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:

SecondTime wrote:
2W marines are balance issue

No, that's just one of several possible ways to approach the question.

Okay, CAN be construed as a balance issue. What are the other approaches exactly?

"Does it lead to an accurate representation of the lore?"

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
"Does it lead to an accurate representation of the lore?"

Can that be answered without a point value attached?

SecondTime wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
"Does it lead to an accurate representation of the lore?"

Can that be answered without a point value attached?

"and thus Marneus, that is how I wrote the codex astartes, I arbitrarily made up points values for your men and their companies"

"The tyranids swarmed over the hill into the imperial forces, but as the marines had 130 points of wounds, they were able to turn the threat aside"

"Ragnar was impressed with his new found strength and extra 8 points of wounds having crossed the rubicon, now he was finding his injuries weren't costing him as many points for each blow that made it through his armour"

@Catbarf - I just have to say I very consistenly find myself nodding my head at your posts; in this case, as your words put a finger I was otherwise having trouble placing on the nature of issues that my Tabletop Sim game group is having. Thank you for this.

Dudeface wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
"Does it lead to an accurate representation of the lore?"

Can that be answered without a point value attached?

"and thus Marneus, that is how I wrote the codex astartes, I arbitrarily made up points values for your men and their companies"

"The tyranids swarmed over the hill into the imperial forces, but as the marines had 130 points of wounds, they were able to turn the threat aside"

"Ragnar was impressed with his new found strength and extra 8 points of wounds having crossed the rubicon, now he was finding his injuries weren't costing him as many points for each blow that made it through his armour"

Just saying that 50 pt guardsmen wouldn't be very lore accurate, now would they?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Nobody talking about whether marines should have two wounds ever again. This thread became a balance discussion.

Whether marines should have 1 or 2 wounds is literally a balance discussion.

SecondTime wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
"Does it lead to an accurate representation of the lore?"

Can that be answered without a point value attached?

"and thus Marneus, that is how I wrote the codex astartes, I arbitrarily made up points values for your men and their companies"

"The tyranids swarmed over the hill into the imperial forces, but as the marines had 130 points of wounds, they were able to turn the threat aside"

"Ragnar was impressed with his new found strength and extra 8 points of wounds having crossed the rubicon, now he was finding his injuries weren't costing him as many points for each blow that made it through his armour"

Just saying that 50 pt guardsmen wouldn't be very lore accurate, now would they?

Why not? It's an arbitrary number scale. It's not like in the fluff they tell you that a marine is worth 4 guardsmen worth of points exactly is it.

I guess. But then there's the issue of inconsistent and contradictory fluff. So I really think 2 W marines are best viewed as a balance issue.

Dudeface wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SecondTime wrote:
" not the red thirst as per the current codex,"

I don't think we need to discuss this any further.

I agree, clearly the fluff in your mind is different to their most recently published book. Unless you're telling me GW wrote their own fluff wrong somehow of course.

LMAO! Yes, because GW has never arbitrarily changed fluff, invented completely contradictory fluff or flat out bat crap crazy fluff....I don't know....like Grey Knights covering their armor and weapons in the blood of sisters of battle.

Death Company = Uncontrollable rage monsters, that has been the fluff for 20-30 years, sorry the newest entry doesn't specifically mention that. I guess we can safely ignore decades of fluff because the newest entry doesn't specifically reference the last quarter century of fluff.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SecondTime wrote:
" not the red thirst as per the current codex,"

I don't think we need to discuss this any further.

I agree, clearly the fluff in your mind is different to their most recently published book. Unless you're telling me GW wrote their own fluff wrong somehow of course.

LMAO! Yes, because GW has never arbitrarily changed fluff, invented completely contradictory fluff or flat out bat crap crazy fluff....I don't know....like Grey Knights covering their armor and weapons in the blood of sisters of battle.

Death Company = Uncontrollable rage monsters, that has been the fluff for 20-30 years, sorry the newest entry doesn't specifically mention that. I guess we can safely ignore decades of fluff because the newest entry doesn't specifically reference the last quarter century of fluff.

That's kinda how this works.... remember when Abby lost the 13th black crusade officially? The new setting sort of completely ignores that, likewise C'tan weren't shards, Necrons didn't have personalities or dynastic courts, space wolves don't teleport, eldrad is dead and cadia was solid.

Not Online!!! wrote:
it does. Especially in a casual setting it leads rather fast to some real annoyment, especially if you have an instance of massive underpowering or overpowering capabilties in armies and GW is no stranger to that.

