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.
Karol wrote: Space marines make up the majority of lists on all levels, including casual. They should be better then the avarge army. And if they are the best, then it only means tha thte majority of w40k players are having more fun, then they had before.
Marines players of all kinds are having a great time now. How fun was it for non tournament DA or BA running only scouts and smash hammers with ally in 8th ed? now they can play more or less what ever they want and it works. And the armies aren't carbon copies of each other. A BA list is going to be different from a RG or Salamander one. That is great.
And xeno player can wait for the next CA and their codex, just like marine players had to wait for their updates.
"Balancing" a game by making the most popular army hugely overpowered is insane. Balancing a game around vindictiveness is insane. Good games balance things independent of how good armies were in the past or how popular they are. Sometimes you get a situation where players with certain armies complain they've been hit too hard, which is sometimes true but often more because their "armies" are a very specific build of whatever the meta-hotness was last edition. I'm not even sure SM players are having more fun now with their current power level. I've stopped playing my BA for now because they feel so utterly mindlessly broken against many armies that it barely feels like I'm playing a game any more and certainly not the same game as my opponent.
The internal balance in the SM Codex is OK (there are literally dozens of options that are terrible however). The problem is that balance is achieved by making SM so good that even formerly mediocre units get enough of a power boost to make them broken. That's not how you should approach internal balance.
The other problem with telling xenos players to wait is many of them have been waiting for a long time and multiple Codices without much to show for it. There's a growing feeling among some xenos players that GW doesn't really get their armies and therefore a growing feeling that armies like Nids and Necrons are likely going to be bad again this edition. That's not an exciting prospect for players of those armies. At the very least we can hope the new SM Codex severely reduces their power level.
2020/08/20 11:46:51
Subject: Re:How are xenos armies meant to compete?
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
Ah yes, terrain, as in Obscuring terrain? Which those eradicators and devastators can potentially see 18+W models through but can't be seen by them in return? Not good for an army comprised almost entirely of such units. Good luck to pure knights trying to screen with armigiers.
yes, but on the other hand
A) knights are T8 and have an invuln, making them naturally the best type of heavy unit to survive meltas
and
B) screw knights.
Knights have since the beginning of their existence relied on the fact that take all comers lists can't have enough antitank to kill 2000pts of T8 models with invuln saves and still be called TAC lists.Obviously a list composed of only a single defensive profile is going to struggle into certain metas, that isn't just a 'maybe' that's an 'inevitable.'
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2020/08/20 11:49:20
Subject: Re:How are xenos armies meant to compete?
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
Just out of curiosity makes you think 2k warhamer 40k games are platoon level skirmish games?
40k has not been this "Skirmish game" people claim for like 4-5 editions.
2020/08/20 12:07:42
Subject: Re:How are xenos armies meant to compete?
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
I mean, it makes sense. Hyper-skew lists are hugely hugely popular among people wanting to play AS them, "All X" lists seem to be what everybody dreams of building.
The problem is they're always incredibly booooooooooooooooooooring to play against.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2020/08/20 12:26:17
Subject: Re:How are xenos armies meant to compete?
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
Ah yes, terrain, as in Obscuring terrain? Which those eradicators and devastators can potentially see 18+W models through but can't be seen by them in return? Not good for an army comprised almost entirely of such units. Good luck to pure knights trying to screen with armigiers.
yes, but on the other hand
A) knights are T8 and have an invuln, making them naturally the best type of heavy unit to survive meltas
and
B) screw knights.
Knights have since the beginning of their existence relied on the fact that take all comers lists can't have enough antitank to kill 2000pts of T8 models with invuln saves and still be called TAC lists.Obviously a list composed of only a single defensive profile is going to struggle into certain metas, that isn't just a 'maybe' that's an 'inevitable.'
Agreed, knights are a skew list automatically. They just seemed like the best example of an army that wouldn't be able to use Daedalus's strategy to screen out eradicators. Other low model count armies like Custodes and Grey Knights will have similar problems, though not as extreme. The fact that people are planning strategies to avoid these things is a sign, however, that they are worth more than 120 points per squad. I don't think they're overpowered, just underpriced.
