Switch Theme:

1,800 points of models removed in one turn in GT final  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Thats kind of the problem. There's no easy "one stop shop" for GW to try and dial the deadliness back. Theyve amped it up across the board, mostly through individual unit buffs and weapon buffs and by adding the extra layer of army-wide rules in the Doctrine-equivalent purity bonuses.

And their solution to that is, apparently, also trying to hand out layers of durability like candy. Here you go, thousand sons, try a 5++ on everything. Here you go, Dark Angels, army-wide transhuman. Here you go, BTs, 5++ on everything but also its not even one of your chapter traits, its just your bonus thingy thing.

Did that work? No? people are still getting tabled turn 3 as a norm, but now if you DONT have crazybonkers firepower we've just got these few army builds that cant be scratched at all? Weird, I wonder how other wargames do it, maybe having the difference between "Firing at maximum range at an enemy i can see 1% of 1 model" and "Firing at 2" away at an enemy standing completely out in the open" be ZERO, NOTHING, ITS THE GOD DAMN SAME was a bad idea.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





 the_scotsman wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Forgetting the ability of planes for the moment, I personally think the Freebooter trait is completely out of whack. You kill a sacrificial unit and all of a sudden your entire army becomes 50% more effective in hitting their targets. Buggies, planes etc are pretty damn cheap for what firepower they deliver (and durability with ramshackle), but that is offset by mostly being BS5. Now the entire army hits on 4s? Yeah, we're going to see results like this.
My buddy picked up on this with the Ork Codex immediately and I played against it the week after the codex hit with my Dark Angels. My Ravenwing units were basically all eliminated Turn 1 with exception of Talon Master and Apothecary who had protection from nearby Deathwing units (I went second) and the only reason I was able to continue the game (but was always playing uphill in a losing battle) was because I had several Deathwing units that could tank a lot of the hits (much harder for him to get Freebooter trait working Turn 2+, but it didn't matter at that point).
My first thought on the matter was that the trait needed changing, it's just too good. maybe it should be an aura only...units within 6" of the one that killed an enemy unit get +1 to hit.


Freebootas has literally existed very much close to current form since the 8th ed ork dex came out...I've been using it this entire time and it's never been an issue before. previously it was *technically* a 24-inch range aura around the unit that killed an enemy unit but 99% of the time just a tiny bit of tactical decision making and it was board-wide.

The overtuning of the vehicles people are taking it with is obviously the problem. squigbuggies basically doubled their damage and stayed at the same points cost.


Correct, but the units that it was able to be used with in 8th were pretty pants. The units themselves have become extremely lethal (which is good right, we all wanted to see more orks on the table), but has become silly when combined with the freebooterz trait. So yeah, one of the two probably needs to be adjusted. Do you lean heavily into points adjustments for buggies and planes? Probably gonna suck, but oh well. Or do you address the freebooter trait itself? My guess, they go with points adjustments, but that won't happen for awhile.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






OrdoSean wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
OrdoSean wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
OrdoSean wrote:
Normally I would agree that movement and tactics on the table are the number one pieces of victory. As long as your list is competent and you pick reasonable secondaries.

However in this matchup with the Orks. There were no correct choices for me to make. I was going to be tabled with nearly no interaction at all.

And that said my list had beaten 3+ flyer admech 3 rounds in a row at this event. Had beaten drukhari.

Tha shooting and durability of the ork list is on a very different level.


Do you really think a competitive drukhari or admech list could not also remove nearly 2000pts of an enemy army in a single turn if they were given free and open access to that player's army to attack it? Because I play Drukhari and I feel REALLY confident I could basically entirely table an opposing army if you set me up 24" away on an empty board.

And that's not even to mention the less competitive army setups that are already just not present in the game at higher levels. Your average admech flyer list could quite easily put an opponent relying on such silly and outdated concepts as 'defending your units with high toughness and Sv rather than Invulns and to-hit mods' in the exact same situation the ork list put you in, just by taking a decent number of stratoraptors and laschickens. I'd hazard a guess that on a board without Obscuring terrain on it an admech list could probably take out 2500-3000pts of Astra Militarum vehicles.


Well seeing as I played this kind of scenario out in two games no. I played the dark angels death wing terminator list twice. And legitimately took my whole army minus maybe 200 points to kill 10 terminators. Which were 1/3 roughly of his army. Maybe 1/4. He had 30 terminators 6 blade guard and a few characters. So yeah most of my killing power killed 1/4 of his army. That seems like a reasonable rate of return.

