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.
2021/01/11 19:33:01
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
SemperMortis wrote: 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
Anything sitting in cover isn't scoring primary objectives so why are you going out of your way to kill them rather than killing the thing that's winning your opponent the game?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/11 19:33:14
2021/01/11 19:34:31
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
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.
Nah, if it's blocking 1/6 of incoming hits that's a 16% increase in durability. A model with a 6+ save who loses it suffers a 20% increase in vulnerability.
2021/01/11 19:37:32
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
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.
I like the idea of using secondaries only for tie breakers, and I agree that objectives should force you to make decisions. I think the current issue is that you really only have two choices in the case of most primaries- "Take it before my opponent, or wait and take it from my opponent". Sure there's some granularity in terms of what unit you take it with vs what units they have, etc, but the basic game we're all playing is -"Grab it now and resist, or wait and kill my opponent for it".
So objectives that allow more choices would fix a lot of that. I'm just not sure about rolling for the missions. Maybe if we had a stack of balanced secondaries and you were rolling for the secondary? I don't know that, in the current structure, rolling would make much of a difference due to the "sameness" of the current mission packet, and if they changed them to be more conducive to rolling, I would worry that you could randomly be in a lot of trouble based on a dice roll ...
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 think the point they're trying to make is not that you are automatically "wrong" in your opinion for not having played, but you have very strong feelings about some things that would likely be pretty different if you did, and you've made several points (skarboyz for example, and some Forgeworld comments) that I don't think you would have made were you still playing regularly if that makes sense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/11 19:44:31
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..."
2021/01/11 19:40:39
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
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.
Nah, if it's blocking 1/6 of incoming hits that's a 16% increase in durability. A model with a 6+ save who loses it suffers a 20% increase in vulnerability.
It is a 20% increase.
Against any given shot, it only offers a 1/6 chance to save the model, but if the model is saved, they can potentially take another shot, which can potentially be saved.
Math is not very intuitive, so it can be easy to make goofs.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2021/01/11 19:43:29
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Against any given shot, it only offers a 1/6 chance to save the model, but if the model is saved, they can potentially take another shot, which can potentially be saved.
Math is not very intuitive, so it can be easy to make goofs.
Uh... that's outside the bounds of what I was talking about. Against any given shot, a model with a 6++ is 16% less likely to be wounded by it.
2021/01/11 19:46:12
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Against any given shot, it only offers a 1/6 chance to save the model, but if the model is saved, they can potentially take another shot, which can potentially be saved.
Math is not very intuitive, so it can be easy to make goofs.
Uh... that's outside the bounds of what I was talking about. Against any given shot, a model with a 6++ is 16% less likely to be wounded by it.
That's not a particularly useful metric. How often do chaff infantry with a 6+ save face just ONE shot?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2021/01/11 19:47:54
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
That's not a ton of improvement (20%, to be exact. ) but it's the difference between a 10-Man Intercessor squad being able to wipe them in one go versus not.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2021/01/11 19:53:33
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Please put giant quote pyramids in spoiler tags, especially when replying with just a single sentence.
Or just rework the current Tally into Non "VEHICLE-MONSTER wounds" instead of "Models"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/11 20:43:56
2021/01/11 19:55:21
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
SemperMortis wrote: 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
Anything sitting in cover isn't scoring primary objectives so why are you going out of your way to kill them rather than killing the thing that's winning your opponent the game?
You probably don't understand since you don't play the game anymore (This isn't a jab at you). But for starters, if you don't play Goffs, you don't get skarboyz 1. 2, if you are holding an objective you still need to whittle down your opponent otherwise they will steal the objective from you on their turn. As a wonderful example of this, on the charge a unit of Intercessors get 20 shots in the shooting phase which kills 6.6 boys, in the Assault phase they do 31 attacks, 20ish hits and about 9 more dead boyz. So in 1 turn those intercessors just killed 15 boyz, or 120pts. I automatically lose 1 to morale and than I lose 1/3rd more to Morale so I am now under 10 models. I at most will control the objective for 1 turn before my opponent wins it from me. On the flipside of this, if I can reduce his numbers before he gets to me I have a better chance of holding the objective for 2 turns or more. Hence shooting still matters and camping SM's getting 2+ saves isn't helping
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.
