Switch Theme:

Marine Fix?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And in a squad of Devastators, where the only place the Lascannons matter, missing is a non-issue.


That doesn't even make sense.

Signum and Cherub? Was it honestly that hard to figure out?

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.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





"And in a squad of Devastators, where the only place the Lascannons matter, missing is a non-issue."

So let me get this straight: Rerolling one hit or one wound in a squad with 1 special and maybe 1 heavy is useless - you still need a way to not miss. But moving 1-2 to-hit rolls from a 3+ to a 2+ in a squad with 4-5 shots makes missing a non-issue?

I think the Tac squads get more out of being Sally than Devs, to be sure. But Devs missing with Lascannons is actually only marginally lower without the Cherub/Signum (~33% vs ~31% to miss once). Factor it out across the squad, and a Cherub/Signum squad is only *marginally* less likely to miss (as in tenths of a percent).

IOW, not only is moving the goalpost to Dev squads silly, but what you bring up is in no way relevant. Further, if we transplanted the goalpost all the way over where you're putting it, you'd be maybe a few tenths of a percent closer to "Don't need rerolls".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And what Sally army wouldn't use a Cherub/Signum too?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/22 19:09:47


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I still think it's somewhat erroneous to not lay some of the blame at the outright fragility of marines on a per point basis.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Martel732 wrote:
I still think it's somewhat erroneous to not lay some of the blame at the outright fragility of marines on a per point basis.
And now wait for the cheeper song...
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





 LesPaul wrote:
Marine survivability is junk because of the weight of fire that most armies can put out. Not to mention the fact that they are expensive for what they do. "Mathing it out" does not take into acct the sheer killing power of massed horde weapons and easy access to 2 wound or high AP weaponry. Any army that relies on elite, high pt models is suffering now due to the way the rules and armies are set up.


exactly. When everyone is throwing knight-killing weapon around, the difference between a guardsman and a space marine becomes negligible. At that point, the better costed one for how many bodies you get is always the best. Titan, primarch, etc should really have been confined to apoc only, but GW had to sell those huge kits to everyone, and so here we are...
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




VoidSempai wrote:
 LesPaul wrote:
Marine survivability is junk because of the weight of fire that most armies can put out. Not to mention the fact that they are expensive for what they do. "Mathing it out" does not take into acct the sheer killing power of massed horde weapons and easy access to 2 wound or high AP weaponry. Any army that relies on elite, high pt models is suffering now due to the way the rules and armies are set up.


exactly. When everyone is throwing knight-killing weapon around, the difference between a guardsman and a space marine becomes negligible. At that point, the better costed one for how many bodies you get is always the best. Titan, primarch, etc should really have been confined to apoc only, but GW had to sell those huge kits to everyone, and so here we are...

Seeing as Marines have always been less durable to anti-tank weapons I don't think you're making as much of a point as you think.

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.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





"When everyone is throwing knight-killing weapon around" suggests the frequency of weapons being anti-tank is what changed, not the relative durability vs anti-tank weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said, anti-Knight weapons tend to deprioritize AP. Which is absurd.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/22 19:50:05


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
VoidSempai wrote:
 LesPaul wrote:
Marine survivability is junk because of the weight of fire that most armies can put out. Not to mention the fact that they are expensive for what they do. "Mathing it out" does not take into acct the sheer killing power of massed horde weapons and easy access to 2 wound or high AP weaponry. Any army that relies on elite, high pt models is suffering now due to the way the rules and armies are set up.


exactly. When everyone is throwing knight-killing weapon around, the difference between a guardsman and a space marine becomes negligible. At that point, the better costed one for how many bodies you get is always the best. Titan, primarch, etc should really have been confined to apoc only, but GW had to sell those huge kits to everyone, and so here we are...

Seeing as Marines have always been less durable to anti-tank weapons I don't think you're making as much of a point as you think.
Bottom line is, AP system caps against low Sv models, as in, AP-6 is going to have the same effect on a Sv 6+ model as an AP-1, and as such, major point revision is required to reevaluate the value of AP and Sv.

