ScarletRose wrote: So... write bad rules and then when people complain tell them they're "too obsessed with trying to have perfect balance".
Geez, I wish I could turn in a load of gak at work and then tell my boss to not get "obsessed" about it being perfect.
Go play something else then, bye bye!
I presume his point is that his boss would kindly ask him/her to go to work somewhere else.
Besides, I think of all this IGOUGO debate, there is one important thing that I think it's understated: IGOUGO can be a satisfactory system, I don't think it should be assumed as inherently bad. But I ask - what's GW's implementation? Terrible, terrible terrible. They keep doing the same mistake - the power and scale and scope are all over the place and you end up with either useless units or units so efficient that an optimized list wipes the floor with the enemy. 8th edition would have been (and perhaps still has a chance to be) the moment in which a nice reset would keep this factor in check....
ScarletRose wrote: So... write bad rules and then when people complain tell them they're "too obsessed with trying to have perfect balance".
Geez, I wish I could turn in a load of gak at work and then tell my boss to not get "obsessed" about it being perfect.
Go play something else then, bye bye!
Ah the mating call of the GW white knight....
"Nobody besmirches m'lady!"
People are allowed to have criticisms of things. This is a discussion forum and people will have dissenting opinions. If you cannot handle this then there are more than likely plenty of Facebook groups out there that will make your neck sore from agreeing with them all the time.
ClockworkZion wrote: Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.
That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.
Then why does it work in LOTR? Genuine question- not played that game in a long while.
I'd say the lower average lethality of each individual model on the table. Most models have a strength characteristic which is lower than the average defence characteristic.
So your average soldier is not that efficient at killing their equivalent from an opposing force, unless they are equipped with a weapon which provides bonuses to the wound roll such as two handed weapons. This is especially true for ranged attacks, where the majority are S3 or S2 and so will typically need 5s or 6s to wound their targets.
ClockworkZion wrote: Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.
That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.
Then why does it work in LOTR? Genuine question- not played that game in a long while.
I'd say the lower average lethality of each individual model on the table. Most models have a strength characteristic which is lower than the average defence characteristic.
So your average soldier is not that efficient at killing their equivalent from an opposing force, unless they are equipped with a weapon which provides bonuses to the wound roll such as two handed weapons. This is especially true for ranged attacks, where the majority are S3 or S2 and so will typically need 5s or 6s to wound their targets.
I did never play lotr, so not sure but in a modern + setting in which lethality is often key and los is implemented i feel like it is a bad concept to use for the groundwork of the rules.
Ofcourse a melee orientated system would probably work very well with it.
ClockworkZion wrote: Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.
That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.
Then why does it work in LOTR? Genuine question- not played that game in a long while.
I'd say the lower average lethality of each individual model on the table. Most models have a strength characteristic which is lower than the average defence characteristic.
So your average soldier is not that efficient at killing their equivalent from an opposing force, unless they are equipped with a weapon which provides bonuses to the wound roll such as two handed weapons. This is especially true for ranged attacks, where the majority are S3 or S2 and so will typically need 5s or 6s to wound their targets.
This is simply wrong or only true for shooting. Yes, most of the time average soldiers need 5/6 to wound, but a wound is also a kill, there are no saving throws. The whole game is about 1v1 fights, if a soldier wasn't able to kill others that wouldn't work. In fact the individual model is killier in lotr, even if it is a goblin archer with a dagger. Nothing is as weak as A Tau in CC or as useless in shooting as an ork boy.
I think we can all agree, at least in part that 40k needs some work with interactivity to make it flow better and be less dated.
I would also say, even loving shooting armies, I kind of really like terrain heavy boards and wish terrain was a bit more exciting than it currently is. I like the tactical options of terrain movement and target priority with sending in troops to flush out or draw out enemies into the fire.
While set piece dismantling of an army is fine, it doesn't lead to very memorable battles and only the one doing the dismantling will generally have fun with it. I'd rather feel like the game is up in the air and currently it doesn't usually feel like that. I think we could put a little more nuance on the bones of the rules and maybe figure out the better turn set ups and it might go a long way to making the game more enjoyable but still keep it approachable to most.
I think GW sticks with IGOUGO more for spectacle’s sake than anything else. GW has an aversion to counters or other non-playing pieces cluttering the battlefield, counter to the likes of FFG with their “tokens galore” games (X-Wing, Legion And Runewars, for example).
I think it *should* be a system they propose in Chapter Approved. If it proves unpopular, they can drop it. If the community embraces it, they can expand and/or incorporate it further into the game.
Things is they may hate to have counters on the board but the current game system has many things to keep track of now on the board. All the wounds on infantry and vehicles and monsters. Buffs and de buffs from psychic powers, strats used that alter a units base stats. So you have all of the things to keep track of, just you don't have the tokens for them which in its way is kind of worse.
Though I'd rather not get the amount of tokens that say x wing has, that's too much.
ScarletRose wrote: So... write bad rules and then when people complain tell them they're "too obsessed with trying to have perfect balance".
Geez, I wish I could turn in a load of gak at work and then tell my boss to not get "obsessed" about it being perfect.
Go play something else then, bye bye!
Ah the mating call of the GW white knight....
"Nobody besmirches m'lady!"
People are allowed to have criticisms of things. This is a discussion forum and people will have dissenting opinions. If you cannot handle this then there are more than likely plenty of Facebook groups out there that will make your neck sore from agreeing with them all the time.
Ah the shrill screech of the internet clown....
"Hyuk hyuk hyuk"
People are allowed to have criticisms? Of course, but if you think its that crap then play something else, youre a fool otherwise.
Im all for the narrative side of gaming myself, the rules help to add combatative stucture. Im no GW white Knight, I used to work there and have plenty of criticisms, but then that wouldn't fit your broad brushstroke fallacious yarn eh?
ClockworkZion wrote: Mulling it over, I think blending the two methods might work. Something like Player A does their movement phase, then player B, then player A and B alternatively activate their psykers, then alternate activation for shooting, then A has their fight phase, then B has their fight phase.
That does not work.
It's called alternate phases, and leads to the dude going second to just hide.
You either go full AA or you get an even worse ruleset.
Then why does it work in LOTR? Genuine question- not played that game in a long while.
I'd say the lower average lethality of each individual model on the table. Most models have a strength characteristic which is lower than the average defence characteristic.
So your average soldier is not that efficient at killing their equivalent from an opposing force, unless they are equipped with a weapon which provides bonuses to the wound roll such as two handed weapons. This is especially true for ranged attacks, where the majority are S3 or S2 and so will typically need 5s or 6s to wound their targets.
