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.

GW just nerfed Bring it Down and Abhor the Witch. Does this make the need for an anti-elite secondary unnecessary?

No. First, while they did nerf Abhor, it still stacks w/assasinate and thus is still an issue. Definitely less of an issue but still an issue. Second, the need for the anti-elite secondary is a need independent of the abhor/assassinate discussion. Yes, abhor was nerfed, but this doesn't change the fact that the biggest faction in the game still ignores a massive portion of the game ...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.

Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.

Is there something wrong with my browser, or did you copy the quoted comment on purpose?

SturmOgre wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.

Don't confuse data analysis with logical analysis. "If you torture the data hard enough, you can make it confess to anything" is a common phrase in analysis. That's why deduction (logic), induction, and abduction are different methods of analysis.

Is there something wrong with my browser, or did you copy the quoted comment on purpose?

Nope, that's just me getting distracted.

My actual answer to his question is that there are plenty of examples of how data can be used by outsiders to make improvements to a system they only interact with in theory. I used sports as an example of this but your manager at work likely uses data to help streamline your workflow and thus even though they might never have done your jobs can take steps to make it easier. This doesn't always bear out in practice but nothing ever does.

Removed - Rule #1 please

Tycho wrote:

GW just nerfed Bring it Down and Abhor the Witch. Does this make the need for an anti-elite secondary unnecessary?

No. First, while they did nerf Abhor, it still stacks w/assasinate and thus is still an issue. Definitely less of an issue but still an issue. Second, the need for the anti-elite secondary is a need independent of the abhor/assassinate discussion. Yes, abhor was nerfed, but this doesn't change the fact that the biggest faction in the game still ignores a massive portion of the game ...

The huge nerf to bring it down though reduces by a lot the list of factions that suffer from kill secondaries.

At this point they are more like the exception than the norm.

The huge nerf to bring it down though reduces by a lot the list of factions that suffer from kill secondaries.

At this point they are more like the exception than the norm

I might be misunderstanding you here, but marines were already the exception in that they don’t really suffer from the kill secondaries which is why some are saying we still need one (or suggesting to dump kill points entirely) for marines. While the faq does IMO fix some things, it doesn’t change the fact that marines are still generally immune.

The game has 30+ factions and right now a whole TWO of them are really hindered by kill secondaries, so you want to add a dozen to that count to make things more fair?

I'll have you notice that nids are now quite safe in most of their lists.

Even astra militarum is now reasonably good. A list with 80 infantries and 6 tanks now gives only 12 in bring it down and gives 14 to thin their ranks only if you positively table every single model.

Demons no longer bleed Abhor the Witch when using multiple greater demons.

Admech now no longer bleeds bring it down.

The only two factions that now suffer the secondaries are TS and GK, and even there, you can now make some legit TS lists that don't bleed it so badly.
Don't know for GK, I don't have any experience playing them.

Well with GK you bleed them the same as you did before. Sure your opponent has to kill a few more units, but it is not like killing a 1w marine that costs like a DG is hard to achive in a meta that is focued on killing marines with 2W, so not even termintors help much.
Losing 3 units and 2 characters is 10VP, it is really hard to imagine a game where something like this does not happen.
And opponents will try to kill characters, because they are the only ones that can use PA psychic powers and are part of GK trying to run theirs. To not get double or triple dipped on AtW, a GK player would have to face an opponent whose army is unable to kill marines in small numbers and half the wounds.

The game has 30+ factions and right now a whole TWO of them are really hindered by kill secondaries, so you want to add a dozen to that count to make things more fair?

No. I'm saying the need for it is completely independent of any issues Tsons and Grey Knights have. The only way to really fix those is to drop kill secondaries fully. Yes, the new faq semi-fixes a lot of problems with the secondaries. The issue it doesn't fix? Marines still being essentially immune to the kill secondaries.

Get rid of them all or make one that applies to them. I really don't care which, but it's terrible game design to make the biggest faction in the game both one of the best in terms of codex rules and one of the best in terms of benefiting from mission design. This needs fixed. The FAQ did nothing for that. Marines are actually my primary and have been since the beginning, but I stopped playing them in 8th. Would really like to pull them off the shelf at some point here, but I feel like they're still too good ...

That's all I'm saying. My opinion on the "elite secondary" has nothing to do with Tsons or Grey Knights.

I understand your point, but I would no longer define them as "The best in terms of benefitting from mission design". They are simply on par with the other ones now.

Spoletta wrote:
I understand your point, but I would no longer define them as "The best in terms of benefitting from mission design". They are simply on par with the other ones now.

No?

