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.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So DttFE shouldn't cost anything because it's situational but ATSKNF should because...? This isn't 7th edition.
The real problem is that points are not granular enough to properly represent things. You can say "X rule should cost Y points" but then it often isn't actually worth it. For example, look at the difference in amount of rules between a CSM and a plague marine. The PM is a few extra points in return for +1T, 5+++, and more. How much is either of those rules worth? Its a trick question. The answer is that it doesn't matter because neither unit is good.
And that's what it comes down to at the end of the day. In a perfect world, Tacs and CSM would line up better. And in previous editions they sort of did. But now there's far too many variables due to all the extra faction rules. At this point we've got band aid rules on top of band aid rules. And the only way we're gonna get these weak units back to useful is...even more bandaid rules. So let's not sweat the details.
Most competitive games achieve balance by limiting the amount of variables. Standard points value, standard terrain, standard mission format, standard units that are approved for competitive play. Why not try that?
More importantly, why are you trying to justify a bad unit just like you did with Warp Talons before? Is it hard to accept some units are just useless and that's the end of it?
LOL, ok.
Let's play a game. Below are two tables. Each has a set of data for one of 3 units (Cultists, CSM, and Bolt Rifle Primaris). No traits or bonuses. These units are all the same total price (5 point cultists, 11 CSM, 17 primaris). Any fractional models are still counted, so 3.2 Primaris would get 3.2 and 6.4 shots respectively. Each mode is a different position within the battlefield (i.e. RF range, moving, etc).
The first table is damage dealt by the unit. Damage dealt numbers have been multiplied by a common factor to prevent backing into the result. Please rank the units A,B, and C as to which you think is best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
The second table is damage received by the unit. Please rank units D, E, and F as to which you think it best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
While Im not the target of this message, I would love to know which is which, great job on the graph btw.
"I don't have a good feeling about this... Your mini looks like it has my mini's head on a stick..."
"From the immaterium to the Imperium, this is Radio Free Nostramo! Coming to you live from the Eye of Terror, this is your host, Captain Contagion, bringing you the latest Heretical hits!"
Yoyoyo wrote: Most competitive games achieve balance by limiting the amount of variables. Standard points value, standard terrain, standard mission format, standard units that are approved for competitive play. Why not try that?
That's basically what early 8th was with Indexes (although those had stat balance issues.) But more because it'd be a whole different game.
The overall concept of having a game where a bunch of factions have essentially the same base units (marines of many types and chaos marines) and then have their own various special units and special rules on top of that is fine. The problem is that not all those factions are receiving updates to new rules at the same time, and the rules each faction is getting aren't necessarily well written. In other words, the concept of the game is fine. The problem is the execution. The solution is to push for better balanced rules, not to switch to an entirely different game, or to say that nothing can be fixed because it's not a 100% competitive game.
I'm curious is it the order of: primaris, csm, cultist on the ABC table and then: primaris, cultist, csm on the DEF table?
Also how do you explain how unit A is so much more efficient at killing GEQ?
Nada. Note the second table is models lost through damage and morale.
How can you think standardisation isn't a part of that? 40k players will lose games based purely on the amount of terrain on the table and the type of deployment. And that's a factor that's completely outside of anything to do with the specific factions and army rules.
How can you think standardisation isn't a part of that? 40k players will lose games based purely on the amount of terrain on the table and the type of deployment. And that's a factor that's completely outside of anything to do with the specific factions and army rules.
I never said that I don't think standardization is a part of that. The thing I'm arguing for IS a type of standardization:
Standardize the power of Faction Traits
Standardize marines having doctrines, or an equivalent
Standardize that there are bonuses for being mono-faction instead of soup
Standardize Chaos marine infantry with Loyalist marine infantry (meaning: give Chaos something equivalent to doctrines in power)
I am advocating standardization of rule strength in general. But making everything identical is unnecessary and will kill the game.
40k doesn't need to become 100% competitive. It just needs to get better at doing what it's already doing. It needs to follow through on the changes its already making. And we are starting to see that. The new sisters have traits and faction wide rules more along the lines of the new SM codex than the old. Nids are getting a custom trait builder, etc. I assume we'll see more of this going forward.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/26 01:39:31
I am pretty much in line with your way of thinking. But I'm sure you can recognise that as long as 40k is only, say, 90% competitive -- there as those people who are going to go full into exploiting that broken 10% to the fullest extent that they can.