Thats true, most times with basic guys youd need a 5+ to kill, double handed weapons made it easier, BUT theres no separate save roll, a models defense is essentially toughness and armour rolled into one stat. LOTR, mechanically, was one of GWs best game systems. The new 40k uses some of the War of the Ring concepts (WOTR was essentially LOTR Apocalypse scale with models on unit trays). I havent played this ed 40k but do play KT every so often. The alternating actions are pretty nice, it definitely works well at that scale although some rules could do with a bit of tweaking
Kaiyanwang wrote: I think of all this IGOUGO debate, there is one important thing that I think it's understated: IGOUGO can be a satisfactory system, I don't think it should be assumed as inherently bad.
But I ask - what's GW's implementation? Terrible, terrible terrible.
This is fair. Taking a page out of Apoc and not removing casualties until the end of the round would be vastly better than what we have now once you worked out how to handle follow-up movement.
Kaiyanwang wrote: They keep doing the same mistake - the power and scale and scope are all over the place and you end up with either useless units or units so efficient that an optimized list wipes the floor with the enemy.
8th edition would have been (and perhaps still has a chance to be) the moment in which a nice reset would keep this factor in check....
Was this supposed to be part of the same paragraph? It doesn't support your point about IGOUGO systems at all, it's just a complaint about balance.
Kaiyanwang wrote: I think of all this IGOUGO debate, there is one important thing that I think it's understated: IGOUGO can be a satisfactory system, I don't think it should be assumed as inherently bad.
But I ask - what's GW's implementation? Terrible, terrible terrible.
This is fair. Taking a page out of Apoc and not removing casualties until the end of the round would be vastly better than what we have now once you worked out how to handle follow-up movement.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who likes that rule.
I suspect the 4-5 phases/turn assumption where you design models expecting they're going to need to do things 4-5 times on their own turn and then 2-3 times on your opponent's turn on top of that (move, cast, shoot, charge, fight, deny, overwatch, fight) is a bigger problem than discrete turns for the people who don't want to sit for 20-30min waiting for their turn to do things.
When you activate a unit in Bolt Action/Antares it gets to run, charge/fight, or move/shoot. It can only react during your opponent's turn by forfeiting it's chance to activate. X-Wing has two phases, the move phase and the attack phase. Warmachine has full discrete turns (I activate all my models->you activate all your models) but when you're activating a model it gets to, guess what, move and attack.
As I remember, LOTR also had a limit on the amount of your force that could be armed with ranged weapons?
Warmachine is another IGOUGO system, it has problems of its own, but i never felt like first turn was critical because of the *range* the game played at. The longest range guns in the game topped out at 20" and the majority were closer to 12".
40k sufferes from the turn system because you have a very real capability to wipe out a significant portion of the enemy army before it gets to do anything.
Trasvi wrote: 40k sufferes from the turn system because you have a very real capability to wipe out a significant portion of the enemy army before it gets to do anything.
I agree 100%. As much as I don't mind the turn system (though it lacks reaction options for the most part) I have definitely found the range issue to be frustrating to be on the other end of with my Sisters army. Nothing like a gunline to flatten your short ranged army in a couple turns.
That's why I say terrain isn't the fix. We need something baked into the rules one way or another that solves this problem.
Trasvi wrote: As I remember, LOTR also had a limit on the amount of your force that could be armed with ranged weapons?
It did. Some armies could circumvent it (rangers for sure, probably wood elves and some others?) but most were limited to only having 1/3rd of the models in your army equipped with bows.
Trasvi wrote: As I remember, LOTR also had a limit on the amount of your force that could be armed with ranged weapons?
Warmachine is another IGOUGO system, it has problems of its own, but i never felt like first turn was critical because of the *range* the game played at. The longest range guns in the game topped out at 20" and the majority were closer to 12".
40k sufferes from the turn system because you have a very real capability to wipe out a significant portion of the enemy army before it gets to do anything.
Exactly. If the offense/defense balance wasn't so skewed towards things being too killy and too long-ranged first-turn advantage wouldn't be as much of an issue, and if the turn didn't have so many steps it wouldn't take so long and getting bored waiting for your turn to come around wouldn't be as much of an issue.
Discrete turns (IGOUGO) is only problematic in combination with other issues with the game. People like picking it out as 'the thing that'd fix 40k' but that's because it's a one-sentence fix that doesn't take as much work as actually overhauling the game until it works better.
Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".
If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.
It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.
ClockworkZion wrote: Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".
And how do you figure that? Point costs right now aren't even accurate, so to say that as a concern is almost pure ignorance.
If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.
It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.
You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?
Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!
If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.
It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.
You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?
Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!
ClockworkZion wrote: Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".
And how do you figure that? Point costs right now aren't even accurate, so to say that as a concern is almost pure ignorance.
Yet there's more than one book in the Top 10, so points costs are certainly *better than random values*.
Shifting to a massive ruleschange that revalues everything without considering points costs means that value will change entirely independent of their points cost. Sure, some overcosted units should get better, and some undercosted units should get worse. But since it's random, those OP units are just as likely to get stronger as they are to get weaker.
The only bias towards balanced points-to-value relations the result would have is the current points-to-value relations. So the result should be expected to be closer to random points-to-value ratios than we currently have.
And the more random the points-to-value ratios are, the less balanced it is. It only takes one unit with an overly good ratio to destroy the meta (meaning most Top 10 lists are centered on that one unit).
So that concern is *very real* Don't mistake "Balance isn't good enough for me" with "Balance is so terrible, random is just as good".
It's like saying "$100 isn't worth anything. Might as well just throw it on Roulette." Sure, you could wind up with a lot of money that way, but it's not likely.
If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.
It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.
You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?
No, I mean units balanced around acting in tandem aren't necessarily balanced for systems in which they cannot.
Which isn't to say they *cannot be* balanced that way.
Or to say a game working that way wouldn't be better.
It's *only* to say the balance is *different*.
Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!
See how much more civil this conversation could have gone if you had just left it with your question? That question is a legitimate one, where you lacked understanding and asked for clarity. That's a good thing.
But then you had to get off on being superior, because *obviously* this is just a case of anyone who disagreeing with you not knowing what they're talking about.
Once again, you look at my post, read what you want it to say, then respond to that strawman.
If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.
It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.
You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?
Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!
That's not what is being said at all.
But what is being said is still not an actual issue. So your opponent can move the unit you moved to threaten away. So? You have now forced that unit to move, it has sacrificed its previous position on the board.