Similarly in admech matches I ran my army up and he killed 4-5 venoms and maybe 1/3 of the contents. That seems a reasonable rate of loss for me as well.


I think it's pretty safe to say that MOST armies do not have access to...what is it, T4 W3 sv2+ 5++ models that can only be wounded on 4+ for 38pts per model.

While killing 25% of an opposing army per turn might be acceptable for that ONE extreme durability-skew list its pretty disingenuous to suggest that that is a normal setup.

....and also its pretty funny that you bring up that extreme durability skew list and then note that you still got a 25% points return in what's supposed to be a 5-turn game

Is it the goal that every game should end in a tabling before the final turn? Is that good, healthy game design right there?


Well in that army example I can’t kill anything turn one. Then I kill 1/4 on turn 2. Then he kills stuff then I kill 1/4 again then he kills stuff. Then I don’t kill 1/4. Then he kills stuff so by game end we both have sub 1/4 or 1/8 of our armies left yeah I’d say that’s pretty much how the game should go.


Fantastic, works great.

..........for that one setup of your extremely damage-skewed army vs that one extremely durability-skewed army.

Unfortunately, those are not the only available army builds that exist in 40k. So while theyve created maybe a workable...if really boring and tactically shallow situation with the super-indestructible space marines vs the super blendery drukhari, theyve now just dropped two armies into the game that most armies especially older armies just have zero tools to deal with. I dont have access to something with the damage output of say Hellions or Incubi in my GSC list, or my Eldar list. I dont have access to something with the defenses of those Terminators in my...any list except maybe Thousand Sons now that can withstand what those Incubi or Hellions or whatever can lay down.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I'm scared to see what will happen with Imperial Guard.

Transhuman on... normal humans?

Invuln saves?

Or will everyone have to buy 500 infantry models to fill out a normal list?

Oh, and the damage? "The humble lasgun has always been the staple of the Imperial Guard, and it has an advantage in getting around all those silly durability rules!" - Warhammer Community, as my 10 man Guard Squad rolls 120 dice through the roll to see if you get to roll to see if you get to make the enemy roll to save process which results in inflicting 2 wounds.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/28 15:07:43


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






...idk they could just finally, finally bring resurrection mechanics to 40k.

"Send in the next wave!" and all that.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




And this problem is only going to get worse... and I don’t think GW has much incentive. I bet that ork codex and a bunch of ork models sold like hot cakes on launch. GW has too big an incentive to keep making it worse.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 the_scotsman wrote:
Thats kind of the problem. There's no easy "one stop shop" for GW to try and dial the deadliness back. Theyve amped it up across the board, mostly through individual unit buffs and weapon buffs and by adding the extra layer of army-wide rules in the Doctrine-equivalent purity bonuses.

And their solution to that is, apparently, also trying to hand out layers of durability like candy. Here you go, thousand sons, try a 5++ on everything. Here you go, Dark Angels, army-wide transhuman. Here you go, BTs, 5++ on everything but also its not even one of your chapter traits, its just your bonus thingy thing.

Did that work? No? people are still getting tabled turn 3 as a norm, but now if you DONT have crazybonkers firepower we've just got these few army builds that cant be scratched at all? Weird, I wonder how other wargames do it, maybe having the difference between "Firing at maximum range at an enemy i can see 1% of 1 model" and "Firing at 2" away at an enemy standing completely out in the open" be ZERO, NOTHING, ITS THE GOD DAMN SAME was a bad idea.


Disagree. The situation with 9th is getting out of hand, but the amount of changes needed to dial it back is surprisingly small.

Few point changes to DE and Admech (especially planes), Freebooter applies to non-vehicles or to CORE only, moderate point changes to Morven Vahl and Celestine, drastic point increase on Dreadknights.

Those alone would completely level the meta down to SM/Necron/DG level.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 the_scotsman wrote:
...idk they could just finally, finally bring resurrection mechanics to 40k.

"Send in the next wave!" and all that.


lol.

