Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/02/25 21:32:02
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
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/25 21:43:41
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/26 00:27:10
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/26 03:06:39
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.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
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.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
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.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
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.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
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.
