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.

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You can propose a nerf to an unfun ability within an overall weak faction

...Nerfing an overall weak faction doesn't fix anything...

It fixes the unfun rule. Not everything in the game is about factions having a 50% win rate, Eldar Guardians should not be T6 and anyone sane would suggest returning them to T3 regardless of how well Eldar were doing at the time, having a faction "work" because it has some stupid unfluffy rule is not a good state of affairs. Nobody knows what comes of changing rules, that has to be tested and balanced with points afterwards. Would you want GW to first give major buffs to Space Marines so they get to a 60% win rate for 3 months before changing the rule to move them back down to 50% or would it maybe make just a smidgen more sense to change both the rule and the points at the same time?

Honest question:
What's so unfun about Oath of Moment? What makes it different from stuff like doom or hex?

My only problem with it is that I think massive amounts of re-rolls slows the game down and to a degree I agree with the criticism that it takes the excitement out of the game because you can't really miss or hit too much. The 9th edition Eldar power Doom was problematic for the same reason, I don't know how or if it exists today. I think it'd be good if the vast majority of mass re-roll mechanics were reworked, some would become stronger, some would become weaker. I'm not a fan of twin-linked weapons either, I think double shots is simple and entirely unproblematic. The Flayed One datasheet is actually pretty terribly designed now that I think about it, I should have brought that up in the thread about what's wrong with each faction. I think the concept of Oaths is cool and having not played with or against it I can't speak as to whether the magnitude is right or wrong. I suppose if you wanted a higher power level you could add an AP to everything that shoots the target in addition to +1 to hit/wound but SM already have a few Strats that add AP if I recall correctly. To me the win rate of Space Marines is sort of irrelevant, at the end of the day all you're doing when you remove or add power to an army ability is add or remove power budget elsewhere so you could get pts reductions or better stats. What level of pts adjustments are needed isn't an interesting discussion to have with ignorant people like me so I wouldn't bring it up, but if someone has some kind of in depth analysis of the changes necessary to balance Space Marines after nerfing Oaths to +1 to hit/wound you're free to post it, I don't think it would be off topic.

leopard wrote:
OoM is what I term a "passenger" ability, as in your opponent is a pure passenger who can do nothing about it, they get it every turn, regardless of how their army is currently configured, it cannot be taken from them, it cannot really be avoided

abilities need to be more interactive, either with the faction they are from (requiring certain characters or positioning for example), or with the enemy (as in having a way to deny it)

First of all, I absolutely understand your argument.
You can't play around being debuffed and that feels bad, cool, I get that.

I still would like to point out that you can play around the army utilizing the debuff though, just like people play around the ork's Waaagh. I understand that fun is highly subjective, and it's been a known thing that getting debuffed always feels less fun than the opponent buffing themselves.

Knowing that, how would you feel about a changing it to instead buff X units within Y inches of each other (or maybe all units within Y inch of a point on the board?) with full re-rolls as a replacement? More fun, less fun, same?

as it stands OoM is point & click death

Nah, not really. It might feel that way, but the marine player isn't really free to pick a unit to kill at will unless you've messed up. Unless desolators, of course, but those are stupid to begin with.

if OoM required a character to 'direct' it, the target being in their line of sight and it applied to models within "x" of the character I don't see a problem (as long as thats not a squad sergeant that is or similar, make it a captain).

and yes there are ways around it, as previously noted essentially not having one lynchpin in your army without which it fails, however for some factions specific characters matter and marines have plenty of ways of removing them already so OoM is probably just a dull boost to it

make it re-roll to hit or to wound maybe also?

and yes the marine player can only really pick units they have the forces in range to kill, guess it sucks if your army is short range or melee focussed with smaller higher value units that focussed fire will obliterate

Stuff like "Waaargh" fits in with Orks, and can be mitigated, e.g. its not every single turn, and you can screen units from melee to a level, for a while at least.

I personally dislike any game mechanic where one or other player has no part in the game, it just feels like very poor and lazy design, the Eldar dice thing is similar here, doesn't matter what you do that critical roll will go exactly as needed. there always needs to be a chance of failure or some significant cost associated to an action

and yes Desolators are daft

 vict0988 wrote:
My only problem with it is that I think massive amounts of re-rolls slows the game down and to a degree I agree with the criticism that it takes the excitement out of the game because you can't really miss or hit too much.

It doesn't slow the game that much anymore in my experience since especially for marines there is shots rolled in general and because it doesn't stack with twin-linked. There also is a different dynamic for re-rolls than there was with 9th edition's auras. In 10th you often have units like infiltrators or eliminators utilizing rerolls, which would never be near a character in 9th, while a lot of high value units might not be shooting at the oath'ed target because they are out of range/sight.

The "*rolls a ton of dice* ...aaaaand everything wounds" effect is unfun, I agree.

The 9th edition Eldar power Doom was problematic for the same reason, I don't know how or if it exists today. I think it'd be good if the vast majority of mass re-roll mechanics were reworked, some would become stronger, some would become weaker.

Doom can only be cast by Eldrad now, and is +1 to wound. That makes me wonder, would you prefer Oath to be +1 to hit and +1 to wound instead (ignoring any balance implications)?

I'm not a fan of twin-linked weapons either, I think double shots is simple and entirely unproblematic. The Flayed One datasheet is actually pretty terribly designed now that I think about it, I should have brought that up in the thread about what's wrong with each faction.

I don't like twin-linked either, it feels off. It kind of works in practice, though? Not sure why that is though.

I think the concept of Oaths is cool and having not played with or against it I can't speak as to whether the magnitude is right or wrong.

You absolutely should try. It makes playing against marines more interesting than it ever was. Which is a pretty neat thing for the army you play against vastly more often than against any other army.

I suppose if you wanted a higher power level you could add an AP to everything that shoots the target in addition to +1 to hit/wound but SM already have a few Strats that add AP if I recall correctly.

Those are extremely conditional (tied to specific situations AND doctrines being effective), and in general no one should be getting better AP buffs than that ever again.
Being able to take a save at +-1 of what is printed on your datasheet more often than not is big part of why 10th is so much fun at less competitive levels. And also the reason why devastating wounds are such a problem to competitive play.

To me the win rate of Space Marines is sort of irrelevant, at the end of the day all you're doing when you remove or add power to an army ability is add or remove power budget elsewhere so you could get pts reductions or better stats. What level of pts adjustments are needed isn't an interesting discussion to have with ignorant people like me so I wouldn't bring it up, but if someone has some kind of in depth analysis of the changes necessary to balance Space Marines after nerfing Oaths to +1 to hit/wound you're free to post it, I don't think it would be off topic.

I'm not sure +1 to hit/wound would actually be a nerf. +1 to wound in a game where T10-12 is common is rather powerful. It would be interesting to see how that changes the game for marines. Playing against them would roughly be the same though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
if OoM required a character to 'direct' it, the target being in their line of sight and it applied to models within "x" of the character I don't see a problem (as long as thats not a squad sergeant that is or similar, make it a captain).

Kind of like the Lord of Virulence? Yeah, that could be cool, but it should work with any character. Or maybe every character can do it, but only once per game?
Eh, this is drifting towards suggested rules. But I get your point.

and yes there are ways around it, as previously noted essentially not having one lynchpin in your army without which it fails, however for some factions specific characters matter and marines have plenty of ways of removing them already so OoM is probably just a dull boost to it

Lynchpins will make you lose no matter what. The amount of decent snipers, character with precision in combat and of course the challenge stratagem make killing characters pretty easy.
Heck, even orks have snipers these days

The ugly part of OoM is that most snipers/challenge characters have devastating wounds and OoM piles on that mess as well.

make it re-roll to hit or to wound maybe also?

I doubt that would serve to make it more fun, just weaker.

and yes the marine player can only really pick units they have the forces in range to kill, guess it sucks if your army is short range or melee focussed with smaller higher value units that focussed fire will obliterate

That perfectly describes both my armies though (Orks and DG), and I see no problem here. The difference between a valuable unit getting oathed and gunned down and them getting blasted by half an army worth of guard artillery is academically at best.
Other armies might be different, but for orks splitting your entire army into units of similar value has been a good practice across all editions.

I personally dislike any game mechanic where one or other player has no part in the game, it just feels like very poor and lazy design, the Eldar dice thing is similar here, doesn't matter what you do that critical roll will go exactly as needed. there always needs to be a chance of failure or some significant cost associated to an action

I feel Eldar dice are much worse, as there really is no way to interact with them. The only downside to using them is opportunity cost, while I can force difficult decisions on a marine player by threatening him in different places of the board or by placing my units in a way that oathing them would be worth it, but preventing him from bringing all his guns to bear at full power. It also make marines predictable, so you can do stuff like blocking LoS/movement pathes by parking trukks or battlewagons between a good shooting unit and the target they will oath next turn.

