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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Oh right. We're back at pre-eight-edition mathammer where everyone is spread to max coherency without fail and still somehow at the same time always in cover.

I didn't say anything about cover. That said, you can't deny it was pretty easy to claim you had cover with 6th and 7th.

Besides that's what Flamer weapons were for anyway!

You didn't say anything about the cover, but its existence was the reason why most of the time units were not actually spread out to maximum coherency. But all this is totally besides the point. How the weapon worked in a previous edition is immaterial and I really don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Maybe 2 Thunderfires, but it was mostly to prove a point that, if your opponent is loading up on so many small blasts, you not mitigating that damage makes you a bad player. Pure and simple.

Yeah, it doesn't do a great job of proving a point to use an example that never actually happens. You're sounding like all those people decrying the apocryphal kneeling Wraithlord as proof that the Line of Sight rules were busted back in 3rd edition.

While I fully acknowledge that my experience may of course not be typical, I've never seen a marine army with two Thunderfires. I've only rarely seen them with one.

Regarding mathhammer for small blasts, it's typical to look at three scenarios assuming your opponent isn't braindead and maxed coherence accordingly:

Yes, that typical for math hammer, yes. Hence my point about it not matching what generally happens on the actual table.

Continuing to pretend that everyone plays with maxed coherency doesn't make it true.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Oh right. We're back at pre-eight-edition mathammer where everyone is spread to max coherency without fail and still somehow at the same time always in cover.

I didn't say anything about cover. That said, you can't deny it was pretty easy to claim you had cover with 6th and 7th.

Besides that's what Flamer weapons were for anyway!

You didn't say anything about the cover, but its existence was the reason why most of the time units were not actually spread out to maximum coherency. But all this is totally besides the point. How the weapon worked in a previous edition is immaterial and I really don't know why you keep bringing it up.

It's to prove that how hopeless a particular weapon was throughout several editions, compared to weapons that actually had functions and somewhat fulfilled them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Maybe 2 Thunderfires, but it was mostly to prove a point that, if your opponent is loading up on so many small blasts, you not mitigating that damage makes you a bad player. Pure and simple.

Yeah, it doesn't do a great job of proving a point to use an example that never actually happens. You're sounding like all those people decrying the apocryphal kneeling Wraithlord as proof that the Line of Sight rules were busted back in 3rd edition.

While I fully acknowledge that my experience may of course not be typical, I've never seen a marine army with two Thunderfires. I've only rarely seen them with one.

Regarding mathhammer for small blasts, it's typical to look at three scenarios assuming your opponent isn't braindead and maxed coherence accordingly:

Yes, that typical for math hammer, yes. Hence my point about it not matching what generally happens on the actual table.

Continuing to pretend that everyone plays with maxed coherency doesn't make it true.

It's on an actual table where your opponents aren't actually terrible, so it's better to assume the mathhammer I proposed above. It really isn't hard to get that coherence to minimize the power of blasts and templates.

That's why I applaud how GW attempted to handle those weapons for 8th, even though the execution leaves A LOT to be desired.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's on an actual table where your opponents aren't actually terrible, so it's better to assume the mathhammer I proposed above. It really isn't hard to get that coherence to minimize the power of blasts and templates.

.

You're right, it's not hard. That doesn't change the fact that most players simply didn't bother.

If you play more competitively, that's fine. But is it really so hard to accept that most people just don't take the game that seriously?

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's on an actual table where your opponents aren't actually terrible, so it's better to assume the mathhammer I proposed above. It really isn't hard to get that coherence to minimize the power of blasts and templates.

.

You're right, it's not hard. That doesn't change the fact that most players simply didn't bother.

If you play more competitively, that's fine. But is it really so hard to accept that most people just don't take the game that seriously?

Of course I know there's quite a few people that don't take the game so seriously.

Don't use that kind of mindset to defend poorly designed weapons and units though. Nothing gets fixed when you don't investigate the matter.

