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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:




I think that we have been repeating the same things for 5 pages now.
Let me tell you one last time, then I'm done answering you. In this thread, marines are not OP. All factions are 100% balanced. Take your SM OP issues to an SM nerf thread. Stop bringing spot balance issues into a thread discussing a general rule.

Thanks.

Yet you still keep failing to actually address the point of the thread what secondary rewards the opponent appropriately for killing marines?

Also Really you want to claim all factions are balanced? That's bold given we have win ratio swings from 65% to 35% but more fundamentally have an avarage VP score difference of +10VP for Marines, custodes, Harliquines vrs their opponents.

While the worst factions have swings of -10VP on average and funnily enough when you look into the later round data those imbalances tend to get worse not better.
Factions having an avarage 80-90 VP score win or loose in later rounds vrs other factions having a 60-70 VP score win or loose in later rounds says the secondarys are far from balanced.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/10 08:39:51


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:




I think that we have been repeating the same things for 5 pages now.
Let me tell you one last time, then I'm done answering you. In this thread, marines are not OP. All factions are 100% balanced. Take your SM OP issues to an SM nerf thread. Stop bringing spot balance issues into a thread discussing a general rule.

Thanks.


Except they're obivously related. It's insulting to the intelligence of the people you're discussing this with that you think you can lie through your teeth and people will believe you. Trying to say that word of god it's verboten to discuss the power level of various factions, and obviously because it undermines the arguments you're trying to make, is just chicanery. Get off your gak.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:




I think that we have been repeating the same things for 5 pages now.
Let me tell you one last time, then I'm done answering you. In this thread, marines are not OP. All factions are 100% balanced. Take your SM OP issues to an SM nerf thread. Stop bringing spot balance issues into a thread discussing a general rule.

Thanks.

Yet you still keep failing to actually address the point of the thread what secondary rewards the opponent appropriately for killing marines?

Also Really you want to claim all factions are balanced? That's bold given we have win ratio swings from 65% to 35% but more fundamentally have an avarage VP score difference of +10VP for Marines, custodes, Harliquines vrs their opponents.

While the worst factions have swings of -10VP on average and funnily enough when you look into the later round data those imbalances tend to get worse not better.
Factions having an avarage 80-90 VP score win or loose in later rounds vrs other factions having a 60-70 VP score win or loose in later rounds says the secondarys are far from balanced.


Hecaton wrote:
Spoletta wrote:




I think that we have been repeating the same things for 5 pages now.
Let me tell you one last time, then I'm done answering you. In this thread, marines are not OP. All factions are 100% balanced. Take your SM OP issues to an SM nerf thread. Stop bringing spot balance issues into a thread discussing a general rule.

Thanks.


Except they're obivously related. It's insulting to the intelligence of the people you're discussing this with that you think you can lie through your teeth and people will believe you. Trying to say that word of god it's verboten to discuss the power level of various factions, and obviously because it undermines the arguments you're trying to make, is just chicanery. Get off your gak.




Ok that's it.

At this point, I must be bad at explaining things.

Someone with more patience and better explaining capabilities than me, please tell them where they are wrong. I don't stand them any longer, if I were to answer, I would get this thread locked.


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:

At this point, I must be bad at explaining things.


No, you're not, you're just wrong.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Spoletta wrote:


Wait... let me understand... I bring actual data from real games to the table against your pure general armchairing... and I'm the one who should play more real games???


Sorry to tell you that that data IS real 40K, no matter how you slice it.


Still you don't acknoledge, or purposefully ignore it, that it's referred to a specific fraction of 40k.

That lethality is too high is a fact and if your games don't end up with 70% of the lists gone at the end of turn 3 you're playing a different game or you're playing it wrong. Bring It Down was probably the easiest secondary to max out so it's no surprise that many competitive lists didn't bring enough vehicles/monsters to allow the opponent to get those 15 VPs. Simple.

Many competitive players say that optimized lists should 1-shot a knight. A list that can 1-shot a kngiht could easily get 15 VPs from Bring It Down before the FAQ.

Maybe you don't know but data (numbers in general) aren't info, it's the analysis of data that gives you the info. They're useless without a context.