And a knight's T8 3+ 5++ defensive profile isn't the best against meltas. T9 2+ is better. Unfortunately all those units have been priced out of the game....
2020/08/20 12:35:30
Subject: Re:How are xenos armies meant to compete?
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
Ah yes, terrain, as in Obscuring terrain? Which those eradicators and devastators can potentially see 18+W models through but can't be seen by them in return? Not good for an army comprised almost entirely of such units. Good luck to pure knights trying to screen with armigiers.
yes, but on the other hand
A) knights are T8 and have an invuln, making them naturally the best type of heavy unit to survive meltas
and
B) screw knights.
Knights have since the beginning of their existence relied on the fact that take all comers lists can't have enough antitank to kill 2000pts of T8 models with invuln saves and still be called TAC lists.Obviously a list composed of only a single defensive profile is going to struggle into certain metas, that isn't just a 'maybe' that's an 'inevitable.'
Agreed, knights are a skew list automatically. They just seemed like the best example of an army that wouldn't be able to use Daedalus's strategy to screen out eradicators. Other low model count armies like Custodes and Grey Knights will have similar problems, though not as extreme. The fact that people are planning strategies to avoid these things is a sign, however, that they are worth more than 120 points per squad. I don't think they're overpowered, just underpriced.
And a knight's T8 3+ 5++ defensive profile isn't the best against meltas. T9 2+ is better. Unfortunately all those units have been priced out of the game....
Chaos knights can get T9 by wounding themselves no?
14000
15000
4000
2020/08/20 12:49:30
Subject: Re:How are xenos armies meant to compete?
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
Just out of curiosity makes you think 2k warhamer 40k games are platoon level skirmish games?
40k has not been this "Skirmish game" people claim for like 4-5 editions.
I mean, because it is.
An Imperial Guard Army literally consists of about two Platoons of Infantry.
An Imperial Guard Company would be 250+ Guardsmen with support assets.
On the tabletop, I rarely see more than sixty.
Most games are done with 100 or less minitures on either side.
This then, is a Platoon scale game.
Disclaimer - I am a Games Workshop Shareholder.
2020/08/20 13:28:16
Subject: Re:How are xenos armies meant to compete?
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
Ah yes, terrain, as in Obscuring terrain? Which those eradicators and devastators can potentially see 18+W models through but can't be seen by them in return? Not good for an army comprised almost entirely of such units. Good luck to pure knights trying to screen with armigiers.
yes, but on the other hand
A) knights are T8 and have an invuln, making them naturally the best type of heavy unit to survive meltas
and
B) screw knights.
Knights have since the beginning of their existence relied on the fact that take all comers lists can't have enough antitank to kill 2000pts of T8 models with invuln saves and still be called TAC lists.Obviously a list composed of only a single defensive profile is going to struggle into certain metas, that isn't just a 'maybe' that's an 'inevitable.'
Agreed, knights are a skew list automatically. They just seemed like the best example of an army that wouldn't be able to use Daedalus's strategy to screen out eradicators. Other low model count armies like Custodes and Grey Knights will have similar problems, though not as extreme. The fact that people are planning strategies to avoid these things is a sign, however, that they are worth more than 120 points per squad. I don't think they're overpowered, just underpriced.
And a knight's T8 3+ 5++ defensive profile isn't the best against meltas. T9 2+ is better. Unfortunately all those units have been priced out of the game....
Chaos knights can get T9 by wounding themselves no?
Yes, they can. I completely forgot about that. Well, that's going to be good when everyone is using all these buffed melta units. You could have a whole army of T9 3+ 5++ 24W models. But apparently one T9 2+ model is too much for csm. Good balance again gw.
2020/08/20 13:35:36
Subject: Re:How are xenos armies meant to compete?
Now, assume for a second that not all vehicles/monsters are fine sitting in their deploy and actually need to move, is it a good thing that for 1CP and 120 points they will get crippled or outright destroyed?
That layout gives sufficient room to control 2 to 3 objectives. While your opponent exerts control on your movement you then exert control on what they are capable of killing
Vehicles don't need to cap. They're there to set up firing lanes and make it a difficult proposition to push in until some vehicles are destroyed. By denying the opponent that option (because they often lean on Eradicators) you can put them on the back foot.
