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.

Scott-S6 wrote:The SM Tactical Squad is a new unit (not the same as the 5th edition unit of the same name).

No, it isn't. The fact that tactical squads lost combat tactics, gained chapter tactics and went through a few other changes does not magically make them a new unit any more than releasing a patch for a video game makes that video game into a new game.

No. It makes tactical squads an old unit with updated rules. That's why tactical squads still suck relative to the competitive meta. That's why chaos space marines suck even worse relative to the competitive meta.

Even so, the missile launcher didn't magically become a new weapon concept in 5th edition when they changed the way that blast weapons resolved their attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IllumiNini wrote:Here's why your obsession with previous editions both makes sense and doesn't make sense: It makes sense in regards to codeces that are not up to date (i.e. don't have an edition to match the current - 7th Edition - Core Rule Book), but only as long as we consider the most recent edition of the given codex (since it is not only the most recent but also the one most likely to be used in casual and tournament play).

Again, my point have nothing to do with the rules of previous editions. My point has everything to do with the power-level disparities between pre and post 6th edition weapon concepts.

Again, chances are, most people are still playing some degree of 3rd, 4th and 5th edition.

I have a general idea of what your army is, IN, and let me tell you: you are, for the most part, if not entirely, playing a pre-6th edition army (unless you've drastically altered your army list in the recent past).

Where it doesn't make sense, however, is when you talk about the previous editions of the game (i.e. editions of the Core Rule Book prior to 7th Edition)

Where did I say anything in this thread about editions of the CRB prior to 6th edition? Please quote me.

as if they should be some benchmark for units in 7th Edition. There is no valid reason for this. Please stop. It doesn't matter what edition the unit was conceived in or how much you value the relative balance of previous editions versus 7th Edition. We are in 7th Edition and want to balance 7th Edition. How is that not clear to you by now?

Again, you're simply missing my point. The reason I bring up 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th editions is because there is still a power disparity between pre-6th and post 6th edition unit concepts. My point, note, is not that general power levels were ratcheted up as of 6th edition. I'm not complaining about the fact that tactical marines got chapter tactics. I'm not complaining about the fact that tactical squads gained the ability to take a special or heavy weapon in a 5 man squad.

No. I'm complaining about the fact that currently existing units, in this edition, which were initially released prior to this edition (even if they have updated rules in this edition), suffer from a power disparity relative to units conceived and released from 6th edition onwards.

If I have devastator squads with lascannons and you have [insert flying MC released from 6th edition onwards here], I'm going to have a bad time.

The concepts are less important than the math. It's all about the math.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The concepts are less important than the math. It's all about the math.

Some are just bad on their own, even within other options in the same codex. For example, the Leman Russ tank is bad, simply on its own because of its highly restrictive rules regarding what weapons it can fire.

Martel732 wrote:
The concepts are less important than the math. It's all about the math.

Speaking as someone to graduate with an accounting degree next year, and who has taken some advanced chemistry classes in the past.... without the concepts, the math has no meaning. You must understand the concepts, then, and ONLY then, can you understand the math.

Granted, it takes a lot less study to understand the concepts of the tabletop game than Accounting or Chemistry. But you still need to know them.

 Melissia wrote:
Some are just bad on their own, even within other options in the same codex. For example, the Leman Russ tank is bad, simply on its own because of its highly restrictive rules regarding what weapons it can fire.

In and of itself, this fact is perfectly meaningless.

You might as well be telling me that the LRBT is bad because it can't sprout wings and fly.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The concepts are less important than the math. It's all about the math.

I don't necessarily disagree with this.

My point is that the math is different for units prior to and posterior to 6th edition.

The math required to take down a flier is different from the math required to take down a rhino.

 Traditio wrote:
In and of itself, this fact is perfectly meaningless.

If, as I noted, an option is a bad choice just when comparing to other options in the same codex, rarely is it good in other meta. Not unheard of, but rare.

