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:
Uhm what? Are you serious?

Again, yes.

 Jidmah wrote:

You can easily build a marine all-melta list that one-shots every knight list in existence if the knight player cooparates.

So, limit meltas to 3 per army now?

Or balance melta better? Or (my preferred approach) remove Knights from the game if they have the possibility to cause this kind of skew, or alter profiles to avoid it, or give Knights access to something that isn't a vehicle in their army design.

Here's a practical example using my last 8 tournament games of X-Wing. In half of those games it was literally impossible for one of the players to inflict 90% damage in a single turn even with perfect dice outcomes because the damage output is tuned to something approaching a sensible level. The statistically most likely outcome in all games, assuming perfect situations for the attackers (which literally never happen), was around 40% damage.

The problem you seem to be having is that 40k is so massively out of whack that the necessary changes to bring it back to something approaching a sensible lethality are now quite radical, which seems to lead to some incredulity from the people who are defending the current level of lethality.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Playing against a list that counters you should be an uphill battle, a likely loss but maybe you can pull something out.
It should not be a case of 'You will be tabled after the first or second shooting phase".

No game should be decided after the first turn. period. full stop.

Not even if you intentionally brought none of the weapons can harm your opponent's units, they have the perfect weapons to kill you and not only do you leave every single one of your units out in the open with no cover whatsoever, but also move close enough to be in rappid fire/dakka range of every weapon, no matter how short ranged it is?

Because that's what happened.

The drukhari player literally tossed the game because he ran into a hard-counter, and that's the main reason why this was such a stomp. All other games this list played during the event weren't this one-sided, and he even lost a game despite placing first overall.

Sure he could have delayed the stomp to 2nd turn and not even try the sole chance he might have.

Might just as well not even bother deploy if strategy is not to even try to win.

 solkan wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

The simplest possible solution to it is just - exactly what I proposed. Allow the defender to remove casualties, and IF no models are ever visible, saves stop.

Opponnet wants to rhino snipe a special weapon? If it's more important to you that the weapon survives, remove other models from the unit. If its less important, remove just the special weapon and then the rest of that unit's shooting is wasted.

This puts all the cards in the hands of the defending player, and removes rhino-sniping as an issue entirely. Easy.

It's 9th edition, it always gets better: That's a nice unit you've got there, it'd be a shame if someone used strategic line of sight blocking to specifically target the models in the middle, to cause the two halves to lose coherency.

I mean, it's not like the people who played the game when you could do line-of-sight sniping worked through all of the different ways the rules could be changed, or anything.

You're responding to a post explaining how the proposed rule would not work like that, how is this difficult for people to wrap their heads around?

You make it so that if a unit can no longer be seen, models can no longer be removed from that unit, but you leave it up to the defending player to remove the models that they want. So if someone tries to rhino-snipe you, you just...don't remove the models they want to rhino-snipe. Its entirely up to you. That completely removes the little 'trick' from the game because suddenly it puts you at a disadvantage if you do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Playing against a list that counters you should be an uphill battle, a likely loss but maybe you can pull something out.
It should not be a case of 'You will be tabled after the first or second shooting phase".

No game should be decided after the first turn. period. full stop.

leave every single one of your units out in the open with no cover whatsoever,

if the cover system was actually functional, I might agree with you that this result would be OK, but as it stands if you look at (For example) a drukhari Venom, there is actually no cover bonus in existence in 9th edition 40k that benefits it at all.

You'll notice that my proposal for fixing this issue ISNT to limit or nerf any weapon or units or army. My proposal is to make cover...ACTUALLY WORK. To add rules to the game that make there be a difference between a perfect shot, at an exposed target in ideal range, and a bad shot, at a protected target at maximum range.

The problem with this scenario is even if you'd granted Sean's army board-wide cover, very little difference would actually be made in the result.

 the_scotsman wrote:
if the cover system was actually functional, I might agree with you that this result would be OK, but as it stands if you look at (For example) a drukhari Venom, there is actually no cover bonus in existence in 9th edition 40k that benefits it at all.

