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.
The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.
Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.
This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.
Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.
This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.
Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.
This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.
Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.
This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.
And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense.
ERJAK wrote: The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.
Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.
This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.
Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.
This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.
Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.
This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.
Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.
This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.
And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense.
The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.
Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.
This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.
Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.
This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.
Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.
This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.
Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.
This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.
And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense
.
ERJAK made a great post!!!
100% on the money.
Defining terms is always the most important part of engaging in reasoned discussion. Several posts in the thread are eyeroll inducing if you define the term 'balance' one way, but insightful and spot-on if you assume a different interpretation.
The first thing we need to decide to continue a thread like this is:
What do we mean when we say "Balance".
ERJAK wrote: The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.
Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.
This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.
Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.
This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.
Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.
This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.
Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.
This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.
And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense.
I concur. The only thing more we can ask for is that competitively viable list don't involve completely ignoring the faction as GW presents it.
Balance should mean that all armies are capable of beating any other army given the variable of the players ability to build a competitive army list against their opponent. Each army should provide the option for various styles of play each with equal opportunity for effectiveness considering the variable of the opponent’s army list. No one army should have a unit/rule/doctrine that if overly advantageous regardless of the variable of the opponents army or player skill. All units should have a place in a competitive army list. All armies should have equal amount of choice for list building and strategy.
I'd say if the majority of games go the full duration, and in most of those cases the actual winner isn't clear until the dust settles its likely not too bad as balance goes
when the game is over at the end of the list building phase you have a problem
leopard wrote: I'd say if the majority of games go the full duration, and in most of those cases the actual winner isn't clear until the dust settles its likely not too bad as balance goes
when the game is over at the end of the list building phase you have a problem
Yeah I think when you think about what is balance you have to describe what imbalances looks like. I’ve never played tournaments but from what I have read the armies at the top and bottom of the tournament rankings is a result of the rules meta and only influenced by players and random dice rolls
ERJAK wrote: The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.
Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.
This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.
Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.
This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.
Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.
This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.
Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.
This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.
And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense.
I concur. The only thing more we can ask for is that competitively viable list don't involve completely ignoring the faction as GW presents it.
I’d add to that list My Codex doesn’t limit me to one of a handful of builds.
Consider the Eldar. Traditionally, every edition they’ve absolutely had a power build. But typically, those were the result of spamming a handful of units, with everything else being ignored.
Now exactly how superior those power builds were to “just take what you like and see how you get on” lists i for one couldn’t tell you. But the fact remains that those wanting to field Eldar in a competitive environment were more limited in choice compared to other armies. That the resulting lists were super nasty is of little comfort.
Compare to the current Necron Codex. Now, I gather the end result of that Codex isn’t great, and it’s definitely showing its heritage as one of the first out the gate for 9th. But…internally? There are few truly stand out, must have units, and really it’s just the Hexmark Destroyer which isn’t quite the full shilling.
I’d prefer things to be closer to the Necron Codex. Because when most Codexes can produce decent enough army lists with the majority of its contents, you’re more likely to see greater variety on the board. That in turn really muddies the meta, as What Am I Likely To Face becomes less predictable. Which means you may see fewer Stacked Lists trying to take advantage of the meta.
At least, y’know, that’s the theory!
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
My thoughts on the subject, which I don't think should be too contentious, are:
- Every codex should contain the tools to deal with any other codex, there should be no scissors-paper-stone type match-ups between factions
- A well-built TAC list from every codex should have around a 45-55% chance of winning against a similar TAC list from every other codex.
- A fluffy list should be at least vaguely competitive - codexes should work at least reasonably well when played in line with faction lore.
- List building should still matter - a well-designed army should be able to beat a random collection of units. However assuming similar well-built armies, player skill should make the difference.
- Within each codex, there should be no worthless options (e.g. the pyrovore back when). Each unit, and each unit option, should be at least situationally useful. Otherwise why have it?
I see no particular harm if Codex A has to work harder against Codex B, because it’s just a natural counter. For instance, Dark Eldar and their poisonous basic weapons don’t phase Knights, so the DE player has more to do, because their army just isn’t gonna be as effective as normal.
The problem is when you’re Codex Imperial Knights in 7th Ed, where if sprung on your opponent may seem them simply not having enough weapons capable of harming your Knights.
Each army having its own weakness which another might be able to particularly capitalise on isn’t undesirable, provided it’s not a universal weakness everyone else can freely exploit.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
On the other hand, DE can also bring a lot of blasters and dark lances... They do have the tools available.
My concern is for new players, or people who only play in a limited group or even with just one regular opponent. If your army is the paper to your mates scissors, that's not much fun.
An imbalanced game is fine as long as player skill can make up the shortfall of playing a lesser army. Knowing how to use underpowered units well should raise them above the level they seem just by raw stats can balance things out. Unfortunately 40k (currently) doesn't really have that option because there is so little player agency in the game to leverage possible ways that units could interact. The gaunt special rule that lets them move reactively gives me a bit of hope though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/27 12:30:07
Sim-Life wrote: An imbalanced game is fine as long as player skill can make up the shortfall of playing a lesser army. Knowing how to use underpowered units well should raise them above the level they seem just by raw stats can balance things out. Unfortunately 40k (currently) doesn't really have that option because there is so little player agency in the game to leverage possible ways that units could interact. The gaunt special rule that lets them move reactively gives me a bit of hope though.
Worse, victory can go to those who can rapidly get their head round Stratagems, which in their own way limit army choice. Not just generating Command Points, but ensuring your army and certain stratagems gel together.
Which is what put me off 8th and 9th Ed. I’d get my Codex, trying writing an army list, then look at the Stratagems and realise my force just isn’t going to work that well, especially if my opponent was more on top of that.
Mostly I just want to deploy, shoot stuff, break some heads and nab some objectives. I don’t want the book keeping side so much.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Crispy78 wrote: On the other hand, DE can also bring a lot of blasters and dark lances... They do have the tools available.
My concern is for new players, or people who only play in a limited group or even with just one regular opponent. If your army is the paper to your mates scissors, that's not much fun.
Milions times this. It is one thing for a player with 4 or more armies and collections ranging in thousands of points. It is another when 4 dude play and one builds his DE way GW shows it should be build, another builds a Harlaquin army out of the stuff that exists for them, and then there is one dude who picked marines and one who likes playing beastsnaggas orks. There is absolutly nothing the new DE and Harlequin players can do to help the marine players have fun, besides playing bad or letting them win. And I don't think many people consider, being allowed to win, a fun thing in the first place. Especialy if they notice it being done.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
The problem with codexes having weaknesses is that its often code for "bad units". If you have a "bad shooting unit" in your codex, you aren't then encouraged to take it to balance out your "good assault unit". You just take two good assault units. You are now in a better spot than someone with a good assault unit and a bad shooting unit (or worse, two bad shooting units).
A faction will tend to be "good" if you can max out (2k points being standard) on the good units without having to compromise with the bad. This can happen because there's either enough there, or because every unit in the book is the excellent at what it does.
Which is why ERJAK says its more possible for every faction to have a viable list than every unit be viable. (I sort of agree - but think if you can get most units "close enough", you'll have more competitive units and in turn more competitive archetype builds for all the factions.)
It might be possible to create a ruleset that really favours having a bit of everything - by somehow making units become less effective when you spam them. I.E. "a bad shooting unit" might still somehow be better than the third "good assault unit" which has become "a really bad assault unit" because its the third one. I think Exarch abilities could sort of do this if more widely available across 40k. But then I know a lot of people don't enjoy or want to play soft highlander lists. Its also a bit boring if everyone's armies from a given faction are compelled to look the same since they don't enjoy massive rosters.
It might be possible to create a ruleset that really favours having a bit of everything - by somehow making units become less effective when you spam them. I.E. "a bad shooting unit" might still somehow be better than the third "good assault unit" which has become "a really bad assault unit" because its the third one. I think Exarch abilities could sort of do this if more widely available across 40k. But then I know a lot of people don't enjoy or want to play soft highlander lists. Its also a bit boring if everyone's armies from a given faction are compelled to look the same since they don't enjoy massive rosters.
Current (and ill assume future 10e+) 40k has too many nonsense rules already, thank you very much.
ERJAK wrote: The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.
Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.
This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.
Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.
This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.
Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.
This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.
Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.
This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.
And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense.
My definition of balance is: Decisions made on the tabletop are more important than decisions made before the game.
That might sound wishy-washy but it's more of a useful heuristic. If the game plays itself and listbuilding is paramount, you need the balance between factions and units to be really good to have anything other than a solved game. If the actual gameplay can make bad units overperform and good units underperform depending on how they're used- or better yet, make it difficult to evaluate whether a unit is 'good' or 'bad' because utility and power are situational rather than something you can blandly express in average % returns- then having all units and armies at the exact same power level is less critical to a fun experience.
A balanced game is one where two players of comparable skill can put down competently designed armies and have an enjoyable game on a roughly level playing field, without having to have a pre-game conversation about 'how competitive' their lists are or having to analyze the codex to recognize trap options and must-haves.
Tyel wrote: The problem with codexes having weaknesses is that its often code for "bad units". If you have a "bad shooting unit" in your codex, you aren't then encouraged to take it to balance out your "good assault unit". You just take two good assault units. You are now in a better spot than someone with a good assault unit and a bad shooting unit (or worse, two bad shooting units).
A faction will tend to be "good" if you can max out (2k points being standard) on the good units without having to compromise with the bad. This can happen because there's either enough there, or because every unit in the book is the excellent at what it does.
The wrong way to make Tau bad at melee is to make Kroot a melee-only option that sucks.
The right way to make Tau bad at melee is to make Kroot a hybrid melee/shooting unit, so that even if they're worth the points, you can't make a melee Tau army by just spamming Kroot. The army on the whole then lacks the capability to specialize into melee, rather than making the units with that capability bad.
But more importanty, a ruleset that wants armies to have weaknesses should not be designed such that min-maxing into their strengths is a viable strategy. Ideally, you'd want hard counters, so that going all-in on shooting leaves you cripplingly vulnerable to... deep striking melee, or something. If taking all-shooting meant you were likely to lose to a more well-rounded list that contains that hard-counter to your gimmick, then maybe you'd want to take some Kroot to round out your own capabilities, rather than just spending those points on more gunline units.
You might then look at your codex and say 'huh, no dedicated melee units, that's a problem' instead of 'huh, no dedicated melee units, but I can field three Hammerheads so who cares'.
Making units get progressively the worse the more you take of them is looking at the issue from the wrong end, I think- instead of making spam less effective, the game ought to address the reasons why spam is valuable in the first place. In any case, we are seeing a hint of what you describe with the Weirdboy rules in 10th only allowing a single unit to Da Jump every turn, so there will be diminishing returns to taking multiples of the same unit if only one can use a key ability at a time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/28 14:05:06
catbarf wrote: But more importanty, a ruleset that wants armies to have weaknesses should not be designed such that min-maxing into their strengths is a viable strategy. Ideally, you'd want hard counters, so that going all-in on shooting leaves you cripplingly vulnerable to... deep striking melee, or something.
Looking back at the "muh 2+ cover for Marines" argument in the other thread, I don't know how popular this would be. I mean, I'm all in for the idea, but imagine a guy who gets mad just because his boltguns are soft-countered by cover being forced to play with actual hard-counters... the meltdown would be unreal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/29 09:40:25
We've already seen balanced 10th is simplified balance. But now gambits exist. You losing? Okay reveal this card roll 2d6 on a 12+ score 30 vp. My current pick for first nerf.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/29 13:44:10
catbarf wrote: But more importanty, a ruleset that wants armies to have weaknesses should not be designed such that min-maxing into their strengths is a viable strategy. Ideally, you'd want hard counters, so that going all-in on shooting leaves you cripplingly vulnerable to... deep striking melee, or something.
Looking back at the "muh 2+ cover for Marines" argument in the other thread, I don't know how popular this would be. I mean, I'm all in for the idea, but imagine a guy who gets mad just because his boltguns are soft-countered by cover being forced to play with actual hard-counters... the meltdown would be unreal.
Marines are good for being (hypothetically) a good jack of all trades army. Someone is camping out in cover making your shooting less effective? Pull out the combat knives and go in after them. It’s not like they are Tau, where if the shooting doesn’t work your next best option is to curl up and die.
Marnies have always had a good toolbox to deal with problems. The question is always what’s be best place to get them into your list, and how required they are.
Marines are not a point efficient army enough to be an efficient "jack of all trades" army. Historicaly all good marine armies take one aspect of something it can take, and then spams its. 15 infilatrating centurion. Spaming dreadnoughts, Combining running multiple units of Sang. Guard and DC, running bricks of DW termintors.
I can't remember a single efficient marine army run in 8th or 9th, that was build around running 2 regular unit of intercessors 2 of melee intercessors, 2 units of support. 2 tanks etc.
If marines face a mechanic that puts them at a disadvantage, then when combined with armies generaly getting a ton of marine killing weapons, ends real bad for non focused marine armies.
Looking back at the "muh 2+ cover for Marines" argument in the other thread, I don't know how popular this would be. I mean, I'm all in for the idea, but imagine a guy who gets mad just because his boltguns are soft-countered by cover being forced to play with actual hard-counters... the meltdown would be unreal.
Imagine your army was designed by GW to use storm bolters. And there are no efficient replacment weapons to use against tanks, vehicles etc save maybe for melee weapons. I think you can imagine that someone playing such a bolter focused army, which unlike primaris weapons didn't get changed in 10th it seems, could make someone rather unhappy. Sprinkle change and changes to core mechanics of such an army on top of it, even more and I think you could imagine a certain high level of unhappiness. Besides we already had marines in cover with +2cover saves and AoC, and the only units that could really efficiently use it were those like Sang Guard with their build in basic +2 save.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/29 14:19:35
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Karol wrote: Marines are not a point efficient army enough to be an efficient "jack of all trades" army. Historicaly all good marine armies take one aspect of something it can take, and then spams its. 15 infilatrating centurion. Spaming dreadnoughts, Combining running multiple units of Sang. Guard and DC, running bricks of DW termintors.
I can't remember a single efficient marine army run in 8th or 9th, that was build around running 2 regular unit of intercessors 2 of melee intercessors, 2 units of support. 2 tanks etc.
If marines face a mechanic that puts them at a disadvantage, then when combined with armies generaly getting a ton of marine killing weapons, ends real bad for non focused marine armies.
That’s an issue with competitive play.
Marines can be effective in a lot of roles, but are not generally efficient. So when you are pushing the bleeding edge of competitiveness, you gravitate towards highly efficient specialized units, and exploit their advantages. You don’t see TAC lists. You get people focusing on what they do best, bludgeoning their opponent with it, and hope they don’t run across a hard counter. “Normal” marine lists don’t do well here, as they pay a lot for flexibility that they generally can’t leverage.
But once you take a step back from that edge, TAC marine lists do fine at the local level.
Your Milage May Vary. Some FLGS are still very competitive.
Marines can be effective in a lot of roles, but are not generally efficient. So when you are pushing the bleeding edge of competitiveness, you gravitate towards highly efficient specialized units, and exploit their advantages. You don’t see TAC lists. You get people focusing on what they do best, bludgeoning their opponent with it, and hope they don’t run across a hard counter. “Normal” marine lists don’t do well here, as they pay a lot for flexibility that they generally can’t leverage.
I think it's pretty much if GW wrote the point buy rules for D&D 3rd edition, they think an 18 in one stat is the same as two 14s in two stats. Which they just aren't. Having a broad base is nice, but it's not going to be as good as a focused one. Especially when a party (a 40k army) can have most of its bases covered with various specialists. Compared to a party of a bunch of generalists/weaker specialists.
It's just so much easier to leverage all the power out of a specialist compared to trying to leverage all the utility out of a generalist during any given game. So the generalist is generally over costed for what they get you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/29 15:33:55
What about say the go-wide Space Wolf lists that have been showing up? Skewed perhaps because they often dodge troops entirely, but that's Arks of Omen for you.
I.E.
Spoiler:
++ Arks of Omen Detachment (Imperium – Adeptus Astartes – Space Wolves) [112 PL, 1,999pts, ] ++
+ Configuration +
**Chapter Selector**: Born Heroes , Custom Chapter, Space Wolves Successor, Whirlwind of Rage
Arks of Omen Compulsory Type: Elites
Game Type: 5. Chapter Approved: Arks of Omen
+ HQ +
Captain on Bike [8 PL, 135pts, -4CP]: Chapter Command: Chapter Master, Combi-melta, Hunter, Power fist, Rites of War, Stratagem: A Trophy Bestowed, Stratagem: Relic, Stratagem: Warlord Trait, Stratagem: Warrior of Legend, The Armour of Russ, Warlord
Primaris Chaplain on Bike [8 PL, 135pts, -1CP]: 2. Catechism of Fire, 5. Recitation of Focus, Chapter Command: Master of Sanctity, Litany of Hate (Aura), Stratagem: Hero of the Chapter, Wise Orator
Primaris Lieutenant [5 PL, 65pts]
. Neo-volkite pistol, Master-crafted power sword and Storm Shield
+ Elites +
Wolf Guard [7 PL, 142pts]: Jump Pack
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Lightning Claw, Storm shield
. Wolf Guard Pack Leader: Combi-melta, Thunder hammer
Wolf Guard [7 PL, 142pts]: Jump Pack
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Lightning Claw, Storm shield
. Wolf Guard Pack Leader: Combi-melta, Thunder hammer
Wolf Guard [7 PL, 137pts]: Jump Pack
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard: Combi-melta, Lightning Claw
. Wolf Guard Pack Leader: Combi-melta, Thunder hammer
Long Fangs [9 PL, 149pts]: Armorium Cherub
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang Pack Leader: Grav-gun, Power fist
. Wolf Guard Terminator Pack Leader: Cyclone missile launcher, Storm shield, Thunder hammer
Long Fangs [9 PL, 149pts]: Armorium Cherub
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang: Grav-cannon
. Long Fang Pack Leader: Grav-gun, Power fist
. Wolf Guard Terminator Pack Leader: Cyclone missile launcher, Storm shield, Thunder hammer
++ Total: [112 PL, 1,999pts] ++
There isn't really anything wrong with TAC lists. And a lot of good units tend to be good precisely because they are effective into most things.
But yes, GW have often been kidding themselves and others by claiming say a tactical squad is "a good generalist" because it's got a missile launcher. In practice this is a unit which puts out a modest amount of S4 AP- attacks. Its okay into GEQ, and not much use into anything further up the food chain. But we can know that and ignore it.
Not gonna lie, I've never played 2-4th but this 10th is by everything I'm reading, shaping up to be a re-vamped version of 2-3.5? I don't see 10th fixing all the foundational issues at GW that make this game a dumb mess. Rules team writers devoid of english writing education, game testers making "feels cool" more important than actually "plays correctly". A money focused mindset that puts player engagement behind player money engagement.
This is literally what WoTC were trying to achieve with DND:Next.
10th will be a giant bag of crap to older 40k players, and it will be fresh and exiting to the players who joined in 9th.
I pity the folks who just hang out for the lore. They're doomed.
At least get some games under your belt before you declare the sky is falling.
It wouldn't be Dakka if people didn't start hating on stuff long before it's actually released.
My armies (re-counted and updated on 11/7/24, including modeled wargear options):
Dark Angels: ~16000 Astra Militarum: ~1200 | Imperial Knights: ~2300 | Leagues of Votann: ~1300 | Tyranids: ~3400 | Stormcast Eternals: ~5000 | Kruleboyz: ~3500 | Lumineth Realm-Lords: ~700
Check out my P&M Blogs: ZergSmasher's P&M Blog | Imperial Knights blog | Board Games blog | Total models painted in 2024: 40 | Total models painted in 2025: 23 | Current main painting project: Tomb Kings
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You need your bumps felt. With a patented, Grotsnik Corp Bump Feelerer 9,000.
The Grotsnik Corp Bump Feelerer 9,000. It only looks like several bricks crudely gaffer taped to a cricket bat.
Grotsnik Corp. Sorry, No Refunds.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Not gonna lie, I've never played 2-4th but this 10th is by everything I'm reading, shaping up to be a re-vamped version of 2-3.5? I don't see 10th fixing all the foundational issues at GW that make this game a dumb mess. Rules team writers devoid of english writing education, game testers making "feels cool" more important than actually "plays correctly". A money focused mindset that puts player engagement behind player money engagement.
This is literally what WoTC were trying to achieve with DND:Next.
10th will be a giant bag of crap to older 40k players, and it will be fresh and exiting to the players who joined in 9th.
I pity the folks who just hang out for the lore. They're doomed.
3 was awful and it was mostly a statline reconfig that failed miserably - I see more of 5th or 6th here - they've all kind of melded together after all this time, but I mean the one with the Demi Companies - and two Demicompanies making a full company and getting free transport stuff. I'm not saying its going to go that far that way - but instead that (almost) everything is based on your Top Level Detachment. I wouldn't be surprised to see them also have the top-Det contain Sub-Dets that can be satisfied by 0/1-X of a list of units. Captain OR Chaplain. May also include Libbies etc.
dominuschao wrote: We've already seen balanced 10th is simplified balance. But now gambits exist. You losing? Okay reveal this card roll 2d6 on a 12+ score 30 vp. My current pick for first nerf.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Not gonna lie, I've never played 2-4th but this 10th is by everything I'm reading, shaping up to be a re-vamped version of 2-3.5? I don't see 10th fixing all the foundational issues at GW that make this game a dumb mess. Rules team writers devoid of english writing education, game testers making "feels cool" more important than actually "plays correctly". A money focused mindset that puts player engagement behind player money engagement.
This is literally what WoTC were trying to achieve with DND:Next.
10th will be a giant bag of crap to older 40k players, and it will be fresh and exiting to the players who joined in 9th.
I pity the folks who just hang out for the lore. They're doomed.
3 was awful and it was mostly a statline reconfig that failed miserably - I see more of 5th or 6th here - they've all kind of melded together after all this time, but I mean the one with the Demi Companies - and two Demicompanies making a full company and getting free transport stuff. I'm not saying its going to go that far that way - but instead that (almost) everything is based on your Top Level Detachment. I wouldn't be surprised to see them also have the top-Det contain Sub-Dets that can be satisfied by 0/1-X of a list of units. Captain OR Chaplain. May also include Libbies etc.
If you can't differentiate 5th from 7th, perhaps it's time not to try to describe 3rd either...
14000 points 
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
Competition Index
~16000 Astra Militarum: 
~1200 | Imperial Knights: 
~2300 | Leagues of Votann: 
~1300 | Tyranids: 
~3500 | Lumineth Realm-Lords: 
~700