If it's just about wanting new content, I also get it. You could say the jealously and salt we've seen on Dakka in regards to the SM supplements is a testament to the efficacy of GW's marketing via rules content.
Yoyoyo wrote: I am pretty much in line with your way of thinking. But I'm sure you can recognise that as long as 40k is only, say, 90% competitive -- there as those people who are going to go full into exploiting that broken 10% to the fullest extent that they can.
If it's just about wanting new content, I also get it. You could say the jealously and salt we've seen on Dakka in regards to the SM supplements is a testament to the efficacy of GW's marketing via rules content.
Oh yeah, for sure there's always going to be people complaining. But there can be a lot less of it. Right now, the various factions stretch from D lists all the way to A+ lists. We're never going to get everyone to all be A+, but if the range was B to A+ instead of D then that'd solve a lot of issues.
The Newman wrote: Fingers crossed that Terminators of all stripes get another reduction and Aggressors get bumped up. Assault Centurions are too cheap now as well, and I can't believe I'm saying that.
The base-line Predator has no business being more expensive than a Vindicator.
Reivers ... really can't come down in price any, and price isn't their problem in the first place. Being a troop profile in the Elite slot with no weapon upgrades to make them worth using is their problem.
The Leman Russ Demolisher needs a bump. I don't begrudge them the updated Demo Cannon so much, but double-tapping with that gun for less than a regular Russ is barking insanity.
All of the Daemon troop choices are over-priced.
The basic Custodian Guard and Wardens are over-priced. So is the Contemptor dread.
Min assualt cent squad is comparable in cost to a redemptor dread.
They move half as fast.
They have less range
Less wounds
Less toughness
A +1 save
Way more attacks
Way more total shots of less quality.
They are perfectly balanced when you compare them to a redemptor. Know what they aren't auto include when they can't deep strike into opponents face? Because you will NEVER use their CC stats without spamming the unit. Assault cents are just too slow to use. It is the stratagems and warlord traits that make them broken - so remove those.
Dev cents are actually overcosted.
1) Did I mention Centurion Devastators? [/any character played by Samuel Jackson ever]
2) The Redemptor is an interesting comparison. I think you're evaluating it wrong, but it's interesting. Removing those Strats / Traits isn't going to happen in CA though.
They really are comparable. Both offensively and defensively. Cents just have a lot more damage up close but with no practical way of getting there. UNLESS - you magically teleport them there with sneaky stratagems/WL traits that shouldn't exist. Straight up. Remove those strats or prevent cents from using them. Assault cents just got dropped in points. They were unplayable before. They will still be played even with a points hike if you can teleport them turn 1 for the cost of free.
Again, those strats are not going to go away in CA.
Quite frankly Assault Centurions with Hurricane Bolters do just fine at range compared to Aggressors, they trade raw shot output for maximum range (not an insignificant tradeoff when Aggressors are usually overkill if they can't reach at least two targets) and being even more absurdly dangerous to charge into. I take Aggressors if I have a way to shut off the restriction on Fire Storm, I take Centurions otherwise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/26 02:12:17
About time CHE saw an increase. But to be honest with the PA buff that's 15 makes like no difference..
Think they should have been 25pts at least in all honesty.
However if WS goes up also it will mean you will have to double down on CHE.. Because despite its increase its still an auto-take which is very ironic considering they have called it out. Thus lists become even more reliant on the over performing unit but being able to take less other stuff...
By increasing the Ws you would basically kill any build outside of CHE spams unless there are some significant drops elsewhere..
Harlies being 1 more point than storm guardians.. What on earth!? Its almost like They want everyone to soup apart from marines... because marines don't need to soup and are doing mariney things just fine...
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Yea, I was just doing a double take on the harlequin troupes supposed point reduction. It says 9->7pts. This may be a typo because as far as I know they are still 13 points. I do think they need a significant drop to keep up with other melee units in the game outperforming them, including wyches.
Argive wrote: About time CHE saw an increase. But to be honest with the PA buff that's 15 makes like no difference..
Think they should have been 25pts at least in all honesty.
However if WS goes up also it will mean you will have to double down on CHE.. Because despite its increase its still an auto-take which is very ironic considering they have called it out. Thus lists become even more reliant on the over performing unit but being able to take less other stuff...
By increasing the Ws you would basically kill any build outside of CHE spams unless there are some significant drops elsewhere..
Harlies being 1 more point than storm guardians.. What on earth!? Its almost like They want everyone to soup apart from marines... because marines don't need to soup and are doing mariney things just fine...