We don't consider the fact that moving a queen in chess into a position where it can threaten an opposing piece is useless because the opponent can move the threatened piece. The point is to force your opponent to spend their turns/activations doing that instead of being able to enact their own plan.
Let's look at possibly the most clear case of a unit meant to work in tandem with others, Tau pathfinders, and see how AA can create much more interesting choices for both players:
Let's say a tau player lights up an enemy unit in LOS of several hard hitting units with markerlights. Does the opponent use their activation to try and hide that unit? What if getting that unit out of LOS of the threatening units would take multiple activations? What about trying to kill the threatening units? Do they have enough firepower to do that? Could they force these threatening units to have to move and forfeit attacking the marked unit by moving a different unit into a position where if they do attack that marked unit, they will be left open for attack?
For the tau player, maybe they actually want to attack a different unit but couldn't mark that unit (not visible or out of range of the pathfinders). By marking a different unit, the opponent needs to consider whether they will attack the marked unit and whether they want to use activations to counter that. So the Tau player can bluff that they are going to target unit A, forcing the opponent to move it into a less useful position in order to "save" it, and then attack unit B as they always intended to.
The opponent having to make choices to react to your actions, and you having to plan for those reactions in your strategy, is not a bad thing. It is what is very much missing from 40K as it introduces many more meaningful choices throughout the game.
ClockworkZion wrote: Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".
And how do you figure that? Point costs right now aren't even accurate, so to say that as a concern is almost pure ignorance.
Hyperbole noted since you're claiming no point cost is "accurate", but my point was that it changes how valuable different parts of the stats are depending on how the game functions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Bharring: well said!
If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.
It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.
You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?
Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!
That's not what is being said at all.
But what is being said is still not an actual issue. So your opponent can move the unit you moved to threaten away. So? You have now forced that unit to move, it has sacrificed its previous position on the board.
We don't consider the fact that moving a queen in chess into a position where it can threaten an opposing piece is useless because the opponent can move the threatened piece. The point is to force your opponent to spend their turns/activations doing that instead of being able to enact their own plan.
Let's say a tau player lights up an enemy unit in LOS of several hard hitting units with markerlights. Does the opponent use their activation to try and hide that unit? What if getting that unit out of LOS of the threatening units would take multiple activations? What about trying to kill the threatening units? Do they have enough firepower to do that? Could they force these threatening units to have to move and forfeit attacking the marked unit by moving a different unit into a position where if they do attack that marked unit, they will be left open for attack?
The opponent having to make choices to react to your actions, and you having to plan for those reactions in your strategy, is not a bad thing. It is what is very much missing from 40K as it introduces many more meaningful choices throughout the game.
I certainly agree the game could work great balanced like that.
The concern is that the current points don't play that way.
Consider a unit like Dire Avengers. They lose in a direct firefight with most other units. They're currently pointed (fairly, IMO) in such a way where they can't trade. They need to move in with other assets (possibly more DAs) to focus down a single unit then move on. If they take a rebuttle - or even an alpha in RF range - they're going to lose badly.
To use them, you keep them out of the fight until you have multiple units that descend on a single target on the same turn. With IGOUGO (and CWE shenanigans), this can work great - certainly worth their points.
Now do it with AA. The first unit engages. Then it eats the retaliation in the face. Then the next unit engages. They can't pull off ambushes/explosive commitals. They'd certainly still have value in AA, but not the value they have with IGOUGO.
So whatever their appropriate points in IGOUGO, they're probably worth less in AA.
The point is that their appropriate points value is *different*, not that either system is better.
Was this supposed to be part of the same paragraph? It doesn't support your point about IGOUGO systems at all, it's just a complaint about balance.
What makes IGOUGO less palatable for many 40k players is among other things the first turn troubles, lethality and such. These in their turn are athe result of a specific GW policy of just writing rules that one-up each other, like higher lethality and FnP or rerollable saves or whatnot, depending on the edition. I probably should have elaborated more... but I assumed that it was implicit from the context and previous posts ITT. I fail to see how one cannot consider them connected, frankly.
If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.
It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.
You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?
Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!
That's not what is being said at all.
But what is being said is still not an actual issue. So your opponent can move the unit you moved to threaten away. So? You have now forced that unit to move, it has sacrificed its previous position on the board.
We don't consider the fact that moving a queen in chess into a position where it can threaten an opposing piece is useless because the opponent can move the threatened piece. The point is to force your opponent to spend their turns/activations doing that instead of being able to enact their own plan.
Let's say a tau player lights up an enemy unit in LOS of several hard hitting units with markerlights. Does the opponent use their activation to try and hide that unit? What if getting that unit out of LOS of the threatening units would take multiple activations? What about trying to kill the threatening units? Do they have enough firepower to do that? Could they force these threatening units to have to move and forfeit attacking the marked unit by moving a different unit into a position where if they do attack that marked unit, they will be left open for attack?
The opponent having to make choices to react to your actions, and you having to plan for those reactions in your strategy, is not a bad thing. It is what is very much missing from 40K as it introduces many more meaningful choices throughout the game.
I certainly agree the game could work great balanced like that.
The concern is that the current points don't play that way.
Consider a unit like Dire Avengers. They lose in a direct firefight with most other units. They're currently pointed (fairly, IMO) in such a way where they can't trade. They need to move in with other assets (possibly more DAs) to focus down a single unit then move on. If they take a rebuttle - or even an alpha in RF range - they're going to lose badly.
To use them, you keep them out of the fight until you have multiple units that descend on a single target on the same turn. With IGOUGO (and CWE shenanigans), this can work great - certainly worth their points.
Now do it with AA. The first unit engages. Then it eats the retaliation in the face. Then the next unit engages. They can't pull off ambushes/explosive commitals. They'd certainly still have value in AA, but not the value they have with IGOUGO.
So whatever their appropriate points in IGOUGO, they're probably worth less in AA.
The point is that their appropriate points value is *different*, not that either system is better.
Do you even read what you post?
"Dire Avengers are well costed, they just aren't good is all". Did you perhaps think that Dire Avengers are not actually costed well?
If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.
It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.
You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?
Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!
That's not what is being said at all.
No, it is. Look at the reply again.
His problem evolves into exactly that. First it's two units, then it's three, then it's five. Believe it or not, in the IGOUGO system, EVERYONE is doing that to kill the opponent's army. His complaint is actually the core problem of the system itself!
ClockworkZion wrote: Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".
And how do you figure that? Point costs right now aren't even accurate, so to say that as a concern is almost pure ignorance.
Hyperbole noted since you're claiming no point cost is "accurate", but my point was that it changes how valuable different parts of the stats are depending on how the game functions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Bharring: well said!
You're the one that said point costs need to change. I'm saying that this is a non-complaint, since a lot of point costs need to change now. That is NOT hyperbole that's straight fact.
Personally I feel the issue with Dire Avengers, and other melee focused units, is that they tend to overcost the melee ability. This was an issue when Sweeping Advance was a.thing, amd it's still an issue when units can just break off from from combat.
You're the one that said point costs need to change. I'm saying that this is a non-complaint, since a lot of point costs need to change now. That is NOT hyperbole that's straight fact.
I said they would need to be reworked for a new system, to which you said no point values were "accurate" which I feel is hyperbole.
ClockworkZion wrote: Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".
And how do you figure that? Point costs right now aren't even accurate, so to say that as a concern is almost pure ignorance.
Yet there's more than one book in the Top 10, so points costs are certainly *better than random values*.
Shifting to a massive ruleschange that revalues everything without considering points costs means that value will change entirely independent of their points cost. Sure, some overcosted units should get better, and some undercosted units should get worse. But since it's random, those OP units are just as likely to get stronger as they are to get weaker.
The only bias towards balanced points-to-value relations the result would have is the current points-to-value relations. So the result should be expected to be closer to random points-to-value ratios than we currently have.
And the more random the points-to-value ratios are, the less balanced it is. It only takes one unit with an overly good ratio to destroy the meta (meaning most Top 10 lists are centered on that one unit).
So that concern is *very real* Don't mistake "Balance isn't good enough for me" with "Balance is so terrible, random is just as good".
It's like saying "$100 isn't worth anything. Might as well just throw it on Roulette." Sure, you could wind up with a lot of money that way, but it's not likely.
If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.
It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.
You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?
No, I mean units balanced around acting in tandem aren't necessarily balanced for systems in which they cannot.
Which isn't to say they *cannot be* balanced that way.
Or to say a game working that way wouldn't be better.
It's *only* to say the balance is *different*.
Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!
See how much more civil this conversation could have gone if you had just left it with your question? That question is a legitimate one, where you lacked understanding and asked for clarity. That's a good thing.
But then you had to get off on being superior, because *obviously* this is just a case of anyone who disagreeing with you not knowing what they're talking about.
Once again, you look at my post, read what you want it to say, then respond to that strawman.
1. Yeah go ahead and count which units show up for that Top 10 again. The post is so naive it hurts.
2. Then position your "tandem" units better. As is, there's literally no consequence.
3. I'm not straw manning. Your "wah my tandem" evolves exactly into the problem with IGOUGO. You just want to kill everything quickly enough with no consequences at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Personally I feel the issue with Dire Avengers, and other melee focused units, is that they tend to overcost the melee ability. This was an issue when Sweeping Advance was a.thing, amd it's still an issue when units can just break off from from combat.
You're the one that said point costs need to change. I'm saying that this is a non-complaint, since a lot of point costs need to change now. That is NOT hyperbole that's straight fact.
I said they would need to be reworked for a new system, to which you said no point values were "accurate" which I feel is hyperbole.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
Again, there are multiple ways of AA besides the straight one by one. Apocalypse activates detachments, many skirmish games activate multiple models, Bolt Action randomises the sequence through blind draws, LotR had heroic actions called by commanding units, systems can have reactions.
Building a system where you get a few activations at a time instead of your whole army and where supporting actions work isn't difficult and there are pitfalls with AA as well, but they are much easier to circumvent than the structural feel bad -problems that IGOUGO creates in the current game.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first.
Those are Howling Banshees. And now it's a -1.
You're right, I'm thinking of the wrong unit. When Eldar point costs come up they always come to my mind first.
Well, even if the unit is wrong my points stand. Melee ability is over costed and shooting is undercosted. And movement should be more valued in general.
They are quite different, I find the confusion surprising but then again I could be biased because I either fought Eldar in oder editions or played an aspect army for fluffy games.
The Dire Avengers would have a different problem even if melee would be appropriately costed.
Kaiyanwang wrote: They are quite different, I find the confusion surprising but then again I could be biased because I either fought Eldar in oder editions or played an aspect army for fluffy games.
The Dire Avengers would have a different problem even if melee would be appropriately costed.
It's admittidly been a while since I've been able to get a game in so I think my brain is just jumbling things up. I'm bringing a simple 1k list to the local store this Saturday to try and get a game in so hopefully that'll clear up once I get dice rolling again.
Bolt Action (and I think Legion) have an AA rule to address the combined attack issue. In Bolt Action, you can activate a commander, then that commander activates two further units. This allows you to, for example, fire on an enemy unit to pin it and then charge the demoralized enemy with another unit.
It should also work for 40K, though it would need some additional consideration for unit size - you’d get some unintended consequences with The likes of Knights or Ork mobs.
Also, decoupling automatic fighting back on charges/melee would also assist in those cases where a meleeing unit would want support in the attack. By this, I mean Unit A on side X charges or melees and performs melee attacks against Unit B. End that activation. Then, Side Y has to choose whether they want to activate Unit B to fall back before being charged by side X’s Unit C, immediately counterattack with melee against Unit A or activate some other unit and hold off on acting with Unit B (maybe so it can melee Attack Unit C when they enter the fray).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
All points would need to be reworked.
In turn based games it doesn't matter if your 200 damage comes from one or one hundred units, but with alternating activation it is much more significant.
Sherrypie wrote: Again, there are multiple ways of AA besides the straight one by one. Apocalypse activates detachments, many skirmish games activate multiple models, Bolt Action randomises the sequence through blind draws, LotR had heroic actions called by commanding units, systems can have reactions.
Building a system where you get a few activations at a time instead of your whole army and where supporting actions work isn't difficult and there are pitfalls with AA as well, but they are much easier to circumvent than the structural feel bad -problems that IGOUGO creates in the current game.
Yeah. Activating a group of units at once instead of every unit one by one is a good midpoint. It has most advantages of AA whilst avoiding many obvious pitfalls, and it also has many advantages of IGOUGO. I think it also makes thematically sense if the units being activated together are somehow related, either by proximity or in another manner. A character activating friendly units near them would feel appropriate, as it would evoke the feeling of said character commanding those units.
Sherrypie wrote: Again, there are multiple ways of AA besides the straight one by one. Apocalypse activates detachments, many skirmish games activate multiple models, Bolt Action randomises the sequence through blind draws, LotR had heroic actions called by commanding units, systems can have reactions.
Building a system where you get a few activations at a time instead of your whole army and where supporting actions work isn't difficult and there are pitfalls with AA as well, but they are much easier to circumvent than the structural feel bad -problems that IGOUGO creates in the current game.
Yeah. Activating a group of units at once instead of every unit one by one is a good midpoint. It has most advantages of AA whilst avoiding many obvious pitfalls, and it also has many advantages of IGOUGO. I think it also makes thematically sense if the units being activated together are somehow related, either by proximity or in another manner. A character activating friendly units near them would feel appropriate, as it would evoke the feeling of said character commanding those units.
I could see Guard having a "Hold My Beer" moment with units that have a Vox just activated en masse.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
I think that GW maybe pricing melee units, as if they were either starting melee or always getting of the charge. Also the fact that weapons cost the same no matter if they are on something that has 3 or 4 or 5 strenght is crazy.
If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.
It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.
You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?
Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!
That's not what is being said at all.
But what is being said is still not an actual issue. So your opponent can move the unit you moved to threaten away. So? You have now forced that unit to move, it has sacrificed its previous position on the board.
We don't consider the fact that moving a queen in chess into a position where it can threaten an opposing piece is useless because the opponent can move the threatened piece. The point is to force your opponent to spend their turns/activations doing that instead of being able to enact their own plan.
Let's say a tau player lights up an enemy unit in LOS of several hard hitting units with markerlights. Does the opponent use their activation to try and hide that unit? What if getting that unit out of LOS of the threatening units would take multiple activations? What about trying to kill the threatening units? Do they have enough firepower to do that? Could they force these threatening units to have to move and forfeit attacking the marked unit by moving a different unit into a position where if they do attack that marked unit, they will be left open for attack?
The opponent having to make choices to react to your actions, and you having to plan for those reactions in your strategy, is not a bad thing. It is what is very much missing from 40K as it introduces many more meaningful choices throughout the game.
I certainly agree the game could work great balanced like that.
The concern is that the current points don't play that way.
Consider a unit like Dire Avengers. They lose in a direct firefight with most other units. They're currently pointed (fairly, IMO) in such a way where they can't trade. They need to move in with other assets (possibly more DAs) to focus down a single unit then move on. If they take a rebuttle - or even an alpha in RF range - they're going to lose badly.
To use them, you keep them out of the fight until you have multiple units that descend on a single target on the same turn. With IGOUGO (and CWE shenanigans), this can work great - certainly worth their points.
Now do it with AA. The first unit engages. Then it eats the retaliation in the face. Then the next unit engages. They can't pull off ambushes/explosive commitals. They'd certainly still have value in AA, but not the value they have with IGOUGO.
So whatever their appropriate points in IGOUGO, they're probably worth less in AA.
The point is that their appropriate points value is *different*, not that either system is better.
Do you even read what you post?
"Dire Avengers are well costed, they just aren't good is all". Did you perhaps think that Dire Avengers are not actually costed well?
I think there were a couple points you missed.
First, by "Dire Avengers are well costed", you're refering to a minor aside. Sure, I think their points value is fine as-is. By putting the claim in parentheses, and attaching IMO, I was seperating it from the argument - making it severable. Demonstrating it's accuracy (whether it's true or not) isn't actually relevant to the point being made. Asides like this are common. So if you think "DA are well-pointed" is an important piece of the post, please reread it.
Then we get to "they just aren't good at all". There are two places in the text where I call out their weeknesses. The first is "They lose in a direct firefight with most other units". If you read that as "they're bad", then you've missed half the post. I went on to describe why they *aren't* "[no] good at all". I spent much more text and expression showing that. So missing that is a rather huge miss. The claim was that they can fight well, but not in a direct head-to-head firefight. That's nowhere close to saying "they just aren't good at all".
The other place was the line about AA. I can't believe I need to expand upon this, but the whole post was about how a unit can be "well costed" in "IGOUGO" but, at the same points cost, be overcosted in AA (absent other changes). Saying they're fine in one and not fine in the other isn't a mistake; it's the freaking central premise.
I shouldn't need to point this out. You must be too attached to "No difference in value between IGOUGO and AA" that you assume it to be true, and rearange any conversation to reinforce it.
It's like discussing a book with a Chinese Box Experiment, but you were handed a *Russian* primer with the Chinese text.
If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.
It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.
You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?
Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!
That's not what is being said at all.
No, it is. Look at the reply again.
His problem evolves into exactly that. First it's two units, then it's three, then it's five. Believe it or not, in the IGOUGO system, EVERYONE is doing that to kill the opponent's army. His complaint is actually the core problem of the system itself!
Only on DakkaDakka is "It's not that simple, you also need to account for X" read as "It's impossible, because X can't be accounted for".
My point wasn't that it couldn't happen. My point was that adjustments need to be made. My argument doesn't suggest there *isn't* a proper points value for the unit in question for AA - only that it will sometimes not be the same as IGOUGO.
The fact that it scales from 2 to 3 to more is an obvious tenent of the claim. In design, there's really only three numbers: none, one, or many.
ClockworkZion wrote: Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".
And how do you figure that? Point costs right now aren't even accurate, so to say that as a concern is almost pure ignorance.
Hyperbole noted since you're claiming no point cost is "accurate", but my point was that it changes how valuable different parts of the stats are depending on how the game functions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Bharring: well said!
You're the one that said point costs need to change. I'm saying that this is a non-complaint, since a lot of point costs need to change now. That is NOT hyperbole that's straight fact.
That's like saying having $100 is no different than having $0, because it's not $200. It's either incredibly stupid or textbook hyperbole.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
I think that GW maybe pricing melee units, as if they were either starting melee or always getting of the charge. Also the fact that weapons cost the same no matter if they are on something that has 3 or 4 or 5 strenght is crazy.
Weapon pricing has been getting more appropiately costed, but I think you're onto something with the way they price melee. Which is frustrating, because that's how they should be costing shooting instead.
ClockworkZion wrote: Switching to an AA system means overhauling the game mechanics, and maybr even points costs to reflect the new system. It's hardly a "one sentence fix".
And how do you figure that? Point costs right now aren't even accurate, so to say that as a concern is almost pure ignorance.
Yet there's more than one book in the Top 10, so points costs are certainly *better than random values*.
Shifting to a massive ruleschange that revalues everything without considering points costs means that value will change entirely independent of their points cost. Sure, some overcosted units should get better, and some undercosted units should get worse. But since it's random, those OP units are just as likely to get stronger as they are to get weaker.
