Switch Theme:

Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Hacking Interventor





If we're going to reward kills at all, can't we just go back to the old system?

We remove all the kill secondaries and replace them with a single secondary that just gives you, say, (numbers out of my arse here) 5 VP for every 25% of the enemy's army you destroy by percentage of points. Hell, go by PL if you want to make the math easier. Units/vehicles reduced below half of their total wounds count half.

That system involved more math, yes, but I think that was fine, because a high value target was a high value target regardless of what is essentially arbitrary, cross-factionally imbalancable crap like how many wounds or models made up that unit.

"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"

-Tex Talks Battletech on GW 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Spoletta wrote:


Wait, that's different.

3 or more wound models is a different definition and something to which I can agree with.


Yeah, the ultimate goal of proposed rules like this one is to hurt armies like custodes or primaris-gravis infantry based lists. Basically those armies that are immune to Thin Their Ranks and Bring It Down.

Even if we consider only 2+ wounds instead of 3+ it wouldn't be a big deal. Pretty much every army doesn't field more than 1 maybe 2 unit of multiwounds infantry, certainly not enough to autolose a lot of points through a secondary that hurts elites.

Example: score 1VP for each multiwound infantry model killed for a maximum of 15VP. An ork army with 5 meganobz would concede max 5 points, 10 if there are two squads of multiwounds models. But then the opponent couldn't chose Bring It Down. Take sisters: 10 Arcoflagellants could net the opponent 10 VPs but then no VPs for killing Rhinos, Exorcists, Mortifiers, etc...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
If we're going to reward kills at all, can't we just go back to the old system?

We remove all the kill secondaries and replace them with a single secondary that just gives you, say, (numbers out of my arse here) 5 VP for every 25% of the enemy's army you destroy by percentage of points. Hell, go by PL if you want to make the math easier. Units/vehicles reduced below half of their total wounds count half.

That system involved more math, yes, but I think that was fine, because a high value target was a high value target regardless of what is essentially arbitrary, cross-factionally imbalancable crap like how many wounds or models made up that unit.


That wouldn't be a bad idea actually. Worked well in old editions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/06 07:59:06


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 CEO Kasen wrote:
If we're going to reward kills at all, can't we just go back to the old system?

We remove all the kill secondaries and replace them with a single secondary that just gives you, say, (numbers out of my arse here) 5 VP for every 25% of the enemy's army you destroy by percentage of points. Hell, go by PL if you want to make the math easier. Units/vehicles reduced below half of their total wounds count half.

That system involved more math, yes, but I think that was fine, because a high value target was a high value target regardless of what is essentially arbitrary, cross-factionally imbalancable crap like how many wounds or models made up that unit.


That's already a secondary, just on the defense side. The less points you lose, the more points you get.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
It is beyond doubt they deliberately did not put an elite multi-wound squad killing secondary into the game, because the secondaries overall are cribbed from ITC, with the notable and glaring exception of gangbusters. There is zero chance that even as careless a company as GW simply overlooked it.

So the question then becomes: why did they deliberately leave off one of the ITC secondaries while keeping all the rest? Answers vary depend on your tinfoil quotient, but I think it's hard to say it's a complete coincidence that most of the new model releases to go with 9th edition are elite multi-wound squads.


Doesn't take a genius to undertstand why.

It would 100% be the most dumb secondary of the lot.

Abhor the witch right now is considered the dumbest, and manages to screw just a couple of factions and only if the opponent has no psykers.

A secondary that targets elite infantries would cripple a dozen or more of factions just for the fact that they play such faction. It would be a hugely dumb secondary and if they did really implement that, this board would still be raging about it.

Let's not delude ourselves. The only reason why many players want such secondary is because it hurts SM, and hurting SM is good in everyone's book.

It probably was there in the first iteration of the test document, but then it was cut out for good reasons. Actually the existence of dumb ones like Abhor and Assassination is probably due to them going under the radar because there was an elephant like that during the playtest.


I just loved this post. Basically, Kill secondaries are perfectly fine because they don't impact Marines, but how dare you propose one that does.


I have no idea how you managed to read that from my post

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/06 08:01:27


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoiler:
Spoletta wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Now if you want a secondary which works against Gravis skew, then we can talk because that has its merits, but it is my impression that what the people want in this thread is something to punish PEQ.


