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.

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?

Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?

You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.

I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.

I'd save your time tbh, Slayer has proven on multiple occasions they exists purely to whine about how bad the rules are, how evil GW is and anyone that falls outside of their definition of fun is an unskilled simpleton wasting their time.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SM bs.

Whoopdee fething doo.

Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.

With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.

Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?

Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?

You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.

I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.

I already have been competitive, as you might have seen from my lists here outside the Scions one. What I am, though, is tired of people making excuses for GW creating bad rules. Good matches are created by good rules that don't allow broken mechanics to happen.

 lifeafter wrote:
Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?

I hope so - cause assault cents on their own have severe limitations that the stratagem removes. With a 4 inch movement they are just a support/ counter charge unit that is easily removed by dedicated heavy firepower before they can do anything.

Dudeface wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?

Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?

You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.

I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.

I'd save your time tbh, Slayer has proven on multiple occasions they exists purely to whine about how bad the rules are, how evil GW is and anyone that falls outside of their definition of fun is an unskilled simpleton wasting their time.

Don't forget to add Martel and Xenomancer to this list.

I call these 3 "the Unholy Trinity of Idiocy".

 Ishagu wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand...

Is it so hard to imagine someone might want to wander into a game store to find a stranger to play a pick-up game with without needing to spend time arguing about the precise details of how the rules of the game work, what units are OP, what units aren't OP, and how they're supposed to adjust their list when "get better" frequently translates as "throw all your models out and buy a different army"?

If you wander into a gaming Arcade and challenge a random person to a bout of Tekken on an arcade cabinet, and then get destroyed, do you have grounds for complaint? I don't think so

If you are making the effort to travel to a game store to play a game that requires hours of your time and dozens of models to transport, models that you had to build and paint no less, it is not difficult to organise said game in advance.

Games between top players can be decided in the last turn, same applies to equally skilled players and lists at lower levels of play. If you make no effort to try and match opponents don't complain when the game is out of reach for one player or another.

No one here is saying that every unit is balance with another, or anything stupid like that. The rules aren't perfect. Guess what? Laws aren't perfect either, and they were planned and studied in far greater detail than tabletop wargaming rules.Chess isn't perfectly balanced and that has two identical sides on a flat, empty board.

Make an effort and reap the reward.

You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC player who plays the hardest meta list and automatically deletes multiple units every turn or biggest CAAC player of all time who plays only the worst units in the worst army and literally spends the entire game out in the open and chooses not to fire any units or attack back.

Dudeface wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?

Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?

You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.

I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.

I'd save your time tbh, Slayer has proven on multiple occasions they exists purely to whine about how bad the rules are, how evil GW is and anyone that falls outside of their definition of fun is an unskilled simpleton wasting their time.

You have yet to dispute my claims, which puts me in the right if you have to resort to insulting me as a "whiner". People were breaking each Marine supplement the day of release. Hell, they were doing it just with the rumors too. GW is not evil, what they are is incompetent and you make excuses for them.

 Ishagu wrote:
...I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.

What's a reasonable barrier to entry?

Most games I've played have cheap or free digital rules, and might charge $100 for enough models for a standard points level (Infinity single-faction starter and one expansion, X-Wing starter box and two small ships/one big ship, Bolt Action starter box...). Warhammer wants to get $100+ out of you for the rules and then $3-400 for a thousand-point army, and it isn't reasonable to ask that whatever thousand-point army you get might be consistently playable?

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand...

Is it so hard to imagine someone might want to wander into a game store to find a stranger to play a pick-up game with without needing to spend time arguing about the precise details of how the rules of the game work, what units are OP, what units aren't OP, and how they're supposed to adjust their list when "get better" frequently translates as "throw all your models out and buy a different army"?

If you wander into a gaming Arcade and challenge a random person to a bout of Tekken on an arcade cabinet, and then get destroyed, do you have grounds for complaint? I don't think so

If you are making the effort to travel to a game store to play a game that requires hours of your time and dozens of models to transport, models that you had to build and paint no less, it is not difficult to organise said game in advance.

Games between top players can be decided in the last turn, same applies to equally skilled players and lists at lower levels of play. If you make no effort to try and match opponents don't complain when the game is out of reach for one player or another.