The image above makes it look simple, but terrain is a giant piece of how all this works out.
Ah yes, terrain, as in Obscuring terrain? Which those eradicators and devastators can potentially see 18+W models through but can't be seen by them in return? Not good for an army comprised almost entirely of such units. Good luck to pure knights trying to screen with armigiers.
yes, but on the other hand
A) knights are T8 and have an invuln, making them naturally the best type of heavy unit to survive meltas
and
B) screw knights.
Knights have since the beginning of their existence relied on the fact that take all comers lists can't have enough antitank to kill 2000pts of T8 models with invuln saves and still be called TAC lists.Obviously a list composed of only a single defensive profile is going to struggle into certain metas, that isn't just a 'maybe' that's an 'inevitable.'
Agreed, knights are a skew list automatically. They just seemed like the best example of an army that wouldn't be able to use Daedalus's strategy to screen out eradicators. Other low model count armies like Custodes and Grey Knights will have similar problems, though not as extreme. The fact that people are planning strategies to avoid these things is a sign, however, that they are worth more than 120 points per squad. I don't think they're overpowered, just underpriced.
And a knight's T8 3+ 5++ defensive profile isn't the best against meltas. T9 2+ is better. Unfortunately all those units have been priced out of the game....
Chaos knights can get T9 by wounding themselves no?
Yes, they can. I completely forgot about that. Well, that's going to be good when everyone is using all these buffed melta units. You could have a whole army of T9 3+ 5++ 24W models. But apparently one T9 2+ model is too much for csm. Good balance again gw.
Personally I'm looking forward to these guys going up against my -1 to hit 4++ starweavers when I have min 3 damage on my 5-point fusion pistols.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Ok. I really should’ve phrased my suggestion better. But it was late when I rambled it out.
Divisions like that of course wouldn’t be set in stone, changing them up to create fun events would take time of course.
But honestly looking at Eradicators as the benchmark and going from there with the new units I can’t help but think this given GWs lack of.......care with marines releases at the tail end of 8th that the other armies will see half of what we’re gonna see in Astartes. If you want to keep interest going there needs to be a distinct call out that there is an issue without hurting events overall.
By splitting into divisions you send the message that Space Marines especially and potentially Imperium as a whole are headed in a bad direction for enjoyment of the game while also offering people who don’t want to play those favored and overtweaked Codices a reason to attend without fear of the glaring issues GW has rolled out.
Honestly problem isn't even tanks and knights. imagine poor Nids. Can't play horde-maganuts because Blast will, well, blast them, can't play monsters because every single one of them save the Tyrants is getting one-shotted by eradicators, who are killing like 130% of their points worth of Nid monsters every turn.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Honestly problem isn't even tanks and knights. imagine poor Nids. Can't play horde-maganuts because Blast will, well, blast them, can't play monsters because every single one of them save the Tyrants is getting one-shotted by eradicators, who are killing like 130% of their points worth of Nid monsters every turn.
As a Nid player, this isn't too far off. Hormagaunts aren't terrible due to Blast, they're more terrible due to really mediocre melee performance for a melee-only unit, and the other horde-y melee troop (Genestealers) got hit hard by points adjustment. For monsters, well, I'm almost at the point of not fielding my Carnifexes anymore- Tyrants have a 4+ invuln* and Tyrannofexes are tough with Dermic Symbiosis, but Carnifexes at eight wounds and no invuln die very quickly.
It's particularly worse when going up against smash captains and their equivalents in other armies, particularly since Tyranids have no sniper units, so melee is really the only answer. You can get 4-5 high-strength attacks from a 'Fex on the charge, but only hitting on 4+ most of the time so it's a real gamble against anything with an invuln. Even Orks, not exactly a hot meta pick, can easily field a Warboss with four attacks hitting on 2s at S10+, rerolling failed hits and wounds, and Da Jump + 'Ere We Go gives him the sort of reliable delivery mechanism I'd kill for. Most of all, the Tyranid bruisers are all monsters, so as noted they have trouble surviving long enough to be useful.
I will say Nids have benefitted a lot from the 9th Ed mission design favoring mobility, but taking six Hive Guard and multiple Hive Tyrants is practically a necessity, and that doesn't make for much variety. Eradicators are really just the worst offender in a game system that has devalued armor to the point where anything big with no invuln is dead meat.
