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.

kombatwombat wrote:
Really? Can you name one? Because in order to be more efficient at killing Guardsmen than Space Marines said anti-horde weapon would have to have Strength 2 AP-. The only thing I can think of that actually has that is Gretchin in close combat - and even their shooting is Strength 3.

Edit: And even that weapon would be a weirdly effective anti-tank weapon.

I'm so happy someone else also bothered to do this math breakdown.

Though if more of the old template (blast or flamer) had the number of hits scale up with unit size you could probably have a few additional weapons that actually kill hordes better. But sadly they only seem to do that for anti tank weapons they don't want to be useless against infantry. So we still have none, but their is technically a second way they could exist.

kombatwombat wrote:

pismakron wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

You DO know don't you that game has no true anti-horde weapon right now?

It has at least one.

Really? Can you name one? Because in order to be more efficient at killing Guardsmen than Space Marines said anti-horde weapon would have to have Strength 2 AP-. The only thing I can think of that actually has that is Gretchin in close combat - and even their shooting is Strength 3.

Edit: And even that weapon would be a weirdly effective anti-tank weapon.

Yes, Gretchin. That is one. I didn't say there were two, just that there was one. And indeed Gretchin are weirdly semi-effective at anti-tank

SilverAlien wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:
Really? Can you name one? Because in order to be more efficient at killing Guardsmen than Space Marines said anti-horde weapon would have to have Strength 2 AP-. The only thing I can think of that actually has that is Gretchin in close combat - and even their shooting is Strength 3.

Edit: And even that weapon would be a weirdly effective anti-tank weapon.

I'm so happy someone else also bothered to do this math breakdown.

Though if more of the old template (blast or flamer) had the number of hits scale up with unit size you could probably have a few additional weapons that actually kill hordes better. But sadly they only seem to do that for anti tank weapons they don't want to be useless against infantry. So we still have none, but their is technically a second way they could exist.

The scaling thing doesn't really work so well against a lot of horde armies these days though. In many cases it is just as easy to take multiple 10 man squads as your chaff, in which case you often don't get a bonus, and even if you did those guns would be better against 10 man marine squads than the chaff.S2 is really the way to go, but there is none.

Mortal wounds could have been a problem in the previous editions when vehicles had 2-5 HP and leading characters around 3.

Now that those units have at least doubled their wounds mortal wounds are a perfect add to the game.

Smite is fine, a few undercosted psykers might been a problem but honestly with the appropriate nerf of malefic lords smite spam is something exceptional and usually far from being particularly competitive.

The biggest problem with smite is that it has the same problem Superheavy/Gargantuan had in 7th (Woah clickbait title! bear with me here though.)

Much like the Character rule, it breaks down at the extreme high and extreme low end of the spectrum.

In 7th, there was a vast, huge, monstrous gulf between a two hundred and eighty point gorkanaut and a three hundred point wraithknight. The gorkanaut would simply stand zero chance of ever making a scratch on the WK in shooting, in close combat, in any measurable type of impact, largely because around 300 points was the invisible threshold where above this line, everything gains a big SPIKE in power and below this line, everything is much weaker.

so in current 8th ed, ~45 points is the line where your psyker goes from casting some form of micro-smite (usually 1 mortal wound or 1 dice cast for 33% odds of success and super easy deny) to full big boy smite.

For reference, rolling a success on Smite is an 83% chance - almost the exact percentage of if the caster had ballistic skill 2+ and smite were a shooting attack. The difference between 1 damage smite and full damage smite is double, and the difference between 1 die smite and full damage smite is triple. The other thing those magical full-smiters tend to get as opposed to their microsmite competition is 4 wounds, meaning they cannot be one-shot by Perils of the Warp by any means.

This means if you compare side-by-side a microsmiter like a Warlock and a full-smiter like a Spiritseer, there's almost no competition to be had. For ten points, his smite power (and range, Destructor has only 9" range) doubles, he loses the 2% chance per shot to crit himself to death and smack a huge chunk of your army with D3 mortal wounds and he gets a host of other bonuses as well like double damage on his melee weapon and a boost to wraith units.

