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.
Lastly, what I was asking for was a definition of "trap unit" because people throw the term around and I don't think they understand my position on the issue. They say I want "Trap Units", which I don't. does a unit have to have "THIS UNIT IS SUBOPTIMAL NARRATIVE PLAY ONLY" slapped across its datasheet in red or something to be considered "not a trap?"
Yes, if it is suboptimal.
Now, I am a hardcore flufbunny, but your stance comes closest to Peregrine's mythical CAAC player that I've ever actually encountered. You literally want some units to intentionally be bad so you can signal your casualness by including them. Frankly, that's plain crazy. Now, I too definitely include suboptimal units because they look cool, but I'd greatly prefer if they actually weren't suboptimal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 19:34:14
Unit1126PLL wrote: So you're essentially saying that an artillery army or melee army should have more "options" for those roles, rather than just being "better."
Yes, exactly. Such an army would be able to do more things via artillery, without having to resoert to other units for those tasks. An army with non-artillery focus could only do one thing via artillery, and would have to utilise other units for other things.
How does that not result in being better, exactly? Army A's artillery is still better than Army B's when listbuilding, as a general rule, so competitive players looking to optimize would widely overlook Army B unless they had some non-points-efficiency-related reason not to.
No, individual units are not better. The Kroot are an unit purpose of which is to deal with light infantry, and they should be appropriately costed for their capability in that role. If we do what you suggest and overcost the Kroot and undercost Tau shooty units (because Tau is a shooty, not a melee army) then you're just better off dealing with that light infantry via Firewarriors or dakka drones etc. By including Kroot you would just make your army worse. This is a trap unit.
Even if Kroot are appropriately costed for their ability to kill light infantry with pointy sticks, Tau will not become a melee army; they do not have melee units for other roles, they need to still deal with tanks and heavy infantry with shooting. A more melee focused army such as Orks would have melee units that could deal with those things too.
Exactly.
Should we make Skull Cannons worse simply because Khorne is all about melee rather than range?
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.
Ghorgul wrote: Looking into this Whirlbind vs. Basilisk example: Are guardsmen Basilisk's main targets? I guess not. Birlwind however specialises against infantry and being able to kill 3 guardsmen a turn is really bad, like really bad. Funnily enough Wirbelbind is more efficient against MEQs than GEQs, everyone act surprised Now!
True, it would be better to compare Mortar Teams to Whirlwinds for cost and survivability ratios, as both are anti-infantry artillery rather than anti-vehicle artillery.
Actually wouldn't it be the wyvern that would be most comparible to a whirlwind with castellan launcher?
True, I forgot about that beast. It was relatively new when I rage-quit, and I wasn't that in to Guard.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Anyone saying the Index lists were balanced are playing revisionary.
...
We aren't balanced now, but stop pretending the Index stuff was done even close to mediocrity. It was done just to get us by for some games and it really shows.
I don't think any one was, as their was the qualifier, "most", which is a relative statement rather than an absolute. I am the most skilled tabletop player in my family, but that's because I'm the only tabletop player in my family.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 19:36:07
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
I consider a trap unit to be a unit that even within the confines of ones own codex is either redundant or priced so inefficiently that they have no real role. The Whirlwind falls into that category and has been that way pretty much since I started the game. Its a tank that isn't tough, fast or even that lethal. It's primary target is light infantry, which marines really don't have issues dealing with. For an artillery piece, it has a meh range and the HS slot is already crowded for marine. Even in a casual game it's a bad unit.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I consider a trap unit to be a unit that even within the confines of ones own codex is either redundant or priced so inefficiently that they have no real role. The Whirlwind falls into that category and has been that way pretty much since I started the game. Its a tank that isn't tough, fast or even that lethal. It's primary target is light infantry, which marines really don't have issues dealing with. For an artillery piece, it has a meh range and the HS slot is already crowded for marine. Even in a casual game it's a bad unit.
Compare to the Thunderfire. It isn't that less durable and it has a relevant Strategem that doesn't require another unit for you to take.
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.
Lastly, what I was asking for was a definition of "trap unit" because people throw the term around and I don't think they understand my position on the issue. They say I want "Trap Units", which I don't. does a unit have to have "THIS UNIT IS SUBOPTIMAL NARRATIVE PLAY ONLY" slapped across its datasheet in red or something to be considered "not a trap?"
I can give a few of examples in my army:
-I think Chaos Space Marines are a trap unit. They just can do nearly as much work as Cultists for the points they cost. I don't think it is hard see a player picking CSM and wanting field Warp-crazed, super soldiers only to find Lovecraftain bad-guy wannabes are the better choice.
-As much as I like my Chaos Terminators, I can't seem to build a list around them now that turn 1 assaults and warp time don't work like they used to. I still field them, but unless I playing a similarly tiered army (thank you Blood Angels players), I don't really seem to stand a chance most games.
-I kinda feel that my land raider is a trap unit in that it eats up a chunk of points that if never seems to make back even as a distraction carnifax.
-I am not sure if my Helldrake is a trap unit. I kinda suspect is, but it could just be an under-performing unit that I am bad at utilizing.
I kinda get that you think some posters are equating under-performing units or units not used in their correct role as trap units. That isn't the case. I think there is a difference in an under-performing/out-of-role unit and a trap unit. An under-performing unit is a unit that is probably a little weaker than the average, but close enough their isn't any easy to balance it closer and its presence in an army shouldn't affect the overall effectiveness of it. Where a trap unit is one that you have to build the rest of you army to absorb is lack of effectiveness or role. Note: this isn't the same as building an army around a unit that, at that point, makes the army better. An even worst trap unit is one that no matter how you construct your army that unit just isn't going to contribute very well no matter what role you give it.
Unfortunately, Warhammer 40k has lots of trap units. Many of which are hard for some faction to avoid given a lack of unit options overall, Force Org considerations, or even redundancy of roles where it is less of choice on which unit you want for that role over one unit is clearly just plain better at that role. Warhammer 40k isn't alone in that. In Bolt Action (1st ed) I felt that often that green troops where a bit of trap. Fortunately, there wasn't a difference in the model so a player could just use them as regular or veterans. A better example was in Dust Battlefield non-helicopter flyers, SSU Steel Guard and bunker weapons were total trap units. None of them were their points no matter how you built your army.