Man, someday I just want armies to be able to interact without killing each other. In 40k there are two binary options right now:
1) Ignore your army and just focus on me scoring mine, with the only interaction being "roll saves to avoid death"
or
2) Kill your army

there's no option to suppress critical units for a juncture that opens up more maneuver space (but only temporarily!) or use obscurants to facilitate an assault across open ground or pile on degrades via morale loss / shock.

Heck, even modern 40k's morale is just "more things die"

EDIT:
It would be megasuperironic for Imperial Guard to get suppression mechanics as their gimmick, actually.

The only army that feels fear and behaves on the battlefield like a real army is also the only one that can inflict that state upon others. XD That would be bigbrain move from GW.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/28 15:36:21


 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

Slipspace wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
On the one hand, the losing player made a gross tactical miscalculation and was severely punished for it. That is what *should* happen.


That's not what happened. It wasn't a gross miscalculation. According to the player himself, the commentators and several fairly knowledgeable people that was literally his only chance to win. So his options were to go with a very risky play and have a shot at winning or not do that and lose pretty much straight away.


He made a decision to make a risky play and it didn't land - and then not only did it not land but it resulted in a stunning defeat. Thats the definition of a tactical miscalculation.

Slipspace wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
My general philosophy is that no game is unwinnable, some are just more difficult to win than others.
In this case, my take is that he looked at the matchup and decided that his best option to win was to go as aggressive as possible on his first turn in hopes of getting a strong alpha strike off. He was unsuccessful and he paid the price for it. Is it possible that he might have been blown off the table if he didn't go all out on turn 1? Possibly, but we won't know because thats not the course of action that he took - if he had and still lost 1800 points of minis on turn 1, then the situation would be different and it would be clearer cut that this was indicative of a gross failure to properly design and balance the game....
But he didn't - and to me, the reason he didn't was a tactical miscalculation he made that indicated that a defensive strategy was doomed to failure and that the rewards of pursuing an aggressive offensive play instead outweighed the risks.

So you're saying one of the best players in the world, along with every commentator, and the consensus of the viewers in chat, is wrong and you're right? Seems like a convenient excuse to me. Since we can never know for sure how the game would have gone had the Orks gone first, or had Sean played more defensively, you can just continue to claim whatever you want.
I don't know how you can claim the situation would be clearer cut and "indicative of a gross failure to properly design and balance the game" only if the other scenario had also played out. Does that mean you think it's fine to be able to remove 90% of an opponent's army in a single turn? Why is that good design under any set of circumstances?


I don't know how you can't comprehend the concept of an outlier event. As someone else commented "Should a glass army just stand in optimal range of a gunline army loaded with rapid fire/Dakka weapons and say come shoot me bro?" The game is designed with the expectation that players will utilize cover to block and limit line of sight and to claim cover where they can't in order to maximize their own survivability and minimize their opponents lethality. In this case, the defending army parked itself in the open at close shooting range of the opposing army, in the process minimizing their survivability and maximizing their opponents lethality. Simply put, the game interaction and board state was what would be atypical, and thus not something from which you can derive meaningful or statistically significant data. It would be like trying to argue that game balance is broken using data pulled from games played on a table with no terrain whatsoever. You can pull data from that, but the data is worthless as a means of deriving meaningful and relevant conclusions about the nature of game balance.

Now, it should be pretty obvious at this point that the reason why the results would be more meaningful had he played more defensively is because terrain would have been a factor which may or may not have tempered the orks lethality - which is a critical component of the game design and an expected feature on the part of the designers that can tip the scales of balance back and forth in either direction. Had he been in terrain to claim cover or blocked line of sight, that 1800 pts lost might have been, say 500 pts instead, which is still a lot but more in line with what people expect when they have "one really good turn" in a game, and is more illustrative of what I would consider an uncommon but not atypical outcome of gameplay.

1 Flyer slot in a battalion, none in the specialized detachments (vanguard, outrider, spearhead) and simply remove the pure flyer detachment (does it still exist in 9th? donno don't play flyers).


It does, costs a CP IIRC.

My personal opinion on flyers is that they should basically be a form of nearly-unassailable but unreliable fire support.
Make them flimsier in terms of wounds, tough and save, but give them back the old 'hit me on 6s unless youre a dedicated anti-air or another plane' rule, and instead of starting on the board they have to roll to see if they come on each turn, and then they just appear, anywhere on the battlefield they want to be.
then your opponent gets 1 turn to respond to them if they want to, and then theyre back in reserves rolling to see if they come on again, because theyre not actually moving around on the game board, theyre shooting by making strafing runs.


