Yeah I agree with the response above, this is a GW made monster they need to wrangle down. Bans are just bad for the community at large, especially knee jerk ones.
chimeara wrote: Some friends shared this with me. I think that it's extreme, however necessary. I've played the new IH stuff with my knights. It's not even close to fun. I killed almost nothing.
When is forgeworld going to fix that model? It's beyond broken, straight unfun to play against.
Hit on 2+ reroll 1s, 4++ @T8 with 16 S8 AP-2 2 DMG shots.
Seriously.
For 300 points. You keep skipping that part very conveniently.
Firstly, I'm loath to ban anything like that as it feels like a knee jerk reaction to a problem we all see.
Secondly, just because it costs so many points isn't some promise of greatness. I don't know why you keep trotting that out as some kind of justification. I mean lets see some high point suck choices shall we ? Lets here, Land raiders, super expensive, pretty poop. Logan on storm rider, almost 200 pts, not very wonderful. Vendettas pretty poop, around 230 pts. I mean really, if we take a look at many books a great number of the units aren't very good or worth what point cost they have. Just because it costs 300 pts doesn't mean it has to be good, it should be good but then when so much is bad for its cost and it's so good its an auto include that is a huge hint of a problem.
The problem may not be that the Levi is too good, the fact may be that most other choices are just so bad. The unmistakable issue is that you need to raise up poor units, drag down OP no brainer choices and either make everything ho hum or make everything feel like an auto include. Anything less and you have balance issues that will frustrate people and force these knee jerk bans and I think we know GW love to punish FW so I might not get too used to Levis if this process continues.
As well as much as I dislike banning things because it's good, if a choice becomes a no brainer inclusion to most any list that can take it, that can't be allowed to stay as it is or you can't say you want to balance the game at all. I don't even use a levi, nor have I ever played against one but I'll be damned if I haven't learned all about it from every battle report, and online chatter about it, that tells me something. IH just twists the unit up just that touch more where as before it was a no brainer now it also buffs it out which says as much about IH. Time will tell how it shakes out but I can't imagine these IH lists are much fun to play against which also leads to people crying for bans as they get bitter or angry. Much like how people cry about guard infantry squads even though they are totally fine in a mono guard list. People are just tired of seeing them in so many lists with knights so they want them nerfed and never seen again, the levi ban is just being perhaps more honest with the intent.
This all goes back and falls at GWs feet who really need to work harder on making some level of better balance, fix the borked core rules to limit some of the abuses of the shaky system and admit they are either poor at doing this or really don't want to either way its time for honesty on their end and I for one would applaud them for being forthright, finally.
What I'm saying is, if you pay so much for a unit, you should expect some sorta great performance, with those bad units you listed having their own set of issues (Land Raiders are stopped by a single Gaunt sitting in front of it, and now they can't drop off their cargo! Oh and transport rules basically suck).
You can't deny the fact that the missions fundamentally change the flow of the game, as do the ITC terrain rulings.
Spoletta mentioned that in etc someone did run harlequin troupes, something not really seen in ITC.
So it has no influence and we are biased against it because we don't know it?
An anecdote without any data to analyze is pretty useless. There is usually pretty healthy LOS blocking terrain for ITC, so, non-use is a matter of Meta and not Mission. Elves have limited options on what works against vehicles so there is often little room to play around with other units.
20 points MINIMUM for a T3 model with a single melta shot, no rerolls, and no bonus unless they're at 3". I'd also imagine ITC blocking first floor actually HELPS Troupes get across the board.
You can't deny the fact that the missions fundamentally change the flow of the game, as do the ITC terrain rulings. Spoletta mentioned that in etc someone did run harlequin troupes, something not really seen in ITC. So it has no influence and we are biased against it because we don't know it?
An anecdote without any data to analyze is pretty useless. There is usually pretty healthy LOS blocking terrain for ITC, so, non-use is a matter of Meta and not Mission. Elves have limited options on what works against vehicles so there is often little room to play around with other units.
20 points MINIMUM for a T3 model with a single melta shot, no rerolls, and no bonus unless they're at 3". I'd also imagine ITC blocking first floor actually HELPS Troupes get across the board.
Sigmatron wrote: So when is the Eldar flyer spam gonna get banned at events? Hopefully more events don't follow this example.
Eldar flyers are less of an issue if your playing the actual game GW writes instead of ITC.
Please elaborate how they become less of a problem.
For first part, unless its against Tau, and for the 2nd part, Non-ITC missions dont have a lot of kill objectives and has more holding objectives, 300 Orks in all 10mans will win vs 7 CWE flyers, b.c they can hold objectives long enough to matter and never needing to kill 1 flyer.
ITC is 70% "Who can kill better" where GW missions are not.
Arguing about which missions favor what more, more is a sign with how GW aren't good at balance, again.
If all that mattered was boots on the ground, horde armies would almost always win. If all that matters is killing it makes certain units useless. The system should have enough utility that both kinds of units are equally or close to equally important which just highlights some key issues.
I suppose selling wise it's fine, as it means they sell lots of both types of units to be used in those different types of missions and maybe that is part of the design.
Yeah, cost isn't a guarantee of greatness, nor does it mean a unit should be good.
4 point Guardsmen are pretty great.
400 point Macharius are pretty crap.
Theoretically, capability/cost should be constant, but it isn't, because there's no real way to pre-emptively quantify capability except by testing and experience. So the units with a high ratio are good, and units with a low ratio are bad.
FWIW, the Leviathan isn't even the best Dreadnaught for its points. Even the good old Missile/Las Venerable is slightly more efficient for its points against a surprising number of targets and the Mortis variants are better than that. A pair of those will get you better output. It's big advantage basically comes down to having weaponry that's less swingy in a world of to-hit debuffs and invul saves and its "all the eggs in one basket" nature making it a better buff target.
But you absolutely need to consider buffability and other such factors when assessing the power of a unit.
That's the problem. The leviathan was always good but it's points reflected that. Now thanks to the buffs given by the new sm codex and supplements it's under costed in those armies vastly so in the ih. First it gets doctrines, then if ultra marines it can fall back and still shoot, in raven guard it counts in cover, and in ih it gets to be death guard, hawkshroud, and tau. Plus all the new strategems and other buffs the loyalist marines get. And you know when they nerf it the chaos version will go right with it and it got nothing. All the loyalist sm units should have gotten a points increase. Instead many got points drops. Meanwhile csm are stuck where they were at the same price without even atsknf. And the loyalist leviathan already had a better invul at the same price.
I don't agree with it, but you're probably right. GW just hates to actually do real work so they will probably just toss out the baby with the bathwater. That is their way, GW gonna GW.
So you chose to play a FW army.....so? You don't play in that particular event, sorry. Your choice.
I've TO'd many FOW events, and I hear the same excuses. Why can't my Soviets play in a Normandy themed event? Really?
It's not all events, just some.
If we're talking about a narrative themed event, thats one thing, but then we're also not talking about a run of the mill event at that point.
But anyway, yes I chose to play an FW army, how and why is that different than choosing to play Space Marines generally?
Just to return to this since I've been gone most of the day..
I can answer the second part pretty easily.
When I stop by my GW store (or FLGS) on the way home, point me to the shelf where I can buy the FW army? Or even on the games-workshop online store. They are vastly different entities.
I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a push-back on a lot of FW stuff with this new marine Codex. Until other factions get similarly codex-creeped updates, this sort of problem is going to keep coming up.
Xiphons, Leviathans, Deredeos, and plenty of other combos besides that haven't been figured out yet. GW balances the Codexes using the plastic models that they make, with little consideration for the FW side of things, telling FW to handle their own rules (conjecture, idk if that's how it works, but that's how it dang well feels).
I agree with the above, though. ITC is meh at best and also ban-lists are the beginning of the end for an edition and a sign of degradation of gameplay. GW obviously doesn't want there to be ban-lists because that's models they're not selling. If they catch wind of tournaments starting to put bans on models, they'll rebalance them either via points or rules.
If you find a problem with balance, send it to GW's FAQ team. They need to start compiling this crazy stuff so we can get a good Chapter Approved.
Not 2019. Chapter Approved 2020. I don't expect all the problems with the Space Marines to be solved by the end of the year.
drbored wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a push-back on a lot of FW stuff with this new marine Codex. Until other factions get similarly codex-creeped updates, this sort of problem is going to keep coming up.
Xiphons, Leviathans, Deredeos, and plenty of other combos besides that haven't been figured out yet. GW balances the Codexes using the plastic models that they make, with little consideration for the FW side of things, telling FW to handle their own rules (conjecture, idk if that's how it works, but that's how it dang well feels).
I agree with the above, though. ITC is meh at best and also ban-lists are the beginning of the end for an edition and a sign of degradation of gameplay. GW obviously doesn't want there to be ban-lists because that's models they're not selling. If they catch wind of tournaments starting to put bans on models, they'll rebalance them either via points or rules.
If you find a problem with balance, send it to GW's FAQ team. They need to start compiling this crazy stuff so we can get a good Chapter Approved.
Not 2019. Chapter Approved 2020. I don't expect all the problems with the Space Marines to be solved by the end of the year.
No that's not how it works. The same team writes the rules for fw and codex units. And apparently they don't take into account the codex options either because they didn't realize how the dreadnought character strategem would affect dreadnoughts with less than 10 wounds. Or how powerful this codex would make repulsor executioners. Or sm flyers. It's not just fw stuff. Resin isn't magically better than plastic.
Eonfuzz wrote: Why are banlists seen as "Bad"? Other WAYYY more competitive games have them.
ie:
Street Fighter
Tekken 7
Dota 2
League of legends etc
Infact I find community moderation to be a GOOD thing, as it directly highlights end users are not happy with corporate bs
To be fair, the rules exist to facilitate the sale of models, fundamentally the game is about playing with toy soldiers. When you tell people they can't play with their (expensive) toy soldiers, they tend to get irate about it.
In this case however, given the narrowness, it's probably not a huge deal (you can still run the unit, the army will just have to be built differently and won't be able to take advantage of as much stuff), but one can understand the feeling.
Eonfuzz wrote: Why are banlists seen as "Bad"? Other WAYYY more competitive games have them.
ie:
Street Fighter
Tekken 7
Dota 2
League of legends etc
Infact I find community moderation to be a GOOD thing, as it directly highlights end users are not happy with corporate bs
To be fair, the rules exist to facilitate the sale of models, fundamentally the game is about playing with toy soldiers. When you tell people they can't play with their (expensive) toy soldiers, they tend to get irate about it.
In this case however, given the narrowness, it's probably not a huge deal (you can still run the unit, the army will just have to be built differently and won't be able to take advantage of as much stuff), but one can understand the feeling.
But money IS time, and people that spent hours learning or "maining" a character in those games doesn't get irate to the extent people do over miniatures.
And honestly, to even have a IF Bigboidred means you are meta chasing. I think meta chasers should be aware it's a risky investment and not chuck the dummy when things go slightly awry
Eonfuzz wrote: Why are banlists seen as "Bad"? Other WAYYY more competitive games have them.
ie:
Street Fighter
Tekken 7
Dota 2
League of legends etc
Infact I find community moderation to be a GOOD thing, as it directly highlights end users are not happy with corporate bs
B.c people are not spending 100's of dollars on those games for 1 unit. Thats like if each character could cost up to 300$ and then they ban him after a lot of players buy him. No one would accept that.
Eonfuzz wrote: Why are banlists seen as "Bad"? Other WAYYY more competitive games have them.
ie:
Street Fighter
Tekken 7
Dota 2
League of legends etc
Infact I find community moderation to be a GOOD thing, as it directly highlights end users are not happy with corporate bs
B.c people are not spending 100's of dollars on those games for 1 unit. Thats like if each character could cost up to 300$ and then they ban him after a lot of players buy him. No one would accept that.
But time IS money, as I said earlier.
If I spend 20+ hours (at least!) getting good with a character at lets say an average way of $30 an hour, that's $600+ worth of time spent learning how to play them.
Eonfuzz wrote: Why are banlists seen as "Bad"? Other WAYYY more competitive games have them.
ie:
Street Fighter
Tekken 7
Dota 2
League of legends etc
Infact I find community moderation to be a GOOD thing, as it directly highlights end users are not happy with corporate bs
B.c people are not spending 100's of dollars on those games for 1 unit. Thats like if each character could cost up to 300$ and then they ban him after a lot of players buy him. No one would accept that.
But time IS money, as I said earlier.
If I spend 20+ hours (at least!) getting good with a character at lets say an average way of $30 an hour, that's $600+ worth of time spent learning how to play them.
People do accept that however.
Equally i can spend 20+ hours playing with that model tho.
Eonfuzz wrote: Why are banlists seen as "Bad"? Other WAYYY more competitive games have them.
ie:
Street Fighter
Tekken 7
Dota 2
League of legends etc
Infact I find community moderation to be a GOOD thing, as it directly highlights end users are not happy with corporate bs
B.c people are not spending 100's of dollars on those games for 1 unit. Thats like if each character could cost up to 300$ and then they ban him after a lot of players buy him. No one would accept that.
But time IS money, as I said earlier.
If I spend 20+ hours (at least!) getting good with a character at lets say an average way of $30 an hour, that's $600+ worth of time spent learning how to play them.
People do accept that however.
Equally i can spend 20+ hours playing with that model tho.
Sure, people can also spend a LOT more time learning characters in competitive fighting games.
Honestly bans are totally acceptable, especially so if it's targeted towards Meta Chasers and not your average joe.
Honestly I feel the problem is more with the army as a whole rather than one unit. For example repulsers are equally broken - if you consider the entire army gets the benefit of the Tau army - plus a dozen bonuses - the problem starts to take shape. Mathematically a lord discordant charging a levi dread with reroll all hits (easy in SM) on a 4+ the LD dies on average everytime. Bringing plagues you are in trouble due to thunderfire... Obviously my view on this is a chaos one but the issue is that the primary weakness of this army is melee but its bubble wrapped within 5+ for the greater goods and 4+ rerolling all hits that it really makes challenging the army in melee difficult - combine this with the charge range reduction from repulser executioners, thunderfire cannons, and devestator doctrine etc. Its difficult to deal with if you aren't harlequinn or have some banshee mask equivalent.
Xenomancers wrote: LOL I love how Dakka always resorts to BS personal attacks when they start to lose arguments. You guys don't even know what you are talking about anymore. We are talking about the levi and it being the most obvious busted combo and it being perfectly fine to ban the levi as a result in the short term until IH are inevitably nerfed.
No, we're talking about your blanket statement that Forge World is the root cause of all balance problems, while at the same time in a different threat you're arguing that the Iron Hands rules are the root cause of a specific set of balance problems, irrespective of Forge World involvement.
Either the Iron Hands rules are broken, a scenario in which Forge World plays no part, or Forge World rules are the underlying balance problem, in which case the Iron Hands are fine.
The hilarious part is that there's a middle ground where both factors can apply, but because of your own inability to not fundamentally freak out over everything you've locked yourself out of making that argument. But by all means, please continue to try to move the goal posts yet another time. It's highly entertaining.
And besides it's not like levi was breaking game before. Literally nothing has changed in levi except...wait for it...GW codex coming out. In particular iron hands.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
niv-mizzet wrote: Game needs more reason to bring melee.
Melee can hop into the leviathan+characters firebase and disrupt everything while killing the characters.
People just get upset when their 100% shooty armies have a hard time with something. Ironically those same people will be the first to tell you to “bring a more balanced army” when you complain about their unchargable hover tank perched on top of a ruin.
Gee nice for those with worthwhile melee. Whatabout armies which either have no melee at all(unless you think throwing guys with WS5+ S3 AP0 D1 as melee...) or ridiculously overpriced junk in melee department.
Also melee is poor answer to say IH repulsors and if you can't surround the IH leviathan that's as good as useless thing as well with shooting being better way to deal with it.
Overwatch is a non issue though for host raptorial warp Talons.
Because he ain't getting any overwatch.
a) warp talons are overpriced junk
b) repulsors make your charge 11". Good luck doing it
c) vs non-repulsors he can push you 12" away making you 13" charge. Oh wait that's illegal charge...
Eonfuzz wrote: Why are banlists seen as "Bad"? Other WAYYY more competitive games have them.
ie:
Street Fighter
Tekken 7
Dota 2
League of legends etc
Infact I find community moderation to be a GOOD thing, as it directly highlights end users are not happy with corporate bs
To be fair, the rules exist to facilitate the sale of models, fundamentally the game is about playing with toy soldiers. When you tell people they can't play with their (expensive) toy soldiers, they tend to get irate about it.
In this case however, given the narrowness, it's probably not a huge deal (you can still run the unit, the army will just have to be built differently and won't be able to take advantage of as much stuff), but one can understand the feeling.
But money IS time, and people that spent hours learning or "maining" a character in those games doesn't get irate to the extent people do over miniatures.
And honestly, to even have a IF Bigboidred means you are meta chasing. I think meta chasers should be aware it's a risky investment and not chuck the dummy when things go slightly awry
With a videogame, you can get hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of games in during a gaming career in relatively short time spans. Most 40k players never get more than a couple dozen games in total, your average regular 40k player might get a couple dozen games a year perhaps fifty if they're really active, with your hardcore tournament crowd getting maybe 80-150? The number of people who have played a thousand games of 40k ever are the dedicated few indeed. For even relatively casual players, tournament play may form a significant proportion of their play because that may just be the best/only opportunity to get in games. Significantly fewer opportunities to actually play with those toys relative to a videogame. People don't like being told they can't use their expensive toys (which, if we're talking time=$, also had time required to build and paint and learn how to use tactically, time invested in travel for most/all play instead of playing videogames on your couch) when there's a relative lack of opportunity to use them. The cost-to-play ratio in terms of time actually spent playing 40k is dramatically higher than it is for a videogame no matter how you want to slice it.
There's also a much more direct feedback mechanism for event organizers. A bunch of people being butthurt over a videogame character being banned isn't going to sink league of legends. A couple butthurt 40k players can make their displeasure felt much more directly in a variety of ways, not the least of which is that attendance is far more critical, particularly at smaller events.
So you chose to play a FW army.....so? You don't play in that particular event, sorry. Your choice.
I've TO'd many FOW events, and I hear the same excuses. Why can't my Soviets play in a Normandy themed event? Really?
It's not all events, just some.
If we're talking about a narrative themed event, thats one thing, but then we're also not talking about a run of the mill event at that point.
But anyway, yes I chose to play an FW army, how and why is that different than choosing to play Space Marines generally?
Just to return to this since I've been gone most of the day..
I can answer the second part pretty easily.
When I stop by my GW store (or FLGS) on the way home, point me to the shelf where I can buy the FW army? Or even on the games-workshop online store. They are vastly different entities.
There's lots of GW stuff you can't get in a store and can only get from GW's webstore, and as for the website, try the "related sites" section at the bottom. Given that the FW people work out of the same place as the rest of corporate GW, it's hard to see how they're such vastly different entities. The primary differentiator is that FW does low production volume resin models, the main studio does higher volume plastic.
So you chose to play a FW army.....so? You don't play in that particular event, sorry. Your choice.
I've TO'd many FOW events, and I hear the same excuses. Why can't my Soviets play in a Normandy themed event? Really?
It's not all events, just some.
If we're talking about a narrative themed event, thats one thing, but then we're also not talking about a run of the mill event at that point.
But anyway, yes I chose to play an FW army, how and why is that different than choosing to play Space Marines generally?
Just to return to this since I've been gone most of the day..
I can answer the second part pretty easily.
When I stop by my GW store (or FLGS) on the way home, point me to the shelf where I can buy the FW army? Or even on the games-workshop online store. They are vastly different entities.
And that matters how? They are both GW models. FW is part of GW. They are 100% part of same company. Easily bought. And by far less balance issues than GW main studio. Banning them is just knee jerk reaction from lazy TO's.
So you chose to play a FW army.....so? You don't play in that particular event, sorry. Your choice.
I've TO'd many FOW events, and I hear the same excuses. Why can't my Soviets play in a Normandy themed event? Really?
It's not all events, just some.
If we're talking about a narrative themed event, thats one thing, but then we're also not talking about a run of the mill event at that point.
But anyway, yes I chose to play an FW army, how and why is that different than choosing to play Space Marines generally?
