Looking at 9th edition results to date I am really struggling to understand why people think Imperial Knights are some unbeatable boogy man.
Right now GW has announced that the lethality of weapons is about to be jacked up.
Right now if the lethality of weapons is going up as much as it sounds, Knights won't even be close to viable.
Most non codex LoW are actually even more over costed and will need close to 50% points cut to be even casual narative play viable.
Jidmah wrote: Because every other unit, including fortifications, flyers and primarchs both get army benefits and are free of CP charge as well, as long as they have the same faction as your warlord.
What we have currently is pretty much the same as removing heavy support units from battalions, brigades and patrols and putting a 3CP tax on a heavy support detachment and removing army traits from them.
Yeah but: 1. fortifications - ok, but LOW =! frotifications. What justifies providing same treatment as fortifications to LOWs? 2. flyers - but we don't have airwing detachments anymore. If you want more than 2 flyers, you have to continue to pay CP's to take more. 3. primarchs - supreme command detachment forces you to declare the WL on the unit taken in this detachment, which means you don't get the CP refund from patrol, batt or brigade.
Aside from fortification network, nothing is free - they all come at a compromise.
2. is no compromise because you can just bring two without any drawback, no CP cost and full access to legion traits. 3. is wrong because the command benefits of the supreme command detachment allow you to take one battalion, patrol or brigade free of charge. Forcing them to be the warlord also isn't much of a drawback because all three factions that have a primarch can get additional warlord traits with a stratagem, effectively making the detachment cost 1 CP, assuming you want a second warlord trait in the first place.
So, the burden on proof actually is on you. Why should the LoW slot have such huge drawbacks while no other slot has any, and some LoW already have a way around it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: Maybe GW designed it so that if you want to take a LOW with all the benefits, it has to come in a pack of 3, just like how you don't qualify for a battalion if you don't include at least 1 HQ and 3 troops as minimum?
I can assure you that GW did not "design" the game around bringing three stompas minimum. For many armies the SHA is the only way to field their LoW.
Why should LOW brought into the army via SHA get special treatment when units brought into the army via auxiliary support detachment don't? Because LOW are pricy? Come on.
Because every other slot can be fielded free of charge and gains the legion trait.
If you're pushing for SHA to have CP refund, then I'd like to make a 2k army with single patrol detachment and fill the rest of the points with units taken via auxiliary support detachment with CP refund, thank you.
You do not seem to be aware about the hard cap of 3 detachments at 2000. That limit is no longer optional. As long as LoW cannot be taken as part of a patrol, battalion or brigade, that comparison also is a false analogy. Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: All I'm saying is LOW doesn't deserve special treatment on the basis that it IS a LOW. Point inefficiency is completely different matter.
Actually all your posts can be summed up as "LOW must get a special treatment on the basis that it is a LOW!". Most of the people your are arguing with are in favor of removing the special treatment.
skchsan wrote:But WHY? What makes them so special that they should be free (of CP cost)?
Nothing makes them special, that's the whole point. Non-knight LOWs are literally the only units in the game that can't be taken without spending CP, that makes them "special". We want them to stop being special.
After 9 pages of discussion, I'm still not convinced that this is actually a game wide issue but just a wishlist (just as much as I wish LOW shouldn't be allowed in 40k)
Let's be honest, this is your whole issue right here.
Exactly what are the LOW's missing out on when taken as same faction and not souped?
Faction traits and 3CP. Please, pay attention.
skchsan wrote:In practice, the amount of fire a single LOW draws upon itself is so huge that it leaves rest of your army rather unscathed. I think that's the true value of LOW's - they're the best distraction carnifex you can ask for because they can insta-delete a lot of stuff as dice allows if left to its own devices. Note, there are plenty other distraction carnifex that cannot cause proportional amount of damage as a LOW.
A distraction Carnifex is, by definition a threatening but relatively cheap unit that your fine with losing, no LOW fits that description, nobody is ok when 25% to 50% of their army is deleted. Any unit as expensive as a LOW has to do something other than soak up fire in order to justify itself in an army.
Do note I'm not saying certain LOW's are not way overpriced in terms of points. I just don't think CP or rule based 'buffs' are the right solution. But when we delve into discussion on points, it's difficult to properly cost them because of how knights are priced (but this is another discussion I suppose).
No, please explain why the existence of knights requires that all non-knight LOWs be overpriced. This should be good. Let me sit down and buckle up.
That’s because you’re maintaining this defeatist point of view.
TLDR, you think you’re arguing for “how to make Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment more viable” but when in fact it’s actually about “how to make Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment more viable at Strike Force games.”
First, you’re not getting free flyers with legion traits – it just happen so that all detachments other than Super Heavy Detachment and the Auxiliary Detachments (both Super Heavy and Support) have much higher FOC slot value per CP as design. The game is designed to encourage more ‘balanced’ army (which in GW’s definition, you have to buy their troop box sets) by offering incentives. This is why you don’t get your CP refunds for Vanguard, Outrider and Spearhead Detachments while Patrol, Battalion and Brigade Detachments do. Lack of incentives is not the same thing as being penalized.
Second, no you don’t get a ‘free’ Patrol, Battalion or Brigade simply by taking a Supreme Command Detachments. Your CP expenditure simply gets refunded by alternate means. The net result is the same, but offsetting spending with gains from elsewhere is not getting things for free. It means you've actively managed to hedge your loses and gains.
Third, you believe you’re being penalized for having a LoW model on your shelf that is not an Imperial Knight. You’re not. The game is merely asking you to pay the associated cost for bringing an understrengthed detachment into your list. Auxiliary detachments allow you to add 1 additional FOC for 2/3 CP. You have to stop reading it to mean “omg, GW doesn’t want me to play with my LoW” because it’s not. Bringing LoW in your list has certain associated cost, and that cost is greater if you don’t bring at least 3 LoW’s.
Let’s say, I have an army that has 2 HQ’s, 6 Fast Attack and 3 Flyers. I recognize that I exceed my Flyer FOC allowance by 1 in my Outrider Detachment. Now, I can choose to split my HQ and Fast Attacks into two separate Outrider Detachments so that I have 4 Flyer slots to work with which costs me 6 CP’s, or I can choose to consolidate all of my units into single Outrider and then take an Auxiliary Support to provide the FOC slot for my third flyer at the cost of 5 CP’s. Now the dilemma is, do I spend 1 more CP so that all of my flyers have legion traits, or can I afford to lose the legion trait on one of the flyers so I have 1 more CP to start? This is a conscious decision that’s made at list building. I’m not getting “penalized”, I’m simply given room to make an active decision.
