Remaking this poll for proper wording, as the last poll created confusion as the title read one one and the poll asked a different question.

I am Traditio and I endorse this poll.

The last one had too much of a mismatch between title and poll question.

I have absolutely no philosophical objection to massive stuff with big guns being allowed in regular play, as long as the whole game is designed from the ground up to ensure that they're integrated fairly.

Voting yes.

The only way to stop the bloat and massive discrepancies between units is to make a core game more suitable for SHV's, SHW's special units and other add on rules.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I have absolutely no philosophical objection to massive stuff with big guns being allowed in regular play, as long as the whole game is designed from the ground up to ensure that they're integrated fairly.

It's not. The core game has been essentially the same for decades. Superheavies and gargantuans are a relatively recent change tacked onto a system that wasn't built for them.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I have absolutely no philosophical objection to massive stuff with big guns being allowed in regular play, as long as the whole game is designed from the ground up to ensure that they're integrated fairly.

You say it so much better than me


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I have absolutely no philosophical objection to massive stuff with big guns being allowed in regular play, as long as the whole game is designed from the ground up to ensure that they're integrated fairly.

It's not. The core game has been essentially the same for decades.

Then the core needs to change. It is a creaking mess that adding extra rules onto makes worse. SHVs are a drop in the ocean

Traditio wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I have absolutely no philosophical objection to massive stuff with big guns being allowed in regular play, as long as the whole game is designed from the ground up to ensure that they're integrated fairly.

It's not. The core game has been essentially the same for decades. Superheavies and gargantuans are a relatively recent change tacked onto a system that wasn't built for them.

Thanks kid, I'm well aware of my 40kistory.

We're also on the cusp of a new edition, which may well change the landscape for super heavies, and I'll also qualify the initial post by stating that most are fine as is, most of the remainder need the smallest of tweaks and then there's only one or two outliers that, should they be here to stay, that need wholesale changes.

In fact, most units, now I think about it, have Codex, rather than Core Game problems, so I'd revise my initial statement to reflect that. The issue isn't with the unit type, purely with the inherent poor balance in the game, which is largely army book related.

Mr. Burning wrote:Then the core needs to change. It is a creaking mess that adding extra rules onto makes worse. SHVs are a drop in the ocean

Would you agree that 40k was more balanced/playable in 4th and 5th editions than in 6th and 7th respectively?

so long as both players are mature enough to not bring them when they obviously shouldn't by the standards of a friendly game (i.e. bringing a wraithknight to a 1,000 pt. game), Yes. ESPECIALLY since certain armies get a needed buff when they do bring them (IG, Blood Angels, Orks, Chaos, etc.)

There is no evidence for either of these unit types to be, by definition, imbalanced. I posit that the perception of their imbalance is caused by a select few extremely common examples, as well as an extremely common misreading of how D-weaponry works.

I've seen too many people JUST complaining about Wraithknights, Stormsurges, and IKs, and too many people going "two D shots from a Wraithknight can wipe out a WHOLE SQUAD of terminators! That's broken!" to see it any other way.

The majority of superheavies and gargantuans currently supported in the rules of the game are actually inefficient for their points. That does not speak to an overpowered, universally undercosted unit type.

For a counter-example, look at Flying Monstrous Creatures, and bike/jetbike units. Compare the number of those units that are considered on the high end of the competitive spectrum within their codexes vs the number of those units that are considered on the low end.

Powerful, imbalanced supers (within each codex): Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, Stormsurges, Supremacy Suits, and I've heard (but not played against) Revenant Titans and Warhounds are too strong.

Underpowered Supers (within each codex): Allllllllll the baneblades/malcador variants, the mega-land raiders, all the tau Super-flyers, both nid gargants, all ork superheavies, the Dark Eldar superheavy skimmer, all three necron supers.

Powerful or Imbalanced Bike/Jetbike units (within each codex): Windriders, Seer Councils, Bike Eldar HQs, Bike SM Hqs, SM bike squads, SM bike command squads, Ravenwing, Reavers, Warbikers, Nob Bikers, Warbosses on Bikes, Tomb Blades

Underpowered bikes/Jetbikes (within each codex): Swiftclaws, scout bikes(?), Shining Spears, Blood Angels bikers(?)

This poll is started off a lot closer than the other one.

Traditio wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:Then the core needs to change. It is a creaking mess that adding extra rules onto makes worse. SHVs are a drop in the ocean

Would you agree that 40k was more balanced/playable in 4th and 5th editions than in 6th and 7th respectively?

Maybe slightly, only because many of the units and rules we now associate with 40k proper were not around. I really prefer having the selection we have now even the rules we get given.
We have onlyjust moved on from FW units being a pariah at the gaming table.

The core is still based upon Rogue Trader which was designed as and RPG lite skirmish with a DM involved The rules really haven't moved past that ethos. which is why we get some seemingly crazy imbalances in rules and unit stats because the players have to work things out and agree.

Yes, but it would be nice to have a rule that keeps them and all the power formations / detachments out of low point cost games. 7th has integrated apocalypse rules and I am totally fine with that. Who cares for free transports and titans in a 5000pts army they just need to stay away out of the lower and mid sized games.

I don't think they do, at least not any larger than the knight-class. Less for balance purposes, but more for gameplay.

They lead to edge cases where you bring them to a game, and your opponent can either handle it, in which case he'll win easily after alpha-striking it and knocking out half your army in one shooting phase, or he can't, and he is forced to run around losing units while waiting for the game to end. I don't find either side of that tactically engaging or interactive.

In either situation, that makes the gameplay as dull as a game with a tau gunline. Either you make it to them or you don't. There's no real give-and-take or interesting tactical moves, it just leads to a straight forward zerg rush that either fails or succeeds.

I would be happy with the 25% point cost rule to ensure that both armies have enough units to make the game an actual game rather than a shooting gallery for one side and a dodgeball game for the other.

Yeah sure. Give them the 25% rule from FW too. It's not going to be enough, but together with the other fixes (double Wraithknight cost, nerf the stuff that is so OP you need <300p Wraithknights to fight it, etc) it is a start.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I don't think they do, at least not any larger than the knight-class. Less for balance purposes, but more for gameplay.

They lead to edge cases where you bring them to a game, and your opponent can either handle it, in which case he'll win easily after alpha-striking it and knocking out half your army in one shooting phase, or he can't, and he is forced to run around losing units while waiting for the game to end. I don't find either side of that tactically engaging or interactive.

In either situation, that makes the gameplay as dull as a game with a tau gunline. Either you make it to them or you don't. There's no real give-and-take or interesting tactical moves, it just leads to a straight forward zerg rush that either fails or succeeds.

I would be happy with the 25% point cost rule to ensure that both armies have enough units to make the game an actual game rather than a shooting gallery for one side and a dodgeball game for the other.

You realize there's a vast gulf between being able to alpha-strike a unit and being unable to deal with it at all?

I know the current 40k belief is "If I can't kill it in one turn, I can't kill it ever" but that's just not the case with certain units, like the Malcador. 3 Lascannons are unlikely to kill it in one turn, but over the course of the game, 3 lascannons will almost certainly kill it. The opponent neither could alpha-strike it off the board nor had to "run around losing units while waiting for the game to end."

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

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

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

((???))

Limiting LoW in low point games but leaving the powerful / apocalypse like detachments and formations to roam freely seems like a mistake to me.

Traditio wrote:
This poll is started off a lot closer than the other one.

How about we give it a day? Like you wanted with the other one

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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

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

((???))

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

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

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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

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

((???))

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

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

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

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I don't think they do, at least not any larger than the knight-class. Less for balance purposes, but more for gameplay.

They lead to edge cases where you bring them to a game, and your opponent can either handle it, in which case he'll win easily after alpha-striking it and knocking out half your army in one shooting phase, or he can't, and he is forced to run around losing units while waiting for the game to end. I don't find either side of that tactically engaging or interactive.

In either situation, that makes the gameplay as dull as a game with a tau gunline. Either you make it to them or you don't. There's no real give-and-take or interesting tactical moves, it just leads to a straight forward zerg rush that either fails or succeeds.

I would be happy with the 25% point cost rule to ensure that both armies have enough units to make the game an actual game rather than a shooting gallery for one side and a dodgeball game for the other.

You realize there's a vast gulf between being able to alpha-strike a unit and being unable to deal with it at all?

I know the current 40k belief is "If I can't kill it in one turn, I can't kill it ever" but that's just not the case with certain units, like the Malcador. 3 Lascannons are unlikely to kill it in one turn, but over the course of the game, 3 lascannons will almost certainly kill it. The opponent neither could alpha-strike it off the board nor had to "run around losing units while waiting for the game to end."

I'm aware there are more situations than "kill in 1 turn" and "unkillable." I was just using the alpha strike as an example and didn't want to write a multi-page essay detailing every possible situation. Yes, sometimes games with super heavies turn out alright, I just find that more often than not, (and much more often than a standard game,) one side is put at a horrible disadvantage as early as turn 2. For example, the super heavy gets lascannon'd a bit but then priority targets the heavy weapon squads and manages to fry them all, and walks around with impunity for the remainder of the game.

I will admit the games where the super heavy survives to t4 or 5, and then dies after doing its job well, leaving both sides still relatively even and victory still up for grabs are sweet games to see and play in, but in my experience they are an extreme rarity. Most of them just end like I said earlier. One side gets a tremendous leg up because they either killed the super heavy, or killed most the things that would threaten their super heavy, pretty much right out of the gate.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I don't think they do, at least not any larger than the knight-class. Less for balance purposes, but more for gameplay.

They lead to edge cases where you bring them to a game, and your opponent can either handle it, in which case he'll win easily after alpha-striking it and knocking out half your army in one shooting phase, or he can't, and he is forced to run around losing units while waiting for the game to end. I don't find either side of that tactically engaging or interactive.

In either situation, that makes the gameplay as dull as a game with a tau gunline. Either you make it to them or you don't. There's no real give-and-take or interesting tactical moves, it just leads to a straight forward zerg rush that either fails or succeeds.

I would be happy with the 25% point cost rule to ensure that both armies have enough units to make the game an actual game rather than a shooting gallery for one side and a dodgeball game for the other.

You realize there's a vast gulf between being able to alpha-strike a unit and being unable to deal with it at all?

I know the current 40k belief is "If I can't kill it in one turn, I can't kill it ever" but that's just not the case with certain units, like the Malcador. 3 Lascannons are unlikely to kill it in one turn, but over the course of the game, 3 lascannons will almost certainly kill it. The opponent neither could alpha-strike it off the board nor had to "run around losing units while waiting for the game to end."

I'm aware there are more situations than "kill in 1 turn" and "unkillable." I was just using the alpha strike as an example and didn't want to write a multi-page essay detailing every possible situation. Yes, sometimes games with super heavies turn out alright, I just find that more often than not, (and much more often than a standard game,) one side is put at a horrible disadvantage as early as turn 2. For example, the super heavy gets lascannon'd a bit but then priority targets the heavy weapon squads and manages to fry them all, and walks around with impunity for the remainder of the game.

I will admit the games where the super heavy survives to t4 or 5, and then dies after doing its job well, leaving both sides still relatively even and victory still up for grabs are sweet games to see and play in, but in my experience they are an extreme rarity. Most of them just end like I said earlier. One side gets a tremendous leg up because they either killed the super heavy, or killed most the things that would threaten their super heavy, pretty much right out of the gate.

Weird. I play superheavies routinely (both of my remaining armies are 30k Leviathan detachments), more than twice weekly, and I've not had a game yet where my opponent and I didn't have fun - at least that they've told me. So either they're masochists who play me over and over again, or what you said is anecdotal and varies based on opponent and army lists.

Traditio wrote:
This poll is started off a lot closer than the other one.

IOW, "if I look at enough polls eventually I'll find one that gives the result I want".

PS: still waiting for you to stop dodging the question and provide an answer to why the Malcador needs to be banned.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I don't think they do, at least not any larger than the knight-class. Less for balance purposes, but more for gameplay.

They lead to edge cases where you bring them to a game, and your opponent can either handle it, in which case he'll win easily after alpha-striking it and knocking out half your army in one shooting phase, or he can't, and he is forced to run around losing units while waiting for the game to end. I don't find either side of that tactically engaging or interactive.

In either situation, that makes the gameplay as dull as a game with a tau gunline. Either you make it to them or you don't. There's no real give-and-take or interesting tactical moves, it just leads to a straight forward zerg rush that either fails or succeeds.

I would be happy with the 25% point cost rule to ensure that both armies have enough units to make the game an actual game rather than a shooting gallery for one side and a dodgeball game for the other.

You realize there's a vast gulf between being able to alpha-strike a unit and being unable to deal with it at all?

I know the current 40k belief is "If I can't kill it in one turn, I can't kill it ever" but that's just not the case with certain units, like the Malcador. 3 Lascannons are unlikely to kill it in one turn, but over the course of the game, 3 lascannons will almost certainly kill it. The opponent neither could alpha-strike it off the board nor had to "run around losing units while waiting for the game to end."