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.
Why do you assume that I meant only light weapons? I meant considering the whole scenario. Obviously if you select the counter to light infantry as the basis of the analysis, then you will get to that result. You know what? Let's do the opposite, let's use the marine counter and see if that changes things, ok? Oh look! If we shoot a marine and an orc boy with a grav weapon, then the ork point for point is 2 times as resilient as the marine! Such a shock!
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.
Weapons that ignored cover weren't everywhere. They were in all meta lists, which is different. Since the old cover system created abominations like rerollable 2+ covers, no one left home without stocking on ignore cover. CC? Tell me how much CC was in 7th please, I would love to hear that. We wouldn't even have that case now, since we have rules both for ranged cover and melee cover. And finally, why do you need to fit 30 boyz in cover? You never played an horde in 9th right? You just need to have some of them in cover, this isn't 8th.
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.
Another shocking news for you! They are already big shootas with the current system! What I proposed is a straight NERF, but I see that your hate for SM has completely shut down you reading comprension.
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?
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.
Nope, you are wrong again. The club of factions that auto 15 a secondary actually counts a whole 3 members. GK, TS and Knights... and TS isn't even that true. All the other ones can easily avoid them or even have to really build into them to become targets.
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.
Lol... me a marine defender... I even started this thread by stating that considering them OP is legit, but yes, I'm a marine defender
I hate so much this way of splitting quotes...
Anyway, comments in red.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/11 20:02:53
2021/01/11 20:02:28
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
That's not a ton of improvement (20%, to be exact. ) but it's the difference between a 10-Man Intercessor squad being able to wipe them in one go versus not.
And if your opponent only has Intercessor squads, that would be a 100% increase in durability. Like I said, outside the bounds of what I was talking about.
2021/01/11 20:28:09
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
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.
Why do you assume that I meant only light weapons? I meant considering the whole scenario. Obviously if you select the counter to light infantry as the basis of the analysis, then you will get to that result. You know what? Let's do the opposite, let's use the marine counter and see if that changes things, ok? Oh look! If we shoot a marine and an orc boy with a grav weapon, then the ork point for point is 2 times as resilient as the marine! Such a shock!
Why do I assume you only meant light weapons? Because we are talking about making light armored stuff more resilient. generally speaking, Marine players aren't blasting Grav into light armored infantry. Kind of common sense but if you were confused i'm always happy to clarify. As to your next point about grav, yeah, but we aren't talking about making Marines more durable, and since we are talking about light armored stuff I went with the most common anti-infantry weapon statline, S4 no AP. And with that in mind, most light infantry units are not resilient enough point for point.
Spoletta wrote: Weapons that ignored cover weren't everywhere. They were in all meta lists, which is different. Since the old cover system created abominations like rerollable 2+ covers, no one left home without stocking on ignore cover. CC? Tell me how much CC was in 7th please, I would love to hear that. We wouldn't even have that case now, since we have rules both for ranged cover and melee cover. And finally, why do you need to fit 30 boyz in cover? You never played an horde in 9th right? You just need to have some of them in cover, this isn't 8th.
Except yes they were. Every flamer type weapon was automatically ignores cover, blast weapons basically ignored cover, armies had rules that allowed them to ignore cover etc. So it wasn't just meta it was just common. As far as CC, Yes, believe it or not, CC still happened and happened regularly. My orkz "Decurion" style formation was a green tide of 100-300 ork boyz...until they gave us a real "Decurion" which was so garbage that nobody used it As far as fitting 30 boyz into cover, well the rule is you can now get cover for those IN cover, and since you can never get even half a horde into a piece of cover you are basically left with half the benefit and since its +1 as mentioned which gives me a whopping 5+ save, its not exactly hard to burn through, that extra 50% would help but it is what it is as the saying goes.
