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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Wyches shouldn't be chaff.

Also, I don't think Wyches were ever slaughtering units of marines in one round, even under ideal circumstances with what drug they rolled.

Wyches typically killed units by inflicting enough casualties to win the combat, make their enemy run away and then catch them. Guess what? Marines were immune to being wiped out this way due to their special snowflake rules which allowed them to flat out ignore the main risk of engaging in Cc along with pretty much every other rule which was based around morale.

So instead Wyches were grinding them down over multiple turns of attrition. In 5th edition, 14 Wyches plus a hekatrix with agoniser cost the same as a naked ten man tac squad with sarge with bolt pistol and chainsword. Assuming the Wyches rolled +1 strength as their drug and they got the charge, it takes them 3+ rounds on average to wipe out that tac squad.

You might be right in a hardcore simulation game. But 40k ain't that. It's identity has more in common with Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament etc. than it does with games including simulated ballistics trajectories. 40K is fast ultraviolence with hitscan weapons, not the careful positioning, ballistics calculations and breathing control of a real sniper.

How rewarding do you think 4x games would be if you had no visual marker of how well your strategy was going? So no overlay showing your controlled territory, or your cultural/religious influence etc. You just do your thing and at some arbitrary point the game ends at which point you find out whether or not you won. And how rewarding as a player would it be if your chosen faction had only one way to try and win and no way to deviate from that to counter your opponents strategy due to a massive power imbalance between your faction and that of your opponents?

Your analogy falls rather flat when, by virtue of having models, a board, objective markers, rules, etc. you already have a lot of feedback. In fact, even in an entirely pacifist run of a 40k game where you could take all normal action except that weapons were treated as damage 0 you'd already be playing 90% of the game.

The way you win with the hypothetical or horde that does no damage is to control space and tie opponents up outside of objective scoring range. You still appreciate the models you do kill, nobody said you shouldn't, but the aim is to win via objectives and board control rather than via removing most of your opponents army. 9th edition has specifically been designed to make this style of play more viable with its mission design and smaller play area.

The game has never been at its best when the primary mission was kill your opponent's stuff faster than he kills your stuff. In such a game you could easily just simulate the math and assign points based on the probability of each side winning. Coincidently this is the same level of analysis that goes into declaring something broken on Dakka...

it doesn't matter, if you are not able to utilize killing power to break lines and exploit openings to achieve tactical victories then there IS an issue because when that is the case , why are you even fighting with your force against said enemy.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
In fact, even in an entirely pacifist run of a 40k game where you could take all normal action except that weapons were treated as damage 0 you'd already be playing 90% of the game.

Yeah, just like playing a CTF match of Unreal Tournament/Q3TA and not firing a single shot at the enemy...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

You might be right in a hardcore simulation game. But 40k ain't that. It's identity has more in common with Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament etc. than it does with games including simulated ballistics trajectories. 40K is fast ultraviolence with hitscan weapons, not the careful positioning, ballistics calculations and breathing control of a real sniper.

How rewarding do you think 4x games would be if you had no visual marker of how well your strategy was going? So no overlay showing your controlled territory, or your cultural/religious influence etc. You just do your thing and at some arbitrary point the game ends at which point you find out whether or not you won. And how rewarding as a player would it be if your chosen faction had only one way to try and win and no way to deviate from that to counter your opponents strategy due to a massive power imbalance between your faction and that of your opponents?

Your analogy falls rather flat when, by virtue of having models, a board, objective markers, rules, etc. you already have a lot of feedback. In fact, even in an entirely pacifist run of a 40k game where you could take all normal action except that weapons were treated as damage 0 you'd already be playing 90% of the game.

The way you win with the hypothetical or horde that does no damage is to control space and tie opponents up outside of objective scoring range. You still appreciate the models you do kill, nobody said you shouldn't, but the aim is to win via objectives and board control rather than via removing most of your opponents army. 9th edition has specifically been designed to make this style of play more viable with its mission design and smaller play area.

The game has never been at its best when the primary mission was kill your opponent's stuff faster than he kills your stuff. In such a game you could easily just simulate the math and assign points based on the probability of each side winning. Coincidently this is the same level of analysis that goes into declaring something broken on Dakka...

Incorrect. Seeing your toys remove the opponents toys is fun. It is the biggest visual indicator of success. Also, toys no longer on the table are toys that can longer hurt your army, double success.