And as Bharring points out, most things that seemingly require high AP weapons to kill have good invul saves, which then reverts you back to requiring quantity over quality - which pretty much means AP is most effective when Sv is high and SV++ is low... which is everything between marines and vehicles!

Summing up, it doesn't matter whether the perceived or actual durability of marines are on the upper tier because everything that was designed to kill anything other than MEQ's and TEQ's cause more casualties at points level when aimed at TEQ and MEQ's.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2019/03/22 21:15:36


 
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince





Sticksville, Texas

Well, my take on it "fixing" Marines is this:

-Tac Marines, Assault Squad, Dev Squad: 12 points
-Change Beta Bolter Rule to be a flat +1 shot, while keeping the same three stipulations the rule currently has.
-All Marine bikes, Dreads, and vehicles ignore the -1 penalty for moving and shooting a heavy weapon.
-Terminators reduce damage taken from enemy attacks by 1, to a minimum of 1.
-Apply to Loyalists and Chaos, an let it ride for a year and adjust up or down from there.

Will it make Marines top tier, unlikely, but it will give the mini-Marines a slight boost, give the vehicles something in place of Chapter/Legion Tactics, and allow Marines to play a more mobile game using terrain with the ability to ignore the moving and shooting penalty with bikes, Dreads, and Vehicles... And actually act like an army of shock troops by having a reason to move and push forward.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Well, my take on it "fixing" Marines is this:

-Tac Marines, Assault Squad, Dev Squad: 12 points
-Change Beta Bolter Rule to be a flat +1 shot, while keeping the same three stipulations the rule currently has.
-All Marine bikes, Dreads, and vehicles ignore the -1 penalty for moving and shooting a heavy weapon.
This would definitely be a good start.

As for the existing PotMS, it should be revised so that LR can fire its non-assault weapons after advancing, but the advance is reduced to d3.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/22 21:45:52


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Bharring wrote:
"When everyone is throwing knight-killing weapon around" suggests the frequency of weapons being anti-tank is what changed, not the relative durability vs anti-tank weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said, anti-Knight weapons tend to deprioritize AP. Which is absurd.


BUT MAGICAL ION SHIELDS.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And in a squad of Devastators, where the only place the Lascannons matter, missing is a non-issue.


That doesn't even make sense.

Signum and Cherub? Was it honestly that hard to figure out?


If the argument is that Lascannons only matter when accompanied by a Signum and Cherub. . . that still doesn't make any sense.

Out of curiosity, is missing still a "non-issue" when there are negative to-hit modifiers involved? Like I said, I'm just curious.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Real problem being that single lascannons arent worth 25.
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince





Sticksville, Texas

 skchsan wrote:
 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Well, my take on it "fixing" Marines is this:

-Tac Marines, Assault Squad, Dev Squad: 12 points
-Change Beta Bolter Rule to be a flat +1 shot, while keeping the same three stipulations the rule currently has.
-All Marine bikes, Dreads, and vehicles ignore the -1 penalty for moving and shooting a heavy weapon.
This would definitely be a good start.

As for the existing PotMS, it should be revised so that LR can fire its non-assault weapons after advancing, but the advance is reduced to d3.


I was just thinking of making PotMS just be that Land Raiders can shoot while engaged, and may treat all of it's ranged weapons as pistols when engaged. The fall back and shoot thing is handled by the Primaris transport, so just go the opposite route for the Land Raider, and push it forwards into combat.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 NH Gunsmith wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Well, my take on it "fixing" Marines is this:

-Tac Marines, Assault Squad, Dev Squad: 12 points
-Change Beta Bolter Rule to be a flat +1 shot, while keeping the same three stipulations the rule currently has.
-All Marine bikes, Dreads, and vehicles ignore the -1 penalty for moving and shooting a heavy weapon.
This would definitely be a good start.

As for the existing PotMS, it should be revised so that LR can fire its non-assault weapons after advancing, but the advance is reduced to d3.


