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.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoletta, your italian, ever heard of equal long pikes for everyone?

You either HAVE kill secondaries against ALL factions or you DON'T have them.

Having them only for a "few" skew type of lists which mostly cripple factions that are badly designed, is Neither fair nor balanced and stacks the deck.

Limitations upon kill secondaries would also be a really neat thing.

If it stacks the deck so well why are there so many factions that don't run elite infantry doing well?

Spoletta wrote:
Just trying to show you why what you say is illogic.

Well, you haven't.

Spoletta wrote:
There is no definition of elite infantry, you fabricated one for yourself, but it is by far not a shared definition.

No, it isn't a shared one. I proposed it because I think it is reasonable.

Spoletta wrote:
For me for example there is no world where a Dark Reaper isn't an elite infantry.

What makes it elite in your mind that's different than, say, an IG Veteran HWT with a missile launcher?
The 3+ save? Because the IG team has twice the wounds.
The hitting on a 3+ all the time instead of a 4+ all the time and sometimes 3+? Sure, but if "a special rule" is all that's required to make infantry elite, then Daemonettes are elite infantry.
Stratagem access? The IG vet HWT has stratagem access.

Spoletta wrote:
You can't make a secondary if you can't make a definition for it.

Which is why I proposed a definition, obviously.

Spoletta wrote:
You are the only one in here "misdefining" things.

You haven't actually shown why my definition is inadequate other than "I disagree with it" which, while certainly valid, leaves something to be desired.

They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.

Some do and they are easy to ignore. It doesn't make it right that the largest faction in the game can completely ignore a significant part of the game.

Faction balance is a thing. If faction balance is bad you act on the mission balance.
Mission design is another thing. You don't change mission design to nerf a faction.

Basic rules for game design.

Uh huh. And if faction balance is bad, and mission balance is bad? If the marines were just average tier, A lot of people would still be saying it's a bit naf to let the biggest faction ignore this. Call me crazy but that just seems like "Basic rules for game design" to me ...

There is nothing that punishes banshees either. Where's all the threads about that?

Right - Because you often see entire armies of ... oh wait no you don't. That's a spurious point at best and not really what we're talking about here is it?

Tycho wrote:

They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.

Some do and they are easy to ignore. It doesn't make it right that the largest faction in the game can completely ignore a significant part of the game.

It doesn't make it wrong either, which is the point you're missing.

Spoletta wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Now if you want a secondary which works against Gravis skew, then we can talk because that has its merits, but it is my impression that what the people want in this thread is something to punish PEQ.

No. Some want that. Most just think it's silly that PEQ can simply ignore being scored on ...

They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.

Faction balance is a thing. If faction balance is bad you act on the mission balance.
Mission design is another thing. You don't change mission design to nerf a faction.

Basic rules for game design.

There is nothing that punishes banshees either. Where's all the threads about that?

The missions should also be generally equal towards all factions attempting them. This isn't the case.

Guard, for example, for showing up to the game with just about any list, give up essentially a full 30 points for their tanks and infantry. There's a lot more points on the table to score against them because there are two secondaries that simultaneously punish their only real defensive line profiles, and even go as far as to double-dip each other.
Space Marines, on the other hand, will rarely even have 45 points available to score from secondaries on the table, even accounting for Engage/Linebreaker and Banners/Scramblers. And, of course, Engage and Banners are equally well scorable against Guard, so Guard just offers a much easier scoring time and has a harder time at the mission because the mission is heavily biased against it.

This has nothing to do with faction balance, or the fact that Guard is also just not structurally very strong. Even if Guard had very powerful units, they'd still be playing the game some 20-30 points in the hole because of the secondaries. When one player has 90 points to score and the other player has 75, that's a failure of mission balance.


I would say that given what we have, secondary selection against any given average faction should generally look like:
1 secondary that you jump through some hoop yourself to do with some interaction. [Banners, Scramblers, Ritual, While We Stand]
1 secondary based on your control of the board [Engage, Linebreaker, etc.]
1 secondary based on destruction of whatever is most prevalent in the enemy army.

