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.

 jeff white wrote:


Exactly the sentiment, exalted.

About named characters, it was only one example. Flyers may be another, super big and heavy units another, yada... And, as an example of a named character that I think might require some forewarning, Mortarian, others... I can't count how many times I have seen/heard of Mortarian for example just decimating the opponent's forces and taking way too much attention from the rest of the field and units. I suppose that this is the idea, but doesn't seem so fun play against (more than once) or challenging to employ.

Personally, I am less concerned with winning/losing and more with story, as in why the feth is Mortarian here at all? Why is he everywhere, everytime? That sort of complaint is my complaint, for the most part... Not sure what this has to do with 3rd edition, but yeah, I did enjoy those earlier editions a lot more than current (since the tragic disappointment, for me, that was 8th) even though I won a lot less then and played a lot more...

Flyers got nerfed and are now basically non-existent.
Super big (i'm guessing you mean land raiders, 'nauts?) units arent an issue
If you meant Lord of War then theyre already basically unplayable in this edition (paying CP and losing faction trait is just way too much)

Mortarion, stormsurge (and knights, which are designed to ignore all the LoW nerfs are the only ones that are kinda playable) and mortarion is far from tanky enough to do its job anymore.

I just don't understand how you seem to be stuck in the old editions of 40k where these models (named/LoW) were opt-in when they've been part of the game for a while now and havnt broke anything.

Why should i be penalised for bringing Haarken worldclaimer because you think named characters are OP, same with bringing a spartan or zarakynel


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
It is getting really silly. 8th got me back in, 9th has convinced me to stop and play other stuff.

i've been playing more and more OnePageRules, even showing it to people at my LGS in an attempt to give them an alternative. So far, everyone i've shown it to felt it was a breath of fresh air and made the game actually tactical without exhausting you mentally with all the memorization

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The solution can't be to always be trying to cut points costs and/or stack even more rules on top of the pile.

The foundations need completely rebuilding.

This, tbh.

I would like to see the game power down overall but I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as some minor nerfs or point increases in newer books.

The core problems are far more fundamental and any solutions that don't address them are no better than slapping bandaids onto a collapsing building.

The core rules themselves are so completely anaemic that almost everything has to be outsourced to bespoke Codex rules or, God help us, Stratagems. The hilarious thing is that, despite every unit having half a page of "unique" rules, everything feels more samey than ever before. 'Oh boy, another rule with a unique name, I do hope it will let me reroll 1s or inflict Mortal Wounds!'

Also, Marines need to lose the extra wound. Sorry but it needs to happen. That or their cost needs to literally double. Anything else and we'll find ourselves right back in the present situation, where anti-infantry weapons are being given extra damage to compensate for the fact that the most common infantry in the game have had their durability doubled, which in turn means we need yet more bandaids (usually in the form of -1D) to compensate for the face that these weapons also became more effective against heavier infantry, bikes, monsters, vehicles etc.

And this is before we even get to the codex release schedule, which leads to constant creep in one or other direction as previous design stipulations (if they ever existed at all) are ignored or forgotten when writing newer books. Or the joys of writers trying to adapt books based on metas that will have changed several times before said books ever see the light of day. And this is without even getting into issues with favouritism, with some codices clearly being written by enthusiastic writers and others getting only the bare minimum of effort.



Oh, regarding named characters, I think the issue lies less with their respective power levels and more with how much they end up both dominating stories and also swallowing up all the neat rules and wargear (much of which has vanished from their generic counterparts). Though my favourite solution would be to make all special characters specific wargear/relic/warlord trait combinations for generic characters.

So 5 termintors would cost 400pts and 5 dudes in the nude would cost around 200pts. With no upgrades. At the same time something like the harli skimmer would clock around 100pts?

And the 1W 20+pts meq experiment was already tried in 8th and a big chunk of 9th. It does not work. I don't even know from where the need to nerf marines comes from. They aren't the best army, a lot of them aren't even middle of the pack. And I don't even know how this would balance something like csm, who right now are just attrocious game play wise.