In regards to your ‘assurance’ – all armies can take LoW’s using Super Heavy Detachment. It’s simply not economical in point expenditures to do so in Strike Force games because the said Super Heavy Detachment ends up spending most of your 2,000 points, if not exceed it. The limiting factor here is the point limit you set forth for your games, not how detachments are designed.
Following, 20~30% loss per turn is expected amount of casualty when you’re actively trading shots. Certain armies fare better casualty rates because they have better expendable units while some don’t. Now, is that an issue of LoW’s being overpriced? I don’t believe so. It’s a matter of redundancies and threat overload in your list. If you’ve designed your list so that it crumbles as soon as the LoW is down, it’s a bad list, period.
Non-knight LoW (excluding FW since it has it’s own impossible logic for putting price tag on units) are impossible to cost appropriately because of lack of comps. Because of the sheer amount of support from codex & special rules that Knights enjoy, we can’t derive a meaningful comparable data from it. It’s like trying to compare $8M house in East Hamptons to a house that’s just as nice but is located in the mountains.
I know I can sell my house for $1M because it’s in a neighborhood that averages $1M. If my house didn’t have any other comparable properties, then I can sell it for however much as the buyer is willing to pay for. This is also the reason why we always end up deferring to comparing units’ efficiency to GEQ’s because it has more or less become the reference point for many (infantry) units in our discussions.
Without meaningful data, we’re left to our own devices in figuring out exactly how much non-knight LoW’s should cost. Well, we know that knights cost X to Y points, and anything ‘less powerful’ than knights cost A to B. So we know that non-knights should cost between B and X. But is that right? No. Because we know that knights’ prices are designed so that we can create some sort of meaningful 2,000 point mono-knights army. Thus, we can see that points for knights are arbitrary, if not purposely deflated, just as for with any other units.GW doesn’t have any real data or mathematical logic supporting their rationale for price tags on units.
Then, what does it mean for non-knights’ price tags? It must also be arbitrary, but should at least be less than Knights. Which leads to the point, if a non-Knight LoW should cost anywhere from 350 to 700 points, does that mean it should be at least equal in performance in comparison to other options that cost the same amount? If a Wraithknight has less versatility as two fire prisms (which happens to be one of the most cost efficient unit in the codex), should the Wraithknight necessarily be priced cheaper than cost of two fire prisms? Following, then will it always be worth it to take a Wraithknight instead of blob of guardians worth the same amount of points? Then, will it ever be worth it to take anything other than a Wraithknight? List building always takes into consideration synergies and offsetting weakness of one unit with strength from another. The effect of simply revising points for non-knight LoW so that it fits in a Strike Force list comfortably will trickle up and down causing cascade of imbalances. This is why LoW’s are better suited for larger games where points limit is less of an issue, and you have ample points leftover to make up for your LoW’s weaknesses (via redundancies and target saturation/threat overload).
skchsan wrote: That’s because you’re maintaining this defeatist point of view.
TLDR, you think you’re arguing for “how to make Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment more viable” but when in fact it’s actually about “how to make Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment more viable at Strike Force games.”
First, you’re not getting free flyers with legion traits – it just happen so that all detachments other than Super Heavy Detachment and the Auxiliary Detachments (both Super Heavy and Support) have much higher FOC slot value per CP as design. The game is designed to encourage more ‘balanced’ army (which in GW’s definition, you have to buy their troop box sets) by offering incentives. This is why you don’t get your CP refunds for Vanguard, Outrider and Spearhead Detachments while Patrol, Battalion and Brigade Detachments do. Lack of incentives is not the same thing as being penalized.
Second, no you don’t get a ‘free’ Patrol, Battalion or Brigade simply by taking a Supreme Command Detachments. Your CP expenditure simply gets refunded by alternate means. The net result is the same, but offsetting spending with gains from elsewhere is not getting things for free. It means you've actively managed to hedge your loses and gains.
Third, you believe you’re being penalized for having a LoW model on your shelf that is not an Imperial Knight. You’re not. The game is merely asking you to pay the associated cost for bringing an understrengthed detachment into your list. Auxiliary detachments allow you to add 1 additional FOC for 2/3 CP. You have to stop reading it to mean “omg, GW doesn’t want me to play with my LoW” because it’s not. Bringing LoW in your list has certain associated cost, and that cost is greater if you don’t bring at least 3 LoW’s.
Let’s say, I have an army that has 2 HQ’s, 6 Fast Attack and 3 Flyers. I recognize that I exceed my Flyer FOC allowance by 1 in my Outrider Detachment. Now, I can choose to split my HQ and Fast Attacks into two separate Outrider Detachments so that I have 4 Flyer slots to work with which costs me 6 CP’s, or I can choose to consolidate all of my units into single Outrider and then take an Auxiliary Support to provide the FOC slot for my third flyer at the cost of 5 CP’s. Now the dilemma is, do I spend 1 more CP so that all of my flyers have legion traits, or can I afford to lose the legion trait on one of the flyers so I have 1 more CP to start? This is a conscious decision that’s made at list building. I’m not getting “penalized”, I’m simply given room to make an active decision.
In regards to your ‘assurance’ – all armies can take LoW’s using Super Heavy Detachment. It’s simply not economical in point expenditures to do so in Strike Force games because the said Super Heavy Detachment ends up spending most of your 2,000 points, if not exceed it. The limiting factor here is the point limit you set forth for your games, not how detachments are designed.
Following, 20~30% loss per turn is expected amount of casualty when you’re actively trading shots. Certain armies fare better casualty rates because they have better expendable units while some don’t. Now, is that an issue of LoW’s being overpriced? I don’t believe so. It’s a matter of redundancies and threat overload in your list. If you’ve designed your list so that it crumbles as soon as the LoW is down, it’s a bad list, period.
Non-knight LoW (excluding FW since it has it’s own impossible logic for putting price tag on units) are impossible to cost appropriately because of lack of comps. Because of the sheer amount of support from codex & special rules that Knights enjoy, we can’t derive a meaningful comparable data from it. It’s like trying to compare $8M house in East Hamptons to a house that’s just as nice but is located in the mountains.