With any rule where there's an "invisible line" the stuff that's problematic to balance is going to be right there riding that line. Character rule interacting with stuff that's 15 points and pretty much relying on it to survive, and with stuff that's borderline right on the edge 300+ point characters who can't be targeted. Smite interacting with 45 point characters who just cross the line into full power range.

pismakron wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

pismakron wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

You DO know don't you that game has no true anti-horde weapon right now?

It has at least one.

Really? Can you name one? Because in order to be more efficient at killing Guardsmen than Space Marines said anti-horde weapon would have to have Strength 2 AP-. The only thing I can think of that actually has that is Gretchin in close combat - and even their shooting is Strength 3.

Edit: And even that weapon would be a weirdly effective anti-tank weapon.

Yes, Gretchin. That is one. I didn't say there were two, just that there was one. And indeed Gretchin are weirdly semi-effective at anti-tank

Well if we’re going to play the pedantic game, technically Gretchin close combat attacks aren’t a weapon as they don’t have a listed weapon with a name and profile that includes Str 2...

Blackie wrote:Mortal wounds could have been a problem in the previous editions when vehicles had 2-5 HP and leading characters around 3.

Now that those units have at least doubled their wounds mortal wounds are a perfect add to the game.

Smite is fine, a few undercosted psykers might been a problem but honestly with the appropriate nerf of malefic lords smite spam is something exceptional and usually far from being particularly competitive.

Mortal wounds are a solution to a problem that no longer exists: invisible 2++/3+++ rerollable deathstars. Thinking that this is still a problem that needs a counter is being stuck in 7th Edition Thinking. 7th Ed has no bearing on 8th - just because it was powerful last edition doesn’t mean it deserves a counter in this edition.

There are things in 8th that are quite durable. Things like Storm Shield Terminators - 2+/3++ 2W sounds pretty tough. Until anything with 2 damage and any AP value over 0 turns their way - things like Autocannons and Flamestorm Cannons. Or even things like just lots of Heavy Bolters or Heavy Flamers - a 10-Twin Heavy Flamer Baneblade will kill a 5-man Hammernator squad on Overwatch!

Some things are hard to hit - notably some Eldar can have up to -3 (even -4 maybe?) to hit. If they use a pile of stratagems, which means burning through CP, which they aren’t exactly swimming in, or Psychic Powers, which can be nullified, fail, Perils or find themselves out of range of. Plus flame weapons and most of the time close combat simply don’t care about your fancy 3CP + Psychic + specific unit ability + specific conditions -3 to hit.

Some things are durable and hard to hit. Not many of them, though - I struggle to think of many things with a solid Invul Save, good toughness/wounds stat and more than -1 to hit. Alaitoc flyers getting -2 to hit is certainly a problem but a very, very specific one that would be trivial to fix without changing the core rules.

The only thing I can think of that is actually problematic is Magnus with his re-roll 1s to save mechanic. Since this can be combined with All Is Dust and the Changeling’s -1 to hit, plus Magnus’ inherent durability and potential 3++, Tzeentch armies can have these problems. But this is a case of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater - Mortal Wounds shouldn’t have to exist because of Magnus’ re-roll saves aura; the aura should be changed for the good of the game. Not introducing re-rolls to save is a far superior solution to introducing Mortal Wounds.

You know what actually has overpowered durability this edition? Hint, it’s not 2+/2++/3+++ rerollable. It’s T3 Sv5+ in huge, cheap numbers.

Mortal wounds I have actually had grow on me because they're a shortcut. If properly balanced, something that causes some wounds (which doesn't mean it one-shots things, because things have more wounds in 8th) without having to roll to hit, reroll to hit, wound, save... it saves a lot of time.

I think it's dumb that ALL offensive powers need to involve mortals, because that's already samey and boring, but I like the basic "psychic pew-pew" power having a couple mortals.

the game not having any useful anti infantry powers or weapons is its own problem.

I actually think smite is okay, for the reasons that Breng77 thinks it's bad. I'm not really sure why this is, but to use his exact points:

1) Cheap psykers. YAY! They're relevant again. A psychic inquisitor feels more significant on the table than a points sink, and a Primaris Psyker is a true terror to behold compared to other mortal men, rather than a wet-noodle most commonly used as a battery to fuel other special snowflake psykers.