It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
2020/08/20 14:20:30
Subject: Re:How are xenos armies meant to compete?
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
Just out of curiosity makes you think 2k warhamer 40k games are platoon level skirmish games?
40k has not been this "Skirmish game" people claim for like 4-5 editions.
It has been, and still is, a skirmish game - if you're following the core rules, you're not using unit bases, we're not dealing with blocks of troops that need to wheel and reform. Each trooper is his or her own island in this game, therefore they're skirmishing. There's far too much detail in terms of weapons and wargear for anyone to claim it is company-level, either.
Epic is not a skirmish game, and arguably neither is Apocalypse (assuming the unit bases are used). Both operate from a C&C perspective at around company-level.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Nothing wrong with several platoons of infantry fighting a lance of Knights, the problem is that in Warhammer 40k as it stands the Knights are playing a different game.
The Knight is never going to lose any weapons, regardless of how many wounds it takes, it's not going to lose wounds to morale tests, or be forced to fall back, or worry about most types of terrain, or really do anything particularly interesting.
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
Its less of a case in 9th but people were talking about more then just the current edition.
Plus you probably still want to be able to do it in 9th because the 2-3 knight and half a dozen Armiger list looks pretty decent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/20 15:11:15
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
the concept is from 8th where if you didn't get rid of a Knight a turn you had little hope of winning. And keep in mind, the tournament lists weren't taking 5 knights and nothing else, it was 1-3 knights, the loyal 32 and some smash captains.
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
Its less of a case in 9th but people were talking about more then just the current edition.
Plus you probably still want to be able to do it in 9th because the 2-3 knight and half a dozen Armiger list looks pretty decent.
Not really it still folds like paper against to many lists and looses against board control lists too.
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
the concept is from 8th where if you didn't get rid of a Knight a turn you had little hope of winning. And keep in mind, the tournament lists weren't taking 5 knights and nothing else, it was 1-3 knights, the loyal 32 and some smash captains.
Funny think is despite them being some hyper skew list that people are convinced will romp through your opponents army every game at the end of 8th they were pretry much gone from competitive play with some odd choas summoning shenangins keeping renegades going longer.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
Just out of curiosity makes you think 2k warhamer 40k games are platoon level skirmish games?
40k has not been this "Skirmish game" people claim for like 4-5 editions.
I mean, because it is.
An Imperial Guard Army literally consists of about two Platoons of Infantry.
An Imperial Guard Company would be 250+ Guardsmen with support assets.
On the tabletop, I rarely see more than sixty.
Most games are done with 100 or less minitures on either side.
This then, is a Platoon scale game.
Ah okay your working on a concept of model count of less than 100= skirmish. I've seen orks and guard lists packing significantly more than that guard where about 150 + infantry models and orks were way past that. Also knights are a problem but marines having more aircraft types than many other armies have vehicals let alone tanks is just ignored?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/20 15:48:28
That last time I played less than a 100 models was in 5th
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Heavy Support:
Heavy Weapons Team W/3x Missile Launcher
Heavy Weapons Team W/3x Missile Launcher
Heavy Weapons Team W/3x Missile Launcher
Quad Launcher x2
Quad Launcher x2
So grand total 30 Missile Launchers and 4 Quad Launchers (my favorite thing in the IG arsenal) as well as 9 Grenade Launchers. Obviously going to be Cadian 30 Krak or 180 Frag Missiles, 9 Krak Grenades or 54 Frag. And my favorite 96 Quad launcher shots that don't care about LOS and can be used (preferably not) against vehicles.
Will it work against most lists? well enough. Tournament list? probably not. Too many armies can pink mist most of these units in a few turns.
Funny think is despite them being some hyper skew list that people are convinced will romp through your opponents army every game at the end of 8th they were pretry much gone from competitive play with some odd choas summoning shenangins keeping renegades going longer.
In 9th they aren't exactly doing well either.
Being a skew list has nothing to do with power. In fact, the worst list in the game is almost always a skew list - one that skews hard into the worst unit in the game. 50 pyrovores or whatever in 7th ed.