It's important to observe that that first category requires you to do something you wouldn't normally do towards effecting a victory to get those points. It has a negative effect on your game play, rather than just being points for progressing the mission and conducting normal play. If you, on the other hand, can replace that one with a kill secondary, then you have an easier mission, because none of your units have to stop to take actions or put themselves out of position or anything. Just play the game as you were going to, and get your points. On the other hand, if you don't give up a kill secondary, then your opponent has to take a second one from that first category, which makes the game harder for them through the inverse principle.

And there's actually no compensation for Guard or Tyranids or any other vehicles & light infantry army. There isn't a secondary that they can score better than Space Marines or Custodes or Sisters because they have an army full of tanks and light infantry, and they're worse at primary to boot due to lack of good staying power against general melee.

So, because missions should be equal for all armies participating, it really shouldn't be the case where the basic archetype of some armies is double-dipped on simultaneous secondaries and some armies won't ever give up any points for their list formulation. That's inherently unequal mission design, and that's why there should be an objective that yields points for destroying multiwound infantry, biker, and cavalry models. [or, alternatively, remove kill secondaries entirely]


One thing to note is that it doesn't take a skew list to give up full credit for Bring it Down, Thin Their Ranks, or Abhor the Witch.
As I mentioned, Bring it Down requires you to kill 5 vehicles. Most vehicles are between 100 and 200 points, averaging around 150 points. That's only about 750 points of vehicles to destroy to score full credit for the objective. Nobody would call a list with 5 assorted vehicles a skew list.
Abhor the Witch requires you to kill 5 psychic units. That's about 500 points of Strikes or Rubrics, and about 1000 points of heavier GK and Tsons units, still averaging around 750 points of units.
Thin Their Ranks is a little higher bar, but tanks also count for it. But exclusively on infantry, it takes 150 infantry, which for a light infantry army like Guard, Tyranids, or Orks is around 1000 points. The only reason it's tougher is because the detachment structure and low quality of basically all light infantry but Boyz often restricts the total light infantry body count to less than 150, but vehicles and support infantry units also provide credit for this objective to make up the difference.


You only have to kill about 1/3 of the enemy force to score the kill secondaries, which makes the lack of one to affect multiwound infantry models more egregious. There's an argument that it should be 3+ save infantry to catch the marine-like but single-wound Sisters as well, but at least right now Sisters are usually presenting Bring it Down due to having a greater reliance on vehicles, so exclusively hitting multiwound infantry would probably be okay.

It doesn't make it wrong either, which is the point you're missing.

What? Yes. It does. It is 100% wrong that a faction simply gets to say "What that? That major portion of the new edition? Yeah, we don't do that." It's sloppy design at best and incredibly jaded at worst.

The missions should also be generally equal towards all factions attempting them. This isn't the case.

Precisely.

Tycho wrote:

It doesn't make it wrong either, which is the point you're missing.

What? Yes. It does. It is 100% wrong that a faction simply gets to say "What that? That major portion of the new edition? Yeah, we don't do that." It's sloppy design at best and incredibly jaded at worst.

Why? There's no moral wrongness to a game being unfair. There isn't even anything to say that 40k is designed to be fair. Seriously, scan the rules and tell me where GW have promised you a fair and balanced experience.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:
Just trying to show you why what you say is illogic.

Well, you haven't.

Spoletta wrote:
There is no definition of elite infantry, you fabricated one for yourself, but it is by far not a shared definition.

No, it isn't a shared one. I proposed it because I think it is reasonable.

Spoletta wrote:
For me for example there is no world where a Dark Reaper isn't an elite infantry.

What makes it elite in your mind that's different than, say, an IG Veteran HWT with a missile launcher?
The 3+ save? Because the IG team has twice the wounds.
The hitting on a 3+ all the time instead of a 4+ all the time and sometimes 3+? Sure, but if "a special rule" is all that's required to make infantry elite, then Daemonettes are elite infantry.
Stratagem access? The IG vet HWT has stratagem access.

