VP. It awards zero VP.

As long as that secondary isn't better than the alternatives, then it is bleeding no points.

A secondary which at best gives you 10-12 points and to do that you need to table the enemy (i.e. win more situation) is a bad secondary and will not be chosen.

When simply talking a Raise the banner is a better investment, then you are bleeding zero points.

A marine list facing a tyranid list which awards 9 points in assassination, 9 in Abhor the Witch, 10 in Bring it down and 12 in Think their ranks, has NO ADVANTAGE over it, because they are all bad choices and he will choose secondaries not related to killing.

When you have alternatives like deploy scrambler and Engage on All fronts, a killing secondary must be at least 12-13 guaranteed points to be a true advantage.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 17:22:30


Post by: JNAProductions


Spoletta wrote:
You are approaching this from the wrong point of view.

Taking 5 tanks does not award the opponent 10 VP. It awards zero VP.

As long as that secondary isn't better than the alternatives, then it is bleeding no points.

A secondary which at best gives you 10-12 points and to do that you need to table the enemy (i.e. win more situation) is a bad secondary and will not be chosen.

When simply talking a Raise the banner is a better investment, then you are bleeding zero points.

A marine list facing a tyranid list which awards 9 points in assassination, 9 in Abhor the Witch, 10 in Bring it down and 12 in Think their ranks, has NO ADVANTAGE over it, because they are all bad choices and he will choose secondaries not related to killing.
Is there a list like that that's actually tournament-worthy, though?

Because, as I showed above, a Marine list focused on giving up points for Thin Their Ranks doesn't award maximum VP for it. Not even if fully tabled. (And it's possible you could squeeze in a few more models, but I doubt you could get 37 more.)

Whereas a Guard list could give up 15 for Thin Their Ranks at only 825 points, leaving 1,175 points to fill up with vehicles that give up 15 for Bring It Down. Since they need 8 Vehicles to max it out, assuming all the ones taken have 10+ wounds, that's an average of just over 145 points for each vehicle.

Edit:
Spoletta wrote:
When you alternatives like deploy scrambler and Engage on All fronts, a killing secondary must be at least 12-13 guaranteed points to be a true advantage.
Give me a Marine List that gives up 12+ guaranteed points on a Kill Secondary.

For bonus points, make it a list that's actually good and would see play at a tournament.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 17:25:29


Post by: Spoletta


There isn't such a marine list, but there isn't such a list for almost all the factions in the game, so I don't see why all of you are so eager to give an handicap to marine armies. I understand that they are OP, but as I said, altering missions structure isn't the way to fix that.

Please provide me a Tau/CWE/Harlequin/Custodes/Drukhari/Sister/... list that provides 12 easy killing points in a single category.

By the way, I listed the average points of a common competitive tyranid list. 3 Psykers characters, 5 beasts and a few gribblies. That's usually what as nid you field these days... and I've been generous on the beasts. You can get to 11 in abhor the witch if you use zoans, but when you do, you usually take one less psy character.

The only nid list that gives a killing secondary is the Tgant spam, which gives easy 15 on TTR, but at that point you are playing right into the very reason why that secondary exists.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 17:25:57


Post by: CommunistNapkin


Spoletta wrote:


When you alternatives like deploy scrambler and Engage on All fronts, a killing secondary must be at least 12-13 guaranteed points to be a true advantage.


Since killing the enemy's army is a massive part of the game, killing secondaries should be rewarding less. There is no opportunity cost for killing secondaries; you're going to kill stuff anyway. Any of the action-based secondaries require a unit to do basically nothing for a turn (though as I understand it, Space Marines have a stratagem to ignore this penalty, because why wouldn't they), so no shooting, no charging, no clearing the opponent off their objectives and taking it for yourself with that unit. The idea of being rewarded a bunch of extra points for doing the things you want to be doing anyway, on top of not giving up a significant amount of points for taking the units you want to be taking anyway, is the problem here.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 17:50:05


Post by: Tycho


Since killing the enemy's army is a massive part of the game, killing secondaries should be rewarding less. There is no opportunity cost for killing secondaries; you're going to kill stuff anyway. Any of the action-based secondaries require a unit to do basically nothing for a turn (though as I understand it, Space Marines have a stratagem to ignore this penalty, because why wouldn't they), so no shooting, no charging, no clearing the opponent off their objectives and taking it for yourself with that unit. The idea of being rewarded a bunch of extra points for doing the things you want to be doing anyway, on top of not giving up a significant amount of points for taking the units you want to be taking anyway, is the problem here.


Right - I perform a series of events to get to a spot and give up my ability to do anything for a turn ≠ I shoot my anti-tank gun at a tank.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 18:05:18


Post by: Karol


Why may also be a tank and my opponents highest cost 3, which grabs me AtW and stops him from getting WWFWS. And that is before breaking any army synergies stoping opponent from scoring etc.

kill objectives should be a thing. Maybe they even should be easy to do. But they should award less then non kill objectives that make you do nothing with 1-3 units for one or more turns.

Lets compare it to being 6" within middle of the board, not doing anything, passing a casting psychic power test and not being stopped by an opponent for 3 out of 5 turns, of the game to kill X number of units. Kind of mind blowing how different the objectives are.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 21:10:05


Post by: Tycho


kill objectives should be a thing. Maybe they even should be easy to do. But they should award less then non kill objectives that make you do nothing with 1-3 units for one or more turns.


The problem is, with how varied 40k armies currently are, I just don't think kill secondaries are possible without inadvertently and accidentally punishing an army simply for existing. I have yet to see a suggestion for new kill secondaries that don't somehow unfairly punish SOMEONE. Best to drop them if possible imo. Failing that, if we have to have them, NO ONE should be almost totally immune to them. The current middle ground isn't really a recipe for long-term health and success of the game.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 21:33:57


Post by: Blackie


Spoletta wrote:


Please provide me a Tau/CWE/Harlequin/Custodes/Drukhari/Sister/... list that provides 12 easy killing points in a single category.


Sisters' one is easy. Some competitive lists spam Mortifiers which are good but easy to kill; they're basically Killa Kanz with better damage output. They don't even split out after deployment so dedicated anti tank should do the job, Eradicators can double tap on them as they are a squadron and not individual models. All SoB tanks are squishy and they're also pretty common. 10-12 VPs for Bring it Down is super easy against Adepta Sororitas, even the full 15 is far from being impossible. Defeating them easily is a whole different story instead, as the faction is very solid.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 21:44:53


Post by: Tycho


Please provide me a Tau/CWE/Harlequin/Custodes/Drukhari/Sister/... list that provides 12 easy killing points in a single category.


You're correct about Custodes and they're part of the problem (to a way lesser degree), but right off the bat, with the possible exception of Drukhari and Harlequins, they all have a pretty good chance to eat 9-12 on assassinate. Not sure there are any competitive lists for Druhkari although Raiders are easy enough to kill that they're going to hand out BiD points like Candy (I think right? How many wounds are they again?). Ditto Ravagers, so even if those become competitive options they are almost auto-handicapped by it, which I guess is a really perverse way to future proof the game? lol

For quins I'm not sure I can think of one so I'm happy to say they're part of the problem. They shouldn't ignore the rules either. Ditto Custodes.

EDIT:

Frankly though, it doesn't matter. NO ONE should be functionally immune. If even one army is - that's a problem ...



Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 22:45:53


Post by: Ice_can


Tau give up BID up with alot of builds and before you go show me a winning Tau list they don't have one they don't work in 9th.

Being able to deny any meaningful kill secondarys is an advantage as you never have to compromise your list design for fear of haning out a maximum score or easy high score secondary.

Not every list has an easy time maximum scoring banners etc.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 22:59:04


Post by: Spoletta


Tycho wrote:
Please provide me a Tau/CWE/Harlequin/Custodes/Drukhari/Sister/... list that provides 12 easy killing points in a single category.


You're correct about Custodes and they're part of the problem (to a way lesser degree), but right off the bat, with the possible exception of Drukhari and Harlequins, they all have a pretty good chance to eat 9-12 on assassinate. Not sure there are any competitive lists for Druhkari although Raiders are easy enough to kill that they're going to hand out BiD points like Candy (I think right? How many wounds are they again?). Ditto Ravagers, so even if those become competitive options they are almost auto-handicapped by it, which I guess is a really perverse way to future proof the game? lol

For quins I'm not sure I can think of one so I'm happy to say they're part of the problem. They shouldn't ignore the rules either. Ditto Custodes.

EDIT:

Frankly though, it doesn't matter. NO ONE should be functionally immune. If even one army is - that's a problem ...



Raiders/ravagers have 10W, they give only a single point.

9-12 points in assassinate is normal for any list.
Even SM between captains, LTs, Apot, Ancients and so on usually give 12 points in assassinate. But assassinate is a bad secondary in most cases. It is usually a trap choice. To get at the enemy chars you need to table the opponent. Assassinate is a strictly "Win More" secondary. The only case where it is good, is when the enemy chars are aggressive, like Daemon lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote:
Tau give up BID up with alot of builds and before you go show me a winning Tau list they don't have one they don't work in 9th.

Being able to deny any meaningful kill secondarys is an advantage as you never have to compromise your list design for fear of haning out a maximum score or easy high score secondary.

Not every list has an easy time maximum scoring banners etc.


Ok, don't give me a winning list, but tell me which units are you thinking about.

Even a triptide is only 6 points. Ghostkeels are worth only 1.

You have to spam A LOT of devilfishes to have problems with BID.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 23:11:52


Post by: Ice_can


Phirana at 63 points per gives up 1VP per model and are one of the few units actually fast enough to allow you to take manoeuvres secondarys. Seen plenty of people taking 6-8 aswell as a riptide or two. Thats a solid 10-12 points. Devilfish are easier to kill but if you want to be primary they are needed. At 2 per aswell.

Some player's advocate going even harder into them as you can take 15 of them just from the codex at under 950 points.

Also people taking multiple hammer heads and skyrays.
7x2 is 14 points for those alone.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 23:28:41


Post by: Karol


Tycho wrote:
kill objectives should be a thing. Maybe they even should be easy to do. But they should award less then non kill objectives that make you do nothing with 1-3 units for one or more turns.


The problem is, with how varied 40k armies currently are, I just don't think kill secondaries are possible without inadvertently and accidentally punishing an army simply for existing. I have yet to see a suggestion for new kill secondaries that don't somehow unfairly punish SOMEONE. Best to drop them if possible imo. Failing that, if we have to have them, NO ONE should be almost totally immune to them. The current middle ground isn't really a recipe for long-term health and success of the game.


That is true, and not being a math person or game designer, I am now pulling numbers out of thing air. But what would be if we had four groups of objectives. Easy to do with lowest VP gained, based around killing stuff. Utility movment ones which would require doing specific stuff, maybe even with specific units, that would give more VP. And then a bizzar group number 3,which would be swingy maybe would require doing specific stuff for multiple turns or could be countered, but would come with the biggest VP award. And the fourth group would be primaris, which would be the usual survive, take quarters etc simple missions that are based around taking and holding objectives.



Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 23:45:57


Post by: Castozor


An anti-elite/SM secondary is sorely needed if they want to keep kill secondaries in the game. Having a vast swathe of armies be immune to most kill secondaries while the other half of armies bleed them everywhere is bad design. Ideally they would ban double dipping too, Assassinate + Abhor was the worst of the bunch, but why do vehicles give up Thin the Ranks too when we already have an anti-vehicle secondary? This just bones anyone wanting to play a combined arms army.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/08 23:47:46


Post by: Hecaton


 Castozor wrote:
An anti-elite/SM secondary is sorely needed if they want to keep kill secondaries in the game. Having a vast swathe of armies be immune to most kill secondaries while the other half of armies bleed them everywhere is bad design.


It's great design if you want to reinforce to Astartes players that they've made the right choice in their purchases, and they should buy even more.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 00:37:10


Post by: Daedalus81


Dakka jumping the conspiracy shark again.

Does Mental Interrogation indicate GW favoring armies that can take cheap psykers?
Do infantry actions indicate favoritism towards armies with cheap infantry that have throw away shooting?

But you don't argue anything other than "is this an advantage for marines? REEEEE".

I totally agree that there should be something to level things off, but get a grip, really. Its like reading Q posts.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 01:03:57


Post by: Tycho





Raiders/ravagers have 10W, they give only a single point.

9-12 points in assassinate is normal for any list.
Even SM between captains, LTs, Apot, Ancients and so on usually give 12 points in assassinate. But assassinate is a bad secondary in most cases. It is usually a trap choice. To get at the enemy chars you need to table the opponent. Assassinate is a strictly "Win More" secondary. The only case where it is good, is when the enemy chars are aggressive, like Daemon lists.


Except that it’s actually a lot harder to kill that many space marine characters realistically. Between taking Iron Hands, and the 2+ saves and invulnerable they have access to - assassinate sucks against marines so again - yet another example where they should be vulnerable but aren’t. And fair enough about the raiders (most of our Drukari players either gave up the game or switched armies a while ago so that was a shot in the dark admittedly), but my point still stands. There will always be some armies that are more effected than others, but as soon as you have one or two that are simply not effected? That’s a huge problem. You seem to think I’m specifically hung up on marines here and frankly, they are the worst offenders but like I said before - you’re right about Harley’s and that’s also a big problem. Weird too isn’t it ... the two most dominant factions ... don’t give up kill secondaries. Especially interesting considering you can’t even blame codex creep for the Quinn’s. It’s almost as if being immune to a major part of the game gives you some kind of ... advantage?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 09:12:23


Post by: Blackie


Considering how common are raiders, venoms, ravagers, bombers, jetfighters and talos 10-12 VPs from Bring it Down is far from being hard to achieve against any possible Drukhari list.

3 ravagers/flyers and 6 talos are already 9 VPs and that's before the mandatory transports for the infantries, unless the Drukhari player is using only wracks, mandrakes, scourges and characters as infantries.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 10:57:04


Post by: Spoletta


 Blackie wrote:
Considering how common are raiders, venoms, ravagers, bombers, jetfighters and talos 10-12 VPs from Bring it Down is far from being hard to achieve against any possible Drukhari list.

3 ravagers/flyers and 6 talos are already 9 VPs and that's before the mandatory transports for the infantries, unless the Drukhari player is using only wracks, mandrakes, scourges and characters as infantries.


Your point doesn't stand.

So, let's assume that together with 3 ravagers/flyers and 6 talos, someone is also bringing 4 transports. That's 13 VP IF YOU TABLE HIM.

That's NOT easy 12 VP, at all.

And if you are now thinking "They are Drukhari, they suck and tabling them is easy", you are again conflating faction balance with mission design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tycho wrote:



Raiders/ravagers have 10W, they give only a single point.

9-12 points in assassinate is normal for any list.
Even SM between captains, LTs, Apot, Ancients and so on usually give 12 points in assassinate. But assassinate is a bad secondary in most cases. It is usually a trap choice. To get at the enemy chars you need to table the opponent. Assassinate is a strictly "Win More" secondary. The only case where it is good, is when the enemy chars are aggressive, like Daemon lists.


Except that it’s actually a lot harder to kill that many space marine characters realistically. Between taking Iron Hands, and the 2+ saves and invulnerable they have access to - assassinate sucks against marines so again - yet another example where they should be vulnerable but aren’t. And fair enough about the raiders (most of our Drukari players either gave up the game or switched armies a while ago so that was a shot in the dark admittedly), but my point still stands. There will always be some armies that are more effected than others, but as soon as you have one or two that are simply not effected? That’s a huge problem. You seem to think I’m specifically hung up on marines here and frankly, they are the worst offenders but like I said before - you’re right about Harley’s and that’s also a big problem. Weird too isn’t it ... the two most dominant factions ... don’t give up kill secondaries. Especially interesting considering you can’t even blame codex creep for the Quinn’s. It’s almost as if being immune to a major part of the game gives you some kind of ... advantage?


1) Iron hands are no longer seen on these tables. All compliant marines are now either white, black or blue.

2) Assassinate sucks against all factions, not only against marines. They need to have something like 7 chars before it starts being a real secondary. Marine characters are actually EASIER to kill than other faction characters. Their defensive stats are nothing special, except maybe the captains, but they like to be on the frontline and they suffer a lot more than other factions from the new LoS rules (smaller units). Even like this though, if you take assassinate against someone with 5 characters is because you have already decided that it is an easy match. Against 3-4 chars is a bad choice.

3) Your point stands only if marines were the only faction, or at least among the few factions, that don't suffer from seconaries. This isn't true. Even more so after the FAQ. The list of factions that doesn't suffer from secondaries is much much bigger than the short list of the ones that do (GK, TS and some lists of a few other factions). Sure, many factions can actually put together a list that bleeds them if they actively pursue that, but the same is true for marines.

EDIT: By the way, the Harlquin's standing in the tiers is actually not related to bleeding secondaries. Harleys have a LOWER win% going first than Grey Knights, which for sure are not immune to bleeding. Faction wise, they are good, but nothing special. What propels Harleys into the top of the competition is their ability to offset the first turn advantage by menacing the other player's home objectives directly from turn 1. Their extremely good win% when going second gives them an high overall win% and a much better chance of making it to the top of the ladder in events.
Also look at chaos daemons. Top of the meta, and yet before this FAQ they bled Abhor the witch horribly.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 11:25:29


Post by: sanguine40k


Tycho wrote:
Weird too isn’t it ... the two most dominant factions ... don’t give up kill secondaries. Especially interesting considering you can’t even blame codex creep for the Quinn’s. It’s almost as if being immune to a major part of the game gives you some kind of ... advantage?


