...Please?
With the proliferation of D-weapons due to the new Eldar codex, tournaments are looking at coming up with a universal modification to the Destroyer special rule. Two of the latest options I’ve seen are below:
ITC: 1=nothing
2-5=D2 wounds/hullpoints
6=2 wounds/hullpoints with no saves allowed, vehicles take a penetrating hit
NOVA: D shots originating from greater than 12" away treat all "6" results as "5" results instead.
D weapons always inflict only D3 Wounds or Hull Points (even on a "6" result)
In the wake of the Escalation release, there were several calls for mods to D-weapons; now it appears that we have some that make them significantly less scary and game-altering. I’m not here to argue for full inclusion of all Lords of War in tournaments, I just want to make the case for allowing Imperial Knights to be fielded as an army.
1. Damage. With the mod to D-weapons, the effect of an Imperial Knight’s base attacks is greatly reduced. However, let us consider that a Knight has only 3 attacks base, at WS 4. This means that 5 knights put out 15 D-weapon CC attacks that will generally hit on 4’s, sometimes on 3’s, for 1850 pts. A single Knight, on the charge, hits twice on average for probably 3 wounds under ITC, unmodified in NOVA. You still get invul saves against the majority of attacks, and if you have enough wounds or bodies you can hit back. 3 squads of 5 wraithguard with D-cannons also puts out 15 D-weapons attacks, these will always hit on 3’s but cost less than one-third the price of the Knights. They also have a 12” range. No one is banning wraithguard; in fact these changes are made specifically so people can use wraithguard. Obviously there are significant differences in durability, but that is addressed in the next point.
2. Durability. Three-quarters of an Imperial knight is AV12. There are comparable vehicles in the game, including dedicated transports. A superheavy is basically a vehicle with eternal warrior, meaning that it cannot be one-shotted. 6 AV12 hullpoints, possibly a 4++ against shooting=2 jinking wave serpents with their serpent shield up. Now, I understand that people don’t like having units that are unable to hurt the enemy, but mech AM, Wave Serpent spam, or a Necron AV13 wall are similar situations. With Imperial knights, people take an unusual concern for a player who seemingly brings a fluffy battle company of space marines; concerns that are tossed aside when we’re talking about invisibility or FMC spam. Realistically, an army that would lose to Imperial Knights would also lose to gravstar, pentyrant, or any number of “top-tier” lists. Boltguns have a 1/36 chance of wounding a flyrant before saves, a 1/108 chance of wounding an invisible gravstar with 2+ armor saves. Are these units any more vulnerable to the “casual” player? I really don’t think so. And with a damage reduction to knights, they are unlikely to be able to kill all your units on objectives, giving those units otherwise unable to hurt the knights a purpose. Finally, with the advent of new formations in the IK codex, tournaments could simply ban Adamantium Lance since it is by far the best one and the only formation that gives a marked increase in durability.
3. Remove from play. While I am very open to changes to stomp (maybe a 6 becomes S10 AP1?), remember that there have always been “remove from play” weapons/abilities in the game, including Jaws of the World Wolf, Warp Rift, and Valeria’s box. These were never really considered game-breaking, and we have lived with D-weapons on psykers and LOW for a while now. Stomps only get bad if you have a save worse than 3+, and only on a 6 does it really hurt. Also, I’ve seen no one suggest nerfs for Thunderblitz, which has similar effects to Stomp. As stated above however, I’m open to mods for stomp to appease those who don't want to see their models just disapear.
An Imperial Knight is a 375+-50 pt unit that does its most exceptional damage in melee, now receiving a significant nerf to it’s CC abilities. And yet, tournaments want to ban them to spare the “mid-level” players so they can be tabled by FMC spam instead, or to “keep Apoc out of 40K”. Many of the formations that have appeared in codices recently (including green tide and the windrider host) are in fact Apoc formations, and can be found in the most recent GW Apocalypse book. A lot of players have also stated on these forums that they don’t have problems with Lords of War such as Baneblades or Malcador tanks, but mainly with Renevant and Reaver titans. I’m respectfully requesting that you consider Imperial Knights as being something in the former category.
As far as force org concerns go, the CAD and the select few other formations allow Lords of War, only allow one Lord of War choice. The force org chart itself will limit the number of “other” LOW, and if people don’t want to see a Reaver Titan we can just selectively ban the problematic ones; a list which in my opinion has shrunk quite a bit with the proposed modifications to destroyer weapons anyway.
I’m not a tournament organizer, or a big GT attendee. I’m just a player with an Imperial Knight army who wants to have a chance to play it. And I’m simply suggesting that especially with the changes to Destroyer brought about by Eldar, that they aren’t all that bad. Obviously I’m heavily biased, but I love my knights and want to give them more chances on the table.
As a minor TO and average player, I want to emphasize the distinction between concerns about the Adamantine Lance and concerns about Imperial Knights overall.
The formation I've always seen as a huge problem, as both a player myself seeing it at larger events and as TO worried about the dispiriting effect it would have on my community if it started showing up.
Imperial Knights themselves I think are much more manageable, even in bulk, assuming people are moderately accepting of this new era of "mini-Apoc" 40k---which players basically have to be or they've quit at this point. Even in our super casual environment we have a player fielding a Knight army for pickup and monthly tournament play, and although tough for some opposing armies (not all, by any means), there doesn't seem to be any consensus that it's a problem, something people feel like they can't fight. This is with unmodified D, for what it's worth.
If you're not a TO or big GT attendee, why does it matter what people here say? Nobody on dakka can tell your friends or local store to let you run something.
RobPro wrote: If you're not a TO or big GT attendee, why does it matter what people here say? Nobody on dakka can tell your friends or local store to let you run something.
Pretty much this.
Tournaments that ban all superrheavies I don't see knights becoming an exception.
Tournaments that don't ban them you will be fine. Knights are a relatively balanced superhwavy. No range str d, Melee str d has relatively low atks w basic ws and low int. it's point costed well and isn't much worse then normal heavy vehicles.
Tournaments like nova and bao will allow Knights. However you ate going to have issues with nova or similar tournaments which don't allow any superheavies since the people who play that event want to play a game more focused on infantry. Not every army even has decent superheavies even including forgeworod yet. So 40k is still in a transition phase where larger weapons of war are more commonplace.
I feel your post is disingenuous for a few reasons. One even though you mention stomp and the "few" attacks they get, it doesn't feel like just a few when you kill 9 or more orks a turn with a stomp chain. Another is you say most av is 12, but you can keep your back to a wall and still be as effective as 2 leman russ. And the side profiles are tiny and if your drop podding for side shots you need good luck. And no where did you mention their ability to completely negate the usefulness of small arms fire, so while you ask to be able to play, the other 60 prevent of units in the game that can't hurt them become invalid.
Orock wrote: I feel your post is disingenuous for a few reasons. One even though you mention stomp and the "few" attacks they get, it doesn't feel like just a few when you kill 9 or more orks a turn with a stomp chain. Another is you say most av is 12, but you can keep your back to a wall and still be as effective as 2 leman russ. And the side profiles are tiny and if your drop podding for side shots you need good luck. And no where did you mention their ability to completely negate the usefulness of small arms fire, so while you ask to be able to play, the other 60 prevent of units in the game that can't hurt them become invalid.
Show me on the doll where the bad knights touched you.
Orock wrote: I feel your post is disingenuous for a few reasons. One even though you mention stomp and the "few" attacks they get, it doesn't feel like just a few when you kill 9 or more orks a turn with a stomp chain. Another is you say most av is 12, but you can keep your back to a wall and still be as effective as 2 leman russ. And the side profiles are tiny and if your drop podding for side shots you need good luck. And no where did you mention their ability to completely negate the usefulness of small arms fire, so while you ask to be able to play, the other 60 prevent of units in the game that can't hurt them become invalid.
LOL, what?
I guess we need to ban Land Raiders, Leman Russ, Rhinos, and everything else that can't be touched by str 4 weapons.
Orock wrote: I feel your post is disingenuous for a few reasons. One even though you mention stomp and the "few" attacks they get, it doesn't feel like just a few when you kill 9 or more orks a turn with a stomp chain. Another is you say most av is 12, but you can keep your back to a wall and still be as effective as 2 leman russ. And the side profiles are tiny and if your drop podding for side shots you need good luck. And no where did you mention their ability to completely negate the usefulness of small arms fire, so while you ask to be able to play, the other 60 prevent of units in the game that can't hurt them become invalid.
Show me on the doll where the bad knights touched you.
They didn't, because my area isn't stupid enough to allow adlance.
Orock wrote: I feel your post is disingenuous for a few reasons. One even though you mention stomp and the "few" attacks they get, it doesn't feel like just a few when you kill 9 or more orks a turn with a stomp chain. Another is you say most av is 12, but you can keep your back to a wall and still be as effective as 2 leman russ. And the side profiles are tiny and if your drop podding for side shots you need good luck. And no where did you mention their ability to completely negate the usefulness of small arms fire, so while you ask to be able to play, the other 60 prevent of units in the game that can't hurt them become invalid.
Show me on the doll where the bad knights touched you.
They didn't, because my area isn't stupid enough to allow adlance.
So anyplace that adopts a different tournament format/meta than you and your friends is now of an inferior intelligence? Good to know.
Orock wrote: I feel your post is disingenuous for a few reasons. One even though you mention stomp and the "few" attacks they get, it doesn't feel like just a few when you kill 9 or more orks a turn with a stomp chain. Another is you say most av is 12, but you can keep your back to a wall and still be as effective as 2 leman russ. And the side profiles are tiny and if your drop podding for side shots you need good luck. And no where did you mention their ability to completely negate the usefulness of small arms fire, so while you ask to be able to play, the other 60 prevent of units in the game that can't hurt them become invalid.
LOL, what?
I guess we need to ban Land Raiders, Leman Russ, Rhinos, and everything else that can't be touched by str 4 weapons.
.
Land raider spam won't win you games. They don't do enough damage solo to win games. But you know that. Nice straw man. And the others are easily killed back and don't fight back in meelee either. You know, balanced.
Orock wrote: I feel your post is disingenuous for a few reasons. One even though you mention stomp and the "few" attacks they get, it doesn't feel like just a few when you kill 9 or more orks a turn with a stomp chain. Another is you say most av is 12, but you can keep your back to a wall and still be as effective as 2 leman russ. And the side profiles are tiny and if your drop podding for side shots you need good luck. And no where did you mention their ability to completely negate the usefulness of small arms fire, so while you ask to be able to play, the other 60 prevent of units in the game that can't hurt them become invalid.
LOL, what?
I guess we need to ban Land Raiders, Leman Russ, Rhinos, and everything else that can't be touched by str 4 weapons.
.
Land raider spam won't win you games. They don't do enough damage solo to win games. But you know that. Nice straw man. And the others are easily killed back and don't fight back in meelee either. You know, balanced.
I don't have any problem beating Knights. Neither do any of the players in our tournaments, AdLance has never been in a winning list in our area. Maybe because we play against them and know how to beat it.
Any place that allows adlance to invaladate so much in the game is certainly less fortunate. But you don't seem to care as long as you can play your knights. So players in your area are so unconcerned with their opponents enjoyment they feel entitled enough to bring heavy skew armies and damn anyone who doesn't want to play against it? Good to know.
RobPro wrote: If you're not a TO or big GT attendee, why does it matter what people here say? Nobody on dakka can tell your friends or local store to let you run something.
Because I do attend a fair amount of RTTs, and these are tournaments too. Furthermore, a lot of smaller TOs base their formats on bigger events (see http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/647721.page) and so the larger internet community does eventually find it's way back to local stores. And even if it doesn't affect me, there are other knight players out there.
Orock wrote: Any place that allows adlance to invaladate so much in the game is certainly less fortunate. But you don't seem to care as long as you can play your knights. So players in your area are so unconcerned with their opponents enjoyment they feel entitled enough to bring heavy skew armies and damn anyone who doesn't want to play against it? Good to know.
I don't play Knights.
Your opinion of my area and 40k in general is skewed not the armies played. Take a look at the Tournament wrap ups I post on Capture and Control or the Game Empire Pasadena Facebook page. You'll see that despite our allowing almost anything our scene is not only thriving and growing but has a diverse field of armies and winners.
Edit* Again, thank you for talking down to our players and area.
Maybe your area simply gave up on fun and non mono lists in order to stay up with the current meta. I bet you hear all the time " man I would sure love to run such and such, but they are so bad". Or were you not around before 6 th and its always just been cutthroat to you.
Orock wrote: Maybe your area simply gave up on fun and non mono lists in order to stay up with the current meta. I bet you hear all the time " man I would sure love to run such and such, but they are so bad". Or were you not around before 6 th and its always just been cutthroat to you.
Your assumptions are so terribly bad and your continued insistence that we all must suck, have a terrible time etc etc etc is quite ignorant to the fact not everyone shares your opinion and experience.
1. I often play a mono Salamanders list. Many people play mono lists, Orks, Space Marines, mono Chaos. 2. No matter the edition or format you'll hear "man I would sure love to run such and such, but they are so bad". What's your point exactly? 3. I've been playing since 3rd edition.
Our area still uses outdated tournament scores like presentation, sportsmanship, and army composition. The guys with grey legion eldar bike and wraith spam don't place high.
Orock wrote: Any place that allows adlance to invaladate so much in the game is certainly less fortunate. But you don't seem to care as long as you can play your knights. So players in your area are so unconcerned with their opponents enjoyment they feel entitled enough to bring heavy skew armies and damn anyone who doesn't want to play against it? Good to know.
So players in your area are so concerned with their own enjoyment they feel entitled enough to invalidate entire codexes outright and damn anyone who wants to play with it? Good to know.
Knights are just an extremely obvious rock in the ever-escalating arms race between paper and scissors. If you hate building a list that can deal with superheavies, then go back to 6th edition or bust out the Swiss Comp phonebook.
And for what it's worth, I don't hate playing vs Knights nearly as much as I hate playing vs Necrons these days. Real durability in modern 40k doesn't have hull points.
Orock wrote: Our area still uses outdated tournament scores like presentation, sportsmanship, and army composition. The guys with grey legion eldar bike and wraith spam don't place high.
Our area requires full paint and basing to qualify for the Best Overall prize. We also have Sportsmanship scoring that dates back to the old RTT era. What's your point?
Mono as in the same cookie cutter netlists everyone runs not single army composition mono.
Same point applies. In a field of 30 regular players the mono, cookie cutter, blah blah blah doesn't show up. The lists are varied, as I already stated.
Anyone who plays knights only, knows a few things. One is there will be lists you auto lose to, and lists that auto lose to you. And that no matter who you play, you have invalidated at least some of their army. They have the highest winning record in tournaments because if the severe skew. So adlance isn't allowed. And we have varying lists and armies who win. guard won a recent one, when is the last time you even saw them place top 10?
Outside tournaments people can play whatever they want. But the guy with 4 knights often does not get many takers. Same guy refuses games against the eldar, so I don't think he is playing for the love of the army.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Loch show us on the doll where the TO told you it was only one LOW allowed from now on.
Orock wrote: Anyone who plays knights only, knows a few things. One is there will be lists you auto lose to, and lists that auto lose to you. And that no matter who you play, you have invalidated at least some of their army.
Only players who play poorly with knights, and only players who play poorly against knights, knows any such thing.
There have always been armies that "invalidate" large portions of an enemy army. People just need to realize that the environment has changed, and if you want to build a TAC list you must include weapons that can hurt multiple AV targets. If you have more fun artificially constraining your meta to not adapt to this change, then that's fine. But you should recognize that it is just a self-imposed constraint, and does not make you in any way superior to other gaming areas. In fact, I'd argue that it makes your gaming area tactically inferior, as you were unable to adapt to a changing battlefield.
Orock wrote: Anyone who plays knights only, knows a few things. One is there will be lists you auto lose to, and lists that auto lose to you. And that no matter who you play, you have invalidated at least some of their army. They have the highest winning record in tournaments because if the severe skew. So adlance isn't allowed. And we have varying lists and armies who win. guard won a recent one, when is the last time you even saw them place top 10?
Outside tournaments people can play whatever they want. But the guy with 4 knights often does not get many takers. Same guy refuses games against the eldar, so I don't think he is playing for the love of the army.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Loch show us on the doll where the TO told you it was only one LOW allowed from now on.
That doesn't even make sense. Most of that post doesn't but particularly the end.
I don't like the argument that because Knights can invalidate certain builds they shouldn't be accepted. As a Dark Eldar player who attends local tournaments, Last Codex Serpent Spam utterly invalidated my army. Seriously, it took 27 Dark Lance shots to kill a serpent while even while Jinking a Serpent could easily bring down any of my vehicles. But they weren't banned or comped because even if i couldn't beat Serpent Spam, i could play the mission and sometimes, on a good day, i would win/draw.
Having Knights in the meta will help with variety, a Knight army will lose to a Pentyrant army which will lose to a Grav army which will lose to an Eldar army. If the top tier lists are going to be Rock, Paper, Scissors anyway, why not at least make it ''Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock'' instead?
I honestly don't care what people bring to play, I play the game because I enjoy 40k. Wanna bring wraith spam? sure. Knights? Alright. Scatterbikes? Neato. I'll play you as much as you want and I will probably lose a few times but eventually I will learn the list and how to beat it. Then you do the same for my new list. Just the way of the game. Play to enjoy the universe/gameplay/fluff and if you don't then why play at all?
Blood Angel and Knight player.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My friend that I play most often plays pretty tough Necrons and yeah that book is dead 'ard but you play it enough, study how your opponent plays and how the army works and you can beat it.
Knights do not invalidate anything. Yes, knights cannot be damaged by some units, but that does not invalidate that unit's use. Unless you are playing purely kill-points, any unit that cannot harm a knight can still impact the game-state and still directly contribute to a victory.
Have a 30 gaunt horde? Well, it won't hurt the knight, but it could tarpit the hell out of it for 2 turns while other elements score objectives.
Have a chimera with chumps? Well, it can force the knight to chase it, either wasting a limited amount of high value shooting at it or moving the knight away from other more important units. If the Knight player does not do either, then it can go score an objective.
Nothing is invalidated unless a codex specifically says "These models cannot appear on the table". Part of playing a game is learning how to leverage resources, especially resources that may seem ineffectual on a surface read of the situation. Knights may have a high win rate in some metas, but their overall Big Win rate of major GTs is pretty low if I am not mistaken. This suggests to me that many newer, less experienced players or players with only a cursory understanding of the system struggle to beat them because they rely on the power of their list rather than their own tactical acumen while excellent players can exploit the rather large weaknesses inherent to investing 1K points in three models.
It is of course up to each individually determined group to decide how they want to play this game, but when it comes to a major trend-setter like ITC or Nova, their decisions do have impacts on smaller metas that look to their rules for guidance. Any local group can declare whatever they want, but when a group with actual sway makes a decision, it does indeed have an impact far beyond the stretches of a forum.
Are those your Knights? They look fantastic! I'd love to give them some unmodified-D (nudge-nudge/wink-wink).
Not sure if I'm 'lucky' or not, but where I play, we play the game without so many restrictions. /shrug My concern with modifying the D-Chart is that it is going to be increasingly difficult to prepare for tournaments outside of my normal stomping grounds (<---pun intended); a 5 hour trip to Minnesota or a 7 hour trip to Iowa for a tournament comes along with the additional burden of trying to arrange practice games with players that are not particularly interested in Limp-D [copywright!]. And if I can't get practice games...I'm not going to want to spend time and money to travel all that way. I am a competitive person, being unprepared is distasteful.
So: Limp-D will make the 40K community smaller, discontiguous, and likely contentious. But if that's what it takes for people to let you put those marvelously well-painted models on the table and roll dice with them, so be it--play on!
First off no army unit is ever invalidated by Knights. Knights don't lose tournaments because they run into anti mech lists. They lose tournaments because they suck at scoring maelstrom and objective based games. By that vey nature every unit has a chance to win a game vs Knights. I routinely play with Gretchen as my main troop choice and every ork player will tell you those are the best unit to score maelstrom and objective points. They are practically worthless in assault and have some of the worst shooting in game and are invalidated by 90% of any army I face and yet they routinely score the most points. Saying Knights invalidate a large portion of your army is an outright lie. Seriously Knights are no worse then when I play my Astra militarum mech lists or armored company lists nearly every unit is a leman Russ or at worst a chimera chassis. Everything has an av12 to av14 front and side armour and most have av11 or av10 rear. This list invalidates most assault and most shooting units and it's been around since 3rd edition. There is nothing wrong with Knights because it's cost appropriate and a low model count army. This isn't a case of wraith Knights that cost 295 points for a t8, 3+, 5+ fnp 5++ invulnerable that blinds any enemy unit with 6in and reduces hire bs/ws to 1 that can put a toe into area terrain for a 4+ cover save or jump onto impassable terrain and is basically immune to most units. This is a large slow av13/12 vehicle with an invul save that shoots weapons that are no worse then most lenman russes for 2x the cost.
DCannon4Life wrote: Are those your Knights? They look fantastic! I'd love to give them some unmodified-D (nudge-nudge/wink-wink).
Not sure if I'm 'lucky' or not, but where I play, we play the game without so many restrictions. /shrug My concern with modifying the D-Chart is that it is going to be increasingly difficult to prepare for tournaments outside of my normal stomping grounds (<---pun intended); a 5 hour trip to Minnesota or a 7 hour trip to Iowa for a tournament comes along with the additional burden of trying to arrange practice games with players that are not particularly interested in Limp-D [copywright!]. And if I can't get practice games...I'm not going to want to spend time and money to travel all that way. I am a competitive person, being unprepared is distasteful.
So: Limp-D will make the 40K community smaller, discontiguous, and likely contentious. But if that's what it takes for people to let you put those marvelously well-painted models on the table and roll dice with them, so be it--play on!
If you want practice games against me, you'll never get me to play an unmodified D game, and I'm one of the more competitive players in the Stomping Grounds. PS, my new Girlfriend is in you neck of the woods so I've been making the MKE drive often. And to be fair, both ITC and NOVA are going with Modified D tables, sure they are slightly different with NOVA's being closer to unmodified, but that makes moth majors heading the same route.
Anyway, Knights are an entire army of SHLoWs. Without Adamantine Lance they aren't that terrifying, but they definitely are unfun for many people and they are an exteme build that is very difficult for many player to build a TMC(Take Most Comers) list that can handle them.
And they now require a special snowflake exception from both ITC and NOVA. What is wrong with having No SH/GCLoW tournaments and having ApocLite tournaments with LoWs, IKs, etc? Instead of trying to create a single universal tournament with butthurt people on both sides, how about we strive for two styles, appealing to more people and offereing a greater variety? Each event could then gravitate towards which of the two standards out there. Call it...