A skew list is just a list that presents only a single type of target to its opponent, therefore making certain categories of weapon less effective. Certain armies are hard-locked into being skew lists - you will never make a 2000pt Harlequin list that doesn't make 100% of the AP stat on weapons useless because they all have 4++ invulns as their save.
Typically skew lists do something pretty badly as compared to Take All Comers lists. In the case of knights, that's obviously holding objectives. The goal is to hope that your invalidation of a certain subset of weaponry makes up for that by making your list impossible to interact with.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
Its less of a case in 9th but people were talking about more then just the current edition.
Plus you probably still want to be able to do it in 9th because the 2-3 knight and half a dozen Armiger list looks pretty decent.
Not really it still folds like paper against to many lists and looses against board control lists too.
Ordana wrote: It has been a thing since Knights were introduced.
In a world where an army has to be able to kill a Knight per turn, monsters/vehicles without an invul save have a hard time.
Strange thought, but why should an army be able to kill a knight per turn? If all the opponent has is 5 models, go cap objectives, spar with 1-2 of them here and there, maybe kill 2 of them over the course of the game.
Why should every army has the kamehameha firepower level to completely table the opponent army? This makes people less happy because they don't get to use their models that much every time they play.
gak like guardsmen and hormagaunts should not be expected to last more than one round when targeted, sure. But the big stuff should be able to stick around most of the game. Of course their killing power should be adjusted accordingly.
the concept is from 8th where if you didn't get rid of a Knight a turn you had little hope of winning. And keep in mind, the tournament lists weren't taking 5 knights and nothing else, it was 1-3 knights, the loyal 32 and some smash captains.
Funny think is despite them being some hyper skew list that people are convinced will romp through your opponents army every game at the end of 8th they were pretry much gone from competitive play with some odd choas summoning shenangins keeping renegades going longer.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
Just out of curiosity makes you think 2k warhamer 40k games are platoon level skirmish games?
40k has not been this "Skirmish game" people claim for like 4-5 editions.
I mean, because it is.
An Imperial Guard Army literally consists of about two Platoons of Infantry.
An Imperial Guard Company would be 250+ Guardsmen with support assets.
On the tabletop, I rarely see more than sixty.
Most games are done with 100 or less minitures on either side.
This then, is a Platoon scale game.
Ah okay your working on a concept of model count of less than 100= skirmish. I've seen orks and guard lists packing significantly more than that guard where about 150 + infantry models and orks were way past that. Also knights are a problem but marines having more aircraft types than many other armies have vehicals let alone tanks is just ignored?
Knights were a gatekeeper army. You have to be able to deal with X to pass, and if you can its 'easy'.
Knights were gone from the competitive scene because all good competitive lists could kill a Knight per turn.
That doesn't stop their warping effect on the meta. If every good competitive list could kill a Knight per turn any monster/vehicle without an invul save will have a hard time.
Without Knights existing there was no need for lists to have enough anti-tank to kill a Knight per turn and other vehicles/monsters might have had more of a chance.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Perhaps an army of super heavy battle walkers was a strange choice for a platoon scale skirmish game with inevitable balencing complications.
Just out of curiosity makes you think 2k warhamer 40k games are platoon level skirmish games?
40k has not been this "Skirmish game" people claim for like 4-5 editions.
I mean, because it is.
An Imperial Guard Army literally consists of about two Platoons of Infantry.
An Imperial Guard Company would be 250+ Guardsmen with support assets.
On the tabletop, I rarely see more than sixty.
Most games are done with 100 or less minitures on either side.
This then, is a Platoon scale game.
Ah okay your working on a concept of model count of less than 100= skirmish. I've seen orks and guard lists packing significantly more than that guard where about 150 + infantry models and orks were way past that. Also knights are a problem but marines having more aircraft types than many other armies have vehicals let alone tanks is just ignored?
Way to not read the post there.
A company sized game would be one that actually uses company sized engagements. A company sized force would, using the only force that actually has a 'Company' in real terms, as I mentioned, be 250 guardsmen plus support assets. [The support assets are the command, support, and heavy weapons teams, so we're talking close to 275 models.] This is a good size for an Apocalypse game, which is another system specifically designed for that scale.