I think it is reasonable to not expect anywhere close to perfect balance out of a game. That's fine, but I do expect that I can put together a collection of models that if I can cover all my bases should do at least okay on the tabletop. I might have to play at a higher level to make that happen, but it can happen. Again, in Dust Battlefield, Allied Rangers seemed like the weakest basic infantry of the 3 blocs. However, I made a WWII Able-Baker-Charlie list that actually managed to go nearly undefeated because I could create a list that played to their strengths and knew Dust very well. I have my doubts that I could do the same with Chaos Terminators in 8th ed 40k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 21:56:18
Considering that in Warhammer ArmyList-K the army list is the central pillar to your success, and that given two equally skilled opponents the one with the better list will almost always win, I consider a trap unit to be anything that is not optimal or efficient for what it is supposed to do.
Which is a sizable chunk of the game.
It is a trap because the illusion is that if I have 2000 points and you have 2000 points that we are going to have a good game, assuming equal player skill.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Lastly, what I was asking for was a definition of "trap unit" because people throw the term around and I don't think they understand my position on the issue. They say I want "Trap Units", which I don't. does a unit have to have "THIS UNIT IS SUBOPTIMAL NARRATIVE PLAY ONLY" slapped across its datasheet in red or something to be considered "not a trap?"
A trap unit is one that is reasonably expected to be good but isn't, especially when seeing its weakness requires a high level of understanding and math. For example, tactical marines are a trap unit. They're presented as the core of the space marine army and have a stat line that makes you think they're elite (at least among basic troops units) but once you do the math you find that they're trash. Kroot aren't necessarily a trap unit because they're presented as a support unit that does something Tau aren't really supposed to do, so you know that if you're taking one it's because you desperately need that melee cannon fodder and are willing to settle for a less than optimal unit to get it. GW isn't saying "take Kroot, they're the best", they're showing off armies full of Tau models with maybe an occasional Kroot here and there. Post-nerf conscripts aren't a trap unit because you look at the unit, immediately see that they're worse than normal infantry squads, and never bother with them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 08:47:40
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Blackie wrote: Index 8th edition was the most inbalanced version of 40k ever, even more inbalanced than 7th edition. There even wasn't rule of three back then.
7th edition I could field a marine army that matched my sororitas list model for model, gun for gun, with game-long rerolls and enough points left over the buy a knight.
And that marine army wouldn't stand a chance against the real cheese of the edition.
8e index may not have been amazingly balanced but the gap between the haves and the have nots was quite a bit smaller.
Lastly, what I was asking for was a definition of "trap unit" because people throw the term around and I don't think they understand my position on the issue. They say I want "Trap Units", which I don't. does a unit have to have "THIS UNIT IS SUBOPTIMAL NARRATIVE PLAY ONLY" slapped across its datasheet in red or something to be considered "not a trap?"
I can give a few of examples in my army:
-I think Chaos Space Marines are a trap unit. They just can do nearly as much work as Cultists for the points they cost. I don't think it is hard see a player picking CSM and wanting field Warp-crazed, super soldiers only to find Lovecraftain bad-guy wannabes are the better choice. -As much as I like my Chaos Terminators, I can't seem to build a list around them now that turn 1 assaults and warp time don't work like they used to. I still field them, but unless I playing a similarly tiered army (thank you Blood Angels players), I don't really seem to stand a chance most games. -I kinda feel that my land raider is a trap unit in that it eats up a chunk of points that if never seems to make back even as a distraction carnifax. -I am not sure if my Helldrake is a trap unit. I kinda suspect is, but it could just be an under-performing unit that I am bad at utilizing.
I kinda get that you think some posters are equating under-performing units or units not used in their correct role as trap units. That isn't the case. I think there is a difference in an under-performing/out-of-role unit and a trap unit. An under-performing unit is a unit that is probably a little weaker than the average, but close enough their isn't any easy to balance it closer and its presence in an army shouldn't affect the overall effectiveness of it. Where a trap unit is one that you have to build the rest of you army to absorb is lack of effectiveness or role. Note: this isn't the same as building an army around a unit that, at that point, makes the army better. An even worst trap unit is one that no matter how you construct your army that unit just isn't going to contribute very well no matter what role you give it.
Unfortunately, Warhammer 40k has lots of trap units. Many of which are hard for some faction to avoid given a lack of unit options overall, Force Org considerations, or even redundancy of roles where it is less of choice on which unit you want for that role over one unit is clearly just plain better at that role. Warhammer 40k isn't alone in that. In Bolt Action (1st ed) I felt that often that green troops where a bit of trap. Fortunately, there wasn't a difference in the model so a player could just use them as regular or veterans. A better example was in Dust Battlefield non-helicopter flyers, SSU Steel Guard and bunker weapons were total trap units. None of them were their points no matter how you built your army.
I think it is reasonable to not expect anywhere close to perfect balance out of a game. That's fine, but I do expect that I can put together a collection of models that if I can cover all my bases should do at least okay on the tabletop. I might have to play at a higher level to make that happen, but it can happen. Again, in Dust Battlefield, Allied Rangers seemed like the weakest basic infantry of the 3 blocs. However, I made a WWII Able-Baker-Charlie list that actually managed to go nearly undefeated because I could create a list that played to their strengths and knew Dust very well. I have my doubts that I could do the same with Chaos Terminators in 8th ed 40k.
