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.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I seriously can't believe some people are still arguing that Guard squads are not overpowered for their cost. And I was a die-hard fan of IG up until I played a different army and saw how easy guard have it.
The current state of guard is literally indefensible by logic, only by woo and irrationality.
Your forgetting the first rule of guard club
Never admit how powerful your units are. Like EVER !!!
I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing the data from the upcoming ITC season with best infaction requiring pure lists.
I suspect it's going to be interesting watching the results and how people try to spin those results.
What results? You're so far away from competitive play you have no idea what the changes to BiF even means. The change means absolutely nothing in terms of what takes top 8 at majors, which will still be soup. The only difference now is that soup players won't be taking BiF awards as consolation prize for not taking best in ITC. As for mono codex power, Mono-Guard are completely shut out of top tables by Eldar and I don't see that changing as long as -2/-3 is so stupidly easy to stack.
As for dealing with FRFSRF bogeymen, I would like to introduce you to the humble Deathwatch Intercessor.
10 Deathwatch Intercessors in cover vs FOUR Infantry squads and two company commanders with FRFSRF starting at 30"range. 180 points vs 220 points.
Turn One
One dead guard squad. Straight up deleted with hellfire rounds and reroll 1's to wound.
Guard squads move into 24" range, engage FRFSRF on three of the squads. 54 shots, 1.4 wounds after save, let's be generous and say we dropped an Intercessor. Without cover, it's 3 wounds, so either way, still 9 models left.
Turn Two
Second guard squad loses 9 men, probably not spending CP to save one guardsmen, he runs.
Guard squads move to 18", let's again be generous and say they're Armageddon, so now they're getting full value on FRFSRF. 72 shots. Another dead intercessor, two more dead intercessors out of cover.
Turn Three
Third guard squad takes 8 casualties, 7 if the Intercessors have not been in cover this whole time. We'll say the Guard player spent a CP to make it a 1D3 morale check and they passed though.
Guard squads move to 12", FRFSRF on the three survivors from squad three and the untouched squad. 49 shots. 1.29 wounds. feth it, let's just say they dropped another Intercessor cause the Guardsmen need the help at this point.
Turn Four
Intercessors can easily clean up with a round of shooting + charging. The company commanders might now be tying them up for the rest of the game, but the Guard player in this scenario burned 1 CP, has been wasting 4/6 possible orders the whole game, tied up or lost 220 points of their own units, and in ITC gave up at least four primary points on approach, with a probable two more from either Butcher's Bill or Reaper.
You could MMM all four of the squads turn one into RF range, but at that point, the play is to move up 6", split fire at the two furthest squads, and charge the full strength one before they can get a FRFSRF volley.
And when your Guard squads cost as much as a DW Intercessor Squad, you can complain about how weak they are. But why stop there? A guard squad can't compare to a Leviathan, NERF THE LEVIATHAN.
See, you can't compare the two. It's silly to do so. Also please point to me the lists loading out 8 squads of DW Intercessors that are winning majors. Hell, point to me the list of any DW w/ pure intercessors squads. So in effect, that is not a fair argument. DW is not in any way breaking the Meta with their overpoweredness.
Also you gave all the boneses to Intercessors, and took the guard out of RF range. This is horribly skewed. LOS exists for a reason.
I'm not complaining about how weak guardsmen are, I'm pointing out that FRFSRF guardsmen are not some OP punch above their weight squad in a realistic scenario and even used MORE points in guardsmen than Intercessors. Yes, if you magically got them all into RF range then they will punch above their weight. But unless you're a mouthbreather, the Guard player is never going to get that opportunity.
Because the guardsmen don't start in RF range. And there's no way you're maneuvering 40 models without at least one squad of them being in LOS. If anything, this was skewed in favor of the guardsmen. The guardsmen have 40 points and two extra CP in this scenario and the best possible regiment tactic for FRFSRF. Cadian can't get rerolls on the move.
I didn't give DW 'all the bonuses', I gave them their chapter tactic and standard ammo for a T3 target. That's like complaining about me simulating Raven Guard getting their -1 to hit.
I have never seen a player in game make the choice to send intercessor squads after entrenched guard squads holding objectives. I wonder why.
Because they can sit at 30" and kill a squad per turn without receiving any return fire?
Here is a guard player trying to defend 4ppm guardsmen before, because you apparentlyhaven't seen this argument that is already over a year old.
GW has given up and is now bringing other troops down to the bottom floor of ppm which is crowned by Guard.
Take a basic squad of each thing, no buffs, and go from there.
???