Another shocking news for you! They are already big shootas with the current system! What I proposed is a straight NERF, but I see that your hate for SM has completely shut down you reading comprension.
So S7 -1AP Deff gunz are the same as S5 0AP big shootas with the current system? I assume you can get into specifics on how that is true (hint: its not) but the point is that your system removes the benefits of a HUGE proportion of decent AP weapons in the game. negating 1 AP because you desire power armor and similar to be better isn't needed or wanted...except by a handful of those Space Marine defenders. As far as you being a defender yourself, yes you are one. Here we are on page 10 and all you have done is propose buffs for the most part to SM units You can say otherwise to your hearts content but you have yet to do anything except propose buffs and oppose nerfs for space marines.
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.
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.
Why do you assume that I meant only light weapons? I meant considering the whole scenario. Obviously if you select the counter to light infantry as the basis of the analysis, then you will get to that result. You know what? Let's do the opposite, let's use the marine counter and see if that changes things, ok? Oh look! If we shoot a marine and an orc boy with a grav weapon, then the ork point for point is 2 times as resilient as the marine! Such a shock!
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.
Weapons that ignored cover weren't everywhere. They were in all meta lists, which is different. Since the old cover system created abominations like rerollable 2+ covers, no one left home without stocking on ignore cover. CC? Tell me how much CC was in 7th please, I would love to hear that. We wouldn't even have that case now, since we have rules both for ranged cover and melee cover. And finally, why do you need to fit 30 boyz in cover? You never played an horde in 9th right? You just need to have some of them in cover, this isn't 8th.
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.
Another shocking news for you! They are already big shootas with the current system! What I proposed is a straight NERF, but I see that your hate for SM has completely shut down you reading comprension.
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?
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.
Nope, you are wrong again. The club of factions that auto 15 a secondary actually counts a whole 3 members. GK, TS and Knights... and TS isn't even that true. All the other ones can easily avoid them or even have to really build into them to become targets.
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.
Lol... me a marine defender... I even started this thread by stating that considering them OP is legit, but yes, I'm a marine defender
I hate so much this way of splitting quotes...
Anyway, comments in red.
Well if your going to argue with people can you atleast get your facts right before you start getring snippy.
Grey Knights in 1 Codex
Imperial Knights is 2 Codex
Renegade Knights is 3 Codex
Thousand Sons is 4 Codex
And yes plenty of other factions can hand out 15VP for kill secondarys
GSC 5 Codex
TAU 6 Codec
Astra Millicopyright 7 Codex
Tyranids 8 Codex
Orks 9 Codex
While some codex's build around bleeding secondarys it severely restricts thier list building options.
Hope you didn't want to do a speedfreaks (light vehical based list) army as thats 15VP
Hope you didn't want to do massed infantry thats 15VP
Hope you didn't want to take multiple charictors thats 15VP
Hope you didn't forget how many of your Bigbugs have the psycher keyword 15VP
2021/01/11 20:41:54
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Appreciate that Ice, I forgot to include that section in my post. Cheers.
Yeah, orkz can ignore that 15VP...but only if they shoot themselves in the foot. Orkz are the redundancy faction, You don't mix and match if you want to have a chance to win really and in regards to that, Speed Freakz and Horde (unarguably the 2 most common playstyles) automatically give up 15 VP
Oh yeah, renegade knights... guess that makes it a whole total of 4, what a huge mistake!
All the other ones you named can bleed some secondaries in some cases, but easy 15? Lol no.
And yes, if you want massed infantry, then you give 15 VP because that's the whole reason of the existence of those secondaries, so that if I want to play a well balanced army and someone comes to the table with 300 gants making a third of army's weapons useless, I have some kind of offset.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: Appreciate that Ice, I forgot to include that section in my post. Cheers.
