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 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Xenomancer wrote in the other thread:

"Well It makes repulsors unplayable...and they are already unplayable."

In what way? I played with mine in a game two days ago at my house and it did just fine. Is this one of those "It's not A+++ OP NUTS" therefore it cannot ever touch a table top, trashist of trash type comments?

Table Hammer is pretty irrelevant for balance discussions though.

That's an interesting take. . .

yeah, cuz a majority of games played are tourney ones, am I getting that right??? something tells me that isnt so

You mean the crummy games where the players take one of each unit and purposely make bad moves because they're fluff bunnies, like charging a clearly superior melee unit because? Those are the games you really want to talk about when it comes to balance?

If those are the games that people play, yes.

If people enjoy playing those games where they take one of each unit and make "bad" moves because spectacle and narrative is more interesting than mathhammer, why should their games be discounted? Don't we want to encourage people to play like that, and find value in knowing what happens when people play like that?

There is a time for that last trooper sergeant to charge that tank on 1 wound and there is not...

Who am I kidding its is always that time!!! Chance however remote at punching a tank to death for the win every-time..

 Billagio wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You mean the crummy games where the players take one of each unit and purposely make bad moves because they're fluff bunnies, like charging a clearly superior melee unit because? Those are the games you really want to talk about when it comes to balance?

Yes, because that's how majority of the players play so that is the level which is most important, not the tiny number of hyper competitive tournament players.

Not when talking balance. When talking balance garagehammer is utterly irrelevant. Who cares how many wounds assault marines do on average dice if you're playing half drunk in your basement against your best pal at 2 am?

But how do you determine if someone playing at home is playing "garagehammer" or playing with another competitively minded person with competitive lists/tactics?

It's pretty easy to tell just based on the tonality of posts and lists. You're not exactly asking rocket science here.

Do football coaches take games their kids play in their backyards into account when strategizing in the superbowel?

There is a difference between acknowledging that people can play the game in any way fashion they'd like, and pretending that beerhammer matches have the same merit and legitimacy as high-level play when discussing game mechanics.

Wow pretty interesting change. Not sure whether to be happy or b*tch about it.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Do football coaches take games their kids play in their backyards into account when strategizing in the superbowel?

There is a difference between acknowledging that people can play the game in any way fashion they'd like, and pretending that beerhammer matches have the same merit and legitimacy as high-level play when discussing game mechanics.

That all depends on what kind of game you're regarding as important.

If you think that kids play in the backyard is an important and valid way of playing, then that definitely should be given the same legitimacy.

If GW want to promote a game where people take the kinds of armies that GW themselves play with (aka, beerhammer style lists), then beerhammer armies should be considered more valuable for playtesting.

Again, I'm not saying one should or shouldn't be prioritised over another. I'm just saying that disregarding a widely accepted style of play because you think it's "casual" and therefore "not worth considering" is pretty narrow minded and exclusionary.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Xenomancer wrote in the other thread:

"Well It makes repulsors unplayable...and they are already unplayable."

In what way? I played with mine in a game two days ago at my house and it did just fine. Is this one of those "It's not A+++ OP NUTS" therefore it cannot ever touch a table top, trashist of trash type comments?

Table Hammer is pretty irrelevant for balance discussions though.

That's an interesting take. . .

yeah, cuz a majority of games played are tourney ones, am I getting that right??? something tells me that isnt so

You mean the crummy games where the players take one of each unit and purposely make bad moves because they're fluff bunnies, like charging a clearly superior melee unit because? Those are the games you really want to talk about when it comes to balance?

If those are the games that people play, yes.

If people enjoy playing those games where they take one of each unit and make "bad" moves because spectacle and narrative is more interesting than mathhammer, why should their games be discounted? Don't we want to encourage people to play like that, and find value in knowing what happens when people play like that?

No because it doesn't fix the obvious glaring problems you choose to ignore. Your logic is saying Scatterbikes are fine if you only took one squad, but said one squad shouldn't have been able to exist to begin with.
Plugging your ears and going "LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU EVERYTHING IS FINE" only gets you so far. Oh, and one-of-everything lists look ugly on the table too.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Do football coaches take games their kids play in their backyards into account when strategizing in the superbowel?