But I did. Multiple times, and they come out ahead in every scenario against other unbuffed infantry. And when I do that people are all like "but you have to consider the faction as a whole" so I do the math again but with buffs affecting both sides, and guard still win handily. And then people go "orders are different from auras so it's not the same" and then just declare all the math unrepresentative. Or even better, that the comparison involves units that don't have the same role and so is wrong.
And it really baffles me when people downplay the effects of FRFSRF, saying it doesn't do much because it's S3. I mean, 3 guard infantry squads can use FRFSRF to keep up with a double tapping Russ Punisher's firepower, and that's at long range. At half range, the punisher is completely outdone. And most Guard players seem to think that the punisher needs a point increase, so...
Ok, so I’ve just done a bit more math myself in regards to “who comes out on top unbuffed”. That even means not rapid firing – but being able to shoot from turn 1. This is also not taking into account morale losses. (As a morale trade off, I’ve not taken the decision of presuming you’d remove Guard sergeants first – otherwise morale would play a bigger factor).
Vs Marines.
2 squads of Guard vs 1 squad of 6 Marines (80 points v 78)
If Guard go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 4 with only 17.26% Casualties.
If Marines go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 6. 29.23% Casualties.
Guard win.
Vs T’au
2 squads of Guard vs 11 Fire warriors (80 points v 77)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 37.55% Casualties vs 91.83%
If T’au go first, Guard win. 65.55% Casulaties vs 62.72%.
Advantage to Guard. Neither side is “tabled”.
Vs Nids
2 squads of Guard vs 3 Warriors with Deathspitters (not even going to bother with it being vs 10 Termagants with devourers) (80 points v 75)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 55.56% Casualties vs 66.67%.
If Nids go first, Nids win. 33.33% Casualties vs 77.78%.
Draw over 6 turns, with slight advantage to Nids. Neither side is “tabled”.
Vs Thousand Sons
6 squads of Guard vs 11 Rubrics (one with Soulreaper and killing off Sorcerer first) (240 points v 240)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 35.5% Casualties vs 59.92%
If Sons go first, Guard win. 44.34% Casualties vs 47.1%.
Guard win, though, it is pretty close if Sons go first. Neither side is “tabled”.
Vs Orks
3 squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz (120 points vs 120)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 5. 16.54% Casualties.
If Orks go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 6. 29.71% Casualties.
Easy Guard win.
Vs Necrons
3 squads of Guard vs 1 unit of Warriors
If Guard go first, Necrons win. 33.61% Casualties to 50.5%.
If Necrons go first, then Necrons win. 41.09% Casualties vs 57.28%.
Necrons win over 6 turns. Neither side is “tabled”.
Vs Admech (Rangers)
1 squad v 1 squad (40 points each)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Admech tabled turn 6. 27.8% Guard Casualties.
If Admech go first, Guard win. 51.9% Casualties vs 80.06%.
Guard win.
So - from a DURABILITY point alone (one of the points that seems to get mentioned over and over again, Guardsmen aren't the "best" across the board troop for troop.
Of course, this changes when you start having other squads shoot at the Guardsmen etc, but, in the troop v troop situation it is slightly different.
Except morale is important, because that's guards weaknesses at at least one of the above is immune to morale. Orks wouldn't stay still and shoot, because they eat guard in melee combat, Marines is highly outdated since Marines with be always in rapid fire range, Admech got cheaper (also have a 30" gun which the above ignores?), etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/11 19:14:21
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
Then I'm sorry to say that your points just aren't even relevant to any discussion about balance.
By that logic anyone who isn't playing with atleast 32 guardsmen in their list just isn't relevant to any discussion about balance.
So we're balancing around bigger tables or playing half points on a standard sized table?
No.
Why don't we balance for a 10'x10' table? I bet IG artillery would really enjoy that!
So is playing 1.5k on a 6x4 not 40k? Is not using ITC terrain rules not 40k?
What missions are you using to play proper 40k?
But really were back to defending 4ppm guardsmen again like seriously this BS was old 6 months ago, even CA didn't actually change up the who best mono faction was.
So is playing 1.5k on a 6x4 not 40k? Is not using ITC terrain rules not 40k?
What missions are you using to play proper 40k?
But really were back to defending 4ppm guardsmen again like seriously this BS was old 6 months ago, even CA didn't actually change up the who best mono faction was.
What about people that only play the long way on a 10'x4' table? What about nid hordes that refuse to play on anything bigger than 2'x2'? Do we need their input too? Playing a different table size is vastly different and more damaging than what missions you choose.
If you deviate from the standard you cannot expect that everything will be balanced. It's literally outlined in the damn BRB.