No. Some want that. Most just think it's silly that PEQ can simply ignore being scored on ...



They think that because SM are OP and they grasp at anything that can nerf them, which is a sentiment that I can understand, but it doesn't mean that they are right.

Faction balance is a thing. If faction balance is bad you act on the mission balance.
Mission design is another thing. You don't change mission design to nerf a faction.

Basic rules for game design.

There is nothing that punishes banshees either. Where's all the threads about that?


The missions should also be generally equal towards all factions attempting them. This isn't the case.

Guard, for example, for showing up to the game with just about any list, give up essentially a full 30 points for their tanks and infantry. There's a lot more points on the table to score against them because there are two secondaries that simultaneously punish their only real defensive line profiles, and even go as far as to double-dip each other.
Space Marines, on the other hand, will rarely even have 45 points available to score from secondaries on the table, even accounting for Engage/Linebreaker and Banners/Scramblers. And, of course, Engage and Banners are equally well scorable against Guard, so Guard just offers a much easier scoring time and has a harder time at the mission because the mission is heavily biased against it.

This has nothing to do with faction balance, or the fact that Guard is also just not structurally very strong. Even if Guard had very powerful units, they'd still be playing the game some 20-30 points in the hole because of the secondaries. When one player has 90 points to score and the other player has 75, that's a failure of mission balance.


I would say that given what we have, secondary selection against any given average faction should generally look like:
1 secondary that you jump through some hoop yourself to do with some interaction. [Banners, Scramblers, Ritual, While We Stand]
1 secondary based on your control of the board [Engage, Linebreaker, etc.]
1 secondary based on destruction of whatever is most prevalent in the enemy army.

It's important to observe that that first category requires you to do something you wouldn't normally do towards effecting a victory to get those points. It has a negative effect on your game play, rather than just being points for progressing the mission and conducting normal play. If you, on the other hand, can replace that one with a kill secondary, then you have an easier mission, because none of your units have to stop to take actions or put themselves out of position or anything. Just play the game as you were going to, and get your points. On the other hand, if you don't give up a kill secondary, then your opponent has to take a second one from that first category, which makes the game harder for them through the inverse principle.

And there's actually no compensation for Guard or Tyranids or any other vehicles & light infantry army. There isn't a secondary that they can score better than Space Marines or Custodes or Sisters because they have an army full of tanks and light infantry, and they're worse at primary to boot due to lack of good staying power against general melee.

So, because missions should be equal for all armies participating, it really shouldn't be the case where the basic archetype of some armies is double-dipped on simultaneous secondaries and some armies won't ever give up any points for their list formulation. That's inherently unequal mission design, and that's why there should be an objective that yields points for destroying multiwound infantry, biker, and cavalry models.


We have said this already.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If a faction is screwed by the new design of the secondary missions, then why should it be good to add more factions to the list of the screwed ones? (While still leaving many factions in the unscrewed area, so you are NOT making the packet more fair and balanced).

We shouldn't have threads asking for ways to punish more factions, we should have threads asking how to ease the pain on the few factions that right now have difficulties coping with the new missions. How to redesign Abhor the Witch. How to redesign assassination. How to redesign Grind them Down and so on.

Your analysis is 100% correct, but you are applying it to a discussion that is proposing a solution which would be totally wrong to solve what you have correctly highlighted as an issue.

Punishing more factions because a few are suffering is NOT the correct way to tackle this problem.


I proposed 2 fixes earlier:
simultaneously push Abhor and Thin their Ranks into the same category as Bring it Down [thus removing the opportunity to double dip that against Tyranids, Guard, and the like]
and introduce a secondary that affects medium/heavy infantry/bike/cavalry based armies. As long as the points are calibrated to be about 750 points of dead support assets or 1000 points of dead troops, that should cover almost all the factions.
plus adjusting the Bring it Down to not favor dreadnoughts/spammed small vehicles over other vehicles would help.