Just to return to this since I've been gone most of the day..
I can answer the second part pretty easily.
When I stop by my GW store (or FLGS) on the way home, point me to the shelf where I can buy the FW army? Or even on the games-workshop online store. They are vastly different entities.
And if shelf in FLGS is level of acceptance...well newsflash: Tons of products from gw main are not on shelves either. You can't build useful necron army with what is on shelves.
And speaking of necrons...yeah IH leviathan is just "dont' bother to shoot" level. 3 doomsday ark(best AT necrons have): 3.1111 wounds BEFORE FNP. Pylon(our titan killer...) 3.24 wounds before FNP. Fun fun fun.
So our choices are try to tag it into combat with wraiths(300 pts, not easy to reach and marines have plenty of mass dakka to clear wraiths) or just let it shoot all game at ease.
So you chose to play a FW army.....so? You don't play in that particular event, sorry. Your choice.
I've TO'd many FOW events, and I hear the same excuses. Why can't my Soviets play in a Normandy themed event? Really?
It's not all events, just some.
If we're talking about a narrative themed event, thats one thing, but then we're also not talking about a run of the mill event at that point.
But anyway, yes I chose to play an FW army, how and why is that different than choosing to play Space Marines generally?
Just to return to this since I've been gone most of the day..
I can answer the second part pretty easily.
When I stop by my GW store (or FLGS) on the way home, point me to the shelf where I can buy the FW army? Or even on the games-workshop online store. They are vastly different entities.
Well, while on the GW site, you scroll aaaall the way down to the bottom & look in the column "Related Sites".
Oh look. Forge World is the first link under that heading. Click on it.
Or you can just type Forge World into your browser.... Afterall you're somehow bright enough to figure out how to get to the GW site & Dakka.... So you should be able to figure out how to navigate to FW.
At the local stores? It's 2019. You just have to accept that there exists things that various companies (GW or otherwise) don't sell through those channels.
And yes, I understand that might cause some resentment from the independent stores. It is after all siphoning sales away from them.
But availability wise? FW is equally available to anyone with a credit card, keyboard, & shipping address.
You can't deny the fact that the missions fundamentally change the flow of the game, as do the ITC terrain rulings.
Spoletta mentioned that in etc someone did run harlequin troupes, something not really seen in ITC.
So it has no influence and we are biased against it because we don't know it?
An anecdote without any data to analyze is pretty useless. There is usually pretty healthy LOS blocking terrain for ITC, so, non-use is a matter of Meta and not Mission. Elves have limited options on what works against vehicles so there is often little room to play around with other units.
20 points MINIMUM for a T3 model with a single melta shot, no rerolls, and no bonus unless they're at 3". I'd also imagine ITC blocking first floor actually HELPS Troupes get across the board.
Sigmatron wrote: So when is the Eldar flyer spam gonna get banned at events? Hopefully more events don't follow this example.
Eldar flyers are less of an issue if your playing the actual game GW writes instead of ITC.
Please elaborate how they become less of a problem.
You were the one touting we were ignorant morons not intimely knowledgable about ITC, have you any proof of that?
No, then i reccomend you to work on your manners.
Sigmatron wrote: So when is the Eldar flyer spam gonna get banned at events? Hopefully more events don't follow this example.
Eldar flyers are less of an issue if your playing the actual game GW writes instead of ITC.
Few tournaments are "GW games" as apposed to ITC. So they are a problem.
Sounds like the ITC is the problem. It is not really GWs fault if your houserules cause unintended consequences.
Damn right.
ITC has warped everything about this game in a really bad way.
Sorry I must have missed the memo where 7 untouchable flyers with massive threat range, consistent damage and can essentially teleport across the board is only good because of ITC.
Go play an ETC mission.
Your kills give 0 points, you don't have enough on the board to hold more then 1, maybe 2 objectives and your going to miss a lot of Maelstrom points.
Your flyers are still great but the 7 flyer list loses the mission.
While in the ITC more then half your points are going to come from simply killing things. (kill, kill more and 3 secondaries to kill specific stuff).
drbored wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a push-back on a lot of FW stuff with this new marine Codex. Until other factions get similarly codex-creeped updates, this sort of problem is going to keep coming up.
Xiphons, Leviathans, Deredeos, and plenty of other combos besides that haven't been figured out yet. GW balances the Codexes using the plastic models that they make, with little consideration for the FW side of things, telling FW to handle their own rules (conjecture, idk if that's how it works, but that's how it dang well feels).
,
I'm curious to how Xiphons are anywhere near the power of a Leviathan? In my experience they're mediocre at best.
Looking at ETC 2019 lists 96 razorwings, 24 voidraven.Word drukhari(1 per player with dark eldars, 1 per detachment) appeared 98 times. 105 crimson hunters, 20 hemlocks with word aeldar appearing 41 times.
tneva82 wrote: Funny how competive to max ETC event has the flyers by the bucketload...Or is this some "real competive players don't exist in europe" mentality?-)
ETC is a team tournament. Lots of skew lists make the grade because you can match them favourably.
Try making that list work as a TAC in a singles championship without having to house rule it to be better.
Like 90% of the biggest meta gaps this edition are caused by ITC's heavy focus on killing gak. It's why durability is so valued in ITC - it denies kill points. ITC is born from the k/d ratio obsessed.
Turns out, when the game is about tactical movement and objectives, a bunch of flyers that can't hold objectives get countered very quickly.
tneva82 wrote: Funny how competive to max ETC event has the flyers by the bucketload...Or is this some "real competive players don't exist in europe" mentality?-)
ETC team lists are all skewed as you can steer them towards the correct opponent.
drbored wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a push-back on a lot of FW stuff with this new marine Codex. Until other factions get similarly codex-creeped updates, this sort of problem is going to keep coming up.
Xiphons, Leviathans, Deredeos, and plenty of other combos besides that haven't been figured out yet. GW balances the Codexes using the plastic models that they make, with little consideration for the FW side of things, telling FW to handle their own rules (conjecture, idk if that's how it works, but that's how it dang well feels).
,
I'm curious to how Xiphons are anywhere near the power of a Leviathan? In my experience they're mediocre at best.
I'm guessing he's just reciting names of fw units. Because all fw is op. You know like stompas, renegades and heretics, and malcador tanks.
I wouldnt mind a complete banning of FW in most tournaments. Just to keep the amount of Datasheets down to a more reasonable number. At least for Imperium since the amount of units is staggering. 40k feels a lot like the one who could remember all the units and especially stratagems is the one who wins. Not really a problem in a smaller and more easily acessable game but 40k rules are all over the place. I could probably learn all the armies in 4th edition faster than just Marines with their supplements and how all the stratagems and tactics work now in 8th.
I wouldnt ban just 1 unit though since I think its more of a bloat/information problem than a powerlevel problem. And leviathans arent exactly obscure so how to play against them isnt a secret
Some FW units could probably become regular units and lots of normal Datasheets being consolidated at the same time. I would still like to see the FW units on the table but then perhaps more as count as since they do look good or in more casual games in which I could spend 15-20min talking with my opponent before we even start rolling aby dice
Klickor wrote: I wouldnt mind a complete banning of FW in most tournaments. Just to keep the amount of Datasheets down to a more reasonable number. At least for Imperium since the amount of units is staggering. 40k feels a lot like the one who could remember all the units and especially stratagems is the one who wins. Not really a problem in a smaller and more easily acessable game but 40k rules are all over the place. I could probably learn all the armies in 4th edition faster than just Marines with their supplements and how all the stratagems and tactics work now in 8th.
I wouldnt ban just 1 unit though since I think its more of a bloat/information problem than a powerlevel problem. And leviathans arent exactly obscure so how to play against them isnt a secret
Some FW units could probably become regular units and lots of normal Datasheets being consolidated at the same time. I would still like to see the FW units on the table but then perhaps more as count as since they do look good or in more casual games in which I could spend 15-20min talking with my opponent before we even start rolling aby dice
So the issue is fw, units that existed way longer, but SM supplements are fine.
Klickor wrote: I wouldnt mind a complete banning of FW in most tournaments. Just to keep the amount of Datasheets down to a more reasonable number. At least for Imperium since the amount of units is staggering. 40k feels a lot like the one who could remember all the units and especially stratagems is the one who wins. Not really a problem in a smaller and more easily acessable game but 40k rules are all over the place. I could probably learn all the armies in 4th edition faster than just Marines with their supplements and how all the stratagems and tactics work now in 8th.
I wouldnt ban just 1 unit though since I think its more of a bloat/information problem than a powerlevel problem. And leviathans arent exactly obscure so how to play against them isnt a secret
Some FW units could probably become regular units and lots of normal Datasheets being consolidated at the same time. I would still like to see the FW units on the table but then perhaps more as count as since they do look good or in more casual games in which I could spend 15-20min talking with my opponent before we even start rolling aby dice
So the issue is fw, units that existed way longer, but SM supplements are fine.
The feth is that logic...
My guess is that the event would be finished if it banned an actual GW codex. GW would pull sponsorship, etc.
tneva82 wrote: Funny how competive to max ETC event has the flyers by the bucketload...Or is this some "real competive players don't exist in europe" mentality?-)
ETC is a team tournament. Lots of skew lists make the grade because you can match them favourably.
Try making that list work as a TAC in a singles championship without having to house rule it to be better.
Like 90% of the biggest meta gaps this edition are caused by ITC's heavy focus on killing gak. It's why durability is so valued in ITC - it denies kill points. ITC is born from the k/d ratio obsessed.
I think its funny how every tournament niche has the same view of each of the other niches. I swear I've heard ITC, ETC and pure book mission proponents ALL decry "But their format just rewards killing rather than movement and objective grabbing!"
Honestly, go to any tournament, with any format, you'll see pretty much the same army lists showing up in any of them, because they don't make THAT much difference to the core mechanics of 40k. Regardless of format, you need to be able to move fast, kill lots, and survive lots.
Eldar planes do fine in ETC and pure book missions. You're more likely to see 4-5 rather than 7, backed up by other Eldar hulls like Fire Prisms/ Wave Serpents/ Night Spinners / Ravagers, but they are still one of the better units in the game. Plus eldar flyers may not score many objectives, but played well they can keep the enemy off objectives fairly well.
Pure book missions DO give horde armies a bit of a boost (but then again, hordes do decently in ETC and ITC as well). But they get a boost by just being incredibly uninspiring to play. Can you remove 300 boyz from objectives before T4? If not then GG. But horde killing firepower is going back up across the board as well, including with repulsors and the titular IH Leviathan.
Turns out, when the game is about tactical movement and objectives, a bunch of flyers that can't hold objectives get countered very quickly.
Turns out, that blasting your opponent off the field is a good defense to needing to capture objectives.
But time IS money, as I said earlier.
If I spend 20+ hours (at least!) getting good with a character at lets say an average way of $30 an hour, that's $600+ worth of time spent learning how to play them.
People do accept that however.
no offence friend, but the only people who care about your time, is your and maybe your family, and of course you can give your time any monetary cost. I can assure you that a lot more people bought FW or recast leviathans, specially post the rules being shown. And those people want to play with the stuff they paid.
also does it make it worse if you live in a country where hour of work is worth 3,27$?
Klickor wrote: I wouldnt mind a complete banning of FW in most tournaments. Just to keep the amount of Datasheets down to a more reasonable number. At least for Imperium since the amount of units is staggering. 40k feels a lot like the one who could remember all the units and especially stratagems is the one who wins. Not really a problem in a smaller and more easily acessable game but 40k rules are all over the place. I could probably learn all the armies in 4th edition faster than just Marines with their supplements and how all the stratagems and tactics work now in 8th.
I wouldnt ban just 1 unit though since I think its more of a bloat/information problem than a powerlevel problem. And leviathans arent exactly obscure so how to play against them isnt a secret
Some FW units could probably become regular units and lots of normal Datasheets being consolidated at the same time. I would still like to see the FW units on the table but then perhaps more as count as since they do look good or in more casual games in which I could spend 15-20min talking with my opponent before we even start rolling aby dice
So the issue is fw, units that existed way longer, but SM supplements are fine.
The feth is that logic...
My guess is that the event would be finished if it banned an actual GW codex. GW would pull sponsorship, etc.
Considering it is smaller one that anyways won't get sponsored, is frankly not the reason.
I think here a friend of the TO got triggered and this got through.
How the hell else would all non LoWfw units be banned now there
Klickor wrote: I wouldnt mind a complete banning of FW in most tournaments. Just to keep the amount of Datasheets down to a more reasonable number. At least for Imperium since the amount of units is staggering. 40k feels a lot like the one who could remember all the units and especially stratagems is the one who wins. Not really a problem in a smaller and more easily acessable game but 40k rules are all over the place. I could probably learn all the armies in 4th edition faster than just Marines with their supplements and how all the stratagems and tactics work now in 8th.
I wouldnt ban just 1 unit though since I think its more of a bloat/information problem than a powerlevel problem. And leviathans arent exactly obscure so how to play against them isnt a secret
Some FW units could probably become regular units and lots of normal Datasheets being consolidated at the same time. I would still like to see the FW units on the table but then perhaps more as count as since they do look good or in more casual games in which I could spend 15-20min talking with my opponent before we even start rolling aby dice
So the issue is fw, units that existed way longer, but SM supplements are fine.
The feth is that logic...
My guess is that the event would be finished if it banned an actual GW codex. GW would pull sponsorship, etc.
Considering it is smaller one that anyways won't get sponsored, is frankly not the reason.
I think here a friend of the TO got triggered and this got through.
How the hell else would all non LoWfw units be banned now there
The rest probably got banned because someone complained and went "Well if you can 1 FW unit, you may as well ban them all" and the TO took that as a challenge rather than sarcasm.
FW is scary, because people don't have as much exposure to it as they do to the main line.
Because of that, the models that you DO see at events are the most powerful ones.
So people build up a wrong idea that FW is broken, when in actual fact by % of models, GW main line has far more balance issues.
However, its a nice clean line that people can draw. It's neat. It's non-discriminatory. And even for most people with extensive FW collections, it's not really a big deal as they also have extensive non-FW collections as well.
We still see this a lot in smaller events with bans on Lords of War. Not all LOW are created equal, but its a nice neat line to draw to cull some of the worst offenders.
What the TO has done here is pick one specific thing that is too powerful, and target that. Honestly that's the way things SHOULD be balanced, not blanket buffs or nerfs to random keywords. But the community (as evidenced) gets up in arms. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I'm a little concerned this heralds the return of comp systems. Which I thought were absolutely necessary in 7th, and are getting more so in 8th. The amount of additional power being given to the latest releases via things that don't cost points - relics, warlord traits, chapter tactics and doctrines - is just getting to insane levels. I hope GW turns this around quickly or we're going to see the descent in to the formation-hammer that made the tail of 7th so intolerable.
Mr.Church13 wrote: Guys. The solution is obviously not to ban FW, but to bring back comp scores.
That’s the real solution.
the best solution would be a propper standardized Tournament ruleset.
One that is Good and balanced overall. So that we also would finally get propper datasets for comparison.
All we can hope for now is space marines nerfs so hard that the entire lot of en are useless again. It’s fine they got a month in the spot light, time to be trash for the players base no one wants to play with anymore.
So you chose to play a FW army.....so? You don't play in that particular event, sorry. Your choice.
I've TO'd many FOW events, and I hear the same excuses. Why can't my Soviets play in a Normandy themed event? Really?
It's not all events, just some.
If we're talking about a narrative themed event, thats one thing, but then we're also not talking about a run of the mill event at that point.
But anyway, yes I chose to play an FW army, how and why is that different than choosing to play Space Marines generally?
Just to return to this since I've been gone most of the day..
I can answer the second part pretty easily.
When I stop by my GW store (or FLGS) on the way home, point me to the shelf where I can buy the FW army? Or even on the games-workshop online store. They are vastly different entities.
And that matters how? They are both GW models. FW is part of GW. They are 100% part of same company. Easily bought. And by far less balance issues than GW main studio. Banning them is just knee jerk reaction from lazy TO's.
because he was specifically talking about FW armies, not the odd FW model.
It's a different entity altogether (I think we're just talking R+H right? Or maybe Elysians too...not sure...which highlights the point even more.....they are not recognizable and known armies due to zero exposure outside of specific FW book(s)) It's a separate army with no space on a GW shelf, no drop down menu on the GW website. It IS different. Don't get all butthurt that you can't play them in a tournament, you chose a niche list that is not a mainstream army. It's not about power level of the army, I'm sure they can't be that strong because I've never seen a single one played.....ever.
So you chose to play a FW army.....so? You don't play in that particular event, sorry. Your choice.
I've TO'd many FOW events, and I hear the same excuses. Why can't my Soviets play in a Normandy themed event? Really?
It's not all events, just some.
If we're talking about a narrative themed event, thats one thing, but then we're also not talking about a run of the mill event at that point.
But anyway, yes I chose to play an FW army, how and why is that different than choosing to play Space Marines generally?
Just to return to this since I've been gone most of the day..
I can answer the second part pretty easily.
When I stop by my GW store (or FLGS) on the way home, point me to the shelf where I can buy the FW army? Or even on the games-workshop online store. They are vastly different entities.
And that matters how? They are both GW models. FW is part of GW. They are 100% part of same company. Easily bought. And by far less balance issues than GW main studio. Banning them is just knee jerk reaction from lazy TO's.
because he was specifically talking about FW armies, not the odd FW model.
It's a different entity altogether (I think we're just talking R+H right? Or maybe Elysians too...not sure...which highlights the point even more.....they are not recognizable and known armies due to zero exposure outside of specific FW book(s)) It's a separate army with no space on a GW shelf, no drop down menu on the GW website. It IS different. Don't get all butthurt that you can't play them in a tournament, you chose a niche list that is not a mainstream army. It's not about power level of the army, I'm sure they can't be that strong because I've never seen a single one played.....ever.
Or the fact that on the maing GW webshop page the related sites thingy exists?
Summa sumarum, if you advocate for that you might aswell ban any codex you don't like or is percived as fringe.
here f.e. not many play GSC, should they also be banned because nobody could play against them?
This not online guy uses the same argument “ban official games workshop codex then” because he had none better. Sad and pathetic just because you aren’t agreed with
Klickor wrote: I wouldnt mind a complete banning of FW in most tournaments. Just to keep the amount of Datasheets down to a more reasonable number. At least for Imperium since the amount of units is staggering. 40k feels a lot like the one who could remember all the units and especially stratagems is the one who wins. Not really a problem in a smaller and more easily acessable game but 40k rules are all over the place. I could probably learn all the armies in 4th edition faster than just Marines with their supplements and how all the stratagems and tactics work now in 8th.
I wouldnt ban just 1 unit though since I think its more of a bloat/information problem than a powerlevel problem. And leviathans arent exactly obscure so how to play against them isnt a secret
Some FW units could probably become regular units and lots of normal Datasheets being consolidated at the same time. I would still like to see the FW units on the table but then perhaps more as count as since they do look good or in more casual games in which I could spend 15-20min talking with my opponent before we even start rolling aby dice
For me (and I'm pretty sure when I first answered in this thread, I stated "personally"), this is it right here. It's the number of datasheets to know and remember.
Sure, they were there before IH, for me the above problem still existed, but wasn't game changing.
The new book has possibly made them game changing.....should find out over the next couple of months. I do expect we will see some nerfs to the IH at some point, but that could be a long way away.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: This not online guy uses the same argument “ban official games workshop codex then” because he had none better. Sad and pathetic just because you aren’t agreed with
No, i make an exemple, E.G: (exemple given) with the same application of logic.
This is also why i am in favour of a waterthight matched play ruleset, released by GW and or officially sanctioned by them TO BE ADDOPTED as standard.
Because the situation we have here in this situation is that local tournaments go around willy nilly banning stuff , leading to worse data overall on balance etc.
But i guess rather then read you just like to throw gak.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: This not online guy uses the same argument “ban official games workshop codex then” because he had none better. Sad and pathetic just because you aren’t agreed with
Except that is what the argument boils down to.
Genestealer Cults and AdMech/Skitarii are amazing examples of this. They are unfamiliar units/armies that were eventually released (with Cults gaining even more units this edition), but would you ban these new things because unfamiliarity? That certainly wouldn't make sense because that's stupid! Same with banning anything being stupid.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: This not online guy uses the same argument “ban official games workshop codex then” because he had none better. Sad and pathetic just because you aren’t agreed with
Except that is what the argument boils down to.