2) Screenhammer 40k and the death of elite units: YAY! Infantry are relevant again! For a long time there has been no real reason to bring hordes of regular troopers (except to get the 2 mandatory troops in prior editions). Finally, they are relevant, and I think they're relevant in the only way such cheap and plentiful bodies could be relevant: By screening. I don't think there is any other way to make "basic dooders" useful, without simply returning elite infantry to the spot as top dog.

Anything that knocks elite units (e.g. Custodes, Terminators, Leman Russes, Bikers, Obliterators, Magnus, whathaveyou) down a peg so that regular troopers can be relevant and even important for army construction is a bonus in my book.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually think smite is okay, for the reasons that Breng77 thinks it's bad. I'm not really sure why this is, but to use his exact points:

1) Cheap psykers. YAY! They're relevant again. A psychic inquisitor feels more significant on the table than a points sink, and a Primaris Psyker is a true terror to behold compared to other mortal men, rather than a wet-noodle most commonly used as a battery to fuel other special snowflake psykers.

2) Screenhammer 40k and the death of elite units: YAY! Infantry are relevant again! For a long time there has been no real reason to bring hordes of regular troopers (except to get the 2 mandatory troops in prior editions). Finally, they are relevant, and I think they're relevant in the only way such cheap and plentiful bodies could be relevant: By screening. I don't think there is any other way to make "basic dooders" useful, without simply returning elite infantry to the spot as top dog.

Anything that knocks elite units (e.g. Custodes, Terminators, Leman Russes, Bikers, Obliterators, Magnus, whathaveyou) down a peg so that regular troopers can be relevant and even important for army construction is a bonus in my book.

The issues are

1.) Those cheap psykers are better than their more expensive alternatives, largely because smite is one of the better abilities for psykers to use. I'd rather they either be more expensive, or had some other ability to make them worth their points.

2.) Horde Infantry this edition would be well worth it without the extra killing power of smite, smite makes them too good. Think about Berserkers, an obvious answer to killing a screen, except when that screen has a bunch of smite behind it and now that 200 point unit kills the 90 point screen, at the cost of dying the next turn whether they can stay in combat or not. Your comments make it sound like Costodes, terminators, Bikers etc are good in this edition (or really last edition). Making a bunch of elite (especially assault based) units irrelevant is not a good way of making cheap troops relevant. IMO screens are important enough this edition and powerful enough, without having a way to evaporate units that should be able to deal with the screen. It is one thing if the smite character is say 70 points, but when it is 40 and there are 6 of them they erase a unit a turn.

I think smite is ok, it just shouldn't be on (or as good) on cheaper options. I really wish psyker levels and primaris powers were still a thing.

In short, Smite, like tons of excellent things in this game is abuseable by spamming it...and spamming is allowed because GW would rather sell more models than a solid game (and I don't hold this against them). Ideally, yes GW would have rules which limited models more accurately to rerepsent fluff/balance, but that conflicts with selling you tons of plastic - their goal as a profit driven company.

This "loophole" if you will, is what is exploited by competitive gamers, much as all other forms of spam (armies consisting of 15 assassins...where each should be a "one per army" option, but then GW couldn't sell you 15x $35 models, etc.)

1) They're not better, they're just cheaper. The perception that they are better comes from the same perception that asks why a Primaris Librarian should ever be taken over a regular librarian, as if +1 attack and +1 wound doesn't matter. Psykers are more than batteries! Inquisitors should not be a similar price to Librarians while being completely worse in every way except their ability to cast smite.

2) This is arguable, I think, and your example goes too far. Based on what I've seen from lists on the internet, in the local scene, and various battle reports, "elite units" are not irrelevant. They exist as an important part of the battle-line for a variety of armies and lists, which is about right. They're mixed in in good, but fair, numbers to the game as a whole. That's what is good. They aren't irrelevant.