I'm aware there are more situations than "kill in 1 turn" and "unkillable." I was just using the alpha strike as an example and didn't want to write a multi-page essay detailing every possible situation. Yes, sometimes games with super heavies turn out alright, I just find that more often than not, (and much more often than a standard game,) one side is put at a horrible disadvantage as early as turn 2. For example, the super heavy gets lascannon'd a bit but then priority targets the heavy weapon squads and manages to fry them all, and walks around with impunity for the remainder of the game.

I will admit the games where the super heavy survives to t4 or 5, and then dies after doing its job well, leaving both sides still relatively even and victory still up for grabs are sweet games to see and play in, but in my experience they are an extreme rarity. Most of them just end like I said earlier. One side gets a tremendous leg up because they either killed the super heavy, or killed most the things that would threaten their super heavy, pretty much right out of the gate.

Weird. I play superheavies routinely (both of my remaining armies are 30k Leviathan detachments), more than twice weekly, and I've not had a game yet where my opponent and I didn't have fun - at least that they've told me. So either they're masochists who play me over and over again, or what you said is anecdotal and varies based on opponent and army lists.

Of course it's anecdotal. So is every experience in the entirety of 40k. I even said "in my experience," so please don't take what I'm saying as being in the usual Internet "this is fact because I said so" tone.

But yes your experience is an extreme rarity in our group. No one likes super heavies, and it seems like virtually every time someone brings one, the game is effectively over t2, either by a giant crater or several dead heavy weapon/melta guys, and they're just going through the motions after that. And in the case of dueling super heavies, that first "6" on the D chart typically wins the game, and we usually discover that setting the game up was just a waste of time.

As I said in the other thread I don't think they should have been introduced into the main game at all, and nor should Flyers, as they just invalidate so many other units and make creating balanced lists for pick-up games even more annoying (as you have to try to plan for Super Heavies or Flyers in addition to Psykers, lots of vehicles, monstrous creatures etc.).

Many of them aren't bad rules-wise, but many also require more specialist ways of bring them down, or more firepower than I necessarily want to field in a regular list for 1,500-2,000 points, but because someone might take four Imperial Knights I have to be prepared. Though that's an example, since my opponents don't really do this, but it's a flaw in the game all the same.

I voted no, but I wouldn't say that they should be blanket disallowed; I'd prefer we went back to the old days where special characters were by player consent in pick-up games, and do the same with Flyers, super heavies and so-on. 40k to me is a skirmish/small-scale warfare game first; I love my Dark Talon, Imperial Knight and Shadowsword models, but I don't expect nor demand that I be able to use them in tiny games.

This poll is much closer than the previous one.

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

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

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

I think you're going with the classic approach of "look at lots of polls, discard the ones that don't agree with you, and proudly claim the one you finally find that agrees with you". Obviously if you have enough polls on a subject there will be some random variation in responses and some will look better than others. And you have an impressive talent for coming up with excuses for why the votes that go against you are "trolls", and the ones that are in your favor are something to pay attention to.

PS: still waiting for your explanation of why the Malcador needs to be banned. Could you stop avoiding the question?

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

Obviously.

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

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

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

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

Obviously.

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

 Peregrine wrote:

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

Obviously.

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

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

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

One of two things needs to happen:

1. The Malcador needs to lose its superheavy status.

2. The Malcador should be banned from normal play.

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

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

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

pm713 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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

Obviously.

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

One of two things needs to happen:

1. The Malcador needs to lose its superheavy status.

2. The Malcador should be banned from normal play.

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

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

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

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

pm713 wrote:Why? Why should it lose superheavy?

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

Why should super heavy's be banned?

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

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

pm713 wrote:

Traditio wrote:

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

One of two things needs to happen:

1. The Malcador needs to lose its superheavy status.

2. The Malcador should be banned from normal play.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not really.

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

Consider Thousand Sons for a moment.

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

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:Why? Why should it lose superheavy?

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

Why should super heavy's be banned?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

pm713 wrote:

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:Why? Why should it lose superheavy?

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

Why should super heavy's be banned?

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

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're committing an equivocation.

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

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LoW/detatchment still allows multiple LoWs per army.

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

Here's how that conversation should probably go:

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

LoW/detatchment still allows multiple LoWs per army.

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

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

Counterproposal, if superheavies are allowed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are thousand sons not currently competitive?

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

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

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

Why are thousand sons not currently competitive?

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

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

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

Why are thousand sons not currently competitive?

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

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

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Why are thousand sons not currently competitive?

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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

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

((???))

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

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

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

Basically yes.

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

Counterproposal, if superheavies are allowed:

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

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

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

So this is about making Thousand Sons more playable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:Why? Why should it lose superheavy?

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are several flavors of Malcador-chassis thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 Jewelfox wrote:

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

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

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

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

I would just like to add, Traditio, that you're probably no fun to play against in Super Smash Bros.

Sort of like playing Goldeneye multiplayer against my scrub little brother. He was extremely predictable, and whenever I figured him out and started winning consistently he banned whatever weapon or thing I was doing.

Rocket launchers are OP, yo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mmzero252 wrote:
The problems come up when, for example, my local game store wants to run a Start Collecting Tournament. The store owner himself brought up the subject then almost instantly turned around and said "Actually guys, this is probably a terrible idea. Depending on what armies people pick, the point values are going to be way off. That or someone is just going to absolutely dominate over everyone else." That all coming from the store owner who doesn't even play the game personally. He just has a basic idea of the various units included in the boxes.

This is honestly why I like Warmahordes' and Malifaux's balance much better. Legion and Cryx may be "noob tubes," i.e. stuff that it's easier to beat other novices with, but in general you can run starter boxes against each other and expect a competitive game, with interesting abilities and tactics.

40k has a lot of game balance traps, that require negotiation and system mastery to avoid. A lot of players get heavily sold on Blood Angels (for instance) and then realize GW screwed them over. Likewise, I started collecting Tau when they were mid-tier, and by the time I had 1000 points of so people resented them for being top-tier.

Neither situation is fair to people who just started 40k in order to play with models they like. That's why we need to learn to get along with each other and make the best of a bad situation, instead of blaming one group of players after another for "causing" it. When it's Games Workshop's damn fault to begin with.

So, the vote is 100 votes in, and it basically looks like the last one did. This leads me to believe that there wasn't really much of a skew because of the confusion because of title vs. poll question.

Most people are fine with superheavies in principle (though not necessarily without restriction), whereas a strong minority (over 1 in 3) want to see them banned outright.

I'm going to have to go with the less popular opinion. My reasons were pretty much already stated in the other thread so I'll just copy and paste them from there:

Haravikk wrote:I kind of agree; I find my regular games (1,500-2,000 points or so) are better without any super-heavies, gargantuan monsters or flyers, as none of them really fits the scale of these games.

Of course there are some super-heavies etc. that are well balanced or even under powered, but even so I'd still rather be fighting against something else as investing a ton of points into a super-heavy in a small to medium game means there are less units and less tactics. The same is true with Flyers; if you don't bring enough AA you can't bring them down, but if your opponent doesn't take one then any AA you bring is wasted, the same can be true of gargantuan creatures and super-heavies, and the firepower required to destroy them.

With these elements removed, or included only with player consent, we can make list-building less about guessing what your opponent might bring and more about just bring units and having fun. Sure there are still other elements of guess-work (Psykers, regular vehicles and the like) but that's already more than enough, we don't need more in our regular games.


That said, I can't vote that they be banned; rather I don't think they should ever have been added to the regular game in the firs place. Banning just annoys people, the better solution is to talk to your opponents, and allow the use of multiple lists so you can switch to one that's more appropriate.

MrMoustaffa wrote:On topic, I just don't want to see superheavies in a 1500-2000 pt game. Yes some (probably most) are terrible for their points, but that doesn't change the fact that apocalypse also includes things like warhounds or actual superheavies like baneblades (yes I know baneblades aren't good bear with me here)

If I'm playing 1500-2000, I came into it wanting to play with regular units. Having to plan for models that require their own case just doesn't strike me as fun. It'd be like if I went to a "friendly" 500pt game and brought two Leman russes. Yes, I can legally field that, and yes, it's not technically a good list, but it's not going to be fun for the opponent and breaks the game. Not to mention that most apocalypse units were actually created with a separate game mode in mind from the get go, which means many were never intended for standard games to begin with. Even models like the knight or riptide which were intended for "standard" play still use rules and designs that were intended for apocalypse originally. It just strikes me as a bad idea to drag these concepts into a game where there's still challenges and potential for a single character to have over a page of special rules and gear. If GW wanted to make apocalypse more profitable they should've just encouraged a new points level with apocalypse rules and pushed it with routines, not shoehorned them into the regular game.

Please Realize that I started in 5th. If you had walked into a store in 5th and wanted to field an apocalypse unit under 3000pts you would've been laughed out of the store. Even something like a knight or riptide would've raised serious eyebrows. Didn't matter how "good" it was, it's still apocalypse which meant if you wanted to play it you played apocalypse. I can pretty much guarantee that if I ever tried to get in a game again, it would be under those rules too. I'd honestly rather have no game than have to deal with a 6" tall Titan model in a 1500 pt game, let alone more than one, or heaven forbid, an army consisting entirely of them.

I know that apparently that opinion isn't going to be popular here, but I bet that this poll's results would dramatically swing back if fyou had a way to poll all the people who left the game and don't browse dakka out of habit anymore. I have no problems with Titans and all that in general, apocalypse looked fun everytime I saw it, but they weren't originally designed to be part of a standard game and it really shows.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
I'm going to have to go with the less popular opinion.

I do think that the key words here really are "less popular." 38% is almost 40%. That's a strong enough minority for this even to be an issue, to force players who use superheavies to bring it up in a conversation pre-game.

So, I posted in the previous thread as well, and I got my vote in correctly on this one.

Banning SHVs doesn't solve anything, and it takes away interesting options and buffs from some lists that need it. I am building a Renegade Knight for my Renegades and Heretics list, and I genuinely don't know what I've been doing up until now, because it is plainly an improvement over what I had before. I might even build a second one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
I'm going to have to go with the less popular opinion.

I do think that the key word here really is "less popular." 38% is almost 40%. That's a strong enough minority for this even to be an issue, to force players who use superheavies to bring it up in a conversation pre-game.

No it's not. You're delusional, and you should really quit while you're ahead. Which, unfortunately seems to be never, being as your opinion is a distinct minority.

MIni MIehm wrote:
Banning SHVs doesn't solve anything, and it takes away interesting options and buffs from some lists that need it. I am building a Renegade Knight for my Renegades and Heretics list, and I genuinely don't know what I've been doing up until now, because it is plainly an improvement over what I had before. I might even build a second one.

Think about it from this perspective, though:

Did you have a lot of opponents willing to play against your renegades and heretics list?

Would at least some of those opponents have a difficult time taking down a Knight?

If you told me that you're playing, say, Chaos Space Marines, I'd gladly play against you. I'd even play without formations if you're not using any.

You tell me that you're running a knight?

I'd turn down that game. In a heartbeat.

Edit:

No it's not. You're delusional, and you should really quit while you're ahead. Which, unfortunately seems to be never, being as your opinion is a distinct minority.

If you ordered a cake, and 38% of it was without frosting, would you complain?

Traditio wrote:

No it's not. You're delusional, and you should really quit while you're ahead. Which, unfortunately seems to be never, being as your opinion is a distinct minority.

If you ordered a cake, and 38% of it was without frosting, would you complain?

No, I hate frosting.

If you got 38% of the vote in the Hillary vs. Trump election, it might as well be 5%.

Traditio wrote:
Would at least some of those opponents have a difficult time taking down a Knight?

What's your point? Having a difficult time is part of the game. Warhammer 40k is the grim darkness of the future where every moment is a desperate struggle to survive, not a happy peaceful universe where your C:SM army mows down everything effortlessly. Taking down a knight may be challenging, but it's certainly possible for any reasonably well constructed army. If you can't take down a single knight then the problem is that your list sucks, not that the knight is inappropriate for normal games.

You tell me that you're running a knight?

I'd turn down that game. In a heartbeat.

Of course you would, because not turning down the game would require admitting that your strict "no superheavies" rule is absurd. Fortunately most people have a more open-minded view of the game and aren't going to refuse a game just because there's a single knight.

If you ordered a cake, and 38% of it was without frosting, would you complain?

Ah yes, now we're at the "ridiculous analogies" stage of trying to come up with excuses for how your poll really supports your side.

Unit1126PLL wrote:No, I hate frosting.

If you got 38% of the vote in the Hillary vs. Trump election, it might as well be 5%.

Completely different can of beans. [Though I'll note here that 38% support of the general electorate probably means the difference between being a viable candidate in the first place or not.]

When it comes to popular opinion, 38% constitutes a significant, relatively widespread opinion, albeit not the majority one.

If I expressed the opinion that all space marines should actually be anthropomorphic dogs (think the dog knights in Undertale), and I conducted a poll, I imagine that I'd probably get less than 10% of the vote, and most of those would either be 1. trolls or 2. people who've never thought of that before, but, simply because I brought it up, realized that it's either a funny or cool idea after my saying so. Very few people actually hold that opinion.

38% is a significant minority. That's more than 1 in 3 people who are STRONGLY opposed to playing either with or against super heavies. That means that if you go to your FLGS, assuming the same stats hold true there, and there are 6 people playing there on any given day, you have, at most, 4 people willing to play with you if you play a Baneblade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:Taking down a knight may be challenging, but it's certainly possible for any reasonably well constructed army.

