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.
alextroy wrote: I think a lot could be done for the current version of 40K if you moved restrictions into the army building phase of the game. It's often been said games of 40K are won or lost in the army construction phase. I don't think that is strictly true, but it's not a 0% factor either. The current ruleset basically allows so much freedom that you a well constructed army is so much more powerful than a thematic army in most cases.
But imagine what a difference it would make to the game played if more restrictions or requirements were made for army composition along with better designed points valuations? I'm talking things like:
Less min-maxing detachment options
Point Values that actually include the value of unit leaders and MSU unit selections
Requirements to take more then just minimum-sized units
Points value that encourage unit upgrades rather than bare-bone tax units
You cannot possibly fix the game play issues of 40k by changing things that do not take place during the game.
If you want to devalue the list building you need to increase the value of player choices. There needs to be more tactical depth.
That being said, I think 30k did really interesting things with list building. Including Rites of war changing which FOC slots a unit can fill and flat costs for unit wide upgrades regardless of the size of the unit to create an efficiency of points to counteract the value of MSU (if jump packs costs 10 points whether it's a 5 man unit or a 15 man unit than you want a 15 man unit to get your best bang for your buck).
I'm confused. If list building rules cause interesting decisions in army construction, doesn't that change the game as played? Even today, they can change the game just with points values that make units viable or inviable. Why not have more of that, but on a better way than just adjusting the value of a single model or upgrade?
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.
There's stuff that we'll agree that could be done to make the game better, but this endless crusade of "it isn't the old 40K" just makes me feel like we're at a political rally full of octogenarians than think the 50s were best for everyone.
Anyway, I can feel myself getting into trouble again so I'll step out.
Feels like we're caught in the middle of some weird social media influence campaign.
There are suddenly a lot of threads about the need for restrictions related to how much can be destroyed in a single turn. The claims being made are mostly based on the outcomes of a small handful games by some competitive player.
Posts are full of socially / emotionally manipulative language, and demonstrations of actual data are being met with ridicule and scorn. The people pushing this keep asking where you would draw the line, it's very important to them to know what you think.
Feels like an attempt to gin up metrics about a need for a change where none is needed. This can only end badly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/03 03:55:49
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.
There's stuff that we'll agree that could be done to make the game better, but this endless crusade of "it isn't the old 40K" just makes me feel like we're at a political rally full of octogenarians than think the 50s were best for everyone.
Anyway, I can feel myself getting into trouble again so I'll step out.
Feels like we're caught in the middle of some weird social media influence campaign.
There are suddenly a lot of threads about the need for restrictions related to how much can be destroyed in a single turn. The claims being made are mostly based on the outcomes of a small handful games by some competitive player.
Posts are full of socially / emotionally manipulative language, and demonstrations of actual data are being met with ridicule and scorn. The people pushing this keep asking where you would draw the line, it's very important to them to know what you think.
Feels like an attempt to gin up metrics about a need for a change where none is needed. This can only end badly.
HBMC confirmed for elaborate Russian psyop for [insert name of tabletop wargame you don't like here]?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/03 04:39:11
alextroy wrote: I think a lot could be done for the current version of 40K if you moved restrictions into the army building phase of the game. It's often been said games of 40K are won or lost in the army construction phase. I don't think that is strictly true, but it's not a 0% factor either. The current ruleset basically allows so much freedom that you a well constructed army is so much more powerful than a thematic army in most cases.
But imagine what a difference it would make to the game played if more restrictions or requirements were made for army composition along with better designed points valuations? I'm talking things like:
Less min-maxing detachment options
Point Values that actually include the value of unit leaders and MSU unit selections
Requirements to take more then just minimum-sized units
Points value that encourage unit upgrades rather than bare-bone tax units
You cannot possibly fix the game play issues of 40k by changing things that do not take place during the game.
If you want to devalue the list building you need to increase the value of player choices. There needs to be more tactical depth.
That being said, I think 30k did really interesting things with list building. Including Rites of war changing which FOC slots a unit can fill and flat costs for unit wide upgrades regardless of the size of the unit to create an efficiency of points to counteract the value of MSU (if jump packs costs 10 points whether it's a 5 man unit or a 15 man unit than you want a 15 man unit to get your best bang for your buck).
I'm confused. If list building rules cause interesting decisions in army construction, doesn't that change the game as played? Even today, they can change the game just with points values that make units viable or inviable. Why not have more of that, but on a better way than just adjusting the value of a single model or upgrade?
