What am I missing with Eradicators?

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.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Xenomancers wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
Void__Dragon wrote:
vict0988 wrote:

The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.

League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.

I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.

Then you've only played LoL in very recent times. It's always been a crapshoot in my experience with new champs being either terrible or OP. (I played since right before it came out of beta, but haven't actually played this season for the first time ever--I'll probably log in and play just until I hit gold just like I do for every season lol)

I think it's safe to say that it is a new era of LOL. Cant say exactly when it started but probably like...yasuo?

Just look at Yasuos kit.multipart passive...gets a shield that recharges from ulting or moving/doubles crit chance q that stacks into a long range aoe knock-up with practically no cast time - w gap closer that does damage and resets on new target - e blocks any ranged projectile for like 3 seconds from a selected direction - ult locks down any knock up target and grants 50% armor pen...

COME ON MAN - compare that to like pre rework pantheon and its like...WUT?

Skill is such an important factor in LOL though. like miliseconds matter. So an OP champ at high lvl is not the same as an OP unit in 40k. put faker on anything and he will destroy you with jukes. So reliability becomes the most important factor for high teir play...not just steam face roll OP 1v5 carry ability like a yi or a yas or an irelia does if they get slighty ahead. It is a frustrating game because of this...because they allow champs to get out of hand in order to try and shake up competitive play. They just gonna keep picking olaf and lee sin for days though because they are reliable at what they do.

Well LoL would probably be different if the whole enemy team got to make their plays instead of the current "oh I can react to that" real time it is.

Amazing I can relate most of the problems of 40k to IGOUGO not being abandoned.

**Daedalus81**

A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).

315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do EDIT:14.5.

Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.

The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.

**Canadian 5th**

Compared to a video game, like League, 40k has much less room for skill expression. Part of this is due to the heavy RNG inherent in a game that relies on rolling dice to determine outcomes and the other half is that the rules are fairly shallow and the implementation of IGOUGO is essentially non-interactive. The other half is that it's played out in turns rather than in real-time, so quick reactions and high levels of awareness aren't needed. There are also no drafts where you get to ban-pick-counter pick your opponent using a variety of units, no dynamic items to build or skills to rank up over the course of a single match, no timed objectives to shift the focus of the battle around the playspace in-game, and no real alternative strategies (lane swaps, flex picks, split push, dragon stacking versus focusing on rift scuttle and farming, early game versus scaling, etc.).

So unlike League where you can have champions that work well at each tier of play (Under Plat, Plat and Diamond, Challenger, Pro) there isn't really room to make units that work well at one tier but have a low skill cap or units that only a very skilled player can make use of. There also isn't an automated matchmaker for 40k and even if there were the relatively tiny player base and long game times mean that it would struggle to find even matches in a reasonable length of time.

All this basically says that we should raise the floor on bad units in 40k while lowering good units because everything has to fall into the same tier of play and compounding a skill imbalance because 40k does take skill to play well, with a list imbalance is going to result in many poor games.

**SemperMortis**

Daedalus81 wrote:
A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).

315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do 16.5 (21.2 at half range).

Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.

The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.

6 eradicators vs a knight at max range are getting 12 shots, 8 hits and 4 wounds for 14dmg on average. why waste the CM and 2CP to get +2.5 dmg, hell, id rather grab a 3rd squad of eradicators for almost the same price and just do 21dmg on average.

**Tyel**

Daedalus81 wrote:
The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.

This might be a "yes obviously" - but can you even CP it?

**Daedalus81**

Tyel wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.

This might be a "yes obviously" - but can you even CP it?

Not in 9th. The spell is a bit of a joke, too. WC7 to reroll one die.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).

315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do 16.5 (21.2 at half range).

Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.

The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.

6 eradicators vs a knight at max range are getting 12 shots, 8 hits and 4 wounds for 14dmg on average. why waste the CM and 2CP to get +2.5 dmg, hell, id rather grab a 3rd squad of eradicators for almost the same price and just do 21dmg on average.

Yea that's fair. Though I did the math wrong and gave +1 to wound to both units, so it is 14.5 instead of 16.5.

**Gadzilla666**

Daedalus81 wrote:
A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).

315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do 16.5 (21.2 at half range).

Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.

The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.

