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.

SemperMortis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.

That sounds like a "you" problem.

No, that sounds like a problem with the ork army. without CP most of our competitive units are trash. Look no further then Lootas to see that point proven correct.

I mean, it's nobody's fault but your own that you built your entire army around a crutch.

Lemondish wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.

That sounds like a "you" problem.

No, that sounds like a problem with the ork army. without CP most of our competitive units are trash. Look no further then Lootas to see that point proven correct.

I mean, it's nobody's fault but your own that you built your entire army around a crutch.

While I don't disagree that loota bomb is a crutch, it's worth noting that an equivalent number of autocannon hits from guard only costs 112 points, and comes with 14 T3 5+ wounds. So there is validity to the complaint.

Lemondish wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.

That sounds like a "you" problem.

No, that sounds like a problem with the ork army. without CP most of our competitive units are trash. Look no further then Lootas to see that point proven correct.

I mean, it's nobody's fault but your own that you built your entire army around a crutch.

As opposed to what? I could build my army around Warbikers...but they suck, Kommandos, but they suck, Burnas, but they suck, any of our new buggies, but they all suck, Mork/gorkanauts, but they suck. I could build my army around a Super Heavy like imperial players do, but the Stompa Sucks, I could build an elite Nobz army...but they suck.

So really what you are saying is that its my fault for picking a faction that relies on Lootas and a fethload of CP to be competitive.

The correct way to say that is "I am sorry that the game designers were lazy with your faction and instead of fixing inherently bad units they just gave you stratagems to rely on instead of balancing the army".

SemperMortis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.

That sounds like a "you" problem.

No, that sounds like a problem with the ork army. without CP most of our competitive units are trash. Look no further then Lootas to see that point proven correct.

I mean, it's nobody's fault but your own that you built your entire army around a crutch.

As opposed to what? I could build my army around Warbikers...but they suck, Kommandos, but they suck, Burnas, but they suck, any of our new buggies, but they all suck, Mork/gorkanauts, but they suck. I could build my army around a Super Heavy like imperial players do, but the Stompa Sucks, I could build an elite Nobz army...but they suck.

So really what you are saying is that its my fault for picking a faction that relies on Lootas and a fethload of CP to be competitive.

The correct way to say that is "I am sorry that the game designers were lazy with your faction and instead of fixing inherently bad units they just gave you stratagems to rely on instead of balancing the army".

I assume you are talking about to win tournaments ? As most of the ork lists I've seen and played against don't rely on crutch tactics and focus on the basic boy with some tricks here and there and they do pretty well.

Now is that a problem for competitive lists ? Yes, it is. It's the same issue I saw coming from the beginning of this edition. It's almost absolutely all about tricks and gimmicks and crutch tactics with how heavy hitting the game is. The very burn out with command points and how little defense most units have vs the firepower available. The only reason imperial armies come out well with this is because of allies which is about as whack of a system as you could ask for. It directly helps some factions a ton and punishes those without easy access to " friends ".

It leads to most games being a huge explosion in the first couple turns and the end being a soft trickle as whats left fights and tugs for objectives. Which also is why marines feel so bad as an army they have good defense but the fire power makes it pointless. Marine based armies are like the old french knights, and the longbow has come into vogue. However unlike history, they can't just evolve without rules evolving in the system and in their design and points, etc.

At the highest levels of this game, the system is awful as it is. It almost totally invalidates mono book armies and relies near entirely on CP generation and use in conjunction with allied list building exercise. That isn't a well set up game, it is however a game to drive sales. So while everyone here screams for balance and praise GW their glory, they are operating with a clear sight. They don't want balance they want to drive sales. Do you really think they don't think these lists at tournaments are lame ? You don't think they realize the problem units and the no brainer choices and how crap most is ? Of course they do, they just don't care as their sales are huge.

They release boxes with meh rules at high price and they sell so much they can't keep it in stock ( shadowspear ) when on this very board people talk about how crap some of those units are, yet they bought 2 boxes themselves. Why should they ever really aim for balance when a perfect imbalance is just what they want. I don't think the designers don't understand things, I think they do and are following a clear plan.

