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.
2021/09/29 19:25:37
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
Insectum7 wrote: I agree in general, but this also brings up my issues with Primaris and 2w marines. The troops of other factions struggle hard to dent them, making the on-table interactions much less rewarding. See Banshees/Guardians/Genestealers/Current CSM ( )/Necron Warriors etc vs. Intercessors.
For me, I always thought that SM's (and by extension CSM's) should be the one faction that was really hard to kill. When I played the older editions one of the things I disliked was how fast they died and how wildly inconsistent it was with the lore. Personally, I've always thought that the Space Marine army should have been designed kind of like the current Custodes style where you have a couple of super strong squads trying to take on a much larger army. But then GW wouldn't be able to sell anywhere near as many marine models and they are their flagship army so...
See, I can't get behind this at all because many of those units from other factions were originally set up to have certain advantages/balance points when contesting to Marines, so much so as to be defining features of said units.
Genestealers are a prime example. In Space Hulk they took Terminators apart in CC, and for the first 15(?) years of their existence in the lore they continued to be extremely lethal against Marines in CC, the balancing factor being that they had to get there through a torrent of shooting. Genestealers aren't half as dangerous to Marines as they used to be, and it's a sad, sad state.
For a long, long time, Eldar Aspect Warriors were balanced around roughly equal in value to Marines, but with their own specialist skew. Banshees would slaughter Marines in CC, but Marines would slaughter Banshees with shooting. Dark Reapers would slaughter Marines with shooting, but Marines would slaughter Reapers in CC. Shoot the punchy stuff and punch the shooty stuff. It's an ideal balance. But no more. Individually a Banshee is a shadow of her former self against Marines. Like Genestealers, Banshees used to butcher Terminators ffs.
Marines simply being all uber is just gross, imo. It is a blight on the game.
Also, if you read other fluff, Marines aren't quite "2 wound" material.
Lasguns one-shot them fairly routinely in Guard books, for example (once they can penetrate the armor, which is usually what takes more than one shot).
2021/09/29 20:16:07
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
Unit1126PLL wrote: Also, if you read other fluff, Marines aren't quite "2 wound" material.
Lasguns one-shot them fairly routinely in Guard books, for example (once they can penetrate the armor, which is usually what takes more than one shot).
Right, and you get into the area where troops become so incompetent you get the "feels bad man." At the moment it takes four entire lasgun squads to drop a single marine beyond 12". (No orders) which is a problem. When a player maneuvers their unis into a spot that looks advantageous but then achieves basically nothing, that's an uneasant feeling.
Honestly I'm at the point where I don't complain that any unit in the game feels too durable.
Nothing feels in any way "super" in 40k. Your units no matter what they are cower behind whatever ruins you've got, then pop out turn 1-3 like they're MTG cards you're sending out to attack, they do one thing (usually obilterate one enemy unit) and then they get summarily obliterated.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2021/09/29 23:26:58
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
Yeah... I dunno if durability is something to complain about in 40k. The game is too lethal. A recent London GT final was over after the first shooting phase, as the DW player had almost nothing left of his army once the AdMech were done with him. He conceded on the spot.
"Marines are tough" only in a relative sense. Nothing is all that tough in 8th/9th.
Galas wrote: Estimating distances is something most people can train.
Yep. When I first started playing 3rd Ed I was rubbish at it. By the time that rule went away, I was usually within half an inch. It's just something you get better at estimating.
But ultimately the rule didn't really add anything to the game. I'm glad it's gone.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/29 23:33:36
the_scotsman wrote: Honestly I'm at the point where I don't complain that any unit in the game feels too durable.
Let me offer another way to view it. In the case of say, Genestealers, while the rest of the game has gotten more lethal, Genestealer lethality, the thing which they were known for, has been halved (thirded/quartered?).
That is not fething cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah... I dunno if durability is something to complain about in 40k.
Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/30 00:20:39
Insectum7 wrote: Let me offer another way to view it. In the case of say, Genestealers, while the rest of the game has gotten more lethal, Genestealer lethality, the thing which they were known for, has been halved (thirded/quartered?).
That is not fething cool.
That's false and you know it. Space Marines have gotten considerably more durable, most of everything else hasn't. Genestealers kill Tau, Guardmen, Sisters of Battle, etc. just the same (and actually far better than what they did in 6th, 5th or even 4th).
Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?