Look OP ....gw got ya, they suckered you to buy all those pretty knights and then after they hit their sales quota, they invalidated your existing rules and made you LoW. It happens man..same thing is going to happen in a month when all those shiny end times characters and books get invalidated. Just move on...there are support groups for this.
quickfuze wrote: Look OP ....gw got ya, they suckered you to buy all those pretty knights and then after they hit their sales quota, they invalidated your existing rules and made you LoW. It happens man..same thing is going to happen in a month when all those shiny end times characters and books get invalidated. Just move on...there are support groups for this.
Those models aren't invalid under GWs rules. Or are you suggesting GW wrote the codex as it is to purposefully invalidate their own models under the ruleset of an outside tournament organization like ITC and NOVA? Either way that makes little sense.
Unless something's changed nova is banning all LOW superheavy and gargantuans. The str d nerf they made is for future str d and the elder artillery.
Lvo/bao is modifying d, d scythe, restricting LOW to 1 with exception to knight codex ( possibly).
Also ad lance whole still good I think is not as bad as some of the other formations that are not limited to errant and paladin.
5 knights just might be more competitive. Especially when the apoc blast no longer can scatter and kill another knight.
That whole post about classic and modern 40k is basically what is happening this year, however I doubt it will stay that way as more and more armies get thier own plastic superheavy lord of war.
One of the arguments that comes up is that with their 65% win rate on TOF, they tend to beat more "average" players a lot with their losses coming in the final rounds against top-tier lists and players. I'm assuming that running Knights as primary means you had at least 3 under the old rules so you could get a knight warlord, which means that at least 1100 points of your army were Knights; effectively a massive deathstar. What ToF doesn't account for is army composition...for instance what is the win rate of Gravstar lists? Or Pentyrant? And what happens when you remove the fluffy footdar lists from the Eldar results? Considering that some of these lists have won ALL their games at GTs (including the final ones), I'm guessing that their win record is probably much higher than their army's overall. I don't think it's not too much of a stretch to say that these lists probably also beat the "average" players and lists more often than not.
An Invisible gravstar will take approximately 3 wounds over 6 turns from 60 bolter-armed marines (assuming no rapid-fire). Congrats, you've killed 1 out of 5 centurions (assuming draigo didn't tank some of those or the wounded ones moved).
6 turns of the same shooting will put 3 wounds on ONE swooping, 3+ save hive tyrant.
Wave Serpent spam...unless you got rear armor or an assault you're doing nothing. And you can't even hurt wraithknights.
Obviously 60 bolter marines is pure hyperbole, but for some reason it seems to be the metric by which Knights are judged, while other "deathstar units" get a pass because they aren't superheavy, or only have one lord of war in them. A lot of your weapons can't hurt knights? Well, 5/6 of ALL your weapons can't hurt an invisible unit (Centstar costs just a little more than 2 knights, with more firepower and mobility), and unless you have skyfire you're in the same boat against FMC spam. But, those lists are ok because they don't have eternal warrior vehicles in them.
greyknight12 wrote: One of the arguments that comes up is that with their 65% win rate on TOF, they tend to beat more "average" players a lot with their losses coming in the final rounds against top-tier lists and players. I'm assuming that running Knights as primary means you had at least 3 under the old rules so you could get a knight warlord, which means that at least 1100 points of your army were Knights; effectively a massive deathstar. What ToF doesn't account for is army composition...for instance what is the win rate of Gravstar lists? Or Pentyrant? And what happens when you remove the fluffy footdar lists from the Eldar results? Considering that some of these lists have won ALL their games at GTs (including the final ones), I'm guessing that their win record is probably much higher than their army's overall. I don't think it's not too much of a stretch to say that these lists probably also beat the "average" players and lists more often than not.
An Invisible gravstar will take approximately 3 wounds over 6 turns from 60 bolter-armed marines (assuming no rapid-fire). Congrats, you've killed 1 out of 5 centurions (assuming draigo didn't tank some of those or the wounded ones moved).
6 turns of the same shooting will put 3 wounds on ONE swooping, 3+ save hive tyrant.
Wave Serpent spam...unless you got rear armor or an assault you're doing nothing. And you can't even hurt wraithknights.
Obviously 60 bolter marines is pure hyperbole, but for some reason it seems to be the metric by which Knights are judged, while other "deathstar units" get a pass because they aren't superheavy, or only have one lord of war in them. A lot of your weapons can't hurt knights? Well, 5/6 of ALL your weapons can't hurt an invisible unit (Centstar costs just a little more than 2 knights, with more firepower and mobility), and unless you have skyfire you're in the same boat against FMC spam. But, those lists are ok because they don't have eternal warrior vehicles in them.
greyknight12 wrote: Obviously 60 bolter marines is pure hyperbole, but for some reason it seems to be the metric by which Knights are judged, while other "deathstar units" get a pass because they aren't superheavy, or only have one lord of war in them. A lot of your weapons can't hurt knights? Well, 5/6 of ALL your weapons can't hurt an invisible unit (Centstar costs just a little more than 2 knights, with more firepower and mobility), and unless you have skyfire you're in the same boat against FMC spam. But, those lists are ok because they don't have eternal warrior vehicles in them.
I've been saying the same thing about D; there are all kinds of super-killy (and super-survivable) units out there, but they get a pass because the idea of rolling a single '6' is easier to grasp (and therefore more troubling) than the idea of rolling (how many shots do 4 GravCents get?) enough dice to statistically kill a unit twice over (or more)....
Yes, it seems there is a special level of hate given over to Superheavies despite that there are many more powerful lists that I would posit are much more aggravating to play against. My question really is: How does banning Knights make the game better? It does not solve the problem of unfun armies to play against, simply limits the field of unfun armies, so those armies can cause more havoc.
Pentaflyrant is a skew list, and so is: Censtar, Seer Council. Superfriends, Thunderwolf, Greentide, Scatbike spam, etc. Hell, even an armored company or a Tyranid non-flyer monster mash list is a skew list, and for some players, that is going to be annoying to fight against. These lists all have incredible strengths that can be leveraged to devastate a foe quickly while being relatively safe from retaliation from most other lists, but they have some weaknesses that can be exploited by certain counters. I’d argue that a skew list is actually more susceptible to player error than any other because they have such glaring weaknesses that a canny opponent can easily exploit an error for a large return.
There are many, many powerful skew lists in 7th ed, and this is just how the game has coalesced in 7th ed. Yes, the game somewhat devolves into rock, paper, scissor, but by actually limiting different variants of skew without removing all skew, you actually move the game closer towards true rock, paper, scissor where there are only a few major lists. In the land of skew, the more there are, the more they cancel each other out, and the more pressure there is to not build skew oddly enough.
Even with that, player skill is still a determining factor. If lists were truly all that mattered, we would see the same lists piloted by different people dominate the biggest events because even the best players would lose to a superior list piloted by a less skilled player, and with the fact the game has a huge element of chance associated, no single person could reasonably expect to win major events multiple times because that element of chance would derail his/her plans at some point. Yet, we see this is not in fact true because we often see the same big names appear in the top 10 of major events, and these big names do not all pilot the same skew lists.
In the end of a too long post: Banning Knights does not help anything nor does it solve any real problems. If nothing else, it only allows other skew lists more room to dominate. If you want to truly remove skew, then you have to institute a true comp-system, which opens another whole host of issues. Banning Knights because, well, you essentially feel like it does little more than make a viable, GW published codex obsolete, so instead of GW squatting armies, now someone else is doing it.
My issue with all Knight armies is that is has killed the All-comers list in competitive play. Most AC lists have a lot of anti-infantry weapons, many of which cannot scratch the paint of an IK. For example, a DE venom-spam list that has some anti-AV will automatically start an 1850 game with about a 1000pt handicap against an all IK list. Cuz a million poison shots cant hurt armour.
If you don't build a list that can comfortably kill 2-3 IKs a turn, you are in for a rough game.
That being said, I don't think all IK lists are top-tier, as has been pointed out by recent tourney results. It is far more competitive to have 1-2 Knights supporting your "real" army. It is also more fun to play against since the parts of your army that cant touch the Knights will at least be able to roll dice vs the rest of the army.
In casual games, I would be more that happy to play against an all IK list, but I would need to list tailor first (which I normally do not like doing, but would have to). Otherwise it would not be a game, but me placing models on the board for a turn, then putting them back in the case. I can do that at home, by myself.
so the entire op is kinda invalid if he is complaining his knights close combat D attacks just got nerfed
The ITC mod I posted was for all D-weapons, the NOVA mod was for ranged only (AFAIK at the time, they may have since changed).
I'm not at all complaining that Destroyer got nerfed; though it does hurt Knights a bit more since they pay for it unlike some other units (looking at you, wraithknight). In fact, if more D-weapons start showing up then modifying them will be absolutely necessary. What I'm saying is that if some of these nerfs are put into place then one of the major complaints about knights (the 6+D6, no saves) is not an issue anymore. And if we're going to mod D-weapons just so Eldar can play, why not let Imperial Knights play too under the same rules?
Galef wrote: My issue with all Knight armies is that is has killed the All-comers list in competitive play. Most AC lists have a lot of anti-infantry weapons, many of which cannot scratch the paint of an IK. For example, a DE venom-spam list that has some anti-AV will automatically start an 1850 game with about a 1000pt handicap against an all IK list. Cuz a million poison shots cant hurt armour.
If you don't build a list that can comfortably kill 2-3 IKs a turn, you are in for a rough game.
That being said, I don't think all IK lists are top-tier, as has been pointed out by recent tourney results. It is far more competitive to have 1-2 Knights supporting your "real" army. It is also more fun to play against since the parts of your army that cant touch the Knights will at least be able to roll dice vs the rest of the army.
In casual games, I would be more that happy to play against an all IK list, but I would need to list tailor first (which I normally do not like doing, but would have to). Otherwise it would not be a game, but me placing models on the board for a turn, then putting them back in the case. I can do that at home, by myself.
In a kill points game or play until someone is tabled game, sure, but what about objectives? Also, how does that same list work against censtar, draigowing, gravbike spam, pentaflyrant, or even a full armored vehicle list from just the normal AM codex? I agree that if you play DE venom-spam against knights, that is pushing a big rock up a steep hill, but it seems like DE venom-spam is not a great TAC list to begin with.
If a list is truly TAC, if that is even possible anymore (not saying yes or no as I honestly do not know), then you would have some elements that can threaten a knight, and if you have elements that do not, perhaps then can be used to harass the Knight's supporting units (if any) or just help control the board by making the knight use their limited attacks on a less valuable target. A wall of Venoms could help keep a knight contained in a certain part of the board, making it hard for them to score objectives or threaten the few dark lances you have.
Also, what picks up 2-3 knights a turn? At range, that seems really scary as that is a lot of firepower, and it seems like if you can do that, then to me that is a decent tournament list that may only struggle against infantry spam. If in melee, that is a lot of chainfist/powerfist/klaw etc that seems like an expensive, almost deathstarry unit.
DE venom-spam is a bad (or rather out dated) example. I only use it since poison cant hurt AV. TAC lists are so different now to the pre-Knight era, that I honestly cant think of a current TAC list (outside of OP Eldar)
The examples you just listed (censtar, draigowing, gravbike spam, pentaflyrant) are not what I would consider TAC. Top-teir lists, sure, but each list is more Rock-Paper-Scissors than TAC.
Any BTW, weight of fire is how Venom-spam used to deal with the above lists. It is that same reason so many people are losing their minds about Scatterlaser Eldar Bikes (which also cant hurt Knights very well)
so the entire op is kinda invalid if he is complaining his knights close combat D attacks just got nerfed
The ITC mod I posted was for all D-weapons, the NOVA mod was for ranged only (AFAIK at the time, they may have since changed).
Im fairly certain it was always just melee, either way, it changed some time ago for ITC that the mods are only to ranged D. melee is unaffected in ITC, so knights are fine in that regard.
greyknight12 wrote: And if we're going to mod D-weapons just so Eldar can play, why not let Imperial Knights play too under the same rules?
Because they don't deserve get a special snowflake exception to the "no superheavies" rule which presumably exists in this situation (since if it doesn't knights wouldn't be banned). If an IG player doesn't get to take their Baneblade then the knight player shouldn't get their superheavies either.
greyknight12 wrote: And if we're going to mod D-weapons just so Eldar can play, why not let Imperial Knights play too under the same rules?
Because they don't deserve get a special snowflake exception to the "no superheavies" rule which presumably exists in this situation (since if it doesn't knights wouldn't be banned). If an IG player doesn't get to take their Baneblade then the knight player shouldn't get their superheavies either.
It is a special snowflake and is being treated as such. No other codex is comprised entirely of super heavies and therefore it is special.
This thread is silly for the obvious reason that nobody actually has any real basis for their complaints.
Specifically, nobody is stopping the OP from playing with his Knights if he wants to and nobody is forcing anyone else to play against those Knights if they don't want to.
Also, the argument that Knights shouldn't get their "snow flake" exception to the rules limiting or banning lords of war/gargantuan creatures is kind of absurd. This is because lords of war/gargantuan creatures have a "snow flake" exception to the 40k rules to begin with in that they are 0-1 or banned outright. Yes, the limiting or banning of lords of war/gargantuan creatures is a categorical "snow flake" exception.
So when you maintain that Knights shouldn't get a "snow flake" exception... you are essentially saying Knights shouldn't get a "snow flake" exception to an already existing "snow flake" exception... because?
Ultimately, if you are going to complain about allowing Knights to be taken as a whole army, you have to explain why Knights should be banned or limited in the first place (something you are presumably ok with), and at that point, you are merely arguing your opinion of how the game should be played/what is balanced versus what someone else thinks how the game should be played or what is balanced to them and good luck with that.
The idea of the so called snowflake exception is ridiculous on multiple levels. Those who maintain they shouldn't have said exception:
Do you also maintain all flyers should be banned since not all codices have access to flyers and therefore those who do are a special snowflake or vice versa?
What about Gauss? No other army has access to it but necrons, what makes them so damn special?
mortetvie wrote: This thread is silly for the obvious reason that nobody actually has any real basis for their complaints.
Specifically, nobody is stopping the OP from playing with his Knights if he wants to and nobody is forcing anyone else to play against those Knights if they don't want to.
Have you even read through the thread? His FLGS has banned super heavies and gargantuan MCs including Knights in organized play. I would say that constitutes "someone" doing just that.
(1) No one is forcing him to play at that store.
(2) He should still be able to play pick-up games with friends using his knights at that store unless that store is Nazi Germany.
(3) He can always play games at a friends house.
(4) He can try to find other places to play his knights.
(1) No one is forcing him to play at that store.
(2) He should still be able to play pick-up games with friends using his knights at that store unless that store is Nazi Germany.
(3) He can always play games at a friends house.
(4) He can try to find other places to play his knights.
Lots of gamers don't have many stores/clubs to choose from in a practicable travel range.
Many gamers can only show up once a week or a couple times a month for league night where the house rules are in effect and random pickup play at other times isn't a consistently available option.
Games at houses requires space, table, and terrain, which often isn't available.
Home play also typically largely limits you to one opponent typically.
Probably 90% of the people I know that play 40k do so with these realities in place.
OverwatchCNC wrote: It is a special snowflake and is being treated as such. No other codex is comprised entirely of super heavies and therefore it is special.
Why does it make any difference if the knight is a one-unit codex while the stompa is a page in Codex:Orks? They're both superheavies and if a tournament is going to enforce a "no superheavies" rule then there shouldn't be a special exception for knights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OverwatchCNC wrote: Do you also maintain all flyers should be banned since not all codices have access to flyers and therefore those who do are a special snowflake or vice versa?
You completely missed the point of the special snowflake exception. It's not about which codices have access to something in the rules published by GW, it's about whether bans on unit classes are applied consistently. A special snowflake exception for flyers would be a hypothetical tournament where flyers are banned, except C:SM armies can take their Stormravens because the TO's friends all bought Stormravens and want to use them.
And I'm not saying that anything should be banned. A tournament where all superheavies are allowed does not have the special snowflake problem, and there would be no reason to ban knights in that case. My argument is only that knights should be treated just like every other superheavy and subject to the same rules. If a Baneblade is banned/limited to 0-1/whatever then knights shouldn't get a special snowflake exception to that rule.
(1) No one is forcing him to play at that store.
(2) He should still be able to play pick-up games with friends using his knights at that store unless that store is Nazi Germany.
(3) He can always play games at a friends house.
(4) He can try to find other places to play his knights.
mortetvie wrote: Yes, the limiting or banning of lords of war/gargantuan creatures is a categorical "snow flake" exception.
But that's an entirely separate issue. You can argue that one all you like, but the discussion here is whether or not knights should be banned given that all other superheavies are banned.
(1) No one is forcing him to play at that store.
(2) He should still be able to play pick-up games with friends using his knights at that store unless that store is Nazi Germany.
(3) He can always play games at a friends house.
(4) He can try to find other places to play his knights.
Lots of gamers don't have many stores/clubs to choose from in a practicable travel range.
Many gamers can only show up once a week or a couple times a month for league night where the house rules are in effect and random pickup play at other times isn't a consistently available option.
Games at houses requires space, table, and terrain, which often isn't available.
Home play also typically largely limits you to one opponent typically.
Probably 90% of the people I know that play 40k do so with these realities in place.
Truth. These circumstances mirror my own experiences.
mortetvie wrote: Yes, the limiting or banning of lords of war/gargantuan creatures is a categorical "snow flake" exception.
But that's an entirely separate issue. You can argue that one all you like, but the discussion here is whether or not knights should be banned given that all other superheavies are banned.
Not exactly, the two issues are inextricably linked. To even have a leg to stand on when maintaining that "since Super Heavies are banned or 0-1 therefore->no exception should be made to allow the Knight codex" you need to address why the ban or 0-1 restriction should be there to begin with.
You see, the initial ban/limitation is its own snow-flake exception to the rules. so what if a TO makes an exception to the exception-they are free to do so on the same basis the initial exception exists at all. Therefore, at the end of the day, all we are arguing about is whose favorite color is the better color...
(1) No one is forcing him to play at that store.
(2) He should still be able to play pick-up games with friends using his knights at that store unless that store is Nazi Germany.
(3) He can always play games at a friends house.
(4) He can try to find other places to play his knights.
Lots of gamers don't have many stores/clubs to choose from in a practicable travel range.
Many gamers can only show up once a week or a couple times a month for league night where the house rules are in effect and random pickup play at other times isn't a consistently available option.
Games at houses requires space, table, and terrain, which often isn't available.
Home play also typically largely limits you to one opponent typically.
Probably 90% of the people I know that play 40k do so with these realities in place.
Truth. These circumstances mirror my own experiences.
If you can afford 10 Knights-as the OP apparently can, I am sure you can afford a gaming table and some space... Indeed, to even play this army, you are shelling out roughly 300-1000 USD. Meanwhile, some terrain, tables and a gaming mat is what, probably no more than 200-300? Maybe the guy can sell a Knight or two for a gaming table and some terrain... Maybe someone can buy a gaming table and some terrain instead of purchasing a 5th or 6th Knight?
Furthermore, in this day and age, it shouldn't be that hard to post on a store's page/some forum to try to find people in your area to set up games with. I've made plenty of friends through such means and now have regulars that come to my place to play games.
If none of those things are options then perhaps 40k isn't the right hobby or perhaps Knights just are not meant to be for you?
mortetvie wrote: Yes, the limiting or banning of lords of war/gargantuan creatures is a categorical "snow flake" exception.
But that's an entirely separate issue. You can argue that one all you like, but the discussion here is whether or not knights should be banned given that all other superheavies are banned.
Not exactly, the two issues are inextricably linked. To even have a leg to stand on when maintaining that "since Super Heavies are banned or 0-1 therefore->no exception should be made to allow the Knight codex" you need to address why the ban or 0-1 restriction should be there to begin with.
You see, the initial ban/limitation is its own snow-flake exception to the rules. so what if a TO makes an exception to the exception-they are free to do so on the same basis the initial exception exists at all. Therefore, at the end of the day, all we are arguing about is whose favorite color is the better color...
(1) No one is forcing him to play at that store.
(2) He should still be able to play pick-up games with friends using his knights at that store unless that store is Nazi Germany.
(3) He can always play games at a friends house.
(4) He can try to find other places to play his knights.
Lots of gamers don't have many stores/clubs to choose from in a practicable travel range.
Many gamers can only show up once a week or a couple times a month for league night where the house rules are in effect and random pickup play at other times isn't a consistently available option.
Games at houses requires space, table, and terrain, which often isn't available.
Home play also typically largely limits you to one opponent typically.
Probably 90% of the people I know that play 40k do so with these realities in place.
Truth. These circumstances mirror my own experiences.
If you can afford 10 Knights-as the OP apparently can, I am sure you can afford a gaming table and some space... Indeed, to even play this army, you are shelling out roughly 300-1000 USD. Meanwhile, some terrain, tables and a gaming mat is what, probably no more than 200-300? Maybe the guy can sell a Knight or two for a gaming table and some terrain... Maybe someone can buy a gaming table and some terrain instead of purchasing a 5th or 6th Knight?
Furthermore, in this day and age, it shouldn't be that hard to post on a store's page/some forum to try to find people in your area to set up games with. I've made plenty of friends through such means and now have regulars that come to my place to play games.
If none of those things are options then perhaps 40k isn't the right hobby or perhaps Knights just are not meant to be for you?
I never said anything about owning knights. I was referring to his description of gaming situations.
(1) No one is forcing him to play at that store.
(2) He should still be able to play pick-up games with friends using his knights at that store unless that store is Nazi Germany.
(3) He can always play games at a friends house.
(4) He can try to find other places to play his knights.
This. 1000x this.
That isn't the only place to play in the world.
It's definitely not the only place to buy.
___
@OP - buy from an Internet discounter, and show the store how much money they're losing with their stupid policies.
If you can afford 10 Knights-as the OP apparently can, I am sure you can afford a gaming table and some space... Indeed, to even play this army, you are shelling out roughly 300-1000 USD.
Owning X models is one thing. Having a space at home to play is another. That can be limited by the size of one's home, family/roommate situations, and many other things. Many people I'd be happy to play at a game store, but also don't necessarily want in my home (as an adult, I'm happy to play 16 year old Billy at the FLGS, I'm not inviting 16 year old Billy to my home). Alternatively, if one lives 45 minutes away from the game store, trying to entice someone else out to your place to play may not be practicable. There's a huge number of variables there. It's not simply a question of money.
Furthermore, in this day and age, it shouldn't be that hard to post on a store's page/some forum to try to find people in your area to set up games with. I've made plenty of friends through such means and now have regulars that come to my place to play games.
That absolutely works for some people. Other people simply don't have the flexible schedules or may have travel issues associated with this, particularly on an ad-hoc basis as opposed to more regularly scheduled store events. There may not in fact be anyone willing to come on off-days, at least not regularly. The store may be running events for other games and have no table space at other times. I've run into that more than once. I've been lucky in that most of my "40k" life I've lived within a few minutes (at times a couple of blocks) of my local game store, but most players I knew could only make it out on specific days and often only once or twice a month, and often had to drive a fair bit to get there. Currently I drive 90 miles round trip to play 40k, and arranging games on off-days is problematic.