Spoletta wrote:
You can't make a secondary if you can't make a definition for it.

Which is why I proposed a definition, obviously.

Spoletta wrote:
You are the only one in here "misdefining" things.

You haven't actually shown why my definition is inadequate other than "I disagree with it" which, while certainly valid, leaves something to be desired.

That didn't look like a proposal of definition, but if you intended it as such then that is fine.
By the way, to answer your question, I see very good reasons to consider an HWT team an elite infantry. Who cares if in the fluff they are actually 2 grunts, rulewise they are a big infantry with a big gun.

As to why your definition is inadequate, it is because it is too focused on the defensive profile. For a lot of players though the definition of an elite infantry includes the aspect warriors, and in fact when the CWE/Ynnari were OP, there were loads of threads asking for ITC secondaries to punish that faction! Same problem, that faction was not bleeding secondaries... like many other factions that just didn't happen to be competitive at the time, but you didn't hear anyone talking about those!

It is the same thing over and over again.
Faction X is OP, please GW/ITC/ETC change the rules to nerf faction X instead of, you know, nerf said faction.

Modifying a general rule (like mission objectives) to hurt a specific model/unit/faction is dumb, because you are hitting a lot more things in the crossfire, things that were perfectly fine.

You can claim that marines are OP and that they have to be nerfed, and I will not come and tell you that you are wrong, because it is a legitimate position. The nerf though cannot be made by changing a general rule.

Why? There's no moral wrongness to a game being unfair. There isn't even anything to say that 40k is designed to be fair. Seriously, scan the rules and tell me where GW have promised you a fair and balanced experience.

Didn't realize you were coming from the standpoint of not caring if people actually have fun. If that's your stance, I can't really argue. It is absolutely awful design and a terrible approach, but ok. If you're good with that, you're good with that. lol

Spoletta wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:
Just trying to show you why what you say is illogic.

Well, you haven't.

Spoletta wrote:
There is no definition of elite infantry, you fabricated one for yourself, but it is by far not a shared definition.

No, it isn't a shared one. I proposed it because I think it is reasonable.

Spoletta wrote:
For me for example there is no world where a Dark Reaper isn't an elite infantry.

What makes it elite in your mind that's different than, say, an IG Veteran HWT with a missile launcher?
The 3+ save? Because the IG team has twice the wounds.
The hitting on a 3+ all the time instead of a 4+ all the time and sometimes 3+? Sure, but if "a special rule" is all that's required to make infantry elite, then Daemonettes are elite infantry.
Stratagem access? The IG vet HWT has stratagem access.

Spoletta wrote:
You can't make a secondary if you can't make a definition for it.

Which is why I proposed a definition, obviously.

Spoletta wrote:
You are the only one in here "misdefining" things.

You haven't actually shown why my definition is inadequate other than "I disagree with it" which, while certainly valid, leaves something to be desired.

That didn't look like a proposal of definition, but if you intended it as such then that is fine.
By the way, to answer your question, I see very good reasons to consider an HWT team an elite infantry. Who cares if in the fluff they are actually 2 grunts, rulewise they are a big infantry with a big gun.

As to why your definition is inadequate, it is because it is too focused on the defensive profile. For a lot of players though the definition of an elite infantry includes the aspect warriors, and in fact when the CWE/Ynnari were OP, there were loads of threads asking for ITC secondaries to punish that faction! Same problem, that faction was not bleeding secondaries... like many other factions that just didn't happen to be competitive at the time, but you didn't hear anyone talking about those!

It is the same thing over and over again.
Faction X is OP, please GW/ITC/ETC change the rules to nerf faction X instead of, you know, nerf said faction.

Modifying a general rule (like mission objectives) to hurt a specific model/unit/faction is dumb, because you are hitting a lot more things in the crossfire, things that were perfectly fine.

You can claim that marines are OP and that they have to be nerfed, and I will not come and tell you that you are wrong, because it is a legitimate position. The nerf though cannot be made by changing a general rule.

This.

