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.
2021/01/12 01:46:02
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
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.
Have you played a game of 9th edition?
Because that's what we're talking about. Or are you...
Because you can't have it both ways. Either you have relevant knowledge from first-hand play experience, or you don't. You can't in good conscious call out someone else for talking about a game they've not played when you're talking about a game you've not played.
That bit with the comma separating two clauses in a sentence. It's pretty clear.
You never mentioned 8th. If you said it somewhere else fine, but you would think, in being asked "So ... you don't even play 40k?", you'd have at least said "Played a few games of 8th". Not that "a few games of 8th" has much to do with where we are in 9th but at any rate, you didn't mention it.
A few games of 8th mean very little overall so I didn't care to mention them.
And you originally said you couldn't actually get your group to play games like 40k, but now you don't play because of lockdown? I mean fair enough, that applies to most of us, but "I don't play because I can't get my group to play 40k (but I have played a few games) ≠ I haven't played recently due to lockdown. lol
My group doesn't want to invest in 40k. I can't go to clubs because of lockdown, no contradiction at all.
Racerguy180 wrote: I've never played it, as I have no use for it. simple as that.
A fair amount of my friends do and everytime they show me the gameplay...it reinforces my decision. I get the appeal, its just unappealing to me.
Same for MTG/pokemon/any other CCG. I remember when Magic came out and my opinion of the game hasn't changed.
So you're mocking games you have next to no knowledge of because you don't think they're relevant to 40k but you can't actually know that because you have nothing beyond a surface-level knowledge of them...
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2021/01/12 01:48:01
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
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.
I've seen you say, more than once, that you haven't played since 5th. This isn't 5th. It's not the same game. You playing again in 8th is interesting, considering you haven't mentioned that when this topic has come up before. But: This isn't 8th either. The secondary objectives in this thread didn't exist in 8th, so even if you have played 8th, you haven't actually used the system we're talking about. And yet here you are telling people to L2P.
I think the fact that you aren't speaking from a position of experience is pretty relevant, but if you're feeling defensive about getting called out for armchair quarterbacking, you go right ahead.
catbarf wrote: I've seen you say, more than once, that you haven't played since 5th. This isn't 5th. It's not the same game. You playing again in 8th is interesting, considering you haven't mentioned that when this topic has come up before. But: This isn't 8th either. The secondary objectives in this thread didn't exist in 8th, so even if you have played 8th, you haven't actually used the system we're talking about. And yet here you are telling people to L2P.
My posting history here is public information. You can look it up and see that I've talked about playing games in 8th on this forum. That's the last I'll say on the subject.
2021/01/12 01:53:06
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
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.
I don't know that is necessarily true. When CSM catches W2 are they going to be viewed as Primaris? From a secondary scoring perspective these armies are all the same, but they vary greatly in composition. I think it is hard for people to appreciate the variety of lists out there and how little is seems people settle into one marine list. Harlies on the other hand...
Broadly speaking -- marines are nowhere near dominating the field as they once were and they have a new dex. You're not getting the "mirror matching" like before. There is no consistent VP lead for marines. UM and BT stand head and shoulders above other marines. The rest are beat out by other factions.
Xenos 54% wr - 27% of field
Chaos 46% wr - 16% of field
Marines 48% wr - 36% of field
Imperium 53% wr - 21% of field
This is all small data though and the pandemic makes a lot of stuff screwy. Lots can change, but it gives me plenty of pause about tossing something like this out there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/12 04:07:39
2021/01/12 04:15:35
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Ice_can wrote: 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%.
When a Marine Supplement gives you access to nearly a Codex worth of differences from another Marine Supplement, I don't think it is unreasonable to track them separately. It not like Guard where the difference between one Regiment and another is the regimental doctrine, access a maximum of two unique units, a warlord trait, a relic, and a stratagem.
2021/01/12 04:43:28
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Ice_can wrote: 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%.
