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.

For all of you who are voting "yes," I have but one simple question for you:

Why are thousand sons not currently competitive?

Keep it on-topic, folks. Note that you don't actually HAVE to post in this thread, if you don't see value in it. --Janthkin

The poll has spoken yet again and you are the minority traditio, just accept it and walk away with your dignity.
Rather than trying to claw back as much as you can with a truly biased opinion and half arsed argument.

Traditio wrote:
For all of you who are voting "yes," I have but one simple question for you:

Why are thousand sons not currently competitive?

Because they are bad. Plain and simple.
SHV and GMC are not the reason they are bad - their own statline and horrific points cost cause that.

Therefore, if you want your precious TS fixed, FIX THEM. Don't invalidate a burgeoning playstyle which only is needed for a minority of targets. "Where the offence is, let the great axe fall."
The SHV are not the problem. The bad rules of TS and the few genuinely broken SHV and GMC need fixing.

Traditio wrote:
For all of you who are voting "yes," I have but one simple question for you:

Why are thousand sons not currently competitive?

For the same reason most CSM lists as a whole have difficulty being competitive, the CSM Codex as a whole is a mess from the roots up.

Not because superheavies and GMCs exist, otherwise they wouldn't have issues with just about any other army on the field at the moment.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Because they are bad. Plain and simple.
SHV and GMC are not the reason they are bad - their own statline and horrific points cost cause that.

Therefore, if you want your precious TS fixed, FIX THEM. Don't invalidate a burgeoning playstyle which only is needed for a minority of targets. "Where the offence is, let the great axe fall."
The SHV are not the problem. The bad rules of TS and the few genuinely broken SHV and GMC need fixing.

Would thousand sons be more competitive in a more infantry heavy meta in which superheavies weren't an issue?

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Because they are bad. Plain and simple.
SHV and GMC are not the reason they are bad - their own statline and horrific points cost cause that.

Therefore, if you want your precious TS fixed, FIX THEM. Don't invalidate a burgeoning playstyle which only is needed for a minority of targets. "Where the offence is, let the great axe fall."
The SHV are not the problem. The bad rules of TS and the few genuinely broken SHV and GMC need fixing.

Would thousand sons be more competitive in a more infantry heavy meta in which superheavies weren't an issue?

Well let's see, given CSM have issues with Regular Armor Guard, Marines period, Admec/Skitarii without Knights, and can get eaten by Nids fairly easily if the player knows what they are doing, no it would not change a thing.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Because they are bad. Plain and simple.
SHV and GMC are not the reason they are bad - their own statline and horrific points cost cause that.

Therefore, if you want your precious TS fixed, FIX THEM. Don't invalidate a burgeoning playstyle which only is needed for a minority of targets. "Where the offence is, let the great axe fall."
The SHV are not the problem. The bad rules of TS and the few genuinely broken SHV and GMC need fixing.

Would thousand sons be more competitive in a more infantry heavy meta?

They would be more competitive if the design team had consistency across the various codexes.

Traditio wrote:
For all of you who are voting "yes," I have but one simple question for you:

Why are thousand sons not currently competitive?

Doesn't really relate to the topic. Suggest you start a new thread for that and, at the risk of derailing, Imperial Armour 13 and allies should help you here...

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Because they are bad. Plain and simple.
SHV and GMC are not the reason they are bad - their own statline and horrific points cost cause that.

Therefore, if you want your precious TS fixed, FIX THEM. Don't invalidate a burgeoning playstyle which only is needed for a minority of targets. "Where the offence is, let the great axe fall."
The SHV are not the problem. The bad rules of TS and the few genuinely broken SHV and GMC need fixing.

Would thousand sons be more competitive in a more infantry heavy meta in which superheavies weren't an issue?

Not significantly. They get better in the same way Tactical marines get better if you remove all vehicles.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Because they are bad. Plain and simple.
SHV and GMC are not the reason they are bad - their own statline and horrific points cost cause that.

Therefore, if you want your precious TS fixed, FIX THEM. Don't invalidate a burgeoning playstyle which only is needed for a minority of targets. "Where the offence is, let the great axe fall."
The SHV are not the problem. The bad rules of TS and the few genuinely broken SHV and GMC need fixing.

Would thousand sons be more competitive in a more infantry heavy meta in which superheavies weren't an issue?

Why are vespids bad? Is it because of SHVs/GMCs?

No, they simply have an expensive point cost, coupled with low durability and damage output. Obviously not TS level of terrible, but still bad.
TS have similar problems, bad survivability (T4 3+/5++ iirc), bad mobility (SnP), TERRIBLE points cost (squad of 5 is 150pt), and meh damage (rapid fire S4 AP3)

The problem is that the units simply either needs a buff, or be properly priced. SHVs/GMCs aren't their ONLY weakness, it's literally anything that looks at them funny, and their inability to threaten anything meaningfully (i.e. for more than one turn).

You know what makes them better? If we remove ALL cover, vehicles, MCs, or invul saves. Now they're super deadly against everything but termies!

the problem is 1K sons cost too much for the performance they bring. they where crap when the CSM 6th edition codex first came out. your arguement may have had a point if you had a case of "well you used to see them everywhere. then escalation and kinights came out and they dissappered"

I am rather shocked that there are so many naysayers for what should have been settled 2 or 3 editions ago.

First, they came for the Wraithknights, then they came for the Imperial Knights. When they finally came for the Malcadors and Baneblades...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
In starcraft; zerg have ravagers now to break up and punish static units. Ironic.

In Elder Scrolls Online, the Templar class now has an execute instead of some CC. Ironic.

((???))

Zerg are similar to Tyranids, but Tyranids completely lack their abilities to counter gunlines.

Not sure how TESO is relevant in the comparison, assuming you were not just being snide.

I didn't see the connection, and I kind of still don't, because I have no idea about starcraft and whatnot. I suppose the lesson is that the Zerg were having a problem in Starcraft and so they fixed it, which they have not yet done in Warhammer for the similar race, the Tyranids. Is that what you meant?

Basically yes.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
First, they came for the Wraithknights, then they came for the Imperial Knights. When they finally came for the Malcadors and Baneblades...

No! Please don't say it. They can't get my CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT! They can't!

Traditio wrote:

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.

Something to the tune of this could work, but it's worth noting that 25% / 2000 points basically eliminates things like stompas, lord of skulls, maybe some baneblades etc from normal 40k entirely. I would probably argue something like 50%.

At any rate, like others have said, I don't think it's superheavies that's the problem. It's being able to take 3+ for ~300 apiece that is the issue.

So this is about making Thousand Sons more playable?

If people are that worried about "compostion", simply require "battleforged" armies. 40k doesn't work on percentages. So you get your one LOW slot to fill with whatever you like. Woo-hoo!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If people are that worried about "compostion", simply require "battleforged" armies. 40k doesn't work on percentages. So you get your one LOW slot to fill with whatever you like. Woo-hoo!

30k uses percentages for it's LoW slot (you get 1 total, and only in games beyond 2,000 points. Though it should be noted that knights are still it's own list)

I know not what this "30k" is, only that it is not 40k.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I know not what this "30k" is, only that it is not 40k.

Same ruleset with modifications/adjustments. Its generally way better than the burning original.

OT: Yes. The core-rules for super-heavys are the least problem atm. The messed up CAD and some codizes/supplements on the other hand....

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.

I hate to break it too you, but it's stat line and main gun is just short of that of a Knight.
It lacks the Invulnerable save sure, and it's main gun is only half as good as the Paladin's, and it lacks the deadly combat abilities because it isn't a walker.
But that doesn't discount that it does deserve to be a Super Heavy and has the stat-line and equipment of one. Unless you're going to argue a Knight shouldn't be a super heavy and actually be a normal walker too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Ok, so we should ban all Bikes and Jetbikes because of Scatbikes, Smashfether, Ravenwing Superfriends Star, ScreamerStar etc are problems and it's too hard to just list them out.
We should ban all MCs because Riptides and Dreadknights are problems and it's too hard to list everything out.
We should ban all infantry because Centstar, Fire Dragons, D-Scythe Wraithguard etc are problems and it's too hard to list everything out.
We should ban Psychic Powers because Invisibility, the new crazy Marien powers etc are problems and it's too hard to list everything out.
We should ban all Space Marines because of Smashfether, Centstar, etc.
We should ban all Tau because of Riptides etc.
We should ban all Eldar because of Wraithknights, Scatbikes etc.
We should...

You get the idea. Down the rabbit hole we go with this logic.

I haven't seen ruled for the malcador, but can't that thing take 6 lascannon sponsons, as well as having a transport capacity, or is this a case of there being like 8 versions of the same imperial tank hill? Definitely sounds like a superheavy either way. And I'd love to face one at some point. I look forward to my knights flubbing their ion shield saves yet again.

Edit: Nevermind. If battlescribe is even remotely accurate, and that 'engine damage' rule does anything not fun, I have the same respect for regular malcador users that I do for regular chaos terminator users. Can throw a wrench if opponent doesn't see it coming, but otherwise just more grav-fodder for our C:SM overlords to casually sweep aside.

There are several flavors of Malcador-chassis thing.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
We should ban all Tau because of Riptides etc.

If you've been following Traditio's previous posts, they do, in fact, believe all Tau should be banned. Along with a ton of other things that don't match their One True Way of playing 40k.

You're approaching this like an actual discussion on the merits of superheavies, when the person who started the poll did so in bad faith, with the intent of dividing the playerbase into "good" and "bad" groups of people based on which models they like.

My bad, my brain read this title just like the other thread and I voted no on accident. They should be allowed because some armies have a harder time competing against others without super heavies or gargantuans. It's sad, but true.
Maybe if it were a perfect/balanced set of rules that issue wouldn't happen.. :/

 mmzero252 wrote:
My bad, my brain read this title just like the other thread and I voted no on accident. They should be allowed because some armies have a harder time competing against others without super heavies or gargantuans. It's sad, but true.
Maybe if it were a perfect/balanced set of rules that issue wouldn't happen.. :/

I don't think it needs to be perfect. It's just that Games Workshop has different priorities than making a ruleset that's fun for everyone, and that doesn't privilege one group of players over others.

We're all in this together, now; space marines and imperial knights and tau monstrous creatures alike. It's in all of our interests for the game to be fun for everyone. Getting rid of the people who like "OP" models doesn't fix anything in the long run, any more than blaming Blood Angel and Dark Eldar players for "choosing" to play weaker factions does. It way oversimplifies things, and turns discussions of how to make the game fun and balanced into discussions of who deserves it.

Jewelfox wrote:Getting rid of the people who like "OP" models doesn't really fix anything in the long run.

Please explain to me how that doesn't fix anything in the long run.

If there are a group of 5 people playing a video game and one of those people insists on activating a game-crashing glitch, how does it not "fix anything in the long run" to kick out that guy?

Traditio wrote:

Jewelfox wrote:Getting rid of the people who like "OP" models doesn't really fix anything in the long run.

Please explain to me how that doesn't fix anything in the long run.

If there are a group of 5 people playing a video game and one of those people insists on activating a game-crashing glitch, how does it not "fix anything in the long run" to kick out that guy?

First you get rid of Guy Number 1.
Then Number 2.
Then Number 3.
Then Number 4.
Then you're all alone.

Traditio wrote:

Jewelfox wrote:Getting rid of the people who like "OP" models doesn't really fix anything in the long run.

Please explain to me how that doesn't fix anything in the long run.

If there are a group of 5 people playing a video game and one of those people insists on activating a game-crashing glitch, how does it not "fix anything in the long run" to kick out that guy?

If the glitch is specific to a particular character, like say in Super Smash Bros., you can tell the hypothetical player to stop abusing it without banning the character.

As much as I disagree with the ITC putting game balance up to popular vote, I can at least respect that comp systems are intended to let people play with the models and factions they like. I personally discuss models and listbuilding in advance, as much as I can, and try to make each game fun for both people. Which was the intent of the thread you crapped on earlier.

 Jewelfox wrote:

 mmzero252 wrote:
My bad, my brain read this title just like the other thread and I voted no on accident. They should be allowed because some armies have a harder time competing against others without super heavies or gargantuans. It's sad, but true.
Maybe if it were a perfect/balanced set of rules that issue wouldn't happen.. :/

I don't think it needs to be perfect. It's just that Games Workshop has different priorities than making a ruleset that's fun for everyone, and that doesn't privilege one group of players over others.

We're all in this together, now; space marines and imperial knights and tau monstrous creatures alike. It's in all of our interests for the game to be fun for everyone. Getting rid of the people who like "OP" models doesn't fix anything in the long run, any more than blaming Blood Angel and Dark Eldar players for "choosing" to play weaker factions does. It way oversimplifies things, and turns discussions of how to make the game fun and balanced into discussions of who deserves it.

Of course it doesn't have to be perfect. The problems come up when, for example, my local game store wants to run a Start Collecting Tournament. The store owner himself brought up the subject then almost instantly turned around and said "Actually guys, this is probably a terrible idea. Depending on what armies people pick, the point values are going to be way off. That or someone is just going to absolutely dominate over everyone else." That all coming from the store owner who doesn't even play the game personally. He just has a basic idea of the various units included in the boxes.