 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





I honestly think people should wait until codex dark eldar comes out before panicing too much, dark eldar'll give us an idea of how an entire range of armies (medium to light armor, fast and supposed to hit hard) are going to translate into 9th edition. with that I think we'll at least have a useful datapoint. (and yes I agree the codices need to come out faster)

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Void__Dragon wrote:


The difference is that in 40k I can take a glance at your list and determine if it was tailored to stomp me, and can then decide not to play with you, perhaps even spit in your face or say something inappropriate about your mother.



You can't do it in a tournament though, which apparently is the only way of playing 40k for some posters. And let the me tell you a secret: tournament lists ARE tailored against the 2-3 most powerful factions. TAC lists are for casual play. Always have been like this.

 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





 Blackie wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:


The difference is that in 40k I can take a glance at your list and determine if it was tailored to stomp me, and can then decide not to play with you, perhaps even spit in your face or say something inappropriate about your mother.



You can't do it in a tournament though, which apparently is the only way of playing 40k for some posters. And let the me tell you a secret: tournament lists ARE tailored against the 2-3 most powerful factions. TAC lists are for casual play. Always have been like this.


maybe but it seems silly to worry about tournment enviroments right now when we;re waiting for codices and covid has shut everything down

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Tycho wrote:
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.


Some do and they are easy to ignore.



I forgot that I had received a great insight earlier in this thread. Time to use it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
I honestly think people should wait until codex dark eldar comes out before panicing too much, dark eldar'll give us an idea of how an entire range of armies (medium to light armor, fast and supposed to hit hard) are going to translate into 9th edition. with that I think we'll at least have a useful datapoint. (and yes I agree the codices need to come out faster)


Hmm, I disagree a bit there. I don't think that the next codex will give any additonal info or development on mission design. It may make them more competitive, but that isn't really relevant to missions.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/10 09:53:06


 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

BrianDavion wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:


The difference is that in 40k I can take a glance at your list and determine if it was tailored to stomp me, and can then decide not to play with you, perhaps even spit in your face or say something inappropriate about your mother.



You can't do it in a tournament though, which apparently is the only way of playing 40k for some posters. And let the me tell you a secret: tournament lists ARE tailored against the 2-3 most powerful factions. TAC lists are for casual play. Always have been like this.


maybe but it seems silly to worry about tournment enviroments right now when we;re waiting for codices and covid has shut everything down


I don't know. People that are into competitive gaming will still play tournament oriented lists. List tailoring exists any levels:

- Between friends: after a few games all players in the group will know the opponents' list and will tailor. Sometimes it's even impossible to play fair games against players with limited collections unless heavy tailoring.

- Pick up games against strangers: meta settles everywhere and if there's a faction or two that constantly win games other players will tailor against those. Say that an ork green tide (or a custodes, harlequins, gravis army or any other powerful skew army) wins every game at a club, or most of its games; at some point other players will change their lists in order to counter it, especially if it's not a single player's list but a fairly common archetype.

The only players that don't tailor are those who:

A) Don't have the models to change their lists
B) Play a very skew list/army and don't have alternatives
C) Are some sort of narrative guys: they have their favorite models to play with and they'll bring them no matter what

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




On Intercessors/Gravis invalidating a weapon category - its true, on base stats they don't. 20% return isn't great but its not terrible.

Unfortunately the Marine player can, relatively easily, assuming there is the proper amount of terrain on the table, find themselves in cover for a 2+ save. At which point by the numbers, shooting them becomes much the same as shooting a Leman Russ (depending on the Russ's loadout). Which we've said does invalidate light shooting. Hence the argument that "modern MEQ" - which gets to bring T4/3+ save wounds for 10ish points a go - or slightly more T5 wounds - is a skew that makes AP0 guns near worthless. And therefore, if we believe Bring It Down is meant to be a negative on mech walls, carry with it secondaries in a consequence.

This will become even more obvious *in time* as Chaos and GK get the Primarisification of their stats - but this is already a world where about 1/3rd of all players play bogstandard Space Marines.