When a Marine Supplement gives you access to nearly a Codex worth of differences from another Marine Supplement, I don't think it is unreasonable to track them separately. It not like Guard where the difference between one Regiment and another is the regimental doctrine, access a maximum of two unique units, a warlord trait, a relic, and a stratagem.
So marines are as bloated as we knew them to be. Good to know, but care to elaborate what that has to do with them ignoring basically all kill secondaries? If for whatever reason they are to weak after (as if) they can be tweaked then.
2021/01/12 05:59:04
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
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.
I don't know that is necessarily true. When CSM catches W2 are they going to be viewed as Primaris? From a secondary scoring perspective these armies are all the same, but they vary greatly in composition. I think it is hard for people to appreciate the variety of lists out there and how little is seems people settle into one marine list. Harlies on the other hand...
Broadly speaking -- marines are nowhere near dominating the field as they once were and they have a new dex. You're not getting the "mirror matching" like before. There is no consistent VP lead for marines. UM and BT stand head and shoulders above other marines. The rest are beat out by other factions.
Xenos 54% wr - 27% of field
Chaos 46% wr - 16% of field
Marines 48% wr - 36% of field
Imperium 53% wr - 21% of field
This is all small data though and the pandemic makes a lot of stuff screwy. Lots can change, but it gives me plenty of pause about tossing something like this out there.
On FLG, the last Major and GT that were played included 60 players, this was the faction break down.
Space Marines of all flavors (Excluding Custodes): 21
Custodes: 4
Harlies: 2 (same guy in both events)
Imperial Guard: 2
Imperium: 2
Necrons: 12
Chaos of all flavors: 8
Orkz: 4
SoB: 2
Mechanicus: 2
Nids: 1
So when you say No mirror matches....umm, yeah, there's a ton.
So fully 1/3rd (actually a bit more) of the game was running Space Marines, 4 more were playing Space Marines +1 (Custodes) and 2 were playing Female Space Marines (SoB) and possibly 2 more were SMs with allies. So you are talking half the lists being SM's or other imperial factions wearing power armor. And the chaos guys were at least 3/8ths Chaos Marine as well. Ironically, the only other faction that was well represented was...Necrons, the newest Xenos release faction. So...if GW supports xenos...it gets bought...weird.
Anyway, the point was that SM's are the most over represented faction in the game, and my own point is that you can't use W/L rate as a good measure of how good an army is. If you have 10 players playing SM and 9 of them suck and barely know how to move their pieces is it fair to represent this by saying the army has a 10% W/L rate? No. Likewise for 40k stats the more important stat is top finishes. And in those 2 events SM's finished 1st in one and Quins finished first in the other.
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.
I don't know that is necessarily true. When CSM catches W2 are they going to be viewed as Primaris? From a secondary scoring perspective these armies are all the same, but they vary greatly in composition. I think it is hard for people to appreciate the variety of lists out there and how little is seems people settle into one marine list. Harlies on the other hand...
Broadly speaking -- marines are nowhere near dominating the field as they once were and they have a new dex. You're not getting the "mirror matching" like before. There is no consistent VP lead for marines. UM and BT stand head and shoulders above other marines. The rest are beat out by other factions.
Xenos 54% wr - 27% of field Chaos 46% wr - 16% of field Marines 48% wr - 36% of field Imperium 53% wr - 21% of field
This is all small data though and the pandemic makes a lot of stuff screwy. Lots can change, but it gives me plenty of pause about tossing something like this out there.
On FLG, the last Major and GT that were played included 60 players, this was the faction break down.
Space Marines of all flavors (Excluding Custodes): 21 Custodes: 4 Harlies: 2 (same guy in both events) Imperial Guard: 2 Imperium: 2 Necrons: 12 Chaos of all flavors: 8 Orkz: 4 SoB: 2 Mechanicus: 2 Nids: 1
So when you say No mirror matches....umm, yeah, there's a ton.