Yeah, orkz can ignore that 15VP...but only if they shoot themselves in the foot. Orkz are the redundancy faction, You don't mix and match if you want to have a chance to win really and in regards to that, Speed Freakz and Horde (unarguably the 2 most common playstyles) automatically give up 15 VP
Nope, they don't. Horde is a common playstyle, true, but 150 boyz are not, and if someone really brings 150 boyz then the secondaries are doing what they are meant to do. No one is against the 30x3 boyz lists.
Speed Freakz buggies are ~100 points each and give only a single point. If you bring literally nothing but buggies and the HQs, then yes, the secondaries should give me an offset.
Not to mention that you are proving my point.
All the other ones can easily avoid them or even have to really build into them to become targets.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/01/11 20:50:54
2021/01/11 20:50:57
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
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 ...
Maybe...
While all my views on the game, which are always counter to meta and the internet, seem to play out how I imagine...maybe I have a truly esoteric slice of players and I'm just lucking into confirmation bias. I had a game recently that was kind of important for that concept, because I do constantly wonder if I'm right or not, which panned out positively for my viewpoints. One game isn't evidence, of course, but it was a pretty striking data-point in that I couldn't have had the odds stacked much more against me and my predictions panned out even after I assumed I had lost in turn one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: After the change to Bring it Down; Orks really only give up Grind them Down consistently...and if that is your one kill secondary you give up easily then you should easily win on board control; baring extremely effective split fire games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/11 20:56:17
2021/01/11 21:07:39
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Maybe your right maybe it's your player's or maybe its the random luck of the missions your playing or the terrain setup.
My bet would be terrain even after GW's vauge examples.
With only 4 or so Primary objectives elite armies are definataly not IMHO at a disadvantage on primary scoring, if anything their far better Close combat and especially counterpunch when charged tends to see them either contesting or taking objectives from weaker models with a nice bonus of a free shuffle onto a held objective with a conservative charge.
The issue is even if they aren't giving the fulk 15VP's now they are still handing over an easy 12 or so VP that they can counter claim a similarly easy to score 12 VP for against said lists.
2021/01/11 21:17:59
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Speed Freakz buggies are ~100 points each and give only a single point. If you bring literally nothing but buggies and the HQs, then yes, the secondaries should give me an offset.
I bring 3 Scrapjets, a Kustom Boosta Blasta and 6 Smasha Gunz among other things pretty much everytime. It's already 10 VPs for Bring It Down and just 660 points.
Orks lists simply don't work without redundancy. Do you want buggies? There's no need to spam 8+ of them, but there's the need to spam units with similar profiles. Take as many Mek Gunz, flyers, trukks, BWs, dreads, etc as you can and those buggies will do their job.
Mix up 90 boyz, supporting characters (mandatory with footslogging boyz) and vehicles worthy of 10-15 VPs and you can't possibly have a competitive list.
2021/01/11 21:18:51
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
After the change to Bring it Down; Orks really only give up Grind them Down consistently...and if that is your one kill secondary you give up easily then you should easily win on board control; baring extremely effective split fire games.
Not necessarily. Orks still generally die to a stiff breeze. Should be easy for an elite army to knock them off the needed objectives. Unless it's something like the elite army putting too much into reserve and then the orks properly placing themselves to keep it from coming in?
Maybe...
While all my views on the game, which are always counter to meta and the internet, seem to play out how I imagine...maybe I have a truly esoteric slice of players and I'm just lucking into confirmation bias. I had a game recently that was kind of important for that concept, because I do constantly wonder if I'm right or not, which panned out positively for my viewpoints. One game isn't evidence, of course, but it was a pretty striking data-point in that I couldn't have had the odds stacked much more against me and my predictions panned out even after I assumed I had lost in turn one.
I hesitate to immediately call out terrain because that's what everyone does whether they have the data or not (and clearly I do not know your table setup, how you play, your experience level, etc), but Ice may have a point in that your terrain could be an issue. You've also mentioned what happens when "power armor armies over-extend themselves" but beyond a sacrificial lamb to score engage, and with most of the objectives/action occurring at midfield, I'm not sure how that would even happen, so it could also just be odd strategic choices.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/11 21:31:03
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..."