Against a knight? Yes. Because its 5++ warps the outcome by negating the eradicators AP-4. Against a T8 3+ target without a 5++ it's eradicators 24.889 vs obliterators 21.333 with both getting the support you included. Without support its eradicators 14 vs obliterators 8. Eradicators aren't that big of a problem for something like a knight but a big one for vehicles that lack invuls. It also shows just how important buff stacking is for the obliterators who fall quickly behind the eradicators without it. Eradicators, however, are fine unsupported.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).

315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do 16.5 (21.2 at half range).

Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.

The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.

6 eradicators vs a knight at max range are getting 12 shots, 8 hits and 4 wounds for 14dmg on average. why waste the CM and 2CP to get +2.5 dmg, hell, id rather grab a 3rd squad of eradicators for almost the same price and just do 21dmg on average.

Yea that's fair. Though I did the math wrong and gave +1 to wound to both units, so it is 14.5 instead of 16.5.

You were correct in giving the eradicators +1 to wound. You specified that they were Salamanders, who get +1 to wound in the tactical doctrine with melta weapons, which is when they'd most likely hit. And eradicators aren't getting 4 unsaved wounds on a knight unsupported, you're forgetting the knights 5++. They'll do 9.333 damage on average against a knight unsupported, 12.444 if they're Salamanders in the tactical doctrine.

**Insularum**

Daedalus81 wrote:
A top line unsupported Obliterator is very marginally worse than Eradicators (and specifically better against knights). Depending on the circumstances an Obliterator will be more durable, too (33% to die to melta where Eradicators die 66% of the time -- that's two Eradicators for every Obliterator 80:105).

315 points of maximum effort Obliterators does 21 damage to a Knight for 3CP and require no protection from alpha.
6 Sally Eradicators and a CM (above 300 points and also 3 CP) do EDIT:14.5.

Which of these is easier to use? Both use the same points. Both use the same CP - unless you have to reserve the Eradicators.

The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.

Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.

**CEO Kasen**

Tyel wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.

This might be a "yes obviously" - but can you even CP it?

Not normally. Iron Warriors do have a stratagem for it: Rampant Technovirus, 1CP; until end of phase, you can reroll any or all D3 rolls made for Fleshmetal profiles for an Obliterator unit.

**AdmiralHalsey**

Void__Dragon wrote:
vict0988 wrote:

https://mobalytics.gg/blog/lol-tier-list-for-climbing-solo-queue/
https://champion.gg/champion/Yone/Middle

Buddy, both of those sites (especially champion.gg) are meme sites with a low to mid tier elo slant. Champion.gg pulls data from platinum 5 and up, and to be blunt any stats lower than Diamond 1 to Masters aren't even worth talking about. Below that the skill levels are so disparate it bluntly does not matter, and champions who are excellent at beating the gak out of bad players (like Garen) overperform. In fact, glancing at that tier list that is indeed a good tier list for "climbing", which is to say climbing from low elo. Champions like Garen hit a wall where people no longer play into your strengths and let you take over the game, where his incredibly basic kit can't adapt to the game pace. There's a reason riste, probably the highest profile NA Garen player, eventually gave up trying to maintain challenger as a Garen player for the good of his mental health.

Do you want to know how often Garen has been played in Challenger NA in the last month? Four times. Yone by comparison has a much more respectable 266 games, and Sett the "tier 3 champion" over three hundred. I also can't help but notice Lilia being relatively spammed (and no her 45% win rate does not matter considering challenger by default has a low sample size).

And that's just NA. In Korea Garen has literally not been played a single time in the last month in challenger:

https://www.op.gg/statistics/champion/

But they, probably the most competitive region still, sure seem to play Sett with him being the second most-played champion in that elo. Yone is admittedly not being played as much as he is in NA so I might have been wrong about him.

But anyway, generic stats sites don't tell anywhere near the full story, since they pretty much all by default show plat+ stats. And like I said, that tier list is decent if you want something to help you climb out of silver or gold or whatever, not so much if you actually want to hit challenger (Garen is incredibly hard to play in truly high elo).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

Yone, Lillia, Sett(took a while before he became OP), Volibear rework.
.

Sett was top tier on release with like a 54-55% win rate (extremely high for a new champ) my man, and when Voli wasn't he was very quickly made top tier.

And you can find exceptions all you want, but that's generally all they are: exceptions to the rule. For a legitimate exception, albeit going back a little while, when Illaoi was released she wasn't top tier and pretty much never has been, but that's because her kit is fundamentally weak, or at least binary.

