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.

The game doesn't need an "Elite Infantry" secondary, IMO. It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.

What they really need is to keep adjusting balance of what we have. Adjusting abhor the witch and bring them down is a step in the right direction.

They need to change the horde one (forget the name) to be a little better.

They need to change the titanic one to be less punishing (IMO). Why it isn't a straight 5-10-15 points is beyond me.

Quasistellar wrote:
It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.

'Infantry with more than 1 wound' seems pretty straightforward.

I mean, that's the core issue- when you go up against an army primarily composed of multiwound infantry, there's no appropriate secondary. They can adjust the balance of the other secondaries all they want, but as long as there is no kill secondary associated with a very common and very spammable unit archetype, that's a problem.

The game doesn't need an "Elite Infantry" secondary, IMO. It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.

What they really need is to keep adjusting balance of what we have. Adjusting abhor the witch and bring them down is a step in the right direction.

They need to change the horde one (forget the name) to be a little better.

They need to change the titanic one to be less punishing (IMO). Why it isn't a straight 5-10-15 points is beyond me.

The problem is, you can change those, but you still have a few armies immune to the kill secondaries almost entirely so it doesn't solve anything imo. Your solution actually makes the currently good armies even better, but makes a lot of the weaker armies ... that much weaker.

Except for the Titanic one, but again, Knights are effectively nerfed by the rules themselves. Unless they're getting an update in their codex where each Knight counts it's wounds as "# of models" for the purposes of obsec, I don't even think we need the Titanic one.

 catbarf wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.

'Infantry with more than 1 wound' seems pretty straightforward.

I mean, that's the core issue- when you go up against an army primarily composed of multiwound infantry, there's no appropriate secondary. They can adjust the balance of the other secondaries all they want, but as long as there is no kill secondary associated with a very common and very spammable unit archetype, that's a problem.

"Infantry with more than 1 wound" is a slippy slope. You would mix in inceptor marines with squishy stuff such as tyranid warriors, arco flagellants, ad mech priests, nobz, etc. Though I guess these armies don't bring enough of them to make the secondary too easy to get 15 points out of...

You could be on to something. Let's do this, how would you proceed ? Every 3 models killed grants 1 vp ?
Could that not punish marines too much, and not punish non marines at all because it would be impossible to get even 7 vp out of it ?

We do want an "anti space marine secondary" right ? Hmm so many questions

Karol wrote:

 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.

unless youre playing :

Sisters
Admech
Drukhari
Craftworld
Harlequins
Chaos space marines
Astra Militarum
Deathguard
Genestealer cult
Tyranids
Orks
Tau





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 addnid wrote:


"Infantry with more than 1 wound" is a slippy slope. You would mix in inceptor marines with squishy stuff such as tyranid warriors, arco flagellants, ad mech priests, nobz, etc. Though I guess these armies don't bring enough of them to make the secondary too easy to get 15 points out of...

all of these i consider to be elite infantry yes.

 addnid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.

'Infantry with more than 1 wound' seems pretty straightforward.

I mean, that's the core issue- when you go up against an army primarily composed of multiwound infantry, there's no appropriate secondary. They can adjust the balance of the other secondaries all they want, but as long as there is no kill secondary associated with a very common and very spammable unit archetype, that's a problem.

"Infantry with more than 1 wound" is a slippy slope. You would mix in inceptor marines with squishy stuff such as tyranid warriors, arco flagellants, ad mech priests, nobz, etc. Though I guess these armies don't bring enough of them to make the secondary too easy to get 15 points out of...

Exactly. So it's not a slippery slope at all. In order for a secondary to "punish" something an army needs an abundance of that thing. Having 2-3 units that may be eligible doesn't mean you're punishing a Tyranid army, for example, if the secondary gives many more points when taken against Space Marines.

Slipspace wrote:

 addnid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
It's just too nebulous a category to get correct.

'Infantry with more than 1 wound' seems pretty straightforward.

I mean, that's the core issue- when you go up against an army primarily composed of multiwound infantry, there's no appropriate secondary. They can adjust the balance of the other secondaries all they want, but as long as there is no kill secondary associated with a very common and very spammable unit archetype, that's a problem.

"Infantry with more than 1 wound" is a slippy slope. You would mix in inceptor marines with squishy stuff such as tyranid warriors, arco flagellants, ad mech priests, nobz, etc. Though I guess these armies don't bring enough of them to make the secondary too easy to get 15 points out of...