2021/01/11 21:32:30
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Speed Freakz buggies are ~100 points each and give only a single point. If you bring literally nothing but buggies and the HQs, then yes, the secondaries should give me an offset.
I bring 3 Scrapjets, a Kustom Boosta Blasta and 6 Smasha Gunz among other things pretty much everytime. It's already 10 VPs for Bring It Down and just 660 points.
Orks lists simply don't work without redundancy. Do you want buggies? There's no need to spam 8+ of them, but there's the need to spam units with similar profiles. Take as many Mek Gunz, flyers, trukks, BWs, dreads, etc as you can and those buggies will do their job.
Mix up 90 boyz, supporting characters (mandatory with footslogging boyz) and vehicles worthy of 10-15 VPs and you can't possibly have a competitive list.
You are saying exactly what I was saying. You are trying to overload the opponent with a single type of profile.
That is a kind of list that gets targeted by secondaries, and there is nothing wrong with that. Working as intended.
You can't have competitive ork lists without bleeding secondaries? That isn't true.
Spoiler:
Patrol: deathskulls
HQ
Warboss w power klaw + kustom shoota=83pts
Relic: killa klaw.
Warlord: kunnin but brutal. Upgrade:.
Da biggest boss. -1cp
Big Mek w SAG =120pts
Troops
10x gretchin =50pts
Fast Attack
5x Stormboys including boss nob w 2 choppas =60pts
5x Stormboys including boss nob w 2 choppas =60pts
Dedicated Transport
trukk =65pts
trukk =65pts
trukk =65pts
Vanguard: deathskulls
HQ
Big Mek w SAG=120pts
Big Mek w SAG =120pts
Elites
5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts
5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts
5 meganobz, 5x double kill saws=200pts
5 kommandos including boss Nob (1x tankbusta bomb) =45pts
SemperMortis wrote: You probably don't understand since you don't play the game anymore (This isn't a jab at you). But for starters, if you don't play Goffs, you don't get skarboyz 1.
I didn't think I had to spell that out. If you're bringing 30 man squads of boyz you should probably run Goffs with Ghaz or run some other list.
2, if you are holding an objective you still need to whittle down your opponent otherwise they will steal the objective from you on their turn.
That assumes you're not blocking them with useful units like Trukkz and haven't already tied them up in melee which is what your boyz should be doing whilst congalining back to the objective.
I at most will control the objective for 1 turn before my opponent wins it from me.
If this was how horde orks actually played you'd have a point. The fact is this isn't how they're played at the highest level and you know it.
2021/01/11 21:50:51
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
SemperMortis wrote: You probably don't understand since you don't play the game anymore (This isn't a jab at you). But for starters, if you don't play Goffs, you don't get skarboyz 1.
I didn't think I had to spell that out. If you're bringing 30 man squads of boyz you should probably run Goffs with Ghaz or run some other list.
2, if you are holding an objective you still need to whittle down your opponent otherwise they will steal the objective from you on their turn.
That assumes you're not blocking them with useful units like Trukkz and haven't already tied them up in melee which is what your boyz should be doing whilst congalining back to the objective.
I at most will control the objective for 1 turn before my opponent wins it from me.
If this was how horde orks actually played you'd have a point. The fact is this isn't how they're played at the highest level and you know it.
Congalines are nolonger a thing in 9th especially with the rate a which you can lose models in Close combat against many units.
Also you think a truk etc pesents even mildly effective speedbump?
Plenty of armys can shoot the truk of the table and still charge you easily.
Heck the very reason Pihrana spam works for Tau is because of drones meaning they have to kill the pihrana tben the drones to be able to hit your troops.
2021/01/11 21:57:39
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Ice_can wrote: Congalines are nolonger a thing in 9th especially with the rate a which you can lose models in Close combat against many units.
They work fine for holding an objective for a turn which is all you need to push the enemy out of scoring range.
Also you think a truk etc pesents even mildly effective speedbump?
Given that they can't be killed in the movement phase they do their job well enough as long as you position them well. It's the position them well part that causes most poor players issues.