Nobody would ever take something that spends more time sitting on the sideboard than it does on the table itself. Various other games work(ed) flyer rules these way and inevitably they don't get taken and/or the rules eventually get reworked to make them more persistent on the table, otherwise you're stuck in a situation where you can't price them appropriately because they either end up too expensive for something that only shows up randomly (and might not even show up at all pending on the circumstances), or too cheap for something which when it does show up can easily remove something that costs more than its own points value (or even a multiple thereof). If this is the way you were designing flyers, I think you'd have to realistically make them free as far as matched play points are concerned, but then charge a hefty fee in CP to actually be able to bring them on the table. Even still, I doubt anyone would really take them as those CP could be better spent elsewhere on something that is more reliable.

 gorgon wrote:
So lethality in 40K has gotten ridiculous, and it's questionable how suited the game is for competitive play.



Been saying it for years but nobody listens, nobody cares. The competitive players complaining the loudest about this are still going to show up to competitive events and log their ITC scores regardless.

OrdoSean wrote:

Well in that army example I can’t kill anything turn one. Then I kill 1/4 on turn 2. Then he kills stuff then I kill 1/4 again then he kills stuff. Then I don’t kill 1/4. Then he kills stuff so by game end we both have sub 1/4 or 1/8 of our armies left yeah I’d say that’s pretty much how the game should go.


What you described is at least a 4 turn game, maybe longer. The competitive community said they wanted a game that played faster so they could complete games with a more definitive result within the time allotted for gameplay by event organizers (which is itself dictated by the realities of scheduling 3+ back to back games), instead of having to end the game prematurely when both players have half their armies on the table and the outcome of the game could very well change "if we only had time for one more round".

This is the outcome of that. GW made the game faster playing, to do that they had to make the game more lethal. If you want the game to truly be playable in a competitive environment, I think this is basically what it has to look like, because "we ended the game on turn 3 but we each still had about 1500 pts of minis on the table" evidently resulted in too much "feels bad man".

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Stop framing this as an outlier event.

It's the second time that a Major Tournament Grand Final was decided in one of the players' first shooting phase in a month.

This isn't some fluke occurrence where the stars aligned to make everyone's dice roll a 1 or sap the "how to play 40k" knowledge from their brains.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/28 15:44:08


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





Let's at least not be disingenuous about the DA durability list (as such as I know as I've been trying to build something for the past few weeks for an event). Yes, DA terminators are incredibly tough....but if you lean so heavy on them you will have no decent offensive firepower and serious mobility issues. Plasma redemptor/ Cyclone missiles...which you can only get 1 for every 200+ pt unit. You have to balance that with offensive capability, and that's generally been Ravenwing, but even that is now easily removed from the game with these strong alpha strike lists (especially if they go second and have to rely on the 5++).
I do think it's clear that some of the ultra top tier lists need some of their wings clipped, but no one is looking for massive nerfs across the board.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




chaos0xomega wrote:
I don't know how you can't comprehend the concept of an outlier event.


We've had turn 1 tablings at 2 major GT finals in the last month now so I don't think we can call it an outlier. Even if it was I don't know how you can't comprehend that the game allowing 90% of an army to be removed in one turn is just flat-out bad regardless of the scenario. There should be no situation or match-up where that should happen. Go back to earlier editions of 40k (3rd or 4th) and it just wouldn't happen due to the lethality being so much lower, mainly because ranges were shorter, movement was more restricted and moving and shooting at full effectiveness was much less common.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 bullyboy wrote:
but no one is looking for massive nerfs across the board.


Fairly sure the Scotsman does want such nerfs - to produce a generalised reduction in damage output across the whole game.

This isn't about "my faction is bigger than your faction" - more that the odds are such that dice are producing blowout games that end too quickly.
Because really 1800 points in a turn is exceptional - relying on good luck and bad luck.
But as said, even 1000 points would still almost certainly be game ending.

And equally doing it at the top of turn 2 as DE lists tend to is just as bad I think for the game - even if not for the competitive scene per se - as that.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





Tyel wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
but no one is looking for massive nerfs across the board.


Fairly sure the Scotsman does want such nerfs - to produce a generalised reduction in damage output across the whole game.

.