I was just thinking of making PotMS just be that Land Raiders can shoot while engaged, and may treat all of it's ranged weapons as pistols when engaged. The fall back and shoot thing is handled by the Primaris transport, so just go the opposite route for the Land Raider, and push it forwards into combat.


I've always thought the LR should just have a -1 to wound, would make it a hell of a lot more durable.
Or anytime it successfully makes a charge, it hits on 3+ and every unit inside the landraider could disembark within 3 inches of the landraider and within an inch of at least one enemy unit the landraider charged. These units would then count as charging against all the units the landraider declared a charge against.

I honestly don't think most marine need any changes themselves (besides a second CC attack), but they need access to more toys that allow them to do their job effectively. Drop pods/ rhinos/ teleport homers and the like should be retooled to give standard marines more effective delivery methods.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Vilehydra wrote:
I've always thought the LR should just have a -1 to wound, would make it a hell of a lot more durable.


Nope nope nope nope.

That would mean anything S4 or less CANNOT wound it, and less importantly, you'd need a Lascannon to wound on 4s.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
Vilehydra wrote:
I've always thought the LR should just have a -1 to wound, would make it a hell of a lot more durable.


Nope nope nope nope.

That would mean anything S4 or less CANNOT wound it, and less importantly, you'd need a Lascannon to wound on 4s.


Kind of the point, It would mean the damn thing is durable again, but still liable to be taken down by true heavy hitting weapons. I'd feel the lascannons wounding on 4 is actually more important than the S4-. If your really that worried, I'd put a "to a maximum of 6+ to wound" or whatever.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/23 03:31:12


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Vilehydra wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Vilehydra wrote:
I've always thought the LR should just have a -1 to wound, would make it a hell of a lot more durable.


Nope nope nope nope.

That would mean anything S4 or less CANNOT wound it, and less importantly, you'd need a Lascannon to wound on 4s.


Kind of the point, It would mean the damn thing is durable again, but still liable to be taken down by true heavy hitting weapons. I'd feel the lascannons wounding on 4 is actually more important than the S4-. If your really that worried, I'd put a "to a maximum of 6+ to wound" or whatever.


It's a bad point. Right now everyone in this thread is arguing about the abundance of high str high AP weapons for taking out tanks and knights and gak. Want to know how best to increase the frequency of such weapons again? Make it so nothing else even has a chance of hurting something. When you have a model thats nigh invulnerable to anything but a select sub set of weapons anything but those weapons becomes near worthless. Tac marines will face an even larger flood of weapons to kill land raiders. And as a result SM will need to bring more weapons that can kill landraiders. Which means less weapons to kill hordes.

You are compounding the problem for what? Making your landraider "tougher"? What a load of crap.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in nz
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot



New Zealand

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - The powerful anti-marine and anti tank weapons need to have their points increased and the big things like Knights need to have their points increased too. If plasma etc was more expensive their would be less of it; and therefore making marines more durable. The problem is all points values have been driven down so much.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Lance845 wrote:
Vilehydra wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Vilehydra wrote:
I've always thought the LR should just have a -1 to wound, would make it a hell of a lot more durable.


Nope nope nope nope.

That would mean anything S4 or less CANNOT wound it, and less importantly, you'd need a Lascannon to wound on 4s.


Kind of the point, It would mean the damn thing is durable again, but still liable to be taken down by true heavy hitting weapons. I'd feel the lascannons wounding on 4 is actually more important than the S4-. If your really that worried, I'd put a "to a maximum of 6+ to wound" or whatever.


It's a bad point. Right now everyone in this thread is arguing about the abundance of high str high AP weapons for taking out tanks and knights and gak. Want to know how best to increase the frequency of such weapons again? Make it so nothing else even has a chance of hurting something. When you have a model thats nigh invulnerable to anything but a select sub set of weapons anything but those weapons becomes near worthless. Tac marines will face an even larger flood of weapons to kill land raiders. And as a result SM will need to bring more weapons that can kill landraiders. Which means less weapons to kill hordes.

You are compounding the problem for what? Making your landraider "tougher"? What a load of crap.


