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.

 AtoMaki wrote:
You can hate it all you want, but this is all player skill. Sure, it is indeed as deep as a puddle, but making it deeper will NOT make it magically more enjoyable, it will just make the meta harder to figure out for, like, the first two weeks or so.

When people ask for a deeper game, they mean one that is less solvable and forces players to make heuristic decisions based on aggregated game state. Not one where the solution is simply obfuscated, and a mathematically optimal strategy exists but takes longer to figure out. You seem to be confusing complexity for depth; they're not synonymous, and increasing complexity can very well fail to increase depth, as we've seen in 9th.

 catbarf wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:
You can hate it all you want, but this is all player skill. Sure, it is indeed as deep as a puddle, but making it deeper will NOT make it magically more enjoyable, it will just make the meta harder to figure out for, like, the first two weeks or so.

When people ask for a deeper game, they mean one that is less solvable and forces players to make heuristic decisions based on aggregated game state.

I know that. I'm just pointing out that stacking buffs is an aggregative game already, so their wishes here might be kind of misplaced. I would be on a different opinion if we were talking about a card game where perfect information is not a given, but we are not, so ...

 AtoMaki wrote:

I know that. I'm just pointing out that stacking buffs is an aggregative game already, so their wishes here might be kind of misplaced. I would be on a different opinion if we were talking about a card game where perfect information is not a given, but we are not, so ...

No, you're just playing some inane monkey paw game where you pretend that "we want more depth and for player skill to matter" means "we want a shallow game that has more complicated dice math optimization calculations to solve".

I was considering the possibility that you genuinely held this point of view because you have only played GW games and are unfamiliar with how good games can create depth that can't be solved in the list building phase but since you claim to have a lot of experience with other games the only remaining conclusion is that you are doing this deliberately.

 Thadin wrote:
Yeah my point more being that the best sniper wasn't a sniper, it was a damn missile launcher

I liked running Eliminators in my not-terribly-competitive Ultramarines list. An annoying roadbump that can deploy in annoying spots potentially, with an okay threat to characters or vehicles depending on loadout. Also liked them when Aggressors and custodes or other 3 wound stuff was hot in my meta.

It would be nice to make snipers suitably threatening at their specific job, with an appropriate points cost to match. I feel like that the good sniper units have also been good at roles other than killing characters.

yeah, snipers need a buff. They should also be able to target specific models in units IMO

Aecus Decimus wrote:
"we want more depth and for player skill to matter" means "we want a shallow game that has more complicated dice math optimization calculations to solve".

That's a nice strawman you've got there. Good thing I have already referred to the opposite in my above post where I specifically mentioned depth and did not mention dice math - for a reason, because unlike what you try to put into my mouth, I'm fully aware of the difference.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
"we want more depth and for player skill to matter" means "we want a shallow game that has more complicated dice math optimization calculations to solve".

That's a nice strawman you've got there. Good thing I have already referred to the opposite in my above post where I specifically mentioned depth and did not mention dice math - for a reason, because unlike what you try to put into my mouth, I'm fully aware of the difference.

Sure, it is indeed as deep as a puddle, but making it deeper will NOT make it magically more enjoyable, it will just make the meta harder to figure out for, like, the first two weeks or so.
-You

Genuine depth that is not just complicated dice math can't be figured out in list building and meta analysis because it happens with on-table decisions that can't be known in advance. Since you are talking about solving the game before it even begins and exploiting rule interactions as "skill" the only possible conclusion is that you are dishonestly using the word "depth" to refer to dice math complexity.

 AtoMaki wrote:

It is more like I'm not arguing at all, just giving a fair warning.

So what about player skill that's deep?

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Since you are talking about solving the game before it even begins

I didn't say that anywhere in the part you quoted. I didn't even say anything about list building. Where do you even get these things? Especially the dice math. I could understand if you just said "math" because sure, I was indeed thinking about game theory, but dice math?

Aecus Decimus wrote:
the only possible conclusion is that you are dishonestly using the word "depth" to refer to dice math complexity

That's a... really-really misplaced conclusion. Kinda like this whole wishing for more depth and greater emphasis on player skill to achieve fun, really.

 AtoMaki wrote:
stuff

Sorry, I'm not interested in discussing this any further with you when you have demonstrated very clearly that you are not arguing in good faith and see this whole thing as some inane monkey paw game.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i litterally have never killed a single character using snipers lol, that whole class of weapons is so terrible and fails to do its job.

Snipers in 40k are counter-intuitive to how snipers really work.

To get snipers to work in 40k you need batteries of them - whole units opening up on a single target - to cause damage. At some points in their history, 40k sniper weapons have been more adept at taking out high toughness targets like Wraithlords than the targets they should be aiming for (key personnel and HQ units).

Remember when the Exitus Rifle was the best anti-tank weapon in the game?
The Vindicare Temple remembers.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i litterally have never killed a single character using snipers lol, that whole class of weapons is so terrible and fails to do its job.

Snipers in 40k are counter-intuitive to how snipers really work.

To get snipers to work in 40k you need batteries of them - whole units opening up on a single target - to cause damage. At some points in their history, 40k sniper weapons have been more adept at taking out high toughness targets like Wraithlords than the targets they should be aiming for (key personnel and HQ units).

The Vindicare I'd argue is okay since there's a cheap Strat to let him shoot at two different targets, and mortal wounds from the Headshot rule add up.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i litterally have never killed a single character using snipers lol, that whole class of weapons is so terrible and fails to do its job.

Snipers in 40k are counter-intuitive to how snipers really work.

To get snipers to work in 40k you need batteries of them - whole units opening up on a single target - to cause damage.

In fairness, that's not inherently bad. I mean, if a single Sniper Rifle could reliably take down a character, then a few Ratling squads would probably clear your opponent's entire HQ section on turn 1.

The issue is that GW seems to have a weird fetish for making a battery weapon a 1-per-squad option. We see this with stuff like Command Squads which can take one - and only one - Sniper Rifle. This is both ineffective and also likely to be counter-productive to what the rest of the squad wants to be doing (i.e. moving).

It's also by no means a unique problem. Dark Eldar, for example, can take a 1/unit Heavy Sniper Rifle . . . but only on a melee squad.

(And don't even get me started on the DE Relic Sniper weapon with a range of just 18" that struggles to kill even a Platoon Commander. But don't worry, GW buffed it in 9th... by removing its ability to ignore Line of Sight. )

I'd hazard a guess that the reason for making Sniper weapons terrible is because GW presumably thinks that having your characters sniped isn't much fun. However, this does raise the question of why they continue not only to keep include them but also to include rules that let you turn non-Sniper weapons into Snipers.

 vipoid wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i litterally have never killed a single character using snipers lol, that whole class of weapons is so terrible and fails to do its job.

Snipers in 40k are counter-intuitive to how snipers really work.

To get snipers to work in 40k you need batteries of them - whole units opening up on a single target - to cause damage.

In fairness, that's not inherently bad. I mean, if a single Sniper Rifle could reliably take down a character, then a few Ratling squads would probably clear your opponent's entire HQ section on turn 1.

The issue is that GW seems to have a weird fetish for making a battery weapon a 1-per-squad option. We see this with stuff like Command Squads which can take one - and only one - Sniper Rifle. This is both ineffective and also likely to be counter-productive to what the rest of the squad wants to be doing (i.e. moving).

It's also by no means a unique problem. Dark Eldar, for example, can take a 1/unit Heavy Sniper Rifle . . . but only on a melee squad.

(And don't even get me started on the DE Relic Sniper weapon with a range of just 18" that struggles to kill even a Platoon Commander. But don't worry, GW buffed it in 9th... by removing its ability to ignore Line of Sight. )

I'd hazard a guess that the reason for making Sniper weapons terrible is because GW presumably thinks that having your characters sniped isn't much fun. However, this does raise the question of why they continue not only to keep include them but also to include rules that let you turn non-Sniper weapons into Snipers.

If you hadn't noticed, most relic "Sniper" weapons or those that ignore LoS won't kill a Platoon Officer in one go.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Thadin wrote:
Yeah my point more being that the best sniper wasn't a sniper, it was a damn missile launcher

I liked running Eliminators in my not-terribly-competitive Ultramarines list. An annoying roadbump that can deploy in annoying spots potentially, with an okay threat to characters or vehicles depending on loadout. Also liked them when Aggressors and custodes or other 3 wound stuff was hot in my meta.

It would be nice to make snipers suitably threatening at their specific job, with an appropriate points cost to match. I feel like that the good sniper units have also been good at roles other than killing characters.

yeah, snipers need a buff. They should also be able to target specific models in units IMO

Having that ability would absolutely make snipers useful, especially in a game where that ability is very tactically advantageous. I know that for a fact. My guys don't go anywhere without their Nemesis bolter equipped Recon marines.

The problem is GW thinks sniper rifles are cool, but we can’t have sniper rifles doing what we want them to do without making them astronomically expensive. Do you want a 100 point sniper rifle?

Perfectly fine with my 10 point and extremely effective sniper rifles. In a gw game, btw.

I remember when Marbo was the best "sniper" unit in the game. Oh wait, that's now. His character targeting pistol and ability to Deploy-Shoot-charge-redeploy makes him stupidly powerful for only 50 points.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I remember when Marbo was the best "sniper" unit in the game. Oh wait, that's now. His character targeting pistol and ability to Deploy-Shoot-charge-redeploy makes him stupidly powerful for only 50 points.

I also love that his knife is better than most Power Weapon options.

 AtoMaki wrote:
That's a... really-really misplaced conclusion. Kinda like this whole wishing for more depth and greater emphasis on player skill to achieve fun, really.

Nope, it's great. Depth (i.e. more meaningful decisions, and no, calculating optimum buff layering isn't a meaningful decision) makes for more fun games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
I'd hazard a guess that the reason for making Sniper weapons terrible is because GW presumably thinks that having your characters sniped isn't much fun. However, this does raise the question of why they continue not only to keep include them but also to include rules that let you turn non-Sniper weapons into Snipers.

Based off the situation with the Kellermorph I think they only get worried when Astartes players have an NPE in that way.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I remember when Marbo was the best "sniper" unit in the game. Oh wait, that's now. His character targeting pistol and ability to Deploy-Shoot-charge-redeploy makes him stupidly powerful for only 50 points.

I also love that his knife is better than most Power Weapon options.

To be fair, Marbo's stats are massively nerfed compared to His power in the fluff. It sucks that His weapons are a bit underwhelming but if you put a fluff-accurate Marbo into the tabletop game it would completely wreck the meta.

ccs wrote:
Forces that like their character models - GSC, SoB, other Guard. One particular UltraMarine (very annoying with all his medics, standard, LT, etc).
At least the ones I play against. Players of these forces in your area might not rely as heavily upon these characters, but I'm only concerned with who/what I play against.
I'll grant you that a Guard sniper rifle isn't the best weapon. But it's what I've got for the job I'm using it for & I'll just have to fish for 6s & hope the targets fail saves....

Have you ever actually killed a character using your sniper rifle? None of those targets are likely to die to a sniper rifle over the course of an entire game if they're specifically targeted every turn, never mind the 1 or 2 shots you're likely to be able to take at them in reality.

This is the point I think you've missed. The sniper rifle is a bad choice of weapon to take because it absolutely sucks at...well, everything. It's a non-choice because it doesn't even fill the role it's supposed to due to terrible rules. It's the inverse of the "just spam plasma" approach, and just as bad for the game because of it. The solution shouldn't be to make bad choices available, but to try to make all choices equally valid through a combination of rules and cost. I'm all for thematic and fluffy choices in list building, but when they are so bad at their job they actively break immersion something has gone wrong.

 alextroy wrote:
The problem is GW thinks sniper rifles are cool, but we can’t have sniper rifles doing what we want them to do without making them astronomically expensive. Do you want a 100 point sniper rifle?

You've just described a Vindicare Assassin. 100 points, cool sniper rifle, still sucks at its job.

 alextroy wrote:
The problem is GW thinks sniper rifles are cool, but we can’t have sniper rifles doing what we want them to do without making them astronomically expensive. Do you want a 100 point sniper rifle?

You don't need to make snipers super expensive for them to work..... It's ok if they can actually threaten characters, forces your opponent to be smart and hide his character behind terrain/bodyguards. Why is it acceptable that litterally every other unit type can be vaporised trivially but characters should be untouchable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:


To be fair, Marbo's stats are massively nerfed compared to His power in the fluff. It sucks that His weapons are a bit underwhelming but if you put a fluff-accurate Marbo into the tabletop game it would completely wreck the meta.

if you put a fluff-accurate anything into the tabletop game, it would wreck the meta

Jarms48 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
The problem is GW thinks sniper rifles are cool, but we can’t have sniper rifles doing what we want them to do without making them astronomically expensive. Do you want a 100 point sniper rifle?

You've just described a Vindicare Assassin. 100 points, cool sniper rifle, still sucks at its job.

Sniper units are imo near impossible to balance, too much power is cooped up in character auras these day. Removing that character and bypassing their LoS protection is a very powerful thing and being too good at it just makes feelbads for people. Instead you're left having Snipers tickle things mostly because it's too lopsided otherwise.

I tend to think sniper units are reasonably balanced. They tend to have okay maths into their respective targets. Unfortunately they are bad into everything else. And since there's a lot of "everything else" and its not overly difficult to just keep a lynchpin character behind a wall for a couple of turns, they don't see much competitive play.

But I'm unclear on "how good" they should be. I don't think you should be able to go "right, I've put 4 snipers into my guardsmen squads, now I'm going to pop 50-100 point characters every turn".

Tyel wrote:
I tend to think sniper units are reasonably balanced. They tend to have okay maths into their respective targets. Unfortunately they are bad into everything else. And since there's a lot of "everything else" and its not overly difficult to just keep a lynchpin character behind a wall for a couple of turns, they don't see much competitive play.

But I'm unclear on "how good" they should be. I don't think you should be able to go "right, I've put 4 snipers into my guardsmen squads, now I'm going to pop 50-100 point characters every turn".

"Okay math into their respective targets"

What? Can you run these calculations for me because i'm pretty sure a 5 man sniper team would have a hard time killing any character that isnt a warlock/commissar

GW has always had issues with single shot weapons, especially since we're only relegated to using a D6 so it's very limited on what you can do to make it reliable enough to make it count without feeling like it has to basically borderline autopass and do guaranteed damage each turn to make it worth it. It's part of the reason why GW had to uptune railguns and now vanquisher cannons to have the current stats they have now, and that's just to take out tanks.

I feel snipers need to have more utility than just their ability to 360 no scope characters. If GW had a proper morale mechanic with nuance and a proper suppression system, I could see snipers being able to consistently "suppress" a unit, with higher level snipers like Vindicares being able to suppress HQ level units to prevent their aura and other command phase abilities from going off, so even if they don't kill them outright, they can do some sort of impact that isn't based on making up their points cost in kills. Hard to give out commands or prayers when you're getting shot at mid-sentence.

Jarms48 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
The problem is GW thinks sniper rifles are cool, but we can’t have sniper rifles doing what we want them to do without making them astronomically expensive. Do you want a 100 point sniper rifle?

You've just described a Vindicare Assassin. 100 points, cool sniper rifle, still sucks at its job.

I'd say he's mediocre, not terrible. Cheap strat to shoot another target and the mortal wounds add up.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
If you hadn't noticed, most relic "Sniper" weapons or those that ignore LoS won't kill a Platoon Officer in one go.

Oh absolutely. What irked me, though, was that GW took an already bad weapon and decided it needed to lose one of the few advantages it had (as well as the 'cool factor' of being able to shoot through walls).

Tbh, I think a lot of relic Sniper weapons suffer from the same problem as the Vanquisher Cannon and other big anti-tank weapons, in that they simply don't seem suited to the targets they're supposedly designed to kill.

 Grimskul wrote:

I feel snipers need to have more utility than just there to 360 no scope characters. If GW had a proper morale mechanic with nuance and a proper suppression system, I could see snipers being able to consistently "suppress" a unit, with higher level snipers like Vindicares being able to suppress HQ level units to prevent their aura and other command phase abilities from going off, so even if they don't kill them outright, they can do some sort of impact that isn't based on making up their points cost in kills. Hard to give out commands or prayers when you're getting shot at mid-sentence.

That's a good point. IIRC, snipers used to cause Pinning, back when morale wasn't just a lose-more mechanic.

I do also agree with the suggestion above that allowing snipers to target individual models in units might also give them a role in terms of taking out sergeants and special weapons.