Another solution to this problem - although it might be worse, as I feel this is a specifically Marine issue - would be that cover cannot increase a save beyond 3+. I also think storm shields shouldn't give 2+/4+ - or if they do, they shouldn't be so ludicrously cheap - but maybe that's another battle to be fought.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Tyel wrote:
On Intercessors/Gravis invalidating a weapon category - its true, on base stats they don't. 20% return isn't great but its not terrible.

Unfortunately the Marine player can, relatively easily, assuming there is the proper amount of terrain on the table, find themselves in cover for a 2+ save. At which point by the numbers, shooting them becomes much the same as shooting a Leman Russ (depending on the Russ's loadout). Which we've said does invalidate light shooting. Hence the argument that "modern MEQ" - which gets to bring T4/3+ save wounds for 10ish points a go - or slightly more T5 wounds - is a skew that makes AP0 guns near worthless. And therefore, if we believe Bring It Down is meant to be a negative on mech walls, carry with it secondaries in a consequence.

This will become even more obvious *in time* as Chaos and GK get the Primarisification of their stats - but this is already a world where about 1/3rd of all players play bogstandard Space Marines.

Another solution to this problem - although it might be worse, as I feel this is a specifically Marine issue - would be that cover cannot increase a save beyond 3+. I also think storm shields shouldn't give 2+/4+ - or if they do, they shouldn't be so ludicrously cheap - but maybe that's another battle to be fought.


If you give said tanks a cover bonus too, then the comparison is still quite valid... or at least that's what I would have said in 8th.

You have a point. Since Cover is no longer something that can be applied to tanks (barring some special rules), then it is now a strict benefit of infantry and must be considered. This makes it genuinely an issue.

I would like to review my position on the gravis secondary, but fact is that I can't, because there are bikes. Bikes have the same defensive profile as a gravis, and yet they cannot claim cover. If you consider gravis spam a skew because indeed once you factor the possibility of cover it becomes one, then you ALSO need to limit that secondary to infantry models or you needlessly punish bike lists, which instead are not a skew. At the same time I would like it to include terminators, because you can skew with them, but it shouldn't include stuff like nid warriors which instead are surely not negating any weapon.
I mean, it would have to be so specific that we may as well use Terminator and Gravis keywords in it...

Edit: Spelling

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/10 13:36:42


 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Spoletta wrote:


I mean, it would have to be so specific that we may as well you Terminator and Gravis keywords in it....


For secondary that targets elite oriented untis just say T5+ and 3+W, <INFANTRY> or <BIKER> models. Done.

 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Blackie wrote:
Spoletta wrote:


I mean, it would have to be so specific that we may as well you Terminator and Gravis keywords in it....


For secondary that targets elite oriented untis just say T5+ and 3+W, <INFANTRY> or <BIKER> models. Done.

That would just have marines trading their gravis for terminators. It should be units of NON-TROOPS with multiple 3+W models. That would hit the worst offenders without affecting things like Tyranid Warriors and Custodes troop options. We don't need a secondary that specifically targets troops.

Personally, I'm quite interested in the idea of not allowing cover to provide better than a 3+ save, that would be a return to the old system where cover was more beneficial for light infantry than heavy infantry, but to make it really work cover would probably have to return to being an invulnerable save. Otherwise heavy infantry could become even more vulnerable to high AP weapons. (Would need to do some math to be sure)
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




With the change to BiD and AtW; I see a push for kill-secondaries to be like Cut off the Head and Titan Hunters: requiring a true skew list to score 15 but usually averaging 10-12 a game.

We do need a few more passes for that; as well as a rule excluding any kills for counting towards two secondaries.

I would also like to see Warpcraft get a change. Perhaps make it so that the "spell actions" can't be denied. Taking away one offensive/buff cast is payment enough for doing this without risking a deny.


That said...I don't think there is any reason for a Kill-Secondary that targets Elite/Marines. They're already on the back-foot if they're playing someone from whom they can score a consistent 15 due to their army size (Thin/Grind/BiD/etc) due to board control. If you're worried about marines taking points off of you with any of those then you're going to outscore them in any movement/action oriented category (which is a LOT of them).

However, if they wanted to add one I'd suggest:

Kill a unit of 2+ wound models for 2 points.
Kill a unit of 3+ wound models for 3 points.