Take a devoted IH player that get's his supplement and now has in order to even get a decent experience or a match at all curb a gakton of his choices just because they became too good.
Take a GK player before the PA update beeing forced to pick a predetermined loadout and list set that he may or may not own.
Etc etc. those extremes are in many ways the worst case scenario but also the groups most likely to become burnt out from the hobby.

This is one of the main reasons I don't actively play 40k anymore. If I wanted my DA to perform better, I needed to spam RWBKs, when I only owned 3. If I'd done that and abandoned my greening, I would have spent several hundred bucks merely because I "built my army wrong."

Dudeface wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SecondTime wrote:
" not the red thirst as per the current codex,"

I don't think we need to discuss this any further.

I agree, clearly the fluff in your mind is different to their most recently published book. Unless you're telling me GW wrote their own fluff wrong somehow of course.

LMAO! Yes, because GW has never arbitrarily changed fluff, invented completely contradictory fluff or flat out bat crap crazy fluff....I don't know....like Grey Knights covering their armor and weapons in the blood of sisters of battle.

Death Company = Uncontrollable rage monsters, that has been the fluff for 20-30 years, sorry the newest entry doesn't specifically mention that. I guess we can safely ignore decades of fluff because the newest entry doesn't specifically reference the last quarter century of fluff.

That's kinda how this works.... remember when Abby lost the 13th black crusade officially? The new setting sort of completely ignores that, likewise C'tan weren't shards, Necrons didn't have personalities or dynastic courts, space wolves don't teleport, eldrad is dead and cadia was solid.

You missed that all BA have red thrist, which really calls your understanding of BA into question. As I stated, its very questionable whether tripointing is appropriate for any BA unit. Much less DC.

Blastaar wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
it does. Especially in a casual setting it leads rather fast to some real annoyment, especially if you have an instance of massive underpowering or overpowering capabilties in armies and GW is no stranger to that.

Take a devoted IH player that get's his supplement and now has in order to even get a decent experience or a match at all curb a gakton of his choices just because they became too good.
Take a GK player before the PA update beeing forced to pick a predetermined loadout and list set that he may or may not own.
Etc etc. those extremes are in many ways the worst case scenario but also the groups most likely to become burnt out from the hobby.

This is one of the main reasons I don't actively play 40k anymore. If I wanted my DA to perform better, I needed to spam RWBKs, when I only owned 3. If I'd done that and abandoned my greening, I would have spent several hundred bucks merely because I "built my army wrong."

Don't forget that what would work at one point would just switch Next Interation of the dex...

SecondTime wrote:
Can that be answered without a point value attached?

Unlike the balance question, yes. Yes it can.

SecondTime wrote:
I guess. But then there's the issue of inconsistent and contradictory fluff. So I really think 2 W marines are best viewed as a balance issue.

If I take a balanced version of 40k, supposing this thing exist, and I suddenly exchange all guard profiles with marine profiles and vice versa, you'll still have a balanced version of 40k. But it won't be true to the lore at all.
So no.

SecondTime wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SecondTime wrote:
" not the red thirst as per the current codex,"

I don't think we need to discuss this any further.

I agree, clearly the fluff in your mind is different to their most recently published book. Unless you're telling me GW wrote their own fluff wrong somehow of course.

LMAO! Yes, because GW has never arbitrarily changed fluff, invented completely contradictory fluff or flat out bat crap crazy fluff....I don't know....like Grey Knights covering their armor and weapons in the blood of sisters of battle.

Death Company = Uncontrollable rage monsters, that has been the fluff for 20-30 years, sorry the newest entry doesn't specifically mention that. I guess we can safely ignore decades of fluff because the newest entry doesn't specifically reference the last quarter century of fluff.

That's kinda how this works.... remember when Abby lost the 13th black crusade officially? The new setting sort of completely ignores that, likewise C'tan weren't shards, Necrons didn't have personalities or dynastic courts, space wolves don't teleport, eldrad is dead and cadia was solid.

You missed that all BA have red thrist, which really calls your understanding of BA into question. As I stated, its very questionable whether tripointing is appropriate for any BA unit. Much less DC.

All blood angels have the black rage to some degree, which is what causes them to enter the death company once it gets out of hand. The red thirst is what causes them to become beserkers, but the 2 aren't the same thing and never have been

All space wolves have the canis helix but do you see a chapter of only wulfen?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Can that be answered without a point value attached?

Unlike the balance question, yes. Yes it can.

SecondTime wrote:
I guess. But then there's the issue of inconsistent and contradictory fluff. So I really think 2 W marines are best viewed as a balance issue.