So fully 1/3rd (actually a bit more) of the game was running Space Marines, 4 more were playing Space Marines +1 (Custodes) and 2 were playing Female Space Marines (SoB) and possibly 2 more were SMs with allies. So you are talking half the lists being SM's or other imperial factions wearing power armor. And the chaos guys were at least 3/8ths Chaos Marine as well. Ironically, the only other faction that was well represented was...Necrons, the newest Xenos release faction. So...if GW supports xenos...it gets bought...weird.
Anyway, the point was that SM's are the most over represented faction in the game, and my own point is that you can't use W/L rate as a good measure of how good an army is. If you have 10 players playing SM and 9 of them suck and barely know how to move their pieces is it fair to represent this by saying the army has a 10% W/L rate? No. Likewise for 40k stats the more important stat is top finishes. And in those 2 events SM's finished 1st in one and Quins finished first in the other.
Not completely true. The most important data point is placing/share of players, and marines are doing quite badly.
Daedalus is actually right but wrong at the same time.
Yes, marines are not exactly crushing it on the competitive scene right now. The real winners right now are Sisters, Mechanicus and Necrons, but the share of top places to other factions is wide. The top meta right now is extremely good health wise. He is also wrong though, because the issue with marines has always been that they are too good on the casual level and this hurts the game on that level. The problem doesn't lie in the competitive side of the game. Marines are OP in casual play, and since 90% of the games are of this kind, and this board is famous for not knowing left from right when it comes to competitive 40K, this thread got to 11 pages, because it is an issue that is quite felt.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/12 07:12:33
2021/01/12 07:13:33
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
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.
I don't know that is necessarily true. When CSM catches W2 are they going to be viewed as Primaris? From a secondary scoring perspective these armies are all the same, but they vary greatly in composition. I think it is hard for people to appreciate the variety of lists out there and how little is seems people settle into one marine list. Harlies on the other hand...
Broadly speaking -- marines are nowhere near dominating the field as they once were and they have a new dex. You're not getting the "mirror matching" like before. There is no consistent VP lead for marines. UM and BT stand head and shoulders above other marines. The rest are beat out by other factions.
Xenos 54% wr - 27% of field
Chaos 46% wr - 16% of field
Marines 48% wr - 36% of field
Imperium 53% wr - 21% of field
This is all small data though and the pandemic makes a lot of stuff screwy. Lots can change, but it gives me plenty of pause about tossing something like this out there.
Also your still hung up on win ratio which is frankly irrelevant to the need for a secondary.
Look at avarage VP score by faction and against faction.
Elite infantry, AKA Marines tend to have a significant positive difference between their score and their opponents.
Avaraging 70-80 VP scores vrs giving away an avarage between 60 and 70 says there something going on that needs addressing.
If they were truely balanced the VP avarages should be equal.
2021/01/12 07:15:47
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Ice_can wrote: 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%.
When a Marine Supplement gives you access to nearly a Codex worth of differences from another Marine Supplement, I don't think it is unreasonable to track them separately. It not like Guard where the difference between one Regiment and another is the regimental doctrine, access a maximum of two unique units, a warlord trait, a relic, and a stratagem.
So marines are as bloated as we knew them to be. Good to know, but care to elaborate what that has to do with them ignoring basically all kill secondaries? If for whatever reason they are to weak after (as if) they can be tweaked then.
Imperial SM are 11 factions. We would need to go through some impressive logic loops to state the contrary.
Also, it wouldn't matter. We follow what is written on the codici and the official rulings. GW considers them 11 different factions.
Doing otherwise would be the same as considering the xenos a single faction.
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.
I don't know that is necessarily true. When CSM catches W2 are they going to be viewed as Primaris? From a secondary scoring perspective these armies are all the same, but they vary greatly in composition. I think it is hard for people to appreciate the variety of lists out there and how little is seems people settle into one marine list. Harlies on the other hand...
