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.

Seabass wrote:
the first time you get that gotcha dropped on you, it sucks, especially if they roll well. The next few times though, you learn really quickly how to deal with them.

Spare low strength weapon fire deals with them pretty easily. They're slow, and they really don't have any output other than to get bumped up with some CP.

Drink some concrete my dude, its time to harden up a bit.

True. Only bad moment is when you sit down go through your codex, do the math and it is something like 2.0 IH vs foot csm, and you know you can't adapt. thankfuly This does not happen all the time, and it matters less , if you don't play tournaments

Karol wrote:

Seabass wrote:
the first time you get that gotcha dropped on you, it sucks, especially if they roll well. The next few times though, you learn really quickly how to deal with them.

Spare low strength weapon fire deals with them pretty easily. They're slow, and they really don't have any output other than to get bumped up with some CP.

Drink some concrete my dude, its time to harden up a bit.

True. Only bad moment is when you sit down go through your codex, do the math and it is something like 2.0 IH vs foot csm, and you know you can't adapt. thankfuly This does not happen all the time, and it matters less , if you don't play tournaments

if you get to a point where you know you cant adapt to how you are playing now, try something different. and actually play the game. It helps. I'm not being sarcastic. I've seen some folks playing some pretty unorthodox stuff that is surprisingly good. Sometimes just trying something new and different is enough to give you a different perspective.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Klickor wrote:
I don't think anyone is saying you can't learn the gotchas in 40k but it's an entirely different kind of game. Magic is all about the card interactions so spending time learning them is almost all that is required for the game. 40k on the other hand already have the immense time requirements of assembling and painting your models and then just the effort of setting up a game and transport your army to it is vastly higher than for doing the same in a card game.

People already complain about the painting part being gatekeeping. Having to spend so much mental capacity just to keep up with the rules is in some form another gatekeeping aspect. You are "supposed" to lose just because you didn't spend extra time learning everything due to bad game design forcing you to do so.

It is a gakky comparison using MtG. The only 40k player at our club that didn't start playing long ago but started in 8th sold off his army a month or so ago and now plays better designed games, including EDH/Commander. He didn't want to study rules for a game that could change at any moment. He had better things to do.

If you want to be good at something like 40k you need a certain level of willingness to study the armies in your meta, learn what your own army is supposed to do, and then play more than a game per month. People want to treat 40k as if you should be able to play a game every month or two with whatever random junk you've assembled and have a decent chance at not getting blown out. That's not really how any game works, even MtG requires you to buy the cards you need for your deck(s) and - depending on your format - keep up with rotation and the local meta while learning to pilot your deck.

This. Even the simple act of a mulligan will depend on how well you know your own deck.

and, while we're at it, I want to say that people need to take their ego out of it and see if they can learn something from the games they play. It has been my experience that most of the time, despite feeling otherwise initially, once I think back about the game, there is a very real chance there were decisions that I made that could have changed things and significantly changed the game as it played out.

Now, that isn't to say that I would have won. Not at all, it's simply to try to understand that maybe my decisions weren't always the best and I can learn something from that.

After all, this plan is too clever to fail twice, right?

Karol wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:


This isn't to say that MtG isn't easy to get into, because for a TCG with as many cards and formats as it has MtG is very accessible, it's just that if you can understand MtG and spend weeks researching a new deck before building and tuning it you can learn the gotcha strats in 40k.

You just type in best decks for format X, and then either print out the cards or if you play at a store order them from China. The last thing maybe takes a few weeks, but not of research. And when you have the deck you just watch tutorials , and they tell you everything, what and how to play, when to do it, what side deck cards to use against specific match ups.

w40k is horrible comparing to that, because even if you plow through the entire part of the net that tells you to play what you want, even if you find playtesters, and if you copy their lists, it takes months to have the army ready, so even if no nerfs happens in that time, you still can find out that in the video or two you saw, the army was not played serious or was played vs builds that aren't played in the real world or localy. It is very rare for something like a harlequins or GK army lists to exist, DE seem to be the only thing right now that comes with something close to a pre build core list.