I know I can sell my house for $1M because it’s in a neighborhood that averages $1M. If my house didn’t have any other comparable properties, then I can sell it for however much as the buyer is willing to pay for. This is also the reason why we always end up deferring to comparing units’ efficiency to GEQ’s because it has more or less become the reference point for many (infantry) units in our discussions.
Without meaningful data, we’re left to our own devices in figuring out exactly how much non-knight LoW’s should cost. Well, we know that knights cost X to Y points, and anything ‘less powerful’ than knights cost A to B. So we know that non-knights should cost between B and X. But is that right? No. Because we know that knights’ prices are designed so that we can create some sort of meaningful 2,000 point mono-knights army. Thus, we can see that points for knights are arbitrary, just as for with any other units.GW doesn’t have any real data or mathematical logic supporting their rationale for price tags on units.
Then, what does it mean for non-knights’ price tags? It must also be arbitrary, but should at least be less than Knights. Which leads to the point, if a non-Knight LoW should cost anywhere from 350 to 700 points, does that mean it should be at least equal in performance in comparison to other options that cost the same amount? If a Wraithknight has less versatility as two fire prisms (which happens to be one of the most cost efficient unit in the codex), should the Wraithknight necessarily be priced cheaper than cost of two fire prisms? Following, then will it always be worth it to take a Wraithknight instead of blob of guardians worth the same amount of points? Then, will it ever be worth it to take anything other than a Wraithknight? List building always takes into consideration synergies and offsetting weakness of one unit with strength from another. The effect of simply revising points for non-knight LoW so that it fits in a Strike Force list comfortably will trickle up and down causing cascade of imbalances. This is why LoW’s are better suited for larger games where points limit is less of an issue, and you have ample points leftover to make up for your LoW’s weaknesses (via redundancies and target saturation/threat overload).
Jidmah wrote: Because every other unit, including fortifications, flyers and primarchs both get army benefits and are free of CP charge as well, as long as they have the same faction as your warlord.
What we have currently is pretty much the same as removing heavy support units from battalions, brigades and patrols and putting a 3CP tax on a heavy support detachment and removing army traits from them.
Yeah but:
1. fortifications - ok, but LOW =! frotifications. What justifies providing same treatment as fortifications to LOWs?
2. flyers - but we don't have airwing detachments anymore. If you want more than 2 flyers, you have to continue to pay CP's to take more.
3. primarchs - supreme command detachment forces you to declare the WL on the unit taken in this detachment, which means you don't get the CP refund from patrol, batt or brigade.
Aside from fortification network, nothing is free - they all come at a compromise.
2. is no compromise because you can just bring two without any drawback, no CP cost and full access to legion traits.
3. is wrong because the command benefits of the supreme command detachment allow you to take one battalion, patrol or brigade free of charge. Forcing them to be the warlord also isn't much of a drawback because all three factions that have a primarch can get additional warlord traits with a stratagem, effectively making the detachment cost 1 CP, assuming you want a second warlord trait in the first place.
So, the burden on proof actually is on you. Why should the LoW slot have such huge drawbacks while no other slot has any, and some LoW already have a way around it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: Maybe GW designed it so that if you want to take a LOW with all the benefits, it has to come in a pack of 3, just like how you don't qualify for a battalion if you don't include at least 1 HQ and 3 troops as minimum?
I can assure you that GW did not "design" the game around bringing three stompas minimum. For many armies the SHA is the only way to field their LoW.
Why should LOW brought into the army via SHA get special treatment when units brought into the army via auxiliary support detachment don't? Because LOW are pricy? Come on.
Because every other slot can be fielded free of charge and gains the legion trait.
If you're pushing for SHA to have CP refund, then I'd like to make a 2k army with single patrol detachment and fill the rest of the points with units taken via auxiliary support detachment with CP refund, thank you.
You do not seem to be aware about the hard cap of 3 detachments at 2000. That limit is no longer optional.
As long as LoW cannot be taken as part of a patrol, battalion or brigade, that comparison also is a false analogy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: All I'm saying is LOW doesn't deserve special treatment on the basis that it IS a LOW. Point inefficiency is completely different matter.
Actually all your posts can be summed up as "LOW must get a special treatment on the basis that it is a LOW!". Most of the people your are arguing with are in favor of removing the special treatment.
skchsan wrote:But WHY? What makes them so special that they should be free (of CP cost)?
Nothing makes them special, that's the whole point. Non-knight LOWs are literally the only units in the game that can't be taken without spending CP, that makes them "special". We want them to stop being special.
After 9 pages of discussion, I'm still not convinced that this is actually a game wide issue but just a wishlist (just as much as I wish LOW shouldn't be allowed in 40k)
Let's be honest, this is your whole issue right here.
Exactly what are the LOW's missing out on when taken as same faction and not souped?
Faction traits and 3CP. Please, pay attention.
skchsan wrote:In practice, the amount of fire a single LOW draws upon itself is so huge that it leaves rest of your army rather unscathed. I think that's the true value of LOW's - they're the best distraction carnifex you can ask for because they can insta-delete a lot of stuff as dice allows if left to its own devices. Note, there are plenty other distraction carnifex that cannot cause proportional amount of damage as a LOW.
A distraction Carnifex is, by definition a threatening but relatively cheap unit that your fine with losing, no LOW fits that description, nobody is ok when 25% to 50% of their army is deleted. Any unit as expensive as a LOW has to do something other than soak up fire in order to justify itself in an army.
Do note I'm not saying certain LOW's are not way overpriced in terms of points. I just don't think CP or rule based 'buffs' are the right solution. But when we delve into discussion on points, it's difficult to properly cost them because of how knights are priced (but this is another discussion I suppose).
No, please explain why the existence of knights requires that all non-knight LOWs be overpriced. This should be good. Let me sit down and buckle up.
That’s because you’re maintaining this defeatist point of view.
TLDR, you think you’re arguing for “how to make Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment more viable” but when in fact it’s actually about “how to make Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment more viable at Strike Force games.”
First, you’re not getting free flyers with legion traits – it just happen so that all detachments other than Super Heavy Detachment and the Auxiliary Detachments (both Super Heavy and Support) have much higher FOC slot value per CP as design. The game is designed to encourage more ‘balanced’ army (which in GW’s definition, you have to buy their troop box sets) by offering incentives. This is why you don’t get your CP refunds for Vanguard, Outrider and Spearhead Detachments while Patrol, Battalion and Brigade Detachments do. Lack of incentives is not the same thing as being penalized.