Broadly speaking -- marines are nowhere near dominating the field as they once were and they have a new dex. You're not getting the "mirror matching" like before. There is no consistent VP lead for marines. UM and BT stand head and shoulders above other marines. The rest are beat out by other factions.
Xenos 54% wr - 27% of field
Chaos 46% wr - 16% of field
Marines 48% wr - 36% of field
Imperium 53% wr - 21% of field
This is all small data though and the pandemic makes a lot of stuff screwy. Lots can change, but it gives me plenty of pause about tossing something like this out there.
Also your still hung up on win ratio which is frankly irrelevant to the need for a secondary.
Look at avarage VP score by faction and against faction.
Elite infantry, AKA Marines tend to have a significant positive difference between their score and their opponents.
Avaraging 70-80 VP scores vrs giving away an avarage between 60 and 70 says there something going on that needs addressing.
If they were truely balanced the VP avarages should be equal.
Right numbers, wrong analysis.
Marines have an inherent advantage in secondary scoring, which isn't tied to what we are discussing.
This advantage is called Oath of the Moment + another special snowflake secondary.
The advantages in scoring that we see are due to the fact that marines have access to special secondaries which are many times 15 easy points.
I sincerely hope that the next GT book will remove faction secondaries.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/12 07:18:26
2021/01/12 08:53:49
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
But even if it were, that's a codex issue, and should be solved in a codex. Surely it isn't something you change mission design around.
Not what I said. I stated that you can't have competitive ork lists if you mix up vehicles and infantries. If you want more serious stuff than the cheapest artillery or the cheap transport you need to spam a lot of vehicles, that's what I said. And I'm happy to autoconcede 10-15 VPs to Bring it Down if also my list is capable of scoring and killing more.
Second list you quoted is proving my point: there's only 3 Mek Gunz (120 points) as the only vehicles in the list, it's actualy the typical greentide with basically no vehicles. First one is a good example, although it's from an Australian tournament and we've seen odd downunder lists that placed high in tournaments but they're not reprentative of the current state of 40k. It's also extremely anti meta and skew oriented with 15 meganobz, it's something you can expect from people who own collections of 10k of stuff.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/12 09:06:39
2021/01/12 09:08:39
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
The first list has also 3 scrapjets, but honestly I don't care.
I'm not going to claim that I have any experience with orks, so if you tell me that over a certain treshold you need to go hard on vehicles, I believe it. I just don't see it as an issue.
If you want a list that is very heavy on vehicles, and you give me a few extra points advantage for that, then the secondary is working as designed.
If you try to overload me with a single profile and negate part of my list weapons, I get ~5 points of advantage, which means that you will have to hold one objective more than me for a turn. Seems fair.
2021/01/12 09:17:22
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Exactly, it's not an issue. Which is also the point I'm trying to make. Autolosing 10-15 VPs from a secondary it's not bad if the faction also gets good odds to win the game. The list you posted with 3 trukks and 3 scrapjets granted the full 15 VPs from Bring it Down just by killing 6 light vehicles (All T6 4+ save), and yet it had a great result.
Which is why I don't consider the old Abhor or Assassinate bad game design or I don't conisder as bad a secondary that hurts elite. TS or GK may be hurt badly by Abhor, but they can also have psychic supremacy at no cost. Fair trade IMHO, if they don't compete they simply need a better codex.
Just like I give up some VPs with my vehicles based ork list but I also have more chances of winning games considering the models I have available.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/12 10:40:02
2021/01/12 09:19:07
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
catbarf wrote: I've seen you say, more than once, that you haven't played since 5th. This isn't 5th. It's not the same game. You playing again in 8th is interesting, considering you haven't mentioned that when this topic has come up before. But: This isn't 8th either. The secondary objectives in this thread didn't exist in 8th, so even if you have played 8th, you haven't actually used the system we're talking about. And yet here you are telling people to L2P.
My posting history here is public information. You can look it up and see that I've talked about playing games in 8th on this forum. That's the last I'll say on the subject.
Thing is the fact that you have never played 9th shows in your posts. It is not just you, others (I think those who go on for pages about whether a 6+ save gives a 16% or a 20% percent increase in durability don't play either, else they would probably want to discuss more "tactical", "gameplay" or other issues that actually matter).
IMHO dakka is plagued by posts from people who don't even play the game, or played ten years ago. These posts are often very loosely related to the topic (armour values for instance cropping up -3 f...ing pages long- in a topic about the latest FAQ... I mean come on people...).
So go on report me too. I will explain to any mod how tiring it is to read endless, off-topic stuff just to get to the interesting bits. For example many here have made suggestions about elite infantry secondaries for example, which people who play can use. You can say why you disagree with a suggestion, that is helpful too. Because perhaps I won't be using that suggestion after all, thanks to your input. You saved me the trouble.
In short, there are many ways to contribute to such a topic. I don't play Commander format of MtG, only Standard. I don't see why anyone could use my input on a Commander thread, so I why would I give some ? "hey guys i don't play, but I have a great idea, one that none of you have thought of, I am such a genious I don't need to actually play to KNOW STUFF...(I think that is how you come across man, sorry but someone has to put it bluntly at some point).
I said my piece on this, I will say no more. I apologize in advance to the mods, sorry if what I said here being is being reported and gives you more work.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/01/12 12:52:09
Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh
2021/01/12 11:29:40
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Because that's what we're talking about. Or are you...
Is any of this on topic for the thread? *checks thread title and OP* it isn't. *Presses report button*
The problem people are highlighting is it's almost impossible to discuss the game with someone who hasn't played it because there are certain aspects of gameplay that are much more difficult to understand without any experience of them.
Your Trukk example is a case in point. The problem with using a Trukk to block isn't that it's impossible, but that it's so extremely situational it's unlikely to be much use as a tactic the majority of the time. The Trukk is a non-flying vehicle so in an actual game it doesn't have the ability to get where it needs to go a lot of the time, even with its good movement. Terrain will slow it down as it moves through or around it, and large parts of the board are impassable to a Trukk. Then, even if it can block a corridor, as you claim, it's often irrelevant because those corridors are often formed by gaps between ruins that infantry can walk through with impunity, making the blocking all but useless. That's even more the case when most infantry will already be in those ruins so it's not like they're going out of their way to go around the Trukk. This is all stuff that's kind of obvious once you've tried to use these tactics in a real game of 9th.
It's not exactly helped by snide remarks about bad players when it comes from someone with no experience of the edition being discussed.
Speaking or Orks, I think the change to BID has probably helped them a little on the secondaries since they'll give up few enough points now for vehicles it may not be worth taking it against them. That leads to a question that may or may not have been answered during this thread: how many points do people think it's reasonable for a secondary to award, assuming the choice to take it was a good one?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/12 11:32:54
2021/01/12 11:44:40
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
addnid wrote: (I think those who go on for pages about whether a 6+ save gives a 16% or a 20% percent increase in durability don't play either, else they would probably want to discuss more "tactical", "gameplay" or other issues that actually matter).
I've yet to get any proper games of 9th in, due to Covid, but I fully plan on playing as soon as I can.
But that's part of the reason I focus on math-though I'll probably still do that even once I have experience! (I like math.) It's because I can see whether or not the math is right-applying it to the tabletop is something I'll need experience to do properly, but the math itself is just as accessible to me whether or not I've played.
That being said, my apologies for bogging down the discussion with that. I'll try to avoid getting snookered by mathematics too much!
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2021/01/12 12:35:44
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
I don't think there is an issue with secondaries offering you 12-15 points *if you table the opponent* - or near as, because they might have some support characters and 3 troops left. The changes to Bring It Down resolve the issues there. The problem for Vehicles/Monsters is melta offering ludicrous returns as discussed in the other thread.
As for whether Marines are performing well or badly in competitive games - I'm not convinced on this "look at the averages" approach. Marines are the most popular faction. They are disproportionately people's first army. I usually think this is special pleading - but for Marines I think there is something in it.
