GW drops GT army size to 1750 points

[Ishagu]

GW needs to price horde units appropriately. Currently too cheap, hence they are being chosen ahead of elite troops.

 

If the power was equal then there would be no need to spam 120 zombies or cultists.

[Race Bannon]

GW needs to price horde units appropriately. Currently too cheap, hence they are being chosen ahead of elite troops.

If the power was equal then there would be no need to spam 120 zombies or cultists.

I totally agree: Terminator Marines are just waaaay toooo expensive.

 

^_^

[Mekhitar]

The one tournament game locally where I actually saw someone go over time was a nurgle daemons player vs a guard player. The daemon player ended up running out of time - he had massive daemon hordes, but what got him was a combo of two things. It was that the guard player would dump a ton of firepower into his ranks, and it turns out making dozens upon dozens of rerollsble 5+ saves takes time, but does not reduce the mode count appreciatively. Then, when he got close enough to assault, figuring out what models could throw attacks on what units in cc, and then doing so, but not to a lot of effect, meant a lot of time played for not a lot of effect. Basically, turn 1 takes a lot longer than the other turns, and when you are that durable, every turn is t1.

 

I like to go observe tournaments (friend is aforementioned guard player), and in spite of the fact he regularly takes ~100 infantry and ~7-8 tanks, he always finishes the game with more clock time than his opponent. We have analyzed why out of curiosity and concluded the big differences are in knowing all the stats of your army down cold - easier when you don’t alter the army that much between tournaments, or play different armies, rather than trying something new - and, most importantly, having “fast dice”. Just the capacity to roll, evaluate, pick up, and reroll large numbers of dice efficiently. He’s been playing exclusively guard, usually more than one game a week (usually against me) for years, so... he gets lots of practice.

 

It’s an interesting state of the game, certainly. And I don’t begrudge anyone who wants to lower the points level - an extra ~12% fewer models could be a big deal - even though I personally have enjoyed the higher points values in 8th.

 

For what it’s worth, the nurgle daemon player won that game even when he was out of time, though I think it was the “closest” match (points wise) of the tournament day.

[OutlawSixActual]

You know, I actually think that the Nurgle player’s time issues fit thematically. The point of hordes is that they rely on bodies over individual skill, and if their commanders aren’t adept, those hordes become unwieldy, hard to control, and bogged down by their own mass. I think it SHOULD be a considering when considering hordes over smaller elite forces. Their ease of maneuvering and smaller time requirements represent their experience, initiative, quality of communication and leadership, etc. and hordes can be the same when the commander (you) has the same skill.

 

I’m liking the idea of fixed turn time limits more and more.

[Mekhitar]

The chief advantage clocks have over per-turn limits is: 40k is a game of lots of back and forth. So, while person A moved, casts, and shoots, their time is ticking. With a clock, you switch over to your opponent’s time while they take saves (and while they fight back). This way, someone slow to roll their saves is spending their own time, not the time of the person shooting them.

 

I’m not sure how to get that same effect with fixed-time-per-turn.

 

You could use clocks and time the rolls on saves in the same fashion, but then you run the risk of losing out on several minutes of your t1 time because you went second, and had to use them making saves. The person wth first turn wouldn’t be hurt by this, because you can still make saves if you are out of time completely.

 

If on the other hand you had a straight I-go-you-go with, say, 15 mins on a side, then the person playing saves could slow play them and eat your time.

 

Which is why I like 1 pool of time for each player, which they can use as they see fit during each phase or turn of the game. If they want to zip through early turns so they have more time for strategic thinking later, they can. If they want to spend all their time on turns 1 and 2 trying to play perfect tactically and then be sitting ducks if they can’t close the deal out... they can try that too.

 

And no hassle of resetting the clocks for every turn :)

[taikishi]

GW needs to price horde units appropriately. Currently too cheap, hence they are being chosen ahead of elite troops.

 

If the power was equal then there would be no need to spam 120 zombies or cultists.

 

As someone who has played WHFB Undead, I disagree. Especially since I remember a time when we were overpaying for some of our special rules - fear being the big one.

 

If anything, the elite units MAY need buffs, not nerfs to the hordes. Like I said in another thread, what would make Terminators (for example) more viable is to give them a re-rollable 2+ while keeping their 5++. With a re-rollable 2++ the only time you'd consider taking your 5++ is against AP -4 weaponry in the open because you're only failing your save 1/3 of the time vs 30% on a re-rollable 6+.

 

What I will agree with you on is that GW needs to do a better job understanding some of the basics of game theory because even CCG principles of Aggro, Combo, Control and Midrange can be applied to 40K. Hordes are more "combo", Elites more "Aggro" with some control because of individually powerful pieces but can't ultimately win a war of attrition.

 

Edit: Also, the answer to Hordes isn't Elites. Elites should actually get bogged down/overwhelmed by Hordes. The answer to Hordes is something more in-between, because Hordes should regularly beat Elites with numbers assuming equal play skill and RNG remains "average" whereas the more in-between army can suffer the brunt of an attack from hordes while doing enough to whittle the horde down before finally turning the tide (midrange).

[Panzer]

 

GW needs to price horde units appropriately. Currently too cheap, hence they are being chosen ahead of elite troops.

 

If the power was equal then there would be no need to spam 120 zombies or cultists.

 

As someone who has played WHFB Undead, I disagree. Especially since I remember a time when we were overpaying for some of our special rules - fear being the big one.

 

If anything, the elite units MAY need buffs, not nerfs to the hordes. Like I said in another thread, what would make Terminators (for example) more viable is to give them a re-rollable 2+ while keeping their 5++. With a re-rollable 2++ the only time you'd consider taking your 5++ is against AP -4 weaponry in the open because you're only failing your save 1/3 of the time vs 30% on a re-rollable 6+.

 

What I will agree with you on is that GW needs to do a better job understanding some of the basics of game theory because even CCG principles of Aggro, Combo, Control and Midrange can be applied to 40K. Hordes are more "combo", Elites more "Aggro" with some control because of individually powerful pieces but can't ultimately win a war of attrition.

 

Edit: Also, the answer to Hordes isn't Elites. Elites should actually get bogged down/overwhelmed by Hordes. The answer to Hordes is something more in-between, because Hordes should regularly beat Elites with numbers assuming equal play skill and RNG remains "average" whereas the more in-between army can suffer the brunt of an attack from hordes while doing enough to whittle the horde down before finally turning the tide (midrange).

 

 

You can't really compare WHFB with 40k. Like at all. WAY different mechanics, army building and ways to win games. You can barely compare this 40k edition with older 40k editions even lol

 

Also Hordes should always win against Elites ? No, just no. Not in 40k where we have straight elite factions and straight horde factions. Hordes should be equal to elites for the same points. That's why a points system exists in the first place. Rock/Paper/Scissor has no place there unless every faction has access to all types of units and we throw points out of the window.

[taikishi]

I never said always, I said regularly. 60% is "regularly".  Hordes should be a bad matchup for elites, but bad matchup <> unwinnable.

 

Also, generalizations since most of these armies can move between levels:

 

Hordes: Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, Guard

 

More mid-range factions: Dark Eldar, Eldar, Sisters, Ad Mech, possibly Tau, possibly Necrons

 

Elites: Space Marines of all varieties, Custodes, Knights, Harlequins

 

Unsure: Inquisition, Ynnari

[Panzer]

Yeah and I still disagree on that. It should be an equal match up when both player have an equal amount of points on the board. Period.

[Redtoof]

Agree that some points balancing is needed, but it's a very fine line between big mobs being points efficient and being terrible. Some of the anti-infantry units out there are pretty brutal.

[Aothaine]

Yeah and I still disagree on that. It should be an equal match up when both player have an equal amount of points on the board. Period.

 

Mmm.. I don't agree here. Someone can have a 500+ super heavy on the board but it will be toast against that many points of lascannon toting devastators. 

 

I don't think that balancing points is as simple as that. Certain units counter other units significantly. It is important that this happens. The problem is that people are having difficulties dealing with hordes and elite armies separately. Because to focus on horde armies you have to remove your anti-tank/elite options. This is also important to have. Building a balanced list is good but you have to go into the game realizing that you're going to have issues against armies that are solely focused on their role. 

 

An Ork army is going to disintegrate against an equally pointed sisters of battle list with storm bolters, space marines that focus on anti-horde with Aggressors and assault cannons. Ork's rule that makes them immune to morale isn't going to help if you spread the wounds out either. There are just too many shots coming from 18 bolter aggressors.

 

Just trying to state that lists of equal points should not always be even. And part of the challenge of this game is building a list that can handle multiple threats. It is one of the reasons that I think the competitive scene is a horrible way to adjust rules. If they allowed you to take a "side deck" like they do in card games it would solve a lot of the issues people are saying they are experiencing. Say you can change 25% of your list before the game with a new opponent. It allows you to swap out your anti-elite for anti-horde. You're opponent can tailor to your army as well. It would solve a LOT of issue imho. But also create new issues.

 

In the end I think people just need to learn how to make different lists and not wail about what is currently meta in a hyper-competitive environment.

[Panzer]

 

Yeah and I still disagree on that. It should be an equal match up when both player have an equal amount of points on the board. Period.

 

Mmm.. I don't agree here. Someone can have a 500+ super heavy on the board but it will be toast against that many points of lascannon toting devastators. 

 

I don't think that balancing points is as simple as that. Certain units counter other units significantly. It is important that this happens. The problem is that people are having difficulties dealing with hordes and elite armies separately. Because to focus on horde armies you have to remove your anti-tank/elite options. This is also important to have. Building a balanced list is good but you have to go into the game realizing that you're going to have issues against armies that are solely focused on their role. 

 

An Ork army is going to disintegrate against an equally pointed sisters of battle list with storm bolters, space marines that focus on anti-horde with Aggressors and assault cannons. Ork's rule that makes them immune to morale isn't going to help if you spread the wounds out either. There are just too many shots coming from 18 bolter aggressors.

 

Just trying to state that lists of equal points should not always be even. And part of the challenge of this game is building a list that can handle multiple threats. It is one of the reasons that I think the competitive scene is a horrible way to adjust rules. If they allowed you to take a "side deck" like they do in card games it would solve a lot of the issues people are saying they are experiencing. Say you can change 25% of your list before the game with a new opponent. It allows you to swap out your anti-elite for anti-horde. You're opponent can tailor to your army as well. It would solve a LOT of issue imho. But also create new issues.

 

In the end I think people just need to learn how to make different lists and not wail about what is currently meta in a hyper-competitive environment.

 

 

Well that's a thing about specific units facing eachother, but the argument was about horde vs elite. And both can specialise in anti-horde or anti-tank duty depending on their weapons.

 

So let me clarify maybe: a Horde army equipped with anti-elite weaponry should be equal to an Elite army equipped with anti-horde weaponry when both have an equal amount of points on the board. Better?

Of course not every unit has every type of weaponry available but that's a whole different topic. Point is that a horde should NOT win against elites regularly. Not without specifying what weapons each of them have available. Such generalization is stupid.

[Zodd1888]

I like the idea that's been thrown out by Ishagu regarding comparisons to AoS. I've got my flame shield up.

 

I know we want to use all of our toys on the table at once BUT reality is that so many models on the table slows the game down. Raising point costs across the board for infantry units specifically makes a lot of sense, maybe even fast attacks. You get more of those center piece models, ie. fancy tanks and uber mench, but also have the footmen represented.

 

Seeing games with average of 50-80 models versus 100-200 models seems like the way to go if time is an issue.

[BlackTriton]

I feel that multi wound weapon are better at killing multi wound model that multi shot weapon are at killing multi model units.

If that makes any sense.

Plus large unit size has a lot of mechanical advantage, board presence and buff target amongs other. A lot of things combine to give cheap models value that it seems is not accounted for in their point cost.

[Panzer]

Agreed. The counter-mechanic for hordes was supposed to be morale since they'd lose more models and usually have lower LD ... however GW did the same thing as last edition and made most of the immune to it or at least extremely resilient to it, invalidating their own mechanic.

[Beams]

Agreed. The counter-mechanic for hordes was supposed to be morale since they'd lose more models and usually have lower LD ... however GW did the same thing as last edition and made most of the immune to it or at least extremely resilient to it, invalidating their own mechanic.

I hear that all the time, but it only applies to tyranids and Orks. Guard doesn't have any morale mitigation, outside of using high leadership heroes with 3 wounds and a 5+ armor save.

 

And niether guard nor nids are tearing up the meta.

[Ishagu]

But they do have more command points than anyone and can make sure a unit remains on the board without further losses when required.

[chapter master 454]

 

Agreed. The counter-mechanic for hordes was supposed to be morale since they'd lose more models and usually have lower LD ... however GW did the same thing as last edition and made most of the immune to it or at least extremely resilient to it, invalidating their own mechanic.

I hear that all the time, but it only applies to tyranids and Orks. Guard doesn't have any morale mitigation, outside of using high leadership heroes with 3 wounds and a 5+ armor save.

 

And niether guard nor nids are tearing up the meta.

 

 

Incorrect, guard have 10 man squads that can be so easily dusted off with a stiff power armoured fart that morale isn't needed but another factor kicks in: morale being pointless across an entire army.

 

"Sir, all of squad one and two in front and to our right just got minced by heavy bolter fire, squad five just got hammered with artillery and squad four is currently on the receiving end of slanneshs worst kinks...this is a problem" "It isn't a problem soldier, they aren't part of our squad so it doesn't concern us" "Oh yea, your right sir. Should I make the mating call of cadians?" "As you will" "CADIA STANDS" -a thousand imperial ships suddenly start appearing with thousand of valks dropping of guardsman all screaming "the planet broke before the guard did"-

 

Morale should be a bubble and not just constrained to one unit. This just means min squad size again has more benefits over max squad size because somehow, despite those two squads being next to each other, 10 men being wiped out in front of you is fine but the moment you lose half of anyone in your own squad and its panic stations!

Personally, I would like to see some rules regarding 25% of squad remaining and last man standing rules (Units with 25% or fewer of their starting size must re-roll successful leadership checks and for last man standing the unit must roll a natural 1 or run away, with the 25% debuff). This would then be paired with morale being based on unit losses within 6" of the unit (check all units that were within range before losses occur and be sure to note how many combined affect that one unit. Just to stop "oh but now they aren't within 6" anymore so tough luck"). While you could space out to prevent morale kicking in, it would mean units would have a hard time in enclosed areas (multiple squads on one ruin) or attempting to keep an objective.

 

Also, horde armies need to be brought into line a little bit. They naturally bring their own counter: Mass of attacks, be it range or melee which gives them room for anti-tank hence why they are so strong. They inherently have one counter built in while elite armies have to bring gear relating to ether side of  the spectrum.

 

I would argue also in regards to tyranids Synapse should be a form of ATSKNF since fearless is far too good on horde armies (I thought the commissar problem showed that).

 

However...I digress...I still stand by that dropping 250 points will help (not solve) the problem of going to time.

[kombatwombat]

I hear that all the time, but it only applies to tyranids and Orks. Guard doesn't have any morale mitigation, outside of using high leadership heroes with 3 wounds and a 5+ armor save.

 

And niether guard nor nids are tearing up the meta.

It also applies to Poxwalkers, and Guard squads being 10-man means they’re only losing generally 10-30% of a unit to morale rather than 30-60% a non-fearless 30-model unit might.

 

I don’t think game time scales linearly with points. If you take say 3 hours for a 2000pt game, you’ll probably take more than 1.5 hours for a 1000pt game because there are some things that don’t scale with game size (like Maelstrom cards, for instance). Even if it does scale, knocking 250 points off a 2.5 hour game saves you about 9 minutes per player, though that might realistically be more like 6 or 7 minutes per player. That’s... nothing really, and it certainly isn’t going to turn a 3-Turn game into a 5-7-Turn game.

[Deathwalker]

 

Agreed. The counter-mechanic for hordes was supposed to be morale since they'd lose more models and usually have lower LD ... however GW did the same thing as last edition and made most of the immune to it or at least extremely resilient to it, invalidating their own mechanic.

I hear that all the time, but it only applies to tyranids and Orks. Guard doesn't have any morale mitigation, outside of using high leadership heroes with 3 wounds and a 5+ armor save.

 

And niether guard nor nids are tearing up the meta.

 

Errr……………….

Nids are WHY DS got nerfed, and guard are currently top 1-3 in the game -period-.

You could give guard LD 2 and it would not matter, cause the 8-9 LD bubble costs 30 odd points, and unless you can snipe the leaders...………

Oh, hang on, you CAN snipe leaders, but the troops are not LD 2, and morale is a frigging joke. Whatever idiot at GW thought morale should be on a single dice, rather than 2 as it has been for ages, is an idiot. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

…...

 

15 minute turns, plus deployment, plus setting up terrain, discussing what terrain is, plus calling over judges (which if you get a penalty for that creates a whole lot of other issues). So yeah I think people can still stall with game clocks.

Uhm you don't set up and define terrain yourself on tournaments normally …

 

 

At adepticon you do, not sure about the other major events, you also discuss what terrain features count as. Rulebook doesn't cover Non-GW terrain, and alot of stores/tournaments rely on it. Defining and Adjusting terrain is also part of the setup in ITC missions. 

[taikishi]

That's horrible x.x The TOs should have the terrain pre-deployed before the tournament  begins with instructions on what the terrain is at the table, though that's another of my qualms with 8E -- the terrain rules or lack thereof.

[CommodusXIII]

It works well enough.  Have you ever participated in AdeptiCon?

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

Agreed. The counter-mechanic for hordes was supposed to be morale since they'd lose more models and usually have lower LD ... however GW did the same thing as last edition and made most of the immune to it or at least extremely resilient to it, invalidating their own mechanic.

I hear that all the time, but it only applies to tyranids and Orks. Guard doesn't have any morale mitigation, outside of using high leadership heroes with 3 wounds and a 5+ armor save.

 

And niether guard nor nids are tearing up the meta.

Errr……………….

Nids are WHY DS got nerfed, and guard are currently top 1-3 in the game -period-.

You could give guard LD 2 and it would not matter, cause the 8-9 LD bubble costs 30 odd points, and unless you can snipe the leaders...………

Oh, hang on, you CAN snipe leaders, but the troops are not LD 2, and morale is a frigging joke. Whatever idiot at GW thought morale should be on a single dice, rather than 2 as it has been for ages, is an idiot.

I agree morale doesn’t work but two dice? You could lose 3 guys and see the other 7 flee to a bad morale check if they’re LD8. That’s too extreme, you shouldn’t be losing more guys to morale than to actual combat.

[BlackTriton]

 

 

 

Agreed. The counter-mechanic for hordes was supposed to be morale since they'd lose more models and usually have lower LD ... however GW did the same thing as last edition and made most of the immune to it or at least extremely resilient to it, invalidating their own mechanic.

I hear that all the time, but it only applies to tyranids and Orks. Guard doesn't have any morale mitigation, outside of using high leadership heroes with 3 wounds and a 5+ armor save.

 

And niether guard nor nids are tearing up the meta.

Errr……………….

Nids are WHY DS got nerfed, and guard are currently top 1-3 in the game -period-.

You could give guard LD 2 and it would not matter, cause the 8-9 LD bubble costs 30 odd points, and unless you can snipe the leaders...………

Oh, hang on, you CAN snipe leaders, but the troops are not LD 2, and morale is a frigging joke. Whatever idiot at GW thought morale should be on a single dice, rather than 2 as it has been for ages, is an idiot.

I agree morale doesn’t work but two dice? You could lose 3 guys and see the other 7 flee to a bad morale check if they’re LD8. That’s too extreme, you shouldn’t be losing more guys to morale than to actual combat.

 

Having a more punitive basic rule and then special rule Akin to AtSKnF to balance things out doesn't sound so bad, actually. 

Nice thing is that it is totally possible we see an overhaul of both the terrain rules and moral phase in the lifespan of 8ed.

 

In the meanwhile, I think its nice to have tournament at different point level. I don't know it fixes any slow play issue though.

Having a tournament offer a list design challenge by having a unusual point level and/or mission set up sounds like fun to me.