You'll notice that my proposal for fixing this issue ISNT to limit or nerf any weapon or units or army. My proposal is to make cover...ACTUALLY WORK. To add rules to the game that make there be a difference between a perfect shot, at an exposed target in ideal range, and a bad shot, at a protected target at maximum range.

The problem with this scenario is even if you'd granted Sean's army board-wide cover, very little difference would actually be made in the result.

I think we both don't disagree on the whole lethality issue, and terrain definitely has its part in it. Obscuring and dense cover both were a good step in the right direction, but as long as light cover remains a mostly anecdotal +1 to armor that saves a model or two every other game, things won't change. I still remember when an ADL barricade doubled the survivability of guardsmen and orks hiding behind it instead of being functionally identical to being out in the open.

What I am calling out is merely the hypocrisy of claiming that orks deserved to be nerfed for being able to remove most of an enemy army under perfect conditions, when this realistically has been a regular part of the game at least since 7th, possible longer. Even in 5th I witnessed a tailored guard army wiping out an ork player off the board in just two turns because he didn't space out his models.

I have been on both sides of turn 1-2 tabling. It is a 40k issue NOT an ork buggy issue.

If I put 90 boyz on the table I guarantee I will lose games in the first two turns. Should we nerf everybody else because boy heavy lists get tabled too fast??

 Geemoney wrote:
I have been on both sides of turn 1-2 tabling. It is a 40k issue NOT an ork buggy issue.

If I put 90 boyz on the table I guarantee I will lose games in the first two turns. Should we nerf everybody else because boy heavy lists get tabled too fast??

Yes. Ability to kill 90 boyz in 1-2 turns is too much lethality.

 Geemoney wrote:
I have been on both sides of turn 1-2 tabling. It is a 40k issue NOT an ork buggy issue.

If I put 90 boyz on the table I guarantee I will lose games in the first two turns. Should we nerf everybody else because boy heavy lists get tabled too fast??

We should probably just buff boyz.

 Geemoney wrote:
I have been on both sides of turn 1-2 tabling. It is a 40k issue NOT an ork buggy issue.

If I put 90 boyz on the table I guarantee I will lose games in the first two turns. Should we nerf everybody else because boy heavy lists get tabled too fast??

yes?
Did you miss the part where we have been complaining about the game being to lethal in general for ages?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
if the cover system was actually functional, I might agree with you that this result would be OK, but as it stands if you look at (For example) a drukhari Venom, there is actually no cover bonus in existence in 9th edition 40k that benefits it at all.

You'll notice that my proposal for fixing this issue ISNT to limit or nerf any weapon or units or army. My proposal is to make cover...ACTUALLY WORK. To add rules to the game that make there be a difference between a perfect shot, at an exposed target in ideal range, and a bad shot, at a protected target at maximum range.

The problem with this scenario is even if you'd granted Sean's army board-wide cover, very little difference would actually be made in the result.

I think we both don't disagree on the whole lethality issue, and terrain definitely has its part in it. Obscuring and dense cover both were a good step in the right direction, but as long as light cover remains a mostly anecdotal +1 to armor that saves a model or two every other game, things won't change. I still remember when an ADL barricade doubled the survivability of guardsmen and orks hiding behind it instead of being functionally identical to being out in the open.

What I am calling out is merely the hypocrisy of claiming that orks deserved to be nerfed for being able to remove most of an enemy army under perfect conditions, when this realistically has been a regular part of the game at least since 7th, possible longer. Even in 5th I witnessed a tailored guard army wiping out an ork player off the board in just two turns because he didn't space out his models.

And we have been complaining about it the entire time.

And lol at trying to bring up the Leafblower list from 5th without mentioning that everyone at the time also thought it was bs and should be nerfed...

 Geemoney wrote:
I have been on both sides of turn 1-2 tabling. It is a 40k issue NOT an ork buggy issue.