The only bias towards balanced points-to-value relations the result would have is the current points-to-value relations. So the result should be expected to be closer to random points-to-value ratios than we currently have.
And the more random the points-to-value ratios are, the less balanced it is. It only takes one unit with an overly good ratio to destroy the meta (meaning most Top 10 lists are centered on that one unit).
So that concern is *very real* Don't mistake "Balance isn't good enough for me" with "Balance is so terrible, random is just as good".
It's like saying "$100 isn't worth anything. Might as well just throw it on Roulette." Sure, you could wind up with a lot of money that way, but it's not likely.
If you have a faction that takes two units, working in tandem, to take down a single opponent unit, AA is going to hose you bad. You move one unit into range/fire at the target. He moves his unit away from that unit. Not gonna end well.
It forces a different style of counterplay. And that requires significantly different balance points.
You mean you can't just move as many units as you want to kill half the opponent's army?
No, I mean units balanced around acting in tandem aren't necessarily balanced for systems in which they cannot.
Which isn't to say they *cannot be* balanced that way.
Or to say a game working that way wouldn't be better.
It's *only* to say the balance is *different*.
Wow that's SUCH a problem and I'm soooooo stupid for not even thinking about that. Wow!
See how much more civil this conversation could have gone if you had just left it with your question? That question is a legitimate one, where you lacked understanding and asked for clarity. That's a good thing.
But then you had to get off on being superior, because *obviously* this is just a case of anyone who disagreeing with you not knowing what they're talking about.
Once again, you look at my post, read what you want it to say, then respond to that strawman.
1. Yeah go ahead and count which units show up for that Top 10 again. The post is so naive it hurts.
First Tourny I turn up:
1. IoM 2.T'au
3. SM 4. T'au
5. SM 6. Chaos
7. DE 8. DE 9. DE 10. IoM
I'm fairly sure that means there's at least 4 variations on "best list", even before diving into the lists themselves. If balance were truly random, having even 2 represented would be unlikely.
So I made an observable prediction, you called BS, then we observed the prediction. I wouldn't call the hypothesis naive.
2. Then position your "tandem" units better. As is, there's literally no consequence.
In IGOUGO there isn't, which affects balance (negatively). So units are pointed appropriately. In AA, such a unit can't "position" as well as they can in IGOUGO - hence the value disparity.
3. I'm not straw manning. Your "wah my tandem" evolves exactly into the problem with IGOUGO. You just want to kill everything quickly enough with no consequences at all.
"You just want to kill everything quickly enough with no consequences at all. " is a massive strawman. Nowhere did I say that. What I *did* say, as close as it maps to that structure, is that some of the current consequences some units face for being able to kill more effectively in an IGOUGO system is already baked into their points, hence those points wouldn't be appropriate for AA. In other words, I was saying the consequences must be properly tuned to how quickly the thing kills and is killed. You're the one arguing that there should be no consequences (points) for the changed rules.
When someone claims "There exist units that have these qualities", arguing against the claim "I want my units to have these things, and everyone should give me free icecream" is a strawman.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
But then, doesn't that mean that units that typically got blown away before they got to act are worth more in AA than IGOUGO?
Sherrypie wrote: Again, there are multiple ways of AA besides the straight one by one. Apocalypse activates detachments, many skirmish games activate multiple models, Bolt Action randomises the sequence through blind draws, LotR had heroic actions called by commanding units, systems can have reactions.
Building a system where you get a few activations at a time instead of your whole army and where supporting actions work isn't difficult and there are pitfalls with AA as well, but they are much easier to circumvent than the structural feel bad -problems that IGOUGO creates in the current game.
Yeah. Activating a group of units at once instead of every unit one by one is a good midpoint. It has most advantages of AA whilst avoiding many obvious pitfalls, and it also has many advantages of IGOUGO. I think it also makes thematically sense if the units being activated together are somehow related, either by proximity or in another manner. A character activating friendly units near them would feel appropriate, as it would evoke the feeling of said character commanding those units.
Something along those lines would be pretty neat, I think. In Apocalypse you need characters leading detachments to create asset cards, which means there is real incentive to kill them off quickly to deny the opposition their extra goodies, but if 40k characters would have this system of being there to activate units around them as they go it would be interesting to see how they would do. Killing them off could perhaps then force these leaderless stragglers to act in a less cohesive way or suffer other action penalties, with the more elite forces suffering less unlike the badly disciplined unwashed masses. This might also give the poor old Ld stat some proper use again.
I'm not opposed to activating one-at-a-time. It's just that some units would need rebalancing for such a schema.
As an aside, group-activations would be interesting Stratagems/Powers in an AA rulesset (something like "Swordwind Executed: 1 CP per unit. You may select that many units to activate instead of just one this time".). This would provide for a costs-benefits balancing.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
Nope, my brain just mixed up units because when I think "overpriced Eldar" I think Howling Banshees (see my post above about it).
And if we keep existing points costs but change the system without re-balancing them then we're only going to have an even messier game. Ideally the mechanics should be weighted and pointed as such, and a system that can let you do certain actions more often to deny other units their ability to activate (such as shooting at long range) should be more heavily pointed in general, much less in an AA system.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
But then, doesn't that mean that units that typically got blown away before they got to act are worth more in AA than IGOUGO?
Not really. If you've seen Kill Team at all, models aren't much different in terms of pricing.
How can you hope they ever balance all of those things when they can't even properly cost or dream up a rule to make Ogryns worth taking over Bullgryn though ?
This is all great talk but if they can't be bothered to expend the effort to properly balance inside the same codex options made with the same box. I have very little faith they will ever cost these capabilities well when they have yet to understand transport proper costs for a great many transports in the game.
Which comes down to the fact, GW I don't feel are giving us an honest effort and they are just giving us enough effort they can say " Look, we're trying ". Which is sad and leads to much of this inner community hostility that builds up in discussions.
CoD running for increased safety ? I like it. Give more use of tossing smoke grenades, sounds good too. I just like having options with what to do with my guys, I mean I even miss going to ground as sometimes it made so much sense.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
But then, doesn't that mean that units that typically got blown away before they got to act are worth more in AA than IGOUGO?
Not really. If you've seen Kill Team at all, models aren't much different in terms of pricing.
CWE infantry, which were fine in IGOUGO, certainly *did* get points drops going to KT. And were trash in KT. It's a great example of how the value of a unit certainly changes between rulessets.
It's odd you'd call out KT, since not only *did* it have a recosting pass, it's also even less balanced than 40k. It's an example that shows just badly even a halfassed recosting pass was.