I'd be for fixing the other kill secondaries so they don't handicap any given faction but I'm against adding any kind of elite secondary because it's impossible to define. To some people the PEQ stat line is elite, to others, it starts with Gravis or even Terminators, and to others, an elite infantry unit is any unit armed with specialized weapons on more than a couple of models. This would then have us asking are Devastators elite and at that point the whole thing just gets silly.

Tycho wrote:

Why? There's no moral wrongness to a game being unfair. There isn't even anything to say that 40k is designed to be fair. Seriously, scan the rules and tell me where GW have promised you a fair and balanced experience.

Didn't realize you were coming from the standpoint of not caring if people actually have fun. If that's your stance, I can't really argue. It is absolutely awful design and a terrible approach, but ok. If you're good with that, you're good with that. lol

It's not that. I think 40k is more fun when it has interesting lists at the top of the tournament standings; I could frankly care less about the casual game. I'm coming at this wondering why after all the years of unbalanced rules you would have any expectation of balance from GW.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Now if you want a secondary which works against Gravis skew, then we can talk because that has its merits, but it is my impression that what the people want in this thread is something to punish PEQ.

No. Some want that. Most just think it's silly that PEQ can simply ignore being scored on ...

They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.

Faction balance is a thing. If faction balance is bad you act on the mission balance.
Mission design is another thing. You don't change mission design to nerf a faction.

Basic rules for game design.

There is nothing that punishes banshees either. Where's all the threads about that?

The missions should also be generally equal towards all factions attempting them. This isn't the case.

Guard, for example, for showing up to the game with just about any list, give up essentially a full 30 points for their tanks and infantry. There's a lot more points on the table to score against them because there are two secondaries that simultaneously punish their only real defensive line profiles, and even go as far as to double-dip each other.
Space Marines, on the other hand, will rarely even have 45 points available to score from secondaries on the table, even accounting for Engage/Linebreaker and Banners/Scramblers. And, of course, Engage and Banners are equally well scorable against Guard, so Guard just offers a much easier scoring time and has a harder time at the mission because the mission is heavily biased against it.

This has nothing to do with faction balance, or the fact that Guard is also just not structurally very strong. Even if Guard had very powerful units, they'd still be playing the game some 20-30 points in the hole because of the secondaries. When one player has 90 points to score and the other player has 75, that's a failure of mission balance.


I would say that given what we have, secondary selection against any given average faction should generally look like:
1 secondary that you jump through some hoop yourself to do with some interaction. [Banners, Scramblers, Ritual, While We Stand]
1 secondary based on your control of the board [Engage, Linebreaker, etc.]
1 secondary based on destruction of whatever is most prevalent in the enemy army.

It's important to observe that that first category requires you to do something you wouldn't normally do towards effecting a victory to get those points. It has a negative effect on your game play, rather than just being points for progressing the mission and conducting normal play. If you, on the other hand, can replace that one with a kill secondary, then you have an easier mission, because none of your units have to stop to take actions or put themselves out of position or anything. Just play the game as you were going to, and get your points. On the other hand, if you don't give up a kill secondary, then your opponent has to take a second one from that first category, which makes the game harder for them through the inverse principle.

And there's actually no compensation for Guard or Tyranids or any other vehicles & light infantry army. There isn't a secondary that they can score better than Space Marines or Custodes or Sisters because they have an army full of tanks and light infantry, and they're worse at primary to boot due to lack of good staying power against general melee.

So, because missions should be equal for all armies participating, it really shouldn't be the case where the basic archetype of some armies is double-dipped on simultaneous secondaries and some armies won't ever give up any points for their list formulation. That's inherently unequal mission design, and that's why there should be an objective that yields points for destroying multiwound infantry, biker, and cavalry models.

We have said this already.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If a faction is screwed by the new design of the secondary missions, then why should it be good to add more factions to the list of the screwed ones? (While still leaving many factions in the unscrewed area, so you are NOT making the packet more fair and balanced).

