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.
2020/10/21 17:07:10
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
That's fantastic, doing GW's work for them! Oh and then what happens when one army's fluffy list like Imperial Guard is just significantly better than another army's fluffy list like Dark Eldar? What are you doing to account for that balance issue?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2026/07/01 17:22:47
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Tyel wrote: I might be oblivious here - but what weapon are you putting on the Tacticals to suddenly make them massively outpace Intercessors versus elites/vehicles?
This isn't a gotcha - just a general missing something here. You get one heavy or special weapon (if my reading is right?) and I guess a combi-plas or something?
Spoiler:
Practically any weapon, but the Grav CAnnon is my go-to. The Multimelta is going to be a popular choice too.
1 Grav Cannon vs. Marines -- 4 x .666 x .666 x .83 x 2 = 2.94
1 Grav Cannon vs. Leman Russ Equivalent -- 4 x .666 x .333 x .83 x 2 = 1.47
5 RF Bolt Rifles vs MEQ --10 x .666 x .5 x .5 = 1.66
5 RF Bolt Rifles vs. LREQ -- 10 x .666 x .17 x . 5 = .56
A single Grav Cannon does more than the entire 5 man Intercessor Squad, and the Tactical Squad still has Bolters and a potential Special/Combi to fire. Imo Tacticals make Intercessors total chumps right now.
Edit: Adding in 3 Bolters and single OC Plasma shot:
5 Tacs vs. MEQ = 4.5 (~3X Intercessor output)
5 Tacs vs. LREQ = 2.25 (~4X Intercessor output)
Apologies, I don't have a SM codex and they haven't updated BS as far as I can see, so correct any numbers that are incorrect.
My understanding is that Tacs are now 18ppm and the Grav for some reason remained the same at 10pts. You won't have a Special weapon because I still don't see any Marine player taking more than minimum squads. So likely you are going to be running 5 Marines, 1 with grav cannon for 100pts. (10 more if you want to upgrade the sgt's weapon)
Against Orkz thats 4 RF Bolters, 4 Grav shots. The 4 Bolters are 8 shots (if they stand still) for 5.33 hits and 2.66 wounds for 2.22 dead Ork boyz. The Grav Cannon math is very similar, 4 shots, 2.66 hits, 1.77 wounds and dead. Tacs at 100pts = basically 4 dead Orkz. This requires them to go 2nd otherwise they have to move to get into range which removes 50% of Bolter damage and 25% of grav dmg. Likewise, if you need those "Troops" to go cap an objective they similarly lose that as well.
In CC the Tacs get 12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds and 3.3 dead Orkz.
5 Intercessors (same price) are 10 RF Bolt Rifle shots for 6.66 hits, 3.33 wounds and 3.33 dead Orkz, So .67 fewer dead Ork boyz. They are Range 30' though so they technically don't have to move, and if they go second they can easily move and get into RF half range and still get their full shots if the enemy moved forward to get the objective. For 2pts you can equip 1 of them with a grenade launcher and bang out 6 Shots instead of 2 at S3 no AP, this is an upgrade in dmg of about .44dmg against a horde unit.
In CC Those 5 intercessors get 17 attacks, 11.3 hits 5.66 wounds and 4.72 dead Orkz. (I didn't add in the -1AP for chainswords for either sgt which I think they get now?)
So intercessors are almost as good at shooting, compared to TACs with a heavy weapon upgrade, but more importantly in light of 9th play style requirements, IE. get on the objective and hold it with troops, Intercessors are significantly better than TACS at CC, roughly 31% better
So, shooting against one another the TACs will win thanks to the damage profile of the grav cannon and how its basically built to target Primaris Marines S5 -3AP and D3 dmg against 3+ saves. However, in an objective game where CC actually matters, those Intercessors pull ahead and easily win the fight thanks to their better CC profiles.
The thing is, all of those Calculations are against Orks, which are targets that I'm just in no way concerned about when playing Marines. Being 31% better against Orks in CC isn't worth nearly as much as the Tacticals being 3X as good against MEQs, and 4X as good against LREQs at range. Playing Marines one has an abundance/over-abundance of ways to get more S4 attacks into the foe from either shooting or CC. When you combine that with the new Blast rules, dealing with hordes is a solved problem.
Two more things:
1. The Sergeant can get a Combi-weapon, so you can pack a Special into the squad along with the heavy with 5 guys.
2. The efficacy of the Tacticals degrades way slower because of the concentration of firepower in the Heavy/Combi/Special. Losing four Intercessors means you're at 20% the damage output at range. Losing four Tac Marines with only the Grav Cannon left means you're still putting out more firepower than the Intercessor Squad even had to begin with against MEQ+ targets.
