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. |
|
|
2020/10/19 14:42:22
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Insectum7 wrote:There are two types of balance, model balance and game balance. For model balance the Rhino is irrelevant.
Which is why Kalabites are awful in many situations. However when talking about model balance it's important to note the rules at that point. AND, with the rules at that point, five Marines get a Grav Cannon, Combi-Grav or whatever you want, and that Rhino with an extra Storm Bolter because why not. That's all for LESS than the Warriors, who just have Relentless and a 4+++ and a rule for a weapon that's hilariously inefficient vs cheap vehicles.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
|
|
2020/10/19 14:56:01
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
a_typical_hero wrote: Insectum7 wrote: Canadian 5th wrote:Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.
Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."
Nobody sane will disagree with you that factions should have balanced and competitive lists which represent their typical archetype. But "we" are not in charge of rules writing. At least I'm not. While "finding and talking to like minded poeple" is totally within your own power to do.
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
Do you agree?
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 14:57:37
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Dudeface wrote:
So is this an issue with orks melee ability or is it a marine complaint? Which armies can't orks interact with and do damage to in melee because of 9th?
that is the thing...
Marines are, imo atleast, atm outlier for damage and firepower thanks to bolter discipline. (yes even CSM to a degree)
vice versa, orks seem slightly overpriced when up against 2 w infantry.. But imo look really good against one W.
That is also why i said percived. Personally i think boler discipline and the malicious volley counterpart are an issue. It's a constraint that hardly is one for a flat 100% increase in shots at the full range, that IS a rule that has issues which then get probably too ridicoulus with doctrines.
i also think however that dakka x3 is an issue, in a way for the time consumption of it , especially when BS 4+ would've solved more issues and made the hike to boyz f.e. alot more stomachable.( also was to case way back so why not try that agains instead of relying on a fishing mechanic.)
|
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH. |
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:00:23
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
Annandale, VA
|
Canadian 5th wrote:I'm just defending the idea that horde lists that win via board control and which lack strong offence are good for the game and can be fun to play.
When it comes down to it, 40K is a game billed as the big no-holds-barred confrontation between the galaxy's ultimate badasses. The fluff doesn't concern itself with the dry details of logistics or strategy, it's about knock-down-drag-out close combat. If your opponent has gotten you surrounded and is closing in to finish the job, that's not a sad tactical failure, that's a moment of AWESOME to have your guns-blazing-in-all-directions last stand and if you're cool enough you might just win. This is a game with no flanking, no C&C, no meaningful morale rules, because those aren't part of the fantasy it's trying to sell.
Orks in particular are described as having a culture that revolves around fighting. Their motivation isn't to capture territory or secure other political goals, it's to fight for its own sake. Their cultural hierarchy is determined by ability to fight; the better an Ork is at killing things, the higher on the totem pole it is. If there's one faction in the game that would ignore the battlefield objectives for the promise of a proper fight, it's Orks.
So even if sitting on an objective and not fighting is a viable tactic for Orks on the tabletop, it means the game is absolutely failing to match up with its background. More to the point, a majority of players I've talked to either find it unsatisfying to play, because it doesn't deliver the fantasy they bought into the army for, or unsatisfying to play against, because losing on objectives against an army you can't kill fast enough to stop just isn't fun.
As a Tyranid player I've felt this as well. I can rush objectives and keep the enemy pushed back, but at the same time I'm reluctant to send my twenty-foot-tall bioengineered killing machines into combat because the big man with the hammer just yeets them off the board. Do I win games? Yes. Is it fun? No. Not because I am a Neanderthal who only derives enjoyment from killing things, but because I painted up several thousand points of space bugs specifically to enjoy watching them eat my buddy's space men while he enjoys watching his space men gun down hordes of space bugs. A game that comes down to musical chairs on the poker chips is unsatisfying for both of us.
I appreciate how the change to the scoring system has made games less static and gunline-y, and I'm always a fan of objective systems that reward things other than just removing models. But I would argue that if ignoring the enemy army and focusing on the objective- let alone being forced to do so because your army can't actually fight- is a viable strategy for 40K, then something's gone wrong. Not because that's inherently a bad thing for wargaming, but because it's a bad thing for the sort of game that 40K is.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:02:45
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Karol wrote: Insectum7 wrote:Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."
If boys were a valid melee or shoting unit, and orks could spam them in number they can use now. No one would be winning against orks, unless they had an army that could spam a comperable number of units with comperable shoting and melee abilities. Or be immune to melee and shoting, while being dishing out large amount of damage of their own.
If Intercessors were a valid shooting and melee unit, and Marines could spam them in the number they can use now, no one would be winning against Marines.
Here's the thing-no one wants Ork Boys to be OP god monsters. (Okay, virtually no one.) What most want is for Ork Boys with Choppas to be a good melee threat, maybe with a PK or Killsaw equipped Nob, or for Ork Boys with Shootas to be a credible threat in melee and able to deal decent damage with shooting. Not stellar damage-even with Shootas, Boys are not a pure shooting unit, given their CC stats-but decent damage.
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:07:07
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
You mean most or all ork players, because I doubt that anyone who doesn't own or plans to play them wants orks to get a tier 1 army.
They are already problematic just sitting on objectives. If they could also move and engage stuff in melee or shoting, they would be horrible to play against. Specialy now with all the nerfs GW does to marines and marine gear.
|
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. |
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:08:02
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Acolyth
|
Canadian 5th wrote:You might be right in a hardcore simulation game. But 40k ain't that. It's identity has more in common with Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament etc. than it does with games including simulated ballistics trajectories. 40K is fast ultraviolence with hitscan weapons, not the careful positioning, ballistics calculations and breathing control of a real sniper.
How rewarding do you think 4x games would be if you had no visual marker of how well your strategy was going? So no overlay showing your controlled territory, or your cultural/religious influence etc. You just do your thing and at some arbitrary point the game ends at which point you find out whether or not you won. And how rewarding as a player would it be if your chosen faction had only one way to try and win and no way to deviate from that to counter your opponents strategy due to a massive power imbalance between your faction and that of your opponents?
Your analogy falls rather flat when, by virtue of having models, a board, objective markers, rules, etc. you already have a lot of feedback. In fact, even in an entirely pacifist run of a 40k game where you could take all normal action except that weapons were treated as damage 0 you'd already be playing 90% of the game.
The way you win with the hypothetical or horde that does no damage is to control space and tie opponents up outside of objective scoring range. You still appreciate the models you do kill, nobody said you shouldn't, but the aim is to win via objectives and board control rather than via removing most of your opponents army. 9th edition has specifically been designed to make this style of play more viable with its mission design and smaller play area.
The game has never been at its best when the primary mission was kill your opponent's stuff faster than he kills your stuff. In such a game you could easily just simulate the math and assign points based on the probability of each side winning. Coincidently this is the same level of analysis that goes into declaring something broken on Dakka...
Wiping so much of an army off the board in turn 1 that the army has no real way to play when they get their first turn is bad, yes.
But the other extreme of nothing meaningful dying is not better.
This game is best when the choices you make versus the choices your opponent makes ON THE TABLE are interesting. Winning defensively via outnumbering an army's damage output is a win in list construction, not on the table. Most people want what they do on the table to matter at least as much as how many models they showed up to the table with.
Interesting: Shooting off a screening unit so a fast moving unit can tie up a high-power shooting backline unit for the rest of the game (table, because you had to position that fast mover and then dedicate firepower to clear a lane for it, and there were probably other things both players could have done with those units)
Not Interesting: Having enough total durability to soak continual fire from that backline shooter all game (list building, because you're not making any choices once you hit the table about how to deal with that backline, and barring crazy dice skews, it's liable to play out the same every time)
Too much lethality means too units never get to do anything, and that's lame. Objectives are notionally good, it makes things you need to get moving across the board for. But winning objectives without having to actively respond to your opponent's actions as anything more than "They're all over there" is also not great.
As a "player feel" they want to krump some gitz. As a strategy game, it needs to matter which gitz they krump and when, to have any depth outside list building. The current meta denies both so just the fact they can still win isn't satisfying. I wouldn't play a multi-hour game like 40k if the ONLY thing I was showing up to a table for was to wait a few hours then declare a win. I'm there to do something fun and interesting on the table, and that means there has to be SOME kind of give-take dance with the opponent that isn't decided in list-building.
And yeah, this is closely related to why people tend to hate things like 500 point games against hyper-skew lists, win or lose, because it's usually a list-building game at that point. When listbuilding factors are completely dominant over table decisions, whether that's too much lethality, too little, etc. it produces dissatisfaction. (And no, "I will go for objectives" is not a real table 'decision' because it's not functionally a decision. HOW you will go for those objectives and HOW you'll counter your opponent's attempts to do the same CAN BE, but only if meaningful choices exist there - it's not guaranteed to be meaningful just because objectives exist - it's good when it feels like you made the right choices by focusing down or tying up the right units, it's bad when you don't care what you're hitting, when or why).
Edit, because just seeing the above posts: Of course no one wants a green tide with too many bodies to kill AND so much damage they can body you off the table. That's just as bad!
A lot of this is coming BECAUSE there is such a huuuuge performance difference in the basic troops and the weapon profiles meant to kill them. Anti-infantry guns frankly need to maintain SOME level of consistent cost-effectiveness against ALL armies. If it's not worth taking anti-horde guns at all versus Marines (the most played army) then you see the very skew in lists we see now: where armies are either equipped to deal with marines, or they're equipped to deal with hordes, and most people will build to the former rather than the latter. We need to see Troops choices across all armies drop to the same anti-infantry guns the same way that lascannons and meltaguns are credibly a threat to all faction vehicles. Doesn't mean they have to drop at the same rate, because units CAN cost more but be more sturdy in return, but the gun itself shooting at them needs to retain some consistency to its cost-effectiveness, ESPECIALLY against the most popular army (though I would argue all armies)) or you get this skew we have.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/19 15:16:35
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:09:11
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Karol wrote:You mean most or all ork players, because I doubt that anyone who doesn't own or plans to play them wants orks to get a tier 1 army.
They are already problematic just sitting on objectives. If they could also move and engage stuff in melee or shoting, they would be horrible to play against. Specialy now with all the nerfs GW does to marines and marine gear.
people that petty minded should just not play this game.
Atm, a intercessor does the supposed speciality better of ork boyz and firewarrios the two units on the extreme opposite of the poles where a unit should fall into...
PTS for pts do you think that is good? Further they do the same to pretty much all other factions and are by far the most popular faction to boot THAT is an issue.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/19 15:12:10
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH. |
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:09:49
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Karol wrote:You mean most or all ork players, because I doubt that anyone who doesn't own or plans to play them wants orks to get a tier 1 army.
They are already problematic just sitting on objectives. If they could also move and engage stuff in melee or shoting, they would be horrible to play against. Specialy now with all the nerfs GW does to marines and marine gear.
Are you... Are you reading the same Codex I am?
Have you missed the part where Intercessors outfight Boys and Genestealers, and outshoot Tau Fire Warriors, not just model to model, but point for point?
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:20:57
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
Bamberg / Erlangen
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
Do you agree?
Or 3) They agree, but don't have the meanings to change it.
Without looking inside GW's headquarter and seeing how departments interact with each other, it is hard to tell how much "fault" lies with each individually.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/19 15:21:56
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:22:20
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
a_typical_hero wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
Do you agree?
Or 3) They agree, but don't have the meanings to change it.
Without looking inside GW's headquarter and see how departments interact with each other, it is hard to tell how much "fault" lies with each individually.
Who or what would be inhibiting them and why, and how does this make the fault any less GW's in general?
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:29:19
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
Bamberg / Erlangen
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:a_typical_hero wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
Do you agree?
Or 3) They agree, but don't have the meanings to change it.
Without looking inside GW's headquarter and see how departments interact with each other, it is hard to tell how much "fault" lies with each individually.
Who or what would be inhibiting them and why, and how does this make the fault any less GW's in general?
You were asking about the GW designers specifically, not GW as a single entity. It is GW's fault. Is it the designer's fault? I can't tell.
Every single employee who makes a decision that could impact what goals / materials / time limits / ... / a game designer has to work with could inhibit them from achieving balance. The most simple one would be a CEO saying "make it a constant shifting meta to keep people buzzing about the game".
|
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:32:56
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
a_typical_hero wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:a_typical_hero wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
Do you agree?
Or 3) They agree, but don't have the meanings to change it.
Without looking inside GW's headquarter and see how departments interact with each other, it is hard to tell how much "fault" lies with each individually.
Who or what would be inhibiting them and why, and how does this make the fault any less GW's in general?
You were asking about the GW designers specifically, not GW as a single entity. It is GW's fault. Is it the designer's fault? I can't tell.
Every single employee who makes a decision that could impact what goals / materials / time limits / ... / a game designer has to work with could inhibit them from achieving balance. The most simple one would be a CEO saying "make it a constant shifting meta to keep people buzzing about the game".
Well, you're right that I specifically called out the designers, so that's on me, but either way, the important point is that GW themselves are at fault, and not the players - it still refutes your original post, which implied it was the players' fault for not finding likeminded opponents.
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:38:11
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
Hey, it's Martel. I tanked my old account good evidently.
Previous reputation aside, I'd just like to say that I'm so embarrassed by these marine rules that I'm probably building Necrons for 9th. But I don't want to play against marines, so it's just a real tough spot in general.
Marines really just needed to be cheaper it turn out. At least, in my view. Automatically Appended Next Post: Unit1126PLL wrote:a_typical_hero wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:a_typical_hero wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
Do you agree?
Or 3) They agree, but don't have the meanings to change it.
Without looking inside GW's headquarter and see how departments interact with each other, it is hard to tell how much "fault" lies with each individually.
Who or what would be inhibiting them and why, and how does this make the fault any less GW's in general?
You were asking about the GW designers specifically, not GW as a single entity. It is GW's fault. Is it the designer's fault? I can't tell.
Every single employee who makes a decision that could impact what goals / materials / time limits / ... / a game designer has to work with could inhibit them from achieving balance. The most simple one would be a CEO saying "make it a constant shifting meta to keep people buzzing about the game".
Well, you're right that I specifically called out the designers, so that's on me, but either way, the important point is that GW themselves are at fault, and not the players - it still refutes your original post, which implied it was the players' fault for not finding likeminded opponents.
We didn't agree that much before, but I agree with this 100%.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/19 15:38:43
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:40:53
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
Bamberg / Erlangen
|
It is GW's fault that the game is unbalanced.
It is the players fault if they refuse to interact with other players to make the unbalanced game a more pleasant experience.
GW hasn't balanced the game in the past 20 years. How long do you want to wait for someone to make it better for you?
|
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:42:17
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
a_typical_hero wrote:It is GW's fault that the game is unbalanced.
It is the players fault if they refuse to interact with other players to make the unbalanced game a more pleasant experience.
GW hasn't balanced the game in the past 20 years. How long do you want to wait for someone to make it better for you?
Knowing gamers, I don't think that's a realistic expectation.
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:43:40
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
a_typical_hero wrote:It is GW's fault that the game is unbalanced.
It is the players fault if they refuse to interact with other players to make the unbalanced game a more pleasant experience.
GW hasn't balanced the game in the past 20 years. How long do you want to wait for someone to make it better for you?
It depends on how much I am paying them - and yes, I am paying them.
We pay GW for rules. I don't think it's an error to expect a product that was payed for to be usable without changes, especially one that bills itself as fully complete for Matched Play.
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:47:26
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
Bamberg / Erlangen
|
I know. All I can say is that it is worth your time finding friends who share the hobby and your approach to the game.
Unit1126PLL wrote:It depends on how much I am paying them - and yes, I am paying them.
We pay GW for rules. I don't think it's an error to expect a product that was payed for to be usable without changes, especially one that bills itself as fully complete for Matched Play.
I agree with you. You are right in expecting a good product for your money. And 40k is not a good product when looked at from a competitive / Matched Play point of view imho. As a matter of fact I would never randomly go to a store and look for a pick up game myself.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:48:22
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
I just don't think that GW really thought about the unintended consequences of giving 2W to all marines. (Except scouts).
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:49:16
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
SecondTime wrote:I just don't think that GW really thought about the unintended consequences of giving 2W to all marines. (Except scouts).
i don't think that the second wound even is THE issue,
|
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH. |
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:50:28
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
After watching about 10 batreps with marines, if it's not THE issue, it's a huge one.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/19 15:50:50
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:53:15
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
Annandale, VA
|
Not Online!!! wrote: people that petty minded should just not play this game.
Atm, a intercessor does the supposed speciality better of ork boyz and firewarrios the two units on the extreme opposite of the poles where a unit should fall into...
PTS for pts do you think that is good? Further they do the same to pretty much all other factions and are by far the most popular faction to boot THAT is an issue.
JNAProductions wrote:Are you... Are you reading the same Codex I am?
Have you missed the part where Intercessors outfight Boys and Genestealers, and outshoot Tau Fire Warriors, not just model to model, but point for point?
As far as I am aware Karol believes things can only be either underpowered or overpowered so you have to pick one, and also people who play this game always want the best for themselves at the expense of their opponents. Keep those in mind for context and his posts make a lot more sense.
a_typical_hero wrote:It is GW's fault that the game is unbalanced.
It is the players fault if they refuse to interact with other players to make the unbalanced game a more pleasant experience.
GW hasn't balanced the game in the past 20 years. How long do you want to wait for someone to make it better for you?
Like Unit said it's not an unwillingness to deal with it so much as being annoyed that such an expensive product requires these contortions to not break.
I've got no problem filling in the gaps in my $5 copy of Peter Pig's AK47 Republic and only playing against like-minded friends; my expectations are a bit different for a game where $50 doesn't even buy you the core rules let alone faction-specific supplements.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:55:17
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare
|
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Insectum7 wrote:There are two types of balance, model balance and game balance. For model balance the Rhino is irrelevant.
Which is why Kalabites are awful in many situations. However when talking about model balance it's important to note the rules at that point. AND, with the rules at that point, five Marines get a Grav Cannon, Combi-Grav or whatever you want, and that Rhino with an extra Storm Bolter because why not. That's all for LESS than the Warriors, who just have Relentless and a 4+++ and a rule for a weapon that's hilariously inefficient vs cheap vehicles.
Doesn't matter. Free Rhinos still do not make individual Tac Marines more durable than individual Nacron Warriors. Besides, free Rhinos could only be taken if you ran double demi-co, so if you were running Skyhammer Formation, single demi-co Gladius or simply playing in a lower-points game, free Rhinos weren't available.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 15:56:45
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
Gladius was an indictment of just how miserable marines were, actually.
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 16:03:37
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
a_typical_hero wrote:I agree with you. You are right in expecting a good product for your money. And 40k is not a good product when looked at from a competitive / Matched Play point of view imho. As a matter of fact I would never randomly go to a store and look for a pick up game myself.
I actually think it is fine for competitive play, and less fine for casual play at the moment. If I go to a tournament, I generally know what I am getting into. There may be some rules idiosyncrasies, but the TO is willing to paper over them in the Tournament Packet (House Rules) and his word is law at a tournament. Competitive play is in a good spot, even if balance isn't exactly right. Balance isn't really important to competitive play (not saying competitive players don't want it here; rather I'm saying that "competitive play" will endure even when the balance is atrocious).
I think the real problem is in casual games. The old method of 40k playing, in 4th and 5th, really was that you could go PUG randomly; it was nice, because you could have " 40k night" at the store and simply show up, and there would be people looking for a game. Now? Casual players basically have to build a tournament packet on the fly, for each and every game separately. Not to mention the lie told to us about Crusade, where I could show up with my Crusade army and ask to play a regular Matched Play army and have it work. The armies are very different, the missions are very different - heck, one is build using points and the other is build using PL. You'd have to reconfigure one or both armies right then and there!
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 16:09:53
Subject: Re:I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Insectum7 wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Insectum7 wrote:There are two types of balance, model balance and game balance. For model balance the Rhino is irrelevant.
Which is why Kalabites are awful in many situations. However when talking about model balance it's important to note the rules at that point. AND, with the rules at that point, five Marines get a Grav Cannon, Combi-Grav or whatever you want, and that Rhino with an extra Storm Bolter because why not. That's all for LESS than the Warriors, who just have Relentless and a 4+++ and a rule for a weapon that's hilariously inefficient vs cheap vehicles.
Doesn't matter. Free Rhinos still do not make individual Tac Marines more durable than individual Nacron Warriors. Besides, free Rhinos could only be taken if you ran double demi-co, so if you were running Skyhammer Formation, single demi-co Gladius or simply playing in a lower-points game, free Rhinos weren't available.
Seeing as it could be done potentially even at 1500 points you're basically wrong.
Also if you're just looking at the individual models then yes the Tactical technically did win compared to the Warrior. Warriors weren't ran in 7th outside the Decurion for a reason and I think you're entirely avoiding that reason. The free Rhino is part of the unit whether you like it or not, simply because it IS free. Automatically Appended Next Post: SecondTime wrote:Gladius was an indictment of just how miserable marines were, actually.
It's an indictment of GW not realizing that giving literally free units is absolutely horrible design. Like, imagine going to a 2000 point game and your opponent gets whole minimum of 350 extra points.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/19 16:11:32
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
|
|
2020/10/19 16:11:56
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
"The free Rhino is part of the unit whether you like it or not, simply because it IS free."
Tell that to 7th ed BA tactical marines.
"It's an indictment of GW not realizing that giving literally free units is absolutely horrible design. "
It was a desperate game patch, because they realized their poster boys were getting trounced. They had to spot marines at least 350 points vs that Eldar codex.
More to the point, the gulf that GW has created between Necron units and marine units is far too large.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/19 16:15:19
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 16:17:27
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I feel the Marine situation in 7th never got *remotely* as bad as it did in late 2018. They got silly formations because GW wanted to sell product, and utterly ludicrous formations were their mechanism to do so.
Marines were sufficiently popular that they could be guaranteed sales - whereas factions like Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, CSM were just abandoned.
But its ancient history, so who cares?
I'm struggling to see how Marines *going* to 2 wounds is mattering. Has the meta shifting massively towards tactical marines over intercessors?
The bigger twist is probably Marines becoming a 3+ wound faction and generally being undercosted for it. But so it goes.
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 16:21:42
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
Khan-led White Scar grav cannon spam rhino armies were pretty obnoxious. But that's at least specific. Late 8th marines were just obnoxious across the board.
Maybe gravis is indeed a bigger deal. I know eradicators are a bigger deal than any oldboi units. 2W oldbois is just jarring and seems like a giant middle finger to all other armies.
|
|
|
|
2020/10/19 16:33:22
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
|
|
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:a_typical_hero wrote: Insectum7 wrote: Canadian 5th wrote:Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.
Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."
Nobody sane will disagree with you that factions should have balanced and competitive lists which represent their typical archetype. But "we" are not in charge of rules writing. At least I'm not. While "finding and talking to like minded poeple" is totally within your own power to do.
If no one sane disagrees, then the GW designers must either be:
1) Insane (because they disagree)
2) Incompetent (because they agree but are incapable of execution).
Do you agree?
Sounds like something straight from Epricus himself. Love it.
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
|
|
|