OoM is what I term a "passenger" ability, as in your opponent is a pure passenger who can do nothing about it, they get it every turn, regardless of how their army is currently configured, it cannot be taken from them, it cannot really be avoided

There's plenty of those in 10th though.

Tyranids get *armywide* Lethal against vehicles or Sustained against infantry.

IG gets *armywide* Lethal if they stand still.

TS gets *armywide* Lethal/Devastating/Sustained on their Psychic-attacks.

etc. etc.
Neither of these are obviously as strong against a certain unit as OoM (but on the flipside, they're armywide and not just against one specific unit), but they too are stuff that you as an opponent can't really do anything about - other than better positioning (hiding, try to minimize how many can see and shoot you), which is something you can do to counter OoM as well.

 MinscS2 wrote:
IG gets *armywide* Lethal if they stand still.

But if they stand still they lose the game so in practice the ability is blank text on everything but artillery (and a big part of why guard are doing so badly right now). You technically can't turn it off but the guard player can't really turn it on reliably and it rarely has any real impact on the game. OoM, on the other hand, is very easy to turn on and once active it usually has a significant effect on the game.

From a design standpoint, I think +1 to hit and to wound is better. Damage is 20% lower against half T with +1 instead of re-rolls, 7% lower damage against higher T, 3% higher damage against double T. So it would be worse in almost all circumstances and only better by a tiny margin against double T targets.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So to choose not to field something because your opponent may well have a decent counter to it seems incredibly self limiting.

You can call it self-limiting but in a game where OoM exists and is the most common opponent a Baneblade is a bad unit. The best way to counter OoM is to just take the Baneblade out of your list and have 2-3 smaller tanks that are roughly equal to the Baneblade when not facing OoM and considerably better against marines. Why provide a perfect OoM target when you can spread your threat across multiple targets and deny the marine player an effective OoM target?

This is exactly what makes OoM such a bad ability regardless of what win rate marines have. The best way to counter a strategy should be on the table, not in the list building phase.

In 8th edition when the Castellan was super OP vehicles became less popular because a popular and effective unit in the meta removed them with ease, it's not crazy to suggest an ability such as Oaths could have a similar effect, if not on all vehicles then maybe on the biggest ones. Of course points might be low enough for some big vehicles that they're worth bringing regardless of the fact that they make a great Oaths target.

That idea doesn't fly seeing how common vehicles and monsters are in 10th

 MinscS2 wrote:

OoM is what I term a "passenger" ability, as in your opponent is a pure passenger who can do nothing about it, they get it every turn, regardless of how their army is currently configured, it cannot be taken from them, it cannot really be avoided

There's plenty of those in 10th though.

Tyranids get *armywide* Lethal against vehicles or Sustained against infantry.

IG gets *armywide* Lethal if they stand still.

TS gets *armywide* Lethal/Devastating/Sustained on their Psychic-attacks.

etc. etc.
Neither of these are obviously as strong against a certain unit as OoM (but on the flipside, they're armywide and not just against one specific unit), but they too are stuff that you as an opponent can't really do anything about - other than better positioning (hiding, try to minimize how many can see and shoot you), which is something you can do to counter OoM as well.

yes, and such abilities suck, though with IG you have the potential to make specific units move to deny them this, or force them to accept you pushing their position to get it

and yes you can hide to counter OoM, well except for all the indirect fire stuff that can still hit it, and arguably will benefit more from rerolling to hit v a normal marine likely hitting on a 3+ anyway

its just poor game design to have things that have no counter

normally you can counter things, either through positioning or removing key enemy units enabling abilities, with OoM the only solution is "stay out of range" and good luck with that on the new smaller boards

As I've noted it gets less powerful as the game scales, which is also poor design as it should scale

As someone who is supposed to be happy with Nurgles Gift I admit I am a bit jealous of OOM, but like many on here said, marine players aren't winning events like the eldar are with their fate dice.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So to choose not to field something because your opponent may well have a decent counter to it seems incredibly self limiting.