This is absolutely correct, and really shows the crazy power of that second wound. All these factors being brought up here was basically nullified for me by the single wound. That fancy grav cannon? I only need to inflict 5 wounds to silence it. That's a smite and a few bolter shots. They just bled points WAY too fast. But now? It's a major investment to get rid of one grav cannon. You're going to have to send 2 damage weapons or larger amounts of 1 damage. The difference between how 1 wound DC play and 2 wound DC is huge as well, especially considered that Dc have 6+++.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 17:10:11
2020/10/21 17:21:30
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Insectum7 wrote: The thing is, all of those Calculations are against Orks, which are targets that I'm just in no way concerned about when playing Marines. Being 31% better against Orks in CC isn't worth nearly as much as the Tacticals being 3X as good against MEQs, and 4X as good against LREQs at range. Playing Marines one has an abundance/over-abundance of ways to get more S4 attacks into the foe from either shooting or CC. When you combine that with the new Blast rules, dealing with hordes is a solved problem.
Two more things:
1. The Sergeant can get a Combi-weapon, so you can pack a Special into the squad along with the heavy with 5 guys.
2. The efficacy of the Tacticals degrades way slower because of the concentration of firepower in the Heavy/Combi/Special. Losing four Intercessors means you're at 20% the damage output at range. Losing four Tac Marines with only the Grav Cannon left means you're still putting out more firepower than the Intercessor Squad even had to begin with against MEQ+ targets.
Even with Marines making up a rather large portion of the community, I think its like 15-20%, you are still more likely to come into contact with infantry that ISN'T rocking a 3+ save with multiple wounds, that is why I did the calculations against my own infantry. Against any statline that isn't multiple wounds with a 3+ the grav cannon is still good, but not as good as vs Space Marines. And again, you can have that grav cannon as the last model in the unit, if its tied up in CC it doesn't matter. With 9th's emphasis on holding objectives its a very relevant point.
As far as blast, I think people have heavily over-estimated the impact blast weapons have on the game. The average number of SHOTS just went from 3.5 to 6, So with a BS of 3+ that is only an extra 1.6 hits per weapon, if anything, bolter rules changing have been a more impactful rules change as far as Hordes are concerned.
I think you're speaking to the wrong crowd about them being target practice. Dakka tradition is marines are never worse than "good" in the entire history of 40k and other armies should be jealous.
I don't think you will find many players who think a "TACTICAL" Space Marine was "never worse than good". In previous editions they were under powered, in 8th they weren't. in 9th they are over powered. You conflating Tac Marine with Marine is a bad faith argument.
I'll even do you one better, ready? Terminators weren't good in previous editions.......*GASP*. Just because we point out the broken units in the codex doesn't mean we don't also point out the weak ones or accept facts like terminators sucking.
Tac marines were overpowered in early 3rd, but then began the slow degradation until the low point of late 7th.
But just looking at the realities of fielding tac marines vs mech vets in 5th ed. It was immersion-breaking joke. But 9th ed's "fix" is what people have feared for years.
2020/10/21 17:29:30
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: Tac marines were overpowered in early 3rd, but then began the slow degradation until the low point of late 7th.
But just looking at the realities of fielding tac marines vs mech vets in 5th ed. It was immersion-breaking joke. But 9th ed's "fix" is what people have feared for years.
yup, but there are several people in this forum who think any criticism of a broken SM unit is because "You hate Speese Mehreens" as opposed to "We hate broken, OP units that ruin the game". I love terminators, im glad they aren't complete trash anymore, I hope they figure out how to place Tac Marines in a place where they aren't garbage but aren't over powered. And honestly, I am not even that concerned with the 2nd wound mechanic for Tac Marines, I just think it needs to be more appropriately priced. I argue that Intercessors are slightly better overall because of 9ths emphasis on objectives which inherently means more CC, but you have people right now showing how Tacs are actually beating up those intercessors at ranged combat, and they are cheaper. So if Intercessors are over powered (They are) and Tac Marines can beat them at ranged combat in a 1v1 right, that doesn't mean Tacs are better, it just means both needs points hikes.
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
By your reasoning, I could say that narrative players are lazy/dumb/donkey caves who should stick to their fethed-up variation of the game and I will just stick to having fun.
that's perfectly fine and the exact reasoning why there should even be more of a distinction between the 2. the game currently works fine if you're playing WITH some one. it doesn't work when you play AGAINST them.
GW just needs to make a feth you version of the game so players that want to feth over their opponent can do so in the most "balanced" way possible. y'know like taking max squads of unit X, wombo combo MTG-bs. if that's the kind of game you like, more power to you.
stop trying to make 40k a competitive game. as long as the goal of GW is to sell models and players will throw money at them to have the most powerful stuff, I hate to break it to ya, it ain't gonna happen.
2020/10/21 17:36:10
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: Tac marines were overpowered in early 3rd, but then began the slow degradation until the low point of late 7th.
But just looking at the realities of fielding tac marines vs mech vets in 5th ed. It was immersion-breaking joke. But 9th ed's "fix" is what people have feared for years.
yup, but there are several people in this forum who think any criticism of a broken SM unit is because "You hate Speese Mehreens" as opposed to "We hate broken, OP units that ruin the game". I love terminators, im glad they aren't complete trash anymore, I hope they figure out how to place Tac Marines in a place where they aren't garbage but aren't over powered. And honestly, I am not even that concerned with the 2nd wound mechanic for Tac Marines, I just think it needs to be more appropriately priced. I argue that Intercessors are slightly better overall because of 9ths emphasis on objectives which inherently means more CC, but you have people right now showing how Tacs are actually beating up those intercessors at ranged combat, and they are cheaper. So if Intercessors are over powered (They are) and Tac Marines can beat them at ranged combat in a 1v1 right, that doesn't mean Tacs are better, it just means both needs points hikes.