Going through the short list:
Ad Mech - Bring it Down or New Objective
CSM - New Objective [post codex]
Custodes - New Objective
Daemons - Thin Ranks
Dark Eldar -
Eldar - Bring it Down or New Objective
Guard - Bring it Down and Thin Ranks [but it's okay as long as they can't be taken together]
GSC - Bring it Down and Thin Ranks
GK - New Objective and Abhor the Witch
Necrons - Bring it Down or New Objective
Orks - Thin Ranks or Bring it Down
Sisters - Bring it Down
SM - New Objective
Tyranids - Bring it Down and Thin Ranks and maybe Abhor the Witch
Tau - Bring it Down or New Objective

This kind of only leaves DE out, and that's mostly because right now I don't know what DE is doing right now. A multiwound-targeting objective would cover the presently unaffected SM and Custodes, as well as cover a group of lists that are heavy into Kataphrons, Destroyers, Jetbikes, or Wraiths that aren't currently affected.

For the most part, you either have to be heavy into light infantry, heavy into vehicles, or heavy into multiwound infantry. There's a pretty small margin of single wound and low model count lists that also don't manage to offer 5 vehicle targets.



Competitive missions should be symmetric, we basically all agree, and right now they're not because of the lack of a secondary to affect multiwound/elite infantry armies, and an overabundance of secondaries to affect vehicle/light infantry armies.

An alternative option would be to eliminate kill secondaries all-together.


I disagree with that. Going from your list, I can see many factions against which scoring 15 would be trivial and many other were scoring 15 would be impossible. Take Tau for example. I don't know many Tau lists with 5 vehicles/monsters or 15 suits. Demons will never bleed 15 to think their ranks. CWE hardly bring 5 vehicles or 15 wraithguards. Necrons too in many cases don't bleed much to Bring it Down. Harlequins don't bleed anything.
It would still be the current situation, just with changed actors. If the objective is to give 15 free points to everyone, that doesn't serve the purpose. One thing for sure though is that all the killy secondaries should be in the same group, to that I agree.
Either, we remove killy secondaries or we stick to their purpose.
The killy secondaries are there to make sure that if I want to bring a varied and well balanced list of tools in my list, I cannot be screwed by someone bringing only knights and making 60% of my weapons useless. If that happens, I get the killy secondary and in return for being less efficient I have an offset on the score sheet.
To that end, Assassinate and Abhor the witch should be removed, since they have no purpose.
Thin their ranks, Titan Slayer and bring it down are the only secondaries which have a meaning to exist, but obviously they shouldn't coexist against the same opponent. A new objective could have a place if it was aimed at Gravis level models, since a gravis only list is indeed a skew and makes all my small weapons useless.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/06 08:24:15


 
   
Made in fr
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'






I don't see the issue with assassinate. I play GSC but I am fine with the risk involved in playing lots of squishy characters.

Some characters give huge benefits (the necron one who enables a core unit to fall back a do what they want for example), and as such the opponent needs a reward for killing them (especially if you bring them in abundant numbers).

I think it just doesn't match well with abhor the witch (which we all agree is at the very least not very well balanced, and I don't think anyone would shed any tear if GW removed it).
Cheap characters also slow the game down a lot with their special rules, and for me that alone is enough to justfy an incentive to kill them !
Also, what armies (aside from GSC and Astra Militarum) are boned by assassinate ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Honestly, if I thought I could get my group to play a tabletop style game I'd try Infinity, but that's not going to happen. I think we'll end up sticking to Gloomhaven, MtG, and PnP games like D&D and Cyberpunk.


So ... you don't even play 40k?

Not currently, though I own a large collection of Chaos Space Marine and Dark Angels models. I also have played almost every army, but this was back in 4th early 5th and that was all proxies.


But... Canadian 5th you did at least try 9th edition right ? Because of all your posts in so many threads, I mean they must at least be based on a tiny bit of experience (and not 100% on 40k disgrunted theoryhammer) ? And please try to not get this thread locked like you did the other one

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/01/06 09:44:58


Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh 
   
Made in gb
Screaming Shining Spear





Spoletta: CWE hardly bring 5 vehicles.

Craftworlds are only viable with lots of vehicles, I know I'm going to give up 15 PTS for bring them down but I'd rather that than know I'm going to lose by bringing infantry.


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Well, ideally I'd actually would like to see a trade-off between units that play the primary well (mostly ObSec, units benefiting from the efficiency buff of <Core> for the newer books, etc..), giving you a disadvantage in the secondaries, and units that perform poorly in primaries (e.g. non-Core vehicles, Monsters, stuff that is hard to maneouver because it lacks fly/infantry keyword) being the best "secondary denial" choices.