Alright, yes. I understand, but I'm not sure those are trap units in the same way "I want trap units" as some posters claim. Let me address your units point-by-point because I think it might shed some light on how I feel:
1) Chaos Space Marines are bad in current 40k, but in the theoretical 40k I am proposing, they shouldn't be. When I talk about Faction Identity, well, CSM are literally the name of the faction. They have no right being bad, and are a "trap unit" for reasons entirely unrelated to the balance philosophy we're discussing. 2) Chaos Terminators are much the same, basically. They're bad because GW doesn't actually know what they're doing, rather than being bad simply because the design philosophy requires it (e.g. they're the "heavy troops" of a comparatively light infantry faction like Guard). I don't think their existence is a refutation of the design philosophy I've proposed. 3) Land Raiders are an odd case; I can imagine they're difficult to balance, simply because they do everything pretty well. They're one of the most durable Heavy Support units in the game, but everyone's bringing guns to kill LOW. They're fairly good transports, with some variants (though not yours obviously) being among the largest capacities in the game, again outside of LOWs. They're also excellent gun platforms, having as many Lascannons as a fully kitted Predator Annihilator but more, and also being able to move and shoot with no trouble at all. Balancing a vehicle that "does everything well" is going to be difficult, with so few weaknesses (CC alone) it should cost a premium, but at the same time in a game with LOWs anything that costs a premium and is good is just going to get swatted off the board with nary a gesture. Even so, I would consider Land Raiders (i.e. assault transport vehicles in general) to be part of the "shock troops" theme of both Marines and CSM, and therefore they'd be one of the stronger not-trap units in my prospective world where faction identity determines what units are strong vice weak. 4) I think Heldrakes can be fairly effective, but they are matchup dependent. I actually don't really consider them core to the identity of the CSM, so the fact that they're middling isn't an issue in my opinion.
I think the issue for me with the "expect[ation] that I can put together a collection of models that if I can cover all my bases should do at least okay on the tabletop" is that armies are more than just a collection of models. Armies should, like D&D character archetypes, have built-in weaknesses and very strong strengths. A Tau army shouldn't be able to "cover all its [melee] bases" as well as, say, a World Eaters army, which should in turn not be able to "cover all its [shooting] bases" as well as, say, Imperial Guard, etc.. This is why I eventually advocate for faction vs. faction balance, because people will inevitably soup to cover their weaknesses, at least in competitive play.
Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Lastly, what I was asking for was a definition of "trap unit" because people throw the term around and I don't think they understand my position on the issue. They say I want "Trap Units", which I don't. does a unit have to have "THIS UNIT IS SUBOPTIMAL NARRATIVE PLAY ONLY" slapped across its datasheet in red or something to be considered "not a trap?"
A trap unit is one that is reasonably expected to be good but isn't, especially when seeing its weakness requires a high level of understanding and math. For example, tactical marines are a trap unit. They're presented as the core of the space marine army and have a stat line that makes you think they're elite (at least among basic troops units) but once you do the math you find that they're trash. Kroot aren't necessarily a trap unit because they're presented as a support unit that does something Tau aren't really supposed to do, so you know that if you're taking one it's because you desperately need that melee cannon fodder and are willing to settle for a less than optimal unit to get it. GW isn't saying "take Kroot, they're the best", they're showing off armies full of Tau models with maybe an occasional Kroot here and there. Post-nerf conscripts aren't a trap unit because you look at the unit, immediately see that they're worse than normal infantry squads, and never bother with them.
I'll say the same thing I said to the CSM player: Tactical Marines really should be good. Just like you, I consider them a crucial, indelible part of the faction identity of the Adeptus Astartes, and they really should be much better, which is why I agree with buffing them. A unit that is presented as the core of a good faction being bad is exactly the type of unit I wish to avoid, despite the opinions of my accusers.
Conversely, one of the reasons Kroot are so popular in my examples is because they are, in fact, an example of what I am talking about. The Tau army shouldn't have excellent access to melee, and shouldn't expect much out of their melee units. The fact that they do, indeed, lack access to general melee units and the ones they have are at best mediocre is perfect. But some people seem to think that "a suboptimal unit in a role compared to other options available to the army" is somehow a trap unit, like how the ability for a wizard to get and use a greatsword in D&D should be removed just because it's a "trap option" or something. I don't really get it.
Lastly, post-nerf conscripts are so badly overnerfed that I agree with you. Conscripts are part of the identity of the Imperial Guard, though not quite so much as the Infantry Squad, and as such should at least have a role to play. Personally, I believe that role should be durability (as a unit): their firepower ought to be bad compared to an Infantry Squad (point-efficiency wise, not per unit), and their speed and maneuverability, like all Guard foot units, should be cumbersome, etc. But they should, given a Commissar to keep them in line, be able to plug gaps in the front. Right now, they can't even do that.
So, to sum up, it sounds like a lot of the problem with "Trap Units" is in presentation: a unit is presented in either the lore or the promotional materials or whatever as fantastic! or is perhaps even the core of a faction, but doesn't play that way on the table-top. So, the obvious solution is to make sure the faction core units (the ones that feed the "faction identity" I keep talking about) are really good for an army, and perform well, while presenting units that aren't part of the "core identity" as less useful, and then make them useful on the tabletop.
That way, when a Whirlwind (a comparatively minor artillery tank that I don't hear much about in the fluff) performs worse than the Basilisk (the quintessential artillery tank of the setting, present in memes, books, pictures, etc.), people won't be shocked or surprised. Because one is a tack-on unit that contributes to its faction identity in small ways, while the other is a core unit that fits the mold of the Imperial Guard faction. I think this balancing method is best, because it allows the core units to perform, and helps restrain factions (like the current Imperial Guard) who have absolutely jumped the shark in terms of core identity, and have so many "core identities" that almost any unit can be justified from some niche perspective.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 14:11:30
JFC, I alreasy explained how faction flavour can be preserved without making some units intentionally bad. Tau would not be an melee focused army even if Kroot were good. Your D&D analogy is flawed as there things come in ready-made packages, in 40K you use resources to get things. If in D&D wizard would have to choose between an ability to use fire spells and ability to use swords whilst the former was much more powerful than the latter then it would be more analogous. Furthermore, 40K is not an RPG, even in casual form it is a competitive game whereas D&D is cooperative game, so balancing considerarions are quite different.
Blackie wrote: Index 8th edition was the most inbalanced version of 40k ever, even more inbalanced than 7th edition. There even wasn't rule of three back then.
7th edition I could field a marine army that matched my sororitas list model for model, gun for gun, with game-long rerolls and enough points left over the buy a knight.
And that marine army wouldn't stand a chance against the real cheese of the edition.
8e index may not have been amazingly balanced but the gap between the haves and the have nots was quite a bit smaller.
Everyone getting broken formations started to fill the gap for balance. Otherwise, the two separate 8th edition eras is something to discuss with almost a whole different thread.
Index Lists were just purely having rules for the sake of rules with little thought put into them, and it shows.
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.