I bet you they sold a crap ton of those " Sucky " ork units that are so pointless despite how bad apparently the book is ( which I disagree with at least outside the hardcore tournament scene perhaps ). They know CP generation is the name of the game and put out more and more books to use them, drive them and push that list building ideal.

Will some armies get nerfed ? Sure, just to say " Hey, we are listening ! " I would bet you the gaurd will see plenty of nerfs in time, and the outrage will go to other army builds but some imbalances will remain un touched, as they have been. The only real victims being the ones who want balance at the highest levels, you won't find it. If victory is your goal you just need to keep pressing with the soup, CP formation tango as it dances onward and will only grow more and more. The only real longevity in this game if you want to take what units you like and feel even semi balanced is to play with friends you talk to ahead of time. Who you know how they list build, what they enjoy and want to have fun games. As high balance will never be the name of this game, balance doesn't push people to expand their armies or start new ones. That, is all GW really care about. I mean just listen to them talk, each and every unit is " Amazing " in a stream, each book is full of tactical depth, I think we all know better. At least I hope we do.

That said, this is still the most balanced edition I've played outside of certain points in 5th edition. I'm still happy, but then I saw it coming at the start and do have that group of friends to have good games with.

SemperMortis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I've actually been working on taking a Brigade and 2 Battalions because I am always running out of CP and without CP the crux of my army is useless.

That sounds like a "you" problem.

No, that sounds like a problem with the ork army. without CP most of our competitive units are trash. Look no further then Lootas to see that point proven correct.

I mean, it's nobody's fault but your own that you built your entire army around a crutch.

As opposed to what? I could build my army around Warbikers...but they suck, Kommandos, but they suck, Burnas, but they suck, any of our new buggies, but they all suck, Mork/gorkanauts, but they suck. I could build my army around a Super Heavy like imperial players do, but the Stompa Sucks, I could build an elite Nobz army...but they suck.

So really what you are saying is that its my fault for picking a faction that relies on Lootas and a fethload of CP to be competitive.

The correct way to say that is "I am sorry that the game designers were lazy with your faction and instead of fixing inherently bad units they just gave you stratagems to rely on instead of balancing the army".

Accept that you don't have the constitution to compete at top tables and commit to playing casually. When you aren't trying to power game you'll actually learn how to improve your game. Players at every level are better off focusing on making better choices in the heat of a match rather than trying to win at the list building stage with a cookie cutter crutch combo.

Also, you'll find a million more army builds are viable when you aren't shackling yourself to easy mode ITCHammer.

Lemondish wrote:

That sounds like a "you" problem.

Lemondish wrote:
I mean, it's nobody's fault but your own that you built your entire army around a crutch.

Lemondish wrote:
Accept that you don't have the constitution to compete at top tables and commit to playing casually. When you aren't trying to power game you'll actually learn how to improve your game. Players at every level are better off focusing on making better choices in the heat of a match rather than trying to win at the list building stage with a cookie cutter crutch combo.

Also, you'll find a million more army builds are viable when you aren't shackling yourself to easy mode ITCHammer.

So i make a valid criticism of the game, specifically about the faction Ive played for decades and these are your responses. Your responses have been literally useless and nothing more then modified versions of Get Good Noob.

Some people LIKE competitive game play...you know, hence why games are a competition to begin with. I merely want the game to be balanced enough to the point where I am not hamstrung by 1 build that is easily countered by the META.

Also, list building is probably the most important aspect of the game right now because you could take the LVO winner and give them a crap list built for "Casual" game play and they will lose 9 times out of 10. Good Luck fielding a Stompa in any game versus a Knight Castellan and supporting loyal 32, which btw are still cheaper by a long shot then a single stompa. Actually you could take a Knight and 2 units of Loyal 32 for an extra 10 CP to make the Knight Castellan a beast and be only slightly more then a Stompa.

I Dont think its too much to ask for game balance and for people to not just to GW's defense yelling "get gud n00b"

Not to be that guy BUT gimmick builds come and go all the time. Relying to heavilly on a gimmick to win is just setting yourself up to be screwed over later when they change something to nerf that gimmick.

