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.

 Tyran wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

the question i guess to me is, can you claim marines are overpowered when there are so many other factions out stripping their population of players for tournament wins and top 5s?

if GSC is 5% of the player base but winning 15-20% of tournaments, meanwhile marines are 30% of the player base winning 35-40% of tournaments i'd say the marines are not the problem on the scene.

Define "many other". The other factions with notable overrepresentation at the top tables are Craftwolrd Eldar, Chaos Daemons, Orks, World Eaters and Genestealer Cults.

Meanwhile Dark Eldar, Harlequins, both flavors of Knights, Chaos Spaces Marines, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Tyranids, Admech, LoV and Sisters are suffering underrepresentation.

Definitely there are problems. Space Marines are not the entirety of the problems, but they are a problem.

I’d say the 6 you listed fit the definition of many

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/many.

Just because some factions are doing poorly doesn’t mean marines are OP or game breaking…

 vict0988 wrote:
How are you going to get an objective definition of which games are and aren't trash? By listening to me

That's subjective, not objective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
realistically blast rule should have like exploding 6s at half S

That would murder Characters and super small squads. It should be some sort of Hits per Model ratio


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If someone would have suggested 6 months ago that you could make the changes they did and it would come out "okay-ish" I probably would have thought it was pretty foolish.

Meh, we already looked at it, probably about 6 months ago. I asked how Power Level worked out differently - Powerlevel already gives them free upgrades - and does it everywhere. The gist of the responses is that it doesn't change much. Units that weren't worth it before rarely become worth it. When the first thing I looked at for "abuse" didnt' even have "free upgrades everywhere" I knew this was going to be tame even if the complaints department was not.

If only there was a way to make the blast rule care about the space a collection of models takes up on the table, rather than things like the administrative organization of the men on the other end of the gun.

You could call them "blast guides" or "blast frames" or something. Blast areas? Hmm.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If only there was a way to make the blast rule care about the space a collection of models takes up on the table, rather than things like the administrative organization of the men on the other end of the gun.

You could call them "blast guides" or "blast frames" or something. Blast areas? Hmm.

wait you’re saying big explosions kill people? Ya don’t say?!?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If only there was a way to make the blast rule care about the space a collection of models takes up on the table, rather than things like the administrative organization of the men on the other end of the gun.

You could call them "blast guides" or "blast frames" or something. Blast areas? Hmm.

And go back to counting the millimeters between each model? Pass.

GW could make the "blast frames" deadly. so the mm don't matter, if is under or touched by it you get hit. and they could make them out of transparent plastic.
Would make placements of models more important too. no more 9 small vehicles clumped behind a single terrain.

Karol wrote:
GW could make the "blast frames" deadly. so the mm don't matter, if is under or touched by it you get hit. and they could make them out of transparent plastic.
Would make placements of models more important too. no more 9 small vehicles clumped behind a single terrain.

That's pretty much how Blast Templates used to work (and still do in 30k), Karol.

I didn't know that. HH did become oddly popular where I live now, but my gaming/forum time as a first year student got drasticly cut. Good to know that it isn't an idea GW would have to invent from nothing though.

If all else fail then just do flat auto damage based on number of models in opposing unit and the size of the gun. small mortart 3 hits per 5 dudes, regular one 5 per 5. heavy mortar 7 per 5, and then some apocalyptic titant mortar weapon could do 7 per 5 too, but would do splash damage of 5 per 5 to all unit within lets say 3". Such a rule could also represent some sort of fragmentation or multi missile type of weapon. 5 man unit of marines gets hit by rockets the size of two of the squad members, the other squad siting next to it, behind a wall, is going to get hit too.

The age old problem with how template markers used to work, is, that not putting every model of a unit at max coherency of 2" apart from each other can and will severly punish the unit.

1. While it makes positioning matter more, it drags down the game everytime models are moved. Not everybody is using 3 dudes Primaris squads, there are 30 Ork Boyz out there as well.

2. The effectiveness of template weapons vary wildly based on how much both players can be bothered to put up with the 2" coherency. How do you cost them? The weapon could hit everything from a single model up to ~8 models who just came down from deep strike.

3. Templates used to scatter which is a whole different can of worms when two people tried to follow a small arrow for direction where the template would land.

a_typical_hero wrote:
The age old problem with how template markers used to work, is, that not putting every model of a unit at max coherency of 2" apart from each other can and will severly punish the unit.

1. While it makes positioning matter more, it drags down the game everytime models are moved. Not everybody is using 3 dudes Primaris squads, there are 30 Ork Boyz out there as well.

2. The effectiveness of template weapons vary wildly based on how much both players can be bothered to put up with the 2" coherency. How do you cost them? The weapon could hit everything from a single model up to ~8 models who just came down from deep strike.

3. Templates used to scatter which is a whole different can of worms when two people tried to follow a small arrow for direction where the template would land.

Caused more disagreements that need to be stopped with the obligatory whippy sticks.

Indeed these people who were getting into such arguments over these things, they are children cranky because it is past bed time, yes?

I mean saving time I can see the reasoning behind even if I'd prefer more impactful rules but to prevent arguments? Never saw it in the wild plus anyone in a mood to grumble over such a thing will find something to do so over anyway.

Just remove blast, give a fixed number of attacks to all d3/d6 shot weapons and balance accordingly.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Overall I think it's the mission system that underpins all of this. GSC is probably mediocre without their pretty strong objectives. Same thing with Codex Warfare. I'm not sure about Ynnari since I haven't played them recently.

Yeah. It does feel like GW have managed to get the "mathhammer per points" near enough that combined with varied objective game most factions are capable. You can't just bludgeon someone down with superior probability.

"Skill/knowledge of the game" is therefore probably a bigger determinant of success than list building than at almost any point in 40k's history.

I think some secondaries which are "15 points if things go average, 12 if they go completely wrong", are a bit good. But equally, without a major reform of the whole system, I'm not sure how you'd change it. Since the start of the edition its been unclear how many points you should "expect" to get.

It might be interesting to see a few tournaments with no faction secondaries - but I can't see that ever happening.

In lieu of templates just make every weapon that would have "blast" or "large blast" a variable amount of hits based on the models in the unit to a maximum amount equal to what the old templates could hit at max coherency spacing.

For example, if the old 3" template could cover 4 models at max spacing and optimal scatter, then those weapons would be "This weapon makes a number of hit rolls equal to the number of models in the target unit to a maximum of 4."

Now it doesn't solve all the equivalencies that blast templates use, since the scatter roll was the substitute for a hit roll, but it would be easier to balance these weapons when they have a more consistent number of shots as opposed to d6 or whatever.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Karol wrote:
GW could make the "blast frames" deadly. so the mm don't matter, if is under or touched by it you get hit. and they could make them out of transparent plastic.
Would make placements of models more important too. no more 9 small vehicles clumped behind a single terrain.

That's pretty much how Blast Templates used to work (and still do in 30k), Karol.

Of course, 30k nerfed most template weapons to the point we had a few threads of militia players complaining their tanks and battle cannons were useless, so YMMV.

Dai wrote:
Indeed these people who were getting into such arguments over these things, they are children cranky because it is past bed time, yes?

I mean saving time I can see the reasoning behind even if I'd prefer more impactful rules but to prevent arguments? Never saw it in the wild plus anyone in a mood to grumble over such a thing will find something to do so over anyway.

In the tournament scene I can imagine the insecure manbabies arguing over it because if they can’t win at toy soldiers then they have nothing going on in life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
In lieu of templates just make every weapon that would have "blast" or "large blast" a variable amount of hits based on the models in the unit to a maximum amount equal to what the old templates could hit at max coherency spacing.

For example, if the old 3" template could cover 4 models at max spacing and optimal scatter, then those weapons would be "This weapon makes a number of hit rolls equal to the number of models in the target unit to a maximum of 4."

Now it doesn't solve all the equivalencies that blast templates use, since the scatter roll was the substitute for a hit roll, but it would be easier to balance these weapons when they have a more consistent number of shots as opposed to d6 or whatever.

The problem with this is, that getting hit by a tank round is going to be a much higher S and AP hit than the explosion from an HE tank shell.

Number of shots at a profile’s full strength should represent RoF. The blast effect should be a secondary profile that can then be a number of extra hits at a reduced profile based on number of models in a unit.

So a Hvy1 S9 AP-3 D4 blast weapon imho should have a blast profile
Blast S5 AP-1 D1

Or Hvy2 S7 AP-1 D2 blast weapon
Blast S4 AP0 D1

 Tyran wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Karol wrote:
GW could make the "blast frames" deadly. so the mm don't matter, if is under or touched by it you get hit. and they could make them out of transparent plastic.
Would make placements of models more important too. no more 9 small vehicles clumped behind a single terrain.

That's pretty much how Blast Templates used to work (and still do in 30k), Karol.

Of course, 30k nerfed most template weapons to the point we had a few threads of militia players complaining their tanks and battle cannons were useless, so YMMV.

It really depends upon the template though. BC/ ES/ Medusa/ Demolishers all got a kick, in some cases severe.
Phosphex and quad launchers have been simplified and contained.

Of these i say most have been justified. Beyond the bc/ medusa and Earthshaker. Which all should've gotten a breaching on 4+ like the scorpious. (or atleast 5+ and a 5"template for the BC)

Overall though the nerf to artillery was justified considering what Phosphex did to HH1.0

Any weapon that does more or less damage based on the size of the targeted unit is hilariously bad game design.

"Sir, 30 guardsmen are rushing our position, shoulder to shoulder with bayonets fixed!"
"Don't worry, Acolyte, open fire with the mortars!"
"But sir, they're in six units of five"
"WHAT? Foiled again, you dastardly Imperials! CREEEEEEEED!"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Any weapon that does more or less damage based on the size of the targeted unit is hilariously bad game design.

So any weapon with more than one shot?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Any weapon that does more or less damage based on the size of the targeted unit is hilariously bad game design.

"Sir, 30 guardsmen are rushing our position, shoulder to shoulder with bayonets fixed!"
"Don't worry, Acolyte, open fire with the mortars!"
"But sir, they're in six units of five"
"WHAT? Foiled again, you dastardly Imperials! CREEEEEEEED!"

Not like the small blasts would've hit more than currently unless you were intentionally squishing models together.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Any weapon that does more or less damage based on the size of the targeted unit is hilariously bad game design.

"Sir, 30 guardsmen are rushing our position, shoulder to shoulder with bayonets fixed!"
"Don't worry, Acolyte, open fire with the mortars!"
"But sir, they're in six units of five"
"WHAT? Foiled again, you dastardly Imperials! CREEEEEEEED!"

A narrative sensibility and good rules are not always the same thing. That blast doesnt affect nearby units doesn't automatically make it a bad design.

Perhaps. But in this case it absolutely does.

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-win-rates-are-great-data-points-to-look-at-theyre-definitely-not-enough/

There you go, Marines are basically either over performing or still complete turd even with 400 "free" points. They are both.

Still patiently waiting for torrent melta flamers!

Moorecox wrote:
Still patiently waiting for torrent melta flamers!

...huh?

+ + +

OK, I've gotten through ten of the events on Daed's list, so with a bit of luck I should get the remaining 3 done tomorrow - though those are the largest. Definitely some interesting snapshots in there, though I've yet to see what the overall performance is looking like.

Given three of the events were below 33 players, I've looked at those from a top 4 perspective rather than a top 8.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Any weapon that does more or less damage based on the size of the targeted unit is hilariously bad game design.

"Sir, 30 guardsmen are rushing our position, shoulder to shoulder with bayonets fixed!"
"Don't worry, Acolyte, open fire with the mortars!"
"But sir, they're in six units of five"
"WHAT? Foiled again, you dastardly Imperials! CREEEEEEEED!"

Not like the small blasts would've hit more than currently unless you were intentionally squishing models together.

Unless staying in cover was a factor, or needing to have the unit wholly within an aura, or there was a tank shock, or...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Any weapon that does more or less damage based on the size of the targeted unit is hilariously bad game design.

"Sir, 30 guardsmen are rushing our position, shoulder to shoulder with bayonets fixed!"
"Don't worry, Acolyte, open fire with the mortars!"
"But sir, they're in six units of five"
"WHAT? Foiled again, you dastardly Imperials! CREEEEEEEED!"

Not like the small blasts would've hit more than currently unless you were intentionally squishing models together.

Unless staying in cover was a factor, or needing to have the unit wholly within an aura, or there was a tank shock, or...

Or the template simply scatters and misses in all your scenarios, or barrage weapons ignored cover iirc, 6/7th didn't have any wholly within specific auras if I remember either and tank shock was rarely used, often resulting in death to the vehicles more than not. I mean you'd need 2 vehicles to smush them tightly, you're then likely to hit your own vehicles and that's assuming the unit you want to fire at is conveniently stood in the open with an area big enough for 2 vehicles to fit either side.

Templates are/were monumental crap.

Yeah, maybe we were just angry young people back in the day, but the idea that you've never had disputes over templates is incredibly alien to me. Its easy to just shrug when it doesn't matter, but when one player is losing, arguing whether a model or two is 1mm or in or out - because the little arrow is this number of degrees that way - suddenly is a matter of life and death.

Its the same as people who say they never had arguments over whether something was in line of sight, whether antenna or banners etc meant you could shoot something with full effect etc. If that was the case great. In my case again, lots of people were very clear on the rules until they were losing, and then suddenly it was full RAW vs RAI arguments (often pushing whatever version happened to be beneficial at the time.)

As far as I can see the issue with a proposed "X hits up to a cap per models in the unit" is you get weird results shooting 1 model units like tanks and monsters. Obviously back in the day that's how it worked - but vehicles effectively had 1 wound, and then sort of 1 wound backed by hull points from 6th. Now they have lots of wounds. Having say a battle cannon just be a worse lascannon into a tank isn't really good design. Saying "its effectively 6 slightly worse lascannons stuck together" may not fit your fluff - but its a lot easier to balance in game.

Get rid of blast, make it so guns that are meant to be anti-horde have the stats to be anti-horde (i.e. lots of say S3 AP- 1 damage shots), and guns which are anti-big can have the stats to be anti-big (i.e. a few high S/AP/damage shots).

Dudeface wrote:
Templates are/were excellent.

Fixed that for ya.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Templates are/were excellent.

Fixed that for ya.

Your mileage may vary, but it was an extra thing to remember to take to a game, drop on minis, get into debates over and resulted in almost obligatory 2" movement trays for everyone. Crap design.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Templates are/were excellent.

Fixed that for ya.

Great in a vacuum, terrible in practice. It slows down the game so much when everyone sits there places their minis exactly 1.9999" apart to stay in coherency but not be vulnerable to blasts.

It's fine when you're running very small units but god forbid anyone turn up with a unit with more than 10 models in it. Imagine no one wanting to play against you just because you're forced to slow the game down so much so you don't auto lose to a blast template.