And not being able to affect large parts of the game *cough*T'au*cough* gives you a massive disadvantage.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 12:03:26


Post by: Blackie


Spoletta wrote:


Your point doesn't stand.

So, let's assume that together with 3 ravagers/flyers and 6 talos, someone is also bringing 4 transports. That's 13 VP IF YOU TABLE HIM.

That's NOT easy 12 VP, at all.

And if you are now thinking "They are Drukhari, they suck and tabling them is easy", you are again conflating faction balance with mission design.




I'm looking at real life here. Getting those 10-12 VPs against an optimized Drukhari armies IS super easy for any other optimized army, and I'm not talking about tournament level lists. That's a fact.

I'm not saying that in turn 1 or 2 anyone auto gets those VPs, but over the course of a regular game against Drukhari it's easy to score those VPs without focussing on scoring Bring It Down. For "easy" I have in mind a complete game.

If faction rules suck and they're not competitive it's irrelevant. My orks can give up tons of points on Bring It Down (6 mek gunz and 4 buggies are already 10 VPs, less than 700 points and some of the best units in the codex) and they'd still be competitive. Same for Sisters in the example I made in a previous post. It's super common to win games with just a few dudes standing at the end of turn 5, killing 80% (or more) of someone's army is an average result in 40k, if the game is played correctly. It's avoid getting tabled or almost tabled that isn't easy, for some armies, including some competitive ones like orks, is flat out impossible.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 12:07:19


Post by: Tyel


I agree with Spoletta that assassinate isn't a good choice if they only have 3-4 characters - and is potentially a bold choice if they have exactly 5, although I think you'd fancy 9ish points unless things go horribly wrong.

Where I disagree though is certain factions do - or at least *could* - bring 6-7 characters fairly easily, without an undue skew. Guard are an obvious one. GSC another. Tau to a degree if you bring any Marksman. Orks can easily can have quite a few characters even if it isn't optimal.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 12:17:19


Post by: Spoletta


 Blackie wrote:
Spoletta wrote:


Your point doesn't stand.

So, let's assume that together with 3 ravagers/flyers and 6 talos, someone is also bringing 4 transports. That's 13 VP IF YOU TABLE HIM.

That's NOT easy 12 VP, at all.

And if you are now thinking "They are Drukhari, they suck and tabling them is easy", you are again conflating faction balance with mission design.




I'm looking at real life here. Getting those 10-12 VPs against an optimized Drukhari armies IS super easy for any other optimized army, and I'm not talking about tournament level lists. That's a fact.

I'm not saying that in turn 1 or 2 anyone auto gets those VPs, but over the course of a regular game against Drukhari it's easy to score those VPs without focussing on scoring Bring It Down. For "easy" I have in mind a complete game.

If faction rules suck and they're not competitive it's irrelevant. My orks can give up tons of points on Bring It Down (6 mek gunz and 4 buggies are already 10 VPs, less than 700 points and some of the best units in the codex) and they'd still be competitive. Same for Sisters in the example I made in a previous post.


You are definitely underestimating how hard it is to score killing secondaries.

Let me give you some data. Before the FAQ, Bring it Down was one of the most selected secondaries. It got maxed in one game out of five with an average score of 9 points. Now, this could be because the one selecting it loses the game and doesn't manage to actually kill a lot of stuff of the other guy. So, let's look only at those who selected it and won, you will notice that it got maxed only in one game out of 3. This was the old Bring it Down.

Now, the current Bring it Down rewards around 40% less points than the previous one. I'll let you make your own conclusions.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 14:46:41


Post by: Blackie


And you are definitely overestimating data found on the internet. Those data DON'T reflect the current state of 40k, only a tiny fraction of it, which is tournament gaming affected by a global pandemic.

They're based on lists that aren't real (or they're just uncommon at most) for the majority of the players. Probably also based on 3 turns games due to tournaments' time limitations. Not to mention that most competitive tournament lists couldn't grant more than 10-12 VPs with the old system even if they got tabled.

This data may reflect the state of 40k online simulator maybe, not real 40k. Yours is pure theoryhammer.

Try playing in real life. I'd have no trouble getting 10+ VP for the new Bring it Down ojective against a typical optimized Drukhari list, and I'm not Lawrence Baker.

Getting 12-15 VPs for Bring it Down against any list with lots of vehicles/monsters was almost automatic before the FAQ. 10 VPs with the old system is the consquence of killing 5 models between venoms, raiders, ravagers, talos, flyers, which pretty much everyone could do within two turns, some even in one turn.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 15:29:12


Post by: Tyel


You have no problem killing 10+ Venoms/Raiders/Ravagers/Jetfighters and Talos?

I mean okay - but you might as well say "I have no problem tabling Dark Eldar" - because they can't have much else on the table after some HQ choices and troops.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 16:09:20


Post by: Karol


Tyel wrote:
You have no problem killing 10+ Venoms/Raiders/Ravagers/Jetfighters and Talos?

I mean okay - but you might as well say "I have no problem tabling Dark Eldar" - because they can't have much else on the table after some HQ choices and troops.


It is possible with something like marines with a lot of eradicators and melta bikes, or harlequins. OR if you know what your opponent plays, and then you playing with a tailored list in advance.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 17:45:52


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
Tyel wrote:
You have no problem killing 10+ Venoms/Raiders/Ravagers/Jetfighters and Talos?

I mean okay - but you might as well say "I have no problem tabling Dark Eldar" - because they can't have much else on the table after some HQ choices and troops.


It is possible with something like marines with a lot of eradicators and melta bikes, or harlequins. OR if you know what your opponent plays, and then you playing with a tailored list in advance.


you shouldnt be playing tailored lists in tournaments tho...And in casual its usually pretty frowned upon


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 18:44:31


Post by: Spoletta


 Blackie wrote:
And you are definitely overestimating data found on the internet. Those data DON'T reflect the current state of 40k, only a tiny fraction of it, which is tournament gaming affected by a global pandemic.

They're based on lists that aren't real (or they're just uncommon at most) for the majority of the players. Probably also based on 3 turns games due to tournaments' time limitations. Not to mention that most competitive tournament lists couldn't grant more than 10-12 VPs with the old system even if they got tabled.

This data may reflect the state of 40k online simulator maybe, not real 40k. Yours is pure theoryhammer.

Try playing in real life. I'd have no trouble getting 10+ VP for the new Bring it Down ojective against a typical optimized Drukhari list, and I'm not Lawrence Baker.

Getting 12-15 VPs for Bring it Down against any list with lots of vehicles/monsters was almost automatic before the FAQ. 10 VPs with the old system is the consquence of killing 5 models between venoms, raiders, ravagers, talos, flyers, which pretty much everyone could do within two turns, some even in one turn.


Wait... let me understand... I bring actual data from real games to the table against your pure general armchairing... and I'm the one who should play more real games???


Sorry to tell you that that data IS real 40K, no matter how you slice it.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 18:58:44


Post by: Void__Dragon


 Blackie wrote:
And you are definitely overestimating data found on the internet. Those data DON'T reflect the current state of 40k, only a tiny fraction of it, which is tournament gaming affected by a global pandemic.

They're based on lists that aren't real (or they're just uncommon at most) for the majority of the players. Probably also based on 3 turns games due to tournaments' time limitations. Not to mention that most competitive tournament lists couldn't grant more than 10-12 VPs with the old system even if they got tabled.

This data may reflect the state of 40k online simulator maybe, not real 40k. Yours is pure theoryhammer.

Try playing in real life. I'd have no trouble getting 10+ VP for the new Bring it Down ojective against a typical optimized Drukhari list, and I'm not Lawrence Baker.

Getting 12-15 VPs for Bring it Down against any list with lots of vehicles/monsters was almost automatic before the FAQ. 10 VPs with the old system is the consquence of killing 5 models between venoms, raiders, ravagers, talos, flyers, which pretty much everyone could do within two turns, some even in one turn.


"Bro trust me bro feth any data trust me in MY games I max bring it down every time trust me!"


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 18:59:45


Post by: Gadzilla666


The fact that it's now harder to max out on some kill secondaries doesn't make up for the fact that there are no kill secondaries for units of multiple multi-wound models in the more "elite" factions. Either there should be a kill secondary for everything that can be skewed or there should be no kill secondaries (my personal preference).


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 19:50:37


Post by: Spoletta


A "skew" is something that invalidates a weapon category.

Multiwound infantry doesn't negate anything. Tell me what a ravener invalidates.

To invalidate a class of weapons you need to either be so insignificant that AT weapons sent your way are as good as trashed, or your wound AND T needs to be so high that a good part of the weapons in the game can't touch you.

Being multiwound in itself isn't something that can generate skewed lists. In fact, the PEQ profile has historically been considered bad (this board's words, not mine) because it can be dented by light fire, the single model is big enough to suffer AT fire and all the while it is harshly punished by D2 weapons. The PEQ profile cannot skew.

The gravis profile instead can, because 3W T5 starts being quite resistant to light fire, and I've already said that I would be in favor of such secondary.

Edit: Or so I thought before running the math. On further analysis, gravis profiles are not as resistant as I initially believed to light weapons.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 19:55:48


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Spoletta wrote:
A "skew" is something that invalidates a weapon category.

Multiwound infantry doesn't negate anything. Tell me what a ravener invalidates.

To invalidate a class of weapons you need to either be so insignificant that AT weapons sent your way are as good as trashed, or your wound AND T needs to be so high that a good part of the weapons in the game can't touch you.

Being multiwound in itself isn't something that can generate skewed lists. In fact, the PEQ profile has historically been considered bad (this board's words, not mine) because it can be dented by light fire, the single model is big enough to suffer AT fire and all the while it is harshly punished by D2 weapons. The PEQ profile cannot skew.

The gravis profile instead can, because 3W T5 starts being quite resistant to light fire, and I've already said that I would be in favor of such secondary.


multiwound infantry negates most of the anti-infantry weapons.... When you NEED to bring plasma (or something similar) to deal with the basic troops of an army, that means things like lasguns, scatter lasers and burst cannons dont do gak anymore


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 20:01:43


Post by: Gadzilla666


Spoletta wrote:
A "skew" is something that invalidates a weapon category.

Multiwound infantry doesn't negate anything. Tell me what a ravener invalidates.

To invalidate a class of weapons you need to either be so insignificant that AT weapons sent your way are as good as trashed, or your wound AND T needs to be so high that a good part of the weapons in the game can't touch you.

Being multiwound in itself isn't something that can generate skewed lists. In fact, the PEQ profile has historically been considered bad (this board's words, not mine) because it can be dented by light fire, the single model is big enough to suffer AT fire and all the while it is harshly punished by D2 weapons. The PEQ profile cannot skew.

The gravis profile instead can, because 3W T5 starts being quite resistant to light fire, and I've already said that I would be in favor of such secondary.

Edit: Or so I thought before running the math. On further analysis, gravis profiles are not as resistant as I initially believed to light weapons.

That's exactly what most of us are talking about: an equivalent to the ITC secondary "Gangbusters", which targets non-troops units comprised of multiple 3+ wound models. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Edit: It takes 41S4, AP0, BS3 bolter rounds or 54 S3, AP0, BS4 lasgun shots to kill one 3W, T5, 3+ gravis marine. How is that not resistant to light weapons?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 20:25:30


Post by: Spoletta


That's what I thought too. Then I ran the math on it. PEQ and GrEQ are clearly not countered with light fire, but they also don't ignore it.


For reference, look at a sister. She has a basic bolter and she isn't a glass cannon, but a model with a balance between offense and defense.

Now, a sister rapid firing into an intercessor has a return of 20% on her points. Clearly she isn't shooting at her optimal target, when shooting at a boyz she gets double that return. When shooting at a leman russ though, she gets less than 7%. That's a bad target.
If my opponent theorically has only leman russes, then my bolters are useless. If my opponent instead only has intercessors, then my bolters have no optimal targets, but are not wasted.

Now look at AT weapons. Let's take a lad predator as an example. Said predator shoots on the leman russ and gets a return of 33%. A good target. The same predator shoots at a boy squad and gets around 1%. Very bad target. Now it shoots an intercessor squad with a 20% return. Not good, but not bad.

As you can see, the PEQ profile isn't immune to neither light fire nor AT. Any weapon firing on it has some return. In all this, they are extremely vulnerable to anti elite fire.

A list made entirely of intercessors wouldn't invalidate any of your weapons.

Edit: Yes, gravis are not immune. Actually, look at the return of a guardmen on an aggressor, it's hilarious

By the way, it is not my thesis that the intercessors are not immune to light fire. It is something that was said multiple times by multiple people on this same board. I'm quite sure that if go and check old posts, I will find some of the same people that are now posting in this thread.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/09 21:36:21


Post by: Ice_can


Your also ignoring one of the biggest issue's with the secondarys which is which one do you use to score point's against marine spam as marines can run gravis or similar statlines in troops, heavy, fast attack, HQ and elites.

Which if they hit like wet noodles also wouldn't be a problem, except they don't. They have some of the best overall functioning units almost tailor made to abuse the 9th edition mission rules.

Undercosted heavysupport units that can return over 100% of their points in a single rouns of shooting.

Aura buffs that can be stacked on units with such defensive statlines not even a 2000 point list can kill them in a single turn.

Not to mention the free buffs to their not insignificant damage output for being painted a given color.

When you can run an entire army of T5 3W 3+ or better your opponents going to have to work excessively hard to gain anything for killing your army.

Which would be fine if kill secondarys didn't exsist full stop, or were capped at a much lower score or something.


Custodes run into a similar issue minus the damage output buffs. They can be rediculously inefficient to kill the benifit so far as they are still only puting out 8th edition levels of damage so you arn't tabled by them in 2 good rounds.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 00:18:16


Post by: The Newman


Ice_can wrote:
Aura buffs that can be stacked on units with such defensive statlines not even a 2000 point list can kill them in a single turn.


That's the kind of claim that just begs you to show your work, especially when every third thread on this board is [censored] about how absurdly lethal the game is.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 00:32:06


Post by: Karol


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
you shouldnt be playing tailored lists in tournaments tho...And in casual its usually pretty frowned upon

And you shouldn't hit your opponent in the scrotum durning fights and people still do it, be it to get on the main team or even at big events. If you don't get caught it just is what it is. The opponent or person from your weight class can frown all he wants, if it is you who is getting the scholarship or sponsors for being ranked.

I have not seen, not being a tournament player, but heard enough about people dropping games, letting friends roll them over or playing lists just to run in to someone in specific rounds, and kick them out of top 8, or as a plain event meta choice for your team, to know that it happens in w40k too. And if it happens in tournaments, then it 100% happens at stores too, specialy with people you know you will never play int he next 2-3 months.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 00:35:45


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
you shouldnt be playing tailored lists in tournaments tho...And in casual its usually pretty frowned upon

And you shouldn't hit your opponent in the scrotum durning fights and people still do it, be it to get on the main team or even at big events. If you don't get caught it just is what it is. The opponent or person from your weight class can frown all he wants, if it is you who is getting the scholarship or sponsors for being ranked.

I have not seen, not being a tournament player, but heard enough about people dropping games, letting friends roll them over or playing lists just to run in to someone in specific rounds, and kick them out of top 8, or as a plain event meta choice for your team, to know that it happens in w40k too. And if it happens in tournaments, then it 100% happens at stores too, specialy with people you know you will never play int he next 2-3 months.


stop comparing 40k to your wrestling experience, theyre two very different things.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 00:47:14


Post by: Karol


Every sport and every competition looks like that. w40k is a game, it has a clear winner and a clear loser. There for people do the same things.
As I listed, throwing games to friends so they get in to top tables, playing slow so the game doesn't have a real resolution and they can't score full points. There is ton of stuff people shouldn't do, but they clearly do it, and they do it durning huge events while they are streamed.

And outside of tournaments, anytime someone knows there chance they will probably not interact with the other person in a long time, or even at all, they are willing to do more or less anything, if it gives them an adventage. I use sport examples, because I think through pictures and it is easier for me to visualize stuff with them.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 01:19:16


Post by: Hecaton


Karol wrote:
And outside of tournaments, anytime someone knows there chance they will probably not interact with the other person in a long time, or even at all, they are willing to do more or less anything, if it gives them an adventage.


Again, no. Not all people are like that. There are some, sure, but Poland isn't chock-full of them, and you should be aware enough to know that it isn't true globally as well.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 01:42:05


Post by: Karol


I was talking about the stuff that was going on in US tournaments in 8th ed. And if stuff like that is done by known, people who then become GW playtesters, I assume that it has to be a Thing people do. And to be honest I don't really care if it is internet statistics 100% or real 100%. it is enough if people know that other people can do it, and live and act if the other person could do it at any moment.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 01:48:05


Post by: Hecaton


Karol wrote:
I was talking about the stuff that was going on in US tournaments in 8th ed. And if stuff like that is done by known, people who then become GW playtesters, I assume that it has to be a Thing people do. And to be honest I don't really care if it is internet statistics 100% or real 100%. it is enough if people know that other people can do it, and live and act if the other person could do it at any moment.