Kill Team is indeed a fine example of this situation, where a different turn structure in an ideal world should require a different costing scheme. Playing Death Guard terminators sure feels good, as they cost about the same but because of charges happening in the beginning of the turn cannot benefit from both good shooting and melee on the same turn like they can in regular 40k, yaaaay...
If there was an official paradigm shift, that would obviously necessitate a rejigging of points. It would be silly not to.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
But then, doesn't that mean that units that typically got blown away before they got to act are worth more in AA than IGOUGO?
Not really. If you've seen Kill Team at all, models aren't much different in terms of pricing.
CWE infantry, which were fine in IGOUGO, certainly *did* get points drops going to KT. And were trash in KT. It's a great example of how the value of a unit certainly changes between rulessets.
It's odd you'd call out KT, since not only *did* it have a recosting pass, it's also even less balanced than 40k. It's an example that shows just badly even a halfassed recosting pass was.
Eldar Infantry? Fine?
How out of touch with reality with unit viability are you at this point?
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
But then, doesn't that mean that units that typically got blown away before they got to act are worth more in AA than IGOUGO?
Not really. If you've seen Kill Team at all, models aren't much different in terms of pricing.
CWE infantry, which were fine in IGOUGO, certainly *did* get points drops going to KT. And were trash in KT. It's a great example of how the value of a unit certainly changes between rulessets.
It's odd you'd call out KT, since not only *did* it have a recosting pass, it's also even less balanced than 40k. It's an example that shows just badly even a halfassed recosting pass was.
Eldar Infantry? Fine?
How out of touch with reality with unit viability are you at this point?
Not nearly as much as you think. But sure, let's frame shift to avoid another of your strawmen.
The pivitol claim: CWE infantry, at the time 40k Kill Team was released, were more competitive in 40k at higher points costs than in KillTeam with their lower points costs. That is the specific, relevant claim.
CWE was doing quite well in 40k at the time - including things like Ranger bubblewrap and Guardian bombs. In Kill Team, CWE was DOA.
(It's amazing how "well" the "We move real fast so we can hit all at once before they can retaliate" strategy translated into a rulesset that says "Anyone who didn't move gets to shoot first"...)
So, given that CWE infantry were doing well in 40k at one price point, and doing terribly in KT at a lower price point, I think it's quite fair to say that using the same price points for the same units in both systems wouldn't have been fair.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
But then, doesn't that mean that units that typically got blown away before they got to act are worth more in AA than IGOUGO?
Not really. If you've seen Kill Team at all, models aren't much different in terms of pricing.
CWE infantry, which were fine in IGOUGO, certainly *did* get points drops going to KT. And were trash in KT. It's a great example of how the value of a unit certainly changes between rulessets.
It's odd you'd call out KT, since not only *did* it have a recosting pass, it's also even less balanced than 40k. It's an example that shows just badly even a halfassed recosting pass was.
Eldar Infantry? Fine?
How out of touch with reality with unit viability are you at this point?
Not nearly as much as you think. But sure, let's frame shift to avoid another of your strawmen.
The pivitol claim: CWE infantry, at the time 40k Kill Team was released, were more competitive in 40k at higher points costs than in KillTeam with their lower points costs. That is the specific, relevant claim.
CWE was doing quite well in 40k at the time - including things like Ranger bubblewrap and Guardian bombs. In Kill Team, CWE was DOA.
(It's amazing how "well" the "We move real fast so we can hit all at once before they can retaliate" strategy translated into a rulesset that says "Anyone who didn't move gets to shoot first"...)
So, given that CWE infantry were doing well in 40k at one price point, and doing terribly in KT at a lower price point, I think it's quite fair to say that using the same price points for the same units in both systems wouldn't have been fair.
I love the insane mental gymnastics.
Rangers and Guardians are only "fine" in super specific instances that you provided, and honestly that "fine" can be debated. If you really thought they were "fine", you're wrong. End of story.
they don't seem to be doing not fine, as every now an then eldar win a big event, and they are often in top 16. an army that is not fine would require super specific settings and a ton of luck to achive that even one or two times, not to mention do it on a regular basis.
Plus maybe it is this ebb and flow people keep talking about. Eldar were good in 8th, and now it is time for them to be bad.
But they use a lot of aspects, at least the ones that play here, There are those flyer exarchs, the psyker flyer exarchs, and the dark reaper looking flyer dudes. And they also use rangers a lot.
Not sure if farseers are exarchs too though. But if they are that would be another one they use. In fact they probably use the least of the non exarch or aspect warrior units like guardians for example.
Karol wrote: But they use a lot of aspects, at least the ones that play here, There are those flyer exarchs, the psyker flyer exarchs, and the dark reaper looking flyer dudes. And they also use rangers a lot.
Not sure if farseers are exarchs too though. But if they are that would be another one they use. In fact they probably use the least of the non exarch or aspect warrior units like guardians for example.
Farseers are like Exarchs in that they are locked in the path of the seer (as opposed to the path of the warrior for exarchs) and unable to change to a different path.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
But then, doesn't that mean that units that typically got blown away before they got to act are worth more in AA than IGOUGO?
Not really. If you've seen Kill Team at all, models aren't much different in terms of pricing.
CWE infantry, which were fine in IGOUGO, certainly *did* get points drops going to KT. And were trash in KT. It's a great example of how the value of a unit certainly changes between rulessets.
It's odd you'd call out KT, since not only *did* it have a recosting pass, it's also even less balanced than 40k. It's an example that shows just badly even a halfassed recosting pass was.
Eldar Infantry? Fine?
How out of touch with reality with unit viability are you at this point?
Not nearly as much as you think. But sure, let's frame shift to avoid another of your strawmen.
The pivitol claim: CWE infantry, at the time 40k Kill Team was released, were more competitive in 40k at higher points costs than in KillTeam with their lower points costs. That is the specific, relevant claim.
CWE was doing quite well in 40k at the time - including things like Ranger bubblewrap and Guardian bombs. In Kill Team, CWE was DOA.
(It's amazing how "well" the "We move real fast so we can hit all at once before they can retaliate" strategy translated into a rulesset that says "Anyone who didn't move gets to shoot first"...)
So, given that CWE infantry were doing well in 40k at one price point, and doing terribly in KT at a lower price point, I think it's quite fair to say that using the same price points for the same units in both systems wouldn't have been fair.
I love the insane mental gymnastics.