Ok. You play with orks. Don't use forgeworld or superheavies yourself. And tell me how you fare against that Knight.

Traditio wrote:
That means that if you go to your FLGS, assuming the same stats hold true there, and there are 6 people playing there on any given day, you have, at most, 4 people would be willing to play with you if you play a Baneblade.

No it doesn't. It means that 2/6 would prefer that superheavies be Apocalypse-only. It doesn't necessarily mean that they would refuse to play against a Baneblade. It is entirely consistent to say "I think the game would be better if {thing}", but not consider {opposite of thing} to be sufficient reason to refuse a game. For example, a person who opposes superheavies in normal games because they're tired of facing D-spam Warhound titans is probably going to be willing to face my Malcador once they realize that its rules are nowhere near Warhound level.

Ok. You play with orks. Don't use forgeworld or superheavies yourself. And tell me how you fare against that Knight.

So the only way you can win this argument is to insist on using the weakest codex for your example, and then ban me from taking some of the options I might use? We might as well ban your C:SM army because my IG are going to struggle to deal with your Rhinos when I'm not allowed to bring anything but lasguns.

Peregrine wrote:No it doesn't. It means that 2/6 would prefer that superheavies be Apocalypse-only. It doesn't necessarily mean that they would refuse to play against a Baneblade. It is entirely consistent to say "I think the game would be better if {thing}", but not consider {opposite of thing} to be sufficient reason to refuse a game. For example, a person who opposes superheavies in normal games because they're tired of facing D-spam Warhound titans is probably going to be willing to face my Malcador once they realize that its rules are nowhere near Warhound level.

Suffice to say: more people would be willing to play against your malcador(s) than against his renegade knight(s).

So the only way you can win this argument is to insist on using the weakest codex for your example, and then ban me from taking some of the options I might use? We might as well ban your C:SM army because my IG are going to struggle to deal with your Rhinos when I'm not allowed to bring anything but lasguns.

You said, and I quote, "Taking down a knight may be challenging, but it's certainly possible for any reasonably well constructed army."

Are you telling me that it's impossible to construct an army reasonably well from the orks codex? Are you telling me that it's impossible to construct an army reasonably well from the orks codex using only the options present in that codex? Are you telling me that it's impossible to construct an army reasonably well from that codex without using big, giant stompy robots?

Here Traditio. The answer to your Ork challenge straight from your own mouth, with a helpful link to the post.

Traditio wrote:
Suck it up and run allies anyway

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here Traditio. The answer to your Ork challenge straight from your own mouth in this post: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/691903.page#8675555

Traditio 691903 8675555 wrote:Suck it up and take allies

Completely different context.

Traditio wrote:
Suffice to say: more people would be willing to play against your malcador(s) than against his renegade knight(s).

Which rather well demonstrates my point that "1/3 of people voted against superheavies" and "1/3 of people will refuse to play against superheavies" are not equivalent. And it also rather well demonstrates my point that a blanket ban on superheavies is a terrible idea.

Are you telling me that it's impossible to construct an army reasonably well from the orks codex? Are you telling me that it's impossible to construct an army reasonably well from the orks codex using only the options present in that codex? Are you telling me that it's impossible to construct an army reasonably well from that codex without using big, giant stompy robots?

What I'm telling you is that this is yet another of your attempts to "win" an argument by setting up a challenge that is blatantly rigged in your favor and then claiming victory when anyone fails to complete it.

Peregrine wrote:Which rather well demonstrates my point that "1/3 of people voted against superheavies" and "1/3 of people will refuse to play against superheavies" are not equivalent.

The bolded is technically true. Nonetheless, it does show that, of those 6 opponents, only 4 of them would be willing to play against his renegade knight without batting an eye.

At least 2 may have reservations.

And it also rather well demonstrates my point that a blanket ban on superheavies is a terrible idea.

How do you answer my previous point, i.e., about the practicality of it?

What do you propose? That players write a list of things that they don't want to play against, hand it to their opponents, and then have their opponents check said list against their own army lists?

What precisely do you propose for casual pickup games?

What I'm telling you is that this is yet another of your attempts to "win" an argument by setting up a challenge that is blatantly rigged in your favor and then claiming victory when anyone fails to complete it.

Again, you wrote, and I quote "Taking down a knight may be challenging, but it's certainly possible for any reasonably well constructed army."

Or did you not actually mean what you wrote?

So some armies should be forced to take allies, but others shouldn't?

That post I quoted shows that you clearly believe being forced to take allies is no big deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Which rather well demonstrates my point that "1/3 of people voted against superheavies" and "1/3 of people will refuse to play against superheavies" are not equivalent.

The bolded is technically true. Nonetheless, it does show that, of those 6 opponents, only 4 of them would be willing to play against his renegade knight without batting an eye.

At least 2 may have reservations.

And it also rather well demonstrates my point that a blanket ban on superheavies is a terrible idea.

How do you answer my previous point, i.e., about the practicality of it?

What do you propose? That players write a list of things that they don't want to play against, hand it to their opponents, and then have their opponents check said list against their own army lists?

What precisely do you propose for casual pickup games?

What I'm telling you is that this is yet another of your attempts to "win" an argument by setting up a challenge that is blatantly rigged in your favor and then claiming victory when anyone fails to complete it.

Again, you wrote, and I quote "Taking down a knight may be challenging, but it's certainly possible for any reasonably well constructed army."

Or did you not actually mean what you wrote?

A well constructed army can include superheavies and allies.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So some armies should be forced to take allies, but others shouldn't?

Yes.

The case in point that I brought up was Legions of the Damned. The entire army starts in reserves and deepstrikes on turn 2.

You literally cannot play it without taking allies.

A well constructed army can include superheavies and allies.

Can =/= must

Traditio wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So some armies should be forced to take allies, but others shouldn't?

Yes.

The case in point that I brought up was Legions of the Damned. The entire army starts in reserves.

You literally cannot play it without taking allies.

Yes you can. You auto-lose unless you overlook the relevant rules, but we are all about overlooking rules ITT. I mean hell, you want to overlook then entire superheavy section of rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So some armies should be forced to take allies, but others shouldn't?

Yes.

The case in point that I brought up was Legions of the Damned. The entire army starts in reserves.

You literally cannot play it without taking allies.

A well constructed army can include superheavies and allies.

Can =/= must

Yes, that is true. But forbidding them from doing so is removing the can.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Yes you can. You auto-lose...

And with that, I'll be ignoring your further postings.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to engage in such petty trifles (the pettiness and trifling nature of which should be self-evident to any unbiased observer).

I think the problem of discussing superheavies and the like is that they aren't all created equally. Superheavy is a class of vehicles and as a class there is nothing immediately in the "superheavy" rules that should prohibit them in the average game. It's only when you get into specific superheavies and their particular weapons that a semblance of normalcy is challenged. I actually think certain units like the Land Raider and Monolith would benefit from being reclassified as superheavies... Where the Land Raider and its variants have rules that make it act like a pseudo-superheavy while there are superheavies and gargantuans that are smaller.

Traditio wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Yes you can. You auto-lose...

And with that, I'll be ignoring your further postings.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to engage in such petty trifles.

You really got me with that one. Well constructed counter argument.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I think the problem of discussing superheavies and the like is that they aren't all created equally. Superheavy is a class of vehicles and as a class there is nothing immediately in the "superheavy" rules that should prohibit them in the average game. It's only when you get into specific superheavies and their particular weapons that a semblance of normalcy is challenged. I actually think certain units like the Land Raider and Monolith would benefit from being reclassified as superheavies... Where the Land Raider and its variants have rules that make it act like a pseudo-superheavy while there are superheavies and gargantuans that are smaller.

On a practical level, how do you distinguish between the two classes when arranging a game with your opponent?

Traditio wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I think the problem of discussing superheavies and the like is that they aren't all created equally. Superheavy is a class of vehicles and as a class there is nothing immediately in the "superheavy" rules that should prohibit them in the average game. It's only when you get into specific superheavies and their particular weapons that a semblance of normalcy is challenged. I actually think certain units like the Land Raider and Monolith would benefit from being reclassified as superheavies... Where the Land Raider and its variants have rules that make it act like a pseudo-superheavy while there are superheavies and gargantuans that are smaller.

On a practical level, how do you distinguish between the two classes when arranging a game with your opponent?

Talk about it with words.

Traditio wrote:
How do you answer my previous point, i.e., about the practicality of it?

The way I already answered it: "stop proposing bad rules because you're too lazy to come up with good rules".

What precisely do you propose for casual pickup games?

Sounds like you already answered that question:

What do you propose? That players write a list of things that they don't want to play against, hand it to their opponents, and then have their opponents check said list against their own army lists?

It's not like you're doing anything different with your proposed ban on superheavies. You're just handing your opponent a list that says "superheavies" instead of "Wraithknights, Stompas, and Warhounds".

Again, you wrote, and I quote "Taking down a knight may be challenging, but it's certainly possible for any reasonably well constructed army."

Or did you not actually mean what you wrote?

I meant what I wrote. But I'm not going to play your game of "remove all of the options and then claim victory". You don't get to redefine "reasonably well constructed" to exclude FW/superheavies/etc. Those things are part of the game whether you want to admit it or not.

Peregrine wrote:I meant what I wrote. But I'm not going to play your game of "remove all of the options and then claim victory". You don't get to redefine "reasonably well constructed" to exclude FW/superheavies/etc. Those things are part of the game whether you want to admit it or not.

So you admit it. According to you, an orks list is reasonably well-constructed if and only if you use FW or superheavies.

In other words, despite your constant inveighing against the notion that there is "one true way" of playing this game, what you actually mean is what you've implied before:

"An army list is reasonably well constructed if and only if you spam the most powerful options in the codex (or available through forgeworld)."

Spoken a different way:

"If your army isn't cheese, it's poorly constructed."

You don't actually mean "Take whatever you want," which is the face that you're always presenting on anti-cheese threads. You mean: "I'LL take whatever I want, and its up to you to keep up with this arms race. You don't actually get to take whatever you want, whether within reason or otherwise, and expect a good time."

With that, I rest my case and leave any who may be watching this discussion to form their own opinions on the matter.

Traditio wrote:
So you admit it. According to you, an orks list is reasonably well-constructed if and only if you use FW or superheavies.

I admit no such thing. I'm simply refusing to participate in your challenge if you're going to preemptively exclude a bunch of options that you don't like. A reasonably well constructed ork list might not include those things, but they're certainly options to consider in making a list.

Spoken a different way:

"If your army isn't cheese, it's poorly constructed."

IOW, "now that I'm done building my straw man I win!!!!!!!"

Traditio wrote:
So, the vote is 100 votes in, and it basically looks like the last one did. This leads me to believe that there wasn't really much of a skew because of the confusion because of title vs. poll question.

Most people are fine with superheavies in principle (though not necessarily without restriction), whereas a strong minority (over 1 in 3) want to see them banned outright.

Again, that's not a "strong minority", you're nowhere near a "strong minority"

Wolfblade wrote:Again, that's not a "strong minority", you're nowhere near a "strong minority"

How would you define a strong minority?

Again, if you ordered a cake, and 38% of it was not iced, would you complain? Would you consider that a substantial amount of your cake that the bakers had neglected to ice?

Missing that much frosting is perfectly fine when the rest is done in a nice, pretty pattern.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Missing that much frosting is perfectly fine when the rest is done in a nice, pretty pattern.

My point:

You people are only saying that 38% isn't a strong minority because you're not thinking about how much 38% actually is. That's over a third.

Start thinking about what more than a third of things actually looks like. If more than a third of your car is missing, that's a lot of your car. You probably shouldn't be driving it.

If your internet doesn't work over a third of the time, that's unreliable cable.

8 hours of sleep a night means sleeping a third (less than 38%) of your life away.

I could go on.

Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Again, that's not a "strong minority", you're nowhere near a "strong minority"

How would you define a strong minority?

Again, if you ordered a cake, and 38% of it was not iced, would you complain? Would you consider that a substantial amount of your cake that the bakers had neglected to ice?

A bad analogy is bad. (but no, I'm not a huge fan of cake or icing)

I'd consider a strong minority something close to not being doubled by the opposing side.

But if we can use bad analogies here, if you only got ~38% of the electoral college when running for president, or 38% of the popular vote, would you be a strong minority in a binary choice system?

Wolfblade wrote:A bad analogy is bad. (but no, I'm not a huge fan of cake or icing)

I'd consider a strong minority something close to not being doubled by the opposing side.

Ok. So if you have a job, and the federal government only takes 38 percent of your paycheck in taxes, you don't consider that a large portion of your paycheck?

Noted.

But if we can use bad analogies here, if you only got ~38% of the electoral college when running for president, or 38% of the popular vote, would you be a strong minority in a binary choice system?

The "binary choice" system by its very nature makes strong vs. weak minorities irrelevent.

However, if we were talking about European politicians, 38% control of a parliament would be pretty amazing.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I think the problem of discussing superheavies and the like is that they aren't all created equally. Superheavy is a class of vehicles and as a class there is nothing immediately in the "superheavy" rules that should prohibit them in the average game. It's only when you get into specific superheavies and their particular weapons that a semblance of normalcy is challenged. I actually think certain units like the Land Raider and Monolith would benefit from being reclassified as superheavies... Where the Land Raider and its variants have rules that make it act like a pseudo-superheavy while there are superheavies and gargantuans that are smaller.