Ironically, atm (even just looking at the two 9th Ed. books of Marines and Necrons), it's the units that play the primary best (and mostly aren't restrained by a lack of <Core> ) are also the units that give up the least secondaries, which seems ass-backwards to me from a game-design perspective.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/06 11:09:51


 
   
Made in fr
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'






 kingheff wrote:
Spoletta: CWE hardly bring 5 vehicles.

Craftworlds are only viable with lots of vehicles, I know I'm going to give up 15 PTS for bring them down but I'd rather that than know I'm going to lose by bringing infantry.



I don't play eldar, but let me say this: Respect man for playing CWE at the moment !!

Because I honestly don't see how you can win with CWE currently. Against anything but the trash tier armies (though even GSC can probably beat CWE easily). They have nothing going on for them really. Expensive, far from durable stuff, with very little melee capability... The worst is that Harlquins are got tier and can be allied in, and Druka are being given a new codex, and they can be allied in.

That leaves CWE with old, ugly AF models (and FFS all you got these last 2 years was jain zar and banshees), sheeeeeeet rules, and allies which are better in every way (well unless they botch the druka codex, but I have a feeling it will be "necron treated" so I am confident).
Anyone still playing that army shows true dedication and love, and in these dark times, my friends, you are beacons of hope, light and principles held high ! Houh Ha !

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/01/06 11:13:15


Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





if you regard this as dedication what do you call the poor saps remaining with the yeeted FW armies? Or better yet, those still playing WHFB

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Screaming Shining Spear





 addnid wrote:
 kingheff wrote:
Spoletta: CWE hardly bring 5 vehicles.

Craftworlds are only viable with lots of vehicles, I know I'm going to give up 15 PTS for bring them down but I'd rather that than know I'm going to lose by bringing infantry.



I don't play eldar, but let me say this: Respect man for playing CWE at the moment !!

Because I honestly don't see how you can win with CWE currently. Against anything but the trash tier armies (though even GSC can probably beat CWE easily). They have nothing going on for them really. Expensive, far from durable stuff, with very little melee capability... The worst is that Harlquins are got tier and can be allied in, and Druka are being given a new codex, and they can be allied in.

That leaves CWE with old, ugly AF models (and FFS all you got these last 2 years was jain zar and banshees), sheeeeeeet rules, and allies which are better in every way (well unless they botch the druka codex, but I have a feeling it will be "necron treated" so I am confident).
Anyone still playing that army shows true dedication and love, and in these dark times, my friends, you are beacons of hope, light and principles held high ! Houh Ha !


Luckily for me I'm not quite so down on the models though some are definitely in need of updating. I still much prefer my craftworlds vehicles to my salamander vehicles, for example.
A vehicle heavy list has served me pretty well in 9th with some spears for clearing out stragglers that had the temerity to not die in my shooting phase!
I think craftworlds have snuck up to a 42% winrate even with, speculation on my part, more than a few players moving to Harlequins. Craftworlds can't play 9th the way marines or harlies do but I think the rumours of our demise have been exaggerated.

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Karol wrote:
No thank you. I already have a secondary that gives up max points to my opponent just by virtue of killing my stuff. I really don't need another one. Unless if taking the secondary comes with some real sever handicaps to the person going for it.


I'm not sure what I think. Imperial Guard already faces yielding 2 for full secondaries for destruction, and at a rate of 4 points per vehicle no less because they double-dip Thin Their Ranks and Bring it Down.


I'm having a hard time coming up with an idea of a guard list that would give up full points both for BID and Thin, is that common? It doesn't seem like guard tanks are particularly cheaper than anyone else's, russes tend to be fairly pricy comparative to the typical dreadnoughts and razorbacks that maines field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
if you regard this as dedication what do you call the poor saps remaining with the yeeted FW armies? Or better yet, those still playing WHFB


Yes, you're a very special boy, Not Online.

I'm very sorry that you've been possessed by the mantle of the Faction Oppressed, that's a tough one to take on. Just look at the husk of poor Karol after being possessed for so long, godspeed buddy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/06 12:35:07


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




I'm very sorry that you've been possessed by the mantle of the Faction Oppressed, that's a tough one to take on. Just look at the husk of poor Karol after being possessed for so long, godspeed buddy.

I have been training all the time we were in lock down, only lost 3kg, but it was mostly fat and because I didn't have access to supplements from school. If anything I look better now, because I gained 9cm of height over summer.

What if primaris and secondaries were like relics or chapter tactics. There would be a set number of them for each army, and they could fit how the army can play in both the lore and game play aspect. So for example armies like knights wouldn't have to worry about having a rule set that doesn't work at all in 9th. Same with armies like tau, maybe their objective wouldn't have to be about pushing mid turn 1-2 and taking stuff back in melee. They could have objectives based around what ever they would be good at in their new books.

And then on top of it some unit could get extra scenario rules. When there is a bilion of regular guants in your area killing a unit of 10, shouldn't be giving people full VP for being killed. maybe boys, guants or swarms worth half VP in kill secondaries? At the same time something elite being killed, like lets say a GK paladin or Custodes, could be worth more, which would make the game balanced and more fun. The custodes player would get really good rules to companstate, while on the flip side of things losing any model or unit would hurt them a lot.

And then some armies like DE or Inquisition, should have the option to take more primaris or secondaries, maybe at the cost of losing the other or some limits to list building or have an option to change a secondary mid game through a stratagem. That would actualy make stuff dynamic.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




But people generaly do care only about other people armies, or armies that beat their army. There are no legions of space marine players asking for nerfs, because right now, unlike in many times in the past, marine players are having fun playing their marines. At the same time I don't see eldar players start their rants about marines being OP, with the clause of and nerf harlequins too, because they are even more broken then marines.


Karol, the more I read your posts, the worse I feel for you. Obviously I don't know your group, but from reading your posts, it seems like you have a toxic gaming community. There are many people who want the game to be fun for everyone. As an example, I am a marine player. I have several different armies, but marines have been my primary since Rogue Trader days. I literally have a full chapter save the Thunderhawks. I stopped playing them in 8th when they became unfun for people to play against. My marines have been shelved for over a year at this point. What's more, if you read my posts, you'll see I frequently bring up the fact that Dark Eldar have only LOST models since 5th ed. Why? I don't play DE. It could be, because I realize the game is shifting to an unhealthy state and I'd prefer it if everyone had similar levels of support. This is the attitude we should all have honestly.

Plus it is as mr Canadian said, no where in its rules does GW promise a fair or balanced game. They don't even promise a good or enjoyable one, at best they hint at the fact that people should make their own fun and enjoyment.


I would not put much stock into what "mr Cadian" has said. He seems fine with the game moving to an increasingly unhealthy state where it becomes unfun for many because "it's not "morally wrong" and they don't promise anything else.". This is beyond short sighted. Plus, if you're going have strong opinions on a game, you should probably have at least tried it recently. He hasn't played since 5th. So, grain of salt with everything he says honestly.

I don't see the issue with assassinate. I play GSC but I am fine with the risk involved in playing lots of squishy characters.


The issue is twofold. It stacks with Abhor the witch meaning GK and Tsons characters give double secondaries when you kill them.It's especially bad because those armies have to bring psyker characters. They don't have a choice.

The second issue is that killing a 20 point guard character with low toughness, a weak armor save, no invuln, and only a few wounds probably shouldn't be the same points as killing a 160 point, high toughness, 3+ invuln. save character with 5 or more wounds. Yet they are. They give the exact same amount of points. Doesn't make sense.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/06 13:53:16


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Couldn't one just make the "Thin Their Ranks" secondary count the WOUNDS of any non-vehicle models rather than the number of models? That might work?

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Making thin their ranks count wounds would be cool, but it still doesnt 100% make up for the 3+ and 2+ saves those wounds carry
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






What if, imagine, we had a proper keyword system that allowed to identify units by them.
Something like giving elite models the <Elite> keyword?

So Intercessors would be <Elite><Infantry>
you could even add keywords
Termis and gravis could be <Elite><Heavy><Infantry>
Bikers could be <Elite><Cavalry>

then you'd keep gaunts/guardians as <Infantry>
and jetbikes as <Cavalry>
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

Maybe awarding victory points based on the category of unit you're shooting at is a horrific system that leads you deeper and deeper into ridiculous rabbit holes trying to make it "fair".

If you must award VP for destroying the enemy, points is the most balanced system.
Thin their Ranks could be 1vp per 100 points of INFANTRY destroyed for example.

It's more book keeping, but it's fairer.
Just doing away with these secondaries would be better. The reward for killing the enemy is that the enemy has less to kill you with, and less to achieve their own objectives with.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
What if, imagine, we had a proper keyword system that allowed to identify units by them.
Something like giving elite models the <Elite> keyword?