Depends on what coaches.. I'm pretty confident mike tomlin takes backyard FB into account when coaching big ben

The best part in my opinion is that the new tech marine will be welcomed now that he does a better job helping vehicles hit things. Unless they get a specific one as well

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Do football coaches take games their kids play in their backyards into account when strategizing in the superbowel?

There is a difference between acknowledging that people can play the game in any way fashion they'd like, and pretending that beerhammer matches have the same merit and legitimacy as high-level play when discussing game mechanics.

no but when that kid playing street hockey with you acts like he's playing in the Stanley cup finals and nerd rages that you don't take the game as seriously as he does it tends to result in people feeling equal aprts pity and contempt for ragey overserious

 Xenomancers wrote:
GW balance team

As if such a thing exists.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Do football coaches take games their kids play in their backyards into account when strategizing in the superbowel?

I figured a superbowel is one that is totally immune to the effects of Taco Bell...

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

I'll see myself out.

On a more on topic note, as always I advocate a "wait and see" attitude with all these new things that are coming. People screaming that the sky is falling are making sweeping proclamations with insufficient information. Don't do this, people. At least wait until the book/unit/FAQ drops before you bitch about it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
GW balance team

As if such a thing exists.

Of course it does silly. Look here's a picture of them Hard at work!



See working so hard!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:No because it doesn't fix the obvious glaring problems you choose to ignore.

I'm not talking about those "glaring problems", I'm talking about the ones that happen when people exacerbate the issues for themselves.

Things like buff HQs hiding behind tank walls buffing them, for example, which doesn't seem to be what GW intended people to do, from their own, more casual and cinematic style of beerhammer.

Your logic is saying Scatterbikes are fine if you only took one squad, but said one squad shouldn't have been able to exist to begin with.

My logic is saying if one unit of scatterbikes doesn't break the game, then create such a situation that the equivalent of only unit can exist - such as splitting up the squad weapons.

More than that, my logic is saying "if the vast majority of players don't have an issue with X unit when they play casually, but these players who play in a more competitive way do, then we need to address what it is the comp players are doing that makes it more broken".

Oh, and one-of-everything lists look ugly on the table too.

That's more of a subjective taste. Unless you've themed your army around it, spam (especially spamming certain "rare" units) rarely looks good either.

Give me a demi-company with 3x Tacticals, Assault Marines, Devastators, a Dreadnought, support tank, and Captain any day over a mismatched spread of duplicates of only the meta options.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
(also check another box on Dakka bingo card)

Tell me: Does the bingo card you keep referencing have any squares for those who breathlessly defend GW all the time, or is it all about insulting people who show any level of criticism?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
(also check another box on Dakka bingo card)

Tell me: Does the bingo card you keep referencing have any squares for those who breathlessly defend GW all the time, or is it all about insulting people who show any level of criticism?

there is a differance between critizing something and pushing a easily disproven conspiracy theory.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Then there's also the weirdness of things like devastators (assuming they don't get <CORE> ) being worse at hitting stuff than a space marine in a tac squad armed with the same weapon. Which feels really dumb. But on the other hand, if you do give devastators <CORE>, then that has its own host of problems re: making infantry even more clearly superior than tanks as an anti-tank platform.

Hot Take: Zero First Born units get 'Core'. Only Primaris units.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
(also check another box on Dakka bingo card)

Tell me: Does the bingo card you keep referencing have any squares for those who breathlessly defend GW all the time, or is it all about insulting people who show any level of criticism?

Ok... where is this bingo card and how do I get one ?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
That all depends on what kind of game you're regarding as important.

That's tautological. Context is what decides whether something is "important" or not. If the discussion is about judgement of the competitive viability of certain rules, than yes games that are explicitly not competitive in nature hold no merit- hence the football metaphor.

"All the things are equally important! Every opinion holds equal value!" is a platitude that has never been true in any situation. The concepts of "experts" in a field or subject exists for a reason.

BrianDavion wrote:
no but when that kid playing street hockey with you acts like he's playing in the Stanley cup finals and nerd rages that you don't take the game as seriously as he does it tends to result in people feeling equal parts pity and contempt for ragey overserious

That's a poor comparison because in this context it is explicitly Stanley Cup games that are being discussed. And for the record, yeah it would be perfectly logical for Wayne Gretsky to tell you that he doesn't care about your opinion when you try to argue with him about Hockey plays and you qualify your statements with the street matches you've played.

Overall I think that this is an excellent concept. The "cannot benefit from your own aura" thing is a bit weird, and it will lead to odd situations where characters are worse at doing things than the people around them, but otherwise this seems like a good change.

Of course, I said it's a great concept. GW are just great at coming up with fantastic concepts.

GW are also terrible at the execution of said great concepts, so this may end up being fething awful for the game, no matter how good it looks "on paper".

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Do football coaches take games their kids play in their backyards into account when strategizing in the superbowel?

No, because the revenue from the Superbowl is bound to broadcasting it to spectators, whereas the revenue for 40k is from collection and active participation in the local hobby community.

I will wait until I see what is core and not in a marine codex compared to other army codexes.

If all marine infantry is core, but only eldar troop choices get to be, that'd be a bummer.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
That all depends on what kind of game you're regarding as important.

That's tautological. Context is what decides whether something is "important" or not. If the discussion is about judgement of the competitive viability of certain rules, than yes games that are explicitly not competitive in nature hold no merit- hence the football metaphor.

"All the things are equally important! Every opinion holds equal value!" is a platitude that has never been true in any situation. The context of "experts" in a field or subject exists for a reason.

BrianDavion wrote:
no but when that kid playing street hockey with you acts like he's playing in the Stanley cup finals and nerd rages that you don't take the game as seriously as he does it tends to result in people feeling equal parts pity and contempt for ragey overserious

That's a poor comparison because in this context it is explicitly Stanley Cup games that are being discussed. And for the record, yeah it would be perfectly logical for Wayne Gretsky to tell you that he doesn't care about your opinion when you try to argue with him about Hockey plays and you qualify your statements with the street matches you've played.

except that in this case people are talking about the game over all, despite the attempts of some people to make every conversation about compeitive play.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Overall I think that this is an excellent concept. The "cannot benefit from your own aura" thing is a bit weird, and it will lead to odd situations where characters are worse at doing things than the people around them

I'm ok with that, the leader is there to inspire and direct. Others are may be (and often are) more capable at, and more focused on, specific tasks, particularly under the eye of the leader, than the leader themselves may be. Likewise, being so naturally awesome as to somehow inspire ones own self is a wee bit much even for the ego's of 40k, so I'm ok with that change

Someone on the warhammer subreddit pulled together some stuff from the first teaser that looks to be affected by this:

Psychic Powers:

Veil of Time: Unaffected

Might of Heroes: Core or Character

Null Zone: Not applicable

Psychic Scourge: Not applicable

Fury of the Ancients: Not Applicable

Psychic Fortress: Cut off but seems unaffected

Note- The Obscuration Discipline seems to be unchanged on this front, but I can only see 2 powers.

Litanies

Litany of Hate: Core or Character

Litany of Faith: Core or Character

Catechism of Fire: Core or Character

Exhortation of Rage: Core or Character (Note, this is gonna be +1 to wound in melee on 1 unit)

Mantra of Strength: Not Applicable

Recitation of Focus: Core or Character

Canticle of Hate: Core or Character

Warlord Traits

Storm of Fire: Core only

stratigo wrote:
I will wait until I see what is core and not in a marine codex compared to other army codexes.

If all marine infantry is core, but only eldar troop choices get to be, that'd be a bummer.

I would imagine all troops choices and transports will be Core for most factions as a base line.
But then I fear a circuimvention next year I.e. If you take character/trait X All units X now have the core keyword.