Genestealer Cults and AdMech/Skitarii are amazing examples of this. They are unfamiliar units/armies that were eventually released (with Cults gaining even more units this edition), but would you ban these new things because unfamiliarity? That certainly wouldn't make sense because that's stupid! Same with banning anything being stupid.
let it rest. some people can read but understand they will never.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: This not online guy uses the same argument “ban official games workshop codex then” because he had none better. Sad and pathetic just because you aren’t agreed with
Except that is what the argument boils down to.
Genestealer Cults and AdMech/Skitarii are amazing examples of this. They are unfamiliar units/armies that were eventually released (with Cults gaining even more units this edition), but would you ban these new things because unfamiliarity? That certainly wouldn't make sense because that's stupid! Same with banning anything being stupid.
If we banned stupidity, a good chunk of 40k players wouldnt make it through the door.
So you chose to play a FW army.....so? You don't play in that particular event, sorry. Your choice.
I've TO'd many FOW events, and I hear the same excuses. Why can't my Soviets play in a Normandy themed event? Really?
It's not all events, just some.
If we're talking about a narrative themed event, thats one thing, but then we're also not talking about a run of the mill event at that point.
But anyway, yes I chose to play an FW army, how and why is that different than choosing to play Space Marines generally?
Just to return to this since I've been gone most of the day..
I can answer the second part pretty easily.
When I stop by my GW store (or FLGS) on the way home, point me to the shelf where I can buy the FW army? Or even on the games-workshop online store. They are vastly different entities.
And that matters how? They are both GW models. FW is part of GW. They are 100% part of same company. Easily bought. And by far less balance issues than GW main studio. Banning them is just knee jerk reaction from lazy TO's.
because he was specifically talking about FW armies, not the odd FW model.
It's a different entity altogether (I think we're just talking R+H right? Or maybe Elysians too...not sure...which highlights the point even more.....they are not recognizable and known armies due to zero exposure outside of specific FW book(s)) It's a separate army with no space on a GW shelf, no drop down menu on the GW website. It IS different. Don't get all butthurt that you can't play them in a tournament, you chose a niche list that is not a mainstream army. It's not about power level of the army, I'm sure they can't be that strong because I've never seen a single one played.....ever.
Or the fact that on the maing GW webshop page the related sites thingy exists?
Summa sumarum, if you advocate for that you might aswell ban any codex you don't like or is percived as fringe.
here f.e. not many play GSC, should they also be banned because nobody could play against them?
No matter how you turn that it is illlogical.
do you even read English? Go to the GW webstore, click on Warhammer 40,000 tab, scroll down the left column at all of the armies listed, show me R+H? I fully understand that if I specifically search for FW I will find it, but that is not the point that you seem to keep missing entirely. It's not a perception of "fringe", it is fringe. perhaps GW will eventually roll out an actual R+H list in the future with new models, but it isn't there now. All armies are getting something in Psychic Awakening is GWs pitch......want to place a bet that R+H isn't on that list of 'all armies". i wonder why.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: This not online guy uses the same argument “ban official games workshop codex then” because he had none better. Sad and pathetic just because you aren’t agreed with
Except that is what the argument boils down to.
Genestealer Cults and AdMech/Skitarii are amazing examples of this. They are unfamiliar units/armies that were eventually released (with Cults gaining even more units this edition), but would you ban these new things because unfamiliarity? That certainly wouldn't make sense because that's stupid! Same with banning anything being stupid.
If we banned stupidity, a good chunk of 40k players wouldnt make it through the door.
errare humanum est sed in errare perseverare diabolicum
So you chose to play a FW army.....so? You don't play in that particular event, sorry. Your choice.
I've TO'd many FOW events, and I hear the same excuses. Why can't my Soviets play in a Normandy themed event? Really?
It's not all events, just some.
If we're talking about a narrative themed event, thats one thing, but then we're also not talking about a run of the mill event at that point.
But anyway, yes I chose to play an FW army, how and why is that different than choosing to play Space Marines generally?
Just to return to this since I've been gone most of the day..
I can answer the second part pretty easily.
When I stop by my GW store (or FLGS) on the way home, point me to the shelf where I can buy the FW army? Or even on the games-workshop online store. They are vastly different entities.
And that matters how? They are both GW models. FW is part of GW. They are 100% part of same company. Easily bought. And by far less balance issues than GW main studio. Banning them is just knee jerk reaction from lazy TO's.
because he was specifically talking about FW armies, not the odd FW model.
It's a different entity altogether (I think we're just talking R+H right? Or maybe Elysians too...not sure...which highlights the point even more.....they are not recognizable and known armies due to zero exposure outside of specific FW book(s)) It's a separate army with no space on a GW shelf, no drop down menu on the GW website. It IS different. Don't get all butthurt that you can't play them in a tournament, you chose a niche list that is not a mainstream army. It's not about power level of the army, I'm sure they can't be that strong because I've never seen a single one played.....ever.
Or the fact that on the maing GW webshop page the related sites thingy exists?
Summa sumarum, if you advocate for that you might aswell ban any codex you don't like or is percived as fringe.
here f.e. not many play GSC, should they also be banned because nobody could play against them?
No matter how you turn that it is illlogical.
do you even read English? Go to the GW webstore, click on Warhammer 40,000 tab, scroll down the left column at all of the armies listed, show me R+H? I fully understand that if I specifically search for FW I will find it, but that is not the point that you seem to keep missing entirely. It's not a perception of "fringe", it is fringe. perhaps GW will eventually roll out an actual R+H list in the future with new models, but it isn't there now. All armies are getting something in Psychic Awakening is GWs pitch......want to place a bet that R+H isn't on that list of 'all armies". i wonder why.
Again, the Webstore is not relevant to the discussion and even if it were, the community page is far more important, and guess what you find there all over the shop.
So, you might not find it on the GW store, you sure as hell find the way to FW from there or the community page. Heck you find the rules on the community page.
Also GW stated that the banner with the flags at the start of psy awakening is not who will get an update.
chimeara wrote: Some friends shared this with me. I think that it's extreme, however necessary. I've played the new IH stuff with my knights. It's not even close to fun. I killed almost nothing.
When is forgeworld going to fix that model? It's beyond broken, straight unfun to play against.
Hit on 2+ reroll 1s, 4++ @T8 with 16 S8 AP-2 2 DMG shots.
Seriously.
For 300 points. You keep skipping that part very conveniently.
Firstly, I'm loath to ban anything like that as it feels like a knee jerk reaction to a problem we all see.
Secondly, just because it costs so many points isn't some promise of greatness. I don't know why you keep trotting that out as some kind of justification. I mean lets see some high point suck choices shall we ? Lets here, Land raiders, super expensive, pretty poop. Logan on storm rider, almost 200 pts, not very wonderful. Vendettas pretty poop, around 230 pts. I mean really, if we take a look at many books a great number of the units aren't very good or worth what point cost they have. Just because it costs 300 pts doesn't mean it has to be good, it should be good but then when so much is bad for its cost and it's so good its an auto include that is a huge hint of a problem.
The problem may not be that the Levi is too good, the fact may be that most other choices are just so bad. The unmistakable issue is that you need to raise up poor units, drag down OP no brainer choices and either make everything ho hum or make everything feel like an auto include. Anything less and you have balance issues that will frustrate people and force these knee jerk bans and I think we know GW love to punish FW so I might not get too used to Levis if this process continues.
As well as much as I dislike banning things because it's good, if a choice becomes a no brainer inclusion to most any list that can take it, that can't be allowed to stay as it is or you can't say you want to balance the game at all. I don't even use a levi, nor have I ever played against one but I'll be damned if I haven't learned all about it from every battle report, and online chatter about it, that tells me something. IH just twists the unit up just that touch more where as before it was a no brainer now it also buffs it out which says as much about IH. Time will tell how it shakes out but I can't imagine these IH lists are much fun to play against which also leads to people crying for bans as they get bitter or angry. Much like how people cry about guard infantry squads even though they are totally fine in a mono guard list. People are just tired of seeing them in so many lists with knights so they want them nerfed and never seen again, the levi ban is just being perhaps more honest with the intent.
This all goes back and falls at GWs feet who really need to work harder on making some level of better balance, fix the borked core rules to limit some of the abuses of the shaky system and admit they are either poor at doing this or really don't want to either way its time for honesty on their end and I for one would applaud them for being forthright, finally.
What I'm saying is, if you pay so much for a unit, you should expect some sorta great performance, with those bad units you listed having their own set of issues (Land Raiders are stopped by a single Gaunt sitting in front of it, and now they can't drop off their cargo! Oh and transport rules basically suck).
So if I spend 300 points on a Marine heavy support, I should get 16 S8 shots plus small arms. Great.
So if I spend 300 points on a CWE heavy support, lets say Dark Reapers. That's about 16 shots with just about the same stats.
Except S5. So about equal when shooting gretchin or T17+... That happens a lot...
And then the small arms fire that the Reapers don't get..
Always hits on 3s vs 2+ rerollable - typically worse hitting, but better in corner cases (2+ rerollable wins vs -2-to-hit, but 3s win vs -3-to-hit or better)
So it's like the same thing in killiness. Only it's not nearly as heavy hitting. And hits less often. And no secondary weapon.
And then we're talking 8 T3 3+Sv infantry vs a T8 4++ walker - so nowhere close in durability.
And I picked Reapers instead of Preds, Devs, Hammerheads or whatnot because it's widely agreed that Reapers are *really* good firepower for their points. But this thing dwarfs them. So better than almost all glass-cannon firepower per point. And LandRaider-esque durability.
It's like 6E Serpents all over again. Only you're the guy defending them.
Sigmatron wrote: So when is the Eldar flyer spam gonna get banned at events? Hopefully more events don't follow this example.
Eldar flyers are less of an issue if your playing the actual game GW writes instead of ITC.
Few tournaments are "GW games" as apposed to ITC. So they are a problem.
Sounds like the ITC is the problem. It is not really GWs fault if your houserules cause unintended consequences.
Damn right.
ITC has warped everything about this game in a really bad way.
Sorry I must have missed the memo where 7 untouchable flyers with massive threat range, consistent damage and can essentially teleport across the board is only good because of ITC.
ETC mission will force you to bring more balanced list, since flyers don`t control objectives you can`t score and you don`t win if you table opponent.
You can get so super behind on first turns that you cant never recover and if you play risky with the flyers to deny opponent movement, they can be smashed in close range.
ITC missions really benefit kill power and punish you if you bring certain units and most tournaments don`t have enough terrain to allow more tactical play.
There is a reason flyers did not dominate Nova or Addepticon and did very good on LGT that used ITC mission pack.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The way I see it, there's a valid argument for banning forge world from competitive play: if nobody is going to actively update the rules like ever, and standard GW rules are written without regards to their existence, then there's a lot of room for something unforseen and really broken to show up that has no chance of getting fixed because there's no review cycle for them.
Personally, as I said, I don't think it's the best solution, but I definitely see the point.
Chaos knights get released, 1 week of testing showed GW that FW knights with this rules will be to strong and than suddenly FW changed their knights I really think it`s showing FW rules are not tested enough, GW don`t have the time or the people to do it and it`s led the community to find broken things.
I remember some guy won tournament in England with Scorpios with relics and after that tournament the rules were changed.
That is creating feels bad moment where you sneak a win, using totally broken combo.
I`m sure the TO really tough about his decision and was sure that it`s the best call. Especially expecting he will get flame for his decision.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Looking at ETC 2019 lists 96 razorwings, 24 voidraven.Word drukhari(1 per player with dark eldars, 1 per detachment) appeared 98 times. 105 crimson hunters, 20 hemlocks with word aeldar appearing 41 times.
Flyer spam exists well.
Yea, it exist because it`s tournament format and flyer spam counter alot of the lists. Altrough it is not taken super seriously ESC was won by AM army.
We know that AM is one of the worst performance in ITC, yet it won in other format and performed super good in the team format.
Considering tournament keeper was never updated, the players and list not filled correctly, there is no way to make good analyze.
If GW considered FW when creating strategems this wouldnt be an issue. They simply dont and this has been shown over and over again. The half wounds strat is no issue on a redemptor or ven dread. Maybe strats, relics and WTs etc should only be allowed to codex entries. This way you can still bring your FW toys, but they don't benefit from strats and relics etc.
bullyboy wrote: If GW considered FW when creating strategems this wouldnt be an issue. They simply dont and this has been shown over and over again. The half wounds strat is no issue on a redemptor or ven dread. Maybe strats, relics and WTs etc should only be allowed to codex entries. This way you can still bring your FW toys, but they don't benefit from strats and relics etc.
Why shouldn't they benefit? Just because you say they shouldn't?
Which FW units are an issue with Strats that you need to make a statement like that? There are none.
bullyboy wrote: If GW considered FW when creating strategems this wouldnt be an issue. They simply dont and this has been shown over and over again. The half wounds strat is no issue on a redemptor or ven dread. Maybe strats, relics and WTs etc should only be allowed to codex entries. This way you can still bring your FW toys, but they don't benefit from strats and relics etc.
This is reasonable and hopefully what GW lands on as well.
bullyboy wrote: If GW considered FW when creating strategems this wouldnt be an issue. They simply dont and this has been shown over and over again. The half wounds strat is no issue on a redemptor or ven dread. Maybe strats, relics and WTs etc should only be allowed to codex entries. This way you can still bring your FW toys, but they don't benefit from strats and relics etc.
Why shouldn't they benefit? Just because you say they shouldn't?
Which FW units are an issue with Strats that you need to make a statement like that? There are none.
He let's ignore the rules bloat of stratagems and wannabee formations,let's just ignore the core issue and fix symptoms, that will surely and certainly lead to a healthy rules system-.
bullyboy wrote: If GW considered FW when creating strategems this wouldnt be an issue. They simply dont and this has been shown over and over again. The half wounds strat is no issue on a redemptor or ven dread. Maybe strats, relics and WTs etc should only be allowed to codex entries. This way you can still bring your FW toys, but they don't benefit from strats and relics etc.
Again, tell me why my spined beast of tzeentch shouldn't get warp surge? Does it single handedly wreck your game?
Nope, the issue is this one combination at present. Blanket banning or restricting underpowered units to tackle 1 problem entry is burying your head in the sand and ignorant at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually I think the answer is to roll FW into the codex at last. Irrespective of which webpage it's bought from etc.
bullyboy wrote: If GW considered FW when creating strategems this wouldnt be an issue. They simply dont and this has been shown over and over again. The half wounds strat is no issue on a redemptor or ven dread. Maybe strats, relics and WTs etc should only be allowed to codex entries. This way you can still bring your FW toys, but they don't benefit from strats and relics etc.
Again, tell me why my spined beast of tzeentch shouldn't get warp surge? Does it single handedly wreck your game?
Nope, the issue is this one combination at present. Blanket banning or restricting underpowered units to tackle 1 problem entry is burying your head in the sand and ignorant at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually I think the answer is to roll FW into the codex at last. Irrespective of which webpage it's bought from etc.
bullyboy wrote: If GW considered FW when creating strategems this wouldnt be an issue. They simply dont and this has been shown over and over again. The half wounds strat is no issue on a redemptor or ven dread. Maybe strats, relics and WTs etc should only be allowed to codex entries. This way you can still bring your FW toys, but they don't benefit from strats and relics etc.
Again, tell me why my spined beast of tzeentch shouldn't get warp surge? Does it single handedly wreck your game?
Nope, the issue is this one combination at present. Blanket banning or restricting underpowered units to tackle 1 problem entry is burying your head in the sand and ignorant at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually I think the answer is to roll FW into the codex at last. Irrespective of which webpage it's bought from etc.
Ofc that is the answer.
Aye.
That would fix alot of issues with the FW models itself.
Actually it probably wouldn't because gw but still.
Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
Or MAYBE, just hear me out, the codices shouldn't be that expensive in the first place!
bullyboy wrote: If GW considered FW when creating strategems this wouldnt be an issue. They simply dont and this has been shown over and over again. The half wounds strat is no issue on a redemptor or ven dread. Maybe strats, relics and WTs etc should only be allowed to codex entries. This way you can still bring your FW toys, but they don't benefit from strats and relics etc.
Again, tell me why my spined beast of tzeentch shouldn't get warp surge? Does it single handedly wreck your game?
Nope, the issue is this one combination at present. Blanket banning or restricting underpowered units to tackle 1 problem entry is burying your head in the sand and ignorant at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually I think the answer is to roll FW into the codex at last. Irrespective of which webpage it's bought from etc.
Honestly, I don't even know or care what the spined beast is. If its a reasonable datasheet it doesnt need strats. This thread is about the darasheets that are severely affected by codex strats, not those that aren't.
Leviarhan, half damage, iron stone....this is the topic
bullyboy wrote: If GW considered FW when creating strategems this wouldnt be an issue. They simply dont and this has been shown over and over again. The half wounds strat is no issue on a redemptor or ven dread. Maybe strats, relics and WTs etc should only be allowed to codex entries. This way you can still bring your FW toys, but they don't benefit from strats and relics etc.
Again, tell me why my spined beast of tzeentch shouldn't get warp surge? Does it single handedly wreck your game?
Nope, the issue is this one combination at present. Blanket banning or restricting underpowered units to tackle 1 problem entry is burying your head in the sand and ignorant at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually I think the answer is to roll FW into the codex at last. Irrespective of which webpage it's bought from etc.
Honestly, I don't even know or care what the spined beast is. If its a reasonable datasheet it doesnt need strats. This thread is about the darasheets that are severely affected by codex strats, not those that aren't.
Leviarhan, half damage, iron stone....this is the topic
So bad units just need to he compensates by Strats? You're not making any sense. You didn't in the first place though.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
Or MAYBE, just hear me out, the codices shouldn't be that expensive in the first place!
Considering we anyways have to pay for a balance Patch in ca form, yes the dexes should not be as expensive, especially since they are printed in China.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
Or MAYBE, just hear me out, the codices shouldn't be that expensive in the first place!
Yeah, and I want GW to paint all my models free of charge. Until that happens, we live in the real world, where GW charges for everything.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
The old IA books with all those units, multiple scenarios and campaign information, and that often would essentially be a codex for two or three different armies (e.g. DKoK and R&H for example in IA5) were about that price, but they were also substantially smaller print runs in huge coffee table formats.
Plenty of high production value gaming books come in at $40-60 with page counts of 200-300+, there is no reason they'd need to be $100. Look to Battlefront, TTCombat, FFG, etc for examples. More fundamentally, there's no way GW could charge that and have thr market sustain it, and they know it.
That said, they wouldn't need to be 300 pages either, there aren't *that* many units and there isn't a spectacular amount of unit specific fluff attached to most. We don't need a full page fluff spread and separate datasheet on a Russ Annihilator or an Armageddon pattern Basilisk for example (just roll their options into the existing basic units).
I don't expect this will happen, but it needn't result in some monster expensive gargantuan tome either.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
Or MAYBE, just hear me out, the codices shouldn't be that expensive in the first place!
Yeah, and I want GW to paint all my models free of charge. Until that happens, we live in the real world, where GW charges for everything.
bullyboy wrote: If GW considered FW when creating strategems this wouldnt be an issue. They simply dont and this has been shown over and over again. The half wounds strat is no issue on a redemptor or ven dread. Maybe strats, relics and WTs etc should only be allowed to codex entries. This way you can still bring your FW toys, but they don't benefit from strats and relics etc.
Again, tell me why my spined beast of tzeentch shouldn't get warp surge? Does it single handedly wreck your game?
Nope, the issue is this one combination at present. Blanket banning or restricting underpowered units to tackle 1 problem entry is burying your head in the sand and ignorant at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually I think the answer is to roll FW into the codex at last. Irrespective of which webpage it's bought from etc.
Honestly, I don't even know or care what the spined beast is. If its a reasonable datasheet it doesnt need strats. This thread is about the darasheets that are severely affected by codex strats, not those that aren't.
Leviarhan, half damage, iron stone....this is the topic
It is the topic and your answer was no FW units get codex level buffs. You would punish units you don't know exist to fix 1 entry that's a problem for 1 subfaction.