I'm not a huge fan of Knights as an entire army, that's not something I enjoy facing or think should really be an "army" in and of itself, but I can see where the OP is coming from. Just assuming that home play or alternatively scheduled games are simple solutions that anyone can turn to with ease is highly unrealistic. Knights previously may not have been an issue and thus building such a collection not a problem, and subsequently they could have moved or store policy changed or something, not at all unrealistic. I can feel for that, and understand that situation, after all, trying to get anyone to play FW stuff was next to impossible in many places for years
mortetvie wrote: you need to address why the ban or 0-1 restriction should be there to begin with.
No I don't, because I'm not defending the limits on superheavies in general. I'm assuming that the ban exists and isn't up for debate because that's the context of the discussion. If you want to argue that superheavies should be played RAW and the bans/restrictions should be removed then fine, but that's a separate argument with no relevance here.
If you can afford 10 Knights-as the OP apparently can, I am sure you can afford a gaming table and some space... Indeed, to even play this army, you are shelling out roughly 300-1000 USD. Meanwhile, some terrain, tables and a gaming mat is what, probably no more than 200-300? Maybe the guy can sell a Knight or two for a gaming table and some terrain... Maybe someone can buy a gaming table and some terrain instead of purchasing a 5th or 6th Knight?
It's not just owning a 6x4 table, you need space to play in (hard to do if you have a small apartment), terrain that is at least as good as what the store has (which gets expensive and time-consuming), no schedule conflicts like a spouse who doesn't want a bunch of gamers coming over, etc. There's a reason people play in stores instead of at home.
If none of those things are options then perhaps 40k isn't the right hobby or perhaps Knights just are not meant to be for you?
Yeah, clearly if you want to play 40k with a perfectly legal army this just isn't the hobby for you and you should find something else to do instead. I'll be sure to quote this back to you any time you disagree with a tournament/store/etc policy on rule changes (for example, Eldar nerfs/bans).
(1) No one is forcing him to play at that store.
(2) He should still be able to play pick-up games with friends using his knights at that store unless that store is Nazi Germany.
(3) He can always play games at a friends house.
(4) He can try to find other places to play his knights.
This. 1000x this.
That isn't the only place to play in the world.
It's definitely not the only place to buy.
___
@OP - buy from an Internet discounter, and show the store how much money they're losing with their stupid policies.
As said before, not everyone is as fortunate as you to have multiple places to play or know people at the store, or have friend's house to play at.
OverwatchCNC wrote: It is a special snowflake and is being treated as such. No other codex is comprised entirely of super heavies and therefore it is special.
Why does it make any difference if the knight is a one-unit codex while the stompa is a page in Codex:Orks? They're both superheavies and if a tournament is going to enforce a "no superheavies" rule then there shouldn't be a special exception for knights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OverwatchCNC wrote: Do you also maintain all flyers should be banned since not all codices have access to flyers and therefore those who do are a special snowflake or vice versa?
You completely missed the point of the special snowflake exception. It's not about which codices have access to something in the rules published by GW, it's about whether bans on unit classes are applied consistently. A special snowflake exception for flyers would be a hypothetical tournament where flyers are banned, except C:SM armies can take their Stormravens because the TO's friends all bought Stormravens and want to use them.
And I'm not saying that anything should be banned. A tournament where all superheavies are allowed does not have the special snowflake problem, and there would be no reason to ban knights in that case. My argument is only that knights should be treated just like every other superheavy and subject to the same rules. If a Baneblade is banned/limited to 0-1/whatever then knights shouldn't get a special snowflake exception to that rule.
Right, I forgot these discussions are academic exercises for you.
OverwatchCNC wrote: It is a special snowflake and is being treated as such. No other codex is comprised entirely of super heavies and therefore it is special.
Why does it make any difference if the knight is a one-unit codex while the stompa is a page in Codex:Orks? They're both superheavies and if a tournament is going to enforce a "no superheavies" rule then there shouldn't be a special exception for knights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OverwatchCNC wrote: Do you also maintain all flyers should be banned since not all codices have access to flyers and therefore those who do are a special snowflake or vice versa?
You completely missed the point of the special snowflake exception. It's not about which codices have access to something in the rules published by GW, it's about whether bans on unit classes are applied consistently. A special snowflake exception for flyers would be a hypothetical tournament where flyers are banned, except C:SM armies can take their Stormravens because the TO's friends all bought Stormravens and want to use them.
And I'm not saying that anything should be banned. A tournament where all superheavies are allowed does not have the special snowflake problem, and there would be no reason to ban knights in that case. My argument is only that knights should be treated just like every other superheavy and subject to the same rules. If a Baneblade is banned/limited to 0-1/whatever then knights shouldn't get a special snowflake exception to that rule.
Right, I forgot these discussions are academic exercises for you.
They're academic exercises for anyone that isn't the OP, someone in a similar situation, or someone in a direct position to change that situation for them...
OverwatchCNC wrote: Right, I forgot these discussions are academic exercises for you.
Right, I forgot, you just can't let go of your absurd little vendetta. And no, it's not just an academic exercise for me. You don't know where I play and what rules they have, so please don't assume anything about them. The OP is not the only player who has to deal with the "special snowflake" exception (or lack of one) for knights in a store/tournament/whatever where superheavies in general are banned. If it's an academic exercise for me, then it's certainly one for you as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And just to be clear on what my (not at all academic) argument is:
If a TO decides to play the game as-printed and allow superheavies then I'll happily play in that tournament. I've got a nice collection of them, and I'll willingly sacrifice a bit of competitiveness to put some of my favorite models on the table. And I'll expect that other players will be bringing their knights, just like I can bring my Malcador.
If a TO decides that the majority of their players don't want superheavies in the tournament that's fine. I'll be a bit disappointed that I have to put mine back on the display shelf, but I'll still go to that tournament. I've attended that kind of tournament and I didn't think the rule was at all unfair because it was consistently applied to all superheavies, not just mine. But if I show up at that tournament and my opponent has an army of nothing but superheavies, while I had to leave all of mine at home, then we have a fairness problem. It's just like we'd have a fairness problem if there was a limit of two detachments per army, except the TO's best friend is allowed to bring as many detachments as they want.
So, what the special snowflake exception means is that I'm not going to attend that event. And there are tournaments I've been interested in playing in but skipped specifically for that reason.
OverwatchCNC wrote: It is a special snowflake and is being treated as such. No other codex is comprised entirely of super heavies and therefore it is special.
Why does it make any difference if the knight is a one-unit codex while the stompa is a page in Codex:Orks? They're both superheavies and if a tournament is going to enforce a "no superheavies" rule then there shouldn't be a special exception for knights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OverwatchCNC wrote: Do you also maintain all flyers should be banned since not all codices have access to flyers and therefore those who do are a special snowflake or vice versa?
You completely missed the point of the special snowflake exception. It's not about which codices have access to something in the rules published by GW, it's about whether bans on unit classes are applied consistently. A special snowflake exception for flyers would be a hypothetical tournament where flyers are banned, except C:SM armies can take their Stormravens because the TO's friends all bought Stormravens and want to use them.
And I'm not saying that anything should be banned. A tournament where all superheavies are allowed does not have the special snowflake problem, and there would be no reason to ban knights in that case. My argument is only that knights should be treated just like every other superheavy and subject to the same rules. If a Baneblade is banned/limited to 0-1/whatever then knights shouldn't get a special snowflake exception to that rule.
Right, I forgot these discussions are academic exercises for you.
They're academic exercises for anyone that isn't the OP, someone in a similar situation, or someone in a direct position to change that situation for them...
For the record, my neighbor has a table with terrain we both work on, so I'm not a complete social loafer and I do have some one to play pickup games with. But, I also like going to tournaments, and playing other people.
EDIT: And Peregrine, you make some really good points. For Knights though, the issue is more closely tied to Lord of War (or even 0-1) bans. Once Knights became Lords of War, they became impossible to play as an army under a lot of current comp structures. My purpose here is to advocate that there should be some effort to save Imperial Knights, rather than just throwing them in the ban pile. Whether the best way is changing comp or making exceptions, I don't know.
Peregrine wrote: If a TO decides that the majority of their players don't want superheavies in the tournament that's fine. I'll be a bit disappointed that I have to put mine back on the display shelf, but I'll still go to that tournament. I've attended that kind of tournament and I didn't think the rule was at all unfair because it was consistently applied to all superheavies, not just mine. But if I show up at that tournament and my opponent has an army of nothing but superheavies, while I had to leave all of mine at home, then we have a fairness problem. It's just like we'd have a fairness problem if there was a limit of two detachments per army, except the TO's best friend is allowed to bring as many detachments as they want.
So, what the special snowflake exception means is that I'm not going to attend that event. And there are tournaments I've been interested in playing in but skipped specifically for that reason.
You are of course correct in that they're two separate issues that folks butthurt about one are conflating into the other (similar to how folks always bring up comp scores when the discussion is about the other soft score category, painting). It doesn't matter that you actually agree with them on the broader issue...they can't simply stomach giving any inch or seeing any logic or reason in regards to the ACTUAL issue at hand because it might be seen as caving on the other. The question being discussed is whether or not Knights should NOT be considered a superheavy for one single particular cherry picked purpose but yet be considered a superheavy for every other purpose to benefit THOSE players whereas models of the same class/points totals/power levels and their players' don't get that same benefit. It flat out isn't fair. Either you apply the house rules equally to ALL players or you don't apply the rule at all. Giving them a special snowflake exception is just as stupid as saying that Blood Angel terminators are out but wolfguard ones are in. The attitudes displayed here are very orwellian animal farm-ish... all animals/superheavies are created equal but some are more equal than others. Lol.
The issue here is that arbitrary decisions have invalidated an entire codex. It would be one thing of Knights were just part of a larger Mechanicum codex where it is just one unit out of other options. If that was the case, it would be understandable that a 0-1 LoW limit would prevent a formation of 3 like Adlance. This makes sense to me with Eldar because Eldar is not just five variants of Wraithknights.
The problem here is that Imperial Knights is a codex, and that codex only has superheavy/LoWs for choices, so the usual restriction of 0-1 LoW or Superheavy prevents that army from being valid. This is a snowflake exception because Knights are the only codex that is comprised entirely of LoW, so by limiting LoW, then you remove an entire codex from playing. Is this an exception to a rule? Sure. Does that it invalidate it? No.
A lot of people seem to be defending the decision based on the fact that Knights would require an exception to a player-generated rule. Just because something is an exception does not mean that it is wrong, simply that it is also entirely possible that the rule being excepted may either be flawed or designed inside an older paradigm that is no longer entirely relevant to the current moment. Some exceptions are bad, such as buddy-guy-friend of a TO getting to bring 4 detachments instead of 3, but some exceptions are in fact positive and healthy.
Any TO has the right to limit what they want at his/her tournament, but that does not mean the decision is correct. A TO could hypothetically ban Eldar and Necrons, citing that they are unfair or create unfun games. They could cite that these codexes can create units which are exceedingly difficult to kill for many other armies, and they could also cite that these codexes can bring units who can consistently remove enemy models with little recourse, "punching above their weight" so to speak. These are all the standard arguments against LoWs and Knights specifically.
If a TO did in fact ban any other codex from a tournament, I think most posters on Dakka would be upset. I feel that most people who are against Knights are simply not acclimated to the new direction that GW is pushing 40k into, namely superheavies and big, beautiful kits (which carry a significant cost). Is this fair, right, evil? That's a whole other conversation. If any individual wants to restructure the game to suit their taste, let them, but when this individual is the one responsible for hosting an organized event where many people are invited, then the responsibility of the individual should be to the larger group, not his/her own tastes or even the tastes of a small group within that population.
If tournaments, conventions, local clubs want to create ban lists and say which codexes are acceptable, that is their right, but then well, it truly sucks for many players who want to play the game that they bought into, not just Guy A's 40k. Consistently creating pockets of Not-40K around the country does not really build a healthy community nor does it encourage others to want to share the hobby. GW does not release any tournament information, so we are left to our own devices, but the more different metas push away and create their own version of 40k that suits them and their group, the more issues like this we will have where players are flat out prevented from playing an official army. At the end of the day, any of us would be rather salty if a tournament/store/convention told us “You can’t play your army X”. Hell, there are still oceans of salt from the last time GW invalidated a codex, but there seem to be plenty of people keen on doing the same thing to other players because they either do not like superheavies, LoWs, or want to pedantically cling to a guideline that was created by players and therefore easily modified by players as the environment changes.
lemurking23 wrote: The issue here is that arbitrary decisions have invalidated an entire codex.
Why does this matter? It's a one-unit codex that's functionally no different than ripping the Stompa page out of Codex: Orks and selling it back to you for $50, or ripping the Baneblade page out of the Escalation book and selling it to you as Codex: Baneblades are Awesome. Whether or not a unit has the "codex" label attached to it is irrelevant, what matters is how the unit functions.
Just because something is an exception does not mean that it is wrong, simply that it is also entirely possible that the rule being excepted may either be flawed or designed inside an older paradigm that is no longer entirely relevant to the current moment.
Which, again, is a separate argument. If you want to argue that superheavies in general need to be unbanned and played RAW that's fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with a discussion where the premise is that people believe that the ban on superheavies is necessary.
lemurking23 wrote: The issue here is that arbitrary decisions have invalidated an entire codex.
Why does this matter? It's a one-unit codex that's functionally no different than ripping the Stompa page out of Codex: Orks and selling it back to you for $50, or ripping the Baneblade page out of the Escalation book and selling it to you as Codex: Baneblades are Awesome. Whether or not a unit has the "codex" label attached to it is irrelevant, what matters is how the unit functions.
Just because something is an exception does not mean that it is wrong, simply that it is also entirely possible that the rule being excepted may either be flawed or designed inside an older paradigm that is no longer entirely relevant to the current moment.
Which, again, is a separate argument. If you want to argue that superheavies in general need to be unbanned and played RAW that's fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with a discussion where the premise is that people believe that the ban on superheavies is necessary.
It matters because codex is not irrelevant; it is GW saying "This is an official army for use of games in our product". If you rip out the Stompa, Orks still have a full codex. If you rip out Wraithknight, Eldar still have a full codex. Whether you like it or not, it is GW, the only actual authority on how this game should be played, making an official statement saying: "You can play this". If you want to play your version of 40k, go ahead, but do not take the position that this is somehow more correct than GW's position. This is not a rules dispute where how the rules were printed contradicts other printed rules; this is GW putting rules down and individuals saying "screw that noise".
Actually, that argument is relevant as you have said: The argument here is that people believe that the ban on superheavies is necessary, and my argument is this ban may require exceptions in order not to invalidate a playable army. I generally disagree with the ban on Superheavies/LoWs in general, but that is a separate argument. What I posited is that the current ban in this individual case should allow an exception for Knights because otherwise, an entire playable army is removed. I will happily go into a long discussion of why I think the ban on LoWs is misguided, but what I am specifically arguing here is that given that this ban is in effect, an exception should be made as no other GW-sanctioned, playable army is removed from participating.
lemurking23 wrote: The issue here is that arbitrary decisions have invalidated an entire codex.
While you may not personally agree with the reasons, there is nothing arbitrary about the decision to not allow supers/gargs. The only thing that was arbitrary was giving knights a free pass unlike every other model in those classes.
OTOH, if somebody wanted to bring 3 Shadowsword Superheavy Tanks, each packing a S(D) Blast, I would totally allow it.
Shadowswords are arguably the most points-inefficient vehicles one can get, despite their "ooh... scary!" S(D) Blast weapon. Especially in "classic" FW version with the Targeters, but no hull gun for 500+ pts each.
lemurking23 wrote: It matters because codex is not irrelevant; it is GW saying "This is an official army for use of games in our product".
No it isn't. GW publishes official rules and armies that do not have the "codex" label.
If you rip out the Stompa, Orks still have a full codex.
No you don't. You have a codex that is missing an entire section of the FOC.
Whether you like it or not, it is GW, the only actual authority on how this game should be played, making an official statement saying: "You can play this". If you want to play your version of 40k, go ahead, but do not take the position that this is somehow more correct than GW's position. This is not a rules dispute where how the rules were printed contradicts other printed rules; this is GW putting rules down and individuals saying "screw that noise".
And GW is saying that ALL superheavies are how the game is played, not just knights. If you're going to ban or restrict superheavies then you're already saying "screw that noise". The only question is whether you're going to say "screw that noise" in a fair and consistent manner, or "screw that noise" in an unfair manner by giving special snowflake exceptions to the particular units that you want to use and banning the others.
Actually, that argument is relevant as you have said: The argument here is that people believe that the ban on superheavies is necessary, and my argument is this ban may require exceptions in order not to invalidate a playable army.
Then why don't I have an exception to use any of my superheavies? My playable army is invalidated if its Malcador is banned.
If none of those things are options then perhaps 40k isn't the right hobby or perhaps Knights just are not meant to be for you?
Yeah, clearly if you want to play 40k with a perfectly legal army this just isn't the hobby for you and you should find something else to do instead. I'll be sure to quote this back to you any time you disagree with a tournament/store/etc policy on rule changes (for example, Eldar nerfs/bans).
This seems contradictory to your position. You make mention of a perfectly legal army, which Knights are according to GW, yet you have argued with me that it is totally fine to not allow Knights if a ban in place, despite the fact it invalidates a perfectly legal army. Codex does in fact mean something, and anything produced by GW with rules on how to utilize it in a game of 40k, whether as a detachment, a formation, a CAD, or any other factor, does not take away the simple truth that those rules are official.
If you rip out Stompa, how many unit entries do Orks still have? Now compare this number to Knights. Orks can still function as an army without a Stompa while Knights cannot function at all as an army without LoWs. Playing with semantics does not change the actual point of my argument: Without multiple LoWs, Imperial Knights is removed from being able to play and thus invalidated; therefore, if a ban on LoWs is in effect, then an exception should be made to avoid said invalidation.
I think you should be able to play with your Malcador, and I am clearly not disputing that. You can still play any Imperial army (cept for Knights) without using a superheavy. I am disputing the fact that an actual codex, a perfectly legal playable army in this game, is being invalidated. I find this distasteful, short-sighted, and harmful to players rather than helpful.
If none of those things are options then perhaps 40k isn't the right hobby or perhaps Knights just are not meant to be for you?
Yeah, clearly if you want to play 40k with a perfectly legal army this just isn't the hobby for you and you should find something else to do instead. I'll be sure to quote this back to you any time you disagree with a tournament/store/etc policy on rule changes (for example, Eldar nerfs/bans).
This seems contradictory to your position. You make mention of a perfectly legal army, which Knights are according to GW, yet you have argued with me that it is totally fine to not allow Knights if a ban in place, despite the fact it invalidates a perfectly legal army. Codex does in fact mean something, and anything produced by GW with rules on how to utilize it in a game of 40k, whether as a detachment, a formation, a CAD, or any other factor, does not take away the simple truth that those rules are official.
If you rip out Stompa, how many unit entries do Orks still have? Now compare this number to Knights. Orks can still function as an army without a Stompa while Knights cannot function at all as an army without LoWs. Playing with semantics does not change the actual point of my argument: Without multiple LoWs, Imperial Knights is removed from being able to play and thus invalidated; therefore, if a ban on LoWs is in effect, then an exception should be made to avoid said invalidation.
I think you should be able to play with your Malcador, and I am clearly not disputing that. You can still play any Imperial army (cept for Knights) without using a superheavy. I am disputing the fact that an actual codex, a perfectly legal playable army in this game, is being invalidated. I find this distasteful, short-sighted, and harmful to players rather than helpful.
He also has been a staunch advocate in the past for full allowance of all FW models in 40k tournaments. Just look at his sig.
"Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, supplements, Forge World, and White Dwarf, is part of the game. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule. "
He just likes arguing for the sake of arguing. There's no actual substance or greater purpose behind it. Don't worry though, he'll have a circular retort as to why the hypocritical/contradictory statements aren't just that.
You make mention of a perfectly legal army, which Knights are according to GW, yet you have argued with me that it is totally fine to not allow Knights if a ban in place, despite the fact it invalidates a perfectly legal army. Codex does in fact mean something, and anything produced by GW with rules on how to utilize it in a game of 40k, whether as a detachment, a formation, a CAD, or any other factor, does not take away the simple truth that those rules are official.
If you rip out Stompa, how many unit entries do Orks still have? Now compare this number to Knights. Orks can still function as an army without a Stompa while Knights cannot function at all as an army without LoWs. Playing with semantics does not change the actual point of my argument: Without multiple LoWs, Imperial Knights is removed from being able to play and thus invalidated; therefore, if a ban on LoWs is in effect, then an exception should be made to avoid said invalidation.
It's not contradictory. He is simply arguing the point at hand and not a related but ultimately DIFFERENT point that you're obsessed with making. The scenario described in this thread is a tourney where SH/G are banned... PERIOD. END OF STORY. In that scenario with those IMUTABLE rules, should knights receive a get out of jail free exception card is the question. Nothing in your above argument makes them any more deserving of an exception than any other group of superheavies/gargantuans. An unbound army of 3 baneblades brought by a player with an escalation book is no more or less deserving of a freebie pass than a player who brings the knight codex and 4 knights. Both are entirely legal armies in the mess that is 7th edition yet YOU think one should have to play by an extra special set of rules that benefit it whereas the other doesn't. Games rules as well as house rules (which this is) should be applied fairly to all players and your position does NOT meet that criteria. If you give knights their special snowflake pass, EVERY army of superheavies or gargantuans should get one which defeats the entire purpose of having the rule (REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU YOURSELF AGREE WITH IT) in the first place.
The question isn't whether the no SH/G rule is fair but whether it should be applied fairly.
lemurking23 wrote: This seems contradictory to your position. You make mention of a perfectly legal army, which Knights are according to GW, yet you have argued with me that it is totally fine to not allow Knights if a ban in place, despite the fact it invalidates a perfectly legal army.
Yes, it's fine to not allow knights if superheavies are banned. If superheavies are so big and scary that they have to be banned then there shouldn't be a special snowflake exception for the superheavies that some people want to use. However, I'd be quite happy if we just get rid of the ban entirely and allow both knights and all of the other superheavies.
Codex does in fact mean something
No it doesn't. GW publishes lots of rules that are just as official as any codex but do not have the "codex" label on them.
You can still play any Imperial army (cept for Knights) without using a superheavy.
I can play some other army, but I can't play my army. Why should I have to keep my models on the display shelf and change my army to suit a tournament's rules while you get a special snowflake exception to those rules? If I have to build and paint substitute units to replace the Malcador in my army then you can do the same with your knights. Or we can remove the "no superheavies" rule and both of us get to use our armies.
No, you just can't let go of your absurd vendetta against me and would rather build a straw man than address the substance of my arguments. Whether you admit it or not I argue about tournament rules because I have a legitimate stake in 40k tournaments and the rules they use.