Lastly, what I was asking for was a definition of "trap unit" because people throw the term around and I don't think they understand my position on the issue. They say I want "Trap Units", which I don't. does a unit have to have "THIS UNIT IS SUBOPTIMAL NARRATIVE PLAY ONLY" slapped across its datasheet in red or something to be considered "not a trap?"
I can give a few of examples in my army:
-I think Chaos Space Marines are a trap unit. They just can do nearly as much work as Cultists for the points they cost. I don't think it is hard see a player picking CSM and wanting field Warp-crazed, super soldiers only to find Lovecraftain bad-guy wannabes are the better choice.
-As much as I like my Chaos Terminators, I can't seem to build a list around them now that turn 1 assaults and warp time don't work like they used to. I still field them, but unless I playing a similarly tiered army (thank you Blood Angels players), I don't really seem to stand a chance most games.
-I kinda feel that my land raider is a trap unit in that it eats up a chunk of points that if never seems to make back even as a distraction carnifax.
-I am not sure if my Helldrake is a trap unit. I kinda suspect is, but it could just be an under-performing unit that I am bad at utilizing.
I kinda get that you think some posters are equating under-performing units or units not used in their correct role as trap units. That isn't the case. I think there is a difference in an under-performing/out-of-role unit and a trap unit. An under-performing unit is a unit that is probably a little weaker than the average, but close enough their isn't any easy to balance it closer and its presence in an army shouldn't affect the overall effectiveness of it. Where a trap unit is one that you have to build the rest of you army to absorb is lack of effectiveness or role. Note: this isn't the same as building an army around a unit that, at that point, makes the army better. An even worst trap unit is one that no matter how you construct your army that unit just isn't going to contribute very well no matter what role you give it.
Unfortunately, Warhammer 40k has lots of trap units. Many of which are hard for some faction to avoid given a lack of unit options overall, Force Org considerations, or even redundancy of roles where it is less of choice on which unit you want for that role over one unit is clearly just plain better at that role. Warhammer 40k isn't alone in that. In Bolt Action (1st ed) I felt that often that green troops where a bit of trap. Fortunately, there wasn't a difference in the model so a player could just use them as regular or veterans. A better example was in Dust Battlefield non-helicopter flyers, SSU Steel Guard and bunker weapons were total trap units. None of them were their points no matter how you built your army.
I think it is reasonable to not expect anywhere close to perfect balance out of a game. That's fine, but I do expect that I can put together a collection of models that if I can cover all my bases should do at least okay on the tabletop. I might have to play at a higher level to make that happen, but it can happen. Again, in Dust Battlefield, Allied Rangers seemed like the weakest basic infantry of the 3 blocs. However, I made a WWII Able-Baker-Charlie list that actually managed to go nearly undefeated because I could create a list that played to their strengths and knew Dust very well. I have my doubts that I could do the same with Chaos Terminators in 8th ed 40k.
Alright, yes. I understand, but I'm not sure those are trap units in the same way "I want trap units" as some posters claim. Let me address your units point-by-point because I think it might shed some light on how I feel:
1) Chaos Space Marines are bad in current 40k, but in the theoretical 40k I am proposing, they shouldn't be. When I talk about Faction Identity, well, CSM are literally the name of the faction. They have no right being bad, and are a "trap unit" for reasons entirely unrelated to the balance philosophy we're discussing.
2) Chaos Terminators are much the same, basically. They're bad because GW doesn't actually know what they're doing, rather than being bad simply because the design philosophy requires it (e.g. they're the "heavy troops" of a comparatively light infantry faction like Guard). I don't think their existence is a refutation of the design philosophy I've proposed.
3) Land Raiders are an odd case; I can imagine they're difficult to balance, simply because they do everything pretty well. They're one of the most durable Heavy Support units in the game, but everyone's bringing guns to kill LOW. They're fairly good transports, with some variants (though not yours obviously) being among the largest capacities in the game, again outside of LOWs. They're also excellent gun platforms, having as many Lascannons as a fully kitted Predator Annihilator but more, and also being able to move and shoot with no trouble at all. Balancing a vehicle that "does everything well" is going to be difficult, with so few weaknesses (CC alone) it should cost a premium, but at the same time in a game with LOWs anything that costs a premium and is good is just going to get swatted off the board with nary a gesture. Even so, I would consider Land Raiders (i.e. assault transport vehicles in general) to be part of the "shock troops" theme of both Marines and CSM, and therefore they'd be one of the stronger not-trap units in my prospective world where faction identity determines what units are strong vice weak.
4) I think Heldrakes can be fairly effective, but they are matchup dependent. I actually don't really consider them core to the identity of the CSM, so the fact that they're middling isn't an issue in my opinion.
I think the issue for me with the "expect[ation] that I can put together a collection of models that if I can cover all my bases should do at least okay on the tabletop" is that armies are more than just a collection of models. Armies should, like D&D character archetypes, have built-in weaknesses and very strong strengths. A Tau army shouldn't be able to "cover all its [melee] bases" as well as, say, a World Eaters army, which should in turn not be able to "cover all its [shooting] bases" as well as, say, Imperial Guard, etc.. This is why I eventually advocate for faction vs. faction balance, because people will inevitably soup to cover their weaknesses, at least in competitive play.
Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Lastly, what I was asking for was a definition of "trap unit" because people throw the term around and I don't think they understand my position on the issue. They say I want "Trap Units", which I don't. does a unit have to have "THIS UNIT IS SUBOPTIMAL NARRATIVE PLAY ONLY" slapped across its datasheet in red or something to be considered "not a trap?"
A trap unit is one that is reasonably expected to be good but isn't, especially when seeing its weakness requires a high level of understanding and math. For example, tactical marines are a trap unit. They're presented as the core of the space marine army and have a stat line that makes you think they're elite (at least among basic troops units) but once you do the math you find that they're trash. Kroot aren't necessarily a trap unit because they're presented as a support unit that does something Tau aren't really supposed to do, so you know that if you're taking one it's because you desperately need that melee cannon fodder and are willing to settle for a less than optimal unit to get it. GW isn't saying "take Kroot, they're the best", they're showing off armies full of Tau models with maybe an occasional Kroot here and there. Post-nerf conscripts aren't a trap unit because you look at the unit, immediately see that they're worse than normal infantry squads, and never bother with them.