We shouldn't have threads asking for ways to punish more factions, we should have threads asking how to ease the pain on the few factions that right now have difficulties coping with the new missions. How to redesign Abhor the Witch. How to redesign assassination. How to redesign Grind them Down and so on.

Your analysis is 100% correct, but you are applying it to a discussion that is proposing a solution which would be totally wrong to solve what you have correctly highlighted as an issue.

Punishing more factions because a few are suffering is NOT the correct way to tackle this problem.

So why would changing "thin their ranks" to : "for every 10 wounds you destroy, score 1 VP" and removing the option of double dipping in kill secondaries not be the perfect fix?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
So why would changing "thin their ranks" to : "for every 10 wounds you destroy, score 1 VP" and removing the option of double dipping in kill secondaries not be the perfect fix?

Each pool of 10 wounds isn't created equally, this is painfully obvious. Are you going to argue that killing 10 gants is equal to killing 3 terminators and wounding a fourth?

It's not that. I think 40k is more fun when it has interesting lists at the top of the tournament standings; I could frankly care less about the casual game. I'm coming at this wondering why after all the years of unbalanced rules you would have any expectation of balance from GW.

This hurts tournaments more than anything and pretty much guarantees LESS list variety as the top players will take armies that can't be hit for secondaries. It pretty much accomplishes the exact opposite of everything you are saying you want in that quote.

And yes, GW has traditionally had unbalanced rules to one degree or another and I've always had a problem with it. This is especially bad though because it's one of those times where the only options are an unacceptable level of incompetence or an unacceptable level of greed.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
So why would changing "thin their ranks" to : "for every 10 wounds you destroy, score 1 VP" and removing the option of double dipping in kill secondaries not be the perfect fix?

Each pool of 10 wounds isn't created equally, this is painfully obvious. Are you going to argue that killing 10 gants is equal to killing 3 terminators and wounding a fourth?

Then why does killing 3 vypers give me as many points as killing 3 bligh-haulers?
Then why does killing a t9 Chaos Porphyrion give the same as killing a t8 gallant.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
So why would changing "thin their ranks" to : "for every 10 wounds you destroy, score 1 VP" and removing the option of double dipping in kill secondaries not be the perfect fix?

Each pool of 10 wounds isn't created equally, this is painfully obvious. Are you going to argue that killing 10 gants is equal to killing 3 terminators and wounding a fourth?

Then why does killing 3 vypers give me as many points as killing 3 bligh-haulers?
Then why does killing a t9 Chaos Porphyrion give the same as killing a t8 gallant.

Because some of the secondaries are pretty bad and we should probably fix them rather than add another terrible secondary.

Spoletta wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Now if you want a secondary which works against Gravis skew, then we can talk because that has its merits, but it is my impression that what the people want in this thread is something to punish PEQ.

No. Some want that. Most just think it's silly that PEQ can simply ignore being scored on ...

They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.

Faction balance is a thing. If faction balance is bad you act on the mission balance.
Mission design is another thing. You don't change mission design to nerf a faction.

Basic rules for game design.

There is nothing that punishes banshees either. Where's all the threads about that?

The missions should also be generally equal towards all factions attempting them. This isn't the case.

Guard, for example, for showing up to the game with just about any list, give up essentially a full 30 points for their tanks and infantry. There's a lot more points on the table to score against them because there are two secondaries that simultaneously punish their only real defensive line profiles, and even go as far as to double-dip each other.
Space Marines, on the other hand, will rarely even have 45 points available to score from secondaries on the table, even accounting for Engage/Linebreaker and Banners/Scramblers. And, of course, Engage and Banners are equally well scorable against Guard, so Guard just offers a much easier scoring time and has a harder time at the mission because the mission is heavily biased against it.

This has nothing to do with faction balance, or the fact that Guard is also just not structurally very strong. Even if Guard had very powerful units, they'd still be playing the game some 20-30 points in the hole because of the secondaries. When one player has 90 points to score and the other player has 75, that's a failure of mission balance.