I'm beginning to think the same. Pr seemed to spread out what few good rules it had amongst the various eldar factions. I'm not an eldar player so I could be wrong.
I do play csm and faith and fury definitely spread the rules out amongst the legions. It seems gw wants csm to run mixed war bands instead of pure legions.
Although that could work it's not what I'd like personally.
I'm curious is it the order of: primaris, csm, cultist on the ABC table and then: primaris, cultist, csm on the DEF table?
Also how do you explain how unit A is so much more efficient at killing GEQ?
Nada. Note the second table is models lost through damage and morale.
I meant to say cultists, csm, primaris for DEF units. So it looks like primaris are quite efficient for their points and being troops? Are you going to tell us which one is unit A?
flandarz wrote: As an Ork player, I'll just say that if you don't want 11ppm CSMs, I'll be happy to take that pricetag and stat line off your hands and slap it on my Nobz. :p
I would be content enough for that price on Burna Boyz.
I look at this way, I'm gonna run Chaos Space Marines when I play my Black Legion. I just like 'em more than cultists. Is good enough to make it a hard choice for a player looking for optimization? I don't know, but I am leaning towards probably not. The sad fact is that a basic Chaos Space Marine even with all the crazy marine buffs is still just a little better than 2 cultists but certainly can't be pointed that low. They just don't have the damage output to be scary like other things you could get with the extra points or fuel with more CPs. The people saying that if an opponent wants a squad of 5 man squad of Chaos Space Marines dead are right. It isn't a whole lot of resource allocation to make that happen. It is like the Tau to the Imperium, it just isn't worth the trouble to destroy them most of the time. I will say that a ten man squad of CSM (I got that Leadership buff to make it not as dumb) is a bit more effort to delete, but ultimately I know I am still throwing good points at bad units. Like I said, I am gonna run Chaos Space Marines good or bad. With the points drop, I am going to feel less bad about running 3 ten man squads. But I am going to run those 3 ten man squads complete with a couple of heavy bolters to keep the classic CSM feel.
Same goes for Reivers when I am playing Space Marines. I am going to run at least a squad of Reivers and usually two. I don't know if there is even a ppm for Reivers that works given they are an Elite Slot. Games Workshop could make them like 14 points per model (provided the rule of 3 is used) while making their Grav Chutes and Grapplers a point each and outside certain chapters, I still don't know if that is going to make much of a difference. I still think Reivers either/or need to be a Troop Choice (even if that is a Successor Chapter Trait) or get some real melee weapons even if just for the Sergeant.
I am with Galaf on this one. I don't think the point drops are going to make 'competitive' players start using a lot of these units. But players like me feel less dumb by always including them in our armies.
Fact is the CSM book is not a competitive book - minor point adjustments is not going to change the fact that the output in the codex is weak.
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
flandarz wrote: As an Ork player, I'll just say that if you don't want 11ppm CSMs, I'll be happy to take that pricetag and stat line off your hands and slap it on my Nobz. :p
I would be content enough for that price on Burna Boyz.
I look at this way, I'm gonna run Chaos Space Marines when I play my Black Legion. I just like 'em more than cultists. Is good enough to make it a hard choice for a player looking for optimization? I don't know, but I am leaning towards probably not. The sad fact is that a basic Chaos Space Marine even with all the crazy marine buffs is still just a little better than 2 cultists but certainly can't be pointed that low. They just don't have the damage output to be scary like other things you could get with the extra points or fuel with more CPs. The people saying that if an opponent wants a squad of 5 man squad of Chaos Space Marines dead are right. It isn't a whole lot of resource allocation to make that happen. It is like the Tau to the Imperium, it just isn't worth the trouble to destroy them most of the time. I will say that a ten man squad of CSM (I got that Leadership buff to make it not as dumb) is a bit more effort to delete, but ultimately I know I am still throwing good points at bad units. Like I said, I am gonna run Chaos Space Marines good or bad. With the points drop, I am going to feel less bad about running 3 ten man squads. But I am going to run those 3 ten man squads complete with a couple of heavy bolters to keep the classic CSM feel.
Same goes for Reivers when I am playing Space Marines. I am going to run at least a squad of Reivers and usually two. I don't know if there is even a ppm for Reivers that works given they are an Elite Slot. Games Workshop could make them like 14 points per model (provided the rule of 3 is used) while making their Grav Chutes and Grapplers a point each and outside certain chapters, I still don't know if that is going to make much of a difference. I still think Reivers either/or need to be a Troop Choice (even if that is a Successor Chapter Trait) or get some real melee weapons even if just for the Sergeant.