No one here is saying that every unit is balance with another, or anything stupid like that. The rules aren't perfect. Guess what? Laws aren't perfect either, and they were planned and studied in far greater detail than tabletop wargaming rules.Chess isn't perfectly balanced and that has two identical sides on a flat, empty board.

Make an effort and reap the reward.

You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.

Look at that, it's the players' faults, not GW! GW can do no wrong!

 Sim-Life wrote:
...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.

How many other miniatures games have you ever played?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.

How many other miniatures games have you ever played?

These people never played anything else so all they can do is defend the crap job GW does.

Why can't we just discuss the nerfs to marines? LOL.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.

How many other miniatures games have you ever played?

I've played War Machine, X Wing, Star Wars Legion, Wings of Glory, Infinity and Malifaux.

And I like 40k more than all of them by a vast margin.

 Ishagu wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.

How many other miniatures games have you ever played?

I've played War Machine, X Wing, Star Wars Legion, Wings of Glory, Infinity and Malifaux.

And I like 40k more than all of them by a vast margin.

And in how many of those did you have to negotiate which models you do and don't use to avoid getting turn-one tabled?

How about having an argument about how line of sight works before games?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why can't we just discuss the nerfs to marines? LOL.

Theyre insufficient. What else is there to say?

X-Wing for sure, at certain points. I've played it for years. The nerfs and buffs that occur regularly in that game would make GW blush.

The other games are vastly less dynamic and far more 2 dimensional than 40k. It really us a unique beast with vast scope and freedom in terms of tabletop expression.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why can't we just discuss the nerfs to marines? LOL.

Theyre insufficient. What else is there to say?

Prove they were insufficient. Show me the data

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SM bs.

Whoopdee fething doo.

Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.

With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.

Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.

I am not so sure. Even if you go first with marines the new Tau should be able to survive the alpha because of drones and their counter punch will be stronger than before. And then marine shooting will be weaker in later turns, especially for IH.
Tau can still probably win even if they go second. The buffs suits got in Tau's PA are pretty strong.

I haven't been able to test this yet since I just got my copy of the book this week.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why can't we just discuss the nerfs to marines? LOL.

Theyre insufficient. What else is there to say?

Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why can't we just discuss the nerfs to marines? LOL.

Because Ishagu and Sim-Life showed up to explain to us why we're not allowed to pass judgement on GW and they're the picture of perfection and nothing they do could possibly have been incorrect, because of our power to turn a bad game into a good game by arguing with each other.

Ishagu, you said players should arrange their games to compensate for the incompetent and unprofessional rules writing of the GW designers.

Another poster asked you then what handicap you thought would be reasonable for playing a Mono-slaanesh list. You never answered. You come across as very self assured and confident in your posts and often mention your vast experience with the game and maturity as a player.

Could you help us lesser beings out and explain what sort of handicap you would recommend? It would help those of us who are more immature to improve.

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?

Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?

You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta.

I mean, I agree to an extent. But I consider myself competitive within the limitations I place for myself. So before this new codex I played a BA "First and Tenth" list (aka, terminators and scouts) which was often considered sub-par as a concept, yet I played it in such a way as to win more often than not. That's been shelved as I'm now working on my Sisters, though I won't really be playing my Sisters too much until they actually release the proper Canoness mini. But even my Sisters I plan on playing as a mechanized force, which is considered sub-par. But within the mechanized force, I think I've optimized them.

It's a fine distinction, I suppose, but I guess what I'm saying is competitive vs casual is a sliding scale rather than a yes or no.

I need to re-organize my BA around the new rules though. I'll probably make more use of my tactical marines now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why can't we just discuss the nerfs to marines? LOL.

Theyre insufficient. What else is there to say?

Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.

I think some units definitely need points hikes still. FW dreads and stalker rifles for starters.

My Crismon Fists wont notice the loss. To be honest the Imperial Fist Super Doctrine never felt like it meshed that well anyway. Good for trying to soften things up early, but after turn 1 I wanted different things anyway.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SM bs.

Whoopdee fething doo.

Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.

With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.

Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.

I am not so sure. Even if you go first with marines the new Tau should be able to survive the alpha because of drones and their counter punch will be stronger than before. And then marine shooting will be weaker in later turns, especially for IH.
Tau can still probably win even if they go second. The buffs suits got in Tau's PA are pretty strong.