I would say that given what we have, secondary selection against any given average faction should generally look like:
1 secondary that you jump through some hoop yourself to do with some interaction. [Banners, Scramblers, Ritual, While We Stand]
1 secondary based on your control of the board [Engage, Linebreaker, etc.]
1 secondary based on destruction of whatever is most prevalent in the enemy army.

It's important to observe that that first category requires you to do something you wouldn't normally do towards effecting a victory to get those points. It has a negative effect on your game play, rather than just being points for progressing the mission and conducting normal play. If you, on the other hand, can replace that one with a kill secondary, then you have an easier mission, because none of your units have to stop to take actions or put themselves out of position or anything. Just play the game as you were going to, and get your points. On the other hand, if you don't give up a kill secondary, then your opponent has to take a second one from that first category, which makes the game harder for them through the inverse principle.

And there's actually no compensation for Guard or Tyranids or any other vehicles & light infantry army. There isn't a secondary that they can score better than Space Marines or Custodes or Sisters because they have an army full of tanks and light infantry, and they're worse at primary to boot due to lack of good staying power against general melee.

So, because missions should be equal for all armies participating, it really shouldn't be the case where the basic archetype of some armies is double-dipped on simultaneous secondaries and some armies won't ever give up any points for their list formulation. That's inherently unequal mission design, and that's why there should be an objective that yields points for destroying multiwound infantry, biker, and cavalry models.

We have said this already.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If a faction is screwed by the new design of the secondary missions, then why should it be good to add more factions to the list of the screwed ones? (While still leaving many factions in the unscrewed area, so you are NOT making the packet more fair and balanced).

We shouldn't have threads asking for ways to punish more factions, we should have threads asking how to ease the pain on the few factions that right now have difficulties coping with the new missions. How to redesign Abhor the Witch. How to redesign assassination. How to redesign Grind them Down and so on.

Your analysis is 100% correct, but you are applying it to a discussion that is proposing a solution which would be totally wrong to solve what you have correctly highlighted as an issue.

Punishing more factions because a few are suffering is NOT the correct way to tackle this problem.

I proposed 2 fixes earlier:
simultaneously push Abhor and Thin their Ranks into the same category as Bring it Down [thus removing the opportunity to double dip that against Tyranids, Guard, and the like]
and introduce a secondary that affects medium/heavy infantry/bike/cavalry based armies. As long as the points are calibrated to be about 750 points of dead support assets or 1000 points of dead troops, that should cover almost all the factions.
plus adjusting the Bring it Down to not favor dreadnoughts/spammed small vehicles over other vehicles would help.

Going through the short list:
Ad Mech - Bring it Down or New Objective
CSM - New Objective [post codex]
Custodes - New Objective
Daemons - Thin Ranks
Dark Eldar -
Eldar - Bring it Down or New Objective
Guard - Bring it Down and Thin Ranks [but it's okay as long as they can't be taken together]
GSC - Bring it Down and Thin Ranks
GK - New Objective and Abhor the Witch
Necrons - Bring it Down or New Objective
Orks - Thin Ranks or Bring it Down
Sisters - Bring it Down
SM - New Objective
Tyranids - Bring it Down and Thin Ranks and maybe Abhor the Witch
Tau - Bring it Down or New Objective

This kind of only leaves DE out, and that's mostly because right now I don't know what DE is doing right now. A multiwound-targeting objective would cover the presently unaffected SM and Custodes, as well as cover a group of lists that are heavy into Kataphrons, Destroyers, Jetbikes, or Wraiths that aren't currently affected.

For the most part, you either have to be heavy into light infantry, heavy into vehicles, or heavy into multiwound infantry. There's a pretty small margin of single wound and low model count lists that also don't manage to offer 5 vehicle targets.



Competitive missions should be symmetric, we basically all agree, and right now they're not because of the lack of a secondary to affect multiwound/elite infantry armies, and an overabundance of secondaries to affect vehicle/light infantry armies.

An alternative option would be to eliminate kill secondaries all-together.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
So why would changing "thin their ranks" to : "for every 10 wounds you destroy, score 1 VP" and removing the option of double dipping in kill secondaries not be the perfect fix?