I don't think people hate space marines. They might hate the superior release schedule and allow that to color their judgment, though. I think there's a segment of the players who never witnessed great marine massacres because their play groups didn't field lists capable of such feats. Why they choose to not take reports of these massacres into account, I don't know. The same way I don't understand why GW allowed marines to languish rules-wise for so many editions.
I agree that points hikes might be the best course rather than yet another rules change. Pick a set of rules and then figure out what that set of rules should cost.
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
By your reasoning, I could say that narrative players are lazy/dumb/donkey caves who should stick to their fethed-up variation of the game and I will just stick to having fun.
that's perfectly fine and the exact reasoning why there should even be more of a distinction between the 2. the game currently works fine if you're playing WITH some one. it doesn't work when you play AGAINST them.
GW just needs to make a feth you version of the game so players that want to feth over their opponent can do so in the most "balanced" way possible. y'know like taking max squads of unit X, wombo combo MTG-bs. if that's the kind of game you like, more power to you.
stop trying to make 40k a competitive game. as long as the goal of GW is to sell models and players will throw money at them to have the most powerful stuff, I hate to break it to ya, it ain't gonna happen.
As long as there is a winner and loser, it's a competitive game. Rogue trader games had GMs, which kept it more in the roleplay regime, but they were gone by 2nd. I've never had someone play WITH me in this game. It's always AGAINST. Now, there is a huge variation in just how against we are talking here. But players of GW games are notorious for twisting rules to their favor, even in other game genres. I've had to do more rules lawyering in GW games than all other games combined, including other wargames. Anecdotal, but supportive of the broader perception.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/21 17:40:28
2020/10/21 17:53:21
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
As an example of my playgroup, I regularly remind my opponents and they remind me when something would be good to use or do. Sure I might win if my opponent forgets to shoot one of his units or chooses the wrong target to shoot because he forgot what my stuff does but I'm not there for the gotcha moment. That is exclusively for tournaments and I am truly sorry that not everyone has a group to play that let's them relax and enjoy the game.
2020/10/21 17:59:58
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Insectum7 wrote: The thing is, all of those Calculations are against Orks, which are targets that I'm just in no way concerned about when playing Marines. Being 31% better against Orks in CC isn't worth nearly as much as the Tacticals being 3X as good against MEQs, and 4X as good against LREQs at range. Playing Marines one has an abundance/over-abundance of ways to get more S4 attacks into the foe from either shooting or CC. When you combine that with the new Blast rules, dealing with hordes is a solved problem.
Two more things:
1. The Sergeant can get a Combi-weapon, so you can pack a Special into the squad along with the heavy with 5 guys.
2. The efficacy of the Tacticals degrades way slower because of the concentration of firepower in the Heavy/Combi/Special. Losing four Intercessors means you're at 20% the damage output at range. Losing four Tac Marines with only the Grav Cannon left means you're still putting out more firepower than the Intercessor Squad even had to begin with against MEQ+ targets.
Even with Marines making up a rather large portion of the community, I think its like 15-20%, you are still more likely to come into contact with infantry that ISN'T rocking a 3+ save with multiple wounds, that is why I did the calculations against my own infantry. Against any statline that isn't multiple wounds with a 3+ the grav cannon is still good, but not as good as vs Space Marines. And again, you can have that grav cannon as the last model in the unit, if its tied up in CC it doesn't matter. With 9th's emphasis on holding objectives its a very relevant point.
As far as blast, I think people have heavily over-estimated the impact blast weapons have on the game. The average number of SHOTS just went from 3.5 to 6, So with a BS of 3+ that is only an extra 1.6 hits per weapon, if anything, bolter rules changing have been a more impactful rules change as far as Hordes are concerned.
Sure, but even armies that aren't fielding Space Marines are going to field target with multiple wounds, like LREQs, which the Grav-Cannon (or whatever) still vastly outperforms over the Intercessors. Because splitting fire is a thing, I can just point the Grav Cannon at the right target while the bolters do their thing against cheaper models. And even without pointing the big gun at heavier targets, the five Tacticals with a Grav Cannon are still better at shooting Tau, Necrons, Daemons, Eldar troops than the Intercessors with Bolt Rifles, in addition to being better against Marines and Vehicles (and that's not even counting a gun upgrade fort he Sarge). Tacticals are simply better at engaging a much wider array of targets, granting far more flexibility in terms of ranged board control. And the more stuff you kill at range, the less stuff you have to deal with in CC.
I play UM so being tied up in CC is rarely a thing for me to begin with. In fact since the modifiers are now capped at -1, a Grav Cannon falling back and firing is now more effective than it was before 9th.
As for Blasts, you're still looking at a 50% increase in output for D3, and a 75ish% increase in output for D6. That's hardly anything to spit at, especially when you're looking at things like Plasma Cannons and Thunderfires. I'm not sure what Bolter rules you're referring to (Bolter Discipline?), but since they're Bolters the Tacticals are benefitting from them anyways.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 18:05:36
Brotherjanus wrote: As an example of my playgroup, I regularly remind my opponents and they remind me when something would be good to use or do. Sure I might win if my opponent forgets to shoot one of his units or chooses the wrong target to shoot because he forgot what my stuff does but I'm not there for the gotcha moment. That is exclusively for tournaments and I am truly sorry that not everyone has a group to play that let's them relax and enjoy the game.
I do that too quite often. Doesn't mean its still not a competition. I just don't want to win because of a gotcha. That doesn't mean I'm still not bringing the most brutal list imaginable to maximize the competitive challenge I present to others.
"I play UM so being tied up in CC is rarely a thing for me to begin with."
Then you need to play against wrap and trap foes more often. Against late 8th ed BA, UM basically didn't have a chapter tactic, because we would never let you use it. That being said a single attack per model on models with no CC weapons isn't very exciting.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/21 18:13:45
2020/10/21 18:14:16
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
That's fantastic, doing GW's work for them! Oh and then what happens when one army's fluffy list like Imperial Guard is just significantly better than another army's fluffy list like Dark Eldar? What are you doing to account for that balance issue?
I don't know that it is, but the dark eldar pkayer simply says "I'm struggling with x unit, can we try swapping it out for something or maybe change unit Y do I don't have 2 big problems please?"
Not hard, its not about GWs job for them, its about creating a positive experience for both players.
2020/10/21 18:16:21
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
As long as there is a winner and loser, it's a competitive game. Rogue trader games had GMs, which kept it more in the roleplay regime, but they were gone by 2nd. I've never had someone play WITH me in this game. It's always AGAINST. Now, there is a huge variation in just how against we are talking here. But players of GW games are notorious for twisting rules to their favor, even in other game genres. I've had to do more rules lawyering in GW games than all other games combined, including other wargames. Anecdotal, but supportive of the broader perception.
And as a counterpoint wour group plays 'with', not 'against'. We have played with an approach that can best be described as 'collaborative game building' for about five years now.
Here's the question though. You touch on it yourself. How 'against' are we talking?
If there is a winner and a loser, and is therefore a 'competitive' game, how far can the competitive aspect be pushed and how appropriate is it to do this? What does 'competitive' mean and look like? What is the 'cost' of competitive (against other aspects of the game, for example) and is it worth it?
You can very easily get into win at all cost and competitive at all cost territory and often, even without meaning to, your actions can contribute to a toxification of the environment.
So how far?
From my pov, there being a winner and a loser does not detract or prevent collaborative game building, which is what the GM helped with in RT. I want a fair fight and an interesting scenario. This is not a weird approach - outside of the gw sphere, And especially in historical gaming, you see this kind of thing very often. Collaborative game building is the bedrock of narrative gaming, and a very different approach from the 'list-building-for-advantage, blind match up competitive/often verging on competitive at all.costs gaming that pug gaming often becomes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 18:17:25
2020/10/21 18:17:03
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
That's fantastic, doing GW's work for them! Oh and then what happens when one army's fluffy list like Imperial Guard is just significantly better than another army's fluffy list like Dark Eldar? What are you doing to account for that balance issue?
I don't know that it is, but the dark eldar pkayer simply says "I'm struggling with x unit, can we try swapping it out for something or maybe change unit Y do I don't have 2 big problems please?"
Not hard, its not about GWs job for them, its about creating a positive experience for both players.
I'm trying to create as many problems for my foe as possible. That's why I'm an opponent. I'm not here to throw the game.
As long as there is a winner and loser, it's a competitive game. Rogue trader games had GMs, which kept it more in the roleplay regime, but they were gone by 2nd. I've never had someone play WITH me in this game. It's always AGAINST. Now, there is a huge variation in just how against we are talking here. But players of GW games are notorious for twisting rules to their favor, even in other game genres. I've had to do more rules lawyering in GW games than all other games combined, including other wargames. Anecdotal, but supportive of the broader perception.
And as a counterpoint wour group plays 'with', not 'against'. We have played with an approach that can best be described as 'collaborative game building' for about five years now.
Here's the question though. You touch on it yourself. How 'against' are we talking?
If there is a winner and a loser, and is therefore a 'competitive' game, how far can the competitive aspect be pushed and how appropriate is it to do this? What does 'competitive' mean and look like? What is the 'cost' of competitive (against other aspects of the game, for example) and is it worth it?
You can very easily get into win at all cost and competitive at all cost territory and often, even without meaning to, your actions can contribute to a toxification of the environment.
So how far?
From my pov, there being a winner and a loser does not detract or prevent collaborative game building, which is what the GM helped with in RT. I want a fair fight and an interesting scenario. This is not a weird approach - outside of the gw sphere, And especially in historical gaming, you see this kind of thing very often. Collaborative game building is the bedrock of narrative gaming, and a very different approach from the 'list-building-for-advantage, blind match up competitive/often verging on competitive at all.costs gaming that pug gaming often becomes.
Historical games have boundaries and real outcomes to measure against. GW has no such limitations. GW could put pseudo-historical restrictions on list building. They choose not to, thereby validating the list building for advantage paradigm.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/21 18:20:39
2020/10/21 18:28:18
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
As long as there is a winner and loser, it's a competitive game. Rogue trader games had GMs, which kept it more in the roleplay regime, but they were gone by 2nd. I've never had someone play WITH me in this game. It's always AGAINST. Now, there is a huge variation in just how against we are talking here. But players of GW games are notorious for twisting rules to their favor, even in other game genres. I've had to do more rules lawyering in GW games than all other games combined, including other wargames. Anecdotal, but supportive of the broader perception.
And as a counterpoint wour group plays 'with', not 'against'. We have played with an approach that can best be described as 'collaborative game building' for about five years now.
Here's the question though. You touch on it yourself. How 'against' are we talking?
If there is a winner and a loser, and is therefore a 'competitive' game, how far can the competitive aspect be pushed and how appropriate is it to do this? What does 'competitive' mean and look like? What is the 'cost' of competitive (against other aspects of the game, for example) and is it worth it?
You can very easily get into win at all cost and competitive at all cost territory and often, even without meaning to, your actions can contribute to a toxification of the environment.
So how far?
From my pov, there being a winner and a loser does not detract or prevent collaborative game building, which is what the GM helped with in RT. I want a fair fight and an interesting scenario. This is not a weird approach - outside of the gw sphere, And especially in historical gaming, you see this kind of thing very often. Collaborative game building is the bedrock of narrative gaming, and a very different approach from the 'list-building-for-advantage, blind match up competitive/often verging on competitive at all.costs gaming that pug gaming often becomes.
Imo it should basically function like an olde-time duel. You set the rules for the duel beforehand, then you play with honor while going for the throat in the competitive sense.
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
That's fantastic, doing GW's work for them! Oh and then what happens when one army's fluffy list like Imperial Guard is just significantly better than another army's fluffy list like Dark Eldar? What are you doing to account for that balance issue?
I don't know that it is, but the dark eldar pkayer simply says "I'm struggling with x unit, can we try swapping it out for something or maybe change unit Y do I don't have 2 big problems please?"
Not hard, its not about GWs job for them, its about creating a positive experience for both players.
I'm trying to create as many problems for my foe as possible. That's why I'm an opponent. I'm not here to throw the game.
You do know you replied to a conversation about casual narrative games with a die hard competitive response, right?
2020/10/21 18:34:13
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Yeah. What Insectum said - I play to win within the confines of the game, but before the game when making choices I base them on narrative.
For example, in a mechanized army, I might say "I won't take any models that don't have a seat in a transport." That's not a restriction anyone else put on me, but it is one I put for myself due to the narrative of this (mechanized) army.
The problem is people with different restrictions. Someone might have the narrative of "My commander is the bestest ever and will chose whatever tactically advantages him in the next battle!" thereby validating list-tailoring or taking the best list. And who am I to argue? I disagree and will probably not play that person, but it isn't because they're not being narrative.
2020/10/21 18:44:41
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
By your reasoning, I could say that narrative players are lazy/dumb/donkey caves who should stick to their fethed-up variation of the game and I will just stick to having fun.
that's perfectly fine and the exact reasoning why there should even be more of a distinction between the 2. the game currently works fine if you're playing WITH some one. it doesn't work when you play AGAINST them.
GW just needs to make a feth you version of the game so players that want to feth over their opponent can do so in the most "balanced" way possible. y'know like taking max squads of unit X, wombo combo MTG-bs. if that's the kind of game you like, more power to you.
stop trying to make 40k a competitive game. as long as the goal of GW is to sell models and players will throw money at them to have the most powerful stuff, I hate to break it to ya, it ain't gonna happen.
You misunderstand that, for a game to be competitive, it also needs to be relatively well-balanced so that the main factor is player skill during the game. Playing to win isn't about 'fething over" your opponent, its having a hard-fought, tense battle where both of you are doing your best to win.
You are also (disingenuously, I might add) attempting to mold a game that pits players against each other into a co-op game. You want to play in teams? Or work together to reach a desired outcome? That's fine, but you don't need a separate ruleset to ignore rules, or create your own.
You don't even have an argument, you just want to bash "those players," and ensure they they can't play the sane game as you.
2020/10/21 18:50:08
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
SecondTime wrote: "You do know you replied to a conversation about casual narrative games with a die hard competitive response, right?"
It's not die hard. I'm not willing to bend rules, misinterpret rules to my advantage, etc.
Someone toning down their list would be seen as insult in my experience. It's clearly not your experience.
Well no, because that's not what a narrative environment is. If we're agreeing to play a game where we're defending an imperial town against an ork waaagh. The ork player has a couple of units of boyz, some trucks, some nobz, a plane and a few dreads, I.e. a fluffy balanced ork list, then you rock up with 18 salamanders eradicators, a bucket load of bladeguard and w/e flavour of the week is, you've missed the point.