So Intercessors would be <Elite><Infantry>
you could even add keywords
Termis and gravis could be <Elite><Heavy><Infantry>
Bikers could be <Elite><Cavalry>

then you'd keep gaunts/guardians as <Infantry>
and jetbikes as <Cavalry>


An excellent suggestion. And then we could have a secondary objective that rewards you for killing elite units.

Just one minor change - Marines instead get the <Hyper Elite> keyword, which is like <Elite> except that they're more elite than anyone else and also (completely by coincidence) there's no secondary objective that rewards you for killing <Hyper Elite> units.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Why is there even a debate?

Secondaries that deal with army composition are bad for game balance. It is indisputable. Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience? That is not what is happening with these secondaries. So they should be redesigned with factors that do not punish you for bringing a particular army design/archetype.


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Maybe awarding victory points based on the category of unit you're shooting at is a horrific system that leads you deeper and deeper into ridiculous rabbit holes trying to make it "fair".

If you must award VP for destroying the enemy, points is the most balanced system.
Thin their Ranks could be 1vp per 100 points of INFANTRY destroyed for example.

It's more book keeping, but it's fairer.
Just doing away with these secondaries would be better. The reward for killing the enemy is that the enemy has less to kill you with, and less to achieve their own objectives with.


Ah yes, 4th edition's awesome VP calculator for kills rears its head again. GW left it behind because it was too much math, but I agree with you.
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

I agree, it's too much of a pain in the neck imo.
So it's better just to not have any kill secondaries to do away with all the crap.
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






kirotheavenger wrote:
Just doing away with these secondaries would be better. The reward for killing the enemy is that the enemy has less to kill you with, and less to achieve their own objectives with.


Xenomancers wrote:Why is there even a debate?

Secondaries that deal with army composition are bad for game balance. It is indisputable. Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience? That is not what is happening with these secondaries. So they should be redesigned with factors that do not punish you for bringing a particular army design/archetype.




100%, i'm suggesting changes to how the kill secondaries work because i doubt GW will remove them and therefore i'd like to see them more balanced.

Kill secondaries are just primaries disguised as secondaries. Action and position based secondaries are the good ones since they lower the overall lethality and dont double dip with the primaries (usually)
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

I agree, secondaries are potentially a way to encourage other ways to use your units than simply annihilating the enemy.
Making those secondaries just "kill the enemy" completely defeats that purpose.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Kill secondaries are garbage, but if we have to have them then there should be one that punishes multi-wound infantry and biker type units. I never played ITC, but Gangbusters looks pretty good for that job. Might need some tweaks, but it's a good starting point.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




Secondaries that deal with army composition are bad for game balance. It is indisputable. Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience? That is not what is happening with these secondaries. So they should be redesigned with factors that do not punish you for bringing a particular army design/archetype.


Honestly, the current set we have don't even target the "problem" units lol.

I'm still of a mind that just dumping all the kill secondaries entirely is the best way to go. This may be famous last words, but that seems like the best way to fix the problems they are causing while also inflicting the least amount of unintended side-effects.

If the secondaries truly were designed to "control skew", they failed. 9th actually does that somewhat well. Knights were a big problem in 8th, but can anyone make the claim that they're a problem now? I think 9th's core rules and mission design did a really good job of controlling most of the more egregious skew lists. If we dump the kill secondaries then we're left with a cropping of objectives that require players to make trade-offs and actual decisions (again - getting points for firing a anti-tank gun at a tank is just ... dumb), and that every army generally has a shot to achieve while also not being unfairly penalized by them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/06 16:05:24


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Kill secondaries are garbage, but if we have to have them then there should be one that punishes multi-wound infantry and biker type units. I never played ITC, but Gangbusters looks pretty good for that job. Might need some tweaks, but it's a good starting point.

I agree if they must exist all types must exist.

The thing that bothers me most is what it does to list construction. You build your list to not give up points by including the perfect amount of units of each type to deny points. Okay...fine. Now you have kind of a pseudo FOC check. Unfortuantely though - most armies do not function without some kind of skew going on. They armies that have the most choices and arent punished by this are already the problem Childs.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





the_scotsman wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Karol wrote:
No thank you. I already have a secondary that gives up max points to my opponent just by virtue of killing my stuff. I really don't need another one. Unless if taking the secondary comes with some real sever handicaps to the person going for it.