Exactly. So it's not a slippery slope at all. In order for a secondary to "punish" something an army needs an abundance of that thing. Having 2-3 units that may be eligible doesn't mean you're punishing a Tyranid army, for example, if the secondary gives many more points when taken against Space Marines.

Indeed, not a slippery slop at all when you think it over, I agree. If say the rule is "3 multiwound infantry models = 1 vp, then tyranids with a heavy hand on warriors and hive guards would be giving like 5-6 vp (8vp if you get 2*9 warriors and 6 hive guards dead) so that is fine. Orks less. Haven't played any other army aside from these two in 9th, but I hope other players could provide input here, perhaps it would be too hard on certain armies we haven't thought of.

The concept is sound IMHO. Let's hope GW wants to give the poster boys a litlle more challenge purging the filthy xenos scum

I guess I just disagree with every army having a secondary that they give up max points to simply for existing.

I suppose it would be fine if they balance it correctly, but I just doubt they will.

Another thing to consider: are Harlequin Troupes "elite"? Are we okay with Tactical Marines giving up this secondary, but Troupes not?

This whole thing just seems to be laser focused on Space Marines and Custodes.

Quasistellar wrote:
I guess I just disagree with every army having a secondary that they give up max points to simply for existing.

I suppose it would be fine if they balance it correctly, but I just doubt they will.

Another thing to consider: are Harlequin Troupes "elite"? Are we okay with Tactical Marines giving up this secondary, but Troupes not?

This whole thing just seems to be laser focused on Space Marines and Custodes.

So your pro some factions having secondarys they give up max points for just exsisting ir trying ti play the game yet other factions not having them? That seems a far worse solution than saying all should have such a secondary if anyone has to have it.

Also as much as I get the Harlequins and Demons issue, it's the old adage of they are the Schrödinger's armies to 90% of the player base. They're such a small percentage of the lists people see they're not really OP or Not OP to them as they've never played them.
Yes there event results do indicate that the armies seem to be outperforming the avarage. But to 90% of the player base marines are the poster boy of the problem right now as that's the army played most often that can abuse this situation, custodes being second most likely for people to have experienced this issue playing against.

Ice_can wrote:
So your pro some factions having secondarys they give up max points for just exsisting ir trying ti play the game yet other factions not having them? That seems a far worse solution than saying all should have such a secondary if anyone has to have it.

Removing all of the kill secondaries and making every secondary objective movement or action based would solve the issue as it wouldn't harm any kind of list. I'd rather do that than keep tweaking kill secondaries until the end of time.

Quasistellar wrote:
I guess I just disagree with every army having a secondary that they give up max points to simply for existing.

In an ideal implementation, an army with a balanced mix of single-wound infantry, multi-wound infantry, characters, and vehicles/monsters would be optimal in that it wouldn't max out any secondaries. That's the whole point of kill secondaries; they punish skew armies.

In practice, the way VPs are tied to model count affects armies very unevenly, with some basically always allowing at least one secondary to max out, and others being able to skew and still come out ahead on secondaries. Elite infantry armies having no associated secondary are an egregious example of the latter.

The solution here clearly is not to make sure that one unit archetype has no associated secondary; it's to make sure that the secondary system is structured to facilitate its original purpose. Tying the secondaries to points killed rather than models, which effectively defines skew lists by % of points spent, would be a good first step.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
So your pro some factions having secondarys they give up max points for just exsisting ir trying ti play the game yet other factions not having them? That seems a far worse solution than saying all should have such a secondary if anyone has to have it.

Removing all of the kill secondaries and making every secondary objective movement or action based would solve the issue as it wouldn't harm any kind of list. I'd rather do that than keep tweaking kill secondaries until the end of time.

You don’t play, as you said in another post, so no skin off your back

I guess I just disagree with every army having a secondary that they give up max points to simply for existing.

I suppose it would be fine if they balance it correctly, but I just doubt they will.

Another thing to consider: are Harlequin Troupes "elite"? Are we okay with Tactical Marines giving up this secondary, but Troupes not?

This whole thing just seems to be laser focused on Space Marines and Custodes.