First off, don't conflate an attempt to buff the LR with me doing it for personal gain. I don't own a LR, but I haven't seen one ever earn its points back in any earnest way.

Secondly, I find that the things commonly use to beat knights (at least in my local area) are massed high RoF str7-8 ap-1 or ap-2 weapons. Weapons like riptide burst-cannon or battlecannons that throw out several shots that are both good at ripping through knights/ marines/ and landraiders. Compared to lascannons/ demolisher cannons/ vanquisher etc., which due to low RoF are not efficient at killing marine squads. In this situation, weapons that are efficient at killing marines become much less efficient at killing LRs. They may bring more of them, but that also means less meat on other parts of the army. It promotes a spread of weapons.

The real problem isn't the abundance of High RoF Marine killers out there, it's the fact that those weapons are currently the best weapon range against almost all targets, Str 8 -2/3 is an effective profile against elites, vehicles, and superheavys. When combined with high RoF they become a problem for everything. If you can create a spread of targets where those weapons are ineffective then people may opt to switch to weapons in other range bands.

Alternatively. The Land Raider could reduce incoming damage by 1 to a minimum of 1.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Or how about every sm model doesnt need special rules to be better and longer lasting then every other model in every other army.

A lr has a high t and a great save. Its already tougher then just about any orher vehicle out there. Especially ones with a transport capacity.

Sm dont need special rules to boost all their guns and all their toughness. They need appropriately costed equipment and models with options to deal with the.meta.

The horde issue isnt a sm issue. Its a core game issue. You dont fix it by adjusting sm. Same for the land raider. Its correctly durable.. The weapon spread is off. For everyone. Sm worst of all because they never stop getting new toys.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/24 01:06:21



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Exactly. The issue with the Land Raider is being able to be stopped so easily by being charged or right next to it.

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.
 
   
Made in dk
Khorne Veteran Marine with Chain-Axe






 Lance845 wrote:
Or how about every sm model doesnt need special rules to be better and longer lasting then every other model in every other army.

A lr has a high t and a great save. Its already tougher then just about any orher vehicle out there. Especially ones with a transport capacity.

Sm dont need special rules to boost all their guns and all their toughness. They need appropriately costed equipment and models with options to deal with the.meta.

The horde issue isnt a sm issue. Its a core game issue. You dont fix it by adjusting sm. Same for the land raider. Its correctly durable.. The weapon spread is off. For everyone. Sm worst of all because they never stop getting new toys.


This is one of the issues i have with your logic, you want to balance around tournaments and metas... Thats wrong, it often tells which faction is stronger, but it dosent speak much of the lackluster units or anything else execpt whats REALLY good or even broken.

We dont need to balance to meta, we need to balance according to what the units actually manage DO on the table in apple to apple comparisom with other units in same category/points etc.

For all i care the tournament scene can burn in hell, Razorwing flok spam was just a really bad omen to the coming balance, then we had Imperial smoothie soup, and double tapping Leman Russ tanks so on and so forth while GW runs behind trying to constantly ajust and downtone tournament tricks while the endless cacophony of whine booms in the background from super-salted tournament idiots that found a cool way to break the game. End of the day all this bullcrap changed almost nothing in the casual hobby rooms across the world. Waste. of. time. Atleast according to me.


6000 World Eaters/Khorne  
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Brutallica wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Or how about every sm model doesnt need special rules to be better and longer lasting then every other model in every other army.

A lr has a high t and a great save. Its already tougher then just about any orher vehicle out there. Especially ones with a transport capacity.

Sm dont need special rules to boost all their guns and all their toughness. They need appropriately costed equipment and models with options to deal with the.meta.

The horde issue isnt a sm issue. Its a core game issue. You dont fix it by adjusting sm. Same for the land raider. Its correctly durable.. The weapon spread is off. For everyone. Sm worst of all because they never stop getting new toys.


This is one of the issues i have with your logic, you want to balance around tournaments and metas... Thats wrong, it often tells which faction is stronger, but it dosent speak much of the lackluster units or anything else execpt whats REALLY good or even broken.