For example Iyanden could well have wraiths as core if yriel leads them or something..

To be fair guardians (or anything) not gaining core means diddly squat to us. Nobody really used the Autarch since EC(outside of a rush beat-stick). And people used him rarely even before and not primarily for the aura. Pretty sure hes the only aura we have(outside of avatar) so it doesn't really matter. Other stuff is keyword dependant anyway already. We need a ground up re-workd for our codex anyhow so none of this really applies to CWE I think unless they choose to FAQ Doom/guide for reasons in which case its just another nerf so nothing new.

 Argive wrote:
For example Iyanden could well have wraiths as core if yriel leads them or soemthing.

No, no, no! Let's not go back to the days where Special Characters were need to alter the structure of your force.

It'd be far simpler and cleaner to have something along the lines of "Wraithguard, Wraithblades and Wraithlords gain the CORE keyword in an Iyanden force that is Battleforged (or whatever)" than tying it to specific characters.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
For example Iyanden could well have wraiths as core if yriel leads them or soemthing.

No, no, no! Let's not go back to the days where Special Characters were need to alter the structure of your force.

It'd be far simpler and cleaner to have something along the lines of "Wraithguard, Wraithblades and Wraithlords gain the CORE keyword in an Iyanden force that is Battleforged (or whatever)" than tying it to specific characters.

Potatos patats..

I don't like this idea at all in the slightest however its dressed up. So I hope it doesnt come to that sincerly... But im a realist, GW be doing GW things..
They love to write them rules and then write rules so that special snowflakes can ignore those rules and limitations because that's game design.

So yeh.. I think it will happen. Maybe not straight away but I bet some sort of PA rules drop/ cash grab down the line will do special detachments or some stuff tinkering with keywords in order to boost the power level even more.. Power creep gots to keep on creepin..

 Argive wrote:

stratigo wrote:
I will wait until I see what is core and not in a marine codex compared to other army codexes.

If all marine infantry is core, but only eldar troop choices get to be, that'd be a bummer.

I would imagine all troops choices and transports will be Core for most factions as a base line.
But then I fear a circuimvention next year I.e. If you take character/trait X All units X now have the core keyword.

For example Iyanden could well have wraiths as core if yriel leads them or something..

To be fair guardians (or anything) not gaining core means diddly squat to us. Nobody really used the Autarch since EC(outside of a rush beat-stick). And people used him rarely even before and not primarily for the aura. Pretty sure hes the only aura we have(outside of avatar) so it doesn't really matter. Other stuff is keyword dependant anyway already. We need a ground up re-workd for our codex anyhow so none of this really applies to CWE I think unless they choose to FAQ Doom/guide for reasons in which case its just another nerf so nothing new.

I am pre supposing that doom and guide and other such powers will benefit core in the future eldar codex.

I also don't think anyone is going to have their auras and powers change in an FAQ, this will all be based purely on rolling books. It's less a problem than having a ton of the same equipment do different things, and note they are only faqing equipment marines use and not literally any other equipment being left in the dust by the overall weapon buff, which will probably see a bunch of weapons buffed as we get new codexes

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
(also check another box on Dakka bingo card)

Tell me: Does the bingo card you keep referencing have any squares for those who breathlessly defend GW all the time, or is it all about insulting people who show any level of criticism?

That's the free square in the middle! I told my doctor my angina was from forum posting, but he didn't believe me.

Now I just need someone to say this hurts marines less than other armies and someone to make fun of the idea of waiting for the codex, because we can already see what is good and bad without it.

But, any level of criticism? You make it sound like I'd jump on someone for a rational and considered criticism. There's a big gap between "I'm not sure this will pan out" and "GW is clearly incapable of understanding basic math and their own rules, their only goal is to push marines, and people are stupid for expecting us to wait for the rules before forming an absolute".

I crticise GW. Here - I even expressed concern over the codex being a possible shitshow, because I didn't have enough information:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/791574/10924354.page#10924354

If that makes me a breathless white knight I'm not sure what I'd call the anti-marine hive mind.