If I take 6 Leman Russes, I give up 12 VP for 840-1,000 points of my army.
If I take 100 Guardsmen, I give up 10 VP for 550 points.
If I take 50 Intercessors or 50 Tacticals with upgrades, I give up 5 VP for 1,000 points.

No?

If I take 6 Leman Russes, I give up 12 VP for 840-1,000 points of my army.
If I take 100 Guardsmen, I give up 10 VP for 550 points.
If I take 50 Intercessors or 50 Tacticals with upgrades, I give up 5 VP for 1,000 points.

This. The fact that others are impacted slightly less does not change the fact that Marines are not impacted at all.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I understand your point, but I would no longer define them as "The best in terms of benefitting from mission design". They are simply on par with the other ones now.

No?

If I take 6 Leman Russes, I give up 12 VP for 840-1,000 points of my army.
If I take 100 Guardsmen, I give up 10 VP for 550 points.
If I take 50 Intercessors or 50 Tacticals with upgrades, I give up 5 VP for 1,000 points.

A Guard list consisting of 6 Russes (or support vehicles/artillery) and 100 infantry would be fluffy, thematic, and what you'd expect on the table at ~2000 points. Meaning more than likely, the opponent is going to take Bring It Down and Thin Their Ranks. So destroying those 6 vehicles will actually award 18 points (12 from BIG, 6 from TTR). Even with the changes, destroying 6 medium-heavy Guard vehicles to get that many points really won't be difficult.

The fact you'd only get 12 points though is I think a reasonably limiting factor on its own.

I think some distinction between easy 8-12 point secondaries and "hard but possible" 15 point secondaries is reasonable.

Tyel wrote:
The fact you'd only get 12 points though is I think a reasonably limiting factor on its own.

I think some distinction between easy 8-12 point secondaries and "hard but possible" 15 point secondaries is reasonable.

So where's the secondary that's an easy 12 against Marines?

Taking the cheapest possible options...

Three 10-Man Squads of Scouts is 420 points.
Three 4-Man squads or Servitors are 90 points.
Three Techmarines are 210 points.
One Lieutenant is 70 points.
That leaves 1,210 points to spend on naked Tactical Marines, for ten squads totaling 67 models. We'll say they're mostly 7- and 8-strong, with five and four respectively.

That's a total of 113 models at 1,996 points. Or 11 points for Thin Their Ranks if you utterly table your opponent.

The fact you'd only get 12 points though is I think a reasonably limiting factor on its own.

I think some distinction between easy 8-12 point secondaries and "hard but possible" 15 point secondaries is reasonable.

The problem is, show me a marine list that easily gives up anything in the same range. It's not about how much others are or are not hurt by the secondaries - it's about the fact that marines get to play a totally different game when it comes to this ...

EDIT:
JNA Ninja'd me

You are approaching this from the wrong point of view.

Taking 5 tanks does not award the opponent 10 VP. It awards zero VP.

As long as that secondary isn't better than the alternatives, then it is bleeding no points.

A secondary which at best gives you 10-12 points and to do that you need to table the enemy (i.e. win more situation) is a bad secondary and will not be chosen.

When simply talking a Raise the banner is a better investment, then you are bleeding zero points.

A marine list facing a tyranid list which awards 9 points in assassination, 9 in Abhor the Witch, 10 in Bring it down and 12 in Think their ranks, has NO ADVANTAGE over it, because they are all bad choices and he will choose secondaries not related to killing.

When you have alternatives like deploy scrambler and Engage on All fronts, a killing secondary must be at least 12-13 guaranteed points to be a true advantage.

Spoletta wrote:
You are approaching this from the wrong point of view.

Taking 5 tanks does not award the opponent 10 VP. It awards zero VP.

As long as that secondary isn't better than the alternatives, then it is bleeding no points.

A secondary which at best gives you 10-12 points and to do that you need to table the enemy (i.e. win more situation) is a bad secondary and will not be chosen.

When simply talking a Raise the banner is a better investment, then you are bleeding zero points.

A marine list facing a tyranid list which awards 9 points in assassination, 9 in Abhor the Witch, 10 in Bring it down and 12 in Think their ranks, has NO ADVANTAGE over it, because they are all bad choices and he will choose secondaries not related to killing.

Is there a list like that that's actually tournament-worthy, though?

Because, as I showed above, a Marine list focused on giving up points for Thin Their Ranks doesn't award maximum VP for it. Not even if fully tabled. (And it's possible you could squeeze in a few more models, but I doubt you could get 37 more.)

Whereas a Guard list could give up 15 for Thin Their Ranks at only 825 points, leaving 1,175 points to fill up with vehicles that give up 15 for Bring It Down. Since they need 8 Vehicles to max it out, assuming all the ones taken have 10+ wounds, that's an average of just over 145 points for each vehicle.