Right, but it's specific units or traits, not entire factions.
Address these and we start to get somewhere, but we know that GW changes are mostly 6 months behind (except the most egregious cases)
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 bullyboy wrote:
Tyel wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
but no one is looking for massive nerfs across the board.


Fairly sure the Scotsman does want such nerfs - to produce a generalised reduction in damage output across the whole game.

.


Right, but it's specific units or traits, not entire factions.
Address these and we start to get somewhere, but we know that GW changes are mostly 6 months behind (except the most egregious cases)


I mean, it's pretty much entire factions.

I killed a wrathknight in one turn of shooting with Chimeras.

That's literally some least effective weapons possible against the target type and I still got like, a 30% points return (400 points vs like 1200 pts of Chimeras)
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

Man, what a waste of time to set up all that terrain, unpack all your miniatures, and have your game end like that.

   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Tyel wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
but no one is looking for massive nerfs across the board.


Fairly sure the Scotsman does want such nerfs - to produce a generalised reduction in damage output across the whole game.

.


Right, but it's specific units or traits, not entire factions.
Address these and we start to get somewhere, but we know that GW changes are mostly 6 months behind (except the most egregious cases)


I mean, it's pretty much entire factions.

I killed a wrathknight in one turn of shooting with Chimeras.

That's literally some least effective weapons possible against the target type and I still got like, a 30% points return (400 points vs like 1200 pts of Chimeras)


Chimera FP is not OP, that's silliness. The WK sucks....this is practically known by everyone.
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




North Carolina

 bullyboy wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Tyel wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
but no one is looking for massive nerfs across the board.


Fairly sure the Scotsman does want such nerfs - to produce a generalised reduction in damage output across the whole game.

.


Right, but it's specific units or traits, not entire factions.
Address these and we start to get somewhere, but we know that GW changes are mostly 6 months behind (except the most egregious cases)


I mean, it's pretty much entire factions.

I killed a wrathknight in one turn of shooting with Chimeras.

That's literally some least effective weapons possible against the target type and I still got like, a 30% points return (400 points vs like 1200 pts of Chimeras)


Chimera FP is not OP, that's silliness. The WK sucks....this is practically known by everyone.


I mean, a WK is a pretty cheap source of T8 wounds, relatively. And yeah, Chimeras are bad at shooting, relatively. Isn't that basically the point that Unit is making?

Also I'm sorry but LMAO, the idea of that happening in-universe is so hilarious. Honestly, I hope Gav Thorpe doesn't see this thread, I could see him putting it in one of his books...
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yeah, that's my point.

Casual units (Chimeras) have pretty extreme lethality in 9th, even though they're one of the least lethal units in the game.

A WK has the same defensive profile as an Imperial knight, against Chimeras. So sub in an Imperial Knight if the WK is "too bad" for my point to get through.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/28 18:47:40


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Tyel wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
but no one is looking for massive nerfs across the board.


Fairly sure the Scotsman does want such nerfs - to produce a generalised reduction in damage output across the whole game.

.


Right, but it's specific units or traits, not entire factions.
Address these and we start to get somewhere, but we know that GW changes are mostly 6 months behind (except the most egregious cases)


I mean, it's pretty much entire factions.

I killed a wrathknight in one turn of shooting with Chimeras.

That's literally some least effective weapons possible against the target type and I still got like, a 30% points return (400 points vs like 1200 pts of Chimeras)


Chimera FP is not OP, that's silliness. The WK sucks....this is practically known by everyone.


I mean, a WK is a pretty cheap source of T8 wounds, relatively. And yeah, Chimeras are bad at shooting, relatively. Isn't that basically the point that Unit is making?

Also I'm sorry but LMAO, the idea of that happening in-universe is so hilarious. Honestly, I hope Gav Thorpe doesn't see this thread, I could see him putting it in one of his books...