Each pool of 10 wounds isn't created equally, this is painfully obvious. Are you going to argue that killing 10 gants is equal to killing 3 terminators and wounding a fourth?

Then why does killing 3 vypers give me as many points as killing 3 bligh-haulers?
Then why does killing a t9 Chaos Porphyrion give the same as killing a t8 gallant.

Because some of the secondaries are pretty bad and we should probably fix them rather than add another terrible secondary.

couldnt we do both?

Personally i'd 100% get rid of the kill secondaries and focus more on the action based ones.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Personally i'd 100% get rid of the kill secondaries and focus more on the action based ones.

I 100% agree, 40k players don't need any extra incentive to want to remove the other player's models from the table and these do nothing either way on the skew issue.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Personally i'd 100% get rid of the kill secondaries and focus more on the action based ones.

I 100% agree, 40k players don't need any extra incentive to want to remove the other player's models from the table and these do nothing either way on the skew issue.

Not to restart the other thread but in case you did not know, thats how Infinity's missions are structured, you need a specialist to activate an antenna for example.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Personally i'd 100% get rid of the kill secondaries and focus more on the action based ones.

I 100% agree, 40k players don't need any extra incentive to want to remove the other player's models from the table and these do nothing either way on the skew issue.

Not to restart the other thread but in case you did not know, thats how Infinity's missions are structured, you need a specialist to activate an antenna for example.

Honestly, if I thought I could get my group to play a tabletop style game I'd try Infinity, but that's not going to happen. I think we'll end up sticking to Gloomhaven, MtG, and PnP games like D&D and Cyberpunk.

Honestly, if I thought I could get my group to play a tabletop style game I'd try Infinity, but that's not going to happen. I think we'll end up sticking to Gloomhaven, MtG, and PnP games like D&D and Cyberpunk.

So ... you don't even play 40k?

Tycho wrote:

Honestly, if I thought I could get my group to play a tabletop style game I'd try Infinity, but that's not going to happen. I think we'll end up sticking to Gloomhaven, MtG, and PnP games like D&D and Cyberpunk.

So ... you don't even play 40k?

Not currently, though I own a large collection of Chaos Space Marine and Dark Angels models. I also have played almost every army, but this was back in 4th early 5th and that was all proxies.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

It doesn't make it wrong either, which is the point you're missing.

Faction variance is a thing, but this is clearly done in a way that specifically benefits the golden child faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not currently, though I own a large collection of Chaos Space Marine and Dark Angels models. I also have played almost every army, but this was back in 4th early 5th and that was all proxies.

Aight so kindly avoid talking about the rules balance.

Hecaton wrote:
Aight so kindly avoid talking about the rules balance.

No.

Tycho wrote:

Why? There's no moral wrongness to a game being unfair. There isn't even anything to say that 40k is designed to be fair. Seriously, scan the rules and tell me where GW have promised you a fair and balanced experience.

Didn't realize you were coming from the standpoint of not caring if people actually have fun. If that's your stance, I can't really argue. It is absolutely awful design and a terrible approach, but ok. If you're good with that, you're good with that. lol

But people generaly do care only about other people armies, or armies that beat their army. There are no legions of space marine players asking for nerfs, because right now, unlike in many times in the past, marine players are having fun playing their marines. At the same time I don't see eldar players start their rants about marines being OP, with the clause of and nerf harlequins too, because they are even more broken then marines.

Plus it is as mr Canadian said, no where in its rules does GW promise a fair or balanced game. They don't even promise a good or enjoyable one, at best they hint at the fact that people should make their own fun and enjoyment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Not to restart the other thread but in case you did not know, thats how Infinity's missions are structured, you need a specialist to activate an antenna for example.

Lets better not ask for stuff like that from GW. I think they have scenarios like that in AoS. which are super fun for factions that have to play missions that require casters, but GW decided that theirs shouldn't have one.