You can call it self-limiting but in a game where OoM exists and is the most common opponent a Baneblade is a bad unit. The best way to counter OoM is to just take the Baneblade out of your list and have 2-3 smaller tanks that are roughly equal to the Baneblade when not facing OoM and considerably better against marines. Why provide a perfect OoM target when you can spread your threat across multiple targets and deny the marine player an effective OoM target?

This is exactly what makes OoM such a bad ability regardless of what win rate marines have. The best way to counter a strategy should be on the table, not in the list building phase.

But a baneblade is "bad", not because of OotM. It is bad because good armies are build to deal with knights and there are multiple armies that can total one in a single turn. And the baneblade is neither powerful rules wise or ultra cheap. I think it doesn't even have an inv save or some powerful rules interaction with other IG units. If engine seers could hand out invs and buff shoting of vehicles, and it worked on bane blades. Then the combo would be used.

Eldar and knights have great targets, potentialy, for out of LoS multi shot re-roll everything shoting. But they have rules and point costs to circumvent it. And armies that can't, like GSC and their jackles, just causes the unit to not be used. Only real problems start if GW designs an army around a certain unit, and it is easy hard countered. The problem would only be The Problem of IG, if playing IG without a bane blade made no sense.

Karol wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So to choose not to field something because your opponent may well have a decent counter to it seems incredibly self limiting.

You can call it self-limiting but in a game where OoM exists and is the most common opponent a Baneblade is a bad unit. The best way to counter OoM is to just take the Baneblade out of your list and have 2-3 smaller tanks that are roughly equal to the Baneblade when not facing OoM and considerably better against marines. Why provide a perfect OoM target when you can spread your threat across multiple targets and deny the marine player an effective OoM target?

This is exactly what makes OoM such a bad ability regardless of what win rate marines have. The best way to counter a strategy should be on the table, not in the list building phase.

But a baneblade is "bad", not because of OotM. It is bad because good armies are build to deal with knights and there are multiple armies that can total one in a single turn. And the baneblade is neither powerful rules wise or ultra cheap. I think it doesn't even have an inv save or some powerful rules interaction with other IG units. If engine seers could hand out invs and buff shoting of vehicles, and it worked on bane blades. Then the combo would be used.

Eldar and knights have great targets, potentialy, for out of LoS multi shot re-roll everything shoting. But they have rules and point costs to circumvent it. And armies that can't, like GSC and their jackles, just causes the unit to not be used. Only real problems start if GW designs an army around a certain unit, and it is easy hard countered. The problem would only be The Problem of IG, if playing IG without a bane blade made no sense.

Could it be a combination of the two? Surely we can recognise the default starter faction having an anti-Baneblade faction ability makes the Baneblade worse ignoring however much it costs. If it needs to cost 1x pts to be effective now it might still be effective at 1,1x pts if Space Marines had some useless morale ability instead of Oaths and if Space Marines get buffs then the Baneblade will be in an even worse state because a larger part of the field will have Oaths which inherently counters Baneblades more than it does Leman Russes.

It kind of a depends. Many things can be true at the same time. Are mass re-rolls the only thing that makes eldar OP? no it is dice manipulation, powerful stratagems, synergies between units, synergies with core rules and missions and being undercosted.

OotM is and can be very powerful. When used on desolators. Because it has not counter,aside for stuff like phantasm or mists or Incarnate, On everything else it is just a buff to damage for an army that isn't super powerful as far damage dealing goes. OotM doesn't make a single lancer blow up a big knight or a unit of blade guard decimate a unit of 10 heavy infantry of some sort. Marines are not toping the charts with OotM, they are not winning big events, top world players aren't picking them as counter lists or main lists to play this seson.
At the is the baneblade bad right now? Yeah, to be good it would probably have to drop like 50% in point cost. IMO the goal GW should have is not to nerf a rule of a mid tier army (at best), but go and look at the bad faction and bad units and make those worth running.

How will removing or nerfing OotM fix the bane blade being bad? Marines will drop in win rates to 30% something, the way they often are. The bane blade is still going to be over priced with meh rules and hard countered by everything that exists to counter knights, custodes, eldar etc.