On a practical level, how do you distinguish between the two classes when arranging a game with your opponent?

Talk about it with words.

This goes back to my assertion that some standard 40k vehicles really should be superheavies, but there is a distinction between superheavies and LoW. In general I think 40k should have a similar point percent restriction like 30k has on LoW, not necessarily as a rule but an agreed upon general practice. In 30k its 25% of your total points for a LoW and in 2000 point games this keeps out anything bigger than a Knight or Baneblade. I have played with and against Knights, Baneblades and similar untis and they're perfectly fine... the difference in resources it takes to destroy them is proportionate to their cost and is easily available in a 2000 pt game.

Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Missing that much frosting is perfectly fine when the rest is done in a nice, pretty pattern.

My point:

You people are only saying that 38% isn't a strong minority because you're not thinking about how much 38% actually is. That's over a third.

Start thinking about what more than a third of things actually looks like. If more than a third of your car is missing, that's a lot of your car. You probably shouldn't be driving it.

If your internet doesn't work over a third of the time, that's unreliable cable.

8 hours of sleep a night means sleeping a third (less than 38%) of your life away.

I could go on.

It depends, is the 1/3 of the time it doesn't work also the 1/3 of my day that I don't use it (i.e, when I'm sleeping)?

If so, that'd be acceptable.


Is it acceptable to try a bludgeon people with a figure smaller than 2/5s because you can't admit that more than 3/5s of people don't share your opinion ? No.

It doesn't matter if ~2/5s of people share your opinion when the resounding result for your magical 100 people figure shows that 3/5s of people completely disagree.

Also please don't go on. You're just wasting your own time at this point. Go down with your ship with some dignity.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It depend, is the 1/3 of the time it doesn't work also the 1/3 of my day that I don't use it (i.e, when I'm sleeping)?

Let's assuming it's a third of the time that you'd actually use it. So it doesn't work 8 hours out of the day, for four of which you'd actually want to use it.

So basically my internet as it is currently? .

Is it preferred? Hell no. However I have to accept it as there's no other alternative.

It's still a minority of the time though.

Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:A bad analogy is bad. (but no, I'm not a huge fan of cake or icing)

I'd consider a strong minority something close to not being doubled by the opposing side.

Ok. So if you have a job, and the federal government only takes 38 percent of your paycheck in taxes, you don't consider that a large portion of your paycheck?

Noted.

But if we can use bad analogies here, if you only got ~38% of the electoral college when running for president, or 38% of the popular vote, would you be a strong minority in a binary choice system?

The "binary choice" system by its very nature makes strong vs. weak minorities irrelevent.

However, if we were talking about European politicians, 38% control of a parliament would be pretty amazing.

1. Again, bad analogies are bad. This is a poll about SHVs/GMCs in a game, which has very few outside factors unlike that analogy which has a million other things to try and account for (i.e., are they using it properly, do I get back in a tax refund later, etc) which makes it a terrible analogy.

2. You literally just stated the minority is irrelevant, which is you in this case. (And no, I'm talking about US politics here. Would you consider 38% of the electoral college (or popular vote) when running for US president a "strong minority"? Of course not.)

What is the advantage of saying "no superheavies" in whatever context, over saying "no wraithknights" or what have you? Especially when some factions need superheavies to compete on a level playing field against top-tier lists.

Just because Traditio's seemingly incapable of balancing stuff on a more fine-grained level, doesn't mean the rest of us have to. Or that their bullcrap hypotheticals have any bearing on the real world, in which we talk things out like mature individuals, who recognize that the game is unfair and want to help each other have fun regardless.

I guess there's nothing left to discuss about any interesting subject and we're at the point of the thread where Traditio, having failed to get the result he wanted from the poll, goes on and on trying to convince everyone how this "strong minority" means that he's still right?

(It is, however, an amusing contrast with how he dismissed a similar percentage of people as "trolls" and came up with every possible excuse for why they aren't relevant when the minority vote was against his side.)

I think the "strong minority" that doesn't like superheavies is worth taking into account when you go into the store to play games, and specifically ask if people are comfortable with them. >_>b I also think GW didn't balance them very well in a lot of cases, especially WRT gargantuan creatures vs super-heavy walkers.

I think Traditio is being super-adversarial about super-heavies, though, and doesn't seem to have any more mature strategies than demonizing other players and proposing to build walls to keep them out of our bathrooms. They want to play Tau / super-heavies / whatever, and that means they as people are bad and are deliberately trying to hurt others. Guilty until proven innocent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
People have caught on to Traditio's aggressive ignorance and intolerance, though, and are like "wait you really want to exclude people just for that???" Which is why they're now doing unscientific polls to try to show how much support there supposedly is for their idea of purging the 40k player base of its heretics.

They should've majored in sociology. Then they'd understand a lot of what's going on here as the complex interpersonal phenomena they are, instead of trying to corral people into bullcrap Socratic arguments that've convinced literally no one.

Looking at profile stuff, this is the same guy who started threads like "Formations Are the Strongest Possibility for 40k Army Balance". So..... yeah.

I think the strong minority can be safely ignored. Most of them are probably the same sort of people who think that other factions deserve to be nerfed into oblivion for daring to be better than the army they choose to play. I think SHVs and GMCs add an interesting component to the game, even when those models aren't the best, and that banning them doesn't do anything for overall game balance, and in fact negatively impacts some weaker factions who can use, or in some cases need to use, SHVs to augment their underwhelming abilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Looking at profile stuff, this is the same guy who started threads like "Formations Are the Strongest Possibility for 40k Army Balance". So..... yeah.

I actually like formations. I don't even get any formations and I like formations. I don't know about balance, but they certainly offer interesting new things to do with models on the board.

MIni MIehm wrote:
I think the strong minority can be safely ignored. Most of them are probably the same sort of people who think that other factions deserve to be nerfed into oblivion for daring to be better than the army they choose to play. I think SHVs and GMCs add an interesting component to the game, even when those models aren't the best, and that banning them doesn't do anything for overall game balance, and in fact negatively impacts some weaker factions who can use, or in some cases need to use, SHVs to augment their underwhelming abilities.

"Underwhelming abilities" in comparison to what?

That really is relative, isn't it?

I actually like formations. I don't even get any formations and I like formations. I don't know about balance, but they certainly offer interesting new things to do with models on the board.

So, if you go to the thread that the Waspinator was talking about, you may find my arguments, if not illuminating, at least as providing some food for thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfblade wrote:1. Again, bad analogies are bad. This is a poll about SHVs/GMCs in a game, which has very few outside factors unlike that analogy which has a million other things to try and account for (i.e., are they using it properly, do I get back in a tax refund later, etc) which makes it a terrible analogy.

I don't think that's really relevent. 38% either is or is not a lot of your paycheck. It maybe spent for good reasons or bad reasons. But that's still a sizeable portion of your income.

2. You literally just stated the minority is irrelevant, which is you in this case. (And no, I'm talking about US politics here. Would you consider 38% of the electoral college (or popular vote) when running for US president a "strong minority"? Of course not.)

Yes. 38% is a sizeable minority of the electoral college. Practically speaking, it doesn't secure a victory. But that is a lot of people voting for the candidate.

Voting no.

Games can become imbalanced if one side has a superheavy, the other not.

Traditio wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfblade wrote:1. Again, bad analogies are bad. This is a poll about SHVs/GMCs in a game, which has very few outside factors unlike that analogy which has a million other things to try and account for (i.e., are they using it properly, do I get back in a tax refund later, etc) which makes it a terrible analogy.

I don't think that's really relevent. 38% either is or is not a lot of your paycheck. It maybe spent for good reasons or bad reasons. But that's still a sizeable portion of your income.

2. You literally just stated the minority is irrelevant, which is you in this case. (And no, I'm talking about US politics here. Would you consider 38% of the electoral college (or popular vote) when running for US president a "strong minority"? Of course not.)

Yes. 38% is a sizeable minority of the electoral college. Practically speaking, it doesn't secure a victory. But that is a lot of people voting for the candidate.

1. Again, you're trying to use an analogy that's doesn't really work. What if what the government uses my taxes for gets me more than what I could pay for with it? (I.e. free health care, maintenance roads, etc).

2. It's really not. 38% of the electoral college means jack all when the other guy has 62%. I understand you're trying to save face here, but the "strong minority" doesn't exist. It's you grasping at straws to not be wrong. Just admit it and move on.

Traditio wrote:

MIni MIehm wrote:
I think the strong minority can be safely ignored. Most of them are probably the same sort of people who think that other factions deserve to be nerfed into oblivion for daring to be better than the army they choose to play. I think SHVs and GMCs add an interesting component to the game, even when those models aren't the best, and that banning them doesn't do anything for overall game balance, and in fact negatively impacts some weaker factions who can use, or in some cases need to use, SHVs to augment their underwhelming abilities.

"Underwhelming abilities" in comparison to what?

That really is relative, isn't it?

I actually like formations. I don't even get any formations and I like formations. I don't know about balance, but they certainly offer interesting new things to do with models on the board.

So, if you go to the thread that the Waspinator was talking about, you may find my arguments, if not illuminating, at least as providing some food for thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfblade wrote:1. Again, bad analogies are bad. This is a poll about SHVs/GMCs in a game, which has very few outside factors unlike that analogy which has a million other things to try and account for (i.e., are they using it properly, do I get back in a tax refund later, etc) which makes it a terrible analogy.

I don't think that's really relevent. 38% either is or is not a lot of your paycheck. It maybe spent for good reasons or bad reasons. But that's still a sizeable portion of your income.

2. You literally just stated the minority is irrelevant, which is you in this case. (And no, I'm talking about US politics here. Would you consider 38% of the electoral college (or popular vote) when running for US president a "strong minority"? Of course not.)

Yes. 38% is a sizeable minority of the electoral college. Practically speaking, it doesn't secure a victory. But that is a lot of people voting for the candidate.

Underwhelming abilities compared to other codices with vanilla units. A pure codex Astra Militarum army is pretty heavily outclassed by a codex Craftworlds army even without the Eldar bringing a Wraithknight. Give them a Knight, and the scales become a bit more fair. Chaos is largely outclassed by most codices, but a well chosen SHV can significantly alter the balance in their favor. These are armies that don't operate on the same power level as other choices in the game, unless they get an extra boost. The fact that the boost to Chaos is a boost to other armies is largely irrelevant. Without SHVs, Chaos is garbage. With SHVs, Chaos stands a chance, even against nominally better armies witrh their own super heavy options. Two Renegade Knights will eat a lot of things for lunch, and even one makes a strong addition to a Cabalstar.

Despite all this anti Traditio sentiment the original question deals with the idea that super heavies changed the 40k game significantly.

I voted Yes but really I think that the game was better before they came in. I have 2 superheavies but I always prefer games without them.

Anecdotally I also think that there are way more people playing this game with no superheavy rules applied to their games than all inclusive.

I enjoy the tactical nuances of 40k and most (not all) of it is lost when a player brings a superheavy.

I've been playing for a long time and I’d have to say it’s only in the current rules set that SHV/GMC having become a real issue.

If you’re going to use one it should be a real risk vs. reward gambit, yes you could devastate you enemies but if they pop it then you loss half your army and find yourself in a very very tight spot. The current set of rules and slew of imbalanced units has caused the issue, not the idea of the units.

Should they belong in Apoc only, hummm maybe more than one at a time yes but you should be able to use them for fluffy reasons or you just like to take risks.

I just make sure to ask my opponent if they are OK playing against a LoW option that is a SH/GH before the game. If they say no, I always try to have a list that doesn't include it. I think I have only had one person refuse, most people ask what it is, and then are OK with it. I think when they ask they just want to see what army I am playing, and making sure it isn't a warhound or something.
I don't think we need blanket bans from the game. I think if the player base as a whole could practice better etiquette and sportsmanship we wouldn't have these issues. Of course, none of this matters within tournaments, where the TO decides things, so my post is not with tournaments in mind.
I do believe that the old escalation rules were pretty nice though. The ones that gave a VP for ever 3HP/W you took of a SH/GC, and the other warlord traits.

I am a big fan of superheavy stuff and think it should be allowed in normal games, but I also think that you should let your opponent know beforehand.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I am a big fan of superheavy stuff and think it should be allowed in normal games, but I also think that you should let your opponent know beforehand.

For codices with no answers, how is that helpful?

Martel732 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I am a big fan of superheavy stuff and think it should be allowed in normal games, but I also think that you should let your opponent know beforehand.

For codices with no answers, how is that helpful?

Virtually every codex has answers to all but the most OP superheavies. Things like Baneblades and Stompas are not a problem for anyone.

 nurgle86 wrote:
I enjoy the tactical nuances of 40k and most (not all) of it is lost when a player brings a superheavy.

"tactical nuances"? in 40k?

Traditio wrote:

But if we can use bad analogies here, if you only got ~38% of the electoral college when running for president, or 38% of the popular vote, would you be a strong minority in a binary choice system?

The "binary choice" system by its very nature makes strong vs. weak minorities irrelevent.

However, if we were talking about European politicians, 38% control of a parliament would be pretty amazing.

This is a binary poll, is it not?

The biggest problem at the core of the superheavy issue is that there's this imaginary line GW draws and says "Ok, so right


-----------------------------------------------------------

HERE we have the line of 300 points.

Anything AT or ABOVE this line gets this particular set of abilities that are quite powerful, they get the full set as soon as they cross this line and no matter how their points costs and basic stats change, these abilities will not scale. The strength of their weapons, the toughness of their armor, and basically all the rest of their stats will totally cap out, but we're going to just keep making things bigger and bigger in terms of points and throwing value at the few stats that don't have a hard cap."

While this may work for a unit type where the benefits of the unit type are relatively minor and baked into the base game (say, infantry, who have a range of 3 - ~250+ points) this is bound to cause some issues when simply being that kind of unit should really be 150+ points worth of the unit's power budget.

The problematic superheavies almost universally fall in the range between 300-500 points, where they've roughly hit the cap of Toughness, armor save, weapon strength, etc, but they don't cost so much that including one is the vast majority of your army.

Should supers be blanket banned from the game? No. There are plenty of ways to make units that do the same stuff and present the same problems supers do using deathstars (especially with psychic powers being what they are currently) and other blob-type superunits. Should the 'superheavy' unit type be reworked to be less problematic at the lower ranges where it applies? Yeah, I do think that rather than the special rules being a blanket thing applied to every superheavy unit, making them parcel out and kick in at various points values would be a far better idea. A stormsurge IK or wraithknight wouldn't be such a problem without the infinite split fire or stomp rules at their full power.

But there are plenty of unit types that need a retool. Jump pack units really need the Jink rule or need to be able to assault after deep strike (maybe with a disorganized charge). Bikes should get either their +1T or jink, not both. FMCs and air rules in general need a total rehaul. Does that mean I think any of those things should be banned from the game because they're imperfect now? No.

 Jewelfox wrote:
What is the advantage of saying "no superheavies" in whatever context, over saying "no wraithknights" or what have you? Especially when some factions need superheavies to compete on a level playing field against top-tier lists.

It's too complicated and creates problems apparently.

I don't despise the idea of having SHVs and GCs in the game, but I think they've been implemented badly. I don't like they've been given their own FOC slot. I'd rather taking one take up all the appropriate slots in an FOC - so a Wraithknight would take up 3 Heavy Support slots, a Riptide would take up 3 Elites slots, and so on. That'd force some actual choices in list building.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I don't despise the idea of having SHVs and GCs in the game, but I think they've been implemented badly. I don't like they've been given their own FOC slot. I'd rather taking one take up all the appropriate slots in an FOC - so a Wraithknight would take up 3 Heavy Support slots, a Riptide would take up 3 Elites slots, and so on. That'd force some actual choices in list building.

I actually think that's a pretty cool idea.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I don't despise the idea of having SHVs and GCs in the game, but I think they've been implemented badly. I don't like they've been given their own FOC slot. I'd rather taking one take up all the appropriate slots in an FOC - so a Wraithknight would take up 3 Heavy Support slots, a Riptide would take up 3 Elites slots, and so on. That'd force some actual choices in list building.

I think this could be fair in sub 2k point games. Over 2k however that becomes very very army limiting for several armies.

Either way I still prefer the FW HH way of handling things, no more than 25% of your army.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I don't despise the idea of having SHVs and GCs in the game, but I think they've been implemented badly. I don't like they've been given their own FOC slot. I'd rather taking one take up all the appropriate slots in an FOC - so a Wraithknight would take up 3 Heavy Support slots, a Riptide would take up 3 Elites slots, and so on. That'd force some actual choices in list building.

It really wouldn't, it would just impose a troops and hq tax.

It also wouldn't have any effect on riptides since you can take an all riptide formation and riptides aren't GMC's.

 nurgle86 wrote:
Despite all this anti Traditio sentiment the original question deals with the idea that super heavies changed the 40k game significantly.

I voted Yes but really I think that the game was better before they came in.

I see it as the game changed significantly at the time Superheavies came in. I recall playing against Superheavies back in 3E. They were Armorcast and rare and expensive and Apocalypse.

The game definitely was better back then, because it was smoother and simpler. I'm talking 3E-5E. Not the bloated, lawyered mess that we got with 6E-7E. Games were smaller, quicker, with strategy and movement. At this point, there are just too many little rules, too many similar rules, too many special rules, too many unnecessary and random things in the game. But it's not fair to blame all of that on the big boys.

38% (BTW I misread the question and voted no earlier) is a lot smaller then it would have been when Knights where first introduced. which suggests to me that after people have PLAYED super heavies they've realized they're not all that great,

I'm going to say yes, as a Guard player I feel that there isn't nearly enough Dakka in this game, and Super Heavies can provide it. Assuming, that is, that everything is tinkered with to make sure that it's integrated.

40K would have been better off if the game hadn't turned into Epic, but at this point putting the genie back into the bottle isn't feasible, or even desirable.

Banning SHV's and Gargantuans isn't the answer, but if they're going to show up, both sides should be ready to tackle their appearance, which would mean both sides agreeing it's OK. If it's a tournament, it should be clearly outlined whether these guys would be legal or not.

It would be no different if one person brought an army that had no antitank and the other brought a bunch of vehicles. I know - I've done it before and didn't realize until the game was underway I had no way of harming the vehicles. That sort of situation just isn't fun to be in.

Looks like I get 65% of my frosting now in a cool pattern.

Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's rule #1

But on topic, I do not think that Superheavies should be banned. I will not tell somebody that they should not be able to play with the toys they have spent their hard earned money on. It is not the fault of the player that a bloated ruleset allows them to do bonkers stuff that is allowed. But it is a testament to their take on the game if they abuse it. I find it pretty simple to just say " no thank you" to a game when it is not in the spirit of what I am there to play. But that is my opinion, people approach how they build lists with the type of game they have in mind. If that is not the game you want to play Traditio, than build a second army in your "ideal" version of 40k and invite your buddies over for a casual game of beer and pretzels 40k, where everybody is the same and everybody gets a prize. I would rather take my underdog army and enjoy having to be clever, use tactics and have a basic understanding of list building and how it effects how I play the game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Looks like I get 65% of my frosting now in a cool pattern.

And apparently I have 65% of my paycheck now too.

And 65% of the Electoral College votes.

Traditio wrote:

What precisely do you propose for casual pickup games?

Has it occurred to you that pick up games are not a consideration for a huge portion of 40K players?

40K has a problem when players have different expectations regarding the power level the game should be played at. This has always been a problem and while there is such variety available in units, unit equipment and list building it will always be a problem. (because the variety of potential threats means that you must carefully include a variety of capability and a failure to do so leaves you extremely weak against certain threats. It is also easy to create an army that is unfocused in its capabilities and therefore lacking in effective capability.)

Removing super heavies won't fix this. The best fix is to play with people who have similar expectations (I.e tournaments, clubs, friends) rather than strangers.

The poor fix is to strip the variety and choice out of the game until most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections. This would remove the only real strength to the 40K ruleset. (variety)

Scott-S6 wrote:Has it occurred to you that pick up games are not a consideration for a huge portion of 40K players?

No. That did not occur to me.

Now that it has occurred to me, I'm not sure that it's true.

Moar polls?

The poor fix is to strip the variety and choice out of the game until most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections.

I fail to see why this is a bad thing.

This would remove the only real strength to the 40K ruleset. (variety)

Actually, quite the opposite obtains under your assumption. If most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections, then greater variety results.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NH Gunsmith wrote:If that is not the game you want to play Traditio, than build a second army in your "ideal" version of 40k and invite your buddies over for a casual game of beer and pretzels 40k, where everybody is the same and everybody gets a prize

This particular line stuck out for me.

"Everybody gets a prize"?

It seems to me, Gunsmith, that the experience of having played a pleasant game of warhammer, especially in person, with good terrain and well painted armies, in pleasant company, in and of itself, constitutes a prize.

The apparent opposition that you have in your mind ("everybody gets a prize (fething hippy communist scrubs!!!)" vs. "there is one and only one victor and that is me!!!!"), it seems to me, speaks volumes about your presuppositions and approach to the game.

I approach the game as a pleasant way to spend roughly 3 hours of my day.

Traditio wrote:
Moar polls?

Please no.

I fail to see why this is a bad thing.

It's a bad thing because it's removing choices. That guy who bought a Malcador probably didn't do it out of sheer spite and desire to ruin your fun, they did it because they want to use a Malcador. And if you have to tell them "you can't use that" then there's a problem.

Of course you'd have a hard time seeing this problem because the only consistent rule in your balance proposals is "Traditio gets to play exactly what he wants to play, and everyone else has to adapt to that".

If most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections, then greater variety results.

Remember the part where you have to strip out whole categories of units to get that similar power level? You know, like your balance proposal to ban the entire Tau army? There might be some variety within the tiny part of the game that remains after you've banned everything you don't like, but it's going to be pretty disappointing compared to the diversity of the unbalanced game we have now.

I approach the game as a pleasant way to spend roughly 3 hours of my day.

Followed by 6 hours on the forums telling everyone how they're playing the game the wrong way and are all WAAC TFGs who don't know how to have fun.

Peregrine wrote:It's a bad thing because it's removing choices.

Two points:

1. The person in question premised himself as follows: "Making all armies, mostly regardless of unit selection, equally powerful."

The premise had nothing to do with limiting unit selections.

2. Even granted that choices are removed, so what?

I fail to see this as inherently a bad thing, if the choices themselves are bad (in whatever sense of the word).

That guy who bought a Malcador probably didn't do it out of sheer spite and desire to ruin your fun, they did it because they want to use a Malcador. And if you have to tell them "you can't use that" then there's a problem.

Let's see if I remember the quote correctly:

"Take the strongest units in your codex, paint them well, and then make up the fluff as needed."

I wonder what Malcador owner expressed such sentiments.

Remember the part where you have to strip out whole categories of units to get that similar power level? You know, like your balance proposal to ban the entire Tau army? There might be some variety within the tiny part of the game that remains after you've banned everything you don't like, but it's going to be pretty disappointing compared to the diversity of the unbalanced game we have now.

I disagree with the emphasis on the word "some," as expressed. There would actually be much more diversity, in practice, than present now in the competitive meta.

You've essentially admitted this in your refusal to build, e.g., a competitive orks list without FW or superheavies.

"Reasonably well constructed" doesn't actually mean "Take whatever you want" in your use of those terms.

You want to limit army construction even more than I do.

The difference between us, Peregrine, is that I don't resort to sophistic rhetoric to pretend as though I don't.

Traditio wrote:
The premise had nothing to do with limiting unit selections.

Did you even read the bit you quoted?

The poor fix is to strip the variety and choice out of the game until most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections.

2. Even granted that choices are removed, so what?

I fail to see this as inherently a bad thing, if the choices themselves are bad (in whatever sense of the word).

You honestly don't see a problem with "you can't use that model/army/whatever you bought and painted and really want to use, if you do I won't be able to win without changing my own army".

(Of course you don't, because none of your choices will ever be removed under your proposed rules. You see no problem at all with letting everyone else make sacrifices to balance the game.)

Let's see if I remember the quote correctly:

"Take the strongest units in your codex, paint them well, and then make up the fluff as needed."

I wonder what Malcador owner expressed such sentiments.

Aside from the absurdity of taking my quotes out of context like that I'll just leave it at this: someone who just wants to take the strongest units and win isn't going to own a Malcador.

There would actually be much more diversity, in practice, than present now in the competitive meta.

I find this hard to believe, given how many things you want to ban.

You've essentially admitted this in your refusal to build, e.g., a competitive orks list without FW or superheavies.

Please don't misquote me to your advantage. I refused to accept your challenge with a "no FW or superheavies" rule attached, because that is not a rule in 40k. Even if the final army list would not have contained any FW units or superheavies I'm not going to accept the premise that we're playing Traditio-40k and let you rig the challenge in your favor.

(Of course you already know this, because I said it in the other thread when you misquoted me the first time. Please stop being dishonest like this.)

Okay Mr Traditio, how about this, since you like to harp on someone elses choice about the Malcador.

I play Space Marines, and have Only played Space Marines in all of the years I have collected and played. Sometimes I ally a small number of Sisters of Battle for 40k and I'd like to start some mechanicum for 30k but that is beside the point .

I play Marines, and I choose 98% of the time to play CAD only as that's what I find fun.

And for my 40k Blood Ravens I recently bought a Cerberus Tank Destroyer because it looks cool and because the Sicaran Venator doesnt have rules outside of HH games. It is a super heavy with 5-6 hp and It has one job, kill tanks, and it does this relatively well when it doesn't kill itself. But this super heavy supposedly imbalances a game simply because it's a Superheavy?

Do explain the logic behind this, please?

If only there was a game specifically designed for Super Heavies and Formations..

It's sad that GW decided to merge 40K and Apocalypse to generate extra sales of big kits and push formation bundles.
Hopefully with a new broom in charge at GW they'll start a new balanced* skirmish/company level ruleset, leaving Apoco40k as is for those that want it

*I can dream can't I ?

Traditio wrote:

The poor fix is to strip the variety and choice out of the game until most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections.

I fail to see why this is a bad thing.

This would remove the only real strength to the 40K ruleset. (variety)

Actually, quite the opposite obtains under your assumption. If most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections, then greater variety results.

Apparently you didn't even read what you quoted. The only way to achieve equal power levels regardless of army composition selections is to remove all choices otherwise you'll still get people who don't bring any anti tank weapons complaining that heavy armour is OP, etc.

If we removed, for example, everything that isn't infantry and gave all units fixed wargear then everything can kill everything and balancing the points will be trivial. However 40K has then become just like a whole bunch of other systems but with clunky outdated mechanics.

While the variety remains then no matter how balanced each unit may be there will always be people taking less effective combinations of units and wargear and other people taking more effective combinations.


Regarding pickup games, it's far more common in the US than in other places. In the UK (which is as big a market for 40K as the US remember) it's much more common to play at home or at a club than in store and pre-arranged games are common in stores. I've played one game in store since the release of 2nd edition and that was a pre arranged game against someone from Dakka, so not truly a pickup game.

Pickup games are less than ideal for any game (even for chess people have different ideas about clock use, etc.) but can be really poor for 40K. Why would you not pre-arrange to play with someone that shares your ideas about what constitutes a fun game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

2. Even granted that choices are removed, so what?

I fail to see this as inherently a bad thing, if the choices themselves are bad (in whatever sense of the word).

Here we see again your failure to understand that an army can be more or less than the sum of its parts. (see your "if tactical marines without grav can't kill it then it's OP" argument)

Every choice can be perfectly balanced but you can still make a poor combination of choices. Scatterbikes are extremely points efficient firepower but an all scatbike army can't hurt an all landraider army. Does that mean that scatterbikes are bad or landraiders are OP? No, it means that poor composition choices were made.

There is nothing wrong with having categories of units that require different capabilities to handle but it allows people to build armies with severe weaknesses. There's nothing wrong with having different units provide very different ways of handling a particular target category but it allows armys to be built that are extremely unfocused.

While there is the large amount of choice in army composition it will always be possible to build a poor army no matter how viable each individual choice is.

Nice on the Cerberus.

I am almost done building an Imperial Knight, that I will play in regular games, with zero regrets. It's a cool model, and that's that.

Bartali wrote:
If only there was a game specifically designed for Super Heavies and Formations..

It's sad that GW decided to merge 40K and Apocalypse to generate extra sales of big kits and push formation bundles.
Hopefully with a new broom in charge at GW they'll start a new balanced* skirmish/company level ruleset, leaving Apoco40k as is for those that want it

*I can dream can't I ?

This. This right here. It was perfectly fine to play with Super Heavies, and awesome Formations that gave additional abilities, and so much more that was 40k Apocalypse. Much like there is a time and place for everything and it is called college, it seems to me the time and place for Super Heavies and the like was Apocalypse. GW in their infinite wisdom had to merge what was 40k and Apocalypse together. I honestly think more people would be happier about this (these?) game if there was still that distinction. I don't want to tell anyone that they can't play with their toys, but I felt that there was a game for that and it was Apocalypse. That game seemed to work fine for them, and I could stick with what was just "normal" 40k. If they honestly brought back that separation, I'd be in support of more events being Apocalypse events (they pretty much are now IMO) but as long as there were still some events that were also "normal" 40k. Oh well, I can dream, can't I?

Nope. Keep the big robots and monsters, keep the flyers. The more options available, the more you have to prepare for and the more units that become viable.

Now, if they would balance out the points between those units, it wouldn't be an issue... glad I can just do that myself since I have regular opponents. (Especially when I am adding points to models i personally own)

Superheavies are generally fine, as the core concept is really just "eternal warrior vehicle" which adds a refreshing breath of durability to the game. Gargantuans suffer from the same imbalancing traits as monstrous creatures. Unfortunately, nearly all SHV/GC suffer from the stigma created by undercosted units like the revenant titan and wraithknight; units like the baneblade or imperial knights aren't bad points-wise at all.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Superheavies are generally fine, as the core concept is really just "eternal warrior vehicle" which adds a refreshing breath of durability to the game. Gargantuans suffer from the same imbalancing traits as monstrous creatures. Unfortunately, nearly all SHV/GC suffer from the stigma created by undercosted units like the revenant titan and wraithknight; units like the baneblade or imperial knights aren't bad points-wise at all.

I agree with you completely. SHV and GMC are not a problem in the game, but there are a few outlier shv/gmc (usually gmc) that create a lot of stigma. If you prepare to face them (which you really should be doing anyway) they are in no way an issue. Heck, certain armies handle them fine without prepping for them.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

Bartali wrote:
If only there was a game specifically designed for Super Heavies and Formations..

It's sad that GW decided to merge 40K and Apocalypse to generate extra sales of big kits and push formation bundles.
Hopefully with a new broom in charge at GW they'll start a new balanced* skirmish/company level ruleset, leaving Apoco40k as is for those that want it

*I can dream can't I ?

This. This right here. It was perfectly fine to play with Super Heavies, and awesome Formations that gave additional abilities, and so much more that was 40k Apocalypse. Much like there is a time and place for everything and it is called college, it seems to me the time and place for Super Heavies and the like was Apocalypse. GW in their infinite wisdom had to merge what was 40k and Apocalypse together. I honestly think more people would be happier about this (these?) game if there was still that distinction. I don't want to tell anyone that they can't play with their toys, but I felt that there was a game for that and it was Apocalypse. That game seemed to work fine for them, and I could stick with what was just "normal" 40k. If they honestly brought back that separation, I'd be in support of more events being Apocalypse events (they pretty much are now IMO) but as long as there were still some events that were also "normal" 40k. Oh well, I can dream, can't I?

I always felt apoclypse vs normal 40k felt like an arbitrary differance. you're playing by the same rules after all.

For those that oppose the units on the grounds they are game breaking and over powered, have you seen the nids GMC's?

They are pretty much a joke for their cost.

Voted no, not because of superheavies themselves or their idea but because of the imbalance in a lot of them and the fact that if one is brought by army X, army Y can often have an impossible time taking it out.
Which ultimately isnt fun and imbalances things a lot.

 Ratius wrote:
Voted no, not because of superheavies themselves or their idea but because of the imbalance in a lot of them and the fact that if one is brought by army X, army Y can often have an impossible time taking it out.
Which ultimately isnt fun and imbalances things a lot.

And this is why a binary poll probably wasn't the best option (Not the I'm trying to criticise the OP nor suggesting that we start yet another one of these threads for the sake of a poll < Sorry, Traditio > ). In light of this comment (and the likelihood of at least some others probably feeling the same way), here's what I think would have been a better set of poll options:

-- Yes; They're fine where and how they are.
-- Yes; As long as they get balance.
-- Yes; < Other > [Please Comment]
-- No; They fine how they are but only belong in Apoc.
-- No; They need a balance, but still only belong in Apoc.
-- No; < Other > [Please Comment]

I'm not going to lie: It would be interesting to see the answers to this thread's poll if these were the options. My vote would be for Yes; As long as they get balance (which also sums up my answer to the original question).

I'd have run the poll like this:
- I own big toys, and I play them all the time.
- I own big toys, but I save them for special occasions.
- I own big toys, but they stay on the shelf.
- I don't have any big toys, but I like to play against them.
- I don't have any big toys, but I like them for special occasions.
- I don't have any big toys, and nobody should play them against me.

The bit about "balance" is pointless, as 40k has never been balanced, and will never be. Anybody wishing for 40k to be balanced should feel bad, because that's just not what the game is. Same with wanting "deep" strategic gameplay. It's an arcade game of loud noises and flashing lights.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The bit about "balance" is pointless, as 40k has never been balanced, and will never be.

-- Whether or not it has been balanced in the past depends on how strict you are about defining balance. I honestly can't say as to the history of 40K in terms of balance since I know nothing of and nor have I played anything before 7th Edition.
-- Under the current attitudes and business plans of GW, you're probably right in saying that it never will be, but you can't know for sure. And even if it never is, why can't we hope?
-- Why is the bit about balance pointless? I see no reasoning that makes it pointless.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Anybody wishing for 40k to be balanced should feel bad, because that's just not what the game is.

No - they should feel good because they not only like this game but want it be improved upon by way of balance. Why should be feel bad about that? And why can't the game be exactly that - balanced?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Same with wanting "deep" strategic gameplay. It's an arcade game of loud noises and flashing lights.

In the same way that DnD is just rolling dice. If you can't see how a group of people might because immersed in the deep strategic gameplay and/or narrative, then that's your loss, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to do (far from that, in fact).


If all 40K is to you is an unbalanced game with no depth and no potential to ever be balanced or even close to balanced, that's fine (it's also my experience that people with these sorts of views are the sorts of people who end up finding a new hobby rather quickly). But that doesn't mean that other people have share that view, nor does it mean that the pursuit of balance and in-depth gameplay is bad or something to feel bad about.

I am going to say I am fine with them. Example in point, I am working on a R&H IA:13 army centred around a vanilla Baneblade. If I keep my infantry near the Baneblade then they are Fearless, a pro. The Baneblade brings a lot of firepower, another pro. If the Baneblade gets popped, highly likely, I could nuke the majority of my army, definite con. All about the risk and reward chaps and chapettes.

The problem is a lot of SHW, etc., dont have a similar risk reward mechanic.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The bit about "balance" is pointless, as 40k has never been balanced, and will never be.

-- Whether or not it has been balanced in the past depends on how strict you are about defining balance. I honestly can't say as to the history of 40K in terms of balance since I know nothing of and nor have I played anything before 7th Edition.
-- Under the current attitudes and business plans of GW, you're probably right in saying that it never will be, but you can't know for sure. And even if it never is, why can't we hope?
-- Why is the bit about balance pointless? I see no reasoning that makes it pointless.

40k has never been balanced.

You can hope all you want, but as they say, hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. You're just misplacing your energies. I will put my money where the 'proven track record' says how things will be. Gw's track record is pretty obvious.
See above. Balance is all well and good, but it will never happen with 40k, if for no other reason than the sheer scope and variety in what the game encompasses would make such an endeavour pointless (hur hur) and any such systemic changes would have every chance of turning 40k into something no one would recognise. Whether you like it or not, gw's attitude is to essentially leave the balance in the hands of the players - sort it out a,ingest yourselves and cooperate to work out a good game.

Bear in mind, I say this as someone who would very much enjoy seeing 40K balanced. I just recognise the landscape for what it is. Reality, not idealism.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Anybody wishing for 40k to be balanced should feel bad, because that's just not what the game is.

No - they should feel good because they not only like this game but want it be improved upon by way of balance. Why should be feel bad about that? And why can't the game be exactly that - balanced?

See above. It probably could be improved, but it won't happen. Wanting it to happen is misplacing your energy when there are other things you could be doing. if you ask me, being pro active in 'how' you play your game with your mates, and co-operating to build interesting scenarios and match ups goes a lot further.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Same with wanting "deep" strategic gameplay. It's an arcade game of loud noises and flashing lights.

In the same way that DnD is just rolling dice. If you can't see how a group of people might because immersed in the deep strategic gameplay and/or narrative, then that's your loss, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to do (far from that, in fact).
If all 40K is to you is an unbalanced game with no depth and no potential to ever be balanced or even close to balanced, that's fine (it's also my experience that people with these sorts of views are the sorts of people who end up finding a new hobby rather quickly). But that doesn't mean that other people have share that view, nor does it mean that the pursuit of balance and in-depth gameplay is bad or something to feel bad about.

He is right though. There is no deep strategic gameplay in 40k. The strategic/tactical side of it is extremely shallow, at best. An arcade game of loud noises and flashing lights sums up 40k quite nicely. If you are immersed in the 'deep strategic gameplay' of 40k, then you have no idea what either deep or strategic actually means.
And hey, don't take that as a criticism because it's not meant as such. It's nothing more than a statement. Arcade games can be great fun. There is nothing at all wrong with them. Thry serve a viable niche. One of the easy things about 40k is how everything essentially plays itself. All you gotta do is apply target priority and move models to charge.

As to the rest, he is still right about 40k being an unbalanced game with no depth which will never be balanced (again, cold hard reality, and going on track record rather than idealism). People certainly don't need to share that view. By all means. Think differently. Pursue balance in 40k. Pursue in depth gameplay. Write whole essays and clog this forum for days with theory, and ideas and your desires. And a year from now, when none of that transpires, and you're still repeating your points to the Internet (and seriously, people have been saying these things since the 90s, and nothing has changed!) what have you actually achieved? and all this time, I've acknowledged the issues, accept them for what they are and am happy to work around them and co operate with my mates to make fun games. Or, as will be the case from the end of June, I will be embracing mk3 warmachine with all the true khadoran patriotism I can muster.

As long as there are deathstars with 2+ rerollable Bull **** there needs to be a way to stop them. Superheavys with their massive weapons are the answer.

 Xerics wrote:
As long as there are deathstars with 2+ rerollable Bull **** there needs to be a way to stop them. Superheavys with their massive weapons are the answer.

Do superheavys actually stop those units, or just victimize the non-death stars. I haven't seen superheavies fare too well vs Wolfstar, personally.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
As long as there are deathstars with 2+ rerollable Bull **** there needs to be a way to stop them. Superheavys with their massive weapons are the answer.

Do superheavys actually stop those units, or just victimize the non-death stars. I haven't seen superheavies fare too well vs Wolfstar, personally.

My Centurio Ordinatus army crushed it in a recent tournament.

Deadnight wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The bit about "balance" is pointless, as 40k has never been balanced, and will never be.

-- Under the current attitudes and business plans of GW, you're probably right in saying that it never will be, but you can't know for sure. And even if it never is, why can't we hope?

40k has never been balanced.

You can hope all you want, but as they say, hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. You're just misplacing your energies. I will put my money where the 'proven track record' says how things will be. Gw's track record is pretty obvious.


As to the rest, he is still right about 40k being an unbalanced game with no depth which will never be balanced (again, cold hard reality, and going on track record rather than idealism). People certainly don't need to share that view. By all means. Think differently. Pursue balance in 40k. Pursue in depth gameplay. Write whole essays and clog this forum for days with theory, and ideas and your desires. And a year from now, when none of that transpires, and you're still repeating your points to the Internet (and seriously, people have been saying these things since the 90s, and nothing has changed!) what have you actually achieved? and all this time, I've acknowledged the issues, accept them for what they are and am happy to work around them and co operate with my mates to make fun games. Or, as will be the case from the end of June, I will be embracing mk3 warmachine with all the true khadoran patriotism I can muster.

Exactly so. While a balanced 40k would be nice, I place more odds in winning the lottery than GW balancing 40k. And I don't even play the lottery but once every few years.

Truth be told, there was a time that I railed against GW for not making a balanced game. Over a decade ago. To no effect. I have since come to accept 40k for what it is. It's not a bad game, and it plays well with beer. Also salty carbs. But it's not chess. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Yesterday, I brought out the my Leviathan, my newly-built Knight and a literal handful of Stormtroopers. As expected, the Leviathan and Knight did the bulk of the killing before a GMC killed the Leviathan. Of the lot, the Stormtroopers scored the most satisfying kill, with their plasma guns finishing off a Flygrant with no overheats.

Voted no (correctly this time)

Mainly just because if I wanted to play with apocalypse units I would play apocalypse. I prefer 1500 and smaller 40k games as I just don't like how it plays any bigger than that. Trying to play armies like IG, Nids, or Orks just slows the game down way too much to me past that, especially as units keep getting cheaper pointswise. It also completely removes the point of bringing most regular troops units when there are units that can kill half an army on the table. Others love that, but it isn't for me.

I realize Apocalypse doesn't exist anymore, and now that's what normal 40k has become but I still would gladly have GMC's and Superheavies go back to being "banned" from normal games. Normal games meaning 1500 or less really. Anything lower than that and it's like bringing Leman Russes to a 500pts match. Yeah they may not be amazing but it's a jerk move. Even a single riptide or knight just feels like too much.

And before you bring up the "Yeah but the Malcador sucks" example, that doesn't really matter. We all know GW sucks at rules. Pick any unit type in the game and there is a horribly overpriced and terrible example you could pick to say "yeah but x means I should be able to take Y". It doesn't change the fact that there are other apocalypse type units that really don't belong in standard games. It's easier to just flat out say "no superheavies/GMC/whatever other categories there are for apocalypse type units" than try to cherry pick "only Knights, riptides, and wraithknights are banned".

Again, I know that's not a popular opinion (currently 41% to 59% at time of writing) but I guarantee you it would dramatically improve the health of the game overnight and make it easier on new folk joining in. We also have to remember there's a good portion of people that have left, some of which would undoubtedly cite apocalypse scale units becoming standard as part of the reason they left.

YES!

As time goes on, the poll progressively moves in my favor.

41 percent to 59 percent.

41 is definitely a strong minority.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
It's easier to just flat out say "no superheavies/GMC/whatever other categories there are for apocalypse type units" than try to cherry pick "only Knights, riptides, and wraithknights are banned".

The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it. Trygons are MCs, just like the riptide, and are comparable in size to the riptide, and I've never seen anyone seriously advocate for banning them or any other large Tyranid monster, so clearly it's possible for us to have large models without them being game-breaking.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

Sidstyler wrote:The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it.

Seconded. I strongly dislike the riptide (as I do the Tau in general); however, a discussion of the riptide is simply out of place in the context of this thread. They're not superheavy vehicles or gargantuan monstrous creatures. They're just regular monstrous creatures. Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creatures.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

Traditio wrote:
There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

Does a terminator really need to be in the same game as a grot?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
YES!

As time goes on, the poll progressively moves in my favor.

41 percent to 59 percent.

41 is definitely a strong minority.

I see we're going to continue the theme of "a poll's value is directly proportional to how much it agrees with Traditio's opinion"?

The answer to both of the questions above is YES!

I think there's something to be said about the Riptide being indicative of a greater push towards an increase in scale in general however. In older editions, definitely 3rd or 4th, maybe the early part of 5th, had the Riptide been introduced as a non-vehicle model, it almost certainly would have been a GC (and as an MC has the stats to match some GC's), just as the Trygon was originally a GC retro-actively made into a "normal" MC for release as a general codex unit despite being twice the size of any existing MC.

While the Riptide may not strictly be a GC, it's not far off, and does have some relevancy on the current topic in the larger topic of "the game has too many big things, and the big things keep getting bigger".

And to think we thought the Dreadknight was a big deal when it released...

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

Does a terminator really need to be in the same game as a grot?

There's not as big of a difference between a terminator and a grot as there is between a terminator and a wraithknight.

Terminators and grots are both infantry with 1 wound per model, for starters.

Traditio wrote:
There's not as big of a difference between a terminator and a grot as there is between a terminator and a wraithknight.

Actually there is. The grot costs 3 points per model, the terminator costs 40 points, or 13 times more than the grot. A Wraithknight, even under your proposed (and significant) nerf, costs 400 points, or 10 times more than the terminator. So, assuming point costs are roughly accurate evaluations of a model's power, the scale difference between the grot and the terminator is significantly more than the difference between the terminator and the wraithknight.

Terminators and grots are both infantry with 1 wound per model, for starters.

And terminators and wraithknights are both models with an armor save. Why do you think these superficial similarities or differences are relevant?

 Sidstyler wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
It's easier to just flat out say "no superheavies/GMC/whatever other categories there are for apocalypse type units" than try to cherry pick "only Knights, riptides, and wraithknights are banned".

The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it. Trygons are MCs, just like the riptide, and are comparable in size to the riptide, and I've never seen anyone seriously advocate for banning them or any other large Tyranid monster, so clearly it's possible for us to have large models without them being game-breaking.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

Wait.... that's NOT a GMC per the rules?!?! What the feth is going on? Doesn't it have stats that are higher than some actual GMC's?

Regardless, it's still an example of large units that really don't belong in a 28mm wargame if you want to have any semblance of infantry and skirmish rules, like 40k insists on doing. You need to pick one and do it well. Either embrace the big stompy bits, admit infantry are there to get blown up and not much else, and RUTHLESSLY cut down on special rules and options for them. I'm talking units would have 4-5 options max, say you can pick what special and heavy they get, if they get extra men, and maybe a toy for the sarge like a fist or bomb, that's it, and that would be on the high end. It's that, or Embrace all the skirmish elements but realize that game size needs to drop quite a bit to make it worthwhile. At that point you'd be playing what we now consider a 1,000pts, but would have more fleshed out and refined rules and wargear options.You would also have less vehicles (and "apocalypse" units) to eliminate parking lot syndrome.

As the system is now, "balancing" more extreme large models really doesn't fix the core issues of the game. I still have a system where I can outfit individual guardsmen uniquely with options that cost 1-2pts in the same match as a small Titan that will just step on him and half his squad. It makes one wonder why you even bring these units in the first place. Don't believe me? Tell me then, how good are tac squads? How about infantry platoons or just a regular old boyz mob? These are units designed to fight other infantry, and take objectives. Units that are expected to do this with fairly minimal firepower and not get wiped out by a hulking death machine the size of a bastion. They are units that are supposed to be the core of your army, using support as a minor addition to help them accomplish their goals. Instead, we see massive reliance and emphasis on units that squeeze out the maximum amount of firepower, because anything else is pretty much useless. Vets, lootas, devestator (with grab at least) etc. Units that are designed to be support usually end up becoming the core of your army. Because otherwise, you're stuck trying to kill a riptide with lasguns or shootas. This is a glaring example of bad and confused game design, as it discourages you from using the units that are supposed to be the core of your army.

I don't know how people don't see it, it's all over the tactics and discussion forum. Watch any newbie post on here with a "what should I get" question and he will be given that advice. Get the bare minimum of standard troops like tac Marines or infantry squads, and stock up on characters and elite units.

please realize I just want a 40k game that can function as a good game. Doesnt even need to be perfect, just a serious change and rebooting the system would give me some hope. Ive played a wide variety of systems and it really pains me to see 40k's setting and models get dragged down by an abysmal ruleset. I've tried to get players to try other rulesets designed for 40k and it doesn't happen, so I'm stuck here hoping 40k gets Sigmared just so something will change. And before you say "just play other games", I do, but that doesn't mean I cant look to 40k and point out what it could be, instead of accepting the garbage that it is right now. It's like watching an idiot friend keep making the same stupid mistakes, you really want to help the guy, but theres nothing you can do until he decides he wants to change himself for the better.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
It's easier to just flat out say "no superheavies/GMC/whatever other categories there are for apocalypse type units" than try to cherry pick "only Knights, riptides, and wraithknights are banned".

The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it. Trygons are MCs, just like the riptide, and are comparable in size to the riptide, and I've never seen anyone seriously advocate for banning them or any other large Tyranid monster, so clearly it's possible for us to have large models without them being game-breaking.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

Wait.... that's NOT a GMC per the rules?!?! What the feth is going on? Doesn't it have stats that are higher than some actual GMC's?

Because its GW, and they have no clue how to balance that mess?

Yes, 'Apocalypse' units absolutely should be allowed by the game.

But they really need to be priced appropriately.

This is part of the reason I like the Horus Heresy game - it is explicitly scaled up. Look at a troop choice from each army and their options:

Solar Auxilia: Veletarii Storm Sections get sergeant toys (Fist, etc), shroud bombs, a vox, and a choice of primary weapon between three options. Each applies to the whole squad except sergeant toys and the vox (which is one guy).

Mechanicum: Thallax Cohort: An Augment, meltabombs, Chainblades, and a special weapon. Each applies to the whole squad except chainblades and the special weapon (which is one guy).

Legion Tactical Squads: uhm, sergeant toys.

The rest of 30k is big tanks, superheavies, walkers, and MCs, and it works.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This is part of the reason I like the Horus Heresy game - it is explicitly scaled up. Look at a troop choice from each army and their options:

Solar Auxilia: Veletarii Storm Sections get sergeant toys (Fist, etc), shroud bombs, a vox, and a choice of primary weapon between three options. Each applies to the whole squad except sergeant toys and the vox (which is one guy).

Mechanicum: Thallax Cohort: An Augment, meltabombs, Chainblades, and a special weapon. Each applies to the whole squad except chainblades and the special weapon (which is one guy).

Legion Tactical Squads: uhm, sergeant toys.

The rest of 30k is big tanks, superheavies, walkers, and MCs, and it works.

If I want to squash a nasty super-heavy, I just shoot it. Its the safest way.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Voted no (correctly this time)

Mainly just because if I wanted to play with apocalypse units I would play apocalypse. I prefer 1500 and smaller 40k games as I just don't like how it plays any bigger than that. Trying to play armies like IG, Nids, or Orks just slows the game down way too much to me past that, especially as units keep getting cheaper pointswise. It also completely removes the point of bringing most regular troops units when there are units that can kill half an army on the table. Others love that, but it isn't for me.

I realize Apocalypse doesn't exist anymore, and now that's what normal 40k has become but I still would gladly have GMC's and Superheavies go back to being "banned" from normal games. Normal games meaning 1500 or less really. Anything lower than that and it's like bringing Leman Russes to a 500pts match. Yeah they may not be amazing but it's a jerk move. Even a single riptide or knight just feels like too much.

And before you bring up the "Yeah but the Malcador sucks" example, that doesn't really matter. We all know GW sucks at rules. Pick any unit type in the game and there is a horribly overpriced and terrible example you could pick to say "yeah but x means I should be able to take Y". It doesn't change the fact that there are other apocalypse type units that really don't belong in standard games. It's easier to just flat out say "no superheavies/GMC/whatever other categories there are for apocalypse type units" than try to cherry pick "only Knights, riptides, and wraithknights are banned".

Again, I know that's not a popular opinion (currently 41% to 59% at time of writing) but I guarantee you it would dramatically improve the health of the game overnight and make it easier on new folk joining in. We also have to remember there's a good portion of people that have left, some of which would undoubtedly cite apocalypse scale units becoming standard as part of the reason they left.

Sorry, but I can't take you seriously if you think a Leman Russ at 500 is a "dick move". YOU have less coherent ideas about balance than GW.

Leman Russ?

A 500 pt list can have 3-4 meltas in transports or pods.

Yeah a Leman Russ at 500 pts is pretty fine. If anything it can actively hurt your army by putting a big percentage of your points into a single model.

A leman Russ, at 500. That's got only one av14 facing and weaker flanks, plus if ordnance can only snap shot other guns.

A macaldor, its a pretty weak super heavy.
It has 6hp.. Limited firepower vs some others.

Its hardly a untimate war machine. A super heavy land raider. That's tough but lower on firepower.

Traditio wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it.

Seconded. I strongly dislike the riptide (as I do the Tau in general); however, a discussion of the riptide is simply out of place in the context of this thread. They're not superheavy vehicles or gargantuan monstrous creatures. They're just regular monstrous creatures. Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creatures.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

You just defended the rip tide. A model roughly the same size with less killing power. So, let me ask you this. Does a fire warrior belong in the same game as a riptide? What makes a
riptide legal but a knight not? The label super heavy? Plus, what is your problem with scale? As someone said, does a grot belong in the same game as a land raider? There is a point system for a reason.

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Rarely do I agree with Traditio, but in this case I agree with him. The Riptide is an overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it.

Seconded. I strongly dislike the riptide (as I do the Tau in general); however, a discussion of the riptide is simply out of place in the context of this thread. They're not superheavy vehicles or gargantuan monstrous creatures. They're just regular monstrous creatures. Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creatures.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

You just defended the rip tide. A model roughly the same size with roughly the same amount of killing power. So, let me ask you this. Does a fire warrior belong in the same game as a stormsurge? What makes a stormsurge legal but a knight not? The label super heavy?

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Riptide and Dreadknight for sure. Arguably the six wound Tyranid MCs, because the heaviest weapons take away wounds one at a time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Rarely do I agree with Traditio, but in this case I agree with him. The Riptide is an overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature.

There it is again, the word "regular". A daemon prince is a monstrous creature, does that make it OP? A type of unit is not the problem, the balancing is. The question should not be "should they be allowed", but how can they be made fair.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Rarely do I agree with Traditio, but in this case I agree with him. The Riptide is an overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature.

There it is again, the word "regular". A daemon prince is a monstrous creature, does that make it OP? A type of unit is not the problem, the balancing is. The question should not be "should they be allowed", but how can they be made fair.

It's OP compared to a vehicle of identical cost. Can't be one-shotted, can't be supressed, can't fail dangerous terrain, can't be stunned, can't be shaken, can't lose weapons, doesn't lose durability in CC.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Rarely do I agree with Traditio, but in this case I agree with him. The Riptide is an overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature.

There it is again, the word "regular". A daemon prince is a monstrous creature, does that make it OP? A type of unit is not the problem, the balancing is. The question should not be "should they be allowed", but how can they be made fair.

Wait so you are saying the Riptide isn't a "regular" MC?

Martel732 wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it.

Seconded. I strongly dislike the riptide (as I do the Tau in general); however, a discussion of the riptide is simply out of place in the context of this thread. They're not superheavy vehicles or gargantuan monstrous creatures. They're just regular monstrous creatures. Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creatures.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

You just defended the rip tide. A model roughly the same size with roughly the same amount of killing power. So, let me ask you this. Does a fire warrior belong in the same game as a stormsurge? What makes a stormsurge legal but a knight not? The label super heavy?

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Riptide and Dreadknight for sure. Arguably the six wound Tyranid MCs, because the heaviest weapons take away wounds one at a time.

Do tyranids really need more nerfs? And for the knight what makes it op? I know the answer for the 'tide but I don't see anything wrong with the knight. It's point cost is justified imo.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Rarely do I agree with Traditio, but in this case I agree with him. The Riptide is an overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature.

There it is again, the word "regular". A daemon prince is a monstrous creature, does that make it OP? A type of unit is not the problem, the balancing is. The question should not be "should they be allowed", but how can they be made fair.

Wait so you are saying the Riptide isn't a "regular" MC?

I think he's saying it doesn't count because it's an outlier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it.

Seconded. I strongly dislike the riptide (as I do the Tau in general); however, a discussion of the riptide is simply out of place in the context of this thread. They're not superheavy vehicles or gargantuan monstrous creatures. They're just regular monstrous creatures. Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creatures.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

You just defended the rip tide. A model roughly the same size with roughly the same amount of killing power. So, let me ask you this. Does a fire warrior belong in the same game as a stormsurge? What makes a stormsurge legal but a knight not? The label super heavy?

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Riptide and Dreadknight for sure. Arguably the six wound Tyranid MCs, because the heaviest weapons take away wounds one at a time.

Do tyranids really need more nerfs? And for the knight what makes it op? I know the answer for the 'tide but I don't see anything wrong with the knight. It's point cost is justified imo.

T6 2+ / 5++ with a chance for 4++ is stupid durable for the price. It sucks up like what, 14 BS 4 lascannons or meltaguns? And is practically immune to krak missiles and poison weapons? Yeah, totally fair.

Martel732 wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Rarely do I agree with Traditio, but in this case I agree with him. The Riptide is an overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature.

There it is again, the word "regular". A daemon prince is a monstrous creature, does that make it OP? A type of unit is not the problem, the balancing is. The question should not be "should they be allowed", but how can they be made fair.

It's OP compared to a vehicle of identical cost. Can't be one-shotted, can't be supressed, can't fail dangerous terrain, can't be stunned, can't be shaken, can't lose weapons, doesn't lose durability in CC.

Last time I checked a prince can be one-shotted, and doesn't have transport capacity or guns on it. 40k never works in a vacuum. A leman russ would definitely lose to a prince 1v1 but would it fail when it has another 1300 point of guard with it? The same question goes for the opponent, could 1300 points of more daemons win? We don't know. There is too many variables too guess and like I said vacuum games are just plain unfair.

No, there aren't too many variables. Vehicles straight up suck in 7th. The have way too many liabilities.

Oh, are princes T5? They are the poverty MCs then. Proper MCs have T6, making it impossible to one shot them or remove their FNP. Totally fair. The fact that MCs fight at full strength until they are dead, combined with how much STUFF you have to throw at them to kill them is pretty crazy. And don't forget the grenade nerf.

Martel732 wrote:
No, there aren't too many variables. Vehicles straight up suck in 7th. The have way too many liabilities.

Oh, are princes T5? They are the poverty MCs then. Proper MCs have T6, making it impossible to one shot them or remove their FNP. Totally fair. The fact that MCs fight at full strength until they are dead, combined with how much STUFF you have to throw at them to kill them is pretty crazy. And don't forget the grenade nerf.

A leman Russ can be immobile, stunned, lose weapons and such. A mc loses nothing.
Mc is imune to any reduction in combat effectiveness unlike the tank.

Super heavy however at least gives tanks a chance. Tnaks need a big boost

 jhe90 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, there aren't too many variables. Vehicles straight up suck in 7th. The have way too many liabilities.

Oh, are princes T5? They are the poverty MCs then. Proper MCs have T6, making it impossible to one shot them or remove their FNP. Totally fair. The fact that MCs fight at full strength until they are dead, combined with how much STUFF you have to throw at them to kill them is pretty crazy. And don't forget the grenade nerf.

A leman Russ can be immobile, stunned, lose weapons and such. A mc loses nothing.
Mc is imune to any reduction in combat effectiveness unlike the tank.

Super heavy however at least gives tanks a chance.

They're still garbage compared to GMCs. And some MCs. A Riptide is so much better than an IK it's disgusting. I picked up the Renegade box, but I'm wondering if they will make my lists better or worse.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it.

Seconded. I strongly dislike the riptide (as I do the Tau in general); however, a discussion of the riptide is simply out of place in the context of this thread. They're not superheavy vehicles or gargantuan monstrous creatures. They're just regular monstrous creatures. Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creatures.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

You just defended the rip tide. A model roughly the same size with roughly the same amount of killing power. So, let me ask you this. Does a fire warrior belong in the same game as a stormsurge? What makes a stormsurge legal but a knight not? The label super heavy?

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Riptide and Dreadknight for sure. Arguably the six wound Tyranid MCs, because the heaviest weapons take away wounds one at a time.

Do tyranids really need more nerfs? And for the knight what makes it op? I know the answer for the 'tide but I don't see anything wrong with the knight. It's point cost is justified imo.

T6 2+ / 5++ with a chance for 4++ is stupid durable for the price. It sucks up like what, 14 BS 4 lascannons or meltaguns? And is practically immune to krak missiles and poison weapons? Yeah, totally fair.

You know what I can get for 235 in my codex? Nothing remotely that tough. That's what. That's cheaper than a full squad of DC and that thing will please don't use this term like this on Dakka. Reds8n the DC. For the record, it takes 19 WS 4 power fist swings to kill this thing. NINETEEN. You know how many tanks that would destroy? That damn near kills an IK.

Martel732 wrote:
No, there aren't too many variables. Vehicles straight up suck in 7th. The have way too many liabilities.

Oh, are princes T5? They are the poverty MCs then. Proper MCs have T6, making it impossible to one shot them or remove their FNP. Totally fair. The fact that MCs fight at full strength until they are dead, combined with how much STUFF you have to throw at them to kill them is pretty crazy. And don't forget the grenade nerf.

Shouldn't the grenade nerf help the vehicles? Plus, the argument of a regular MC still stands. It doesn't matter if it's a "poverty" mc or not it still is.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, there aren't too many variables. Vehicles straight up suck in 7th. The have way too many liabilities.

Oh, are princes T5? They are the poverty MCs then. Proper MCs have T6, making it impossible to one shot them or remove their FNP. Totally fair. The fact that MCs fight at full strength until they are dead, combined with how much STUFF you have to throw at them to kill them is pretty crazy. And don't forget the grenade nerf.

Shouldn't the grenade nerf help the vehicles? Plus, the argument of a regular MC still stands. It doesn't matter if it's a "poverty" mc or not it still is.

OMG. So there is one MC with T5. It's not like S10 is super common. I'd still rather have a T5 MC than a Russ hull or a Landraider. So many fewer things can go wrong. Melta? Don't care. Doesn't double me out. Lascannons? Don't care. Powerfist? Don't care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, there aren't too many variables. Vehicles straight up suck in 7th. The have way too many liabilities.

Oh, are princes T5? They are the poverty MCs then. Proper MCs have T6, making it impossible to one shot them or remove their FNP. Totally fair. The fact that MCs fight at full strength until they are dead, combined with how much STUFF you have to throw at them to kill them is pretty crazy. And don't forget the grenade nerf.

Shouldn't the grenade nerf help the vehicles? Plus, the argument of a regular MC still stands. It doesn't matter if it's a "poverty" mc or not it still is.

It helps slightly, but it helps MCs a lot more.

But you can get a librarian dreadnought with force and insta-gib it in one hit. I can also get 100 or so grots and I couldn't touch a land raider, it should be banned right?

You just don't get it. A libby dreadnought will be glanced out before it even gets close to this thing. You can shoot autocannons at MCs at all day, they'll bounce them with their armor saves. But dreads and tanks get their HPs chipped out with no save. Plus a libby dread is super overcosted. I'd never use one. They are garbage. There are very few cost effective ranged weapons against MCs in the whole game. That's why they are OP compared to vehicles.

A land raider can't get hurt with anything less than str 8/melta/armourbane. str 3 can hurt t 5. How is that the same? And str 10 can be still achieved. I know for a fact there is at least 3 options in my codex, each which can be spammed.

Land Raiders are utter garbage, though. Contribute nothing, and get immobilized in potholes. And hold units that are equally garbage. Oh, and get immobilized after a single grav hit. And are completely ignorable. Wow so awesome. They are fighting for the worst unit in the BA codex, which says something. And the unit they usually carry is ALSO fighting for worst unit in the codex. And that's in arguably the worst codex. So they are quite literally the worst of the worst.

" str 3 can hurt t 5"

Str 3 can wound T6 as well, but it's usually irrelevant. MCs, due to poor wounding numbers and 3+ armor, are functionally immune to small arms, just like a tank. You'll never cause enough wounds to stop them before they have killed your unit. Especially if they have 2+ armor.

" And str 10 can be still achieved

Probably not in a cost effective manner. So it will never hit the table. You know what IS cost effective? Grav. I can get Str 10 too, I can choose from useless Vindicators, useless dreadnoughts, and a useless chief librarian. I can see my enemies quaking already.

" You can shoot autocannons at MCs at all day, they'll bounce them with their armor saves." Replace mc with vehicle and armour saves with armour value and that's my argument. And as for saves go, cover saves and invulns exist, i.e. bjorn's special rule and psychic powers. And as for your lib dread getting chipped off before it even gets there why won't the dreadknight? It can be hurt just as easily. Mass shots are as easily accessed as high str melta. Tau will light up that mc until he's a christmas tree and force so many saves he'll be dead in a turn. At least pulse rifles can't kill a dreadnought's front AV.

To get back on track, I'm not arguing vehicles are better/as good as an MC, I'm just saying that MC's are not OP as everyone seems to be suggesting.

" It can be hurt just as easily"

No, it can't. That's the whole point. Do the math. You don't have enough pulse rifles to down a dreadknight. You're going to have to use something bigger. It takes 43 BS *5* pulse rifle shots to kill it. So that's an investment of four markerlight shots and 43 pulse rifle shots. And and there are like 4 of these things. Good luck.

Yes, MC's are that OP. Because high toughness and lots of wounds is REALLY good in 7th ed.