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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I agree. I'm just here for the "9th is dead" sentiment.

Double agree. I had a 1000pt game of my CSM vs. AdMech this weekend. And between the high volume of AP0 and well-placed shots of AP-3 all while denying me cover most of the game, I felt Armor of Contempt allowed me to hold on for a very close game. I had the lead most of the game, but was tabled during Turn 4, which allowed my opponent to rack up as many points as his 3 remaining units could. A much better result than the last time I played AdMech (when they were strongest) being tabled Turn 3, barely getting points anywhere and hardly killing any of the AdMech army.

I still think 9th is too lethal, but at least with Armor of Contempt factions, it has been blunted some. I still have to bring my A-game playing CSM, but if my opponent makes too many mistakes or my dice get really hot at the right times, I certainly have a shot at winning games.

Tyel wrote:
I have a lot of sympathy for 9th being too lethal - but I feel "we played with lots of terrain" and "a guard list killed 50% of my stuff turn 1" is sort of a contradiction in terms.

On the whole I'm cautiously optimistic. CWE & Tyranids are too good and I fear that's going to be the meta for the next 6 months (I mean before knights destroy everything etc). DE may still continue their reign of just being too fundamentally good at trading without the other factions oppressing them (sort of matched the game I played at the weekend - I really need to start playing a new army with more fluff than crunch). But at least for now there seems to be more variety than there was. Orks clearly need help. If we are going to pretend each Marine chapter is comparable to a faction they may need a balance pass - but I suspect BT & Dark Angels have legs.

As Ninth once again put it, how the hell do you suggest hiding a Toxicrene? Not only that, for the sake of my personal example, a Leman Russ can move 10" or 5" if it wants to shoot twice. They can easily get an angle and now that Guardsmen can take Lascannons for free they can cover a large area with some random pot shots. Manticores with Full Payload don't need LOS either.

Point isn't that guard are great, point is that even with a bunch of LOS blocking terrain it is still easy enough to get LOS on a large model.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Eldar too. Wave Serpents were filthy.

That was sixth when they could fire their serpent shields with 60" range S7 Ap- Assault D6+1 pinning, ignores cover. They murdered IG parking lots.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You just have to see one bit of a limb to blast a monster off the table, so terrain may not be all that helpful.

It's extraordinarily helpful. If I risk overflow based on loose terrain or squished deployment I'll go into reserves. I absolutely never have to expose my models if I don't really want to. The only things breaking that were flyers and ooLOS, which were both nerfed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I have a lot of sympathy for 9th being too lethal - but I feel "we played with lots of terrain" and "a guard list killed 50% of my stuff turn 1" is sort of a contradiction in terms.

On the whole I'm cautiously optimistic. CWE & Tyranids are too good and I fear that's going to be the meta for the next 6 months (I mean before knights destroy everything etc). DE may still continue their reign of just being too fundamentally good at trading without the other factions oppressing them (sort of matched the game I played at the weekend - I really need to start playing a new army with more fluff than crunch). But at least for now there seems to be more variety than there was. Orks clearly need help. If we are going to pretend each Marine chapter is comparable to a faction they may need a balance pass - but I suspect BT & Dark Angels have legs.

As Ninth once again put it, how the hell do you suggest hiding a Toxicrene? Not only that, for the sake of my personal example, a Leman Russ can move 10" or 5" if it wants to shoot twice. They can easily get an angle and now that Guardsmen can take Lascannons for free they can cover a large area with some random pot shots. Manticores with Full Payload don't need LOS either.

Point isn't that guard are great, point is that even with a bunch of LOS blocking terrain it is still easy enough to get LOS on a large model.

A model != 50% of your army. 5" is a terribly short distance with the firing angles I see on tournament tables. 10% will halve that LRBT. Manticores suffer from the ooLOS nerf.

No, Manticores don't suffer from the ooLOS nerf, Daed. Remember, Guard units ignore the ooLOS nerf.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Your experience with losing 50% of your army turn 1 is not shared among a significant number of tournament games.

Which are, what, 2-3% of 40k games played?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Your experience with losing 50% of your army turn 1 is not shared among a significant number of tournament games.

Which are, what, 2-3% of 40k games played?

2-3% still represents thousands of games. Specifically WAY more cutthroat games than your average PUG. Circumstantial evidence suggests that the problem in this case is a statistical anomaly and that it's likely down to player skill disparity.

i.e. git gud, scrub.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
No, Manticores don't suffer from the ooLOS nerf, Daed. Remember, Guard units ignore the ooLOS nerf.

Ah, right. My bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Your experience with losing 50% of your army turn 1 is not shared among a significant number of tournament games.

Which are, what, 2-3% of 40k games played?

Presuming all games outside tournaments are not tournament minded. Just about all the ones at my FLGS are tournament players getting reps in. YMMV.

You guys get a haircut from how fast that went over your heads?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You just have to see one bit of a limb to blast a monster off the table, so terrain may not be all that helpful.

It's extraordinarily helpful. If I risk overflow based on loose terrain or squished deployment I'll go into reserves. I absolutely never have to expose my models if I don't really want to. The only things breaking that were flyers and ooLOS, which were both nerfed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I have a lot of sympathy for 9th being too lethal - but I feel "we played with lots of terrain" and "a guard list killed 50% of my stuff turn 1" is sort of a contradiction in terms.

On the whole I'm cautiously optimistic. CWE & Tyranids are too good and I fear that's going to be the meta for the next 6 months (I mean before knights destroy everything etc). DE may still continue their reign of just being too fundamentally good at trading without the other factions oppressing them (sort of matched the game I played at the weekend - I really need to start playing a new army with more fluff than crunch). But at least for now there seems to be more variety than there was. Orks clearly need help. If we are going to pretend each Marine chapter is comparable to a faction they may need a balance pass - but I suspect BT & Dark Angels have legs.

As Ninth once again put it, how the hell do you suggest hiding a Toxicrene? Not only that, for the sake of my personal example, a Leman Russ can move 10" or 5" if it wants to shoot twice. They can easily get an angle and now that Guardsmen can take Lascannons for free they can cover a large area with some random pot shots. Manticores with Full Payload don't need LOS either.

Point isn't that guard are great, point is that even with a bunch of LOS blocking terrain it is still easy enough to get LOS on a large model.

A model != 50% of your army. 5" is a terribly short distance with the firing angles I see on tournament tables. 10% will halve that LRBT. Manticores suffer from the ooLOS nerf.

5" is more than enough to get an angle when first turn you can move the full 10" to get into position. In my anecdote I did not lose 50% of my army turn one, never said I did but I get the point you are trying to make. But after turn one when I've had to move my stuff up in order for it to do anything it means I have even less places to hide. I hate to get bogged down in specific nit picking because it does nothing for the conversation but I said I was effectively table at the top of turn two, my opponent got 2 turns to my one and between those two turns, the second turn doing significantly more damage to me, I was effectively tabled. Yes, I had a squad of 25 hormagaunts in his deployment eating gak but they weren't about to turn the tide of battle against Leman Russes.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
In my anecdote I did not lose 50% of my army turn one, never said I did but I get the point you are trying to make.

But you did allude to it. Twice. You don't see that as being dishonest? I agree that 9th is too lethal, but I am not about to state that it is easy in a casual game to lose half your army turn 1 if that hasn't been my experience. Exaggeration just leads to others discarding your opinions in the future as overblown.

In my game this weekend, I lost more than a third of my army Turn 1. I lost 5 Raptors (with 2 Plasmaguns) and 5 CSM (with a Combi-bolter and plasmagun) to a single squad of like 15 Skitarii Rangers in a 1000pt game. All I did to the AdMech as 4 damage to a Robot (which they healed some) and killed/CA about 10-12 Vanguard Skitarii. I didn't let that affect me, and while I still was tabled Turn 4 and lost; I kept the score really close and had my opponent down to 3 models (biggish models, but 3 models) themselves.

Perhaps more than ever before, 40k is all about trades. You are going to lose models/units during the game. Probably faster than slower. This trick is to try and make those losses count. Maybe (quite possibly) you were outgunned, but the way to say it, sound more like you gave up practically before the game started. 40k it is what it is, and you either negotiate with your opponent, make due with how things are or don't play.

Hey, I get it. I have been mostly playing CSM all 9th edition long, and only using the 2017 codex and the Daemonkin supplement from Shadowspear. I've been on the losing side most games. The few games I have won were through luck, capitalizing on my opponent's mistakes and playing the best I possibly could. I feel like I had to play twice as hard to even have a chance at winning. What I don't do is throw in the towel the moment things go bad for me. If I did, I think I'd lose all my games. And yeah, I get crushed a lot. But most of my opponent's respected my ability to take 66 cents and turn into 75 cents. However, I needed a dollar to win. That's unfiltered 40k for you.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Your experience with losing 50% of your army turn 1 is not shared among a significant number of tournament games.

Which are, what, 2-3% of 40k games played?

Regardless of their numbers, those are the games in which the lists are fully optmized to max up lethality. People that play with random collections of models or agree in advance to play with toned down lists don't lose 50% (or even more than 20-25% typicallly) of their army in turn 1.

If tournament players don't lose 50% of their armies in turn 1, on average, the casual players definitely don't do it either, also on average. The one sided game in which everything is decided turn 1 can always happen, this is a dice game after all, and always could have happened in previous editions. But it's irrelevant considering the whole pool of games played.

 Arschbombe wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Eldar too. Wave Serpents were filthy.

That was sixth when they could fire their serpent shields with 60" range S7 Ap- Assault D6+1 pinning, ignores cover. They murdered IG parking lots.

Here, GW should have used "narrative" and context to justify points changes.

Updating on ongoing narrative or focus on "battlezone" for instance, they should issue points changes in the way of updates with reasoning such as "BATTLEZONE UPDATE # ELDAR # : Wave serpent units have seen heavy usage recently with many units in need of repair, and with deployable units increasingly rare. Wave serpents of all variants incur additional points cost as indicated in the current points adjustments updated and available online, here: www/warhammer40k/points_adjustments/eldar/yada.html and the entire points adjustment list can be downoaded as a PDF here: yada.com

Then price them up, and perhaps work into the narrative that Eldar players can field a wave serpent without a functioning shield for the original points cost, and one with a finctioning shiled with an additional cost of 50points per model unit.

ERJAK wrote:
i.e. git gud, scrub.

Pretty sure that, given your recent post history, you're the last person that should be expressing this.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Your experience with losing 50% of your army turn 1 is not shared among a significant number of tournament games.

Which are, what, 2-3% of 40k games played?

To be fair, those are still tens of thousands of games on record, and they include the dudes who just bring the same list since 4th edition to their local RTT.

9th edition also de facto doesn't really have a "casual mode" right now, it's essentially tournament play or crusade. The open war deck tried to fill that role, but has too many issues to feel like "real" 40k. Hopefully the tempest of war deck changes that.

Therefore making assumption based on that data(assuming it actually supports daed's point, didn't check) is perfectly valid for any game that was supposed to be a fair and balanced fight.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
In my anecdote I did not lose 50% of my army turn one, never said I did but I get the point you are trying to make.

But you did allude to it. Twice. You don't see that as being dishonest? I agree that 9th is too lethal, but I am not about to state that it is easy in a casual game to lose half your army turn 1 if that hasn't been my experience. Exaggeration just leads to others discarding your opinions in the future as overblown.

In my game this weekend, I lost more than a third of my army Turn 1. I lost 5 Raptors (with 2 Plasmaguns) and 5 CSM (with a Combi-bolter and plasmagun) to a single squad of like 15 Skitarii Rangers in a 1000pt game. All I did to the AdMech as 4 damage to a Robot (which they healed some) and killed/CA about 10-12 Vanguard Skitarii. I didn't let that affect me, and while I still was tabled Turn 4 and lost; I kept the score really close and had my opponent down to 3 models (biggish models, but 3 models) themselves.

Perhaps more than ever before, 40k is all about trades. You are going to lose models/units during the game. Probably faster than slower. This trick is to try and make those losses count. Maybe (quite possibly) you were outgunned, but the way to say it, sound more like you gave up practically before the game started. 40k it is what it is, and you either negotiate with your opponent, make due with how things are or don't play.

Hey, I get it. I have been mostly playing CSM all 9th edition long, and only using the 2017 codex and the Daemonkin supplement from Shadowspear. I've been on the losing side most games. The few games I have won were through luck, capitalizing on my opponent's mistakes and playing the best I possibly could. I feel like I had to play twice as hard to even have a chance at winning. What I don't do is throw in the towel the moment things go bad for me. If I did, I think I'd lose all my games. And yeah, I get crushed a lot. But most of my opponent's respected my ability to take 66 cents and turn into 75 cents. However, I needed a dollar to win. That's unfiltered 40k for you.

I did not allude to losing 50% of an army first turn but I am not dishonest enough to say that I can't understand why people may have taken what I said in that context.

Back on point, it is not about winning or losing it is about how it feels to play the game right now. It doesn't feel good to be picking up a decent chunk of your army per turn. I don't care if you win while being tabled it just feels gross to me and I want to see less AP across the board, less high damage weapons. I think it would be awesome if both players could end the game just south of 50% of their army still on the table.

Less lethality and less speed, I don't like that I can slingshot a horde of Hormagaunts 19" then let them roll 3d6 drop the lowest on a charge into my opponents face turn 1. I don't like how easy it is for most armies in the game to put bodies on objectives and not have it been a commitment because at any moment they can shoot across the table to another objective or can reach out with their guns to shoot anything they have LOS to because their weapons have such long range.

I don't particularly mind singular units making cross table charges.

There was a point where "bubble wrap" was a common concept for 40K. You can't simply take 100% good stuff and expect to not get messed with. Gaunts help enforce that and it's why I carry cultists and tzaangors in my lists and in games where they don't need to shield I get to do more with them.

40K has also been a lengthy game through its history. In the past there were tons of games that ended where the sentiment was "if I had only gotten one more turn I would have won". Now you can conclusively play a game that still involves a lot of decision making in the late game.

I do not share the concern about having to pick up models and I have difficulty trying to bridge that gap. The point is for me to have fun and not stare at models on the table. If I wanted to admire them I'd do that at my paint station or in between rounds.

I don't think people should be regularly losing 1000 points in a turn. Unfortunately it is very common in today's 40k - unless you play in a fairly cagey manner, with lots of terrain to help you facilitate this. And yes that's going to be difficult if you run 3 Toxicrenes. Which is a shame, because its a great model. And realistically, anyone brave enough to transport it to a FLGS deserves a medal (although I guess magnetising the tendrils is the way to go.)

Equally however I don't really mind people being tabled turn 5.

Turn 4&5 often turn in to speed rolling with very little of doing anything else, but looking at the dice.

Tyel wrote:
I don't think people should be regularly losing 1000 points in a turn. Unfortunately it is very common in today's 40k - unless you play in a fairly cagey manner, with lots of terrain to help you facilitate this. And yes that's going to be difficult if you run 3 Toxicrenes. Which is a shame, because its a great model. And realistically, anyone brave enough to transport it to a FLGS deserves a medal (although I guess magnetising the tendrils is the way to go.)

Equally however I don't really mind people being tabled turn 5.

Hey, I only roll with two when I run them and the tentacles are surprisingly resilient to travel, where they connect to the body is very stocky.

I think the best way I can boil down my complaint is with a video game analogy, horrible I know.

Call of Duty and Battlefield used to be similar looking games with entirely different rhythms, concepts and tactical considerations. I enjoyed Battlefield because it was slower paced, team oriented and offer a lower TTK which combined for a much more enjoyable experience. Call of Duty was a fast paced, solo viable and arena based shooter that was enjoyable to people looking for that.

To me 40k is falling closer to the Call of Duty end of the spectrum with the game sacrificing complexity for streamlining to keep it moving faster. I understand why the made the game more lethal because they wanted the games to be faster, they wanted something that you could throw down with a friend quickly due to list building being streamlined and the game turns moving faster. I find that as an admirable goal but in the end I feel like I am playing a game that is just unsatisfying. I play so many armies, two of which are Orks and Nids, so picking models up off the table by the handful is not really that foreign a concept to me but it is frustrating that there are units that I never get to see do anything because of the lethality of the game and how easy it is for my opponent to target them.

Case in point is Belakor. Amazing new model, painted it up and just love to see him on the table. Dies so quickly that I often wonder if it is worth it to bring him rather than just throwing more bodies on the table to camp on objectives.

Custodes and Knights routinely loose thousands of points per turn against certain factions. Even more so in 9th, where a SM sgt can theoretically one shot a knight.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/08/40k-beware-sergeant-slam.html

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Custodes and Knights routinely loose thousands of points per turn against certain factions. Even more so in 9th, where a SM sgt can theoretically one shot a knight.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/08/40k-beware-sergeant-slam.html

I really feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but THEORETICALLY killing a knight with a sgt, and ACTUALLY only doing 10-11 damage to it (on average), with all the buffs, is a huge difference.

=/

That's 5 CP for one maneuver.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Custodes and Knights routinely loose thousands of points per turn against certain factions. Even more so in 9th, where a SM sgt can theoretically one shot a knight.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/08/40k-beware-sergeant-slam.html

They lose thousands (plural) of points per turn? Exactly how many points are they playing?

I have seen knight armies tabled, and 2k counts as plural of thousands. Maybe mr Fezzik means that.

 Just_Breathe wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Custodes and Knights routinely loose thousands of points per turn against certain factions. Even more so in 9th, where a SM sgt can theoretically one shot a knight.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/08/40k-beware-sergeant-slam.html

I really feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but THEORETICALLY killing a knight with a sgt, and ACTUALLY only doing 10-11 damage to it (on average), with all the buffs, is a huge difference.

=/

That's 5 CP for one maneuver.

There was some insane combo you used to be able to pull with a Terminator Assault Squad in 8th, able to kill 3-4 Gallant Knights in a turn iirc. I don't think the strats are there for it anymore.

Win rates for all games this past weekend with no mirrors ( excluding TTS games ):

Win rates with mirrors:

Win rates for just the first round:


I'm somewhat skeptical about the usefulness of that last set

I think I am going to make something that analyzes procedural wins. i.e. LWW is a weaker showing than WWL.

People are missing the point that it shouldn't even be possible to lose half an army in one turn, mistakes or no.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People are missing the point that it shouldn't even be possible to lose half an army in one turn, mistakes or no.

I liked it back when having half your army left at the start of turn 4 wasn't a weird thing.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Just_Breathe wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Custodes and Knights routinely loose thousands of points per turn against certain factions. Even more so in 9th, where a SM sgt can theoretically one shot a knight.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/08/40k-beware-sergeant-slam.html

I really feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but THEORETICALLY killing a knight with a sgt, and ACTUALLY only doing 10-11 damage to it (on average), with all the buffs, is a huge difference.

=/

That's 5 CP for one maneuver.

There was some insane combo you used to be able to pull with a Terminator Assault Squad in 8th, able to kill 3-4 Gallant Knights in a turn iirc. I don't think the strats are there for it anymore.

One unit of 8 repentia used to be able to overkill a knight by roughly an additional knight.

I disagree, there must be possible to lose half an army if you do particulalry dumb stuff, e.g. placing glasshammer units withing charging distance of a melee units.

What shouldn't be possible is losing half an army if you are playing defensively.