Smite isn't even a problem. Malefic lords and primaris psykers were a problem - that is fixed. Spiritseers are currently a problem but aren't even casting smite because they have powers better than smite - regardless - they need to go up 15 points.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually think smite is okay, for the reasons that Breng77 thinks it's bad. I'm not really sure why this is, but to use his exact points:

1) Cheap psykers. YAY! They're relevant again. A psychic inquisitor feels more significant on the table than a points sink, and a Primaris Psyker is a true terror to behold compared to other mortal men, rather than a wet-noodle most commonly used as a battery to fuel other special snowflake psykers.

2) Screenhammer 40k and the death of elite units: YAY! Infantry are relevant again! For a long time there has been no real reason to bring hordes of regular troopers (except to get the 2 mandatory troops in prior editions). Finally, they are relevant, and I think they're relevant in the only way such cheap and plentiful bodies could be relevant: By screening. I don't think there is any other way to make "basic dooders" useful, without simply returning elite infantry to the spot as top dog.

Anything that knocks elite units (e.g. Custodes, Terminators, Leman Russes, Bikers, Obliterators, Magnus, whathaveyou) down a peg so that regular troopers can be relevant and even important for army construction is a bonus in my book.

The issues are

1.) Those cheap psykers are better than their more expensive alternatives, largely because smite is one of the better abilities for psykers to use. I'd rather they either be more expensive, or had some other ability to make them worth their points.

2.) Horde Infantry this edition would be well worth it without the extra killing power of smite, smite makes them too good. Think about Berserkers, an obvious answer to killing a screen, except when that screen has a bunch of smite behind it and now that 200 point unit kills the 90 point screen, at the cost of dying the next turn whether they can stay in combat or not. Your comments make it sound like Costodes, terminators, Bikers etc are good in this edition (or really last edition). Making a bunch of elite (especially assault based) units irrelevant is not a good way of making cheap troops relevant. IMO screens are important enough this edition and powerful enough, without having a way to evaporate units that should be able to deal with the screen. It is one thing if the smite character is say 70 points, but when it is 40 and there are 6 of them they erase a unit a turn.

I think smite is ok, it just shouldn't be on (or as good) on cheaper options. I really wish psyker levels and primaris powers were still a thing.

except that the basic powers are more granular in 8th than they were in 7th.

in 7th the power of your psyker had nothing to do with their points value, it was directly related to whether or not you could get access to the good tables or not. It was a system that could theoretically be balanced decently...but the ubiquitous micro-level mistakes GW made really just screwed them.

8th psykers, I feel, are closer to the mark, but still not there. The invisible line between micro-smites and full size smites is too big and too abrupt at the 45-50 point level. the 100-point psykers are reasonable, the supercheap 30- point psykers are reasonable, 200-point psykers a wee bit underpowered, and then the 300+ character range is broken as usual for a whole host of reasons mostly revolving around the usual GW rules writers having a boner for a particular character and letting it get in the way of their judgement.

really, there are only two or three smite-spam characters you could label as "a problem." Spiritseers, Primaris Psykers, MAYBE ork weirdboyz. Horrors+Magnus isn't a problem with smitespam, it's a problem with a 3-point model having a 4++ and Magnus being completely nutso. Nobody's having a problem dealing with GK, Thousand Sons, MSU tzeentch daemons, etc, the actual "smite spam armies".

This you can fix through micro balance of the problem units, which GW seems to be doing.

For the most part cheaper = better. I don't know why anyone would keep denying this at this point. The ability to take up table space in this game is invaluable.

Martel732 wrote:
For the most part cheaper = better. I don't know why anyone would keep denying this at this point. The ability to take up table space in this game is invaluable.

cheaper is better for the same unit, but worse units should be cheaper, yes?

Or are you saying that there should be no price differences between units regardless of relative power?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) They're not better, they're just cheaper. The perception that they are better comes from the same perception that asks why a Primaris Librarian should ever be taken over a regular librarian, as if +1 attack and +1 wound doesn't matter. Psykers are more than batteries! Inquisitors should not be a similar price to Librarians while being completely worse in every way except their ability to cast smite.

2) This is arguable, I think, and your example goes too far. Based on what I've seen from lists on the internet, in the local scene, and various battle reports, "elite units" are not irrelevant. They exist as an important part of the battle-line for a variety of armies and lists, which is about right. They're mixed in in good, but fair, numbers to the game as a whole. That's what is good. They aren't irrelevant.