What is this post even doing in a 40k forum talking about Eradicators?
Take it to PMs, seriously.

**Daedalus81**

CEO Kasen wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
The only reason you don't get more obliterator spam is because without a CP reroll on the damage roll you'll fall on your face if the guns do just 1 damage.

This might be a "yes obviously" - but can you even CP it?

Not normally. Iron Warriors do have a stratagem for it: Rampant Technovirus, 1CP; until end of phase, you can reroll any or all D3 rolls made for Fleshmetal profiles for an Obliterator unit.

Ooh. Forgot about that one.

**Racerguy180**

who cares about how screwed up video games are???

**Daedalus81**

Insularum wrote:
Well, there is another reason why eradicators are spammed but obliterators are not... Points per wound, you get exactly twice as much with eradicators (13.33 p/w) vs obliterators (26.25 p/w). Eradicators are much easier to use as they are so exceptionally tanky (relative to their cost) even before you decide to stack whatever your favourite chapter has in defensive buffs.

Yes, understood. My position isn't to imply Eradicators are bad or that Obliterators are good. It's that the gap isn't nearly so large as some seem to make it. A 2+ 5++ plus deepstrike is advantageous in many scenarios.

Obliterators that manage to get D3 on their roll could kill an entire squad of Eradicators per model (with VotLW) depending on the AP roll. Again - an extremely narrow scenario - but something that highlights that Oblierators have more flex in how they show up and alpha. Armiger Autocannons can take 2/3 of a squad pretty reliably with superior move and range. Eradicators trying to kill that Armiger normally will only take it to half health.

The biggest problem remains the combo-wombo and overly excessive rule stacking (for Oblits, too).

**Slayer-Fan123**

Racerguy180 wrote:
who cares about how screwed up video games are???

It's important to discuss as most of those games have balance patches for free and probably don't mess up as hard with OP crap. I'm sure there's exceptions but not a lot.

**BrianDavion**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
who cares about how screwed up video games are???

It's important to discuss as most of those games have balance patches for free and probably don't mess up as hard with OP crap. I'm sure there's exceptions but not a lot.

I've played lots of video games where you've had some pretty blatently broken stuff that they've taken forever to nerf

**Slayer-Fan123**

BrianDavion wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
who cares about how screwed up video games are???

It's important to discuss as most of those games have balance patches for free and probably don't mess up as hard with OP crap. I'm sure there's exceptions but not a lot.

I've played lots of video games where you've had some pretty blatently broken stuff that they've taken forever to nerf

Did you pay for that balance patch though?

**Racerguy180**

BrianDavion wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
who cares about how screwed up video games are???

It's important to discuss as most of those games have balance patches for free and probably don't mess up as hard with OP crap. I'm sure there's exceptions but not a lot.

I've played lots of video games where you've had some pretty blatently broken stuff that they've taken forever to nerf

GW is in the business of selling models, once you understand that...its pretty easy to get the game. If you're enamored by what's strongest, you've been caught...hook...line...& sinker.
the 2 types of games are not even close to being similar.
By their very nature online video games have instant feedback due to the online nature of them. Reaction times, player "skill"(hopping in fortnite, which is the stupidest thing ever, not that I play or have even played it once), figuring out the physics to make stuff that's literally impossible happen, and exploiting are relatively easy to "balance". tweak the algorithm a lil and bam, all of the sudden gaks changed.
Whereas tabletop games take months to even come close to the same number of games that can happen in the first day of an online one. Something tells me that the total number of people that play 40k(worldwide)wouldnt even be considered worth considering for a video games balancing around.
Dice rolling, model availability, etc are much much harder to account for. Someone rolling hot with a crappy army can win a game vs an OP army that's gone cold on the bones, how can you reconcile that?

also, I cant exactly build/paint any of the online game stuff and then play, now can I????

**Insectum7**

Racerguy180 wrote:

also, I cant exactly build/paint any of the online game stuff and then play, now can I????

That depends on the game and/or how clever you are.

**Eonfuzz**

Racerguy180 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
who cares about how screwed up video games are???

It's important to discuss as most of those games have balance patches for free and probably don't mess up as hard with OP crap. I'm sure there's exceptions but not a lot.