If I put 90 boyz on the table I guarantee I will lose games in the first two turns. Should we nerf everybody else because boy heavy lists get tabled too fast??

That's surprising, I've run 90 boyz many times (T4 variety) and I haven't met too many armies that had the sheer volume of fire to wipe out 90 Boyz in two turns. Then 8th gave us Unstoppable Green Tide

Except it wasn't a leafblower list, not even close. Just a regular guard lists with two infantry battalions, a few LR demolishers, basilisks, helhounds and a valkyrie or two. The tailoring was limited to putting flamers everywhere they could. You don't need a leafblower when every large pie plate hit 13 models.

But good job telling everyone how you hate the game for over a decade, I applaud your dedication. A lesser person would just have left the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
That's surprising, I've run 90 boyz many times (T4 variety) and I haven't met too many armies that had the sheer volume of fire to wipe out 90 Boyz in two turns. Then 8th gave us Unstoppable Green Tide

Most armies built from two marine starter boxes of your choice have no troubles doing that.

 Jidmah wrote:
Except it wasn't a leafblower list, not even close. Just a regular guard lists with two infantry battalions, a few LR demolishers, basilisks, helhounds and a valkyrie or two. The tailoring was limited to putting flamers everywhere they could. You don't need a leafblower when every large pie plate hit 13 models.

But good job telling everyone how you hate the game for over a decade, I applaud your dedication. A lesser person would just have left the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
That's surprising, I've run 90 boyz many times (T4 variety) and I haven't met too many armies that had the sheer volume of fire to wipe out 90 Boyz in two turns. Then 8th gave us Unstoppable Green Tide

Most armies built from two marine starter boxes of your choice have no troubles doing that.

20x Infiltrators, 2x phobos lieutenants, 2x impulsors (we'll throw stubbers and the extra stubber thingy on it to make it close to 1250pts), 2x suppressor squads, 2x eliminator squads.

Assuming theyre all in the lieutenant aura, that list (which is almost entirely anti-infantry, basically the only thing that's useful at all against heavier targets is the 2x suppressor squads) can take down 31 boyz/turn. 279pts/turn at 9ppm boyz?

22% points return seems..relatively reasonable to me.

Thanks for doing the math! So about 62 Boyz in two turns on average for an entire army geared toward anti-infantry. Seems relatively reasonable to me as well.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Thanks for doing the math! So about 62 Boyz in two turns on average for an entire army geared toward anti-infantry. Seems relatively reasonable to me as well.

it is worth noting that:

-this is without doctrines (though that would only matter slightly on the infiltrators only and only on turn 2, as everything else already has AP of at least -1)

-this is without chapter tactics, though most marine chapter traits that get used arent direct damage to bolter weapons

-this is with the lieutenant aura on all core models

-90 ork boyz is only about 850pts, if you were talking about how long it would take this 1250pts to destroy 1250pts of just Boyz and Boyz Accessories (say, a cheap foot warboss and weirdboy, who we'd assume the eliminators would be shooting at) if the boyz just stood in the open and didnt do anything, youd be looking at about a turn 4 table roughly. Removng the eliminators and saying that morale would make up for the loss of the extra ~3 boyz (the eliminators would be killing the HQs in about 3 turns, 2 for the warboss) youd lose about a 30-block of boyz per turn and you'd have ~120 boyz plus the two barebones HQs.

-yes I understand this is a somewhat silly example, I'm mostly just using it to disprove the slightly hyperbolic/silly claim that this is something that any given equivalent points value could do to any other given equivalent points value.

-some other examples of this which are technically accurate are reliant on both the major damage buffs GW put forward recently and also do not have nearly the kind of mobility+range in order to make the exact scenario occur. A space marine list that has 3 max size eradicator squads, 3 max size multi-melta devastator squads, and 9 multi-melta attack bikes can indeed table a 2000pt knight list in one turn, but is somewhat limited by the fact that they have to actually get all those guns within 12" with mostly footslogging models against the knights, who not only have plenty of weapons capable of killing those models quite efficiently but need to move into range so that the marines can get all their models within melta range.