Not Online!!! wrote:
it doesn't matter, if you are not able to utilize killing power to break lines and exploit openings to achieve tactical victories then there IS an issue because when that is the case , why are you even fighting with your force against said enemy.

There are many reasons to fight a losing battle or even a losing war. Orks don't even need that, the chance to attempt to krump something is enough for them.

In the case of an ork vs marine conflict, the orks could 'win' a battle by losing tons of Boyz and win the war vai similar means. Or they run the Marines out of time to stop some other critical disaster they're supposed to be responding to. There are any number of ways to make a pyrrhic battle make sense in the context of a larger war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
In fact, even in an entirely pacifist run of a 40k game where you could take all normal action except that weapons were treated as damage 0 you'd already be playing 90% of the game.

Yeah, just like playing a CTF match of Unreal Tournament/Q3TA and not firing a single shot at the enemy...

If it worked top players would try it and be happy about a new way to win. It would be the casuals that hate it.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
it doesn't matter, if you are not able to utilize killing power to break lines and exploit openings to achieve tactical victories then there IS an issue because when that is the case , why are you even fighting with your force against said enemy.

There are many reasons to fight a losing battle or even a losing war. Orks don't even need that, the chance to attempt to krump something is enough for them.

In the case of an ork vs marine conflict, the orks could 'win' a battle by losing tons of Boyz and win the war vai similar means. Or they run the Marines out of time to stop some other critical disaster they're supposed to be responding to. There are any number of ways to make a pyrrhic battle make sense in the context of a larger war.

It does make sense if there would be overarching mechanics simulated, as it stands it isn't. Therefore only the agency of the parties in this battle is relevant (exception to campaign matches)

Also at the of the day 40k still was a War-game. Taking away player agency by crippling an factions offenseve capability IS an issue in that regard.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Incorrect. Seeing your toys remove the opponents toys is fun. It is the biggest visual indicator of success. Also, toys no longer on the table are toys that can longer hurt your army, double success.

Then why is a major complaint that 40k is too lethal? For that matter why are Knights and Custodes legal for play when they have so few models to have your opponent remove? We could remove objectives too and juse go back to kill points for every game while we're at it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
It does make sense if there would be overarching mechanics simulated, as it stands it isn't. Therefore only the agency of the parties in this battle is relevant (exception to campaign matches)

Also at the of the day 40k still was a War-game. Taking away player agency by crippling an factions offenseve capability IS an issue in that regard.

I was unaware that orks had their damage output refuced with the change to 9th edition. Can you show me the faq that did it? Also, if orks can win even in the face of doing little damage, and evidence suggests that they can, it seems that they still have agency.

Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.

Can you show me the faq that did it?

Wasn't it the one , that nerfed the shokka attack gun and a ton of other things. A lot of orks stuff right now comes from ploping down a bucket of models, and some armies not being able to deal with such a skew. Same way some armies can't deal with +4inv harlis with -1 to hit. It of course beats the hell out of being bad or not having a working top tier list, but from what I understand some people don't like to play the same stuff all the time. Not me though.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.

What about the buggy list?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Incorrect. Seeing your toys remove the opponents toys is fun. It is the biggest visual indicator of success. Also, toys no longer on the table are toys that can longer hurt your army, double success.

Then why is a major complaint that 40k is too lethal?

Because with the IGOUGO turn structure and an entire army attacking all at once across 3 phases where damage can be done 1 player is capable of removing a large number of models causing whole units to never get to act.

The "too lethal" is a statement of degree.

Karol wrote:

Can you show me the faq that did it?

Wasn't it the one , that nerfed the shokka attack gun and a ton of other things. A lot of orks stuff right now comes from ploping down a bucket of models, and some armies not being able to deal with such a skew. Same way some armies can't deal with +4inv harlis with -1 to hit. It of course beats the hell out of being bad or not having a working top tier list, but from what I understand some people don't like to play the same stuff all the time. Not me though.

Again what about the buggy list that has won tournaments along side the horde lists? Orks do have lists and models that kill more than the Ghazzy Goff list.

I'm just defending the idea that horde lists that win via board control and which lack strong offence are good for the game and can be fun to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Incorrect. Seeing your toys remove the opponents toys is fun. It is the biggest visual indicator of success. Also, toys no longer on the table are toys that can longer hurt your army, double success.

Then why is a major complaint that 40k is too lethal?

Because with the IGOUGO turn structure and an entire army attacking all at once across 3 phases where damage can be done 1 player is capable of removing a large number of models causing whole units to never get to act.