But exactly what is different between this in 9th and 8th edition? Hvy bolters going to D2. Are we really saying this is a problem?
I'd like to know what was shooting at he WK and break it down to see how typical the result was.
The WK is a terrible source of T8 wounds, 3 wraithlords are far cheaper and provide 30 wounds.
It's just laughable that we think this is an example of the game being too lethal.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/28 18:49:33


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







the game was too lethal in 8th edition too and has been for a long, long time... probably since 5th

yeah I wouldn't be surprised if it was an uncommon result.
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




I just think it’s laughable that we are arguing whether or not the edition is too lethal when we have this tournament discussion about how one of the top 40k tourney players got tabled in the opponents first round of shooting while simultaneously a discussion is being had in the general discussions about how you need the board oversaturated with LOS blocking terrain to survive a round of shooting and another thread in the general discussions briefing a new player that yes it is fairly typical to be shot off the board in the first round of shooting. And other whole discussions are being had about how the edition is too lethal. And other discussions are being had about other problems that ultimately keep coming back to the conclusion that the edition is too lethal.
The simplest explanation is that the game is too lethal.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





1200 points of chimeras do not down a WK. I know that mathammer is a dumb approach, but sometimes it is better if you take a page from it.

1200 points are 16 chimeras with double heavy bolter. That's 64 heavy bolter shots, which inflicts 12 wounds on a WK. Care to tell me just how many buffs have you considered to double the output?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Spoletta wrote:
1200 points of chimeras do not down a WK. I know that mathammer is a dumb approach, but sometimes it is better if you take a page from it.

1200 points are 16 chimeras with double heavy bolter. That's 64 heavy bolter shots, which inflicts 12 wounds on a WK. Care to tell me just how many buffs have you considered to double the output?


They had HK missiles too (and Augur Arrays to reroll the HK missile hit), though I use multilaser and not HB in the turrets. Three had twin Heavy Flamers.

I guess I will do the maths too:

12 HK missiles do 14 wounds on average
Multilasers do a wound or two
Heavy Bolters do about 4 wounds
Heavy Flamers do about 4 wounds.

So a total of about 25 wounds on average. Not too far off doing 24.

(Participants are 12 chimeras with Augur Arrays/HK missiles, 9 of them have Multilaser/Heavy Bolter and 3 of them 2x have Heavy Flamers). I guesstimate this at about 1200 points of chimeras.

EDIT:
1110 points of chimeras, back of the napkin

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/28 19:10:15


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Ok, but that runs counter to your point (which by the way had no reason to be demonstrated, lethality is too high, you just brought a bad example).

You are saying that that 1200 points of unit can reach a 33% return in the turn they use their one time only attack against a good target (HK are decent weapons against WK). Ok, that seems perfectly fine too me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/28 19:13:09


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Spoletta wrote:
Ok, but that runs counter to your point (which by the way had no reason to be demonstrated, lethality is too high, you just brought a bad example).

You are saying that that 1200 points of unit can reach a 33% return in the turn they use their one time only attack against a good target (HK are decent weapons against WK). Ok, that seems perfectly fine too me.


Does it?

You and I have different definitions of fine.

Chimeras are uncompetitive. HK missiles on them make them more uncompetitive, not less (unless HKs started being spammed at tournaments and I missed the memo).

Yet they still take down a WK (or, equivalently, an IK) in a single shooting phase. If you think that's "fine" then ... well, agree to disagree I guess.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





Its 12 missiles...of course that's ok AT vs a Knight. An IK can get a 4+ vs that, and a shielded WK should also be able to....but they're crap, as I stated before.
I'm not seeing a problem of lethality overload here.
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

Slipspace wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
I don't know how you can't comprehend the concept of an outlier event.


We've had turn 1 tablings at 2 major GT finals in the last month now so I don't think we can call it an outlier. Even if it was I don't know how you can't comprehend that the game allowing 90% of an army to be removed in one turn is just flat-out bad regardless of the scenario. There should be no situation or match-up where that should happen. Go back to earlier editions of 40k (3rd or 4th) and it just wouldn't happen due to the lethality being so much lower, mainly because ranges were shorter, movement was more restricted and moving and shooting at full effectiveness was much less common.


What were the conditions of the other turn 1 tabling? Was it another case of "a glass army just standing in optimal range of a gunline army loaded with rapid fire/Dakka weapons and saying come shoot me bro?". Because, if so, its still an outlier. Thats not the way you are supposed to play the game. If you do that, you should expect to have a significant piece of your army shot off the board. If the basis of design calls for a certain percentage of your force to be protected by terrain, cover, and other mechanics in order to mitigate lethality, and you do none of that, the problem is not the game design.

Simply put, if the game is designed to encourage the use of cover and terrain, then you can expect the game to have a very high degree of lethality - thats how the design of the game incentives and encourages the use of terrain and cover. Look at infinity for an example of this. If you set up all your minis in the open, you can also very easily be tabled on turn 1 there too (hell, you can be tabled on your own turn if you don't play the way the game is designed to be played and just charge up in the open). Anyone who plays infinity would say that its a pretty well balanced game (if not incredibly dense and crunchy), yet being tabled in a single turn is an entirely possible outcome if you don't play to the design basis of the game. Pointing at 1800 pts of minis being removed in a single phase as evidence of some fault in the game design, when the player essentially did everything that one shouldn't do in order to enable that to occur, does not produce any valid data to base judgement on. Whether or not the player "had a choice" in the matter is a somewhat separate discussion, and perhaps you should be more focused on that rather than the fact that 1800 pts of unprotected and poorly positioned models got shot off the table. IMO, the bigger takeaway here seems to be that just about everyone is in concurrence that the outcome of a supposedly competitive game between two of the most skilled players in the world was 100% decided entirely on listbuilding and not any actual amount of skill or decisions made - at least as far as a number of the posters here seem to be concerned.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





^ This.

The issue isn't the fact that after losing a bet the DE list was wiped out in quick order.
The issue is that the DE list was FORCED to take that bet.

That's what's bad about all this.
And it would have been bad even if the orks got totally slaughtered, because if the game boils down to "We roll these dices and see who wins", then there is something fundamentally wrong.
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





chaos0xomega wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
I don't know how you can't comprehend the concept of an outlier event.


We've had turn 1 tablings at 2 major GT finals in the last month now so I don't think we can call it an outlier. Even if it was I don't know how you can't comprehend that the game allowing 90% of an army to be removed in one turn is just flat-out bad regardless of the scenario. There should be no situation or match-up where that should happen. Go back to earlier editions of 40k (3rd or 4th) and it just wouldn't happen due to the lethality being so much lower, mainly because ranges were shorter, movement was more restricted and moving and shooting at full effectiveness was much less common.


What were the conditions of the other turn 1 tabling? Was it another case of "a glass army just standing in optimal range of a gunline army loaded with rapid fire/Dakka weapons and saying come shoot me bro?". Because, if so, its still an outlier. Thats not the way you are supposed to play the game. If you do that, you should expect to have a significant piece of your army shot off the board. If the basis of design calls for a certain percentage of your force to be protected by terrain, cover, and other mechanics in order to mitigate lethality, and you do none of that, the problem is not the game design.

Simply put, if the game is designed to encourage the use of cover and terrain, then you can expect the game to have a very high degree of lethality - thats how the design of the game incentives and encourages the use of terrain and cover. Look at infinity for an example of this. If you set up all your minis in the open, you can also very easily be tabled on turn 1 there too (hell, you can be tabled on your own turn if you don't play the way the game is designed to be played and just charge up in the open). Anyone who plays infinity would say that its a pretty well balanced game (if not incredibly dense and crunchy), yet being tabled in a single turn is an entirely possible outcome if you don't play to the design basis of the game. Pointing at 1800 pts of minis being removed in a single phase as evidence of some fault in the game design, when the player essentially did everything that one shouldn't do in order to enable that to occur, does not produce any valid data to base judgement on. Whether or not the player "had a choice" in the matter is a somewhat separate discussion, and perhaps you should be more focused on that rather than the fact that 1800 pts of unprotected and poorly positioned models got shot off the table. IMO, the bigger takeaway here seems to be that just about everyone is in concurrence that the outcome of a supposedly competitive game between two of the most skilled players in the world was 100% decided entirely on listbuilding and not any actual amount of skill or decisions made - at least as far as a number of the posters here seem to be concerned.
London GT was a Deathwatch army with 6 dreadnoughts they couldn't hide (terrain was bad, no one disputes that) getting them all removed inside their deployment zone by an Admech army.

So durable units from across the table.

And I believe the Ork player from Socal did basically the same to another DE army in the semi finals.
Another game was Admech destroying a DE army in 2 turns.
ect
ect

And you can't hide behind terrain from flyers. They can hit any point on the table turn 1 because they are fast and have huge models where the tip of a wing can unleash their entire payload.

9th edition is to lethal. Period. full stop.

Also last time I played Infinity it had reaction fire and alternate activation. Both of which help a lot in lethal environments because you can do something back before you lose everything and your opponent loses nothing.
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: