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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.

You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.

40k stats. For years TS were at the top of the charts for win rates. Virtually every choas army was taking a TS detachment.

Marines are generalists and meant to do at least every playstyle a little bit. That being said, sheer SKU creep and their nature as an aura-based faction means there isn't a lot they can't do.

The one hole is indirect fire. Its kind of funny, but there's very little indirect fire in marines and its all mounted on hard to hide vehicles with low wounds for such a big target.

In the implicit question of 'how do I beat marines?', its harder to answer. They are heavily built around that T4/3+ statline and getting enough fire to saturate them can be hard. Generally you'd need a bunch of D2 weapons with a minimum of -1 AP. You can also try drowning the objectives in bodies, but that means you need to get to the objectives first and if you don't all you can do is roll dice to the end.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.

You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.

40k stats. For years TS were at the top of the charts for win rates. Virtually every choas army was taking a TS detachment.

Lol, take x detachment and suddendly the whole dex performs well
that is a non argument and just shows the lackluster state of most chaos dexes needing to soup to be relevant....

Are there any other British Dakkanauts of a certain unspecified vintage who see this thread title, and hear The Scunner Campbell in their head?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.

You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.

EDIT: and i just checked 40kstats and they have a single top 4 that dates back to august. and it was a soup list

Xeno just says gak. They never have a source, so, don't hold your breath.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.

You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.

40k stats. For years TS were at the top of the charts for win rates. Virtually every choas army was taking a TS detachment.

Lol, take x detachment and suddendly the whole dex performs well
that is a non argument and just shows the lackluster state of most chaos dexes needing to soup to be relevant....

This is how choas functions. They are specifically designed this way. In 8th - no one was bringing mono army so it's pointless to even make this argument. Interestingly...can you name another army other than marines that has to give up all their special rules to take allies? It's almost like they are specifically designed to be a mono force.

the_scotsman wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.

You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.

EDIT: and i just checked 40kstats and they have a single top 4 that dates back to august. and it was a soup list

Xeno just says gak. They never have a source, so, don't hold your breath.

Nvm, just saw he was talking about 8th edition, not 9th.

Still, i think everyone agrees that thousand sons weren't top tier, their supreme command detachment was (when backed with plaguebearers pre-nerf.)

Please be polite


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.

You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.

EDIT: and i just checked 40kstats and they have a single top 4 that dates back to august. and it was a soup list

Xeno just says gak. They never have a source, so, don't hold your breath.

Nvm, just saw he was talking about 8th edition, not 9th.

Still, i think everyone agrees that thousand sons weren't top tier, their supreme command detachment was (when backed with plaguebearers pre-nerf.)

Nonsense. These units would have been included in any capacity if necessary. Just because there is a detachment that allows them to be taken with no tax. ALL THE BETTER for them.

 catbarf wrote:
I don't think it's wrong to have factions lend themselves to particular archetypes. Tau shouldn't be doing all-melee, Death Guard shouldn't be doing high-mobility hit-and-run, World Eaters shouldn't be doing gunlines.

That doesn't mean Tau shouldn't have any melee, but even a melee Tau list should still be shootier than a non-Tau melee list, because it's a core part of their design. It doesn't mean Tau melee units should suck either; it means they'll be things like Kroot that are both shooting and melee, so not as optimized at melee as specialists like Bloodletters.

IMO, each faction should have a baseline for what a 'typical' army for that faction looks like which defines their identity, and then be able to lean in other build directions. Put another way, if two army builds of the same archetype meet, the respective strengths and weaknesses should reflect the differences between the factions. A Tau melee army should be better at shooting and worse at melee than a Khorne melee army. A Guard mechanized army should be slower but more durable than an Eldar mechanized army. But there are still some builds that actually should just be not available- Khorne should not have psychic spam as a list archetype, and Tyranids should not have mechanized as an archetype.

The main problem right now- and why this thread exists- is that Marines don't just lean in the direction of particular builds archetypes; they tend to do those builds better than the factions that specialize in those to begin with. It's like if Tau could build a melee list that could both out-shoot and out-fight Khorne Daemons.

But... why though?

I mean I guess my criticism here is that what a "typical" army is, often ends up hamstringing the faction.

So for example, something I disagree about - is venom spam. And to an extent raider spam. There is a strong feeling that any Dark Eldar unit deigning to touch the earth at the start of a game is unfluffy - so the mechanics should make you not want to do it. But this just results in most DE armies looking and playing much the same, because if you have to take transports, there are limited points left for other things.

