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.

Traditio wrote:
This poll is much closer than the previous one.

Do you think I lost votes in my favor because of the thread title/poll question disparity?

You likely gained as many votes as you lost in favor due to the confusion judging by the responses. So, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Malcador needs to be banned because admitting otherwise causes Traditio's argument to fall apart.

Obviously.

Pretty much. I know he's not going to answer it because he can't without giving up his "no LoW" rule. But I'm going to keep repeating it so that anyone reading the thread knows that he's being unreasonable and evasive about any criticism he hears.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Malcador needs to be banned because admitting otherwise causes Traditio's argument to fall apart.

Obviously.

Pretty much. I know he's not going to answer it because he can't without giving up his "no LoW" rule. But I'm going to keep repeating it so that anyone reading the thread knows that he's being unreasonable and evasive about any criticism he hears.

I think everyone who has seen Traditio before knows about that.

Peregrine wrote:Pretty much. I know he's not going to answer it because he can't without giving up his "no LoW" rule. But I'm going to keep repeating it so that anyone reading the thread knows that he's being unreasonable and evasive about any criticism he hears.

One of two things needs to happen:

1. The Malcador needs to lose its superheavy status.

2. The Malcador should be banned from normal play.

Why? Because it falls under the general rule of "super heavy."

The Thomistic dictum comes to mind: rules are made for what's generally the case, not for particular cases.

No, the Malcador isn't particularly scary. Nonetheless, saying "no super heavies" is much more convenient than saying: "Here is a list of things that you shouldn't bring."

pm713 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The Malcador needs to be banned because admitting otherwise causes Traditio's argument to fall apart.

Obviously.

Pretty much. I know he's not going to answer it because he can't without giving up his "no LoW" rule. But I'm going to keep repeating it so that anyone reading the thread knows that he's being unreasonable and evasive about any criticism he hears.

I think everyone who has seen Traditio before knows about that.

Ehh at this point it'd almost be worth petitioning the staff to change his name Trollditio.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Pretty much. I know he's not going to answer it because he can't without giving up his "no LoW" rule. But I'm going to keep repeating it so that anyone reading the thread knows that he's being unreasonable and evasive about any criticism he hears.

One of two things needs to happen:

1. The Malcador needs to lose its superheavy status.

2. The Malcador should be banned from normal play.

Why? Because it falls under the general rule of "super heavy."

The Thomistic dictum comes to mind: rules are made for what's generally the case, not for particular cases.

No, the Malcador isn't particularly scary. Nonetheless, saying "no super heavies" is much more convenient than saying: "Here is a list of things that you shouldn't bring."

Why? Why should it lose superheavy? Why should super heavy's be banned?

pm713 wrote:Why? Why should it lose superheavy?

It doesn't have the stat-line, the equipment loadout or the points cost to justify it.

Why should super heavy's be banned?

They don't fit the scale of the game supported by the core ruleset and create in-game power imbalances.

In certain situations it's almost needed to deal with certain types of armies (Deathstars)

pm713 wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Pretty much. I know he's not going to answer it because he can't without giving up his "no LoW" rule. But I'm going to keep repeating it so that anyone reading the thread knows that he's being unreasonable and evasive about any criticism he hears.

One of two things needs to happen:

1. The Malcador needs to lose its superheavy status.

2. The Malcador should be banned from normal play.

Why? Because it falls under the general rule of "super heavy."

The Thomistic dictum comes to mind: rules are made for what's generally the case, not for particular cases.

No, the Malcador isn't particularly scary. Nonetheless, saying "no super heavies" is much more convenient than saying: "Here is a list of things that you shouldn't bring."

Why? Why should it lose superheavy? Why should super heavy's be banned?

Because then Tradito would have to change his list. He has said in the past that he shouldn't have to adapt o the changing meta. The meta should adapt to him.

Traditio wrote:
No, the Malcador isn't particularly scary. Nonetheless, saying "no super heavies" is much more convenient than saying: "Here is a list of things that you shouldn't bring."

IOW: you acknowledge that your proposed ban is overkill and bans stuff that shouldn't be banned, but you're too lazy to put the effort into coming up with a more focused ban list that only excludes the problem units. So, given that you just admitted that you're proposing a bad rule because you're too lazy to come up with a better one, why should we pay any attention to what you have to say?

And no, the Malcador should not be a non-superheavy unit. It doesn't match the fluff, it doesn't match the model, and that would just make it an inferior LRBT.

TheCustomLime wrote:Because then Tradito would have to change his list. He has said in the past that he shouldn't have to adapt o the changing meta. The meta should adapt to him.

Not really.

My main point is, and has been, that all armies and playstyles, if reasonably constructed, should have a roughly equivalent effectiveness in-game. There are certain things which create huge game imbalances.

Consider Thousand Sons for a moment.

If superheavies didn't exist, how much better would Thousand Sons be?

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:Why? Why should it lose superheavy?

It doesn't have the stat-line, the equipment loadout or the points cost to justify it.

Why should super heavy's be banned?

They don't fit the scale of the game supported by the core ruleset and create in-game power imbalances.

Then what does? What makes the Malcador unworthy but a Knight worthy?

Why not? Most of them do. So do the codexes so let's get rid of them!!!

Peregrine wrote:IOW: you acknowledge that your proposed ban is overkill and bans stuff that shouldn't be banned, but you're too lazy to put the effort into coming up with a more focused ban list that only excludes the problem units. So, given that you just admitted that you're proposing a bad rule because you're too lazy to come up with a better one, why should we pay any attention to what you have to say?

And no, the Malcador should not be a non-superheavy unit. It doesn't match the fluff, it doesn't match the model, and that would just make it an inferior LRBT.

I acknowledge that the ban ends up banning stuff that's not in and of itself problematic. But you're misconstruing the justification for it.

If I am having a pick-up game with a random stranger, which one sounds better:

"No wraithknights (I being completely unaware of what army he's using)"

or

"No superheavies (I, again, being completely unaware of what army he's using)."

Rules, if they are to be understood, accepted and practiced by a large number of people, must be broad enough to be easily remembered and applied.

Traditio wrote:
It doesn't have the stat-line, the equipment loadout or the points cost to justify it.

Sure it does. The stat line is "bigger LRBT", the equipment loadout is "bigger LRBT", and the points cost is "bigger LRBT". Which matches the fluff of "bigger LRBT" and "the superheavy your regiment gets when the chain of command doesn't like you enough to give you a Baneblade". Everything about it says "this is a superheavy tank", and the only reason to make it a non-superheavy unit is so that you don't have to deal with awkward "what about the Malcador" arguments against your proposed rule.

They don't fit the scale of the game supported by the core ruleset and create in-game power imbalances.

You do realize that superheavies are part of the core rulset, right?

pm713 wrote:

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:Why? Why should it lose superheavy?

It doesn't have the stat-line, the equipment loadout or the points cost to justify it.

Why should super heavy's be banned?

They don't fit the scale of the game supported by the core ruleset and create in-game power imbalances.

Then what does? What makes the Malcador unworthy but a Knight worthy?

Why not? Most of them do. So do the codexes so let's get rid of them!!!

Neither Malcadors nor knights (whether of the imperial or wraith variety) should be in the normal game. Save that for Apocalypse.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:IOW: you acknowledge that your proposed ban is overkill and bans stuff that shouldn't be banned, but you're too lazy to put the effort into coming up with a more focused ban list that only excludes the problem units. So, given that you just admitted that you're proposing a bad rule because you're too lazy to come up with a better one, why should we pay any attention to what you have to say?

And no, the Malcador should not be a non-superheavy unit. It doesn't match the fluff, it doesn't match the model, and that would just make it an inferior LRBT.

I acknowledge that the ban ends up banning stuff that's not in and of itself problematic. But you're misconstruing the justification for it.

If I am having a pick-up game with a random stranger, which one sounds better:

"No wraithknights (I being completely unaware of what army he's using)"

or

"No superheavies (I, again, being completely unaware of what army he's using)."

Rules, if they are to be understood, accepted and practiced by a large number of people, must be broad enough to be easily remembered and applied.

The first one sounds better. It only removes the problem and doesn't punish people for bringing units with no issues attached. If you think no Wraithknights is not easy to remember then I suggest you play a simpler game. I suggest Connect 4 it looks pretty.

Peregrine wrote:Sure it does. The stat line is "bigger LRBT", the equipment loadout is "bigger LRBT", and the points cost is "bigger LRBT". Which matches the fluff of "bigger LRBT" and "the superheavy your regiment gets when the chain of command doesn't like you enough to give you a Baneblade". Everything about it says "this is a superheavy tank", and the only reason to make it a non-superheavy unit is so that you don't have to deal with awkward "what about the Malcador" arguments against your proposed rule.

"Bigger than a LRBT" scarcely necessitates "superheavy." By "superheavy," what comes to mind are big, giant, nigh unkillable tanks with tons of guns, hull points, etc.

The Malcador simply doesn't belong in the same category as a wraithknight, a stompa, a baneblade, etc.

It might well keep LoW status. It might even gain a quasi eternal warrior rule.

But it just doesn't have the in-game rules to justify its being in the same rules category as an Ork Stompa or a baneblade.

You do realize that superheavies are part of the core rulset, right?

You're committing an equivocation.

By "core ruleset," I mean the elements of the 40k game which have been around since 2nd edition or later. Yes, there are rules for superheavies and GMCs in the 7th ed rulebook. They weren't in the 4th ed rulebook or earlier editions. They are ill-fitted additions to a core ruleset that doesn't really support them.

Traditio wrote:
If I am having a pick-up game with a random stranger, which one sounds better:

"No wraithknights (I being completely unaware of what army he's using)"

or

"No superheavies (I, again, being completely unaware of what army he's using)."

"No Wraithknights", because that actually addresses the problem and doesn't make the guy with a Malcador think "wow, what a TFG" when all you really wanted to do was avoid facing a Wraithknight.

Rules, if they are to be understood, accepted and practiced by a large number of people, must be broad enough to be easily remembered and applied.

Great. So we want broad rules that are easy to remember? Here's one: only Tau are legal. Now we've fixed all of the balance issues with 40k and given everyone a level playing field to work with, and we've done it with a single rule that anyone can remember. Yeah, it has the unfortunate side effect of making your C:SM army illegal, but you don't get much sympathy from me when you're perfectly happy to make my army illegal as a side effect of your house rules.

pm713 wrote:The first one sounds better. It only removes the problem and doesn't punish people for bringing units with no issues attached. If you think no Wraithknights is not easy to remember then I suggest you play a simpler game. I suggest Connect 4 it looks pretty.

Except, it's not just "no wraithknights." He may or may not even be playing eldar. What it's actually going to look like is a list, and it turns into a conversation:

"What army are you playing?"
"Imperial Knights."
"Uh...no. You got another army?"
"Sure, I also have eldar."
"No wraithknights."
"Er, my eldar list is composed of 5 wraithknights. Perhaps an orks list?"
"Sure, but no stompas."
"Ok, ok. How about..."

It saves a ton of bother just to say: "No superheavies."

so, lemme get this straight: the 'super heavy' rule is broken, because it gives vehicles similar durability to a monstrous creature? The malcador is 'strong' because you can't explode it (ignore that explode causes d3 extra hull points) or cause it to loose weapons? Well damn, you must fear MC/GMC lists than.

ADITIONALLY, you go on to bring up the fact that the blanket ban is there to deal with cheese? Well gak, better cut off Tau, SM, Necrons, and Eldar since those also have the possibility of being super cheesy. After all, it's better to outright ban than it is to fix the problem.

Traditio wrote:
"Bigger than a LRBT" scarcely necessitates "superheavy." By "superheavy," what comes to mind are big, giant, nigh unkillable tanks with tons of guns, hull points, etc.

I am not responsible for your misunderstandings. The Malcador, fluff-wise, is explicitly stated to be a superheavy tank. And I'm going to put a lot more weight in the GW fluff authors' interpretation of "superheavy tank" than yours.

The Malcador simply doesn't belong in the same category as a wraithknight, a stompa, a baneblade, etc.

And a Baneblade doesn't belong in the same category as a Warlord titan. Nor does a terminator belong in the same category as a grot. Or perhaps we could understand that categories can be very broad, and "superheavy" covers more than just Baneblade-size units?

By "core ruleset," I mean the elements of the 40k game which have been around since 2nd edition or later. Yes, there are rules for superheavies and GMCs in the 7th ed rulebook. They weren't in the 4th ed rulebook or earlier editions. They are ill-fitted additions to a core ruleset that doesn't really support them.

Why do I care about 2nd edition? This is not 2nd edition. This is not 4th edition. It is 7th edition. If you don't like 7th edition you're free to play some previous edition, but don't try to pretend that 7th edition is anything other than what it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
It saves a ton of bother just to say: "No superheavies."

Just like it saves a ton of bother to say "no non-Tau armies". I look forward to seeing your new Tau army that you've bought to comply with this obviously perfect rule.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:The first one sounds better. It only removes the problem and doesn't punish people for bringing units with no issues attached. If you think no Wraithknights is not easy to remember then I suggest you play a simpler game. I suggest Connect 4 it looks pretty.

Except, it's not just "no wraithknights." He may or may not even be playing eldar. What it's actually going to look like is a list, and it turns into a conversation:

"What army are you playing?"
"Imperial Knights."
"Uh...no. You got another army?"
"Sure, I also have eldar."
"No wraithknights."
"Er, my eldar list is composed of 5 wraithknights. Perhaps an orks list?"
"Sure, but no stompas."
"Ok, ok. How about..."

No. Here is the situation. You say no Wraithknights and people with Wraithknights have to change their list and that's the end of it. If they don't play Eldar or don't have a Wraithknight that's the end of it. It is far simpler, easier and fairer than saying no super heavies of any kind.

Don't say "er my army is just Wraithknights" and use that as an excuse. That's both an incredibly rare army and is a problem either way.

Question: If I said to you "You can't use a Librarian. I find Fateweaver really OP so all Psyker units are banned". What would you think? Does that seem fair or stupid?

Edit: You said above saying no superheavies saves bother but it just creates a lot more!

pm713 wrote:No. Here is the situation. You say no Wraithknights and people with Wraithknights have to change their list and that's the end of it. If they don't play Eldar or don't have a Wraithknight that's the end of it. It is far simpler, easier and fairer than saying no super heavies of any kind.

That's just it, though. It's not just wraithknights.

Imperial Knights, Wraithknights, Ork Stompas, and all of those other big, giant robots create significant game imbalances.

It's not just one unit. It's a list.

Don't say "er my army is just Wraithknights" and use that as an excuse. That's both an incredibly rare army and is a problem either way.

It's not much different from running an army of just imperial knights.

Question: If I said to you "You can't use a Librarian. I find Fateweaver really OP so all Psyker units are banned". What would you think? Does that seem fair or stupid?

Psykers have the capacity to create significant game imbalances and are commonly complained about.

And for the record, I wouldn't care. I don't use librarians to begin with. [Though, in that case, an actual list might be called for. You may not use x, y and z powers.]

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:No. Here is the situation. You say no Wraithknights and people with Wraithknights have to change their list and that's the end of it. If they don't play Eldar or don't have a Wraithknight that's the end of it. It is far simpler, easier and fairer than saying no super heavies of any kind.

That's just it, though. It's not just wraithknights.

Imperial Knights, Wraithknights, Ork Stompas, and all of those other big, giant robots create significant game imbalances.

It's not just one unit. It's a list.

Don't say "er my army is just Wraithknights" and use that as an excuse. That's both an incredibly rare army and is a problem either way.

It's not much different from running an army of just imperial knights.

Question: If I said to you "You can't use a Librarian. I find Fateweaver really OP so all Psyker units are banned". What would you think? Does that seem fair or stupid?

Psykers have the capacity to create significant game imbalances and are commonly complained about.

And for the record, I wouldn't care. I don't use librarians to begin with. [Though, in that case, an actual list might be called for. You may not use x, y and z powers.]

1. It really isn't. That's your madness not reality. There is a Wraithknight and probably less than 5 other units.

2. It's completely different for a start one is a Bound list the other is not. One is a codex army one is not.

3. You dodged the question. Is it fair to ban all units of one kind because one is OP? Whether you use them does not matter. I don't use Ripper Swarms but I know banning them because of scatterbikes is stupid.

Generally speaking, yes. I've played with and against superheavies in many ~2000 point games and I don't feel that they are the ROFLSTOMP units people fear they are.

Being able to spam them, like, say, wraithknights and imperial knights can, is difficult to deal with for many, I'll admit. If I were to limit anything, I'd say one LOW/detachment, no eldar/IK silliness allowed.

And yes, stomps are unpleasant. Every time I get a warboss in CC with a knight, he gets 6-stomped right off the board. It happens, but I think it's fair for SHWs to have greater melee capacity than 4 attacks.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Generally speaking, yes. I've played with and against superheavies in many ~2000 point games and I don't feel that they are the ROFLSTOMP units people fear they are.

Being able to spam them, like, say, wraithknights and imperial knights can, is difficult to deal with for many, I'll admit. If I were to limit anything, I'd say one LOW/detachment, no eldar/IK silliness allowed.

LoW/detatchment still allows multiple LoWs per army.

Traditio wrote:

Except, it's not just "no wraithknights." He may or may not even be playing eldar. What it's actually going to look like is a list, and it turns into a conversation:

"What army are you playing?"
"Imperial Knights."
"Uh...no. You got another army?"
"Sure, I also have eldar."
"No wraithknights."
"Er, my eldar list is composed of 5 wraithknights. Perhaps an orks list?"
"Sure, but no stompas."
"Ok, ok. How about..."

It saves a ton of bother just to say: "No superheavies."

Here's how that conversation should probably go:

"What army are you playing?"
"Imperial Knights."
"Hmm. I don't really have anything comparable to that. You have any other armies that would be a more even match for me?"
"Sure, I also have eldar."
"No wraithknights."
"Er, my eldar list is composed of 5 wraithknights."
" . . . You know what? I think you're looking for a different kind of game than I am. I think I'll see if someone else wants to play. Have fun, man!"
"No problem. Good luck finding another game, man!"

Traditio wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Generally speaking, yes. I've played with and against superheavies in many ~2000 point games and I don't feel that they are the ROFLSTOMP units people fear they are.

Being able to spam them, like, say, wraithknights and imperial knights can, is difficult to deal with for many, I'll admit. If I were to limit anything, I'd say one LOW/detachment, no eldar/IK silliness allowed.

LoW/detatchment still allows multiple LoWs per army.

Potentially, but it also institutes a HQ/troop tax. That coupled with the generally high price of LOWs means you can't take as many, in theory. It's more fair than the current whatever IKs can do where they take 3+ knights as a single detachment, imo.

Kap'n Krump wrote:Potentially, but it also institutes a HQ/troop tax. That coupled with the generally high price of LOWs means you can't take as many, in theory. It's more fair than the current whatever IKs can do where they take 3+ knights as a single detachment, imo.

Counterproposal, if superheavies are allowed:

1. Superheavies may not constitute more than 25% of your army.
2. No more than 1 superheavy per 2000 points.
3. For the purposes of 2, "per 2000" means that, for each given superheavy, there must be at least 1600 points of stuff in your army that's not a superheavy.

Traditio wrote:
This poll is much closer than the previous one.

Do you think I lost votes in my favor because of the thread title/poll question disparity?

Right, so you're not 'gathering data', you're looking for justification.

I really would advise you stopping wasting everyone else's time at this point, carry on playing whatever comped version of the game you're happy playing and stop looking for strangers on the Internet to validate your opinions.

It would honestly be more efficient to simply create a thread with a poll entitled "Is Traditio correct?" with a simple yes/no response and then you can apply that poll's results to any turmoil you may experience about how other people are doing it wrong.