Melissia wrote:If, as I noted, an option is a bad choice just when comparing to other options in the same codex, rarely is it good in other meta. Not unheard of, but rare.

Ok, then you have a different argument that actually holds some degree of water.

But simply saying: "This model can't do this" or "this model carries these restrictions" doesn't really say anything about how good that model is. Do other models have similar restrictions? Are other models able to do that?

Again, it's all relative.

And again, there's a ton of codices in warhammer 40k. How does the LRBT stack up to similar models in other codices? How does the entire class of units, of which the LRBT is a part, stack up against other unit types?

Would you rather have an LRBT or its cost equivalence in tactical marines with missile launchers and flamethrowers as the heavy and special weapon options?

Would you rather have an LRBT or a predator?

That's not really a different argument, considering my post included this line:

 Melissia wrote:
even within other options in the same codex.

Rather, I phrased parts of the rest of it badly and gave the impression that I was talking about the unit in a vacuum, rather than a single faction's army list itself in a vacuum.

 Melissia wrote:
That's not really a different argument, considering my post included this line:

 Melissia wrote:
even within other options in the same codex.

Rather, I phrased parts of the rest of it badly and gave the impression that I was talking about the unit in a vacuum, rather than a single faction's army list itself in a vacuum.

Would you rather an LRBT or its points equivalence of predator with relevant upgrades?

 Traditio wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That's not really a different argument, considering my post included this line:

 Melissia wrote:
even within other options in the same codex.

Rather, I phrased parts of the rest of it badly and gave the impression that I was talking about the unit in a vacuum, rather than a single faction's army list itself in a vacuum.

Would you rather an LRBT or its points equivalence of predator with relevant upgrades?

What am I against? That makes a fair difference with most choices.

 Traditio wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That's not really a different argument, considering my post included this line:

 Melissia wrote:
even within other options in the same codex.

Rather, I phrased parts of the rest of it badly and gave the impression that I was talking about the unit in a vacuum, rather than a single faction's army list itself in a vacuum.

Would you rather an LRBT or its points equivalence of predator with relevant upgrades?

I would rather spend the points on something else in the IG codex than the LRBT. The Predator and LRBT serve very different purposes for their individual codices, so the comparison doesn't really work that well.

The only situation the LRBT MIGHT be better than a predator is against T4 3+ infantry clumped together as tight as possible, in the middle of an open field. Otherwise, the predator is a better buy for tank hunting and putting wounds on infantry units that aren't huddling together for warmth like penguins in the Antarctic. (plus, the pred doesn't fire its sponsons as snapshots)

 Melissia wrote:
Some are just bad on their own, even within other options in the same codex. For example, the Leman Russ tank is bad, simply on its own because of its highly restrictive rules regarding what weapons it can fire.

Martel732 wrote:
The concepts are less important than the math. It's all about the math.

Speaking as someone to graduate with an accounting degree next year, and who has taken some advanced chemistry classes in the past.... without the concepts, the math has no meaning. You must understand the concepts, then, and ONLY then, can you understand the math.

Granted, it takes a lot less study to understand the concepts of the tabletop game than Accounting or Chemistry. But you still need to know them.

It's easy to understand the concept of the missile launcher. It fires two different types of shots for two different purposes. The math tells you that both modes of fire are terrible in practice. That's what I mean. The concept in this case fails because of the math.

 Traditio wrote:
No. It makes tactical squads an old unit with updated rules. That's why tactical squads still suck relative to the competitive meta. That's why chaos space marines suck even worse relative to the competitive meta.

Except, as I pointed out, this theory of yours only "works" because you pick out the units that fit the theory and ignore the others. Eldar jetbikes are an old unit with updated rules, but they're awesome relative to the competitive meta. There is nothing about being a unit that had rules in a previous edition of the game that makes a unit strong or weak. Your theory is garbage, and you really need to give it up.