I'll say the same thing I said to the CSM player: Tactical Marines really should be good. Just like you, I consider them a crucial, indelible part of the faction identity of the Adeptus Astartes, and they really should be much better, which is why I agree with buffing them. A unit that is presented as the core of a good faction being bad is exactly the type of unit I wish to avoid, despite the opinions of my accusers.
Conversely, one of the reasons Kroot are so popular in my examples is because they are, in fact, an example of what I am talking about. The Tau army shouldn't have excellent access to melee, and shouldn't expect much out of their melee units. The fact that they do, indeed, lack access to general melee units and the ones they have are at best mediocre is perfect. But some people seem to think that "a suboptimal unit in a role compared to other options available to the army" is somehow a trap unit, like how the ability for a wizard to get and use a greatsword in D&D should be removed just because it's a "trap option" or something. I don't really get it.
Lastly, post-nerf conscripts are so badly overnerfed that I agree with you. Conscripts are part of the identity of the Imperial Guard, though not quite so much as the Infantry Squad, and as such should at least have a role to play. Personally, I believe that role should be durability (as a unit): their firepower ought to be bad compared to an Infantry Squad (point-efficiency wise, not per unit), and their speed and maneuverability, like all Guard foot units, should be cumbersome, etc. But they should, given a Commissar to keep them in line, be able to plug gaps in the front. Right now, they can't even do that.
So, to sum up, it sounds like a lot of the problem with "Trap Units" is in presentation: a unit is presented in either the lore or the promotional materials or whatever as fantastic! or is perhaps even the core of a faction, but doesn't play that way on the table-top. So, the obvious solution is to make sure the faction core units (the ones that feed the "faction identity" I keep talking about) are really good for an army, and perform well, while presenting units that aren't part of the "core identity" as less useful, and then make them useful on the tabletop.
That way, when a Whirlwind (a comparatively minor artillery tank that I don't hear much about in the fluff) performs worse than the Basilisk (the quintessential artillery tank of the setting, present in memes, books, pictures, etc.), people won't be shocked or surprised. Because one is a tack-on unit that contributes to its faction identity in small ways, while the other is a core unit that fits the mold of the Imperial Guard faction. I think this balancing method is best, because it allows the core units to perform, and helps restrain factions (like the current Imperial Guard) who have absolutely jumped the shark in terms of core identity, and have so many "core identities" that almost any unit can be justified from some niche perspective.
So I'll repeat a question from earlier:
Should Skull Cannons be nerfed because they don't fit the identity of Khorne Daemons?
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.
Crimson wrote:JFC, I alreasy explained how faction flavour can be preserved without making some units intentionally bad. Tau would not be an melee focused army even if Kroot were good. Your D&D analogy is flawed as there things come in ready-made packages, in 40K you use resources to get things. If in D&D wizard would have to choose between an ability to use fire spells and ability to use swords whilst the former was much more powerful than the latter then it would be more analogous. Furthermore, 40K is not an RPG, even in casual form it is a competitive game whereas D&D is cooperative game, so balancing considerarions are quite different.
Your explanation was inadequate, as an artillery faction (for example) will be able to buff their artillery, making it automatically better than the not-artillery faction if one looks for indirect fire support. Take the example of the Whirlwind: it outperforms the Basilisk vs. its preferred target, but the Basilisk has access to buffs, making it automatically overshadow the Whirlwind. This is a good thing. If Kroot were better, they'd still not be a melee faction, true. But if Kroot were as efficient point-for-point in melee as, say, Khorne Berzerkers, then you'd probably start seeing Tau melee lists crop up. Therefore, making units as efficient as other units point-for-point means that factions lose their identity, as each "melee unit" is as efficient as any other, whether it is Tau or Khorne. Therefore, Kroot need to be worse per-point-spent in melee than Berzerkers or Bloodletters. QED.
40k is only as competitive as you make it out to be. Winning is the objective, but fun is the goal. Sometimes, people think the objective is the goal, but I would hope you could realize that sometimes, storytelling is the goal, while winning is merely an objective. (Of course, this recognizes that there can be goals outside the game, while objectives exist inside the game, but some people don't like to talk about that).
You could conceivably play PVP D&D. It's a dumb idea, but the fact that game "could" be played competitively (everyone draw up lvl 5 characters, then fight eachother!) does not make it a "competitive game" automatically.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So I'll repeat a question from earlier: Should Skull Cannons be nerfed because they don't fit the identity of Khorne Daemons?
No, as currently they're worse than equivalent choices a Khorne Daemons player could find elsewhere (e.g. CSM) if they were playing competitively. Skull Cannons are fine where they are - a suboptimal choice for shooting in the competitive sense, and therefore never taken in competitive lists, but present for players who like them (for a wide variety of reasons) and otherwise aren't playing competitively.
Remember, I think World Eaters should have worse havocs than, say, Iron Warriors, point-for-point. Not that they shouldn't have them at all, or anything like that.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/08 15:43:10
Crimson wrote:JFC, I alreasy explained how faction flavour can be preserved without making some units intentionally bad. Tau would not be an melee focused army even if Kroot were good. Your D&D analogy is flawed as there things come in ready-made packages, in 40K you use resources to get things. If in D&D wizard would have to choose between an ability to use fire spells and ability to use swords whilst the former was much more powerful than the latter then it would be more analogous. Furthermore, 40K is not an RPG, even in casual form it is a competitive game whereas D&D is cooperative game, so balancing considerarions are quite different.
Your explanation was inadequate, as an artillery faction (for example) will be able to buff their artillery, making it automatically better than the not-artillery faction if one looks for indirect fire support. Take the example of the Whirlwind: it outperforms the Basilisk vs. its preferred target, but the Basilisk has access to buffs, making it automatically overshadow the Whirlwind. This is a good thing. If Kroot were better, they'd still not be a melee faction, true. But if Kroot were as efficient point-for-point in melee as, say, Khorne Berzerkers, then you'd probably start seeing Tau melee lists crop up. Therefore, making units as efficient as other units point-for-point means that factions lose their identity, as each "melee unit" is as efficient as any other, whether it is Tau or Khorne. Therefore, Kroot need to be worse per-point-spent in melee than Berzerkers or Bloodletters. QED.