Edit:

Spoletta wrote:
When you alternatives like deploy scrambler and Engage on All fronts, a killing secondary must be at least 12-13 guaranteed points to be a true advantage.

Give me a Marine List that gives up 12+ guaranteed points on a Kill Secondary.

For bonus points, make it a list that's actually good and would see play at a tournament.

There isn't such a marine list, but there isn't such a list for almost all the factions in the game, so I don't see why all of you are so eager to give an handicap to marine armies. I understand that they are OP, but as I said, altering missions structure isn't the way to fix that.

Please provide me a Tau/CWE/Harlequin/Custodes/Drukhari/Sister/... list that provides 12 easy killing points in a single category.

By the way, I listed the average points of a common competitive tyranid list. 3 Psykers characters, 5 beasts and a few gribblies. That's usually what as nid you field these days... and I've been generous on the beasts. You can get to 11 in abhor the witch if you use zoans, but when you do, you usually take one less psy character.

The only nid list that gives a killing secondary is the Tgant spam, which gives easy 15 on TTR, but at that point you are playing right into the very reason why that secondary exists.

Spoletta wrote:


When you alternatives like deploy scrambler and Engage on All fronts, a killing secondary must be at least 12-13 guaranteed points to be a true advantage.

Since killing the enemy's army is a massive part of the game, killing secondaries should be rewarding less. There is no opportunity cost for killing secondaries; you're going to kill stuff anyway. Any of the action-based secondaries require a unit to do basically nothing for a turn (though as I understand it, Space Marines have a stratagem to ignore this penalty, because why wouldn't they), so no shooting, no charging, no clearing the opponent off their objectives and taking it for yourself with that unit. The idea of being rewarded a bunch of extra points for doing the things you want to be doing anyway, on top of not giving up a significant amount of points for taking the units you want to be taking anyway, is the problem here.

Since killing the enemy's army is a massive part of the game, killing secondaries should be rewarding less. There is no opportunity cost for killing secondaries; you're going to kill stuff anyway. Any of the action-based secondaries require a unit to do basically nothing for a turn (though as I understand it, Space Marines have a stratagem to ignore this penalty, because why wouldn't they), so no shooting, no charging, no clearing the opponent off their objectives and taking it for yourself with that unit. The idea of being rewarded a bunch of extra points for doing the things you want to be doing anyway, on top of not giving up a significant amount of points for taking the units you want to be taking anyway, is the problem here.

Right - I perform a series of events to get to a spot and give up my ability to do anything for a turn ≠ I shoot my anti-tank gun at a tank.

Why may also be a tank and my opponents highest cost 3, which grabs me AtW and stops him from getting WWFWS. And that is before breaking any army synergies stoping opponent from scoring etc.

kill objectives should be a thing. Maybe they even should be easy to do. But they should award less then non kill objectives that make you do nothing with 1-3 units for one or more turns.

Lets compare it to being 6" within middle of the board, not doing anything, passing a casting psychic power test and not being stopped by an opponent for 3 out of 5 turns, of the game to kill X number of units. Kind of mind blowing how different the objectives are.

kill objectives should be a thing. Maybe they even should be easy to do. But they should award less then non kill objectives that make you do nothing with 1-3 units for one or more turns.

The problem is, with how varied 40k armies currently are, I just don't think kill secondaries are possible without inadvertently and accidentally punishing an army simply for existing. I have yet to see a suggestion for new kill secondaries that don't somehow unfairly punish SOMEONE. Best to drop them if possible imo. Failing that, if we have to have them, NO ONE should be almost totally immune to them. The current middle ground isn't really a recipe for long-term health and success of the game.

Spoletta wrote:


Please provide me a Tau/CWE/Harlequin/Custodes/Drukhari/Sister/... list that provides 12 easy killing points in a single category.

Sisters' one is easy. Some competitive lists spam Mortifiers which are good but easy to kill; they're basically Killa Kanz with better damage output. They don't even split out after deployment so dedicated anti tank should do the job, Eradicators can double tap on them as they are a squadron and not individual models. All SoB tanks are squishy and they're also pretty common. 10-12 VPs for Bring it Down is super easy against Adepta Sororitas, even the full 15 is far from being impossible. Defeating them easily is a whole different story instead, as the faction is very solid.

Please provide me a Tau/CWE/Harlequin/Custodes/Drukhari/Sister/... list that provides 12 easy killing points in a single category.

You're correct about Custodes and they're part of the problem (to a way lesser degree), but right off the bat, with the possible exception of Drukhari and Harlequins, they all have a pretty good chance to eat 9-12 on assassinate. Not sure there are any competitive lists for Druhkari although Raiders are easy enough to kill that they're going to hand out BiD points like Candy (I think right? How many wounds are they again?). Ditto Ravagers, so even if those become competitive options they are almost auto-handicapped by it, which I guess is a really perverse way to future proof the game? lol

For quins I'm not sure I can think of one so I'm happy to say they're part of the problem. They shouldn't ignore the rules either. Ditto Custodes.

EDIT:

Frankly though, it doesn't matter. NO ONE should be functionally immune. If even one army is - that's a problem ...

Tau give up BID up with alot of builds and before you go show me a winning Tau list they don't have one they don't work in 9th.

Being able to deny any meaningful kill secondarys is an advantage as you never have to compromise your list design for fear of haning out a maximum score or easy high score secondary.

Not every list has an easy time maximum scoring banners etc.

Tycho wrote:

Please provide me a Tau/CWE/Harlequin/Custodes/Drukhari/Sister/... list that provides 12 easy killing points in a single category.

You're correct about Custodes and they're part of the problem (to a way lesser degree), but right off the bat, with the possible exception of Drukhari and Harlequins, they all have a pretty good chance to eat 9-12 on assassinate. Not sure there are any competitive lists for Druhkari although Raiders are easy enough to kill that they're going to hand out BiD points like Candy (I think right? How many wounds are they again?). Ditto Ravagers, so even if those become competitive options they are almost auto-handicapped by it, which I guess is a really perverse way to future proof the game? lol

For quins I'm not sure I can think of one so I'm happy to say they're part of the problem. They shouldn't ignore the rules either. Ditto Custodes.

EDIT:

Frankly though, it doesn't matter. NO ONE should be functionally immune. If even one army is - that's a problem ...

Raiders/ravagers have 10W, they give only a single point.

9-12 points in assassinate is normal for any list.
Even SM between captains, LTs, Apot, Ancients and so on usually give 12 points in assassinate. But assassinate is a bad secondary in most cases. It is usually a trap choice. To get at the enemy chars you need to table the opponent. Assassinate is a strictly "Win More" secondary. The only case where it is good, is when the enemy chars are aggressive, like Daemon lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Tau give up BID up with alot of builds and before you go show me a winning Tau list they don't have one they don't work in 9th.

Being able to deny any meaningful kill secondarys is an advantage as you never have to compromise your list design for fear of haning out a maximum score or easy high score secondary.

Not every list has an easy time maximum scoring banners etc.

Ok, don't give me a winning list, but tell me which units are you thinking about.

Even a triptide is only 6 points. Ghostkeels are worth only 1.

You have to spam A LOT of devilfishes to have problems with BID.

Phirana at 63 points per gives up 1VP per model and are one of the few units actually fast enough to allow you to take manoeuvres secondarys. Seen plenty of people taking 6-8 aswell as a riptide or two. Thats a solid 10-12 points. Devilfish are easier to kill but if you want to be primary they are needed. At 2 per aswell.

Some player's advocate going even harder into them as you can take 15 of them just from the codex at under 950 points.

Also people taking multiple hammer heads and skyrays.
7x2 is 14 points for those alone.

Tycho wrote:

kill objectives should be a thing. Maybe they even should be easy to do. But they should award less then non kill objectives that make you do nothing with 1-3 units for one or more turns.

The problem is, with how varied 40k armies currently are, I just don't think kill secondaries are possible without inadvertently and accidentally punishing an army simply for existing. I have yet to see a suggestion for new kill secondaries that don't somehow unfairly punish SOMEONE. Best to drop them if possible imo. Failing that, if we have to have them, NO ONE should be almost totally immune to them. The current middle ground isn't really a recipe for long-term health and success of the game.

That is true, and not being a math person or game designer, I am now pulling numbers out of thing air. But what would be if we had four groups of objectives. Easy to do with lowest VP gained, based around killing stuff. Utility movment ones which would require doing specific stuff, maybe even with specific units, that would give more VP. And then a bizzar group number 3,which would be swingy maybe would require doing specific stuff for multiple turns or could be countered, but would come with the biggest VP award. And the fourth group would be primaris, which would be the usual survive, take quarters etc simple missions that are based around taking and holding objectives.

An anti-elite/SM secondary is sorely needed if they want to keep kill secondaries in the game. Having a vast swathe of armies be immune to most kill secondaries while the other half of armies bleed them everywhere is bad design. Ideally they would ban double dipping too, Assassinate + Abhor was the worst of the bunch, but why do vehicles give up Thin the Ranks too when we already have an anti-vehicle secondary? This just bones anyone wanting to play a combined arms army.