Which units are on the table does not change how the game is played. You still have massive down time. The decisions you make are still exactly the same. Pointing x units guns at their best target in range to kill y unit or bringing z unit to point their guns at their best target in range to kill y unit is more or less the same thing. You still spend your every turn swinging the club that is your whole army at your opponent with the goal of eliminating as many points worth of models as possible so that they are less capable of hurting you on their turn. Who gives a gak if the meta says these units are good or those units are good. The game itself doesn't change just because the meta has changed which units are now on the table.
Nothing in list building really changes the game play. It just changes whats on the table. There are small strategic differences, but no tactical ones.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
posermcbogus wrote: HBMC confirmed for elaborate Russian psyop for [insert name of tabletop wargame you don't like here]?
Agreed, that is some bizarre, dare I say, asinine conspiracy theory crap. Sure, it's an issue that lit up recently because of a couple of awful tournament finals, but it's not like the "Game is too lethal" drum is one that hasn't been banged on for a damn good while around here.
"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"
Maybe the reason half a dozen different dakka users are posting half a dozen different threads about reigning in lethality, from the “oversaturating tables with LOS terrain is a bandaid patch for too much lethality in the game” (which combined with the LoS ignoring firepower being handed out negates that) to the “tourney players consistently know who is going to win by the end of turn two” to this post “restrictions are a good way to reign in the lethality” is a clear symptom that there is too much lethality in the game...
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.
There's stuff that we'll agree that could be done to make the game better, but this endless crusade of "it isn't the old 40K" just makes me feel like we're at a political rally full of octogenarians than think the 50s were best for everyone.
Anyway, I can feel myself getting into trouble again so I'll step out.
Feels like we're caught in the middle of some weird social media influence campaign.
There are suddenly a lot of threads about the need for restrictions related to how much can be destroyed in a single turn. The claims being made are mostly based on the outcomes of a small handful games by some competitive player.
Posts are full of socially / emotionally manipulative language, and demonstrations of actual data are being met with ridicule and scorn. The people pushing this keep asking where you would draw the line, it's very important to them to know what you think.
Feels like an attempt to gin up metrics about a need for a change where none is needed. This can only end badly.
I haven't seen anyone proposing any actual restrictions on how many units can be destroyed in a single turn (maybe I've missed them). What I've seen are proposals to decrease overall lethality. These have included:
1: A return to some of the restrictions from older editions, such as: No moving and firing heavy weapons, no moving and getting rapid fire, and vehicles not being able to move and fire all of their weapons (this thread).
2: A general decrease in number of shots/attacks and damage characteristics.
3: Changing how modifiers to hit stack by allowing self imposed negative modifiers to stack (moving with heavy/assault weapons, firing through DENSE terrain, etc) while keeping the limit of +/-1 for modifiers coming from direct defensive/offensive abilities (strategems, psychic powers, etc), and adding a -1 modifier for firing at more than 1/2 range, along with changes to terrain and interactions with it in order to make it easier to gain the benefits of terrain. And of course a change to how LOS works.
I personally prefer #3. How specifically do you think any of these would "end badly"?
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
You're basing this assumption on....?
Daedalus81 wrote: The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.
Ok, Knights (in their present Imperial form) are a new addition. But step into yester-year & let me introduce you to Forgeworld flyers from 3rd ed+. We've also had (Armorcast) superheavies & Titans since 2e.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this.
It's extremely easy to provide data showing that average army ranged output in 4th was less than ranged damage capability in 9th. You could start with the basic rifles of the most common faction, for example. 12" RF range on a bigger board, vs 32" on a smaller board. That's pretty straight forward.
Insectum7 wrote: I'll disagree with that. I felt it was a pretty good mechanic fundamentally speaking. Issues arose out of the way modifiers were applied/ignored, but imo 4th handled it best.
The game allowed a near full-strength unit of Chosen Terminators to fall back and be instantly wiped out because an errant Grot was in their way.
I'm sorry, but no. Getting caught/sweeping advanced/wiped out/no retreat was not a good mechanic.
There were some issues, but the fundamentals were in the right place imo. Agree to disagree.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/03 05:20:20
posermcbogus wrote: HBMC confirmed for elaborate Russian psyop for [insert name of tabletop wargame you don't like here]?
Has Been Made Comrade.
Not so much an elaborate scheme. More like an attempt to influence the metrics generated by a social listening tool around popular topics and sentiment.