I also reckon there some units are more busted than others. The days of Marines 2.0 hyperbole, of "they can bring anything, even 30 reivers, and its an inevitable win", are gone.
But lists with a weighing towards Eradicators/MM Attack Bikes/Plasma Inceptors/Claw-Shield Vanguard/Bladeguard and probably Redemptor Dreadnoughts are very solid. I don't think that's anything like a mid-tier faction.
In a similar spirit, if you weren't running at least some Repentia and MM Retributors+Celestians as Sisters you'd probably raise questions as to why (especially if you are a recent convert). But people's Marine collections tend to be more eclectic.
2021/01/12 12:57:47
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
addnid wrote: (I think those who go on for pages about whether a 6+ save gives a 16% or a 20% percent increase in durability don't play either, else they would probably want to discuss more "tactical", "gameplay" or other issues that actually matter).
I've yet to get any proper games of 9th in, due to Covid, but I fully plan on playing as soon as I can.
But that's part of the reason I focus on math-though I'll probably still do that even once I have experience! (I like math.) It's because I can see whether or not the math is right-applying it to the tabletop is something I'll need experience to do properly, but the math itself is just as accessible to me whether or not I've played.
That being said, my apologies for bogging down the discussion with that. I'll try to avoid getting snookered by mathematics too much!
Math is important in 40k, no one can dispute that. But as you say it is the "bogging down" part that is an issue for anyone reading the thread. It is mighty decent of you to own it like that though.
Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh
2021/01/12 13:10:53
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Which is why I don't consider the old Abhor or Assassinate bad game design or I don't conisder as bad a secondary that hurts elite. TS or GK may be hurt badly by Abhor, but they can also have psychic supremacy at no cost. Fair trade IMHO, if they don't compete they simply need a better codex.
Just like I give up some VPs with my vehicles based ork list but I also have more chances of winning games considering the models I have available.
Have you seen the warp craft missions? Abhore was and still is, scored for everything psyker, which in case of GK is every unit and every characters ,bar servitors. At the same time warpcraft secondaries require you to use a character, get it in to really close range, not do any other thing with it, when all your good rules from PA work of HQs, because they are the only ones that can take the new psychic powers, and at the same time, you can not just be stoped by getting killed while trying to do the objective, but also by being stoped by an anti psyker roll.
Ah and Abhore lets you do other kill secondaries at the same time, and stop the GK player from doing his WWSWF.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2021/01/12 14:15:56
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Also your still hung up on win ratio which is frankly irrelevant to the need for a secondary.
Look at avarage VP score by faction and against faction.
Elite infantry, AKA Marines tend to have a significant positive difference between their score and their opponents.
Avaraging 70-80 VP scores vrs giving away an avarage between 60 and 70 says there something going on that needs addressing.
If they were truely balanced the VP avarages should be equal.
Ultramarines are +10
Salamanders are -2
Blood Angels are -9
Iron Hands are -10
What does that tell us about "marines"?
2021/01/12 14:35:11
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Ultramarines are +10
Salamanders are -2
Blood Angels are -9
Iron Hands are -10
What does that tell us about "marines"?
That Marine Chapter bonuses are not balanced, and that over time players will almost inevitably move on to the better ones, but for now* people are doing whatever and this is therefore clouding the Marine win percentage?
*Or up to whenever these stats were put together. Statistics on win% by flavour of Marine seem to be all over the place.
2021/01/12 14:44:04
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Slipspace wrote: Your Trukk example is a case in point. The problem with using a Trukk to block isn't that it's impossible, but that it's so extremely situational it's unlikely to be much use as a tactic the majority of the time. The Trukk is a non-flying vehicle so in an actual game it doesn't have the ability to get where it needs to go a lot of the time, even with its good movement.