1.) If the purpose of a unit is to do a specific thing (like cast smite, or any other power really) cheaper is better. So if I have no intent of my librarian being in harms way on a regular basis than the +1 A and +1 wound don't matter if it is costly to aquire them. Things should not be the same price but the value of extra stats loses a lot when you have character rule protection, and all you want the unit for is to cast smite. In that case cheaper is always better. Inquisitors should not be similar price to Librarians if they regularly do less in the game, stats etc don't matter and they are not worse in every way except smite. Again though this is why I wish psyker level and primaris powers were still a thing, having a common power (unless it is awful, which in this case it is a top power given its ease to cast and effect) that is desirable and spamable means cheaper = better For the inquisitor vs Libby question, if I want to use smite as a weapon getting 2 casts for the cost of 1 is better. 2 inquisitors (close in cost to a single libby) are better in every way to the libby unless you value some other power the libby has, if you want smite, take the 2 inquisitors. Same with the primaris psyker So maybe an inquisitor that is a psyker should be 70 points he'd still be cheaper, but not 2 for 1 cheaper.

2.) What tournament list have you seen terminators in? Custodes? I see things like oblits etc because they are shooting units. I've seen berserkers, but lots of elite choices, compared to chaff and characters not so much.

No. I'm just saying that cheaper, inferior units have a tendency yo punch higher than their points cost over the course of the game.

the_scotsman wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually think smite is okay, for the reasons that Breng77 thinks it's bad. I'm not really sure why this is, but to use his exact points:

1) Cheap psykers. YAY! They're relevant again. A psychic inquisitor feels more significant on the table than a points sink, and a Primaris Psyker is a true terror to behold compared to other mortal men, rather than a wet-noodle most commonly used as a battery to fuel other special snowflake psykers.

2) Screenhammer 40k and the death of elite units: YAY! Infantry are relevant again! For a long time there has been no real reason to bring hordes of regular troopers (except to get the 2 mandatory troops in prior editions). Finally, they are relevant, and I think they're relevant in the only way such cheap and plentiful bodies could be relevant: By screening. I don't think there is any other way to make "basic dooders" useful, without simply returning elite infantry to the spot as top dog.

Anything that knocks elite units (e.g. Custodes, Terminators, Leman Russes, Bikers, Obliterators, Magnus, whathaveyou) down a peg so that regular troopers can be relevant and even important for army construction is a bonus in my book.

The issues are

1.) Those cheap psykers are better than their more expensive alternatives, largely because smite is one of the better abilities for psykers to use. I'd rather they either be more expensive, or had some other ability to make them worth their points.

2.) Horde Infantry this edition would be well worth it without the extra killing power of smite, smite makes them too good. Think about Berserkers, an obvious answer to killing a screen, except when that screen has a bunch of smite behind it and now that 200 point unit kills the 90 point screen, at the cost of dying the next turn whether they can stay in combat or not. Your comments make it sound like Costodes, terminators, Bikers etc are good in this edition (or really last edition). Making a bunch of elite (especially assault based) units irrelevant is not a good way of making cheap troops relevant. IMO screens are important enough this edition and powerful enough, without having a way to evaporate units that should be able to deal with the screen. It is one thing if the smite character is say 70 points, but when it is 40 and there are 6 of them they erase a unit a turn.

I think smite is ok, it just shouldn't be on (or as good) on cheaper options. I really wish psyker levels and primaris powers were still a thing.

except that the basic powers are more granular in 8th than they were in 7th.

in 7th the power of your psyker had nothing to do with their points value, it was directly related to whether or not you could get access to the good tables or not. It was a system that could theoretically be balanced decently...but the ubiquitous micro-level mistakes GW made really just screwed them.

8th psykers, I feel, are closer to the mark, but still not there. The invisible line between micro-smites and full size smites is too big and too abrupt at the 45-50 point level. the 100-point psykers are reasonable, the supercheap 30- point psykers are reasonable, 200-point psykers a wee bit underpowered, and then the 300+ character range is broken as usual for a whole host of reasons mostly revolving around the usual GW rules writers having a boner for a particular character and letting it get in the way of their judgement.

really, there are only two or three smite-spam characters you could label as "a problem." Spiritseers, Primaris Psykers, MAYBE ork weirdboyz. Horrors+Magnus isn't a problem with smitespam, it's a problem with a 3-point model having a 4++ and Magnus being completely nutso. Nobody's having a problem dealing with GK, Thousand Sons, MSU tzeentch daemons, etc, the actual "smite spam armies".