40k is only as competitive as you make it out to be. Winning is the objective, but fun is the goal. Sometimes, people think the objective is the goal, but I would hope you could realize that sometimes, storytelling is the goal, while winning is merely an objective. (Of course, this recognizes that there can be goals outside the game, while objectives exist inside the game, but some people don't like to talk about that).
You could conceivably play PVP D&D. It's a dumb idea, but the fact that game "could" be played competitively (everyone draw up lvl 5 characters, then fight eachother!) does not make it a "competitive game" automatically.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So I'll repeat a question from earlier:
Should Skull Cannons be nerfed because they don't fit the identity of Khorne Daemons?
No, as currently they're worse than equivalent choices a Khorne Daemons player could find elsewhere (e.g. CSM) if they were playing competitively. Skull Cannons are fine where they are - a suboptimal choice for shooting in the competitive sense, and therefore never taken in competitive lists, but present for players who like them (for a wide variety of reasons) and otherwise aren't playing competitively.
Remember, I think World Eaters should have worse havocs than, say, Iron Warriors, point-for-point. Not that they shouldn't have them at all, or anything like that.
Why are you compairing a whirlwind to a basalisk instead of a wyvern? It's a more honest match up for their prefered targets of infantry.
Blackie wrote: Index 8th edition was the most inbalanced version of 40k ever, even more inbalanced than 7th edition. There even wasn't rule of three back then.
This made me laugh so hard. The indexes were bland but far more balanced than 7th. As a marine player having a formation that gave me 100s of points worth of free vehicles was bad game design and that wasn't even close to the strongest/most boneheaded thing GW released.
Ice_can wrote: Why are you compairing a whirlwind to a basalisk instead of a wyvern? It's a more honest match up for their prefered targets of infantry.
*shrug* It was the specific comparison brought up by someone else. I think it's because the Wyvern is typically not considered a very good unit, while the Basilisk makes showings at the top tables. The Wyvern does drastically outperform the Whirlwind, I suspect, though, meaning it probably needs a nerf. It shouldn't be that drastic... perhaps 4d3 or 2d6 instead, or lose the re-roll wounds.
Crimson wrote:JFC, I alreasy explained how faction flavour can be preserved without making some units intentionally bad. Tau would not be an melee focused army even if Kroot were good. Your D&D analogy is flawed as there things come in ready-made packages, in 40K you use resources to get things. If in D&D wizard would have to choose between an ability to use fire spells and ability to use swords whilst the former was much more powerful than the latter then it would be more analogous. Furthermore, 40K is not an RPG, even in casual form it is a competitive game whereas D&D is cooperative game, so balancing considerarions are quite different.
Your explanation was inadequate, as an artillery faction (for example) will be able to buff their artillery, making it automatically better than the not-artillery faction if one looks for indirect fire support. Take the example of the Whirlwind: it outperforms the Basilisk vs. its preferred target, but the Basilisk has access to buffs, making it automatically overshadow the Whirlwind. This is a good thing. If Kroot were better, they'd still not be a melee faction, true. But if Kroot were as efficient point-for-point in melee as, say, Khorne Berzerkers, then you'd probably start seeing Tau melee lists crop up. Therefore, making units as efficient as other units point-for-point means that factions lose their identity, as each "melee unit" is as efficient as any other, whether it is Tau or Khorne. Therefore, Kroot need to be worse per-point-spent in melee than Berzerkers or Bloodletters. QED.
40k is only as competitive as you make it out to be. Winning is the objective, but fun is the goal. Sometimes, people think the objective is the goal, but I would hope you could realize that sometimes, storytelling is the goal, while winning is merely an objective. (Of course, this recognizes that there can be goals outside the game, while objectives exist inside the game, but some people don't like to talk about that).
You could conceivably play PVP D&D. It's a dumb idea, but the fact that game "could" be played competitively (everyone draw up lvl 5 characters, then fight eachother!) does not make it a "competitive game" automatically.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So I'll repeat a question from earlier:
Should Skull Cannons be nerfed because they don't fit the identity of Khorne Daemons?
No, as currently they're worse than equivalent choices a Khorne Daemons player could find elsewhere (e.g. CSM) if they were playing competitively. Skull Cannons are fine where they are - a suboptimal choice for shooting in the competitive sense, and therefore never taken in competitive lists, but present for players who like them (for a wide variety of reasons) and otherwise aren't playing competitively.
Remember, I think World Eaters should have worse havocs than, say, Iron Warriors, point-for-point. Not that they shouldn't have them at all, or anything like that.
We aren't talking about Chaos Space Marines, an entirely different codex.
We are talking about the identity of Khorne Daemons and if the Skull Cannon fits that (it doesn't). It's also actually good since it's only 90 points for being a Battlecannon that ignores cover.
So isn't it too good to be in a melee army? Absolutely. Shouldn't it be nerfed because Khorne Daemons shouldn't be so shooty?
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.
40k is only as competitive as you make it out to be. Winning is the objective, but fun is the goal. Sometimes, people think the objective is the goal, but I would hope you could realize that sometimes, storytelling is the goal, while winning is merely an objective. (Of course, this recognizes that there can be goals outside the game, while objectives exist inside the game, but some people don't like to talk about that).
That maybe true for good armies. It is really hard to make playing with a bad army fun. Worse after sometime you can't even find opponents, because a lot of people don't want to play games they know they will win no matter what.
No, as currently they're worse than equivalent choices a Khorne Daemons player could find elsewhere (e.g. CSM) if they were playing competitively. Skull Cannons are fine where they are - a suboptimal choice for shooting in the competitive sense, and therefore never taken in competitive lists, but present for players who like them (for a wide variety of reasons) and otherwise aren't playing competitively.
So an army like GK should be bad, because there are better shoting imperial armies, better melee imperial armies, other armies have better casting etc? GW went with that line of thought, then playing GK would make no sense at all, because GW would never fix them, and people that bought them just wasted money.
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.
We aren't talking about Chaos Space Marines, an entirely different codex.
No, but we are talking about an army that has access to them. Codexes don't matter in army construction anymore; if Daemons want shooting, they have access to better, hence why I voted faction vs faction balance.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: We are talking about the identity of Khorne Daemons and if the Skull Cannon fits that (it doesn't). It's also actually good since it's only 90 points for being a Battlecannon that ignores cover.
