What can we do to make these iconic units see play? I think dropping their points to say 45-50 would probably be the sweet spot for points. Or otherwise we need to grant them additional abilities.
I can think of a lot of cool tactical abilities they could grant but I want opinions from others. What are some ideas?
I haven't played 9th but I can't imagine that they aren't useful. Guaranteed Alpha Strike is good. At the very least they'd be good at protecting Grav Devs until you want to deploy them.
What can we do to make these iconic units see play? I think dropping their points to say 45-50 would probably be the sweet spot for points. Or otherwise we need to grant them additional abilities.
I can think of a lot of cool tactical abilities they could grant but I want opinions from others. What are some ideas?
They do what they're designed to do and are fine as they are. You're paying a low price to cheese the limits of the deep strike rules, even on turn one, so you can contest or claim objectives or exploit any opening in an opponent's set up.
You're going to have to do a lot of work to prove they aren't taken and aren't fine.
What can we do to make these iconic units see play? I think dropping their points to say 45-50 would probably be the sweet spot for points. Or otherwise we need to grant them additional abilities.
I can think of a lot of cool tactical abilities they could grant but I want opinions from others. What are some ideas?
They do what they're designed to do and are fine as they are. You're paying a low price to cheese the limits of the deep strike rules, even on turn one, so you can contest or claim objectives or exploit any opening in an opponent's set up.
You're going to have to do a lot of work to prove they aren't taken and aren't fine.
They are straight 70 points of offense out of your army atm. They aren't taken. Lots of units that are strong can deep strike for free on turn 2 (turn 2 might be a better turn anyways)- like inceptors or eradicators can hit any target they want for 1 CP out of reserve. Turn 1 mobility is not worth basically having 1 less unit in your army. They are also a unit that your opponent can just assault to become invulnerable to shooting. The drop pod itself should just be removed from any calculation about it's value because it does literally nothing good for you on the table - other than put 1/2 units where you want them. We could change that. We could make the drop pod have some value...like maybe it gives out command points for units near it to use (call it supply drop). Or give it some better weapon options or the ability to detonate or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't played 9th but I can't imagine that they aren't useful. Guaranteed Alpha Strike is good. At the very least they'd be good at protecting Grav Devs until you want to deploy them.
Grav has 30" range now. They do not need to be protected - you just deploy them on the table and shoot everyturn with 2 wound devestators.
I have seen people drop 2 units of 5 armed with multi meltas and a support character in termintor armour, but that was in 1250pts games and against a list that run two important vehicles, that had to die turn 1.
What can we do to make these iconic units see play? I think dropping their points to say 45-50 would probably be the sweet spot for points. Or otherwise we need to grant them additional abilities.
I can think of a lot of cool tactical abilities they could grant but I want opinions from others. What are some ideas?
They do what they're designed to do and are fine as they are. You're paying a low price to cheese the limits of the deep strike rules, even on turn one, so you can contest or claim objectives or exploit any opening in an opponent's set up.
You're going to have to do a lot of work to prove they aren't taken and aren't fine.
They are straight 70 points of offense out of your army atm. They aren't taken. Lots of units that are strong can deep strike for free on turn 2 (turn 2 might be a better turn anyways)- like inceptors or eradicators can hit any target they want for 1 CP out of reserve. Turn 1 mobility is not worth basically having 1 less unit in your army. They are also a unit that your opponent can just assault to become invulnerable to shooting. The drop pod itself should just be removed from any calculation about it's value because it does literally nothing good for you on the table - other than put 1/2 units where you want them. We could change that. We could make the drop pod have some value...like maybe it gives out command points for units near it to use (call it supply drop). Or give it some better weapon options or the ability to detonate or something.
So you're not going to do any work, just an unsubstantiated ramble and the idea that putting units right where you want them in an edition where that matters for primary and secondary victory points is somehow worthless.
I actually like the idea of the enemy wasting turns going away from the battle to punch a drop pod. Tying enemies up with a 'worthless' unit is a win in its own right.
They are not overcosted. If you want them cheap then they need to carry Troops only or something to that effect. People find plenty of reasons to use them, but like waltz said - if you want to see them more then Primaris need a version. Most people with all Primaris won't go out of their way to get a pod and old marines to use it.
What can we do to make these iconic units see play? I think dropping their points to say 45-50 would probably be the sweet spot for points. Or otherwise we need to grant them additional abilities.
I can think of a lot of cool tactical abilities they could grant but I want opinions from others. What are some ideas?
They do what they're designed to do and are fine as they are. You're paying a low price to cheese the limits of the deep strike rules, even on turn one, so you can contest or claim objectives or exploit any opening in an opponent's set up.
You're going to have to do a lot of work to prove they aren't taken and aren't fine.
They are straight 70 points of offense out of your army atm. They aren't taken. Lots of units that are strong can deep strike for free on turn 2 (turn 2 might be a better turn anyways)- like inceptors or eradicators can hit any target they want for 1 CP out of reserve. Turn 1 mobility is not worth basically having 1 less unit in your army. They are also a unit that your opponent can just assault to become invulnerable to shooting. The drop pod itself should just be removed from any calculation about it's value because it does literally nothing good for you on the table - other than put 1/2 units where you want them. We could change that. We could make the drop pod have some value...like maybe it gives out command points for units near it to use (call it supply drop). Or give it some better weapon options or the ability to detonate or something.
So you're not going to do any work, just an unsubstantiated ramble and the idea that putting units right where you want them in an edition where that matters for primary and secondary victory points is somehow worthless.
I actually like the idea of the enemy wasting turns going away from the battle to punch a drop pod. Tying enemies up with a 'worthless' unit is a win in its own right.
Why work would you like me to do? Drop pods don't hold things up - they protect enemy units because drop pod does no damage and enemy units can use it like a bunker. I'd rather the unit not exist is the issue. The value of a unit that does nothing is pretty close to nothing. Like I said it's only value is moving units around - which plenty of units get for the cost of FREE.It certainly isn't worth 70 points.
What can we do to make these iconic units see play? I think dropping their points to say 45-50 would probably be the sweet spot for points. Or otherwise we need to grant them additional abilities.
I can think of a lot of cool tactical abilities they could grant but I want opinions from others. What are some ideas?
They do what they're designed to do and are fine as they are. You're paying a low price to cheese the limits of the deep strike rules, even on turn one, so you can contest or claim objectives or exploit any opening in an opponent's set up.
You're going to have to do a lot of work to prove they aren't taken and aren't fine.
They are straight 70 points of offense out of your army atm. They aren't taken. Lots of units that are strong can deep strike for free on turn 2 (turn 2 might be a better turn anyways)- like inceptors or eradicators can hit any target they want for 1 CP out of reserve. Turn 1 mobility is not worth basically having 1 less unit in your army. They are also a unit that your opponent can just assault to become invulnerable to shooting. The drop pod itself should just be removed from any calculation about it's value because it does literally nothing good for you on the table - other than put 1/2 units where you want them. We could change that. We could make the drop pod have some value...like maybe it gives out command points for units near it to use (call it supply drop). Or give it some better weapon options or the ability to detonate or something.
So you're not going to do any work, just an unsubstantiated ramble and the idea that putting units right where you want them in an edition where that matters for primary and secondary victory points is somehow worthless.
I actually like the idea of the enemy wasting turns going away from the battle to punch a drop pod. Tying enemies up with a 'worthless' unit is a win in its own right.
Why work would you like me to do? Drop pods don't hold things up - they protect enemy units because drop pod does no damage and enemy units can use it like a bunker. I'd rather the unit not exist is the issue. The value of a unit that does nothing is pretty close to nothing. Like I said it's only value is moving units around - which plenty of units get for the cost of FREE.It certainly isn't worth 70 points.
Xenomancers wrote: You can already do it with devestators for less points lol.
38 points per model plus pod. Two sets is usually overkill so it's like almost 250 points for 10 shots with a -1 to hit. That's why some people opt for grav cannons.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't played 9th but I can't imagine that they aren't useful. Guaranteed Alpha Strike is good. At the very least they'd be good at protecting Grav Devs until you want to deploy them.
Grav has 30" range now. They do not need to be protected - you just deploy them on the table and shoot everyturn with 2 wound devestators.
If you know you're going first they don't need to be protected. But since you can't guarantee the opponent can't maneuver to shoot or take ignore LOS weapons, a Pod can still be a valuable investment. I've podded in Plasma Devs with a 36" range in order to guarantee alpha strike or get better firing angles.
I haven't played 9th but I can't imagine that they aren't useful. Guaranteed Alpha Strike is good. At the very least they'd be good at protecting Grav Devs until you want to deploy them.
I think the problem is, while you're not wrong, other units in the marine book now do that better for less, but also do other things besides. It's a unit that, were GW to "invent" it now, would likely just be a strategem - "Drop Pod Deployment" etc.
And the only thing I can think of is to give them more capacity or go back to carrying Dreads ....
They use to do that right? Am I remembering wrong?
Who cares. They grant a completely unique ability that literally no other unit in the entire game gets to have and people still arent satisfied with em.
"My snowflake rules just arent special enough" is just old.
I run ravengaurd so its all about the alpha strike (hence "alphas"). Drop pod is a part of that and the drop pod troops bring a different flavor of alpha smackdown than the plasma intercepters or the melee guys do. So its fair it has a different price tag.
Drop pods are fine. They do what they are designed to do. You pay a premium for it because transports in general are exspensive. Further it breaks the rules for deep strikting turn one.
In a 2000 point game you can afford to take one to three of them before you start bleeding points hard.
The general conses of a good drop pod is threatening your opponents deployment. The later you use it the worse they needs to screen for it. If they do not screen lett lose.
Fill it with offensive units. 8 Multi melta is popular. 8 gravety guns are popular.
If you do not go heavy weapons 10 combi plasma. or 10 combi flamers are good. However, it is cheaper to buy jump packs in general. But then you loose the T1 threath.
the_scotsman wrote: Who cares. They grant a completely unique ability that literally no other unit in the entire game gets to have and people still arent satisfied with em.
I haven't played 9th but I can't imagine that they aren't useful. Guaranteed Alpha Strike is good. At the very least they'd be good at protecting Grav Devs until you want to deploy them.
I think the problem is, while you're not wrong, other units in the marine book now do that better for less, but also do other things besides.
So I'm curious, what are the other units that can do what a Drop Pod can?
the_scotsman wrote: Who cares. They grant a completely unique ability that literally no other unit in the entire game gets to have and people still arent satisfied with em.
"My snowflake rules just arent special enough" is just old.
People are saying the same for literally every army. FFS, there's a thread about buffing Custode weapons over in Proposed Rules right now.
-----
It's telling that pods aren't used in any competitive list at the moment. The smaller board and long ranges of marine weapons are one factor, the large footprint of the pod is another, the cost another, the lack of ability to carry Primaris units another; it all adds up to a unit that would be excellent for other armies but that doesn't actually help the army that has it all that much.
the_scotsman wrote: Who cares. They grant a completely unique ability that literally no other unit in the entire game gets to have and people still arent satisfied with em.
"My snowflake rules just arent special enough" is just old.
People are saying the same for literally every army. FFS, there's a thread about buffing Custode weapons over in Proposed Rules right now.
-----
It's telling that pods aren't used in any competitive list at the moment. The smaller board and long ranges of marine weapons are one factor, the large footprint of the pod is another, the cost another, the lack of ability to carry Primaris units another; it all adds up to a unit that would be excellent for other armies but that doesn't actually help the army that has it all that much.
Huh? Lots of competitive lists use them. They just don't fit into every army since they're geared to kill rather than capture.
I haven't played 9th but I can't imagine that they aren't useful. Guaranteed Alpha Strike is good. At the very least they'd be good at protecting Grav Devs until you want to deploy them.
I think the problem is, while you're not wrong, other units in the marine book now do that better for less, but also do other things besides.
So I'm curious, what are the other units that can do what a Drop Pod can?
Considering the amount of units Marines now have that can forward deploy, the fact that the board is now tiny but ranges on weapons have stayed the same .... quite a few.
I mean fine. Fair enough. There’s not literally a way to drop a unit out of the sky. It doesn’t change the fact that they have been, pretty much rendered obsolete.
With how fast games are desided it might be in the games interest that they remain a possabilaty, but that they are not competetive. I have 7 drop pods from 5th edition. Come winn or loose, but they turned into non games fast.
Longer games is more fun. I am leaving this thread to find greener pastures.
Daedalus81 wrote: Huh? Lots of competitive lists use them. They just don't fit into every army since they're geared to kill rather than capture.
I'm seeing a bunch of lists from last year that used a single pod for a unit of Devastators, but I'm not seeing many lists played post-Codex release anywhere. Where are you getting your info from?
I would guess that the decreased table size of 9th edition has played a factor in any decreased use of drop pods. Why bother bringing a drop pod when there is less open space to land it, especially behind enemy lines? Plus, you may have needed a drop pod in the past to get units into range quickly but with the decreased table size many units are in range on turn 1.
I play Craftworlds primarily and Drop Pods provide unique board control and offensive power from turn one. With the size of deployment zones, if the Marine player goes first, that drop pod can deposit units with the ability to target a multitude of units. I also cannot use Forewarning to shoot at the Marines, just the Drop Pod. Additionally the Drop Pod can land directly on top of an objective, adding an additional complication. For 70 points, it adds very unique capabilities. Eradicators can not perform this at all as they won't arrive via Strategic Reserve until turn 2 and I easily zone out areas I want to deny.
I can't speak for why they are not showing up in more tournament lists, but the Marine codex has two times the unit options as other armies, and there is a lot of solid units to choose from. In the local games and tourneys I've attended in the past 6 months, I tend to see more and more pure Primaris armies with a smattering of specialty legacy units, such as Sanguinary Guard.
I run into a similar issue with my Dark Angels army. I run out of points and can't quite fit a Devastator unit and Drop Pod into my army. However, there may come a time I take 2 x 5 Devastaor Squads with Multi Meltas in a Drop Pod as opposed to my Attack Bikes. We shall see.
I haven't played 9th but I can't imagine that they aren't useful. Guaranteed Alpha Strike is good. At the very least they'd be good at protecting Grav Devs until you want to deploy them.