This you can fix through micro balance of the problem units, which GW seems to be doing.

The issue is psykers don't scale well because of smite, and having psyker levels (not the 7th edition system) would allow for an easy fix to this. Psyker mastery level = maximum number of dice a psyker can use when trying to cast a power. Then make cheap psykers level 1 all powers on 1 dice. Moderate psykers level 2 (what is normal now) and pricey psykers level 3 (can use 3 dice to cast). You could even go higher if desired, if you keep perils as double 1s and 6s. Leave smite as is, but cheap psykers will fail casting it 66% of the time. If every power tree got a cheap primaris power that casts on maybe a 3 that is ok (could be 1 mortal wound smite if desired, or something else).

Then armies like GK could be 1 ML per 5 guys in the unit for basic troops, better units could be higher ML etc, which would fix their stupid problem that they all get bad smite. Then if you want their anti-daemon flavor give them +1 ML vs daemons.

That would be better than what we have now.

You could design a system like that, but what you'd have is...another system, which could be balanced correctly and could be not balanced correctly.

You'd have psykers level 2 who should be level 3 or level 1, psykers level 1 who are super cheap and spammable, a character juuust squeaking over the psyker level 3 mark who's then super strong and reliable, and all the imbalanced crap that goes along besides.

It would be different from what we have now, but not inherently better. Just different.

It is just too good to be the basic power that everyone gets. It outshines most other powers which is just boring.

tneva82 wrote:
Again that 2/3 inv guy is easier to take out than 4point horde if you factor in points. If that is too tough why you aren"t asking for cultists etc to be made softer?

Because Cultists are plenty killable, and I like troops more than big-bad-characters.

If you don't want to be Smited, screen your valuable units, easy.

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Again that 2/3 inv guy is easier to take out than 4point horde if you factor in points. If that is too tough why you aren"t asking for cultists etc to be made softer?

Because Cultists are plenty killable, and I like troops more than big-bad-characters.

If you don't want to be Smited, screen your valuable units, easy.

You do realise that some armies do not have cheap screening units?

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) They're not better, they're just cheaper. The perception that they are better comes from the same perception that asks why a Primaris Librarian should ever be taken over a regular librarian, as if +1 attack and +1 wound doesn't matter. Psykers are more than batteries! Inquisitors should not be a similar price to Librarians while being completely worse in every way except their ability to cast smite.

2) This is arguable, I think, and your example goes too far. Based on what I've seen from lists on the internet, in the local scene, and various battle reports, "elite units" are not irrelevant. They exist as an important part of the battle-line for a variety of armies and lists, which is about right. They're mixed in in good, but fair, numbers to the game as a whole. That's what is good. They aren't irrelevant.

1.) If the purpose of a unit is to do a specific thing (like cast smite, or any other power really) cheaper is better. So if I have no intent of my librarian being in harms way on a regular basis than the +1 A and +1 wound don't matter if it is costly to aquire them. Things should not be the same price but the value of extra stats loses a lot when you have character rule protection, and all you want the unit for is to cast smite. In that case cheaper is always better. Inquisitors should not be similar price to Librarians if they regularly do less in the game, stats etc don't matter and they are not worse in every way except smite. Again though this is why I wish psyker level and primaris powers were still a thing, having a common power (unless it is awful, which in this case it is a top power given its ease to cast and effect) that is desirable and spamable means cheaper = better For the inquisitor vs Libby question, if I want to use smite as a weapon getting 2 casts for the cost of 1 is better. 2 inquisitors (close in cost to a single libby) are better in every way to the libby unless you value some other power the libby has, if you want smite, take the 2 inquisitors. Same with the primaris psyker So maybe an inquisitor that is a psyker should be 70 points he'd still be cheaper, but not 2 for 1 cheaper.

2.) What tournament list have you seen terminators in? Custodes? I see things like oblits etc because they are shooting units. I've seen berserkers, but lots of elite choices, compared to chaff and characters not so much.

1) Perhaps you're pigeonholing units into a perceived "purpose" that doesn't match their capabilities? If you have no intent to put your Librarian in harms way, then you're certainly overpaying for the stats that make him better at being in harms way. So you're right, you don't want a librarian. But someone who DOES recognize the value of those stats might put the unit in harm's way, since it's considerably better at it. That's on you and how you plan to use your units, not on GW. A unit better at being in harm's way should pay more for the privilege, whether or not a given player actually puts him in harm's way. I would argue that in every way a stock Librarian is twice as good as a stock (but psyker) Inquisitor, except in the single one instance of casting Smite and no other powers in a turn. If that's all you're using your librarian for, then yes, a cheaper psyker is better, because of course you're not getting full value for your librarian. But that's not the Librarian's fault, or the cheaper psyker's.

2) I said I see a fair balance. The most recent Heat 2 top-table game in the Warhammer GT featured a 3-LOW list (magnus, morty, and aetos'rau'keres or whatever) with brimstones fighting a horde of Bloodletters (like 80) backed up by Slaaneshi chaos marines. Fluff abomination that it was, it was a perfect example of elite units being screened by cheap units in both armies, and both cheap troops (Cultists/Bloodletters on one side and Brimstones on the other) being just as relevant to the outcome of the game as the superpowered ultraelite units (Noise Marines, Oblits, the Daemon Primarchs).

the_scotsman wrote:
You could design a system like that, but what you'd have is...another system, which could be balanced correctly and could be not balanced correctly.

You'd have psykers level 2 who should be level 3 or level 1, psykers level 1 who are super cheap and spammable, a character juuust squeaking over the psyker level 3 mark who's then super strong and reliable, and all the imbalanced crap that goes along besides.

It would be different from what we have now, but not inherently better. Just different.

It is actually easier to balance and better than what we have now. The issue now is that a cheap psyker (unless specifically made otherwise) is as good at casting every power as a more expensive psyker, there is no mechanic in place to allow for a difference. Could it be done poorly sure. spam able Level 1 psykers would be fine. If all those psykers cast on 1 dice smite spam would be a non issue. You would get 1 out of 3 smites through, and easily get shut down by better psykers. It just gives you one more option to balance on, right now there is just cost, or special rules to nerf psykers (like baby smite).

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Again that 2/3 inv guy is easier to take out than 4point horde if you factor in points. If that is too tough why you aren"t asking for cultists etc to be made softer?

Because Cultists are plenty killable, and I like troops more than big-bad-characters.

If you don't want to be Smited, screen your valuable units, easy.

You do realise that some armies do not have cheap screening units?

Name one army without access to any screening units.

I like Smite.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Name one army without access to any screening units.

All non-chaos Space Marine armies.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) They're not better, they're just cheaper. The perception that they are better comes from the same perception that asks why a Primaris Librarian should ever be taken over a regular librarian, as if +1 attack and +1 wound doesn't matter. Psykers are more than batteries! Inquisitors should not be a similar price to Librarians while being completely worse in every way except their ability to cast smite.

2) This is arguable, I think, and your example goes too far. Based on what I've seen from lists on the internet, in the local scene, and various battle reports, "elite units" are not irrelevant. They exist as an important part of the battle-line for a variety of armies and lists, which is about right. They're mixed in in good, but fair, numbers to the game as a whole. That's what is good. They aren't irrelevant.

1.) If the purpose of a unit is to do a specific thing (like cast smite, or any other power really) cheaper is better. So if I have no intent of my librarian being in harms way on a regular basis than the +1 A and +1 wound don't matter if it is costly to aquire them. Things should not be the same price but the value of extra stats loses a lot when you have character rule protection, and all you want the unit for is to cast smite. In that case cheaper is always better. Inquisitors should not be similar price to Librarians if they regularly do less in the game, stats etc don't matter and they are not worse in every way except smite. Again though this is why I wish psyker level and primaris powers were still a thing, having a common power (unless it is awful, which in this case it is a top power given its ease to cast and effect) that is desirable and spamable means cheaper = better For the inquisitor vs Libby question, if I want to use smite as a weapon getting 2 casts for the cost of 1 is better. 2 inquisitors (close in cost to a single libby) are better in every way to the libby unless you value some other power the libby has, if you want smite, take the 2 inquisitors. Same with the primaris psyker So maybe an inquisitor that is a psyker should be 70 points he'd still be cheaper, but not 2 for 1 cheaper.