Do you rip out all the light fittings in your house because a bulbs blown or something? It's the same level of needless overreaction.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
I'd glady pay double/triple the price to have a consolidated marines codex.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
I'd glady pay double/triple the price to have a consolidated marines codex.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
I'd glady pay double/triple the price to have a consolidated marines codex.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
I'd glady pay double/triple the price to have a consolidated marines codex.
I'd pay triple to have a useful Nids codex...
Nids are probably the army I have played most this edition. I love how they have so many different ways to play. Comparing them to ironhands is a practical joke though.
Lets just see.
Levithan gets 6+++ if they are within 6" of a synapse creature
Ironhands get 6+++ unconditionally, 5+ overwatch, double wounds for degrading profiles, move and shoot heavies with no penalty with reroll 1's....
Like seriously...
The main issue is trickle down codexs - with a new codex being released every few months with a noticeable power creep we will never have a balanced game.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
I'd glady pay double/triple the price to have a consolidated marines codex.
As I explained though, it doesn't need to be double the price if we go with the layout I suggested.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
I'd glady pay double/triple the price to have a consolidated marines codex.
As I explained though, it doesn't need to be double the price if we go with the layout I suggested.
I'm open to whatever codex layout makes things easier for us and provides correct balance updates for a whole faction at once.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
I'd glady pay double/triple the price to have a consolidated marines codex.
As I explained though, it doesn't need to be double the price if we go with the layout I suggested.
I'm open to whatever codex layout makes things easier for us and provides correct balance updates for a whole faction at once.
It's pretty easy. As I explained before:
. 3-4 unique unit entries to show just the slight deviations a Chapter might do
. 3 or so unique Relics for the Chapter/Successors
. 3 unique Strats
. Consolidation of different unit entries, and getting rid of Special Characters that don't serve any purpose like Asmodai, Corbulo, Tellion (who should really just be a generic entry), etc.
bullyboy wrote: If GW considered FW when creating strategems this wouldnt be an issue. They simply dont and this has been shown over and over again. The half wounds strat is no issue on a redemptor or ven dread. Maybe strats, relics and WTs etc should only be allowed to codex entries. This way you can still bring your FW toys, but they don't benefit from strats and relics etc.
Again, tell me why my spined beast of tzeentch shouldn't get warp surge? Does it single handedly wreck your game?
Nope, the issue is this one combination at present. Blanket banning or restricting underpowered units to tackle 1 problem entry is burying your head in the sand and ignorant at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually I think the answer is to roll FW into the codex at last. Irrespective of which webpage it's bought from etc.
Honestly, I don't even know or care what the spined beast is. If its a reasonable datasheet it doesnt need strats. This thread is about the darasheets that are severely affected by codex strats, not those that aren't.
Leviarhan, half damage, iron stone....this is the topic
So bad units just need to he compensates by Strats? You're not making any sense. You didn't in the first place though.
Sometimes I wonder how you function in the real world. Pretty sure it's not me not making sense.
GW seems to be more then willing to accept a few options becoming really bad. Just like they seem to be okey with stuff being very good for months, or longer. So either they don't really care what they rule updates do with the game or they know and expect people to adjust, am not just sure how they want people to adjust.
Karol wrote: GW seems to be more then willing to accept a few options becoming really bad. Just like they seem to be okey with stuff being very good for months, or longer. So either they don't really care what they rule updates do with the game or they know and expect people to adjust, am not just sure how they want people to adjust.
That's pretty much how they've always been. They've had units that were garbage or too strong go multiple editions without fixing, or even making problems worse. Historically they haven't been too bothered to act particularly quickly on balance issues.
Well all SM are busted, because of that full reroll on hits and reroll 1 to wound. You can make every unit good with this buffs, IR just get extra survivable that make the things even worst. 300 pts model with this rules and that kind of damage should not exist in the first place.
For first part, unless its against Tau, and for the 2nd part, Non-ITC missions dont have a lot of kill objectives and has more holding objectives, 300 Orks in all 10mans will win vs 7 CWE flyers, b.c they can hold objectives long enough to matter and never needing to kill 1 flyer.
ITC is 70% "Who can kill better" where GW missions are not.
if (models > numberOfShots) { print "I win!"; }
See you're just swinging the pendulum to whatever you think is appropriate for the game or its against lists you don't like playing or adapting to. It's not hard to swamp the table with scores of models against elite armies geared against big models.
The assertion that an army can paper a rock better with GW missions doesn't make GW missions more or less balanced.
Hold
Hold More
Kill (occasionally)
Bonus
Recon
Behind Enemy Lines
Engineers
Ground Control
King of the Hill
That means on a 6 turn game Orks can score up to 12 on secondaries, up to 12 on holding objectives, up to 6 on the bonus. That's 30 points out of 42 without (theoretically) killing anything.
Marin wrote: Well all SM are busted, because of that full reroll on hits and reroll 1 to wound. You can make every unit good with this buffs, IR just get extra survivable that make the things even worst. 300 pts model with this rules and that kind of damage should not exist in the first place.
We had the re-rolls before the new codex. Are you honestly saying they were busted prior to the new codex?
The Leviathan hasn't changed IIRC.
For first part, unless its against Tau, and for the 2nd part, Non-ITC missions dont have a lot of kill objectives and has more holding objectives, 300 Orks in all 10mans will win vs 7 CWE flyers, b.c they can hold objectives long enough to matter and never needing to kill 1 flyer.
ITC is 70% "Who can kill better" where GW missions are not.
if (models > numberOfShots) { print "I win!"; }
See you're just swinging the pendulum to whatever you think is appropriate for the game or its against lists you don't like playing or adapting to. It's not hard to swamp the table with scores of models against elite armies geared against big models.
The assertion that an army can paper a rock better with GW missions doesn't make GW missions more or less balanced.
Hold
Hold More
Kill (occasionally)
Bonus
Recon
Behind Enemy Lines
Engineers
Ground Control
King of the Hill
That means on a 6 turn game Orks can score up to 12 on secondaries, up to 12 on holding objectives, up to 6 on the bonus. That's 30 points out of 42 without (theoretically) killing anything.
Its not that you can't score points without killing things (and I'm glad FLG added more secondaries that you can score without killing). Its that you can score just as much by just killing.
CA2018 missions often require you to actively be on the table with units that can claim objectives., which ITC doesn't force enough.
When given the choice between moving units across the board to control varies objectives and sitting in a fort shooting everything its little wonder players chose to sit in their fort and shoot, its a lot easier and safer.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, no. Please don't roll both into the same codex. Can you imagine the cost of the codexes? A normal codex is about 25 cents per page, if we go off a 40$ codex about 150 pages.
Now lets do the SM Codex, with FW rolled in. Guessing about 200 pages? Gods I don't even want to think about the Guard codex. Talk about bloat, that's 300 pages. Now if we are talking hard cover codex, expect Codexes to start costing 80-100 dollars.
I'd glady pay double/triple the price to have a consolidated marines codex.
I'd pay triple to have a useful Nids codex...
Nids are probably the army I have played most this edition. I love how they have so many different ways to play. Comparing them to ironhands is a practical joke though.
Lets just see.
Levithan gets 6+++ if they are within 6" of a synapse creature
Ironhands get 6+++ unconditionally, 5+ overwatch, double wounds for degrading profiles, move and shoot heavies with no penalty with reroll 1's....
Like seriously...
The main issue is trickle down codexs - with a new codex being released every few months with a noticeable power creep we will never have a balanced game.
I don't even blame this to codex creep.
They literally gave 4 full sub-faction rules to a single sub-faction and no one in the design team went 'hey, that sounds like a bad idea'.
Just like any gamer (Doesn't even have to be warhammer) could have told them that -1 to damage when the max damage is 6 is probably pretty damn good, and might be broken.
Or halving damage taken.
or...
I don't understand how a designer makes a codex like this and doesn't wonder 'is this to much?".
Everyone reasonable knew that -1 damage aura relic in a game where 2 damage and d3 weapons are extremely common is very unbalanced at first glance. Just like when everyone looked at the iron hands tactic.
Xenomancers wrote: Everyone reasonable knew that -1 damage aura relic in a game where 2 damage and d3 weapons are extremely common is very unbalanced at first glance. Just like when everyone looked at the iron hands tactic.
If everyone agreed, you wouldn't be arguing.
If you're arguing, claiming everyone reasonable agrees means you're claiming who you're arguing with is unreasonable. That is, at best, bad form (but much more likely a rules violation).
These aren't "mental gymnastics". They're common human decency.
You're cool, and I always enjoy your posts. Don't take this personally.
I know this will piss off the purists and the librosexuals, but can we just please go fully digital codexes now?
You're dead to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: dude most people think you actually have to try broken rules to know they are broken.
You're conflating "Not satisfied that a rant was a conclusive argument" with "Only results can be conclusive arguments".
But seriously, we can still sell paper copys, PAPER FOR THE PAPER GOD!!!! But in terms of easily updated and constantly up to date rules, a full digital codex. Right now their digital deluxe editions are not being updated, because they are just scanned PDFs. I want a fully digital, always online, PAYWALLED, Codex that I have to pay a yearly sub for, that makes it so for the love of PEDRO JESUS I don't have to carry around 40 books,
Wait, people are crying over a Levi dread with buffs and character keyword?
Didn't realise a 14W model couldn't be targeted with my anti tank. Oh wait. It can. Yeah, it will be a bitch to kill but its not like anything else that can be buffed so.
Banning is knee jerk and silly. Glad the tournaments I go to have more level heads and have missions that don't require killing to win. Objective missions > kill objectives anytime.
There is no way of knowing why GW doesn't do it. They could even charge a freaking subscription fee! I'd pay it.
GW40k Network subscription. 100 dollars a year. You could still charge for individual file access too. It's too bad GW has 0 interest in actually making lots more money because they are already making tons of money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dr. Mills wrote: Wait, people are crying over a Levi dread with buffs and character keyword?
Didn't realise a 14W model couldn't be targeted with my anti tank. Oh wait. It can. Yeah, it will be a bitch to kill but its not like anything else that can be buffed so.
Banning is knee jerk and silly. Glad the tournaments I go to have more level heads and have missions that don't require killing to win. Objective missions > kill objectives anytime.
IT's really not. Specific and obvious buffs make a lascannon deal max 2 damage to it and you have 6++ FNP. Like...A titan sword deals max 2 damage to you...its gross.
Didn't realise a 14W model couldn't be targeted with my anti tank. Oh wait. It can. Yeah, it will be a bitch to kill but its not like anything else that can be buffed so.
There is no way of knowing why GW doesn't do it. They could even charge a freaking subscription fee! I'd pay it.
GW40k Network subscription. 100 dollars a year. You could still charge for individual file access too. It's too bad GW has 0 interest in actually making lots more money because they are already making tons of money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dr. Mills wrote: Wait, people are crying over a Levi dread with buffs and character keyword?
Didn't realise a 14W model couldn't be targeted with my anti tank. Oh wait. It can. Yeah, it will be a bitch to kill but its not like anything else that can be buffed so.
Banning is knee jerk and silly. Glad the tournaments I go to have more level heads and have missions that don't require killing to win. Objective missions > kill objectives anytime.
IT's really not. Specific and obvious buffs make a lascannon deal max 2 damage to it and you have 6++ FNP. Like...A titan sword deals max 2 damage to you...its gross.
Sounds like you just need high strength weapons at that point then instead, oh and fight it in melee.
There is no way of knowing why GW doesn't do it. They could even charge a freaking subscription fee! I'd pay it.
GW40k Network subscription. 100 dollars a year. You could still charge for individual file access too. It's too bad GW has 0 interest in actually making lots more money because they are already making tons of money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dr. Mills wrote: Wait, people are crying over a Levi dread with buffs and character keyword?
Didn't realise a 14W model couldn't be targeted with my anti tank. Oh wait. It can. Yeah, it will be a bitch to kill but its not like anything else that can be buffed so.
Banning is knee jerk and silly. Glad the tournaments I go to have more level heads and have missions that don't require killing to win. Objective missions > kill objectives anytime.
IT's really not. Specific and obvious buffs make a lascannon deal max 2 damage to it and you have 6++ FNP. Like...A titan sword deals max 2 damage to you...its gross.
Sounds like you just need high strength weapons at that point then instead, oh and fight it in melee.
If melle is your only counter that is already broken. Several armies have 0 melee ability. Ironhands aren't particularly weak in melle ether. It probably remains to be seen what the best overall build is going to be. The ones that can make it impossible to charge a levi are going to be the best though.
2x Executioner in a triangle with a levi in the middle and tech marine with ironstone in the gap between the 3 of them. Seems like a pretty obvious build.
There's also a triple redemptor and ivinctor build I've got in my head (which will literally ass woop anything you throw at them in CC while dumping out isane number of shots as well)
Heck even maxing out landspeeders is an insane use of the relic ironstone because as a unit you can spread its benefits around...and if you get a 4++ for moving 12 inches I think dumping out tons of mobile firepower.
Didn't realise a 14W model couldn't be targeted with my anti tank. Oh wait. It can. Yeah, it will be a bitch to kill but its not like anything else that can be buffed so.
2x Executioner in a triangle with a levi in the middle and tech marine with ironstone in the gap between the 3 of them. Seems like a pretty obvious build.
303 + 325 + 325 + 110 + 45 = ~1,100 points that will never move and gets LOS blocked. It will hold at most one objective. If I kill the other 900 points how are you going to ever hold more objectives?
Does that mean it will be an easy game? No, but it also is not that simple of a win unless the terrain is atrocious.
2x Executioner in a triangle with a levi in the middle and tech marine with ironstone in the gap between the 3 of them. Seems like a pretty obvious build.
303 + 325 + 325 + 110 + 45 = ~1,100 points that will never move and gets LOS blocked. It will hold at most one objective. If I kill the other 900 points how are you going to ever hold more objectives?
Does that mean it will be an easy game? No, but it also is not that simple of a win unless the terrain is atrocious.
The whole group can move 5" with no difficulty and no penalty and is only necessary to run like against certain builds. It's purpose is to blow your opponent off the table with some of the most gross firepower in the game. You will not get LOS blocked ether - you can control and pivot your own units pretty free to give levi LOS...levi can see over the front of a repulsor NP - it is tall - i've already testest this formation....The point cost yea....3 of the most powerful units you could possibly take that are getting -1 damage and are unchargeable without ignore overwatch and you still have -2 charge because you can't possibly reach the levi without also charging the executioners and the units in front have fly keyword...It's pretty unbreakable without the ability to jump behind with a double move with shinning spears or something. Where are you seeing these city fight tournaments? I've been running powerballs for quite a while now with marines. The issue is not LOS - it's always been getting blown up having no defensive ability.
PLus its not like you are required to remain balled up ether. Each executioner can carry 6 dudes so you can move to the middle of the table safely then deploy a screen to prevent them holding back a deep strike unit to attack your levi.
Ironhands intercessors are great at holding objectives too. 6+ FNP helps them survive against heavy weapons and with stalker bolt rifles they can shoot almost anything they want with a pretty powerful shot. Can also chuck an ap -1 frag out at 30". Incredible objective holding.
It only needs to be a vheical to get the -1 damage aura. That is correct though they aren't dreads. Only 1 dread can get the half damage ability but -1 damage is still amazing when you have 13 wounds and a 5++ 6+++. Like...much more durable than wave serpents at that point. Serpants don't have 5++ saves.
Its called a Distraction Carnifex.
The Invictor is there to be scary and demand attention away from the actual meat of the list.
It doesn't need the Deadnought stratagems to do that.
Its called a Distraction Carnifex.
The Invictor is there to be scary and demand attention away from the actual meat of the list.
It doesn't need the Deadnought stratagems to do that.
You can do that...Or you can just take advantage of its cheapness and have it fill out your powerball. Iron Hands invictor with the autocannon is disgusting. What is it 105 points with the autocannon? It's gains more out of the ironhands abilities than just about anything. It has 4 heavy weapons and 13 cheap AF wounds...
Ordana wrote: Its not that you can't score points without killing things (and I'm glad FLG added more secondaries that you can score without killing). Its that you can score just as much by just killing.
CA2018 missions often require you to actively be on the table with units that can claim objectives., which ITC doesn't force enough.
When given the choice between moving units across the board to control varies objectives and sitting in a fort shooting everything its little wonder players chose to sit in their fort and shoot, its a lot easier and safer.
I like the CA missions, because they're more fun and dynamic. I like the ITC missions, because they're rigorous. Variable turns alone...someone that is on the verge of turning the game around getting another turn is lopsided from someone at a different table who did not get that extra turn.
The missions don't make flyers less usable. Either the flyers score directly in ITC by killing or indirectly by keeping you off objectives through killing models. Considering they don't hold objectives you can focus on the ground units to deny them control. 3 CHEs and 3 RWs aren't killing a lot of Boyz anyway. It's not flyers lists you worry about, but something with a ton of strong anti-horde.
I don't really consider it balance or smart play by banking on getting the troops only mission against a knight player.
I haven't read through this entire thread, but this fix goes waaaay too far. You want a balanced Leviathan? Easy. Add two rules:
You can't make a Leviathan a character.
Leviathan's can't benefit from Duty Eternal.
Bingo. The two biggest sources of cheese are gone, and you're left with a unit that's no stronger than anything else the codex can bring.
Waaaghpower wrote: I haven't read through this entire thread, but this fix goes waaaay too far. You want a balanced Leviathan? Easy. Add two rules:
You can't make a Leviathan a character.
Leviathan's can't benefit from Duty Eternal.
Bingo. The two biggest sources of cheese are gone, and you're left with a unit that's no stronger than anything else the codex can bring.
No other chapter gets over watch on 5+, 6+FNP, move and shoot and an innate reroll 1's on your heavy weapons. While in the -1AP doctorine
That's 5 bonuses
Ultramarines are probably closest with move without the -1 to hit, and fall back and shoot at -2 to hit while in the 0AP bonus doctorine.
Thats 2 mutually exclusive benifits.
That shows the level of bonkers that is Iron Hands.
Duty eternal isn't even that bad it's 1CP per phase the Iron Stone is -1 dmage for everything in 3 inches of a 50mm base for every phase for 1CP
Waaaghpower wrote: I haven't read through this entire thread, but this fix goes waaaay too far. You want a balanced Leviathan? Easy. Add two rules:
You can't make a Leviathan a character.
Leviathan's can't benefit from Duty Eternal.
Bingo. The two biggest sources of cheese are gone, and you're left with a unit that's no stronger than anything else the codex can bring.
No other chapter gets over watch on 5+, 6+FNP, move and shoot and an innate reroll 1's on your heavy weapons. While in the -1AP doctorine
That's 5 bonuses
Ultramarines are probably closest with move without the -1 to hit, and fall back and shoot at -2 to hit while in the 0AP bonus doctorine.
Thats 2 mutually exclusive benifits.
That shows the level of bonkers that is Iron Hands.
Duty eternal isn't even that bad it's 1CP per phase the Iron Stone is -1 dmage for everything in 3 inches of a 50mm base for every phase for 1CP
Several problems:
1, you're comparing a faction that was designed to work in Tactical Doctrines. If you want to play "count the bonuses", you'd have to compare a unit built for Rapid Fire or Assault weapons.
Heavy weapon units will get more inherent abilities than non-heavy weapon units for Iron Hands, just like 'tactical' weapon armies get more benefits when being played with Ultramarines.
2, having a lot of abilities is not always better than having fewer, more powerful abilities. In the old codex, Iron Hands only had 6+ fnp, and so despite the fact that their chapter tactics gave them the same number of "abilities" as the other chapters, they were still far worse because 6+ fnp by itself just isn't very good.
3, You're counting up abilities wrong. Ultramarines still give +1 AP in devestator doctrine, which you forgot about. (So, at least three benefits, one of which is mutually exclusive, by your math.)
4, there are many units Iron Hands can take that benefit from "All five abilities!!!". The new Repulsors, for example. Rifelman dreads. Redemptor Dreads. The only thing that made the Leviathan special was the ability to stack several potent abilities into a single source, like how deathstarts worked in 7th edition. Counting the abilities that the whole army gets against the Leviathan isn't actually an argument against the Leviathan, it's an argument against Iron Hands in general.
But isn't it how good stuff in 8th ed works in general. Dark Reapers were great, because they could move and fire, could shot stuff outside of LoS, could fire twice with Inari, didn't suffer negative mods and could double dip on CWE stratagems for a long times. Alaitoc flyers are great, because they can stack multiple minus to hit mods. Catellan using armies were stacking the CP gain from cheap IG, with the power of a knight castellan, on top of raven house rules.
The meteor captins of old BA were over buffing one or two dudes with buffs and stratagems etc. chaos soup is the over lap of rules and units from multiple books, to cherry pick the best things etc.
Something that would be winning games in w40k without any overlaping rules and just stock stuff, would have to be borderline undercosted.
Karol wrote: But isn't it how good stuff in 8th ed works in general. Dark Reapers were great, because they could move and fire, could shot stuff outside of LoS, could fire twice with Inari, didn't suffer negative mods and could double dip on CWE stratagems for a long times. Alaitoc flyers are great, because they can stack multiple minus to hit mods. Catellan using armies were stacking the CP gain from cheap IG, with the power of a knight castellan, on top of raven house rules.
The meteor captins of old BA were over buffing one or two dudes with buffs and stratagems etc. chaos soup is the over lap of rules and units from multiple books, to cherry pick the best things etc.
Something that would be winning games in w40k without any overlaping rules and just stock stuff, would have to be borderline undercosted.
Sure, but the difference is that *everything* in the Iron Hands army gets the "five abilities" that Ice_can listed. The thing that makes/made Leviathans above-average was not those five abilities, it was the additional warlord trait ability and dreadnought-exclusive stratagems that it had access to, condensed onto a single powerful model. (Since buffing one leviathan is equivalent to buffing 2-3 regular dreadnoughts, all stratagems used on it are 2-3 times as cost efficient.)
If you think those "five abilities" are too powerful, then you should ban Iron Hands entirely, but they're not the problem here - it's the unit-specific stratagems.
Waaaghpower wrote: I haven't read through this entire thread, but this fix goes waaaay too far. You want a balanced Leviathan? Easy. Add two rules:
You can't make a Leviathan a character.
Leviathan's can't benefit from Duty Eternal.
Bingo. The two biggest sources of cheese are gone, and you're left with a unit that's no stronger than anything else the codex can bring.
No other chapter gets over watch on 5+, 6+FNP, move and shoot and an innate reroll 1's on your heavy weapons. While in the -1AP doctorine
That's 5 bonuses
Ultramarines are probably closest with move without the -1 to hit, and fall back and shoot at -2 to hit while in the 0AP bonus doctorine.
Thats 2 mutually exclusive benifits.
That shows the level of bonkers that is Iron Hands.
Duty eternal isn't even that bad it's 1CP per phase the Iron Stone is -1 dmage for everything in 3 inches of a 50mm base for every phase for 1CP
Several problems:
1, you're comparing a faction that was designed to work in Tactical Doctrines. If you want to play "count the bonuses", you'd have to compare a unit built for Rapid Fire or Assault weapons.
Heavy weapon units will get more inherent abilities than non-heavy weapon units for Iron Hands, just like 'tactical' weapon armies get more benefits when being played with Ultramarines.
2, having a lot of abilities is not always better than having fewer, more powerful abilities. In the old codex, Iron Hands only had 6+ fnp, and so despite the fact that their chapter tactics gave them the same number of "abilities" as the other chapters, they were still far worse because 6+ fnp by itself just isn't very good.
3, You're counting up abilities wrong. Ultramarines still give +1 AP in devestator doctrine, which you forgot about. (So, at least three benefits, one of which is mutually exclusive, by your math.)
4, there are many units Iron Hands can take that benefit from "All five abilities!!!". The new Repulsors, for example. Rifelman dreads. Redemptor Dreads. The only thing that made the Leviathan special was the ability to stack several potent abilities into a single source, like how deathstarts worked in 7th edition. Counting the abilities that the whole army gets against the Leviathan isn't actually an argument against the Leviathan, it's an argument against Iron Hands in general.
Exactly the issue isn't the leviathan it's the IronHands Supliment being about as rediculous an over correction from a trivial buff to all the buffs from 2 other codex's subfactions ontop of your own and here's a super faction bonus thats a 2for1 aswell.
Karol wrote: But isn't it how good stuff in 8th ed works in general. Dark Reapers were great, because they could move and fire, could shot stuff outside of LoS, could fire twice with Inari, didn't suffer negative mods and could double dip on CWE stratagems for a long times. Alaitoc flyers are great, because they can stack multiple minus to hit mods. Catellan using armies were stacking the CP gain from cheap IG, with the power of a knight castellan, on top of raven house rules.
The meteor captins of old BA were over buffing one or two dudes with buffs and stratagems etc. chaos soup is the over lap of rules and units from multiple books, to cherry pick the best things etc.
Something that would be winning games in w40k without any overlaping rules and just stock stuff, would have to be borderline undercosted.
Sure, but the difference is that *everything* in the Iron Hands army gets the "five abilities" that Ice_can listed. The thing that makes/made Leviathans above-average was not those five abilities, it was the additional warlord trait ability and dreadnought-exclusive stratagems that it had access to, condensed onto a single powerful model. (Since buffing one leviathan is equivalent to buffing 2-3 regular dreadnoughts, all stratagems used on it are 2-3 times as cost efficient.)
If you think those "five abilities" are too powerful, then you should ban Iron Hands entirely, but they're not the problem here - it's the unit-specific stratagems.
the 5 abilities in 1 isn't a problem we are talking about here.
That doesn't mean its not a problem tho. There is no reason why IH should have that much stuff when compared to other sub-factions.
Sure you can say the 6 fnp in itself it not enough and you'd probably be right, but they did not need this much more.
Well it is kind of a problem of how GW writes the rules. In perspective I would say that the new marine codex and the supplments are probably the first real 8th ed books, everything else was GW copy pasting stuff, and trying to put out stuff as fast as they can. not carrying much about balance or quality of rules, but carring a lot about people buy obligatory books and new models.
So in the end game maybe IH are not even OP, but weak, but that doesn't really make someone with an army that gets a new style codex in a year plus, happier. Sometimes if feels as if GW expects the norm to be playing 4-5 of their games, having 2-3 armies for each of those games, to be semi happy with the stuff you have. Trying to have one army seems like a big gamble or just being foolish.
But who knows CA is coming in a few month, maybe GW will fix stuff there right?
Waaaghpower 780878 10587949 wrote:
Sure, but the difference is that *everything* in the Iron Hands army gets the "five abilities" that Ice_can listed. The thing that makes/made Leviathans above-average was not those five abilities, it was the additional warlord trait ability and dreadnought-exclusive stratagems that it had access to, condensed onto a single powerful model. (Since buffing one leviathan is equivalent to buffing 2-3 regular dreadnoughts, all stratagems used on it are 2-3 times as cost efficient.)
If you think those "five abilities" are too powerful, then you should ban Iron Hands entirely, but they're not the problem here - it's the unit-specific stratagems.
But doesn't it only make it worse, if it is not just one unit? There is no balancing for marine armies that don't have doctrines or supplements. Same models, same points costs, but we are practicaly comparing a vigilus renegades or BL to Word Bearers.
Ah and by the way I am not in favour of removing or not letting people play with legal rules. I just think that the idea that things with drasticaly different set of rules should not cost the same points. IMO doctrine should not be free. It should cost points.
Karol wrote: But isn't it how good stuff in 8th ed works in general. Dark Reapers were great, because they could move and fire, could shot stuff outside of LoS, could fire twice with Inari, didn't suffer negative mods and could double dip on CWE stratagems for a long times. Alaitoc flyers are great, because they can stack multiple minus to hit mods. Catellan using armies were stacking the CP gain from cheap IG, with the power of a knight castellan, on top of raven house rules.
The meteor captins of old BA were over buffing one or two dudes with buffs and stratagems etc. chaos soup is the over lap of rules and units from multiple books, to cherry pick the best things etc.
Something that would be winning games in w40k without any overlaping rules and just stock stuff, would have to be borderline undercosted.
Sure, but the difference is that *everything* in the Iron Hands army gets the "five abilities" that Ice_can listed. The thing that makes/made Leviathans above-average was not those five abilities, it was the additional warlord trait ability and dreadnought-exclusive stratagems that it had access to, condensed onto a single powerful model. (Since buffing one leviathan is equivalent to buffing 2-3 regular dreadnoughts, all stratagems used on it are 2-3 times as cost efficient.)
If you think those "five abilities" are too powerful, then you should ban Iron Hands entirely, but they're not the problem here - it's the unit-specific stratagems.
the 5 abilities in 1 isn't a problem we are talking about here.
That doesn't mean its not a problem tho. There is no reason why IH should have that much stuff when compared to other sub-factions.
Sure you can say the 6 fnp in itself it not enough and you'd probably be right, but they did not need this much more.
Let's compare other factions, though. Everyone else will always have:
A Chapter trait
A Doctrine
A faction-specific Doctrine bonus
Iron Hands happen to get two bonuses from our Doctrine, but either half of our Doctrine bonus is notable in that, unlike other factions, our bonuses give us abilities for free that could be acquired elsewhere, instead of giving us unique abilities that nobody else gets. For example, while there are several ways to move and shoot Heavy Weapons without a penalty, (either by having inherent abilities on a unit, or by using a stratagem,) nobody else has the ability to move and shoot any weapon while counting as stationary, nobody else has a way to give +1 Damage to melee weapons, and while there are sources of +1 to hit and even a couple situational +1 to wound abilities, these can stack with Raven Guard, while Iron Hands abilities cannot stack with similar ones.
The largest benefit that Iron Hands provide is the ability to play a strong army without the need for complicated aura bubbles or careful consideration of movement. We only need to be concerned with two main auras - Lieutenants and the Ironstone, instead of three or four, and our most important weapons can move freely without worrying about becoming less effective. It's a plug-and-play army with a skill floor that is much lower than other factions. Nearly all of our abilities simply make it easy to play without having to make complicated tactical choices or worry about placement as much as other factions. I
Waaaghpower 780878 10587949 wrote:
Sure, but the difference is that *everything* in the Iron Hands army gets the "five abilities" that Ice_can listed. The thing that makes/made Leviathans above-average was not those five abilities, it was the additional warlord trait ability and dreadnought-exclusive stratagems that it had access to, condensed onto a single powerful model. (Since buffing one leviathan is equivalent to buffing 2-3 regular dreadnoughts, all stratagems used on it are 2-3 times as cost efficient.)
If you think those "five abilities" are too powerful, then you should ban Iron Hands entirely, but they're not the problem here - it's the unit-specific stratagems.
But doesn't it only make it worse, if it is not just one unit? There is no balancing for marine armies that don't have doctrines or supplements. Same models, same points costs, but we are practicaly comparing a vigilus renegades or BL to Word Bearers.
It's worse then that imo.
Atleast WB got access to the new stuff and shares the same cost.
Insectum7 wrote: Drive a Rhino up to it, and then charge it with something from behind the Rhino and out of LOS from the Leviathan.
Rhino doesn't block LoS to any model you can see under, over or through the tracks.
Enjoy 5+ overwatch rerolling 1's or if they spent some CP 4+ overwatch.
I think the 4+ overwatch is for any unit aswell, because GW does GW
Karol wrote: But isn't it how good stuff in 8th ed works in general. Dark Reapers were great, because they could move and fire, could shot stuff outside of LoS, could fire twice with Inari, didn't suffer negative mods and could double dip on CWE stratagems for a long times. Alaitoc flyers are great, because they can stack multiple minus to hit mods. Catellan using armies were stacking the CP gain from cheap IG, with the power of a knight castellan, on top of raven house rules.
The meteor captins of old BA were over buffing one or two dudes with buffs and stratagems etc. chaos soup is the over lap of rules and units from multiple books, to cherry pick the best things etc.
Something that would be winning games in w40k without any overlaping rules and just stock stuff, would have to be borderline undercosted.
Sure, but the difference is that *everything* in the Iron Hands army gets the "five abilities" that Ice_can listed. The thing that makes/made Leviathans above-average was not those five abilities, it was the additional warlord trait ability and dreadnought-exclusive stratagems that it had access to, condensed onto a single powerful model. (Since buffing one leviathan is equivalent to buffing 2-3 regular dreadnoughts, all stratagems used on it are 2-3 times as cost efficient.)
If you think those "five abilities" are too powerful, then you should ban Iron Hands entirely, but they're not the problem here - it's the unit-specific stratagems.
the 5 abilities in 1 isn't a problem we are talking about here.
That doesn't mean its not a problem tho. There is no reason why IH should have that much stuff when compared to other sub-factions.
Sure you can say the 6 fnp in itself it not enough and you'd probably be right, but they did not need this much more.
Let's compare other factions, though. Everyone else will always have:
A Chapter trait
A Doctrine
A faction-specific Doctrine bonus
Iron Hands happen to get two bonuses from our Doctrine, but either half of our Doctrine bonus is notable in that, unlike other factions, our bonuses give us abilities for free that could be acquired elsewhere, instead of giving us unique abilities that nobody else gets. For example, while there are several ways to move and shoot Heavy Weapons without a penalty, (either by having inherent abilities on a unit, or by using a stratagem,) nobody else has the ability to move and shoot any weapon while counting as stationary, nobody else has a way to give +1 Damage to melee weapons, and while there are sources of +1 to hit and even a couple situational +1 to wound abilities, these can stack with Raven Guard, while Iron Hands abilities cannot stack with similar ones.
The largest benefit that Iron Hands provide is the ability to play a strong army without the need for complicated aura bubbles or careful consideration of movement. We only need to be concerned with two main auras - Lieutenants and the Ironstone, instead of three or four, and our most important weapons can move freely without worrying about becoming less effective. It's a plug-and-play army with a skill floor that is much lower than other factions. Nearly all of our abilities simply make it easy to play without having to make complicated tactical choices or worry about placement as much as other factions. I
Right, since you came from the future and know that all books are going to get a complete SM style makeover, could you tell me tomorrows lottery numbers?
Also, is the game going to gak for anyone not a SM for the next months/years while they wait for their book or are they going to give these extra things to all armies in the upcoming CA.
That would be nice....
Sorry that I don't share your optimism in GW's future codex consistency.
Ordana wrote: Right, since you came from the future and know that all books are going to get a complete SM style makeover, could you tell me tomorrows lottery numbers?
Also, is the game going to gak for anyone not a SM for the next months/years while they wait for their book or are they going to give these extra things to all armies in the upcoming CA.
That would be nice....
Sorry that I don't share your optimism in GW's future codex consistency.
I was referring to other Space Marine factions. Obviously, other factions don't have *chapter traits* or doctrines, because those are space-marine specific abilities and terminology.
Similar to what I said about iron hands abilities, if your issue is with Space Marines in general, then banning the Leviathan isn't really going to solve anything.
Insectum7 wrote: Drive a Rhino up to it, and then charge it with something from behind the Rhino and out of LOS from the Leviathan.
If you manage that a rhino survives that long.
If they're shooting at Rhinos I think they might have target priority issues.
- Present solution to problem
- Shoot solution to problem so the problem can no longer get solved
- This indicates target priority issue for some reason
Insectum7 wrote: Drive a Rhino up to it, and then charge it with something from behind the Rhino and out of LOS from the Leviathan.
Rhino doesn't block LoS to any model you can see under, over or through the tracks.
Enjoy 5+ overwatch rerolling 1's or if they spent some CP 4+ overwatch.
I think the 4+ overwatch is for any unit aswell, because GW does GW
I've never met anyone who plays that you can see under a Rhinos tracks.
Insectum7 wrote: Drive a Rhino up to it, and then charge it with something from behind the Rhino and out of LOS from the Leviathan.
If you manage that a rhino survives that long.
If they're shooting at Rhinos I think they might have target priority issues.
- Present solution to problem
- Shoot solution to problem so the problem can no longer get solved
- This indicates target priority issue for some reason
Excuse me?
Go ahead, shoot the Rhino. That's firepower that's not being applied to numerous other things. If I'm making the enemy Leviathan shoot at Rhinos I think I'm doing ok.
Ordana wrote: Right, since you came from the future and know that all books are going to get a complete SM style makeover, could you tell me tomorrows lottery numbers?
Also, is the game going to gak for anyone not a SM for the next months/years while they wait for their book or are they going to give these extra things to all armies in the upcoming CA.
That would be nice....
Sorry that I don't share your optimism in GW's future codex consistency.
I was referring to other Space Marine factions. Obviously, other factions don't have *chapter traits* or doctrines, because those are space-marine specific abilities and terminology.
Similar to what I said about iron hands abilities, if your issue is with Space Marines in general, then banning the Leviathan isn't really going to solve anything.
The Chapter trait for IH's is 3 separate other 'chapter traits'.
6+ fnp 5+ overwatch
double wounds on damage table
That's a problem.
Yes I consider the other SM's a problematic example of power creep
IH's are just the most obvious and clear example.
Ordana wrote: Right, since you came from the future and know that all books are going to get a complete SM style makeover, could you tell me tomorrows lottery numbers?
Also, is the game going to gak for anyone not a SM for the next months/years while they wait for their book or are they going to give these extra things to all armies in the upcoming CA.
That would be nice....
Sorry that I don't share your optimism in GW's future codex consistency.
I was referring to other Space Marine factions. Obviously, other factions don't have *chapter traits* or doctrines, because those are space-marine specific abilities and terminology.
Similar to what I said about iron hands abilities, if your issue is with Space Marines in general, then banning the Leviathan isn't really going to solve anything.
The Chapter trait for IH's is 3 separate other 'chapter traits'.
6+ fnp 5+ overwatch
double wounds on damage table
That's a problem.
Yes I consider the other SM's a problematic example of power creep
IH's are just the most obvious and clear example.
This is subjective, of course, but I don't think those three abilities are any stronger than the combination of abilities that other SM factions can offer. It's our ability to stack stratagems that make Iron Hands overpowered, not our baseline.
Insectum7 wrote: Drive a Rhino up to it, and then charge it with something from behind the Rhino and out of LOS from the Leviathan.
Rhino doesn't block LoS to any model you can see under, over or through the tracks.
Enjoy 5+ overwatch rerolling 1's or if they spent some CP 4+ overwatch.
I think the 4+ overwatch is for any unit aswell, because GW does GW
I've never met anyone who plays that you can see under a Rhinos tracks.
Insectum7 wrote: Drive a Rhino up to it, and then charge it with something from behind the Rhino and out of LOS from the Leviathan.
If you manage that a rhino survives that long.
If they're shooting at Rhinos I think they might have target priority issues.
- Present solution to problem
- Shoot solution to problem so the problem can no longer get solved
- This indicates target priority issue for some reason
Excuse me?
Go ahead, shoot the Rhino. That's firepower that's not being applied to numerous other things. If I'm making the enemy Leviathan shoot at Rhinos I think I'm doing ok.
Discussing things like this in a vacuum is not productive because I can easily just say I will charge a single scout up to your rhino so your rhino can't charge my levianthan, and then we can go back and forth until the end of the world.
But to continue the discussion, my point is that in this hypothetical scenario taking out the rhino is absolutely the right choice because the leviathan is effectively immortal so its only weakness is CC, therefore removing any potential to tag it in CC is the right move.
Tagging it is absolutely the right move, just maybe not with a rhino, Shrike for instance have the potential to babysit an enemy levi for the entire game if he so chooses.
People are acting like marines are going to have infinite CP. Marines have a whole bunch of things they're going to want to spend CP on, relics, Fight on Death, Fight Again, standard rerolls, suppression fire, tremor shells, veteran intercessors etc.,
Fire a single lascannon at the levi every turn and then ignore it. Its threat range is small for such an expensive model, and with any terrain it can be mitigated.
The resources aren't limited, and trading a single Lascannon shot for an enemy CP is pretty worth it IMO. This goes double if he has multiple levies, 1 because he won't have many CP to begin with, and 2 because he can only half damage to one levi.
Like geez guys, have some creativity in your tactics. Think outside of flat DPS/Durability for once. Utility is critical in 8th.
Insectum7 wrote: Drive a Rhino up to it, and then charge it with something from behind the Rhino and out of LOS from the Leviathan.
Rhino doesn't block LoS to any model you can see under, over or through the tracks.
Enjoy 5+ overwatch rerolling 1's or if they spent some CP 4+ overwatch.
I think the 4+ overwatch is for any unit aswell, because GW does GW
I've never met anyone who plays that you can see under a Rhinos tracks.
Insectum7 wrote: Drive a Rhino up to it, and then charge it with something from behind the Rhino and out of LOS from the Leviathan.
If you manage that a rhino survives that long.
If they're shooting at Rhinos I think they might have target priority issues.
- Present solution to problem
- Shoot solution to problem so the problem can no longer get solved
- This indicates target priority issue for some reason
Excuse me?
Go ahead, shoot the Rhino. That's firepower that's not being applied to numerous other things. If I'm making the enemy Leviathan shoot at Rhinos I think I'm doing ok.
Discussing things like this in a vacuum is not productive because I can easily just say I will charge a single scout up to your rhino so your rhino can't charge my levianthan, and then we can go back and forth until the end of the world.
But to continue the discussion, my point is that in this hypothetical scenario taking out the rhino is absolutely the right choice because the leviathan is effectively immortal so its only weakness is CC, therefore removing any potential to tag it in CC is the right move.
Tagging it is absolutely the right move, just maybe not with a rhino, Shrike for instance have the potential to babysit an enemy levi for the entire game if he so chooses.
My main point was that the IH Leviathan still has a big foil, and it's a brutal one. Unlike Knights (or Ultramarines) who can walk away and still shoot.
Vilehydra wrote: People are acting like marines are going to have infinite CP. Marines have a whole bunch of things they're going to want to spend CP on, relics, Fight on Death, Fight Again, standard rerolls, suppression fire, tremor shells, veteran intercessors etc.,
Fire a single lascannon at the levi every turn and then ignore it. Its threat range is small for such an expensive model, and with any terrain it can be mitigated.
The resources aren't limited, and trading a single Lascannon shot for an enemy CP is pretty worth it IMO. This goes double if he has multiple levies, 1 because he won't have many CP to begin with, and 2 because he can only half damage to one levi.
Like geez guys, have some creativity in your tactics. Think outside of flat DPS/Durability for once. Utility is critical in 8th.
Really?
Don't need the Fight stratagems when everything dies to shooting and you have 4+ overwatch with re-rolls.
Veteran Intercessors are a luxury you don't need.
So, 2 CP for chapter Master, 1 per turn for Half damage and if your against a CC threat 1/3 CP for Tremor shells.
8 CP is going to get you far.
you can go to 13 if your feeling spicy but you probably won't need that many in an IH gunline.
Vilehydra wrote: People are acting like marines are going to have infinite CP. Marines have a whole bunch of things they're going to want to spend CP on, relics, Fight on Death, Fight Again, standard rerolls, suppression fire, tremor shells, veteran intercessors etc.,
Fire a single lascannon at the levi every turn and then ignore it. Its threat range is small for such an expensive model, and with any terrain it can be mitigated.
The resources aren't limited, and trading a single Lascannon shot for an enemy CP is pretty worth it IMO. This goes double if he has multiple levies, 1 because he won't have many CP to begin with, and 2 because he can only half damage to one levi.
Like geez guys, have some creativity in your tactics. Think outside of flat DPS/Durability for once. Utility is critical in 8th.
Really?
Don't need the Fight stratagems when everything dies to shooting and you have 4+ overwatch with re-rolls.
Veteran Intercessors are a luxury you don't need.
So, 2 CP for chapter Master, 1 per turn for Half damage and if your against a CC threat 1/3 CP for Tremor shells.
8 CP is going to get you far.
you can go to 13 if your feeling spicy but you probably won't need that many in an IH gunline.
You forgot people spending a CP to make it a Character and another to give it a Warlord Trait. That's 2 right off the bat before the game even starts.
Vilehydra wrote: People are acting like marines are going to have infinite CP. Marines have a whole bunch of things they're going to want to spend CP on, relics, Fight on Death, Fight Again, standard rerolls, suppression fire, tremor shells, veteran intercessors etc.,
Fire a single lascannon at the levi every turn and then ignore it. Its threat range is small for such an expensive model, and with any terrain it can be mitigated.
The resources aren't limited, and trading a single Lascannon shot for an enemy CP is pretty worth it IMO. This goes double if he has multiple levies, 1 because he won't have many CP to begin with, and 2 because he can only half damage to one levi.
Like geez guys, have some creativity in your tactics. Think outside of flat DPS/Durability for once. Utility is critical in 8th.
Really?
Don't need the Fight stratagems when everything dies to shooting and you have 4+ overwatch with re-rolls.
Veteran Intercessors are a luxury you don't need.
So, 2 CP for chapter Master, 1 per turn for Half damage and if your against a CC threat 1/3 CP for Tremor shells.
8 CP is going to get you far.
you can go to 13 if your feeling spicy but you probably won't need that many in an IH gunline.
You forgot people spending a CP to make it a Character and another to give it a Warlord Trait. That's 2 right off the bat before the game even starts.
I think most of that is a trap, its nice to look at and think about but ultimately not worth the CP.
The leviathan has been appearing all over all marine armies, both loyal and chaos, while comparable units like predators, contemptors, redemptors, forge fiends, defilers and the like see next to no play.
Isn't that already an obvious sign that something is seriously wrong in terms of internal balance here, IH supplement or not?
I'm fairly sure that GW has shot themselves in the foot here, trying to buff stuff like the redemptor dreadnought through stratagems, relics and doctrine, but by doing so accidentally buffing the leviathan even more.
Jidmah wrote: The leviathan has been appearing all over all marine armies, both loyal and chaos, while comparable units like predators, contemptors, redemptors, forge fiends, defilers and the like see next to no play.
Isn't that already an obvious sign that something is seriously wrong in terms of internal balance here, IH supplement or not?
I'm fairly sure that GW has shot themselves in the foot here, trying to buff stuff like the redemptor dreadnought through stratagems, relics and doctrine, but by doing so accidentally buffing the leviathan even more.
That's under the assumption any of those units were worth using in the first place. Can you tell me with a straight face that the Forgefiend is worth its points? The Predator?
Jidmah wrote: The leviathan has been appearing all over all marine armies, both loyal and chaos, while comparable units like predators, contemptors, redemptors, forge fiends, defilers and the like see next to no play.
Isn't that already an obvious sign that something is seriously wrong in terms of internal balance here, IH supplement or not?
I'm fairly sure that GW has shot themselves in the foot here, trying to buff stuff like the redemptor dreadnought through stratagems, relics and doctrine, but by doing so accidentally buffing the leviathan even more.
That's under the assumption any of those units were worth using in the first place. Can you tell me with a straight face that the Forgefiend is worth its points? The Predator?
I agree with Slayer-Fan here. Predators, Forge Fiends, and Defilers are all well overcosted. Vanilla Contemptors are pretty terrible as well. (Relic Contemptors, meanwhile, are great at showing off how terrible Predators are - You get way better DPS *and* durability for barely more points.)
We're also talking about a codex that's fairly new. A ton of Space Marine vehicles have sucked for a long time because they can't benefit from chapter tactics. Different factions might be able to actually benefit now - for example, Ultramarine Land Raiders no longer get shut down by a single ork boy standing in base to base contact, making them significantly less of a liability in any given list.
Jidmah wrote: The leviathan has been appearing all over all marine armies, both loyal and chaos, while comparable units like predators, contemptors, redemptors, forge fiends, defilers and the like see next to no play.
Isn't that already an obvious sign that something is seriously wrong in terms of internal balance here, IH supplement or not?
I'm fairly sure that GW has shot themselves in the foot here, trying to buff stuff like the redemptor dreadnought through stratagems, relics and doctrine, but by doing so accidentally buffing the leviathan even more.
That's under the assumption any of those units were worth using in the first place. Can you tell me with a straight face that the Forgefiend is worth its points? The Predator?
I agree with Slayer-Fan here. Predators, Forge Fiends, and Defilers are all well overcosted. Vanilla Contemptors are pretty terrible as well. (Relic Contemptors, meanwhile, are great at showing off how terrible Predators are - You get way better DPS *and* durability for barely more points.)
We're also talking about a codex that's fairly new. A ton of Space Marine vehicles have sucked for a long time because they can't benefit from chapter tactics. Different factions might be able to actually benefit now - for example, Ultramarine Land Raiders no longer get shut down by a single ork boy standing in base to base contact, making them significantly less of a liability in any given list.
If a Levi is undercosted that doesn't necessarily mean FF are overcosted. FF are toe to toe with Redepmtors in many respects and only lack a bunch of bolter spam in trade for a 5++ and heal.
Lets also not forget that the Stormcannon is a 24" gun.
Jidmah wrote: The leviathan has been appearing all over all marine armies, both loyal and chaos, while comparable units like predators, contemptors, redemptors, forge fiends, defilers and the like see next to no play.
Isn't that already an obvious sign that something is seriously wrong in terms of internal balance here, IH supplement or not?
I'm fairly sure that GW has shot themselves in the foot here, trying to buff stuff like the redemptor dreadnought through stratagems, relics and doctrine, but by doing so accidentally buffing the leviathan even more.
That's under the assumption any of those units were worth using in the first place. Can you tell me with a straight face that the Forgefiend is worth its points? The Predator?
I agree with Slayer-Fan here. Predators, Forge Fiends, and Defilers are all well overcosted. Vanilla Contemptors are pretty terrible as well. (Relic Contemptors, meanwhile, are great at showing off how terrible Predators are - You get way better DPS *and* durability for barely more points.)
We're also talking about a codex that's fairly new. A ton of Space Marine vehicles have sucked for a long time because they can't benefit from chapter tactics. Different factions might be able to actually benefit now - for example, Ultramarine Land Raiders no longer get shut down by a single ork boy standing in base to base contact, making them significantly less of a liability in any given list.
If a Levi is undercosted that doesn't necessarily mean FF are overcosted. FF are toe to toe with Redepmtors in many respects and only lack a bunch of bolter spam in trade for a 5++ and heal.
Lets also not forget that the Stormcannon is a 24" gun.
The ff competition in the csm heavy support slot is the hellforged leviathan which uses the butcher cannon which is a 36 inch range. So not much of a competition.
The ff competition in the csm heavy support slot is the hellforged leviathan which uses the butcher cannon which is a 36 inch range. So not much of a competition.
If you want to escape for half the points, but more than half the damage (with CP spend) then FF does ok. Not great. but ok. More than one obviously drops off a cliff a bit.
Jidmah wrote: The leviathan has been appearing all over all marine armies, both loyal and chaos, while comparable units like predators, contemptors, redemptors, forge fiends, defilers and the like see next to no play.
Isn't that already an obvious sign that something is seriously wrong in terms of internal balance here, IH supplement or not?
I'm fairly sure that GW has shot themselves in the foot here, trying to buff stuff like the redemptor dreadnought through stratagems, relics and doctrine, but by doing so accidentally buffing the leviathan even more.
That's under the assumption any of those units were worth using in the first place. Can you tell me with a straight face that the Forgefiend is worth its points? The Predator?
No it's not.
When you apply a 25% buff to a unit that's performing at 80% to get it 100%, but you can apply that same buff to another unit that's already at 100%, you end up with a problem.
Or in other words, predators, forge fiends and the like need to get where the leviathan is now, and the leviathan needs to be in a place where it's not an auto-take for pretty much every marine army focused on shooting.
Jidmah wrote: The leviathan has been appearing all over all marine armies, both loyal and chaos, while comparable units like predators, contemptors, redemptors, forge fiends, defilers and the like see next to no play.
Isn't that already an obvious sign that something is seriously wrong in terms of internal balance here, IH supplement or not?
I'm fairly sure that GW has shot themselves in the foot here, trying to buff stuff like the redemptor dreadnought through stratagems, relics and doctrine, but by doing so accidentally buffing the leviathan even more.
That's under the assumption any of those units were worth using in the first place. Can you tell me with a straight face that the Forgefiend is worth its points? The Predator?
No it's not.
When you apply a 25% buff to a unit that's performing at 80% to get it 100%, but you can apply that same buff to another unit that's already at 100%, you end up with a problem.
Or in other words, predators, forge fiends and the like need to get where the leviathan is now, and the leviathan needs to be in a place where it's not an auto-take for pretty much every marine army focused on shooting.
Except you dont magically make predators worthwhile just by banning FW like some people suggest all you do is remove worthwhile options from 90% of the codex and force anyone trying to make SM vehicals work both Choas and Loyalists play "Iron Hands and anyone else may aswell just forget they exsist.
Bad balance isn't going to be magical improved by just deleting the only viable options.
Karol wrote: But isn't it how good stuff in 8th ed works in general. Dark Reapers were great, because they could move and fire, could shot stuff outside of LoS, could fire twice with Inari, didn't suffer negative mods and could double dip on CWE stratagems for a long times. Alaitoc flyers are great, because they can stack multiple minus to hit mods. Catellan using armies were stacking the CP gain from cheap IG, with the power of a knight castellan, on top of raven house rules.
The meteor captins of old BA were over buffing one or two dudes with buffs and stratagems etc. chaos soup is the over lap of rules and units from multiple books, to cherry pick the best things etc.
Something that would be winning games in w40k without any overlaping rules and just stock stuff, would have to be borderline undercosted.
Sure, but the difference is that *everything* in the Iron Hands army gets the "five abilities" that Ice_can listed. The thing that makes/made Leviathans above-average was not those five abilities, it was the additional warlord trait ability and dreadnought-exclusive stratagems that it had access to, condensed onto a single powerful model. (Since buffing one leviathan is equivalent to buffing 2-3 regular dreadnoughts, all stratagems used on it are 2-3 times as cost efficient.)
If you think those "five abilities" are too powerful, then you should ban Iron Hands entirely, but they're not the problem here - it's the unit-specific stratagems.
Except the dreadnaught charictor is Ironhands only strategum.
Ironstone relic for -1 damage Iron hands only
Base 6+FNP Iron hands only
5+ overwatch 4+ with strategum Iron hands only
Having any marine unit turn into 2+ bodyguards ironhands only strategum.
Iron hands needed some love as they were laughable bad in codex 1.0 a 16% durability buff on models costed at 130% of their points value with that buff doesn't make a unit work.
But cutting the unit down to 100% of it's point's cost value and then applying a 16% durability buff plus would have been a workable army.
Heck the fnp plus counts as double wounds would have been fair compensation for the terrible 1.0 rules but to throw so many buffs and strategums into exclusively 1 subfaction and then use that to justify changeing units used across multiple codex's let alone subfactions is not improving balance it's throwing it into unachievable.
If melle is your only counter that is already broken. Several armies have 0 melee ability. Ironhands aren't particularly weak in melle ether. It probably remains to be seen what the best overall build is going to be. The ones that can make it impossible to charge a levi are going to be the best though.
2x Executioner in a triangle with a levi in the middle and tech marine with ironstone in the gap between the 3 of them. Seems like a pretty obvious build.
There's also a triple redemptor and ivinctor build I've got in my head (which will literally ass woop anything you throw at them in CC while dumping out isane number of shots as well)
Heck even maxing out landspeeders is an insane use of the relic ironstone because as a unit you can spread its benefits around...and if you get a 4++ for moving 12 inches I think dumping out tons of mobile firepower.
It is a deathstar and most of us have been around to remember
1. How much we hated deathstars
2. How to beat deathstars
The Ironstone is particularly bonkers because the current meta strongly favours weapons with flat D2 (or sometimes D3) damage - and those weapons are stopped hard by the Ironstone.
I really would not want to face this in ITC where the IH player will choose secondaries to suit the kill more/can't be killed nature of a deathstar list. In a mission sets where you cannot just choose to be playing a kill points mission with a passing nod to objectives having over half your army bunched up like that does not win you the game.
Karol wrote: But isn't it how good stuff in 8th ed works in general. Dark Reapers were great, because they could move and fire, could shot stuff outside of LoS, could fire twice with Inari, didn't suffer negative mods and could double dip on CWE stratagems for a long times. Alaitoc flyers are great, because they can stack multiple minus to hit mods. Catellan using armies were stacking the CP gain from cheap IG, with the power of a knight castellan, on top of raven house rules.
The meteor captins of old BA were over buffing one or two dudes with buffs and stratagems etc. chaos soup is the over lap of rules and units from multiple books, to cherry pick the best things etc.
Something that would be winning games in w40k without any overlaping rules and just stock stuff, would have to be borderline undercosted.
Sure, but the difference is that *everything* in the Iron Hands army gets the "five abilities" that Ice_can listed. The thing that makes/made Leviathans above-average was not those five abilities, it was the additional warlord trait ability and dreadnought-exclusive stratagems that it had access to, condensed onto a single powerful model. (Since buffing one leviathan is equivalent to buffing 2-3 regular dreadnoughts, all stratagems used on it are 2-3 times as cost efficient.)
If you think those "five abilities" are too powerful, then you should ban Iron Hands entirely, but they're not the problem here - it's the unit-specific stratagems.
Except the dreadnaught charictor is Ironhands only strategum.
Ironstone relic for -1 damage Iron hands only
Base 6+FNP Iron hands only
5+ overwatch 4+ with strategum Iron hands only
Having any marine unit turn into 2+ bodyguards ironhands only strategum.
Iron hands needed some love as they were laughable bad in codex 1.0 a 16% durability buff on models costed at 130% of their points value with that buff doesn't make a unit work.
But cutting the unit down to 100% of it's point's cost value and then applying a 16% durability buff plus would have been a workable army.
Heck the fnp plus counts as double wounds would have been fair compensation for the terrible 1.0 rules but to throw so many buffs and strategums into exclusively 1 subfaction and then use that to justify changeing units used across multiple codex's let alone subfactions is not improving balance it's throwing it into unachievable.
Ice, please go back and read the original replies I was talking about. I had suggested that, in order to balance the Leviathan, you ban it from taking the character stratagem and don't let it halve damage, so that the ironstone can't stack with other damage-reducing abilities. (And if it can't turn into a "charictor", it can't use the bodyguard "strategum" either.) You then started talking about how Iron Hands get "five abilities", namely two of the abilities from their chapter trait, doctrines, and two abilities from their super doctrine.
You forgot the discussion after a couple posts went by, and are arguing against a point that nobody is making.
The Iron Hands Leviathan has been causing a commotion in the 40k community lately. But is it really that bad for the game?
Wyatt over from Jack of Clubs painting did a math breakdown on all the investments that need to be made for that near-unkillable Leviathan. It might have a wounds profile so it can technically die, but with its survivability, you may be better off just blowing the rest of the enemy army away.
That being said, there’s a lot that has to go into that Leviathan to become that scary. So much so that it may not be as bad as we think…
Is the Iron Hands Leviathan Really Bad Enough to Get NERFED?
Yes, it is absolutely hard to kill, no argument there. But the thing is, to have the unit, the investment in points, unit taxes (For the Relic keyword), and CP, is well worth its tanky-ness in-game.
Here is an explanation and math of what the actual investment on a Leviathan is for Iron Hands.
Sure, the Leviathan with storm cannons is 303 points (plus 6-18 for HK missiles) and just to bring it in the list you need a heavy support slot filled because of the Relic tax. Usually, a Thunderfire Cannon, Whirlwind, or Eliminator squad if you want the tax unit to be useful. so 72-92 points. Now the total is up to 375-395. THEN you need Feirros, 110 points– up to 485-505. THEN you need Ironstone Relic, which is CP free if Feirros’ Warlord Trait, but it needs a non-named character you put it on. The Techmarine is cheapest so let’s go with that for the 45 point tax. total is now 530-550.
THEN you need the Might of Heroes power to slap on him from a Psyker to make it T9. Cheapest librarian? 88 points. total is now 618-638… Six Hundred Eighteen points for the Leviathan with its unit taxes! Now we go into resource investment. 1 CP to make him a character, 1 CP to give it a WL trait, then even more CP each turn it gets shot at to halve damage with Duty Eternal.
That’s 3 for a fast game, 6 if we can keep it waddling along brrrrting stuff the whole game. 5cp to 8cp is half to most of a typical Space Marine list’s CP. So we’re looking at a 700 point unit that also eats 5 to 8 cp over the course of a game.