I am with Galaf on this one. I don't think the point drops are going to make 'competitive' players start using a lot of these units. But players like me feel less dumb by always including them in our armies.
Yeah I know. As someone who purposefully plays without alitoic airwing any point drops are sorely welcome. The rest of the codex is simply not efficient.. One or two over performing over efficient entries carrying the army... And that's an internal balance issue across all the books. With some books just much better of than others in this regards.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/26 05:04:46
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
NurglesR0T wrote: Fact is the CSM book is not a competitive book - minor point adjustments is not going to change the fact that the output in the codex is weak.
given that CSMs never got some sort of "mono codex buff" I wonder if GW's vision for the army is that they use soup. I mean even the base CSM codex has some deamons in it
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
ArcaneHorror wrote: I don't understand why some people are saying that DG and TS shouldn't get price decreases. Maybe PM should be a point or two more expensive than regular CSM, but nothing more, and TS aren't even really a fully formed army.
The issue is, this is in Context with daemonprinces, and neither ts nor dg ones need the drop.
The only ones might needing that are csn and daemon ones.
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.
More importantly, why are you trying to justify a bad unit just like you did with Warp Talons before? Is it hard to accept some units are just useless and that's the end of it?
LOL, ok.
Let's play a game. Below are two tables. Each has a set of data for one of 3 units (Cultists, CSM, and Bolt Rifle Primaris). No traits or bonuses. These units are all the same total price (5 point cultists, 11 CSM, 17 primaris). Any fractional models are still counted, so 3.2 Primaris would get 3.2 and 6.4 shots respectively. Each mode is a different position within the battlefield (i.e. RF range, moving, etc).
Spoiler:
The first table is damage dealt by the unit. Damage dealt numbers have been multiplied by a common factor to prevent backing into the result. Please rank the units A,B, and C as to which you think is best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
The second table is damage received by the unit. Please rank units D, E, and F as to which you think it best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
I've highlighted why this is an exercise in futility.
flandarz wrote: As an Ork player, I'll just say that if you don't want 11ppm CSMs, I'll be happy to take that pricetag and stat line off your hands and slap it on my Nobz. :p
I would be content enough for that price on Burna Boyz.
I look at this way, I'm gonna run Chaos Space Marines when I play my Black Legion. I just like 'em more than cultists. Is good enough to make it a hard choice for a player looking for optimization? I don't know, but I am leaning towards probably not. The sad fact is that a basic Chaos Space Marine even with all the crazy marine buffs is still just a little better than 2 cultists but certainly can't be pointed that low. They just don't have the damage output to be scary like other things you could get with the extra points or fuel with more CPs. The people saying that if an opponent wants a squad of 5 man squad of Chaos Space Marines dead are right. It isn't a whole lot of resource allocation to make that happen. It is like the Tau to the Imperium, it just isn't worth the trouble to destroy them most of the time. I will say that a ten man squad of CSM (I got that Leadership buff to make it not as dumb) is a bit more effort to delete, but ultimately I know I am still throwing good points at bad units. Like I said, I am gonna run Chaos Space Marines good or bad. With the points drop, I am going to feel less bad about running 3 ten man squads. But I am going to run those 3 ten man squads complete with a couple of heavy bolters to keep the classic CSM feel.
Same goes for Reivers when I am playing Space Marines. I am going to run at least a squad of Reivers and usually two. I don't know if there is even a ppm for Reivers that works given they are an Elite Slot. Games Workshop could make them like 14 points per model (provided the rule of 3 is used) while making their Grav Chutes and Grapplers a point each and outside certain chapters, I still don't know if that is going to make much of a difference. I still think Reivers either/or need to be a Troop Choice (even if that is a Successor Chapter Trait) or get some real melee weapons even if just for the Sergeant.
I am with Galaf on this one. I don't think the point drops are going to make 'competitive' players start using a lot of these units. But players like me feel less dumb by always including them in our armies.
Yeah I know. As someone who purposefully plays without alitoic airwing any point drops are sorely welcome. The rest of the codex is simply not efficient.. One or two over performing over efficient entries carrying the army... And that's an internal balance issue across all the books. With some books just much better of than others in this regards.
Yea, even 15 is to much for codex flyers. CHE with lances now(assuming lances stay the some price) is 190 pts for 4 shoots. It`s really look to much for 12 wound T6 paper flyer, since most good list can kill min 2 per turn.