Plenty of armys can shoot the truk of the table and still charge you easily.
Only if you misposition the Trukk or are on a table that doesn't let you block a corridor effectively.
Also, keep in mind that the Ork player has his own units to counter the enemy maneuvers. It's not just a blob of boyz versus a unit of intercessors, it's a 2,000 point list versus another 2,000 point list. Use the rest of your army to get turn one charges and tie things up, use Trukks full of Meganobz as roadblocks or missiles to strike the enemy's heart, use infiltrators to force the enemy to turn some of their forces back lest you outscore them or kill the backfield support they were counting on. There are reasons why Orks are an excellent meta army with multiple wining builds right now.
2021/01/11 22:05:01
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
'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.
He raises a point worth considering.
Is this really necessary? When I look at tournaments for November - the timeframe where the codexes would be in effect - I see the following under 50%:
Sallies
SW BA IF
IH
It seems people have all but abandoned IH who sits at low play counts and 32% WR. This is hardly the WR of a no brainer codex, is it? White Scars sit at 51% Salamanders - the mostly highly regarded faction here isn't even breaking 50%.
Instead Ultramarines and Dark Angels are leading the marine charge.
I haven't personally been to tournaments and I only play against Salamanders lately, so, if someone has more insight on what makes UM/DA the seeming winners of the codex I'd love to have some insight.
Still this is pretty limited data and we still have to contend with further tweaks from the recent FAQ. So....is an anti-elite really necessary?
Is the problem that people just want an easy and thoughtless choice when they play marines? Is it wise when marines aren't universally dominating like they once were?
2021/01/11 22:12:09
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Holding a primary for 1 turn means nothing.
You have to hold primary for multiple turns.
Seriously you think your achieving much blocking with a trukk on turn 1? Yeah maybe the top 5% of players can pull of some shenanigans but for 90% of the player base that's not happening heck I've never seen it outside of the old flyer moveblock BS from 8th.
You realise either fly or infantry can nine times out of ten just move through or over the terrain or over the trukk. Like seriously who are you watching to get the idea that 9th edition plays the way you think it does?
So now it's no longer just a trukk is now a 65 point trukk plus 200 points of meganobz?
'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.
He raises a point worth considering.
Is this really necessary? When I look at tournaments for November - the timeframe where the codexes would be in effect - I see the following under 50%:
Sallies
SW BA IF
IH
It seems people have all but abandoned IH who sits at low play counts and 32% WR. This is hardly the WR of a no brainer codex, is it? White Scars sit at 51% Salamanders - the mostly highly regarded faction here isn't even breaking 50%.
Instead Ultramarines and Dark Angels are leading the marine charge.
I haven't personally been to tournaments and I only play against Salamanders lately, so, if someone has more insight on what makes UM/DA the seeming winners of the codex I'd love to have some insight.
Still this is pretty limited data and we still have to contend with further tweaks from the recent FAQ. So....is an anti-elite really necessary?
Is the problem that people just want an easy and thoughtless choice when they play marines? Is it wise when marines aren't universally dominating like they once were?
Well two issues at play here your breaking a dang codex into subfactions it would be the equivalent if listing every hive fleet, guard regiment, sept etc separately.
Esentially if 50% of marines games is vrs marines guess what even if they win evey other game the maximum win ratio they can achieve is 75%.
Additionally many people just turning up to play at tournaments turn up with Marines.
If you strip the bottom 50% and top 50% of marines appart the seperation is scoring realy seperates.
However the key your missing is look at the avarage VP's scored vrs the avarage VP's given away, Elite based factions have a VP score advantage on average. It's not about win ratios it's about not being 10 VP's behind on average to the chosen factions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/11 22:20:25
2021/01/11 22:22:05
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Ice_can wrote: Holding a primary for 1 turn means nothing.
You have to hold primary for multiple turns.
Indeed, which is why you have other units supporting the unit of boyz. As long as the boyz can take and hold an objective for a turn and you have a support unit backing them, say meganobz, you can then use that to bully the enemy off the objective entirely.