No one's asking for a secondary that causes everyone to give up max points for just existing. In fact, it seems like the one thing we can all agree on is that secondaries SHOULDN'T target anyone just for existing.

They're saying there shouldn't be any armies that are almost completely immune to *any* of the kill secondaries.

 addnid wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
So your pro some factions having secondarys they give up max points for just exsisting ir trying ti play the game yet other factions not having them? That seems a far worse solution than saying all should have such a secondary if anyone has to have it.

Removing all of the kill secondaries and making every secondary objective movement or action based would solve the issue as it wouldn't harm any kind of list. I'd rather do that than keep tweaking kill secondaries until the end of time.

You don’t play, as you said in another post, so no skin off your back

Just as a fair warning, I'm reporting every single poster that uses this to discredit my arguments. Debate my posts not my status as a player.

Ice_can wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
I guess I just disagree with every army having a secondary that they give up max points to simply for existing.

I suppose it would be fine if they balance it correctly, but I just doubt they will.

Another thing to consider: are Harlequin Troupes "elite"? Are we okay with Tactical Marines giving up this secondary, but Troupes not?

This whole thing just seems to be laser focused on Space Marines and Custodes.

So your pro some factions having secondarys they give up max points for just exsisting ir trying ti play the game yet other factions not having them? That seems a far worse solution than saying all should have such a secondary if anyone has to have it.

Also as much as I get the Harlequins and Demons issue, it's the old adage of they are the Schrödinger's armies to 90% of the player base. They're such a small percentage of the lists people see they're not really OP or Not OP to them as they've never played them.
Yes there event results do indicate that the armies seem to be outperforming the avarage. But to 90% of the player base marines are the poster boy of the problem right now as that's the army played most often that can abuse this situation, custodes being second most likely for people to have experienced this issue playing against.

I mean, I said I'm "not" pro giving up max secondary for even existing--maybe you read it that I implied that I think it's okay for some, but that's not what I meant.

I keep forgetting what the horde killing secondary is named, but it's a good example -- it's almost impossible to max it out (in fact maybe needs adjusted it's so hard) even against a carpet of gaunts.

On the flipside, Abhor the Witch basically was the "take me for 15 points vs Thousand Suns and Grey Knights". Titan Hunter is basically the same, but pure Knights have very fundamental issues with scoring in 9th to begin with.

Tycho wrote:

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.

I'm not fine with those few factions being easy 15 points. I play Thousand Sons, I know the pain.

What I'm contesting is the proposed solution.

If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.

Are you fine with making this issue more present? I'm not.

I prefer fixing those last few unfortunate factions.

I'm not fine with those few factions being easy 15 points. I play Thousand Sons, I know the pain.

What I'm contesting is the proposed solution.

If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.

Are you fine with making this issue more present? I'm not.

I prefer fixing those last few unfortunate factions.

I still prefer dumping the Kill Secondaries entirely. I think that's the best solution that also presents the least chance for unintended collateral damage.

That being said, if we have to keep them - no one should be almost wholly immune. I agree that we don't need one that causes the "immune" factions to easily give up a full 15 every time. That's an over-correction for sure. But, to struggle to get more than say, 5/6 kill points? That's not right.

Since it doesn't seem like they're going away, IMO, they need adjusted so everyone has something to worry about from them.

Honestly after reading this thread, i'll start trying to convince my playgroup to "softban" kill secondaries altogether. Once covid calms down i'll try and play a few games this way and i expect they will be much more enjoyable.

Spoletta wrote:
If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.

If it were balanced correctly, it wouldn't be an automatic 15VP against any Marine or Marine-adjacent army. It would only be an automatic 15VP against an army that leans totally into heavy infantry and/or gets tabled.

Marines have in their toolbox:
-Characters
-Vehicles (inc Dreadnoughts)
-Bikes
-Light infantry (Scouts)
-Heavy infantry

So they have a lot of things to spend points on besides just heavy infantry, and if they choose not to invest in those things, then that's the sort of skew that secondaries are meant to punish.

Maybe score it such that each wound inflicted on multiwound infantry is a kill point, and then total VP = kill points / 6. That means to get the full 15VP you need to kill 45 Marines, which in terms of points is comparable damage to Thin Their Ranks requiring 150 kills against 5-7pt infantry, which currently is a difficult secondary to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tycho wrote:I still prefer dumping the Kill Secondaries entirely. I think that's the best solution that also presents the least chance for unintended collateral damage.