Also, you're missing the point of my signature. Which is a pretty impressive feat, given that it very clearly states that it's ok to have a house rule banning particular units. The actual thing I'm criticizing is the people who claim "FW units aren't official" based on ridiculous arguments like "FW is a third-party company" or whatever.
I think the argument has run its course. I hold that Codex does mean something as it is a self-contained, fully legal playable army. You do not agree. I am not sure we can reach any middle ground there.
You may not be able to play your army, but you may still play a full, self-contained army of your choice. A Knight player that wants to go to a tournament that bans LoWs cannot play his/her army nor can they play an actual army list as designated by the game's rules. This is my problem. It is not that a player cannot build the army that they want; my problem is that a player cannot build any army from a specific army list. This is problematic to me, and yes, I advocate for an exemption because the rule itself is flawed and does not consider that there is a stand-alone army book that is invalidated by this rule. Because it is an exemption does not make it inherently negative, and I am surprised that a person who would advocate for a more inclusive format would defend a position that severely limits the player.
In the end, people are free to create their own tournament constructs as they see it, but then I hope this does not devolve into pockets of Not-40k rolling around when people feel other self-contained codexes are too powerful and should be excluded. This does in fact set a precedent that I feel is unwarranted and potentially harmful to the player base at large.
I feel for any person that spent time, money, and energy on an army that they believed was legal under the rules only to find out that specific individuals decreed this not-kosher.
To the OP, I hope you get a chance to play with your Knights in a more inclusive setting. I wish you many 6s on stomps.
Your argument against the "snow-flake" exception to allow Knights when other Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures are banned/limited is poorly reasoned.
First of all, you really do need to address why allowing multiple Knights, since they are Super Heavies, is a problem and simply saying "why should they get an exception to the existing bans/limitations" is an insufficient and a weak argument. This is because you fail to even address the reasoning of the bans/limitations in the first place. You see, the allowance for the Knight codex would be following the same logic of the bans/limitations and so the initial bans/limitations need to be addressed to determine the appropriateness of any allowance for the Knight codex. Indeed, the various reasons for having any bans or limitations are actually integral to why it makes sense or does not make sense to allow Knights and you cannot rightly address the latter without first analyzing the former-something you refuse to do. This is because one is based upon the other and it is inappropriate to take one part of the equation in a vacuum and analyze it without considering the whole equation.
Finally, your point about "not being able to play your army" is pretty much meaningless because you can play your army, just not in events that limit or disallow that army. You are not entitled to play the game any way you want to, with any models you want to, in any and every game/venue. Also, you should change your army to suit a tournament's rules because those are the tournament's rules-if you don't like those rules don't go to that tournament.
I mean, if I just got the rulebook and read the unbound rules and thought "wow, I think I will make an army entirely out of Land Raiders!" then bought nothing but 5 Land Raiders, it would be silly for me to complain that tournaments don't allow unbound and that my Land Raiders have to sit on the display shelf and that I am being unfairly excluded from tournaments and that I shouldn't have to change my list to suit an event... and so on...
Overall, you seem to be making an argument founded on entitlement that says "well if you can play your army I should be able to play my army" but life doesn't work that way. Apparently, to you, it doesn't seem fair that you can't use multiple Malcadors when someone can use multiple Knights in light of a ban/restriction on super heavies. However, you never actually come up with any good reasons why that is a problem.
And to think you only needed to buy 5 knights at once during a limited time period for such rules!
No the rules were sent by pdf to people who purchased that set which you can easily save to any mobile device or print at your leisure. There is no proof of purchase tied to these rules. As anyone who holds 5 Knights and is playing a 2000 pt Game can use it.
It's beastly as it contains nearly every useful rule from the knight codex. The warlord itself is amazing 3++ ion sv rerolls of 1,ws/bs 6, 5 atk on the charge, any penetrating/glancing hits your afraid of you can put on the paladin, reroll to hits in challenge, can fire overwatch, can issue challenges and take relics. Also has that great autocannon.
And to think you only needed to buy 5 knights at once during a limited time period for such rules!
No the rules were sent by pdf to people who purchased that set which you can easily save to any mobile device or print at your leisure. There is no proof of purchase tied to these rules. As anyone who holds 5 Knights and is playing a 2000 pt Game can use it.
Oh I get that, but to get them originally from GW you needed to buy that limited set.
It's beastly as it contains nearly every useful rule from the knight codex. The warlord itself is amazing 4+ ion sv rerolls of 1,ws/bs 6, 5 atk on the charge, any penetrating hits your afraid of you can put on the paladin, reroll to hits in challenge, can fire overwatch, can issue challenges and take relics. Also has that great autocannon.
warboss wrote: How many points do you have to pay on top of the individual knight costs for all those benefits?
None.
Because GW decided that formations just don't need points costs.
Sounds fair...I mean it's not like the balance of power of stats and abilities in the game is quantified by a numerical scale or something. It's not like something that increases both of those should actually be paid for at tge table and not the cash register. An already controversial unit should obviously get better simple by spending more dollars and not the in game "currency" of points, right? If knight =x then clearly 5 knights = 5x + y where y is measured in dollars spent. Duh! It's just ridiculous that TOs feel a compulsion to tack on their own house rules when such balance from a reputable and infallible source like Gw is staring them in the face.
lemurking23 wrote: I hold that Codex does mean something as it is a self-contained, fully legal playable army. You do not agree.
I don't agree because it's simply not true. SOME self-contained fully legal armies have the "codex" label, others don't. My Armored Battlegroup army is entirely contained in IA1 but does not have the "codex" label. And it's just as legal and playable as C:SM.
It is not that a player cannot build the army that they want; my problem is that a player cannot build any army from a specific army list.
Why does the army list matter so much? Would you be fine with a complete ban on knights as long as GW had included HQ + troops options (let's say they're both 5-man guardsmen squads with no special rules or abilities, and represent the knight's servants) in the knights codex? After all, then you'd be able to build a legal list from the knights codex, and you've already stated that you don't think "I can't build the army that I want to play" is a problem.
I am surprised that a person who would advocate for a more inclusive format would defend a position that severely limits the player.
I'm arguing for that limit because this is a context where limits already exist. Unnecessary limits are a bad thing, but it's much worse when you have inconsistent limits that include "special snowflake" treatment for some players.
In the end, people are free to create their own tournament constructs as they see it, but then I hope this does not devolve into pockets of Not-40k rolling around when people feel other self-contained codexes are too powerful and should be excluded.
But, again, this is a context where we're already playing not-40k. If I can't take a Baneblade in my IG army then we're playing not-40k, and your knight army being legal doesn't change this. It just means that we're playing a version of not-40k where fairness has been discarded because you really want to take your knights.
I feel for any person that spent time, money, and energy on an army that they believed was legal under the rules only to find out that specific individuals decreed this not-kosher.
So why is it any different when I spend time, money, and energy on that Malcador (which is legal under the rules) and find that someone has decreed it not-kosher? Why is "but you can play a different army" an acceptable response in that situation?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mortetvie wrote: First of all, you really do need to address why allowing multiple Knights, since they are Super Heavies, is a problem
It's a problem because it's a rule that's being unfairly applied to some players and not others. If superheavies are banned then all superheavies should be banned, with no special snowflake exception for the ones that certain people want to use. This is no different than having a tournament where you're limited to two detachments, but I get to bring three because I'd complain to the TO if I don't get to play my army the way I want.
This is because you fail to even address the reasoning of the bans/limitations in the first place.
I don't need to because the reasoning doesn't matter. My argument is just as valid when the reasoning is "superheavies are too powerful" as it is when the reasoning is "we want to play 5th edition style games".
Finally, your point about "not being able to play your army" is pretty much meaningless because you can play your army, just not in events that limit or disallow that army. You are not entitled to play the game any way you want to, with any models you want to, in any and every game/venue. Also, you should change your army to suit a tournament's rules because those are the tournament's rules-if you don't like those rules don't go to that tournament.
And the exact same argument applies to the guy who wants to use their knights.
I mean, if I just got the rulebook and read the unbound rules and thought "wow, I think I will make an army entirely out of Land Raiders!" then bought nothing but 5 Land Raiders, it would be silly for me to complain that tournaments don't allow unbound and that my Land Raiders have to sit on the display shelf and that I am being unfairly excluded from tournaments and that I shouldn't have to change my list to suit an event... and so on...
Except that's not a good analogy because it's ignoring the unfairness of the situation. The more accurate one would be a situation where I have to leave my unbound Land Raider army at home because the tournament includes a "battle-forged only" rule, but my opponent gets to bring their unbound LRBT army.
Apparently, to you, it doesn't seem fair that you can't use multiple Malcadors when someone can use multiple Knights in light of a ban/restriction on super heavies. However, you never actually come up with any good reasons why that is a problem.
Why is it a problem? Because tournament rules are supposed to be fair and apply equally to all players. If I can't bring my superheavies then why should you get to bring yours? You might as well ask why I'd have a problem with a tournament where the TO's friends all got an extra 5 VP each game.
warboss wrote: How many points do you have to pay on top of the individual knight costs for all those benefits?
None.
Because GW decided that formations just don't need points costs.
And GW is correct here. The lack of flexibility *is* the cost. Particularly for these formations that have *exact* numbers of units, with no variation up or down.
warboss wrote: How many points do you have to pay on top of the individual knight costs for all those benefits?
None.
Because GW decided that formations just don't need points costs.
And GW is correct here. The lack of flexibility *is* the cost. Particularly for these formations that have *exact* numbers of units, with no variation up or down.
Which is absolutely absurd, and if it came from anyone *but* GW you'd laugh at them for it.
A lack of flexibility is not a realistic cost for the value of the abilities, particularly when they still have a large number of options they can take and/or the options they could take would be limited in the first place anyways, and/or you're getting a pretty solid build of things to start with anyway, also when you could (and often, would) take the exact same mix of models in the basic, no frills detachment anyway without the amazing formation abilities.
If I wrote a formation that said I need to take 3x LR Vanquishers, but they all get BS6 and replace their normal Vanquisher shells with D shots, for free, that's fine because I have to take specifically three Vanquishers? No, of course not. Why is getting massive buffs to attack stats, defensive capabilities, and tons of free abilities any more acceptable?
Formations used to have points costs for a reason.
JohnHwangDD wrote: What "massive" buffs? In formation, the models get a +1 to something. Not a big deal.
Check back to the last page for the formation we're talking about...it's a whole lot more than just a +1 to a stat. There's two different bubble effects, charge and to-hit rerolls, ion shield boosts, a form of Look Out Sir, a +2 to stats on a Knight, and more.
And yes, +1 to a stat for free is still often a very big deal (e.g. BS5 Fire Dragons )
The Aspect Formation getting +1 for all 3 units is a pretty minimal bump, because you need to take exactly 3 units that are either all HTH or all shooty.
With +1 BS, 6 Fire Dragons hit 5x instead of 4x. And you must upgrade to include an Exarch, chroming FDs that probably didn't ever need the Exarch. If you can't kill a vehicle with 4 Melta hits, you won't drop it with 5.
The HtH Aspects are pretty hideously overcosted without the WS bump.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The Aspect Formation getting +1 for all 3 units is a pretty minimal bump, because you need to take exactly 3 units that are either all HTH or all shooty.
Again, I wish I could just take 3x of something I likely was going to take anyway in my IG or CSM armies and get +1 to its most important offensive stat, increasing firepower output significantly (25% for a BS4 base unit)...for zero additional cost.
With +1 BS, 6 Fire Dragons hit 5x instead of 4x. And you must upgrade to include an Exarch, chroming FDs that probably didn't ever need the Exarch. If you can't kill a vehicle with 4 Melta hits, you won't drop it with 5.
Depends on what it is, if it's an AV12 vehicle in the open, probably, but the extra shot never hurts. If it's a Knight or a Leman Russ behind an Aegis line? That extra hit definitely helps. It also makes you less reliant on psychic support and thus allows you to better concentrate that resource on other units.
The HtH Aspects are pretty hideously overcosted without the WS bump.
Debatable and entirely target dependent.
Either way, this has been somewhat off-topic, going back to the Knight formation, there was a whole lot more than just a single stat bump.
When you finally stop QQing over Eldar and IG get their Decurion equivalent, then you can be sure there will be formations that give IG units bonuses for taking particular combinations and duplicates of things.
Similarly for CSM getting bonuses for taking specific, Fluff-driven formations for CSM (Legions). The CSM formation, in particular, practically writes itself for the Cults, Cultists, etc. based on the previous Apocalypse formations.
JohnHwangDD wrote: When you finally stop QQing over Eldar and IG get their Decurion equivalent, then you can be sure there will be formations that give IG units bonuses for taking particular combinations and duplicates of things.
I'd much rather simply be able to run my Eldar without feeling like I'm clubbing baby seals than pining away for an IG decurion that may or may not happen several years in the future if GW can keep a design paradigm going for more than 15 months. That's the primary reason my space elves have been sitting in a box for most of the last two years (also that painting them is way more infuriating than I thought they would be).
Either way, setting the silly "QQ" sniping comments aside, bringing it back to the Knights for the third time now, did you ever take a look at the link on the previous page?
I did, and I saw nothing problematic with it. Basically a smattering of +1s for spending $800+ at the GW store.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the Decurion concept is going to hold for 7E - this is GW getting players to buy piles of things for in-game bonuses. It was effective in Apocalypse, it was effective for Necrons, it will be very effective for Eldar and so forth.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I did, and I saw nothing problematic with it. Basically a smattering of +1s for spending $800+ at the GW store.
Well, I guess we have a radically different definition of what a "smattering of +1's" is and how much they matter (and when does a "smattering of +1's" add up to +6?). I still firmly believe that had a random poster tossed something like this up in the Proposed Rules forum a year ago, nobody would be doing anything but laughing.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the Decurion concept is going to hold for 7E - this is GW getting players to buy piles of things for in-game bonuses. It was effective in Apocalypse, it was effective for Necrons, it will be very effective for Eldar and so forth.
And 4 months ago we all thought 7E was going to have a consistent trend of downscaling, and a year and a half ago we all thought everything was going to be on par with Eldar, Tau, and Space Marines, after everyone thought GW mucked it on CSM's and DA's, which were different from the Necron and GK releases before them. Point is, we have no idea where GW will go.
The entire exalted court of house terryn costs what, 1920 points? Before upgrades?
Going to really destroy the Tournament scene with that.
Most likely to see a baronial court, which the scariest thing is the ionic shield wall. Maybe a court full of wardens firing overwatch with their average of 2 s6 ap3 hits? Heh.
Crazyterran wrote: The entire exalted court of house terryn costs what, 1920 points? Before upgrades?
There's not a huge number of upgrades available, largely just Carapace weapons and Heirlooms, which you've got some points left over to take if you want.
If you were going to take a full Knight army anyway, might as well get free stat boosts and special rules for each model while your doing it.
Crazyterran wrote: The entire exalted court of house terryn costs what, 1920 points? Before upgrades?
Going to really destroy the Tournament scene with that.
Most likely to see a baronial court, which the scariest thing is the ionic shield wall. Maybe a court full of wardens firing overwatch with their average of 2 s6 ap3 hits? Heh.
So it's not even possible at the typical tournament 1850 point level. I wonder if that was intentional by GW.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I did, and I saw nothing problematic with it. Basically a smattering of +1s for spending $800+ at the GW store.
Well, I guess we have a radically different definition of what a "smattering of +1's" is and how much they matter (and when does a "smattering of +1's" add up to +6?). I still firmly believe that had a random poster tossed something like this up in the Proposed Rules forum a year ago, nobody would be doing anything but laughing.
It's not a +6, no matter how hard you wish.
And it's not even close to broken. I think those Knights auto-lose to Eldar Wraithknights, which auto-loses to Decurion, which auto-loses to the Knights = perfect balance.
Crazyterran wrote: The entire exalted court of house terryn costs what, 1920 points? Before upgrades?
Going to really destroy the Tournament scene with that.
Most likely to see a baronial court, which the scariest thing is the ionic shield wall. Maybe a court full of wardens firing overwatch with their average of 2 s6 ap3 hits? Heh.
So it's not even possible at the typical tournament 1850 point level. I wonder if that was intentional by GW.
Probably not given that they don't run any of these tournaments and are on record as saying they deliberately don't write for tournament style play.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I did, and I saw nothing problematic with it. Basically a smattering of +1s for spending $800+ at the GW store.
Well, I guess we have a radically different definition of what a "smattering of +1's" is and how much they matter (and when does a "smattering of +1's" add up to +6?). I still firmly believe that had a random poster tossed something like this up in the Proposed Rules forum a year ago, nobody would be doing anything but laughing.
It's not a +6, no matter how hard you wish.
That's not my point, but I'll rephrase it. My point was that you can't just hand-wave a grip of bonuses as meaningless, and pretend that multiple bonuses don't add up to something more than just "1".
And it's not even close to broken. I think those Knights auto-lose to Eldar Wraithknights, which auto-loses to Decurion, which auto-loses to the Knights = perfect balance.
Even if we assume these relationships holds true, that would appear to be rock-paper-scissors, which is terrible balance for a wargame at the army level. RPS works because you don't know what the opponent is throwing and ostensibly have a 1-in-three chance at any particular outcome with every throw (loss, win, tie). Throwing an army down knowing that you're going to auto-win or auto-lose is...terrible wargame balance. Why bother playing a game that stilted instead of just declaring the winner before spending two hours playing and using that time to play something else or grab a beer?
Anyway, I'll exit this thread on that note given where this is going.
All of this teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing, because GW Codices aren't balanced (Decurion, Warhost and Knights) is pretty silly, because GW has never been balanced, and never will be.
And the Tournament fig leaf is nonsense, because true competitive play is so rare.
So I will hand-wave the minor bonuses as meaningless and ignore any knock-on effects, because they really don't matter. GW makes Codices and sells models. Players choose to play them however they will, and that includes self-handicapping in pickup games. But there's so much QQing it's pathetic.
You taking the bait so hard is kinda strange. Players taking hyper narrow armies of all-Knights, all-Wraithknights *deserve* to auto-win and auto-lose based on those choices.
Holy hyperbole the Knights of terryn are the best knight list for a 2k tourney. I know it's hard for people to understand there are different standards out there then 1850 tournaments. And it's not broken the worst knight to fight in that bunch is the high king warden with his 3++ and rerolls 1 and body guard who wil eat any pen or glance hits that get through his shields. The other 4 are just okay with the normal 4++ reroll 1.
The entire formation is just one giant 2 foot bubble of knights. That will look like
Kingsward, high king, herald, gatekeeper, judgment
with the gatekeeper protecting it from drop pod armies with its interceptor, the kingsward soaking your warlords hits, the herald being the biggest target by boosting everyone with invil 1 rerolls and overwatch, and the judge and high king charging anything that gets close to either flank.
It's a great formation for 2k lists but it's nothing breaking the tourney scene your still looking at the best 1850 list being skitarri and ad lance.
For your last 80 points I'd prolly take a carapace weapon on the gatekeeper just to give another weapon interceptor to defend against drop pod grav armies And whatever relic your heart desires. Rampage? It will not die? Or maybe just another carapace weapon for another knight.
Crazyterran wrote: The entire exalted court of house terryn costs what, 1920 points? Before upgrades?
Going to really destroy the Tournament scene with that.
Most likely to see a baronial court, which the scariest thing is the ionic shield wall. Maybe a court full of wardens firing overwatch with their average of 2 s6 ap3 hits? Heh.
So it's not even possible at the typical tournament 1850 point level. I wonder if that was intentional by GW.
Probably not given that they don't run any of these tournaments and are on record as saying they deliberately don't write for tournament style play.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I did, and I saw nothing problematic with it. Basically a smattering of +1s for spending $800+ at the GW store.
Well, I guess we have a radically different definition of what a "smattering of +1's" is and how much they matter (and when does a "smattering of +1's" add up to +6?). I still firmly believe that had a random poster tossed something like this up in the Proposed Rules forum a year ago, nobody would be doing anything but laughing.
It's not a +6, no matter how hard you wish.
That's not my point, but I'll rephrase it. My point was that you can't just hand-wave a grip of bonuses as meaningless, and pretend that multiple bonuses don't add up to something more than just "1".
And it's not even close to broken. I think those Knights auto-lose to Eldar Wraithknights, which auto-loses to Decurion, which auto-loses to the Knights = perfect balance.
Even if we assume these relationships holds true, that would appear to be rock-paper-scissors, which is terrible balance for a wargame at the army level. RPS works because you don't know what the opponent is throwing and ostensibly have a 1-in-three chance at any particular outcome with every throw (loss, win, tie). Throwing an army down knowing that you're going to auto-win or auto-lose is...terrible wargame balance. Why bother playing a game that stilted instead of just declaring the winner before spending two hours playing and using that time to play something else or grab a beer?
Anyway, I'll exit this thread on that note given where this is going.
Knights,Decurion, and Eldar do represent rock/paper/scissors type armies which is why I don't play them. If you want to break rps you play an army that beats the meta, not one that is ingrained into it. That's why top players play good lists but not rps susceptible lists. RPS lists are a crutch but they are far from earth shatteringly good to the point of breaking tournaments. So let people bring their toys and play their armies. If they want to play one of the RPS builds let them.
Seriously stop eldar are not Rock Paper Scissors type army. You just lost all credibility with that comment. That army can handle anything thrown at it. It's the best tac army right now. Scatterbikes annihilate all but high armour targets which eldar has several units that target those, wraiths, firedragons, Knights. You have aspects that are just phenominally annoying to hit by every army such as warp spider shenanigans. You have some of the best anti air and anti fmc in game. Eldar have arguably the best psychic power shenanigans. Some of the most durable and fastest transports in game. Eldar right now are the rock, the paper And the scissors.
gungo wrote: Holy hyperbole the Knights of terryn are the best knight list for a 2k tourney.
gungo,
Nicely asking: Have ImpKnights won many 2k tourneys, this build you refer to? Does ToF have data to back up your claim?
OVCNC:
Yeah, man. I would not have thought to put eldar as a rps.
Then again, folks, *specific* builds of a codex, can end up being rps, so labeling the eldar codex as rps is over looking many different builds.
gungo wrote: Holy hyperbole the Knights of terryn are the best knight list for a 2k tourney.
gungo,
Nicely asking: Have ImpKnights won many 2k tourneys, this build you refer to? Does ToF have data to back up your claim?
OVCNC:
Yeah, man. I would not have thought to put eldar as a rps.
Then again, folks, *specific* builds of a codex, can end up being rps, so labeling the eldar codex as rps is over looking many different builds.
Um... didn't that list just come out a few days ago? If so, just how many tournies should they have won in that timeframe?
gungo wrote: Holy hyperbole the Knights of terryn are the best knight list for a 2k tourney.
gungo,
Nicely asking: Have ImpKnights won many 2k tourneys, this build you refer to? Does ToF have data to back up your claim?
OVCNC:
Yeah, man. I would not have thought to put eldar as a rps.