We dont need to balance to meta, we need to balance according to what the units actually manage DO on the table in apple to apple comparisom with other units in same category/points etc.

For all i care the tournament scene can burn in hell, Razorwing flok spam was just a really bad omen to the coming balance, then we had Imperial smoothie soup, and double tapping Leman Russ tanks so on and so forth while GW runs behind trying to constantly ajust and downtone tournament tricks while the endless cacophony of whine booms in the background from super-salted tournament idiots that found a cool way to break the game. End of the day all this bullcrap changed almost nothing in the casual hobby rooms across the world. Waste. of. time. Atleast according to me.



If it's balanced for tournaments, it's balanced for casual play. The reverse is not a given.

Edit: That being said, if all I meant is that you want to balance to a lower power level than what's brought to tournaments, that's fine.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/24 22:48:53


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in dk
Khorne Veteran Marine with Chain-Axe






Thats incorrect if you only balance metas

6000 World Eaters/Khorne  
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Brutallica wrote:
Thats incorrect if you only balance metas


I do agree that what GW is doing is not the best way of balancing, but if the game is balanced for people who focus heavily on eking out every advantage they can, it'll be balanced for people who just want to throw down and roll dice.

The trick that I think GW is missing at the moment is bringing up that which is bad, not just nerfing that which is good.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 JNAProductions wrote:
 Brutallica wrote:
Thats incorrect if you only balance metas


I do agree that what GW is doing is not the best way of balancing, but if the game is balanced for people who focus heavily on eking out every advantage they can, it'll be balanced for people who just want to throw down and roll dice.

The trick that I think GW is missing at the moment is bringing up that which is bad, not just nerfing that which is good.


Except the people that play tournaments tend to use a other ruleset?

I mean logically speaking that should tend to lead to issues no?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Not Online!!! wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Brutallica wrote:
Thats incorrect if you only balance metas


I do agree that what GW is doing is not the best way of balancing, but if the game is balanced for people who focus heavily on eking out every advantage they can, it'll be balanced for people who just want to throw down and roll dice.

The trick that I think GW is missing at the moment is bringing up that which is bad, not just nerfing that which is good.


Except the people that play tournaments tend to use a other ruleset?

I mean logically speaking that should tend to lead to issues no?


ITC is more a mission packet than a ruleset, to my knowledge. (The only houserule I can think of is first-floors block LoS regardless.) But yeah, I suppose that doesn't help either.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 JNAProductions wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Brutallica wrote:
Thats incorrect if you only balance metas


I do agree that what GW is doing is not the best way of balancing, but if the game is balanced for people who focus heavily on eking out every advantage they can, it'll be balanced for people who just want to throw down and roll dice.

The trick that I think GW is missing at the moment is bringing up that which is bad, not just nerfing that which is good.


Except the people that play tournaments tend to use a other ruleset?

I mean logically speaking that should tend to lead to issues no?


ITC is more a mission packet than a ruleset, to my knowledge. (The only houserule I can think of is first-floors block LoS regardless.) But yeah, I suppose that doesn't help either.


In the end it is still a other rulesystem.

I am not arguing for his point or yours, merely pointing out that maybee it could lead to issues.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Not Online!!! wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Brutallica wrote:
Thats incorrect if you only balance metas


I do agree that what GW is doing is not the best way of balancing, but if the game is balanced for people who focus heavily on eking out every advantage they can, it'll be balanced for people who just want to throw down and roll dice.

The trick that I think GW is missing at the moment is bringing up that which is bad, not just nerfing that which is good.


Except the people that play tournaments tend to use a other ruleset?

I mean logically speaking that should tend to lead to issues no?


ITC is more a mission packet than a ruleset, to my knowledge. (The only houserule I can think of is first-floors block LoS regardless.) But yeah, I suppose that doesn't help either.


In the end it is still a other rulesystem.

I am not arguing for his point or yours, merely pointing out that maybee it could lead to issues.


Ideally, GW would run their own tournaments and collect data from that.

Then again, I believe that's called "playtesting", something GW doesn't do much of or do what little they do do well.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: