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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Plague, reading comprehension is poor, and attitude seems to be out to get others instead of understanding, renders any engagement toxic, poisonous, and hence why you are blocked. I tried, again, to engage. But I honestly give up. You do you. No trouble here, just do not want that slimey sick feeling so I choose to ignore you.

My comprehension is fine. You said "lower model counts that are generally less Uber powerful EG NO NAMED CHARACTERS.
That literally says the named characters are too powerful LOL

And an example given was Mortarian, the explanation being that a game with Mortarian quickly becomes about whether or not Mortarian is killed. It was pretty straight forward.

It's not a reason borne out of tournament viability, it's a reason about how a central model dominates a game. It's not about "wins", it's about "play".

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Plague, reading comprehension is poor, and attitude seems to be out to get others instead of understanding, renders any engagement toxic, poisonous, and hence why you are blocked. I tried, again, to engage. But I honestly give up. You do you. No trouble here, just do not want that slimey sick feeling so I choose to ignore you.

My comprehension is fine. You said "lower model counts that are generally less Uber powerful EG NO NAMED CHARACTERS.
That literally says the named characters are too powerful LOL

And an example given was Mortarian, the explanation being that a game with Mortarian quickly becomes about whether or not Mortarian is killed. It was pretty straight forward.

It's not a reason borne out of tournament viability, it's a reason about how a central model dominates a game. It's not about "wins", it's about "play".

Same question goes to why their no-name Captain or Chaos Lord is at every battle. Definitely ruins immersion if I play against my opponent on a snow battlefield, kill their Captain, and all the sudden next week I face that same Captain in some ruined city.

They're complaining about power and did so with that post. There's no backtracking.

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Plague, reading comprehension is poor, and attitude seems to be out to get others instead of understanding, renders any engagement toxic, poisonous, and hence why you are blocked. I tried, again, to engage. But I honestly give up. You do you. No trouble here, just do not want that slimey sick feeling so I choose to ignore you.

My comprehension is fine. You said "lower model counts that are generally less Uber powerful EG NO NAMED CHARACTERS.
That literally says the named characters are too powerful LOL

And an example given was Mortarian, the explanation being that a game with Mortarian quickly becomes about whether or not Mortarian is killed. It was pretty straight forward.

It's not a reason borne out of tournament viability, it's a reason about how a central model dominates a game. It's not about "wins", it's about "play".

Yes but that's just how a wargame works. You can say the same thing about tanks. A 1k game with a repulsor executioner is exactly like that. Either the other person brought anti tank and will blow it up by turn 2, or they didn't and you'll delete his army unit by unit.

Toofast wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Plague, reading comprehension is poor, and attitude seems to be out to get others instead of understanding, renders any engagement toxic, poisonous, and hence why you are blocked. I tried, again, to engage. But I honestly give up. You do you. No trouble here, just do not want that slimey sick feeling so I choose to ignore you.

My comprehension is fine. You said "lower model counts that are generally less Uber powerful EG NO NAMED CHARACTERS.
That literally says the named characters are too powerful LOL

And an example given was Mortarian, the explanation being that a game with Mortarian quickly becomes about whether or not Mortarian is killed. It was pretty straight forward.

It's not a reason borne out of tournament viability, it's a reason about how a central model dominates a game. It's not about "wins", it's about "play".

Yes but that's just how a wargame works. You can say the same thing about tanks. A 1k game with a repulsor executioner is exactly like that. Either the other person brought anti tank and will blow it up by turn 2, or they didn't and you'll delete his army unit by unit.

Well yeah, you'd say the same thing about Superheavies, tanks or otherwise, in games of any size they can be the dominant factor in. As for just regular tanks, in general I don't think people expect a 1k game to be as balanced in the same way as a 2k, and such larger models will only dominate more in a smaller game.

But yes, a 300+ point model is something I'd expect to be a major factor in a 1k game. That said you could literally just rule it out if you wanted, saying that no model over 20% of the total army cost could be taken. (Or whatever)

"But that's just how a wargame works." No it's not, because 40k used to be more restrictive on what could be taken without your opponents permission, or had other factors in place in order to balace it better. Back in 4th(?) Abaddon was only allowed in a 2k+ game, for example. That's a far cry from Guilliman showing up in a 1k pointer.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Same question goes to why their no-name Captain or Chaos Lord is at every battle. Definitely ruins immersion if I play against my opponent on a snow battlefield, kill their Captain, and all the sudden next week I face that same Captain in some ruined city.

They're complaining about power and did so with that post. There's no backtracking.

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Sure, but Guilliman showing up in a 1k pointer is more of a disadvantage for the person taking him. The lack of restrictions is not what's unbalancing the game. Undercosted units that can stack a bunch of buffs are what's dominating and restricting named characters, flyers and superheavies is only going to hurt the armies that are already struggling to keep up with tau/harlequins who don't rely on any of that stuff to crap all over the meta with a 70-90% win rate...

Toofast wrote:
Sure, but Guilliman showing up in a 1k pointer is more of a disadvantage for the person taking him. The lack of restrictions is not what's unbalancing the game. Undercosted units that can stack a bunch of buffs are what's dominating and restricting named characters, flyers and superheavies is only going to hurt the armies that are already struggling to keep up with tau/harlequins who don't rely on any of that stuff to crap all over the meta with a 70-90% win rate...

But again, it's not about the win/loss necessarily, and more about the type of game you're playing. I played PUGs against Reaver Titans occasionally during 7th. I won the games, but they weren't exactly the gaming experience I was looking for.

Triptide was more competive to play against than the Titan, but it also offered more of a 'dialogue' between armies, therefore more interesting/fun.

Insectum is on point for me. I don’t mind playing the occasional game against Eldrad, for an example, but why is he there at every engagement? And big centrepiece Demi god characters like Mortarian, again, can be interesting for a special scenario, but … why is he here, that is the question for me.

As for super heavy tanks, yeah, can be fun. But why do I want to tailor my list against a tank meta, to use the hot phrases? I don’t … I like the idea of letting a fellow hobbyist put his big armor on the table but I do not want to make it my pass time to try to beat a huge tank every time we meet.

That said, I liked 500 point games of ninth, and 1500 point games of 2nd 3rd or 4th edition for example, on big tables… I had a table almost nine feet by four and a half, so that we had room for beers books and dice off the mat and so that the battlefield looked like a battlefield and not a game space with dice and junk tossed everywhere…the battlefield was always 8x4. For me… 6x4 was used at shops or friends’ houses where they didn’t have such a big space but for me, 8x4 is the right size for 1000 to 1500 point games… 2000 too. Ok. Back in the day, we could play through a game like that in 3or 4 hours with food breaks and beer phases added to every turn.

I think that I just associate the hobby with a different sort of experience than people who lol at using named characters because they don’t skew the meta and force radical builds or whatever it is that stands in for this hobby in their minds…

I think that for some people named characters are just plastic tokens for power cards in the way that a special card in a CCG should be in a deck every time they play… I don’t think of this hobby in that way.

Lol whatever … imho, my dudes are my dudes, none of them are Mortarian or Girlyman or Cawl… I have harlequins, have since 1992or so I guess, added new weaver bikes and plastics and still have my old metal harlequins bikes with the smiling face canopies, too… first army I bought actually, for 40k was CWE and harlequins. Have an old Eldrad model too… always used him as a generic Farseer. My phoenix lord models I always used as exarchs… converted muegan ra into an autarch… just how I roll.

But as I wrote earlier, you do you. No skin off my nose, but I don’t want anything to do with people who are so concerned with metas and builds and yada to not be able to see what I am trying to communicate, here. I am too old, and too busy, to waste my time on such nonsense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Yeah, and firstborn range of models is still massive. Lots of factions didn't get any new release for a decade or more, firstborn can definitely manage without a new release for 15-20 years. Sooner or later primaris will become "old" and GW will launch a new line of models for marines. And I wouldn't bet against a firstborn revamp.

I imagine we're going to lose most, if not all current first-born boxes for 40k. Many will probably come back as true scale HH marines that also have 40k rules. Which would be a no brainer to cross-sell.

So a tactical squad say in 5 years time probably won't be assembled from the current tactical squad kit, but some new tactical squad with Mk 4 - 6 power armour originally released for HH but also usable for 40k.

I am interested in the new beakie models. Also in the new plastic tanks and so on… for use in 40k with xenos etc. So this is something of a forecast that might be ok imo. That said, I expect these new plastics to be sort of monoposish like the sisters are, and for me that is ok cuz I build them then cut them up and convert the as we did with old metals too, and for me this ok as I already have marines with which to mix the new stuff. But it does make collecting a big set sort of sad, with repetitive poses and so on, for newer collectors.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Toofast wrote:
Sure, but Guilliman showing up in a 1k pointer is more of a disadvantage for the person taking him. The lack of restrictions is not what's unbalancing the game. Undercosted units that can stack a bunch of buffs are what's dominating and restricting named characters, flyers and superheavies is only going to hurt the armies that are already struggling to keep up with tau/harlequins who don't rely on any of that stuff to crap all over the meta with a 70-90% win rate...

But again, it's not about the win/loss necessarily, and more about the type of game you're playing. I played PUGs against Reaver Titans occasionally during 7th. I won the games, but they weren't exactly the gaming experience I was looking for.

Triptide was more competive to play against than the Titan, but it also offered more of a 'dialogue' between armies, therefore more interesting/fun.

Riptides deleting tons more units for the cost is more interesting than the army facing a giant robot? There's no dialogue there LOL

More units on the table means more opportunities to shut down units in assault, more methods to avoid fire with assault, more opportunities to deny LOS, and inflicted damage is more targeted and granular. If you're just standing there letting your units get deleted you aren't doing it right.

Also, that example was pre-8e. Riptides were hard to kill, yes, but (if I recall the stats correctly) that was more of a "nothing is efficient vs. Riptides" situation. Against Titans, the AV rules meant that you might easily find yourself with nothing that could reasonably harm them after a turn or two (depending on what heavy AT options you had and whether your list was more tailored/themed or TAC, and whether you rolled better than the Titan player, and whether the Titan player let you know ahead of time what they were bringing, and what terrain was like...). It's not as relevant now that we're post-8e (there's still issues of availability of efficient heavy weapons), but there is a big difference between "it is difficult to harm me" and "RAW and RAI, you cannot harm me".

 Insectum7 wrote:
More units on the table means more opportunities to shut down units in assault, more methods to avoid fire with assault, more opportunities to deny LOS, and inflicted damage is more targeted and granular. If you're just standing there letting your units get deleted you aren't doing it right.

You have to be moving very fast or the opponent has to be moving very slow for assault armies to be able to do that. From what I seen and expirianced in 9th, shoting is as dominant as ever. It is just that , same way as in 8th, the really good armies can run shoting and melee units in the same army. Pure or majority melee armies don't reach melee in large enough numbers to do much, and against some armies they will just not reach melee at all.

I preferred the rules that made it impossible to hurt some things, on tables large enough with terrain variable enough and movement short enough for such heavy units that is was also possible to avoid them and still satisfy scenario objectives, or at least not get deleted. and mostly, if one got some killy units behind those vehicles, and hit rear armor, this became a compelling objective and something for the opponent to be on guard against, therefore forcing her or him to play more conservatively, hold some units back for defense of said armor, etc... without this dynamic, there is less motivation to play strategically, and more to use the tank to, well, tank shots and soak up damage and sure, this is one way to use those resources but it seems that it is encouraged, rather, now, or hide away somewhere with the capacity to shoot effectively around corners, with most of the model tucked behind something, just so silly...

about numbers of units and so on, smaller points games encourage using more units of lower costed dudes, and also not loading up on 400pt titanic super dudes, and overwatch markers and so on offered more options, ow to play conservatively when dudes were at a premium.

like i said about big units and specials and so on, squaring off with those sorts of things can be fun, can be, given some forewarning so that a plan can be hatched. in a so-called 'pick up' game, however, and jeebus Mortarian leads the little horder everytime?, not so much.

 Insectum7 wrote:
More units on the table means more opportunities to shut down units in assault, more methods to avoid fire with assault, more opportunities to deny LOS, and inflicted damage is more targeted and granular. If you're just standing there letting your units get deleted you aren't doing it right.

I see you haven't played against new Tau or Harlequins. Denying LoS doesn't stop Tau from shooting at you and Harlequins have so much mobility they'll either move into LoS or camp objectives and win on points while you play hide and seek from their 9 unkillable voidweavers


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More units on the table means more opportunities to shut down units in assault, more methods to avoid fire with assault, more opportunities to deny LOS, and inflicted damage is more targeted and granular. If you're just standing there letting your units get deleted you aren't doing it right.

You have to be moving very fast or the opponent has to be moving very slow for assault armies to be able to do that. From what I seen and expirianced in 9th, shoting is as dominant as ever. It is just that , same way as in 8th, the really good armies can run shoting and melee units in the same army. Pure or majority melee armies don't reach melee in large enough numbers to do much, and against some armies they will just not reach melee at all.

Yea, my Black Templars with a 5+ invuln and FNP from Grimaldus don't make it into combat against Tau other than the ones that come in from deep strike and get buffed to 7" charge from my chaplain. I can run big blocks of primaris crusaders and buff them to the moon but they get shot off the table before they get into combat.

I am referring to 7th ed specifically with my posts, and a bit of 8th I suppose. I haven't run my Marines in 9th, having been focussing on Nids, and haven't really played much of 9th at all, tbh.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I am referring to 7th ed specifically with my posts, and a bit of 8th I suppose. I haven't run my Marines in 9th, having been focussing on Nids, and haven't really played much of 9th at all, tbh.

9th mission wise is a step up from 8th, but smaller board sizes, the same outdated IGOUGO system, and the obvious Codex Creep GW can't keep in check from being a good game. The latter two of course per usual for all editions.