Second, no you don’t get a ‘free’ Patrol, Battalion or Brigade simply by taking a Supreme Command Detachments. Your CP expenditure simply gets refunded by alternate means. The net result is the same, but offsetting spending with gains from elsewhere is not getting things for free. It means you've actively managed to hedge your loses and gains.
Third, you believe you’re being penalized for having a LoW model on your shelf that is not an Imperial Knight. You’re not. The game is merely asking you to pay the associated cost for bringing an understrengthed detachment into your list. Auxiliary detachments allow you to add 1 additional FOC for 2/3 CP. You have to stop reading it to mean “omg, GW doesn’t want me to play with my LoW” because it’s not. Bringing LoW in your list has certain associated cost, and that cost is greater if you don’t bring at least 3 LoW’s.
Let’s say, I have an army that has 2 HQ’s, 6 Fast Attack and 3 Flyers. I recognize that I exceed my Flyer FOC allowance by 1 in my Outrider Detachment. Now, I can choose to split my HQ and Fast Attacks into two separate Outrider Detachments so that I have 4 Flyer slots to work with which costs me 6 CP’s, or I can choose to consolidate all of my units into single Outrider and then take an Auxiliary Support to provide the FOC slot for my third flyer at the cost of 5 CP’s. Now the dilemma is, do I spend 1 more CP so that all of my flyers have legion traits, or can I afford to lose the legion trait on one of the flyers so I have 1 more CP to start? This is a conscious decision that’s made at list building. I’m not getting “penalized”, I’m simply given room to make an active decision.
In regards to your ‘assurance’ – all armies can take LoW’s using Super Heavy Detachment. It’s simply not economical in point expenditures to do so in Strike Force games because the said Super Heavy Detachment ends up spending most of your 2,000 points, if not exceed it. The limiting factor here is the point limit you set forth for your games, not how detachments are designed.
Following, 20~30% loss per turn is expected amount of casualty when you’re actively trading shots. Certain armies fare better casualty rates because they have better expendable units while some don’t. Now, is that an issue of LoW’s being overpriced? I don’t believe so. It’s a matter of redundancies and threat overload in your list. If you’ve designed your list so that it crumbles as soon as the LoW is down, it’s a bad list, period.
Non-knight LoW (excluding FW since it has it’s own impossible logic for putting price tag on units) are impossible to cost appropriately because of lack of comps. Because of the sheer amount of support from codex & special rules that Knights enjoy, we can’t derive a meaningful comparable data from it. It’s like trying to compare $8M house in East Hamptons to a house that’s just as nice but is located in the mountains.
I know I can sell my house for $1M because it’s in a neighborhood that averages $1M. If my house didn’t have any other comparable properties, then I can sell it for however much as the buyer is willing to pay for. This is also the reason why we always end up deferring to comparing units’ efficiency to GEQ’s because it has more or less become the reference point for many (infantry) units in our discussions.
Without meaningful data, we’re left to our own devices in figuring out exactly how much non-knight LoW’s should cost. Well, we know that knights cost X to Y points, and anything ‘less powerful’ than knights cost A to B. So we know that non-knights should cost between B and X. But is that right? No. Because we know that knights’ prices are designed so that we can create some sort of meaningful 2,000 point mono-knights army. Thus, we can see that points for knights are arbitrary, if not purposely deflated, just as for with any other units.GW doesn’t have any real data or mathematical logic supporting their rationale for price tags on units.
Then, what does it mean for non-knights’ price tags? It must also be arbitrary, but should at least be less than Knights. Which leads to the point, if a non-Knight LoW should cost anywhere from 350 to 700 points, does that mean it should be at least equal in performance in comparison to other options that cost the same amount? If a Wraithknight has less versatility as two fire prisms (which happens to be one of the most cost efficient unit in the codex), should the Wraithknight necessarily be priced cheaper than cost of two fire prisms? Following, then will it always be worth it to take a Wraithknight instead of blob of guardians worth the same amount of points? Then, will it ever be worth it to take anything other than a Wraithknight? List building always takes into consideration synergies and offsetting weakness of one unit with strength from another. The effect of simply revising points for non-knight LoW so that it fits in a Strike Force list comfortably will trickle up and down causing cascade of imbalances. This is why LoW’s are better suited for larger games where points limit is less of an issue, and you have ample points leftover to make up for your LoW’s weaknesses (via redundancies and target saturation/threat overload).
That's a lot of words just to say:
skchsan wrote:(just as much as I wish LOW shouldn't be allowed in 40k).
Basically you're just saying you don't think LOW shouldn't be allowed in anything but Onslaught or bigger games, which is an opinion that gw doesn't agree with based on the prices of LOWs like knights and the klos, which is balanced against knights at least where points are concerned. There is no reason why this shouldn't apply to all other LOWs, just as there is no reason why they shouldn't get faction traits and cost an additional 3CP. All that word salad doesn't argue otherwise. Any unit can be balanced by points based on its base stats and abilities without taking strategems, warlord traits, etc into account. That's all we're asking for. We want these units priced fairly compared to knights and other units based on that criteria, not on how good knights are with their strategems and other codex goodies.
That’s because you’re maintaining this defeatist point of view.
TLDR, you think you’re arguing for “how to make Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment more viable” but when in fact it’s actually about “how to make Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment more viable at Strike Force games.”
First, you’re not getting free flyers with legion traits – it just happen so that all detachments other than Super Heavy Detachment and the Auxiliary Detachments (both Super Heavy and Support) have much higher FOC slot value per CP as design. The game is designed to encourage more ‘balanced’ army (which in GW’s definition, you have to buy their troop box sets) by offering incentives. This is why you don’t get your CP refunds for Vanguard, Outrider and Spearhead Detachments while Patrol, Battalion and Brigade Detachments do. Lack of incentives is not the same thing as being penalized.
Second, no you don’t get a ‘free’ Patrol, Battalion or Brigade simply by taking a Supreme Command Detachments. Your CP expenditure simply gets refunded by alternate means. The net result is the same, but offsetting spending with gains from elsewhere is not getting things for free. It means you've actively managed to hedge your loses and gains.
Third, you believe you’re being penalized for having a LoW model on your shelf that is not an Imperial Knight. You’re not. The game is merely asking you to pay the associated cost for bringing an understrengthed detachment into your list. Auxiliary detachments allow you to add 1 additional FOC for 2/3 CP. You have to stop reading it to mean “omg, GW doesn’t want me to play with my LoW” because it’s not. Bringing LoW in your list has certain associated cost, and that cost is greater if you don’t bring at least 3 LoW’s.
Let’s say, I have an army that has 2 HQ’s, 6 Fast Attack and 3 Flyers. I recognize that I exceed my Flyer FOC allowance by 1 in my Outrider Detachment. Now, I can choose to split my HQ and Fast Attacks into two separate Outrider Detachments so that I have 4 Flyer slots to work with which costs me 6 CP’s, or I can choose to consolidate all of my units into single Outrider and then take an Auxiliary Support to provide the FOC slot for my third flyer at the cost of 5 CP’s. Now the dilemma is, do I spend 1 more CP so that all of my flyers have legion traits, or can I afford to lose the legion trait on one of the flyers so I have 1 more CP to start? This is a conscious decision that’s made at list building. I’m not getting “penalized”, I’m simply given room to make an active decision.
In regards to your ‘assurance’ – all armies can take LoW’s using Super Heavy Detachment. It’s simply not economical in point expenditures to do so in Strike Force games because the said Super Heavy Detachment ends up spending most of your 2,000 points, if not exceed it. The limiting factor here is the point limit you set forth for your games, not how detachments are designed.
Following, 20~30% loss per turn is expected amount of casualty when you’re actively trading shots. Certain armies fare better casualty rates because they have better expendable units while some don’t. Now, is that an issue of LoW’s being overpriced? I don’t believe so. It’s a matter of redundancies and threat overload in your list. If you’ve designed your list so that it crumbles as soon as the LoW is down, it’s a bad list, period.
Non-knight LoW (excluding FW since it has it’s own impossible logic for putting price tag on units) are impossible to cost appropriately because of lack of comps. Because of the sheer amount of support from codex & special rules that Knights enjoy, we can’t derive a meaningful comparable data from it. It’s like trying to compare $8M house in East Hamptons to a house that’s just as nice but is located in the mountains.
I know I can sell my house for $1M because it’s in a neighborhood that averages $1M. If my house didn’t have any other comparable properties, then I can sell it for however much as the buyer is willing to pay for. This is also the reason why we always end up deferring to comparing units’ efficiency to GEQ’s because it has more or less become the reference point for many (infantry) units in our discussions.
Without meaningful data, we’re left to our own devices in figuring out exactly how much non-knight LoW’s should cost. Well, we know that knights cost X to Y points, and anything ‘less powerful’ than knights cost A to B. So we know that non-knights should cost between B and X. But is that right? No. Because we know that knights’ prices are designed so that we can create some sort of meaningful 2,000 point mono-knights army. Thus, we can see that points for knights are arbitrary, just as for with any other units.GW doesn’t have any real data or mathematical logic supporting their rationale for price tags on units.
Then, what does it mean for non-knights’ price tags? It must also be arbitrary, but should at least be less than Knights. Which leads to the point, if a non-Knight LoW should cost anywhere from 350 to 700 points, does that mean it should be at least equal in performance in comparison to other options that cost the same amount? If a Wraithknight has less versatility as two fire prisms (which happens to be one of the most cost efficient unit in the codex), should the Wraithknight necessarily be priced cheaper than cost of two fire prisms? Following, then will it always be worth it to take a Wraithknight instead of blob of guardians worth the same amount of points? Then, will it ever be worth it to take anything other than a Wraithknight? List building always takes into consideration synergies and offsetting weakness of one unit with strength from another. The effect of simply revising points for non-knight LoW so that it fits in a Strike Force list comfortably will trickle up and down causing cascade of imbalances. This is why LoW’s are better suited for larger games where points limit is less of an issue, and you have ample points leftover to make up for your LoW’s weaknesses (via redundancies and target saturation/threat overload).
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
i just want an Ulthwe/Iyanden Wraithknight, man
Pretty much this. This is the main point that I am seeing with all of this.
If your low is in your codex it should not be such a problem to get it in your army. It shouldn't be a case of losing stuff just to take it.
You can't really use the "but GW disagrees with you LoWs shouldn't be in game" talking point and then in the same breath turn around and say "but it's unfair that GW doesn't give us easy ways to take them and access to traits! GW, change your ways!"
Either what GW thinks the game should be (i.e. you can take LoW, but they're bad, cost CP, and don't get traits) is what the game should be, or it isn't. If it isn't, "I don't think LoWs should be in game at 2k points" is just as valid an opinion as "I think they should be and they shouldn't cost extra CP and they should get traits!"
Different point level limits shift advantages/disadvantages, just like how 500 pt silvertide list with cryptek support is ridiculously resilient in combat patrol.
The fact of the matter is, game size matters (that's what she said).
yukishiro1 wrote: You can't really use the "but GW disagrees with you LoWs shouldn't be in game" talking point and then in the same breath turn around and say "but it's unfair that GW doesn't give us easy ways to take them and access to traits! GW, change your ways!"
Either what GW thinks the game should be (i.e. you can take LoW, but they're bad, cost CP, and don't get traits) is what the game should be, or it isn't. If it isn't, "I don't think LoWs should be in game at 2k points" is just as valid an opinion as "I think they should be and they shouldn't cost extra CP and they should get traits!"
The issue is that they only hold that view on LOWs that aren't Imperial/Chaos knights. And of course you'd defend this argument as you hold the same "LOWs don't belong in 40k!" opinion. Of course you extend that to anything 200+ points, at least as far as your competitive games are concerned.
I wasn't defending any argument, I was pointing out that you can't have it both ways re: what GW agrees with. You can't on the one hand say "well GW disagrees with you re: LoWs being in the game!" and then also say "but GW needs to change how it deals with LoWs in the game because they're wrong about the current approach!"
Sorry, I didn't realize who I was responding to, if I had paid attention I wouldn't have.
yukishiro1 wrote: You can't really use the "but GW disagrees with you LoWs shouldn't be in game" talking point and then in the same breath turn around and say "but it's unfair that GW doesn't give us easy ways to take them and access to traits! GW, change your ways!"
Either what GW thinks the game should be (i.e. you can take LoW, but they're bad, cost CP, and don't get traits) is what the game should be, or it isn't. If it isn't, "I don't think LoWs should be in game at 2k points" is just as valid an opinion as "I think they should be and they shouldn't cost extra CP and they should get traits!"
The issue is that they only hold that view on LOWs that aren't Imperial/Chaos knights. And of course you'd defend this argument as you hold the same "LOWs don't belong in 40k!" opinion. Of course you extend that to anything 200+ points, at least as far as your competitive games are concerned.
And the basis of your argument is that GW has managed to make Knights and KLoS, of whom are both LoW's, work in 2k point games, therefore it should logically follow that other LoW's that are not Knights and KLoS should be able to made viable in 2k point games," which is a flawed argument because they're mostly taken under Super Heavy Detachment, foregoing all other synergies and focusing solely on offensive capacity of the aforementioned units. These lists pay for what they bring to the table.
Please provide me with a list that uses only 1 knight/chaos knight/klos that are dominating remotely viable in the meta/local/whereever.
yukishiro1 wrote: I wasn't defending any argument, I was pointing out that you can't have it both ways re: what GW agrees with. You can't on the one hand say "well GW disagrees with you re: LoWs being in the game!" and then also say "but GW needs to change how it deals with LoWs in the game because they're wrong about the current approach!"
The issue is that the current approach is different for different LOWs, ie knights vs almost all others.
Sorry, I didn't realize who I was responding to, if I had paid attention I wouldn't have.
Excellent. Let's stop wasting both of our time, as we know we aren't ever going to agree on this.
yukishiro1 wrote: You can't really use the "but GW disagrees with you LoWs shouldn't be in game" talking point and then in the same breath turn around and say "but it's unfair that GW doesn't give us easy ways to take them and access to traits! GW, change your ways!"
Either what GW thinks the game should be (i.e. you can take LoW, but they're bad, cost CP, and don't get traits) is what the game should be, or it isn't. If it isn't, "I don't think LoWs should be in game at 2k points" is just as valid an opinion as "I think they should be and they shouldn't cost extra CP and they should get traits!"
The issue is that they only hold that view on LOWs that aren't Imperial/Chaos knights. And of course you'd defend this argument as you hold the same "LOWs don't belong in 40k!" opinion. Of course you extend that to anything 200+ points, at least as far as your competitive games are concerned.
And the basis of your argument is that GW has managed to make Knights and KLoS, of whom are both LoW's, work in 2k point games, therefore it should logically follow that other LoW's that are not Knights and KLoS should be able to made viable in 2k point games," which is a flawed argument because they're mostly taken under Super Heavy Detachment, foregoing all other synergies and focusing solely on offensive capacity of the aforementioned units. These lists pay for what they bring to the table.
Please provide me with a list that uses only 1 knight/chaos knight/klos that are dominating the meta/local/whereever.
"Working in 2k point games" is different than "dominating the meta/local/wherever". Again, we just want these units to be a viable option, not OP. Knights themselves aren't doing that at the moment.
yukishiro1 wrote: You can't really use the "but GW disagrees with you LoWs shouldn't be in game" talking point and then in the same breath turn around and say "but it's unfair that GW doesn't give us easy ways to take them and access to traits! GW, change your ways!"
Either what GW thinks the game should be (i.e. you can take LoW, but they're bad, cost CP, and don't get traits) is what the game should be, or it isn't. If it isn't, "I don't think LoWs should be in game at 2k points" is just as valid an opinion as "I think they should be and they shouldn't cost extra CP and they should get traits!"
The issue is that they only hold that view on LOWs that aren't Imperial/Chaos knights. And of course you'd defend this argument as you hold the same "LOWs don't belong in 40k!" opinion. Of course you extend that to anything 200+ points, at least as far as your competitive games are concerned.
And the basis of your argument is that GW has managed to make Knights and KLoS, of whom are both LoW's, work in 2k point games, therefore it should logically follow that other LoW's that are not Knights and KLoS should be able to made viable in 2k point games," which is a flawed argument because they're mostly taken under Super Heavy Detachment, foregoing all other synergies and focusing solely on offensive capacity of the aforementioned units. These lists pay for what they bring to the table.
Please provide me with a list that uses only 1 knight/chaos knight/klos that are dominating the meta/local/whereever.
"Working in 2k point games" is different than "dominating the meta/local/wherever". Again, we just want these units to be a viable option, not OP. Knights themselves aren't doing that at the moment.
Yeah........ But are they ever taken as Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment?
Stop trying to set up false analogies to support your claim.
yukishiro1 wrote: You can't really use the "but GW disagrees with you LoWs shouldn't be in game" talking point and then in the same breath turn around and say "but it's unfair that GW doesn't give us easy ways to take them and access to traits! GW, change your ways!"
Either what GW thinks the game should be (i.e. you can take LoW, but they're bad, cost CP, and don't get traits) is what the game should be, or it isn't. If it isn't, "I don't think LoWs should be in game at 2k points" is just as valid an opinion as "I think they should be and they shouldn't cost extra CP and they should get traits!"
The issue is that they only hold that view on LOWs that aren't Imperial/Chaos knights. And of course you'd defend this argument as you hold the same "LOWs don't belong in 40k!" opinion. Of course you extend that to anything 200+ points, at least as far as your competitive games are concerned.
And the basis of your argument is that GW has managed to make Knights and KLoS, of whom are both LoW's, work in 2k point games, therefore it should logically follow that other LoW's that are not Knights and KLoS should be able to made viable in 2k point games," which is a flawed argument because they're mostly taken under Super Heavy Detachment, foregoing all other synergies and focusing solely on offensive capacity of the aforementioned units. These lists pay for what they bring to the table.
Please provide me with a list that uses only 1 knight/chaos knight/klos that are dominating the meta/local/whereever.
"Working in 2k point games" is different than "dominating the meta/local/wherever". Again, we just want these units to be a viable option, not OP. Knights themselves aren't doing that at the moment.
Yeah........ But are they ever taken as Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment?
Stop trying to set up false analogies to support your claim.
Of course they are.
What false analogy? That knights aren't dominating the meta, either as a standalone army or as soup? Are you saying that they are?
Neither auxiliary detachment sees any use, and I don't think that's a coincidence. GW seems to see them as something that technically gives you the ability to do something, but that you'd never want to actually use competitively.
To the extent we can interpret GW's wishes from what it has done, it seems pretty clear that GW doesn't want fielding lone LoWs to be a good, competitive choice. They want you either take 3+, or none. They still allow you the theoretical possibility to take only 1, but they don't give you the tools to do it well.
yukishiro1 wrote: You can't really use the "but GW disagrees with you LoWs shouldn't be in game" talking point and then in the same breath turn around and say "but it's unfair that GW doesn't give us easy ways to take them and access to traits! GW, change your ways!"
Either what GW thinks the game should be (i.e. you can take LoW, but they're bad, cost CP, and don't get traits) is what the game should be, or it isn't. If it isn't, "I don't think LoWs should be in game at 2k points" is just as valid an opinion as "I think they should be and they shouldn't cost extra CP and they should get traits!"
The issue is that they only hold that view on LOWs that aren't Imperial/Chaos knights. And of course you'd defend this argument as you hold the same "LOWs don't belong in 40k!" opinion. Of course you extend that to anything 200+ points, at least as far as your competitive games are concerned.
And the basis of your argument is that GW has managed to make Knights and KLoS, of whom are both LoW's, work in 2k point games, therefore it should logically follow that other LoW's that are not Knights and KLoS should be able to made viable in 2k point games," which is a flawed argument because they're mostly taken under Super Heavy Detachment, foregoing all other synergies and focusing solely on offensive capacity of the aforementioned units. These lists pay for what they bring to the table.
Please provide me with a list that uses only 1 knight/chaos knight/klos that are dominating remotely viable in the meta/local/whereever.
I'm confused. Surely the fact that any army with a single knight isn't overly viable shows that the impact of the super heavy auxiliary is too heavy handed?
People don't bother bringing 1 without traits etc because they're comparatively dead weight compared to the knights that do have traits etc. Or even none LoW units.
I think his point was that's probably intentional. GW presumably isn't so dumb that they don't realize that they haven't given people a competitive way to field a single LoW. They've set it up that way for a reason: because they don't want people taking single LoWs except on a lark in a fluffy game.
edit: Except for the ones you can take as supreme commanders, obviously.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think his point was that's probably intentional. GW presumably isn't so dumb that they don't realize that they haven't given people a competitive way to field a single LoW. They've set it up that way for a reason: because they don't want people taking single LoWs except on a lark in a fluffy game.
So the argument is they're intentionally dissuading people from buying their big expensive £90+ kits?
What false analogy? That knights aren't dominating the meta, either as a standalone army or as soup? Are you saying that they are?
The proof of burden is on you to explain how Knights and KLoS 'works' when taken under SHA and not SH in 2k point army.
My opinion is that it works only as much as any other LoW taken under SHA.
They are more viable because they are more fairly priced based on their stats and abilities. They still suffer from the loss of CP and faction traits (which knights should, as they are soup in these cases), but are not overpriced. Losing CP, faction traits, and paying an inflated price in points is a triple hit other LOWs have trouble overcoming.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think his point was that's probably intentional. GW presumably isn't so dumb that they don't realize that they haven't given people a competitive way to field a single LoW. They've set it up that way for a reason: because they don't want people taking single LoWs except on a lark in a fluffy game.
So the argument is they're intentionally dissuading people from buying their big expensive £90+ kits?
No the point is stop crying about the fact that the box isn't large enough. Just go get a bigger box.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think his point was that's probably intentional. GW presumably isn't so dumb that they don't realize that they haven't given people a competitive way to field a single LoW. They've set it up that way for a reason: because they don't want people taking single LoWs except on a lark in a fluffy game.
So the argument is they're intentionally dissuading people from buying their big expensive £90+ kits?
No the point is stop crying about the fact that the box isn't large enough. Just go get a bigger box.
yukishiro1 wrote: He's saying they're encouraging you to buy 3 or more of the big kits because you can't effectively use just one.
Or, you buy 0 in that case. It's a nonsensical argument. GW is not pushing 3 baneblade armies, theyre not recommending 3 lord of skulls. They recommend adding a knight/equivalent to your army.
yukishiro1 wrote: So what's your argument? That GW is just too stupid and incompetent to realize they haven't provided a good way to field a single LoW?
yukishiro1 wrote: He's saying they're encouraging you to buy 3 or more of the big kits because you can't effectively use just one.
Or, you buy 0 in that case. It's a nonsensical argument. GW is not pushing 3 baneblade armies, theyre not recommending 3 lord of skulls. They recommend adding a knight/equivalent to your army.
Exactly. Three standard Baneblades (two sponsons) is 1650 points and costs 6CP, that isn't a viable option. LOWs require infantry for screening, dealing with smaller threats, and taking and holding objectives, a combined arms approach, which is why a single LOW slot was included in the old Combined Arms detachment. That's similar to how heavy armour operates in real life, tanks need infantry.
yukishiro1 wrote: So what's your argument? That GW is just too stupid and incompetent to realize they haven't provided a good way to field a single LoW?
yukishiro1 wrote: Man, and I thought *I* was cynical about GW's competence.
I trust their marketing team, they want to make money. They make money by selling me a wraithknight kit, I'm a filthy casual and don't want 3 but I still want it to feel a part of my army and with armies rules. I can't do that so I buy none.
How much money does GW make in that scenario?
They want people buying singular lords of war, people don't because it's a harsh price to pay. Those kits therefore won't sell as well as they did once.
It's not the mini designers or the marketing team who are on the wrong page here.
yukishiro1 wrote: He's saying they're encouraging you to buy 3 or more of the big kits because you can't effectively use just one.
Or, you buy 0 in that case. It's a nonsensical argument. GW is not pushing 3 baneblade armies, theyre not recommending 3 lord of skulls. They recommend adding a knight/equivalent to your army.
Exactly. Three standard Baneblades (two sponsons) is 1650 points and costs 6CP, that isn't a viable option. LOWs require infantry for screening, dealing with smaller threats, and taking and holding objectives, a combined arms approach, which is why a single LOW slot was included in the old Combined Arms detachment. That's similar to how heavy armour operates in real life, tanks need infantry.
But you can field a 52 body battalion and still have points left over...
What false analogy? That knights aren't dominating the meta, either as a standalone army or as soup? Are you saying that they are?
The proof of burden is on you to explain how Knights and KLoS 'works' when taken under SHA and not SH in 2k point army.
My opinion is that it works only as much as any other LoW taken under SHA.