Now how GW should fix bad units, is not something I know. I play only one army, and I only know what doesn't work and why it doesn't work in that. Other stuff I can just judge based on comperation with other stuff existing in the game. How do big expensive units exist and are popular in w40k? They have invs, more defensive rules, can not be easily one turned and often bring more, then just fire power. Stuff like ignoring core rules, being effective in multiple phases of the game, having high synergy with the rest of the army etc. A bane blade right now is just a "big" LR with all the downsides and no or few upsides. But I am not sure if because of it being bad, and a 40y+ small indy company not being able to give it proper rules, another faction should be shot in the knees. And if yes, then there are other factions that should have the same happen to them too. Eldar have OotM like, and sometimes better, rule as a per unit army rule. Knights had one too for "a second". But I won't lie I am partial here, because my army has no re-rolls to use. So potential removal of them from the game, would impact me as much as squad gear limitation would a necron player.

Did you just call GW a “ small indy company”???

Karol wrote:
And the baneblade is neither powerful rules wise or ultra cheap. I think it doesn't even have an inv save or some powerful rules interaction with other IG units. If engine seers could hand out invs and buff shoting of vehicles, and it worked on bane blades. Then the combo would be used.

Enginseers do give Baneblades a 4+ invuln save. It happens when they repair it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
But I am not sure if because of it being bad, and a 40y+ small indy company not being able to give it proper rules,

Lol, what??

Whether or not the Baneblade is a good unit in general isn't really the point. The problem with OoM is that the best way to counter it is in the list building phase, by removing units like Baneblades from your list and taking a MSU list where the benefits of OoM are minimized.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Whether or not the Baneblade is a good unit in general isn't really the point. The problem with OoM is that the best way to counter it is in the list building phase, by removing units like Baneblades from your list and taking a MSU list where the benefits of OoM are minimized.

And nobody who's putting a Baneblade (or some other big ass chunk of plastic/resin) on the table is at all worried about countering OoTM.

the trick with a single model of many points is to be sure its not the single point of failure, and to ensure the remainder of the force is capable of winning the game on VP while the "big thing" (tm) distracts the enemy and does whatever mayhem it can manage

TBH after a couple test games I'm kinda unimpressed by Oaths.

For example, my last game: My opponent did manage to kill his oaths target turn 1, and turn 2, yes.

BUT, what he had to shoot at the targets (My Heldrake turn 1, and my already-damaged Defiler turn 2) was a las-pred, a ballistus dreadnought, a plasma redemptor, and a invictor warsuit.

Looking objectively at his capabilities, he was pretty likely to kill those units just fine without the re-rolls, and all the re-rolls did for him was, turn 1 he got to point the invictor at my Defiler instead of at the Heldrake because he killed it already (Managing to do 4 wounds to it, which ultimately didnt matter much at all) and then turn 2 he killed the defiler and made use of I think...one single extra re-roll to do so? Like he might have rerolled 1 single hit die on the las pred that he would not have ordinarily gotten to reroll.

Marines have a bunch of twin linked weapons and a bunch of units that natively have rerolls already and that's baked into their cost. This is not like "oh theyre so like privileged or whatever" this is like "their gak, for its cost, is shooting way fewer shots than other armies, and makes up for it with the presence of rerolls"

OOM is an ability that looks crazy on paper and in practice has a number of anti-synergies with the list. Fate Dice on the other hand the eldar roster is stuffed with a bunch of units built to make maximum use out of it - there's a ton of "oh lets give this single shot weapon a cheeky ~sustained hits D3~ just in case you wanna use "something" ~wink~" or devastating wounds on huge damage weapons, or whatever else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sisters of battle is the same way as marines, where they gave them a very similar ability, but their core base army stuff is like swimming upstream and needs to cling to that effect as a lifeline - all your anti-tank weaponry, 100% all of it, NEEDS act of faith dice to have any prayer of being functional.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Whether or not the Baneblade is a good unit in general isn't really the point. The problem with OoM is that the best way to counter it is in the list building phase, by removing units like Baneblades from your list and taking a MSU list where the benefits of OoM are minimized.

yes, there are a milion an one units like that. GK only source of melee and range power was an NDK or an NDK GM. GM gave them extremly bad rules, high cost and made them easy to kill. They are being eliminate from the army at the list writing level, because everything hard counter them. And MSU is almost always favoured in w40k. Its is more units, more targets, more special weapons (now free). A single 10man unit is going to be worse then two units of 5 with same load outs. An army has to have a very specific set of positive rules and a high cost to try to run max sized units. Right now in w40k the only army that does it is Custodes with guard squads. I don't think there are many other armies who run big squad, when they can run small.

Just brushing over the mall Indy company comment, ok…..

Small indy companies deserve a bit of leeway, their products are usually cheap (10€ instead of 50€) and they have small teams and little prior experience so when you buy an indie game you should not expect it to be polished to a perfect finish in every area or for the game to be amazingly long. Big companies on the other hand charge more and have big experienced teams working on the project, so they ought to have their gak together. By ironically saying small indy company about an industry leader that has fethed up you are saying that there is no excuse for the state of the game being less than stellar.

@the_scotsman Deathguard are similar to what you mentioned in your comment in that they have anti-synergy with their faction ability (-1 T) and their most common datasheet ability (lethal hits which bypasses T).

Andykp wrote:
Just brushing over the mall Indy company comment, ok…..

Real boomer/GenXer energy from Andy/ccs here

Don't worry Karol, as a Millennial, I got it.

Andykp wrote:
Just brushing over the mall Indy company comment, ok…..

Its a joke used to sarcastically describe big companies, mostly in gaming, when it comes to them not being able to do simple QoL changes and fixes. What Karol said made sense (at least that one sentence)

I will say that Oath does punish Baneblades and the Enginseers 4+ didn't help one jot, because the Baneblade (if it blows smoke, which should happen if it's the very obvious single target) has a 4+ armor save against -3 rend. You have to get up some truly absurd rend values to make the -3 rend worth it.

Not complaining about the Enginseer! Just making sure folks are aware.

Next-ly, it's worth noting that OOM does kill Baneblades, but it really does take their entire army *and* there are far worse balance problems for the Baneblades (like not being able to move because of terrain layout) which was worse in my game with them vs OOM than the OOM itself.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I will say that Oath does punish Baneblades and the Enginseers 4+ didn't help one jot, because the Baneblade (if it blows smoke, which should happen if it's the very obvious single target) has a 4+ armor save against -3 rend. You have to get up some truly absurd rend values to make the -3 rend worth it.

Not complaining about the Enginseer! Just making sure folks are aware.

Next-ly, it's worth noting that OOM does kill Baneblades, but it really does take their entire army *and* there are far worse balance problems for the Baneblades (like not being able to move because of terrain layout) which was worse in my game with them vs OOM than the OOM itself.

yeah, the reccommended GW layout make baneblades/monoliths basically unplayable, they just can't maneuvre to meaningful places and become stationary turrets basically.

40k really needs ranges to be halved across the board, then tables won't need to be as dense as they currently are and bigger models will become more playable

Karol wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Whether or not the Baneblade is a good unit in general isn't really the point. The problem with OoM is that the best way to counter it is in the list building phase, by removing units like Baneblades from your list and taking a MSU list where the benefits of OoM are minimized.

yes, there are a milion an one units like that. GK only source of melee and range power was an NDK or an NDK GM. GM gave them extremly bad rules, high cost and made them easy to kill. They are being eliminate from the army at the list writing level, because everything hard counter them. And MSU is almost always favoured in w40k. Its is more units, more targets, more special weapons (now free). A single 10man unit is going to be worse then two units of 5 with same load outs. An army has to have a very specific set of positive rules and a high cost to try to run max sized units. Right now in w40k the only army that does it is Custodes with guard squads. I don't think there are many other armies who run big squad, when they can run small.

I'd say this is more of an "infantry is categorically pretty gak because GW bent themselves into little pretzels trying to create Tank Edition" than a "max squads are bad."

Many factions that do run infantry run max squads - its basically what you do if you want to run a buffing character, you slap them into a maxed squad. GSC are doing it the most successfully rn, the winning list is pretty much all maxed acolyte and maxed neophyte squads.

And a lot of factions like Sisters Admech and Drukhari their units and buffing character units are gak precisely because they cant bring anything below min squad size.

What can you attach your 85pt drukhari archon to? Why, a 110pt kabalite warrior 10 man squad of course. Nearly doubling the cost of the squad to get rr wounds on 10 guys...nice.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Just brushing over the mall Indy company comment, ok…..

Its a joke used to sarcastically describe big companies, mostly in gaming, when it comes to them not being able to do simple QoL changes and fixes. What Karol said made sense (at least that one sentence)

Ahhhhh….

Gen x apologises.