GW has given up and is now bringing other troops down to the bottom floor of ppm which is crowned by Guard.
How do you figure that is when cultists went to 5 points?
And GSC neophyte cultists stayed at 5...and orks went up?
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
I kinda want the Ro3 migrated from "organized event suggestion" to "Match play requirement"
Most people play it that way anyway and with Narrative and Open play, you can still play 4+ of something non-Troops if you want
I know Chapter Approved is supposed to be the place for those things but I hope they make a concerted effort to catch weird prices that resulted from other changes.
The Hurricane Bolter's price made sense as a triple-linked Storm Bolter when the SB was 4 points, it should have gone down to 5 when the SB went down to 2. The LasTalon is the same price as a twin linked Lascannon, and it's literally the same profile with half the range.
I'm sure those aren't the only thing like that in the system right now.
The Newman wrote: I know Chapter Approved is supposed to be the place for those things but I hope they make a concerted effort to catch weird prices that resulted from other changes.
The Hurricane Bolter's price made sense as a triple-linked Storm Bolter when the SB was 4 points, it should have gone down to 5 when the SB went down to 2. The LasTalon is the same price as a twin linked Lascannon, and it's literally the same profile with half the range.
I'm sure those aren't the only thing like that in the system right now.
Like Cyclone Missile Launchers being 36" and the S4 mode being 2d3 shots for the same cost at 2 regular MLs which are 48" and the S4 mode is d6 shots (x2 since there is 2 of them)? Yeah, CML needs a heafty drop in points.
Sadly, though, I think we have to wait until December to see any such changes, if at all.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/11 20:07:52
Galef wrote: I kinda want the Ro3 migrated from "organized event suggestion" to "Match play requirement"
Most people play it that way anyway and with Narrative and Open play, you can still play 4+ of something non-Troops if you want
-
Why would it need to be codified? Most everyone I've seen play as though it was a Matched Play baseline rule anyway. Same with the detachment limit.
The Newman wrote: I know Chapter Approved is supposed to be the place for those things but I hope they make a concerted effort to catch weird prices that resulted from other changes.
The Hurricane Bolter's price made sense as a triple-linked Storm Bolter when the SB was 4 points, it should have gone down to 5 when the SB went down to 2. The LasTalon is the same price as a twin linked Lascannon, and it's literally the same profile with half the range.
I'm sure those aren't the only thing like that in the system right now.
Like Cyclone Missile Launchers being 36" and the S4 mode being 2d3 shots for the same cost at 2 regular MLs which are 48" and the S4 mode is d6 shots (x2 since there is 2 of them)?
Yeah, CML needs a heafty drop in points.
Sadly, though, I think we have to wait until December to see any such changes, if at all.
-
Yeah - lots of really inconsistent stuff that is actually really easy to fix by just making it consistent or making obviously worse options cost less than obviously better options. Really not rocket science.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Why don't we balance for a 10'x10' table? I bet IG artillery would really enjoy that!
10'x10' table? Damn 60 pts for a drop pod is now a steal!
LOL yeah - you kinda want to come in to 2 or 3 in a game like that anyways because you want to be able to focus fire and you'd need a few turns to get in range.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
1k is on a 4x4, that is standard..... did you not look at the chart?
For reference we started playing small point values on larger boards because when we played at the recommended size and terrain density the game didn't last long enough to be worth deploying. We almost never made it to turn three. We had a lot of games not even make it to turn two. We had games that were legitimately over before player two even got to make an attack, where over half their army was dead before on the top of one. Heck, we had a couple of games where player two was tabled before their first turn.
Those weird table and game sizes that some people are saying make our evaluation of balance meaningless are the result of how imbalanced we think the game is to start with.
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
1k is on a 4x4, that is standard..... did you not look at the chart?
For reference we started playing small point values on larger boards because when we played at the recommended size and terrain density the game didn't last long enough to be worth deploying. We almost never made it to turn three. We had a lot of games not even make it to turn two. We had games that were legitimately over before player two even got to make an attack, where over half their army was dead before on the top of one. Heck, we had a couple of games where player two was tabled before their first turn.
Those weird table and game sizes that some people are saying make our evaluation of balance meaningless are the result of how imbalanced we think the game is to start with.
I'm really curious about the lists involved in the games where a player was tabled before their first turn. Like, that sounds far swingier than any game I've ever seen in this edition; it's not perfectly balanced but it shouldn't be that bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/11 22:37:02
That was a 42 man mini-marine list vs an imperial armor column. Between his preliminary bombardment and all the Leman Russes firing twice (and some admittedly hot dice) I ran out of models before he ran out of guns.