They are more viable because they are more fairly priced based on their stats and abilities. They still suffer from the loss of CP and faction traits (which knights should, as they are soup in these cases), but are not overpriced. Losing CP, faction traits, and paying an inflated price in points is a triple hit other LOWs have trouble overcoming.
Are they actually fairly priced or are they underpriced? KLoS, maybe. I feel like its points were properly ported over from 7th ed, probably due to the fact that it's actually a pretty old model that survived multiple editions - but knights? I'd think their point costs are intentionally deflated to make mono knights list work.
yukishiro1 wrote: He's saying they're encouraging you to buy 3 or more of the big kits because you can't effectively use just one.
Or, you buy 0 in that case. It's a nonsensical argument. GW is not pushing 3 baneblade armies, theyre not recommending 3 lord of skulls. They recommend adding a knight/equivalent to your army.
Exactly. Three standard Baneblades (two sponsons) is 1650 points and costs 6CP, that isn't a viable option. LOWs require infantry for screening, dealing with smaller threats, and taking and holding objectives, a combined arms approach, which is why a single LOW slot was included in the old Combined Arms detachment. That's similar to how heavy armour operates in real life, tanks need infantry.
But you can field a 52 body battalion and still have points left over..
You're right. But is three Baneblades and a "loyal 52" really what you consider a balanced army? Wouldn't you rather see a single Baneblade and a more standard mixed force of units?
What false analogy? That knights aren't dominating the meta, either as a standalone army or as soup? Are you saying that they are?
The proof of burden is on you to explain how Knights and KLoS 'works' when taken under SHA and not SH in 2k point army.
My opinion is that it works only as much as any other LoW taken under SHA.
They are more viable because they are more fairly priced based on their stats and abilities. They still suffer from the loss of CP and faction traits (which knights should, as they are soup in these cases), but are not overpriced. Losing CP, faction traits, and paying an inflated price in points is a triple hit other LOWs have trouble overcoming.
Are they actually fairly priced or are they underpriced? KLoS, maybe. I feel like its points were properly ported over from 7th ed, probably due to the fact that it's actually a pretty old model that survived multiple editions - but knights? I'd think their point costs are intentionally deflated to make mono knights list work.
Perhaps. Maybe knights need to go up, while other LOWs come down. They could meet in the middle.
Breton wrote:
Blackie wrote: Fix is simple. Just add 0-1 LoW slots to battallions and brigades.
Give LoWs appropriate points costs so they won't break the game.
That might be a little more free than even. Limit LOW's 0-1 per army without a LOW detach.
yukishiro1 wrote: He's saying they're encouraging you to buy 3 or more of the big kits because you can't effectively use just one.
Or, you buy 0 in that case. It's a nonsensical argument. GW is not pushing 3 baneblade armies, theyre not recommending 3 lord of skulls. They recommend adding a knight/equivalent to your army.
Exactly. Three standard Baneblades (two sponsons) is 1650 points and costs 6CP, that isn't a viable option. LOWs require infantry for screening, dealing with smaller threats, and taking and holding objectives, a combined arms approach, which is why a single LOW slot was included in the old Combined Arms detachment. That's similar to how heavy armour operates in real life, tanks need infantry.
But you can field a 52 body battalion and still have points left over..
You're right. But is three Baneblades and a "loyal 52" really what you consider a balanced army? Wouldn't you rather see a single Baneblade and a more standard mixed force of units?
I mean it is a more balanced army then say any mono knight list in existence...
Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.
Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.
Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.
Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.
Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.
Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.
But the wraith knight isn't part of the craftworld rules wise, it might as well be painted neon green.
Better yet, make that more attractive rules wise so the competitive players armies resemble this.
Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.
Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.
Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.
Well designed codices would drive competitive players to at least field armies that look similar to that picture. Obviously "one of everything" is unlikely to ever be a top competitive choice, but a a well rounded list with multiple different choices making sense isn't completely irrational - especially stratagems and pre-game upgrades reward you for bringing singles of certain units.
Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.
Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.
Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.
Well designed codices would drive competitive players to at least field armies that look similar to that picture. Obviously "one of everything" is unlikely to ever be a top competitive choice, but a a well rounded list with multiple different choices making sense isn't completely irrational - especially stratagems and pre-game upgrades reward you for bringing singles of certain units.
It needs more than the codices. The change from random/card secondaries to Choose Your Own Skew-ventures was a step back. A codex that benefits a little of everything, and a ruleset that makes a little of almost everything show up almost every game pairs well. Without a need for a little of everything to win the game, a codex that encourages it won't do much. Rules that throw up a little of everything will suck for someone whose codex punishes that. They have to work together. Now that you get to pick your secondary instead of potentially having to deal with anything and everything there's less drive to prepare for everything.
Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.
Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.
Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.
Except it sucks and will lose every time.
Blaming the player for GW not writing the rules to reflect the game they want to see played is idiotic. If they want to make a game where army's look like that, THEY SHOULDN'T MAKE ARMIES THAT LOOK LIKE THAT TERRIBLE. If I make a hockey game where the most effective way to play the game is kick fieldgoals over and over and over, I don't get to be peeved at players for not 'playing the game the right way'.
Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.
Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.
Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.
Well designed codices would drive competitive players to at least field armies that look similar to that picture. Obviously "one of everything" is unlikely to ever be a top competitive choice, but a a well rounded list with multiple different choices making sense isn't completely irrational - especially stratagems and pre-game upgrades reward you for bringing singles of certain units.
It needs more than the codices. The change from random/card secondaries to Choose Your Own Skew-ventures was a step back. A codex that benefits a little of everything, and a ruleset that makes a little of almost everything show up almost every game pairs well. Without a need for a little of everything to win the game, a codex that encourages it won't do much. Rules that throw up a little of everything will suck for someone whose codex punishes that. They have to work together. Now that you get to pick your secondary instead of potentially having to deal with anything and everything there's less drive to prepare for everything.
Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.
Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.
Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.
Except it sucks and will lose every time.
Blaming the player for GW not writing the rules to reflect the game they want to see played is idiotic. If they want to make a game where army's look like that, THEY SHOULDN'T MAKE ARMIES THAT LOOK LIKE THAT TERRIBLE. If I make a hockey game where the most effective way to play the game is kick fieldgoals over and over and over, I don't get to be peeved at players for not 'playing the game the right way'.
I'd suspect they're not as terrible as you make it out to be at Onslaught and above games.
