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.

 koooaei wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Do you realize how dumb that sounds? You just eliminated everything inthe game but...marine squads...

It's called 30k. And people love it for some reason

That said, 30k does do a few things right in the category of balance I wish 40k did

 koooaei wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Do you realize how dumb that sounds? You just eliminated everything inthe game but...marine squads...

It's called 30k. And people love it for some reason

30k is fine, but at the same time, it'd have even MORE stuff that'd he'd freak about. Phosphex? Admech? Ordinatus engines? More than 8 MLs in a list? Flare shielding? Primarchs? FORGEWORLD? the list goes on and on.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Do you realize how dumb that sounds? You just eliminated everything inthe game but...marine squads...

It's called 30k. And people love it for some reason

30k is fine, but at the same time, it'd have even MORE stuff that'd he'd freak about. Phosphex? Admech? Ordinatus engines? More than 8 MLs in a list? Flare shielding? the list goes on and on.

No idea what that is but it sounds like 10 marines with a flamer and missile launcher can't kill it. Needs IMMEDIATE nerfing.

I regularly lose my guardsman deathstars to frag missile/flame combo. How can this guy be arguing that tacticals are fair when they're so blatantly OP against horde and MEQ.

 MarsNZ wrote:
I regularly lose my guardsman deathstars to frag missile/flame combo. How can this guy be arguing that tacticals are fair when they're so blatantly OP against horde and MEQ.

Yeah, but how many guardsmen do you lose against flak missiles? Not very many, I bet. Guardsmen need to be nerfed with a special rule that flak missiles can fire at them at full BS.

 Peregrine wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:
I regularly lose my guardsman deathstars to frag missile/flame combo. How can this guy be arguing that tacticals are fair when they're so blatantly OP against horde and MEQ.

Yeah, but how many guardsmen do you lose against flak missiles? Not very many, I bet. Guardsmen need to be nerfed with a special rule that flak missiles can fire at them at full BS.

Yeah, those crazy Guardsmen should be nerfed. Why the hell are they BS3? That's almost as good as a Space Marine. They should be BS2 because normal humans can't shoot nearly as good as the Emperor's finest.

Peregrine:

If I have 2000 points of chaos cultists and you have 2000 points of tanks, why should you auto win?

Yes, I will grant that my cultists shouldn't be able to touch your tanks. But why shouldn't hiding in cover and holding objectives be an option?

Your tanks should have a rate of fire, points cost, etc. so that, if I play my cards right, you will be unable to to kill enough cultists to get more objectives than me. I should be able to swamp your tanks in bodies and control the field.

And that's one way to balance tanks indirectly. Yes, make them durable and make them hit hard. But make them points-expensive and a give them a low rate of fire. That's what GW did with the landraider.

Your tanks should be able to blast a hole in enemy lines, should be durable and should be able to advance easily.

But if you don't have infantry to follow those tanks and mop up, you should suffer for it tactically.

Just my two cents.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:
I regularly lose my guardsman deathstars to frag missile/flame combo. How can this guy be arguing that tacticals are fair when they're so blatantly OP against horde and MEQ.

Yeah, but how many guardsmen do you lose against flak missiles? Not very many, I bet. Guardsmen need to be nerfed with a special rule that flak missiles can fire at them at full BS.

Yeah, those crazy Guardsmen should be nerfed. Why the hell are they BS3? That's almost as good as a Space Marine. They should be BS2 because normal humans can't shoot nearly as good as the Emperor's finest.

and WS3? Cmon, like ANY guardsmen even knows what the pointy end of the knife is for! WS1, no way they can match a space marine ever.

 Traditio wrote:
Peregrine:

If I have 2000 points of chaos cultists and you have 2000 points of tanks, why should you auto win?

Because you have no effective way to harm a tank, meaning they can push you off the objective through LD checks/flat out killing all your cultists.

They should only be able to shoot snap-shots when targeting space marines. Cause space marines are scary and one marine can kill 100 or even 1000 guardsmen. He just gets bored after that amount and returns to the space monastery to pray for purity and awesomeness.

Btw, in all fairness, 2000 pt of cultists should probably win 2000 pt of tanks on maelstorm.

 Traditio wrote:
If I have 2000 points of chaos cultists and you have 2000 points of tanks, why should you auto win?

Because my army is a fluffy IG armored company list with tanks filling a variety of different roles: HQ tanks, anti-infantry tanks, tank destroyers, artillery, etc. Your list is a bunch of copies of a single unit that is meant to be used in a supporting role alongside the marines that are the focus of the CSM codex, and a completely one-dimensional strategy with no attempt at all to be a TAC list.

But why shouldn't hiding in cover and holding objectives be an option?

You've already stated that "hide on the objectives and hope you don't lose your whole army" is not an acceptable option because it isn't fun.

But if you don't have infantry to follow those tanks and mop up, you should suffer for it tactically.

Wait, I thought I should be able to win at the exact same 50/50 rate as everyone else, no matter what I bring? Why should I suffer tactically because I didn't bring infantry to follow my tanks and mop up?

Peregrine wrote:You've already stated that "hide on the objectives and hope you don't lose your whole army" is not an acceptable option because it isn't fun.

It's not fun. However, purely from a game balance point of view, I accept that it should be a viable possibility.

Wait, I thought I should be able to win at the exact same 50/50 rate as everyone else, no matter what I bring? Why should I suffer tactically because I didn't bring infantry to follow my tanks and mop up?

And this is where you're just making a strawman of my position.

I don't think that a cultist should be exactly equal to an LRBT.

Cultists and LRBTs should clearly have different playstyles associated with them, different strengths, different weaknesses, etc.

I think that 40 (or however many) cultists should have a better ability to hold objectives and kill light infantry than a single LRBT.

Just for starters.

I think that an LRBT should be much more durable and should be much more efficient at taking individual, heavily armored targets.

But ultimately, I think that if I have x points of cultists and you have the same number of points of LRBTs, that it should be roughly equiprobable, independently of player skill, that either I or you will win the game.

Yes, your tanks should hit harder and be hard to kill. But they should also lack volume of fire, be expensive and not have the same capacity to hold objectives. Hiding in cover and swarming the field with bodies should a real strategy.

You keep ignoring the fact that units have different roles in their respective armies. Cultists are not supposed to be the core of your army. They're supposed to be expendable meatshields to throw at the enemy while the CSM that are the core of your army (it is, after all, Codex: Chaos Space Marines, not Codex: Imperial Guard Without 95% Of Their Units). An army of nothing but cultists should lose the vast majority of the time because you're ignoring the point of the CSM codex, just like taking an army of nothing but Hydras (IG anti aircraft specialist) should fail because an army of nothing but AA support units is not a reasonable strategy. Bad strategies should fail, otherwise what's the point in playing the game?

And no, swarming the table with bodies and hoping your opponent can't remove them fast enough should NOT be a viable strategy. It isn't fun for either player, so it should lose so frequently that people are discouraged from bringing such a game-ruining list. This is an example of what I mean about using "unbalanced" options to direct the experience of the game.

 Traditio wrote:

I think that 40 (or however many) cultists should have a better ability to hold objectives and kill light infantry than a single LRBT.

But they kinda do. 40 cultists can hold 4 objects, spread out, go to ground in a ruin and a lrbt will never be able to outkill and outscore them.

I know this was all created as sarcasm, and I really feel a lot of the snark is deserved, but I have something I do want to get off my chest.

My personal collection of space marine (figures) is built from collected starter sets from over the years. That means more than 90% of my "troops" are tactical squads with missile launchers - with practically no options for switch-outs. I own all of one model with a grav-weapon, which I just painted last night.

With that said, I'd like to be able to bring a force composed of mainly tactical squads to a game and not be mocked for it. If my enemy brings X points of models, in a perfect game I would hope that the same X points of tac squads would have a 50% chance of beating that; my imperfect understanding of the 40K points system is that is what the meaning behind having a points system is. If points aren't supposed to represent unit parity, what does it represent - player's ability to stack the deck in the points allowed?

Instead, I get the impression the game is all about bringing the right units to the table, and stuffing your list with as many of those right units as you can buy for the points. And it seems if you don't know what those units are, you need to "Learn2Play". It doesn't seem to be a case of using a unit to its best advantage tactically; it's just having the right unit to delete all points-inferior units around you.

I'm not much interested in a game where victory is decided before the first miniature hits the board. It's a money and time sink to put together an army for this game, showing up with the "wrong" army isn't just a disappointment, it's a waste of hours of work and money. And it isn't like there's a sideboard or some way of mitigating an inadvertent bad decision once you flop the minis on the game board. You'd just better hope you're skillful enough to mitigate it (if that's even possible) or you're about to lose 3 hours of your life and have some expensive minis that are going to sit on a shelf unused from there on out (or you hope you can trick some other fool to off-load them on at e-bay).

 Stormonu wrote:
I know this was all created as sarcasm, and I really feel a lot of the snark is deserved, but I have something I do want to get off my chest.

My personal collection of space marine (figures) is built from collected starter sets from over the years. That means more than 90% of my "troops" are tactical squads with missile launchers - with practically no options for switch-outs. I own all of one model with a grav-weapon, which I just painted last night.

With that said, I'd like to be able to bring a force composed of mainly tactical squads to a game and not be mocked for it. If my enemy brings X points of models, in a perfect game I would hope that the same X points of tac squads would have a 50% chance of beating that; my imperfect understanding of the 40K points system is that is what the meaning behind having a points system is. If points aren't supposed to represent unit parity, what does it represent - player's ability to stack the deck in the points allowed?

Instead, I get the impression the game is all about bringing the right units to the table, and stuffing your list with as many of those right units as you can buy for the points. And it seems if you don't know what those units are, you need to "Learn2Play". It doesn't seem to be a case of using a unit to its best advantage tactically; it's just having the right unit to delete all points-inferior units around you.

I'm not much interested in a game where victory is decided before the first miniature hits the board. It's a money and time sink to put together an army for this game, showing up with the "wrong" army isn't just a disappointment, it's a waste of hours of work and money. And it isn't like there's a sideboard or some way of mitigating an inadvertent bad decision once you flop the minis on the game board. You'd just better hope you're skillful enough to mitigate it (if that's even possible) or you're about to lose 3 hours of your life and have some expensive minis that are going to sit on a shelf unused from there on out (or you hope you can trick some other fool to off-load them on at e-bay).

If you find you're unable to win simply due to army power, change the mission.

Your underprepared marine list may have actually been caught unawares and is now fighting a losing battle while hoping to simply get from the midpoint of the table to the short edge. Suddenly your game isn't so one sided and you'll have more tactical choices for the game at hand.

Talk to your opponent, find a good point to work from, enjoy your game!

 Stormonu wrote:
If my enemy brings X points of models, in a perfect game I would hope that the same X points of tac squads would have a 50% chance of beating that

Take 100 men with shovels and molotov cocktails vs a battlegroup of 3 tanks. First situation: 100 men are thrown at tanks in the open field. Second situation: 100 men have a couple days to prepare the ground for a tank assault.

And you want them to have equal chances in both situations?

Another question is that in 40k universe there are some men with power shovels that can withstand tank shells and some tanks that can fly above pits all for the same points. But that doesn't make the concept you're suggesting adequate nevertheless. The problem is not with the counter-tactics, it's with the other balance aspect.

Oh, look, Stormonu basically agrees with my exact sentiments.

I guess we are both trolls, we both have unrealistic conceptions of game balance and we should both quit, right?

 Traditio wrote:
Oh, look, Stormonu basically agrees with my exact sentiments.

I guess we are both trolls, we both have unrealistic conceptions of game balance and we should both quit, right?

You're just looking at the wrong aspect of balance. You can't expect a unit that has a certain job in mind to perform any job identically effective.

 Traditio wrote:
Oh, look, Stormonu basically agrees with my exact sentiments.

I guess we are both trolls, we both have unrealistic conceptions of game balance and we should both quit, right?

Simply put, 40k isn't for you. You're looking for Chess or Checkers.

 koooaei wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
If my enemy brings X points of models, in a perfect game I would hope that the same X points of tac squads would have a 50% chance of beating that

Take 100 men with shovels and molotov cocktails vs a battlegroup of 3 tanks. First situation: 100 men are thrown at tanks in the open field. Second situation: 100 men have a couple days to prepare the ground for a tank assault.

And you want them to have equal chances in both situations?

Another question is that in 40k universe there are some men with power shovels that can withstand tank shells and some tanks that can fly above pits all for the same points. But that doesn't make the concept you're suggesting adequate nevertheless. The problem is not with the counter-tactics, it's with the other balance aspect.

What are you even talking about?

 Stormonu wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
If my enemy brings X points of models, in a perfect game I would hope that the same X points of tac squads would have a 50% chance of beating that

Take 100 men with shovels and molotov cocktails vs a battlegroup of 3 tanks. First situation: 100 men are thrown at tanks in the open field. Second situation: 100 men have a couple days to prepare the ground for a tank assault.

And you want them to have equal chances in both situations?

Another question is that in 40k universe there are some men with power shovels that can withstand tank shells and some tanks that can fly above pits all for the same points. But that doesn't make the concept you're suggesting adequate nevertheless. The problem is not with the counter-tactics, it's with the other balance aspect.

What are you even talking about?

About you wanting a fork be as good at cutting meals as a knife.

@Stormonu:

One of the big problems with 40K is that the idea of equal points dictating whether or not the game is balanced assumes that the units in each player's/team's list has equal ability to take out the other player's/team's list while being susceptible to the enemy's list to roughly the same degree. And that's why having a roughly even 40K match can be so difficult. I guarantee that there are plenty of lists that you could play against with all your Tactical Marines and have a 50/50 chance of winning, but there are even more that would be heavily skewed for or against you, and that's the nature of 40K Tabletop.

I'm running into this exact problem with my close mates who play 40K with me, so I'm having to bump up my lists and buy more models (I don't mind this since I planned to do this anyway) in order for us all to have games that are balanaced in more than just point limits. It is unfortunate, but hey - that's the hobby these days.

 IllumiNini wrote:
@Stormonu:

One of the big problems with 40K is that the idea of equal points dictating whether or not the game is balanced assumes that the units in each player's/team's list has equal ability to take out the other player's/team's list while being susceptible to the enemy's list to roughly the same degree. And that's why having a roughly even 40K match can be so difficult. I guarantee that there are plenty of lists that you could play against with all your Tactical Marines and have a 50/50 chance of winning, but there are even more that would be heavily skewed for or against you, and that's the nature of 40K Tabletop.

I'm running into this exact problem with my close mates who play 40K with me, so I'm having to bump up my lists and buy more models (I don't mind this since I planned to do this anyway) in order for us all to have games that are balanaced in more than just point limits. It is unfortunate, but hey - that's the hobby these days.

The alternative option to buying more models would be negotiating a points handicap. CSM vs eldar can be easily balanced that way with the right points handicap. Having equal points only makes sense when codices are equal. People should be less precious about playing equal points.

Actually, depending on the universe, Molotov cocktails are a perfect counter for tanks; are they sealed against NBC attacks, are the engines sealed? Are you going to lose troops getting the tanks hosed? Yes, but at the end of the day, they are probably going to be full of dead people too.

As to your supposition Stormonu, there are aspects of both Learn2Play and Pay2Win in this game; there are hard counters in this game. If you want to be able to bring whatever you want and still have a chance of winning against whatever you face, might I suggest Warmachine\Hordes?

I am just going to pipe up here and say that Warmahords is very much not a game where you bring what you like to win, so much is determined by the warnoun match up (i will say though that the rules system is far tighter and the company much more responsive though)

In terms of playing the game, i feel part of miniature wargaming is accepting that things are never balanced, there will always be ways to break a game.

saying that i am kinda sad that the game is so broken at the moment, was pretty excited to get back into it but it has been pretty brutal trying to figure out a list that is fun to play and to face while being competitive.

 SolarCross wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
@Stormonu:

One of the big problems with 40K is that the idea of equal points dictating whether or not the game is balanced assumes that the units in each player's/team's list has equal ability to take out the other player's/team's list while being susceptible to the enemy's list to roughly the same degree. And that's why having a roughly even 40K match can be so difficult. I guarantee that there are plenty of lists that you could play against with all your Tactical Marines and have a 50/50 chance of winning, but there are even more that would be heavily skewed for or against you, and that's the nature of 40K Tabletop.

I'm running into this exact problem with my close mates who play 40K with me, so I'm having to bump up my lists and buy more models (I don't mind this since I planned to do this anyway) in order for us all to have games that are balanaced in more than just point limits. It is unfortunate, but hey - that's the hobby these days.

The alternative option to buying more models would be negotiating a points handicap. CSM vs eldar can be easily balanced that way with the right points handicap. Having equal points only makes sense when codices are equal. People should be less precious about playing equal points.

True, but this may be just as difficult as playing with units that are 'balanced' against each other as I described. But either way, it is possible to balance the game beyond the points system.

 Stormonu wrote:
With that said, I'd like to be able to bring a force composed of mainly tactical squads to a game and not be mocked for it.

We're mocking Traditio for crying "OP!" at everything his Codex doesn't get access to. Nobody worth listening to will mock you for bringing mostly Tactical Squads to a game. They might, however, suggest to you that it's not the best idea, and not something you should expect consistent results from.

If my enemy brings X points of models, in a perfect game I would hope that the same X points of tac squads would have a 50% chance of beating that; my imperfect understanding of the 40K points system is that is what the meaning behind having a points system is. If points aren't supposed to represent unit parity, what does it represent - player's ability to stack the deck in the points allowed?

That's a common mistake. Points values are set around armies, not units. It's not that 55pts of unit [x] is exactly as "good" as 55pts of unit [y]. The idea is that 1850pts of army [x] should be as powerful as 1850pts of army [y]. The fact the game has different unit types, each with different strengths and weaknesses, each with different things they counter and are countered by, means that's not always the case. That's why it's important to learn your army, learn the game, and learn to build army lists.

Instead, I get the impression the game is all about bringing the right units to the table

For a given definition of "right". There are various different types of units in 40k, and all of them have different strengths and weaknesses. Part of the strategic element of competitive 40k is building an army list from your chosen Codex that contains elements capable of dealing with any threat your opponent can bring.

and stuffing your list with as many of those right units as you can buy for the points.

Again, it depends on the definition of "right". You can build a powerful army just by spamming Scatbikes and Warp Spiders. That'll be enough to muscle your way to a win against a lot of other builds. Then some doofus deploys four Land Raiders with Scouts in them and invalidates your entire army.

The "right" unit, to me, is one that fills a hole in your army's capabilities. If you already have a load of Scatbikes and Warp Spiders, then another unit of either is not the "right" unit.

It doesn't seem to be a case of using a unit to its best advantage tactically; it's just having the right unit to delete all points-inferior units around you.

Again, not quite. You can take an optimised army list with all the "right" units, but if you move them wrong, or expend them too early, then you can lose the game. It's not as easy as buying a net list and showing face - you can field an army full of "OP Death Guard cheese" and still lose.

I'm not much interested in a game where victory is decided before the first miniature hits the board.

I don't think there's a tabletop wargame that isn't. Chess, maybe. The fact 40k requires a significant investment of time and effort just to get an army on the table is the reason it's so important to learn the game before you start buying, especially if you're buying towards a balanced, competitive army. Even if you're not, if your only interest is collecting and playing with models you enjoy, then it's important to learn the game anyway - doing so allows you to recognise when your opponent is fielding an army your own can't match, which means tyou can refuse the game, or at the very least will be less frustrated when you get stomped.

S8 AP3 is not an adequate stat line for a heavy weapon. The small template doesn't cover enough models. This means that the missile launcher should never be fielded under most circumstances. Done.

"swarming the field with bodies should a real strategy. "

It is, but only for gladius marines because free stuff.

 BBAP wrote:
Points values are set around armies, not units. It's not that 55pts of unit [x] is exactly as "good" as 55pts of unit [y]. The idea is that 1850pts of army [x] should be as powerful as 1850pts of army [y]. The fact the game has different unit types, each with different strengths and weaknesses, each with different things they counter and are countered by, means that's not always the case. That's why it's important to learn your army, learn the game, and learn to build army lists.

Thank god that someone understands. And stated it better than anything I could have said.

Martel732 wrote:
S8 AP3 is not an adequate stat line for a heavy weapon.

But it is apparently fine on an ordnance weapon?

S8 AP3 large blast at least can kill several models. However, I don't care much for the battle cannon myself. And it has extra efficacy vs vehicles. But it's still a blast, so meh. The step from battle cannon to ion accelerator is so huge and the points just don't show it.