You do realize that I was basing that off of a battle report and interview with a tournament-winning Ork player who used his Trukks exactly as I described to enhance his green tide list. So clearly it is both a tactical and list building idea that has merit even against some of the best people playing.
2021/01/12 14:46:02
Subject: Re:Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
On FLG, the last Major and GT that were played included 60 players, this was the faction break down.
Anyway, the point was that SM's are the most over represented faction in the game
Yea, as I mentioned the data is going to change. I would personally expect a lot of marines after a codex release, but I find it a little silly that you're stretching to classify everything with PA as marines. How is it that Harlies are scoring secondaries against marines? They're certainly not suffering. Necrons also seem to be doing quite well and they don't have ez-mode codex secondaries.
I don't know what GT you're referencing, but there's one on 1/9 that had 30 people and not a single marine in the top 10 and the marines are outnumbered 3 to 1. Again, these are just points in time and nothing truly significant, but I still think it is premature for an anti-elite secondary.
2021/01/12 14:56:44
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Slipspace wrote: Your Trukk example is a case in point. The problem with using a Trukk to block isn't that it's impossible, but that it's so extremely situational it's unlikely to be much use as a tactic the majority of the time. The Trukk is a non-flying vehicle so in an actual game it doesn't have the ability to get where it needs to go a lot of the time, even with its good movement.
You do realize that I was basing that off of a battle report and interview with a tournament-winning Ork player who used his Trukks exactly as I described to enhance his green tide list. So clearly it is both a tactical and list building idea that has merit even against some of the best people playing.
Yes, it can work in some situations, but not all and probably not the majority. As a general rule it's going to be more difficult than you think to do what you're describing given the issues I highlighted. The difference is you're basing your experience off reading a battle report of a game you didn't play (for a game you don't play) while other people are talking about the realities of playing the game in a more general sense and how your situation is not likely to be applicable in a large number of cases.
2021/01/12 15:14:35
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Slipspace wrote: Your Trukk example is a case in point. The problem with using a Trukk to block isn't that it's impossible, but that it's so extremely situational it's unlikely to be much use as a tactic the majority of the time. The Trukk is a non-flying vehicle so in an actual game it doesn't have the ability to get where it needs to go a lot of the time, even with its good movement.
You do realize that I was basing that off of a battle report and interview with a tournament-winning Ork player who used his Trukks exactly as I described to enhance his green tide list. So clearly it is both a tactical and list building idea that has merit even against some of the best people playing.
Yes, it can work in some situations, but not all and probably not the majority. As a general rule it's going to be more difficult than you think to do what you're describing given the issues I highlighted. The difference is you're basing your experience off reading a battle report of a game you didn't play (for a game you don't play) while other people are talking about the realities of playing the game in a more general sense and how your situation is not likely to be applicable in a large number of cases.
Canadian 5th you really do need to play 9th on TTS (since you seem to not have an alternative, which of course is not your fault). I see you shaking your head behind your screen. Please stop doing that. Download the thing already ! Then once you get a few games in, you will be able to speak from (slightmy more) experience. I will never play on TTS because I am lucky to have a (skeleton) crew to play with of about 5-6 people. But those of them who also play on TTS say it is good training, so I will take their word for it.
You don't need any models, TTS is free (or so I hear), what say you ?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/12 15:15:21
Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh
2021/01/12 15:41:02
Subject: Can we please get a secondary for killing elite infantry?
Also your still hung up on win ratio which is frankly irrelevant to the need for a secondary.
Look at avarage VP score by faction and against faction.
Elite infantry, AKA Marines tend to have a significant positive difference between their score and their opponents.
Avaraging 70-80 VP scores vrs giving away an avarage between 60 and 70 says there something going on that needs addressing.
If they were truely balanced the VP avarages should be equal.
Ultramarines are +10
Salamanders are -2
Blood Angels are -9
Iron Hands are -10
What does that tell us about "marines"?
Well it tells us one thing. People who play Ultramarines are just better players than other marine players. We already knew that though .
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