I've played lots of video games where you've had some pretty blatently broken stuff that they've taken forever to nerf

GW is in the business of selling models, once you understand that...its pretty easy to get the game. If you're enamored by what's strongest, you've been caught...hook...line...& sinker.
the 2 types of games are not even close to being similar.
By their very nature online video games have instant feedback due to the online nature of them. Reaction times, player "skill"(hopping in fortnite, which is the stupidest thing ever, not that I play or have even played it once), figuring out the physics to make stuff that's literally impossible happen, and exploiting are relatively easy to "balance". tweak the algorithm a lil and bam, all of the sudden gaks changed.
Whereas tabletop games take months to even come close to the same number of games that can happen in the first day of an online one. Something tells me that the total number of people that play 40k(worldwide)wouldnt even be considered worth considering for a video games balancing around.
Dice rolling, model availability, etc are much much harder to account for. Someone rolling hot with a crappy army can win a game vs an OP army that's gone cold on the bones, how can you reconcile that?

also, I cant exactly build/paint any of the online game stuff and then play, now can I????

I have a feeling you haven't played a video game before.
The amount of variables and agency in video games are essentially unparalleled compared to the agency in a board game consisting of a handful of stats. Take a look at fighting games for example, a single punch has startup frames, active frames, recovery frames, hitbox and hurtbox; and yet they manage to be balanced.

Are you telling me that a simple game, with simple rules, with simple interactions cannot be balanced? Lmfao.

**Argive**

I used to have an average 31:1 Death match KD in COD MW3. Totally unbalanced

**Racerguy180**

I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.

an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.

oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.

If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?

But for those of us that dont....

**BrianDavion**

Eonfuzz wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
who cares about how screwed up video games are???

It's important to discuss as most of those games have balance patches for free and probably don't mess up as hard with OP crap. I'm sure there's exceptions but not a lot.

I've played lots of video games where you've had some pretty blatently broken stuff that they've taken forever to nerf

GW is in the business of selling models, once you understand that...its pretty easy to get the game. If you're enamored by what's strongest, you've been caught...hook...line...& sinker.
the 2 types of games are not even close to being similar.
By their very nature online video games have instant feedback due to the online nature of them. Reaction times, player "skill"(hopping in fortnite, which is the stupidest thing ever, not that I play or have even played it once), figuring out the physics to make stuff that's literally impossible happen, and exploiting are relatively easy to "balance". tweak the algorithm a lil and bam, all of the sudden gaks changed.
Whereas tabletop games take months to even come close to the same number of games that can happen in the first day of an online one. Something tells me that the total number of people that play 40k(worldwide)wouldnt even be considered worth considering for a video games balancing around.
Dice rolling, model availability, etc are much much harder to account for. Someone rolling hot with a crappy army can win a game vs an OP army that's gone cold on the bones, how can you reconcile that?

also, I cant exactly build/paint any of the online game stuff and then play, now can I????

I have a feeling you haven't played a video game before.
The amount of variables and agency in video games are essentially unparalleled compared to the agency in a board game consisting of a handful of stats. Take a look at fighting games for example, a single punch has startup frames, active frames, recovery frames, hitbox and hurtbox; and yet they manage to be balanced.

Are you telling me that a simple game, with simple rules, with simple interactions cannot be balanced? Lmfao.

and some of those fighting games have plenty of exploits and unbalanced things. or did when I played them, fighting games don't hold my intreast these days because I tend to prefer a story, most fighting games last I checked made porno movie plots seem deep and enaging by contrast

**Slayer-Fan123**

Racerguy180 wrote:
I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.

an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.

oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.

If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?

But for those of us that dont....

This just reeks of the button masher that wonders why they don't ever win a game and proceeds to call anyone that learned any combos a tryhard.

**Void__Dragon**

Eonfuzz wrote:

I have a feeling you haven't played a video game before.
The amount of variables and agency in video games are essentially unparalleled compared to the agency in a board game consisting of a handful of stats. Take a look at fighting games for example, a single punch has startup frames, active frames, recovery frames, hitbox and hurtbox; and yet they manage to be balanced.

Are you telling me that a simple game, with simple rules, with simple interactions cannot be balanced? Lmfao.

Simpler games are often harder to balance because they are so simple. Complexity adds more levers for balance.

**Racerguy180**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.

an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.

oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.

If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?

But for those of us that dont....

This just reeks of the button masher that wonders why they don't ever win a game and proceeds to call anyone that learned any combos a tryhard.

umm, no. I know plenty of combos (cuz you use those in REAL hand to hand combat) ya know a skill that can save your life. but i can do that in a video game as well. I just CHOOSE not to. it's more fun if there are REAL stakes. I'd just rather spend my money on something real, rather than 1's and 0's.

**BrianDavion**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.

an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.

oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.

If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?

But for those of us that dont....

This just reeks of the button masher that wonders why they don't ever win a game and proceeds to call anyone that learned any combos a tryhard.

online communities in gaming can be pretty fething toxic. button masher or not doesn't have anything to do with it.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Racerguy180 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.

an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.

oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.

If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?

But for those of us that dont....

This just reeks of the button masher that wonders why they don't ever win a game and proceeds to call anyone that learned any combos a tryhard.
umm, no. I know plenty of combos (cuz you use those in REAL hand to hand combat) ya know a skill that can save your life. but i can do that in a video game as well. I just CHOOSE not to. it's more fun if there are REAL stakes. I'd just rather spend my money on something real, rather than 1's and 0's.

That's the scrub mentality in a nutshell. Your self imposed rules have no bearing on any discussion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.

an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.

oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.

If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?

But for those of us that dont....

This just reeks of the button masher that wonders why they don't ever win a game and proceeds to call anyone that learned any combos a tryhard.

online communities in gaming can be pretty fething toxic. button masher or not doesn't have anything to do with it.

Read his reply and you'll see what I'm talking about.

**Sentineil**

Since fighting games were brought up, don't they charge for what are essentially balance updates?

**Eonfuzz**

Sentineil wrote:
Since fighting games were brought up, don't they charge for what are essentially balance updates?

The big ones; Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tekken and Dragon Ball FighterZ only charge for DLC characters, not balance passes.

BrianDavion wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
I think you don't quite understand the level of stuff you dont see in a video game.

an entire game of 40k amounts to maybe 1-5minutes of realtime action.

oh and by the way, I've played plenty of streetfighter(all), COD, pong, pacman, Quake, etc. so I've played a game or two. I purposefully dont anymore since all the new ones all lean waaaayyyyyy to much towards "competitive" jerkwad-ness.

If you get off on figuring out the best way to feth over the person/people you're playing with, that's fine(I guess)?

But for those of us that dont....

This just reeks of the button masher that wonders why they don't ever win a game and proceeds to call anyone that learned any combos a tryhard.

online communities in gaming can be pretty fething toxic. button masher or not doesn't have anything to do with it.

Yeah sure, but anecdotally tighter-nit communities like the FGC isn't very toxic at all. Aside from a certain few people like LTG. Lmao.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Void__Dragon wrote:
Eonfuzz wrote:

I have a feeling you haven't played a video game before.
The amount of variables and agency in video games are essentially unparalleled compared to the agency in a board game consisting of a handful of stats. Take a look at fighting games for example, a single punch has startup frames, active frames, recovery frames, hitbox and hurtbox; and yet they manage to be balanced.

Are you telling me that a simple game, with simple rules, with simple interactions cannot be balanced? Lmfao.

Simpler games are often harder to balance because they are so simple. Complexity adds more levers for balance.

Eh, disagree. A simple card game like MTG manages to maintain balance without the need for bells and whistles.

**Tyel**

Eonfuzz wrote:
Eh, disagree. A simple card game like MTG manages to maintain balance without the need for bells and whistles.

I think its very hard to claim MTG is "balanced" in any obvious way that wouldn't equally apply to 40k.

I also don't think you can compare balance in a turn based game to anything with real time.
In League, or Street Fighter, or Starcraft, the balance issue is me being able to do "X" and you not being able to counter it. Or - moving from absolutes - not being able to counter it without demonstrating such a superiority of skill that it makes the game daft (and should eventually prove impossible as you move up any ladder).

40k doesn't really work that way due to the limited interactivity between players (which people whinge about, bring on alternate activations in a D12 system where no model bigger than a rhino is permitted and there are 8 different armour directions and damage tables etc etc).

So you can only really compare units performing in comparison to other units - and ones which are odds on to do too much damage, or are odds on to take too much damage to destroy, for a comparative number of points, are usually a balance issue. This isn't perfect, and there may still be fundamental imbalances such as "going first" and "secondary objective selection" - but it would be a good start.