But the response goes "but the Dark Eldar are fast (cos transports) and fragile (cos T3 and T5 Transports) and... and I guess Talos exist but that's just how its meant to be".
The result is you have a sort of mutilated faction. It can't really *do anything* but fast transport/vehicle spam or loads of Talos - and we are meant to believe its fundamentally unfluffy so the rules shouldn't allow anything else anyway. So no new models for you. But Dark Eldar could have so much more.

In the same way, I don't really see how it hurts the game if Tau were to get the "combat Tau update" and those units were "good". There are issues of synergies - but "you can't just run just these combat units, you must take triptide" doesn't seem like good or necessary design. I don't think World Eaters should be running sorcerers - but there's no reason they can't have "magic priests" who on the table do essentially the same thing. The limit is the imagination.

By way of examples - where I feel GW have done well - is new Sisters and new Necrons. There are inevitably more and less optimal ways to play - but I feel you can do whatever you like with those factions. You can play horde (or at least massed infantry). You can play mechanised. You can play with an assault focus, or a defensive shooting focus or a hybrid. There isn't (at least for me) an obvious A-list build encompassing how the faction *is meant to play*, and then a range of units which GW would prefer you just didn't use.

(the_scotsman sometimes talks about using Marine rules for Eldar - I think there is a real case for using Sisters rules for DE.)

@Xeno

To me a thousand sons army isnt JUST the HQs and it certainly isnt the HQs + Nurgle demons.

Yes , the army has a good winrate but where were the rubrics and scarab occult pre-PA?

Anyway, this conversation is pretty moot since in 9th they got multiple nerfs already that make them low tier, and now their "8th edition top tier list" is unplayable because of the loss of supreme commands and the CP cost for extra detachments.

I originally asked you for a source because i was legitimately curious as to what lists were "top tier" in 9th, because i missread.

Tyel wrote:
But... why though?

Faction identity via playstyle and distinctiveness. If a new player wants to play foot Eldar, then Drukhari aren't the best choice. And that's fine, because there are (or should be) alternative choices.

It's cool to be "the faction that does X" in the lore. Like Dark Eldar are fast raiders who succeed by speed and stealth, like the Rogue from DND. Conversely, Sororitas are more like the Cleric from DND, who through sheer prayer and faithfulness can pull off superhuman feats, and Imperial Guard are the combined-arms mixed force army. Each faction has an identity.

Asking "why should that faction have an identity" is like asking "why shouldn't fighters cast spells like Wizards do? Why shouldn't Wizards get a D12 hit die like Barbarians? Why are Barbarians the only class that can Rage?" It's for flavor and playstyle distinction. That doesn't mean those other forces/characters can't tweak a bit (for example, the Fighter can have some spellcasting through Eldritch Knight, but it'll always be worse than the Wizard; or in our example, Sororitas can still function if you personally build your army around melee instead of the Faith mechanics, but you still will be worse (or should be) than Khorne Berzerkers). But it does mean, as the examples demonstrate, that those tweaks shouldn't ever be as good as the dedicated specialist.

In DND, having a Barbarian's cool abilities only work when he isn't wearing armor isn't "hamstringing" the Barbarian, it's giving players the option to play a tough, fighty character who isn't forced to wear heavy armor (and therefore fits a certain fantasy archetype). If, suddenly, there became a class of Fighter who was way tougher, way fightier, and also didn't wear armor, it'd be reasonable for players who liked the Barbarian class to feel a bit jipped - they might as well all swap to playing Fighter, especially in a competitive PVP game like Warhammer where "building a character" takes huge amounts of emotional and temporal and financial investment.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Tyel wrote:
But... why though?

Faction identity via playstyle and distinctiveness. If a new player wants to play foot Eldar, then Drukhari aren't the best choice. And that's fine, because there are (or should be) alternative choices.

It's cool to be "the faction that does X" in the lore. Like Dark Eldar are fast raiders who succeed by speed and stealth, like the Rogue from DND. Conversely, Sororitas are more like the Cleric from DND, who through sheer prayer and faithfulness can pull off superhuman feats, and Imperial Guard are the combined-arms mixed force army. Each faction has an identity.