How are you loosing 42 marines in one turn? You have a 2+ save in cover vs. imperial guard and theres no way his tanks should have had LOS to your entire army unless you deployed out in the open.
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG
Eihnlazer wrote: How are you loosing 42 marines in one turn? You have a 2+ save in cover vs. imperial guard and theres no way his tanks should have had LOS to your entire army unless you deployed out in the open.
True LoS makes it almost impossible to completely block LoS to 8 squads of marines when there are 6 Russes spread over the other side of the table. He hit every single squad on the preliminary bombardment and then 12 battle cannon shots plus the HBs was enough to finish the job. And I couldn't roll a 4+ to save my life.
I didn't say it was a statistically likely result, just that it happened. And part of the result was that we started playing with six times as much terrain.
Being able to charge from deep strike / disembarkation would be nice.
Please note, for those of you who play Chaos Daemons as a faction the term "Daemon" is potentially offensive. Instead, please play codex "Chaos: Mortally Challenged". Thank you.
Eihnlazer wrote: How are you loosing 42 marines in one turn? You have a 2+ save in cover vs. imperial guard and theres no way his tanks should have had LOS to your entire army unless you deployed out in the open.
True LoS makes it almost impossible to completely block LoS to 8 squads of marines when there are 6 Russes spread over the other side of the table. He hit every single squad on the preliminary bombardment and then 12 battle cannon shots plus the HBs was enough to finish the job. And I couldn't roll a 4+ to save my life.
I didn't say it was a statistically likely result, just that it happened. And part of the result was that we started playing with six times as much terrain.
He hit eight squads with Preliminary Bombardment!?!?! That's a 1 in 1,679,616 chance.
Eihnlazer wrote: How are you loosing 42 marines in one turn? You have a 2+ save in cover vs. imperial guard and theres no way his tanks should have had LOS to your entire army unless you deployed out in the open.
True LoS makes it almost impossible to completely block LoS to 8 squads of marines when there are 6 Russes spread over the other side of the table. He hit every single squad on the preliminary bombardment and then 12 battle cannon shots plus the HBs was enough to finish the job. And I couldn't roll a 4+ to save my life.
I didn't say it was a statistically likely result, just that it happened. And part of the result was that we started playing with six times as much terrain.
He hit eight squads with Preliminary Bombardment!?!?! That's a 1 in 1,679,616 chance.
They shoulda went to Las Vegas & bet all on red.
I'm believing this less and less.
Was there no/minimal terrain? Did the marine player not know how to deploy? was it their first day on planet earth? Did the guard player just roll sixes?
I'm really curious about the lists involved in the games where a player was tabled before their first turn. Like, that sounds far swingier than any game I've ever seen in this edition; it's not perfectly balanced but it shouldn't be that bad.
Kraken genestealers can do a real number on melee elite armies, when there is a lot of terrain the blocks LoS. No idea what else it could be, pre Ro3 inari dark reapers could blow up the opposing army too, but it is a thing of the past now.
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.
Anyway, I too would like to see Bolter Discipline made official.
As well as that, the only thing I absolutely hope for beyond all hope, is that they consolidate every errata and FAQ currently valid into a single downloadable document. I can't stand having to scroll through the community website for a new document each time I wan't to check something.
One document, twice per year, containing ALL of the valid FAQs and errata to date. That's all I really want.
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
1k is on a 4x4, that is standard..... did you not look at the chart?
For reference we started playing small point values on larger boards because when we played at the recommended size and terrain density the game didn't last long enough to be worth deploying. We almost never made it to turn three. We had a lot of games not even make it to turn two. We had games that were legitimately over before player two even got to make an attack, where over half their army was dead before on the top of one. Heck, we had a couple of games where player two was tabled before their first turn.
Those weird table and game sizes that some people are saying make our evaluation of balance meaningless are the result of how imbalanced we think the game is to start with.
Then change your terrain... wtf. Just add more terrain, how is this even a problem for you?
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
1k is on a 4x4, that is standard..... did you not look at the chart?
For reference we started playing small point values on larger boards because when we played at the recommended size and terrain density the game didn't last long enough to be worth deploying. We almost never made it to turn three. We had a lot of games not even make it to turn two. We had games that were legitimately over before player two even got to make an attack, where over half their army was dead before on the top of one. Heck, we had a couple of games where player two was tabled before their first turn.
Those weird table and game sizes that some people are saying make our evaluation of balance meaningless are the result of how imbalanced we think the game is to start with.
Then change your terrain... wtf. Just add more terrain, how is this even a problem for you?
Yeah...gotta agree here. If your terrain is so bad you can't hide 20+ Marines in your deployment zone it's not the game that's at fault, it's your terrain, or at least your terrain set-up. GW could help somewhat here with proper terrain rules and that is something I wouldn't mind seeing them expand on. Regardless, the fact is GW can't and shouldn't balance around weird scenarios and set-ups that are completely non-standard and data from them isn't really helpful in determining what needs to be fixed. It's not about someone not playing ITC rules or not playing rulebook missions, it's about playing a game that's so far removed from anything resembling regular 40k it might as well be a whole alternate format.
I'd like to see the next FAQ fix soup in some way, revert some of the Fly changes to not be quite so punishing and deal with some of the current outliers in terms of power level and play experience - Mental Onslaught is one culprit that needs seriously reining in, for example. Ideally I'd like to see a complete overhaul of the CP system to not tie it to who is lucky enough to have the most useful Troops but it seems more likely GW will opt for a less radical change (if they make any change at all, which I'm sceptical about).
More terrain doesn't fix much. It has to be tall LoS blocking terrain. And you need enough for both parts of the table and the middle too, Because just one side out of LoS means unfun game for who ever goes second.
The problem with such terrain though, is that no other game wants terrain like that. So in a store that doesn't have unlimited store space you have to play with what majority wants. And this means walls with windows and doors, woods hills that can't hide an NDK, or even a termintor if you decied to added paladin banners to them etc.
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.
Karol wrote: More terrain doesn't fix much. It has to be tall LoS blocking terrain. And you need enough for both parts of the table and the middle too, Because just one side out of LoS means unfun game for who ever goes second.
The problem with such terrain though, is that no other game wants terrain like that. So in a store that doesn't have unlimited store space you have to play with what majority wants. And this means walls with windows and doors, woods hills that can't hide an NDK, or even a termintor if you decied to added paladin banners to them etc.
There's a difference between being able to hide a NDK and being able to hide a bunch of regular Marines. If you can't hide a bunch of Terminators on your average table it's not the game that's at fault, it's your terrain. The rulebook is actually pretty clear on at least this aspect of things. Also, what you're describing is exactly the reason I said GW need to come up with proper terrain rules, and proper LoS rules too, which would help out people with older terrain collections and remove the need for common house rules like the bottom floor of ruins blocking LoS.
I must be playing really incorrectly if you can't do this already lol
It is OK. Was a joke on the whole unreliable 9 inch charge unless you burn through CPs or rely on psyker shenanigans : )
Please note, for those of you who play Chaos Daemons as a faction the term "Daemon" is potentially offensive. Instead, please play codex "Chaos: Mortally Challenged". Thank you.
I wonder if it would make people happy if they nerfed everything from every army that is good or useful and brought everything down to a nice pleasant level together. That would be tranquil, and some armies could stay relatively untouched then. I don't even know what I'd want out of the big FAQ I guess I'd just want no knee jerk reactions cutting the legs off each others books.
Though if I was honest I really dislike allies these days, I miss mono codex armies and honestly at the highest level soup lists breed the most boring lists where no one really has feel and ends up like the amazing oatmeal of excellence, mostly. Now that isn't to say some don't find that fun, I'm sure they do. To me however they look like fluff nightmares and 40k without the feel and ambiance is an awful lot like reading a book from the first sentence of every page, what is the point ?
Daedalus81 wrote: So both the marines and the guard are on the table edge and the guard have nothing but autocannons? Because marines deploying on the line with 30" guns can reach the other table edge with one move.
We play on somewhat larger boards so that maneuvering actually matters. However on a standard 4×6 at 1000 points it's not that hard for a Guard player to castle in the corners with a silly number of ACs and just wreck a Primaris force that can't afford to ignore one corner while clearing out the other.
1k is on a 4x4, that is standard..... did you not look at the chart?
For reference we started playing small point values on larger boards because when we played at the recommended size and terrain density the game didn't last long enough to be worth deploying. We almost never made it to turn three. We had a lot of games not even make it to turn two. We had games that were legitimately over before player two even got to make an attack, where over half their army was dead before on the top of one. Heck, we had a couple of games where player two was tabled before their first turn.
Those weird table and game sizes that some people are saying make our evaluation of balance meaningless are the result of how imbalanced we think the game is to start with.
Then change your terrain... wtf. Just add more terrain, how is this even a problem for you?
You must have missed the part where I said we now put several times more terrain on the board. We're averaging 15+ tall hills and ruins over 6" square on a 4x4 right now.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