2020/10/21 18:57:39
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
I guess my earlier point about balance being better for narrative got ignored, so I'll say it again:
As someone who makes narrative events for my local club, it is much much better for me to spend my time making cool stories, setting up excellent set-piece terrain setups, and writing narrative rules. It is a chore for me to rebalance 40k in the process.
Plus, if I saw a Salamanders player rock up with 18 Eradicators, who am I to tell him he is wrong? Eradicators are the perfect nuSalamander, since melta is their shtick after all. Like Ultramarines showing up with Blade Guard. Am I to say "sorry, you brought too much fire with you, Salamanders. Have you considered taking something more iron-handsy, like a tank?"
Because that's fluffier.
2020/10/21 19:03:40
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Someone toning down their list would be seen as insult in my experience. It's clearly not your experience.
Hehe. Ex-Martel's meta is like the American version of Karol's Polish meta.
I've played in three for four groups now that were all basically this. Some less, some more. But everyone wants to win. Everyone will read every rule in their own favor. I've ran into more people who think list tailoring is fine than those who buy into the narrative paradigm.
As far as I can tell, it's always been this way. A few weeks after the Tyranid dex dropped in 2nd, I ran into the 120 hormagaunt list. In a game where you had to shoot the closest thing. So I spent the whole game shooting hormagaunts while the genestealers got closer and closer. That's fluffy, but it was almost a sure loss for 2nd ed marines.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 19:06:14
2020/10/21 19:05:53
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Unit1126PLL wrote: I guess my earlier point about balance being better for narrative got ignored, so I'll say it again:
As someone who makes narrative events for my local club, it is much much better for me to spend my time making cool stories, setting up excellent set-piece terrain setups, and writing narrative rules. It is a chore for me to rebalance 40k in the process.
Plus, if I saw a Salamanders player rock up with 18 Eradicators, who am I to tell him he is wrong? Eradicators are the perfect nuSalamander, since melta is their shtick after all. Like Ultramarines showing up with Blade Guard. Am I to say "sorry, you brought too much fire with you, Salamanders. Have you considered taking something more iron-handsy, like a tank?"
Because that's fluffier.
As the person designing the scenarios it's not your job to police the players, that's up to them.
Bringing the latest competitive net list will happen regardless of how well balanced the base game is, but by having a narrative event the story should be more important than the score sheet.
Will Jimmy with his loving converted kroot merc army where each character has a story and battle record, who plays to the theme by picking secondaries and relics in line with their narrative despite being sub optimal, really want a narrative story driven game against "this list won 3 tourneys last month, I figured its pretty good, thats why I brought it".
2020/10/21 19:07:45
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Unit1126PLL wrote: I guess my earlier point about balance being better for narrative got ignored, so I'll say it again:
As someone who makes narrative events for my local club, it is much much better for me to spend my time making cool stories, setting up excellent set-piece terrain setups, and writing narrative rules. It is a chore for me to rebalance 40k in the process.
Plus, if I saw a Salamanders player rock up with 18 Eradicators, who am I to tell him he is wrong? Eradicators are the perfect nuSalamander, since melta is their shtick after all. Like Ultramarines showing up with Blade Guard. Am I to say "sorry, you brought too much fire with you, Salamanders. Have you considered taking something more iron-handsy, like a tank?"
Because that's fluffier.
As the person designing the scenarios it's not your job to police the players, that's up to them.
Bringing the latest competitive net list will happen regardless of how well balanced the base game is, but by having a narrative event the story should be more important than the score sheet.
Will Jimmy with his loving converted kroot merc army where each character has a story and battle record, who plays to the theme by picking secondaries and relics in line with their narrative despite being sub optimal, really want a narrative story driven game against "this list won 3 tourneys last month, I figured its pretty good, thats why I brought it".
How far do you take this? Tripointing makes no sense for BA death company models. Yet, it's perfectly legal and was almost mandatory in 8th ed.
2020/10/21 19:10:07
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Unit1126PLL wrote: I guess my earlier point about balance being better for narrative got ignored, so I'll say it again:
As someone who makes narrative events for my local club, it is much much better for me to spend my time making cool stories, setting up excellent set-piece terrain setups, and writing narrative rules. It is a chore for me to rebalance 40k in the process.
Plus, if I saw a Salamanders player rock up with 18 Eradicators, who am I to tell him he is wrong? Eradicators are the perfect nuSalamander, since melta is their shtick after all. Like Ultramarines showing up with Blade Guard. Am I to say "sorry, you brought too much fire with you, Salamanders. Have you considered taking something more iron-handsy, like a tank?"
Because that's fluffier.
As the person designing the scenarios it's not your job to police the players, that's up to them.
Bringing the latest competitive net list will happen regardless of how well balanced the base game is, but by having a narrative event the story should be more important than the score sheet.
Will Jimmy with his loving converted kroot merc army where each character has a story and battle record, who plays to the theme by picking secondaries and relics in line with their narrative despite being sub optimal, really want a narrative story driven game against "this list won 3 tourneys last month, I figured its pretty good, thats why I brought it".