Asking "why should that faction have an identity" is like asking "why shouldn't fighters cast spells like Wizards do? Why shouldn't Wizards get a D12 hit die like Barbarians? Why are Barbarians the only class that can Rage?" It's for flavor and playstyle distinction. That doesn't mean those other forces/characters can't tweak a bit (for example, the Fighter can have some spellcasting through Eldritch Knight, but it'll always be worse than the Wizard; or in our example, Sororitas can still function if you personally build your army around melee instead of the Faith mechanics, but you still will be worse (or should be) than Khorne Berzerkers). But it does mean, as the examples demonstrate, that those tweaks shouldn't ever be as good as the dedicated specialist.

Thats exactly how i view it too.

Every army should have the option to play every role but they should be mediocre in their non-preferred way to fight.

actually we are not even at that point.....
Most armies lack f.e. still an AA unit... or a propper flyer.

f.e.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@Xeno

To me a thousand sons army isnt JUST the HQs and it certainly isnt the HQs + Nurgle demons.

Yes , the army has a good winrate but where were the rubrics and scarab occult pre-PA?

Anyway, this conversation is pretty moot since in 9th they got multiple nerfs already that make them low tier, and now their "8th edition top tier list" is unplayable because of the loss of supreme commands and the CP cost for extra detachments.

I originally asked you for a source because i was legitimately curious as to what lists were "top tier" in 9th, because i missread.

9th is a new eddition and we don't even have a TS codex. It's too early to make these claims. I don't think anyone disagrees that marines are better than all the other armies right now. It's already been old the marine whining since 8.5 fiasco. It is beyond tiresome now.

Agreed that TS are currently weak. If they get 2 wound rubrics though - they will be top tier AF. 3wound SOT. DG coming soon - it will be a hint at what TS will look like.

TS win rate for 1ksons is a bit misleading because a lot of chaos players would just take a supreme command of Ahriman and Daemon princes. You could make one your warlord and all of the sudden your a 1ksons army. If by this logic that is what makes 1ksons great then marines where great all of 8th because they had smash captains. Either way its 100% irrelevant to what I said because I mentioned 9th ed not 8th.

I think the "armies as DND characters" is actually a good metaphor for how I think about the game....

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the "armies as DND characters" is actually a good metaphor for how I think about the game....

yeah and i can really draw the parallel between my playstyles in both, i often try and make the "unintended" or non traditionnal playstyle work.

I was so happy when they added the full-on bladelock in dnd with xanathars and in 40k i'll play my admech as mostly melee for example.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the "armies as DND characters" is actually a good metaphor for how I think about the game....

yeah and i can really draw the parallel between my playstyles in both, i often try and make the "unintended" or non traditionnal playstyle work.

I was so happy when they added the full-on bladelock in dnd with xanathars and in 40k i'll play my admech as mostly melee for example.

Well, I'm glad at least one other person shares that metaphor, and good choices of army and class!

 Xenomancers wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@Xeno

To me a thousand sons army isnt JUST the HQs and it certainly isnt the HQs + Nurgle demons.

Yes , the army has a good winrate but where were the rubrics and scarab occult pre-PA?

Anyway, this conversation is pretty moot since in 9th they got multiple nerfs already that make them low tier, and now their "8th edition top tier list" is unplayable because of the loss of supreme commands and the CP cost for extra detachments.

I originally asked you for a source because i was legitimately curious as to what lists were "top tier" in 9th, because i missread.

9th is a new eddition and we don't even have a TS codex. It's too early to make these claims. I don't think anyone disagrees that marines are better than all the other armies right now. It's already been old the marine whining since 8.5 fiasco. It is beyond tiresome now.

Agreed that TS are currently weak. If they get 2 wound rubrics though - they will be top tier AF. 3wound SOT. DG coming soon - it will be a hint at what TS will look like.

i disagree that its too early to make these claims. We can say that as it stands with the new edition the army got worse and still know that they still don't have a codex.
Time doesnt just freeze between codex releases, i can still play my thousand sons right now. And notice i havnt said anything about marines, solely about how 9ths ruleset affected TS.

Marines aren’t vulnerable to snipers-their characters are good, but not essential. They’re also decently durable.

Daemons are vulnerable to snipers.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the "armies as DND characters" is actually a good metaphor for how I think about the game....

I feel getting into the vagaries of D&D is a minefield - but these days, can't just about all the archetypes be built to serve any of the desired rolls in the party? Yes some may be more or less optimal depending on circumstance, but that's not really what we are talking about here.

I mean I don't mind if in isolation Khorne Berserkers "beat" say Repentia, Incubi or whatever.
But I have a problem if X is good for its points, and Y is bad for its points. Because all this does is reduce the game to "bring the S tier stuff, don't bother with the rest."