If you truly think like that then its no surprise that you're not having success with your 40k games lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seabass wrote:
and, while we're at it, I want to say that people need to take their ego out of it and see if they can learn something from the games they play. It has been my experience that most of the time, despite feeling otherwise initially, once I think back about the game, there is a very real chance there were decisions that I made that could have changed things and significantly changed the game as it played out.

Now, that isn't to say that I would have won. Not at all, it's simply to try to understand that maybe my decisions weren't always the best and I can learn something from that.

After all, this plan is too clever to fail twice, right?

most games you lose are because of a mistake you made. Get rid of your "scrub" mentality and stop blaming things other than yourself for your losses.

(the "you" doesnt refer to you specifically)

Mark of an inexperienced player is trying to underplay the effect of luck or skill, because veteran players know how much both really matter.

Also, when it comes to Warhammer, most games you lose are because the opponent had a stronger list and decisions made during the game were not the deciding factor.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Mark of an inexperienced player is trying to underplay the effect of luck or skill, because veteran players know how much both really matter.

Also, when it comes to Warhammer, most games you lose are because the opponent had a stronger list and decisions made during the game were not the deciding factor.

If that were truly the case, the same people wouldn't regularly place so well at large events. The fact that we have a "pro" class of players I think speaks volumes to this. Now, that isn't to say that every army starts on equal footing, some codexes are clearly more difficult to win with, but otherwise, it's likely the decision-making that is getting players through the game.

Yeah, and there are some 8th edition lists that have managed to get top 3 in recent GTs too. 40k 9th edition is a complex game. A good player can take a 8th edition codex list and still pilot it to a good result against all the 9th edition codexes out there.

And if you pit a tournament winning 40k player against a newbie piloting some net Drukhair or Admech list. I would always place my bets on the pro player winning.


Btw, to the OP. I would just like to say also that GW has further raised the bar in the new admech book. So, the trend is definitely towards strategems getting more powerful, not less. Admech has a new strategem in their book that lets their 8 point per model "low tier" Vangard unit do autowounds with radium weapons on hits of 4s with their guns (which by the way, shoot 3 shots per gun). Yup, you heard that right. Poxwalkers doing mortal wounds on hits of 6s in melee? How would you like to see a 20 man Vanguard squad firing 60 shots and autowounding on hits of 4s. This is at least 30 wounds even if they have BS4+ with no rerolls and actually, they have BS3+.

I just watched a battle report on youtube where turn 1, a squad of 20 Admech vanguard used this strategem and shot a full health 20 man necron warrior blob off the table (no chance to reanimate at all). And then turn 2, the same squad teleported across the table to within shooting range of a second necron warrior blob of 20, and used the same strategem and obliterated that squad as well in one shooting round (again no chance to reanime). After seeing that in action, mutant strain seems perfectly fine to me.

Eldenfirefly wrote:



Btw, to the OP. I would just like to say also that GW has further raised the bar in the new admech book. So, the trend is definitely towards strategems getting more powerful, not less. Admech has a new strategem in their book that lets their 8 point per model "low tier" Vangard unit do autowounds with radium weapons on hits of 4s with their guns (which by the way, shoot 3 shots per gun). Yup, you heard that right. Poxwalkers doing mortal wounds on hits of 6s in melee? How would you like to see a 20 man Vanguard squad firing 60 shots and autowounding on hits of 4s. This is at least 30 wounds even if they have BS4+ with no rerolls and actually, they have BS3+.

I just watched a battle report on youtube where turn 1, a squad of 20 Admech vanguard used this strategem and shot a full health 20 man necron warrior blob off the table (no chance to reanimate at all). And then turn 2, the same squad teleported across the table to within shooting range of a second necron warrior blob of 20, and used the same strategem and obliterated that squad as well in one shooting round (again no chance to reanime). After seeing that in action, mutant strain seems perfectly fine to me.

See? I was right. There's something in the AdMech book that'll soon take the place of all the "OMG Drukari are OP! discussion/sob sessions.
Everyone is getting some OP trick here in 9th. So it'll all balance out. (well, except for that one randomly chosen faction. They won't get anything. Sucks if you play them....)

Beardedragon wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Shoot them before they make it to close combat. They’re not very durable, and are very slow.