The issue is you're talking in absolutes. Yes, some people do it, but not everyone. But you like to act like everyone in Poland is a sociopath, for some reason.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 05:15:50


Post by: Void__Dragon


Karol wrote:

And you shouldn't hit your opponent in the scrotum durning fights and people still do it, be it to get on the main team or even at big events. If you don't get caught it just is what it is. The opponent or person from your weight class can frown all he wants, if it is you who is getting the scholarship or sponsors for being ranked.

I have not seen, not being a tournament player, but heard enough about people dropping games, letting friends roll them over or playing lists just to run in to someone in specific rounds, and kick them out of top 8, or as a plain event meta choice for your team, to know that it happens in w40k too. And if it happens in tournaments, then it 100% happens at stores too, specialy with people you know you will never play int he next 2-3 months.


The difference is that in 40k I can take a glance at your list and determine if it was tailored to stomp me, and can then decide not to play with you, perhaps even spit in your face or say something inappropriate about your mother.

Unlike low-blowing in a combat sport it is easy to see from the get-go, it doesn't just happen out of nowhere.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 08:06:50


Post by: Spoletta


Ice_can wrote:
Your also ignoring one of the biggest issue's with the secondarys which is which one do you use to score point's against marine spam as marines can run gravis or similar statlines in troops, heavy, fast attack, HQ and elites.

Which if they hit like wet noodles also wouldn't be a problem, except they don't. They have some of the best overall functioning units almost tailor made to abuse the 9th edition mission rules.

Undercosted heavysupport units that can return over 100% of their points in a single rouns of shooting.

Aura buffs that can be stacked on units with such defensive statlines not even a 2000 point list can kill them in a single turn.

Not to mention the free buffs to their not insignificant damage output for being painted a given color.

When you can run an entire army of T5 3W 3+ or better your opponents going to have to work excessively hard to gain anything for killing your army.

Which would be fine if kill secondarys didn't exsist full stop, or were capped at a much lower score or something.


Custodes run into a similar issue minus the damage output buffs. They can be rediculously inefficient to kill the benifit so far as they are still only puting out 8th edition levels of damage so you arn't tabled by them in 2 good rounds.




I think that we have been repeating the same things for 5 pages now.
Let me tell you one last time, then I'm done answering you. In this thread, marines are not OP. All factions are 100% balanced. Take your SM OP issues to an SM nerf thread. Stop bringing spot balance issues into a thread discussing a general rule.

Thanks.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 08:36:59


Post by: Ice_can


Spoletta wrote:




I think that we have been repeating the same things for 5 pages now.
Let me tell you one last time, then I'm done answering you. In this thread, marines are not OP. All factions are 100% balanced. Take your SM OP issues to an SM nerf thread. Stop bringing spot balance issues into a thread discussing a general rule.

Thanks.

Yet you still keep failing to actually address the point of the thread what secondary rewards the opponent appropriately for killing marines?

Also Really you want to claim all factions are balanced? That's bold given we have win ratio swings from 65% to 35% but more fundamentally have an avarage VP score difference of +10VP for Marines, custodes, Harliquines vrs their opponents.

While the worst factions have swings of -10VP on average and funnily enough when you look into the later round data those imbalances tend to get worse not better.
Factions having an avarage 80-90 VP score win or loose in later rounds vrs other factions having a 60-70 VP score win or loose in later rounds says the secondarys are far from balanced.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 08:52:07


Post by: Hecaton


Spoletta wrote:




I think that we have been repeating the same things for 5 pages now.
Let me tell you one last time, then I'm done answering you. In this thread, marines are not OP. All factions are 100% balanced. Take your SM OP issues to an SM nerf thread. Stop bringing spot balance issues into a thread discussing a general rule.

Thanks.


Except they're obivously related. It's insulting to the intelligence of the people you're discussing this with that you think you can lie through your teeth and people will believe you. Trying to say that word of god it's verboten to discuss the power level of various factions, and obviously because it undermines the arguments you're trying to make, is just chicanery. Get off your gak.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 08:56:20


Post by: Spoletta


Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:




I think that we have been repeating the same things for 5 pages now.
Let me tell you one last time, then I'm done answering you. In this thread, marines are not OP. All factions are 100% balanced. Take your SM OP issues to an SM nerf thread. Stop bringing spot balance issues into a thread discussing a general rule.

Thanks.

Yet you still keep failing to actually address the point of the thread what secondary rewards the opponent appropriately for killing marines?

Also Really you want to claim all factions are balanced? That's bold given we have win ratio swings from 65% to 35% but more fundamentally have an avarage VP score difference of +10VP for Marines, custodes, Harliquines vrs their opponents.

While the worst factions have swings of -10VP on average and funnily enough when you look into the later round data those imbalances tend to get worse not better.
Factions having an avarage 80-90 VP score win or loose in later rounds vrs other factions having a 60-70 VP score win or loose in later rounds says the secondarys are far from balanced.


Hecaton wrote:
Spoletta wrote:




I think that we have been repeating the same things for 5 pages now.
Let me tell you one last time, then I'm done answering you. In this thread, marines are not OP. All factions are 100% balanced. Take your SM OP issues to an SM nerf thread. Stop bringing spot balance issues into a thread discussing a general rule.

Thanks.


Except they're obivously related. It's insulting to the intelligence of the people you're discussing this with that you think you can lie through your teeth and people will believe you. Trying to say that word of god it's verboten to discuss the power level of various factions, and obviously because it undermines the arguments you're trying to make, is just chicanery. Get off your gak.




Ok that's it.

At this point, I must be bad at explaining things.

Someone with more patience and better explaining capabilities than me, please tell them where they are wrong. I don't stand them any longer, if I were to answer, I would get this thread locked.




Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 09:00:17


Post by: Hecaton


Spoletta wrote:

At this point, I must be bad at explaining things.


No, you're not, you're just wrong.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 09:26:23


Post by: Blackie


Spoletta wrote:


Wait... let me understand... I bring actual data from real games to the table against your pure general armchairing... and I'm the one who should play more real games???


Sorry to tell you that that data IS real 40K, no matter how you slice it.


Still you don't acknoledge, or purposefully ignore it, that it's referred to a specific fraction of 40k.

That lethality is too high is a fact and if your games don't end up with 70% of the lists gone at the end of turn 3 you're playing a different game or you're playing it wrong. Bring It Down was probably the easiest secondary to max out so it's no surprise that many competitive lists didn't bring enough vehicles/monsters to allow the opponent to get those 15 VPs. Simple.

Many competitive players say that optimized lists should 1-shot a knight. A list that can 1-shot a kngiht could easily get 15 VPs from Bring It Down before the FAQ.

Maybe you don't know but data (numbers in general) aren't info, it's the analysis of data that gives you the info. They're useless without a context.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 09:27:46


Post by: BrianDavion


I honestly think people should wait until codex dark eldar comes out before panicing too much, dark eldar'll give us an idea of how an entire range of armies (medium to light armor, fast and supposed to hit hard) are going to translate into 9th edition. with that I think we'll at least have a useful datapoint. (and yes I agree the codices need to come out faster)


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 09:31:56


Post by: Blackie


 Void__Dragon wrote:


The difference is that in 40k I can take a glance at your list and determine if it was tailored to stomp me, and can then decide not to play with you, perhaps even spit in your face or say something inappropriate about your mother.



You can't do it in a tournament though, which apparently is the only way of playing 40k for some posters. And let the me tell you a secret: tournament lists ARE tailored against the 2-3 most powerful factions. TAC lists are for casual play. Always have been like this.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 09:37:04


Post by: BrianDavion


 Blackie wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:


The difference is that in 40k I can take a glance at your list and determine if it was tailored to stomp me, and can then decide not to play with you, perhaps even spit in your face or say something inappropriate about your mother.



You can't do it in a tournament though, which apparently is the only way of playing 40k for some posters. And let the me tell you a secret: tournament lists ARE tailored against the 2-3 most powerful factions. TAC lists are for casual play. Always have been like this.


maybe but it seems silly to worry about tournment enviroments right now when we;re waiting for codices and covid has shut everything down


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 09:51:26


Post by: Spoletta


Tycho wrote:
They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.


Some do and they are easy to ignore.



I forgot that I had received a great insight earlier in this thread. Time to use it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
I honestly think people should wait until codex dark eldar comes out before panicing too much, dark eldar'll give us an idea of how an entire range of armies (medium to light armor, fast and supposed to hit hard) are going to translate into 9th edition. with that I think we'll at least have a useful datapoint. (and yes I agree the codices need to come out faster)


Hmm, I disagree a bit there. I don't think that the next codex will give any additonal info or development on mission design. It may make them more competitive, but that isn't really relevant to missions.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 10:20:56


Post by: Blackie


BrianDavion wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:


The difference is that in 40k I can take a glance at your list and determine if it was tailored to stomp me, and can then decide not to play with you, perhaps even spit in your face or say something inappropriate about your mother.



You can't do it in a tournament though, which apparently is the only way of playing 40k for some posters. And let the me tell you a secret: tournament lists ARE tailored against the 2-3 most powerful factions. TAC lists are for casual play. Always have been like this.


maybe but it seems silly to worry about tournment enviroments right now when we;re waiting for codices and covid has shut everything down


I don't know. People that are into competitive gaming will still play tournament oriented lists. List tailoring exists any levels:

- Between friends: after a few games all players in the group will know the opponents' list and will tailor. Sometimes it's even impossible to play fair games against players with limited collections unless heavy tailoring.

- Pick up games against strangers: meta settles everywhere and if there's a faction or two that constantly win games other players will tailor against those. Say that an ork green tide (or a custodes, harlequins, gravis army or any other powerful skew army) wins every game at a club, or most of its games; at some point other players will change their lists in order to counter it, especially if it's not a single player's list but a fairly common archetype.

The only players that don't tailor are those who:

A) Don't have the models to change their lists
B) Play a very skew list/army and don't have alternatives
C) Are some sort of narrative guys: they have their favorite models to play with and they'll bring them no matter what


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 10:57:24


Post by: Tyel


On Intercessors/Gravis invalidating a weapon category - its true, on base stats they don't. 20% return isn't great but its not terrible.

Unfortunately the Marine player can, relatively easily, assuming there is the proper amount of terrain on the table, find themselves in cover for a 2+ save. At which point by the numbers, shooting them becomes much the same as shooting a Leman Russ (depending on the Russ's loadout). Which we've said does invalidate light shooting. Hence the argument that "modern MEQ" - which gets to bring T4/3+ save wounds for 10ish points a go - or slightly more T5 wounds - is a skew that makes AP0 guns near worthless. And therefore, if we believe Bring It Down is meant to be a negative on mech walls, carry with it secondaries in a consequence.

This will become even more obvious *in time* as Chaos and GK get the Primarisification of their stats - but this is already a world where about 1/3rd of all players play bogstandard Space Marines.

Another solution to this problem - although it might be worse, as I feel this is a specifically Marine issue - would be that cover cannot increase a save beyond 3+. I also think storm shields shouldn't give 2+/4+ - or if they do, they shouldn't be so ludicrously cheap - but maybe that's another battle to be fought.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 12:22:27


Post by: Spoletta


Tyel wrote:
On Intercessors/Gravis invalidating a weapon category - its true, on base stats they don't. 20% return isn't great but its not terrible.

Unfortunately the Marine player can, relatively easily, assuming there is the proper amount of terrain on the table, find themselves in cover for a 2+ save. At which point by the numbers, shooting them becomes much the same as shooting a Leman Russ (depending on the Russ's loadout). Which we've said does invalidate light shooting. Hence the argument that "modern MEQ" - which gets to bring T4/3+ save wounds for 10ish points a go - or slightly more T5 wounds - is a skew that makes AP0 guns near worthless. And therefore, if we believe Bring It Down is meant to be a negative on mech walls, carry with it secondaries in a consequence.

This will become even more obvious *in time* as Chaos and GK get the Primarisification of their stats - but this is already a world where about 1/3rd of all players play bogstandard Space Marines.

Another solution to this problem - although it might be worse, as I feel this is a specifically Marine issue - would be that cover cannot increase a save beyond 3+. I also think storm shields shouldn't give 2+/4+ - or if they do, they shouldn't be so ludicrously cheap - but maybe that's another battle to be fought.


If you give said tanks a cover bonus too, then the comparison is still quite valid... or at least that's what I would have said in 8th.

You have a point. Since Cover is no longer something that can be applied to tanks (barring some special rules), then it is now a strict benefit of infantry and must be considered. This makes it genuinely an issue.

I would like to review my position on the gravis secondary, but fact is that I can't, because there are bikes. Bikes have the same defensive profile as a gravis, and yet they cannot claim cover. If you consider gravis spam a skew because indeed once you factor the possibility of cover it becomes one, then you ALSO need to limit that secondary to infantry models or you needlessly punish bike lists, which instead are not a skew. At the same time I would like it to include terminators, because you can skew with them, but it shouldn't include stuff like nid warriors which instead are surely not negating any weapon.
I mean, it would have to be so specific that we may as well use Terminator and Gravis keywords in it...

Edit: Spelling


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 12:34:26


Post by: Blackie


Spoletta wrote:


I mean, it would have to be so specific that we may as well you Terminator and Gravis keywords in it....


For secondary that targets elite oriented untis just say T5+ and 3+W, <INFANTRY> or <BIKER> models. Done.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 12:54:07


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Blackie wrote:
Spoletta wrote:


I mean, it would have to be so specific that we may as well you Terminator and Gravis keywords in it....


For secondary that targets elite oriented untis just say T5+ and 3+W, <INFANTRY> or <BIKER> models. Done.

That would just have marines trading their gravis for terminators. It should be units of NON-TROOPS with multiple 3+W models. That would hit the worst offenders without affecting things like Tyranid Warriors and Custodes troop options. We don't need a secondary that specifically targets troops.

Personally, I'm quite interested in the idea of not allowing cover to provide better than a 3+ save, that would be a return to the old system where cover was more beneficial for light infantry than heavy infantry, but to make it really work cover would probably have to return to being an invulnerable save. Otherwise heavy infantry could become even more vulnerable to high AP weapons. (Would need to do some math to be sure)


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 12:57:15


Post by: Bitharne


With the change to BiD and AtW; I see a push for kill-secondaries to be like Cut off the Head and Titan Hunters: requiring a true skew list to score 15 but usually averaging 10-12 a game.

We do need a few more passes for that; as well as a rule excluding any kills for counting towards two secondaries.

I would also like to see Warpcraft get a change. Perhaps make it so that the "spell actions" can't be denied. Taking away one offensive/buff cast is payment enough for doing this without risking a deny.


That said...I don't think there is any reason for a Kill-Secondary that targets Elite/Marines. They're already on the back-foot if they're playing someone from whom they can score a consistent 15 due to their army size (Thin/Grind/BiD/etc) due to board control. If you're worried about marines taking points off of you with any of those then you're going to outscore them in any movement/action oriented category (which is a LOT of them).

However, if they wanted to add one I'd suggest:

Kill a unit of 2+ wound models for 2 points.
Kill a unit of 3+ wound models for 3 points.

This would give people on here some way to get points for downing marine squads as well as help push some more choice onto Marine players over Combat Squading or not; which I love.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 13:41:22


Post by: Spoletta


 Blackie wrote:
Spoletta wrote:


I mean, it would have to be so specific that we may as well you Terminator and Gravis keywords in it....


For secondary that targets elite oriented untis just say T5+ and 3+W, <INFANTRY> or <BIKER> models. Done.



Well no, my point was that I don't want bikers to be affected. They can't claim cover.

And T5 3+W hits chaos spawns and grotesque.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Spoletta wrote:


I mean, it would have to be so specific that we may as well you Terminator and Gravis keywords in it....


For secondary that targets elite oriented untis just say T5+ and 3+W, <INFANTRY> or <BIKER> models. Done.

That would just have marines trading their gravis for terminators. It should be units of NON-TROOPS with multiple 3+W models. That would hit the worst offenders without affecting things like Tyranid Warriors and Custodes troop options. We don't need a secondary that specifically targets troops.

Personally, I'm quite interested in the idea of not allowing cover to provide better than a 3+ save, that would be a return to the old system where cover was more beneficial for light infantry than heavy infantry, but to make it really work cover would probably have to return to being an invulnerable save. Otherwise heavy infantry could become even more vulnerable to high AP weapons. (Would need to do some math to be sure)


I would apply just a small change. Cannot improve the save higher than 3+. If the model already has a 3+ save or better, it ignores the first point of AP. This way you keep the same durability of the models, without having them become impervious to light weapons when in cover.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 13:59:35


Post by: Karol


Spoletta 795109 11025781 wrote:
I would apply just a small change. Cannot improve the save higher than 3+. If the model already has a 3+ save or better, it ignores the first point of AP. This way you keep the same durability of the models, without having them become impervious to light weapons when in cover.

It would make multi shot weapons more efficient at kill termintor class models, specialy those that have ap0. And as much as I don't like this types of arguments, something like an auto gun should bounce off an suit of termintor armour.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 14:12:46


Post by: Gadzilla666


Spoletta wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Spoletta wrote:


I mean, it would have to be so specific that we may as well you Terminator and Gravis keywords in it....


For secondary that targets elite oriented untis just say T5+ and 3+W, <INFANTRY> or <BIKER> models. Done.

That would just have marines trading their gravis for terminators. It should be units of NON-TROOPS with multiple 3+W models. That would hit the worst offenders without affecting things like Tyranid Warriors and Custodes troop options. We don't need a secondary that specifically targets troops.

Personally, I'm quite interested in the idea of not allowing cover to provide better than a 3+ save, that would be a return to the old system where cover was more beneficial for light infantry than heavy infantry, but to make it really work cover would probably have to return to being an invulnerable save. Otherwise heavy infantry could become even more vulnerable to high AP weapons. (Would need to do some math to be sure)


I would apply just a small change. Cannot improve the save higher than 3+. If the model already has a 3+ save or better, it ignores the first point of AP. This way you keep the same durability of the models, without having them become impervious to light weapons when in cover.

That would make cover beneficial for 3+ or better save models but not overly so, and encourage them to use their basic armour save and mobility when dealing with low AP weapons, similar to the old cover system. I like it, but again it should be mathed out to ensure it works properly.

Karol wrote:
Spoletta 795109 11025781 wrote:
I would apply just a small change. Cannot improve the save higher than 3+. If the model already has a 3+ save or better, it ignores the first point of AP. This way you keep the same durability of the models, without having them become impervious to light weapons when in cover.

It would make multi shot weapons more efficient at kill termintor class models, specialy those that have ap0. And as much as I don't like this types of arguments, something like an auto gun should bounce off an suit of termintor armour.

No it wouldn't. They would still get their 2+ save against AP0 weapons, just like the old system. Terminators shouldn't be hiding from lasguns and bolters.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 17:29:04


Post by: catbarf


If we're talking about cover systems, the old system of it conferring an invulnerable save did exactly what you guys are fishing for: Make lightly-armored stuff more durable against everything, and make heavily-armored stuff more durable against high-AP weapons but not small arms.

It'd also give light infantry more of a reason to exist.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 18:02:18


Post by: Spoletta


 catbarf wrote:
If we're talking about cover systems, the old system of it conferring an invulnerable save did exactly what you guys are fishing for: Make lightly-armored stuff more durable against everything, and make heavily-armored stuff more durable against high-AP weapons but not small arms.

It'd also give light infantry more of a reason to exist.


By contrast, the old cover system removed value from the armor save. There was little difference between a model with a 6+ and a model with a 4+.

Making light armored stuff that resilient could be very very dangerous for the game. Their current resilience is fine.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 19:02:02


Post by: Hecaton


Spoletta wrote:
Making light armored stuff that resilient could be very very dangerous for the game. Their current resilience is fine.


Nah. They're very often not worth taking unless they have an invulnerable save.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 20:21:40


Post by: Spoletta


Hecaton wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Making light armored stuff that resilient could be very very dangerous for the game. Their current resilience is fine.


Nah. They're very often not worth taking unless they have an invulnerable save.


As with all categories, it depends on the specific unit. Right now we have lists that just with a 6++ can produce extremely obnoxious but effective spam lists. I don't want to see what could happen with a 4++.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 20:45:51


Post by: bat702


I dont think you can straight do wounds obviously, you would need to count those sweet 3+ and 2+ saves


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/10 21:40:50


Post by: Hecaton


Spoletta wrote:

As with all categories, it depends on the specific unit. Right now we have lists that just with a 6++ can produce extremely obnoxious but effective spam lists. I don't want to see what could happen with a 4++.


A 6+ Invul is only a 16% increase in durability, at most, so if a unit is producing obnoxious results with that, it's not because of the invul save.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 07:11:31


Post by: Spoletta


Hecaton wrote:
Spoletta wrote:

As with all categories, it depends on the specific unit. Right now we have lists that just with a 6++ can produce extremely obnoxious but effective spam lists. I don't want to see what could happen with a 4++.


A 6+ Invul is only a 16% increase in durability, at most, so if a unit is producing obnoxious results with that, it's not because of the invul save.


20% actually, but yes, they would probably perform decently even without it.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 08:30:19


Post by: Blackie


Or instead of stats the secondary affective elite could be based on ppm. Like non character <INFANTRY>, <BIKER> (sorry but Outriders, Skyweavers or custodes jetbikes should definitely be hit by that), <CAVALRY> units that cost 30-32+ppm BEFORE upgrades.

1 VP for every 2 models killed.

Some troops units could be affected but I don't see it as a problem: tyranids can have warriors or other elite models in small numbers, they don't need a skew elite oriented list like SM or custeodes which makes the secondary not that juicy against them. I wouldn't select it if I can only get 5-6 VPs at most out of it. Custodes troops would be affected yes, but considering how small custodes armies are even by tabling the list it would be impossible to max out the secondary, even 9-10 VPs would be hard to achieve.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 08:33:44


Post by: Spoletta


Warriors are 17 ppm before upgrades.

Using points is probably against GW design intentions, but something like that could potentially work.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 08:57:09


Post by: Not Online!!!


Spoletta wrote:
Warriors are 17 ppm before upgrades.

Using points is probably against GW design intentions, but something like that could potentially work.


<it would be more likely that it would use PL... which has a whole other slew of issues attached to it.... just like summoning goes torwards PL level for summoned units, but it would attleast fix up some of the potential issues in regards to coverage...
>


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 11:08:07


Post by: Karol


 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No it wouldn't. They would still get their 2+ save against AP0 weapons, just like the old system. Terminators shouldn't be hiding from lasguns and bolters.

Well that would be a weak rule and it would not really be impacting much of the armies played, considering that basic weapons in w40k right now all come with at least -1AP.



Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 14:14:23


Post by: Tycho


3) Your point stands only if marines were the only faction, or at least among the few factions, that don't suffer from seconaries. This isn't true. Even more so after the FAQ. The list of factions that doesn't suffer from secondaries is much much bigger than the short list of the ones that do (GK, TS and some lists of a few other factions). Sure, many factions can actually put together a list that bleeds them if they actively pursue that, but the same is true for marines.


My point this entire time, as I have said, is that if ANY armies are immune to secondaries, it's a problem. How does that square with your comment? This is acceptable game design to you? This is not good for the long term health of the game. Similar to when you said the missions were "almost perfect" due to extensive play testing in a thread that had gone on for many pages detailing the issues with the missions. I'm not always sure you see the issues. It's a little unfortunate that right now it's marines not being affected as it makes it too easy to say "haters" and move on, but the fact remains - we should either have them hit everyone as equally as possible, or simply not have the kill secondaries.








Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 14:20:57


Post by: Quasistellar


The game doesn't need an "Elite Infantry" secondary, IMO. It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.

What they really need is to keep adjusting balance of what we have. Adjusting abhor the witch and bring them down is a step in the right direction.

They need to change the horde one (forget the name) to be a little better.

They need to change the titanic one to be less punishing (IMO). Why it isn't a straight 5-10-15 points is beyond me.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 14:27:02


Post by: catbarf


Quasistellar wrote:
It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.


'Infantry with more than 1 wound' seems pretty straightforward.

I mean, that's the core issue- when you go up against an army primarily composed of multiwound infantry, there's no appropriate secondary. They can adjust the balance of the other secondaries all they want, but as long as there is no kill secondary associated with a very common and very spammable unit archetype, that's a problem.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 14:28:33


Post by: Tycho


The game doesn't need an "Elite Infantry" secondary, IMO. It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.

What they really need is to keep adjusting balance of what we have. Adjusting abhor the witch and bring them down is a step in the right direction.

They need to change the horde one (forget the name) to be a little better.

They need to change the titanic one to be less punishing (IMO). Why it isn't a straight 5-10-15 points is beyond me.


The problem is, you can change those, but you still have a few armies immune to the kill secondaries almost entirely so it doesn't solve anything imo. Your solution actually makes the currently good armies even better, but makes a lot of the weaker armies ... that much weaker.

Except for the Titanic one, but again, Knights are effectively nerfed by the rules themselves. Unless they're getting an update in their codex where each Knight counts it's wounds as "# of models" for the purposes of obsec, I don't even think we need the Titanic one.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 15:04:36


Post by: addnid


 catbarf wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.


'Infantry with more than 1 wound' seems pretty straightforward.

I mean, that's the core issue- when you go up against an army primarily composed of multiwound infantry, there's no appropriate secondary. They can adjust the balance of the other secondaries all they want, but as long as there is no kill secondary associated with a very common and very spammable unit archetype, that's a problem.


"Infantry with more than 1 wound" is a slippy slope. You would mix in inceptor marines with squishy stuff such as tyranid warriors, arco flagellants, ad mech priests, nobz, etc. Though I guess these armies don't bring enough of them to make the secondary too easy to get 15 points out of...

You could be on to something. Let's do this, how would you proceed ? Every 3 models killed grants 1 vp ?
Could that not punish marines too much, and not punish non marines at all because it would be impossible to get even 7 vp out of it ?

We do want an "anti space marine secondary" right ? Hmm so many questions


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 15:14:20


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No it wouldn't. They would still get their 2+ save against AP0 weapons, just like the old system. Terminators shouldn't be hiding from lasguns and bolters.

Well that would be a weak rule and it would not really be impacting much of the armies played, considering that basic weapons in w40k right now all come with at least -1AP.



unless youre playing :

Sisters
Admech
Drukhari
Craftworld
Harlequins
Chaos space marines
Astra Militarum
Deathguard
Genestealer cult
Tyranids
Orks
Tau





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 addnid wrote:


"Infantry with more than 1 wound" is a slippy slope. You would mix in inceptor marines with squishy stuff such as tyranid warriors, arco flagellants, ad mech priests, nobz, etc. Though I guess these armies don't bring enough of them to make the secondary too easy to get 15 points out of...


all of these i consider to be elite infantry yes.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 15:18:47


Post by: Slipspace


 addnid wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.


'Infantry with more than 1 wound' seems pretty straightforward.

I mean, that's the core issue- when you go up against an army primarily composed of multiwound infantry, there's no appropriate secondary. They can adjust the balance of the other secondaries all they want, but as long as there is no kill secondary associated with a very common and very spammable unit archetype, that's a problem.


"Infantry with more than 1 wound" is a slippy slope. You would mix in inceptor marines with squishy stuff such as tyranid warriors, arco flagellants, ad mech priests, nobz, etc. Though I guess these armies don't bring enough of them to make the secondary too easy to get 15 points out of...


Exactly. So it's not a slippery slope at all. In order for a secondary to "punish" something an army needs an abundance of that thing. Having 2-3 units that may be eligible doesn't mean you're punishing a Tyranid army, for example, if the secondary gives many more points when taken against Space Marines.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 15:27:10


Post by: addnid


Slipspace wrote:
 addnid wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.


'Infantry with more than 1 wound' seems pretty straightforward.

I mean, that's the core issue- when you go up against an army primarily composed of multiwound infantry, there's no appropriate secondary. They can adjust the balance of the other secondaries all they want, but as long as there is no kill secondary associated with a very common and very spammable unit archetype, that's a problem.


"Infantry with more than 1 wound" is a slippy slope. You would mix in inceptor marines with squishy stuff such as tyranid warriors, arco flagellants, ad mech priests, nobz, etc. Though I guess these armies don't bring enough of them to make the secondary too easy to get 15 points out of...


Exactly. So it's not a slippery slope at all. In order for a secondary to "punish" something an army needs an abundance of that thing. Having 2-3 units that may be eligible doesn't mean you're punishing a Tyranid army, for example, if the secondary gives many more points when taken against Space Marines.


Indeed, not a slippery slop at all when you think it over, I agree. If say the rule is "3 multiwound infantry models = 1 vp, then tyranids with a heavy hand on warriors and hive guards would be giving like 5-6 vp (8vp if you get 2*9 warriors and 6 hive guards dead) so that is fine. Orks less. Haven't played any other army aside from these two in 9th, but I hope other players could provide input here, perhaps it would be too hard on certain armies we haven't thought of.

The concept is sound IMHO. Let's hope GW wants to give the poster boys a litlle more challenge purging the filthy xenos scum


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 16:09:57


Post by: Quasistellar


I guess I just disagree with every army having a secondary that they give up max points to simply for existing.

I suppose it would be fine if they balance it correctly, but I just doubt they will.

Another thing to consider: are Harlequin Troupes "elite"? Are we okay with Tactical Marines giving up this secondary, but Troupes not?

This whole thing just seems to be laser focused on Space Marines and Custodes.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 16:37:46


Post by: Ice_can


Quasistellar wrote:
I guess I just disagree with every army having a secondary that they give up max points to simply for existing.

I suppose it would be fine if they balance it correctly, but I just doubt they will.

Another thing to consider: are Harlequin Troupes "elite"? Are we okay with Tactical Marines giving up this secondary, but Troupes not?

This whole thing just seems to be laser focused on Space Marines and Custodes.

So your pro some factions having secondarys they give up max points for just exsisting ir trying ti play the game yet other factions not having them? That seems a far worse solution than saying all should have such a secondary if anyone has to have it.

Also as much as I get the Harlequins and Demons issue, it's the old adage of they are the Schrödinger's armies to 90% of the player base. They're such a small percentage of the lists people see they're not really OP or Not OP to them as they've never played them.
Yes there event results do indicate that the armies seem to be outperforming the avarage. But to 90% of the player base marines are the poster boy of the problem right now as that's the army played most often that can abuse this situation, custodes being second most likely for people to have experienced this issue playing against.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 17:20:02


Post by: Canadian 5th


Ice_can wrote:
So your pro some factions having secondarys they give up max points for just exsisting ir trying ti play the game yet other factions not having them? That seems a far worse solution than saying all should have such a secondary if anyone has to have it.

Removing all of the kill secondaries and making every secondary objective movement or action based would solve the issue as it wouldn't harm any kind of list. I'd rather do that than keep tweaking kill secondaries until the end of time.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 17:39:11


Post by: catbarf


Quasistellar wrote:
I guess I just disagree with every army having a secondary that they give up max points to simply for existing.


In an ideal implementation, an army with a balanced mix of single-wound infantry, multi-wound infantry, characters, and vehicles/monsters would be optimal in that it wouldn't max out any secondaries. That's the whole point of kill secondaries; they punish skew armies.

In practice, the way VPs are tied to model count affects armies very unevenly, with some basically always allowing at least one secondary to max out, and others being able to skew and still come out ahead on secondaries. Elite infantry armies having no associated secondary are an egregious example of the latter.

The solution here clearly is not to make sure that one unit archetype has no associated secondary; it's to make sure that the secondary system is structured to facilitate its original purpose. Tying the secondaries to points killed rather than models, which effectively defines skew lists by % of points spent, would be a good first step.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 17:40:11


Post by: addnid


 Canadian 5th wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
So your pro some factions having secondarys they give up max points for just exsisting ir trying ti play the game yet other factions not having them? That seems a far worse solution than saying all should have such a secondary if anyone has to have it.

Removing all of the kill secondaries and making every secondary objective movement or action based would solve the issue as it wouldn't harm any kind of list. I'd rather do that than keep tweaking kill secondaries until the end of time.


You don’t play, as you said in another post, so no skin off your back


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 17:43:59


Post by: Tycho


I guess I just disagree with every army having a secondary that they give up max points to simply for existing.

I suppose it would be fine if they balance it correctly, but I just doubt they will.

Another thing to consider: are Harlequin Troupes "elite"? Are we okay with Tactical Marines giving up this secondary, but Troupes not?

This whole thing just seems to be laser focused on Space Marines and Custodes.


No one's asking for a secondary that causes everyone to give up max points for just existing. In fact, it seems like the one thing we can all agree on is that secondaries SHOULDN'T target anyone just for existing.

They're saying there shouldn't be any armies that are almost completely immune to *any* of the kill secondaries.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 17:47:30


Post by: Canadian 5th


 addnid wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
So your pro some factions having secondarys they give up max points for just exsisting ir trying ti play the game yet other factions not having them? That seems a far worse solution than saying all should have such a secondary if anyone has to have it.

Removing all of the kill secondaries and making every secondary objective movement or action based would solve the issue as it wouldn't harm any kind of list. I'd rather do that than keep tweaking kill secondaries until the end of time.


You don’t play, as you said in another post, so no skin off your back

Just as a fair warning, I'm reporting every single poster that uses this to discredit my arguments. Debate my posts not my status as a player.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 17:48:56


Post by: Quasistellar


Ice_can wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
I guess I just disagree with every army having a secondary that they give up max points to simply for existing.

I suppose it would be fine if they balance it correctly, but I just doubt they will.

Another thing to consider: are Harlequin Troupes "elite"? Are we okay with Tactical Marines giving up this secondary, but Troupes not?

This whole thing just seems to be laser focused on Space Marines and Custodes.

So your pro some factions having secondarys they give up max points for just exsisting ir trying ti play the game yet other factions not having them? That seems a far worse solution than saying all should have such a secondary if anyone has to have it.

Also as much as I get the Harlequins and Demons issue, it's the old adage of they are the Schrödinger's armies to 90% of the player base. They're such a small percentage of the lists people see they're not really OP or Not OP to them as they've never played them.
Yes there event results do indicate that the armies seem to be outperforming the avarage. But to 90% of the player base marines are the poster boy of the problem right now as that's the army played most often that can abuse this situation, custodes being second most likely for people to have experienced this issue playing against.


I mean, I said I'm "not" pro giving up max secondary for even existing--maybe you read it that I implied that I think it's okay for some, but that's not what I meant.