This would give people on here some way to get points for downing marine squads as well as help push some more choice onto Marine players over Combat Squading or not; which I love.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Blackie wrote:
Spoletta wrote:


I mean, it would have to be so specific that we may as well you Terminator and Gravis keywords in it....


For secondary that targets elite oriented untis just say T5+ and 3+W, <INFANTRY> or <BIKER> models. Done.



Well no, my point was that I don't want bikers to be affected. They can't claim cover.

And T5 3+W hits chaos spawns and grotesque.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Spoletta wrote:


I mean, it would have to be so specific that we may as well you Terminator and Gravis keywords in it....


For secondary that targets elite oriented untis just say T5+ and 3+W, <INFANTRY> or <BIKER> models. Done.

That would just have marines trading their gravis for terminators. It should be units of NON-TROOPS with multiple 3+W models. That would hit the worst offenders without affecting things like Tyranid Warriors and Custodes troop options. We don't need a secondary that specifically targets troops.

Personally, I'm quite interested in the idea of not allowing cover to provide better than a 3+ save, that would be a return to the old system where cover was more beneficial for light infantry than heavy infantry, but to make it really work cover would probably have to return to being an invulnerable save. Otherwise heavy infantry could become even more vulnerable to high AP weapons. (Would need to do some math to be sure)


I would apply just a small change. Cannot improve the save higher than 3+. If the model already has a 3+ save or better, it ignores the first point of AP. This way you keep the same durability of the models, without having them become impervious to light weapons when in cover.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/10 13:43:21


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Spoletta 795109 11025781 wrote:
I would apply just a small change. Cannot improve the save higher than 3+. If the model already has a 3+ save or better, it ignores the first point of AP. This way you keep the same durability of the models, without having them become impervious to light weapons when in cover.

It would make multi shot weapons more efficient at kill termintor class models, specialy those that have ap0. And as much as I don't like this types of arguments, something like an auto gun should bounce off an suit of termintor armour.

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
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Spoletta wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Spoletta wrote:


I mean, it would have to be so specific that we may as well you Terminator and Gravis keywords in it....


For secondary that targets elite oriented untis just say T5+ and 3+W, <INFANTRY> or <BIKER> models. Done.

That would just have marines trading their gravis for terminators. It should be units of NON-TROOPS with multiple 3+W models. That would hit the worst offenders without affecting things like Tyranid Warriors and Custodes troop options. We don't need a secondary that specifically targets troops.

Personally, I'm quite interested in the idea of not allowing cover to provide better than a 3+ save, that would be a return to the old system where cover was more beneficial for light infantry than heavy infantry, but to make it really work cover would probably have to return to being an invulnerable save. Otherwise heavy infantry could become even more vulnerable to high AP weapons. (Would need to do some math to be sure)


I would apply just a small change. Cannot improve the save higher than 3+. If the model already has a 3+ save or better, it ignores the first point of AP. This way you keep the same durability of the models, without having them become impervious to light weapons when in cover.

That would make cover beneficial for 3+ or better save models but not overly so, and encourage them to use their basic armour save and mobility when dealing with low AP weapons, similar to the old cover system. I like it, but again it should be mathed out to ensure it works properly.

Karol wrote:
Spoletta 795109 11025781 wrote:
I would apply just a small change. Cannot improve the save higher than 3+. If the model already has a 3+ save or better, it ignores the first point of AP. This way you keep the same durability of the models, without having them become impervious to light weapons when in cover.

It would make multi shot weapons more efficient at kill termintor class models, specialy those that have ap0. And as much as I don't like this types of arguments, something like an auto gun should bounce off an suit of termintor armour.

No it wouldn't. They would still get their 2+ save against AP0 weapons, just like the old system. Terminators shouldn't be hiding from lasguns and bolters.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

If we're talking about cover systems, the old system of it conferring an invulnerable save did exactly what you guys are fishing for: Make lightly-armored stuff more durable against everything, and make heavily-armored stuff more durable against high-AP weapons but not small arms.