It might be overtuned, but this seems pretty over the top a reaction.

Shoot them with what? i play a close combat army. Sure i have ranged weapons but most of those weapons are focused around dealing with heavier units. I find it directly unfair that someone can deal a massive amount of mortal wounds from such a cheap unit.

No other faction simply does that. And then that guy that allows them to hit first in CC meaning i dont even get the first strike to begin with.

Since when is 6 or 7 a 'massive amount of mortal wounds'? That's not exactly an oppressive number even in 40k. In AoS you can get that many out of a single model.

ERJAK wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Shoot them before they make it to close combat. They’re not very durable, and are very slow.

It might be overtuned, but this seems pretty over the top a reaction.

Shoot them with what? i play a close combat army. Sure i have ranged weapons but most of those weapons are focused around dealing with heavier units. I find it directly unfair that someone can deal a massive amount of mortal wounds from such a cheap unit.

No other faction simply does that. And then that guy that allows them to hit first in CC meaning i dont even get the first strike to begin with.

Since when is 6 or 7 a 'massive amount of mortal wounds'? That's not exactly an oppressive number even in 40k. In AoS you can get that many out of a single model.

Now I'm thinking about my Tenebrael Shard with old Sword of Judgement, teleporting into combat with enemy characters and delivering 20+ mortal wounds in addition to normal damage. Didn't even use a command point!

6 mortal wounds is one of the largest numbers of mortal wounds any unit can cause in a phase in all of 40k. Bringing in AOS does nothing, I'm sure it's a gak game, saying 20 mortal wounds is a small thing does not convince me otherwise

Seabass wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Mark of an inexperienced player is trying to underplay the effect of luck or skill, because veteran players know how much both really matter.

Also, when it comes to Warhammer, most games you lose are because the opponent had a stronger list and decisions made during the game were not the deciding factor.

If that were truly the case, the same people wouldn't regularly place so well at large events. The fact that we have a "pro" class of players I think speaks volumes to this. Now, that isn't to say that every army starts on equal footing, some codexes are clearly more difficult to win with, but otherwise, it's likely the decision-making that is getting players through the game.

A great example to support my argument; those players do not show up and get the same placing every time. If it were simply about skill, the most skilled would always be on top followed by the next, and so on.

Speaking AS someone who was in that group back when I played tournaments: It is not uncommon to hit a match where you look at your opponent, look at their list, and know it is evenly matched. Unless one of you screws up, it is going to be down to the dice because you are both coming in so close to each other in potency. No one is denying that such a matchup is taking place atop the corpses of armies you brutalized to get there, but the reality is that dice can be the deciding factor even at the highest level of play. Perhaps even more so, because a skilled player will be better able to pounce on a sudden irregularity of averages and exploit it to the fullest.

For example; I was up against a very skilled opponent and aiming to weaken a specific character with magic before charging in to finish the job. Suddenly I rolled really well on my damage and killed the character outright with the spell, negating the need to charge them. And that was it; that one spot of luck was a domino. I was able to send the charge in to support another of my units, allowing both to come out of the turn uninjured and then go on to beat up other targets and gut the core of my opponents army in a manner that simply would not have been possible had my original spell rolled average. And my opponent had not screwed up either; positioning in a manner to compensate for this occurence would have left openings on another front that I would have been able to exploit regardless of my spell's damage. At no point did either player actually make a mistake.

and given that die can be such a deciding factor, id say that mutant strain should deal mortal wounds in the wounding phase, not the hitting phase to avoid such a large influx of mortal wounds, when 1 CP tends to amount to 3MW, and 2CP amounts to 6.

often.

usually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Yeah, and there are some 8th edition lists that have managed to get top 3 in recent GTs too. 40k 9th edition is a complex game. A good player can take a 8th edition codex list and still pilot it to a good result against all the 9th edition codexes out there.

And if you pit a tournament winning 40k player against a newbie piloting some net Drukhair or Admech list. I would always place my bets on the pro player winning.