Seriously you think your achieving much blocking with a trukk on turn 1? Yeah maybe the top 5% of players can pull of some shenanigans but for 90% of the player base that's not happening heck I've never seen it outside of the old flyer moveblock BS from 8th.
Yes, I do. You can use them to do things like stopping turn 1 charges into anything important, keep slower units away from objectives, or to deliver a nasty punch like meganobz to where you need it.
You realise either fly or infantry can nine times out of ten just move through or over the terrain or over the trukk. Like seriously who are you watching to get the idea that 9th edition plays the way you think it does?
Yeah, every play has a counter. However, your movements and positioning should change based on what the enemy has, where it is on the board and the current game state.
So now it's no longer just a trukk is now a 65 point trukk plus 200 points of meganobz?
It might be, it depends on what the enemy is doing and what threats you expect them to point at your objectives.
2021/01/11 23:50:37
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
'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.
He raises a point worth considering.
Is this really necessary? When I look at tournaments for November - the timeframe where the codexes would be in effect - I see the following under 50%:
Sallies
SW BA IF
IH
It seems people have all but abandoned IH who sits at low play counts and 32% WR. This is hardly the WR of a no brainer codex, is it? White Scars sit at 51% Salamanders - the mostly highly regarded faction here isn't even breaking 50%.
Instead Ultramarines and Dark Angels are leading the marine charge.
I haven't personally been to tournaments and I only play against Salamanders lately, so, if someone has more insight on what makes UM/DA the seeming winners of the codex I'd love to have some insight.
Still this is pretty limited data and we still have to contend with further tweaks from the recent FAQ. So....is an anti-elite really necessary?
Is the problem that people just want an easy and thoughtless choice when they play marines? Is it wise when marines aren't universally dominating like they once were?
First off I always sympathize with players who pick an under performing subfaction from a generally strong book for whatever reason, but there is a reason no one takes stuff like Snakebites into account when talking about Ork external balance. If you want to balance for competitive, which GW seems to be doing, you look at what´s strong and weak in a codex as a whole and balance accordingly. Marines as a book are still strong even if certain subfactions might not be, but then this is true for all books that I know off.
Secondly no I don´t want an easy no-brainer choice against marine in a general sense, but when these auo-takes excist for a lot of other armies it makes sense to have one for elite infantry spamming armies too. Either scrap all the skew secondaries (preferred option) or make one for each kind of skew. It's just unfair game design otherwise. And I say this as a person who plays an elite infantry skew list myself (Death Gaurd).
2021/01/12 01:31:46
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Canadian 5th wrote:I didn't think I had to spell that out. If you're bringing 30 man squads of boyz you should probably run Goffs with Ghaz or run some other list.
Canadian 5th wrote:That assumes you're not blocking them with useful units like Trukkz and haven't already tied them up in melee which is what your boyz should be doing whilst congalining back to the objective.
Canadian 5th wrote:If this was how horde orks actually played you'd have a point.
Canadian 5th wrote:They work fine for holding an objective for a turn which is all you need to push the enemy out of scoring range.
Canadian 5th wrote:It's the position them well part that causes most poor players issues.
Canadian 5th wrote:Only if you misposition the Trukk or are on a table that doesn't let you block a corridor effectively.
You know, it's these definitive proclamations about how to play the game correctly, combined with unsubtle insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you must be a bad player, that make the fact that you have never actually played the game immediately relevant to the discussion.
You know, it's these definitive proclamations about how to play the game correctly, combined with unsubtle insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you must be a bad player, that make the fact that you have never actually played the game immediately relevant to the discussion.
I must have hallucinated playing back in high school and well into my early 20's and then again in 8th edition... Thanks for snapping me free of my delusions I guess I should see a psychiatrist now.
Or I'll just hit the report button because your reply is entirely off-topic.
So how about we stay on topic 
) but it's the difference between a 10-Man Intercessor squad being able to wipe them in one go versus not.