Codices are normally powered up.
And occasionally it appears that older codices like that of Necrons are powered up as well to adapt to the newest power level.
So powering up older codexes seems the way to go unless GW manages to power down newer codexes.

Karol wrote:
So 5 termintors would cost 400pts

I didn't mention Terminators.

Karol wrote:
and 5 dudes in the nude would cost around 200pts. With no upgrades.

No, you'd be looking at closer to 150pts. Bear in mind this would be instead of the measly ~4pts that was added to their cost.

Karol wrote:

And the 1W 20+pts meq experiment was already tried in 8th and a big chunk of 9th. It does not work.

What.

I didn't say Marines needed to be 20pts *and* 1W - I said Marines needed to be 20+pts *or* 1W.

Karol wrote:
I don't even know from where the need to nerf marines comes from. They aren't the best army, a lot of them aren't even middle of the pack. And I don't even know how this would balance something like csm, who right now are just attrocious game play wise.

The intent is not to nerf Marines. The intent is to try and undo a change that completely destabilised 9th edition.

Again, it is terrible design to have a system wherein the majority of anti-infantry weapons are inefficient against the most common infantry type in the entire game.

Karol wrote:
And I don't even know how this would balance something like csm, who right now are just attrocious game play wise.

You mean the yet--to-be-updated army that didn't get an extremely cheap extra wound on all their infantry and so is suffering from the effects of all the extra-damage/RoF weapons other armies were given, with none of the Marine perks that made such weapons necessary in the first place? Man, I can't imagine why they could possibly be having difficulties right now.

The intent is not to nerf Marines. The intent is to try and undo a change that completely destabilised 9th edition.

Marines got the buff, because before it, running their infantry made no sense. And marine armies turned, till 2.0 book in 8th, in to 15 scouts, 2 jump pack heroes and ally that weren't marines. Inari, Castellans etc were making stuff enough imbalanced way before marines got a 2ed wound.

No, you'd be looking at closer to 150pts. Bear in mind this would be instead of the measly ~4pts that was added to their cost.

GK dudes cost 20+pts per model. So if they were cost were to double they would cost 200pts for a naked squad of dudes.

I didn't mention Terminators.

Well good for me, as my army is almost 100% termintors, but I have my doubts that GW let 5 strikes cost more then 200 pts and 5 termintors exactly 200pts.
especially if termis would stay with 3W .

I didn't say Marines needed to be 20pts *and* 1W - I said Marines needed to be 20+pts *or* 1W.

GK cost 20+pts per meq, each time regular marines go up in price GK get points hiked too. And they were 1W for 20pts for most of 9th ed, CSM are that still, although their dudes don't cost 20pts. Still aren't played though.

Again, it is terrible design to have a system wherein the majority of anti-infantry weapons are inefficient against the most common infantry type in the entire game.

Why? if basic weapons of other armies, or even all armies easily kill marines, and marines cost more points per model. Then we are back to 8th ed where running marines is worthless, or we are in the situation csm are right now. Specially when the basic weapon of other armies are str 5ap1, shurkians with extra ap and the bolter is str 4 ap 0.

You mean the yet--to-be-updated army that didn't get an extremely cheap extra wound on all their infantry and so is suffering from the effects of all the extra-damage/RoF weapons other armies were given, with none of the Marine perks that made such weapons necessary in the first place? Man, I can't imagine why they could possibly be having difficulties right now.

Marines got an extra wound and it didn't make them blaze to 90% win rates, and they were the first codex out, everyone else was playing with 8th ed rules. CSM are going to have get some crazy extra rules to even reach the 50% win rate the better marine armies have. And I wish they do get good rules.

Honestly I think we are too far gone to try and "power down" stuff.

Just finished up a GT where i felt woefully under-equipped army wise against the meta lists. I played against 2 custard players, and a Crusher stampede. There is little to no scenario I can think of where my entire ork army can play meaningfully against them. Yeah I might kill most of their stuff by the end of turn 3 or 4 but at that point i'm completely dead as well and I haven't scored any mission objectives.

The best weapons I can take in CC for my boyz/meganobz are PKs and Killsaws, against a crusher list they are effectively 1dmg weapons. Against lists like Custodes who bring -1 to hit banners, most of my shooting becomes 6+ to hit, or a 50% reduction in dmg output. Worse, they are both faster and hit harder in CC than my guys as well, and not on a model to model basis but on a point to point basis.

The biggest point at which I felt underpowered was when I was talking to an opponent amicably about the Rukkatrukk nerf (Keep in mind, I don't own any) and I pointed out it was a stupid nerf since they weren't that oppressive to begin with, he countered by saying they were OP as all hell and needed the nerfs they got (22% price increase and limited to 1 squadron per army). I politely pointed to his dreadnought on the table which costs 2x that of the Squigbuggy but is both more durable and puts out more damage against targets than a pair of squigbuggies did. And god help me, lets not even compare them remotely to the Harlies new Voidweavers which make both look terrible by comparison.

So in light of that, if you wanted to "power down" to get to the point where my army has a chance against the current top tier, you are going to have to do a LOT of writing to fix the issues. Custodes, Tau, Harlies, Eldar, Crusher and to a lesser extent Drukhari and still Ad-Mech are all a tier above all the other armies out there right now. The necron "power up" helped a bit for them but I don't think it was enough yet, and as for SoB, Orkz, Deathguard and the other unmentioned 9th edition armies, we desperately need something to put us on even remotely equal terms to those top tier armies right now.

Karol wrote:

Marines got the buff, because before it, running their infantry made no sense. And marine armies turned, till 2.0 book in 8th, in to 15 scouts, 2 jump pack heroes and ally that weren't marines. Inari, Castellans etc were making stuff enough imbalanced way before marines got a 2ed wound.

I've underlined the important part. The 2.0 book proved that Marines could not only compete with 1W infantry but dominate.

So the idea that this is somehow the only thing holding their army together is demonstrably untrue.

Karol wrote:

GK cost 20+pts per meq, each time regular marines go up in price GK get points hiked too. And they were 1W for 20pts for most of 9th ed,

I take your point but it seems more a little disingenuous to refer to GKs with all their wargear as 'a squad of 5 regular dudes with no upgrades'.

Karol wrote:

Why? if basic weapons of other armies, or even all armies easily kill marines, and marines cost more points per model.

What are you measuring this against? Which armies' basic weapons were easily killing Marines in 8th?

Karol wrote:
Specially when the basic weapon of other armies are str 5ap1, shurkians with extra ap and the bolter is str 4 ap 0.

You appear to have missed my entire point. The whole reason that basic weapons are now getting AP-1 and other such buffs as standard is precisely because Marines got such an absurd boost in durability.

If Marines go back down to 1W, we can also reduce Shuriken weapons (and other such weapons) back to AP0, as well as lowering damage on Heavy Bolters and the like back down to 1. This is literally what I've been arguing for.

Karol wrote:

Marines got an extra wound and it didn't make them blaze to 90% win rates.

Cool. Want to point me to where I said it did?

Literally the first sentence you quoted in your post was me saying that this change wasn't about nerfing Marines but about the fact that it had thrown so many weapons out of whack, and the attempts at compensation (extra AP, damage etc.) have only caused things to spiral further and further out of control.

You appear to have missed my entire point. The whole reason that basic weapons are now getting AP-1 and other such buffs as standard is precisely because Marines got such an absurd boost in durability.

Which means this is a loop, because marines got the 2W, because without them in prior edition they were not something marines player had to or wanted to run in their armies. And I would also like to point out that the "absurd" boost to durability still ment that only WS, and Salamanders for a very short time, made it to the top of the meta. Early 9th was ruled by Custodes and Harlequins. Even orks were doing suprisingly good, all things considered. And as soon as the non marines factions started to get their books, marines too a huge nose dive in power. There was no balancing of power to marines. SoB, DE, Ad Mecha, Orks, were all much better then marine armies. In some cases including post nerfs.

I've underlined the important part. The 2.0 book proved that Marines could not only compete with 1W infantry but dominate.

Only 2.0 lists were build around stuff like legions of intercessors, chaplain dreads, bouncing wounds to other stuff, primaris tanks, centurions etc All those things were multi wound and so good, that the old 15scout+2HQs started to be phased out. The advent of 2.0 books didn't make tacticals or venguard veterns a sudden enticing option.

Ah I also forgot the lists with 9 eliminators, another multi wound marine model. Excusse me for that I am not a marine player.

In 9th stuff like attack bikes or venguard veterans come to prominance directly because of +1W buff, and the over all change to melta rule, Which at the very start of 9th ed seemed powerful.

I take your point but it seems more a little disingenuous to refer to GKs with all their wargear as 'a squad of 5 regular dudes with no upgrades'.

You don't run any upgrades for ranged weapons on GK squads, because they make the units worse then they are with them. And if you somehow think that a 40pts termintor with a stormbolter seems to be a dangerous foe, I would like to point out that 5 of them cost as much as two harli voids.. 5 naked Strikes or the more common spamed interceptors cost more then 1 void. They also fall apart when compared to tau suits or other options of armies that are considered good right now.

What are you measuring this against? Which armies' basic weapons were easily killing Marines in 8th?

You just have to look at what is run by armies that have higher win rates then marines. But even the grunt guns of other armies are better, and those technically shouldn't be killing anything. Yet they are both better and carried by platforms which point for point are cheaper then a marine.

If Marines go back down to 1W, we can also reduce Shuriken weapons (and other such weapons) back to AP0, as well as lowering damage on Heavy Bolters and the like back down to 1. This is literally what I've been arguing for.

no we can't , because w don't own GW. And GW itself would not do it. They could nerf marines with a 10th ed codex, then for months on end other armies would keep their 9th buffed guns, and by the time we are mid in to 10th GW would start buffing stuff up again.

Cool. Want to point me to where I said it did?

your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that it is the buffs to marines that create the faction unbalance. when the marine changes ,of which the 2.0 were reverted with marine books coming out as first in 9th ed, didn't make them substentially better, then even faction that run on 9th ed books . Armies like orks, custodes, harlis. So if that is not the case, then clearly the unbalanc has to come from somewhere else. And I have a feeling that the tau or CWE rule set was not create to counter marine books with their 46-50% win rates, but rather armies like DEs, orks , Ad mecha and each other.

Regarding 2 Wound Marines:

The way I remember it, marines (especially actual power armor marines) were considered pretty meh for most of 8th. Then they got...

* Bolter Discipline
* Shock Assault
* Revised Drop Pod rules
* Doctrines (possibly to discourage soup)
* Extra stratagems from chapter-specific books
* Extra psychic powers from chapter-specific books
* Super doctrines from chapter-specific books
* 2 Wounds (in the 9th edition codex and in an FAQ before that)

So basically, it seemed like GW gave them several layers of buffs in rapid succession to combat their UP status and to make mono-faction marines viable, and then they gave them 2 Wounds on top of that.

Personally, I think the second wound gets a lot of undeserved negativity. I like that my marines won't die to a single lucky las pistol shot. It feels fluff-appropriate and helps the army stand out as notably different most non-marine armies where 1W infantry are the norm. It's good for army identity and variety of playstyle.

So if we want to nerf marines, especially if we want to tone down lethality, we could look to get rid of doctrines and/or super doctrines. We could get rid of bolter discipline or give firstborn 2 Attacks and ditch shock assault. We could overhaul their stratagem list and ditch anything that basically just ups their killing power directly.

We [i[could[/i] get rid of the second wound, but personally I think that's one of the better changes they received. Also, I disagree with those who claim a second wound on marines means that they ought to be 200% the cost to balance them out. The cost of a model includes various considerations including things like offense and mobility. A 2 Wound marine isn't as powerful as multiple 1 Wound marines; he's putting out fewer shots, more susceptible to Damage 2+ weapons, gets outnumbered more easily on objectives, etc. Even if marines are underpaying for their extra wound, it's probably only off by a couple of points.

Wyldhunt wrote:
stuff

The extra wound for Marines is ok, the problem is when armies that should be similarly durable (Necrons and CSM) don't get it, it's just more effort given to the faction they already give the most effort to.

Hecaton wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
stuff

The extra wound for Marines is ok, the problem is when armies that should be similarly durable (Necrons and CSM) don't get it, it's just more effort given to the faction they already give the most effort to.

CSM is fair because there should've been some sorta errata, but they ARE getting it.

Necrons are tough...ish. I mean, Immortals are T5 3+ with a 5+++ sorta. For the stats, I'd argue they're pretty good, but Necrons should've always had more durability abilities sure.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
stuff

The extra wound for Marines is ok, the problem is when armies that should be similarly durable (Necrons and CSM) don't get it, it's just more effort given to the faction they already give the most effort to.

CSM is fair because there should've been some sorta errata, but they ARE getting it.

Necrons are tough...ish. I mean, Immortals are T5 3+ with a 5+++ sorta. For the stats, I'd argue they're pretty good, but Necrons should've always had more durability abilities sure.

Agreed on all points.

SemperMortis wrote:

The biggest point at which I felt underpowered was when I was talking to an opponent amicably about the Rukkatrukk nerf (Keep in mind, I don't own any) and I pointed out it was a stupid nerf since they weren't that oppressive to begin with, he countered by saying they were OP as all hell and needed the nerfs they got (22% price increase and limited to 1 squadron per army). I politely pointed to his dreadnought on the table which costs 2x that of the Squigbuggy but is both more durable and puts out more damage against targets than a pair of squigbuggies did. And god help me, lets not even compare them remotely to the Harlies new Voidweavers which make both look terrible by comparison.

Yeh that's typical. Own army is never problem. It's always only the other armies that are OP. Reminds me when in AOS side stormcasts got "nerf" with translocation prayer for it to work like others(no teleport and then move) and dragons got nerfed. Stormcast players were all "why does GW hates us. Why always we get screwed. Dragons are useless crap now"...yet they are doing very well in tournaments dominating even. With both dragons and translocation being everywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
stuff

The extra wound for Marines is ok, the problem is when armies that should be similarly durable (Necrons and CSM) don't get it, it's just more effort given to the faction they already give the most effort to.

CSM is fair because there should've been some sorta errata, but they ARE getting it.

Necrons are tough...ish. I mean, Immortals are T5 3+ with a 5+++ sorta. For the stats, I'd argue they're pretty good, but Necrons should've always had more durability abilities sure.

Then again in practice immortals are now tougher except vs MW's. Thanks to weapon creep 1W and 2W is pretty much identical unless you have -1dam rule

That's mostly a meme born 1 year ago when all armies were tiered against marines.
Currently on the table you really feel the difference between 1W and 2W.

Ask sister players.

The best profile in the game is considered to be S5 -2Ap D1, so having 2 Wounds matters a lot.

yeah, D1 is far from absent on the tabletop.
And i think its fine that marines are harder to kill with small arms.

make marines hard to kill but less efficient when killing stuff. Them having the basic bolter as a standard weapon is fine and fits with how they should be IMO.

I think it's tough because most codexes have good to great damage output. But crusher stampede, T'au, custodes and quins have got significant defence boosts as well and I think that's the big difference.
Pretty much everything can kill stuff well, but most codexes don't have the defensive abilities to survive.
So, either tone down the outlying tougher forces and you get a much quicker and deadlier game or buff up the rest to be able to take more of a punch.

 kingheff wrote:
I think it's tough because most codexes have good to great damage output. But crusher stampede, T'au, custodes and quins have got significant defence boosts as well and I think that's the big difference.
Pretty much everything can kill stuff well, but most codexes don't have the defensive abilities to survive.
So, either tone down the outlying tougher forces and you get a much quicker and deadlier game or buff up the rest to be able to take more of a punch.

tone down the overall killyness for sure. the fact that tabling DG is that easy is ridiculous for example, remove the tons and tons of extra AP everything gets. Reduce the damage of a few outliers

My main annoyance with powering up is that it produces inconsistent and bloated gameplay.

Everything has AP, so let's give out invulns and damage reduction to increase durability. But it means that now certain weapons (high-AP, primarily) aren't very useful because everything they want to shoot has an invuln, and D2 weapons are great against some units but terrible against others, with no obvious rhyme or reason.

So, too many things have invulns, let's add... weapons that ignore invulns! And mortal wounds! So now your saves that, in concept, are supposed to be the ones you always get actually can now be ignored too, even when it makes no sense (the railgun slug is so lethal it... ignores your dodge save?), and in addition to the normal damaging mechanic there's also this completely separate take-extra-wounds-with-no-saves mechanic, except you can still use FNPs against it...

Units being powerful and tough increasingly does not come from their statlines but from layered special rules. It's a mess, and ratcheting up the damage and durability so that everyone is equally messy is not the ideal solution here.

 jeff white wrote:


About named characters, it was only one example. Flyers may be another, super big and heavy units another

Except literally none of those things are the reason we have balance issues in the game. Go to BCP or Goonhammer innovations in 9th and tell me how many flyers or superheavies you see in any top table lists. For a brief time in 7th, flyrant spam was an issue and for a brief time in 9th, ork flyer spam was an issue. Other than that, they haven't been an issue or even worth taking in competitive builds for most armies. A guy took a Reaver Titan as a solo army to a GT and went winless. Yea, look at those superheavies unbalancing the game...

Toofast wrote:

 jeff white wrote:


About named characters, it was only one example. Flyers may be another, super big and heavy units another

Except literally none of those things are the reason we have balance issues in the game. Go to BCP or Goonhammer innovations in 9th and tell me how many flyers or superheavies you see in any top table lists. For a brief time in 7th, flyrant spam was an issue and for a brief time in 9th, ork flyer spam was an issue. Other than that, they haven't been an issue or even worth taking in competitive builds for most armies. A guy took a Reaver Titan as a solo army to a GT and went winless. Yea, look at those superheavies unbalancing the game...

Remember all those scary Lords Of War and FW units dominating 7th?

Oh yeah me neither.

To OP's question: in general design wise you want to buff rather than nerf. It feels far better to have something terrible be made good then it does to have something good be made bad.

OFC there are exceptions for outliers that actually break the game.

 catbarf wrote:
My main annoyance with powering up is that it produces inconsistent and bloated gameplay.

Everything has AP, so let's give out invulns and damage reduction to increase durability. But it means that now certain weapons (high-AP, primarily) aren't very useful because everything they want to shoot has an invuln, and D2 weapons are great against some units but terrible against others, with no obvious rhyme or reason.

So, too many things have invulns, let's add... weapons that ignore invulns! And mortal wounds! So now your saves that, in concept, are supposed to be the ones you always get actually can now be ignored too, even when it makes no sense (the railgun slug is so lethal it... ignores your dodge save?), and in addition to the normal damaging mechanic there's also this completely separate take-extra-wounds-with-no-saves mechanic, except you can still use FNPs against it...

Units being powerful and tough increasingly does not come from their statlines but from layered special rules. It's a mess, and ratcheting up the damage and durability so that everyone is equally messy is not the ideal solution here.

The nadir of this, for me personally, is the you can only take x amount of damage per phase. This is an extreme measures in the first place, which shows that offence has run past defence so a weird hotfix is needed. Then it turns out T'au, and possibly others, have a way of ignoring even that extreme measure so they can just one shot something that has been designed to not be one shot!

 Earth127 wrote:
To OP's question: in general design wise you want to buff rather than nerf. It feels far better to have something terrible be made good then it does to have something good be made bad.

OFC there are exceptions for outliers that actually break the game.

Disagree.

If you have 20 different armies in the game, bringing the top down to be balanced vs. the worst army increases the playability and enjoyment of 19 different armies every time you do it with everyone eventually balanced at the power level of the formerly worst army.

If you have 20 different armies in the game, brining the bottom up to be balanced vs. the best army increases the playability of that one army being brought up while simultaneously making thing worse for the other 18.

Spoletta wrote:
That's mostly a meme born 1 year ago when all armies were tiered against marines.
Currently on the table you really feel the difference between 1W and 2W.

Ask sister players.

The best profile in the game is considered to be S5 -2Ap D1, so having 2 Wounds matters a lot.

Right now the basic profile of the avarge trooper for a good army is it being a small vehicle or monster with inv, -1D etc. Basic ork was a buggy. basic DE was an amalgam of raider and dudes inside, and then a monster, basic GK is an NDK, basic eldar is a harli skimer etc. something like a str 5 ap 2 gun isn't even that scary considering the basic weapons those carry.

 catbarf wrote:
(the railgun slug is so lethal it... ignores your dodge save?),

Sure, the slug is travelling so fast that even with your elf-like reflexes you aren't able to dodge it.

ccs wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
(the railgun slug is so lethal it... ignores your dodge save?),

Sure, the slug is travelling so fast that even with your elf-like reflexes you aren't able to dodge it.

Unlike Lasers.....which are pretty fast.

 Mr Morden wrote:

ccs wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
(the railgun slug is so lethal it... ignores your dodge save?),

Sure, the slug is travelling so fast that even with your elf-like reflexes you aren't able to dodge it.

Unlike Lasers.....which are pretty fast.

Apparently HH rail slugs are faster.... Damned Tau, developing new tech!

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 jeff white wrote:


About named characters, it was only one example. Flyers may be another, super big and heavy units another

Except literally none of those things are the reason we have balance issues in the game. Go to BCP or Goonhammer innovations in 9th and tell me how many flyers or superheavies you see in any top table lists. For a brief time in 7th, flyrant spam was an issue and for a brief time in 9th, ork flyer spam was an issue. Other than that, they haven't been an issue or even worth taking in competitive builds for most armies. A guy took a Reaver Titan as a solo army to a GT and went winless. Yea, look at those superheavies unbalancing the game...

Remember all those scary Lords Of War and FW units dominating 7th?

Oh yeah me neither.

I... would be okay with flyers/super heavies not being in 40k. Not because they're currently OP, but because they don't fit the scale very well. Like, you have flyers doing donuts because the battlefield doesn't really fit their speed. Imperial knights tend to create skew lists which, even if not OP, can leave people feeling like they're not playing the game they signed up for. I don't love spending all game fishing for 6s to wound.

Don't get me wrong. Love the models. Would love for them to have a format that they fit well. I'm just not sure 40k is it. (That said, knights and flyers are probably better balanced now than they have been in a long time.)

Wyldhunt wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I... would be okay with flyers/super heavies not being in 40k. Not because they're currently OP, but because they don't fit the scale very well. Like, you have flyers doing donuts because the battlefield doesn't really fit their speed. Imperial knights tend to create skew lists which, even if not OP, can leave people feeling like they're not playing the game they signed up for. I don't love spending all game fishing for 6s to wound.

Then bring some proper AT weapons.