Btw, to the OP. I would just like to say also that GW has further raised the bar in the new admech book. So, the trend is definitely towards strategems getting more powerful, not less. Admech has a new strategem in their book that lets their 8 point per model "low tier" Vangard unit do autowounds with radium weapons on hits of 4s with their guns (which by the way, shoot 3 shots per gun). Yup, you heard that right. Poxwalkers doing mortal wounds on hits of 6s in melee? How would you like to see a 20 man Vanguard squad firing 60 shots and autowounding on hits of 4s. This is at least 30 wounds even if they have BS4+ with no rerolls and actually, they have BS3+.

I just watched a battle report on youtube where turn 1, a squad of 20 Admech vanguard used this strategem and shot a full health 20 man necron warrior blob off the table (no chance to reanimate at all). And then turn 2, the same squad teleported across the table to within shooting range of a second necron warrior blob of 20, and used the same strategem and obliterated that squad as well in one shooting round (again no chance to reanime). After seeing that in action, mutant strain seems perfectly fine to me.

i dont know any of those stratagems as ive never fought admech before. So im not really sure what im meant to say. So ill stick to this stratagem. It sounds powerful, sure but im more in the department of mortal wounds, not auto wounds. (although auto wounding that many hits on 4s seem very excessive indeed).

 vict0988 wrote:
6 mortal wounds is one of the largest numbers of mortal wounds any unit can cause in a phase in all of 40k. Bringing in AOS does nothing, I'm sure it's a gak game, saying 20 mortal wounds is a small thing does not convince me otherwise

What? It's not even anywhere remotely near "one of the largest number".

 vict0988 wrote:
6 mortal wounds is one of the largest numbers of mortal wounds any unit can cause in a phase in all of 40k. Bringing in AOS does nothing, I'm sure it's a gak game, saying 20 mortal wounds is a small thing does not convince me otherwise

If this is as powerful as it has been made out to be by some then surely someone could go build lists around it and dominate. That this is probably the first time many people have heard this strat mentioned in any capacity since the book released four or so months ago should tell you everything you need to know.

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
6 mortal wounds is one of the largest numbers of mortal wounds any unit can cause in a phase in all of 40k. Bringing in AOS does nothing, I'm sure it's a gak game, saying 20 mortal wounds is a small thing does not convince me otherwise

What? It's not even anywhere remotely near "one of the largest number".

Name 10 units that deal 7 MW in one phase on average.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
6 mortal wounds is one of the largest numbers of mortal wounds any unit can cause in a phase in all of 40k. Bringing in AOS does nothing, I'm sure it's a gak game, saying 20 mortal wounds is a small thing does not convince me otherwise

If this is as powerful as it has been made out to b...

It's 1CP undercosted on a good day, nobody claimed it's a game-ending thing, OP is more concerned with chaff punching above their weight class too cheap, I am more concerned that it could be a gotcha.

 vict0988 wrote:

It's 1CP undercosted on a good day, nobody claimed it's a game-ending thing, OP is more concerned with chaff punching above their weight class too cheap, I am more concerned that it could be a gotcha.

It's only ever a gotcha once, if that. The weight class the OP references was a scenario where his opponent spent 45 points more and 2 CP to half kill a model. What we're talking about is him effectively losing 65 to 70 points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
6 mortal wounds is one of the largest numbers of mortal wounds any unit can cause in a phase in all of 40k. Bringing in AOS does nothing, I'm sure it's a gak game, saying 20 mortal wounds is a small thing does not convince me otherwise

If this is as powerful as it has been made out to be by some then surely someone could go build lists around it and dominate. That this is probably the first time many people have heard this strat mentioned in any capacity since the book released four or so months ago should tell you everything you need to know.

I am actually a Harbinger player that runs between 60-80 poxwalkers and my friend is convincing me to go up to 119(I have 105 poxwalkers currently). I am usually middle of the pack at tourneys with the highest placing being third place.

The truth is that I am lucky to even get to use the stratagems(mutant / reroll) in an average game. It's a slight deterrent to the opponent if I have a blob, but even then they are quick to shoot the units off the board when they have the chance. People here tend to forget that Death Guard is a CP hungry army and poxwalkers rarely get the chance to use this unless the opponent blindly charges a poxwalker squad turn 1 or 2. I have also lost an objective because of a bad roll of 1s using this stratagem so it's a hit and miss unless you have the reroll stratagem(which is, btw, part of the sub-faction that most people don't take due to the worst warlord trait in the book).