If I take a balanced version of 40k, supposing this thing exist, and I suddenly exchange all guard profiles with marine profiles and vice versa, you'll still have a balanced version of 40k. But it won't be true to the lore at all.
So no.

Fair enough. But I still think its framed as a balance issue. Since the lore is so inconsistent in general.

SecondTime wrote:
You missed that all BA have red thrist, which really calls your understanding of BA into question. As I stated, its very questionable whether tripointing is appropriate for any BA unit. Much less DC.

Wait you just said the fluff was inconsistent and contradictory so what mattered was balance? Why isn't tripointing for BA also purely a balance issue? Also why does "being very angry" means it's easier to flee from you?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
You missed that all BA have red thrist, which really calls your understanding of BA into question. As I stated, its very questionable whether tripointing is appropriate for any BA unit. Much less DC.

Wait you just said the fluff was inconsistent and contradictory so what mattered was balance? Why isn't tripointing for BA also purely a balance issue? Also why does "being very angry" means it's easier to flee from you?

Fluff is largely inconsistent and sometimes contradictory, and generally prefer balances issues. However, this particular issue makes very little sense in genre for a couple of reasons.

My issue with this is twofold. First BA would likely lack the restraint to pull off a tripoint as presented in the rules. Secondly, it makes no sense for 9 guys to stand around and get killed because one guy is surrounded. I dont' have to get into the weeds of the lore to have these objections.

SecondTime wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
You missed that all BA have red thrist, which really calls your understanding of BA into question. As I stated, its very questionable whether tripointing is appropriate for any BA unit. Much less DC.

Wait you just said the fluff was inconsistent and contradictory so what mattered was balance? Why isn't tripointing for BA also purely a balance issue? Also why does "being very angry" means it's easier to flee from you?

Fluff is largely inconsistent and sometimes contradictory, and generally prefer balances issues. However, this particular issue makes very little sense in genre for a couple of reasons.

My issue with this is twofold. First BA would likely lack the restraint to pull off a tripoint as presented in the rules. Secondly, it makes no sense for 9 guys to stand around and get killed because one guy is surrounded. I dont' have to get into the weeds of the lore to have these objections.

Apply some imagination, those 9 guys aren't fleeing because they don't want to leave a man behind, likewise tripointing isn't presented in the rules, it's a skill or tactic you choose to employ, you're playing in a competitive manner because playing it narratively highlights a balance issue.

"those 9 guys aren't fleeing because they don't want to leave a man behind"

They would totally leave him behind. That's my point.

" playing it narratively highlights a balance issue."

That's true.

Dudeface wrote:
Yup seems fair, if you allow for the fact that perfect balance isn't rational or attainable so there will always be a "top list" even in a very well balanced game. Getting better game balance is better for everyone, no disputes there.

I think this is where your argument is flawed. Better balance is rational, obviously. Show me how it's not? And better balance is obtainable. "Perfect" balance isn't, but no one is asking for perfection. Just asking for better - for their $50 worth. I don't expect perfection for $50 (and if I did I'd be either incredibly naive or incredibly entitled). But I do expect $50 worth of good enough instead of $5.

Dudeface wrote:
So your conversation is now truncated to:

B: 'Well things are what they are, either fix it yourself or stop buying it'

What's next now we acknowledge the game needs better balance for both narrative and casual?

Yes, and you also acknowledge that "better" is possible even where "perfect" is not.

Dudeface wrote:
I agree, clearly the fluff in your mind is different to their most recently published book. Unless you're telling me GW wrote their own fluff wrong somehow of course.

"GW" doesn't write the fluff, different authors do. There may not even be agreement in GW about what Red Thirst does. Fluff is, of course, an interpretation.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Yup seems fair, if you allow for the fact that perfect balance isn't rational or attainable so there will always be a "top list" even in a very well balanced game. Getting better game balance is better for everyone, no disputes there.

I think this is where your argument is flawed. Better balance is rational, obviously. Show me how it's not? And better balance is obtainable. "Perfect" balance isn't, but no one is asking for perfection. Just asking for better - for their $50 worth. I don't expect perfection for $50 (and if I did I'd be either incredibly naive or incredibly entitled). But I do expect $50 worth of good enough instead of $5.

Dudeface wrote:
So your conversation is now truncated to:

B: 'Well things are what they are, either fix it yourself or stop buying it'

What's next now we acknowledge the game needs better balance for both narrative and casual?

Yes, and you also acknowledge that "better" is possible even where "perfect" is not.

Dudeface wrote:
I agree, clearly the fluff in your mind is different to their most recently published book. Unless you're telling me GW wrote their own fluff wrong somehow of course.

"GW" doesn't write the fluff, different authors do. There may not even be agreement in GW about what Red Thirst does. Fluff is, of course, an interpretation.

Better is definitely rational, you'll hear no dissent there, but where do players go here and now.

If I wanted a game with a random ad hoc list tomorrow I will need to have a discussion with my opponent about our expectations and what sort of list we're bringing. We don't have the better balance yet, so what should players do now beyond engage in that dialogue which apparently is being framed as the wrong response?

Regards fluff, the codex writing teams are probably the nearest to GW writing it as they want it to be I'd imagine. I'd expect authors quirks and deviations from the codex/rulebook to be the more questionable choices.

Dudeface wrote:

That's kinda how this works.... remember when Abby lost the 13th black crusade officially? The new setting sort of completely ignores that, likewise C'tan weren't shards, Necrons didn't have personalities or dynastic courts, space wolves don't teleport, eldrad is dead and cadia was solid.

you are wonderfully losing the point. Nothing in the new fluff contradicts the last 30ish years of fluff regarding the death company. The only thing you can point out was they didn't include a reference to that one aspect of their rich backstory in their newest entry. So by that logic you can safely ignore any and all fluff which isn't mentioned in the newest codex release. So I guess if they don't mention Ork boyz loving combat in the next fluff release in the codex they are no longer battle crazed lunatics. And if they don't specifically mentioned "Red ones go fasta" in the codex, than Speed Freakz no longer think that correct?

It's not strictly wrong, but such negotiation seems tiresome and burdensome. A lot of the time, I'll have my 2k list with a few extra units in case I need to play smaller. I don't have room for negotiation.

Dudeface wrote:
Better is definitely rational, you'll hear no dissent there, but where do players go here and now.

If I wanted a game with a random ad hoc list tomorrow I will need to have a discussion with my opponent about our expectations and what sort of list we're bringing. We don't have the better balance yet, so what should players do now beyond engage in that dialogue which apparently is being framed as the wrong response?

It isn't that engaging in dialogue is the wrong response. It's that it's an incomplete response. Pre-game negotiation may be necessary, but players:
1) Should not like being forced to do it
2) Should agitate for improvement and not accept imbalanced rules
3) Should be willing to tackle balance issues head on with GW either on FB or reddit or whatever ("the internet"). Make the company understand that better balance is desired.

And, most importantly:

4) Should not criticize other players for any of the above - at least, if they agree that better balance is indeed desirable.

Dudeface wrote:
Regards fluff, the codex writing teams are probably the nearest to GW writing it as they want it to be I'd imagine. I'd expect authors quirks and deviations from the codex/rulebook to be the more questionable choices.

Really? I consider BL the definitive source (or I did. It's gotten weird lately), and the Codexes the sort of "summary" sources, where they can't go into detail about something. The codex is an hors d'oeuvres to whet the appetite for your own lore and to find more in depth lore about your favorite factions, which you can find in campaign books and at BL.

My other concern is a lot of the imbalanced marine rules are heavily influenced by all the marine-centric lore. Tac marines circa 5th-7th weren't appropriate, but I really don't think 9th ed tac marines are appropriate either. They've just gone the other way too far.

SecondTime wrote:
My other concern is a lot of the imbalanced marine rules are heavily influenced by all the marine-centric lore.

That's not a problem, but only if other armies are built along their lore as well (ref: stories where they beat marines). The real problem is they're taking the marine-lore at face value, and ignoring other lore...
... or in other words, favoritism.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
My other concern is a lot of the imbalanced marine rules are heavily influenced by all the marine-centric lore.

That's not a problem, but only if other armies are built along their lore as well (ref: stories where they beat marines). The real problem is they're taking the marine-lore at face value, and ignoring other lore...
... or in other words, favoritism.

There's far more lore for the marines, so the favoritism is really built-in. I'm just amazed it took this long, really.

SecondTime wrote:
Fluff is largely inconsistent and sometimes contradictory, and generally prefer balances issues. However, this particular issue makes very little sense in genre for a couple of reasons.

My issue with this is twofold. First BA would likely lack the restraint to pull off a tripoint as presented in the rules. Secondly, it makes no sense for 9 guys to stand around and get killed because one guy is surrounded. I dont' have to get into the weeds of the lore to have these objections.

Fluff is largely inconsistent and sometimes contradictory, so we should ignore fluff, except on some issue where suddenly it matter?