I think the problem is, while you're not wrong, other units in the marine book now do that better for less, but also do other things besides.
So I'm curious, what are the other units that can do what a Drop Pod can?
Considering the amount of units Marines now have that can forward deploy, the fact that the board is now tiny but ranges on weapons have stayed the same .... quite a few.
I mean fine. Fair enough. There’s not literally a way to drop a unit out of the sky. It doesn’t change the fact that they have been, pretty much rendered obsolete.
Remember the days people were arguing that the new "minimum" table size wouldn't become the actual table size? Those were good days.
Fair enough at having more options to do similar tasks offensively. I still see value in their defensive "null deploy" capability. . . During 8th I relied heavily on Devastators to deliver damage, and so protecting and positioning them was very important. But like I said I haven't played 9th so I'm not sure how my army formula changes.
My main issue with drop pods aren't the points - 70 points to ignore reserve restrictions and have T1 deepstrike for units that normally can't get it is actually a good deal (if one that has to be leveraged)
My main issue is that they provide safe zones for your enemy to hide in. Even choppy marine lists have a modicum of shooting, and drop pods give the enemy an anchor point to both mitigate that shooting and reposition themselves.
A mediocre player will almost always be able to leverage your own drop pod against you.
So to that end I'd introduce the following:
1: A unit that is engaged with drop-pods (and no other units) may be chosen as a target for a shooting attack as normal (barring any other rules that make the unit an illegible target such as Look Out Sir!)
2: When a unit that is engaged with drop pods (and no other units) moves out of engagement range they do not count as falling back, and may shoot/cast/charge as normal. The unit may not advance when it does so.
Basically the idea is to kludge a fix together that makes drop-pods not a liability to your list when you take them.
An alternative is to just make them terrain, and count them as an obstacle with -1 to hit through and light cover. Might be a much better fix given the current rules of the game anyways.
Daedalus81 wrote: Huh? Lots of competitive lists use them. They just don't fit into every army since they're geared to kill rather than capture.
I'm seeing a bunch of lists from last year that used a single pod for a unit of Devastators, but I'm not seeing many lists played post-Codex release anywhere. Where are you getting your info from?
Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
It isn't as popular as it might have been, but that's more because there's a lot of good choices depending on how you want the list to work.
40k stats should probably fix the dates they have for events. I saw that but took one look at the date and didn't look into the lists.
I guess pods are better than I gave them credit for. It's a narrow use as they're being used exclusively as a way to get a single group of Devastators - or equivalent - access to a priority target but that's still useful and powerful.
The pod became less useful with the decreased board size for sure. However, it still holds some advantages in application.
Protection of a dev sqd if enemy has decent indirect weapons, and delivery is more flexible than rhino etc. It might be a tad overpriced, maybe 10-15pts too much.
Being a shield for enemy units is something you simply plan for, and if you're a decent player, you don't let that happen.
I think 55pts would be about right IMHO.
Canadian 5th wrote: it all adds up to a unit that would be excellent for other armies but that doesn't actually help the army that has it all that much.
Exactly! Church'em up and give'em to Sisters.
I'll take'm with rules and costs as is, and I promise... They'll be special enough for me.
They are straight 70 points of offense out of your army atm. They aren't taken.
{shrugs} They're taken all the time in my SW army. They've been a staple & defining unit of my SW force ever since I discovered the Armorcast models for them sometime during 2nd ed. EVERY unit in this force that can mounted in a pod is mounted in a pod. HQ guys, Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, Devs, Dreadnoughts.... Regardless of the pts of the moment or how good/bad this is rules wise.
Dependent upon edition I've used the AC rulers for them, the 3rd ed rules where you didn't actually need a model, the FW rules, the 4th ed+ rules, & the FW rules for dreadnought pods.
My favorite rules for them were the FW rules btw.
The current 70 pts? Is just 70pts of flexibility & (most importantly) theme in my army. The only reason I'd consider some of it wasted is when GW F***s with the game to appease the sobbing of the tourney players & forces me to deploy x amount of stuff on the board turn 1.
That's not how I envision my force. My force is intended to represent the actual landing of the assault force, from the 1st to the last pod (+ the jump squads & a pair of speeders). Not "1/2 the stuff arrived before we started rolling dice, & then the rest showed up".
As for wether anyone else in the world uses them & for whatever reasons? Not at all important to me as my SW being a drop pod mounted force makes ME happy. And that's all that's required. Now if only GW would get out of my way with their crappy current DS rules....
Xenomancers wrote: Lots of units that are strong can deep strike for free on turn 2 (turn 2 might be a better turn anyways)- like inceptors or eradicators can hit any target they want for 1 CP out of reserve.
This is true. But none of those Primaris units are present in my SW army & never will be.
Well, unless GW someday squats the old marines & primaris are the only option. On that day all my old models simply become Primaris clad in retro armor. Hopefully by then there'll be a Primaris Drop Pod.
Turn 1 mobility is not worth basically having 1 less unit in your army.
But theme is. At least it is to me.
And you're wrong, these ARE units. Ask my friend who plays Thousand Sons. Many are the times that he's gone to smite a target & discovered that the closest unit is actually one of my pods. And they do have weapons. Weapons wich I will use.
It's also not just about mobility, but flexibility. I've put pods in the enemies backfield, on objectives, formed a line/wall with them to block movement. Sometimes to effect where the other guy can DS.....
Xenomancers wrote: They are also a unit that your opponent can just assault to become invulnerable to shooting.
That's fine, go ahead & beat on my pods. That just means that you're not beating on my marines - who will take care of you momentarily.
ccs wrote: Not at all important to me as my SW being a drop pod mounted force makes ME happy. And that's all that's required. Now if only GW would get out of my way with their crappy current DS rules....
Balance? Feth it. Consistent rules writing? Feth it. What really matters is making ccs able to play his Space Wolves the way HE wants...
ccs wrote: Not at all important to me as my SW being a drop pod mounted force makes ME happy. And that's all that's required. Now if only GW would get out of my way with their crappy current DS rules....
Balance? Feth it. Consistent rules writing? Feth it. What really matters is making ccs able to play his Space Wolves the way HE wants...
Ah, good. We're on the same page & in agreement.
As for balance & consistent rules writing? Only new players would ever expect such things from GW. The best you'll ever get is a fun game. The worst? Well, I'm told 7th was quite terrible....
What can we do to make these iconic units see play? I think dropping their points to say 45-50 would probably be the sweet spot for points. Or otherwise we need to grant them additional abilities.
I can think of a lot of cool tactical abilities they could grant but I want opinions from others. What are some ideas?
Drop pods are bad unit design in the 9th edition paradigm. Probably better they aren't good.
I'll take'm with rules and costs as is, and I promise... They'll be special enough for me.
Repentia charging T1 out of a pod would be disgusting.
Giving sisters drop pods and miracle dice would not end well for anyone. Especially sisters players who really like miracle dice and want to keep them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tauist wrote: Ah, more unintended consequences caused by new table size recommendations! Our group will still play on 6x4 so pods will still have relevance.
FWIW I always considered the new table size recommendations game-breaking.
Pods didn't have relevance on 6x4 either. They're just slightly worse on 60x44. In practice it just makes it easier to avoid being 'gotcha'd' because you didn't string 40 fire warriors along your arse.
ERJAK wrote: Giving sisters drop pods and miracle dice would not end well for anyone. Especially sisters players who really like miracle dice and want to keep them.
Having a 67% chance to make a charge - assuming you have a 6 for your miracle dice - sounds perfectly fair and balanced to me.
And Marines can make a pod charge 58% of the time. Just need a Chaplain and some CP (if the chaplain deepstrikes in the pod) or a 3+ roll and some mobility.
Honestly with the impulsor I'm not sure if that's totally necessary unless you deploy width ways. Like we know gravis won't be able to get it them.
That being said I wouldn't be mad if Primaris got a new one. I've improved my painting a lot since I got my 2 drop pods and they look awful and it would be a good excuse.
And I'm sure that now that I have 2 impulsors GW will release a new transport that I would have bought instead
Honestly with the impulsor I'm not sure if that's totally necessary unless you deploy width ways. Like we know gravis won't be able to get it them.
That being said I wouldn't be mad if Primaris got a new one. I've improved my painting a lot since I got my 2 drop pods and they look awful and it would be a good excuse.
And I'm sure that now that I have 2 impulsors GW will release a new transport that I would have bought instead
I was really surprised the bunker thing wasn't basically a primaris drop pod...
Honestly with the impulsor I'm not sure if that's totally necessary unless you deploy width ways. Like we know gravis won't be able to get it them.
That being said I wouldn't be mad if Primaris got a new one. I've improved my painting a lot since I got my 2 drop pods and they look awful and it would be a good excuse.
And I'm sure that now that I have 2 impulsors GW will release a new transport that I would have bought instead
I was really surprised the bunker thing wasn't basically a primaris drop pod...
Should have been.
Even if it was just a 6 man pod, 6 mark 10, 3 gravis. It'd be perfect.
I could see them changing the rules on it in the future when they realize it hasn't sold particularly well (that's an assumption and not backed up by any data..I bought one, but it was heavily discounted and use it more as terrain than an actual unit).
I'd say they are still useful but probably a touch over costed. Drop some points and they'd be good. Up their fire power perhaps and they'd also be good without points drops. As is unless you have a point for them and an army that has synergy with their type of use, you would be forgiven for feeling they are bad.
I feel like that has less to do with their use right now and more to do with the fact they used to be a good pick, editions back, regardless of why you took them. Now, they need to have a list set up around their use with properly picked units and tactics. Often time a unit, use or tactic is considered weak unless it just is amazing regardless of of how it's used.
Similar to how in the day and probably still today people say " Made its points back " when a unit can do that without killing anyone at all.
I'd say they just need to be cheaper, other than that they may make a come back if DS and reserves ever go back to a more traditional use as opposed to the " Everyone does it Swag ! " of today.
Edit: Someone mentioned they have great theme, and I agree. I loved playing pod assault from back in the early days of 3rd ed when you didn't need pods but basically coming down in pods just meant your army could only be certain units. Infantry, Dreads and Land speeders and it all deep struck, half at once and the rest when the game pressed on. I loved it. The feeling was great and it wasn't always good, but boy did it feel good and have such great theme for how I always see Marines to operate.
Sad these days its just about min maxing and cookie cutter model lists.
Sad these days its just about min maxing and cookie cutter model lists.
Sorry nobody wants to play garbage "I'll take one of each unit with random wargear on everyone" games. Maybe you should be blaming the game designers instead of the players!
JNAProductions wrote: And Marines can make a pod charge 58% of the time. Just need a Chaplain and some CP (if the chaplain deepstrikes in the pod) or a 3+ roll and some mobility.
Having something be able to do stuff on its own and another being to able to do kind of a the same, but worse, with support from external sources is not the same though.
If I can buff my termintors inv save with a psychic power, it does not make the the same as blade guard having a stormshields on each model in every unit in the entire army for fewer points.
I'd love to be able to use drop pod assault more often with my army, just to stay closer to their fluff, as drop pod delivery is like 99% of their combat deployment.
But the Bug drop pods are not even able to land in turn 1.
I do think its REALLY weird that primaris can't use drop pods. Or at least have their own version. Its kind of an iconic part of the army and how it works. As for pods now? I think they could use a bit of a point discount, maybe sit in the 50 point range. Then again I think all transports should get a discount. This edition charges too much for transport capacity when you can deep strike or outflank for CP. This does not jive well at all with things like Rhinos and Devilfish that do not have any substantial offensive capabilities. I feel like the only time we ever see transports is when they are also well armed and can hold their own after dropping off their contents.
generalchaos34 wrote: I do think its REALLY weird that primaris can't use drop pods. Or at least have their own version. Its kind of an iconic part of the army and how it works. As for pods now? I think they could use a bit of a point discount, maybe sit in the 50 point range. Then again I think all transports should get a discount. This edition charges too much for transport capacity when you can deep strike or outflank for CP. This does not jive well at all with things like Rhinos and Devilfish that do not have any substantial offensive capabilities. I feel like the only time we ever see transports is when they are also well armed and can hold their own after dropping off their contents.
At least Rhinos and Devilfish can charge units, which is potentially a turn of a unit not shooting due to that or even just LoS blocking. When Marines have a bunch of other movement options...do I really want to pay at minimum 7 points a model to Deep Strike? That's what the Drop Pod is, basically. I don't think it's terribly worth that compare to regular transports or Strats regarding movement.
Kitane wrote: I'd love to be able to use drop pod assault more often with my army, just to stay closer to their fluff, as drop pod delivery is like 99% of their combat deployment.
But the Bug drop pods are not even able to land in turn 1.
Honestly forgot tyranids had them. Forgot about the marine ones too till this thread.
Guess whoever wrote the 8th edition codex had a chip on their shoulder. Maybe the 9th edition codex will treat it better
tauist wrote: Ah, more unintended consequences caused by new table size recommendations! Our group will still play on 6x4 so pods will still have relevance.
FWIW I always considered the new table size recommendations game-breaking.
Our group played on the "new" sizes for quote a while before going back to the old 6x4. Honestly, the larger table fixes so much about this edition that I'm shocked the smaller sizes made it to publication.
Remember the days people were arguing that the new "minimum" table size wouldn't become the actual table size? Those were good days.
Fair enough at having more options to do similar tasks offensively. I still see value in their defensive "null deploy" capability. . . During 8th I relied heavily on Devastators to deliver damage, and so protecting and positioning them was very important. But like I said I haven't played 9th so I'm not sure how my army formula changes.
Those were the good ol' days! Far as your null-deploy strategy in 9th? Could be pretty good of you get the first turn, but it could really burn you pretty badly if you don't .... If I were going to use them now, it would be for something like a 1-off deal where I HAVE to make sure a unit can be at a specific point at a specific time, and I have no other way to get them there. I think the days of mass drop-pods are probably over for the time being.