A balanced game with good army viability would permit a "this list won three tourneys last month, that's why I brought it" to be on an even playing field with a kroot merc army that picks secondaries and relics (at least assuming that army was intended to exist by the designers). And the battle should tell a good story, too, with opportunities for heroism and failure on both sides. Player skill would determine the winner, rather than simply what models are available to what side.
A one-sided battle isn't narratively compelling. "Oh, my Eldar tried their hardest, killed no one, and were wiped out to a man. My warlord escaped after getting his head bashed in because the enemy had to let them go" isn't a good story. So yes, I have to balance the game for the players - or, alternatively, I could trust the actual game designers to actually design the game.
Y'know. The guys at GW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/21 19:11:08
2020/10/21 19:16:23
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
A perfect example of where a narrative game can be skewed by rules is in the Bucklebury Ferry scenario for the LOTR SBG.
On the side of good you have Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin. On the side of Evil you have 3 Ringwraiths. If Frodo makes it to to the opposite board edge, which involves crossing the Brandywine river, then Good wins. If Frodo is slain, Evil wins.
So what is the problem? The Ringwraiths start spread out, are subject to rules which simulate them searching for the Hobbits and so cannot all immediately head to their location, and their statline only had a single attack and a single wound. The Hobbits also only had a single attack each but there were four of them and Frodo and Sam both had 2 wounds. So the Hobbits had a greater chance of winning a fight against an individual wraith from rolling more dice (especially if they manage to get the wraith into a position where it is trapped, which doubles their attacks against it) and then could fish for sixes to kill them.
So instead of running away, it was a viable strategy to go Ringwraith hunting with your band of Hobbits.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/21 19:25:06
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2020/10/21 19:21:12
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Unit1126PLL wrote: I guess my earlier point about balance being better for narrative got ignored, so I'll say it again:
As someone who makes narrative events for my local club, it is much much better for me to spend my time making cool stories, setting up excellent set-piece terrain setups, and writing narrative rules. It is a chore for me to rebalance 40k in the process.
Plus, if I saw a Salamanders player rock up with 18 Eradicators, who am I to tell him he is wrong? Eradicators are the perfect nuSalamander, since melta is their shtick after all. Like Ultramarines showing up with Blade Guard. Am I to say "sorry, you brought too much fire with you, Salamanders. Have you considered taking something more iron-handsy, like a tank?"
Because that's fluffier.
As the person designing the scenarios it's not your job to police the players, that's up to them.
Bringing the latest competitive net list will happen regardless of how well balanced the base game is, but by having a narrative event the story should be more important than the score sheet.
Will Jimmy with his loving converted kroot merc army where each character has a story and battle record, who plays to the theme by picking secondaries and relics in line with their narrative despite being sub optimal, really want a narrative story driven game against "this list won 3 tourneys last month, I figured its pretty good, thats why I brought it".
How far do you take this? Tripointing makes no sense for BA death company models. Yet, it's perfectly legal and was almost mandatory in 8th ed.
"The death company were lost to rage and refused to let their prey escape, surrounding them on all sides to keep them penned in while they attacked blindly. Their allies watched on with renewed hatred, eager to enact vengeance. "
Or if you were penned in: "the death company would not leave one of their own behind, the insult of seeing one of their own isolated and cut off pushing them to greater fits of rage."
Moreover, it was a core mechanic and made no sense for anyone really.
2020/10/21 19:23:21
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Unit1126PLL wrote: I guess my earlier point about balance being better for narrative got ignored, so I'll say it again:
As someone who makes narrative events for my local club, it is much much better for me to spend my time making cool stories, setting up excellent set-piece terrain setups, and writing narrative rules. It is a chore for me to rebalance 40k in the process.
Plus, if I saw a Salamanders player rock up with 18 Eradicators, who am I to tell him he is wrong? Eradicators are the perfect nuSalamander, since melta is their shtick after all. Like Ultramarines showing up with Blade Guard. Am I to say "sorry, you brought too much fire with you, Salamanders. Have you considered taking something more iron-handsy, like a tank?"
Because that's fluffier.
As the person designing the scenarios it's not your job to police the players, that's up to them.
Bringing the latest competitive net list will happen regardless of how well balanced the base game is, but by having a narrative event the story should be more important than the score sheet.
Will Jimmy with his loving converted kroot merc army where each character has a story and battle record, who plays to the theme by picking secondaries and relics in line with their narrative despite being sub optimal, really want a narrative story driven game against "this list won 3 tourneys last month, I figured its pretty good, thats why I brought it".
How far do you take this? Tripointing makes no sense for BA death company models. Yet, it's perfectly legal and was almost mandatory in 8th ed.
"The death company were lost to rage and refused to let their prey escape, surrounding them on all sides to keep them penned in while they attacked blindly. Their allies watched on with renewed hatred, eager to enact vengeance. "
Or if you were penned in: "the death company would not leave one of their own behind, the insult of seeing one of their own isolated and cut off pushing them to greater fits of rage."
Moreover, it was a core mechanic and made no sense for anyone really.
Wow...the complete lack of understanding regarding the death company on full display LOL.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I guess my earlier point about balance being better for narrative got ignored, so I'll say it again:
As someone who makes narrative events for my local club, it is much much better for me to spend my time making cool stories, setting up excellent set-piece terrain setups, and writing narrative rules. It is a chore for me to rebalance 40k in the process.
Plus, if I saw a Salamanders player rock up with 18 Eradicators, who am I to tell him he is wrong? Eradicators are the perfect nuSalamander, since melta is their shtick after all. Like Ultramarines showing up with Blade Guard. Am I to say "sorry, you brought too much fire with you, Salamanders. Have you considered taking something more iron-handsy, like a tank?"
Because that's fluffier.
As the person designing the scenarios it's not your job to police the players, that's up to them.
Bringing the latest competitive net list will happen regardless of how well balanced the base game is, but by having a narrative event the story should be more important than the score sheet.
Will Jimmy with his loving converted kroot merc army where each character has a story and battle record, who plays to the theme by picking secondaries and relics in line with their narrative despite being sub optimal, really want a narrative story driven game against "this list won 3 tourneys last month, I figured its pretty good, thats why I brought it".
A balanced game with good army viability would permit a "this list won three tourneys last month, that's why I brought it" to be on an even playing field with a kroot merc army that picks secondaries and relics (at least assuming that army was intended to exist by the designers). And the battle should tell a good story, too, with opportunities for heroism and failure on both sides. Player skill would determine the winner, rather than simply what models are available to what side.
A one-sided battle isn't narratively compelling. "Oh, my Eldar tried their hardest, killed no one, and were wiped out to a man. My warlord escaped after getting his head bashed in because the enemy had to let them go" isn't a good story. So yes, I have to balance the game for the players - or, alternatively, I could trust the actual game designers to actually design the game.
Y'know. The guys at GW.
You're right but you can never cover that element of perspective and player onus. The person bringing the tourney list is doing it to kick face in, not because their army has a story behind it.
Even if the fluff list were balanced against it near enough, the players play styles and how they think and approach the game can still be incompatible.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I guess my earlier point about balance being better for narrative got ignored, so I'll say it again:
As someone who makes narrative events for my local club, it is much much better for me to spend my time making cool stories, setting up excellent set-piece terrain setups, and writing narrative rules. It is a chore for me to rebalance 40k in the process.
Plus, if I saw a Salamanders player rock up with 18 Eradicators, who am I to tell him he is wrong? Eradicators are the perfect nuSalamander, since melta is their shtick after all. Like Ultramarines showing up with Blade Guard. Am I to say "sorry, you brought too much fire with you, Salamanders. Have you considered taking something more iron-handsy, like a tank?"
Because that's fluffier.
As the person designing the scenarios it's not your job to police the players, that's up to them.
Bringing the latest competitive net list will happen regardless of how well balanced the base game is, but by having a narrative event the story should be more important than the score sheet.
Will Jimmy with his loving converted kroot merc army where each character has a story and battle record, who plays to the theme by picking secondaries and relics in line with their narrative despite being sub optimal, really want a narrative story driven game against "this list won 3 tourneys last month, I figured its pretty good, thats why I brought it".
How far do you take this? Tripointing makes no sense for BA death company models. Yet, it's perfectly legal and was almost mandatory in 8th ed.
"The death company were lost to rage and refused to let their prey escape, surrounding them on all sides to keep them penned in while they attacked blindly. Their allies watched on with renewed hatred, eager to enact vengeance. "
Or if you were penned in: "the death company would not leave one of their own behind, the insult of seeing one of their own isolated and cut off pushing them to greater fits of rage."
Moreover, it was a core mechanic and made no sense for anyone really.
Wow...the complete lack of understanding regarding the death company on full display LOL.
Enlighten me
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/21 19:25:17
2020/10/21 19:25:01
Subject: I don’t think marines should have two wounds
Brotherjanus wrote:I like that they have started to make 2 sets of rules, one for matched and another for narrative/casual. The hard part is keeping it fair for matched play.
this is the best thing to happen to 40k in a very long time. I dont give a flying feth about tourney balance but I care that fluff/rules are more integrated between what's fluffy and what works on the tabletop.
They should be separated and the power gamers/waac/donkey-caves should stick to their fethed up variation of the game and we will stick to just having fun.
Except your gak balance is worse for casual play so...
And you missed the point - in a narrative casual group playing for fluff, they work around the balance issues generally.
That's fantastic, doing GW's work for them! Oh and then what happens when one army's fluffy list like Imperial Guard is just significantly better than another army's fluffy list like Dark Eldar? What are you doing to account for that balance issue?
I don't know that it is, but the dark eldar pkayer simply says "I'm struggling with x unit, can we try swapping it out for something or maybe change unit Y do I don't have 2 big problems please?"
Not hard, its not about GWs job for them, its about creating a positive experience for both players.
Good idea. I'm having trouble with your Infantry squads and Russes, two of your core units that are key to faction identity! Can you swap them for...oh wait.
You still haven't figured it out and it's hilarious. One army's fluff list is already a competitive one whereas the other one struggles even being optimized. So what's supposed to happen with your narrative, sport?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