2.) What tournament list have you seen terminators in? Custodes? I see things like oblits etc because they are shooting units. I've seen berserkers, but lots of elite choices, compared to chaff and characters not so much.

1) Perhaps you're pigeonholing units into a perceived "purpose" that doesn't match their capabilities? If you have no intent to put your Librarian in harms way, then you're certainly overpaying for the stats that make him better at being in harms way. So you're right, you don't want a librarian. But someone who DOES recognize the value of those stats might put the unit in harm's way, since it's considerably better at it. That's on you and how you plan to use your units, not on GW. A unit better at being in harm's way should pay more for the privilege, whether or not a given player actually puts him in harm's way. I would argue that in every way a stock Librarian is twice as good as a stock (but psyker) Inquisitor, except in the singe one instance of casting Smite and no other powers in a turn. If that's all you're using your librarian for, then yes, a cheaper psyker is better, because of course you're not getting full value for your librarian. But that's not the Librarian's fault, or the cheaper psyker's.

2) I said I see a fair balance. The most recent Heat 2 top-table game in the Warhammer GT featured a 3-LOW list (magnus, morty, and aetos'rau'keres or whatever) with brimstones fighting a horde of Bloodletters (like 80) backed up by Slaaneshi chaos marines. Fluff abomination that it was, it was a perfect example of elite units being screened by cheap units in both armies, and both cheap troops (Cultists/Bloodletters on one side and Brimstones on the other) being just as relevant to the outcome of the game as the superpowered ultraelite units (Noise Marines, Oblits, the Daemon Primarchs).

1.) It is provably false that a librarian is twice as good in every way over a psyker inquisitor. Psyker inquisitor provides an LD aura buff, not the Libby, 2 Inquisitors cast the same number of powers as a librarian but deny twice as many times. Have more wounds, more attacks, and can cast smite twice. The issue is that the librarian is still not good at being in harms way, so paying extra for being better at doing so poorly is a bad thing. Certainly not worth twice as much. Putting him in harms way means he dies faster and as a result gets even less value over the course of the game.

2.) So Daemon Primarchs which are good at avoiding smite damage, and shooting elite units which are better against smite. Again, terminators? Custodes? Where are those units? The issue is that smite + screen punishes elite close combat units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Again that 2/3 inv guy is easier to take out than 4point horde if you factor in points. If that is too tough why you aren"t asking for cultists etc to be made softer?

Because Cultists are plenty killable, and I like troops more than big-bad-characters.

If you don't want to be Smited, screen your valuable units, easy.

You do realise that some armies do not have cheap screening units?

Name one army without access to any screening units.

Most have some available but requiring them limits list building. Space Marine armies should not need to ally in guard to be viable. If they choose to not ally they have no access to cheap screening units. But since you asked it depends on what you define as cheap. Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Dark Eldar all lack options under 8 points I think. I we don't include allies, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Sisters, Space Marines.

Someone told me a long time ago that the worst part of any game is getting beat and knowing there is nothing you could do. In any game or video game if you are defeated it should always be because you made a mistake or you are not leveled for that fight. Imagine being in a computer game where you enter a fight and the first thing that happens is you are frozen while the enemy takes away half your army. There was nothing you could have done and it's not fair... and if a game is not fair it's unbalanced. Smite is like this in the psk phase. You take a bunch of additional wounds for what seems like no reason and that's before the shooting phase! Turn 1 this can basically cause an auto loss before you even move a single model (don't get me started on mortal wounds before the game even begins!). No game should have you sit there and take it! There should be a built in system to at least give everyone an equal defence against smite.

I really dislike mortal wounds, instead of bypassing inv it should of been the only way to mod them.

Smite would of been -1 to inv and you scale up with difficulty to cast.