There is also the fact that if you have half a brain you can bypass the Foul Blightspawn's ability by charging the edges of the poxwalker blob and kill the squad in close combat before they have a chance to react. In fact, the times I have actually managed to use Mutant Strain stratagem properly is when I am allowed to use CP to interrupt the combat sequence(which costs 2 CP) so the entire combo wombo costs 4 CP in total, which is not cheap btw. Also, if you are running a Foul Blightspawn to babysit your 20+ poxwalkers you are running a nearly 300+ point combo that is rather easy to ignore. Hell, if you have more poxwalkers around the FBS you are wasting poxwalkers on a deathstar unit when you could be having them try to take multiple objective points, which means some of them won't get the FBS babysitting them.

Then there is also the fact that you can only use the stratagem once per turn so it's not exactly like you can spam this ability.

Which is why I find this thread rather hilarious.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
6 mortal wounds is one of the largest numbers of mortal wounds any unit can cause in a phase in all of 40k. Bringing in AOS does nothing, I'm sure it's a gak game, saying 20 mortal wounds is a small thing does not convince me otherwise

What? It's not even anywhere remotely near "one of the largest number".

Name 10 units that deal 7 MW in one phase on average.

You already failed to understand the whole issue if you claim that mutant strain does 6 mortal wounds on average (it doesn't), thus losing any and all credibility to argue this topic.

But sure, here we go:

1. Burna bommer
2. Wretched Malignant plaguecaster
3. PBC, defiler or landraider using putrid detonation
4. Magnus
5. Tesseract Vault or the nightbringer, and any other C'Tan shard with cosmic fire
6. Skyweavers
7. Reavers
8. Rotigus
9. Exalted Lord of Change
10. Ahriman
Bonus: Deathstrike Missile

I didn't even have to look into a single book for those nor did I need to go into FW wonkiness, there are probably many more.

If you ignore the random "in one phase" limitation, you could also include units like KBB which actually average 8 MW if you combine shooting and assault or Typhus who can deal 9 MW on average to marines, more to T3 units.

TL;DR: Deathstrike Missile OP

I am not sure why we are even trying so hard in this thread.

The OP only wants to fixate on this one strategem within a isolated bubble. He wants to say that no other strategem he knows of does so many mortal wounds.

Yet, when we start to look at it within the context of all the other strategems, and all the other codexes as well as how it in practise in real play on tabletop it cannot generate the number of MW he seems to think it can. Then his argument is that he doesn't want to look at other powerful strategems that make Mutant Strain look average. Because he only wants to focus on Mutant Strain within a bubble. Which is in direct contradiction because either you try and compare, then do it properly, or you do not compare at all, in which case then I don't even know what basis the whole conversation is based on.

Its like saying. Strategem XYZ is the most OP thing ever. But I refuse to look at context, or other armies, or strategy, or other strategems. I just want to insist Strategem XYZ is the most OP thing ever.

Let me now claim that I am the fastest runner in the world. I refuse to compare myself to any other runner. But I know I can run 100 meters in 15 seconds and I just absolutely know that that makes me the fastest runner in the world....

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I am not sure why we are even trying so hard in this thread.

The OP only wants to fixate on this one strategem within a isolated bubble. He wants to say that no other strategem he knows of does so many mortal wounds.

Yet, when we start to look at it within the context of all the other strategems, and all the other codexes as well as how it in practise in real play on tabletop it cannot generate the number of MW he seems to think it can. Then his argument is that he doesn't want to look at other powerful strategems that make Mutant Strain look average. Because he only wants to focus on Mutant Strain within a bubble. Which is in direct contradiction because either you try and compare, then do it properly, or you do not compare at all, in which case then I don't even know what basis the whole conversation is based on.

Its like saying. Strategem XYZ is the most OP thing ever. But I refuse to look at context, or other armies, or strategy, or other strategems. I just want to insist Strategem XYZ is the most OP thing ever.

Let me now claim that I am the fastest runner in the world. I refuse to compare myself to any other runner. But I know I can run 100 meters in 15 seconds and I just absolutely know that that makes me the fastest runner in the world....

Why do you spread lies?

Where did i say no other stratagem can deal more mortal wounds than Mutant strain? I play orks, ive used flying ead'butt and dealt 16 mortal wounds with that stratagem. That stratagem coupled with a burna bomma dropping bombs over performs quite a lot as well, even though your burna bomma dies in the attempt as well.

I was personally not interested in comparing stratagems to begin with because you guys went the route of: X stratagem is more better and deals more damage than Mutant strain, ergo mutant strain is not a problem. Like somehow having a list of several over performing stratagems means mutant strain couldnt over perform. Saying mutant strain isnt able to overperform because you genuinly dont think it can is one thing, hey its your opinion, but saying its not over performing because something else over performs more doesnt make sense in my book.

However, since then people have pointed out, like Jidmah that many other stratagems can actually do the same things (ish) which makes comparisons important anyway (many mortal wounds for little cost).

I agree that in vast majority of cases mutant strain wont over perform as the poxies will be shot to pieces (again unless you play khorne daemons for instance). And you are right that i was interested in seeing the stratagem mutant strain in a controlled bubble and looking at what amount of mortal wounds it could deal, which seemed too high for 1CP. It also did not follow the "general" 3MW for 1CP, as i see it. Sure if you use it with 3 poxies left your odds of getting value from it lessens quite a lot to the brink of useless, but if you had 10 poxies charging or otherwise suddenly it start looking pretty good.

That one CP and the amount of MW it could deal, was not made redundant in my opinion, because other stratagems over performs as well like flying ead'butt.

That was one side of it, the other side was that a base troop infantry could suddenly strike way above their weightclass which felt out of place for me. I would understand getting +2 strength or -2AP or something on the hit rolls of 6s, but suddenly dealing mortal wounds meant bypassing invul saves as well. It seemed potentially very powerful, yet also very situational against khorne daemons or maybe custodians (as poxies die in numbers).

So it can be a useless stratagem probably in many cases, but in some scenarios it could be very good. In fact maybe even better than just good.

As i see it.

"So it can be a useless stratagem probably in many cases, but in some scenarios it could be very good. In fact maybe even better than just good."

And there is nothing wrong with that. Looks at the 1 cp reroll strategem. The most commonly used strategem by many people.

In most situations, its ok. In some situations, it was a waste of 1 cp, and the player was an idiot to even spend that cp. And in some situations, it won the player the game...

 Jidmah wrote:
You already failed to understand the whole issue if you claim that mutant strain does 6 mortal wounds on average (it doesn't), thus losing any and all credibility to argue this topic.

>claims mutant strain doesn't do 6 mortal wounds on average
>claims putrid detonation on a Plagueburst Crawler does.



You also failed to get the point of 6 mortal wounds being too much for 1CP, I don't mind 10 Poxwalkers dealing 3 MW for 1CP and I understand that doing more than 3 is not average, 6 MW from Poxwalkers is rare and overpowered. What is the benefit of allowing the Stratagem to deal more than 3MW? Saving ink or the rainforest? Maybe just print fewer Stratagems.

YOU claimed 6 mortal wounds was not a big number. I took not big to mean average, big must be referring to a relation between what is big and what is average, so I thought that you must think that doing 6 mortal wounds was an average thing. You failed to provide 10 units that will in average games do 7 mortal wounds on average or that have Stratagems that provide an additional 7 mortal wounds on average, you found 10 units that can in some situations deal 7 mortal wounds. It doesn't cost anything to have a Stratagem, if you shoot and kill a unit of Poxwalkers you have killed 5 point chaff, but if you don't shoot them and a 20-man blob get the drop on you somehow then they suddenly turn way more efficient. If you shoot a unit of Skyweavers you are shooting a unit with a haywire cannon, not a chaff unit. Drukhari Reflexes at 1CP is also a problem because it turns an ostensibly fragile Raider way more durable for just 1CP.

vict0988, you play necrons. I get it. I have a necron army too. You probably think most of the necron strategems were lackluster and you want to lower ALL strattegems to necrons level.

But that is not the direction that GW is going towards. Especially not when you look at what has come out in Drukhari and Admech. They are making strategems stronger, not weaker. This is the trend.