The ork buggy + flyer list has no such problems, as basically all the weapons are on highly mobile platforms, which also have usually 24" range for full effectiveness, and can move and shoot without suffering any penalty. A purely theoretical "all multi-melta attack bikes, all the time" list (IIRC the multi-melta attack bike is basically the most cost efficient self-delivering melta platform) only destroys 1350pts of regular knights in one turn with assumed perfect range positioning and no attempts at any defensive abilities by the knights.

Nice misdirection with the MM list, which you know damn well will get slaughtered by so many other lists.
So what are we talking here...
3x3 Ravenwing MM Attack Bikes (may as well pick the best ones since Sallies only get good turn 2 and 3) 540pts
3 Dev sqds over 2 drop pods (have to get in range) 665
Can't get too many Eradicators now, because points...plus we need 2 HQs here somehow.

The issue with the Ork list was that it's damned good against a lot of different opponents, not skewed to kill just one type.
Now, with the plane change and buggy change, we're still going to see good freebooterz lists, just not crazy ones. However, I don't like the 1 unit restriction and would prefer they just removed squadrons from buggies, period. Then the rule of 3 would simply just get the effect needed without hamstringing the lists with coherency on tiny tables with lots of terrain.

 bullyboy wrote:
Nice misdirection with the MM list, which you know damn well will get slaughtered by so many other lists.
So what are we talking here...
3x3 Ravenwing MM Attack Bikes (may as well pick the best ones since Sallies only get good turn 2 and 3) 540pts
3 Dev sqds over 2 drop pods (have to get in range) 665
Can't get too many Eradicators now, because points...plus we need 2 HQs here somehow.

The issue with the Ork list was that it's damned good against a lot of different opponents, not skewed to kill just one type.
Now, with the plane change and buggy change, we're still going to see good freebooterz lists, just not crazy ones. However, I don't like the 1 unit restriction and would prefer they just removed squadrons from buggies, period. Then the rule of 3 would simply just get the effect needed without hamstringing the lists with coherency on tiny tables with lots of terrain.

"misdirection?"

I'm literally pointing out that if you were to actually take what is commonly considered to be a highly effective mobile multi-melta platform (an attack bike) and put it up against an all-vehicle skew list (knights, since that was the example used) you actually do not achieve the same 90% tabled in one turn result we saw here.

If anything, I'm steelmanning - using a purely theoretical, 2000-pts-of-literally-just-mm-bikes list that is actually not possible to field, and handwaving that you can actually get them all within melta range of their targets with perfect positioning.

being able to destroy 1350pts of models in a single turn is, in my opinion, still way too high, but I think it pretty definitively disproves the idea that "any list could do this" that was put forth. and it is worth noting here that the multi-melta is very much an extreme end example. If you take for instance a theoretical 2000pts list of all drukhari triple dark lance ravagers (a unit that I think many would contend is at the very least an above-average anti-tank unit that can easily reach across the board and hit whatever target it wants) then you actually only destroy 900pts of knights, even further from the 90% destruction in one turn scenario.

JUST skewing your list into all 'anti-one thing' and JUST putting an opposing list skewed into all that thing does not universally result in that single turn destruction across the board.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Thanks for doing the math! So about 62 Boyz in two turns on average for an entire army geared toward anti-infantry. Seems relatively reasonable to me as well.

it is worth noting that:

-this is without doctrines (though that would only matter slightly on the infiltrators only and only on turn 2, as everything else already has AP of at least -1)

-this is without chapter tactics, though most marine chapter traits that get used arent direct damage to bolter weapons

-this is with the lieutenant aura on all core models

-90 ork boyz is only about 850pts, if you were talking about how long it would take this 1250pts to destroy 1250pts of just Boyz and Boyz Accessories (say, a cheap foot warboss and weirdboy, who we'd assume the eliminators would be shooting at) if the boyz just stood in the open and didnt do anything, youd be looking at about a turn 4 table roughly. Removng the eliminators and saying that morale would make up for the loss of the extra ~3 boyz (the eliminators would be killing the HQs in about 3 turns, 2 for the warboss) youd lose about a 30-block of boyz per turn and you'd have ~120 boyz plus the two barebones HQs.