Karol wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Why? There's no moral wrongness to a game being unfair. There isn't even anything to say that 40k is designed to be fair. Seriously, scan the rules and tell me where GW have promised you a fair and balanced experience.

Didn't realize you were coming from the standpoint of not caring if people actually have fun. If that's your stance, I can't really argue. It is absolutely awful design and a terrible approach, but ok. If you're good with that, you're good with that. lol

But people generaly do care only about other people armies, or armies that beat their army. There are no legions of space marine players asking for nerfs, because right now, unlike in many times in the past, marine players are having fun playing their marines. At the same time I don't see eldar players start their rants about marines being OP, with the clause of and nerf harlequins too, because they are even more broken then marines.

Plus it is as mr Canadian said, no where in its rules does GW promise a fair or balanced game. They don't even promise a good or enjoyable one, at best they hint at the fact that people should make their own fun and enjoyment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Not to restart the other thread but in case you did not know, thats how Infinity's missions are structured, you need a specialist to activate an antenna for example.

Lets better not ask for stuff like that from GW. I think they have scenarios like that in AoS. which are super fun for factions that have to play missions that require casters, but GW decided that theirs shouldn't have one.

Pretty sure there are SM players on this very forum who acknowledge Marines are too good and need to be toned down.

Not everyone-because, yes, a lot of people act selfish-but not everyone's a jerk.

You know on a forum you can claim what ever you want. But growing sales, when the stuff that GW sales is mostly marines, seem to point out that people who buy and play marines are having a grand time right now.

Also I always have problem with people playing 5 different armies and 3 different games, being called he is an X player. If you can switch at any time, then it sound like someone who does 400m asking for changes to 100m dash, when they maing 400m anyway.

Not everyone-because, yes, a lot of people act selfish-but not everyone's a jerk.

At the same time durning 8th, I wasn't seeing eldar or tau players asking for nerfs to their armies. Only L2P comments or fixing the being OP problem, by giving their armies more units and more rules, so they can diversify. Which brings me back to my idea, that either everyone is a jerk or no one is, and people just act like that the same way they do in daily life.

Karol wrote:
You know on a forum you can claim what ever you want. But growing sales, when the stuff that GW sales is mostly marines, seem to point out that people who buy and play marines are having a grand time right now.

Also I always have problem with people playing 5 different armies and 3 different games, being called he is an X player. If you can switch at any time, then it sound like someone who does 400m asking for changes to 100m dash, when they maing 400m anyway.

Yes, and that certainly has nothing to do with Marines having 100+ units, as compared to Harlequin's seven. Or that Marines have been in every single starter set I know of for 40k.

Even IF people are jerks... Shouldn't you strive to be better? The "you" in this case is not just you specifically, but a general you as well.

Spoletta wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It is beyond doubt they deliberately did not put an elite multi-wound squad killing secondary into the game, because the secondaries overall are cribbed from ITC, with the notable and glaring exception of gangbusters. There is zero chance that even as careless a company as GW simply overlooked it.

So the question then becomes: why did they deliberately leave off one of the ITC secondaries while keeping all the rest? Answers vary depend on your tinfoil quotient, but I think it's hard to say it's a complete coincidence that most of the new model releases to go with 9th edition are elite multi-wound squads.

Doesn't take a genius to undertstand why.

It would 100% be the most dumb secondary of the lot.

Abhor the witch right now is considered the dumbest, and manages to screw just a couple of factions and only if the opponent has no psykers.

A secondary that targets elite infantries would cripple a dozen or more of factions just for the fact that they play such faction. It would be a hugely dumb secondary and if they did really implement that, this board would still be raging about it.

Let's not delude ourselves. The only reason why many players want such secondary is because it hurts SM, and hurting SM is good in everyone's book.

It probably was there in the first iteration of the test document, but then it was cut out for good reasons. Actually the existence of dumb ones like Abhor and Assassination is probably due to them going under the radar because there was an elephant like that during the playtest.

I just loved this post. Basically, Kill secondaries are perfectly fine because they don't impact Marines, but how dare you propose one that does.