If someone gets reports from Meltwater / Cision / Sprinklr / Brandwatch / et al, they can get signals from Dakka and BolterAndChainsword. Highly discussed topics and prevalent attitudes get elevated to the attention of marketing types. Most people in the threads have no clue it's happening.
That's why you keep being asked what level you think is right. The AI in most of these systems can pick out quantitative data from natural language. Some marketing firms charge for this as a data trawling service.
I guess it's tough to find a way that ticks all the boxes. One Problem causing the lethality is the current AP system. In the old system every weapon that wasn't Ap2, had S6+ or had 4+ shots was useless. Ap4 to Ap- didn't matter (Ap3 was pretty rare) everything plinged off power armor or cover. So the current system made every weapon viable, as even Ap-1 is usually already good, and many weapons without AP have ways to get +1 to wound, rerolls, or have a lot of shots. Add to that that you don't waste shots anymore (Marines looking grumpy at a tank because the heavy weapons guy wants to shoot his Lascannon and they have to aim their bolters at the same target).
If you don't want to rework all weapons again to give them less shots (for example returning twin-linked weapons to their old version), movement, range, restrictions on Boni and cover are things you'd have to work with. Many people called for it since the start of 9th, the cap on -1 to hit should be reworked. Maybe add additional mali for shooting more than half range or not the closest unit.
Maybe allow any unit only to profit from two boni per turn (confered by Aura/ strat/ Warlord trait/psychic power).
posermcbogus wrote: HBMC confirmed for elaborate Russian psyop for [insert name of tabletop wargame you don't like here]?
CEO Kasen wrote: Agreed, that is some bizarre, dare I say, asinine conspiracy theory crap.
Whoa, hey, hold on. Now I'm perpetuating some kind of conspiracy? WTF???
Lotta loyalty for a hired gun!
(I can't speak for Kasen, but I was certainly responding to tech's suggestion that the recent slew of 40k fans starting threads on the minutiae of how 40k's rules are getting a bit much is not a symptom, of, say, general fan concern that the game is getting unhealthier, and discontent with that, but some grand social media campaign to sabotage algorithms so that when the singularity comes the T1000 is gonna be especially rude about 9th ed 40k or something I guess)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/03 07:07:01
I concur completely with the OP. There is no other wargame on the market now or anytime in the past that is anything like as permissive on ranges, movement, moving and shooting, target priority, etc. as current 40k. The game often comes down to whose list is more cost-effective simply because most of your list gets to attack optimal targets at full effectiveness every turn.
posermcbogus wrote: HBMC confirmed for elaborate Russian psyop for [insert name of tabletop wargame you don't like here]?
Has Been Made Comrade.
Not so much an elaborate scheme. More like an attempt to influence the metrics generated by a social listening tool around popular topics and sentiment.
If someone gets reports from Meltwater / Cision / Sprinklr / Brandwatch / et al, they can get signals from Dakka and BolterAndChainsword. Highly discussed topics and prevalent attitudes get elevated to the attention of marketing types. Most people in the threads have no clue it's happening.
That's why you keep being asked what level you think is right. The AI in most of these systems can pick out quantitative data from natural language. Some marketing firms charge for this as a data trawling service.
So...because social listening tools exist voices you disagree with on the community must be an artificial attempt to generate data on those social listening tools? Is "some of us are genuinely upset" not the simpler explanation here? Is "nerds complain when things they like get changed" an unknown phenomenon where you come from?
Daedalus81 wrote: And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
You're basing this assumption on....?....
I'm speculating here, but perhaps the fact that those of us trying to build oldhammer communities are trying to make the point that it's better than current 40k, and running around stomping people with whatever scatterbike-D-spam/musical-wounds/IW template-spam list was the cheese of the edition we're trying to root for isn't likely to be a good argument for why it's more fun?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/03 07:16:41
posermcbogus wrote: HBMC confirmed for elaborate Russian psyop for [insert name of tabletop wargame you don't like here]?
CEO Kasen wrote: Agreed, that is some bizarre, dare I say, asinine conspiracy theory crap.
Whoa, hey, hold on. Now I'm perpetuating some kind of conspiracy? WTF???
Lotta loyalty for a hired gun!
(I can't speak for Kasen, but I was certainly responding to tech's suggestion that the recent slew of 40k fans starting threads on the minutiae of how 40k's rules are getting a bit much is not a symptom, of, say, general fan concern that the game is getting unhealthier, and discontent with that, but some grand social media campaign to sabotage algorithms so that when the singularity comes the T1000 is gonna be especially rude about 9th ed 40k or something I guess)
You nailed it, though. I did indeed think that the idea that all this discussion is some kind of search engine optimization conspiracy - or indeed, any kind of 'social engineering' whatsoever - was ridiculous and counterproductive, and, to be clear, not an idea HBMC is perpetuating.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/03 07:50:34
"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"
Restrictions? I'd put flyers in their own detachment like the super heavy auxiliary detachment, just for cheaper.
Now flyers would have their own detachment with 0-1 slot for 1 CP.
I don't know if I'd keep the chance of getting the 3-5 slot detachment also for them, probably not. I feel like flyers are centerpiece models like superheavies and 0-1 per army should be enough.
I'd remove squadrons from units of models with more than 6W each.
Last but not least named characters would be allowed only by the opponent's consent, like in 3rd.
There is a fundamental practical issue with the idea of going back to an earlier edition. People just won't.
You have nostalgia for it and some others do too. And you and those can and will go play the older edition together. But there have been 5 editions since 4th and all of THOSE players want to use the models they have now that have come out since then. They want to use the latest rules.
Even if you could prove mathematically that 4th was a better game (and you can't), it doesn't matter. The majority just won't ditch their current toys to go join you.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.
There's stuff that we'll agree that could be done to make the game better, but this endless crusade of "it isn't the old 40K" just makes me feel like we're at a political rally full of octogenarians than think the 50s were best for everyone.
Anyway, I can feel myself getting into trouble again so I'll step out.
Feels like we're caught in the middle of some weird social media influence campaign.
There are suddenly a lot of threads about the need for restrictions related to how much can be destroyed in a single turn. The claims being made are mostly based on the outcomes of a small handful games by some competitive player.
Posts are full of socially / emotionally manipulative language, and demonstrations of actual data are being met with ridicule and scorn. The people pushing this keep asking where you would draw the line, it's very important to them to know what you think.
Feels like an attempt to gin up metrics about a need for a change where none is needed. This can only end badly.
I, and others, have been complaining about increased lethality for ages. Its a hot topic now because its getting worse and worse and more and more people are realizing it is indeed a problem.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I still don't know if AA is the panacea people think it is, or if IGOUGO really is the root of 40k's problems.
I dont think so.
in another thread, I laid out how a battle between an extremely casual ynnari list and a fairly casual slaanesh list might go - demonstrating that with average rolling and not a whole lot of stratagem/aura stacking shenanigans it's very possible to destroy 60% of an opposing list in one single turn, even with an effectively alternating combat phase (because slaanesh daemons have 'always go first')
H.B.M.C. wrote: It doesn't stop you, so why shouldn't the rest of us?
If you say so.
But it's worse now. Demonstrably so. Why don't you get that?
You have no data to demonstrate this. All you have is vague feelings from a game you played regularly more than 10 years ago and I have anecdotes of horribly broken armies. And the kind of people playing oldhammer now aren't the type to go around making crazy lists, either.
The horse has left the barn. We have flyers and knights now and people aren't going to give those up any more than Unit will give up his superheavies.
There's stuff that we'll agree that could be done to make the game better, but this endless crusade of "it isn't the old 40K" just makes me feel like we're at a political rally full of octogenarians than think the 50s were best for everyone.
Anyway, I can feel myself getting into trouble again so I'll step out.
Feels like we're caught in the middle of some weird social media influence campaign.
There are suddenly a lot of threads about the need for restrictions related to how much can be destroyed in a single turn. The claims being made are mostly based on the outcomes of a small handful games by some competitive player.
Posts are full of socially / emotionally manipulative language, and demonstrations of actual data are being met with ridicule and scorn. The people pushing this keep asking where you would draw the line, it's very important to them to know what you think.
Feels like an attempt to gin up metrics about a need for a change where none is needed. This can only end badly.
Yes, people clearly were not just frustrated by a thing for a long time that's been steadily escalating with the release of the drukhari, then admech, then ork codexes to the point where people are having casual games where 1200-1500pts get demolished in one go, and suddenly you've got this highly public match where "the best 40k player in the world" loses 1800pts at once. It would be ridiculous that that would create some kind of wave of people going "see, this is a problem, look at this, no amount of 'gitting gud' stops this gak from happening".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/03 12:46:13
"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!"
Daedalus81 wrote: Shaken / stunned are still here in the form of damage tables. Weapon destroyed is effectively ( using the term loosely ) there for vehicles that lose BS or attacks where dreadnoughts are concerned.
Being forced to take leadership tests on LD7 as an Ork from losing 3 models from a 10 man ( or 1in a 3 man unit ) results in a unit that is running away 42% of the time and making them totally useless the next turn if they recover. Now it is a 33% chance to lose 1 and on average another model. A unit that has two less models, but can still act is way more useful than a unit that ran away from an objective by 2D6 inches. Heaven forbid you fallback to the table edge or flee in combat and get overrun.
When a pie plate from a battlecannon landed it did a S8 hit on every single model beneath it. So 10 models? 10 hits. S8 and AP3, which means even marines don't get a save. That would mean 8 marines would die ( or 4 in cover ). In the same scenario now -- you might kill 3 ( or less than 2 in cover ) with a double firing LRBT. The same scenario versus Orks gives us 8 and 4 again versus 8 and 8. So there's a disparity. Which is better? The one where elite models die at the same rate as hordes or the one where a roughly equal amount of points got killed?
Anti-tank guns were also considerably more capable of scoring a devastating blow. Your ordnance weapons would even get a 2D6 pen roll. A lucky set of rolls will see you off from a single shot. The same is no longer possible.
Except...it definitely definitely is. Roll a couple of '5s' and '6s' on damage D6 weapons, or just...shoot basically any dedicated antitank unit at a tank, and you're pretty much going to wipe them out in a single shot with average rolling.
Peak damage in older editions was POSSIBLE, but far less probable than at present. Ordinance weapons got a 2d6 pen roll, yes - with one single hit because they were typically Blast, and you'd generally have to get that 5 or 6, and then again another 6 to instantly destroy the vehicle, which meant those kinds of big earth-shattering kabooms or units getting swept were unusual events, which happened at the edges of the probability curve. While now, damage is much, much more consistent.
This is pretty easy to test. Take two identical armies, basic, fairly casual list setups, and run them against each other in 9th edition and then 5th edition. It's pretty starkly obvious that you'll have about 50% more dead models on any given battle round in 9th.
"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!"
^Not to mention that it's easier to field large quantities of high damage weapons. Ordinance class weapons were rare unless you played Guard during 4th.
Also a tank couldn't fire Ordinance weapons and other weapons, reducing total potential damage output, nor could they move and fire, granting more defensive play against them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/03 16:01:30
techsoldaten wrote: Feels like we're caught in the middle of some weird social media influence campaign.
There are suddenly a lot of threads about the need for restrictions related to how much can be destroyed in a single turn. The claims being made are mostly based on the outcomes of a small handful games by some competitive player.
Posts are full of socially / emotionally manipulative language, and demonstrations of actual data are being met with ridicule and scorn. The people pushing this keep asking where you would draw the line, it's very important to them to know what you think.
Feels like an attempt to gin up metrics about a need for a change where none is needed. This can only end badly.
Posts like this are why I read dakkadakka on my breaks. Games Workshop iwar ops. Love it.
RE: "oldhammer was just as lethal and you're all deluded"
For 4th, we have the internet. I'm even using the Wayback Machine to look at 4th edition GW articles and stuff to facilitate the burgeoning 4th ed gameplay locally. (We have the technology. We can go back!)
My wife started calling me an internet archaeologist over it...
....anyways, the point is that the complaints from this edition are twofold (well, two-and-a-half-fold):
1) Eldar grav tanks don't ever die because holofields plus fast skimmer = big sad for dealing damage to them.
2) The damage chart is too punishing for vehicles and they spend too much time damaged and degraded.
2.5) Transports are deathtraps because a unit must disembark when they suffer a penetrating hit, and embarked units can be outright annihilated by Ordnance weapons.
Those complaints are actually in one case that a unit category is TOO DURABLE, and in the other two cases only tangentially related to lethality; vehicles being disabled is still better than vehicles being dead, especially given that there were mitigating things that could be done to reduce the likelyhood/impact of those disabling effects.
The last one is mostly just a complaint that transports kicked out units when the transport was penetrated, which is a reasonable complaint but not really lethality related (except that with bad maneuvering you could end up booted from your transport in front of all the enemy machine guns)
Vehicle Annihilated (the Ordnance 6 on-a-transport result) is the only direct lethality complaint, and fair enough; exploding both a transport AND its transported unit in one go is quite lethal. But as the_scotsman said, quite rare.
Im all for turning infanty weapons back down a few notches. though id take it 1 further and man portable weapons should be WEAKER than those mounted on vehicles or carried by weapon teams. like take a look at a landraider vs infantry with las cannons, same stats, but sorry bro the power generators and heat sinks are too massive cant carry as many units.
Hell id love to see more list building restrictions similar to bolt action (iv never played but I did like some of the things it has going for it for I looked into it)
though there are so many things id love changed about the game its an arduous task to list them all and honestly ill save the wish listing for another time.
40k has definately grown from the platoon scale when i first started it (3rd edition) into what apocalypse basically was back than is the normal now with all the problems that entails, and sadly i dont think we will ever see GW fixed their glaring issues when they have the market share with 0 competition.
"If you are forced to use your trump card, then the battle is already lost"
Yes, people clearly were not just frustrated by a thing for a long time that's been steadily escalating with the release of the drukhari, then admech, then ork codexes to the point where people are having casual games where 1200-1500pts get demolished in one go, and suddenly you've got this highly public match where "the best 40k player in the world" loses 1800pts at once. It would be ridiculous that that would create some kind of wave of people going "see, this is a problem, look at this, no amount of 'gitting gud' stops this gak from happening".
I disagree with the escalating argument. Don't you think that SM could delete 1200-1500 points of enemy stuff when they came out at the beginning of 9th? Not even when eradicators were considered the most OP unit in 40k's history ? I mean 9-12 of them are still pretty cheap and those alone can ruin a Freebooter Speedwaaagh list's day pretty easily.
Deathguard had a similar problem but reversed. When they came out they looked like impossible to kill, especially with Mortarion in. Same with DA. And yet none of these armies are considered problematic anymore. Don't you think that cherry picking that one game with ork vs drukhari isn't some sort of overreacting? So far I haven't experienced losing more than 1000 points of stuff in turn 1 in 9th, and typically it's more like in the 200-500 range on the average game. Playing with 4-5 planes can lead to those extreme results, same if spamming the best units in the codex, but not many players bring army that cheesy and chase the flavour of the month, knowing that is a massive investment in money that would pay off for a limited amount of time. Lists with 3 dakkajets and 1 wazbom are extremely rare to face in real life, we can't assume that is representative of the state of 40k, because it isn't.
One dimensional armies vs their hard counters have always had bad times, to the point that they couldn't possibly win those specific games. A real "best 40k player in the world" wouldn't need a one dimensional army to try to break the game.
Yes, people clearly were not just frustrated by a thing for a long time that's been steadily escalating with the release of the drukhari, then admech, then ork codexes to the point where people are having casual games where 1200-1500pts get demolished in one go, and suddenly you've got this highly public match where "the best 40k player in the world" loses 1800pts at once. It would be ridiculous that that would create some kind of wave of people going "see, this is a problem, look at this, no amount of 'gitting gud' stops this gak from happening".
I disagree with the escalating argument. Don't you think that SM could delete 1200-1500 points of enemy stuff when they came out at the beginning of 9th? Not even when eradicators were considered the most OP unit in 40k's history ? I mean 9-12 of them are still pretty cheap and those alone can ruin a Freebooter Speedwaaagh list's day pretty easily.
Deathguard had a similar problem but reversed. When they came out they looked like impossible to kill, especially with Mortarion in. Same with DA. And yet none of these armies are considered problematic anymore. Don't you think that cherry picking that one game with ork vs drukhari isn't some sort of overreacting? So far I haven't experienced losing more than 1000 points of stuff in turn 1 in 9th, and typically it's more like in the 200-500 range on the average game. Playing with 4-5 planes can lead to those extreme results, same if spamming the best units in the codex, but not many players bring army that cheesy and chase the flavour of the month, knowing that is a massive investment in money that would pay off for a limited amount of time. Lists with 3 dakkajets and 1 wazbom are extremely rare to face in real life, we can't assume that is representative of the state of 40k, because it isn't.
One dimensional armies vs their hard counters have always had bad times, to the point that they couldn't possibly win those specific games. A real "best 40k player in the world" wouldn't need a one dimensional army to try to break the game.
The key word is "escalating". Meaning to "to increase as time passes".
? I mean 9-12 of them are still pretty cheap and those alone can ruin a Freebooter Speedwaaagh list's day pretty easily.