The banshee 2 pts is looking irrelevant, because i would gladly pay 10 more points to get the unit actually kill something. It`s like GW never learn, they made scorpions 11 pts and still noone used them, the price was never the real problem.
I hope for harlies players that weapons will also become cheaper, 2 pts is not enough to make the troupe good., having in mind SM release. Intercessors are as good as them in most cases without needing to pay 10 extra points.
To give them different costs should also mean they are treated as different datasheets in ALL respects, included Ro3.
-
All the GK vehicles have different rules then normal marine ones, but when GW decided to hike the price of regular marine stuff, they hiked our too. just saying.
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.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So DttFE shouldn't cost anything because it's situational but ATSKNF should because...? This isn't 7th edition.
Shows how bad the rule is. If you add any cost to it then CSM is overpriced vs non-imperium. If you don't they are underpriced vs loyal. It's basically rule that's impossible to balance unless all factions whom it applies to get equally good counter rule at which point cost is 0 for both.
NurglesR0T wrote: Fact is the CSM book is not a competitive book - minor point adjustments is not going to change the fact that the output in the codex is weak.
given that CSMs never got some sort of "mono codex buff" I wonder if GW's vision for the army is that they use soup. I mean even the base CSM codex has some deamons in it
Or they came too early and nobody had come idea with mono bonus by the time GW got around to chaos. GW has habit of mid edition paragrim shifts which results in wonky balance when arbitarily codex switches to whole new different type of game(necrons in 7th ed for example)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/26 10:10:01
How can you think standardisation isn't a part of that? 40k players will lose games based purely on the amount of terrain on the table and the type of deployment. And that's a factor that's completely outside of anything to do with the specific factions and army rules.
I think there's also a factor folks aren't considering.
Players also lose games based purely on the decisions they make. By trying to remove every factor, we've reached a point where the most important decisions today are what list you bring and what secondaries you select if playing ITC. Hardly an indication of skill if both those things happen before the first die is tossed.
But it makes for compelling discussion and arguments on forums so we're all okay with that I guess.
I think there's also a factor folks aren't considering.
Players also lose games based purely on the decisions they make. By trying to remove every factor, we've reached a point where the most important decisions today are what list you bring and what secondaries you select if playing ITC. Hardly an indication of skill if both those things happen before the first die is tossed.
But it makes for compelling discussion and arguments on forums so we're all okay with that I guess.
So, Grey Knight players are losing games not because their book is objectivly bad, but because they just don't know how to play well? Does it work like that for people who don't play ITC and just rulebook missions?
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.
I think there's also a factor folks aren't considering.
Players also lose games based purely on the decisions they make. By trying to remove every factor, we've reached a point where the most important decisions today are what list you bring and what secondaries you select if playing ITC. Hardly an indication of skill if both those things happen before the first die is tossed.
But it makes for compelling discussion and arguments on forums so we're all okay with that I guess.
Sure. But that is why you have sufficiently large samples to average it out.
Over 50 or 100 or 200 games, just as many people will make a stupid decision with an Iron Hands army as they do with a Grey Knight army, and roughly as many will have a stroke of genius and pull a brilliant move.
Given the underlying rules are balanced, both armies should come out equal win percentages, etc.., etc. within the margin of error of a given sample size.
Lemondish wrote: Players also lose games based purely on the decisions they make. By trying to remove every factor, we've reached a point where the most important decisions today are what list you bring and what secondaries you select if playing ITC. Hardly an indication of skill if both those things happen before the first die is tossed.
But it makes for compelling discussion and arguments on forums so we're all okay with that I guess.
I personally think a wargame has to have some kind of fundamental logic to it. What's the mission in the scope of the campaign? What kind of forces would logically be committed to an action? What would you consider the victory condition?
That's regarded as narrative but it's truer to life. An infantry company is not going to engage a bunch of tanks in open ground, they're going to fortify themselves in a city where you can prepare better defensive positions and take advantage of the limited visibility of armour. It also means a force with less firepower can take on a force with more firepower, through canny positioning and tactics. Melta is a close-range weapon, it's suited for ambushes at close range. Not suicidal charges across open ground like WWI armies going over the top.
I agree with your point Lemondish, but people like the metrics of competition. That's very difficult to measure if everything is heavily scenario-based. So I don't see competitive formats changing that anytime soon.
Eldar- 4436 pts
5300 | 
2800 | 
3600 | 
1600 | 