I keep forgetting what the horde killing secondary is named, but it's a good example -- it's almost impossible to max it out (in fact maybe needs adjusted it's so hard) even against a carpet of gaunts.

On the flipside, Abhor the Witch basically was the "take me for 15 points vs Thousand Suns and Grey Knights". Titan Hunter is basically the same, but pure Knights have very fundamental issues with scoring in 9th to begin with.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 18:15:31


Post by: Spoletta


Tycho wrote:
3) Your point stands only if marines were the only faction, or at least among the few factions, that don't suffer from seconaries. This isn't true. Even more so after the FAQ. The list of factions that doesn't suffer from secondaries is much much bigger than the short list of the ones that do (GK, TS and some lists of a few other factions). Sure, many factions can actually put together a list that bleeds them if they actively pursue that, but the same is true for marines.


My point this entire time, as I have said, is that if ANY armies are immune to secondaries, it's a problem. How does that square with your comment? This is acceptable game design to you? This is not good for the long term health of the game. Similar to when you said the missions were "almost perfect" due to extensive play testing in a thread that had gone on for many pages detailing the issues with the missions. I'm not always sure you see the issues. It's a little unfortunate that right now it's marines not being affected as it makes it too easy to say "haters" and move on, but the fact remains - we should either have them hit everyone as equally as possible, or simply not have the kill secondaries.








I'm not fine with those few factions being easy 15 points. I play Thousand Sons, I know the pain.

What I'm contesting is the proposed solution.

If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.

Are you fine with making this issue more present? I'm not.

I prefer fixing those last few unfortunate factions.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 18:26:44


Post by: Tycho


I'm not fine with those few factions being easy 15 points. I play Thousand Sons, I know the pain.

What I'm contesting is the proposed solution.

If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.

Are you fine with making this issue more present? I'm not.

I prefer fixing those last few unfortunate factions.


I still prefer dumping the Kill Secondaries entirely. I think that's the best solution that also presents the least chance for unintended collateral damage.

That being said, if we have to keep them - no one should be almost wholly immune. I agree that we don't need one that causes the "immune" factions to easily give up a full 15 every time. That's an over-correction for sure. But, to struggle to get more than say, 5/6 kill points? That's not right.

Since it doesn't seem like they're going away, IMO, they need adjusted so everyone has something to worry about from them.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 18:29:36


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Honestly after reading this thread, i'll start trying to convince my playgroup to "softban" kill secondaries altogether. Once covid calms down i'll try and play a few games this way and i expect they will be much more enjoyable.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 18:30:32


Post by: catbarf


Spoletta wrote:
If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.


If it were balanced correctly, it wouldn't be an automatic 15VP against any Marine or Marine-adjacent army. It would only be an automatic 15VP against an army that leans totally into heavy infantry and/or gets tabled.

Marines have in their toolbox:
-Characters
-Vehicles (inc Dreadnoughts)
-Bikes
-Light infantry (Scouts)
-Heavy infantry

So they have a lot of things to spend points on besides just heavy infantry, and if they choose not to invest in those things, then that's the sort of skew that secondaries are meant to punish.

Maybe score it such that each wound inflicted on multiwound infantry is a kill point, and then total VP = kill points / 6. That means to get the full 15VP you need to kill 45 Marines, which in terms of points is comparable damage to Thin Their Ranks requiring 150 kills against 5-7pt infantry, which currently is a difficult secondary to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tycho wrote:I still prefer dumping the Kill Secondaries entirely. I think that's the best solution that also presents the least chance for unintended collateral damage.


VladimirHerzog wrote:Honestly after reading this thread, i'll start trying to convince my playgroup to "softban" kill secondaries altogether. Once covid calms down i'll try and play a few games this way and i expect they will be much more enjoyable.


TBH I'm all for that. The non-kill secondaries are more interesting, and if kill secondaries aren't fair to all armies and don't effectively punish skew, they have no reason to exist.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 18:42:20


Post by: Canadian 5th


 catbarf wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.


If it were balanced correctly, it wouldn't be an automatic 15VP against any Marine or Marine-adjacent army. It would only be an automatic 15VP against an army that leans totally into heavy infantry and/or gets tabled.

Marines have in their toolbox:
-Characters
-Vehicles (inc Dreadnoughts)
-Bikes
-Light infantry (Scouts)
-Heavy infantry

So they have a lot of things to spend points on besides just heavy infantry, and if they choose not to invest in those things, then that's the sort of skew that secondaries are meant to punish.

Maybe score it such that each wound inflicted on multiwound infantry is a kill point, and then total VP = kill points / 6. That means to get the full 15VP you need to kill 45 Marines, which in terms of points is comparable damage to Thin Their Ranks requiring 150 kills against 5-7pt infantry, which currently is a difficult secondary to achieve.

I guess it's better than literally nothing but it's still not something I would take unless I had no other options.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 18:47:58


Post by: Spoletta


 catbarf wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.


If it were balanced correctly, it wouldn't be an automatic 15VP against any Marine or Marine-adjacent army. It would only be an automatic 15VP against an army that leans totally into heavy infantry and/or gets tabled.

Marines have in their toolbox:
-Characters
-Vehicles (inc Dreadnoughts)
-Bikes
-Light infantry (Scouts)
-Heavy infantry

So they have a lot of things to spend points on besides just heavy infantry, and if they choose not to invest in those things, then that's the sort of skew that secondaries are meant to punish.

Maybe score it such that each wound inflicted on multiwound infantry is a kill point, and then total VP = kill points / 6. That means to get the full 15VP you need to kill 45 Marines, which in terms of points is comparable damage to Thin Their Ranks requiring 150 kills against 5-7pt infantry, which currently is a difficult secondary to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tycho wrote:I still prefer dumping the Kill Secondaries entirely. I think that's the best solution that also presents the least chance for unintended collateral damage.


VladimirHerzog wrote:Honestly after reading this thread, i'll start trying to convince my playgroup to "softban" kill secondaries altogether. Once covid calms down i'll try and play a few games this way and i expect they will be much more enjoyable.


TBH I'm all for that. The non-kill secondaries are more interesting, and if kill secondaries aren't fair to all armies and don't effectively punish skew, they have no reason to exist.


Yeah, but that's your opinion. For example, others in this thread pretend that secondary to also include bikes. Others want everything with 2+ wounds to be affected (which means 99% of the marine line). Others (like me) identify an heavy infantry only in the gravis or terminator class of models.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:01:29


Post by: Tycho


Yeah, but that's your opinion. For example, others in this thread pretend that secondary to also include bikes. Others want everything with 2+ wounds to be affected (which means 99% of the marine line). Others (like me) identify an heavy infantry only in the gravis or terminator class of models.


Who are you referring to with the "that's your opinion" part? Because Catbarf is absolutely right that they don't really control skew. Especially now with some of the fresh nerfs ...


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:12:38


Post by: Bitharne


 Canadian 5th wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
So your pro some factions having secondarys they give up max points for just exsisting ir trying ti play the game yet other factions not having them? That seems a far worse solution than saying all should have such a secondary if anyone has to have it.

Removing all of the kill secondaries and making every secondary objective movement or action based would solve the issue as it wouldn't harm any kind of list. I'd rather do that than keep tweaking kill secondaries until the end of time.


My main issue with this is that the more Elite armies are then at a big disadvantage duh to struggling with board control and action-economy. The latter can be mitigated with "shoot and action" strats and the like; but giving up board control is hard to alleviate without bigger work arounds. Maybe my approach to the game amplifies this issue; but I still fail to see how a lot of the marine lists I've seen even compete against an army that triples, or more, their model/unit count.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:14:38


Post by: SemperMortis


Tyel wrote:
On Intercessors/Gravis invalidating a weapon category - its true, on base stats they don't. 20% return isn't great but its not terrible.

Unfortunately the Marine player can, relatively easily, assuming there is the proper amount of terrain on the table, find themselves in cover for a 2+ save. At which point by the numbers, shooting them becomes much the same as shooting a Leman Russ (depending on the Russ's loadout). Which we've said does invalidate light shooting. Hence the argument that "modern MEQ" - which gets to bring T4/3+ save wounds for 10ish points a go - or slightly more T5 wounds - is a skew that makes AP0 guns near worthless. And therefore, if we believe Bring It Down is meant to be a negative on mech walls, carry with it secondaries in a consequence.


Well, lets assume I magically get 30 Shoota boyz (240pts) into range of a single unit of Intercessors (200pts). I get 60 shots which becomes technically 70 because of DDD, that results in 23.3 hits, which becomes 11-12 wounds, against a 3+ save its about 3 unsaved wounds for 3 dmg or 1.5 dead Marines. 240pts killed 20. That isn't a 20% return that is a 8.3% return, or 12.5% if you include the wounded Marine. Give them that easy to obtain +1 cover save, yeah, why even bother shooting at that point? So your point is spot on, upgrade that to Gravis as mentioned (T5 3+ or 2+ and 3 wounds) and yeah, I literally cant kill a single model with shoota boyz in a single turn of shooting.

Spoletta wrote:

By contrast, the old cover system removed value from the armor save. There was little difference between a model with a 6+ and a model with a 4+.
Making light armored stuff that resilient could be very very dangerous for the game. Their current resilience is fine.

On the premise that most infantry weaponry is S4 no AP the following shows you to be wrong.

An 18pt Tac Marine takes 2 dmg to kill, which is 2 unsaved wounds which at 3+ save is 6 wounds. 6 wounds at S4 is 12 hits. Assuming a SM is shooting a fellow Marine, that is 18 shots to kill 1 Marine.
An 8pt Ork takes 1 dmg to kill, which is 1 unsaved wounds which at 6+ is 1.16 wounds. 1.16 wounds at S4 is 2.32 hits. Assuming a SM is shooting the ork that is 3.48 shots.

So, when you say light armored stuff is currently resilient enough you are openly saying that against Small arms, its ok for light infantry units to be roughly 6x less durable than a Marine, or point for point about 1/2 as resilient.

To your other point that there was little difference between 6+ and 4+. Except there was a huge difference. For starters, weapons which ignored cover were everywhere. Next, there is also CC which doesn't allow for Cover saves, finally, good luck fitting a unit of 30 boyz into cover.

Spoletta wrote:

I would apply just a small change. Cannot improve the save higher than 3+. If the model already has a 3+ save or better, it ignores the first point of AP. This way you keep the same durability of the models, without having them become impervious to light weapons when in cover.

Your simple fix just turned my Lootas into longer range Big Shootas, throw in the transhuman physiology and poof, my lootas are no different from shootas. Glad I paid 20ppm to get them.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

That would just have marines trading their gravis for terminators. It should be units of NON-TROOPS with multiple 3+W models. That would hit the worst offenders without affecting things like Tyranid Warriors and Custodes troop options. We don't need a secondary that specifically targets troops.


You mean like "Thin Their Ranks" which almost exclusively targets horde troops?

Spoletta wrote:

I'm not fine with those few factions being easy 15 points. I play Thousand Sons, I know the pain.
What I'm contesting is the proposed solution.
If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.
Are you fine with making this issue more present? I'm not.
I prefer fixing those last few unfortunate factions.


Well, Knights, Orkz, Nids, Thousand sons, Grey Knights, Imperial Guard...I'm sure there are others but I can't be bothered. Pretty sure that is more than 10% of the factions. In reality the factions that DONT bleed 15pts from existing tend to be the ones who wear Power Armor. Not all, but definitely the vast majority. So why are we proposing a rule that targets that specific sub set of faction? Because basically everyone else is already targeted. realistically, who doesn't that isn't similar to a SM? I think Harlequins and maybe Crons? And even than, Thin their Ranks targets Crons unless they take a more elite force...which would than fall into the proposed multi-wound Kill secondary.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Karol wrote:

Well that would be a weak rule and it would not really be impacting much of the armies played, considering that basic weapons in w40k right now all come with at least -1AP.


unless youre playing :
Sisters
Admech
Drukhari
Craftworld
Harlequins
Chaos space marines
Astra Militarum
Deathguard
Genestealer cult
Tyranids
Orks
Tau


And this is the problem with the SM defender faction. They see the entire game through the view point of SM and only SM. Spoletta just claimed 10% of the game give up 15pts of kill secondaries by simply existing...when in reality its closer to the inverse. Here we see Karol thinking that because SM's have incredibly easy access to -1AP troop weapons...that everyone must have similar access when in reality they are the outliers not the norm.

Now, as far as cover, I think +1 is fine, it is absolutely a nerf to horde factions and a buff to elite factions so lets fix that and say you can only get to a 3+ from cover? And no added bonus for 2+ and 3+ models since in reality, if the weapon is already piercing their Tactical Dreadnought Armor an extra couple of leafs isn't going to make a bit of difference And more importantly, from a game standpoint you no longer have camping 2+ save armies.

As far as kill Secondaries for basically SM factions, I think Multi-wound is a great way to do this. "How the Mighty have Fallen" 1VP for every 6 wounds inflicted on multi-wound infantry. So a Tactical Marine yields 1/3rd of a VP and a Gravis model yields 1/2 a VP.



Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:15:19


Post by: Canadian 5th


Bitharne wrote:
My main issue with this is that the more Elite armies are then at a big disadvantage duh to struggling with board control and action-economy. The latter can be mitigated with "shoot and action" strats and the like; but giving up board control is hard to alleviate without bigger work arounds. Maybe my approach to the game amplifies this issue; but I still fail to see how a lot of the marine lists I've seen even compete against an army that triples, or more, their model/unit count.

It really depends on the meta you'd expect to face, how that meta changes with kill secondaries being removed, and what the new codexes bring into the mix. Which is a fancy way of shrugging and suggesting we try it anyway and revert the change if it breaks things worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:
Well, lets assume I magically get 30 Shoota boyz (240pts) into range of a single unit of Intercessors (200pts). I get 60 shots which becomes technically 70 because of DDD, that results in 23.3 hits, which becomes 11-12 wounds, against a 3+ save its about 3 unsaved wounds for 3 dmg or 1.5 dead Marines. 240pts killed 20. That isn't a 20% return that is a 8.3% return, or 12.5% if you include the wounded Marine. Give them that easy to obtain +1 cover save, yeah, why even bother shooting at that point? So your point is spot on, upgrade that to Gravis as mentioned (T5 3+ or 2+ and 3 wounds) and yeah, I literally cant kill a single model with shoota boyz in a single turn of shooting.

Then use your boyz for board control, or run them as S5 skarboyz and do your damage in close. We've seen tournament winning lists that don't seem to care if a base shoota boy is good or not.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:28:05


Post by: Xenomancers


Quasistellar wrote:
I guess I just disagree with every army having a secondary that they give up max points to simply for existing.

I suppose it would be fine if they balance it correctly, but I just doubt they will.

Another thing to consider: are Harlequin Troupes "elite"? Are we okay with Tactical Marines giving up this secondary, but Troupes not?

This whole thing just seems to be laser focused on Space Marines and Custodes.

This is Dakka. The whine about space marines above all else forum so it is not a surprise.

The issues with this system are fundamental. Adding an anti elite secondary wont fix anything just change what armies are effective. Plus I'd imagine once and if all these secondaries becomes in balance for all armies. Every army will just be taking the exact same secondaries against each other because...WHY WOULD I NOT JUST TAKE SECONDARIES THAT REWARD ME FOR WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO ANYWAYS - which is try to kill your army and remove your units from objectives...there is nothing dynamic about that.

What is actually dynamic? Random objectives (I'm not talking about malestrom) I am talking about rolling for missions at the start of the game. You just need to make the "primary objective" interesting enough that it can force choices in game. You can even have secondaries but they should only be used to break ties.




Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:29:02


Post by: Tycho


My main issue with this is that the more Elite armies are then at a big disadvantage duh to struggling with board control and action-economy.


Ignoring that, as I've said, I'd rather see all kill secondaries dumped - you've mentioned before about "elite armies struggling w/board control". I just don't get where you're coming from with that ad both anecdotal evidence, as well as tourney data shows that, barring Custodes - most of the Elite armies have incredible control this edition. Some of the best in the game ...


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:30:08


Post by: SemperMortis


 Canadian 5th wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:
Well, lets assume I magically get 30 Shoota boyz (240pts) into range of a single unit of Intercessors (200pts). I get 60 shots which becomes technically 70 because of DDD, that results in 23.3 hits, which becomes 11-12 wounds, against a 3+ save its about 3 unsaved wounds for 3 dmg or 1.5 dead Marines. 240pts killed 20. That isn't a 20% return that is a 8.3% return, or 12.5% if you include the wounded Marine. Give them that easy to obtain +1 cover save, yeah, why even bother shooting at that point? So your point is spot on, upgrade that to Gravis as mentioned (T5 3+ or 2+ and 3 wounds) and yeah, I literally cant kill a single model with shoota boyz in a single turn of shooting.

Then use your boyz for board control, or run them as S5 skarboyz and do your damage in close. We've seen tournament winning lists that don't seem to care if a base shoota boy is good or not.


Lets ignore the fact that even in CC Skarboyz aren't as powerful as you seem to think they are, we are talking about COVER SAVES which in CC you do not get So how about we stay on topic


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:30:59


Post by: Blackie


Karol wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No it wouldn't. They would still get their 2+ save against AP0 weapons, just like the old system. Terminators shouldn't be hiding from lasguns and bolters.

Well that would be a weak rule and it would not really be impacting much of the armies played, considering that basic weapons in w40k right now all come with at least -1AP.