VladimirHerzog wrote:Honestly after reading this thread, i'll start trying to convince my playgroup to "softban" kill secondaries altogether. Once covid calms down i'll try and play a few games this way and i expect they will be much more enjoyable.

TBH I'm all for that. The non-kill secondaries are more interesting, and if kill secondaries aren't fair to all armies and don't effectively punish skew, they have no reason to exist.

 catbarf wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.

If it were balanced correctly, it wouldn't be an automatic 15VP against any Marine or Marine-adjacent army. It would only be an automatic 15VP against an army that leans totally into heavy infantry and/or gets tabled.

Marines have in their toolbox:
-Characters
-Vehicles (inc Dreadnoughts)
-Bikes
-Light infantry (Scouts)
-Heavy infantry

So they have a lot of things to spend points on besides just heavy infantry, and if they choose not to invest in those things, then that's the sort of skew that secondaries are meant to punish.

Maybe score it such that each wound inflicted on multiwound infantry is a kill point, and then total VP = kill points / 6. That means to get the full 15VP you need to kill 45 Marines, which in terms of points is comparable damage to Thin Their Ranks requiring 150 kills against 5-7pt infantry, which currently is a difficult secondary to achieve.

I guess it's better than literally nothing but it's still not something I would take unless I had no other options.

 catbarf wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.

If it were balanced correctly, it wouldn't be an automatic 15VP against any Marine or Marine-adjacent army. It would only be an automatic 15VP against an army that leans totally into heavy infantry and/or gets tabled.

Marines have in their toolbox:
-Characters
-Vehicles (inc Dreadnoughts)
-Bikes
-Light infantry (Scouts)
-Heavy infantry

So they have a lot of things to spend points on besides just heavy infantry, and if they choose not to invest in those things, then that's the sort of skew that secondaries are meant to punish.

Maybe score it such that each wound inflicted on multiwound infantry is a kill point, and then total VP = kill points / 6. That means to get the full 15VP you need to kill 45 Marines, which in terms of points is comparable damage to Thin Their Ranks requiring 150 kills against 5-7pt infantry, which currently is a difficult secondary to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tycho wrote:I still prefer dumping the Kill Secondaries entirely. I think that's the best solution that also presents the least chance for unintended collateral damage.

VladimirHerzog wrote:Honestly after reading this thread, i'll start trying to convince my playgroup to "softban" kill secondaries altogether. Once covid calms down i'll try and play a few games this way and i expect they will be much more enjoyable.

TBH I'm all for that. The non-kill secondaries are more interesting, and if kill secondaries aren't fair to all armies and don't effectively punish skew, they have no reason to exist.

Yeah, but that's your opinion. For example, others in this thread pretend that secondary to also include bikes. Others want everything with 2+ wounds to be affected (which means 99% of the marine line). Others (like me) identify an heavy infantry only in the gravis or terminator class of models.

Yeah, but that's your opinion. For example, others in this thread pretend that secondary to also include bikes. Others want everything with 2+ wounds to be affected (which means 99% of the marine line). Others (like me) identify an heavy infantry only in the gravis or terminator class of models.

Who are you referring to with the "that's your opinion" part? Because Catbarf is absolutely right that they don't really control skew. Especially now with some of the fresh nerfs ...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
So your pro some factions having secondarys they give up max points for just exsisting ir trying ti play the game yet other factions not having them? That seems a far worse solution than saying all should have such a secondary if anyone has to have it.

Removing all of the kill secondaries and making every secondary objective movement or action based would solve the issue as it wouldn't harm any kind of list. I'd rather do that than keep tweaking kill secondaries until the end of time.

My main issue with this is that the more Elite armies are then at a big disadvantage duh to struggling with board control and action-economy. The latter can be mitigated with "shoot and action" strats and the like; but giving up board control is hard to alleviate without bigger work arounds. Maybe my approach to the game amplifies this issue; but I still fail to see how a lot of the marine lists I've seen even compete against an army that triples, or more, their model/unit count.

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.