Basically I don't think faction identity should be reduced down to spamming 2-3 units out of 20. Orks for example are still Orks whether they go all the boyz, all the buggies, all the dreads or a mix. I don't see why the response should be "right, goff green tide only, nerf the rest, we don't want these models ever shooting anyone."

Tyel wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the "armies as DND characters" is actually a good metaphor for how I think about the game....

I feel getting into the vagaries of D&D is a minefield - but these days, can't just about all the archetypes be built to serve any of the desired rolls in the party? Yes some may be more or less optimal depending on circumstance, but that's not really what we are talking about here.

I mean I don't mind if in isolation Khorne Berserkers "beat" say Repentia, Incubi or whatever.
But I have a problem if X is good for its points, and Y is bad for its points. Because all this does is reduce the game to "bring the S tier stuff, don't bother with the rest."

Basically I don't think faction identity should be reduced down to spamming 2-3 units out of 20. Orks for example are still Orks whether they go all the boyz, all the buggies, all the dreads or a mix. I don't see why the response should be "right, goff green tide only, nerf the rest, we don't want these models ever shooting anyone."

Yes, they mostly CAN but theyre gonna be innefficient at it. And were talking on an army wide basis. Sure World eaters are best at fighting but if you bring the shooty aspects of CSM, they can do decent.

Tyel wrote:

But... why though?

I mean I guess my criticism here is that what a "typical" army is, often ends up hamstringing the faction.

So for example, something I disagree about - is venom spam. And to an extent raider spam. There is a strong feeling that any Dark Eldar unit deigning to touch the earth at the start of a game is unfluffy - so the mechanics should make you not want to do it. But this just results in most DE armies looking and playing much the same, because if you have to take transports, there are limited points left for other things.

But the response goes "but the Dark Eldar are fast (cos transports) and fragile (cos T3 and T5 Transports) and... and I guess Talos exist but that's just how its meant to be".
The result is you have a sort of mutilated faction. It can't really *do anything* but fast transport/vehicle spam or loads of Talos - and we are meant to believe its fundamentally unfluffy so the rules shouldn't allow anything else anyway. So no new models for you. But Dark Eldar could have so much more.

Can I take this opportunity to point out that this probably wouldn't be an issue if even a 10th of the thought given to SM armies was given to DE.

Personally, I'd be happy to see DE get other playstyles. But that would involve some thought and effort on GW's part - not least new releases.

Back in 7th edition, I loved Corsairs. In fact, I referred to them as "Codex Dark Eldar: Good Version".

Want to know why?

Because even if I ignored near enough all the Eldar units (along with all the D-weapons and other nonsense), there were just so many more ways to play them.

As an example, every Corsair infantry unit - and I mean every single unit - could have a Jet Pack. So I could literally have an entire army with no vehicles, and it would still feel fast and mobile. Why? Because the rules emphasised speed and mobility. Regardless of whether I was playing vehicle-heavy or vehicle-light, it still felt like I was playing a fast, mobile army. In addition to extra movement from Jetbikes (where available), units also got an extra move if they shot the enemy at close range, plus the JSJ move from Jetpacks.

Now lets try the same thing with Dark Eldar. Oh, wait, they have 0 mobility options for HQs, 0 Elites with mobility options, 0 troops with mobility options, and their only mobility option in Heavy Support is a vehicle.

I guess we could run them on foot, but they're barely faster than normal Marines (they don't even have a version of Fleet like Harlequins and Eldar got), whilst dying to a stiff breeze.

Hell, let's look back at older versions of the DE codex. In 5th, they had a playstyle that involved putting down permanent webway portals, from which DE units could then emerge from for the remainder of the battle. In 7th this was knocked down to HQs being able to teleport just a single attached unit (though also a transport). And then in 8th this was knocked back to a Stratagem, which doesn't even give you a free use on HQs. So if you want to teleport both an HQ and a squad (what a concept!), then you have to pay 3CPs and you still forfeit the ability to webway in any other units in this manner.

My point is, having an emphasis on speed and stealth, coming at the enemy from unexpected angles etc. does not mean DE have to be limited to a mechanised army and nothing else. That should certainly be something they do well, but there's no reason why they can't also be good at fielding armies of beasts, hellions, scourges, reavers etc., or at pouring en masse though sudden webway portals.

The reason they can't do those things is not because of any central design philosophy but because of a decade of neglect, dismemberment, and stagnation. Other armies are allowed to have Jetbikes or similarly fast units as troops, but DE are stuck with 3 units that are all variations on footslogging infantry. Other armies are allowed to have fast HQs. DE have had all such options systematically removed, whilst getting absolutely nothing in return. Other armies are allowed to have fast Elites (or upgrades for Elites to make them fast). But once again, the only option available is transports.

Corsairs showed in 7th that fast armies could have playstyles other than mech spam. But instead of embracing and learning from that, GW simply killed Corsairs and buried the body. And no, of course I'm not still bitter about them being removed, why do you ask?

/rant

R&H also showed that in 7th humble troop units could be good...

but guess what corsairs and R/H had in common, yes FW and the GW rulesteam couldn't let that slide that the other supposedly only creating OP rulessets did manage to make 7th work in a non broken non formation way..... with actual customisation.

Rightfully bitter, as marines have two separate plastic armies. I still can't believe they didn't kill oldbois.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Marines aren’t vulnerable to snipers-their characters are good, but not essential. They’re also decently durable.

Daemons are vulnerable to snipers.

Nah - marines literally can't win without their characters. Take out their chapter master and its game over. Donezo. Decently durable yes - but low T. Theres a reason I am bringing 20-30 deathmarks. 20 deathmarks 1 shots a chapter master, 10 1 shots an apoth. Sure all characters are vunerable in this way but not all characters are paying extra for these powerful auras.

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:

But... why though?

I mean I guess my criticism here is that what a "typical" army is, often ends up hamstringing the faction.

So for example, something I disagree about - is venom spam. And to an extent raider spam. There is a strong feeling that any Dark Eldar unit deigning to touch the earth at the start of a game is unfluffy - so the mechanics should make you not want to do it. But this just results in most DE armies looking and playing much the same, because if you have to take transports, there are limited points left for other things.

But the response goes "but the Dark Eldar are fast (cos transports) and fragile (cos T3 and T5 Transports) and... and I guess Talos exist but that's just how its meant to be".
The result is you have a sort of mutilated faction. It can't really *do anything* but fast transport/vehicle spam or loads of Talos - and we are meant to believe its fundamentally unfluffy so the rules shouldn't allow anything else anyway. So no new models for you. But Dark Eldar could have so much more.

Can I take this opportunity to point out that this probably wouldn't be an issue if even a 10th of the thought given to SM armies was given to DE.

Personally, I'd be happy to see DE get other playstyles. But that would involve some thought and effort on GW's part - not least new releases.

Back in 7th edition, I loved Corsairs. In fact, I referred to them as "Codex Dark Eldar: Good Version".

Want to know why?

Because even if I ignored near enough all the Eldar units (along with all the D-weapons and other nonsense), there were just so many more ways to play them.

As an example, every Corsair infantry unit - and I mean every single unit - could have a Jet Pack. So I could literally have an entire army with no vehicles, and it would still feel fast and mobile. Why? Because the rules emphasised speed and mobility. Regardless of whether I was playing vehicle-heavy or vehicle-light, it still felt like I was playing a fast, mobile army. In addition to extra movement from Jetbikes (where available), units also got an extra move if they shot the enemy at close range, plus the JSJ move from Jetpacks.

Now lets try the same thing with Dark Eldar. Oh, wait, they have 0 mobility options for HQs, 0 Elites with mobility options, 0 troops with mobility options, and their only mobility option in Heavy Support is a vehicle.

I guess we could run them on foot, but they're barely faster than normal Marines (they don't even have a version of Fleet like Harlequins and Eldar got), whilst dying to a stiff breeze.

Hell, let's look back at older versions of the DE codex. In 5th, they had a playstyle that involved putting down permanent webway portals, from which DE units could then emerge from for the remainder of the battle. In 7th this was knocked down to HQs being able to teleport just a single attached unit (though also a transport). And then in 8th this was knocked back to a Stratagem, which doesn't even give you a free use on HQs. So if you want to teleport both an HQ and a squad (what a concept!), then you have to pay 3CPs and you still forfeit the ability to webway in any other units in this manner.

My point is, having an emphasis on speed and stealth, coming at the enemy from unexpected angles etc. does not mean DE have to be limited to a mechanised army and nothing else. That should certainly be something they do well, but there's no reason why they can't also be good at fielding armies of beasts, hellions, scourges, reavers etc., or at pouring en masse though sudden webway portals.

The reason they can't do those things is not because of any central design philosophy but because of a decade of neglect, dismemberment, and stagnation. Other armies are allowed to have Jetbikes or similarly fast units as troops, but DE are stuck with 3 units that are all variations on footslogging infantry. Other armies are allowed to have fast HQs. DE have had all such options systematically removed, whilst getting absolutely nothing in return. Other armies are allowed to have fast Elites (or upgrades for Elites to make them fast). But once again, the only option available is transports.

Corsairs showed in 7th that fast armies could have playstyles other than mech spam. But instead of embracing and learning from that, GW simply killed Corsairs and buried the body. And no, of course I'm not still bitter about them being removed, why do you ask?

/rant

That is a sad story, I never saw Corsairs in action but they sound cool. In addition, the fact that DE can't do their webway portal thing anymore is pretty tragic.

But hey? Did you want to play an army with an elite, quick hitting, fast and mobile playstyle? I've got the thing for you! Check out marine chapter 347 and their new rules to represent their love of fast, stealthy attacks!!

Tyel wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the "armies as DND characters" is actually a good metaphor for how I think about the game....

I feel getting into the vagaries of D&D is a minefield - but these days, can't just about all the archetypes be built to serve any of the desired rolls in the party? Yes some may be more or less optimal depending on circumstance, but that's not really what we are talking about here.

That's exactly what we're talking about. A Warlock can be the guy who sits up front and tanks damage, but if that's that players preferred playstyle, he's deliberately made a suboptimal choice. More or less optimal is exactly what we're talking about.

Tyel wrote:
I mean I don't mind if in isolation Khorne Berserkers "beat" say Repentia, Incubi or whatever.
But I have a problem if X is good for its points, and Y is bad for its points. Because all this does is reduce the game to "bring the S tier stuff, don't bother with the rest."

Which is fine, because presumably there is an army that fits your playstyle and for whom the S-tier stuff is exactly what you wanted out of the army. That's the way things should be, it's how people get invested. "Hmm, I like bikes. Wow, Eldar bikes are pretty terrifying in the lore; swooping and diving. I loved that ebook story where they befuddled a Baneblade and killed all the other guardsman. Oh, they're good in the rules as well, which match the lore? Got all kinds of stratagems and rules that help them out? Cool, I like this faction!"

Someone who likes being the slow, tanky, durable type who holds up his shield in a spot and says "This Is Defended!" probably should pick up Death Guard and not, say, well, Eldar bikes.

The only room that would leave are people who's playstyle is literally "pick something off the beaten path and roll with it" and they typically know they're trying to do something fun and unique and suboptimal, just like a Warlock who builds to be the party tank.

Tyel wrote:
Basically I don't think faction identity should be reduced down to spamming 2-3 units out of 20. Orks for example are still Orks whether they go all the boyz, all the buggies, all the dreads or a mix. I don't see why the response should be "right, goff green tide only, nerf the rest, we don't want these models ever shooting anyone."

Where did I say they should only be 2-3 units out of 20? If a faction's playstyle is defined only by 2-3 units possessed by that faction, then perhaps the faction isn't built very well, and they could use more units. Including, for example, Buggies, who allow Orks to flavor their lists with a bit of speed and shooting without becoming Dark Eldar, in the same manner a Fighter can flavor their character with some spellcasting without becoming Wizards.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Marines aren’t vulnerable to snipers-their characters are good, but not essential. They’re also decently durable.

Daemons are vulnerable to snipers.

Nah - marines literally can't win without their characters. Take out their chapter master and its game over. Donezo. Decently durable yes - but low T. Theres a reason I am bringing 20-30 deathmarks. 20 deathmarks 1 shots a chapter master, 10 1 shots an apoth. Sure all characters are vunerable in this way but not all characters are paying extra for these powerful auras.

Intercessors outshoot Fire Warriors and outfight Genestealers Without buffs.

Whereas 30 Plaguebearers, Without buffs, kill one Gravis Marine.
The same need +1 Strength, +1 to-hit, RR1s to-hit, 7s to-hit get an extra attack, and 2 damage on 6s to-wound to kill 5 Ordinary MEQ.

That’s close to 300 points, buffed by three separate characters, to kill a min squad.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's exactly what we're talking about. A Warlock can be the guy who sits up front and tanks damage, but if that's that players preferred playstyle, he's deliberately made a suboptimal choice. More or less optimal is exactly what we're talking about.

Yes. I guess what I'm saying is that everything should move relatively close together - and factions should gain new units where they are missing obvious gaps - because this is likely to give all factions multiple viable builds. I think (perhaps incorrectly) that you are saying this will dilute faction identity too much.