I'm not sure what I think. Imperial Guard already faces yielding 2 for full secondaries for destruction, and at a rate of 4 points per vehicle no less because they double-dip Thin Their Ranks and Bring it Down.


I'm having a hard time coming up with an idea of a guard list that would give up full points both for BID and Thin, is that common? It doesn't seem like guard tanks are particularly cheaper than anyone else's, russes tend to be fairly pricy comparative to the typical dreadnoughts and razorbacks that maines field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
if you regard this as dedication what do you call the poor saps remaining with the yeeted FW armies? Or better yet, those still playing WHFB


Yes, you're a very special boy, Not Online.

I'm very sorry that you've been possessed by the mantle of the Faction Oppressed, that's a tough one to take on. Just look at the husk of poor Karol after being possessed for so long, godspeed buddy.


very funny. Especially because the point beeing made that there are indeed whole segments of the playerbase stuck in a far worse position then eldar. Truth of the matter is that with rules alone you don't get to eat so to speak. And right now we get one really favoured faction getting to once again get cake(model support) and eat it too(getting suspiciously not targeted with a dedicated killsecondary) whilest 90 % of the other factions are sustained on tablescraps or less.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Kill secondaries are garbage, but if we have to have them then there should be one that punishes multi-wound infantry and biker type units. I never played ITC, but Gangbusters looks pretty good for that job. Might need some tweaks, but it's a good starting point.


This, if we indeed NEED them to reign certain types of units in and avoid spam, because that is what i think was the intention behind the kill secondaries, then we might aswell implement it against ALL unit types that are spamable, and gravis most certainly as is Primaris is to a degree spamable

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/06 16:30:54


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Tycho wrote:
Secondaries that deal with army composition are bad for game balance. It is indisputable. Isn't what everyone wants, the freedom to bring whatever units they want and have a fun and balanced experience? That is not what is happening with these secondaries. So they should be redesigned with factors that do not punish you for bringing a particular army design/archetype.


Honestly, the current set we have don't even target the "problem" units lol.

I'm still of a mind that just dumping all the kill secondaries entirely is the best way to go. This may be famous last words, but that seems like the best way to fix the problems they are causing while also inflicting the least amount of unintended side-effects.

If the secondaries truly were designed to "control skew", they failed. 9th actually does that somewhat well. Knights were a big problem in 8th, but can anyone make the claim that they're a problem now? I think 9th's core rules and mission design did a really good job of controlling most of the more egregious skew lists. If we dump the kill secondaries then we're left with a cropping of objectives that require players to make trade-offs and actual decisions (again - getting points for firing a anti-tank gun at a tank is just ... dumb), and that every army generally has a shot to achieve while also not being unfairly penalized by them.

Exactly. completely failing to control skew anyways plus. We already have a system to control skew - it is called detachments. Maybe detachments need to be modified a little ether in CP punish or more slots becoming more limited. Not sure why changing victory conditions gets such support from the community when there are such better ways to reel in "problem lists" without making the game unplayable for certain armies.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/06 16:58:56


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




Exactly. completely failing to control skew anyways plus. We already have a system to control skew - it is called detachments. Maybe detachments need to be modified a little ether in CP punish or more slots becoming more limited.


IDK if we even need that. I could be wrong here as I haven't tested this, but it at least feels like the force org we have in 9th is good to go. It's been frustrating for my Tsons, but I think a new dex will fix that. I think between the missions, the tweaked rules, and the new force org layout, we are good and don't really need a kill secondary. Look at the successful lists right now at the tourneys that have happened. I don't really see a ton of skew there, and even in my own group's games, it's just not been a issue.

Knights are not great this edition. Heavy armor skew lists? Also not great. I have my issues with the missions, but one thing I think I can safely say is that it's the first set where you can bring a inferior list (inferior to a point anyway - there is always a limit), play to the mission, and have a chance to win. A mostly infantry list with little anti-tank actually has a chance this edition if it comes up against an all knight list. Because of this, I just don't think the kill secondaries are needed, and I'm not even sure we need to edit the force orgs.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






I'm just saying detachments control skew a great deal. That is how I would fix a skew problem - I would alter or tax these skews. Not change the victory conditions for every army because some armies skew.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: