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.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The point is for most people 40k isn't solely about winning and losing.
It's about fighting battles in the 41st millenium.

So mechanics who's sole purpose is to fix competitive balance are neat, but when they come at a direct cost of representing battles in the 41st millenium they do more harm than good for those people.

Unrealistic gamey mechanics is a complaint you might have seen crop up a couple of times already on this forum.
This rebalance dived right in on more of those.

^Bingo

In the 9th edition game design team, there is only competitive…

40k in 9th is just pure unfluffy numbers, once you accept that it gets mildly more palatable. I’d like to have cool narrative missions and fluffy internally balanced army lists, but we don’t, and guard sucks.
Bring on the band aid buffs.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
AP has been out of control for awhile, and some of the softer armies have been skewing into arms race tactics to mitigate that... which largely makes the armor stat pointless... and many of those paper armies have revival, mitigation, or invulnerable tactics to use in place of the armor stat (sorry Orks, still feeling for you guys). Even guard can counter with mass of models against the AP environment to maintain their presence throughout the game. Like I don't get why people are so scared of armored factions getting an armor buff in an edition and environment that actively makes armor saves ridiculous and rare. God forbid someone make a roll for the stat they already paid a premium for.

Well, yeah, you've identified the underlying problem, too much AP. But why just fix certain factions? I get that power armor factions aren't exactly the meta hotness, but excessive lethality and needing to rely on invulns is still a problem for everyone else. Look at Tyranid monsters having to get invulns in order to have any durability. Look at Tau vs anyone. Good saves being overvalued and ineffective is a game-wide problem that is just more obvious for factions that have across-the-board good saves.

It's also a bit frustrating for units that have received weapon adjustments and pay for AP that now in most games they will not benefit from. Multiple factions have paid for buffs to their basic weapons with increased model costs. Meanwhile Marines will still be hitting at AP-2 with their basic rifles, so Termagants or Guardians getting an extra point to their save isn't all that useful.

It wouldn't have been much of a stretch to just say 'all weapons in the game reduce their AP by 1'. At least then it would be consistent, addressing the underlying issue game-wide, and still benefit elite armies more than chaff ones on account of the math involved.

Then the fact that this fix is being delivered alongside a new mechanic for Guard that both increases their lethality and particularly weakens elite armies is just kinda funny. I don't imagine armored factions are going to feel particularly tough when a 60pt squad of Guardsmen can blow away 3/4 of their cost in Intercessors in a single round of shooting.

It all just seems half-assed. Well-intentioned and recognizing legitimate problems, but half-assed.

Honestly, just structure ap like they do for orks. Most everything is ap0, some nicer stuff is ap1, anti tank is -2 or maybe 3, and your real special stuff might be -4.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Honestly, just structure ap like they do for orks. Most everything is ap0, some nicer stuff is ap1, anti tank is -2 or maybe 3, and your real special stuff might be -4.

Orks in particular and some of the earlier books represent the game that should have been now I think.

The ork book feels like it fits in with an 8th ed meta maybe, possibly even evoking the feel of 5th (which I consider a good thing). Sadly that's a continent or so away from the current methodology and design space. Strip the marine specific rules off marines (doctrines, armour, bolter discipline etc) and they'd be the same.

Voss wrote:
@Oni
The changes to IF and bodyguard literally can't push the meta to change win rates- they affect under-performing and over-performing factions the same way.

No one is complaining about AM mortars. Hive Guard on the other hand; plenty of complaints there. So it definitely impacts factions differently.

Voss wrote:
@Oni
Yes, some rules changes are going to change win rates. But there's a lot of the game outside 'the meta,' and these changes still have an effect if Timmy and Sally are just knocking their 500 pt starter armies together.

There's a reason the Balance Dataslate is its own document and its content not put into the FAQ's. It's intended to even out win rates for Matched Play. Game fixes go into the FAQ's so it can apply to Open Play, Narrative Play and Matched Play. The Balance Datastale only applies to Matched Play.

 oni wrote:
Hive Guard on the other hand; plenty of complaints there.

Yeah, plenty of complaints that their indirect fire Impaler Cannons have been made worthless in the new codex. Then the new rule is nerfing them further.

It's a straight nerf to every indirect fire unit in the game that isn't Guard, whether those factions and units need the nerf or not. So, yeah, Voss is right- it's not a targeted change for anyone but Guard; it's a game-wide sledgehammer solution to specific mechanics.

 oni wrote:
...No one is complaining about AM mortars...

yet...

Previously an AM mortar squad ran 60 points (10 infantry, no upgrades but mortar). Currently, an AM mortar squad runs 60 points and besides getting a few more wargear options at that price has the same exact rules.

Unless the thing stopping AM mortars from prevalence was other indirect fire, an AM list was exactly as capable of doing it before as they are now with 0 rules changes.

But Whirlwinds were totes OP yo!

Mortars also come in Heavy Weapon Squads, which give you 3 mortars for (I believe) 50 pts. Mostly I'm remembering how well-liked mortar pits (ie. multiple mortar HWS hiding out of LoS with a nearby Company/Platoon Commander to throw Orders at them) were back in 8e and wondering how well they'll be liked now that they can fish for crits as well.

If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.

The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?

 oni wrote:

Voss wrote:
@Oni
The changes to IF and bodyguard literally can't push the meta to change win rates- they affect under-performing and over-performing factions the same way.

No one is complaining about AM mortars. Hive Guard on the other hand; plenty of complaints there. So it definitely impacts factions differently.

Catbarf covered this fairly well, but too reiterate- HG are getting a big nerf this weekend. Nerfing them more before that even comes out makes zero sense. And doesn't affect 'the meta' because the new Nid book HAS no meta.
And then there is the other IF stuff: When was the last time you saw marine players ripping up 'the meta' with Whirlwinds and Thunderfires? 7th edition? 6th?

Voss wrote:

@Oni
Yes, some rules changes are going to change win rates. But there's a lot of the game outside 'the meta,' and these changes still have an effect if Timmy and Sally are just knocking their 500 pt starter armies together.

There's a reason the Balance Dataslate is its own document and its content not put into the FAQ's. It's intended to even out win rates for Matched Play. Game fixes go into the FAQ's so it can apply to Open Play, Narrative Play and Matched Play. The Balance Datastale only applies to Matched Play.

Sorry, never met anyone who made that distinction. I've met people who claim to play with no FAQs (unless there are positive changes to their faction) and Timmy and Sally might fall into that category, but everyone I've ever played games with apply all the updates.

Its enough of a pain to keep up to date. No one has time for someone sorting out 'this but not that, 'don't want to use those rules' or whatever. They just want to play a game

So, no. The reason they're in the dataslate and not the FAQs is because they're universal (or multifaction) updates and its simply easier.
(Because USRs are always going to be easier to update than special snowflake rules on a unit by unit basis).

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.

The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?

Why is Atkins' tank able to shoot twice when driving slow, when advanced xenos platforms can only shoot once?

Why does Atkins' tank have better armor than advanced xenos wraithbone or living metal or etc.?

I can do this all day.

My point is to not get hung up on pretty trivial stuff when the real boogeyman is the process that brings us these weird balance passes.

Quasistellar wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.

The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?

Why is Atkins' tank able to shoot twice when driving slow, when advanced xenos platforms can only shoot once?

Why does Atkins' tank have better armor than advanced xenos wraithbone or living metal or etc.?

Because the designers have removed game mechanics that were more interesting and better at differentiating units, so all we have is MOAR DAKKA or MOAR TUFF. This further patch is still just a further "fix" on top of the underlying problems.

Quasistellar wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.

The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?

Why is Atkins' tank able to shoot twice when driving slow, when advanced xenos platforms can only shoot once?

Why does Atkins' tank have better armor than advanced xenos wraithbone or living metal or etc.?

I can do this all day.

My point is to not get hung up on pretty trivial stuff when the real boogeyman is the process that brings us these weird balance passes.

Because the man in charge of the rules has a notorius bias for IG.

To be fair to the game designers, having a lower rate of fire for a tank's main gun as it's rate of speed increases is a fairly common abstraction for unstabilised World War 2 tank combat in at least 3 games I can think of. Of course, 40k's implementation is strange and oddly confusing but I get it.

Same with the Wraithbone stuff - materials science is a helluva thing. In the old FW imperial armor books, Eldar tanks had 10-12mm of armor. Looking at it from that perspective, Wraithbone is freakishly strong.

That's stuff I have had to come to terms with across editions.

All indirect fire should've had a penalty to hit, period. It just makes sense that way.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.

The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?

Why is Atkins' tank able to shoot twice when driving slow, when advanced xenos platforms can only shoot once?

Why does Atkins' tank have better armor than advanced xenos wraithbone or living metal or etc.?

I can do this all day.

My point is to not get hung up on pretty trivial stuff when the real boogeyman is the process that brings us these weird balance passes.

Because the man in charge of the rules has a notorius bias for IG.

Right, that's why IG are doing so good right now, the man in charge loves them /s

Furthermore Gaurd are an 8th edition book, and in 8th (but not 9th) giving a main battletank double shots at half speed wasn't too uncommon (Predators and Fire Prisms also had it).
The reason they still have it and others don't could easily be chalked up to design changes between editions (at least until Guard get a new codex that has the shoot twice rule).

EviscerationPlague wrote:
All indirect fire should've had a penalty to hit, period. It just makes sense that way.

Oh I agree, in general I think it's a great rule and should just be the default for indirect fire - meaning units should have been priced accordingly.
Although the exclusion for Imperial Guard is ridiculous and undermines the whole narrative argument for it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair to the game designers, having a lower rate of fire for a tank's main gun as it's rate of speed increases is a fairly common abstraction for unstabilised World War 2 tank combat in at least 3 games I can think of. Of course, 40k's implementation is strange and oddly confusing but I get it.

Same with the Wraithbone stuff - materials science is a helluva thing. In the old FW imperial armor books, Eldar tanks had 10-12mm of armor. Looking at it from that perspective, Wraithbone is freakishly strong.

That's stuff I have had to come to terms with across editions.

There's also the idea about the stability of abstractions. When you get a core rule set, it lays out your basic set of abstractions within which it frames everything else. Ideally everything down the road will try to fit within those first abstractions layed down in the core rules. When they have to keep tacking on additional mechanics, interactions or even further abstractions, it really starts to show one of two things:

1: Either the designers didn't have the discipline to stick with their core abstractions.
or
2: The core abstractions weren't robust enough in the first place.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.

The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?

Because Atkins with a metal tube isn't aiming for a dude trying to hide. Atkins with the metal tube is aiming for the area where the dude is hiding.

Smart-Missile Systems are actively seeking a target.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.

The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?

Because Atkins with a metal tube isn't aiming for a dude trying to hide. Atkins with the metal tube is aiming for the area where the dude is hiding.

Smart-Missile Systems are actively seeking a target.

Because Smart Missile Systems are the only other weaponary with indirect fire? Atkins is unique in "aiming for an area"?
Not Whirlwinds, not Airburst Fragmentation Projectors, or anything like that?

Whirlwinds aren't "advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition".
Nor are Airburst Fragmentation Launchers.

If you want to argue that there should be different classifications of Indirect Fire weapons? I'm game. But don't pretend that mortars are the same thing as Smart Missile Systems or Seeker Missiles.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you genuinely not understand the core point being made?

Besides that, Airburst Fragmentation Launchers do use intelligent ammunition.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you genuinely not understand the core point being made?

That you're upset that Guardsmen aren't affected by this change, I get it.

I just don't care. Indirect Fire is supposed to be a hallmark of Guard as a faction, not every random unit out there that can take an indirect fire weapon.

If you want to argue that there should be some kind of item that bolsters it or whatever? Go for it. But simply being salty over it means nothing.

Oh, and for the record, I'm 100% fine with Indirect Fire going back to being an upgrade on Basilisks.

Besides that, Airburst Fragmentation Launchers do use intelligent ammunition.

This weapon scatters pragmentation bomblets over a wide area, at a height calculated by a simple AI within each warhead to cause optimum damage. The weapon sufers no penalties for moving and firing, and may not benefit from Markerlight hits.

Additionally, when it first debuted? It wasn't really propped up as an "indirect fire" piece.

It doesn't make sense from a lore Point of View.

Guardsmen aren't known for being the best shots (yes, they're well-trained as all hell from Earth standards, but they're not better or even usually as good as a Marine or other outright superhuman factions). They're not known for having the best tech. But for some reason, they get to ignore the penalties for indirect fire because... Why? Not from a mechanical PoV. From an in-universe one.

I don't argue "Guard is fine! They don't need anything," because that's blatantly untrue.

But the changes they get should be lore-appropriate and a hell of a lot more than just this.

Training and familiarity with the equipment isn't a terrible reason to think of, off the top of my head.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Training and familiarity with the equipment isn't a terrible reason to think of, off the top of my head.

Because Space Marines famously never train on any of their equipment.
The techmarine just rolls out of bed and starts smacking buttons on their Whirlwinds and Thunderfire Cannons to see what happens.