What GW makes good or bad is purely arbitrary because they clearly have no grasp of mathematical consequences of anything.

Martel732 wrote:
What GW makes good or bad is purely arbitrary because they clearly have no grasp of mathematical consequences of anything.

They understand that the odds of rolling a 7 on 2d6 are higher than rolling a 2 or 12.

So they've got a better understanding of math than some of their players, for sure.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
No. It makes tactical squads an old unit with updated rules. That's why tactical squads still suck relative to the competitive meta. That's why chaos space marines suck even worse relative to the competitive meta.

Except, as I pointed out, this theory of yours only "works" because you pick out the units that fit the theory and ignore the others. Eldar jetbikes are an old unit with updated rules, but they're awesome relative to the competitive meta. There is nothing about being a unit that had rules in a previous edition of the game that makes a unit strong or weak. Your theory is garbage, and you really need to give it up.

It probably also helps that he likes cherry picking which parts of posts to answer and which ones to conveniently ignore or fail to address.

 Grimskul wrote:
It probably also helps that he likes cherry picking which parts of posts to answer and which ones to conveniently ignore or fail to address.

Uhh, I do both of those things a lot.

The former makes it clearer what part I'm responding to.

The latter is usually because I either agree or don't have a counter-argument for those things.

Let's make sure we're sticking to the points in posts rather than other users' approaches to such. If we're finding that we can't do this, then perhaps just take a breather.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
It probably also helps that he likes cherry picking which parts of posts to answer and which ones to conveniently ignore or fail to address.

Uhh, I do both of those things a lot.

The former makes it clearer what part I'm responding to.

The latter is usually because I either agree or don't have a counter-argument for those things.

Which is a bad thing to do because ignoring posts makes it look like you can't handle someone actually challenging your position and refuse to acknowledge that you might be wrong.

Don't just ignore peoples post. If you agree with someone's post, or don't have a counter for an argument that is directed towards you then acknowledge it

I'm sorry, but this question... it's an irritating one.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
No. It makes tactical squads an old unit with updated rules. That's why tactical squads still suck relative to the competitive meta. That's why chaos space marines suck even worse relative to the competitive meta.

Except, as I pointed out, this theory of yours only "works" because you pick out the units that fit the theory and ignore the others. Eldar jetbikes are an old unit with updated rules, but they're awesome relative to the competitive meta. There is nothing about being a unit that had rules in a previous edition of the game that makes a unit strong or weak. Your theory is garbage, and you really need to give it up.

And let's not forget the theoretically awesome Gorkanauts.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Which is a bad thing to do because ignoring posts makes it look like you can't handle someone actually challenging your position and refuse to acknowledge that you might be wrong.

Don't just ignore peoples post. If you agree with someone's post, or don't have a counter for an argument that is directed towards you then acknowledge it

Really?

I usually assume that if someone doesn't reply to one of my points, they have no counter-argument, and thus I consider my point to be successful and move on.

I guess we're all a bit different.

 Pouncey wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Which is a bad thing to do because ignoring posts makes it look like you can't handle someone actually challenging your position and refuse to acknowledge that you might be wrong.

Don't just ignore peoples post. If you agree with someone's post, or don't have a counter for an argument that is directed towards you then acknowledge it

Really?

I usually assume that if someone doesn't reply to one of my points, they have no counter-argument, and thus I consider my point to be successful and move on.

I guess we're all a bit different.

Usually the post is ignored because it can be considered cherry-picking and therefore it is thought you can't stand being wrong and have to find the single piece that might be incorrect, ergo proving yourself right again, rather than taking the time to say whether or not you agree to specific points.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Usually the post is ignored because it can be considered cherry-picking and therefore it is thought you can't stand being wrong and have to find the single piece that might be incorrect, ergo proving yourself right again, rather than taking the time to say whether or not you agree to specific points.

...I generally prefer it when people convince me what part of what I'm saying is wrong. Because I very often am wrong about lots of things, but I say what I say because I think I'm right. So the only way to show me I'm wrong, is to prove me wrong. And then I learn and improve. Sometimes I even switch sides on an argument entirely after a revelation like that.

 Pouncey wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Usually the post is ignored because it can be considered cherry-picking and therefore it is thought you can't stand being wrong and have to find the single piece that might be incorrect, ergo proving yourself right again, rather than taking the time to say whether or not you agree to specific points.

...I generally prefer it when people convince me what part of what I'm saying is wrong. Because I very often am wrong about lots of things, but I say what I say because I think I'm right. So the only way to show me I'm wrong, is to prove me wrong. And then I learn and improve. Sometimes I even switch sides on an argument entirely after a revelation like that.

Then flat out state "I agree with everything you said except this statement, and this is why:".

 Traditio wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:The SM Tactical Squad is a new unit (not the same as the 5th edition unit of the same name).

No, it isn't. The fact that tactical squads lost combat tactics, gained chapter tactics and went through a few other changes does not magically make them a new unit any more than releasing a patch for a video game makes that video game into a new game.

No. It makes tactical squads an old unit with updated rules. That's why tactical squads still suck relative to the competitive meta. That's why chaos space marines suck even worse relative to the competitive meta.

Ok, theoretical:

Against all expectations, Codex:CSM follows soon after the Traitor's Hate supplement.

Chaos Space Marine squads now carry bolters, bolt pistols and CCW as standard, they must choose a mark, but may do so for free, and can be upgraded to carry 2 special weapons, including grav and volkite from 30k, per 5 models, and now have some thing functionally analogous to ATSKNF.

They cost 55 points for a base squad of 5.

By your own standards, they still suck because they're an old unit with updated rules?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Usually the post is ignored because it can be considered cherry-picking and therefore it is thought you can't stand being wrong and have to find the single piece that might be incorrect, ergo proving yourself right again, rather than taking the time to say whether or not you agree to specific points.

...I generally prefer it when people convince me what part of what I'm saying is wrong. Because I very often am wrong about lots of things, but I say what I say because I think I'm right. So the only way to show me I'm wrong, is to prove me wrong. And then I learn and improve. Sometimes I even switch sides on an argument entirely after a revelation like that.

Then flat out state "I agree with everything you said except this statement, and this is why:".

Indeed. You may think its redundant, but whenever you're speaking in text you need to be pretty damn explicit regarding your stance on things otherwise, just like how you're assuming people implicitly know you agree with them, many people will assume the worst and consider your lack of response as a sign of you ignoring them. There's no real tone, facial cues or body language to read off of to know otherwise. It's the same when you write out an essay, you really have to be as concise and open about every angle you're considering to your reader when you explain your thesis and arguments, you can't have them assume they're mind-readers and know every single thing you're talking about (and that's why you have citations/quotes).

 Traditio wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That's not really a different argument, considering my post included this line:

 Melissia wrote:
even within other options in the same codex.

Rather, I phrased parts of the rest of it badly and gave the impression that I was talking about the unit in a vacuum, rather than a single faction's army list itself in a vacuum.

Would you rather an LRBT or its points equivalence of predator with relevant upgrades?

For 150 points I can buy a Tri-las predator. A Tri-las predator...

-Has better BS
-Can fire all of it's guns
-Has three S9 AP2 shots and thus can threaten a wider variety of targets
-Faster
-Can get bonuses from CT/Being in a full squadron

Seems like a better deal to me especially since blast weapons are kind of... pants.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then flat out state "I agree with everything you said except this statement, and this is why:".

No.

They can easily infer I have no counter-argument by the total lack of presenting any sort of counter-argument.

This has already been explained.

An absence of response can easily be a disingenuous attempt to sidestep an argument which the responder cannot rebut, but does not wish to openly concede because that hurts their position.

Actually saying "fair point, I can't argue with that" carries no such issues.