-yes I understand this is a somewhat silly example, I'm mostly just using it to disprove the slightly hyperbolic/silly claim that this is something that any given equivalent points value could do to any other given equivalent points value.

-some other examples of this which are technically accurate are reliant on both the major damage buffs GW put forward recently and also do not have nearly the kind of mobility+range in order to make the exact scenario occur. A space marine list that has 3 max size eradicator squads, 3 max size multi-melta devastator squads, and 9 multi-melta attack bikes can indeed table a 2000pt knight list in one turn, but is somewhat limited by the fact that they have to actually get all those guns within 12" with mostly footslogging models against the knights, who not only have plenty of weapons capable of killing those models quite efficiently but need to move into range so that the marines can get all their models within melta range.

- you hand-waved super doctrines, stratagems, warlord traits, relics and chapter tactics. From first hand experience I can tell you that at least Iron Hands, Dark Angels, Imperial Fists, Death Watch, Ultra Marines and many successor chapters all get some non-trivial help to their rank and file shooting during turn one and two, and that lieutenant should totally have target priority as warlord trait.
- Morale casualties are a very significant part of the casualties you deal to orks especially in blocks of 30. If your number are correct and the marine player somewhat spreads damage intelligently, you are sweeping about 18 additional casualties under the rug, suddenly killing 80 out 90 boyz in two turns, painting a completely different picture.
- No matter how you cut it, the ork boyz+HQs would most likely clock in at ~1000 points to be legally running 90 boyz, being an equivalent opponent for two combat patrols.
- the list is not "geared towards killing boyz" but instead consists of mostly of units that are fairly inefficient at killing boyz. It still manages to kill two thirds of them with snipers, utility area control units and a dedicated transport uniformly considered to be bad.
- I honestly didn't even know this terrible box existed. When I was talking about "any two starter sets" I was mostly thinking about picking two out of indomitus, dark imperium, the BA or DA combat patrol or the BT box. Not only are those the things you actually see on the tabletop, they also vastly more powerful and better at killing boyz.
- you didn't show your math. The only reason for me to believe you is that you in specific usually aren't a person that pulls numbers out of their ass, but you still could have made mistakes.
- In 5th edition it was rather unreasonable to expect to kill 90 boyz with ~1k points of marines over the course of a game.

In summary, with all those flaws in your argumentation, you have no right to call the argument silly or hyperbolic.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Nice misdirection with the MM list, which you know damn well will get slaughtered by so many other lists.
So what are we talking here...
3x3 Ravenwing MM Attack Bikes (may as well pick the best ones since Sallies only get good turn 2 and 3) 540pts
3 Dev sqds over 2 drop pods (have to get in range) 665
Can't get too many Eradicators now, because points...plus we need 2 HQs here somehow.

The issue with the Ork list was that it's damned good against a lot of different opponents, not skewed to kill just one type.
Now, with the plane change and buggy change, we're still going to see good freebooterz lists, just not crazy ones. However, I don't like the 1 unit restriction and would prefer they just removed squadrons from buggies, period. Then the rule of 3 would simply just get the effect needed without hamstringing the lists with coherency on tiny tables with lots of terrain.

"misdirection?"

I'm literally pointing out that if you were to actually take what is commonly considered to be a highly effective mobile multi-melta platform (an attack bike) and put it up against an all-vehicle skew list (knights, since that was the example used) you actually do not achieve the same 90% tabled in one turn result we saw here.