Not true at all. Orks all have AP0, even on some S5 weapons, Sisters' bolters don't benefit from doctrines and are all AP0, Drukhari have poisoned AP0 weapons, Lasguns are AP0, most of the Chaos basic stuff, etc...


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:31:37


Post by: Hecaton


 Canadian 5th wrote:

Just as a fair warning, I'm reporting every single poster that uses this to discredit my arguments. Debate my posts not my status as a player.


I'm going to repeat that you don't really have a leg to stand on with your assessment as you actively don't play.

If you report people for this I hope the mods discipline you for abusing the report function.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:33:01


Post by: Canadian 5th


SemperMortis wrote:
Lets ignore the fact that even in CC Skarboyz aren't as powerful as you seem to think they are, we are talking about COVER SAVES which in CC you do not get So how about we stay on topic

Anything sitting in cover isn't scoring primary objectives so why are you going out of your way to kill them rather than killing the thing that's winning your opponent the game?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:34:31


Post by: Hecaton


Spoletta wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Spoletta wrote:

As with all categories, it depends on the specific unit. Right now we have lists that just with a 6++ can produce extremely obnoxious but effective spam lists. I don't want to see what could happen with a 4++.


A 6+ Invul is only a 16% increase in durability, at most, so if a unit is producing obnoxious results with that, it's not because of the invul save.


20% actually, but yes, they would probably perform decently even without it.


Nah, if it's blocking 1/6 of incoming hits that's a 16% increase in durability. A model with a 6+ save who loses it suffers a 20% increase in vulnerability.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:37:32


Post by: Tycho


What is actually dynamic? Random objectives (I'm not talking about malestrom) I am talking about rolling for missions at the start of the game. You just need to make the "primary objective" interesting enough that it can force choices in game. You can even have secondaries but they should only be used to break ties.


I like the idea of using secondaries only for tie breakers, and I agree that objectives should force you to make decisions. I think the current issue is that you really only have two choices in the case of most primaries- "Take it before my opponent, or wait and take it from my opponent". Sure there's some granularity in terms of what unit you take it with vs what units they have, etc, but the basic game we're all playing is -"Grab it now and resist, or wait and kill my opponent for it".

So objectives that allow more choices would fix a lot of that. I'm just not sure about rolling for the missions. Maybe if we had a stack of balanced secondaries and you were rolling for the secondary? I don't know that, in the current structure, rolling would make much of a difference due to the "sameness" of the current mission packet, and if they changed them to be more conducive to rolling, I would worry that you could randomly be in a lot of trouble based on a dice roll ...

Canadian 5th wrote:

Just as a fair warning, I'm reporting every single poster that uses this to discredit my arguments. Debate my posts not my status as a player.


I think the point they're trying to make is not that you are automatically "wrong" in your opinion for not having played, but you have very strong feelings about some things that would likely be pretty different if you did, and you've made several points (skarboyz for example, and some Forgeworld comments) that I don't think you would have made were you still playing regularly if that makes sense.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:40:39


Post by: JNAProductions


Hecaton wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Spoletta wrote:

As with all categories, it depends on the specific unit. Right now we have lists that just with a 6++ can produce extremely obnoxious but effective spam lists. I don't want to see what could happen with a 4++.


A 6+ Invul is only a 16% increase in durability, at most, so if a unit is producing obnoxious results with that, it's not because of the invul save.


20% actually, but yes, they would probably perform decently even without it.


Nah, if it's blocking 1/6 of incoming hits that's a 16% increase in durability. A model with a 6+ save who loses it suffers a 20% increase in vulnerability.
It is a 20% increase.

Against any given shot, it only offers a 1/6 chance to save the model, but if the model is saved, they can potentially take another shot, which can potentially be saved.

Math is not very intuitive, so it can be easy to make goofs.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:43:29


Post by: Hecaton


 JNAProductions wrote:
It is a 20% increase.

Against any given shot, it only offers a 1/6 chance to save the model, but if the model is saved, they can potentially take another shot, which can potentially be saved.

Math is not very intuitive, so it can be easy to make goofs.


Uh... that's outside the bounds of what I was talking about. Against any given shot, a model with a 6++ is 16% less likely to be wounded by it.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:46:12


Post by: JNAProductions


Hecaton wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
It is a 20% increase.

Against any given shot, it only offers a 1/6 chance to save the model, but if the model is saved, they can potentially take another shot, which can potentially be saved.

Math is not very intuitive, so it can be easy to make goofs.


Uh... that's outside the bounds of what I was talking about. Against any given shot, a model with a 6++ is 16% less likely to be wounded by it.
That's not a particularly useful metric. How often do chaff infantry with a 6+ save face just ONE shot?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:47:54


Post by: Hecaton


 JNAProductions wrote:
That's not a particularly useful metric. How often do chaff infantry with a 6+ save face just ONE shot?


How often do they face an infinite number of them?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:51:42


Post by: JNAProductions


Hecaton wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
That's not a particularly useful metric. How often do chaff infantry with a 6+ save face just ONE shot?


How often do they face an infinite number of them?
Never.

But if you have a squad of 10 Grots, no subculture, and they're being shot by Bolt Rifles, it takes...

10 unsaved wounds
10 successful wounds
12 hits
18 shots to kill them.

Give them a 6++, and it becomes...

10 unsaved wounds
12 successful wounds
14.4 hits
21.6 shots to kill them.

That's not a ton of improvement (20%, to be exact. ) but it's the difference between a 10-Man Intercessor squad being able to wipe them in one go versus not.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:53:33


Post by: KurtAngle2


Spoiler:
SemperMortis wrote:
Tyel wrote:
On Intercessors/Gravis invalidating a weapon category - its true, on base stats they don't. 20% return isn't great but its not terrible.

Unfortunately the Marine player can, relatively easily, assuming there is the proper amount of terrain on the table, find themselves in cover for a 2+ save. At which point by the numbers, shooting them becomes much the same as shooting a Leman Russ (depending on the Russ's loadout). Which we've said does invalidate light shooting. Hence the argument that "modern MEQ" - which gets to bring T4/3+ save wounds for 10ish points a go - or slightly more T5 wounds - is a skew that makes AP0 guns near worthless. And therefore, if we believe Bring It Down is meant to be a negative on mech walls, carry with it secondaries in a consequence.


Well, lets assume I magically get 30 Shoota boyz (240pts) into range of a single unit of Intercessors (200pts). I get 60 shots which becomes technically 70 because of DDD, that results in 23.3 hits, which becomes 11-12 wounds, against a 3+ save its about 3 unsaved wounds for 3 dmg or 1.5 dead Marines. 240pts killed 20. That isn't a 20% return that is a 8.3% return, or 12.5% if you include the wounded Marine. Give them that easy to obtain +1 cover save, yeah, why even bother shooting at that point? So your point is spot on, upgrade that to Gravis as mentioned (T5 3+ or 2+ and 3 wounds) and yeah, I literally cant kill a single model with shoota boyz in a single turn of shooting.

Spoletta wrote:

By contrast, the old cover system removed value from the armor save. There was little difference between a model with a 6+ and a model with a 4+.
Making light armored stuff that resilient could be very very dangerous for the game. Their current resilience is fine.

On the premise that most infantry weaponry is S4 no AP the following shows you to be wrong.

An 18pt Tac Marine takes 2 dmg to kill, which is 2 unsaved wounds which at 3+ save is 6 wounds. 6 wounds at S4 is 12 hits. Assuming a SM is shooting a fellow Marine, that is 18 shots to kill 1 Marine.
An 8pt Ork takes 1 dmg to kill, which is 1 unsaved wounds which at 6+ is 1.16 wounds. 1.16 wounds at S4 is 2.32 hits. Assuming a SM is shooting the ork that is 3.48 shots.

So, when you say light armored stuff is currently resilient enough you are openly saying that against Small arms, its ok for light infantry units to be roughly 6x less durable than a Marine, or point for point about 1/2 as resilient.

To your other point that there was little difference between 6+ and 4+. Except there was a huge difference. For starters, weapons which ignored cover were everywhere. Next, there is also CC which doesn't allow for Cover saves, finally, good luck fitting a unit of 30 boyz into cover.

Spoletta wrote:

I would apply just a small change. Cannot improve the save higher than 3+. If the model already has a 3+ save or better, it ignores the first point of AP. This way you keep the same durability of the models, without having them become impervious to light weapons when in cover.

Your simple fix just turned my Lootas into longer range Big Shootas, throw in the transhuman physiology and poof, my lootas are no different from shootas. Glad I paid 20ppm to get them.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

That would just have marines trading their gravis for terminators. It should be units of NON-TROOPS with multiple 3+W models. That would hit the worst offenders without affecting things like Tyranid Warriors and Custodes troop options. We don't need a secondary that specifically targets troops.


You mean like "Thin Their Ranks" which almost exclusively targets horde troops?

Spoletta wrote:

I'm not fine with those few factions being easy 15 points. I play Thousand Sons, I know the pain.
What I'm contesting is the proposed solution.
If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.
Are you fine with making this issue more present? I'm not.
I prefer fixing those last few unfortunate factions.


Well, Knights, Orkz, Nids, Thousand sons, Grey Knights, Imperial Guard...I'm sure there are others but I can't be bothered. Pretty sure that is more than 10% of the factions. In reality the factions that DONT bleed 15pts from existing tend to be the ones who wear Power Armor. Not all, but definitely the vast majority. So why are we proposing a rule that targets that specific sub set of faction? Because basically everyone else is already targeted. realistically, who doesn't that isn't similar to a SM? I think Harlequins and maybe Crons? And even than, Thin their Ranks targets Crons unless they take a more elite force...which would than fall into the proposed multi-wound Kill secondary.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Karol wrote:

Well that would be a weak rule and it would not really be impacting much of the armies played, considering that basic weapons in w40k right now all come with at least -1AP.


unless youre playing :
Sisters
Admech
Drukhari
Craftworld
Harlequins
Chaos space marines
Astra Militarum
Deathguard
Genestealer cult
Tyranids
Orks
Tau


And this is the problem with the SM defender faction. They see the entire game through the view point of SM and only SM. Spoletta just claimed 10% of the game give up 15pts of kill secondaries by simply existing...when in reality its closer to the inverse. Here we see Karol thinking that because SM's have incredibly easy access to -1AP troop weapons...that everyone must have similar access when in reality they are the outliers not the norm.

Now, as far as cover, I think +1 is fine, it is absolutely a nerf to horde factions and a buff to elite factions so lets fix that and say you can only get to a 3+ from cover? And no added bonus for 2+ and 3+ models since in reality, if the weapon is already piercing their Tactical Dreadnought Armor an extra couple of leafs isn't going to make a bit of difference And more importantly, from a game standpoint you no longer have camping 2+ save armies.

As far as kill Secondaries for basically SM factions, I think Multi-wound is a great way to do this. "How the Mighty have Fallen" 1VP for every 6 wounds inflicted on multi-wound infantry. So a Tactical Marine yields 1/3rd of a VP and a Gravis model yields 1/2 a VP.

Please put giant quote pyramids in spoiler tags, especially when replying with just a single sentence.

Or just rework the current Tally into Non "VEHICLE-MONSTER wounds" instead of "Models"


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 19:55:21


Post by: SemperMortis


 Canadian 5th wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Lets ignore the fact that even in CC Skarboyz aren't as powerful as you seem to think they are, we are talking about COVER SAVES which in CC you do not get So how about we stay on topic

Anything sitting in cover isn't scoring primary objectives so why are you going out of your way to kill them rather than killing the thing that's winning your opponent the game?


You probably don't understand since you don't play the game anymore (This isn't a jab at you). But for starters, if you don't play Goffs, you don't get skarboyz 1. 2, if you are holding an objective you still need to whittle down your opponent otherwise they will steal the objective from you on their turn. As a wonderful example of this, on the charge a unit of Intercessors get 20 shots in the shooting phase which kills 6.6 boys, in the Assault phase they do 31 attacks, 20ish hits and about 9 more dead boyz. So in 1 turn those intercessors just killed 15 boyz, or 120pts. I automatically lose 1 to morale and than I lose 1/3rd more to Morale so I am now under 10 models. I at most will control the objective for 1 turn before my opponent wins it from me. On the flipside of this, if I can reduce his numbers before he gets to me I have a better chance of holding the objective for 2 turns or more. Hence shooting still matters and camping SM's getting 2+ saves isn't helping


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 20:00:58


Post by: Spoletta


SemperMortis wrote:
Tyel wrote:
On Intercessors/Gravis invalidating a weapon category - its true, on base stats they don't. 20% return isn't great but its not terrible.

Unfortunately the Marine player can, relatively easily, assuming there is the proper amount of terrain on the table, find themselves in cover for a 2+ save. At which point by the numbers, shooting them becomes much the same as shooting a Leman Russ (depending on the Russ's loadout). Which we've said does invalidate light shooting. Hence the argument that "modern MEQ" - which gets to bring T4/3+ save wounds for 10ish points a go - or slightly more T5 wounds - is a skew that makes AP0 guns near worthless. And therefore, if we believe Bring It Down is meant to be a negative on mech walls, carry with it secondaries in a consequence.


Well, lets assume I magically get 30 Shoota boyz (240pts) into range of a single unit of Intercessors (200pts). I get 60 shots which becomes technically 70 because of DDD, that results in 23.3 hits, which becomes 11-12 wounds, against a 3+ save its about 3 unsaved wounds for 3 dmg or 1.5 dead Marines. 240pts killed 20. That isn't a 20% return that is a 8.3% return, or 12.5% if you include the wounded Marine. Give them that easy to obtain +1 cover save, yeah, why even bother shooting at that point? So your point is spot on, upgrade that to Gravis as mentioned (T5 3+ or 2+ and 3 wounds) and yeah, I literally cant kill a single model with shoota boyz in a single turn of shooting.

Spoletta wrote:

By contrast, the old cover system removed value from the armor save. There was little difference between a model with a 6+ and a model with a 4+.
Making light armored stuff that resilient could be very very dangerous for the game. Their current resilience is fine.

On the premise that most infantry weaponry is S4 no AP the following shows you to be wrong.

An 18pt Tac Marine takes 2 dmg to kill, which is 2 unsaved wounds which at 3+ save is 6 wounds. 6 wounds at S4 is 12 hits. Assuming a SM is shooting a fellow Marine, that is 18 shots to kill 1 Marine.
An 8pt Ork takes 1 dmg to kill, which is 1 unsaved wounds which at 6+ is 1.16 wounds. 1.16 wounds at S4 is 2.32 hits. Assuming a SM is shooting the ork that is 3.48 shots.

So, when you say light armored stuff is currently resilient enough you are openly saying that against Small arms, its ok for light infantry units to be roughly 6x less durable than a Marine, or point for point about 1/2 as resilient.

Why do you assume that I meant only light weapons? I meant considering the whole scenario. Obviously if you select the counter to light infantry as the basis of the analysis, then you will get to that result. You know what? Let's do the opposite, let's use the marine counter and see if that changes things, ok? Oh look! If we shoot a marine and an orc boy with a grav weapon, then the ork point for point is 2 times as resilient as the marine! Such a shock!

To your other point that there was little difference between 6+ and 4+. Except there was a huge difference. For starters, weapons which ignored cover were everywhere. Next, there is also CC which doesn't allow for Cover saves, finally, good luck fitting a unit of 30 boyz into cover.

Weapons that ignored cover weren't everywhere. They were in all meta lists, which is different. Since the old cover system created abominations like rerollable 2+ covers, no one left home without stocking on ignore cover. CC? Tell me how much CC was in 7th please, I would love to hear that. We wouldn't even have that case now, since we have rules both for ranged cover and melee cover. And finally, why do you need to fit 30 boyz in cover? You never played an horde in 9th right? You just need to have some of them in cover, this isn't 8th.

Spoletta wrote:

I would apply just a small change. Cannot improve the save higher than 3+. If the model already has a 3+ save or better, it ignores the first point of AP. This way you keep the same durability of the models, without having them become impervious to light weapons when in cover.

Your simple fix just turned my Lootas into longer range Big Shootas, throw in the transhuman physiology and poof, my lootas are no different from shootas. Glad I paid 20ppm to get them.

Another shocking news for you! They are already big shootas with the current system! What I proposed is a straight NERF, but I see that your hate for SM has completely shut down you reading comprension.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

That would just have marines trading their gravis for terminators. It should be units of NON-TROOPS with multiple 3+W models. That would hit the worst offenders without affecting things like Tyranid Warriors and Custodes troop options. We don't need a secondary that specifically targets troops.


You mean like "Thin Their Ranks" which almost exclusively targets horde troops?

Spoletta wrote:

I'm not fine with those few factions being easy 15 points. I play Thousand Sons, I know the pain.
What I'm contesting is the proposed solution.
If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.
Are you fine with making this issue more present? I'm not.
I prefer fixing those last few unfortunate factions.


Well, Knights, Orkz, Nids, Thousand sons, Grey Knights, Imperial Guard...I'm sure there are others but I can't be bothered. Pretty sure that is more than 10% of the factions. In reality the factions that DONT bleed 15pts from existing tend to be the ones who wear Power Armor. Not all, but definitely the vast majority. So why are we proposing a rule that targets that specific sub set of faction? Because basically everyone else is already targeted. realistically, who doesn't that isn't similar to a SM? I think Harlequins and maybe Crons? And even than, Thin their Ranks targets Crons unless they take a more elite force...which would than fall into the proposed multi-wound Kill secondary.