You're right, it's not hard. That doesn't change the fact that most players simply didn't bother.

In my 20 years of playing most people did bother about spreading out. Sure, new players made the mistake of not spreading out and if people didn't point out to the new player that bunching up was bad then those people were one of the those who liked to curb stomp new players. Something many frowned upon.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
4. Bolters aren't stronger than Lasguns for the points paid, so you're wrong. You're only ever looking at individual models and thinking "this is fine". You don't bother going beyond that because you go pewpew.

I can only think of one book, off-hand, in which both Lasguns and Boltguns appear, and that's the IG book. I don't have the book of CA18 to hand, but aren't they both 0 points in there now?

Assuming my memory isn't failing me - which it might be - that would make Boltguns stronger for the same price as Lasguns...

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's on an actual table where your opponents aren't actually terrible, so it's better to assume the mathhammer I proposed above. It really isn't hard to get that coherence to minimize the power of blasts and templates.

.

You're right, it's not hard. That doesn't change the fact that most players simply didn't bother.

If you play more competitively, that's fine. But is it really so hard to accept that most people just don't take the game that seriously?

The amount of people that I've met that space out their models like that I can count of one hand, and that includes tournaments and/or competitive players.

In a timed environment, there simply isn't enough time to spare. Doing something like that and meticulously measuring everything is one of the OG examples of slow play. I'd love to know where this idealised world is where you can space your models out to maximum coherency AND still have good LOS AND do it in a timely manner. I do wonder if these people actually play 40k IRL and not just in their heads and/or on Vassal.

Bearing in mind that 8th has no requirement to space for templates.

I ran competition Ork horde. Large blast template provided the ideal . . . template for spacing my figures, one centred and four at cardinal points. Moving was faster if the rearmost figures were moved to the front of the unit, as I did not take big shootas etc.

Choosing to play horde is not ‘slow play’, it’s playing a legal option. If moving a horde is slow, it’s a design problem, not a player problem.

Moriarty wrote:

Choosing to play horde is not ‘slow play’, it’s playing a legal option. If moving a horde is slow, it’s a design problem, not a player problem.

I never said that. I said spacing out one's models and meticulously checking all are at max coherency ALL. THE. TIME. is slow play. Being a horde army does not enter into it.

I've experienced this, from one of a few players that I've seen do it and it's fething annoying and is TFG behaviour. I've never, ever come across a board IRL where one can do this without dragging the game out for god knows how long and also being reasonable about it. It just does not happen.

So the argument is that 8th is too complicated because tournament players say so. That’s a joke.

Andykp wrote:
So the argument is that 8th is too complicated because tournament players say so. That’s a joke.

Sounds about right.

One of my favourite things in gaming is to either use units or weapons etc. that the tournament crowd consider to be duds and make them work. It's even more especially enjoyable when one of their lauded "high profile" players does it. It like breaks their collective brains and narrow views of how the game should be played in their heads. Saw it far more prominently on the old WMH forums, it was fething glorious.

I don’t get it. Peregrine and slayer-fan et al hate the game rules so much and play in a way that has no relation to the setting and or fluff, what are they interested in 40k at all for!

 Dysartes wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
4. Bolters aren't stronger than Lasguns for the points paid, so you're wrong. You're only ever looking at individual models and thinking "this is fine". You don't bother going beyond that because you go pewpew.

I can only think of one book, off-hand, in which both Lasguns and Boltguns appear, and that's the IG book. I don't have the book of CA18 to hand, but aren't they both 0 points in there now?

Assuming my memory isn't failing me - which it might be - that would make Boltguns stronger for the same price as Lasguns...

Bolters are a 1pt upgrade. A decent choice for sergeants, although only because they can't take lasguns. If they could, it would be better to take an extra lasgun for frfsrf.

Andykp wrote:
I don’t get it. Peregrine and slayer-fan et al hate the game rules so much and play in a way that has no relation to the setting and or fluff, what are they interested in 40k at all for!