H.B.M.C. point is that Carnifexes should be more durable than Rhinos, not that Rhinos should be less durable. Sounds similar but actually is not the same.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/30 00:30:09
2021/09/30 00:30:37
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
To be fair, Genestealers were monstrous things in 2nd Ed. WS7 put them on par with Space Marine Captains, and although 1:1 wouldn't be a fair fight, you get 3-4 Genestealers onto a single Marine Captain, and he's in trouble.
Insectum7 wrote: Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?
You missed my point. Durability - as in things being too durable - isn't something to complain about because everything dies to quickly in ultra-lethal 9th.
Carnifexes are still less durable than Rhinos, despite this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/30 00:31:55
Insectum7 wrote: Let me offer another way to view it. In the case of say, Genestealers, while the rest of the game has gotten more lethal, Genestealer lethality, the thing which they were known for, has been halved (thirded/quartered?).
That is not fething cool.
That's false and you know it. Space Marines have gotten considerably more durable, most of everything else hasn't. Genestealers kill Tau, Guardmen, Sisters of Battle, etc. just the same (and actually far better than what they did in 6th, 5th or even 4th).
They got less lethal against the most popular army in the game. The army that fields the unit (Terminators) which famously squares off against Genestealers in close quarters in a game all it's own (Space Hulk), where Genestealers individually mean near-instant death in CC. And I'll stand by it since the exchange began with the subject of SM durability.
Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?
H.B.M.C. point is that Carnifexes should be more durable than Rhinos, not that Rhinos should be less durable. Sounds similar but actually is not the same.
More similar than dismissing the original issue by remarking "everything is too lethal" which is a pretty broad brush stroke.
TLDR: "It's fine that genestealers comparatively suck at killing marines since everything else is good at killing marines, even though genestealers were known for killing marines." Doesn't fly.
Insectum7 wrote: Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?
You missed my point. Durability - as in things being too durable - isn't something to complain about because everything dies to quickly in ultra-lethal 9th.
Carnifexes are still less durable than Rhinos, despite this.
Ahh, but simply pumping up durability for one troop type while leaving other troop types to rot, sucks. There's a "unit is known for quality X" issue, and this is where the Carnifex comes in. In opposition to Marine units, the Carnifex (once known for it's durability) is now much less so. Genestealers, once known for their Marine-killing prowess, are now much less so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/30 00:51:14
I'm sorry. I'll never accept 1 wound terminators as something right or usable. When you work with 1 wound and max 2+ save, no amount of crap (That ends up making something more expensive) will evade the fact that with one 1, it dies just like anything else. Genestealers destroyed Terminators because that was a closed game with his own athmosphere were Genestealers were literally the aliens from the movies , absolutely lethal criatures in dark spaceships.
And I can accept that 1w marines felt durable in 3rd or 4th, I didn't played those editions. They were paper mache since the lethality of the game sky rocketed.
The truth is most stuff became weaker in their own codex and factions to allow for room for new toys that GW wanted to sell. Necrons Warriors became weakers for inmortals, carnifex for the other tyranid big bugs, aspect warriors for wraith constructs and bikers, etc, etc...
I know, once upon a time, a dreadnought was something to be reckon with. Now they are less than nothing. Times change, and big toys sells for big bucks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/30 01:05:34
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2021/09/30 01:16:55
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
Insectum7 wrote: Let me offer another way to view it. In the case of say, Genestealers, while the rest of the game has gotten more lethal, Genestealer lethality, the thing which they were known for, has been halved (thirded/quartered?).
That is not fething cool.
That's false and you know it. Space Marines have gotten considerably more durable, most of everything else hasn't. Genestealers kill Tau, Guardmen, Sisters of Battle, etc. just the same (and actually far better than what they did in 6th, 5th or even 4th).
They got less lethal against the most popular army in the game. The army that fields the unit (Terminators) which famously squares off against Genestealers in close quarters in a game all it's own (Space Hulk), where Genestealers individually mean near-instant death in CC. And I'll stand by it since the exchange began with the subject of SM durability.
Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?
H.B.M.C. point is that Carnifexes should be more durable than Rhinos, not that Rhinos should be less durable. Sounds similar but actually is not the same.
More similar than dismissing the original issue by remarking "everything is too lethal" which is a pretty broad brush stroke.
TLDR: "It's fine that genestealers comparatively suck at killing marines since everything else is good at killing marines, even though genestealers were known for killing marines." Doesn't fly.
So, in your opinion, how many Genestealers should it take to kill a terminator? Or just a standard marine?
2021/09/30 01:54:39
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
We probably shouldn't use the 8th edition codex as any basis of reference. They are just waiting for their 9th edition codex and being propped up by cheap points and possibly a few tricks or strategems at this point. I mean, there is no way you can justify a chaos space marine squad that is shooting AP 0 bolters, has no doctrines, and has 1W per model if you want to compare. Its just sad.
2021/09/30 02:07:48
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
H.B.M.C. wrote: Carnifexes aren't less durable because Marines are moreso. The two things are unrelated. One is not a result of the other.
Never said they were the result of one another. My observation is merely that both Carnifexes and Genestealers have continuously eroded in their "pillars of identity". They are somewhat related. Game gets more lethal, eroding Carnifex durability. Marine players wah. Marines get tougher. Genestealer lethality becomes greatly reduced vs. Marine
So, in your opinion, how many Genestealers should it take to kill a terminator? Or just a standard marine?
Marine? 1.
Terminator 1-2.
Not like a guaranteed kill, but a substantial probabiliy.
Galas wrote: I'm sorry. I'll never accept 1 wound terminators as something right or usable. When you work with 1 wound and max 2+ save, no amount of crap (That ends up making something more expensive) will evade the fact that with one 1, it dies just like anything else. Genestealers destroyed Terminators because that was a closed game with his own athmosphere were Genestealers were literally the aliens from the movies , absolutely lethal criatures in dark spaceships.
Genestealers wrecked Terminators on the open spaces of 2nd ed too. I'll try to run numbers for later editions too sometime soon.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/30 02:12:47
Insectum7 wrote: I agree in general, but this also brings up my issues with Primaris and 2w marines. The troops of other factions struggle hard to dent them, making the on-table interactions much less rewarding. See Banshees/Guardians/Genestealers/Current CSM ( )/Necron Warriors etc vs. Intercessors.
For me, I always thought that SM's (and by extension CSM's) should be the one faction that was really hard to kill. When I played the older editions one of the things I disliked was how fast they died and how wildly inconsistent it was with the lore. Personally, I've always thought that the Space Marine army should have been designed kind of like the current Custodes style where you have a couple of super strong squads trying to take on a much larger army. But then GW wouldn't be able to sell anywhere near as many marine models and they are their flagship army so...
I think "super marines" would have been a valid direction to go. I'm honestly okay with marines' "thing" being that they're action heroes covered in plot armour who frequently perform better than logic dictates they should. But it does make it tricky to balance other armies that are meant to be nearly or similarly elite around that. As others pointed out, a banshee should probably win melee against a marine. A necron immortal should probably be tougher than a marine. There's probably a way to elevate all of the "elite" armies so that they feel right compared to marines while expanding the difference between the elites and the more mookish armies, but it's a challenge.
I suspect that shrinking the scale of the game back down would make this a lot easier. I remember playing some Zone Mortalis games in 7th (very small scale games set in tight hallways and small rooms). At that game size, without the threat of an artillery piece shelling me off the table, my extra point of toughness and armor compared to other armours was actually noticeable and felt "right." I really need to get off my butt and finish jotting down a variant ruleset for Combat Patrol-sized games.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
2021/09/30 02:22:12
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah... I dunno if durability is something to complain about in 40k. The game is too lethal. A recent London GT final was over after the first shooting phase, as the DW player had almost nothing left of his army once the AdMech were done with him. He conceded on the spot.
"Marines are tough" only in a relative sense. Nothing is all that tough in 8th/9th.
Important details on that game. LGT had a lot of rounds meaning you needed to go 100 points to make it to the top brackets and people brought lists that gamble on first turn. Four planes is super hard to hide from and there's a case to be made for 1 flyer per detachment. Also, Admech planes are still huge value and super maneuverable. Their bombers are also not limited like others. Some tweaks to those models ( and Admech and DE in particular ) would go a long way to help.
A note for people who think equipment shouldn't be strats : chaff launcher is stupid cheap - this one should be a strat. Then you don't have all planes getting -1D.
That terrain was also impossible to hide in with 6 dreadnoughts. Still, he deployed aggressively banking on taking the first turn.
I'm actually glad the game went that way, because it might get GW's attention a little more having such a dud game at a high profile event.
2021/09/30 02:39:18
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
Daedalus81 wrote: Important details on that game. LGT had a lot of rounds meaning you needed to go 100 points to make it to the top brackets and people brought lists that gamble on first turn. Four planes is super hard to hide from and there's a case to be made for 1 flyer per detachment. Also, Admech planes are still huge value and super maneuverable. Their bombers are also not limited like others. Some tweaks to those models ( and Admech and DE in particular ) would go a long way to help.
He still wiped his opponent out first turn. The game is ultra-lethal. This shouldn't be possible, no matter the "risks" you're adding.
Daedalus81 wrote: A note for people who think equipment shouldn't be strats : chaff launcher is stupid cheap - this one should be a strat. Then you don't have all planes getting -1D.
If the chaff launcher is causing problems, then you change the rules of the chaff launcher, or change its cost. Making it a strat isn't a solution, and this in no way strengthens any "equipment should be strats" nonsense.
Not that the chaff launchers played any part in that game given that his opponent never actually got to play.
Daedalus81 wrote: That terrain was also impossible to hide in with 6 dreadnoughts. Still, he deployed aggressively banking on taking the first turn.
You shouldn't need to hide your entire army in order to play the fething game.
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm actually glad the game went that way, because it might get GW's attention a little more having such a dud game at a high profile event.
What will it achieve? They'll see how busted DE and AdMech are, do nothing to change them, and "tone down" any of the upcoming books, leaving us with a crop of books that suck compared to the still-reigning DE and AdMech.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/30 02:41:36
How many Genestealers should it take to kill a Space Marine Captain in one round of combat?
Numbers in the spoiler below.
Spoiler:
An ordinary Captain, at T4 W5 3+/4++.
5 failed saves are needed to kill him.
All saves are made at a 4+, so 10 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 4+, so 20 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 30 attacks are needed.
A Bike Captain, at T5 W6 3+/4++.
6 failed saves are needed to kill him.
All saves are made at 4+, so 12 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 5+, so 36 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 54 attacks are needed.
A Gravis Captain, at T5 W7 3+/4++.
7 failed saves are needed to kill him.
All saves are made at 4+, so 14 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 5+, so 42 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 63 attacks are needed.
A Terminator Captain with Storm Shield, at T4 W6 1+/4++.
6 failed saves are needed to kill him.
One in three wounds are saved at 4+, the other two are at 2+, so 21.6 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 4+, so 43.2 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 64.8 attacks are needed. Round up to 65.
Finally, a Terminator Chapter Master with Angel Artifice and a Storm Shield, at T5 W7 1+/4++.
7 failed saves are needed to kill him.
One in three wounds are saved at 4+, the other two are at 2+, so 25.3 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at a 5+, so 75.6 hits are needed.
All hits are done at a 3+, so 113.4 attacks are needed. Round up to 114.
Genestealers have 3 attacks each in squads of 9 or less, 4 attacks each in squads of 10 or more. They go up to 20-strong squads. They are 13 PPM. They can also take Toxin Sacs for 5 PPM, which lets them do one extra Damage on 6+ to-wound, which actually helps a lot. They can be made to hit on a 2+, with a Broodlord.
However, without support (which the Captain can also receive, in the form of things like an Apothecary) it would take a minimum of 10 Genestealers to one-round an ordinary Captain. Make them tougher? Bike needs 14. Gravis 17. Terminator with Shield 18. And a Chapter Master with Storm Shield? Can't even be taken down by a 20-man Genestealer squad in one go.
If we buff these Genestealers up, giving them a Broodlord and Toxin Sacs... Well, first off, they're at least three times the cost of the Character they're trying to kill.
And second off, they do...
80 attacks
400/6 or 200/3 hits.
200/18 or 100/9 wounds on a 5, 200/18 or 100/9 wounds on a 6.
100/54 or 50/27 failed saves at D1, 100/18 or 50/9 failed saves at D2.
This does kill him-so how many Genestealers can you afford to lose before you can't?
Running the numbers, it looks like you need at least 11 Genestealers to, on average, kill said Chapter Master.
44 attacks
220/6 or 110/3
110/18 or 55/9 on 5, plus 110/18 or 55/9 on 6
55/54 at D1, 55/18 at D2
7 damage total, just barely.
What was the point of all this? I dunno, I like math. But it's not all relevant, which is why it's spoilered.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2021/09/30 03:25:06
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
Ah yes, the genestealer. I loved my genestealer invasion force back in the day…
The point around 40k not being very wargamy is a valid one, and I think it’s a deliberate design choice. There is the wargame market but the market for games like MtG is far larger. It makes commercial sense to optimise for that than the kind of strategic and tactic choices that go into wargames, though as we see it clearly has impacts on the playerbase’s happiness. Personally the MtG style gameplay of 9th with its masses of shallow rules puts me off, I have ended up playing other GW games (kill team being the current craze), but guys in my club absolutely love it.