Well, lets assume I magically get 30 Shoota boyz (240pts) into range of a single unit of Intercessors (200pts). I get 60 shots which becomes technically 70 because of DDD, that results in 23.3 hits, which becomes 11-12 wounds, against a 3+ save its about 3 unsaved wounds for 3 dmg or 1.5 dead Marines. 240pts killed 20. That isn't a 20% return that is a 8.3% return, or 12.5% if you include the wounded Marine. Give them that easy to obtain +1 cover save, yeah, why even bother shooting at that point? So your point is spot on, upgrade that to Gravis as mentioned (T5 3+ or 2+ and 3 wounds) and yeah, I literally cant kill a single model with shoota boyz in a single turn of shooting.

Spoletta wrote:

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.

On the premise that most infantry weaponry is S4 no AP the following shows you to be wrong.

An 18pt Tac Marine takes 2 dmg to kill, which is 2 unsaved wounds which at 3+ save is 6 wounds. 6 wounds at S4 is 12 hits. Assuming a SM is shooting a fellow Marine, that is 18 shots to kill 1 Marine.
An 8pt Ork takes 1 dmg to kill, which is 1 unsaved wounds which at 6+ is 1.16 wounds. 1.16 wounds at S4 is 2.32 hits. Assuming a SM is shooting the ork that is 3.48 shots.

So, when you say light armored stuff is currently resilient enough you are openly saying that against Small arms, its ok for light infantry units to be roughly 6x less durable than a Marine, or point for point about 1/2 as resilient.

To your other point that there was little difference between 6+ and 4+. Except there was a huge difference. For starters, weapons which ignored cover were everywhere. Next, there is also CC which doesn't allow for Cover saves, finally, good luck fitting a unit of 30 boyz into cover.

Spoletta 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.

Your simple fix just turned my Lootas into longer range Big Shootas, throw in the transhuman physiology and poof, my lootas are no different from shootas. Glad I paid 20ppm to get them.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

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.

You mean like "Thin Their Ranks" which almost exclusively targets horde troops?

Spoletta wrote:

I'm not fine with those few factions being easy 15 points. I play Thousand Sons, I know the pain.
What I'm contesting is the proposed solution.
If we agree that no faction should bleed 15 points just for existing, why are we discussing a secondary which would make this problem huge? Right now there are what, 10% of factions that suffer from this? With this change it would become something like 40%.
Are you fine with making this issue more present? I'm not.
I prefer fixing those last few unfortunate factions.

Well, Knights, Orkz, Nids, Thousand sons, Grey Knights, Imperial Guard...I'm sure there are others but I can't be bothered. Pretty sure that is more than 10% of the factions. In reality the factions that DONT bleed 15pts from existing tend to be the ones who wear Power Armor. Not all, but definitely the vast majority. So why are we proposing a rule that targets that specific sub set of faction? Because basically everyone else is already targeted. realistically, who doesn't that isn't similar to a SM? I think Harlequins and maybe Crons? And even than, Thin their Ranks targets Crons unless they take a more elite force...which would than fall into the proposed multi-wound Kill secondary.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

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.

unless youre playing :
Sisters
Admech
Drukhari
Craftworld
Harlequins
Chaos space marines
Astra Militarum
Deathguard
Genestealer cult
Tyranids
Orks
Tau

And this is the problem with the SM defender faction. They see the entire game through the view point of SM and only SM. Spoletta just claimed 10% of the game give up 15pts of kill secondaries by simply existing...when in reality its closer to the inverse. Here we see Karol thinking that because SM's have incredibly easy access to -1AP troop weapons...that everyone must have similar access when in reality they are the outliers not the norm.

Now, as far as cover, I think +1 is fine, it is absolutely a nerf to horde factions and a buff to elite factions so lets fix that and say you can only get to a 3+ from cover? And no added bonus for 2+ and 3+ models since in reality, if the weapon is already piercing their Tactical Dreadnought Armor an extra couple of leafs isn't going to make a bit of difference And more importantly, from a game standpoint you no longer have camping 2+ save armies.

As far as kill Secondaries for basically SM factions, I think Multi-wound is a great way to do this. "How the Mighty have Fallen" 1VP for every 6 wounds inflicted on multi-wound infantry. So a Tactical Marine yields 1/3rd of a VP and a Gravis model yields 1/2 a VP.

Bitharne wrote:
My main issue with this is that the more Elite armies are then at a big disadvantage duh to struggling with board control and action-economy. The latter can be mitigated with "shoot and action" strats and the like; but giving up board control is hard to alleviate without bigger work arounds. Maybe my approach to the game amplifies this issue; but I still fail to see how a lot of the marine lists I've seen even compete against an army that triples, or more, their model/unit count.

It really depends on the meta you'd expect to face, how that meta changes with kill secondaries being removed, and what the new codexes bring into the mix. Which is a fancy way of shrugging and suggesting we try it anyway and revert the change if it breaks things worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
Well, lets assume I magically get 30 Shoota boyz (240pts) into range of a single unit of Intercessors (200pts). I get 60 shots which becomes technically 70 because of DDD, that results in 23.3 hits, which becomes 11-12 wounds, against a 3+ save its about 3 unsaved wounds for 3 dmg or 1.5 dead Marines. 240pts killed 20. That isn't a 20% return that is a 8.3% return, or 12.5% if you include the wounded Marine. Give them that easy to obtain +1 cover save, yeah, why even bother shooting at that point? So your point is spot on, upgrade that to Gravis as mentioned (T5 3+ or 2+ and 3 wounds) and yeah, I literally cant kill a single model with shoota boyz in a single turn of shooting.

Then use your boyz for board control, or run them as S5 skarboyz and do your damage in close. We've seen tournament winning lists that don't seem to care if a base shoota boy is good or not.

Quasistellar wrote:
I guess I just disagree with every army having a secondary that they give up max points to simply for existing.

I suppose it would be fine if they balance it correctly, but I just doubt they will.

Another thing to consider: are Harlequin Troupes "elite"? Are we okay with Tactical Marines giving up this secondary, but Troupes not?

This whole thing just seems to be laser focused on Space Marines and Custodes.

This is Dakka. The whine about space marines above all else forum so it is not a surprise.

The issues with this system are fundamental. Adding an anti elite secondary wont fix anything just change what armies are effective. Plus I'd imagine once and if all these secondaries becomes in balance for all armies. Every army will just be taking the exact same secondaries against each other because...WHY WOULD I NOT JUST TAKE SECONDARIES THAT REWARD ME FOR WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO ANYWAYS - which is try to kill your army and remove your units from objectives...there is nothing dynamic about that.

What is actually dynamic? Random objectives (I'm not talking about malestrom) I am talking about rolling for missions at the start of the game. You just need to make the "primary objective" interesting enough that it can force choices in game. You can even have secondaries but they should only be used to break ties.

My main issue with this is that the more Elite armies are then at a big disadvantage duh to struggling with board control and action-economy.

Ignoring that, as I've said, I'd rather see all kill secondaries dumped - you've mentioned before about "elite armies struggling w/board control". I just don't get where you're coming from with that ad both anecdotal evidence, as well as tourney data shows that, barring Custodes - most of the Elite armies have incredible control this edition. Some of the best in the game ...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
Well, lets assume I magically get 30 Shoota boyz (240pts) into range of a single unit of Intercessors (200pts). I get 60 shots which becomes technically 70 because of DDD, that results in 23.3 hits, which becomes 11-12 wounds, against a 3+ save its about 3 unsaved wounds for 3 dmg or 1.5 dead Marines. 240pts killed 20. That isn't a 20% return that is a 8.3% return, or 12.5% if you include the wounded Marine. Give them that easy to obtain +1 cover save, yeah, why even bother shooting at that point? So your point is spot on, upgrade that to Gravis as mentioned (T5 3+ or 2+ and 3 wounds) and yeah, I literally cant kill a single model with shoota boyz in a single turn of shooting.

Then use your boyz for board control, or run them as S5 skarboyz and do your damage in close. We've seen tournament winning lists that don't seem to care if a base shoota boy is good or not.

Lets ignore the fact that even in CC Skarboyz aren't as powerful as you seem to think they are, we are talking about COVER SAVES which in CC you do not get So how about we stay on topic

Karol wrote:

 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.

Not true at all. Orks all have AP0, even on some S5 weapons, Sisters' bolters don't benefit from doctrines and are all AP0, Drukhari have poisoned AP0 weapons, Lasguns are AP0, most of the Chaos basic stuff, etc...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Just as a fair warning, I'm reporting every single poster that uses this to discredit my arguments. Debate my posts not my status as a player.

I'm going to repeat that you don't really have a leg to stand on with your assessment as you actively don't play.

If you report people for this I hope the mods discipline you for abusing the report function.