My guess is because it is the most popular/populous tabletop game with a competitive scene and that now that they are invested into it (sunk-cost from having bought models, rules, etc) they feel trapped into playing it.

Both have made numerous references to other games that do X, Y, or Z better and yet for some reason haven't abandoned 40k in favor of any of those.
And basically (while I very much like 40k) if I remove any personal bias from the equation it strikes me that 40k's only advantages over other games are either fluff or it's insane popularity to the point where you can find a club for it in almost any major city.

And based on their responses I don't think either of them care too much about the fluff.

The only thing that has kept my interest for three decades is the story/fluff. I disliked 3rd to 5th edition and played little but still collected and built armies. Started paying more in 6th and 7th but have to admit 8th is the best version since 2nd edition and very playable. My group is very casual and we provide our own balance by not playing unfluffy power lists. Played this way 8e has very few glaring faults.

Ruin wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's on an actual table where your opponents aren't actually terrible, so it's better to assume the mathhammer I proposed above. It really isn't hard to get that coherence to minimize the power of blasts and templates.

.

You're right, it's not hard. That doesn't change the fact that most players simply didn't bother.

If you play more competitively, that's fine. But is it really so hard to accept that most people just don't take the game that seriously?

The amount of people that I've met that space out their models like that I can count of one hand, and that includes tournaments and/or competitive players.

In a timed environment, there simply isn't enough time to spare. Doing something like that and meticulously measuring everything is one of the OG examples of slow play. I'd love to know where this idealised world is where you can space your models out to maximum coherency AND still have good LOS AND do it in a timely manner. I do wonder if these people actually play 40k IRL and not just in their heads and/or on Vassal.

Of course it was still done in a timed environment. That's one of the reasons small blast weapons never made an appearance! Stop playing revisionary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
I don’t get it. Peregrine and slayer-fan et al hate the game rules so much and play in a way that has no relation to the setting and or fluff, what are they interested in 40k at all for!

This reminds me of how Metallica fanboys really to defend the band each time they decide to release an album that isn't worth anything musically. The moment you criticize, you're not a TRUE fan of the band and you should listen to something else, instead of just accepting they put out more garbage than gold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
So the argument is that 8th is too complicated because tournament players say so. That’s a joke.

That's not what anyone is saying at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ruin wrote:

Andykp wrote:
So the argument is that 8th is too complicated because tournament players say so. That’s a joke.

Sounds about right.

One of my favourite things in gaming is to either use units or weapons etc. that the tournament crowd consider to be duds and make them work. It's even more especially enjoyable when one of their lauded "high profile" players does it. It like breaks their collective brains and narrow views of how the game should be played in their heads. Saw it far more prominently on the old WMH forums, it was fething glorious.

Well when you start topping consistently please let us know.

Except you won't.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. And IGOUGO is a terrible system overall.

So change that then.

Also leaving so many things to random dice rolls IS bad for the game, and several profiles prove that. Plasma Guns prove to be consistent than Melta Guns. Disintigrators are mathematically better than Dark Lances. Reaper Launchers have a flat damage so you can optimize targets.

Ignoring the fact that random damage isn't inherently bad (that's a matter of opinion, not a fact - please, stop asserting your opinion as fact), that could be fixed. Get rid of random rolls - give missile launchers a flat damage stat, that gives them a niche of their own.

2. Go play with rocks then if you have no interest in the health of a game. People with your attitude is what leads to the laziness of GW as you defend their crap.

Alternatively, you could play with the rocks, and balance them how you want to, with the rocks having all the power you like. As I see it, the game IS healthy. The fact you don't see it that way isn't my problem.

I'm the last person to accuse people of being white knights for defending GW, but you fit the definition to a tee.

And what's wrong with being positive? I freely admit things I dislike, but just because I don't have such a dislike as you do, that makes me a "white knight"?