It's really not that good. Asserting that it is does not make it so. Even if you think it's that good, in my opinion it doesn't harm the core identity of the army being as good as it is, and so it can stay the way it is.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So isn't it too good to be in a melee army? Absolutely. Shouldn't it be nerfed because Khorne Daemons shouldn't be so shooty?
The part you put in Cyan is you putting words into my mouth (words that are literally contradicted by my previous post). I disagree with the premise that it is too good to be in a melee army. Therefore, I disagree with your conclusion.
To reiterate: I didn't say I don't think melee armies shouldn't have shooting. I said their shooting should not be as efficient, point-for-point, as shooting specialist armies. I've said this almost word for word like five times in the course of this thread. The fact that you don't understand it makes me think you either are intellectually incapable of doing so (which I doubt, since you seem smart), you aren't reading what I am writing (which is possible), or you're attempting to strawman my position, which is of course a fallacy.
Karol wrote: So an army like GK should be bad, because there are better shoting imperial armies, better melee imperial armies, other armies have better casting etc? GW went with that line of thought, then playing GK would make no sense at all, because GW would never fix them, and people that bought them just wasted money.
GK's faction identity is "good against daemons." That's why they exist. Their secondary faction identity is "good at psykers" (though it's not their primary like it is for Tzeench). So really, the things they should do better (i.e. more points-efficiently than everyone else) is kill daemons and cast psychic powers, with the latter tempered somewhat by armies whose identity is even more psychic (i.e. Tzeench).
Eldar, too, are another heavily psychic army, for whom it is a big part of their identity. Grey Knight's access to psychic powers and ability to cast them should be on par with or slightly exceed Eldar's, as should the utility of their powers. That this isn't the case is a travesty within the current ruleset. Furthermore, the fact that GK are as awful against Daemons as they are is an even worse betrayal of faction identity, and is another reason to dislike GW's handling of the current game.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/01/08 17:59:09
We aren't talking about Chaos Space Marines, an entirely different codex.
No, but we are talking about an army that has access to them. Codexes don't matter in army construction anymore; if Daemons want shooting, they have access to better, hence why I voted faction vs faction balance.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: We are talking about the identity of Khorne Daemons and if the Skull Cannon fits that (it doesn't). It's also actually good since it's only 90 points for being a Battlecannon that ignores cover.
It's really not that good. Asserting that it is does not make it so. Even if you think it's that good, in my opinion it doesn't harm the core identity of the army being as good as it is, and so it can stay the way it is.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So isn't it too good to be in a melee army? Absolutely. Shouldn't it be nerfed because Khorne Daemons shouldn't be so shooty?
The part you put in Cyan is you putting words into my mouth (words that are literally contradicted by my previous post). I disagree with the premise that it is too good to be in a melee army. Therefore, I disagree with your conclusion.
To reiterate: I didn't say I don't think melee armies shouldn't have shooting. I said their shooting should not be as efficient, point-for-point, as shooting specialist armies. I've said this almost word for word like five times in the course of this thread. The fact that you don't understand it makes me think you either are intellectually incapable of doing so (which I doubt, since you seem smart), you aren't reading what I am writing (which is possible), or you're attempting to strawman my position, which is of course a fallacy.
Karol wrote: So an army like GK should be bad, because there are better shoting imperial armies, better melee imperial armies, other armies have better casting etc? GW went with that line of thought, then playing GK would make no sense at all, because GW would never fix them, and people that bought them just wasted money.
GK's faction identity is "good against daemons." That's why they exist. Their secondary faction identity is "good at psykers" (though it's not their primary like it is for Tzeench). So really, the things they should do better (i.e. more points-efficiently than everyone else) is kill daemons and cast psychic powers, with the latter tempered somewhat by armies whose identity is even more psychic (i.e. Tzeench).
Eldar, too, are another heavily psychic army, for whom it is a big part of their identity. Grey Knight's access to psychic powers and ability to cast them should be on par with or slightly exceed Eldar's, as should the utility of their powers. That this isn't the case is a travesty within the current ruleset. Furthermore, the fact that GK are as awful against Daemons as they are is an even worse betrayal of faction identity, and is another reason to dislike GW's handling of the current game.
You don't play Khorne Daemons (you play Slaanesh instead), so I'm sure how much you've actually looked at that part of your codex.
Skull Cannons are better than a majority of strictly shooting choices for 90 points (like the mentioned Whirlwinds, Thunderfire Cannon, Wyverns). They should be nerfed because Khorne is a melee army. Khorne shouldn't have efficient shooting.
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.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You don't play Khorne Daemons (you play Slaanesh instead), so I'm sure how much you've actually looked at that part of your codex.
Skull Cannons are better than a majority of strictly shooting choices for 90 points (like the mentioned Whirlwinds, Thunderfire Cannon, Wyverns). They should be nerfed because Khorne is a melee army. Khorne shouldn't have efficient shooting.
I can look at it right now if you want. I don't think there's enough evidence that Skull Cannons are excellent shooting options that are outperforming similar dedicated units in other codexes.
Funny that you should compare the chariot-like device with an MBT's cannon to light artillery, as if that's meaningful. Better comparison with the Skull Cannon would be other MBT or MBT-lite units, like the Falcon, Fire Prism, Leman Russ, Tyrannofex, or Predator. It's solidly middle of the pack in that regard, tending towards the lower end because of its comparatively awful durability (less than that of a Basilisk, against AT weapons). If you won't compare Like vs. Like, then you might as well compare the Skull Cannon to a mortar Heavy Weapon Squad, at which point I am forced to concede that the Skull Cannon is, in fact, better than a HWS...
I don't think it's too good at all, and repeatedly trying to convince me that it is is a thread derail. If you'd like, you can post a thread called "Are Skull Cannons Too Good For A Melee Army" or something like that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/08 18:18:38
It's clearly not one of the Battle Tanks you listed. It's for sure an artillery piece, and it's unfair for an army like Marines, a shooting army, to not get one as effective as a Skull Cannon.
Under your logic that's bad game design and we should nerf it to a fluff piece.
Lastly, what I was asking for was a definition of "trap unit" because people throw the term around and I don't think they understand my position on the issue. They say I want "Trap Units", which I don't. does a unit have to have "THIS UNIT IS SUBOPTIMAL NARRATIVE PLAY ONLY" slapped across its datasheet in red or something to be considered "not a trap?"
Yes, if it is suboptimal.
Now, I am a hardcore flufbunny, but your stance comes closest to Peregrine's mythical CAAC player that I've ever actually encountered. You literally want some units to intentionally be bad so you can signal your casualness by including them. Frankly, that's plain crazy. Now, I too definitely include suboptimal units because they look cool, but I'd greatly prefer if they actually weren't suboptimal.
Look at this post for some outside perspective on why your beliefs are bad and unhealthy for the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 18:25:17
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.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's clearly not one of the Battle Tanks you listed. It's for sure an artillery piece, and it's unfair for an army like Marines, a shooting army, to not get one as effective as a Skull Cannon.
Under your logic that's bad game design and we should nerf it to a fluff piece.
It already is a fluff piece. I don't see Skull Cannons if a Daemons army wants really good shooting. You see Renegade Knights and CSM. That's rather the point. It doesn't need further nerfing.
Furthermore, it's a tank. It plays on the battlefield more like a Predator, needing direct-fire but unwilling to move, than a Basilisk, which can sit out of LOS and in safety while shooting. The Predator tank is more effective than the Skull Cannon for the points, I think. Certainly more durable.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Look at this post for some outside perspective on why your beliefs are bad and unhealthy for the game.
I ignored that post, as it strawmans my position very badly, but if you want a real counter argument: I don't want some units to be intentionally bad for the purpose of signalling my casualness, as this post claims. I want some units to be intentionally bad to preserve and individuate army identity. Imperial Guard has no business being as good as World Eaters at melee, therefore, any melee options they have should be less points-efficient than the World Eaters have. That's the real stance, and it has nothing to do with signalling anything.
Therefore, my beliefs aren't bad and unhealthy for the game, since my beliefs have nothing to do with "virtue signalling" or anything of the sort. I believe I've made a legitimate argument, and all you've found to refute it are strawmen (i.e. "The Skull Cannon is too good, right? Let's nerf it!") or ad-hominems ("You're just CAAC!") rather than actually addressing the argument as it stands.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 18:31:54
I don't think anyone is strawmanning your arguments, they are trying to illustrate using examples why they think your argument is flawed.
Personally, I would hate a D&D game where wizards NEVER meleed, fighters NEVER used magic items, or clerics NEVER sneaked. Sure you need to make those classes worse at those things (generally) that they aren't supposed to be doing than the classes who are supposed to be specialists in that area. But, you don't do that by making classes laughably bad at things they aren't supposed to be specialists in, otherwise they just never do it. If you make the cleric bad at sneaking, he just will never sneak at all, ever, and will rather fight and play to his strengths even in a situation that sneaking might be the better option.
A better way is to make the classes SITUATIONALLY decent at things they aren't supposed to be doing. A cleric probably should be bad at being a cat burglar, but pretending to be a member of a crazy cult to infiltrate an enemy temple should be right up their alley. Transferring the analogy over to 40k... Khorne is supposed to be a "melee" army, but Skull cannons should be a GOOD (read, points efficient) ranged weapon that gives khorne the option of engaging at range. Does that mean that khorne becomes an army that is good at shooting? No. Supplementary rules like the rule of 3 prevents this, and also the skull cannon only fulfills a single role (be that ranged anti-infantry or ranged anti-tank, I'm honestly not sure which) so you cannot make an entire army out of them anyway because it would be lacking in ways to deal with most units. Skull cannons are a specialist shooting unit in a melee army much like ogryn are a specialist melee unit inside a shooty army (IG). Making them bad (read, points inefficient) makes it so that they just aren't ever taken.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 20:09:45
I don't think anyone is strawmanning your arguments, they are trying to illustrate using examples why they think your argument is flawed.
But the examples indicated a flawed understanding of my argument. The Skull Cannon is fine, using my own logic, as is the Whirlwind.
The chosen examples are either misunderstandings of the argument I am making (in which case, poo on me for explaining it 5 or 6 times without being understood), or deliberate strawmen in an attempt to catch me out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 19:59:22
In an ideal world all unit entries and options would be at least somewhat useful.
Should IG have access to more diverse and powerful artillery? yes they should but that doesn't mean other factions should have terrible artillery or that certain models should be deliberately priced to not be useful.
HoundsofDemos wrote: In an ideal world all unit entries and options would be at least somewhat useful.
Should IG have access to more diverse and powerful artillery? yes they should but that doesn't mean other factions should have terrible artillery or that certain models should be deliberately priced to not be useful.
That's just bad game design.
Agreed. But there is a difference between "useful" and "competitive" which is the problem here on Dakkadakka, I think. It's okay for a Whirlwind to be "suboptimal" compared to a Basilisk, or that a phalanx of Skull Cannons (well, like 3-4) is "suboptimal" compared to an Imperial Knight. I still see Skull Cannons on the table, and even whirlwinds in recent memory. Just not top-table competitive.
That's inevitable, in my opinion - the top tables will never have everything, because true balance is impossible. So you should at least try to balance armies around their identities, and then allow their identities to come together in a cohesive whole as an entire faction. It shouldn't be surprising that a Marine Battle Company is more effectively supported by an Imperial Guard infantry battery with dedicated personnel and equipment (e.g. Masters of Ordnance and Trojans) in emplaced positions with preplanned fire-locations than it would be supported by a trio of Whirlwinds that just got off the boat at the same time they did. I'm not saying "not everything should be useful." I'm saying "not everything should be competitively balanced on a unit vs unit basis without consideration for the army handling them." Then, furthermore, I am saying that "armies have faction identities in the way D&D Classes have functions" and therefore I am saying "A melee army should have worse (though not useless!) shooting point-for-point compared to a shooting army, in the same way that even a well-built Wizard using a Greatsword should be worse than a Fighter using a Greatsword, given that they both have the limited resources of feat points and actions in a turn."
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/08 20:15:01
No, it is not. It is extremely difficult but it is possible. You are conducting an argument from a flawed premise. See my post above about how D&D classes can be decent at things they aren't supposed to be specialists in.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/08 20:19:19