Strong AF? yeah, you betcha. But worth banning? Not unless you also ban Castellans, most other variants of Knights, and Mortarion. Also, be sure to note that it has to use Duty Eternal again in the fight phase. so double CP investment for the game for it being shot at, and charged by smash captains. and it can’t even fall back and shoot. Plus 2-3 squads of chaff can lock it down in combat if even one reaches it though the brutal overwatch.
Is it really that bad when compared to things like Knights, Magnus, or even Mortarion? Is it just an unkillable distraction Carnifex that lets you focus on the rest of your enemy’s army?
The Iron Hands Leviathan has been causing a commotion in the 40k community lately. But is it really that bad for the game?
Wyatt over from Jack of Clubs painting did a math breakdown on all the investments that need to be made for that near-unkillable Leviathan. It might have a wounds profile so it can technically die, but with its survivability, you may be better off just blowing the rest of the enemy army away.
That being said, there’s a lot that has to go into that Leviathan to become that scary. So much so that it may not be as bad as we think…
Is the Iron Hands Leviathan Really Bad Enough to Get NERFED?
Yes, it is absolutely hard to kill, no argument there. But the thing is, to have the unit, the investment in points, unit taxes (For the Relic keyword), and CP, is well worth its tanky-ness in-game.
Here is an explanation and math of what the actual investment on a Leviathan is for Iron Hands.
Sure, the Leviathan with storm cannons is 303 points (plus 6-18 for HK missiles) and just to bring it in the list you need a heavy support slot filled because of the Relic tax. Usually, a Thunderfire Cannon, Whirlwind, or Eliminator squad if you want the tax unit to be useful. so 72-92 points. Now the total is up to 375-395. THEN you need Feirros, 110 points– up to 485-505. THEN you need Ironstone Relic, which is CP free if Feirros’ Warlord Trait, but it needs a non-named character you put it on. The Techmarine is cheapest so let’s go with that for the 45 point tax. total is now 530-550.
THEN you need the Might of Heroes power to slap on him from a Psyker to make it T9. Cheapest librarian? 88 points. total is now 618-638… Six Hundred Eighteen points for the Leviathan with its unit taxes! Now we go into resource investment. 1 CP to make him a character, 1 CP to give it a WL trait, then even more CP each turn it gets shot at to halve damage with Duty Eternal.
That’s 3 for a fast game, 6 if we can keep it waddling along brrrrting stuff the whole game. 5cp to 8cp is half to most of a typical Space Marine list’s CP. So we’re looking at a 700 point unit that also eats 5 to 8 cp over the course of a game.
Strong AF? yeah, you betcha. But worth banning? Not unless you also ban Castellans, most other variants of Knights, and Mortarion. Also, be sure to note that it has to use Duty Eternal again in the fight phase. so double CP investment for the game for it being shot at, and charged by smash captains. and it can’t even fall back and shoot. Plus 2-3 squads of chaff can lock it down in combat if even one reaches it though the brutal overwatch.
Is it really that bad when compared to things like Knights, Magnus, or even Mortarion? Is it just an unkillable distraction Carnifex that lets you focus on the rest of your enemy’s army?
Eh... Spikey Bits is kind of not great. I don't think the Leviathan is as bad as people say, but their argument and logic here is just pretty bad, because they are exaggerating way too much.
Iron Hands armies are going to have Feirros anyways, but Feirros actually does very little for the Leviathan - All he offers is a slightly buffed repair roll, (averaging 1 extra wound per turn,) because his 5+ invuln and 2+ BS buffs are completely unneccesary on the Leviathan.
The Ironstone is also going to be in your army anyways, and most Iron Hands lists rely on parking lots that will already have heavy support choices.
Making it T9 with Might of Heroes isn't something I'd actually considered, but it's also ultimately not very necessary. It makes him even tankier, sure, but at that point it's entirely gratuitous - he's going to survive because lascannons cap out at 2 damage, not because they wound on 4+ instead of 3+.
Even if we say that all those units have to be taken for the leviathan, though, it's not as though you're actually spending 700 points on the leviathan. The Whirlwind/TFire/Whatever will still be shooting. Feirros will still be buffing huge swaths of your army. The Librarian will still be smiting or using whatever other power he took.
The command point investment will still be high, and it's still a hefty chunk of points, but it's not nearly so bad as they're trying to make it out.
You forgot people spending a CP to make it a Character and another to give it a Warlord Trait. That's 2 right off the bat before the game even starts.
For reference, this isn't possible due to the timing of when you nominate your warlord vs when you use the stratagems. If someone's trying to run a 2-WLT levi, politely point out that it's not legal.
The Iron Hands Leviathan has been causing a commotion in the 40k community lately. But is it really that bad for the game?
Wyatt over from Jack of Clubs painting did a math breakdown on all the investments that need to be made for that near-unkillable Leviathan. It might have a wounds profile so it can technically die, but with its survivability, you may be better off just blowing the rest of the enemy army away.
That being said, there’s a lot that has to go into that Leviathan to become that scary. So much so that it may not be as bad as we think…
Is the Iron Hands Leviathan Really Bad Enough to Get NERFED?
Yes, it is absolutely hard to kill, no argument there. But the thing is, to have the unit, the investment in points, unit taxes (For the Relic keyword), and CP, is well worth its tanky-ness in-game.
Here is an explanation and math of what the actual investment on a Leviathan is for Iron Hands.
Sure, the Leviathan with storm cannons is 303 points (plus 6-18 for HK missiles) and just to bring it in the list you need a heavy support slot filled because of the Relic tax. Usually, a Thunderfire Cannon, Whirlwind, or Eliminator squad if you want the tax unit to be useful. so 72-92 points. Now the total is up to 375-395. THEN you need Feirros, 110 points– up to 485-505. THEN you need Ironstone Relic, which is CP free if Feirros’ Warlord Trait, but it needs a non-named character you put it on. The Techmarine is cheapest so let’s go with that for the 45 point tax. total is now 530-550.
THEN you need the Might of Heroes power to slap on him from a Psyker to make it T9. Cheapest librarian? 88 points. total is now 618-638… Six Hundred Eighteen points for the Leviathan with its unit taxes! Now we go into resource investment. 1 CP to make him a character, 1 CP to give it a WL trait, then even more CP each turn it gets shot at to halve damage with Duty Eternal.
That’s 3 for a fast game, 6 if we can keep it waddling along brrrrting stuff the whole game. 5cp to 8cp is half to most of a typical Space Marine list’s CP. So we’re looking at a 700 point unit that also eats 5 to 8 cp over the course of a game.
Strong AF? yeah, you betcha. But worth banning? Not unless you also ban Castellans, most other variants of Knights, and Mortarion. Also, be sure to note that it has to use Duty Eternal again in the fight phase. so double CP investment for the game for it being shot at, and charged by smash captains. and it can’t even fall back and shoot. Plus 2-3 squads of chaff can lock it down in combat if even one reaches it though the brutal overwatch.
Is it really that bad when compared to things like Knights, Magnus, or even Mortarion? Is it just an unkillable distraction Carnifex that lets you focus on the rest of your enemy’s army?
That's such a bad analysis it can probably be dismissed out of hand. Most of those "tax" units they mention are likely to appear in most IH lists anyway, or at least have a decent enough amount of utility that you're not hurting your list by including them. For example, Feirros is pretty much an auto-include in IH lists. He's laughably undercosted. There's likely no need to use Duty Eternal in the fight phase as you're going to be screening it as much as you can - and Space Marines are now pretty good at that with the 12" omni-scrambler ability. The CP investment is only relevant if you're having to redirect those CPs from elsewhere but, as discussed earlier in this thread, there aren't too many SM stratagems you'll definitely want to use over Duty Eternal and the one to make the Leviathan a character. A Librarian is a generally useful unit too and I'm not convinced you really need MoH on the Leviathan every turn. It's a nice bonus but all the other defensive buffs are probably already enough without going to T9 as well. So the Spikey Bits analysis is about up to the same quality as their website in general - not worth the time spent reading it.
The Iron Hands Leviathan has been causing a commotion in the 40k community lately. But is it really that bad for the game?
Wyatt over from Jack of Clubs painting did a math breakdown on all the investments that need to be made for that near-unkillable Leviathan. It might have a wounds profile so it can technically die, but with its survivability, you may be better off just blowing the rest of the enemy army away.
That being said, there’s a lot that has to go into that Leviathan to become that scary. So much so that it may not be as bad as we think…
Is the Iron Hands Leviathan Really Bad Enough to Get NERFED?
Yes, it is absolutely hard to kill, no argument there. But the thing is, to have the unit, the investment in points, unit taxes (For the Relic keyword), and CP, is well worth its tanky-ness in-game.
Here is an explanation and math of what the actual investment on a Leviathan is for Iron Hands.
Sure, the Leviathan with storm cannons is 303 points (plus 6-18 for HK missiles) and just to bring it in the list you need a heavy support slot filled because of the Relic tax. Usually, a Thunderfire Cannon, Whirlwind, or Eliminator squad if you want the tax unit to be useful. so 72-92 points. Now the total is up to 375-395. THEN you need Feirros, 110 points– up to 485-505. THEN you need Ironstone Relic, which is CP free if Feirros’ Warlord Trait, but it needs a non-named character you put it on. The Techmarine is cheapest so let’s go with that for the 45 point tax. total is now 530-550.
THEN you need the Might of Heroes power to slap on him from a Psyker to make it T9. Cheapest librarian? 88 points. total is now 618-638… Six Hundred Eighteen points for the Leviathan with its unit taxes! Now we go into resource investment. 1 CP to make him a character, 1 CP to give it a WL trait, then even more CP each turn it gets shot at to halve damage with Duty Eternal.
That’s 3 for a fast game, 6 if we can keep it waddling along brrrrting stuff the whole game. 5cp to 8cp is half to most of a typical Space Marine list’s CP. So we’re looking at a 700 point unit that also eats 5 to 8 cp over the course of a game.
Strong AF? yeah, you betcha. But worth banning? Not unless you also ban Castellans, most other variants of Knights, and Mortarion. Also, be sure to note that it has to use Duty Eternal again in the fight phase. so double CP investment for the game for it being shot at, and charged by smash captains. and it can’t even fall back and shoot. Plus 2-3 squads of chaff can lock it down in combat if even one reaches it though the brutal overwatch.
Is it really that bad when compared to things like Knights, Magnus, or even Mortarion? Is it just an unkillable distraction Carnifex that lets you focus on the rest of your enemy’s army?
completely failed logic that the internet loves.
-The heavy support 'Tax' is a unit your taking anyway because in the new SM codex Thunderfire cannons are strait up good. Its a 'tax' if you didn't want to take it in the first place and it adds little to your army.
-Feirros, same deal. He does exactly what you want for the army and you would take him in any list anyway because of his 5++ aura and giving a unit BS 2+
-The relic goes on a Chapter Master that you would take anyway because as we learned from Girlyman and AdMech guy, a blanket re-roll hit aura is worth it in a shooting army. again, no real tax to speak off.
-You don't need Might of Heroes at all. half damage and -1 already makes you nigh unkillable.
-Character trait, not needed. Warlord Trait, not needed.
-How on earth is your levi getting charged by multiple chaff units in the middle of an IH gunline and does a smash captain even survive charging a 4+ overwatch Leviathan? (quick math says the captain dies on the charge 2 out of 3 times).
So a unit that was already good and competitive gets re-roll all hits and becomes nigh unkillable by taking units you were going to take anyway and spending 1CP more then you were going to otherwise.
Yeah, sounds kinda broken.
You forgot people spending a CP to make it a Character and another to give it a Warlord Trait. That's 2 right off the bat before the game even starts.
For reference, this isn't possible due to the timing of when you nominate your warlord vs when you use the stratagems. If someone's trying to run a 2-WLT levi, politely point out that it's not legal.
It is actually.
After selected your warlord you use the IH stratagem (March of the Ancients) to make your dread a character and then use the SM stratagem (Hero of the Chapter) to give a character in your army a warlord trait.
You can't give it a second warlord trait through Paragon of Iron but 1 warlord trait is entirely legal and what the article was talking about.
Jidmah wrote: The leviathan has been appearing all over all marine armies, both loyal and chaos, while comparable units like predators, contemptors, redemptors, forge fiends, defilers and the like see next to no play.
Isn't that already an obvious sign that something is seriously wrong in terms of internal balance here, IH supplement or not?
I'm fairly sure that GW has shot themselves in the foot here, trying to buff stuff like the redemptor dreadnought through stratagems, relics and doctrine, but by doing so accidentally buffing the leviathan even more.
That's under the assumption any of those units were worth using in the first place. Can you tell me with a straight face that the Forgefiend is worth its points? The Predator?
No it's not.
When you apply a 25% buff to a unit that's performing at 80% to get it 100%, but you can apply that same buff to another unit that's already at 100%, you end up with a problem.
Or in other words, predators, forge fiends and the like need to get where the leviathan is now, and the leviathan needs to be in a place where it's not an auto-take for pretty much every marine army focused on shooting.
Except you dont magically make predators worthwhile just by banning FW like some people suggest all you do is remove worthwhile options from 90% of the codex and force anyone trying to make SM vehicals work both Choas and Loyalists play "Iron Hands and anyone else may aswell just forget they exsist.
Bad balance isn't going to be magical improved by just deleting the only viable options.
I don't see where my post could even remotely be interpreted to support banning of leviathans. I fully agree with you - but the problem is that the leviathan was already top tournament material in Ultramarine and Death Guard armies, all the buffs from IF might have pushed it way over the top.
No army should be forced to buy multiples of a forgeworld model in order to compete, especially if there are multiple things in the regular codex that should be doing the same job.
You forgot people spending a CP to make it a Character and another to give it a Warlord Trait. That's 2 right off the bat before the game even starts.
For reference, this isn't possible due to the timing of when you nominate your warlord vs when you use the stratagems. If someone's trying to run a 2-WLT levi, politely point out that it's not legal.
It is actually.
After selected your warlord you use the IH stratagem (March of the Ancients) to make your dread a character and then use the SM stratagem (Hero of the Chapter) to give a character in your army a warlord trait.
You can't give it a second warlord trait through Paragon of Iron but 1 warlord trait is entirely legal and what the article was talking about.
Ah nadgers, I misread his post. There was some buzz around 2-WLT Levis a while back and thought it was being referenced here
-How on earth is your levi getting charged by multiple chaff units in the middle of an IH gunline and does a smash captain even survive charging a 4+ overwatch Leviathan? (quick math says the captain dies on the charge 2 out of 3 times).
The real Smash cappy ignores overwatch. All these other smash cappys are just imitating.
Won't the real Smash cappy please stand up, please stand up.
-How on earth is your levi getting charged by multiple chaff units in the middle of an IH gunline and does a smash captain even survive charging a 4+ overwatch Leviathan? (quick math says the captain dies on the charge 2 out of 3 times).
The real Smash cappy ignores overwatch. All these other smash cappys are just imitating.
Won't the real Smash cappy please stand up, please stand up.
Irrelevant, the real BA smash captain has no chance of killing the levi, not even when fighting twice. Half of his attacks is saved by the levis 4++. His hammer damage is reduced to 1 by iron stone and duty eternal. One or two points of damage is ignored by its 6+ FNP.
Ordana wrote: It is actually.
After selected your warlord you use the IH stratagem (March of the Ancients) to make your dread a character and then use the SM stratagem (Hero of the Chapter) to give a character in your army a warlord trait.
You can't give it a second warlord trait through Paragon of Iron but 1 warlord trait is entirely legal and what the article was talking about.
Naw, you can give it two.
Check this out - you nominate your Warlord by selecting a model from your army after mustering your force. You don't have to select a Character. Select the Leviathan. He isn't yet a character, but that doesn't matter because you don't actually select your trait until immediately before either player begins deploying.
After you nominate, you then can use abilities like March of the Ancients. It's still not immediately before deploying because you have other things you might do, like Hero of the Chapter, Paragon of Iron, the Sgt relic, or Chapter Master. This is all done well before you select a Warlord trait. All you really need to select one is for your Warlord to be a character when you go to generate it. It wasn't when you nominated, but it is now.
If this wasn't space marines then people would absolutely be complaining about the Codex instead of FW. Literally every time its not space marines the army gets blamed. Commanders are the problem, not the character rules that protect them. Hive Tyrants are the problem, not the lack of terrain rules. Shining Spears/Dark Reapers are the problem, not the mechanic that lets you take multiple armies without penalty. Eldar Flyers are the problem, not the ability to stack multiple hit multipliers. Castellans are the problem, not the fact that Imperial Soup has access to over half of GW's catalogue. Iron Hands? Nah that's forgeworld's fault.
-How on earth is your levi getting charged by multiple chaff units in the middle of an IH gunline and does a smash captain even survive charging a 4+ overwatch Leviathan? (quick math says the captain dies on the charge 2 out of 3 times).
The real Smash cappy ignores overwatch. All these other smash cappys are just imitating.
Won't the real Smash cappy please stand up, please stand up.
Irrelevant, the real BA smash captain has no chance of killing the levi, not even when fighting twice. Half of his attacks is saved by the levis 4++. His hammer damage is reduced to 1 by iron stone and duty eternal. One or two points of damage is ignored by its 6+ FNP.
Irrelevant irrelevant - the point wasn't to kill it, but silence it.
The question wasn't "how does a smash cappy kill it. It was how does it survive the overwatch.
Well, easy. It ignores it. Either from being BA or RG, for starters.
Karol wrote: But isn't it how good stuff in 8th ed works in general. Dark Reapers were great, because they could move and fire, could shot stuff outside of LoS, could fire twice with Inari, didn't suffer negative mods and could double dip on CWE stratagems for a long times. Alaitoc flyers are great, because they can stack multiple minus to hit mods. Catellan using armies were stacking the CP gain from cheap IG, with the power of a knight castellan, on top of raven house rules.
The meteor captins of old BA were over buffing one or two dudes with buffs and stratagems etc. chaos soup is the over lap of rules and units from multiple books, to cherry pick the best things etc.
Something that would be winning games in w40k without any overlaping rules and just stock stuff, would have to be borderline undercosted.
Sure, but the difference is that *everything* in the Iron Hands army gets the "five abilities" that Ice_can listed. The thing that makes/made Leviathans above-average was not those five abilities, it was the additional warlord trait ability and dreadnought-exclusive stratagems that it had access to, condensed onto a single powerful model. (Since buffing one leviathan is equivalent to buffing 2-3 regular dreadnoughts, all stratagems used on it are 2-3 times as cost efficient.)
If you think those "five abilities" are too powerful, then you should ban Iron Hands entirely, but they're not the problem here - it's the unit-specific stratagems.
Except the dreadnaught charictor is Ironhands only strategum.
Ironstone relic for -1 damage Iron hands only
Base 6+FNP Iron hands only
5+ overwatch 4+ with strategum Iron hands only
Having any marine unit turn into 2+ bodyguards ironhands only strategum.
Iron hands needed some love as they were laughable bad in codex 1.0 a 16% durability buff on models costed at 130% of their points value with that buff doesn't make a unit work.
But cutting the unit down to 100% of it's point's cost value and then applying a 16% durability buff plus would have been a workable army.
Heck the fnp plus counts as double wounds would have been fair compensation for the terrible 1.0 rules but to throw so many buffs and strategums into exclusively 1 subfaction and then use that to justify changeing units used across multiple codex's let alone subfactions is not improving balance it's throwing it into unachievable.
Ice, please go back and read the original replies I was talking about. I had suggested that, in order to balance the Leviathan, you ban it from taking the character stratagem and don't let it halve damage, so that the ironstone can't stack with other damage-reducing abilities. (And if it can't turn into a "charictor", it can't use the bodyguard "strategum" either.) You then started talking about how Iron Hands get "five abilities", namely two of the abilities from their chapter trait, doctrines, and two abilities from their super doctrine.
You forgot the discussion after a couple posts went by, and are arguing against a point that nobody is making.
On the charictor strategums fine
Why should it be excluded from the duty eternal but benifit from the iron stone, if anything it should be the otherway around.
Also Leviathans arnt the grossest abuse of the charictor dreadnaughts, untargetable venerable and mortis dreadnaughts, just GW idiocy at it's finest.
The issue isn't the leviathan the issue isn't just 1 strategum.
It's the buff upon buff upon relic upon strategums, that only ironhands have access to being the issue.
Trying to kill charictors at T7 3+ 6++ when your reduced to sniper weapons is a joke, whoever thought unlimited access to charictor rulea for dreadnaughts would be fine was high.
Karol wrote: Well truth be told without the character rule protection normal dreadnoughts would have to be given LoS ignoring weapons to be much of an option.
OR it would mean the person playing them would need to be smart with their positioning isntead of just putting them in the spot with the best line of sight and play a game of whack a mole with the opponent.
Making dreadnoughts characters behind a super tanky army means that youll be shot at all game with no chance to retaliate. The best "answer" to character dreads are admech arquebuses or vindicaire spam. the problem is that a thunderfire cannon will shred the admech snipers and the vindicaires will struggle to kill one.
While im glad space marines got some love to become more playable, this is just wayy over the top, and im not talking about only IH, they get so many free rules that the moment they were announced, i knew something would break.
I always liked dreads as an anchor to a line or a droppod threat. Neither were great in previous editions, sure. But they went from not-great to not-even-in-the-rules with the switch to 8E.
Not for nothing, but why do all non-primaris GW Dreadnaught suck balls?
Is there anything less-intimidating than the GW base Dreadnaught? I'm pretty sure that thing dies if you laugh at it too hard. Even the Custodes Dread sucks. And that is supposed to be a demi-god in his walking death chariot.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Not for nothing, but why do all non-primaris GW Dreadnaught suck balls?
Is there anything less-intimidating than the GW base Dreadnaught? I'm pretty sure that thing dies if you laugh at it too hard. Even the Custodes Dread sucks. And that is supposed to be a demi-god in his walking death chariot.
Dreadnoughts exist to give my army first blood, or embarrass the opponent who thought the cool and fluffy nature of his March of the Ancients list would overcome GWs incompetence or the danger of two squads of Lascannon Havocs.
-How on earth is your levi getting charged by multiple chaff units in the middle of an IH gunline and does a smash captain even survive charging a 4+ overwatch Leviathan? (quick math says the captain dies on the charge 2 out of 3 times).
The real Smash cappy ignores overwatch. All these other smash cappys are just imitating.
Won't the real Smash cappy please stand up, please stand up.
Irrelevant, the real BA smash captain has no chance of killing the levi, not even when fighting twice. Half of his attacks is saved by the levis 4++. His hammer damage is reduced to 1 by iron stone and duty eternal. One or two points of damage is ignored by its 6+ FNP.
Irrelevant irrelevant - the point wasn't to kill it, but silence it.
The question wasn't "how does a smash cappy kill it. It was how does it survive the overwatch.
Well, easy. It ignores it. Either from being BA or RG, for starters.
How does smash captain with a -2 charage charge over 2 executioners with literally no space to land near the levi? Plus probably 3 characters there to try to kill the smashy?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Not for nothing, but why do all non-primaris GW Dreadnaught suck balls?
Is there anything less-intimidating than the GW base Dreadnaught? I'm pretty sure that thing dies if you laugh at it too hard. Even the Custodes Dread sucks. And that is supposed to be a demi-god in his walking death chariot.
Ironhands dreads are fantastic. 110 points for 2x las and a missle with 3+ and reroll 1's and 48 range and can move without pentalty...or you can take a whole army of character dreads who all get +1 attack for 1 CP...might as well just take a power fist instead of a ML in that case so for 122 points you get 2x las and 6 attacks with str 14 flat 3 damage in CC. Literally every vehicle is hugely better as ironhands...it is gross.
chimeara wrote: It's a 1cp strat that makes your opponent halve damage to a dreadnought unit that phase. Stacked with the Iron Stone relic that reduces damage to nearby vehicles by 1. Stacked with Ferios 5++ bubble and ability to heal 6 wounds on vehicles. Then the chapter tactic that gives the whole army 6+++. Then Psychic power that gives it +1 to hit.
Feirros cant heal 6 wounds back, he does a flat 3 ....
chimeara wrote: It's a 1cp strat that makes your opponent halve damage to a dreadnought unit that phase. Stacked with the Iron Stone relic that reduces damage to nearby vehicles by 1. Stacked with Ferios 5++ bubble and ability to heal 6 wounds on vehicles. Then the chapter tactic that gives the whole army 6+++. Then Psychic power that gives it +1 to hit.
Feirros cant heal 6 wounds back, he does a flat 3 ....
DominayTrix wrote: If this wasn't space marines then people would absolutely be complaining about the Codex instead of FW. Literally every time its not space marines the army gets blamed. Commanders are the problem, not the character rules that protect them. Hive Tyrants are the problem, not the lack of terrain rules. Shining Spears/Dark Reapers are the problem, not the mechanic that lets you take multiple armies without penalty. Eldar Flyers are the problem, not the ability to stack multiple hit multipliers. Castellans are the problem, not the fact that Imperial Soup has access to over half of GW's catalogue. Iron Hands? Nah that's forgeworld's fault.
You've simplified the issues into poor assumptions.
- Commanders pack in a ton of guns with the best BS coupled with 40" movement and no penalty to shoot. They literally give to be where they want and hit what they want with impunity.
- Reapers we WELL under costed. Soup also had nothing to do with either unit benefiting too strongly from Ynnari.
- Terrain does nothing to stop Flyrant spam.
- The one about Eldar flyers is confusing, because Eldary Flyers are the ones most likely to stack multipliers, so....?
- Soup was nerfed without breaking the ability to support the system. When those strategies were not enough they went to points. Breaking the system apart any more would create other wide-ranging balance issues.
chimeara wrote: It's a 1cp strat that makes your opponent halve damage to a dreadnought unit that phase. Stacked with the Iron Stone relic that reduces damage to nearby vehicles by 1. Stacked with Ferios 5++ bubble and ability to heal 6 wounds on vehicles. Then the chapter tactic that gives the whole army 6+++. Then Psychic power that gives it +1 to hit.
Feirros cant heal 6 wounds back, he does a flat 3 ....
Use this Stratagem in your Movement phase, after an IRON
HANDS TECHMARINE model from your army has used their
Blessing of the Omnissiah ability. That model can use that
ability again, and can repair a model that has already been
repaired that turn
- Commanders pack in a ton of guns with the best BS coupled with 40" movement and no penalty to shoot. They literally give to be where they want and hit what they want with impunity.
That's the Coldstar commander. What are the problems with the Enforcer and Crisis commanders?
- Commanders pack in a ton of guns with the best BS coupled with 40" movement and no penalty to shoot. They literally give to be where they want and hit what they want with impunity.
That's the Coldstar commander. What are the problems with the Enforcer and Crisis commanders?
Paying BS4+ prices for BS2+ firepower.
A la carte is what hoses Commanders. Provided not all weapons are of equal value, it forces either Commanders to be OP or Crisis to be trash (or both).
- Commanders pack in a ton of guns with the best BS coupled with 40" movement and no penalty to shoot. They literally give to be where they want and hit what they want with impunity.
That's the Coldstar commander. What are the problems with the Enforcer and Crisis commanders?
Not much, really. I suppose they probably don't want full rerolls to hit for three turns in one detachment given the gunline nature of Tau.
Do you guys also not realize you can take a chapter master as iron hands as well? This is not expensive. Just take him instead of a libby...since you don't really need the libby. Because you can deny a spell on a 4+ for 1 CP...plus you could get another deny for a relic or warlord trait.
The captain offters a lot more than the libby IMO. Doubling the effectiveness of your overwatch alone warrants his inclusion. Not to mention the reroll all hits for your power bubble to increase your ability to kill flyers.
This is the list I am going to try out with my blue ironhands
2 Batallions
Ferros
Techmanrine w/conversion beamer
Captain in term armor with PF and SB Prim LT with MCSBG
9x intercessors with SBR
5x 5 man intercessors with stalkers.
Dread with TLLC and powerfist SB Dread with TLLC and powerfist SB
Landspeeder with TML and HB
Executioner Laser/MissilePod/Stubber
Executioner Laser/Misslepod/Stubber
Relic Levi with storm cannons
Thunderfirecannon
Spend 2 CP at the start of the game to make the dreads characters and they can intervene to eliminate things that manage to charge. Like a pesky smash captain or shining spears. Good luck tying up the Levi with 4 powerful melee characters in range to intervene.
- Commanders pack in a ton of guns with the best BS coupled with 40" movement and no penalty to shoot. They literally give to be where they want and hit what they want with impunity.
That's the Coldstar commander. What are the problems with the Enforcer and Crisis commanders?
No penalty for advancing is a relic I believe. That is not native to the commander. It's a 170ish point suicide unit that likely wont kill it's target and a pathetic 6 wound profile with no invune. It's not the right way to use a commander. If you take rocket pods you can get 3-4 turns of shooting out of them instead of 1. Much like an Ironhands character mortis dread with 4 autocannons has a chance to be really OP. Shooting units with character protection are VERY strong.
- Commanders pack in a ton of guns with the best BS coupled with 40" movement and no penalty to shoot. They literally give to be where they want and hit what they want with impunity.
That's the Coldstar commander. What are the problems with the Enforcer and Crisis commanders?
Not much, really. I suppose they probably don't want full rerolls to hit for three turns in one detachment given the gunline nature of Tau.
How are you getting a commander giving 3 turn of reroll hits in one detachment?
Tau commanders don't have a reroll hits aura.
Master of War is once per game regardless of number of commanders. So 1 turn 2 if you include a special charictor.
Ice_can wrote: How are you getting a commander giving 3 turn of reroll hits in one detachment?
Tau commanders don't have a reroll hits aura.
Master of War is once per game regardless of number of commanders. So 1 turn 2 if you include a special charictor.
Yea, my bad. Never fought multiple commanders so it never came up. The commander rule was the pre-cursor to rule of 3. Like mentioned above - they also get some damn good shooting out of weapons costed for BS4, so the spam potential is quite high since they have so many datasheets.
Ice_can wrote: How are you getting a commander giving 3 turn of reroll hits in one detachment?
Tau commanders don't have a reroll hits aura.
Master of War is once per game regardless of number of commanders. So 1 turn 2 if you include a special charictor.
Yea, my bad. Never fought multiple commanders so it never came up. The commander rule was the pre-cursor to rule of 3. Like mentioned above - they also get some damn good shooting out of weapons costed for BS4, so the spam potential is quite high since they have so many datasheets.
They have a special rule that limits them. Only 1 commander keyword allowed per detachment. Having such a rule to me seems like GW realizes this unit is too good and therefore needs special limitations. I guess the relic rule is similar but I think relic units from FW probably should cost you CP to unlock.
DominayTrix wrote: If this wasn't space marines then people would absolutely be complaining about the Codex instead of FW. Literally every time its not space marines the army gets blamed. Commanders are the problem, not the character rules that protect them. Hive Tyrants are the problem, not the lack of terrain rules. Shining Spears/Dark Reapers are the problem, not the mechanic that lets you take multiple armies without penalty. Eldar Flyers are the problem, not the ability to stack multiple hit multipliers. Castellans are the problem, not the fact that Imperial Soup has access to over half of GW's catalogue. Iron Hands? Nah that's forgeworld's fault.
You've simplified the issues into poor assumptions.
- Commanders pack in a ton of guns with the best BS coupled with 40" movement and no penalty to shoot. They literally give to be where they want and hit what they want with impunity.
- Reapers we WELL under costed. Soup also had nothing to do with either unit benefiting too strongly from Ynnari.
- Terrain does nothing to stop Flyrant spam.
- The one about Eldar flyers is confusing, because Eldary Flyers are the ones most likely to stack multipliers, so....?
- Soup was nerfed without breaking the ability to support the system. When those strategies were not enough they went to points. Breaking the system apart any more would create other wide-ranging balance issues.
Wait what? Commanders don’t do that naturally and even then they are expensive point sinks with reatrictions against taking literally the best crisis weapon available.
Ynnari is Eldar soup so its pretty relevant considering the free actions were what drove competitive Eldar until the rework.
Eldar fliers aren’t a problem if you took away multiple -1 modifers. Alternatively, if eldar fliers were massively nerfed without touching multiple hit modifiers then something better would take its place.
The lack of terrain was heavily blamed for why tyrants did so incredibly well in addition to being undercosted. Nowhere to hide combined with cheap tyrants is strong. Just look for threads discussing the infamous tyrant tournament. Were the point changes on tyrants what solved the problem or was it the rule of 3, no turn 1 deepstrike, and 50% or more has to start on the field?
Soup has dominated the meta since day 1 and still is the strongest way to build most armies with access to it. What points are you referencing in regards to soup? There’s 0 penalty besides marine doctrines. Also, citation needed on how removing soup from matched play would “cause wide-ranging balance issues.” Soup is a crutch for a lot of armies and that’s a clear indicator there are already balance issues if armies can’t stand on their own without soup.
Ice_can wrote: How are you getting a commander giving 3 turn of reroll hits in one detachment?
Tau commanders don't have a reroll hits aura.
Master of War is once per game regardless of number of commanders. So 1 turn 2 if you include a special charictor.
Yea, my bad. Never fought multiple commanders so it never came up. The commander rule was the pre-cursor to rule of 3. Like mentioned above - they also get some damn good shooting out of weapons costed for BS4, so the spam potential is quite high since they have so many datasheets.
Yaknow, we HAVE BS4 suits to compare them with.
And crisis suits are just...bad. really bad.
The entire crisis lineup is fethed up, because commanders HAVE to be super-effective gunboats, as they don't do anything else. (seriously, once-per-game aura regardless of the number of commanders you got? WTF?)
Regular crisis are bad because they are not durable at all, don't have the char protection and don't pack enough punch per model, but are expensive as hell once equipped.
Coldstars break the system because their speed combined with the ability to take quad guns of anything except ion (and that restriction alone should have raise alarm bells that maybe ion itself is out of wack) means they wreck stuff, if you COULD spam coldstars, it would have been crazy.
Meanwhile character suits get punked because they can't come close to matching up with generic dakka commanders.
Support systems are a joke, and nobody takes them on crisis suits because another gun is almost always better.
And FSE is virtually unplayable because of the commander limit (that coldstar forces to exist) as they can't get a second HQ that fits their style. (no ethreals allowed, and a fireblade doesn't fit in FSE aggression lists)
Crisis AND commander variants should get a 2-gun limit, and a hefty discount for the guns to compensate. only THEN you can make the support systems actually do worthwhile and intresting things (and not have 4 different freaking flavors of "conditionally improves BS". they are already bad, making them redundant is insulting), and the commander's shtick would be the fact they carry 2, letting them be more versatile than regular crisis.
BAAAAAAAAACK to topic.
The event banning a model (changing the rules) in order to compensate for imbalance created by them changing the missions (changing the rules) is idiotic.
You literally do more of the thing that caused the problem to begin with!
DominayTrix wrote: If this wasn't space marines then people would absolutely be complaining about the Codex instead of FW. Literally every time its not space marines the army gets blamed. Commanders are the problem, not the character rules that protect them. Hive Tyrants are the problem, not the lack of terrain rules. Shining Spears/Dark Reapers are the problem, not the mechanic that lets you take multiple armies without penalty. Eldar Flyers are the problem, not the ability to stack multiple hit multipliers. Castellans are the problem, not the fact that Imperial Soup has access to over half of GW's catalogue. Iron Hands? Nah that's forgeworld's fault.
You've simplified the issues into poor assumptions.
- Commanders pack in a ton of guns with the best BS coupled with 40" movement and no penalty to shoot. They literally give to be where they want and hit what they want with impunity.
- Reapers we WELL under costed. Soup also had nothing to do with either unit benefiting too strongly from Ynnari.
- Terrain does nothing to stop Flyrant spam.
- The one about Eldar flyers is confusing, because Eldary Flyers are the ones most likely to stack multipliers, so....?
- Soup was nerfed without breaking the ability to support the system. When those strategies were not enough they went to points. Breaking the system apart any more would create other wide-ranging balance issues.
Wait what? Commanders don’t do that naturally and even then they are expensive point sinks with reatrictions against taking literally the best crisis weapon available.
Ynnari is Eldar soup so its pretty relevant considering the free actions were what drove competitive Eldar until the rework.
Eldar fliers aren’t a problem if you took away multiple -1 modifers. Alternatively, if eldar fliers were massively nerfed without touching multiple hit modifiers then something better would take its place.
The lack of terrain was heavily blamed for why tyrants did so incredibly well in addition to being undercosted. Nowhere to hide combined with cheap tyrants is strong. Just look for threads discussing the infamous tyrant tournament. Were the point changes on tyrants what solved the problem or was it the rule of 3, no turn 1 deepstrike, and 50% or more has to start on the field?
Soup has dominated the meta since day 1 and still is the strongest way to build most armies with access to it. What points are you referencing in regards to soup? There’s 0 penalty besides marine doctrines. Also, citation needed on how removing soup from matched play would “cause wide-ranging balance issues.” Soup is a crutch for a lot of armies and that’s a clear indicator there are already balance issues if armies can’t stand on their own without soup.
And that's the issue with internal balance. What reason do I have to take Whirlwinds (which really are just okay now) compared to functional Guard artillery?
Allies should've been a compliment, not the crutch they eventually became. People blaming allies aren't blaming the real culprit: poor internal and external balance.
DominayTrix wrote: If this wasn't space marines then people would absolutely be complaining about the Codex instead of FW. Literally every time its not space marines the army gets blamed. Commanders are the problem, not the character rules that protect them. Hive Tyrants are the problem, not the lack of terrain rules. Shining Spears/Dark Reapers are the problem, not the mechanic that lets you take multiple armies without penalty. Eldar Flyers are the problem, not the ability to stack multiple hit multipliers. Castellans are the problem, not the fact that Imperial Soup has access to over half of GW's catalogue. Iron Hands? Nah that's forgeworld's fault.
You've simplified the issues into poor assumptions.
- Commanders pack in a ton of guns with the best BS coupled with 40" movement and no penalty to shoot. They literally give to be where they want and hit what they want with impunity.
- Reapers we WELL under costed. Soup also had nothing to do with either unit benefiting too strongly from Ynnari.
- Terrain does nothing to stop Flyrant spam.
- The one about Eldar flyers is confusing, because Eldary Flyers are the ones most likely to stack multipliers, so....?
- Soup was nerfed without breaking the ability to support the system. When those strategies were not enough they went to points. Breaking the system apart any more would create other wide-ranging balance issues.
Wait what? Commanders don’t do that naturally and even then they are expensive point sinks with reatrictions against taking literally the best crisis weapon available.
Ynnari is Eldar soup so its pretty relevant considering the free actions were what drove competitive Eldar until the rework.
Eldar fliers aren’t a problem if you took away multiple -1 modifers. Alternatively, if eldar fliers were massively nerfed without touching multiple hit modifiers then something better would take its place.
The lack of terrain was heavily blamed for why tyrants did so incredibly well in addition to being undercosted. Nowhere to hide combined with cheap tyrants is strong. Just look for threads discussing the infamous tyrant tournament. Were the point changes on tyrants what solved the problem or was it the rule of 3, no turn 1 deepstrike, and 50% or more has to start on the field?
Soup has dominated the meta since day 1 and still is the strongest way to build most armies with access to it. What points are you referencing in regards to soup? There’s 0 penalty besides marine doctrines. Also, citation needed on how removing soup from matched play would “cause wide-ranging balance issues.” Soup is a crutch for a lot of armies and that’s a clear indicator there are already balance issues if armies can’t stand on their own without soup.
And that's the issue with internal balance. What reason do I have to take Whirlwinds (which really are just okay now) compared to functional Guard artillery?
Allies should've been a compliment, not the crutch they eventually became. People blaming allies aren't blaming the real culprit: poor internal and external balance.
Which is exactly right but seeing as GW are about the laziest game designers in the field with unit rules and can't even balance properly a codex internally let alone externally how would you ever expect allies to not just become a crutch ? It's instantly what people saw when they looked at allies. No one took them to compliment their force, just CP farm or use better types of units of the core armies lacking options. Allies will never work as they are now as GW won't ever clean up this balance issue in the books so allies should be tossed, at least until they take an actual hard look at fixing all the books. I think all we'll have to look forward to is them baking in nerfs to allied armies though if you don't run mono as their lazy fix to the issue though.