Took much emphasis is put on gimmicky builds these days and not on trying to ensure you have your bases covered for playing the mission or generally running a TAC that can flexibly respond to nearly any list, even if it's not the strongest list on paper.

Player skill is more important than the list (yes, a strong list helps but it doesn't make you a better player on its own). Identify how your opponent seeks to win and deny them those opportunities. Make them put their weaknesses against tour strengths.

Basically, I'm saying if you want to win morenfames you need to stop blaming your list (or how GW nerfed it) and focus on actively seeking to improve.

SemperMortis wrote:

So i make a valid criticism of the game

None of your criticisms were valid. You complained about the difficulties you personally have in a competitive tournament setting. Since Ork armies are doing fantastic without your Loota CP sink crutch, I called you out. Get better at playing your chosen faction and you'll quickly see it's not a problem with the faction, it's a problem with the player.

specifically about the faction Ive played for decades and these are your responses. Your responses have been literally useless and nothing more then modified versions of Get Good Noob.

If telling you in no uncertain terms that every player, no matter how skilled and no matter the list, can and should improve the fundamentals of their game is what you call useless, then I suggest you continue your tantrum because that will certainly work this time.

Having played it for decades does not make you an expert in a new edition.

Some people LIKE competitive game play

And some people aren't good at it and rely on crutches to compete while blaming everyone else but themselves for their losses.

I merely want the game to be balanced enough to the point where I am not hamstrung by 1 build that is easily countered by the META.

Again, that's a "you" problem. Nobody else playing Orks at the top level feel hamstrung.

Also, list building is probably the most important aspect of the game right now because you could take the LVO winner and give them a crap list built for "Casual" game play and they will lose 9 times out of 10.

Patently absurd statement.

We wouldn't see the same generals in the top ITC rankings if list building was the only skill. Second, you would be winning more often if you were a better general regardless of the list.

I Dont think its too much to ask for game balance and for people to not just to GW's defense yelling "get gud n00b

It isn't, but your supporting arguments are nonsensical, hyperbolic, and originate from your own inadequacy as a general and a hopelessly flawed viewpoint that there's some formula you follow for an autowin at the list building stage.

Check your expectations because the FAQ will not make you a better player - you need to do that yourself.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Not to be that guy BUT gimmick builds come and go all the time. Relying to heavilly on a gimmick to win is just setting yourself up to be screwed over later when they change something to nerf that gimmick.

Took much emphasis is put on gimmicky builds these days and not on trying to ensure you have your bases covered for playing the mission or generally running a TAC that can flexibly respond to nearly any list, even if it's not the strongest list on paper.

Player skill is more important than the list (yes, a strong list helps but it doesn't make you a better player on its own). Identify how your opponent seeks to win and deny them those opportunities. Make them put their weaknesses against tour strengths.

Basically, I'm saying if you want to win morenfames you need to stop blaming your list (or how GW nerfed it) and focus on actively seeking to improve.

I agree completely on gimmicky builds being in the spot light. But unfortunately, that is how you win tournaments these days. As far as setting myself up to be screwed over later....well not so much, I only play Orkz, I am not a meta chaser who buys the new hotness and then switches as soon as the meta changes, I have been collecting orkz for a very long time and I have enough models to play any playstyle possible with orkz, except the Stompa, I refuse to buy that POS. 1: It is in my opinion an ugly model and 2: I don't like super heavies in general.

As for player skill, I disagree strongly here. Player skill is vital, but as I said in my last post, if you took the LVO winner and gave him an Ork army of KillaKanz and Deff Dreadz and you gave me the net list that orkz have to use to be competitive (Loota Bomb and SSAG Big Mek) I would crush him in short order. List building is the foundation of the game and player skill comes in after the fact to determine the winner between two armies on an equal playing field. So if Nick showed up with the same list he would probably kick my butt because I am under no illusions that I am a better player then he is, but if you gave him a Kan Wall, the game would probably be over turn 2.

Seriously?
There is a way to make a point with constructive criticism then there's just little short of berating someone unnecessarily.

You're not doing the first and it's getting close to the second.