3. Frags haven't been good the entirety of several editions. Even in a house rule system for better placement of small blasts, the frag missile was bad. It's still bad now because everyone gets a save against it, and has random shots.

Then change that. For someone who wants to change things about 40k, you really seem to think your hands are tied on this one.

Why do you think that you can't change missiles, but you could do the far more drastic change of functionally scrapping entire arsenals of weapons? This just sounds to me like you want to narrow down the game to fit your personal wants from it.

So it isn't a matter of laziness, which is a funny accusation from someone that says balance isn't fun and is bad.

Falling on deaf ears, I see.
I never said balance was bad. I said balance at the cost of fun is bad. Balance doesn't have to come at the expense of fun, but with some proposals, like this one, it does.
It's not hard.

It's a matter of the ML never fulfilling a purpose. Consolidation of stats is better for ML models so they have continued use.

So make it fulfil it's purpose. It has a purpose. It's not mathematically good at it. Solution, fix the maths, not scrap the gun.

4. Bolters aren't stronger than Lasguns for the points paid, so you're wrong. You're only ever looking at individual models and thinking "this is fine". You don't bother going beyond that because you go pewpew.

Isn't there something like a 1 point difference between a lasgun and a bolter? In which case, you think that getting +1 strength is something a bolter should get for free? You don't get cheaper than 1 point.

Bolters (not the things attached to and around bolters) are stronger than lasguns (not the things attached to and around lasguns). I'm not comparing marines and guardsmen. I'm comparing their weapons, and simply pointing out that a bolter has a higher strength stat than a lasgun.

5. I refer to your trouble with adding numbers to make a list because it shows an inability to go into depth on the very clear issues in the game. Anyone that defends Power Level isn't exactly the brightest mind to discuss these things with, after all.

Yellow Triangle.
Not just that, but you STILL fall back on the frankly unfounded, and untrue, notion that I'm bad at maths. That's not the case. I can do maths just as well as you - I just don't want to, because it's dull.

For heaven's sake, can you stop this blatant lying? It's not funny, and it certainly doesn't make your argument look any better.

6. And how do you know that Plasma Gun has been tinkered with that much? I thought you wanted to play WYSIWYG. It's almost as though the consolidated profile for the Flash Gitz guns makes for better models and more creative freedom!

I am playing WYSIWYG. I don't see a plasma gun. I see a cobbled together weapon with parts from a plasma weapon, but clearly NOT a plasma weapon.

If I saw someone with a guardsman carrying a plasma gun made out of plasma pistol bits, would I expect it to be a plasma pistol?

7. It's because it shows immaturity in those arguments, which honestly have little merit due to the little dedication you have to understanding the game.
Someone can agree with me Trump is a bad president, but if their reason is that he's ugly rather than the silly things he's done in office I would dismiss that person as someone not smart.

I understand it just fine. I also understand that people get different things from it, and I understand that me berating someone for finding fun in a different place is incredibly rude, immature and arrogant.

8. Except Power Level is a bad system (to the point I laughed and thought GW was making a joke), and anyone defending it should feel bad and reevaluate themselves.

Alternatively, no. Shaming people for liking something else isn't smart, it's not respectful, and frankly, I'm surprised your sheer lack of care for anyone who isn't in your own circle is still continuing.

Granularity is a good thing for a reason.

Except when it's not, like with weapons having different ranges and being variably good or bad at different things?

9. It isn't a jab at you. You said adding things not in multiples of five was hard in another thread and makes creating armies super difficult.

Well, no, I didn't. YOU claim I say that.

What I actually said was "multiples of five are easier to calculate than multiples of other numbers" (not that anything other than five was hard - but that kind of subtlety is lost on you, it seems), and that "calculating up to a four digit number with single digit sums per model is slower than calculating up to a two or maybe three digit number with single digit numbers, per unit". Again, too complex for you, it seems, to understand.

Threatening me with the "yellow triangle" simply shows you're unable to handle people who disagree with you and point out things you said in other threads. I like making things consistent.

IOW "you can't handle when I make blatant lies, personal insults and misrepresentations at you, which have nothing to do with the argument, and expecting a level of decency and self respect make you intolerant of people lol".

Grow up. Seriously.

Creating core mechanics to better support small blasts still didn't help the Frag round. It might as well not have existed. So who cares you don't use that round? It's useless and has always been useless. Just delete the entry and there isn't an issue.

Alternatively, just fix the entry and there isn't an issue.

10. Once again, due to you not looking into the game further than what's immediately in front of you, of course you just see "Marine is T4 3+ Infantry is T3 5+ so Marine is tougher". You don't care about the real balancing of options though because narrative, remember?

I mean, that's literally my whole point. I'm only talking about toughness. I'm not talking about synergy, I'm not talking numbers, I'm talking base level facts, and a marine is right here, in black and white, tougher than a guardsman.

I rest my case.

Why don't we make the Tactical Marine squad a PL of 15? They're supposed to be super rare, right? That's supposed to be fun, right?

Astartes are rare on a galactic scale, not on a battlefield scale. Besides, if you think Power Level or points is supposed to represent "rareness", then I have no idea what the heck you're doing. As you've vomited down my throat, points are there for "balance". According to you, "balance" should be paramount.

11. No, regular Eldar are supposed to be able to dodge Lasguns too, not just Harlequins. So that's fluff not properly represented. Eldar should have a natural -1 to hit and Altaioc makes that a total of -2.

So can Space Marines. So can Chaos Marines. So can most armies, it seems. But then, I've also seen plenty of cases of Eldar being shredded by lasgun fire, and not being able to dodge that. I doubt it's a universal thing then.

Fluff is more important than crunch because that's more fun.

Agreed. So why do you want to get rid of frag missiles?

12. Once again, the Flash Gitz and Lootas models prove your point about less variety incorrect. OR is it you want their individual weapons to have separate stats?

I'd actually want more randomness from their weapons. Random strength, AP, the lot - of course, on the higher end.

See - I'm not ALL about keeping the status quo.

13. That doesn't prove any of your points as the ML doesn't have a point to it existing like it does compared to the Melta/Flamer/Plasma trio. I was also referring to how removing the Multi-Melta as an option for Devastators wouldn't matter because it wasn't a good option even a formation that would be perfect for it.

So buff the multimelta. Why is the past relevant for why you just can't buff it now?
"They were bad!" - "So buff them." - "But they were useless!" - "Which is why I'm telling you to buff them." - "BUT THEY WERE TERRIBLE" - "Exactly. So buff them."

14. Except Multi-Melta Devastators didn't work for that. Saying you prefer it like that means jack due to mathematical performance. I don't care if you prefer a bad option. You defending said bad option is a different story though.

Why shouldn't I defend something I prefer? Because it challenges your perception of one way to play?

There isn't a solution outside consolidation though that makes sense.

EXCEPT SIMPLE BUFFING

How do you not understand this??

The ML is basically never good, simple as that.

So buff it then!

Consolidation into the Lascannon stat line would fix those models as long as the Lascannon isn't terrible.

No, it just makes them lascannons. And what if lascannons become prohibitively expensive? Would you scrap lascannons too?

I did consider solutions. Consolidation is simply the best one for continued balance and consistency.

But I thought POINTS were supposed to be the arbiter of balance, the all important thing that makes 40k work? Do you think points are useless now?

Small blasts and templates were never used? Oh you should do stand up...

I saw plenty. Or did I imagine all of those Land Raider Redeemers and 5x plasma Russes?

After ten pages, I'm not sure there's really anything more productive happening here. It's clear that people have varying views on just how the game would work best, and that's fine. Continuing the yell those views at each other isn't going to achieve anything.

Moving on.