If anything, I'm steelmanning - using a purely theoretical, 2000-pts-of-literally-just-mm-bikes list that is actually not possible to field, and handwaving that you can actually get them all within melta range of their targets with perfect positioning.

being able to destroy 1350pts of models in a single turn is, in my opinion, still way too high, but I think it pretty definitively disproves the idea that "any list could do this" that was put forth. and it is worth noting here that the multi-melta is very much an extreme end example. If you take for instance a theoretical 2000pts list of all drukhari triple dark lance ravagers (a unit that I think many would contend is at the very least an above-average anti-tank unit that can easily reach across the board and hit whatever target it wants) then you actually only destroy 900pts of knights, even further from the 90% destruction in one turn scenario.

JUST skewing your list into all 'anti-one thing' and JUST putting an opposing list skewed into all that thing does not universally result in that single turn destruction across the board.

Scotsman, sorry, I posted my response after Jidmah...probably should have quoted him. My stance is with yours above.

I've had a couple games vs my friend's freebooterz list and it was only a game when I went first. Even though my most game was only 1313pts (some weird halloween tournament) I still had 3 MM Attack bikes (with full rerolls from sammael and Talon master RR 1s to wound), 5 overcharged, weapons of the dark age, RR 1s to hit and wound black knights, the talon master, sammael, a RW land speeder vengeance (also overcharging) and a cyclone missile launcher shoot at his buggies first turn. With that impressive firepower I was able to kill 2 buggies, kill his squigosaur warboss, and put another buggy down to 2 or 3 wounds. Even so, the game was very tight and went all the way to the final round. If he had gone first, never would have been a game.

Crazy thing is, his list is not invalidated by the new FAQ, he just has to group a couple buggies together.

Don't worry GW will probably increase the cost of all the buggies by 50%. They never nerf orks half way.

My main contention is that if you bring a list to a tournament and you get tabled quickly; that is on you. Part of playing 40k and being an adult is taking responsibility for your decisions. That is especially true for the top 40k players.

A utopia where every possible 40k list is competitive with every other possible list is just not realistic.

BTW as I side note, I have a friend who plays a dark angels list that consistently beats the freebooter buggy list.

The freebooterz list is sort of an all or nothing. When you table someone, they’re smashed. When you don’t, you plink off. This is why I’m confused Admech and drukhari didn’t have their raiders or whatever limited because they more reliably tabled you, it just took em a turn or two more.
Orks just did it in a scarier looking way.

It's not an issue directly with the freebooters buggy list, and given the recent changes to aircraft limits and only 1 of each buggy type any inclination of that is likely moot.

16 players at socal ran freebooters, 1 made it to top 8. They played against DE in 3 games a favorable match up because of how the two lists skew in the meta.

Freebooter buggies loses pretty bad against DW terminator skew lists, and large custodes unit skew lists- also knights.

There are other army builds that will remove most of an opponents army when their opponent yolos and yeets their entire army into firing range as their turn 1 move.

Lethality is a problem, and that problem can be excabarated by skew lists against it's favorable skew list match up, and player agency.

If you want less lethal games there are three main paths to that.
Alternative activation
Make everything tougher
Reduce the number of units which start on the table (AoS meeting engagement style)

blaktoof wrote:
It's not an issue directly with the freebooters buggy list, and given the recent changes to aircraft limits and only 1 of each buggy type any inclination of that is likely moot.

16 players at socal ran freebooters, 1 made it to top 8. They played against DE in 3 games a favorable match up because of how the two lists skew in the meta.

Freebooter buggies loses pretty bad against DW terminator skew lists, and large custodes unit skew lists- also knights.

There are other army builds that will remove most of an opponents army when their opponent yolos and yeets their entire army into firing range as their turn 1 move.

Lethality is a problem, and that problem can be excabarated by skew lists against it's favorable skew list match up, and player agency.

If you want less lethal games there are three main paths to that.
Alternative activation
Make everything tougher
Reduce the number of units which start on the table (AoS meeting engagement style)

You forgot option 4. Make things less lethal.
Less shots/attacks, less AP, less buffs.

A single model doesn't need 20+ shots
A character doesn't need 10+ attacks.
ect.

I'd be pretty happy if AP across the board dropped by 1, but I'm also of the opinion that Armor Saves should matter and Invul proliferation is a bad thing.

 Ordana wrote:

You forgot option 4. Make things less lethal.
Less shots/attacks, less AP, less buffs.

A single model doesn't need 20+ shots
A character doesn't need 10+ attacks.
ect.

That's my biggest whish about 40k, but unfortunately it can't happen without a completely re-write of all the existing codexes, which means getting back to an index era. I don't think it will ever happen.

The scrapjet buggy fires up to 32 shots during the speedwaaagh, 29 on average. The dakkajet went from 9 re-rollable shots (or 12 during the single waaagh turn) in 7th to 36 base or 42 during the speedwaaagh in 9th, with access to modifiers. Those are massive improvements for these units, next codex what will we get, a plane firing 70 shots and a buggy firing 50?

Tyel wrote:

 Geemoney wrote:
I have been on both sides of turn 1-2 tabling. It is a 40k issue NOT an ork buggy issue.

If I put 90 boyz on the table I guarantee I will lose games in the first two turns. Should we nerf everybody else because boy heavy lists get tabled too fast??

We should probably just buff boyz.

And this is how you get hyper-lethality, because players don't like their stuff being nerfed. The weak stuff gets buffed to equal the strongest outliers, over and over.

I'm consistently reminded of a quote from an EVE Online developer about how if balacing was left to players, every ship would end up with millions of hit points and 99% resistance to everything after a couple of cycles.

 Elemental wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Geemoney wrote:
I have been on both sides of turn 1-2 tabling. It is a 40k issue NOT an ork buggy issue.

If I put 90 boyz on the table I guarantee I will lose games in the first two turns. Should we nerf everybody else because boy heavy lists get tabled too fast??

We should probably just buff boyz.

And this is how you get hyper-lethality, because players don't like their stuff being nerfed. The weak stuff gets buffed to equal the strongest outliers, over and over.

I'm consistently reminded of a quote from an EVE Online developer about how if balacing was left to players, every ship would end up with millions of hit points and 99% resistance to everything after a couple of cycles.

The reality is that boys did get buffed this edition...

I would wait for a couple of months of results after this dataslate.
My opinion is that lethality has been decreased significantly.

Admech losing a couple of planes of average is surely a huge change.

On Drukhari's side the lethality was hit twice.
First with point increases and then with the durability builds being buffed.

Orks too lost on average a lot of lethality.
The limitations to flyers and buggies surely will do a lot, but the other huge change is the AoR. That AoR turns lethality into durability. So again, those lists will hurt a lot less and survive a lot more.

My current biggest fear for the health of the game are Tyranids.

 Geemoney wrote:


The reality is that boys did get buffed this edition...

Well no, the reality is they got a buff on two stats (T and AP for choppa or number of shots for shoota, with the latter that can actually be seen as a nerf since the weapon lost the assault trait as well) but in the meantime they lost a plethora of buffs or synergies with other units as well. Now they have worse morale, worse KFF support, they lost access to +1A due to their number, they can't respawn through stratagem, they're 1ppm more expensive, they lost tankbusta (melta) bombs which were also free, Goffs ones are S5 only if they charge, Evil Sunz ones lost +1 to charges, etc...

 Elemental wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Geemoney wrote:
I have been on both sides of turn 1-2 tabling. It is a 40k issue NOT an ork buggy issue.

If I put 90 boyz on the table I guarantee I will lose games in the first two turns. Should we nerf everybody else because boy heavy lists get tabled too fast??

We should probably just buff boyz.

And this is how you get hyper-lethality, because players don't like their stuff being nerfed. The weak stuff gets buffed to equal the strongest outliers, over and over.