I think it’s cool that GW has multiple ways to play with its background - underworlds, kill team, AT, AI, etc so if you don’t like one game you can use your models in another.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I should add unlike the old guard who came from a wargames background today’s GWs designers come from a far more game background and that will influence how they design stuff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/30 03:26:35
2021/09/30 06:35:36
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
JNAProductions wrote: How many Genestealers should it take to kill a Space Marine Captain in one round of combat?
Numbers in the spoiler below.
Spoiler:
An ordinary Captain, at T4 W5 3+/4++.
5 failed saves are needed to kill him.
All saves are made at a 4+, so 10 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 4+, so 20 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 30 attacks are needed.
A Bike Captain, at T5 W6 3+/4++.
6 failed saves are needed to kill him.
All saves are made at 4+, so 12 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 5+, so 36 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 54 attacks are needed.
A Gravis Captain, at T5 W7 3+/4++.
7 failed saves are needed to kill him.
All saves are made at 4+, so 14 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 5+, so 42 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 63 attacks are needed.
A Terminator Captain with Storm Shield, at T4 W6 1+/4++.
6 failed saves are needed to kill him.
One in three wounds are saved at 4+, the other two are at 2+, so 21.6 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at 4+, so 43.2 hits are needed.
All hits are done at 3+, so 64.8 attacks are needed. Round up to 65.
Finally, a Terminator Chapter Master with Angel Artifice and a Storm Shield, at T5 W7 1+/4++.
7 failed saves are needed to kill him.
One in three wounds are saved at 4+, the other two are at 2+, so 25.3 wounds are needed.
All wounds are done at a 5+, so 75.6 hits are needed.
All hits are done at a 3+, so 113.4 attacks are needed. Round up to 114.
Genestealers have 3 attacks each in squads of 9 or less, 4 attacks each in squads of 10 or more. They go up to 20-strong squads. They are 13 PPM. They can also take Toxin Sacs for 5 PPM, which lets them do one extra Damage on 6+ to-wound, which actually helps a lot. They can be made to hit on a 2+, with a Broodlord.
However, without support (which the Captain can also receive, in the form of things like an Apothecary) it would take a minimum of 10 Genestealers to one-round an ordinary Captain. Make them tougher? Bike needs 14. Gravis 17. Terminator with Shield 18. And a Chapter Master with Storm Shield? Can't even be taken down by a 20-man Genestealer squad in one go.
If we buff these Genestealers up, giving them a Broodlord and Toxin Sacs... Well, first off, they're at least three times the cost of the Character they're trying to kill.
And second off, they do...
80 attacks
400/6 or 200/3 hits.
200/18 or 100/9 wounds on a 5, 200/18 or 100/9 wounds on a 6.
100/54 or 50/27 failed saves at D1, 100/18 or 50/9 failed saves at D2.
This does kill him-so how many Genestealers can you afford to lose before you can't?
Running the numbers, it looks like you need at least 11 Genestealers to, on average, kill said Chapter Master.
44 attacks
220/6 or 110/3
110/18 or 55/9 on 5, plus 110/18 or 55/9 on 6
55/54 at D1, 55/18 at D2
7 damage total, just barely.
What was the point of all this? I dunno, I like math. But it's not all relevant, which is why it's spoilered.
Nice work.
Incidentally, in 2nd edition, if five Genestealers charged five Marines, the outcome was an almost guaranteed dead five Marines.
In fact if five Genestealers charged ten Marines allowing for each Genestealers to contact two Marines, the likely outcome would be ten dead Marines.
I don't think Terminators fared much better. Combat was very different (and I'm not good at mathing it up) but if there were no die rolls to contest the number of hits (and Genestealers had a big advantage there) the outcome of a 1v1 match would be the Genestealer gets 4 hits at 2+ to wound at a -3 save modifier, excessively chopping up any Marine and giving a Terminator a tough combination of save rolls.
Genestealers should get 4A, 2D on 6s, 2W and either +1S or +1 to wound when outnumbering the unit they are attacking. And then go up in price by several points like the old marines.
They were comparable to marines - more fragile against shooting, more lethal in melee, similar or equal cost over the multiple editions.
Their issue is that they struggle to make a meaningful trade - they generally cost more than what they can reach and kill and then they die like bugs on a windshield to any random selection of secondary firepower.
They need durability boost and going to 2W instead of T5 makes it different than Orks (and keeps them closer to their original power level).