40k is not a company sized game. It is a platoon level skirmish game, where literal platoons of infantry are the troops you take.
Epic is a company sized game. You literally have companies as the basic units that you can take.
I don't know how to make that any clearer.
I have no idea where Marine Aircraft come from either. I've not mentioned them once in this thread, but I have numerous times on this forum since the first year they were introduced, made lengthy, bitter comments about the inclusion of supersonic aircraft models in a skirmish based game. Particularly one that has the madness of an Imperial Guard Officer of the Fleet calling in 'Airstrikes' that do marginally less damage than a single gun on one of the actual aircraft that is actually on the table.
But sure. Randomly assume I'm okay with supersonic aircraft. Why not?
A company sized game would be one that actually uses company sized engagements. A company sized force would, using the only force that actually has a 'Company' in real terms, as I mentioned, be 250 guardsmen plus support assets. [The support assets are the command, support, and heavy weapons teams, so we're talking close to 275 models.] This is a good size for an Apocalypse game, which is another system specifically designed for that scale.
40k is not a company sized game. It is a platoon level skirmish game, where literal platoons of infantry are the troops you take.
Epic is a company sized game. You literally have companies as the basic units that you can take.
I don't know how to make that any clearer.
I have no idea where Marine Aircraft come from either. I've not mentioned them once in this thread, but I have numerous times on this forum since the first year they were introduced, made lengthy, bitter comments about the inclusion of supersonic aircraft models in a skirmish based game. Particularly one that has the madness of an Imperial Guard Officer of the Fleet calling in 'Airstrikes' that do marginally less damage than a single gun on one of the actual aircraft that is actually on the table.
But sure. Randomly assume I'm okay with supersonic aircraft. Why not?
Sorry that wasn't ment as a dig at you, my response got lost in a rant.
I am just absolutely sick of people calling for Knights shouldn't be allowed in 40k, skew lists shouldnt be allowed insert X, Y, Z gimic that armies have to use to be vaguely competitive as it's not in the spirit of the game.
While they are usually the same people saying wait and see oh the points will fix marines/ Yannari, cost free allies.
It's really annoying listening to people continually portray codex's and or play styles they don't like as being OP or gatekeepery and hence shouldn't be part of the game.
No GW should just be better at their dang jobs.
Not to mention that due to all of these people spreading mis information about factions or lists, no-one ever wants to play certain games outside of tournaments where because of all the baseless because they suck at playing the game GW nerfs codex's into unplayable overcosted codex wide.
It's almost at the point of I kind of wish GW would stop listening to some of these people as their feedback is actively making the game worse for people who don't play their faction.
Yet again Marines have more aircraft than Tau/Necrons sure others can add to this list have vehicals, but I would guaranty that GW has probably had more complaints about Tau havibg OP vehicals than people addmiting Marines aircraft were broken with Iron hands.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/20 17:51:43
I only play Necrons and we are in a weird place right now. Our 8th edition codex was pretty bad - in fact the only good things in it were the strategems. We haven't had any content since then so we are hanging all our hopes on the October codex. But I just don't have any faith in GW to deliver a good, fun and well balanced book. Especially after seeing the various leaked new datasheets and the Indomitus rules. Most are mediocre, a couple are decent, some just straight up suck. If that's what the codex is going to look like as well, 9th is a write off. Currently we are just sitting on our hands
Yet again Marines have more aircraft than Tau/Necrons sure others can add to this list have vehicals, but I would guaranty that GW has probably had more complaints about Tau havibg OP vehicals than people addmiting Marines aircraft were broken with Iron hands.
If it comforts you, I can promise you with 1000% certainty that there are not more people complaining to GW currently about Tau vehicles than marines. Every single post they put on their fb pages currently gets an absolutely unending flood of marine hatred. Every time I see something on there I go "Damn, this is a bunch of people malding harder than Dakka!"
Also it makes me sad that every post on dakka doesn't have a really unflattering selfie of the person posting it next to the post.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/20 18:04:03
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
14000
15000
4000 
Well, that's going to be good when everyone is using all these buffed melta units. You could have a whole army of T9 3+ 5++ 24W models. But apparently one T9 2+ model is too much for 
because they suck at playing the game