Then again, folks, *specific* builds of a codex, can end up being rps, so labeling the eldar codex as rps is over looking many different builds.
Good point. Certain builds from those are potentially RPS. I'll be more specific next time.
gungo wrote: Holy hyperbole the Knights of terryn are the best knight list for a 2k tourney.
gungo,
Nicely asking: Have ImpKnights won many 2k tourneys, this build you refer to? Does ToF have data to back up your claim?
OVCNC:
Yeah, man. I would not have thought to put eldar as a rps.
Then again, folks, *specific* builds of a codex, can end up being rps, so labeling the eldar codex as rps is over looking many different builds.
Um... didn't that list just come out a few days ago? If so, just how many tournies should they have won in that timeframe?
That's sort of his point. We aren't fans of theory hammer. IRL>theory hammer.
gungo wrote: Seriously stop eldar are not Rock Paper Scissors type army. You just lost all credibility with that comment. That army can handle anything thrown at it. It's the best tac army right now. Scatterbikes annihilate all but high armour targets which eldar has several units that target those, wraiths, firedragons, Knights. You have aspects that are just phenominally annoying to hit by every army such as warp spider shenanigans. You have some of the best anti air and anti fmc in game. Eldar have arguably the best psychic power shenanigans. Some of the most durable and fastest transports in game. Eldar right now are the rock, the paper And the scissors.
No. Eldar Wraithknights are RPS. If you make an Eldar TAC with bikes, spiders, transports, etc., then it's not going to auto-win the Knight formation.
gungo wrote: Seriously stop eldar are not Rock Paper Scissors type army. You just lost all credibility with that comment. That army can handle anything thrown at it. It's the best tac army right now. Scatterbikes annihilate all but high armour targets which eldar has several units that target those, wraiths, firedragons, Knights. You have aspects that are just phenominally annoying to hit by every army such as warp spider shenanigans. You have some of the best anti air and anti fmc in game. Eldar have arguably the best psychic power shenanigans. Some of the most durable and fastest transports in game. Eldar right now are the rock, the paper And the scissors.
No. Eldar Wraithknights are RPS. If you make an Eldar TAC with bikes, spiders, transports, etc., then it's not going to auto-win the Knight formation.
Sorry your wrong
While individual units may be ideal for certain targets an eldar army is tac.
While a knight army with its 5 models at 1850 may not be the ideal target for scat bikes the can still hurt rear armour and grab objectives.
Meanwhile your serpents can drop min squads of wraith or firedragons which can kill a knight each round of shooting and wraiths will kill any knight that decides to charge them in overwatch. Warp spiders can hurt av12 and are mostly for the trolling of other armies with thier shenanigans. And a wraith knight as shown many times on this forum can easily handle any knight by itself for 2/3 the cost and likely kill two for it's price. So no a elder tac army owns a 5 knight army and in no way shape or form is at any disadvantage vs Knights. In fact eldars only inherent weakness is mass firing cover ignoring ap3 str6+ Shooting which is rare and heavy Melee invisible grav spam armies which are expensive points cost and not spamable. Neither of which while difficult for eldar is a hard counter as many battle reps have shown
gungo wrote: Holy hyperbole the Knights of terryn are the best knight list for a 2k tourney.
gungo,
Nicely asking: Have ImpKnights won many 2k tourneys, this build you refer to? Does ToF have data to back up your claim?
OVCNC:
Yeah, man. I would not have thought to put eldar as a rps.
Then again, folks, *specific* builds of a codex, can end up being rps, so labeling the eldar codex as rps is over looking many different builds.
that knight formation is a week old and I never said knights were the best 2k army I said that formation is the best knight formation for 2k, Knights are to low model count and have very little protection from drop ship type anti vehicle armies for them to win major tournaments. Heck a couple of bad rolls from a list with a good alpha strike could derail a knight tournament list.
The reason that list is balls is the 3++ bs/ws6 warlord with rerollabe 1 and a cheaper knight that can eat any pen hits that get through.
And the other 4 Knights are balls with 4++ reroll 1 with bs/ws5 and tacked on individual rules like interceptor for those drop pod armies or reroll charge and hits in Melee and counter atk and overwatch. It's the best knight list for 2k not the best tourney list.
That's sort of his point. We aren't fans of theory hammer. IRL>theory hammer.
Asking for proof is ridiculous within days of a rules release. Theorizing what is OP while obviously not infallible is not.
Not ridiculous, warboss. It is ignorance, on my part. I didn't know it was a brand new thing.
That is, I have not heard of a 5 IK list, therefore I asked.
As a teacher, I don't ridicule (same word origin as 'ridiculous') students for asking questions that, to an adult, seem ridiculous. I answer, nicely.
So, okay, gungo, maybe after a few weeks of tourneys we'll see some data on this 5 ImpK list.
I never said its the best 2k tourney list. It's the best 2k all knight list. Heck personally I rather have 3 Knights in ad lance and skitarri for a tac 2k list.
If where the OP plays uses ITC this thread has become a moot point. It's also no longer relevant to anyone else using ITC. Thank god.
All current source material is allowed, including GW Codexes, Data Slates, Formations, and current Forge World units and army lists which are listed below. Please note, Experimental and Horus Heresy/30K Forge World units are not allowed.
Army lists in Imperial Armor 14: The Siege of Vraks: The Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades of Vraks
Army lists in Imperial Armor 13: War Machines of the Lost and the Damned: Renegades and Heretics
Regardless of Detachments, no more than 1 Fortification and/or 1 Super Heavy/Gargantuan Lord of War may be taken from the allowed LoW list, below.
Note: The exception to this rule is Imperial Knights. One detachment in your army may include an Imperial Knight. So long as the detachment restrictions allow for multiple LoW, you may exceed the 0-1 LoW restriction within this detachment so long as all other LoW are also Imperial Knights.
Sigh. And now we're back to the ridiculous "specials snowflake" exception, because who cares about fairness when all the knight players will complain if you don't give in and change the rules.
Are there any really bad superheavy lord of wars without range d? Other then way to cheap melee/sun cannon wraithknight
Just wondering if it would be so bad if they made all superheavies without range d legal. Heck with the itc nerf non blast/ hellstiorm range d isn't that bad either.
gungo wrote: Are there any really bad superheavy lord of wars without range d?
Not really. And even most of the D-weapon stuff isn't very good. A Shadowsword is a mediocre unit at best, you don't get the "oh god where did my army go" effect until you're talking about D-weapon titans. The only real reason not to play RAW with no restrictions for non-titan superheavies is that people want to keep playing 5th edition style games.
gungo wrote: Are there any really bad superheavy lord of wars without range d?
Not really. And even most of the D-weapon stuff isn't very good. A Shadowsword is a mediocre unit at best, you don't get the "oh god where did my army go" effect until you're talking about D-weapon titans. The only real reason not to play RAW with no restrictions for non-titan superheavies is that people want to keep playing 5th edition style games.
Not quite the biggest issue is at low point games several range str d weapons has a huge issue with turn 1 alpha strikes which is the worst issue with 40k.
I'm cool with Melee str d because it's nearly impossible to charge turn 1, requires several turns of movement, a random charge roll, overwatch, and then they usually have low initiative and hit after most dedicated Melee units. Compared to range str d, roll 6 remove from game or target vehicle and kill it with your d3 hull points anyway with a chance for another d3 from pen results or just explodes.
I'm cool with itc range str d too because it removes the alpha strike issue of str d while making it a double wounding mechanic. It's not because I felt 5th edition was awesome, which I didn't. I liked 6th/7th and 3rd.
gungo wrote: Not quite the biggest issue is at low point games several range str d weapons has a huge issue with turn 1 alpha strikes which is the worst issue with 40k.
Low point games is where those units are the weakest, because your entire army is tied up in a single inefficient unit. A Shadowsword costs 500 points, and its single 5" blast is going to average maybe 3-4 hits per shot at most. And most of the time it's going to give up a cover save, so maybe 2-3 of them will actually die. There's no way you're going to earn back those 500 points by killing 2-3 tactical marines per turn, and the big expensive stuff isn't likely to appear. TBH you're going to get a better alpha strike by taking several conventional units instead.
And even in a large game the poor Shadowsword is going to struggle to be relevant. Let's say you kill a Land Raider, a terminator squad, and a tactical squad. And you roll nothing but 6s on the destroyer chart while doing it. That's ~550 points of damage inflicted by a ~500 point tank. And that's the best-case scenario. Add in cover/invulnerable saves, bad rolls on the destroyer table, etc, and you'll be lucky if you even come close to justifying your 500 point investment. That's not a terrifying alpha strike, it's a single-role specialist that barely influences the game unless your opponent also brings a LoW.
requires several turns of movement
If by "several" you mean "one". Turn one you move 12", turn two you move 12" and charge. Unless your opponent puts their whole army in the far back corner you're going to be getting second-turn charges most of the time.
OverwatchCNC wrote: If where the OP plays uses ITC this thread has become a moot point. It's also no longer relevant to anyone else using ITC. Thank god.
All current source material is allowed, including GW Codexes, Data Slates, Formations, and current Forge World units and army lists which are listed below. Please note, Experimental and Horus Heresy/30K Forge World units are not allowed.
Army lists in Imperial Armor 14: The Siege of Vraks: The Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades of Vraks
Army lists in Imperial Armor 13: War Machines of the Lost and the Damned: Renegades and Heretics
Regardless of Detachments, no more than 1 Fortification and/or 1 Super Heavy/Gargantuan Lord of War may be taken from the allowed LoW list, below.
Note: The exception to this rule is Imperial Knights. One detachment in your army may include an Imperial Knight. So long as the detachment restrictions allow for multiple LoW, you may exceed the 0-1 LoW restriction within this detachment so long as all other LoW are also Imperial Knights.
OverwatchCNC wrote: If where the OP plays uses ITC this thread has become a moot point. It's also no longer relevant to anyone else using ITC. Thank god.
All current source material is allowed, including GW Codexes, Data Slates, Formations, and current Forge World units and army lists which are listed below. Please note, Experimental and Horus Heresy/30K Forge World units are not allowed.
Army lists in Imperial Armor 14: The Siege of Vraks: The Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades of Vraks
Army lists in Imperial Armor 13: War Machines of the Lost and the Damned: Renegades and Heretics
Regardless of Detachments, no more than 1 Fortification and/or 1 Super Heavy/Gargantuan Lord of War may be taken from the allowed LoW list, below.
Note: The exception to this rule is Imperial Knights. One detachment in your army may include an Imperial Knight. So long as the detachment restrictions allow for multiple LoW, you may exceed the 0-1 LoW restriction within this detachment so long as all other LoW are also Imperial Knights.
It doesn't.
That's really unfortunate. I am glad ITC made the right choice in not declaring an entire codex banned, hopefully OP can use this development as leverage in his discussions with the local TOs and GT organizers.
gungo wrote: Not quite the biggest issue is at low point games several range str d weapons has a huge issue with turn 1 alpha strikes which is the worst issue with 40k.
Low point games is where those units are the weakest, because your entire army is tied up in a single inefficient unit. A Shadowsword costs 500 points, and its single 5" blast is going to average maybe 3-4 hits per shot at most. And most of the time it's going to give up a cover save, so maybe 2-3 of them will actually die. There's no way you're going to earn back those 500 points by killing 2-3 tactical marines per turn, and the big expensive stuff isn't likely to appear. TBH you're going to get a better alpha strike by taking several conventional units instead.
And even in a large game the poor Shadowsword is going to struggle to be relevant. Let's say you kill a Land Raider, a terminator squad, and a tactical squad. And you roll nothing but 6s on the destroyer chart while doing it. That's ~550 points of damage inflicted by a ~500 point tank. And that's the best-case scenario. Add in cover/invulnerable saves, bad rolls on the destroyer table, etc, and you'll be lucky if you even come close to justifying your 500 point investment. That's not a terrifying alpha strike, it's a single-role specialist that barely influences the game unless your opponent also brings a LoW.
requires several turns of movement
If by "several" you mean "one". Turn one you move 12", turn two you move 12" and charge. Unless your opponent puts their whole army in the far back corner you're going to be getting second-turn charges most of the time.
I know math can be hard for people now days but turn 1 move, turn 2 move is actually called "two" turns of movement. I know numbers are hard.
And back to the shadowsword no where did I mention the shadowsword. It's never was that bad of a lord of war, it's like the stompa they both pretty much suck for the points. Why don't you talk about the unit I mentioned instead you know the 295 of wraith knight with double Ds. The potential to wipe out two transports full of troops or two leman Russ tanks in one turn is brutal to nearly any list as an alpha strike, throw in some webway portal wraiths and even using LOS to hide some key units isn't even a problem. Alpha strike lists have always been the bane of 40k and it was a huge reason why gw nerfed the heck out of turn 1 assaults.
If by "several" you mean "one". Turn one you move 12", turn two you move 12" and charge. Unless your opponent puts their whole army in the far back corner you're going to be getting second-turn charges most of the time.
I know math can be hard for people now days but turn 1 move, turn 2 move is actually called "two" turns of movement. I know numbers are hard.
Apparently wordz are eVen harderer.
SEVERAL:
being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind:
Two snarky replies don't make a polite.
If you guys want the thread closed, citing a dictionary often does just that, as well as the "numbers are hard for people .... " kind of comments.
And I hope mine isn't a 3rd snark. Just a kind, "C'mon, fellas!"
Eh, maybe a MOD will feel we're done.
It's not my fault gungo started a battle of wits while armed with such dull weapons. If you're going to go out of your way to specifically sarcastically "correct" someone, it is wise to make damn sure you actually are correct.
In any case, the thread has served its purpose. The OP asked the internet for his special snowflake exception and one major "authority" granted it. Whether or not his local scene adopts it is likely not dependent on this thread and never was.
warboss wrote: It's not my fault gungo started a battle of wits while armed with such dull weapons. If you're going to go out of your way to specifically sarcastically "correct" someone, it is wise to make damn sure you actually are correct.
In any case, the thread has served its purpose. The OP asked the internet for his special snowflake exception and one major "authority" granted it. Whether or not his local scene adopts it is likely not dependent on this thread and never was.
kiddo you said one turn and then immediately went on to say it took two turns in your example. It's not our fault you can't read what you wrote.
And no several was the correct word to use when I wrote it since it requires two or more turns of movement for an assault. If I said a couple that would be incorrect since it means two. The only thing dull here is your humour and how quickly you got hurt when you try to point out someone is wrong and you completely messed it up. Instead of admitting your mistake you continued to show everyone how you messed up so easily in the first place And no it's not because of your stunning wit, no matter what your mom tells you.
warboss wrote: It's not my fault gungo started a battle of wits while armed with such dull weapons. If you're going to go out of your way to specifically sarcastically "correct" someone, it is wise to make damn sure you actually are correct.
Agreed. I refrained from correcting the run-on sentences.
In any case, the thread has served its purpose. The OP asked the internet for his special snowflake exception and one major "authority" granted it. Whether or not his local scene adopts it is likely not dependent on this thread and never was.
May I ask, and it is not my intent to be pedantic (that is, trolling), but would you please define the 'snowflake exception' (unique, one-of-a-kind, that part I understand). The term has been thrown around a lot, and I think it means you can have an ImpK army ... when most tourneys have ruled only 0-1 LoW ....
Brothererekose wrote: May I ask, and it is not my intent to be pedantic (that is, trolling), but would you please define the 'snowflake exception' (unique, one-of-a-kind, that part I understand). The term has been thrown around a lot, and I think it means you can have an ImpK army ... when most tourneys have ruled only 0-1 LoW ....
Is that correct?
Exactly. It's when a tournament rules that superheavies are banned or restricted, except knights don't count because the people that want to use multiple knights are more important than the ones who want to use multiple Baneblades (or even one Baneblade).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: kiddo you said one turn and then immediately went on to say it took two turns in your example. It's not our fault you can't read what you wrote.
First, it's not their example, it's my example. And it's one turn of movement, because the second turn is the turn where you charge and slaughter stuff. You "waste" one turn getting into range and then you kill things. And either way it's not "several", which would imply 3+ turns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: Why don't you talk about the unit I mentioned instead you know the 295 of wraith knight with double Ds.
Because:
1) I've never argued that all units with D-weapons are balanced. In fact my point was that some units with D-weapons are not balanced. But that's a problem with specific units being too cheap for their power, not ranged D-weapons in general, and should be solved with modifications to those specific units instead of banning/restricting a bunch of stuff that isn't too powerful.
2) The Wraithknight's D-weapons aren't that impressive in a small game (and remember, you claimed that the alpha strike is especially bad there) because there are a lot fewer expensive targets for it to kill. Sure, it can kill a Land Raider in one shot, but how many Land Raiders do you see in a 500 point game? 750? When people are still trying to fit enough basic troops into their armies it's a lot more likely that the Wraithknight is going to massively overkill 1-2 guardsmen or tactical marines per turn and never even come close to justifying its point cost. It only becomes a terrifying threat as point limits go up and it is almost always guaranteed to find a proper target to kill.
Brothererekose wrote: May I ask, and it is not my intent to be pedantic (that is, trolling), but would you please define the 'snowflake exception' (unique, one-of-a-kind, that part I understand). The term has been thrown around a lot, and I think it means you can have an ImpK army ... when most tourneys have ruled only 0-1 LoW ....
Is that correct?
Exactly. It's when a tournament rules that superheavies are banned or restricted, except knights don't count because the people that want to use multiple knights are more important than the ones who want to use multiple Baneblades (or even one Baneblade).
How are these people more important (I'm not mad at you, but these clowns you refer to) ? I mean, it sounds elitist, even racist. Are Astra Militarum players being singled out?
I play Pask PlasmaCutioners. I got Vendettas.
Because though I play Eldar and Tau and Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons and Astra Militarum, I will band with others of 'my kind' to stop this sort of prejudice. Also, I will admit to having played Space Wolves, Deathwing, Dark Angels and Tyranids, too, though it opens me up to more liability, more prejudicial treatment, by these people, to which you refer.
We gotta shut them down.
- - - - - - - - - -
That said, I thought Knights (Ad-Lance) were not being counted on such bans because they have a codex. More-over, they have not broken the game because the data on Ad-Lance fails to show dominance. ToF & ITC. *Single* inclusions of ImpKinghts in lists has data showing ... what'd that poster say? A 65% bump in success? Somesuch?
What tourney won't let you use multiple Baneblades? Tell me, and I'll try to help get them to rescind the ban, so *you* Peregrine, can play your multiple Baneblades. Srsly, let's rally the Internet. Get your local buddies to vote with their dollars. Store owners listen when the cash register fails to ring.
BTW, please keep in mind, no one listens to you. I have got a lot of feedback, and because your opinions are largely unsubstantiated, because you espouse vitriol and are chock full of adjectives, and yet, never yield any tourney data to back your opinions, no one takes you seriously.
If you backed what you say with 'NOVA this', 'at Adepticon that' or even citing what happens at your FLGS, well, it gives credence and weight.
So, again, which GT/RTT did you want to go to, that said 0-1 to BaneBlades? Or even a flat out, "No"?
Too bad you don't play near me. Our local FLGS allows Baneblades. The one guy that brings it never wins more than one outta three games though.
Brothererekose wrote: That said, I thought Knights (Ad-Lance) were not being counted on such bans because they have a codex.
Which is an absurd reason. "Codex" is not a magic word that makes something legal or appropriate for a standard game. Knights are superheavies, and if superheavies are so scary that they need to be banned or limited then printing "codex" on the front cover of the book instead of "supplement" or whatever should not matter at all.
More-over, they have not broken the game because the data on Ad-Lance fails to show dominance.
It doesn't matter. The issue is not whether knights break the game, it's consistency with bans/restrictions on every other superheavy unit. A Malcador spam army isn't going to break the game either, unless you consider "being so terrible that your opponent doesn't have any fun tabling you" to be breaking the game. So why should the Malcador spam army be banned while the much more powerful knight army is perfectly legal?
So, again, which GT/RTT did you want to go to, that said 0-1 to BaneBlades? Or even a flat out, "No"?
Regardless of Detachments, no more than 1 Fortification and/or 1 Super Heavy/Gargantuan Lord of War may be taken from the allowed LoW list, below.
And here's the special snowflake rule:
Note: The exception to this rule is Imperial Knights. One detachment in your army may include an Imperial Knight. So long as the detachment restrictions allow for multiple LoW, you may exceed the 0-1 LoW restriction within this detachment so long as all other LoW are also Imperial Knights.
Too bad you don't play near me. Our local FLGS allows Baneblades. The one guy that brings it never wins more than one outta three games though.
Then your FLGS isn't part of this discussion. This is about giving a special snowflake exception for knights, not whether or not superheavies in general are legal or not.
... but Knights ARE a special snowflake.
They are they only army in the game where a primary detachment of Knights MUST consist entirely of superheavies and cannot ever have any non-super-heavy models. The Knight codex itself treats Knights as a special snowflake (allowing them to take multiple LOWs in a detachment), so FLG is simply following the codex rules.
Trasvi wrote: ... but Knights ARE a special snowflake.
They are they only army in the game where a primary detachment of Knights MUST consist entirely of superheavies and cannot ever have any non-super-heavy models. The Knight codex itself treats Knights as a special snowflake (allowing them to take multiple LOWs in a detachment), so FLG is simply following the codex rules.
Who cares about the "codex" label on the cover? They're superheavies, and the word "codex" doesn't give them any special privileges in the rules published by GW.
And no, they aren't following the codex rules because there is no 0-1 limit on superheavies in any codex. You can take one per CAD, but there is no limit on how many CADs you can take and non-CAD detachments can allow more than one LOW per detachment. So the question isn't "should we follow the rules", it's "now that we've modified the rules should we do so in a fair and consistent manner, or should we give special privileges to one group of players".
herohammer wrote: But it has a choppy guy, a shooty guy, a melta guy, an anti-meq guy, and a battle cannon guy?
And if GW wasn't trying to add filler "content" to justify charging full-book prices for a one-unit codex they would all be combined into a single unit entry like all the LRBT variants or the choice to give your tactical squad a plasma gun or power fist. If it wasn't in its own codex it would just be the basic stat line and shared rules with a list of weapon upgrades you can choose from. The only reason the knight gets the magic "codex" word and the Baneblade doesn't is that GW hasn't published Codex: Baneblade (soon to be followed by Codex: Tactical Squad) yet.
Trasvi wrote: ... but Knights ARE a special snowflake.
They are they only army in the game where a primary detachment of Knights MUST consist entirely of superheavies and cannot ever have any non-super-heavy models. The Knight codex itself treats Knights as a special snowflake (allowing them to take multiple LOWs in a detachment), so FLG is simply following the codex rules.
Who cares about the "codex" label on the cover? They're superheavies, and the word "codex" doesn't give them any special privileges in the rules published by GW.
They're special because they're the only faction that has been written like this. They are a bona fide faction and NOT letting them be exceptions to any LOW restrictions is effectively banning them.
They ITC crew aren't giving special privileges to Imperial Knight players - they're letting them retain the special privileges they have in their book which allow them to play their army.
Not banning Imperial Knights isn't giving privileges to Knight players any more than not banning Eldar is giving privileges to Eldar players.
And no, they aren't following the codex rules because there is no 0-1 limit on superheavies in any codex. You can take one per CAD, but there is no limit on how many CADs you can take and non-CAD detachments can allow more than one LOW per detachment. So the question isn't "should we follow the rules", it's "now that we've modified the rules should we do so in a fair and consistent manner, or should we give special privileges to one group of players".
So what is more fair:
- attempting to curb abuse of multiple detachments (whereby people spam minimal troop taxes to take multiple Lords of War)?
- or banning an entire army?
I can never tell what you want out of the rules here. Most people don't think 40k in its entire RAW-unbound-take-everything-you-wish state is conducive for competitive tournament play. Given that people wish to persist in attempting tournament play by altering the rules somewhat, what choices do they have that you would ever agree with?
Trasvi wrote: They're special because they're the only faction that has been written like this.
But why does this matter? Why is it so important that it's a one-model "faction" instead of just an entry in the Escalation book? Will Baneblades suddenly get their own special snowflake exception if GW publishes Codex: Baneblade and copy/pastes the Escalation rules for it into a separate $50 book? If they'd be ok in that situation then why do they need to be banned/restricted now?
They ITC crew aren't giving special privileges to Imperial Knight players - they're letting them retain the special privileges they have in their book which allow them to play their army.
That book has no special privileges. Nothing in it says "this is more official than other rules", it's just another book for 40k just like all the other ones. An army with 2+ knights is no different from an army with 2+ Baneblades from GW's perspective.
Not banning Imperial Knights isn't giving privileges to Knight players any more than not banning Eldar is giving privileges to Eldar players.
The difference is that the Eldar codex doesn't violate general rules like "no superheavies", so there's no reason why it would be banned. The knight "codex" does.
So what is more fair:
- attempting to curb abuse of multiple detachments (whereby people spam minimal troop taxes to take multiple Lords of War)?
- or banning an entire army?
The second, because the premise of the first is that multiple LOW are unfair. If you genuinely believe that multiple LOW are unfair then knights are an unfair army and need to be banned regardless of whether or not their rules have the magic "codex" word attached. What option #2 essentially says is "I know this breaks the game and is completely unfair to play against, but I'm going to allow it anyway".
I can never tell what you want out of the rules here. Most people don't think 40k in its entire RAW-unbound-take-everything-you-wish state is conducive for competitive tournament play. Given that people wish to persist in attempting tournament play by altering the rules somewhat, what choices do they have that you would ever agree with?
I want one of two things:
1) LOW played by RAW with no general limits on them (though specific units may need changes, just like specific non-LOW units may need changes).
or
2) Superheavies and GCs banned or limited to 0-1 with no special snowflake exceptions.
If you feel that unrestricted LOW are not appropriate for tournaments (and that's a pretty reasonable argument to make) then option #2 is the clear choice. Ban or restrict all superheavies equally, and don't make special exceptions just because some people at your local store really love their plastic knight kits and all the other superheavies are too expensive.
Trasvi wrote: They're special because they're the only faction that has been written like this.
But why does this matter? Why is it so important that it's a one-model "faction" instead of just an entry in the Escalation book? Will Baneblades suddenly get their own special snowflake exception if GW publishes Codex: Baneblade and copy/pastes the Escalation rules for it into a separate $50 book? If they'd be ok in that situation then why do they need to be banned/restricted now?
They ITC crew aren't giving special privileges to Imperial Knight players - they're letting them retain the special privileges they have in their book which allow them to play their army.
That book has no special privileges. Nothing in it says "this is more official than other rules", it's just another book for 40k just like all the other ones. An army with 2+ knights is no different from an army with 2+ Baneblades from GW's perspective.
I guess we'll cross the issue of Codex:Baneblade if it ever does occur.
Until that point, an army of 2+ Knights IS a unique occurrence because it is a faction of its own, a battleforged army of its own, which ARE 'magic' things under the rules.
The second, because the premise of the first is that multiple LOW are unfair. If you genuinely believe that multiple LOW are unfair then knights are an unfair army and need to be banned regardless of whether or not their rules have the magic "codex" word attached. What option #2 essentially says is "I know this breaks the game and is completely unfair to play against, but I'm going to allow it anyway".
While that may be an admirable stance to be completely consistent, it runs in to significant issues of player adoption.
If people know their Factions may begin being completely banned based on balance issues, people will stop using the restrictions (or not go to tournaments with the restrictions). At that point you're faced with a choice: do we be 100% consistent in our restrictions and either ban entire factions or have no restrictions; or do we relax the restrictions in certain places where there would be significant player resistance.
Choosing the path with maximum in game effect for minimum player resistance seems to be the best choice to me. The no-compromise approach just ends up with the ITC rules being useless and abandoned.
40k turned into the Wild West when IKs and SHs and GCs in general hit the table. It's a modify the rules as needed situation. Either you modify the rules to balance Superheavies and fix the bad ones, or you man them in a consistent manner. The only distasteful thing is having a ban in place and giving a special exception just because.
Events can have different formats, and that is ok, but when the Limited or Banned SH/GC format gives a special exception for IKs just because, that's the problem.
Brothererekose wrote: Two snarky replies don't make a polite.
If you guys want the thread closed, citing a dictionary often does just that, as well as the "numbers are hard for people .... " kind of comments.
.
Quite.
Anymore nonsense akin to what we witnessed on the previous page and this thread will be over and several posters will be on vacation.
warboss wrote: It's not my fault gungo started a battle of wits while armed with such dull weapons. If you're going to go out of your way to specifically sarcastically "correct" someone, it is wise to make damn sure you actually are correct.
kiddo you said one turn and then immediately went on to say it took two turns in your example. It's not our fault you can't read what you wrote.
And no several was the correct word to use when I wrote it since it requires two or more turns of movement for an assault. If I said a couple that would be incorrect since it means two. The only thing dull here is your humour and how quickly you got hurt when you try to point out someone is wrong and you completely messed it up. Instead of admitting your mistake you continued to show everyone how you messed up so easily in the first place And no it's not because of your stunning wit, no matter what your mom tells you.
warboss wrote: It's not my fault gungo started a battle of wits while armed with such dull weapons. If you're going to go out of your way to specifically sarcastically "correct" someone, it is wise to make damn sure you actually are correct.
kiddo you said one turn and then immediately went on to say it took two turns in your example. It's not our fault you can't read what you wrote.
And no several was the correct word to use when I wrote it since it requires two or more turns of movement for an assault. If I said a couple that would be incorrect since it means two. The only thing dull here is your humour and how quickly you got hurt when you try to point out someone is wrong and you completely messed it up. Instead of admitting your mistake you continued to show everyone how you messed up so easily in the first place And no it's not because of your stunning wit, no matter what your mom tells you.
Seriously, you're arguing that "several" = 2?
In normal English:
- "a" = 1;
- "a couple" = 2;
- "a few" = 3 or 4, 2 by exception; and
- "several" = 5 or more; never 2 or 3.
Please try to keep your English quantity words straight. Thanks.
Trasvi wrote: They're special because they're the only faction that has been written like this.
But why does this matter? Why is it so important that it's a one-model "faction" instead of just an entry in the Escalation book? Will Baneblades suddenly get their own special snowflake exception if GW publishes Codex: Baneblade and copy/pastes the Escalation rules for it into a separate $50 book? If they'd be ok in that situation then why do they need to be banned/restricted now?
They ITC crew aren't giving special privileges to Imperial Knight players - they're letting them retain the special privileges they have in their book which allow them to play their army.
That book has no special privileges. Nothing in it says "this is more official than other rules", it's just another book for 40k just like all the other ones. An army with 2+ knights is no different from an army with 2+ Baneblades from GW's perspective.
I guess we'll cross the issue of Codex:Baneblade if it ever does occur.
I am assuming that the next IG Codex will include the $125+ Baneblade (with all 7 variants), just as the next Ork Codex will include the $125+ Stompa. It's clearly in GW's best interest to force these kinds of units into the Codex precisely to remove the specialness of Knights.
On the flip side, it's also in GW's best interest to fold Knights and Ad Mech together, so that they can force Knight players to buy Ad Mech models, and vice versa.
warboss wrote: It's not my fault gungo started a battle of wits while armed with such dull weapons. If you're going to go out of your way to specifically sarcastically "correct" someone, it is wise to make damn sure you actually are correct.
kiddo you said one turn and then immediately went on to say it took two turns in your example. It's not our fault you can't read what you wrote.
And no several was the correct word to use when I wrote it since it requires two or more turns of movement for an assault. If I said a couple that would be incorrect since it means two. The only thing dull here is your humour and how quickly you got hurt when you try to point out someone is wrong and you completely messed it up. Instead of admitting your mistake you continued to show everyone how you messed up so easily in the first place And no it's not because of your stunning wit, no matter what your mom tells you.
Trasvi wrote: They're special because they're the only faction that has been written like this.
But why does this matter? Why is it so important that it's a one-model "faction" instead of just an entry in the Escalation book? Will Baneblades suddenly get their own special snowflake exception if GW publishes Codex: Baneblade and copy/pastes the Escalation rules for it into a separate $50 book? If they'd be ok in that situation then why do they need to be banned/restricted now?
They ITC crew aren't giving special privileges to Imperial Knight players - they're letting them retain the special privileges they have in their book which allow them to play their army.
That book has no special privileges. Nothing in it says "this is more official than other rules", it's just another book for 40k just like all the other ones. An army with 2+ knights is no different from an army with 2+ Baneblades from GW's perspective.
I guess we'll cross the issue of Codex:Baneblade if it ever does occur.
I am assuming that the next IG Codex will include the $125+ Baneblade (with all 7 variants), just as the next Ork Codex will include the $125+ Stompa. It's clearly in GW's best interest to force these kinds of units into the Codex precisely to remove the specialness of Knights.
On the flip side, it's also in GW's best interest to fold Knights and Ad Mech together, so that they can force Knight players to buy Ad Mech models, and vice versa.
warboss wrote: It's not my fault gungo started a battle of wits while armed with such dull weapons. If you're going to go out of your way to specifically sarcastically "correct" someone, it is wise to make damn sure you actually are correct.
kiddo you said one turn and then immediately went on to say it took two turns in your example. It's not our fault you can't read what you wrote.
And no several was the correct word to use when I wrote it since it requires two or more turns of movement for an assault. If I said a couple that would be incorrect since it means two. The only thing dull here is your humour and how quickly you got hurt when you try to point out someone is wrong and you completely messed it up. Instead of admitting your mistake you continued to show everyone how you messed up so easily in the first place And no it's not because of your stunning wit, no matter what your mom tells you.
Data fails to support the notion that Ranged D breaks the game either; Ranged D (even in the form of the Invisible, Fortuned, Lynx on a Skyshield) has not won a major tournament. What it has done is EXACTLY what Imperial Knights have done: Really, really, really annoyed players on the middle tables. /shrug
I remain happy to play in a part of the world where D is D, the 2++ are re-rollable, and Invisibility is played RaW. It's not a fun world--pretty grimdark (and grumpy)--but it's a world I understand.
DCannon4Life wrote: Data fails to support the notion that Ranged D breaks the game either; Ranged D (even in the form of the Invisible, Fortuned, Lynx on a Skyshield) has not won a major tournament. What it has done is EXACTLY what Imperial Knights have done: Really, really, really annoyed players on the middle tables. /shrug
I remain happy to play in a part of the world where D is D, the 2++ are re-rollable, and Invisibility is played RaW. It's not a fun world--pretty grimdark (and grumpy)--but it's a world I understand.
What about Multi-shot Ranged D BLAST?
A la Warhound Titan?
I can't wait for GW to put that bad boy in a Codex.
DCannon4Life wrote: Data fails to support the notion that Ranged D breaks the game either; Ranged D (even in the form of the Invisible, Fortuned, Lynx on a Skyshield) has not won a major tournament. What it has done is EXACTLY what Imperial Knights have done: Really, really, really annoyed players on the middle tables. /shrug
I remain happy to play in a part of the world where D is D, the 2++ are re-rollable, and Invisibility is played RaW. It's not a fun world--pretty grimdark (and grumpy)--but it's a world I understand.
What about Multi-shot Ranged D BLAST?
A la Warhound Titan?
I can't wait for GW to put that bad boy in a Codex.
DCannon4Life wrote: Data fails to support the notion that Ranged D breaks the game either; Ranged D (even in the form of the Invisible, Fortuned, Lynx on a Skyshield) has not won a major tournament. What it has done is EXACTLY what Imperial Knights have done: Really, really, really annoyed players on the middle tables. /shrug
I remain happy to play in a part of the world where D is D, the 2++ are re-rollable, and Invisibility is played RaW. It's not a fun world--pretty grimdark (and grumpy)--but it's a world I understand.
What about Multi-shot Ranged D BLAST?
The Lynx is a multi-shot (2 Large Blasts) platform. So: Multi-shot ranged D has not won a major tournament. The justification for nerfing it cannot be based on its overwhelming the tournament scene, because it hasn't.
DCannon4Life wrote: Data fails to support the notion that Ranged D breaks the game either; Ranged D (even in the form of the Invisible, Fortuned, Lynx on a Skyshield) has not won a major tournament. What it has done is EXACTLY what Imperial Knights have done: Really, really, really annoyed players on the middle tables. /shrug
I remain happy to play in a part of the world where D is D, the 2++ are re-rollable, and Invisibility is played RaW. It's not a fun world--pretty grimdark (and grumpy)--but it's a world I understand.
What about Multi-shot Ranged D BLAST?
A la Warhound Titan?
I can't wait for GW to put that bad boy in a Codex.
I'm ready! (For Apocalypse!)
Looks like the next legal and totally balanced addition to small friendly fluff filled games of 750pts in 8th edition next year. Of course, the real joy will be modelling the 6ft ships that will occupy the new 1 per detachment BFG slot (or even more fair 1-5 detachment in Codex: Imperial Navy ). I'm sure the planet killer will forge one heck of a balanced narrative versus, say, an IG infantry list. We will of course have to grant cruisers a special snowflake exception as well at that point.
I guess we'll cross the issue of Codex:Baneblade if it ever does occur.
I am assuming that the next IG Codex will include the $125+ Baneblade (with all 7 variants), just as the next Ork Codex will include the $125+ Stompa. It's clearly in GW's best interest to force these kinds of units into the Codex precisely to remove the specialness of Knights.
On the flip side, it's also in GW's best interest to fold Knights and Ad Mech together, so that they can force Knight players to buy Ad Mech models, and vice versa.
... and until that point in time, Imperial Knights are a unique faction in Warhammer 40k that require unique rules to allow them to be playable. If a formation/faction of solely baneblade chassis vehicles eventuates and becomes legal, we can revisit decisions; just like we're having to revisit decisions on ranged D now that it is available on non-LOW platforms.
Lets deal with what we actually have on the table to deal with, rather than some hypothetical future army that may or may not ever occur. GW recently passed over some very easy opportunities to add the Baneblade to the AM codex and Stompa to the Ork codex and Knights to the Skitaari Codex, if that is what they really wanted to do.
Spoiler:
(I'm of the opinion that perhaps GW rules writers are a little Machiavellian; they're paying attention to the tournament circuits and deliberately designing codexes and rules which invalidate any attempts to curb the game. First it was flyers in normal codexes; then Lords of War; moving all fortifications to Stronghold Assault; entire codices of Super Heavies with D weapons; ranged D-weapons on non-super-heavies...) This may be crediting too much to the rules team, but I like to think that they're evil rather than incompetent, despite what Hanlon's Razor would have you assume
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DCannon4Life wrote: Data fails to support the notion that Ranged D breaks the game either; Ranged D (even in the form of the Invisible, Fortuned, Lynx on a Skyshield) has not won a major tournament. What it has done is EXACTLY what Imperial Knights have done: Really, really, really annoyed players on the middle tables. /shrug
I remain happy to play in a part of the world where D is D, the 2++ are re-rollable, and Invisibility is played RaW. It's not a fun world--pretty grimdark (and grumpy)--but it's a world I understand.
And considering that 75% of players are on the middle tables, don't you think it is worth doing something for them?
The major tournament winners are going to be major tournament winners regardless of the current meta. Nick Nanavati would probably make top bracket with single CAD Dark Angels. That doesn't make Dark Angels a good army.
If you look back I think you'll also see that Wave Serpent spam never won a major tourney either; that doesn't mean it was balanced.
TOs SHOULD be catering based on what happens on the middle tables; the top players are going to be unaffected, and balance for the middle tables makes things more fun for everyone involved.
The funny thing is it seems like it's a bit of a question of "what's in a name?"
The core rules haven't changed at all (please correct me if I'm wrong); but they are now called Lords of War. To prevent other Gargantuans/Superheavies already designated Lords of War, tournaments had in place bans and limits, but (even presumably OP's store) allowed all knight armies before they were so labeled.
The rules are the same (I know, certain wargear additions, but structurally): if you allowed it without the label, allow it with the label. Treat the other units you judged necessary to ban in the presence of all knight armies as you will.
I mean, if you ban the same units when they get the label, you must have really wanted to ban them in the first place.
I guess we'll cross the issue of Codex:Baneblade if it ever does occur.
I am assuming that the next IG Codex will include the $125+ Baneblade (with all 7 variants), just as the next Ork Codex will include the $125+ Stompa. It's clearly in GW's best interest to force these kinds of units into the Codex precisely to remove the specialness of Knights.
On the flip side, it's also in GW's best interest to fold Knights and Ad Mech together, so that they can force Knight players to buy Ad Mech models, and vice versa.
... and until that point in time, Imperial Knights are a unique faction in Warhammer 40k that require unique rules to allow them to be playable.
If a formation/faction of solely baneblade chassis vehicles eventuates and becomes legal, we can revisit decisions; just like we're having to revisit decisions on ranged D now that it is available on non-LOW platforms.
Lets deal with what we actually have on the table to deal with, rather than some hypothetical future army that may or may not ever occur. GW recently passed over some very easy opportunities to add the Baneblade to the AM codex and Stompa to the Ork codex and Knights to the Skitaari Codex, if that is what they really wanted to do.
(I'm of the opinion that perhaps GW rules writers are a little Machiavellian; they're paying attention to the tournament circuits and deliberately designing codexes and rules which invalidate any attempts to curb the game. First it was flyers in normal codexes; then Lords of War; moving all fortifications to Stronghold Assault; entire codices of Super Heavies with D weapons; ranged D-weapons on non-super-heavies...)
This may be crediting too much to the rules team, but I like to think that they're evil rather than incompetent, despite what Hanlon's Razor would have you assume
"Machiavellian" and "evil" aren't the right words. GW has been very clear since late 3E / 4E that they want players to buy things to play with. All the things. They have been trying to push this forward ever since Forgeworld was created as a thing. WRT the old IG and Orks, it wasn't GW's time to push the BB and Stompa, as Apoc was still a concept. Now that what used to be Apoc is clearly part of regular 40k, IG getting the BB is the same as everybody getting Flyers.
I guess we'll cross the issue of Codex:Baneblade if it ever does occur.
I am assuming that the next IG Codex will include the $125+ Baneblade (with all 7 variants), just as the next Ork Codex will include the $125+ Stompa. It's clearly in GW's best interest to force these kinds of units into the Codex precisely to remove the specialness of Knights.
On the flip side, it's also in GW's best interest to fold Knights and Ad Mech together, so that they can force Knight players to buy Ad Mech models, and vice versa.
... and until that point in time, Imperial Knights are a unique faction in Warhammer 40k that require unique rules to allow them to be playable.
If a formation/faction of solely baneblade chassis vehicles eventuates and becomes legal, we can revisit decisions; just like we're having to revisit decisions on ranged D now that it is available on non-LOW platforms.
Lets deal with what we actually have on the table to deal with, rather than some hypothetical future army that may or may not ever occur. GW recently passed over some very easy opportunities to add the Baneblade to the AM codex and Stompa to the Ork codex and Knights to the Skitaari Codex, if that is what they really wanted to do.
Spoiler:
(I'm of the opinion that perhaps GW rules writers are a little Machiavellian; they're paying attention to the tournament circuits and deliberately designing codexes and rules which invalidate any attempts to curb the game. First it was flyers in normal codexes; then Lords of War; moving all fortifications to Stronghold Assault; entire codices of Super Heavies with D weapons; ranged D-weapons on non-super-heavies...)
This may be crediting too much to the rules team, but I like to think that they're evil rather than incompetent, despite what Hanlon's Razor would have you assume
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DCannon4Life wrote: Data fails to support the notion that Ranged D breaks the game either; Ranged D (even in the form of the Invisible, Fortuned, Lynx on a Skyshield) has not won a major tournament. What it has done is EXACTLY what Imperial Knights have done: Really, really, really annoyed players on the middle tables. /shrug
I remain happy to play in a part of the world where D is D, the 2++ are re-rollable, and Invisibility is played RaW. It's not a fun world--pretty grimdark (and grumpy)--but it's a world I understand.
And considering that 75% of players are on the middle tables, don't you think it is worth doing something for them?
The major tournament winners are going to be major tournament winners regardless of the current meta. Nick Nanavati would probably make top bracket with single CAD Dark Angels. That doesn't make Dark Angels a good army.
If you look back I think you'll also see that Wave Serpent spam never won a major tourney either; that doesn't mean it was balanced.
TOs SHOULD be catering based on what happens on the middle tables; the top players are going to be unaffected, and balance for the middle tables makes things more fun for everyone involved.
How do you get 75% of players are at the middle tables? At most 33.3% would be middle. Top, middle, lowest tables split evenly.
OverwatchCNC wrote: How do you get 75% of players are at the middle tables? At most 33.3% would be middle. Top, middle, lowest tables split evenly.
It depends what you count as top, right? Is 'top tables' literally only the finalists, or is it arbitrarily split in to exact thirds?
I would count for the largest tournaments which split in to 8 brackets, bracket 1 as top and bracket 8 as bottom, with 2-6 as the middle.
32 players in top bracket
32 players in bottom bracket
192 players in 'the middle tables'. (75%)
If you want to literally say 'top / middle / bottom = 33% splits' then you really start seeing the netlists like Adlance or Waveserpents appearing in the top 33%. I believe that NOVA, while it had no Adlance in the top 32, featured 5 in the second 32.
OverwatchCNC wrote: How do you get 75% of players are at the middle tables? At most 33.3% would be middle. Top, middle, lowest tables split evenly.
It depends what you count as top, right? Is 'top tables' literally only the finalists, or is it arbitrarily split in to exact thirds?
I would count for the largest tournaments which split in to 8 brackets, bracket 1 as top and bracket 8 as bottom, with 2-6 as the middle.
32 players in top bracket
32 players in bottom bracket
192 players in 'the middle tables'. (75%)
If you want to literally say 'top / middle / bottom = 33% splits' then you really start seeing the netlists like Adlance or Waveserpents appearing in the top 33%. I believe that NOVA, while it had no Adlance in the top 32, featured 5 in the second 32.
Wow, a whole 5? That must be terrible for that 12.5% of players to have to face. If you expand to top 64 you still have only 5 adlance in top 25%. How many events have 256 participants? How many of those 256 played adlance? What's the make up of the armies in the middle group? Without those numbers little else matters.
Edit: how many of those events had exit polls where participants indicated they had a bad time or negative experience? Is there any actual evidence the current format isn't what those who participated want or evidence they found it not fun?
OverwatchCNC wrote: How do you get 75% of players are at the middle tables? At most 33.3% would be middle. Top, middle, lowest tables split evenly.
It depends what you count as top, right? Is 'top tables' literally only the finalists, or is it arbitrarily split in to exact thirds?
I would count for the largest tournaments which split in to 8 brackets, bracket 1 as top and bracket 8 as bottom, with 2-6 as the middle.
32 players in top bracket
32 players in bottom bracket
192 players in 'the middle tables'. (75%)
If you want to literally say 'top / middle / bottom = 33% splits' then you really start seeing the netlists like Adlance or Waveserpents appearing in the top 33%. I believe that NOVA, while it had no Adlance in the top 32, featured 5 in the second 32.
Wow, a whole 5? That must be terrible for that 12.5% of players to have to face. If you expand to top 64 you still have only 5 adlance in top 25%. How many events have 256 participants? How many of those 256 played adlance? What's the make up of the armies in the middle group? Without those numbers little else matters.
Edit: how many of those events had exit polls where participants indicated they had a bad time or negative experience? Is there any actual evidence the current format isn't what those who participated want or evidence they found it not fun?
Those numbers are around for some of the major tournaments if you care to look them up, on TorrentOfFire or FrontlingGaming.
All I'm trying to say here is that declaring the balance of the game based upon the winner of a tournament is a very bad idea. The best generals will be the best no matter what - and in many case because they specifically chose a hard counter to the current meta-dominating lists. The middle tables are where you'll find the mediocre-to-bad players with netlists beating better skilled people with worse lists, or the fluff players getting trounced by pentaflyrants or waveserpents. The middle ground is where you'll find the discontent breeding and people leaving the tournament/game over balance issues. Fluff players will keep being happy with fluff and top players will keep being happy regardless of what restrictions are around. So the middle ground is where you need to look to find the issues, rather than the finalists.
I don't know what kind of 'evidence' you'll accept, but there is a clear feeling from a lot of players that there are a number of things 'bad' about the current 40k metagame in a distinctly different and worse way than in the past; else we wouldn't be having this conversation. Organisers of NOVA and BAO have said on multiple occasions that there was a general feel of negativity towards the Adamantine Lance (amongst other dominant builds).
OverwatchCNC wrote: How do you get 75% of players are at the middle tables? At most 33.3% would be middle. Top, middle, lowest tables split evenly.
It depends what you count as top, right? Is 'top tables' literally only the finalists, or is it arbitrarily split in to exact thirds?
I would count for the largest tournaments which split in to 8 brackets, bracket 1 as top and bracket 8 as bottom, with 2-6 as the middle.
32 players in top bracket
32 players in bottom bracket
192 players in 'the middle tables'. (75%)
If you want to literally say 'top / middle / bottom = 33% splits' then you really start seeing the netlists like Adlance or Waveserpents appearing in the top 33%. I believe that NOVA, while it had no Adlance in the top 32, featured 5 in the second 32.
Wow, a whole 5? That must be terrible for that 12.5% of players to have to face. If you expand to top 64 you still have only 5 adlance in top 25%. How many events have 256 participants? How many of those 256 played adlance? What's the make up of the armies in the middle group? Without those numbers little else matters.
Edit: how many of those events had exit polls where participants indicated they had a bad time or negative experience? Is there any actual evidence the current format isn't what those who participated want or evidence they found it not fun?
Those numbers are around for some of the major tournaments if you care to look them up, on TorrentOfFire or FrontlingGaming.
All I'm trying to say here is that declaring the balance of the game based upon the winner of a tournament is a very bad idea. The best generals will be the best no matter what - and in many case because they specifically chose a hard counter to the current meta-dominating lists. The middle tables are where you'll find the mediocre-to-bad players with netlists beating better skilled people with worse lists, or the fluff players getting trounced by pentaflyrants or waveserpents. The middle ground is where you'll find the discontent breeding and people leaving the tournament/game over balance issues. Fluff players will keep being happy with fluff and top players will keep being happy regardless of what restrictions are around. So the middle ground is where you need to look to find the issues, rather than the finalists.
I don't know what kind of 'evidence' you'll accept, but there is a clear feeling from a lot of players that there are a number of things 'bad' about the current 40k metagame in a distinctly different and worse way than in the past; else we wouldn't be having this conversation. Organisers of NOVA and BAO have said on multiple occasions that there was a general feel of negativity towards the Adamantine Lance (amongst other dominant builds).
All of that has been true at any stage of 40k just substitute adlance with any number of former meta net lists. 3rd ed Rhino Rush, 4th ed fish of fury or Eldar skimmer spam, 5th Ed missile spam and GK, 6th Ed Death Stars and flying MC circus'. All of those were bemoaned and decried at the time, the difference now is the scope of the whining. Which has less to do with the potency of any meta net build and more to do with the online community as a whole and the shift of its role in competitive gaming. At every stage outlined above the best players made lists to beat the current net build meta and said meta was dominant in the middle pack. WargamesCon 2012 is a perfect example where GK, the super unfun edition breaking list decried to the ends of the earth online, were beaten out of the top spots and an Ork horde and biker list piloted by Alan Bajmorovich took it all by a huge margin.
Adlance and Knights are just the new meta net list to beat up on.
Edit. The kind of evidence I would accept certainly isn't the kind of generic, sweeping, lots of people think/feel/say sort of rhetoric that isn't actually evidence of anything.
Second Edit: looking back through the thread you and I seem to agree on the basics around IKs. Is it possible I missed something along the way? Are you saying Knights and Adlance should or should not be banned because they are a snowflake. The ciclical nature of this thread has gotten me confused it seems.
All of that has been true at any stage of 40k just substitute adlance with any number of former meta net lists. 3rd ed Rhino Rush, 4th ed fish of fury or Eldar skimmer spam, 5th Ed missile spam and GK, 6th Ed Death Stars and flying MC circus'. All of those were bemoaned and decried at the time, the difference now is the scope of the whining. Which has less to do with the potency of any meta net build and more to do with the online community as a whole and the shift of its role in competitive gaming. At every stage outlined above the best players made lists to beat the current net build meta and said meta was dominant in the middle pack. WargamesCon 2012 is a perfect example where GK, the super unfun edition breaking list decried to the ends of the earth online, were beaten out of the top spots and an Ork horde and biker list piloted by Alan Bajmorovich took it all by a huge margin.
Adlance and Knights are just the new meta net list to beat up on.
Sure, there have always been balance issues; but we can still rank the balance issues against each other to find the worst ones, and (in my opinion) the balance issues of this edition are far greater than they were in 5th or 4th. We simply have far more extreme models to deal with now. AV15, Flyers, Superheavies, SD, formations with free +50% durability to your army for no cost, didn't exist back then; that should be an obvious indicator that 6th and 7th have at least more potential for wider balance swings than the previous 3 editions did.
Major tournament organisers never seriously pursued any kind of bans or restrictions (beyond 'no forge world') in those editions, yet you won't find a tournament today without some kind of additional limitations. That should be an obvious indicator that balance is in a worse place today than 3 years ago.
Yet your opinion is that people are whining more now because the internet is somehow different than it was 3 years ago?
Yes the best players shift and the middle players get dominated by the meta. I'm agreeing with you on that point. I'm saying that the domination of the middle players is worse than it has been before; I'm saying that you can't look at the Ork list taking podium place and say 'Obviously Grey Knights are balanced'.
And bringing this back full circle: Knights/Adlance is more than just 'a new meta list' in the same way that Fish of Fury was. It is a style of list that was not in any way supported by the rules of past editions (whereas all the mechanics of Fish of Fury are relatively unchanged from 3rd until 7th). Superheavies with D-Weapons and stomps are a relatively new thing in the game; they are an extreme above and beyond 5th edition simply because the core rules changed to allow them to exist. And they are a unique thing even within the confines of the rules today: no other force can be legally be entirely comprised of Super-Heavy Lords Of War. They ARE a special snowflake and should be treated as such, regardless of whether that is to allow or to ban them.
Spoiler:
I think that the only way true balance would be achieved is for people who care about balance to re-write codices from the ground up. There is nothing inherent in being a Super Heavy Lord of War that makes you unbalanced; just like there was nothing inherently unbalanced in any of the multiple elements that added up to a wave serpent to make them unbalanced. So we should tackle things at the individual unit level, at the intra codex level, in order to remake balance. However, that is never going to happen while GW still draws breath. The ubiquity of 40k as a ruleset is one of its few redeeming qualities, and people are going to react adversely to individual clubs or tournaments rewriting the rules. We need to be more practical, which (unfortunately) involves more sweeping changes that are targetted at a few units but catch others in the crossfire. The Community Comp system in Australia is a half-way measure, but it is definitely not without glaring issues and its own brand of re-writing.
My personal opinion is that Knights, and Superheavies/GMCs in general, are bad for the game. I think that battle brother allies are bad for the game too; and that D-Weapons (and more generally any remove-from-play attack), and free-special-rules-at-no-cost-formations are bad for the game. But if we're going to operate in an environment where those things are allowed or unavoidable (as it seems we have to with the direct GW is heading) then things should be deal with on a case by case basis where at all possible. Knights stick out because they ARE unique (faction entirely comprised of Superheavies with D weapons that are now Lords of War). Whether that requires an explicit exception for them, an explicit admission that they are to be banned along with all other SH LOW, or whatever... but they are unique in the game and that needs to be dealt with.
Trasvi wrote: And they are a unique thing even within the confines of the rules today: no other force can be legally be entirely comprised of Super-Heavy Lords Of War.
Not true. I can take an army of nothing but Baneblades if I want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trasvi wrote: Until that point, an army of 2+ Knights IS a unique occurrence because it is a faction of its own, a battleforged army of its own, which ARE 'magic' things under the rules.
But they really aren't. Battle-forged is no more official/legitimate/whatever than unbound, and nothing in the rules GW has published says "you can ban units from a faction, but each faction must be allowed to have a legal army under your rules".
If people know their Factions may begin being completely banned based on balance issues, people will stop using the restrictions (or not go to tournaments with the restrictions).
How is that any different from having my army banned because it has a Baneblade in it? You can't use your knights, I can't use my Baneblade. The only difference is that there are more knight owners than Baneblade owners, so if we're letting people vote to give themselves a special snowflake exception (with the threat of not attending an event as the vote) knight owners have more power to get them while Baneblade owners are easier to ignore.
Trasvi wrote: And they are a unique thing even within the confines of the rules today: no other force can be legally be entirely comprised of Super-Heavy Lords Of War.
Not true. I can take an army of nothing but Baneblades if I want.
Battleforged? I shouldn't really need to add that caveat in as it is an almost universal rule for tournaments. Is there a particular formation or Forgeworld army that lets you do this?
No, but if we're talking about the rules as published by GW then whether or not it is battle-forged is irrelevant. Your argument is that GW has somehow created a unique set of rules that require special treatment, and tournament house rules are not part of that. If you want to limit the discussion to battle-forged armies only then you're going to have to concede that the special status of knights is the result of those tournament house rules, not the rules published by GW.
No, but if we're talking about the rules as published by GW then whether or not it is battle-forged is irrelevant. Your argument is that GW has somehow created a unique set of rules that require special treatment, and tournament house rules are not part of that. If you want to limit the discussion to battle-forged armies only then you're going to have to concede that the special status of knights is the result of those tournament house rules, not the rules published by GW.
Ok, sure. I concede that.
Now what?
We're talking in the context of adding additional restrictions to GW's rules. We're talking about adding special cases to those house rules. So its pretty asinine to say 'you MUST NOT have special restrictions to your rules, even to cover special situations that arise because of your rules'.
All of that has been true at any stage of 40k just substitute adlance with any number of former meta net lists. 3rd ed Rhino Rush, 4th ed fish of fury or Eldar skimmer spam, 5th Ed missile spam and GK, 6th Ed Death Stars and flying MC circus'. All of those were bemoaned and decried at the time, the difference now is the scope of the whining. Which has less to do with the potency of any meta net build and more to do with the online community as a whole and the shift of its role in competitive gaming. At every stage outlined above the best players made lists to beat the current net build meta and said meta was dominant in the middle pack. WargamesCon 2012 is a perfect example where GK, the super unfun edition breaking list decried to the ends of the earth online, were beaten out of the top spots and an Ork horde and biker list piloted by Alan Bajmorovich took it all by a huge margin.
Adlance and Knights are just the new meta net list to beat up on.
Sure, there have always been balance issues; but we can still rank the balance issues against each other to find the worst ones, and (in my opinion) the balance issues of this edition are far greater than they were in 5th or 4th. We simply have far more extreme models to deal with now. AV15, Flyers, Superheavies, SD, formations with free +50% durability to your army for no cost, didn't exist back then; that should be an obvious indicator that 6th and 7th have at least more potential for wider balance swings than the previous 3 editions did.
Major tournament organisers never seriously pursued any kind of bans or restrictions (beyond 'no forge world') in those editions, yet you won't find a tournament today without some kind of additional limitations. That should be an obvious indicator that balance is in a worse place today than 3 years ago.
Yet your opinion is that people are whining more now because the internet is somehow different than it was 3 years ago?
Yes the best players shift and the middle players get dominated by the meta. I'm agreeing with you on that point. I'm saying that the domination of the middle players is worse than it has been before; I'm saying that you can't look at the Ork list taking podium place and say 'Obviously Grey Knights are balanced'.
And bringing this back full circle: Knights/Adlance is more than just 'a new meta list' in the same way that Fish of Fury was. It is a style of list that was not in any way supported by the rules of past editions (whereas all the mechanics of Fish of Fury are relatively unchanged from 3rd until 7th). Superheavies with D-Weapons and stomps are a relatively new thing in the game; they are an extreme above and beyond 5th edition simply because the core rules changed to allow them to exist. And they are a unique thing even within the confines of the rules today: no other force can be legally be entirely comprised of Super-Heavy Lords Of War. They ARE a special snowflake and should be treated as such, regardless of whether that is to allow or to ban them.
Spoiler:
I think that the only way true balance would be achieved is for people who care about balance to re-write codices from the ground up. There is nothing inherent in being a Super Heavy Lord of War that makes you unbalanced; just like there was nothing inherently unbalanced in any of the multiple elements that added up to a wave serpent to make them unbalanced. So we should tackle things at the individual unit level, at the intra codex level, in order to remake balance.
However, that is never going to happen while GW still draws breath. The ubiquity of 40k as a ruleset is one of its few redeeming qualities, and people are going to react adversely to individual clubs or tournaments rewriting the rules. We need to be more practical, which (unfortunately) involves more sweeping changes that are targetted at a few units but catch others in the crossfire. The Community Comp system in Australia is a half-way measure, but it is definitely not without glaring issues and its own brand of re-writing.
My personal opinion is that Knights, and Superheavies/GMCs in general, are bad for the game. I think that battle brother allies are bad for the game too; and that D-Weapons (and more generally any remove-from-play attack), and free-special-rules-at-no-cost-formations are bad for the game.
But if we're going to operate in an environment where those things are allowed or unavoidable (as it seems we have to with the direct GW is heading) then things should be deal with on a case by case basis where at all possible. Knights stick out because they ARE unique (faction entirely comprised of Superheavies with D weapons that are now Lords of War). Whether that requires an explicit exception for them, an explicit admission that they are to be banned along with all other SH LOW, or whatever... but they are unique in the game and that needs to be dealt with.
Ok, I see better what you're getting at now. While I don't fully agree, I see your point.
OverwatchCNC wrote: How do you get 75% of players are at the middle tables? At most 33.3% would be middle. Top, middle, lowest tables split evenly.
It depends what you count as top, right? Is 'top tables' literally only the finalists, or is it arbitrarily split in to exact thirds?
I would count for the largest tournaments which split in to 8 brackets, bracket 1 as top and bracket 8 as bottom, with 2-6 as the middle.
32 players in top bracket
32 players in bottom bracket
192 players in 'the middle tables'. (75%)
If you want to literally say 'top / middle / bottom = 33% splits' then you really start seeing the netlists like Adlance or Waveserpents appearing in the top 33%. I believe that NOVA, while it had no Adlance in the top 32, featured 5 in the second 32.
Wow, a whole 5? That must be terrible for that 12.5% of players to have to face. If you expand to top 64 you still have only 5 adlance in top 25%. How many events have 256 participants? How many of those 256 played adlance? What's the make up of the armies in the middle group? Without those numbers little else matters.
Edit: how many of those events had exit polls where participants indicated they had a bad time or negative experience? Is there any actual evidence the current format isn't what those who participated want or evidence they found it not fun?
Umm... How about at NOVA, where there were no Adlance in the top Bracket but one Dual IK player got 3rd, but there were five armies with IKs in Bracket 2, three more in Bracket 3. Oh, and NOVA does an exit survey of which there was overwhelming negative feedback towards SH/GCs in both the Open and the Narrative. Imperial Knights also have a 65% win rate on Torrent of Fire.
I was there, I did well despite the IKs, but I didn't like seeing Adlances, Pacific Rim, and all the IKs, nor was I alone. There was a lot of negative sentiment floating around. Hell, even Reece felt just a little bad for bringing the "Easy Button" army.
They may not be winning, but there is massive negative sentiment towards them especially among those in the Middle tables who are getting stomped by them.
So there is at least one event supplying the "evidence" you are looking for backed up by Torrent of Fire data having IKs as the most winning army by a massive margin, even beyond the old 6th Ed Eldar. Mike Brandt has commented on the negative feedback multiple times on the forums and his Blog.
OverwatchCNC wrote: How do you get 75% of players are at the middle tables? At most 33.3% would be middle. Top, middle, lowest tables split evenly.
It depends what you count as top, right? Is 'top tables' literally only the finalists, or is it arbitrarily split in to exact thirds?
I would count for the largest tournaments which split in to 8 brackets, bracket 1 as top and bracket 8 as bottom, with 2-6 as the middle.
32 players in top bracket
32 players in bottom bracket
192 players in 'the middle tables'. (75%)
If you want to literally say 'top / middle / bottom = 33% splits' then you really start seeing the netlists like Adlance or Waveserpents appearing in the top 33%. I believe that NOVA, while it had no Adlance in the top 32, featured 5 in the second 32.
Wow, a whole 5? That must be terrible for that 12.5% of players to have to face. If you expand to top 64 you still have only 5 adlance in top 25%. How many events have 256 participants? How many of those 256 played adlance? What's the make up of the armies in the middle group? Without those numbers little else matters.
Edit: how many of those events had exit polls where participants indicated they had a bad time or negative experience? Is there any actual evidence the current format isn't what those who participated want or evidence they found it not fun?
Umm... How about at NOVA, where there were no Adlance in the top Bracket but one Dual IK player got 3rd, but there were five armies with IKs in Bracket 2, three more in Bracket 3. Oh, and NOVA does an exit survey of which there was overwhelming negative feedback towards SH/GCs in both the Open and the Narrative. Imperial Knights also have a 65% win rate on Torrent of Fire.
I was there, I did well despite the IKs, but I didn't like seeing Adlances, Pacific Rim, and all the IKs, nor was I alone. There was a lot of negative sentiment floating around. Hell, even Reece felt just a little bad for bringing the "Easy Button" army.
They may not be winning, but there is massive negative sentiment towards them especially among those in the Middle tables who are getting stomped by them.
So there is at least one event supplying the "evidence" you are looking for backed up by Torrent of Fire data having IKs as the most winning army by a massive margin, even beyond the old 6th Ed Eldar. Mike Brandt has commented on the negative feedback multiple times on the forums and his Blog.
Perfect. NOVA is outside my realm of play which is probably why I haven't paid much attention to those results. I'll need to check it out more closely. I am looking at this through the lens of the West Coast where Knights, Adlance, SH, and GC have seen much less backlash and are accepted and viewed in a far more positive light.
OverwatchCNC wrote: How do you get 75% of players are at the middle tables? At most 33.3% would be middle. Top, middle, lowest tables split evenly.
It depends what you count as top, right? Is 'top tables' literally only the finalists, or is it arbitrarily split in to exact thirds?
I would count for the largest tournaments which split in to 8 brackets, bracket 1 as top and bracket 8 as bottom, with 2-6 as the middle.
32 players in top bracket
32 players in bottom bracket
192 players in 'the middle tables'. (75%)
If you want to literally say 'top / middle / bottom = 33% splits' then you really start seeing the netlists like Adlance or Waveserpents appearing in the top 33%. I believe that NOVA, while it had no Adlance in the top 32, featured 5 in the second 32.
Guys, if you need to split hairs like this, maybe that reinforces the point that this isn't a big deal.
Trasvi wrote: We're talking in the context of adding additional restrictions to GW's rules. We're talking about adding special cases to those house rules. So its pretty asinine to say 'you MUST NOT have special restrictions to your rules, even to cover special situations that arise because of your rules'.
The point is that once you start saying "we can change stuff" you can't keep using "we must not change this no matter what" as a reason. The only argument presented so far for giving a special snowflake exception to knights has been based on an assumption that certain changes can not be made and we have to play it by RAW. By RAW knights don't have any special status, they only get that status once you create house rules to give it to them. So your argument essentially becomes "we've made house rules that make knights special, so we must have house rules that make knights special".
Major tournament organisers never seriously pursued any kind of bans or restrictions (beyond 'no forge world') in those editions, yet you won't find a tournament today without some kind of additional limitations. That should be an obvious indicator that balance is in a worse place today than 3 years ago.
I think it was pursued very seriously. We had a number of events over the years that ran significant "comp" formats.... many of the familiar faces now calling for 40k modifications once decried them. It has always been part of the discussion and we have been having the same forum debate for well over a decade.
Change is hard, it is uncomfortable, but it is the one certainty. The game is changing at such a rapid pace and just like we are not going back to "my" 40k, this version of 40k is leaving the station. Some of us will be on it and some of us will be left shouting into the abyss ...
OverwatchCNC wrote: How do you get 75% of players are at the middle tables? At most 33.3% would be middle. Top, middle, lowest tables split evenly.
It depends what you count as top, right? Is 'top tables' literally only the finalists, or is it arbitrarily split in to exact thirds? I would count for the largest tournaments which split in to 8 brackets, bracket 1 as top and bracket 8 as bottom, with 2-6 as the middle. 32 players in top bracket 32 players in bottom bracket 192 players in 'the middle tables'. (75%)
If you want to literally say 'top / middle / bottom = 33% splits' then you really start seeing the netlists like Adlance or Waveserpents appearing in the top 33%. I believe that NOVA, while it had no Adlance in the top 32, featured 5 in the second 32.
Guys, if you need to split hairs like this, maybe that reinforces the point that this isn't a big deal.
That's how I am feeling at this point.
muwhe wrote:
Major tournament organisers never seriously pursued any kind of bans or restrictions (beyond 'no forge world') in those editions, yet you won't find a tournament today without some kind of additional limitations. That should be an obvious indicator that balance is in a worse place today than 3 years ago.
I think it was pursued very seriously. We had a number of events over the years that ran significant "comp" formats.... many of the familiar faces now calling for 40k modifications once decried them. It has always been part of the discussion and we have been having the same forum debate for well over a decade.
Change is hard, it is uncomfortable, but it is the one certainty. The game is changing at such a rapid pace and just like we are not going back to "my" 40k, this version of 40k is leaving the station. Some of us will be on it and some of us will be left shouting into the abyss ...
That's where the idea behind Team Zero Comp came from. 3rd through mid 5th had major Comp in many events.
There's not a lot of splitting hairs to be done on Knight success. In a meta over the past year where ITC and NOVA basically restricted all SH/GC except Knights, Knights dominated. Domination is best evaluated by what they do in the average game, not who wins the GT. The same people more or less place highly in every GT they attend, and it's NEVER been a good metric of what a widely accepted or widely reviled type of list is.
The feedback has also broadly been, regardless of individually loud internet voices one way or another, players broadly do not want super big gobot hammer. They also don't want super nasty invincible deathstar hammer. Unfortunately, these are both part of the game in its unrestricted sense, and so the player base is far more divided (it's less about whether we like razorspam and leafblower, and more about whether we like any of 100 different ways to play the game as written, ipso facto, more divisive). I wish GW would undersatnd that by designing and framing the army construction rules in the way they have, they've created massive rifts in their player base. The types of hostility experienced between 40k players is, for instance, completely absent in the Malifaux community (Balanced game with a clearly printed way of playing the game in terms of list construction and points level).
Given every single tournament in the world heavily comps 7th edition today, and I do mean HEAVILY, it is a little silly to be opposed to restrictions on principle (as opposed to being opposed to a given restriction for a more specific or well-reasoned basis).
Imperial Knights do very well in events where the format restricts all other SH/GC…that should not come as a surprise. In formats that restricted SH/GC…the lists that had SH did better. However, in events that allowed other SH/GC, the Imperial Knights did not perform as well – this includes AdeptiCon and almost all other events where SH/GC are an available option to folks.
Given the relentless pace of changes to 40K of late, I question the value of looking at the meta results of events over the span of a year. In my opinion, analyzing event results have their place when looking at that particular event, at that exact moment in the game release cycle or for that certain weekend. The data correlation and relevancy really starts to breakdown when you attempt to compare events that are operating under different circumstances and available rules. For me it is about holding a long term view that fits with the direction of the game and not managing things release to release which I believe is untenable.
Without going back too far into the ancient history of the game…what was the initial community reaction to:
Area Terrain to True Line of Sight?
Inclusion of Allies?
Fortifications?
Flyers?
Forge World?
The vocal community acted negatively towards every single one of those game additions and options, with several people decrying the death of Warhammer 40K. At this point in time, you are seeing the same reactions when attempting to mainstream Strength D, Lords of War, Super Heavies, and Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures.
If we had we ran polls for previous events asking what people considered “unfun” in the above list, we’d be playing a very different game today. It is a very dangerous road, and while I have no doubt it is paved with good intentions and in the name of “saving” event 40k it carries with it significant risks. Sometimes when you try to save the things you love … you end up ruining it. You do not have to travel too far down the road of core rules changes before the game you are playing is a shadow of its former self.
Ten years ago, Games Workshop had the competitive advantage in almost every aspect of producing high end plastic models. They had a large cash infusion and they invested in the tooling to produce large-scale plastic kits. Almost everyone else at the time was either working in metal or resin. Those that did do plastic fell short in terms of the level of quality that Games Workshop was producing. Additionally, the idea of printing models on a 3D printer was still a relatively new concept, had poor results and was expensive.
Today, that has all changed. Companies such as Wyrd, Privateer Press, Warlord and others are producing high end plastic infantry models. Additionally, Kickstarter has made it possible for anyone, given the right project, to get access to the capital needed to do plastic production. 3D printing continues to make significant leaps forward and a future of being able to print high end 28mm infantry models on your desktop is right around the corner. This is something everyone in the industry is going to have to come to grips with.
Disagree with Games Workshop all you want, and heaven knows they have taken my fair share of criticism, but the one significant competitive advantage Games Workshop still has available to them, is the capacity to produce large plastic kits. This is an advantage they should maintain for several years going forward. It is also the sort of advantage that cannot be easily exploited by 3rd parties or by 3D printing any time in the immediate future. Ask yourself, if you have the competitive advantage of being able to produce large scale kits, what do you do? You make sure your main game properties make good use them. This is why 40K has seen the rampant increase of large-scale kits, (flyers, fortifications and now SH/GC ). It is not going away anytime soon, because it is the future. They have been and will continue to become a larger, more significant part of the game - especially given the sales associated with Imperial Knights, Wraithknights, and Riptide releases.
So 40K events will continue to vary and AdeptiCon will continue to support 18+ 40K events to cater to a wide range of how folks want 40K served up. Variety is a good thing. But as a community, we absolutely need to come to grips with larger kits playing a bigger role in our 40K. It will not be long before we see a return to a 4x8 board standard to make room for all of it on the table. ; )
I don't begrudge GW moving in any direction with their game that they want, but that doesn't mean I need to want to play that game.
I actually have no problem with large plastic kits, the issue is the rules surrounding them. They easily could have just made things larger using the existing rules, make monsterous creatures actually monsterous, make vehicles to scale with infantry etc.
As for all the changes above, I would argue the the inclusion of each of those rules (flyers, Allies, TLOS etc.) was bad for the state of the game as a competitive game.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I am assuming that the next IG Codex will include the $125+ Baneblade (with all 7 variants), just as the next Ork Codex will include the $125+ Stompa. It's clearly in GW's best interest to force these kinds of units into the Codex precisely to remove the specialness of Knights.
On the flip side, it's also in GW's best interest to fold Knights and Ad Mech together, so that they can force Knight players to buy Ad Mech models, and vice versa.
... and until that point in time, Imperial Knights are a unique faction in Warhammer 40k that require unique rules to allow them to be playable.
If a formation/faction of solely baneblade chassis vehicles eventuates and becomes legal, we can revisit decisions; just like we're having to revisit decisions on ranged D now that it is available on non-LOW platforms.
Lets deal with what we actually have on the table to deal with, rather than some hypothetical future army that may or may not ever occur. GW recently passed over some very easy opportunities to add the Baneblade to the AM codex and Stompa to the Ork codex and Knights to the Skitaari Codex, if that is what they really wanted to do.
You know what's really great?
When GW reads my mind and does exactly what I asked of them:
You Combine the three formations fromt he existing codices (who each get their own bonuses), and this formation give them all:
– All models gain Canticles of the Omnissiah
– Techpriest may reroll his Warlord Trait if he is the general
– All weapons lose the “Gets Hot” special rule
– All unit equipment upgrades( including relics) from Cult Mechanicus and Skitarii are FREE
Not quite. You'd have to photoshop Cobra, Alivn and the Chipmunks, and Voltron into the picture as BFFs to depict the wonderful world of 7th edition allies/detachments/formations/dataslates. I do remember those days though... back when you could ask your opponent "What army are you playing?" and they could almost always answer that with just two words.
I fail to see the issue of negotiating what you want to play during one's scheduled games. We have an Apoc game coming up, and we'll be bringing out the big boys, by design.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I fail to see the issue of negotiating what you want to play during one's scheduled games. We have an Apoc game coming up, and we'll be bringing out the big boys, by design.
There is effectively no such separate entity as apoc anymore. Everything other than high points that made apoc special (taking any model from any faction, fliers, superheavies, gargantuan creatures, huge blast templates and strength d, aysmetric card based mechanics, etc) are now part and parcel of "normal" 40k even at 750pts. You had to negotiate nothing as you're playing standard 40k. That is the issue. Previously, if you wanted one or more of those things, the onus was on you to convince the other player as the default was to NOT include them. The reverse is true now and you're the "bad guy" who wants to change the rules if you don't want to play it. Just look at the entitled responses to knight players having their superheavies treated just like other superheavies at tournies.
Um, no. You simply agree as to what sort of game you are playing. Just as you set a points level, you decide what you are going to include or exclude. That's not an issue. Nor is it bad to limit choices if you're agreeing to limit points.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Um, no. You simply agree as to what sort of game you are playing. Just as you set a points level, you decide what you are going to include or exclude. That's not an issue. Nor is it bad to limit choices if you're agreeing to limit points.
Choosing points limits is an explicit part of the rules and (should be) inherent to playing any semblance of a balanced game.
Arbitrarily attempting to restrict what your opponent is allowed to use in their army is beyond the scope of the rules.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Um, no. You simply agree as to what sort of game you are playing. Just as you set a points level, you decide what you are going to include or exclude. That's not an issue. Nor is it bad to limit choices if you're agreeing to limit points.
I guess the "What kind of game?" is better answered by the game designers, rather than be a stressful and political nightmare of entitled brats and stubborn vets. But make no mistakes, apoc crapped all over the vet's game (40k), their game didn't crap all over apoc, it was force fed crap until it was bloated and indistinguishable from apoc.
Rewind a few editions and knights wouldn't be a problem, they'd only be in apoc, the game would be better for it, and all the entitled knight players would be playing apoc and, well, making friends as usual lol.
Eh. I'm not really that bothered by merging Apocalypse into the base game. It keeps all of the rules together, and none of the Apoc stuff is particularly worrisome aside from the things shooting multiple large D blast templates. Pull the Blast off the Turbo-Laser Destructors so they're just giant Lascannons, and pretty much all of the balance issues disappear.
What bothered me was the rules shift from 5E smooth & tactical to 6E picky & random. The 6E/7E Psyker, LOS, Challenge and casualty rules, in particular. And then there's Maelstrom.
I would be much happier playing 7E Codices under 5E rules than 5E Codices under 7E rules.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Eh. I'm not really that bothered by merging Apocalypse into the base game. It keeps all of the rules together, and none of the Apoc stuff is particularly worrisome aside from the things shooting multiple large D blast templates. Pull the Blast off the Turbo-Laser Destructors so they're just giant Lascannons, and pretty much all of the balance issues disappear.
What bothered me was the rules shift from 5E smooth & tactical to 6E picky & random. The 6E/7E Psyker, LOS, Challenge and casualty rules, in particular. And then there's Maelstrom.
I would be much happier playing 7E Codices under 5E rules than 5E Codices under 7E rules.
From an individual perspective, this actually is similar to how I feel. Honestly even True Line of Sight is a poor game design rule, creating unrealistic play in a hamfisted attempt at realism (no, of course that guy wouldn't crouch behind that rock wall that's nearly as tall as him, of course he'd leave his head exposed to your gunfire! ... and of course that leman russ can fire a battle cannon through those two windows at the left chest nipple of that space marine! .... etc. ... abstract LOS is actually more believable from a wargaming perspective, as it allows the supposition that impossibly unrealistic shots aren't commonly taken and thinking combatants actually use cover instead of just freeze-posing near it) while simultaneously adding extensive argument and fuzzy determinations (25% of my model? are you sure it isn't 24%?).
Honestly, a lot of what's been added to the game in the past couple of editions, especially Maelstrom, are things that would have been laughed out of existence in a heartbeat if a random player, or even a respected organizer or player, had proposed them prior to their release by GW. If NOVA had said "our GT will use Apocalypse rules for all GT games" back when Apoc was separate, very few people would have signed up. If we'd said "your mission will be randomly determined by the turn, and scored the player turn you randomly determine it before your opponent can stop you, unless of course you randomly determine a mission that is impossible for you that player turn because your opponent just happens to be in position to prevent you doing it right away," people would have called our missions trash across the board.
I think most game rule changes are minor from edition to edition, even ones that have far reaching impacts, and you either like 'em or you don't, but 7th in particular has had some pretty big ones that are unique if you go back 3 or 4 editions. I've played since 2nd, like many people here, and the changes from 2 -->3 and 3-->4 and 4-->5 and 5-->6 even were not as dramatic, though it's an easy argument to make in either direction due to how complex and fuzzy it is. The obvious example here is the addition of Super Heavies and Gargantuans. In 2nd Edition, you played with infantry and vehicles and walkers and monsters. In 6th edition, you played with infantry and vehicles and walkers and monsters. In 7th edition, you play with COMMON (as opposed to Virus Bomb / Vortex Grenade rarity in 2nd) big giant D blasts, Super Heavy Vehicles, and Gargantuan Creatures, and stomps and such. It harkens back to 2nd edition, but then it turns up a game that back then was at 5 to 11 instead. Marines vs. Monsters was never a super fair fight in 2nd, and marines were infinitely more powerful / better relative to the game than they are now. Now, plain jane marines are basically obsec cannon fodder, and they're even more outclassed by the big stuff. The utter absence of meaningful parity in the game is at an all time high.
Regardless, the biggest elephant in the room is that GW's created a game that no longer has a clear set of rules for how an army is made and how the game is played. It's very "do whatever you want, and talk w/ your opponent about it before you play." While this is a FANTASTIC idea for beer and pretzels game groups/clubs, it's utter gak for pick-up gamers and tournament organizers, because every "answer" is wrong for a larger % of players than it's right for, especially with how antagonistic and picky this particular community *can* be.
I played at the tail end of 2nd, and 2-3 was a huge shift. But OMG, 3E was amazing: you could play something that looked like a battle within a couple hours. It was so smooth. That kind of thing was never possible in 2E. And playing a 2E-size game? An hour, tops.
7E has slowed things down, and not in a good way. Everything bogs. Movement bogs, because of micro-positioning for cover & casualty removal. Psyk bogs because of the opposed rolls. Shooting bogs because of the "closest first" rule. Fighting bogs with Challenges and so on. And so many special rules.
As a B&P player, I deliberately ignore the whole "closest first" rule, and expect the same of my opponent. Pull whatever models you like, and the game plays a lot better. *Everything* goes faster, for no loss of tactical play.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I played at the tail end of 2nd, and 2-3 was a huge shift. But OMG, 3E was amazing: you could play something that looked like a battle within a couple hours. It was so smooth. That kind of thing was never possible in 2E. And playing a 2E-size game? An hour, tops.
7E has slowed things down, and not in a good way. Everything bogs. Movement bogs, because of micro-positioning for cover & casualty removal. Psyk bogs because of the opposed rolls. Shooting bogs because of the "closest first" rule. Fighting bogs with Challenges and so on. And so many special rules.
As a B&P player, I deliberately ignore the whole "closest first" rule, and expect the same of my opponent. Pull whatever models you like, and the game plays a lot better. *Everything* goes faster, for no loss of tactical play.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Eh. I'm not really that bothered by merging Apocalypse into the base game. It keeps all of the rules together, and none of the Apoc stuff is particularly worrisome aside from the things shooting multiple large D blast templates. Pull the Blast off the Turbo-Laser Destructors so they're just giant Lascannons, and pretty much all of the balance issues disappear.
What bothered me was the rules shift from 5E smooth & tactical to 6E picky & random. The 6E/7E Psyker, LOS, Challenge and casualty rules, in particular. And then there's Maelstrom.
I would be much happier playing 7E Codices under 5E rules than 5E Codices under 7E rules.
From an individual perspective, this actually is similar to how I feel. Honestly even True Line of Sight is a poor game design rule, creating unrealistic play in a hamfisted attempt at realism (no, of course that guy wouldn't crouch behind that rock wall that's nearly as tall as him, of course he'd leave his head exposed to your gunfire! ... and of course that leman russ can fire a battle cannon through those two windows at the left chest nipple of that space marine! .... etc. ... abstract LOS is actually more believable from a wargaming perspective, as it allows the supposition that impossibly unrealistic shots aren't commonly taken and thinking combatants actually use cover instead of just freeze-posing near it) while simultaneously adding extensive argument and fuzzy determinations (25% of my model? are you sure it isn't 24%?).
Honestly, a lot of what's been added to the game in the past couple of editions, especially Maelstrom, are things that would have been laughed out of existence in a heartbeat if a random player, or even a respected organizer or player, had proposed them prior to their release by GW. If NOVA had said "our GT will use Apocalypse rules for all GT games" back when Apoc was separate, very few people would have signed up. If we'd said "your mission will be randomly determined by the turn, and scored the player turn you randomly determine it before your opponent can stop you, unless of course you randomly determine a mission that is impossible for you that player turn because your opponent just happens to be in position to prevent you doing it right away," people would have called our missions trash across the board.
I think most game rule changes are minor from edition to edition, even ones that have far reaching impacts, and you either like 'em or you don't, but 7th in particular has had some pretty big ones that are unique if you go back 3 or 4 editions. I've played since 2nd, like many people here, and the changes from 2 -->3 and 3-->4 and 4-->5 and 5-->6 even were not as dramatic, though it's an easy argument to make in either direction due to how complex and fuzzy it is. The obvious example here is the addition of Super Heavies and Gargantuans. In 2nd Edition, you played with infantry and vehicles and walkers and monsters. In 6th edition, you played with infantry and vehicles and walkers and monsters. In 7th edition, you play with COMMON (as opposed to Virus Bomb / Vortex Grenade rarity in 2nd) big giant D blasts, Super Heavy Vehicles, and Gargantuan Creatures, and stomps and such. It harkens back to 2nd edition, but then it turns up a game that back then was at 5 to 11 instead. Marines vs. Monsters was never a super fair fight in 2nd, and marines were infinitely more powerful / better relative to the game than they are now. Now, plain jane marines are basically obsec cannon fodder, and they're even more outclassed by the big stuff. The utter absence of meaningful parity in the game is at an all time high.
Regardless, the biggest elephant in the room is that GW's created a game that no longer has a clear set of rules for how an army is made and how the game is played. It's very "do whatever you want, and talk w/ your opponent about it before you play." While this is a FANTASTIC idea for beer and pretzels game groups/clubs, it's utter gak for pick-up gamers and tournament organizers, because every "answer" is wrong for a larger % of players than it's right for, especially with how antagonistic and picky this particular community *can* be.
JohnHwangDD wrote:I played at the tail end of 2nd, and 2-3 was a huge shift. But OMG, 3E was amazing: you could play something that looked like a battle within a couple hours. It was so smooth. That kind of thing was never possible in 2E. And playing a 2E-size game? An hour, tops.
7E has slowed things down, and not in a good way. Everything bogs. Movement bogs, because of micro-positioning for cover & casualty removal. Psyk bogs because of the opposed rolls. Shooting bogs because of the "closest first" rule. Fighting bogs with Challenges and so on. And so many special rules.
As a B&P player, I deliberately ignore the whole "closest first" rule, and expect the same of my opponent. Pull whatever models you like, and the game plays a lot better. *Everything* goes faster, for no loss of tactical play.
Both of you hit the nail right on the head. I started in 4th, but most of this holds true because I remember learning 4th and being told about the horrible rules and problems that plagued the earlier editions. I got out in 4th because of the rules and after watching my first game of 5th I was back in with a vengeance. I drifted away after GK and Necron in 5th but saw appeal in 6th... and now with Apoc being forced into 40k and the rules disparity and scale problems I find myself liquidating almost all of my 40k debating to walk away for good. GW is driving me away from a game I've loved for well over a decade and it is saddening.
I love competitive play and if not in tournaments want good close games with a smooth ruleset. 5th was solid, some aspects of 6th were ok, but between the terrible rules interactions, the vague definiton of creating an army, the bogged down play, rapid fire low quality rules releases all are taking their toll.
I remember being perfectly fine using a single FOC for Ard Boyz in 5th. Now, people are griping at 3 sources, using any of the tidbits of overpriced rules GW is pumping out, want their entire army of SHWs, and using every breakable formation or unintended rules interaction possible.
End of 6th and into 7th was great for 40k most army books were competitive and relatively balanced. Necrons was a bit cheesy even if they still haven't had any luck with tournaments but eldar truly broke 40k competitively. Knights were kinda annoying for like a few weeks with ad lance but that fear gradually disappeared. I'm not worried with well costed superheavy units and str d melee at initiative 1. It's the undercosted range d spamming gak that ruins 40k
Zagman wrote: I love competitive play and if not in tournaments want good close games with a smooth ruleset. 5th was solid, some aspects of 6th were ok, but between the terrible rules interactions, the vague definiton of creating an army, the bogged down play, rapid fire low quality rules releases all are taking their toll.
I remember being perfectly fine using a single FOC for Ard Boyz in 5th. Now, people are griping at 3 sources, using any of the tidbits of overpriced rules GW is pumping out, want their entire army of SHWs, and using every breakable formation or unintended rules interaction possible.
"Normal" 40k right now as per RAW is much LESS restrictive than even the most cutthroat tourney format Adepticon used to have, the Gladiator. It's been a while but I think the really early Gladiator tourneys were pretty much unbound (although I could be wrong... I just remember lots of Reavers and fliers in those early years) and then a few years down the line they toned it "down" to a single CAD with one superheavy/gargantuan with a hull point limit. Think about that... the prototype WAAC "no whining" (that part was actually in the tourney rules!) tourney format was less of a free for all than the current STANDARD beer and pretzels 40k rules (both bound and unbound). That is fethed up.
Zagman wrote: I love competitive play and if not in tournaments want good close games with a smooth ruleset. 5th was solid, some aspects of 6th were ok, but between the terrible rules interactions, the vague definiton of creating an army, the bogged down play, rapid fire low quality rules releases all are taking their toll.
I remember being perfectly fine using a single FOC for Ard Boyz in 5th. Now, people are griping at 3 sources, using any of the tidbits of overpriced rules GW is pumping out, want their entire army of SHWs, and using every breakable formation or unintended rules interaction possible.
"Normal" 40k right now as per RAW is much LESS restrictive than even the most cutthroat tourney format Adepticon used to have, the Gladiator. It's been a while but I think the really early Gladiator tourneys were pretty much unbound (although I could be wrong... I just remember lots of Reavers and fliers in those early years) and then a few years down the line they toned it "down" to a single CAD with one superheavy/gargantuan with a hull point limit. Think about that... the prototype WAAC "no whining" (that part was actually in the tourney rules!) tourney format was less of a free for all than the current STANDARD beer and pretzels 40k rules (both bound and unbound). That is fethed up.
Exactly! I remember looking at Gladiator and saying to myself, "Nothing about that is appealing to me." And now it would be a breath of fresh air compared to "Standard" 40k per BRB.
(I'm not mad at you, but these clowns you refer to) ? I mean, it sounds elitist, even racist. Are Astra Militarum players being singled out?
you.