Nope, you are wrong again. The club of factions that auto 15 a secondary actually counts a whole 3 members. GK, TS and Knights... and TS isn't even that true. All the other ones can easily avoid them or even have to really build into them to become targets.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Karol wrote:

Well that would be a weak rule and it would not really be impacting much of the armies played, considering that basic weapons in w40k right now all come with at least -1AP.


unless youre playing :
Sisters
Admech
Drukhari
Craftworld
Harlequins
Chaos space marines
Astra Militarum
Deathguard
Genestealer cult
Tyranids
Orks
Tau


And this is the problem with the SM defender faction. They see the entire game through the view point of SM and only SM. Spoletta just claimed 10% of the game give up 15pts of kill secondaries by simply existing...when in reality its closer to the inverse. Here we see Karol thinking that because SM's have incredibly easy access to -1AP troop weapons...that everyone must have similar access when in reality they are the outliers not the norm.

Now, as far as cover, I think +1 is fine, it is absolutely a nerf to horde factions and a buff to elite factions so lets fix that and say you can only get to a 3+ from cover? And no added bonus for 2+ and 3+ models since in reality, if the weapon is already piercing their Tactical Dreadnought Armor an extra couple of leafs isn't going to make a bit of difference And more importantly, from a game standpoint you no longer have camping 2+ save armies.

As far as kill Secondaries for basically SM factions, I think Multi-wound is a great way to do this. "How the Mighty have Fallen" 1VP for every 6 wounds inflicted on multi-wound infantry. So a Tactical Marine yields 1/3rd of a VP and a Gravis model yields 1/2 a VP.

Lol... me a marine defender... I even started this thread by stating that considering them OP is legit, but yes, I'm a marine defender



I hate so much this way of splitting quotes...

Anyway, comments in red.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 20:02:28


Post by: Hecaton


 JNAProductions wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
That's not a particularly useful metric. How often do chaff infantry with a 6+ save face just ONE shot?


How often do they face an infinite number of them?
Never.

But if you have a squad of 10 Grots, no subculture, and they're being shot by Bolt Rifles, it takes...

10 unsaved wounds
10 successful wounds
12 hits
18 shots to kill them.

Give them a 6++, and it becomes...

10 unsaved wounds
12 successful wounds
14.4 hits
21.6 shots to kill them.

That's not a ton of improvement (20%, to be exact. ) but it's the difference between a 10-Man Intercessor squad being able to wipe them in one go versus not.


And if your opponent only has Intercessor squads, that would be a 100% increase in durability. Like I said, outside the bounds of what I was talking about.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 20:28:09


Post by: SemperMortis


Spoletta wrote:

By contrast, the old cover system removed value from the armor save. There was little difference between a model with a 6+ and a model with a 4+.
Making light armored stuff that resilient could be very very dangerous for the game. Their current resilience is fine.

Why do you assume that I meant only light weapons? I meant considering the whole scenario. Obviously if you select the counter to light infantry as the basis of the analysis, then you will get to that result. You know what? Let's do the opposite, let's use the marine counter and see if that changes things, ok? Oh look! If we shoot a marine and an orc boy with a grav weapon, then the ork point for point is 2 times as resilient as the marine! Such a shock!


Why do I assume you only meant light weapons? Because we are talking about making light armored stuff more resilient. generally speaking, Marine players aren't blasting Grav into light armored infantry. Kind of common sense but if you were confused i'm always happy to clarify. As to your next point about grav, yeah, but we aren't talking about making Marines more durable, and since we are talking about light armored stuff I went with the most common anti-infantry weapon statline, S4 no AP. And with that in mind, most light infantry units are not resilient enough point for point.

Spoletta wrote:
Weapons that ignored cover weren't everywhere. They were in all meta lists, which is different. Since the old cover system created abominations like rerollable 2+ covers, no one left home without stocking on ignore cover. CC? Tell me how much CC was in 7th please, I would love to hear that. We wouldn't even have that case now, since we have rules both for ranged cover and melee cover. And finally, why do you need to fit 30 boyz in cover? You never played an horde in 9th right? You just need to have some of them in cover, this isn't 8th.


Except yes they were. Every flamer type weapon was automatically ignores cover, blast weapons basically ignored cover, armies had rules that allowed them to ignore cover etc. So it wasn't just meta it was just common. As far as CC, Yes, believe it or not, CC still happened and happened regularly. My orkz "Decurion" style formation was a green tide of 100-300 ork boyz...until they gave us a real "Decurion" which was so garbage that nobody used it As far as fitting 30 boyz into cover, well the rule is you can now get cover for those IN cover, and since you can never get even half a horde into a piece of cover you are basically left with half the benefit and since its +1 as mentioned which gives me a whopping 5+ save, its not exactly hard to burn through, that extra 50% would help but it is what it is as the saying goes.

Spoletta wrote:

Another shocking news for you! They are already big shootas with the current system! What I proposed is a straight NERF, but I see that your hate for SM has completely shut down you reading comprension.

So S7 -1AP Deff gunz are the same as S5 0AP big shootas with the current system? I assume you can get into specifics on how that is true (hint: its not) but the point is that your system removes the benefits of a HUGE proportion of decent AP weapons in the game. negating 1 AP because you desire power armor and similar to be better isn't needed or wanted...except by a handful of those Space Marine defenders. As far as you being a defender yourself, yes you are one. Here we are on page 10 and all you have done is propose buffs for the most part to SM units You can say otherwise to your hearts content but you have yet to do anything except propose buffs and oppose nerfs for space marines.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 20:35:28


Post by: Ice_can


Spoletta wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Tyel wrote:
On Intercessors/Gravis invalidating a weapon category - its true, on base stats they don't. 20% return isn't great but its not terrible.

Unfortunately the Marine player can, relatively easily, assuming there is the proper amount of terrain on the table, find themselves in cover for a 2+ save. At which point by the numbers, shooting them becomes much the same as shooting a Leman Russ (depending on the Russ's loadout). Which we've said does invalidate light shooting. Hence the argument that "modern MEQ" - which gets to bring T4/3+ save wounds for 10ish points a go - or slightly more T5 wounds - is a skew that makes AP0 guns near worthless. And therefore, if we believe Bring It Down is meant to be a negative on mech walls, carry with it secondaries in a consequence.


Well, lets assume I magically get 30 Shoota boyz (240pts) into range of a single unit of Intercessors (200pts). I get 60 shots which becomes technically 70 because of DDD, that results in 23.3 hits, which becomes 11-12 wounds, against a 3+ save its about 3 unsaved wounds for 3 dmg or 1.5 dead Marines. 240pts killed 20. That isn't a 20% return that is a 8.3% return, or 12.5% if you include the wounded Marine. Give them that easy to obtain +1 cover save, yeah, why even bother shooting at that point? So your point is spot on, upgrade that to Gravis as mentioned (T5 3+ or 2+ and 3 wounds) and yeah, I literally cant kill a single model with shoota boyz in a single turn of shooting.

Spoletta wrote:

By contrast, the old cover system removed value from the armor save. There was little difference between a model with a 6+ and a model with a 4+.
Making light armored stuff that resilient could be very very dangerous for the game. Their current resilience is fine.

On the premise that most infantry weaponry is S4 no AP the following shows you to be wrong.

An 18pt Tac Marine takes 2 dmg to kill, which is 2 unsaved wounds which at 3+ save is 6 wounds. 6 wounds at S4 is 12 hits. Assuming a SM is shooting a fellow Marine, that is 18 shots to kill 1 Marine.
An 8pt Ork takes 1 dmg to kill, which is 1 unsaved wounds which at 6+ is 1.16 wounds. 1.16 wounds at S4 is 2.32 hits. Assuming a SM is shooting the ork that is 3.48 shots.

So, when you say light armored stuff is currently resilient enough you are openly saying that against Small arms, its ok for light infantry units to be roughly 6x less durable than a Marine, or point for point about 1/2 as resilient.

Why do you assume that I meant only light weapons? I meant considering the whole scenario. Obviously if you select the counter to light infantry as the basis of the analysis, then you will get to that result. You know what? Let's do the opposite, let's use the marine counter and see if that changes things, ok? Oh look! If we shoot a marine and an orc boy with a grav weapon, then the ork point for point is 2 times as resilient as the marine! Such a shock!

To your other point that there was little difference between 6+ and 4+. Except there was a huge difference. For starters, weapons which ignored cover were everywhere. Next, there is also CC which doesn't allow for Cover saves, finally, good luck fitting a unit of 30 boyz into cover.

Weapons that ignored cover weren't everywhere. They were in all meta lists, which is different. Since the old cover system created abominations like rerollable 2+ covers, no one left home without stocking on ignore cover. CC? Tell me how much CC was in 7th please, I would love to hear that. We wouldn't even have that case now, since we have rules both for ranged cover and melee cover. And finally, why do you need to fit 30 boyz in cover? You never played an horde in 9th right? You just need to have some of them in cover, this isn't 8th.

Spoletta wrote:

I would apply just a small change. Cannot improve the save higher than 3+. If the model already has a 3+ save or better, it ignores the first point of AP. This way you keep the same durability of the models, without having them become impervious to light weapons when in cover.

Your simple fix just turned my Lootas into longer range Big Shootas, throw in the transhuman physiology and poof, my lootas are no different from shootas. Glad I paid 20ppm to get them.

Another shocking news for you! They are already big shootas with the current system! What I proposed is a straight NERF, but I see that your hate for SM has completely shut down you reading comprension.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

That would just have marines trading their gravis for terminators. It should be units of NON-TROOPS with multiple 3+W models. That would hit the worst offenders without affecting things like Tyranid Warriors and Custodes troop options. We don't need a secondary that specifically targets troops.


You mean like "Thin Their Ranks" which almost exclusively targets horde troops?

Spoletta wrote:

I'm not fine with those few factions being easy 15 points. I play Thousand Sons, I know the pain.
What I'm contesting is the proposed solution.
If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.
Are you fine with making this issue more present? I'm not.
I prefer fixing those last few unfortunate factions.


Well, Knights, Orkz, Nids, Thousand sons, Grey Knights, Imperial Guard...I'm sure there are others but I can't be bothered. Pretty sure that is more than 10% of the factions. In reality the factions that DONT bleed 15pts from existing tend to be the ones who wear Power Armor. Not all, but definitely the vast majority. So why are we proposing a rule that targets that specific sub set of faction? Because basically everyone else is already targeted. realistically, who doesn't that isn't similar to a SM? I think Harlequins and maybe Crons? And even than, Thin their Ranks targets Crons unless they take a more elite force...which would than fall into the proposed multi-wound Kill secondary.

Nope, you are wrong again. The club of factions that auto 15 a secondary actually counts a whole 3 members. GK, TS and Knights... and TS isn't even that true. All the other ones can easily avoid them or even have to really build into them to become targets.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Karol wrote:

Well that would be a weak rule and it would not really be impacting much of the armies played, considering that basic weapons in w40k right now all come with at least -1AP.


unless youre playing :
Sisters
Admech
Drukhari
Craftworld
Harlequins
Chaos space marines
Astra Militarum
Deathguard
Genestealer cult
Tyranids
Orks
Tau


And this is the problem with the SM defender faction. They see the entire game through the view point of SM and only SM. Spoletta just claimed 10% of the game give up 15pts of kill secondaries by simply existing...when in reality its closer to the inverse. Here we see Karol thinking that because SM's have incredibly easy access to -1AP troop weapons...that everyone must have similar access when in reality they are the outliers not the norm.

Now, as far as cover, I think +1 is fine, it is absolutely a nerf to horde factions and a buff to elite factions so lets fix that and say you can only get to a 3+ from cover? And no added bonus for 2+ and 3+ models since in reality, if the weapon is already piercing their Tactical Dreadnought Armor an extra couple of leafs isn't going to make a bit of difference And more importantly, from a game standpoint you no longer have camping 2+ save armies.

As far as kill Secondaries for basically SM factions, I think Multi-wound is a great way to do this. "How the Mighty have Fallen" 1VP for every 6 wounds inflicted on multi-wound infantry. So a Tactical Marine yields 1/3rd of a VP and a Gravis model yields 1/2 a VP.

Lol... me a marine defender... I even started this thread by stating that considering them OP is legit, but yes, I'm a marine defender



I hate so much this way of splitting quotes...

Anyway, comments in red.

Well if your going to argue with people can you atleast get your facts right before you start getring snippy.

Grey Knights in 1 Codex
Imperial Knights is 2 Codex
Renegade Knights is 3 Codex
Thousand Sons is 4 Codex
And yes plenty of other factions can hand out 15VP for kill secondarys
GSC 5 Codex
TAU 6 Codec
Astra Millicopyright 7 Codex
Tyranids 8 Codex
Orks 9 Codex

While some codex's build around bleeding secondarys it severely restricts thier list building options.

Hope you didn't want to do a speedfreaks (light vehical based list) army as thats 15VP
Hope you didn't want to do massed infantry thats 15VP
Hope you didn't want to take multiple charictors thats 15VP
Hope you didn't forget how many of your Bigbugs have the psycher keyword 15VP


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 20:41:54


Post by: SemperMortis


Appreciate that Ice, I forgot to include that section in my post. Cheers.

Yeah, orkz can ignore that 15VP...but only if they shoot themselves in the foot. Orkz are the redundancy faction, You don't mix and match if you want to have a chance to win really and in regards to that, Speed Freakz and Horde (unarguably the 2 most common playstyles) automatically give up 15 VP


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 20:44:37


Post by: Spoletta


Oh yeah, renegade knights... guess that makes it a whole total of 4, what a huge mistake!

All the other ones you named can bleed some secondaries in some cases, but easy 15? Lol no.

And yes, if you want massed infantry, then you give 15 VP because that's the whole reason of the existence of those secondaries, so that if I want to play a well balanced army and someone comes to the table with 300 gants making a third of army's weapons useless, I have some kind of offset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:
Appreciate that Ice, I forgot to include that section in my post. Cheers.

Yeah, orkz can ignore that 15VP...but only if they shoot themselves in the foot. Orkz are the redundancy faction, You don't mix and match if you want to have a chance to win really and in regards to that, Speed Freakz and Horde (unarguably the 2 most common playstyles) automatically give up 15 VP


Nope, they don't. Horde is a common playstyle, true, but 150 boyz are not, and if someone really brings 150 boyz then the secondaries are doing what they are meant to do. No one is against the 30x3 boyz lists.

Speed Freakz buggies are ~100 points each and give only a single point. If you bring literally nothing but buggies and the HQs, then yes, the secondaries should give me an offset.

Not to mention that you are proving my point.

All the other ones can easily avoid them or even have to really build into them to become targets.



Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 20:50:57


Post by: Bitharne


Tycho wrote:
My main issue with this is that the more Elite armies are then at a big disadvantage duh to struggling with board control and action-economy.


Ignoring that, as I've said, I'd rather see all kill secondaries dumped - you've mentioned before about "elite armies struggling w/board control". I just don't get where you're coming from with that ad both anecdotal evidence, as well as tourney data shows that, barring Custodes - most of the Elite armies have incredible control this edition. Some of the best in the game ...


Maybe...

While all my views on the game, which are always counter to meta and the internet, seem to play out how I imagine...maybe I have a truly esoteric slice of players and I'm just lucking into confirmation bias. I had a game recently that was kind of important for that concept, because I do constantly wonder if I'm right or not, which panned out positively for my viewpoints. One game isn't evidence, of course, but it was a pretty striking data-point in that I couldn't have had the odds stacked much more against me and my predictions panned out even after I assumed I had lost in turn one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
After the change to Bring it Down; Orks really only give up Grind them Down consistently...and if that is your one kill secondary you give up easily then you should easily win on board control; baring extremely effective split fire games.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 21:07:39


Post by: Ice_can


Maybe your right maybe it's your player's or maybe its the random luck of the missions your playing or the terrain setup.

My bet would be terrain even after GW's vauge examples.

With only 4 or so Primary objectives elite armies are definataly not IMHO at a disadvantage on primary scoring, if anything their far better Close combat and especially counterpunch when charged tends to see them either contesting or taking objectives from weaker models with a nice bonus of a free shuffle onto a held objective with a conservative charge.

The issue is even if they aren't giving the fulk 15VP's now they are still handing over an easy 12 or so VP that they can counter claim a similarly easy to score 12 VP for against said lists.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 21:17:59


Post by: Blackie


Spoletta wrote:


Speed Freakz buggies are ~100 points each and give only a single point. If you bring literally nothing but buggies and the HQs, then yes, the secondaries should give me an offset.


I bring 3 Scrapjets, a Kustom Boosta Blasta and 6 Smasha Gunz among other things pretty much everytime. It's already 10 VPs for Bring It Down and just 660 points.

Orks lists simply don't work without redundancy. Do you want buggies? There's no need to spam 8+ of them, but there's the need to spam units with similar profiles. Take as many Mek Gunz, flyers, trukks, BWs, dreads, etc as you can and those buggies will do their job.

Mix up 90 boyz, supporting characters (mandatory with footslogging boyz) and vehicles worthy of 10-15 VPs and you can't possibly have a competitive list.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 21:18:51


Post by: Tycho


After the change to Bring it Down; Orks really only give up Grind them Down consistently...and if that is your one kill secondary you give up easily then you should easily win on board control; baring extremely effective split fire games.