I'm consistently reminded of a quote from an EVE Online developer about how if balacing was left to players, every ship would end up with millions of hit points and 99% resistance to everything after a couple of cycles.

You could just buff durability. Boyz actually being able to run across the board without half of your army dying would be nice for a change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geemoney wrote:
The reality is that boys did get buffed this edition...

At least not in this reality. They got +1 toughness, sometimes don't count as under half strength, slugga boyz got an extra point in AP and goff no longer need to pay 1 CP per mob, but where hit with a massive sledge hammer of nerfs otherwise. They lost every single one of their stratagems, lost an attack, take casualties from morale like no other unit in the game and went up by 10-30 points, shoota boyz lost the ability to advance and shoot.
In addition all their support characters got nerfed - Thrakka got more expensive, lost his extra attack aura and can't be healed anymore. KFF was reduced to 6++. Weird boyz can't cast da jump reliably anymore and lose their second cast when enough boyz die. Pain boyz got more expensive, lost access to killsaws, lost its stratagem and have to pay points for their grot orderly that does less.

So no, they didn't get buffed, at all. In fact, outside of trukk boyz, they are seen as a liability and people rather pay 3CP for extra detachments than bring boyz.

Spoletta wrote:
I would wait for a couple of months of results after this dataslate.
My opinion is that lethality has been decreased significantly.

Admech losing a couple of planes of average is surely a huge change.

On Drukhari's side the lethality was hit twice.
First with point increases and then with the durability builds being buffed.

Orks too lost on average a lot of lethality.
The limitations to flyers and buggies surely will do a lot, but the other huge change is the AoR. That AoR turns lethality into durability. So again, those lists will hurt a lot less and survive a lot more.

My current biggest fear for the health of the game are Tyranids.

Yep, share your fears about nids, so fingers crossed for a HG nerf very soon, as well as the devil gaunt shower of devourer bullets. Fix these two issues and the codex falls in line perfectly IMHO, so it should not require that much brainpower for GW. The buggy treatment for HG would be perfect, until the next codex lands, then they can lift the buggy treatment when the unit is no longer OP thanks to the new codex changing the datasheet. As an ork player, I wouldn't wish the buggy treatment for anyone with a 9th ed codex, but the nid 8th ed codex won't be used for very longer yet, so not much harm done really.

GK and druka seem very, very strong, perhaps even stronger than nids, but less "feel bad" probably.

 addnid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I would wait for a couple of months of results after this dataslate.
My opinion is that lethality has been decreased significantly.

Admech losing a couple of planes of average is surely a huge change.

On Drukhari's side the lethality was hit twice.
First with point increases and then with the durability builds being buffed.

Orks too lost on average a lot of lethality.
The limitations to flyers and buggies surely will do a lot, but the other huge change is the AoR. That AoR turns lethality into durability. So again, those lists will hurt a lot less and survive a lot more.

My current biggest fear for the health of the game are Tyranids.

Yep, share your fears about nids, so fingers crossed for a HG nerf very soon, as well as the devil gaunt shower of devourer bullets. Fix these two issues and the codex falls in line perfectly IMHO, so it should not require that much brainpower for GW. The buggy treatment for HG would be perfect, until the next codex lands, then they can lift the buggy treatment when the unit is no longer OP thanks to the new codex changing the datasheet. As an ork player, I wouldn't wish the buggy treatment for anyone with a 9th ed codex, but the nid 8th ed codex won't be used for very longer yet, so not much harm done really.

GK and druka seem very, very strong, perhaps even stronger than nids, but less "feel bad" probably.

Depends on how GW fixes HG and devilgants. Because if fix means nerf to oblivion, then Nids fall in line alright... probably 20th in line. That is a baddddd codex without the BS crutches. And I agree, HG and devilgants should maybe be nerfed (though I think everybody is overreacting to Mani's 18 HG list; I like John Lennon's list better and it's way less degenerate), but I sure don't want Nids to immediately fall back in the dumpster.