Some codex's have far better international balance and don't have units that have been points costed on the assumption of stratageum buffs being permanently available.
Unfortunately some other codex's do have balance issues that limits which units are actually competatively viable.

Loota bomb might be a crutch, but funnily enough it's what most of the top players gravitated towards aswell, they have started trying other builds and some are having successful events, but that doesn't mean you get to just call people noobs because they're a little bit behind (probably because they can't play 24/7) on trying to figure out other ways to build a list from a codex.

Too many codex contain units that really do play like a certain stacking of buffs has been assumed in their points costs, which really does limit the possible ways to play then competatively.

SemperMortis wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Not to be that guy BUT gimmick builds come and go all the time. Relying to heavilly on a gimmick to win is just setting yourself up to be screwed over later when they change something to nerf that gimmick.

Took much emphasis is put on gimmicky builds these days and not on trying to ensure you have your bases covered for playing the mission or generally running a TAC that can flexibly respond to nearly any list, even if it's not the strongest list on paper.

Player skill is more important than the list (yes, a strong list helps but it doesn't make you a better player on its own). Identify how your opponent seeks to win and deny them those opportunities. Make them put their weaknesses against tour strengths.

Basically, I'm saying if you want to win morenfames you need to stop blaming your list (or how GW nerfed it) and focus on actively seeking to improve.

I agree completely on gimmicky builds being in the spot light. But unfortunately, that is how you win tournaments these days. As far as setting myself up to be screwed over later....well not so much, I only play Orkz, I am not a meta chaser who buys the new hotness and then switches as soon as the meta changes, I have been collecting orkz for a very long time and I have enough models to play any playstyle possible with orkz, except the Stompa, I refuse to buy that POS. 1: It is in my opinion an ugly model and 2: I don't like super heavies in general.

As for player skill, I disagree strongly here. Player skill is vital, but as I said in my last post, if you took the LVO winner and gave him an Ork army of KillaKanz and Deff Dreadz and you gave me the net list that orkz have to use to be competitive (Loota Bomb and SSAG Big Mek) I would crush him in short order. List building is the foundation of the game and player skill comes in after the fact to determine the winner between two armies on an equal playing field. So if Nick showed up with the same list he would probably kick my butt because I am under no illusions that I am a better player then he is, but if you gave him a Kan Wall, the game would probably be over turn 2.

I disagree and want to reference the Forge the Narrative guys from their episode on the new CSM stuff because they talk about performance floors and ceilings pretty well there.

Basically, assuming all lists are designed to tackle that event's missions, a good player is going to win 67% of their games, while a mediocre player with a gimmick list at the same tournament is only going to win around 50%.

We have enough statistics to see that even the bests lists being played by a massive percentage of the player base doesn't lead to them being every spot in the top 8. So there is definitely room for player skill to overcome the gimmick lists's strengths.

Start by identifying how your opponent can win the game. Deny them that and you're going to increase your chances of winning by a lot.

Lemondish wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

So i make a valid criticism of the game

None of your criticisms were valid. You complained about the difficulties you personally have in a competitive tournament setting. Since Ork armies are doing fantastic without your Loota CP sink crutch, I called you out. Get better at playing your chosen faction and you'll quickly see it's not a problem with the faction, it's a problem with the player.

Criticisms were the reliance on some factions (Specifically mine) to CP farming and spamming, the lack of balance in the game and the internal balance of my codex. I actually won my last tournament with my loota bomb but that doesn't mean I can't criticize the inherent weakness of my codex nor does it mean that I can't wish that Stratagems and CP weren't a HUGE part of any army and for me specifically, my ork army being competitive. You just wanted to randomly insult and attack people because they don't share your view and/or you didn't understand the points I was making.

Lemondish wrote:
If telling you in no uncertain terms that every player, no matter how skilled and no matter the list, can and should improve the fundamentals of their game is what you call useless, then I suggest you continue your tantrum because that will certainly work this time.
Having played it for decades does not make you an expert in a new edition.

Everyone can improve their fundamentals, but that wasn't the gist of your comment and you know it. As for saying someone is having a tantrum, let me refer you to rule #1.
Playing for decades assuredly does not make you an expert, but since we are getting close to the 2 year mark of this edition, I wouldn't call it new, and since the ork codex is now 6 months old I wouldn't call it new either and most of us have figured out the tricks and tactics of the army by now.