I haven't used them in 9th yet, but in 8th, I found that the way I used them depended a lot on how a given opponent wanted to play the doors. If lowered doors are treated as part of the model, then you can potentially introduce a serious speed bump by dropping a wall of doors between your opponent's army and the objectives he was planning on going for turn 1. And behind that wall (in my case) were a couple of squads of marines that get to shoot at your army through said wall of doors, probably while standing on the objective you expected to control on turn 1. Taking a pod hostage doesn't matter all that much if you're not standing on an objective while doing so.
If my opponent preferred to basically play the doors as being left closed (which is what I usually recommended as it's cleaner and less gimmicky), they're just an okay-but-not-great option. Which, in my casual league, was perfectly fine. The pod is a little pricey, but dumping it in the right place means that your opponent has to waste resources killing it to avoid giving me linebreaker, an objective, etc.
Complaints about drop pods are always a little weird to me. They're not an auto-take for my marines, but they're an okay second-stringer. And my craftworlders would have loved to have them back in 8th (when Strategic Reserves weren't a thing). Prior to 8th, drukhari could pay for a webway portal (in various forms) that more or less did what a drop pod did. Paying a couple extra points for a modest gun and an extra objective holder doesn't seem like such a bad deal in comparison.
Sad these days its just about min maxing and cookie cutter model lists.
Sorry nobody wants to play garbage "I'll take one of each unit with random wargear on everyone" games. Maybe you should be blaming the game designers instead of the players!
I know you have to be angry about all things that aren't bleeding edge but really, lighten up. Not every game has to be battle of the most broke all the time. Nor does taking some less than top tier units mean the person playing is all " hurr durr, wha dis ? " Where nothing makes sense and nothing has any teeth.
I was simply lamenting the fact flavor means nothing cast dead upon the alter of in game use that tends to roll in and out like the tides with the rules writers whimsy.
I blame in some regard the designers for pushing unknown agendas to keep this terrible flux of good/bad. I also blame the players who, even in confines of a friendly get together have to smash each other to pieces with only the best of the best and have no internal middle ground, as they drive the games direction as well in their own way.
So please, I say again, relax. My posts do not white knight on any level GWs blame in it, but to say they are the only ones to blame is also false. Perhaps my words struck a little too close to home ?
I know you have to be angry about all things that aren't bleeding edge but really, lighten up. Not every game has to be battle of the most broke all the time. Nor does taking some less than top tier units mean the person playing is all " hurr durr, wha dis ? " Where nothing makes sense and nothing has any teeth.
I think you seriously underestimate the gap between good and bad units for some armies, and the gap between what some armies consider bad and what some armies consider good.
Some armies casual and for fun lists require others to play their factions version of tournament list, and often even that is too good. Specially if the number of units accesible to a faction is limited.
Tau vs Custodes or Harlequins requires the non tau players to do some wierd stuff with their lists and how they are played. And players have no influance on that.
You think DPs are bad at their point cost... See the webway gate... It's supposed to have a similar function and is worse in every conceivable way... I use DPs in my FB wolves army and they are great. They can block charge lanes, perform some actions, capture objectives can block LOS, put a unit anywhere (to deploy teleports for example) on turn one, ignore point limitations, be used for look out sir, and act as a distraction carnefex for those foolish enough to tie up.
Compare that to how useless a webway gate is.... You know the thing that is supposed to, fluffwise, be more versitile and allow things to deeps trike in the blink of the eye... It's supposed to serve the same tactical function but does it way worse and costs way more points. Ya, I think DPs are fine.
Complaints about drop pods are always a little weird to me. They're not an auto-take for my marines, but they're an okay second-stringer. And my craftworlders would have loved to have them back in 8th (when Strategic Reserves weren't a thing). Prior to 8th, drukhari could pay for a webway portal (in various forms) that more or less did what a drop pod did. Paying a couple extra points for a modest gun and an extra objective holder doesn't seem like such a bad deal in comparison.
That's a very good description of it imo - "second string". I think the issue (at least in 9th) is that Marines now have so many good first string options, there's almost never a reason to dip into the second string options (unless you simply want to because you like something there which is fair play of course). The other issue is that they can be kind of tough to use. If you get first turn, they can be great at dropping something onto an objective straight away. If you get second turn, you may find yourself very quickly with no good place to put them, or possibly, due to how small tables are in 9th, combined with how much terrain tends to be on the board, no place to put them at all for a turn or so. Everyone said hordes would be dead in 9th, and indeed they have drawbacks, but one of the advantages is that if you have, say, 100 Ork boys, it's suddenly very easy to make sure your opponent doesn't have a place to bring in reinforcements or to place large-ish models like drop pods.
Combined with the fact that marines now have more forward-deploying units than they have ever had, and the fact that a lot of those units are surprisingly strong, the drop pod just starts to lose its luster I think. I would agree it needs a points drop. If you're going out of your way to bring a "second-string" model, you shouldn't have to pay "starter" prices for it imo.
What's the width of a drop pod with the doors down? How does that compare to standard table width? And what are the rules about standing on terrain?
Seems to me, in a game that's all about mobility and objective grabbing, someone could find a way to use a unit that stops an opponent from moving out of their deployment zone.
generalchaos34 wrote: I do think its REALLY weird that primaris can't use drop pods. Or at least have their own version. Its kind of an iconic part of the army and how it works. As for pods now? I think they could use a bit of a point discount, maybe sit in the 50 point range. Then again I think all transports should get a discount. This edition charges too much for transport capacity when you can deep strike or outflank for CP. This does not jive well at all with things like Rhinos and Devilfish that do not have any substantial offensive capabilities. I feel like the only time we ever see transports is when they are also well armed and can hold their own after dropping off their contents.
^Yep.
Given that transports no longer provide any meaningful increase to mobility unless they're open topped transporting shooty units, because you'd be an idiot not to disembark turn 1 most of the time (this is microboardhammer 40,000 after all, what's maneuvering into position?) Many could use a fairly substantial points decrease.
Drop pods in this sense are solidly better than most pure transport vehicles. If I had access to them with all my armies, I'd use them with quite a few.
Chimeras, Rhinos, Devilfish, Ghost Arcs, the admech fuglyboat, Trukks, Drop Pods, Gribblepods, Rockgrinders and Goliaths, Land Raider Crusaders...all pretty overpriced across the board. What they're meaningfully buying you in 9th edition is just the ability to be slightly more inconvenient to shoot top of turn 1 if you don't get the first turn. If you actually try to keep a unit in a transport turn 1, move it into position, and don't get them out until turn 2 the tempo loss from that absolutely basic maneuver is just incredible, and odds are extremely good your opponent will be able to surround and gobble up the squad inside.
If GW had popped their heads out of their butts and realized "oh hey, we've made a game where it's ridiculously easy for a ton of mobile units to charge straight across no man's land and be in combat and a ton of long range units to just start in optimal range right from their deployment zone, it really wouldn't change much of the game state to allow units to disembark from transports after they move" things might have been different, but they didn't.
Seems to me, in a game that's all about mobility and objective grabbing, someone could find a way to use a unit that stops an opponent from moving out of their deployment zone.
Yep. Like I said - "Provided you go FIRST". And that's a pretty big gamble at this point ....
techsoldaten wrote: What's the width of a drop pod with the doors down? How does that compare to standard table width? And what are the rules about standing on terrain?
Seems to me, in a game that's all about mobility and objective grabbing, someone could find a way to use a unit that stops an opponent from moving out of their deployment zone.
~9.5" from door tip to door tip, or a five pointed star with a 5" radius to point. A lot of area. If you're playing in a strictly by-the-book area you can build big walls with them.
This. It is an iconic marine unit and they don't have access to it (or an equivalent.) They use it in the fluff; the restriction makes no sense.
CSM should get theirs first.
We already have ours. They just need to fix their rules so that their passengers can get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. Still no reason for a primaris specific drop pod though. Just let the big muscle heads use the current model.
I absolutely concur about using pods to move block, one of the best ways to use them, and I have all my doors articulate so they block whole streets and provide a bigger base to shoot that deathwind launcher. Much better if you go first. Sometimes drop 2 empty pods intermingled on the same route to really clog it up. Charge away.
Transports have lost much of their functionality in 9th *IF* you play on the new MINIMUM sized board. I usually play on 4x6 (or 4x8 sometimes for 2500-3000). I haven't played a tournament since Star Fleet Battles was big and hate the new minimum size boards everyone somehow feels the need to play on. But if you play on bigger boards, transports are much more viable.
Insectum7 wrote: The Kharbysomething claw thing? Do CSM have access to the standard Pod or something similar?
We have Dreadclaws and the Karybdis Assault Claw. The Dreadclaw comes in from deep strike just like a loyalist drop pod, but after deploying it becomes a flying transport, with melee attacks and the ability to deliver MWs by burning enemy units with its engines when flying over them. The Karybdis is basically the same, but bigger (it's a LOW), has a greater transport capacity (20 vs Dreadclaw's 10), and has missile launchers. No standard drop pods available to CSM, which is fine by me, I don't want the Legions to just be loyalists with spikes. Renegades should maybe have standard drop pods though (but no Dreadclaws or Karybdis, because those are Heresy era units).
CSM definitely should have drop pods. That will require a new model or at least a conversion sprue though. Drop pod for primaris just needs an one line of errata to remove the restriction.
Insectum7 wrote: The Kharbysomething claw thing? Do CSM have access to the standard Pod or something similar?
We have Dreadclaws and the Karybdis Assault Claw. The Dreadclaw comes in from deep strike just like a loyalist drop pod, but after deploying it becomes a flying transport, with melee attacks and the ability to deliver MWs by burning enemy units with its engines when flying over them. The Karybdis is basically the same, but bigger (it's a LOW), has a greater transport capacity (20 vs Dreadclaw's 10), and has missile launchers. No standard drop pods available to CSM, which is fine by me, I don't want the Legions to just be loyalists with spikes. Renegades should maybe have standard drop pods though (but no Dreadclaws or Karybdis, because those are Heresy era units).
CSM definitely should have drop pods. That will require a new model or at least a conversion sprue though. Drop pod for primaris just needs an one line of errata to remove the restriction.
You know I'm going to push back on this and say that trueborn should have some tricks that Primaris don't.
Or just wait a bit and GW will release a Primaris Pod that will be bigger, chunkier, more expensive, have a new weapon, etc.
We have Dreadclaws and the Karybdis Assault Claw. The Dreadclaw comes in from deep strike just like a loyalist drop pod, but after deploying it becomes a flying transport, with melee attacks and the ability to deliver MWs by burning enemy units with its engines when flying over them. The Karybdis is basically the same, but bigger (it's a LOW), has a greater transport capacity (20 vs Dreadclaw's 10), and has missile launchers. No standard drop pods available to CSM, which is fine by me, I don't want the Legions to just be loyalists with spikes. Renegades should maybe have standard drop pods though (but no Dreadclaws or Karybdis, because those are Heresy era units).
Still FW only though, right? Huge barrier for me personally, and a lot of others I'm sure.
FW makes the only miniatures that are more expensive than GW miniatures; they're resin instead of plastic, and they require additional IA books which are also more expensive than GW books (though far fewer in number).
I get that FW works for some players, but it certainly isn't a solution that works for all of us.
We have Dreadclaws and the Karybdis Assault Claw. The Dreadclaw comes in from deep strike just like a loyalist drop pod, but after deploying it becomes a flying transport, with melee attacks and the ability to deliver MWs by burning enemy units with its engines when flying over them. The Karybdis is basically the same, but bigger (it's a LOW), has a greater transport capacity (20 vs Dreadclaw's 10), and has missile launchers. No standard drop pods available to CSM, which is fine by me, I don't want the Legions to just be loyalists with spikes. Renegades should maybe have standard drop pods though (but no Dreadclaws or Karybdis, because those are Heresy era units).
Still FW only though, right? Huge barrier for me personally, and a lot of others I'm sure.
FW makes the only miniatures that are more expensive than GW miniatures; they're resin instead of plastic, and they require additional IA books which are also more expensive than GW books (though far fewer in number).
I get that FW works for some players, but it certainly isn't a solution that works for all of us.
Yeah, I understand that. Dreadclaws would be easy for gw to do in full plastic. The kit is literally just the plastic drop pod kit with some resin conversion parts: The bottom engine/melta cutter/porthole section, upper engine, and the claws. Why they don't just do a full plastic kit and add it to the CSM codex is beyond me.
Oh, and fix the deployment rules so they work like a normal drop pod when first deploying, just like they have in every other edition since they were first introduced (3rd to 8th).
Or just wait a bit and GW will release a Primaris Pod that will be bigger, chunkier, more expensive, have a new weapon, etc.
Bigger, chunkier, AND blockier than the last!
In all seriousness I do except it. It's more of a when. I just want it to be a shell like the old one, but I'm sure they'll turn it into some point defence vehicle that shoots out barricades to hide behind or have heavy bolters everywhere
I know you have to be angry about all things that aren't bleeding edge but really, lighten up. Not every game has to be battle of the most broke all the time. Nor does taking some less than top tier units mean the person playing is all " hurr durr, wha dis ? " Where nothing makes sense and nothing has any teeth.
I think you seriously underestimate the gap between good and bad units for some armies, and the gap between what some armies consider bad and what some armies consider good.
Some armies casual and for fun lists require others to play their factions version of tournament list, and often even that is too good. Specially if the number of units accesible to a faction is limited.
Tau vs Custodes or Harlequins requires the non tau players to do some wierd stuff with their lists and how they are played. And players have no influance on that.
Karol, I play guard, as I'd say my primary army. I run Ogryns, lots of them. I am well aware what a crap unit is. I run rough riders, I'm well aware of the balance of good and bad in an army.
I played many lists against Eldar when even their most casual units were stomping on all before them. I've played this game since early 3rd edition, I'm not a sweet summer child of wargames. I'm just saying players can sometimes really skew the idea of " casual " we've had this talk for a long time in the community. The rule writers need to do a much better job but sometimes the players do go hog wild to smash each other in a " casual " setting that is also a problem as they then cry " game broken ! " because they choose to go out of the way to break it.
Some units, and armies are made so over the top OP, that is easy to see, others are relatively balanced with each other unless the players choose to go over the top. Drop pods are one of those things, that isn't a no brainer choice so its awful trash. I just don't think it's awful trash, could be much better and I hope it becomes so as I think its a flavorful choice.
I'm really not sure what some people take such offense to me liking drop pods, or saying some players do abuse the system to abuse each other and then throw all the blame on the designers. They have a lot of blame to handle but not all of it. Is all I am saying.
I quite like the restriction of vehicles for primaris. It helps make the two units unique. Other vice there are very few reasons not to take them. Primaris rules to point cost just pusheses them through the roof compared to old marines.
Some exceptions are blood claws and grey hunters. Marines in transports. And a few cheap attack bikes (also blood claws) and kittet out jump pack units.
Primaris intersessors have better range, ap, stratagem, more close combat attacks. They can just not ride regular transports. Either increase their points or nerf them somehow (loosing one melee attack would go a long way) and perhaps they could ride regular transports. But for now I clearly see it as a balance justefication. And one that I am quite happy with.
Niiai wrote: I quite like the restriction of vehicles for primaris. It helps make the two units unique. Other vice there are very few reasons not to take them. Primaris rules to point cost just pusheses them through the roof compared to old marines.
Some exceptions are blood claws and grey hunters. Marines in transports. And a few cheap attack bikes (also blood claws) and kittet out jump pack units.
Primaris intersessors have better range, ap, stratagem, more close combat attacks. They can just not ride regular transports. Either increase their points or nerf them somehow (loosing one melee attack would go a long way) and perhaps they could ride regular transports. But for now I clearly see it as a balance justefication. And one that I am quite happy with.
Balance is literally not the reason LOL. Have you seen the Impulsor vs the Rhino and Razorback?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
I'd like you to compare the unit list in the CSM codex to the unit list in the loyalist one.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
Yes, we do, including the two other units in the entire game (unless there's something else I'm unaware of) that can ignore the matched play reserve deployment rules. Deep Strikeing turn one, and ignoring the points limits for reserves, is something only loyalists and CSM can do, and loyalists do it better because gw didn't screw up the wording of your rules. And you're complaining that having an ability only available to one other faction in the game isn't good enough.
Niiai wrote: I quite like the restriction of vehicles for primaris. It helps make the two units unique. Other vice there are very few reasons not to take them. Primaris rules to point cost just pusheses them through the roof compared to old marines.
Some exceptions are blood claws and grey hunters. Marines in transports. And a few cheap attack bikes (also blood claws) and kittet out jump pack units.
Primaris intersessors have better range, ap, stratagem, more close combat attacks. They can just not ride regular transports. Either increase their points or nerf them somehow (loosing one melee attack would go a long way) and perhaps they could ride regular transports. But for now I clearly see it as a balance justefication. And one that I am quite happy with.
Balance is literally not the reason LOL. Have you seen the Impulsor vs the Rhino and Razorback?
That's pure delusional thinking on your end.
Impulsor can only carry 6 dudes compared to the Rhinos 10, while the Razorback can mount more firepower.
anyone wanna claim over/under on Primaris Drop pods by end of Fiscal year 2021? That also invalidate all sorts of rules and are in need of a day one FAQ?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
I'd like you to compare the unit list in the CSM codex to the unit list in the loyalist one.
That has nothing to do with my point. Bad units are bad even if they are or aren't unique. What you want me to do is shut up and let a bad unit be bad because marines have lots of good units. That is something I can not do. I want all units to be good.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
Yes, we do, including the two other units in the entire game (unless there's something else I'm unaware of) that can ignore the matched play reserve deployment rules. Deep Strikeing turn one, and ignoring the points limits for reserves, is something only loyalists and CSM can do, and loyalists do it better because gw didn't screw up the wording of your rules. And you're complaining that having an ability only available to one other faction in the game isn't good enough.
My necrons do it for free with 21 models 0 < 70 points. Abilities that allow you to move twice accomplish basically the same thing with higher upside. Your arguement is not very good. Most armies have access to some sort of gimick that gets them up the table really fast turn 1 out of all of these abilties - the drop pod is probably the worst of the bunch because its literally 70 points for the ability an nothing else. A choas sorcerer with warptime for example can deny powers and buff units with prescience all game - compared to shooting a storm bolter once and then turning into a bunker for your opponent it is not even close.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: anyone wanna claim over/under on Primaris Drop pods by end of Fiscal year 2021? That also invalidate all sorts of rules and are in need of a day one FAQ?
What is funny in this case is. I am sure the primaris version will be more expensive and have lots of guns. Which will actually make it a great choice as it will just increase the alpha strike of the unit you put in it. Heopfully though it's not like...extremely overcoated like most primaris vehicles that aren't named redemptor dreadnought.
So how come you aren’t clamoring for improvements to IG?
Or GSC?
Or Khorne Daemons?
Why did you make a thread just for one specific SM unit that has an entirely unique and damn useful ability, but nothing for any of the entire factions that aren’t good?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
I'd like you to compare the unit list in the CSM codex to the unit list in the loyalist one.
That has nothing to do with my point. Bad units are bad even if they are or aren't unique. What you want me to do is shut up and let a bad unit be bad because marines have lots of good units. That is something I can not do. I want all units to be good.
The point being made was CSM Drop Pods are even worse than the loyalist ones you say are so bad. Don't you want all units to be good?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
I'd like you to compare the unit list in the CSM codex to the unit list in the loyalist one.
That has nothing to do with my point. Bad units are bad even if they are or aren't unique. What you want me to do is shut up and let a bad unit be bad because marines have lots of good units. That is something I can not do. I want all units to be good.
The point being made was CSM Drop Pods are even worse than the loyalist ones you say are so bad. Don't you want all units to be good?
Dumb argument. Space marine daemon princes are much worse than CSM daemon prince...see - it is a bad argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: So how come you aren’t clamoring for improvements to IG?
Or GSC?
Or Khorne Daemons?
Why did you make a thread just for one specific SM unit that has an entirely unique and damn useful ability, but nothing for any of the entire factions that aren’t good?
Cause I have a painted drop pod I never use and 2 unpainted ones I am never gonna paint because I am never gonna use them. It is sad because they are iconic units. It's even more sad that primaris cant ride in them. I can make more complaining threads if you want. It would actually be pretty interesting watching peoples tune change as it starts to deal with their primary faction.
And Daemons aren’t iconic?
Guardsmen aren’t?
Genestealers aren’t?
Plus, what does a Daemon Prince do? They smash stuff in melee. All but Khorne also cast powers, but that’s secondary, generally.
If you can’t build a better beat stick than a Daemon Prince with the SM Dex and a Supplement (probably don’t even need the supplement) you aren’t trying.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
I'd like you to compare the unit list in the CSM codex to the unit list in the loyalist one.
That has nothing to do with my point. Bad units are bad even if they are or aren't unique. What you want me to do is shut up and let a bad unit be bad because marines have lots of good units. That is something I can not do. I want all units to be good.
The point being made was CSM Drop Pods are even worse than the loyalist ones you say are so bad. Don't you want all units to be good?
Dumb argument. Space marine daemon princes are much worse than CSM daemon prince...see - it is a bad argument.
But I thought you wanted all units to be good?
Also loyalist Daemon Princes don't exist. . . unless you count the Sanguinor. . . and he might be good, I dunno.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
I'd like you to compare the unit list in the CSM codex to the unit list in the loyalist one.
That has nothing to do with my point. Bad units are bad even if they are or aren't unique. What you want me to do is shut up and let a bad unit be bad because marines have lots of good units. That is something I can not do. I want all units to be good.
The point being made was CSM Drop Pods are even worse than the loyalist ones you say are so bad. Don't you want all units to be good?
Dumb argument. Space marine daemon princes are much worse than CSM daemon prince...see - it is a bad argument.
But I thought you wanted all units to be good?
Also loyalist Daemon Princes don't exist. . . unless you count the Sanguinor. . . and he might be good, I dunno.
oh I thought you were being facetious. You are talking about the unique forge world drop pods. Ehhh - I don't even know what they do honestly - They should also be better if they are bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: And Daemons aren’t iconic?
Guardsmen aren’t?
Genestealers aren’t?
Plus, what does a Daemon Prince do? They smash stuff in melee. All but Khorne also cast powers, but that’s secondary, generally.
If you can’t build a better beat stick than a Daemon Prince with the SM Dex and a Supplement (probably don’t even need the supplement) you aren’t trying.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
I'd like you to compare the unit list in the CSM codex to the unit list in the loyalist one.
That has nothing to do with my point. Bad units are bad even if they are or aren't unique. What you want me to do is shut up and let a bad unit be bad because marines have lots of good units. That is something I can not do. I want all units to be good.
The point being made was CSM Drop Pods are even worse than the loyalist ones you say are so bad. Don't you want all units to be good?
Dumb argument. Space marine daemon princes are much worse than CSM daemon prince...see - it is a bad argument.
But I thought you wanted all units to be good?
Also loyalist Daemon Princes don't exist. . . unless you count the Sanguinor. . . and he might be good, I dunno.
oh I thought you were being facetious. You are talking about the unique forge world drop pods. Ehhh - I don't even know what they do honestly - They should also be better if they are bad.
I'm talking about the same FW pods that Gadzillas post (that you responded to) was, yes.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
Yes, we do, including the two other units in the entire game (unless there's something else I'm unaware of) that can ignore the matched play reserve deployment rules. Deep Strikeing turn one, and ignoring the points limits for reserves, is something only loyalists and CSM can do, and loyalists do it better because gw didn't screw up the wording of your rules. And you're complaining that having an ability only available to one other faction in the game isn't good enough.
My necrons do it for free with 21 models 0 < 70 points. Abilities that allow you to move twice accomplish basically the same thing with higher upside. Your arguement is not very good. Most armies have access to some sort of gimick that gets them up the table really fast turn 1 out of all of these abilties - the drop pod is probably the worst of the bunch because its literally 70 points for the ability an nothing else. A choas sorcerer with warptime for example can deny powers and buff units with prescience all game - compared to shooting a storm bolter once and then turning into a bunker for your opponent it is not even close.
Yes, a Sorcerer can Warptime a unit up the board, but they both have to be on the board first. If your opponent gets first turn then they can shoot both the Sorcerer and whatever he was going to Warptime off the board. And whatever the Sorcerer is Warptiming is more limited in where it can go than a drop pod. A drop pod can come down anywhere within 9 of an enemy unit, on any turn before turn 4. Meanwhile, it and whatever is in it is safely aboard the Battle Barge. Deep Strike isn't the same as extra movement, it has its own advantages and disadvantages, and giving it to a unit that doesn't have it is what you pay for with a drop pod. I'm not saying that Warptime isn't incredibly good, it is, but it's not the same thing as Deep Strike.
I'm not aware of this ability that Necrons have that you mentioned. Enlighten me.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
I'd like you to compare the unit list in the CSM codex to the unit list in the loyalist one.
That has nothing to do with my point. Bad units are bad even if they are or aren't unique. What you want me to do is shut up and let a bad unit be bad because marines have lots of good units. That is something I can not do. I want all units to be good.
The point being made was CSM Drop Pods are even worse than the loyalist ones you say are so bad. Don't you want all units to be good?
Dumb argument. Space marine daemon princes are much worse than CSM daemon prince...see - it is a bad argument.
But I thought you wanted all units to be good?
Also loyalist Daemon Princes don't exist. . . unless you count the Sanguinor. . . and he might be good, I dunno.
oh I thought you were being facetious. You are talking about the unique forge world drop pods. Ehhh - I don't even know what they do honestly - They should also be better if they are bad.
I'm talking about the same FW pods that Gadzillas post (that you responded to) was, yes.
Well then - my personal opinion about FW is - I don't care about it in the slightest. If they really cared about these units they would make them in plastic and sell them in their stores. They are collectors items we are just lucky/unlucky enough to get rules for. They are a nightmare for balance as it doubles the units pool. Does it help my argument to mention that CSM drop pods are also bad when they are an entirely different unit with different abilities? I'd really like to keep the focus on the space marine drop pod which is basically paying 70 points to make a unit deep strike - which is clearly too much.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
Yes, we do, including the two other units in the entire game (unless there's something else I'm unaware of) that can ignore the matched play reserve deployment rules. Deep Strikeing turn one, and ignoring the points limits for reserves, is something only loyalists and CSM can do, and loyalists do it better because gw didn't screw up the wording of your rules. And you're complaining that having an ability only available to one other faction in the game isn't good enough.
My necrons do it for free with 21 models 0 < 70 points. Abilities that allow you to move twice accomplish basically the same thing with higher upside. Your arguement is not very good. Most armies have access to some sort of gimick that gets them up the table really fast turn 1 out of all of these abilties - the drop pod is probably the worst of the bunch because its literally 70 points for the ability an nothing else. A choas sorcerer with warptime for example can deny powers and buff units with prescience all game - compared to shooting a storm bolter once and then turning into a bunker for your opponent it is not even close.
Yes, a Sorcerer can Warptime a unit up the board, but they both have to be on the board first. If your opponent gets first turn then they can shoot both the Sorcerer and whatever he was going to Warptime off the board. And whatever the Sorcerer is Warptiming is more limited in where it can go than a drop pod. A drop pod can come down anywhere within 9 of an enemy unit, on any turn before turn 4. Meanwhile, it and whatever is in it is safely aboard the Battle Barge. Deep Strike isn't the same as extra movement, it has its own advantages and disadvantages, and giving it to a unit that doesn't have it is what you pay for with a drop pod. I'm not saying that Warptime isn't incredibly good, it is, but it's not the same thing as Deep Strike.
I'm not aware of this ability that Necrons have that you mentioned. Enlighten me.
I am talking tactically it is the same. Putting a unit into action turn 1. Warp time can be better actually for an assault unit - it can get you closer than 9" and it has other downsides - like it can fail to go off - but a drop pod can also be screened out.
I am speaking about veil of darkness. It is a relic that any necron army can use. I pick a unit up off the table and put it anywhere on the table outside of 9" - TS have the exact same ability. Veil of darkness can be free as your first relic or cost 1 CP for your second. It is not coming in from reserves BUT it is pretty much automatic you can hide the unit you want to veil without any issue - or you really aren't playing on a legal table. It is amazing. Would I pay 70 point for it? Nope. I wouldn't pay 50...and this is for a unit twice the size of what a drop pod can bring in.
Oh I see, so this is just a " Space marine have some not top tier units and that is bad ! " thread.
Of course some units aren't going to be great and universally useful. There is a use for drop pods, but not all the time. Many books have lame duck units all over. Marines aren't the only ones stricken with this and they should all be looked at.
Just look at guard I could go unit to unit and you'd see just a small few units of worth that you see all the time and the rest ? Like the road warrior, they live now only in my memory because no one takes them.
So yeah, this is a rules writer problem they need a better grip on their own game system to make all the units useful but not must haves in an army selection. That goes for everyone however, not just marines.
I still think the drop pod has a use and may again when the current fad of being able to keep all kinds of things in reserve and outflank with them vanishes once more. This gimmick in reserves use made many kinds of mobility options feel lame but has only been with us for an edition thus far, pods, pricing aside have given good use for many editions.
This isn't even the worst they've been and honestly their biggest negative now is they still cost too much, if they get the price just right they'll find ways into lists once more, as even now they have a point if you build an army to utilize them and what they offer. They just aren't top tier and aren't a take all the time choice.
Units that are so good you always have to take them, or should are the choices you want to avoid in any army rules writing as they take away any meaningful choice for the player. All the units should be good if used and taken with the correct aims.
If the thread is just to be like " But muh drop pods...sad face " Why not just write a list with all armies worst units and we can all cry together.
Well then - my personal opinion about FW is - I don't care about it in the slightest. If they really cared about these units they would make them in plastic and sell them in their stores. They are collectors items we are just lucky/unlucky enough to get rules for. They are a nightmare for balance as it doubles the units pool. Does it help my argument to mention that CSM drop pods are also bad when they are an entirely different unit with different abilities? I'd really like to keep the focus on the space marine drop pod which is basically paying 70 points to make a unit deep strike - which is clearly too much.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Oh I see, so this is just a " Space marine have some not top tier units and that is bad ! " thread.
Were Eldar players not allowed to complain about their useless units or are you just proving some double standard?
If you actually read and don't just blindly quote, you'd see a whole post placed just a few posts above, one of mine in which I agreed all crap units should be made good. However, the OP said this is really just a " woe is me drop pods aren't amazing, this needs to change " thread.
I in some detail did explain how having bad units sucks, but isn't a marine only problem. I also did point out how the drop pod is bad in the fact it costs too much and with reserve rules basically making the point of Drop pods kinda useless isn't a fault of the drop pod per say but of the core rules giving most units unprecedented mobility. Something that at one point the pods did for their cost.
Are you just picking small snippets of mine to quote to push some selective outrage ? I voice quite freely when I find something messed up. I've quite routinely gone to bat for Eldar players, Ork players, even Marine players when they are right.
So let me be clear, the Pod isn't " Good " if by good you mean an auto take. It has a point and a purpose, it costs too much however for what it does and it's job isn't as needed with the rise in mobility due to everyone having very kind reserves and outflanking these days.
That isn't a pod only issue however and could be fixed better with dialing back the pods cost which for a few editions has been too high imo. It's still not a useless unit however, just an over costed one.
If you feel Pods are useless on that I disagree, they are over costed of that I agree. It's more an issue with the core game system these days and less so a problem with the pod itself.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Oh I see, so this is just a " Space marine have some not top tier units and that is bad ! " thread.
Were Eldar players not allowed to complain about their useless units or are you just proving some double standard?
If you actually read and don't just blindly quote, you'd see a whole post placed just a few posts above, one of mine in which I agreed all crap units should be made good. However, the OP said this is really just a " woe is me drop pods aren't amazing, this needs to change " thread.
Then if you agree why do you care the OP set up a thread to complain about it?
Because Drop Pods aren't even particularly bad. They're not a stellar, auto-take in every list unit. But they're not bad. There are many, MANY more pressing units that need to be fixed than Drop Pods.
JNAProductions wrote: Because Drop Pods aren't even particularly bad. They're not a stellar, auto-take in every list unit. But they're not bad. There are many, MANY more pressing units that need to be fixed than Drop Pods.
This is why I care, the drop pod isn't insanely bad. It just lacks a clear role outside some niche lists because of the core rules which is something you can fix with proper points adjustments as I doubt they'll touch on the rules for it so soon. They could also make a strat for them to give them more teeth and use in a list. Which seems to be their way of making a mid tier unit viable these days.
There is a lot of hyperbole on here when a unit isn't " OMG It wins games on its own ! " that it is beyond terrible and needs a fix now, the drop pod isn't that bad. It's just not that good.
I quoted you because you are getting what I'm trying to say with all this.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Poor loyalists. So many great units that one that offers an ability only available to them and CSM (through fw) still isn't good enough. At least your drop pods didn't have their deployment rules screwed up so that their passengers can't get out on the turn they arrive from deep strike. *grumble grumble *
Dude. CSM has many unique units too. I'm pretty envious of daemon princes and defilers but it's not even about that. It is just the points cost. 70 points is far to much to make a unit deep strike turn 1 and put a frontline bunker into your opponents frontline they can hide in. The issue is points. Kind of like how we both have access to predators but both aren't useable because the points are bad.
I'd like you to compare the unit list in the CSM codex to the unit list in the loyalist one.
That has nothing to do with my point. Bad units are bad even if they are or aren't unique. What you want me to do is shut up and let a bad unit be bad because marines have lots of good units. That is something I can not do. I want all units to be good.
The point being made was CSM Drop Pods are even worse than the loyalist ones you say are so bad. Don't you want all units to be good?
Dumb argument. Space marine daemon princes are much worse than CSM daemon prince...see - it is a bad argument.
But I thought you wanted all units to be good?
Also loyalist Daemon Princes don't exist. . . unless you count the Sanguinor. . . and he might be good, I dunno.
oh I thought you were being facetious. You are talking about the unique forge world drop pods. Ehhh - I don't even know what they do honestly - They should also be better if they are bad.
I'm talking about the same FW pods that Gadzillas post (that you responded to) was, yes.
Well then - my personal opinion about FW is - I don't care about it in the slightest. If they really cared about these units they would make them in plastic and sell them in their stores. They are collectors items we are just lucky/unlucky enough to get rules for. They are a nightmare for balance as it doubles the units pool. Does it help my argument to mention that CSM drop pods are also bad when they are an entirely different unit with different abilities? I'd really like to keep the focus on the space marine drop pod which is basically paying 70 points to make a unit deep strike - which is clearly too much.
Oh, so you're only interested in your drop pods having good rules. Got it. For the record, I could see drop pods being a bit cheaper. Dreadclaws (yeah, I know you don't care ) are perfectly fine at their current price, they just need to fix their rules.
And I looked up Veil of Darkness, it only works for <DYNASTY> <CORE> units. So, Warriors, Immortals, and Lychguard right? Good units, but dropping any of those in your opponents face isn't quite as nasty as a couple multi-melta or grav Devastator squads.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Good units, but dropping any of those in your opponents face isn't quite as nasty as a couple multi-melta or grav Devastator squads.
That depends on the targets being shot at and if you have the CP to spend on Relentless Onslaught and/or Disruption Fields. Gauss flayer warriors are just plain nasty against most target profiles.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Good units, but dropping any of those in your opponents face isn't quite as nasty as a couple multi-melta or grav Devastator squads.
That depends on the targets being shot at and if you have the CP to spend on Relentless Onslaught and/or Disruption Fields. Gauss flayer warriors are just plain nasty against most target profiles.
You mean the S4 AP-1 D1 weapon? With 24" RF1?
A weapon that's like a Bolt Rifle... But worse, due to less range?
A weapon that's like a Bolt Rifle... But worse, due to less range?
Gah, I meant the Gauss Reaper. You know, the one you equip your 20 man brick with before veiling them in to delete something and then fishing for a charge against whatever's left.
A weapon that's like a Bolt Rifle... But worse, due to less range?
Gah, I meant the Gauss Reaper. You know, the one you equip your 20 man brick with before veiling them in to delete something and then fishing for a charge against whatever's left.
Assault 2, S5, AP-2, D1 right? So with the strategems you mentioned thats Assault 2, S6, AP-2, D1 with exploding 6s right?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Assault 2, S5, AP-2, D1 right? So with the strategems you mentioned thats Assault 2, S6, AP-2, D1 with exploding 6s right?
That's almost right. The first strat is an extra on a hit roll of 6, the second is +1 strength in combat. Usually, if you're doing this you'll also have rad-wreathed going for you so that +1 strength strat is situational but wrecks choice targets like gravis armored troops and bikes who rely on that T5 to survive; this changes again if you have directive 2 of the protocol of the hungry void active alongside rad-wreathed as this then allows your warriors to wound marines on 2 on a turn when they charge or are charged. It's complicated to get the most out of Necrons, though the Silent King does help with that and can further buff the power of the units around him with re-rollable shooting attacks and +1 to hit and re-rollable wounds in melee.
If you thought Marines were buff-centric you really should see what Necrons played by a skilled general can do.
JNAProductions wrote: Because Drop Pods aren't even particularly bad. They're not a stellar, auto-take in every list unit. But they're not bad. There are many, MANY more pressing units that need to be fixed than Drop Pods.
It kinda is, simply because of the lack of use. With all the strats and natural mobility to begin with in the codex, it's unreasonable to essentially pay 7-14 points for a unit to Deep Strike.
Maybe for people that already own the models and the marines that can get inside of them. A new player is not going to risk investing in to multiple vehicles and units to transport in them, when there is a serious risk that they may end up in legends at the end of the edition.
There just isn't enough to transport in those things anyway. If they could carry primaris units, then it would be way different.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yeah, so its over costed, yes ? Over costed doesn't mean awful bad, just in need of points drops which I think most of us would agree with.
So arguably deepstrike is worth 2ppm (reiver grav chutes, or jump packs). Turn 1 is a premium DS so maybe 3-4ppm. 10 seats, 30-40 points for deepstriking 10 guys. So is the pod itself worth 40-30 pts? Immobile, T6, 8 wound, storm bolter turret?
The price point of the drop pod is never gonna change as long as other vehicles in the same range doesn't change either. You can't price a rhino at 80pts and a pod at 50 or below. It just doesn't make sense and if a rhino can be a "this unit isn't getting shot at directly from turn 1" for 80, I'm sure pods are fine at 70 and you won't lose a game by taking one or two, it's not like overpaying a bit is going to put you at such a disadvantage that you better not use them, unless you take only subpar stuff (and it's fairly improbable in a marine list), but then it's not a drop pod only issue. It's also one of these models that are kinda problematic to price properly considering what it does and the varied range of units able to use it (even though being restricted to firstborn units helps).
If the drop pod gets a significant price cut, it needs to be reworked to be a deployment tool only, you can't have a 40-50 points T1 transport that also serves as a huge area/movement denial tool.
A drop pod should be treated as a fortification after it unloads its passengers:
- unable to hold objectives
- its doors (when open) should not count as a part of the model and should not hinder the movement or placement of any other model.
- it could shoot into enemy units within 1"
- it should not prevent enemy units within 1" from shooting and it should not prevent other units to shoot at enemy units within 1".
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yeah, so its over costed, yes ? Over costed doesn't mean awful bad, just in need of points drops which I think most of us would agree with.
That is literally my argument. Turn 1 deeps strike is a nifty ability I'd like to be able to utilize but 70 points is just too steep and it is clearly to steep when you compare it to armies that get the same ability for free (first relic).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kitane wrote: If the drop pod gets a significant price cut, it needs to be reworked to be a deployment tool only, you can't have a 40-50 points T1 transport that also serves as a huge area/movement denial tool.
A drop pod should be treated as a fortification after it unloads its passengers:
- unable to hold objectives
- its doors (when open) should not count as a part of the model and should not hinder the movement or placement of any other model.
- it could shoot into enemy units within 1"
- it should not prevent enemy units within 1" from shooting and it should not prevent other units to shoot at enemy units within 1".
Nah dude. It counts as terrain after it drops. Make some weird rule where it can shoot its storm bolter/missile until an enemy unit gets in engagement range of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dhallnet wrote: The price point of the drop pod is never gonna change as long as other vehicles in the same range doesn't change either.
You can't price a rhino at 80pts and a pod at 50 or below. It just doesn't make sense and if a rhino can be a "this unit isn't getting shot at directly from turn 1" for 80, I'm sure pods are fine at 70 and you won't lose a game by taking one or two, it's not like overpaying a bit is going to put you at such a disadvantage that you better not use them, unless you take only subpar stuff (and it's fairly improbable in a marine list), but then it's not a drop pod only issue.
It's also one of these models that are kinda problematic to price properly considering what it does and the varied range of units able to use it (even though being restricted to firstborn units helps).
They could make it a random drop turn based on a dice roll. How would you feel abou that?
Galas wrote: Is not that drop pods are bad. Is just that the edition missions, deployment, tables and objetives make them not worth it.
Just like custodian guards with 3++ were useless in 8th and are the new hotness in 9th with 0 changes to their rules.
I cant imagine a situation where playing with 1930 points vs a 2000 point army would ever be a great idea.
So early-game board control means... Nothing? Being able to protect your units but still deliver a T1 alpha strike means... Nothing?
Again-Drop Pods aren't an autotake in every list. No unit should be. They're a solid unit with an entirely unique rule. They could stand a price decrease, but considering they're in the single most bloated 'Dex in the game... I'd much rather GW address those Codecs that really need it.
There a lot of applications of pods other than for suicide runs - one of the more notable ones being dropping an empty pod.
With good placement, you can potentially: block main fire corridor, force good shots to be wasted, force movements, deny movements, block LOS, deter charges and others to control the flow of the game. You can also drop it opened, thereby increasing the zone of "9 inch rule" to deny drop zones at your flank. Opened drop pods can cover more area than infiltrators & their 12" no drop zone rule for less points.
Remember, unless you have FLY, you can't move over/through other models.
The biggest and real problem of drop pods is that if your enemy knows how to play you basically gifted him a unit to make his units inmune to meele and slingshot them across the battlefield with charges, pile ins and consolidation move.s
Galas wrote: The biggest and real problem of drop pods is that if your enemy knows how to play you basically gifted him a unit to make his units inmune to meele and slingshot them across the battlefield with charges, pile ins and consolidation move.s
And if are using the pod to block movements, and you knew your opponent would use your pod in such way, you can drop the pod at [Opponent's unit's M] + [4"; Average advance roll, rounded up] + [7"; median result of 2d6 for charge] and it will mitigate the risk of allowing your opponent to "over" charge.
TLDR: depending on how you use your pods, they can be a great distraction carnifex that keeps your other units safer.
My opponents don't use Droppods because they have full primaris armies so I can't really say if they are good or not. But if we want them to be usable maybe take away their ability to DS turn 1 first. It's a ridiculous exception to all other DS rules that should not exist, re-balance their points afterwards.
Galas wrote: Is not that drop pods are bad. Is just that the edition missions, deployment, tables and objetives make them not worth it.
Just like custodian guards with 3++ were useless in 8th and are the new hotness in 9th with 0 changes to their rules.
I cant imagine a situation where playing with 1930 points vs a 2000 point army would ever be a great idea.
Wait. So you feel like you're not getting anything out of these 70 pts ? At all ?
And yet you propose to make their arrival random (which basically would negate any interest in pods outside of "look I'm playing a pod") ? If all you want is to have the model on the table, just use it as terrain, I dunno.
I don't know where you're trying to get here. At best, we could scrap like 20pts/model (and even then it's kind of ridiculous without touching any other transport option), do you feel it's worth leaving them on the shelf if you so much want to play them ?
Also what the heck. Ofc you can play 1930 against anyone else outside of "cut throat" games where you pick only the most efficient stuff. You won't feel much of a difference, it's not like points were a perfect science and your opponent isn't using over costed stuff too.
Insectum7 wrote: But if that 70 points means the units it carries are immune for the opponents turn? Imo that's useful.
That's only useful if the unit inside is powerful enough to pull you out of the hole you're in because you went second. Is the upside of saving ~1/10th of your lists from being hit actually doing anything to counter what your opponent's first turn just did?
Obviously, there are lists that use exactly one pod containing exactly one 5-man unit of grav devs but it'll take more than a one-of to convince me that the upside counters the beating you get when you go second.
Insectum7 wrote: But if that 70 points means the units it carries are immune for the opponents turn? Imo that's useful.
That's only useful if the unit inside is powerful enough to pull you out of the hole you're in because you went second. Is the upside of saving ~1/10th of your lists from being hit actually doing anything to counter what your opponent's first turn just did?
Obviously, there are lists that use exactly one pod containing exactly one 5-man unit of grav devs but it'll take more than a one-of to convince me that the upside counters the beating you get when you go second.
You can carry two units, you know.
In fact. . . Since Marines got more expensive. . . You're actually getting more points into that 70 point model. The Transport cost to Transported-unit/s-cost has improved over 8th.
In fact. . . Since Marines got more expensive. . . You're actually getting more points into that 70 point model. The Transport cost to Transported-unit/s-cost has improved over 8th.
In fact. . . Since Marines got more expensive. . . You're actually getting more points into that 70 point model. The Transport cost to Transported-unit/s-cost has improved over 8th.
Okay, show me the tournament list that did that.
This again? Oh 5th. . .
Units don't need to show up in tournaments to be reasonable/takeable for tha majority of players. Plus, it's already been cited that Pods have shown up in tourneys. In addition, a player can choose what to put in the pod on a per-battle basis, so as long as a player has more than one pod-transportable unit, it could have happened in a tourney that included a pod. That's just part of building a flexible list.
Daedalus81 wrote: Huh? Lots of competitive lists use them. They just don't fit into every army since they're geared to kill rather than capture.
I'm seeing a bunch of lists from last year that used a single pod for a unit of Devastators, but I'm not seeing many lists played post-Codex release anywhere. Where are you getting your info from?
In fact. . . Since Marines got more expensive. . . You're actually getting more points into that 70 point model. The Transport cost to Transported-unit/s-cost has improved over 8th.
Okay, show me the tournament list that did that.
Jesus christ you sound like a damned broken record.
Units can be good without being taken in tournaments.
Insectum7 wrote: Units don't need to show up in tournaments to be reasonable/takeable for tha majority of players.
I've already stated, multiple times, that I don't care about casual play and jank AF local metas where players of unequal skill face off with whatever they happen to own. Those matches will never be balanced.
You've already been shown this tourney list mr. Memory. It has two Devastator Squads that can fit in the Pod.
Did he actually use it to drop both of them at any point? Capability doesn't mean that it's actually being used that way.
Insectum7 wrote: Units don't need to show up in tournaments to be reasonable/takeable for tha majority of players.
I've already stated, multiple times, that I don't care about casual play and jank AF local metas where players of unequal skill face off with whatever they happen to own. Those matches will never be balanced.
Those matches where you talk to your opponent beforehand and try to reach a common point in powerlevel are actually the most balanced games of 40k you can ever have.
My standard for good is a tournament-viable unit that you want multiples of; this includes named characters as many of them would be taken twice or more if that was an option. Beyond that, you get okay units, units that are tournament viable but not in all lists for that faction or which are only used as singleton units in meta lists. Then you get the bad units, singleton units that show up in a top 8 list once and never again. Then you get the rest which are all trash to be avoided unless you need a handicap.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Those matches where you talk to your opponent beforehand and try to reach a common point in powerlevel are actually the most balanced games of 40k you can ever have.
Only if the players are both of equal skill and have the right knowledge to actually get the balance right. Also, good luck doing this is a PUG type game, at a shop that wants to grind for tournaments, the circle of hell Karol plays at, and other such places. Your method only works for a very small percentage of gamers, takes longer to get setup, and can lead to units deemed "cheesy" or "broken" never seeing play even if they'd actually be fine in the meta.
Insectum7 wrote: Units don't need to show up in tournaments to be reasonable/takeable for tha majority of players.
I've already stated, multiple times, that I don't care about casual play and jank AF local metas where players of unequal skill face off with whatever they happen to own. Those matches will never be balanced.
That's the vast majority of the games played, and the target market. It matters whether or not you care about it.
Plus, units can rightfully not be balanced around tournament play, but different metas. It opens up the options for games played, units used and therefore units purchased.
Insectum7 wrote: That's the vast majority of the games played, and the target market. It matters whether or not you care about it.
Does it? The game seems to be growing better than ever right now. So if the current rules aren't good enough (and you claim they aren't) why is this the case?
Plus, units can rightfully not be balanced around tournament play, but different metas. It opens up the options for games played, units used and therefore units purchased.
No, because a unit balanced for a meta without anti-tank in most lists would either be vastly over or underpowered in a balanced meta. Plus GW has no way to collect the data on what the meta inside a player's garage or small FLGS looks like so can't make adjustmenst for that even if they did.
When I look at that list I say "Of course he did."
So you have nothing.
Actually. . . Howabout you provide proof that all local metas are "jenk AF".
I don't need to prove that all of them are and you've already stated the units that aren't tournament viable are fine in your local meta, you know the one you want to see the game balance around, which proves that at least one local meta that posters want the game balanced around is janky compared to the tournament meta. I don't need to go further as I never set out to prove that all local metas are bad. In fact, local metas that mirror tournament metas are already covered for balance so you don't need to consider other metas anyway, you just need to get other metas to shift to match the parts of the game that are balanced.
When I look at that list I say "Of course he did."
So you have nothing.
I have enough. A tournament list with a Pod and 2 Grav Dev units that can fit in it. If it's not good enough for you that's a you problem.
The rest of your post is rather incoherent so I wont really bother, other than "Yes, more people play outside of tournaments than in tournaments, and the balance of units can change a lot depending on context."
@Canadian:
If you only care about GTs and the units that feature most commonly in them, then perhaps this isn't the thread for you? And I don't say that to be rude.
I think we all generally agree that drop pods aren't an auto take, and that's okay. Not every units needs to be (or should be) eradicator-level powerful. But we've seen that they're good enough to show up in tournament lists here and there, and several of us have mentioned that we occassionally use them in casual games. I think it's fair to discuss their use in that context.
Not every thread has to focus exclusively on high-end tournament play just because you're dismissive of less competitive games.
Those matches where you talk to your opponent beforehand and try to reach a common point in powerlevel are actually the most balanced games of 40k you can ever have.
No they aren't. Two people met for a game one has 2000pts of harlis the other has 2000pts of tau. What are they suppose to do for balance now ?
The whole talk things over works for people with gigantic collections, maybe multiple armies and probably a car to transport all those things around. Because good luck getting more then 2000+pts of an army around with a bike or on public transport.
You may as well put out the argument that w40k in any edition was fun and balanced, because you just sit down and rewrite the rules for each game with your opponent. Which basicaly is impossible in store games, where you come in, play the game and go home or play another game, if there are any tables free.
Those matches where you talk to your opponent beforehand and try to reach a common point in powerlevel are actually the most balanced games of 40k you can ever have.
No they aren't. Two people met for a game one has 2000pts of harlis the other has 2000pts of tau. What are they suppose to do for balance now ?
The whole talk things over works for people with gigantic collections, maybe multiple armies and probably a car to transport all those things around. Because good luck getting more then 2000+pts of an army around with a bike or on public transport.
You may as well put out the argument that w40k in any edition was fun and balanced, because you just sit down and rewrite the rules for each game with your opponent. Which basicaly is impossible in store games, where you come in, play the game and go home or play another game, if there are any tables free.
FFS stop being an idiot and be creative a bit.
If i play quins against a tau player, i won't be bringing all the best combos/masques. I wont play soaring spite or frozen stars, i wont take the "minus range aura" on my shadowseer, i'll leave my death jesters with the basic pivotal role. I'll bring some voidweavers. It litterally only takes a minute to ask your opponent on facebook "don't bring something top tier, i'm playing tau" and then if your opponent is a decent human being, he'll downgrade his army because winning isnt the only goal in this game.
Its a shame you're in an area with a bunch of stupid toxic players because it's really starting to influence you.
At this point i'll just assume you're a very dedicated troll because no one in their right mind could constantly be making the arguments that you do.
If i play quins against a tau player, i won't be bringing all the best combos/masques. I wont play soaring spite or frozen stars, i wont take the "minus range aura" on my shadowseer, i'll leave my death jesters with the basic pivotal role. I'll bring some voidweavers. It litterally only takes a minute to ask your opponent on facebook "don't bring something top tier, i'm playing tau" and then if your opponent is a decent human being, he'll downgrade his army because winning isnt the only goal in this game.
Doesn't this assume that both players will always have a collection large enough to make such changes and that the gulf between armies is narrow enough for such changes to be an effective tool to balance the game? Neither of those are things you can count on in a PUG-type setting.
If i play quins against a tau player, i won't be bringing all the best combos/masques. I wont play soaring spite or frozen stars, i wont take the "minus range aura" on my shadowseer, i'll leave my death jesters with the basic pivotal role. I'll bring some voidweavers. It litterally only takes a minute to ask your opponent on facebook "don't bring something top tier, i'm playing tau" and then if your opponent is a decent human being, he'll downgrade his army because winning isnt the only goal in this game.
Doesn't this assume that both players will always have a collection large enough to make such changes and that the gulf between armies is narrow enough for such changes to be an effective tool to balance the game? Neither of those are things you can count on in a PUG-type setting.
Then take a points handicap. If you're running Tau and I'm running Quins, I can take 20% less points. If that's still a one-sided stomp, increase the handicap.
While I (back when Covid wasn't rampant) played pretty much solely pick-up games, they were within a general group of good folk who attended the same GW I did. They aren't there to smash face, they're there to have a fun game. There were some tournament players, but they were the minority, and they were still pretty chill people.
JNAProductions wrote: Then take a points handicap. If you're running Tau and I'm running Quins, I can take 20% less points. If that's still a one-sided stomp, increase the handicap.
While I (back when Covid wasn't rampant) played pretty much solely pick-up games, they were within a general group of good folk who attended the same GW I did. They aren't there to smash face, they're there to have a fun game. There were some tournament players, but they were the minority, and they were still pretty chill people.
This doesn't sound like, "the most balanced games of 40k you can ever have." They sound like a subjective mess that can only reach a point of rough balance after a series of one-sided matches.
It seems like competitive-focused tournament lists are actually more balanced because they don't require a dozen house rules to make a half-decent game.
JNAProductions wrote: Then take a points handicap. If you're running Tau and I'm running Quins, I can take 20% less points. If that's still a one-sided stomp, increase the handicap.
While I (back when Covid wasn't rampant) played pretty much solely pick-up games, they were within a general group of good folk who attended the same GW I did. They aren't there to smash face, they're there to have a fun game. There were some tournament players, but they were the minority, and they were still pretty chill people.
This doesn't sound like, "the most balanced games of 40k you can ever have." They sound like a subjective mess that can only reach a point of rough balance after a series of one-sided matches.
It seems like competitive-focused tournament lists are actually more balanced because they don't require a dozen house rules to make a half-decent game.
That doesn't sound like anything I ever said.
And ultimately, balance is a tool that's there to help make fun games. I believe it's a pretty important tool, but asymmetric games can be quite fun-narrative scenarios and whatnot. I would, in the end, rather have a game that's unbalanced but fun for all involved, than a perfectly balanced and boring game. Which is not to say GW shouldn't do better no balance-it's bad enough that you can quite realistically have an unfun game because of the glaring balance issues-but fun is the end goal.
It's what Vlad said at the start of this particular topic change that you dove in on.
And ultimately, balance is a tool that's there to help make fun games. I believe it's a pretty important tool, but asymmetric games can be quite fun-narrative scenarios and whatnot. I would, in the end, rather have a game that's unbalanced but fun for all involved, than a perfectly balanced and boring game. Which is not to say GW shouldn't do better no balance-it's bad enough that you can quite realistically have an unfun game because of the glaring balance issues-but fun is the end goal.
Do whatever you like to have fun. I take no issue with that, I take issue with people who want to use such games as the gold standard to balance around.
JNAProductions wrote: Then take a points handicap. If you're running Tau and I'm running Quins, I can take 20% less points. If that's still a one-sided stomp, increase the handicap.
While I (back when Covid wasn't rampant) played pretty much solely pick-up games, they were within a general group of good folk who attended the same GW I did. They aren't there to smash face, they're there to have a fun game. There were some tournament players, but they were the minority, and they were still pretty chill people.
It would be rather hard to force someone to use only 80% of his army, just to make someone happy, specially considering how much the game costs. I small skirmish game asking someone to not use one model is going to be much easier, then telling someone that just because their faction is good right now they have to put away 200$ of stuff. Plus you would have to be a really good player to know how much of an army you can cut off, if the points handicap is too large and the army no longer can run the units GW thinks it should run at given points, playing with the army may stop being fun. And then you are step away from opponent telling you that instead of him not using 200$ of his own stuff, maybe you should save up and spend 200$ of your money to make your army better. Plus this over laps with currancy difference too. From what I understand spending 100 or 200$ per month on hobbies ain't a problem in US, but there is a ton of places where it is.
JNAProductions wrote: Then take a points handicap. If you're running Tau and I'm running Quins, I can take 20% less points. If that's still a one-sided stomp, increase the handicap.
While I (back when Covid wasn't rampant) played pretty much solely pick-up games, they were within a general group of good folk who attended the same GW I did. They aren't there to smash face, they're there to have a fun game. There were some tournament players, but they were the minority, and they were still pretty chill people.
It would be rather hard to force someone to use only 80% of his army, just to make someone happy, specially considering how much the game costs. I small skirmish game asking someone to not use one model is going to be much easier, then telling someone that just because their faction is good right now they have to put away 200$ of stuff. Plus you would have to be a really good player to know how much of an army you can cut off, if the points handicap is too large and the army no longer can run the units GW thinks it should run at given points, playing with the army may stop being fun. And then you are step away from opponent telling you that instead of him not using 200$ of his own stuff, maybe you should save up and spend 200$ of your money to make your army better. Plus this over laps with currancy difference too. From what I understand spending 100 or 200$ per month on hobbies ain't a problem in US, but there is a ton of places where it is.
its really not hard when you're dealing with good people.
JNAProductions wrote: Then take a points handicap. If you're running Tau and I'm running Quins, I can take 20% less points. If that's still a one-sided stomp, increase the handicap.
While I (back when Covid wasn't rampant) played pretty much solely pick-up games, they were within a general group of good folk who attended the same GW I did. They aren't there to smash face, they're there to have a fun game. There were some tournament players, but they were the minority, and they were still pretty chill people.
It would be rather hard to force someone to use only 80% of his army, just to make someone happy, specially considering how much the game costs. I small skirmish game asking someone to not use one model is going to be much easier, then telling someone that just because their faction is good right now they have to put away 200$ of stuff. Plus you would have to be a really good player to know how much of an army you can cut off, if the points handicap is too large and the army no longer can run the units GW thinks it should run at given points, playing with the army may stop being fun. And then you are step away from opponent telling you that instead of him not using 200$ of his own stuff, maybe you should save up and spend 200$ of your money to make your army better. Plus this over laps with currancy difference too. From what I understand spending 100 or 200$ per month on hobbies ain't a problem in US, but there is a ton of places where it is.
its really not hard when you're dealing with good people.
Exactly. I know your meta is ridiculously cutthroat and toxic, Karol, but most people are friendly with those they game with.
JNAProductions wrote: Then take a points handicap. If you're running Tau and I'm running Quins, I can take 20% less points. If that's still a one-sided stomp, increase the handicap.
While I (back when Covid wasn't rampant) played pretty much solely pick-up games, they were within a general group of good folk who attended the same GW I did. They aren't there to smash face, they're there to have a fun game. There were some tournament players, but they were the minority, and they were still pretty chill people.
It would be rather hard to force someone to use only 80% of his army, just to make someone happy, specially considering how much the game costs. I small skirmish game asking someone to not use one model is going to be much easier, then telling someone that just because their faction is good right now they have to put away 200$ of stuff. Plus you would have to be a really good player to know how much of an army you can cut off, if the points handicap is too large and the army no longer can run the units GW thinks it should run at given points, playing with the army may stop being fun. And then you are step away from opponent telling you that instead of him not using 200$ of his own stuff, maybe you should save up and spend 200$ of your money to make your army better. Plus this over laps with currancy difference too. From what I understand spending 100 or 200$ per month on hobbies ain't a problem in US, but there is a ton of places where it is.
its really not hard when you're dealing with good people.
Exactly. I know your meta is ridiculously cutthroat and toxic, Karol, but most people are friendly with those they game with.
Yeah ofc - we all want to play by the rules though. It is sad sometimes the best solution is just to come up with your own rules to make the game fair. For the most part though - you aren't asking for favors - you just play the game at a disadvantage when you want to "try things" to see how they do on the table. You know they wont do great but it is fun.
That is not what this thread is about. Plus no. When it comes to points. I don't know anyone that would be like...wanna play 1800 points against my 2000? Nope...
Ironically, I did just that last week. I took @ 150 points out of my Craftworld army against a White Scars player. I still won, but it was a much closer game.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah ofc - we all want to play by the rules though. It is sad sometimes the best solution is just to come up with your own rules to make the game fair. For the most part though - you aren't asking for favors - you just play the game at a disadvantage when you want to "try things" to see how they do on the table. You know they wont do great but it is fun.
That is not what this thread is about. Plus no. When it comes to points. I don't know anyone that would be like...wanna play 1800 points against my 2000? Nope...
Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.
JNAProductions wrote: Then take a points handicap. If you're running Tau and I'm running Quins, I can take 20% less points. If that's still a one-sided stomp, increase the handicap.
While I (back when Covid wasn't rampant) played pretty much solely pick-up games, they were within a general group of good folk who attended the same GW I did. They aren't there to smash face, they're there to have a fun game. There were some tournament players, but they were the minority, and they were still pretty chill people.
This doesn't sound like, "the most balanced games of 40k you can ever have." They sound like a subjective mess that can only reach a point of rough balance after a series of one-sided matches.
It seems like competitive-focused tournament lists are actually more balanced because they don't require a dozen house rules to make a half-decent game.
That doesn't sound like anything I ever said.
And ultimately, balance is a tool that's there to help make fun games. I believe it's a pretty important tool, but asymmetric games can be quite fun-narrative scenarios and whatnot. I would, in the end, rather have a game that's unbalanced but fun for all involved, than a perfectly balanced and boring game. Which is not to say GW shouldn't do better no balance-it's bad enough that you can quite realistically have an unfun game because of the glaring balance issues-but fun is the end goal.
How are asymmetric games supposed to be fun when the symmetric games end up being like that anyway?
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah ofc - we all want to play by the rules though. It is sad sometimes the best solution is just to come up with your own rules to make the game fair. For the most part though - you aren't asking for favors - you just play the game at a disadvantage when you want to "try things" to see how they do on the table. You know they wont do great but it is fun.
That is not what this thread is about. Plus no. When it comes to points. I don't know anyone that would be like...wanna play 1800 points against my 2000? Nope...
Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.
Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah ofc - we all want to play by the rules though. It is sad sometimes the best solution is just to come up with your own rules to make the game fair. For the most part though - you aren't asking for favors - you just play the game at a disadvantage when you want to "try things" to see how they do on the table. You know they wont do great but it is fun.
That is not what this thread is about. Plus no. When it comes to points. I don't know anyone that would be like...wanna play 1800 points against my 2000? Nope...
Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.
Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.
... So we should not have fun, as a way to hold GW accountable?
Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.
Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.
nice reading comprehension. GWIS 100% to blame. I'm just chosing to find a way to have fun instead of being stuck for 2 hours not enjoying myself
Anyways, with the smaller boards now, especially for sub 1000 point games, would empty pods be viable area denial?
I've never run anything Imperial, but building a list around dropping open pods on Objectives to block the opponent, if they're fully open, you can stop them getting with 3" right? That sounds like a fun thing to do.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah ofc - we all want to play by the rules though. It is sad sometimes the best solution is just to come up with your own rules to make the game fair. For the most part though - you aren't asking for favors - you just play the game at a disadvantage when you want to "try things" to see how they do on the table. You know they wont do great but it is fun.
That is not what this thread is about. Plus no. When it comes to points. I don't know anyone that would be like...wanna play 1800 points against my 2000? Nope...
Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.
Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.
... So we should not have fun, as a way to hold GW accountable?
I mean if they're seeing you're modifying the rules for yourself regardless, why are they gonna try to do better?
Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.
Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.
nice reading comprehension. GWIS 100% to blame. I'm just chosing to find a way to have fun instead of being stuck for 2 hours not enjoying myself
Or you don't buy their rules and tell them to get their gak together instead.
Sarigar wrote: Ironically, I did just that last week. I took @ 150 points out of my Craftworld army against a White Scars player. I still won, but it was a much closer game.
I am confused - had you beat the guy 10 times in a row or something? Why would you do this?
Sarigar wrote: Ironically, I did just that last week. I took @ 150 points out of my Craftworld army against a White Scars player. I still won, but it was a much closer game.
I am confused - had you beat the guy 10 times in a row or something? Why would you do this?
Why would it take 9 consecutive games to realize you're on better footing than one of your regular opponents?
I typically know the strength/skill of my opponents long before a match. Even if I don't know what army they'll play.
Sarigar wrote: Ironically, I did just that last week. I took @ 150 points out of my Craftworld army against a White Scars player. I still won, but it was a much closer game.
I am confused - had you beat the guy 10 times in a row or something? Why would you do this?
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah ofc - we all want to play by the rules though. It is sad sometimes the best solution is just to come up with your own rules to make the game fair. For the most part though - you aren't asking for favors - you just play the game at a disadvantage when you want to "try things" to see how they do on the table. You know they wont do great but it is fun.
That is not what this thread is about. Plus no. When it comes to points. I don't know anyone that would be like...wanna play 1800 points against my 2000? Nope...
Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.
Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.
... So we should not have fun, as a way to hold GW accountable?
I mean if they're seeing you're modifying the rules for yourself regardless, why are they gonna try to do better?
Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.
Which leads to y'all once again not holding GW accountable.
nice reading comprehension. GWIS 100% to blame. I'm just chosing to find a way to have fun instead of being stuck for 2 hours not enjoying myself
Or you don't buy their rules and tell them to get their gak together instead.
If you're so adamant that playing a GW game, either by their rules or by using your own house rules, is a mug's game, why are you even on this board? GW doesn't care what you write here, and you're not going to convince enough people to just NOT PLAY to get their attention. Why not just play and derive some enjoyment from the experience, or better yet, DON'T play, and don't condemn the people who do?
Blndmage wrote: Anyways, with the smaller boards now, especially for sub 1000 point games, would empty pods be viable area denial? I've never run anything Imperial, but building a list around dropping open pods on Objectives to block the opponent, if they're fully open, you can stop them getting with 3" right? That sounds like a fun thing to do.
Smaller board means less locations you can choose to block with the pod, but it also means a single pod now covers a larger percentage of the board.
Another thing to think about is the direct consequences of smaller board - it means that units that are rushing at you can get within effective range that much faster (not that the no-man's land is smaller, but there's now less room to deploy far back). Being able to slow that down for a single turn can potentially change the outcome of the game.
its really not hard when you're dealing with good people.
That is like saying life is good when you are happy and rich. Most people are not rich or happy, nor good. We wouldn't need FAQ, errata etc at all if there were just good people playing the game, because people would be playing with self made rules that make the armies fun to play and not wait for 2-3 years, or longer, to see something fixed and then never see it done, like all the people that waited for WFB to get good.
Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.
Which is only doable when two things occur. First you actually own enough models to switch stuff up and second the change actualy has an impact, because sometimes you can't downgrade an army enough to make the game enjoyable. It is not even a question of OP units, as much as those do not help, but if an army has the core rules going against it, there isn't much you can do, up until you play something like 1000pts vs 2000pts and it stops being a real game.
its really not hard when you're dealing with good people.
That is like saying life is good when you are happy and rich. Most people are not rich or happy, nor good. We wouldn't need FAQ, errata etc at all if there were just good people playing the game, because people would be playing with self made rules that make the armies fun to play and not wait for 2-3 years, or longer, to see something fixed and then never see it done, like all the people that waited for WFB to get good.
Its called a compromise. If i know that my army will absolutely wipe the floor of my opponents because GW cant be bothered to properly balance the game then i will 100% seek to make the game more even. Should it be like that? Absolutely not, but i'd rather not bring my OP units to have a fun game rather than go "all gas no brakes" and blame GW for making the game unfun when i couldve taken steps to shorten the gap.
Which is only doable when two things occur. First you actually own enough models to switch stuff up and second the change actualy has an impact, because sometimes you can't downgrade an army enough to make the game enjoyable. It is not even a question of OP units, as much as those do not help, but if an army has the core rules going against it, there isn't much you can do, up until you play something like 1000pts vs 2000pts and it stops being a real game.
People can be bad at game design without being malicious.
It's much, MUCH easier to use an already existing system than make your own. Minor adjustments are much easier than, again, making one from scratch.
If you don't have fun playing with your opponents, don't play them. Take a break from the hobby until you can find a better group.
Karol wrote: there isn't much you can do, up until you play something like 1000pts vs 2000pts and it stops being a real game.
If the game is more balanced when i only have 1000pts of space marines vs 2000pts of Tau, why would playing it like that be any less of a real game than playing 2k vs 2k and absolutely stomping my opponent?
Sarigar wrote: Ironically, I did just that last week. I took @ 150 points out of my Craftworld army against a White Scars player. I still won, but it was a much closer game.
I am confused - had you beat the guy 10 times in a row or something? Why would you do this?
I did it to help ensure we had a fun game? Your question strikes me as odd.
To further break it down. Locally, there are very few Craftworld players. However, there are a lot of players using Marines (I'm actually building a Marine army now as well). What this means is my opponents are generally not as well versed in how a Craftworld army operates, but I am pretty familiar with Marines as I face them often and am building one. That level of knowledge gap is significant, but difficult to quantify. I also help advise my opponents about stratagems such as Forewarning, so they don't plop their Eradicators down in LOS of a Lynx or Dark Reapers. It's not a tourney and I am trying to help ensure both players have a fun experience. I don't play 'gotcha' as it simply lessens the enjoyment for both involved. I want a competitive game, not some blow out because my opponent does not know the rules of my Codex.
The topic of social contracts have been written about and discussed over the years. And after playing this game for over 30 years, I can generally recognize a mismatch and under what experience both players want out of the game. Firstly, 40K is not and has never been a balanced game and I doubt it ever will be. This is important to remember when you are willingly going to spend 2-3 hours with a person to play a game. Understanding what each player really wants to get out of the game is another significant factor. If one is simply wanting to crush someone with the latest tourney winning list, it really helps to play someone with a similar mindset.
Ultimately, I play to have fun and hang out out with folks who enjoy the same hobby. I try to understand the social contract immediately. Tourneys tend to make this easier as the rules for the tourney generally cover most items. I typically pre arrange a game and work out the details prior to arriving at a game shop. If I do end up with a pick up game, a quick 5 minute conversation goes a long way to ensure we have a shared understanding of what we want out of a game. If one wants a practice tourney style game and I'm running Craftworld, I'll absolutely play, but don't expect me to warn you what Forewarning does when you bring your Eradicators in from reserve.
Niiai wrote: You know what? I miss when drop pods could hold one Dreadnought.
*sigh*
There's a fw Dreadnought Drop Pod for loyalists (or if you roll chaos Dreadclaws can carry dreadnoughts). You could always proxy a normal drop pod as one if you don't want to spend the money for the fw model.
Niiai wrote: You know what? I miss when drop pods could hold one Dreadnought.
*sigh*
There's a fw Dreadnought Drop Pod for loyalists (or if you roll chaos Dreadclaws can carry dreadnoughts). You could always proxy a normal drop pod as one if you don't want to spend the money for the fw model.
Used to carry Dreadnoughts and Terminators, back in the days of unreliable deep striking that was pretty useful.
Nixxing the Dreadnought capability of the Pod was dissapointing, but yeah there's the FW one.
In fact. . . Since Marines got more expensive. . . You're actually getting more points into that 70 point model. The Transport cost to Transported-unit/s-cost has improved over 8th.
Okay, show me the tournament list that did that.
See, this is the problem with your contributions. Apart from the fact tournament play isn't the most common way to play 40k your opinion is entirely reactive and dependent on what's currently being played rather than what's actually good. That's the reason people criticise you for your contributions when you admit to not playing the game. You don't have any frame of reference for units that might be powerful but don't appear in tournament lists so you have no way of knowing whether units that aren't appearing in those lists are bad or are just waiting for their potential to be unlocked. There was a perfect example of this fairly recently with Richard Siegler doing well with Tau when "everyone" was convinced they were terrible. According to you Tau were bad and all their units bad right up until they did well at a bunch of tournaments, then those same units were suddenly brilliant.
That's not how the game works, even at the tournament level. It's entirely possible that a certain unit or army is better than tournament results would indicate. It's also entirely possible that tournament lists, and the game itself, is not so finely tuned that adding in a 70 point unit will not make or break an army and something like a Drop Pod, or any other unit for that matter, might find a place in good lists without being spammed. The nuance of where a unit sits in the spectrum of an army's power level is often not revealed purely through tournament armies because they quite often follow the meta rather than creating it.
Slipspace wrote: See, this is the problem with your contributions. Apart from the fact tournament play isn't the most common way to play 40k your opinion is entirely reactive and dependent on what's currently being played rather than what's actually good. That's the reason people criticise you for your contributions when you admit to not playing the game. You don't have any frame of reference for units that might be powerful but don't appear in tournament lists so you have no way of knowing whether units that aren't appearing in those lists are bad or are just waiting for their potential to be unlocked. There was a perfect example of this fairly recently with Richard Siegler doing well with Tau when "everyone" was convinced they were terrible. According to you Tau were bad and all their units bad right up until they did well at a bunch of tournaments, then those same units were suddenly brilliant.
If I recall correctly nobody else was ever able to pilot Tau to those same results and those results didn't last. Thus Tau were still bad, it's just that one player was skilled enough to counter the meta for a while and put up some results.
That's not how the game works, even at the tournament level. It's entirely possible that a certain unit or army is better than tournament results would indicate. It's also entirely possible that tournament lists, and the game itself, is not so finely tuned that adding in a 70 point unit will not make or break an army and something like a Drop Pod, or any other unit for that matter, might find a place in good lists without being spammed. The nuance of where a unit sits in the spectrum of an army's power level is often not revealed purely through tournament armies because they quite often follow the meta rather than creating it.
If there's so much room in the meta for rogue lists you'd expect to see these lists making top-8s fairly often because they unlock a little more power than their opponents. The fact that we don't see this is telling.
Karol wrote: there isn't much you can do, up until you play something like 1000pts vs 2000pts and it stops being a real game.
If the game is more balanced when i only have 1000pts of space marines vs 2000pts of Tau, why would playing it like that be any less of a real game than playing 2k vs 2k and absolutely stomping my opponent?
Because it makes as much sense as someone from the 21+ bracket telling you they will give you training and use only one arm and no throws, but you are 15. It is no longer an actual game, at worse it is a veiled insult, at best it is math showing that army X does not work within the given rule set. Meaning it is no longer a real game, but some play pretend thing. The opponent may may as well play 2000pts then, and just decide to forget to charge, shot, score, bring in deep strike unit etc It is patronizing and unfun to be on the reciving end. And it really gets bad, when they do it and you still lose.
Karol wrote: there isn't much you can do, up until you play something like 1000pts vs 2000pts and it stops being a real game.
If the game is more balanced when i only have 1000pts of space marines vs 2000pts of Tau, why would playing it like that be any less of a real game than playing 2k vs 2k and absolutely stomping my opponent?
Because it makes as much sense as someone from the 21+ bracket telling you they will give you training and use only one arm and no throws, but you are 15. It is no longer an actual game, at worse it is a veiled insult, at best it is math showing that army X does not work within the given rule set. Meaning it is no longer a real game, but some play pretend thing. The opponent may may as well play 2000pts then, and just decide to forget to charge, shot, score, bring in deep strike unit etc It is patronizing and unfun to be on the reciving end. And it really gets bad, when they do it and you still lose.
There's a difference between people with actual physical abilities and a wholly fictional and arbitrary game. They're similar in some ways, but certainly not one and the same.
Drop pods, and transports in general, gain in points efficiency when you don't use the MINIMUM sized game board. I mostly play on 4'x6' boards still and sometime the full monty at 4'x8' (Though these games are usually 2500-3000). On these game boards transports are much more valuable. On these boards foot slogging terminators is bad enough that you start thinking about Land Raiders, and it is more difficult to block deep strikes so the pods benefit there as well.
I don't understand why people feel the need to only play on tournament sized boards.
So to get back on topic, Drop Pods probably are a little over costed in a tournament game setup, but maybe not in all legal games.
Ananiel wrote: Drop pods, and transports in general, gain in points efficiency when you don't use the MINIMUM sized game board. I mostly play on 4'x6' boards still and sometime the full monty at 4'x8' (Though these games are usually 2500-3000). On these game boards transports are much more valuable. On these boards foot slogging terminators is bad enough that you start thinking about Land Raiders, and it is more difficult to block deep strikes so the pods benefit there as well.
I don't understand why people feel the need to only play on tournament sized boards.
So to get back on topic, Drop Pods probably are a little over costed in a tournament game setup, but maybe not in all legal games.
Ananiel
The Combat Patrol/Incursion board size is perfect for apartments. A 3x4ft playing surface is much much easier to use and store when not being used.
So for me, personally, that's why I'm sticking with 1,000 or below point games.
Galas wrote: Is not that drop pods are bad. Is just that the edition missions, deployment, tables and objetives make them not worth it.
Just like custodian guards with 3++ were useless in 8th and are the new hotness in 9th with 0 changes to their rules.
This is what I also said, some point drop would be nice but the pods rules are fine, the games core rules just do it dirty and the designers spent little time to make them " feel " better. Which could easily be done. Like, for the unit that gets out say the doors blowing open give them a cover save till the start of their next turn from the smoke ? Have the turret be able to take multiple shots at nearby units ? It could only be a storm bolter but say its for " covering fire " like a D3 units get shot as it lands at the nearest enemy targets then gets its usual round of shooting normally ?
Lots of ways to make it more interesting, but lazy designers gonna be lazy.
Edit: I saw it got a little heated for a bit. I'll point out no one is twisting anyones arm to use a drop pod, however if its such a hindrance to win a game woe be the player who lose to someone with even one drop pod. For the pod users must be the best of the best to overcome such a deep negative on their side !
Oh and I have played with some seriously skewed points and while I lost both of those games they were still very close.
Once I was prepping for a doubles tournament and we said 2,000 points. Meaning and we said 1,000 pts per player. My partner and I made our lists with that, who we played against heard it as 2000 pts per player. Needless to say we felt like we were constantly besieged and under the gun the whole game. Who we played against however felt like we were impossible to pin down and wipe out. We had to double check on points when we found out they still had 2 5 man terminators squads to come in and a land raider to drive onto the board. At which point I was like " Wait a minute how many points do you guys have over there ? "
Second was I had a friend make a list for me to play a new player. He gave me the most vanilla of lists. Yet forget to even tell me I had a land raider crusader with a as a full load of terminators in it. Yet again I get to the end of the game and felt like I was making love from nothing at all. Only to find out I had around 700 hundred some odd points sitting out the whole time. All he said was " Ha ha Sorry, but hey you only lost because of some bad rolls ! That was a damn close game. " It was pretty close. Both of those games were very memorable however.
Its bit like forgetting to fire your 250pts worth of rangers/ <insert unit> for half the game game..
I think we all handicapped ourselves at one point or another. I once played an entire game forgetting to my shrugs(on the entire army) as well as not rolling for CP..
Argive wrote: Its bit like forgetting to fire your 250pts worth of rangers/ <insert unit> for half the game game..
I think we all handicapped ourselves at one point or another. I once played an entire game forgetting to my shrugs(on the entire army) as well as not rolling for CP..
That's not even saying the time I forgot my Warlord with a squad in a chimera the whole game. I got to the end and started saying.." and my HQ, was so crap, he didn't do a damn thing. " My friend said.." Yeah...where was he anyways ? " I thought on it a bit....." Gak! I forgot he was coming in with his squad inside a chimera ! " I was pretty annoyed with myself.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How the hell are you people forgetting to use entire units?
You get wrapped up in having fun and it slips your mind.
I had a Thunderfire Cannon in a ruin that I forgot to fire T1 and T2. By the time T3 had rolled around, I just slipped it back into my storage without the other guy noticing, since I was running some Marines and was so far ahead that it'd be pretty naff to say "Oh, I forgot I had an entire extra unit I should've been shooting!"
I'd highly suspect you've made a similar mistake, Slayer-maybe not when playing 40k, but can you honestly say you've never missed something obvious?
If you find yourself forgetting units either in reserves or on the table might I suggest making a list of units and checking them off each time you use them (or hold them out due to them being in reserve). If they die cross them out. Done, never miss a unit's activation again.
Sometimes camouflage works as intended. I’ve missed shooting scout snipers camping out off to the side in the woods before.
On the flip side, sometimes they lived far longer than they should have because my opponent missed them as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sometimes camouflage works as intended. I’ve missed shooting scout snipers camping out off to the side in the woods before.
On the flip side, sometimes they lived far longer than they should have because my opponent missed them as well.
Canadian 5th wrote: If you find yourself forgetting units either in reserves or on the table might I suggest making a list of units and checking them off each time you use them (or hold them out due to them being in reserve). If they die cross them out. Done, never miss a unit's activation again.
thats a good idea, or just activate your units following their order in your battlescribe list. (Yeah i know, often the order you activate matters).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How the hell are you people forgetting to use entire units?
Well if you checked the stories, the first time it was a mix up in army points so we were woefully using wrong points in a game against good friends. The second time I didn't write the list, a friend wrote it as a semi handicap as I was playing as a vet vs a very new player and I thought that would make it fun, using the army you get not the army you want kinda thing. The chimera with squad and HQ inside of it, I had many many units in play, many of them came in chimeras and I just sort of forget as was a good friend and we were shooting the breeze and laughing a lot. Not every game is such serious business, I think I still won the game but did give up that unit because I made a fubar.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: If you find yourself forgetting units either in reserves or on the table might I suggest making a list of units and checking them off each time you use them (or hold them out due to them being in reserve). If they die cross them out. Done, never miss a unit's activation again.
Yeah I don't miss activation usually or forget units, that was a one off instance cited for laughs. Sometimes we all make errors especially after the decades I've played this game. Not going to make any lists just to avoid a funny memory.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevelon wrote: Sometimes camouflage works as intended. I’ve missed shooting scout snipers camping out off to the side in the woods before.
On the flip side, sometimes they lived far longer than they should have because my opponent missed them as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sometimes camouflage works as intended. I’ve missed shooting scout snipers camping out off to the side in the woods before.
On the flip side, sometimes they lived far longer than they should have because my opponent missed them as well.
That has happened to me as well, forget a sniper unit of min size in a terrain they blended in too well. To be fair, I forgot them and didn't see them but neither did my opponent. We just said they were doing some heavy recon reports the whole game.
I'd still say the issue with drop pods is they can be almost completely ignored once they hit the table. They're pre-immobilized Rhinos. How many units can't sit right next to an "enemy" Pod and do whatever they want while the Pod plinks them? They must have one of the lowest target priorities in the entire game. They shouldn't have some huge offensive ability of course, but it should be enough to make you want to shoot it before it shoots you. 5 turn game, we'll assume it drops on turn 1, Rapid Fire 2 max is 20 shots is 12ish hits, 9ish wounds, 6ish wounds (vs 5+) - the 10 man guard squad that costs less? than the pod and has Obj secured wins all around here. Give them the Each unit in range thing the Bunkers have, then things might get interesting.
Hopefully by then there'll be a Primaris Drop Pod.
deployment rules so they work like a normal drop pod when first deploying, just like they have in every other edition since they were first introduced (3rd to 8th).