It'd also give light infantry more of a reason to exist.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/10 17:29:28


   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:
If we're talking about cover systems, the old system of it conferring an invulnerable save did exactly what you guys are fishing for: Make lightly-armored stuff more durable against everything, and make heavily-armored stuff more durable against high-AP weapons but not small arms.

It'd also give light infantry more of a reason to exist.


By contrast, the old cover system removed value from the armor save. There was little difference between a model with a 6+ and a model with a 4+.

Making light armored stuff that resilient could be very very dangerous for the game. Their current resilience is fine.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:
Making light armored stuff that resilient could be very very dangerous for the game. Their current resilience is fine.


Nah. They're very often not worth taking unless they have an invulnerable save.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Hecaton wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Making light armored stuff that resilient could be very very dangerous for the game. Their current resilience is fine.


Nah. They're very often not worth taking unless they have an invulnerable save.


As with all categories, it depends on the specific unit. Right now we have lists that just with a 6++ can produce extremely obnoxious but effective spam lists. I don't want to see what could happen with a 4++.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I dont think you can straight do wounds obviously, you would need to count those sweet 3+ and 2+ saves
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:

As with all categories, it depends on the specific unit. Right now we have lists that just with a 6++ can produce extremely obnoxious but effective spam lists. I don't want to see what could happen with a 4++.


A 6+ Invul is only a 16% increase in durability, at most, so if a unit is producing obnoxious results with that, it's not because of the invul save.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Hecaton wrote:
Spoletta wrote:

As with all categories, it depends on the specific unit. Right now we have lists that just with a 6++ can produce extremely obnoxious but effective spam lists. I don't want to see what could happen with a 4++.


A 6+ Invul is only a 16% increase in durability, at most, so if a unit is producing obnoxious results with that, it's not because of the invul save.


20% actually, but yes, they would probably perform decently even without it.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Or instead of stats the secondary affective elite could be based on ppm. Like non character <INFANTRY>, <BIKER> (sorry but Outriders, Skyweavers or custodes jetbikes should definitely be hit by that), <CAVALRY> units that cost 30-32+ppm BEFORE upgrades.

1 VP for every 2 models killed.

Some troops units could be affected but I don't see it as a problem: tyranids can have warriors or other elite models in small numbers, they don't need a skew elite oriented list like SM or custeodes which makes the secondary not that juicy against them. I wouldn't select it if I can only get 5-6 VPs at most out of it. Custodes troops would be affected yes, but considering how small custodes armies are even by tabling the list it would be impossible to max out the secondary, even 9-10 VPs would be hard to achieve.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/11 09:19:37


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Warriors are 17 ppm before upgrades.

Using points is probably against GW design intentions, but something like that could potentially work.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Spoletta wrote:
Warriors are 17 ppm before upgrades.

Using points is probably against GW design intentions, but something like that could potentially work.


<it would be more likely that it would use PL... which has a whole other slew of issues attached to it.... just like summoning goes torwards PL level for summoned units, but it would attleast fix up some of the potential issues in regards to coverage...
>

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 pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No it wouldn't. They would still get their 2+ save against AP0 weapons, just like the old system. Terminators shouldn't be hiding from lasguns and bolters.

Well that would be a weak rule and it would not really be impacting much of the armies played, considering that basic weapons in w40k right now all come with at least -1AP.


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




3) Your point stands only if marines were the only faction, or at least among the few factions, that don't suffer from seconaries. This isn't true. Even more so after the FAQ. The list of factions that doesn't suffer from secondaries is much much bigger than the short list of the ones that do (GK, TS and some lists of a few other factions). Sure, many factions can actually put together a list that bleeds them if they actively pursue that, but the same is true for marines.


My point this entire time, as I have said, is that if ANY armies are immune to secondaries, it's a problem. How does that square with your comment? This is acceptable game design to you? This is not good for the long term health of the game. Similar to when you said the missions were "almost perfect" due to extensive play testing in a thread that had gone on for many pages detailing the issues with the missions. I'm not always sure you see the issues. It's a little unfortunate that right now it's marines not being affected as it makes it too easy to say "haters" and move on, but the fact remains - we should either have them hit everyone as equally as possible, or simply not have the kill secondaries.







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..." 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: