Arkhanist Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 To come back around to our OP. I would find a discussion on why we don’t talk about Eldar and focus on the 32 when both are top tier (Eldar the edge I believe). I appreciate GW taking this approach on a BatRep after years of fun but less useful Narrative ones. Eldar have been overpowered since 6th edition. Clearly they're someone high up's favourite army - and they suck playing with them - so the codex always has some ludicrously overpowered stuff in it. Ynnari didn't help matters any. They have bad units of course, but that's usually because they're clearly outclassed by some super-good option. I actually feel sorry sometimes for eldar players who actually bought them just because they love the aesthetic, because you have to work quite hard not to bring a cheese army to the board in a casual game, and there's a bunch of finecast. Then you take that ITC tweaks tend to favour eldar, and it's just... oh, eldar won. Quelle surprise. I read the intro to the mission, saw the army lists and immediately moved onto the next article, because cheese vs cheese is not my thing. For people that love that sort of play, fair enough, and I certainly don't begrudge you that style of game. If the casual players could accept that competitive play actually is a tool that improves game balance in the long run and avoid the competitive environment (that they often claim is not the community’s norm) and stay in their casual environment (just politely decline to play that guy who brings a style of game you don’t enjoy) there would be a lot less angst and less feeling exclusion. What is frustrating when you turn up for the first pick up game you've been able to go to for months (due to children, job etc etc) and they've brought the uber-cheese while you have a mono-codex take-all-comers army. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth, because 'just don't play that guy' isn't a viable choice - it's skip that game and not play for another few months, and that guy gets all pissy that you won't play him. It's not competitive players per se, it's competitive players who expect us casuals (and they know I'm a casual beforehand) to play their competitive list and like it, and can't/won't play any other way. They're not WAAC's per se because they're not bending rules or being a dick in other ways, but they are playing a style of game I'm not interested in and *am not good at* and it's not like I'm providing much of a challenge for him if he's testing out his tourney list of whatever other reason people give for bringing a cheese list unexpectedly to a pick-up-game, when most other players are bringing more 'balanced' lists. At least I could spectate one of those after my game is over turn 1. Yes, it's players like that that effectively drove me out of the game playing part of the hobby, even though they were a minority, because it's more grief than it's worth and I live in a rural area where all the clubs are too far out given my limited free time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finkmilkana Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 Troops being useful for only CP and board/objective control? Perfect, that's their job. Heavy Support is also only useful for killing things. It depends on the mission which is more important. There are some armies with Troops that are more capable of killing things (Custodes, Deathwatch Veterans etc) but those factions are usually also weaker at the whole objective game so it's a tradeoff. The thing is just that with the current rules (mainly that the unit with more models holds the objective, but also that stuff like deepstrike denial hinges on distance to models and so on), being cheap and fast are the only things that truly matter for board control. The actual stats of the models dont matter that much. Unless other troops get something that that gives them a distinct advantage here, the units that is cheapest (guardsmen), fastest (guardsmen with move move move) or has the most models (i.e. guardsmen) is the best. Note that this is not really a matter of nerfig guardsmen either. If guardsmen were worse, people would start to use skitari and so on. 'Elite' troops by and large simply try to still be too elite to properly fill the troops role in the current rules set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracos Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 To come back around to our OP. I would find a discussion on why we don’t talk about Eldar and focus on the 32 when both are top tier (Eldar the edge I believe). I appreciate GW taking this approach on a BatRep after years of fun but less useful Narrative ones. Eldar have been overpowered since 2nd edition. . fixed for accuracy (jk, true but jk) The thing is just that with the current rules (mainly that the unit with more models holds the objective, but also that stuff like deepstrike denial hinges on distance to models and so on), being cheap and fast are the only things that truly matter for board control. The actual stats of the models dont matter that much. Unless other troops get something that that gives them a distinct advantage here, the units that is cheapest (guardsmen), fastest (guardsmen with move move move) or has the most models (i.e. guardsmen) is the best. Note that this is not really a matter of nerfig guardsmen either. If guardsmen were worse, people would start to use skitari and so on. 'Elite' troops by and large simply try to still be too elite to properly fill the troops role in the current rules set. In fairness, one SM Troop model is worth a 100 Guardsmen when claiming an Onjective in a BattleForged army. Its one reason I think they should make Objectives (and I think they're veering that direction) more important part of the VP system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finkmilkana Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 In fairness, one SM Troop model is worth a 100 Guardsmen when claiming an Onjective in a BattleForged army. Its one reason I think they should make Objectives (and I think they're veering that direction) more important part of the VP system Wait, what? Was there some FAQ I missed? 1 guardsmen should count exactly the same as 1 SM troop, both (and all other troops) have the Defenders of Humanity special rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracos Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 Well damn my bad, I hadn't gotten into the non-Marine dexes since my return. Thanks for the info Brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 Maybe they should go with points instead of models for ObSec as well tho that could be quite messy so I'm not a fan. I wanted to say they should go with wounds at first but regular Marines only have one wound per model as well so that wouldn't work. The obvious solution would be that they would have to be able to deal quite some damage and also soak quite some damage compared to Guardsmen who die like flies but GW doesn't seem to be able to do that with basic Tacticals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tylerw Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 To come back around to our OP. I would find a discussion on why we don’t talk about Eldar and focus on the 32 when both are top tier (Eldar the edge I believe). I appreciate GW taking this approach on a BatRep after years of fun but less useful Narrative ones. Eldar have been overpowered since 6th edition. Clearly they're someone high up's favourite army - and they suck playing with them - so the codex always has some ludicrously overpowered stuff in it. Ynnari didn't help matters any. They have bad units of course, but that's usually because they're clearly outclassed by some super-good option. I actually feel sorry sometimes for eldar players who actually bought them just because they love the aesthetic, because you have to work quite hard not to bring a cheese army to the board in a casual game, and there's a bunch of finecast. Then you take that ITC tweaks tend to favour eldar, and it's just... oh, eldar won. Quelle surprise. I read the intro to the mission, saw the army lists and immediately moved onto the next article, because cheese vs cheese is not my thing. For people that love that sort of play, fair enough, and I certainly don't begrudge you that style of game. I wonder if part of the problem is that Eldar, as this ancient race of insanely powerful psykers, have been given too many things because it fits their fluff and GW wasn't wise enough at the time to realize that if they give eldar top-notch tanks, psykers, etc that mayyybeeee they shouldn't also get jet bikes that have great shooting, mobility, and so on. It feels like one non-psyker aspect of eldar should probably be nerfed or taken out of their arsenal - maybe they don't get the insane shooting anymore since they have mobility and psykers, or cut back on the mobility of the jet bikes if they get to keep the shooting, that sort of thing. or just raise unit costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 To come back around to our OP. I would find a discussion on why we don’t talk about Eldar and focus on the 32 when both are top tier (Eldar the edge I believe). I appreciate GW taking this approach on a BatRep after years of fun but less useful Narrative ones. Eldar have been overpowered since 6th edition. Clearly they're someone high up's favourite army - and they suck playing with them - so the codex always has some ludicrously overpowered stuff in it. Ynnari didn't help matters any. They have bad units of course, but that's usually because they're clearly outclassed by some super-good option. I actually feel sorry sometimes for eldar players who actually bought them just because they love the aesthetic, because you have to work quite hard not to bring a cheese army to the board in a casual game, and there's a bunch of finecast. Then you take that ITC tweaks tend to favour eldar, and it's just... oh, eldar won. Quelle surprise. I read the intro to the mission, saw the army lists and immediately moved onto the next article, because cheese vs cheese is not my thing. For people that love that sort of play, fair enough, and I certainly don't begrudge you that style of game. I wonder if part of the problem is that Eldar, as this ancient race of insanely powerful psykers, have been given too many things because it fits their fluff and GW wasn't wise enough at the time to realize that if they give eldar top-notch tanks, psykers, etc that mayyybeeee they shouldn't also get jet bikes that have great shooting, mobility, and so on. It feels like one non-psyker aspect of eldar should probably be nerfed or taken out of their arsenal - maybe they don't get the insane shooting anymore since they have mobility and psykers, or cut back on the mobility of the jet bikes if they get to keep the shooting, that sort of thing. or just raise unit costs. That would be no problem if they'd be costed properly. Custodes have all the good stuff as well but they also cost a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher956 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Thats the crux of the issue right there ... Eldar are possibly costed 'correctly' but because they are specilised ie only do combat or shooting anti tank or shooting anti infantry the are only costed for that... how ever space marines are costed for combat, shooting every type of target etc etc its like in RPGs if you specialise you get better quicker than if you generalise your skill sets edit - also dont forget GW is a model company that makes rules to sell their main product.....so if a oversight in rules has lead to the loyal 32 which is causing a massive up shift in the selling of those units then GW are not going to block the rule and therefore cut the sales. How ever when the next hotness / net list comes along and the sales for that spike then we might see a tightening of the soup rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARK0SIAN Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Custodes also have some gaps in their capability that Eldar don’t, namely psychic stuff and long range firepower. Eldar don’t really have weaknesses like that, they’re good at every aspect of the game which is a strange design philosophy anyway. When you add in the fact that they’re not properly costed and some of their abilities/powers/units are just broken and you get the cheese train we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARK0SIAN Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 edit - also dont forget GW is a model company that makes rules to sell their main product.....That’s the weird thing with Eldar though, their model range is actually pretty limited in terms of plastics. I don’t think the rules are like that to push their models as with other armies, I genuinely think it’s just a case of favouritism from the writers. The other thing is, I don’t think loyal 32 is an oversight or a combination of exploits. I actually think it’s pretty close to what they intend for the allies system. I’m not saying it’s good, just that it’s as intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher956 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 the edit is back on topic, not about the Eldar per say... also the whole edit is conjecture... I dont know if its oversight, intended or its just the 'law of un-intended consequences' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Thats the crux of the issue right there ... Eldar are possibly costed 'correctly' but because they are specilised ie only do combat or shooting anti tank or shooting anti infantry the are only costed for that... how ever space marines are costed for combat, shooting every type of target etc etc its like in RPGs if you specialise you get better quicker than if you generalise your skill sets edit - also dont forget GW is a model company that makes rules to sell their main product.....so if a oversight in rules has lead to the loyal 32 which is causing a massive up shift in the selling of those units then GW are not going to block the rule and therefore cut the sales. How ever when the next hotness / net list comes along and the sales for that spike then we might see a tightening of the soup rules I disagree. If they are too strong they clearly aren't costed correctly. You can cover all bases with specialised units without necessarily ending up being too strong. Just because Marines are underpowered for being jack of all trades it doesn't mean others are costed correctly. About your edit, a friend quoted in our gaming groups whatsapp posts from another forum of a guy having insight in sales data from GW and it seems that good or bad rules don't really change sales numbers at all. People buy what they like and for everyone who buys an army for their good rules theres someone who buys an army for their looks or fluff or whatever regardless of their rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher956 Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 to be fair i'm possibly basing my comments / views on hyperbole espically as my local club doesnt really do soups .. still be interesting to see how many people HAVE picked up a loyal 32 detachment because of these rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.