Doesn't change the fact that it is a stupidly swingy stratagem.

What is the benefit of allowing the Stratagem to deal more than 3MW?

Why not? What is the benefit of not allowing a stratagem to deal more than 3MW?

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
You already failed to understand the whole issue if you claim that mutant strain does 6 mortal wounds on average (it doesn't), thus losing any and all credibility to argue this topic.

>claims mutant strain doesn't do 6 mortal wounds on average
>claims putrid detonation on a Plagueburst Crawler does.

Correct, I pointed out how dumb it is to assume that an opponent plays in a way to maximize the damage done to them and applied that dumb logic to other units and proved you wrong anyways. I'm sorry if you failed to understand that.

You also failed to get the point of 6 mortal wounds being too much for 1CP, I don't mind 10 Poxwalkers dealing 3 MW for 1CP and I understand that doing more than 3 is not average, 6 MW from Poxwalkers is rare and overpowered. What is the benefit of allowing the Stratagem to deal more than 3MW? Saving ink or the rainforest? Maybe just print fewer Stratagems.

The benefit of of allowing the stratagem to deal more than 3 MW is to punish an opponent who made such a stupid move.
It's the same reason why cosmic fire or orbital bombardement have no mortal wound cap. If your opponent clusters his entire army in one blob, they deserve getting hit by 20+ MW.

YOU claimed 6 mortal wounds was not a big number. I took not big to mean average, big must be referring to a relation between what is big and what is average, so I thought that you must think that doing 6 mortal wounds was an average thing.

It might be a language barrier thing, but I don't think this is a sentence.
Your actual statement was "6 mortal wounds is one of the largest numbers of mortal wounds any unit can cause in a phase in all of 40k." which is bullgak when you consider how some psykers can do that many MW with as single cast, AoE effects exist and that most planes with bombs do an average of 5MW by just flying over infantry.

You failed to provide 10 units that will in average games do 7 mortal wounds on average or that have Stratagems that provide an additional 7 mortal wounds on average

you found 10 units that can in some situations deal 7 mortal wounds.

All those units can easily do an average of at least 7 mortal wounds in a single phase, most more, some even vastly more.
And yes, some of them are situational, but not a single one of them is as situational as mutant strain and not a single one requires you to successfully charge your opponent, nor does it require the unit to be a full health.

It doesn't cost anything to have a Stratagem, if you shoot and kill a unit of Poxwalkers you have killed 5 point chaff, but if you don't shoot them and a 20-man blob get the drop on you somehow then they suddenly turn way more efficient.

News flash: A 20 man blob of unwounded 4" moving poxwalkers can't get the drop on you. If this situation ever arises, you let you opponent do this to you.

If you shoot a unit of Skyweavers you are shooting a unit with a haywire cannon, not a chaff unit. Drukhari Reflexes at 1CP is also a problem because it turns an ostensibly fragile Raider way more durable for just 1CP.

So you're saying that poxwalkers are easy to stop while units doing much more mortal wounds aren't? Wow, who would have guessed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that it is a stupidly swingy stratagem.

Not more swingy than half the other rules in the game. Ever killed a raider and saw how 10 bloodbrides and a succubus died on their way out?

A chaff unit in melee at full health is less common than a long-range tank at 0 wounds within 6" of 4 enemy units. - Jidmah

Eldenfirefly wrote:
vict0988, you play necrons. I get it. I have a necron army too. You probably think most of the necron strategems were lackluster and you want to lower ALL strattegems to necrons level.

But that is not the direction that GW is going towards. Especially not when you look at what has come out in Drukhari and Admech. They are making strategems stronger, not weaker. This is the trend.

Sorry, but attack the argument, not the person. Even if I share your opinion on mutant strain, implying that everyone arguing against it has an ulterior motive behind it doesn't help the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
A chaff unit in melee at full health is less common than a long-range tank at 0 wounds within 6" of 4 enemy units. - Jidmah

"I don't like being wrong, so I ignore two full posts of arguments, focus on a niche situation of one out of seventeen cases proving me wrong and post it in childish manner. I'm also not aware of how games against melee armies look like." - vict0988