Rangers and Guardians are only "fine" in super specific instances that you provided, and honestly that "fine" can be debated. If you really thought they were "fine", you're wrong. End of story.
It only looks like "Gymnastics" because my words have to do all sorts of contortions to fit your strawman army.
Just how "fine" they were could certainly be debated. But being much more "fine" than in KT - even with the pricing changes - certainly couldn't be.
Karol wrote: But they use a lot of aspects, at least the ones that play here, There are those flyer exarchs, the psyker flyer exarchs, and the dark reaper looking flyer dudes. And they also use rangers a lot.
Not sure if farseers are exarchs too though. But if they are that would be another one they use. In fact they probably use the least of the non exarch or aspect warrior units like guardians for example.
Farseers are like Exarchs in that they are locked in the path of the seer (as opposed to the path of the warrior for exarchs) and unable to change to a different path.
But unlike Exarchs in that:
-It is not a Path of War
-Path of the Farseer is terminal - it will eventually kill them
-Exarchs are amalgums of every Eldar who became lost on that Path and donned the armor. Where Farseers can communciate with Soulstones (containing the spirits of the fallen), they don't merge with any.
There are no "psyker" Apsects. The closest is a Warlock, who is someone walking the Path of the Seer (but not lost on it like a Farseer), and has previously walked a path of Khaine (been an Aspect Warrior, but not Exarch). If they get lost on the Path, they become a Farseer, not an Exarch.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
But then, doesn't that mean that units that typically got blown away before they got to act are worth more in AA than IGOUGO?
Not really. If you've seen Kill Team at all, models aren't much different in terms of pricing.
CWE infantry, which were fine in IGOUGO, certainly *did* get points drops going to KT. And were trash in KT. It's a great example of how the value of a unit certainly changes between rulessets.
It's odd you'd call out KT, since not only *did* it have a recosting pass, it's also even less balanced than 40k. It's an example that shows just badly even a halfassed recosting pass was.
Eldar Infantry? Fine?
How out of touch with reality with unit viability are you at this point?
Not nearly as much as you think. But sure, let's frame shift to avoid another of your strawmen.
The pivitol claim: CWE infantry, at the time 40k Kill Team was released, were more competitive in 40k at higher points costs than in KillTeam with their lower points costs. That is the specific, relevant claim.
CWE was doing quite well in 40k at the time - including things like Ranger bubblewrap and Guardian bombs. In Kill Team, CWE was DOA.
(It's amazing how "well" the "We move real fast so we can hit all at once before they can retaliate" strategy translated into a rulesset that says "Anyone who didn't move gets to shoot first"...)
So, given that CWE infantry were doing well in 40k at one price point, and doing terribly in KT at a lower price point, I think it's quite fair to say that using the same price points for the same units in both systems wouldn't have been fair.
I love the insane mental gymnastics.
Rangers and Guardians are only "fine" in super specific instances that you provided, and honestly that "fine" can be debated. If you really thought they were "fine", you're wrong. End of story.
It only looks like "Gymnastics" because my words have to do all sorts of contortions to fit your strawman army.
Just how "fine" they were could certainly be debated. But being much more "fine" than in KT - even with the pricing changes - certainly couldn't be.
Seeing as an Eldar unit would get more usage in the AA system, it isn't as debatable.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
But then, doesn't that mean that units that typically got blown away before they got to act are worth more in AA than IGOUGO?
Not really. If you've seen Kill Team at all, models aren't much different in terms of pricing.
CWE infantry, which were fine in IGOUGO, certainly *did* get points drops going to KT. And were trash in KT. It's a great example of how the value of a unit certainly changes between rulessets.
It's odd you'd call out KT, since not only *did* it have a recosting pass, it's also even less balanced than 40k. It's an example that shows just badly even a halfassed recosting pass was.
Eldar Infantry? Fine?
How out of touch with reality with unit viability are you at this point?
Not nearly as much as you think. But sure, let's frame shift to avoid another of your strawmen.
The pivitol claim: CWE infantry, at the time 40k Kill Team was released, were more competitive in 40k at higher points costs than in KillTeam with their lower points costs. That is the specific, relevant claim.
CWE was doing quite well in 40k at the time - including things like Ranger bubblewrap and Guardian bombs. In Kill Team, CWE was DOA.
(It's amazing how "well" the "We move real fast so we can hit all at once before they can retaliate" strategy translated into a rulesset that says "Anyone who didn't move gets to shoot first"...)
So, given that CWE infantry were doing well in 40k at one price point, and doing terribly in KT at a lower price point, I think it's quite fair to say that using the same price points for the same units in both systems wouldn't have been fair.
I love the insane mental gymnastics.
Rangers and Guardians are only "fine" in super specific instances that you provided, and honestly that "fine" can be debated. If you really thought they were "fine", you're wrong. End of story.
It only looks like "Gymnastics" because my words have to do all sorts of contortions to fit your strawman army.
Just how "fine" they were could certainly be debated. But being much more "fine" than in KT - even with the pricing changes - certainly couldn't be.
Seeing as an Eldar unit would get more usage in the AA system, it isn't as debatable.
I'm not sure I follow. You're arguing that Eldar units, as an example, wouldn't need a points change for AA or any other massive structural change, because they'd be *better*?
Does whether they're worth a lot more or a lot less in AA vs IGOUGO really change anything? In either case, they're not worth the same.
Karol wrote: But they use a lot of aspects, at least the ones that play here, There are those flyer exarchs, the psyker flyer exarchs, and the dark reaper looking flyer dudes. And they also use rangers a lot.
Not sure if farseers are exarchs too though. But if they are that would be another one they use. In fact they probably use the least of the non exarch or aspect warrior units like guardians for example.
Farseers are like Exarchs in that they are locked in the path of the seer (as opposed to the path of the warrior for exarchs) and unable to change to a different path.
But unlike Exarchs in that:
-It is not a Path of War
-Path of the Farseer is terminal - it will eventually kill them
-Exarchs are amalgums of every Eldar who became lost on that Path and donned the armor. Where Farseers can communciate with Soulstones (containing the spirits of the fallen), they don't merge with any.
There are no "psyker" Apsects. The closest is a Warlock, who is someone walking the Path of the Seer (but not lost on it like a Farseer), and has previously walked a path of Khaine (been an Aspect Warrior, but not Exarch). If they get lost on the Path, they become a Farseer, not an Exarch.
I Think warlocks are already lost with no real way to go back, Effectively just a sorta rank on the path if taken that way. Since they need to start all the training to become a Farseer to be a warlock, and once started you cannot go back.