I haven't been able to test this yet since I just got my copy of the book this week.

The competitive build is going to be -1 AP to missles (wow it lasts all game too) with 9" ftgg. (I think that is what I figured out at a glance).

Broadsides/ missle crisis / and riptides (of both flavors) will be very competitive. There is also the tripple storm-surge (yeah these cost less than a repulsor executioner now) build that got a massive buff due to IF not being auto win against it as well. Tau are likely going to be the biggest benefactors from this nerf IMO.

My competitive Ultras army took a small nerf because my contemptor with quad las is way less durable now. I might just replace it with 6 suppressors now.

 Xenomancers wrote:
My only concern is Dev doctrine based armies have gone from the obvious best choice to the obvious worst choice. Plus Ultras went from the obvious worst choice to the obvious best. Every power combo was removed and IH and IF made entirely irrelevant due to only get 1 turn of their super doctrine. That was the wrong way to handle it. Entirely wrong. They should have just changed dev doctrine if it was the obvious problem - not just give you 1 turn of it. Alas though. GW continues their over nerfing of things. I feel bad for IF and IH players. OFC the inevitable nerf Ultramarines crowd will be up in arms as they always are. Even when they have a sub 50% WR in competitive play.

Oo no, RG are still easily ahead of UM's and are who I would point to as the top SM chapter.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.

How many other miniatures games have you ever played?

These people never played anything else so all they can do is defend the crap job GW does.

Yeah, the I Infinity faction logos in my sig are just cause I like the design.

I would play Malifaux or Infinity over 40k any day, I also play WMH but I won't play with theme lists so I do need to discuss that with opponents beforehand. However my group really likes 40k, so thats what mainly get played. The shocking thing about me is, now sit down, because you might not be able to cope with this concept, I can find enjoyment in a game I don't 100% like.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why can't we just discuss the nerfs to marines? LOL.

Theyre insufficient. What else is there to say?

Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.

I think some units definitely need points hikes still. FW dreads and stalker rifles for starters.

The stalker without AP-3 isn't very good. On turn 2 now the BR is at least as good as the stalker and better vs everything with 1 wound. Plus with the ability to shoot twice and gain tactical doctrine on any turn for 1 cp in ultras it is hands down superior. The real issue with stalker was always Ironahnds and IF super doctrines making them too good.

I think they are sufficient for the time being but I still think some FW needs adjustment. Mainly the Leviathan and the Chaplain dreadnought. I think that given the second has no kit should be moved to legends, and the Leviathan should be fixed to its more original melee version, while the Deredeo should remain the gundread, as originally designed.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.

How many other miniatures games have you ever played?

These people never played anything else so all they can do is defend the crap job GW does.

Yeah, the I Infinity faction logos in my sig are just cause I like the design.

I would play Malifaux or Infinity over 40k any day, I also play WMH but I won't play with theme lists so I do need to discuss that with opponents beforehand. However my group really likes 40k, so thats what mainly get played. The shocking thing about me is, now sit down, because you might not be able to cope with this concept, I can find enjoyment in a game I don't 100% like.

So in other words, you defend GW just because you can basically.

 Ishagu wrote:


The other games are vastly less dynamic and far more 2 dimensional than 40k. It really us a unique beast with vast scope and freedom in terms of tabletop expression.

That is a huge part of 40k's issues. It doesn't know what scale it actually want to be and play at. Trying to include and make relevant stategic missile launchers, differentiate between power knives and power axes and power swords, tank brigades, 30m tall Battlemechs, Grots, strategic bombers, basic handguns, demigods, and all sorts of other stuff doesn't work terribly well. Half the units in the game have no business being on the field together. Why do we have bulky vacuum assault suits attempting to fight across open ground exposed to direct attack by hovering gunships in order to punch divisional level artillery guns?

GW offers an insane array of scope without attempting to define any meaningful context for battles and table setup, and so we end up with sneaky guerilla forces or space pirates fighting pitched frontal battles with Mech Lances or tides of monsters, with predictable results. Its kinda like making a modern combat game and detailing rules for a .45 1911 and different rules for a 9mm Beretta M9 and differentiating different infantry elements in a rifle platoon, but also trying to make a B52 and its JDAMs and S400 missile systems relevant and playable at the same scale.