The "too lethal" is a statement of degree.

Ork horde lists are fine then. They win games, do some damage (just not tons), and have specific counters should they come to dominate the meta.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.

What about the buggy list?

when the only playstyle is a defensive sit for 3 turn on objecive horde list for your faction.
I mean that can be fun for some, but alas that is hardly a good bar for a supposed interaction based game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Incorrect. Seeing your toys remove the opponents toys is fun. It is the biggest visual indicator of success. Also, toys no longer on the table are toys that can longer hurt your army, double success.

Then why is a major complaint that 40k is too lethal? For that matter why are Knights and Custodes legal for play when they have so few models to have your opponent remove? We could remove objectives too and juse go back to kill points for every game while we're at it!

Removing Knights and Custodes from the tabletop via killing them is still fun, so that argument doesn't get you anywhere.

As for "too lethal", wnning by removing models immediately vs. over a longer period of time is still removing models. When most people talk about "too lethal" it's about the fact that units can be erased without any chance of returning action.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.

What about the buggy list?

when the only playstyle is a defensive sit for 3 turn on objecive horde list for your faction.
I mean that can be fun for some, but alas that is hardly a good bar for a supposed interaction based game.

Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.

That is one of the biggest fallacies about GW ever told. The whole, just find like minded people and it will work is a lie. It only works when you can force others to play the game the way you want, and if you can't then it doesn't matter if they want to play pick up games, tournament lists or open or narrative, if the gap between armies is huge you would have to rewrite the whole game to make it work, and that just takes too much time, specialy when people can just play other people whose armies do not require them to rewrite army rules, core rules, scenarios or build specific terrain for specific armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Again what about the buggy list that has won tournaments along side the horde lists? Orks do have lists and models that kill more than the Ghazzy Goff list.

well the thing is. I don't think we have seen a buggy list win or place in more events. We did see the horde orc lists score highe places all across the world.

In 8th GK won 2 big events in australia, or maybe it was even 3, does that mean that GK in 8th ed were fine?

I am not tournament player, but if I see a faction win with multiple different list, like Inari did at some time, then it means the faction is really good or it has some really powerful mechanic. On the other hand if a faction has this one build or has won one tournament in a year, then it probably means it is not okey. Specialy for people playing outside of tournaments.

I remember when BA were considered okey and had tournament wins. Problem for casuals like me was that their army consisted of a ton of IG, a castellan and 15 scouts plus smash hammers. Those aren't lists people that want to play BA like to play.

I doubt if suddenly GW allowed CWE and tau to ally, the tau player would be happy to hear that their army works great if they take as few tau as possible, max on riptide and take the rest of the points in ally eldar. Same with orks being told to take chaos ally or chaos knights being told their army works just fine as long as they take 1125pts of demons in it.

The old fallback:

"Guys, the game is fine, it's the player's fault for:
1) Wanting to play
2) Not wanting to have to do a bunch of heavy lifting before the game starts
3) Having the audacity to think the game should function consistently across playgroups"

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If it worked top players would try it and be happy about a new way to win. It would be the casuals that hate it.

If it worked the top players would try it and the casuals would hate it, that's true.
But the top players being happy about any new way to win, including this one? Not so sure.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.

What about the buggy list?

when the only playstyle is a defensive sit for 3 turn on objecive horde list for your faction.
I mean that can be fun for some, but alas that is hardly a good bar for a supposed interaction based game.

Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.

Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.

What about the buggy list?

when the only playstyle is a defensive sit for 3 turn on objecive horde list for your faction.
I mean that can be fun for some, but alas that is hardly a good bar for a supposed interaction based game.

Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.

Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."

this.
This is also why on a casual level marines are percieved as a massive issue.

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:


This is a thing. I actually like marines getting the extra wound, and I like that they raised prices across the board so that they can (in theory) differentiate the costs of the cheapest models in the game more. In theory, raising points should give them an opportunity to differentiate between a conscript and a guardsman, for instance.

But when I heard that first born were going up in wounds, I certainly expected them to pay more points for it than they seem to have. My kabalite warriors going up 50% in points (and actually taking a few stealth nerfs as a result of the edition change) is just a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when comparing them to first born. Like, what is going on here? What is the reasoning behind these decisions?

The reasoning is "screw you, buy Astartes."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
When was that the case in lore or otherwise - they are resiliant but limited in combat effectivness - especially in close combat where they have always been relatively SLOW and weak compared to a Marine.

Compared to a Tactical Marine - no, they were often their match in CC, low Initiative nonwithstanding. The point is that there should be some factions where the basic infantry outmatches Astartes, and Necrons is one of them. New lore/paradigm is trash.

Except Warriors themselves haven't been a match for a Marine since 5th.

I think you might be getting your editions mixed up because Warriors were a match for Marines in 7th (they still only had a 4+ save but they had a 5+++ on top of it from RPs). Early 8th, RPs weren't reliable but their weapon was slightly better than the bolter, so it was still about even.

It's only since late 8th (when the Marines got their 2nd edition codex) that Marines suddenly shot ahead of Warriors.

And perhaps you didn't notice at the time but that particular Marine codex actually did receive a fair bit of criticism at the time - and for far more than Marines exceeding necron warriors.

I'm very well aware as a Necron player, thank you. What you described never applied as they were only ever taken with the 4+++, and then imagine them still being worse because the very same Tactical Marines got free transports to pay for their darn Grav Cannons they'd shoot in safety!

So yeah, no. They really weren't a match for the regular Marine. Immortals sure, but not Warriors, and it hasn't been since, you guessed it, 5th.

Given that the discussion was specifically on how Necron Warriors compare with Tactical Marines, bringing Rhinos into the comparison seems like moving the goalposts quite considerably.

If you're going to bring up the 7th edition iteration you need to talk the formations both were in.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you're going to bring up the 7th edition iteration you need to talk the formations both were in.

The Rhino did not make the individual Tac trooper better.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Agency in a sense of options of a faction to utilise differing playstyles including an offensive playstyle, which as of now hasn't been utilized to win now has it.

What about the buggy list?

when the only playstyle is a defensive sit for 3 turn on objecive horde list for your faction.
I mean that can be fun for some, but alas that is hardly a good bar for a supposed interaction based game.

Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.

Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."

this.
This is also why on a casual level marines are percieved as a massive issue.

So is this an issue with orks melee ability or is it a marine complaint? Which armies can't orks interact with and do damage to in melee because of 9th?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."

If boys were a valid melee or shoting unit, and orks could spam them in number they can use now. No one would be winning against orks, unless they had an army that could spam a comperable number of units with comperable shoting and melee abilities. Or be immune to melee and shoting, while being dishing out large amount of damage of their own.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you're going to bring up the 7th edition iteration you need to talk the formations both were in.

The Rhino did not make the individual Tac trooper better.

When it's free to the squad it sure does.

Dudeface wrote:

So is this an issue with orks melee ability or is it a marine complaint? Which armies can't orks interact with and do damage to in melee because of 9th?

1: Marines
2: Chaos Marines

That's all I got.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

So is this an issue with orks melee ability or is it a marine complaint? Which armies can't orks interact with and do damage to in melee because of 9th?

1: Marines
2: Chaos Marines

That's all I got.

Right so it boils down to: orks struggle with marines, in which case that's hardly unique to them at this stage and I'd argue it mostly isn't orks that are the issue.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you're going to bring up the 7th edition iteration you need to talk the formations both were in.

The Rhino did not make the individual Tac trooper better.

When it's free to the squad it sure does.

There are two types of balance, model balance and game balance. For model balance the Rhino is irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

So is this an issue with orks melee ability or is it a marine complaint? Which armies can't orks interact with and do damage to in melee because of 9th?

1: Marines
2: Chaos Marines

That's all I got.

Right so it boils down to: orks struggle with marines, in which case that's hardly unique to them at this stage and I'd argue it mostly isn't orks that are the issue.

I think there are other issues with Orks as well, but I'm not really qualified to say. Afaik boyz will still deal decent damage to other 1W infantry though.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Nobody is forced to play. Let alone forced to play ork horde lists in a competitive setting. For friendly matches you can work out lists that work for the game you both enjoy playing. For PUGS things are a little tougher but you can always use groups, most FLGS will have them, to pre-arrange games with like minded opponents.

Conversely, we could get the balance of the game to a point where Ork horde lists were competetively viable via krumpin gitz in close quarters. Presumably a much more rewarding way to play and win instead of "cower on objectives and hope to live long enough."

Nobody sane will disagree with you that factions should have balanced and competitive lists which represent their typical archetype. But "we" are not in charge of rules writing. At least I'm not. While "finding and talking to like minded poeple" is totally within your own power to do.