|
Giant Isopod posted:Question for people who primarily play with PL - do you find that it dramatically changes how your armies are structured? I tried playing a game based on power level for the first time last week and found that it strongly disincentivizes squads of six (which is like 50% of my army), but incentivizes special weapon choice on everything. Which isn't really a problem, per se, but it certainly made me pick different options. You aren't supposed to game it or max squad death company would crush everything
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:The saltiest article. I agree the tone isn't particularly helpful and the writer comes off as a bit of a pillock. But he's not wrong? 40k has always had these issues, but we are in a fairly absurd period where a couple key characters and chaff units are disproportionately common in 'competitive' armies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:Question for people who primarily play with PL - do you find that it dramatically changes how your armies are structured? I tried playing a game based on power level for the first time last week and found that it strongly disincentivizes squads of six (which is like 50% of my army), but incentivizes special weapon choice on everything. Which isn't really a problem, per se, but it certainly made me pick different options. My local group started using it for a campaign and it's really nice in a casual game setting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:The saltiest article. Reading that site on my phone caused a pop-up to hijack my browser and claim I had a virus. gently caress those assholes and their scummy ad service.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:I agree the tone isn't particularly helpful and the writer comes off as a bit of a pillock. But he's not wrong? 40k has always had these issues, but we are in a fairly absurd period where a couple key characters and chaff units are disproportionately common in 'competitive' armies. His argument seems to be that competitive 40k is dominated by a small subset of the most efficient and powerful units, and that armies need to either use those units or specifically be built to handle those units to win. Which, yes, is true, and has been true of almost every edition of every game ever? People will take the best units, in as large numbers as they are allowed, and metas exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
I can't believe in 2017 we're having this conversation again. Premise: 1. Yes, perfect balance is impossible. 2. Yes, some lists will always be stronger inherently. 3. Yes, you will do well if you spot the above, and build to kill that meta. Neither of the above invalidates the desire to attempt to make multiple viable lists, especially ones that match the description of the armies in the background. None of the above invalidates the perfectly reasonable criticism that 'play to win' 8th Edition does not reward aiming to make 'thematically accurate' armies. The guy has been an arse in tone, but he's not wrong. And the onus is on GW primarily, with players & organisers a distant second to aim to counteract it. They've shown a very strong start with 8th, but nowhere near enough, and probably not quick enough, either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
I was looking at centurions because I read the iron hands use a lot: Why does a centurion with 2 lascannons and a missile launcher cost more than a dreadnought with twin lascannon and a missile launcher?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Shockeh posted:I can't believe in 2017 we're having this conversation again. There ARE multiple viable lists and multiple viable armies, though. That tournament was won by a pretty fluff-accurate Guard army. I haven't seen the top 8, but apart from Chaos being overrepresented, the meta isn't stale or stagnant. "Competitive play does not reward fluff accuracy" is only a criticism if you think it necessarily SHOULD reward that. We have multiple game modes, one solely dedicated to narrative play, even. Why does every style of play have to be all things to all people?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Major Spag posted:So I have the 2006 Emperor's fist Leman russ box (apocalypse version with 10 russes) that I have to sell (just have too many hams atm). Trying to sell locally has been a bust so I'm going to have to reach outwards. The website Bartertown is pretty good. It's based off a reference system for trading, but you can sell there as well. Facebook has a couple groups as well that I've had success with. The Barter Bucket is good and fairly large, as is the Warhammer 40k & Age of Sigmar Trade/Buy/Sell US/Can group. Whatever you're looking to sell it for, it should be at least 15% off retail, and probably more than that if you want it to sell. But start at 350 and go from there. Some folks may want the large box, but you'll probably get a few people asking you to split.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:Question for people who primarily play with PL - do you find that it dramatically changes how your armies are structured? I tried playing a game based on power level for the first time last week and found that it strongly disincentivizes squads of six (which is like 50% of my army), but incentivizes special weapon choice on everything. Which isn't really a problem, per se, but it certainly made me pick different options. I feel it works perfectly when you just want to chuck a list together and play friendly casual, but fairly balanced games. No one in my social group has a power gaming attitude so it suits us well. I suppose if you wanted to you could min max the hell out of it but anyone doing that will just use points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:Question for people who primarily play with PL - do you find that it dramatically changes how your armies are structured? I tried playing a game based on power level for the first time last week and found that it strongly disincentivizes squads of six (which is like 50% of my army), but incentivizes special weapon choice on everything. Which isn't really a problem, per se, but it certainly made me pick different options. It stops me from taking understrength squads, but for the most part we use it to make lists quickly and just run them WYSIWYG. I'm generally not trying to max out on special weapons so much as take what I've got, with whatever weapons they have. I'm not going to eschew an upgrade when it's available, but only if I already had the model for it. We aren't really looking to "game" the system by tricking out models with free upgrades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Naramyth posted:Ha. I can math good Compared to what? I mean you could go heavy in with Ultramarine Lascannons riding on Guilliman, but you aren't going to have the option to essentially deepstrike like you did with the Shadowsword. You could compare it to something like the Terminus Ultra riding with 8 Lascannons at 400 points. Without Guilliman rerolls it comes out to 7.76 dmg prior to rerolls, and a whopping 15.67 dmg with re-rolls against a raven. Still it is vulnerable to getting sniped Turn 1, but you could always bring it in a Supreme Command alongside Celestine, Culexus, and 2 throw away Acolytes. chutche2 posted:I was looking at centurions because I read the iron hands use a lot: Yeah, this is a huge problem with them. If Chapter Approved doesn't drop them they will remain useless. Appropriately priced they would be fantastic in a Ultramarine list. TheArmorOfContempt fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Nov 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:Question for people who primarily play with PL - do you find that it dramatically changes how your armies are structured? I tried playing a game based on power level for the first time last week and found that it strongly disincentivizes squads of six (which is like 50% of my army), but incentivizes special weapon choice on everything. Which isn't really a problem, per se, but it certainly made me pick different options. It really isn't that different. As you said, it incentivizes taking max squad sizes, but other than that 50, 75, and 100 PL almost exactly line up to 1000, 1500, and 2000 points for most armies. Because upgrades are free there is also less min-maxing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
There's a few break points. A units PL is based on the "average" or "most common" loudout, not the lowest one, so piling on options for most units doesn't make them unbalanced under PL. The places where it does are for units that have a huge disparity between min and max point cost - like the aforementioned Death Company or Vanguard Veterans. Named chars also tend to h ave higher PL compared to their points than a similarly equipped generic char, since they have no options.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
According to my mathhammer, a Shadowsword kills a Stormraven 40.2% of the time. Damage profile: Row 1: 25.8% Row 2: 21.2% Row 3: 12.8% Dead: 40.2% I figured the Shadowsword would kill it more often, since it's job is to vaporize one thing per turn. Comedic value: 8.2% of the time it will inflict 0 wounds. Edit: I forgot hard to hit. Fuckkkkkkk. dexefiend fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Nov 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Arven posted:It really isn't that different. As you said, it incentivizes taking max squad sizes, but other than that 50, 75, and 100 PL almost exactly line up to 1000, 1500, and 2000 points for most armies. Because upgrades are free there is also less min-maxing. I find that it's usually 60 PL = 1000 points but otherwise, yeah
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:There ARE multiple viable lists and multiple viable armies, though. That tournament was won by a pretty fluff-accurate Guard army. I haven't seen the top 8, but apart from Chaos being overrepresented, the meta isn't stale or stagnant. Why would we want multiple, mutually rule compatible games to exist? The Grail is I can play ANYONE, and it'll be a decent game of 40k. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a hill worth dying on - I'm just saying trying to make as many armies as possible viable (and especially those that match the fluff of the game) is an admirable goal for GW itself, both in terms of rewarding people for engaging with said fluff, and for avoiding the stupidity of yesteryear where tournaments end up putting tonnes of superfluous restrictions on to encourage them. As a side effect, from a purely commercial perspective it means a broader range of kits selling consistently too, rather than a feast/famine of 'Everyone buys X, make Y good', but I don't personally buy into the GW conspiracy theory bubble anyway, so that's neither here nor there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:It stops me from taking understrength squads, but for the most part we use it to make lists quickly and just run them WYSIWYG. I'm generally not trying to max out on special weapons so much as take what I've got, with whatever weapons they have. I'm not going to eschew an upgrade when it's available, but only if I already had the model for it. We aren't really looking to "game" the system by tricking out models with free upgrades. I want to be clear that I wasn't trying to minmax, exactly, I just found it an interesting change of pace - I was really thrown off by having to adapt a bunch of squads of 6, because I tend to run a pile of immolators, I don't know how common the 6 breakpoint is. (Though that's razorbacks too, right?) The change to 5 + character or single unit elite was actually really fun, as it gave me an excuse to use the hospitaller which I never include otherwise. (And who was completely and utterly useless, but that's beside the point)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Shockeh posted:As a side effect, from a purely commercial perspective it means a broader range of kits selling consistently too, rather than a feast/famine of 'Everyone buys X, make Y good', but I don't personally buy into the GW conspiracy theory bubble anyway, so that's neither here nor there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
I feel like PL is great for pick up or impromptu games or for playgroups that specifically go for narrative style play. But it falls apart for sustained metas or your average playgroup. Many people will just think "Why not give all my veterans all the fancy weapons, after all, it's free?". I kind of see this with AoS already. Many units have a choice of a few weapons, but only certain ones end up being used since they're strictly better and the unit has the same point cost no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Floppychop posted:I feel like PL is great for pick up or impromptu games or for playgroups that specifically go for narrative style play. But it falls apart for sustained metas or your average playgroup. For stuff like rats or chaos warriors you always take the polearm because you can cram twice as many dudes in to combat so the math is better for big blobs. How many times in AoS are those choices actually tactically different vs one is clearly mathematically better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Compared to what? I mean you could go heavy in with Ultramarine Lascannons riding on Guilliman, but you aren't going to have the option to essentially deepstrike like you did with the Shadowsword. You could compare it to something like the Terminus Ultra riding with 8 Lascannons at 400 points. Lias or a pod with lascannon devs. 8-10 shots rerolling out of deep strike. Alternatively distributed lascannons and manticores like the Warzone Atlanta winner. Having all your boom boom in one model is the real problem. dexefiend posted:According to my mathhammer, a Shadowsword kills a Stormraven 40.2% of the time. -1 to hit and failing to wound 17% of the time is a real thing. I'm not bringing 400+ points of tank to 40% chance to kill the thing it's designed to kill...again
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:Question for people who primarily play with PL - do you find that it dramatically changes how your armies are structured? I tried playing a game based on power level for the first time last week and found that it strongly disincentivizes squads of six (which is like 50% of my army), but incentivizes special weapon choice on everything. Which isn't really a problem, per se, but it certainly made me pick different options. I ended up being the one to lead the charge for point values at my lgs rather than power, since for the months we were using power far from it being any kind of casual thing people would always just take all of the most powerful option since there was no trade off to doing so. Now our grey knight still runs onto the field with 15 proxied daemon hammers but atleast now hes paying for it and having to make concessions in his list so thats fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Anyone here assembled the plague marine multi part kits? I refuse to believe that I am reading this right and only get 1 dual knife and 1 axe set up per box.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:For stuff like rats or chaos warriors you always take the polearm because you can cram twice as many dudes in to combat so the math is better for big blobs. How many times in AoS are those choices actually tactically different vs one is clearly mathematically better. One example in the army I play is Stormfiends. Warpfire throwers are better than any other option. Then there's stuff like certain Sigmarine units being able to take a mace that dumps mortal wounds out at no point increase. You'd be stupid not to take as many as you can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Tiger Millionaire posted:Anyone here assembled the plague marine multi part kits? I refuse to believe that I am reading this right and only get 1 dual knife and 1 axe set up per box. You get: 4 Plague Knives/Swords (1 right hand, 3 left hand) 2 Blight Axes 2 Plague Maces 1 Great Plague Cleaver 1 Flail of Corruption Plus there's a bunch of knives on their legs/backpacks and the like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
It should also be mentioned that only specific torsos/arms fit, which really tripped me up. Coming from the generic SM/CSM kits it was a bit disappointing I couldn’t mix and match as I pleased.  Still a great kit, but a bit of a downer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:It should also be mentioned that only specific torsos/arms fit, which really tripped me up. Coming from the generic SM/CSM kits it was a bit disappointing I couldn’t mix and match as I pleased. You can get around this by filing the nubs off the arm joints, but the biggest limiting factor with this kit is the belly plates. Dryfit/bluetac EVERYTHING.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Does anyone remember GW mentioning 8th edition would see a new faction? I could swear we read that somewhere in the community posts. Any news on what this is, yet? Were they referring to the new line of Nurgle stuff?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Zuul the Cat posted:Does anyone remember GW mentioning 8th edition would see a new faction? I could swear we read that somewhere in the community posts. Any news on what this is, yet? Were they referring to the new line of Nurgle stuff? It was in a Q&A where the developers were asked what they most would like to see from 40k in the future, and one said "an entirely new faction" and the rest all made obvious OOOOOOOOOHHHH WHERED THAT COME FROM kinda knowing answers. So they clearly were hyping for it, but they never actually confirmed that was true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Zuul the Cat posted:Does anyone remember GW mentioning 8th edition would see a new faction? I could swear we read that somewhere in the community posts. Any news on what this is, yet? Were they referring to the new line of Nurgle stuff?  Clearly they meant the return of an old faction. Who was it here that mentioned GW had a couple of new/revamped factions down the pipeline for the next couple of years?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Zuul the Cat posted:Does anyone remember GW mentioning 8th edition would see a new faction? I could swear we read that somewhere in the community posts. Any news on what this is, yet? Were they referring to the new line of Nurgle stuff? Yeah, the hint of the new faction was Deathguard being spun off into its own thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
I know Overwatch rolls can't be modified but do re-rolls count as modifying? Co-worker of my buddy is asking about Draigo's re-roll aura and if it affects his Overwatch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
DO IT TO IT posted:I know Overwatch rolls can't be modified but do re-rolls count as modifying? Co-worker of my buddy is asking about Draigo's re-roll aura and if it affects his Overwatch. Modifying is modifying the roll, usually a +/-1. Rerolls are unaffected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
DO IT TO IT posted:I know Overwatch rolls can't be modified but do re-rolls count as modifying? Co-worker of my buddy is asking about Draigo's re-roll aura and if it affects his Overwatch. They do not, and it does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Got it, many thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
If they do have a new faction I'd be interested in: Dark mechanicus Lost and damned Croneworld Eldar Exodite Eldar Hrud anything not imperium aligned
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Played a game where my Tauroxen spent the whole time locked in combat. Couldn't get enough bubblewrap between them and the Nid swarm Drove home, parked, and realised that it's 8th and you can turn your loving tanks sideways in deployment and it doesn't matter any more. This is what I get for not playing enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:Exodite Eldar If money were no object I would create a Dino riding elf army.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
If they made Dark Mechanicus a real army with a codex and models I'd sell my entire 40k collection and buy every single new Dark Mechanicus box
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:10
|
|