2021/09/30 09:01:23
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
4A and 2D on 6s already makes them the lethal beasts they need to be. Never understood why they are troops though.
Nid troops should be hormagants and termagants. Instead for some reason we get warriors (which should be HQ), stealers (which should be fast attack) and rippers which should be no slot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/30 09:01:36
2021/09/30 09:39:05
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
Galas wrote: I'm sorry. I'll never accept 1 wound terminators as something right or usable. When you work with 1 wound and max 2+ save, no amount of crap (That ends up making something more expensive) will evade the fact that with one 1, it dies just like anything else. Genestealers destroyed Terminators because that was a closed game with his own athmosphere were Genestealers were literally the aliens from the movies , absolutely lethal criatures in dark spaceships.
And I can accept that 1w marines felt durable in 3rd or 4th, I didn't played those editions. They were paper mache since the lethality of the game sky rocketed.
The truth is most stuff became weaker in their own codex and factions to allow for room for new toys that GW wanted to sell. Necrons Warriors became weakers for inmortals, carnifex for the other tyranid big bugs, aspect warriors for wraith constructs and bikers, etc, etc...
I know, once upon a time, a dreadnought was something to be reckon with. Now they are less than nothing. Times change, and big toys sells for big bucks.
I remember the Tau Riptide getting released, and suddenly my army had a unit that threw out a 5" template that didn't miss often (hit on 3+ and if missed it scattered 2d6-3), wounded all marines under it on a 2+ and didn't give a save.
Entire space marine units just disappeared with each shot.
Things have only gotten worse since.
2021/09/30 09:45:50
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
Galas wrote: I'm sorry. I'll never accept 1 wound terminators as something right or usable. When you work with 1 wound and max 2+ save, no amount of crap (That ends up making something more expensive) will evade the fact that with one 1, it dies just like anything else. Genestealers destroyed Terminators because that was a closed game with his own athmosphere were Genestealers were literally the aliens from the movies , absolutely lethal criatures in dark spaceships.
And I can accept that 1w marines felt durable in 3rd or 4th, I didn't played those editions. They were paper mache since the lethality of the game sky rocketed.
The truth is most stuff became weaker in their own codex and factions to allow for room for new toys that GW wanted to sell. Necrons Warriors became weakers for inmortals, carnifex for the other tyranid big bugs, aspect warriors for wraith constructs and bikers, etc, etc...
I know, once upon a time, a dreadnought was something to be reckon with. Now they are less than nothing. Times change, and big toys sells for big bucks.
That's why a sales-driven ruleset is so bad.
2021/09/30 10:23:02
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
Galas wrote: I'm sorry. I'll never accept 1 wound terminators as something right or usable. When you work with 1 wound and max 2+ save, no amount of crap (That ends up making something more expensive) will evade the fact that with one 1, it dies just like anything else.
I think Terminators having 2 wounds (with regular Marines remaining at 1) would have been perfectly reasonable.
Even in prior editions (before GW went all-in on wounds), it would have put them on a similar level to Nobz, which I think would have been fine.
Ordana wrote: I remember the Tau Riptide getting released, and suddenly my army had a unit that threw out a 5" template that didn't miss often (hit on 3+ and if missed it scattered 2d6-3), wounded all marines under it on a 2+ and didn't give a save.
Entire space marine units just disappeared with each shot.
Things have only gotten worse since.
Ah yes, I remember the Helldrake being similar - though with the added advantage of being nigh indestructible and having no risk of its weapon scattering.
Hell, I also remember when I tried an infantry-guard army in 7th edition. There were so many large blasts and torrent flamers (all S6+ and at least AP4) that at least half my army was just vaporised outright on turn 1.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2021/09/30 11:57:54
Subject: Balance of Strategy, Tactics, and “Optimization” in 40K
the_scotsman wrote: Honestly I'm at the point where I don't complain that any unit in the game feels too durable.
Let me offer another way to view it. In the case of say, Genestealers, while the rest of the game has gotten more lethal, Genestealer lethality, the thing which they were known for, has been halved (thirded/quartered?).
That is not fething cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah... I dunno if durability is something to complain about in 40k.
Is this the same H.B.M.C that compared Rhino toughness to Carnifex toughness? Or are you His other Brother?
Yeah, luckily the leaks for the GSC codex say theyre going to base A4 and rending claws will be D2 on a 6.
you never ever ever ever need to wait that long for something that's not deadly enough to be made more deadly in 9th edition
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
)/Necron Warriors etc vs. Intercessors. 