Not necessarily. Orks still generally die to a stiff breeze. Should be easy for an elite army to knock them off the needed objectives. Unless it's something like the elite army putting too much into reserve and then the orks properly placing themselves to keep it from coming in?

Maybe...

While all my views on the game, which are always counter to meta and the internet, seem to play out how I imagine...maybe I have a truly esoteric slice of players and I'm just lucking into confirmation bias. I had a game recently that was kind of important for that concept, because I do constantly wonder if I'm right or not, which panned out positively for my viewpoints. One game isn't evidence, of course, but it was a pretty striking data-point in that I couldn't have had the odds stacked much more against me and my predictions panned out even after I assumed I had lost in turn one.



I hesitate to immediately call out terrain because that's what everyone does whether they have the data or not (and clearly I do not know your table setup, how you play, your experience level, etc), but Ice may have a point in that your terrain could be an issue. You've also mentioned what happens when "power armor armies over-extend themselves" but beyond a sacrificial lamb to score engage, and with most of the objectives/action occurring at midfield, I'm not sure how that would even happen, so it could also just be odd strategic choices.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 21:32:30


Post by: Spoletta


 Blackie wrote:
Spoletta wrote:


Speed Freakz buggies are ~100 points each and give only a single point. If you bring literally nothing but buggies and the HQs, then yes, the secondaries should give me an offset.


I bring 3 Scrapjets, a Kustom Boosta Blasta and 6 Smasha Gunz among other things pretty much everytime. It's already 10 VPs for Bring It Down and just 660 points.

Orks lists simply don't work without redundancy. Do you want buggies? There's no need to spam 8+ of them, but there's the need to spam units with similar profiles. Take as many Mek Gunz, flyers, trukks, BWs, dreads, etc as you can and those buggies will do their job.

Mix up 90 boyz, supporting characters (mandatory with footslogging boyz) and vehicles worthy of 10-15 VPs and you can't possibly have a competitive list.



You are saying exactly what I was saying. You are trying to overload the opponent with a single type of profile.
That is a kind of list that gets targeted by secondaries, and there is nothing wrong with that. Working as intended.

You can't have competitive ork lists without bleeding secondaries? That isn't true.
Spoiler:

Patrol: deathskulls

HQ

Warboss w power klaw + kustom shoota=83pts

Relic: killa klaw.

Warlord: kunnin but brutal. Upgrade:.

Da biggest boss. -1cp

Big Mek w SAG =120pts

Troops

10x gretchin =50pts

Fast Attack

5x Stormboys including boss nob w 2 choppas =60pts

5x Stormboys including boss nob w 2 choppas =60pts

Dedicated Transport

trukk =65pts

trukk =65pts

trukk =65pts

Vanguard: deathskulls

HQ

Big Mek w SAG=120pts

Big Mek w SAG =120pts

Elites

5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts

5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts

5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts

5 kommandos including boss Nob (1x tankbusta bomb) =45pts

9 tankbustas including boss Nob=153pts

Fast Attack

3 mekatrakk scrapjets: Korkscrew (kustum job) =330pts

5 stormboys including boss nob w 2 choppas=60pts

Cp: 12-3 (vanguard) -1 (biggest boss) -1 (kustom job).


Spoiler:

++ Battalion Detachment 0CP (Orks) [97 PL, 1,875pts] ++

+ Configuration +

Clan Kultur / Specialist Mobs: Goffs

+ HQ +

Big Mek W/ Kustom Force Field [4 PL, 75pts]

Ghazghkull Thraka [15 PL, 300pts]

Warboss [4 PL, 83pts]: Brutal but Kunnin, Da Killa Klaw, Kustom Shoota, Power Klaw, Warlord

+ Troops +

Boyz [12 PL, 250pts]: 3x Tankbusta Bombs
. Boss Nob: Power Klaw, Slugga
. 29x Ork Boy W/ Slugga & Choppa: 29x Choppa, 29x Slugga, 29x Stikkbombs

Boyz [12 PL, 250pts]: 3x Tankbusta Bombs
. Boss Nob: Power Klaw, Slugga
. 29x Ork Boy W/ Slugga & Choppa: 29x Choppa, 29x Slugga, 29x Stikkbombs

Boyz [12 PL, 242pts]: 2x Tankbusta Bombs
. Boss Nob: Power Klaw, Slugga
. 28x Ork Boy W/ Slugga & Choppa: 28x Choppa, 28x Slugga, 28x Stikkbombs

+ Elites +

Kommandos [3 PL, 55pts]: Tankbusta Bombs
. Boss Nob: Power Klaw
. 4x Kommando: 4x Choppa, 4x Slugga, 4x Stikkbombs

Kommandos [3 PL, 55pts]: Tankbusta Bombs
. Boss Nob: Power Klaw
. 4x Kommando: 4x Choppa, 4x Slugga, 4x Stikkbombs

Meganobz [10 PL, 190pts] . Boss Meganob w/ PK: Kustom Shoota, Power Klaw
. Meganob W/ PK: Kustom Shoota, Power Klaw
. Meganob W/ PK: Kustom Shoota, Power Klaw
. Meganob W/ PK: Kustom Shoota, Power Klaw
. Meganob W/ PK: Kustom Shoota, Power Klaw

Meganobz [10 PL, 190pts] . Boss Meganob w/ PK: Kustom Shoota, Power Klaw
. Meganob W/ PK: Kustom Shoota, Power Klaw
. Meganob W/ PK: Kustom Shoota, Power Klaw
. Meganob W/ PK: Kustom Shoota, Power Klaw
. Meganob W/ PK: Kustom Shoota, Power Klaw

Painboy [3 PL, 65pts]: Power Klaw

+ Heavy Support +

Mek Gunz [3 PL, 40pts] . Gun: Smasha Gun

Mek Gunz [3 PL, 40pts] . Gun: Smasha Gun

Mek Gunz [3 PL, 40pts] . Gun: Smasha Gun

++ Patrol Detachment -2CP (Orks) [6 PL, 125pts, 9CP] ++

+ Configuration +

Clan Kultur / Specialist Mobs: Goffs

+ HQ +

Weirdboy [4 PL, 75pts, -1CP]: 3. Da Jump, 4. Fists of Gork, Warphead

+ Troops +

Gretchin [2 PL, 50pts] . 10x Gretchin: 10x Grot Blaster


But even if it were, that's a codex issue, and should be solved in a codex. Surely it isn't something you change mission design around.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 21:36:44


Post by: Canadian 5th


SemperMortis wrote:
You probably don't understand since you don't play the game anymore (This isn't a jab at you). But for starters, if you don't play Goffs, you don't get skarboyz 1.

I didn't think I had to spell that out. If you're bringing 30 man squads of boyz you should probably run Goffs with Ghaz or run some other list.

2, if you are holding an objective you still need to whittle down your opponent otherwise they will steal the objective from you on their turn.

That assumes you're not blocking them with useful units like Trukkz and haven't already tied them up in melee which is what your boyz should be doing whilst congalining back to the objective.

I at most will control the objective for 1 turn before my opponent wins it from me.

If this was how horde orks actually played you'd have a point. The fact is this isn't how they're played at the highest level and you know it.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 21:50:51


Post by: Ice_can


 Canadian 5th wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
You probably don't understand since you don't play the game anymore (This isn't a jab at you). But for starters, if you don't play Goffs, you don't get skarboyz 1.

I didn't think I had to spell that out. If you're bringing 30 man squads of boyz you should probably run Goffs with Ghaz or run some other list.

2, if you are holding an objective you still need to whittle down your opponent otherwise they will steal the objective from you on their turn.

That assumes you're not blocking them with useful units like Trukkz and haven't already tied them up in melee which is what your boyz should be doing whilst congalining back to the objective.

I at most will control the objective for 1 turn before my opponent wins it from me.

If this was how horde orks actually played you'd have a point. The fact is this isn't how they're played at the highest level and you know it.

Congalines are nolonger a thing in 9th especially with the rate a which you can lose models in Close combat against many units.
Also you think a truk etc pesents even mildly effective speedbump?
Plenty of armys can shoot the truk of the table and still charge you easily.

Heck the very reason Pihrana spam works for Tau is because of drones meaning they have to kill the pihrana tben the drones to be able to hit your troops.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 21:57:39


Post by: Canadian 5th


Ice_can wrote:
Congalines are nolonger a thing in 9th especially with the rate a which you can lose models in Close combat against many units.

They work fine for holding an objective for a turn which is all you need to push the enemy out of scoring range.

Also you think a truk etc pesents even mildly effective speedbump?

Given that they can't be killed in the movement phase they do their job well enough as long as you position them well. It's the position them well part that causes most poor players issues.

Plenty of armys can shoot the truk of the table and still charge you easily.

Only if you misposition the Trukk or are on a table that doesn't let you block a corridor effectively.

Also, keep in mind that the Ork player has his own units to counter the enemy maneuvers. It's not just a blob of boyz versus a unit of intercessors, it's a 2,000 point list versus another 2,000 point list. Use the rest of your army to get turn one charges and tie things up, use Trukks full of Meganobz as roadblocks or missiles to strike the enemy's heart, use infiltrators to force the enemy to turn some of their forces back lest you outscore them or kill the backfield support they were counting on. There are reasons why Orks are an excellent meta army with multiple wining builds right now.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 22:05:01


Post by: Daedalus81


 catbarf wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.


'Infantry with more than 1 wound' seems pretty straightforward.

I mean, that's the core issue- when you go up against an army primarily composed of multiwound infantry, there's no appropriate secondary. They can adjust the balance of the other secondaries all they want, but as long as there is no kill secondary associated with a very common and very spammable unit archetype, that's a problem.


He raises a point worth considering.

Is this really necessary? When I look at tournaments for November - the timeframe where the codexes would be in effect - I see the following under 50%:

Sallies
SW
BA
IF
IH

It seems people have all but abandoned IH who sits at low play counts and 32% WR. This is hardly the WR of a no brainer codex, is it? White Scars sit at 51% Salamanders - the mostly highly regarded faction here isn't even breaking 50%.

Instead Ultramarines and Dark Angels are leading the marine charge.

I haven't personally been to tournaments and I only play against Salamanders lately, so, if someone has more insight on what makes UM/DA the seeming winners of the codex I'd love to have some insight.

Still this is pretty limited data and we still have to contend with further tweaks from the recent FAQ. So....is an anti-elite really necessary?

Is the problem that people just want an easy and thoughtless choice when they play marines? Is it wise when marines aren't universally dominating like they once were?


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 22:12:09


Post by: Ice_can


Holding a primary for 1 turn means nothing.
You have to hold primary for multiple turns.

Seriously you think your achieving much blocking with a trukk on turn 1? Yeah maybe the top 5% of players can pull of some shenanigans but for 90% of the player base that's not happening heck I've never seen it outside of the old flyer moveblock BS from 8th.

You realise either fly or infantry can nine times out of ten just move through or over the terrain or over the trukk. Like seriously who are you watching to get the idea that 9th edition plays the way you think it does?

So now it's no longer just a trukk is now a 65 point trukk plus 200 points of meganobz?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.


'Infantry with more than 1 wound' seems pretty straightforward.

I mean, that's the core issue- when you go up against an army primarily composed of multiwound infantry, there's no appropriate secondary. They can adjust the balance of the other secondaries all they want, but as long as there is no kill secondary associated with a very common and very spammable unit archetype, that's a problem.


He raises a point worth considering.

Is this really necessary? When I look at tournaments for November - the timeframe where the codexes would be in effect - I see the following under 50%:

Sallies
SW
BA
IF
IH

It seems people have all but abandoned IH who sits at low play counts and 32% WR. This is hardly the WR of a no brainer codex, is it? White Scars sit at 51% Salamanders - the mostly highly regarded faction here isn't even breaking 50%.

Instead Ultramarines and Dark Angels are leading the marine charge.

I haven't personally been to tournaments and I only play against Salamanders lately, so, if someone has more insight on what makes UM/DA the seeming winners of the codex I'd love to have some insight.

Still this is pretty limited data and we still have to contend with further tweaks from the recent FAQ. So....is an anti-elite really necessary?

Is the problem that people just want an easy and thoughtless choice when they play marines? Is it wise when marines aren't universally dominating like they once were?

Well two issues at play here your breaking a dang codex into subfactions it would be the equivalent if listing every hive fleet, guard regiment, sept etc separately.
Esentially if 50% of marines games is vrs marines guess what even if they win evey other game the maximum win ratio they can achieve is 75%.

Additionally many people just turning up to play at tournaments turn up with Marines.
If you strip the bottom 50% and top 50% of marines appart the seperation is scoring realy seperates.

However the key your missing is look at the avarage VP's scored vrs the avarage VP's given away, Elite based factions have a VP score advantage on average. It's not about win ratios it's about not being 10 VP's behind on average to the chosen factions.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 22:22:05


Post by: Canadian 5th


Ice_can wrote:
Holding a primary for 1 turn means nothing.
You have to hold primary for multiple turns.

Indeed, which is why you have other units supporting the unit of boyz. As long as the boyz can take and hold an objective for a turn and you have a support unit backing them, say meganobz, you can then use that to bully the enemy off the objective entirely.

Seriously you think your achieving much blocking with a trukk on turn 1? Yeah maybe the top 5% of players can pull of some shenanigans but for 90% of the player base that's not happening heck I've never seen it outside of the old flyer moveblock BS from 8th.

Yes, I do. You can use them to do things like stopping turn 1 charges into anything important, keep slower units away from objectives, or to deliver a nasty punch like meganobz to where you need it.

You realise either fly or infantry can nine times out of ten just move through or over the terrain or over the trukk. Like seriously who are you watching to get the idea that 9th edition plays the way you think it does?

Yeah, every play has a counter. However, your movements and positioning should change based on what the enemy has, where it is on the board and the current game state.

So now it's no longer just a trukk is now a 65 point trukk plus 200 points of meganobz?

It might be, it depends on what the enemy is doing and what threats you expect them to point at your objectives.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/11 23:50:37


Post by: Castozor


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.


'Infantry with more than 1 wound' seems pretty straightforward.

I mean, that's the core issue- when you go up against an army primarily composed of multiwound infantry, there's no appropriate secondary. They can adjust the balance of the other secondaries all they want, but as long as there is no kill secondary associated with a very common and very spammable unit archetype, that's a problem.


He raises a point worth considering.

Is this really necessary? When I look at tournaments for November - the timeframe where the codexes would be in effect - I see the following under 50%:

Sallies
SW
BA
IF
IH

It seems people have all but abandoned IH who sits at low play counts and 32% WR. This is hardly the WR of a no brainer codex, is it? White Scars sit at 51% Salamanders - the mostly highly regarded faction here isn't even breaking 50%.

Instead Ultramarines and Dark Angels are leading the marine charge.

I haven't personally been to tournaments and I only play against Salamanders lately, so, if someone has more insight on what makes UM/DA the seeming winners of the codex I'd love to have some insight.

Still this is pretty limited data and we still have to contend with further tweaks from the recent FAQ. So....is an anti-elite really necessary?

Is the problem that people just want an easy and thoughtless choice when they play marines? Is it wise when marines aren't universally dominating like they once were?

First off I always sympathize with players who pick an under performing subfaction from a generally strong book for whatever reason, but there is a reason no one takes stuff like Snakebites into account when talking about Ork external balance. If you want to balance for competitive, which GW seems to be doing, you look at what´s strong and weak in a codex as a whole and balance accordingly. Marines as a book are still strong even if certain subfactions might not be, but then this is true for all books that I know off.
Secondly no I don´t want an easy no-brainer choice against marine in a general sense, but when these auo-takes excist for a lot of other armies it makes sense to have one for elite infantry spamming armies too. Either scrap all the skew secondaries (preferred option) or make one for each kind of skew. It's just unfair game design otherwise. And I say this as a person who plays an elite infantry skew list myself (Death Gaurd).


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/12 01:31:46


Post by: catbarf


Canadian 5th wrote:I didn't think I had to spell that out. If you're bringing 30 man squads of boyz you should probably run Goffs with Ghaz or run some other list.

Canadian 5th wrote:That assumes you're not blocking them with useful units like Trukkz and haven't already tied them up in melee which is what your boyz should be doing whilst congalining back to the objective.

Canadian 5th wrote:If this was how horde orks actually played you'd have a point.

Canadian 5th wrote:They work fine for holding an objective for a turn which is all you need to push the enemy out of scoring range.

Canadian 5th wrote:It's the position them well part that causes most poor players issues.

Canadian 5th wrote:Only if you misposition the Trukk or are on a table that doesn't let you block a corridor effectively.


You know, it's these definitive proclamations about how to play the game correctly, combined with unsubtle insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you must be a bad player, that make the fact that you have never actually played the game immediately relevant to the discussion.


Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry? @ 2021/01/12 01:42:13


Post by: Canadian 5th


You know, it's these definitive proclamations about how to play the game correctly, combined with unsubtle insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you must be a bad player, that make the fact that you have never actually played the game immediately relevant to the discussion.

I must have hallucinated playing back in high school and well into my early 20's and then again in 8th edition... Thanks for snapping me free of my delusions I guess I should see a psychiatrist now.

Or I'll just hit the report button because your reply is entirely off-topic.