Lemondish wrote:
And some people aren't good at it and rely on crutches to compete while blaming everyone else but themselves for their losses.

Crutches like the Loota bomb.....which was used by every ork player who placed in both LVO and Adepticon....not to mention the winning lists which are Crutch lists built around a Castellan and the loyal 32. And where was I blaming any of my losses on my crutch list? I'll give ya a hint, I wasn't. I was commenting on my desire to have a more balanced codex with MORE competitive options that didn't rely on strats and CP farming.

Lemondish wrote:
Again, that's a "you" problem. Nobody else playing Orks at the top level feel hamstrung.

Every ork player in the competitive scene is in fact stuck into 1 list or a modified version of 1 list. Some of us are Speed Freak players who would love to bring out the Warbikers and Deff Koptas, some of us are Dread Waaagh players who have Kanz and Dreadz collecting dust, some of us are Blood axe freakz who want to bring out Kommando hordes and Stormboyz. We are unfortunately HAMSTRUNG into playing Loota bomb in competitive games because there are no other builds that stand a chance against the tournament meta like the Loyal 32 or Eldar Shenanigans. If you really think its bad for people to want options on how to play then I don't know how to even relate to you at this point.

Lemondish wrote:
Patently absurd statement.

We wouldn't see the same generals in the top ITC rankings if list building was the only skill. Second, you would be winning more often if you were a better general regardless of the list.

Cool, so, go take a friendly list with non competitive units and try to win a truly competitive tournament. i'll wait. Also, find me 1 ITC Tournament winner who doesn't think list building is incredibly important. Skill comes during the game, list building allows that skill to shine. And again a personal attack against my W/L ratio, funny, I hadn't mentioned in that last post how many games I had won or lost. Maybe you should stop projecting.

Lemondish wrote:
It isn't, but your supporting arguments are nonsensical, hyperbolic, and originate from your own inadequacy as a general and a hopelessly flawed viewpoint that there's some formula you follow for an autowin at the list building stage.
Check your expectations because the FAQ will not make you a better player - you need to do that yourself.

More ad hominem based on no facts, stats or figures, relying exclusively on your imagination and belief that only players who are losing would dare criticize the game. As for the FAQ, FAQ's don't make people a better player, they do increase/decrease the inherent power of armies though, but.....LMAO I am well aware there is basically no chance GW will address any problems in the ork codex, GW generally speaking doesn't know what it is doing with the Ork army. i'll cite 5th, 6th and 7th editions as proof of that

We might be a little off topic.

SemperMortis wrote:
-snip-

Okay, clearly you're committed to being upset about being called out for putting too many eggs in one basket and failing. That's fine. We've said our peace, let's stop letting your wishlisting based on gimmicks derail the thread any longer.

For the record, it's on you to support your claims, not me to prove them wrong.

Cheers, kid.

On topic: I actually expect a reversal of the fly change given the way a few of the new rules from the chaos codex and Vigilus Ablaze.

Lemondish wrote:
On topic: I actually expect a reversal of the fly change given the way a few of the new rules from the chaos codex and Vigilus Ablaze.

It's more likely the rules in the Chaos codex and Vigilus will change, because they were most likely sent to print months before the Fly change, thus proving why you can't have both a living ruleset and dead tree carcass releases.

Lemondish wrote:
Lots of stuff

Lemondish, while I'm not debating your conclusions, your method of communicating them is too abrasive. Please tone it down; you can disagree with someone while not being disagreeable.

(I was trying not to use the word "rude"; although this post violated Rule #1, rude isn't quite the right word).

Lemondish wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
-snip-

Okay, clearly you're committed to being upset about being called out for putting too many eggs in one basket and failing. That's fine. We've said our peace, let's stop letting your wishlisting based on gimmicks derail the thread any longer.

For the record, it's on you to support your claims, not me to prove them wrong.

Cheers, kid.

On topic: I actually expect a reversal of the fly change given the way a few of the new rules from the chaos codex and Vigilus Ablaze.

Its up to me to prove something has no proof? something something logical fallacy?

Regardless, wanting unit/army reliance on CP to be removed from the game is something that could be fixed by an update, though I doubt it, its most likely going to continue until 9th just like how the broken formations continued on until 8th dropped.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
On topic: I actually expect a reversal of the fly change given the way a few of the new rules from the chaos codex and Vigilus Ablaze.

It's more likely the rules in the Chaos codex and Vigilus will change, because they were most likely sent to print months before the Fly change, thus proving why you can't have both a living ruleset and dead tree carcass releases.

I noticed yesterday that the relic jump pack for Chaos mentions charging over enemies. I hope they reverse or otherwise make flying better.

I suggested that Fly doesnt work if you DS that turn and i have suggested that Fly works over units in the charge phase.

Either way i GW took it to heart and makes one of them (or both together) b.c it ruined my quins more so than what they already are.

Lemondish 773741 10421365 wrote:
Accept that you don't have the constitution to compete at top tables and commit to playing casually. When you aren't trying to power game you'll actually learn how to improve your game. Players at every level are better off focusing on making better choices in the heat of a match rather than trying to win at the list building stage with a cookie cutter crutch combo.

Also, you'll find a million more army builds are viable when you aren't shackling yourself to easy mode ITCHammer.

yeah, you should build your army around purfires led by Crow, and win with skill, and not with cheesy game mechanics or rules.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I didn't think I needed to specify on this but...All the rules flayed skull + power from pain get are good or at the very least - they are other army traits.

Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions (just like my Levi/ulthwe comparison) only prove my point. Traits aren't balanced. Its the first place to start when balancing this game IMO. Because they are included in the base cost of everything.

I'm sorry, I don't know all the faction traits of all the armies - but which one was it that has "Fearless only on the last few turns" as their one and only trait again?

I mean, you're saying "Conditional rules that make your rule worse than other armies trait with no conditions [...]" as the exact next sentence after complaining about something with "Fearless" with a "But only on the last couple turns" condition to make it worse.

You do realize DE start with FNP from PFP on turn 1. This is an army trait for several armies (It is actually one of the better ones).

So by "All [of these] are good or at the very least - they are other army traits", you meant *at least one* of these is. That's why these arguments go in circles - clearly, not all of these are.

Yeah sure they don't get a rule like ATSKNF or battle focus but these traits are not equal to a trait like flayed skull.

I'd much rather Battle Focus on my CWE than Flayed Skull. That sounds rather useless on CWE to me. On the other hand, I'd rather Flayed Skull over Battle Focus on my DE. Two rules for two different factions don't always directly compare. Some traits are better for some factions than others.

In addition PFP grants you even more stuff as turns pass.

Having multiple PFP traits over the course of the game isn't "in addition" to having PFP grant you even more stuff as the game goes on - it's literally the same thing.

When in fact - they already had more than what another army had starting turn 1. It doesn't matter if the next 4 turns of free buffs aren't great - it's just more free stuff. Plus - the buffs are actually pretty dang good from power from pain.

As demonstrated above, *Ultramarines* - even sans Gman - have more traits than Flayed Skull have starting turn 1. Nobody here is saying *they're* a better trait. Some sub-par Ork traits have more - and while Orkz are good, those traits are not. You're still arguing "more" is "better" - both of Iyanden's traits would be awesome on Guard, and both of Saim-Hainn's traits would be awesome on other armies - yet both are worse than all 3 single-benefit traits in the same book.

The number of traits might be suggestive. But it is not conclusive that more traits = OP.

Are we discussing more traits = more chance that one will be good, or
Traits with multiple affects are often better than those with only 1 affect?

I so very lost as to what is being discussed.
However, I do want to add that some traits can only affect a small portion of an army, and not just because Marine & CSM tactics only work in Infantry, Bike and Dreads
Many Craftworld Eldar traits do nothing for many units, and one in particular that has 2 affects can only apply BOTH of those effectively to 1 unit (and it's an Index option only)

I'm referring to Saim-Hann, of course. Its 2 affects are: Reroll charges and BIKES do not suffer -1 for moving and shooting Heavies.
There are only 3 BIKE units that can even have Heavy weapons, and only 1 wants to EVER Charge: Autarch Skyrunner with Reaper Launcher (Index only) and Laser Lance.

So in that regard, multi-affect Traits do not necessarily = OP either.

-

 Galef wrote:
Are we discussing more traits = more chance that one will be good, or
Traits with multiple affects are often better than those with only 1 affect?

I so very lost as to what is being discussed.
However, I do want to add that some traits can only affect a small portion of an army, and not just because Marine & CSM tactics only work in Infantry, Bike and Dreads
Many Craftworld Eldar traits do nothing for many units, and one in particular that has 2 affects can only apply BOTH of those effectively to 1 unit (and it's an Index option only)

I'm referring to Saim-Hann, of course. Its 2 affects are: Reroll charges and BIKES do not suffer -1 for moving and shooting Heavies.
There are only 3 BIKE units that can even have Heavy weapons, and only 1 wants to EVER Charge: Autarch Skyrunner with Reaper Launcher (Index only) and Laser Lance.

So in that regard, multi-affect Traits do not necessarily = OP either.

-

I think it's just someone starting from the conclusion of "Dark Eldar must be broken OP" and, finding a competitive tournament meta where Drukhari are present but not by any means dominant, instead chooses to select "They have....more...rules" as the piece of evidence that definitively proves the conclusion that he started with.

The reality of the situation is, nearly all armies have some kind of special, army wide rules that you can frame in such a way to make them seem broken OP if you wanted to.

It's true, two of the traits you get from PFP (6+++ FNP and Re-roll failed charges) are indeed things that show up elsewhere in the game as army traits. And the drukhari do get an army trait on top of that rule! How could that possibly be balanced, an Iron Hand that has that as their trait next to a Drukhari that gets that AND a trait???!@?!?

Drukhari don't get their rapid fire weapons out to full range if they stand still (or if they are bikes.)
Drukhari also don't re-roll failed morale tests.
Drukhari also can't take 10-man squads, deploy in transports and split into two five-man squads when they disembark

Oh look - two rules that matter, and that some armies have (at least similar) rules as their Subfaction Tactics (Word Bearers and Death Guard), and one rule that is less impactful and doesn't really make much of a difference but could make a difference in some games.

The impactful rules from PFP would be

Turn 1, 6+++
Turn 2, Reroll failed charges
Turn 3, +1WS.

Having a -1LD aura turn 4 and fearless turn 5 are both so late in the game and in the case of turn 4 so utterly unimpactful that I'd be amazed if they ever game up at all. Can you argue that those three buffs are probably a little bit better than the three marine army-wide rules? Sure. Can you also point out that marines get their rules starting turn 1, and you have to wait for 2 of those Drukhari rules? Also yep.

Can you furthermore point out that two of the factions with next to no army-wide rules are two of the strongest factions in the competitive meta right now (Guard and Knights)? Also yes.

Does all this mean that comparing army-wide rules and trying to draw balance conclusions from that comparison is a stupid fething idea?

I think so.

 Galef wrote:
Are we discussing more traits = more chance that one will be good, or
Traits with multiple affects are often better than those with only 1 affect?

Neither. We're discussing whether having more rules that can be called individual traits are, by definition, OP. And not "chance that it will be good" or "often better than" - but rather, whether having more traits proves that the faction is OP.

I so very lost as to what is being discussed.
However, I do want to add that some traits can only affect a small portion of an army, and not just because Marine & CSM tactics only work in Infantry, Bike and Dreads
Many Craftworld Eldar traits do nothing for many units, and one in particular that has 2 affects can only apply BOTH of those effectively to 1 unit (and it's an Index option only)

I'm referring to Saim-Hann, of course. Its 2 affects are: Reroll charges and BIKES do not suffer -1 for moving and shooting Heavies.
There are only 3 BIKE units that can even have Heavy weapons, and only 1 wants to EVER Charge: Autarch Skyrunner with Reaper Launcher (Index only) and Laser Lance.

So in that regard, multi-affect Traits do not necessarily = OP either.

-

That's been brought up - but it goes further than that. Iyanden is in the same boat. I'm fairly certain that no model in the book can be affected both by not losing more than 1 model to Morale *and* using a higher tier for degrading statlines - everything CWE with degrading stat lines that I can think of comes in units of 1.

As discussed upthread, both of those traits have two rules, and both are inferior, widely, to all 3 of the single-trait factions.

As for it not mattering because most things don't get both at once; same is true of the perrenial example; no DE model can benefit both from being embarked in a transport and taking FNP rolls / LD checks / charging / etc at the same time.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense, thanx.

Arguably, though, Traits should be "meh" as they are there only to add flavor. To loop this back to the topic of this thread, I hope the FAQ makes Traits like Alaitoc (which I play currently), AL and RG go from -1 to hit, to Cover instead.
Either Cover even in the open, or +2 save if actually in Cover, or both. Outside 12', of course

Even if it's both, it wouldn't be as "abusable" as stacking -1s to hit currently, thereby putting those Traits a bit more on par with others.

-

Completely agree, but don't expect it.

Stacking minus-to-hit is much stronger than it should be, but it's not a huge factor in tournaments - Alaitoc is the only one of those we see frequently, and they're certainly not the undisputed kings of the meta. So we'd be talking about a convoluted change in an FAQ, without much impact on tournament standing. Not sure GW will see that as worth the effort.

I hope they do, but certainly won't be surprised if they don't. We should see soon either way.

 Galef wrote:
Ah, that makes a bit more sense, thanx.

Arguably, though, Traits should be "meh" as they are there only to add flavor. To loop this back to the topic of this thread, I hope the FAQ makes Traits like Alaitoc (which I play currently), AL and RG go from -1 to hit, to Cover instead.
Either Cover even in the open, or +2 save if actually in Cover, or both. Outside 12', of course

Even if it's both, it wouldn't be as "abusable" as stacking -1s to hit currently, thereby putting those Traits a bit more on par with others.

-

Given that Alpha Legion did not change I would find that to be pretty unlikely. We might get no stacking.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
We might get no stacking.

Or at the very least "always hit on natural 6s regardless of modifiers". Orks have that standard, but also general extra hits, so they would still have something "unique" even if hitting on 6s was standard for everyone.

I've got my daily dose of disappointment on this FAQ today. I check every day around this time, and if is isn't up, it isn't today.
Even with it being a "bank holiday" in the UK, it could still have been set as an automated post. I'd be surprised if the FAQ wasn't ready to be posted yet

-

 Galef wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
We might get no stacking.

Or at the very least "always hit on natural 6s regardless of modifiers". Orks have that standard, but also general extra hits, so they would still have something "unique" even if hitting on 6s was standard for everyone.

I've got my daily dose of disappointment on this FAQ today. I check every day around this time, and if is isn't up, it isn't today.
Even with it being a "bank holiday" in the UK, it could still have been set as an automated post. I'd be surprised if the FAQ wasn't ready to be posted yet

-

Yea, they're very clearly active on social media today, so, if it's ready it should have come out (if that crew is in the office).

A bit of shame on them if they wanted to keep the Keeper of Secrets splash up instead.

 Galef wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
We might get no stacking.

Or at the very least "always hit on natural 6s regardless of modifiers". Orks have that standard, but also general extra hits, so they would still have something "unique" even if hitting on 6s was standard for everyone.

I've got my daily dose of disappointment on this FAQ today. I check every day around this time, and if is isn't up, it isn't today.
Even with it being a "bank holiday" in the UK, it could still have been set as an automated post. I'd be surprised if the FAQ wasn't ready to be posted yet

-

I get what your going for on the 6's always hit, but untill GW stop charging extra points for the same weapons in BS 3 armies over BS 4 armies, hitting on 6's is more beneficial to low BS skill armies while the armies paying a points premium for better BS skill get less from said rule.
They should just be counts as in cover if they haven't moved, additional plus 1 to cover, at the end of the day though isn't as broken as -2 to hit stacking but GW might still have issues giving out 1+ save marines, +3 in cover rangers & scouts for 1+ Sv's.